|
Handwriting, Typewriting,
Shoeprints, and Tire Treads: FBI Laboratory's Questioned Documents Unit
Dorothy-Anne E. Held
Questioned Documents Examiner
Questioned Documents Unit
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC
Introduction.......Physical
Examinations.......Comparison
Examinations
Reference
and Standards Files.......Protocols for a Typical
Case
Training
of FBI Questioned Document Examiners.......References
Introduction
Questioned Documents Unit
(QDU) personnel at the FBI Laboratory support federal, state,
local, and international law enforcement agencies by providing
advanced technical and forensic support with the following:
- Examinations, reports, and
testimony;
- Technical support of field
investigations;
- Training provided to FBI
and other federal and state examiners; and
- Research and evaluation
of newly developed technology.
Physical
Examinations
Physical examinations in
the QDU involve close and careful scrutiny of surfaces and other
items. Paper is the most typical surface examined. Examiners
may focus on one or more of the following:
- Something on the surface,
such as handwriting, typewriting, alterations, or obliterations;
- Something in the surface,
such as indented writing, watermarks, or safety fibers; and
- Damage to the surface, such
as torn edges, moisture, or charring.
To determine whether watermarks
or other internal features are present in paper, evidence is
placed over a source of transmitted light. The presence of a
watermark is important, because it can sometimes be used to establish
a date that the document cannot precede. For example, if a document
is dated 1959, but the watermark was not produced until 1965,
the date written on the document is incorrect.
Two methods for determining
the presence of indented writing are used. They are side lighting,
in which a light source is passed over the sheet of paper at
an oblique angle, and the electrostatic detection apparatus (ESDA),
an instrument that renders indented writing visible and provides
a record of the writing. See Figure 1.
The Video Spectral Comparator
2000 (VSC2000; Foster+Freeman, Worcestershire, United Kingdom)
is used for a variety of physical examinations including determining
the presence of indented writing, deciphering writing, rendering
obscured writing visible, and differentiating between inks and
papers by their optical properties. For more information about
the VSC2000, see "Advances
in Document Examination: The Video Spectral Comparator 2000,"
by Mokrzycki in the October 1999 issue of this journal. See Figure
2.
Other physical examinations
of the QDU include determining the contents of used carbon paper
and typewriter ribbons, stabilizing and examining burned or moisture-damaged
paper, and reconstructing torn or shredded paper.
Murder of Heather Lee Sims
On April 30, 1989, law enforcement officers were called to
the Alton, Illinois, home of Paula and Robert Sims. The couple
claimed that Mrs. Sims had been knocked unconscious by an unknown
intruder who then kidnapped their 6-week-old daughter, Heather.
Although Mrs. Sims exhibited no evidence of injury, and the physical
characteristics in and around the home did not support their
narrative, the incident was initially treated as a kidnapping.
Heather's body was later
discovered in a plastic bag in a trash can. Investigations revealed
that this was the second infant the Sims' family had lost under
similar circumstances. Three years earlier, 13-day-old Loralie
was found dead in a wooded area behind the Sims' home after a
reported kidnapping. Although her parents were suspected of foul
play, there was insufficient evidence to charge them at that
time.
The questioned documents
examination centered on the plastic bag. An FBI questioned documents
examiner visited the plastic bag manufacturing plant and consulted
with the personnel concerning what might constitute defining
characteristics for a suspect bag. The cut edges were not suitable
for this purpose. However, it was determined that the heat-seal
process used during manufacturing imparted individual characteristics
to the bags. These factors provided a framework by which individual
bags could be definitively linked and placed within a specific
period of time. It was, therefore determined that the plastic
bag that contained Heather's body and the bags found in the Sims'
home were manufactured by the same machine within seconds of
each other.
Paula Sims was charged with
killing Heather by suffocation. She was convicted of murder on
February 2, 1990, and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
See Figure 3. |
Figure 1. Special photographic
techniques can be used to enhance indented writing (top) using
side lighting and special film. The second photograph shows the
apparent bank robbery note that was produced from the indentations
in the paper, which may link an individual to the note given
during the robbery.
|
Figure 2. Image of shredded paper
produced in ultraviolet radiation using the VSC2000 (right) and
under ambient white light (left). Notice how the shreds have
differing luminescent intensities that may help the examiner
sort the pieces. Click for enlarged
image.
|
Figure 3. Photographs from the Heather Lee Sims murder
investigation: trash bags from the Sims' household (top); comparison
of trash bags (middle); and machine marks on trash bags (bottom).
|
|
Comparison
Examinations
Evaluations and comparisons
of questioned (unknown origin) and known materials comprise the
second type of examination conducted by FBI questioned document
examiners. Comparisons are conducted on handwriting, hand printing,
typewriting, and typewriter components including typewriter ribbons
and elements. Less frequently, comparisons of photocopies, facsimiles,
printers and printing processes, checkwriters, dry seals or stamps
(rubber or similar types), and other items of evidence are requested.
Handwriting Comparisons
The majority of the cases handled by the QDU involve handwriting.
Although not all handwriting is identifiable to a specific writer
or writers, the examination of handwriting characteristics can
sometimes result in determining the origin or authenticity of
said questioned writing. Traits such as age, sex, personality,
or intent cannot be determined from handwriting examinations.
Handwriting comparisons are
based on the principles that no two people write exactly alike
and that characteristics reoccur throughout every person's writing,
although no one writes exactly the same way twice. This combination
of characteristics is unique to every individual and is used
by document examiners for comparison.
Evidence bearing writing
may be received in two forms. If the evidence submitted includes
only writing of unknown origin, the examination will probably
include only file searches, the preservation of a visual record,
and an evaluation of the potential for future comparisons of
the writing. When both questioned and known (the product of a
specific, identified individual) writings are submitted, the
same file searches and preservation are completed. In addition,
a side-by-side comparison of the writings will occur. At the
conclusion of any QDU examination, a report is issued explaining
the examinations conducted and stating any definitive determinations
made as a result of the comparisons.
A definite opinion is not
always possible when conducting a handwriting comparison. Reasons
for an inconclusive result include the following.
- The questioned writing is
limited.
- The known writing is limited
in amount, comparability, or both.
- The writing is not naturally
prepared.
Common types of writing unlikely
to yield definite opinions include photocopies (often mistaken
for original writing) and deliberately distorted writing, including
tracings and simulations. Figures 4 and 5 include some questioned
signatures that contain characteristics indicative of distorted
writing. Because distorted writing does not usually reflect the
normal habits of the person who prepared it, handwriting comparisons
are unlikely to result in the association of a questioned signature
with the person who wrote it.
|
|
Figure 4. The certificate and signatures in these three
photographs are genuine.
|
|
|
Figure 4 (continued). The identity of the author of the other certificate
signatures in the set of six photographs above is in question.
The questioned signatures also contain characteristics of simulations
or tracings. Some of the characteristics include tremor, poor
line quality, blunt ending and beginning strokes, and unnatural
pen lifts in the signatures.
|
Peter Weinberger Kidnapping
On July 4, 1956,
one-month-old Peter Weinberger was kidnapped from his home in
Westbury, Long Island, New York (Dorman 1998). A ransom note
scrawled in green ink on a sheet torn from a student notebook
was left in his baby carriage. The note said, "Attention,
I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money,
& couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go
to the police about this, because I am watching you closely.
I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong
move . . . Your baby sitter." See Figure 6.
Handwriting experts from
the FBI Laboratory went to New York to participate in the investigation.
The examiners found the ransom note contained distinguishing
characteristics in 16 letters of the alphabet. Most unusual was
the kidnaper's lower-case script "m," which resembled
a sideways "z." Investigators searched through nearly
two million handwriting specimens from public records trying
to find similar writing. |
Figure 6. Signatures from the Weinberger kidnapping
case. From top to bottom, the photographs show signatures from
the first and second ransom notes, and the third and fourth signatures
are the known handwriting of Angelo LaMarca.
|
|
On July 10, the Weinbergers
were instructed by telephone to put the ransom money in a blue
bag. The bag would be left by a parkway exit sign. A second note
was in the bag, repeating the $2,000 demand. The handwriting
seemed to match the first note.
Meanwhile, a federal probation
office in Brooklyn discovered in his files a document written
by a criminal defendant who formed the letter "m" in
the same way as the author of the ransom notes. The writer was
Angelo LaMarca, a 31-year-old auto mechanic. Questioned document
examiners compared the document and the notes. LaMarca was identified
as the author of the ransom notes.
LaMarca admitted kidnapping
and abandoning the Weinberger child and took investigators to
the place where he had left the child. Little Peter Weinberger
had died of exposure.
LaMarca was indicted on charges
of kidnapping and first-degree murder. He was found guilty on
both counts and executed at Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, New
York, on August 7, 1958.
Typewriter, Typewritten
Text, and Typewriter Ribbon Comparisons
Typewriters, of which
there are two basic types, are machines that put an image on
paper using hard type. The kind of typewriter (and ribbon) used
to prepare a questioned document suggests the examinations possible
and may limit the conclusions possible as a result of the examinations.
See Figure 7.
A typebar typewriter is one
in which the typeface elements are permanently fastened into
the machine. Because each machine has permanent, nonremovable
typeface components, text can sometimes be associated to the
specific machine used by comparing characteristics, such as typeface
damage or alignment defects, in the text and machine.
The other type of typewriter
has typeface that is affixed to an interchangeable element: a
ball, printwheel, or (rarely) thimble. The style of type is specific
to the individual element, not to the machine. Therefore, although
text may be associated with a specific element, it can rarely
be associated with a particular machine.
When examining text from
a single element typewriter, ribbon-related examinations and
comparisons become very important. There are two general kinds
of typewriter ribbons: fabric, which does not retain a legible
image of the texts prepared using it; and carbon, which can retain
readable text. The two kinds of correction ribbon (lift-off and
cover-up) used on typewriters also retain images that can be
compared with text and carbon ribbons. Defects of the typeface
may also be apparent from a ribbon. The QDU maintains a ribbon
analysis workstation, an apparatus used to transcribe the text
on typewriter ribbons.
Occasionally, QDU typewriter
examinations may include a paper fiber-transfer comparison. The
low-density polyethylene backing on typewriter ribbons is delicate
and assumes the imprint of fibers in the paper. Using a comparison
microscope, the voided areas of typewriter ribbons can be associated
(by means of these fiber impressions) with the paper on which
the text has been imprinted. See Figure 8.
Unabomber Typewriter Examination
On September 19, 1995, The Washington Post published the
Unabomber's 35,000-word manifesto. David Kaczynski, a social
worker in upstate New York, contacted authorities because he
thought the document exhibited similarities to his brother's
writings. This important tip led to the arrest in April 1996
of Theodore J. Kaczynski, the terrorist who during a 17-year
period constructed bombs that killed 3 and injured 22 people
(Johnston 1998).
During the arrest, FBI agents
discovered an isolated cabin in Montana filled with evidence.
The evidence included handwritten journals, logs, and an uncompleted
autobiography. Three typebar typewriters were also found in the
cabin. See Figure 9. Approximately 400 typing examinations were
done in the Unabomber case. Other questioned document comparison
examinations in the case included handwriting, envelopes, labels,
and rubber stamps.
On January 23, 1998, Mr.
Kaczynski pleaded guilty to all the federal charges against him
and acknowledged he was the Unabomber who killed and maimed people
with package bombs. He was sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of release. |
Figure 7. A typewriter standards file (click
for enlarged image) is used to determine the make, model,
and other information concerning the typewriter used to prepare
documents in question. The photographs above show typewriter
type specimens from a particular typewriter.
|
Figure 7 (continued). The sample type specimens in the top two photographs
are compared to this typewritten message from an unknown source.
Click for enlarged image.
|
Figure 8. Example of paper fiber transfer with typewritten
text (top) and the carbon ribbon impression (bottom).
|
Figure 9. The typewriter (top) identified with correspondence
from the UNABOM case. Note the unique characteristic of the typed
letter "u" (bottom left) from the questioned document,
which matches the unique characteristic of the "u"
typewriter key (bottom right) from the typewriter seized during
the investigation.
|
|
Shoeprint and Tire Tread
Examinations
Shoeprint and tire
tread impression evidence is examined to determine the brand
name and manufacturer of the shoe or tire that made an impression.
The design of the shoe's outsole may be searched through the
Shoeprint File. The portions of an impression that may be analyzed
include designs, borders, and general shapes (e.g., pointed or
rounded toes). If the impression is complete, a general estimation
of size sometimes can be made. A more precise size determination
is possible if the manufacturer is known. See Figures 10 and
11. Similarly, tire tread impression evidence is searched through
the Tire Tread File or through the annual reference book, Tread
Design Guide (Tire Guides, Incorporated, 2000). |
Figure 10 (left). Bloodied shoeprint on tile flooring.
Figure 11 (right). Shoeprint on an individual's skin seen as
bruising.
|
|
Comparisons of shoeprint and
tire tread impression evidence with submitted shoes or tires
are also conducted. Impression evidence can be in the form of
photographs, lifts, casts, or an original item bearing an impression.
A shoe can be definitively identified with an impression if there
is sufficient detail in the impression and sufficient identifying
characteristics are on the shoe. A tire can be positively identified
with an impression if the same criteria are met. See Figure 12.
Bodziak (2000) offers the
following comment on this form of evidence:
Shoes are fascinating
items of clothing. They are made in a variety of ways and in
thousands of designs. In turn, each design is made in many distinguishable
sizes. As the outsole wears, their design and other characteristics
steadily change. They acquire cuts, scratches, nicks, and other
characteristics of a random nature. These traits serve to give
them a tremendous degree of individuality. As they track through
soil, snow, sand, residue, and other materials, supporting the
weight of their wearer, they impress their distinct and individual
features on or into the surfaces over which they pass.
|
Figure 12. A Goodyear Invicta® GL tire (top left)
from which a test impression (top right) was made to compare
with a questioned impression (bottom).
|
|
Items of footwear and their
impressions that remain at the crime scene offer sound, reliable,
and demonstrative evidence of a person's presence. (p. vii; quoted
with permission of author)
|
Shoeprint Investigation
of the SimpsonGoldman Murders
Following the murders
of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in the summer of 1994,
photographs depicting shoeprint impressions in blood from the
Brentwood, California, crime scene were delivered to the FBI
Laboratory. The Los Angeles Police Department requested the determination
of the brand and size of footwear that made the impressions.
The impressions submitted were mainly from a path adjacent to
the home of one of the victims, Nicole Brown Simpson. However,
other partial impressions were on the victims' clothing.
By examining these impressions and researching the FBI reference and standards files, an FBI examiner was able to positively link some of the crime scene impressions to size 12 Bruno Magli™ Lorenzo shoes. The examiner issued a report directly to the judge in the case and was subsequently called to testify. Although the shoeprints from the crime scene could be positively linked to a particular brand and size of shoe, at the time of the criminal trial no evidence was available that defendant O. J. Simpson owned such shoes. In the interval between the criminal and civil trials, pictures depicting Mr. Simpson in such shoes were discovered. The shoes became evidence in the civil trial, when the examiner restated his testimony (Bodziak 2000, pp. 431-458).
Reference
and Standards Files
To aid in physical and comparison
examinations, the QDU maintains the following files that are
divided into two types:
- Reference Files: Repositories for information drawn
from casework, which are used to relate incoming data to previously
examined material, for example, to make an association between
two threatening notes.
- Standards Files: Repositories for manufacturers'
and similar primary-source data, which are used to determine
the source of an item of evidence, for example, the maker of
a style of typeface.
Anonymous Letter File
and Bank Robbery Note File:
Contain information about and images of threatening letters or
messages (meeting certain criteria) and notes used during bank
robberies and some extortion cases.
Checkwriter File: Provides a variety of sources (references)
for determining the manufacturer or defining characteristics
(standards) of checkwriter apparatus or both. This file also
contains some case materials.
National Fraudulent
Check File: Contains
information pertaining to checks handled during QDU casework.
This reference file includes sections devoted to signatures,
company names, counterfeit checks, money orders, and travelers'
checks.
National Motor Vehicle
Certificate of Title File:
Contains examples of authentic certificates of title, as well
as previously submitted fraudulent titles.
Office Equipment File: Consists of source materials regarding
typewriters, printers, photocopiers, facsimiles, and related
equipment. This file provides a means of classifying office equipment,
as well as standards for comparison purposes.
Shoeprint and Tire
Tread Files:
Contain manufacturers' information and information from previously
submitted evidence. These standards files are used for determining
the brand name and model of items having made an impression on
evidence recovered at crime scenes.
Watermark File: Consists of reference information
pertaining to watermarks and other paper-manufacturing matters
and examples of unusual watermarks drawn from casework.
Protocols
for a Typical Case
Evidence received: Ten checks bearing original signatures
and endorsements (designated Q1 through Q10) and known writing
from two individuals (designated K1 and K2).
Request: Handwriting comparison.
Preliminary administrative
procedures must occur first. They include the following:
- Acknowledging receipt of
the evidence;
- Checking the evidence against
the incoming communication (to ensure consistency);
- Assigning unique identifying
numbers to the submissions (denoting whether it is questioned
or known); and
- Making arrangements for
any other requested examinations such as DNA analysis or fingerprint
comparisons.
A listing of the evidence
is then recorded on a Laboratory worksheet, and a visual, scanned
record is prepared.
Typically, checks are side
lighted for possible indented writing. The ESDA is used only
when specifically indicated.
Examinations of checks often
begin with the identification and evaluation of the
printing processes used. Are they consistent with one another
and with genuine checks? If printing process anomalies are observed,
the checks may be counterfeit. Other physical features of checks
that interest document examiners are the safety features (watermarks),
microprinting (usually in the signature line or as a border),
and the type of checkwriter (if any) used.
The handwriting on the checks
will be evaluated for suitability for comparisons. The known
writing will be examined separately to determine whether it is
original, comparable to that on the checks, and sufficient in
quantity for viable comparisons. If these criteria are met, a
side-by-side comparison of the questioned and known writing is
undertaken.
File searches for checks
are conducted in the National Fraudulent Check File: always in
the signature and company name sections, and, if applicable,
in other specific portions of this file. Printing processes are
sometimes searched in the Office Equipment File, and the Checkwriter
File may be accessed, if applicable.
How FBI Questioned Document Examiners Are Trained
Applicants to the FBI QDU
examiner training program must meet all FBI employment requirements.
In addition, an applicant must be a college graduate and willing
to respond to knowledge, skills, and ability questions. The physical
requirements include acute vision, no color blindness, and the
ability to lift at least 50 pounds.
The training consists of
a two-year, collegiate-style program that includes formal classroom
training and actual document examinations, conducted under the
guidance and evaluation of experienced document examiners. Some
of the classroom portions of the training may be abridged if
the individual has substantive prior experience as a document
examiner. At least five moot courts are administered to each
applicant as a condition of certification.
After completing this training
program, each trainee must be capable of independently conducting
nondestructive forensic examinations on documentary evidence
that result in accurate opinions and presenting findings as an
expert witness in formal legal proceedings.
Additional information on
the forensic examination of questioned documents, shoeprints,
and tire treads is available in the Questioned
Documents Examinations and the Shoeprints
and Tire Treads Examinations sections of the Handbook of
Forensic Services.
For more information about
the Questioned Documents Unit, call or write:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Questioned Documents Unit
Room 10861
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Telephone: 202-324-4454
Facsimile: 202-324-6134
References
Bodziak, W. J. Footwear
Impression Evidence: Detection, Recovery, and Examination.
2d ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000. Available at http://www.crcpress.com/
Dorman, M. Our story: Held
for ransom: A kidnapping in Westbury set off an intense manhunt
as the country awaited word of a child's fate, Newsday,
June 1, 1998.
Johnston, D. 17-year search,
an emotional discovery and terror ends, New York Times,
May 5, 1998.
Lockwood-Post's Directory
of the Pulp, Paper and Allied Trades (North American Edition). Miller Freeman Co., San Francisco,
California, 2000. Available at http://www.pulp-paper.com/
Mead Corporation. Paper
Knowledge. Mead Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, 1990. Available
at http://www.mead.com/
Mokrzycki, G. M. Advances
in document examination: The Video Spectral Comparator 2000,
Forensic Science Communications [Online] (October 1999).
Available: http://www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/backissu/oct1999/mokrzyck.htm
Polk's Motor Vehicle Registration
Manual. R. L. Polk
and Co., Detroit, Michigan, 1990.
Tire Guide. Tire Guides, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 2000. Available at http://www.tireguides.com/
Tread Design Guide. Tire Guides, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 2000. Available at http://www.tireguides.com/
Vastrick, T. W. Classification
and Identification of Checkwriters. American Board of Forensic
Document Examiners, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1991. Available at
http://asqde.org/
Top
of the page
|