Vol. 6, No.
1, April 2003
FORENSIC DO CUME NT EXAMINATION/Authorship Statements: 36-7-010616/0304
PROBLEM AREAS IN AUTHORSHIP STATEMENTS
WITH REGARD TO SIGNATURES1
Distinguishing disguised from forged signatures.
by Dr. Michael Rieß2 and Franz-Josef Breuer3
REFERENCES: Rieß, M. and Breuer, F.-J., "Problem Areas in
Authorship Statements with Regard to Signatures," The International
Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 6, No. 1, April 2003, pp.
1-7.
ABSTRACT: Test were conducted on a number of subjects who were
asked to prepare three habitual signatures, one disguised signature and one
self imitation of their habitual signature. The results were evaluated and
discussed.
KEYWORDS: Genuine, disguised and self-imitated signatures.
INTRODUCTIONS
A series of additional hypotheses are occasionally introduced in the
representation of expert opinions. A significant aspect with signatures is
the separation of disguise and imitation.
In a given instance proof should be furnished that a signature was not
produced as a model-based imitative forgery. The bearer of the name
himself had copied his own signature in keeping with the counter-light
method in the presence of another person. Bekedorf [1] and Rieß [2] have
already reported on various aspects of this case. Michel (1996) critically
examined the term of an "own forgery" and rightly so.
The additional hypothesis of signature disguise "in the method of a
signature forger, in other words of the imitative method of writing one's
own signature..." (Michel [3]) was on account of the findings in no way
plausible.
This examination constellation was the motive for a broader-based
experimental examination.
1. Objective of the Examination and Random Sampling
Depending on the specific constellation of the case the plausibility of
the self-imitation hypothesis varies - cf. for example signatures for cheques
or credit cards as opposed to signatures for testaments.
In numerous experimental and casuistic examinations varied results
regarding disguised handwriting and imitation of handwriting were
collected. Compare the relevant textbooks, which are not to be reported on
here (Figure 1).
To begin with the objective of the examination was merely a frequency
distribution of the central effects in signature disguises and imitations and
thus also on self-imitation as a strategy of disguise.
In the case of a proved alteration the dependent handwriting variables
were classified into the dichotomic forms of expression of "graphic" as
opposed to "finely motorial features". The basic graphic components [4]
of styling, direction of motion and elongation were summarized as
descriptive features. The finely motorial features include the nature of the
stroke, application of pressure, flow of the movement and guidance of the
movement.
1
V. International Congress of the GFS Bingen/Rhein, June 13-16, 2001
2
ZKA, Zollkriminalamt, Postfach 85 05 82, 51030 Köln, Germany.
Michael.Riess@sollkriminalamt.de.
3
Pagenhau 28, D-52382 Oberzier, Germany. Email FJBreuer@t-online.de
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
A differentiated evaluation is not possible for time reasons. Here
we would like to point out that the hand-written material can be gladly
handed on so as to gather further characteristics.
When dividing the dependent variables into the categories
"graphic" as opposed to "finely motorial features" the basic effects of
the experimental variables present themselves as disclosed in Table 1.
On the basis of a random sample of 219 employees of the Federal
revenue administration (clerical and executive class between 18 and 53
years of age) three habitual signatures were to begin with requested in
each case. Then after a practice period of a few minutes a disguised
signature and respectively an imitative forgery of the respective
neighbor had to be produced in each case.
The presentation of the situation with the disguise was on the one
hand put down to the presence of another person and on the other hand
to a first hurdle and the subsequent, successful execution (situation at
the bank counter).
In the case of the imitation a free choice was stipulated with regard
to the method with a restricted amount of time and also to the presence
of a third person (counter situation).
The handwriting types were collected in 7 classes or courses. The
employees of the expert section of the customs criminal investigation
office regularly give lessons among other things in the final courses of
clerical class training as well as in follow-up courses for clerical class
tax investigators. The examination was carried out at the end of 1996
in 6 classes of the clerical class and in one course for tax investigators
(customs). The sample sheet of handwriting is attached as annex 1 and
2. A special practice sheet was issued so as to practice the handwriting.
In the evaluation the dependent estimable feature as a type of
alteration to the signature was gathered in the categories of "graphic
as opposed to finely motorial features and no alteration respectively".
The essential alteration was assessed in keeping with this for each
disguised signature and imitation respectively i.e. the result was merely
one estimated value per signature condition and per person. The
collection of characteristics was carried out by both authors separately
and then the non-concurrent assessments were classified.
On account of the complexity of the estimable feature, assignment
was not unproblematic in some cases.
Both during the implementation of the test and also during the
assessment it could be seen that the realization of the experimental
variables had been successful. However, the partial disguise that had
been requested caused trouble for some people.
2. Initial Results of the Examination
With regard to expert opinions from a practical viewpoint,
answering the question as to authenticity is made more difficult with
disguised signatures if the graphic features are largely similar, however
there are deviations in the characteristic areas of finely motorial co-
ordination.
In the case of signature imitations those signatures with non-
determinable deviations from the habitual method of writing are
particularly problematic. A further problem zone exists with imitations
with deviations primarily in the graphic features.
The following result arises in the assessment on the basis of the
complex estimable variables "alteration type ", Table 2.
1
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

Figure 1: Examples of the essential parts of the handwritten samples.

2 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved

 Vol. 6, No.1, April 2003

Table 1: Main effects with disguise and imitation.

Table 2:

Figure 2

Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved 3

The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

Figure 3

Figure 4

4 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved


In this connection, the main tendency of handwriting alteration is as
expected spread out.
In this respect, the rather low percentages in the three problem groups
can only mean relative calmness.
In the group of the executive class, which was examined and which
also had more professional experience and previous knowledge, the
problem groups were significantly over represented in both experimental
variables. Some signatures from the problem groups have been
documented as examples in pictures 2 -9. In this connection, the disguise
group has
a green background and the imitation groups red/orange. In the upper half
of the picture the most similar comparative signature is in each case
opposite the experimental signature.
Figure 2 - 5 portray some examples of signatures, which in part can
altogether be deemed to be self-imitations and can thus be confused with
imitative forgeries.
Amongst the examples of signatures in pictures 6 and 7 the model-
based imitative forgery turned out the best.
Finally, pictures 8 and 9 contain two examples of signatures, which in
turn can only be separated from self-imitations with difficulty.
The relatively high percentage of this group (6%) could be connected
with peculiarities of the handwriting sample sheet that was used.
On closer examination of the three problem groups the distinct
connection with graphic abundance or complexity is striking, if not
surprising, too. As the complexity decreases, the possibility of
differentiation, decreases, too.
Figure 5
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
Vol. 6, No.1, April 2003
CONCLUSIONS
The initial assessment confirms relatively clearly on the one hand the
distribution of the main effects of signature disguise and imitation.
On the other hand, problems of differentiation with some types of
handwriting are altogether obvious, even if the frequency is relatively low.
The direct relationship to graphic abundance is of particular importance
in this case.
With regard to the initial question as to self-imitation, no disguised
signature was produced in keeping with the counter-light method, but
merely as a free-handed imitation in some cases.
REFERENCES
[1]. Bekedorf, G. (1996): Schreibmitteleffekte auf Farbreaktionspapier.
MhfS 22, 177-190.
[2]. Rieß, M. (1996): Eigenfäschung der Unterschrift?. MhfS 22, 129-
136.
[3]. Michel, L. (1996): Zum Begriff der Eigenfälschung. MhfS 22, 203-
205.
[4]. Ibid.
5
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

Figure 6

Figure 7

6 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved

 Vol. 6, No.1, April 2003

Figure 8

Figure 9

Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved 7