- Email: [email protected]
Towards the paperless society
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 40th ANNIVERSARY MEETING OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SOCIETY
Towards the paperless society A GILES The Giles Document Laboratory, Manor Lodge, North Road, Chesham Bois, Amersham HP6 5NA
A review of document examination over the last twenty years My career in forensic science starts, very appropriately, in this city of Nottingham where I was working as a research biologist at the University's School of Agriculture. Having always had a passion for detective literature I begged a visit to the Forensic Science Laboratory tucked away behind the Police station in the city centre. What I saw and heard there persuaded me to fill in the application form for the post of biologist at the Nottingham Forensic Science Laboratory. Fate, however, intervened and my future husband informed me that he was moving to take up a post at Kings College in London. So instead of looking to the Nottingham Laboratory I wrote to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL) to enquire if there were any vacancies. The reply from Dr Williams informed me that he had more than enough biologists but they had a vacancy for a forensic document examiner if I cared to apply. I have to say he didn't sound very encouraging.
research section where two postgraduates, Doug Foster and Bob Freeman, were trying to detect fingerprints on fabric. And things weren't going too well for them. However, Steve noted with some excitement that the equipment was showing up impressions on paper. It was only a few months before the ESDA (Electrostatic Detection Apparatus) was operating full time in the Documents Section, and Foster & Freeman were soon to become internationally known as suppliers of equipment to forensic scientists.
However, I made the application and in November 1976 joined the Documents Section of the Metropolitan Laboratory. And what a shock to the system that was. From a state-of-the-art plant physiology laboratory (then just beginning to dabble in genetic engineering) I entered a world where three people shared a microscope and relied on a Heath-Robinson type contraption made out of bits of Plexi-glass and copper sulphate solution to distinguish between inks.
Actually, the ESDA was a well-kept secret for many years. (We were none too keen for the working criminal population to know that we could now read their notes written from home with such ease.) It didn't make its debut in the press until the late 80s when a document examiner employed in the private sector was asked to determine if a statement written by a young police officer on an undercover operation to identify the members of Millwall's Intercity gang was genuine. This sparked the investigations into the football hooligan trials which dominated the work of the Questioned Documents Section for well over a year.
The department was over-excited at the time by the arrival of a Projectina Comparator, and my second job was to carry out a research programme for distinguishing between typewritings from different typewriters. Great project - nice results. But only of use for a limited period since new technologies of laser printing and ink jets were just round the comer. My first piece of casework, incidentally, was to put together several sacks of shredded telexes. Not something that I would wish to repeat. New technology was also just over the horizon in the Documents Section. In 1977 Steven Strach, on a training course at the London School of Printing, called in to the
The partnership with Foster & Freeman very quickly led to the development of the Video Spectral Comparator and its successors. The techniques employed were not particularly new at that time but the ease with which the equipment could be employed to tackle forensic document problems was highly appreciated in the department. The latest equipment, also developed by Foster & Freeman, is their Raman Spectrometer; under evaluation as yet; we hope that this application will allow further discrimination of inks beyond the optical techniques so far employed.
The ESDA also provided vital evidence in a number of other high profile cases including the Guinness trial and numerous terrorist trials throughout this period. Away from the high profile trials, the work of the Questioned Documents Section in the 1980s was changing. Fraud cases were still the staple of the section but these were becoming bigger and more complex. Nigerian gangs were targeting banks and building societies with cross-fire frauds, where money was moved rapidly between accounts before it was discovered that the first deposit had not cleared.
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112 0 The Forensic Science Society 2000
109
Towards the paperless society
The Documents Section had been slowly building up a database for handwritten characters in an attempt to place the identification of handwriting on a firmer scientific basis. The highly characteristic nature of Nigerian handwriting was noted when the first fraud arrived in the Section. But this was rapidly followed by a series of similar frauds with documents written in, what appeared to be, virtually indistinguishable handwritings. Since one individual Nigerian couldn't be that busy it was clear that another factor must be operating. Some rapid background research showed that writing in Nigeria and the West African states is very rigidly taught, using styles introduced by earlier missionary schools. Therefore, although there are identifiable differences between the writings of individual Nigerians, they weren't quite the types of differences which we had been used to seeing between individuals educated in the UK. Needless to say, some very rapid research was undertaken in the Section so that future cases could be properly evaluated. Handwriting identification has always been a contentious area. The Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and the Birmingham Home Office Laboratory, along with BKA and Dutch labs, recognised the value of a structured approach to the subject using data collections to demonstrate character frequencies and developing electronic facilities for the analysis. Our American colleagues did not take to this line of research so quickly with some disastrous effects which I will come to later.
forensic scientists, even today, see themselves in something of that light. However, when the sergeant in charge of the Millwall undercover operation telephoned to explain personally that there was no chance that there could be anything wrong with his constables' surveillance records he was astonished to be greeted with polite silence. The independence of the expert is one of the key issues of the Woolf Reforms of the Civil Justice System - but it's hardly a surprise for the well-trained forensic scientist. The innate integrity of the forensic scientists working in the public sector was thrown into sharp relief when I started to come into contact with a number of so-called 'experts' who confined their activities to the Civil Courts. Very soon the marbled halls of the Royal Courts of Justice became more familiar to me than those of the Old Bailey. I drank Guinness and watched football matches (Arsenal of course) rather than writing reports about them. There were some profound changes to my professional life, including having more conferences with counsel in the first six months of private practice than I had in thirteen years of providing evidence in criminal cases. Instructing solicitors were helpful, interested and involved with cases, until it came time to pay the bill.
Looking at the challenges facing our profession today I am conscious of Churchill's words and the sub-theme of this meeting: "The farther backward you can look the farther forward you are likely to see". What lessons do we learn?
Over the last twenty years the type of problem submitted to the forensic document examiner for analysis has not changed greatly. In spite of advances in the field of office technology and communications, people still forge signatures, pass stolen cheques and write anonymous letters. The techniques used by the forensic document examiner have developed rapidly, particularly in the last fifteen years. We are always looking for new ways to unlock the secrets of documents. One of the most difficult problems of forensic document examination remains unsolved - how to date inks - maybe developments in Raman Spectroscopy will assist in this.
Lesson No 1 - Forensic scientists need to be scientific Trouble was brewing on a number of fronts in the documents world. In 1989 Risinger et a1 published their article 'Exorcism of Ignorance as a proxy for rational knowledge. The lessons of handwriting expertise' [I]. This was a critical review of traditional crime laboratory procedure, and handwriting evidence in particular. This direct attack on the profession left our US colleagues in disarray, having little idea how to counterattack. To be frank, most preferred a state of blissful ignorance and hoped it would go away.
Contrasting life in the Civil and Criminal courts After a surfeit of football and Guinness in the 1980s I decided that it was time for a career change and I resigned from the MPFSL at the beginning of January 1989 after thirteen years.
In 1995 a judge's ruling in the US -v- Starzecpyzel regarded handwriting identification not as scientific expertise but as "technical knowledge which might assist the trier of fact" [ 2 ] . This ruling permitted one of the original 'Exorcism' authors, Professor Denbeaux, to embark on a career as an 'expert critic' of forensic handwriting identification, turning up at courts all over the US to assist defenders in trashing the handwriting evidence presented by the prosecution. This, at last, galvanised the US experts to begin to put their house in order. The whole episode can be regarded as a blessing in disguise. Serious consideration has since been given to background research which establishes the validity of handwriting identification. The American Society of
It was with mixed feelings that I left. I had learnt my entire trade in the MPFSL. But I had also learnt two important values, essential for every forensic scientist: integrity and independence. Unfortunately, many members of the public and the police see the forensic scientist as some sort of police lackey there to do the prosecution's bidding. I venture that some 110
It didn't and there was worse to come.
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112
A GILES
Questioned Document Examiners has launched its journal to provide a platform for the large number of presentations made every year at their meeting but which never previously made it to peer review. Facts and literature were assembled to counteract the disruptive activities of Professor Denbeaux. [As yet, to the best of my knowledge, no handwriting evidence has been excluded from a court hearing.] Lesson No 2 - Forensic scientists need proper scientific qualifications The American experience is one which has important lessons for forensic document examiners and perhaps other forensic scientists in the UK. One of the contributing factors to the impact of the 'Exorcism' article was the extremely diverse background and qualifications of so called "handwriting experts" in the US.
Leaving aside the graphologists and the generally untrained, there are a significant number of the US forensic document examiners who do not have basic scientific backgrounds. The reason for this possibly lies in the 1920s when the early US handwriting experts were professional penmen, experienced in teaching and developing handwriting. Different handwritings were identified by the extent that they deviated from a particular taught handwriting system. The skills of these men lay in their intimate knowledge of handwriting systems and their subtle differences. That situation no longer exists in the US and has certainly not been the case in the UK for many, many years. The whole problem of handwriting identification is much more complex. Only in August 1999, a leading US forensic document examiner explained to me why forensic document exarniners are robust individualists: it is because we frequently have to go into court, he said, and ask the jury to believe us merely on the basis that 'experience tells me that this is the way it is'. A significant proportion of the US profession still does not appear to have grasped the fact that this approach is simply not good enough. Of course, the problem of graphologists trespassing into the world of forensic document examination in the US is very significant. However, to a large extent the diversity of backgrounds, qualification and training even within the forensic document examination establishment, has bewildered the courts and the public, and has left the profession entirely vulnerable to the likes of Professor Denbeaux, the professional critic. Lesson No 3 - The UK as well as the US has unqualified people practising in the field Here in the UK the recessions of the 1990s had a significance for forensic document examination perhaps not felt so keenly by other sectors of forensic science. Up until the recession graphologists had become increasingly popular in recruitment processes. Some major firms employed their own in-house graphologist in the personnel department. However, with the down-turn in recruitment and a recogniScience & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112
tion that graphology was no substitute for a proper professional evaluation of a job applicant, the graphologists found themselves out of work. They began to look around for other sources of income. A significant number decided that since graphology was studying handwriting this was an adequate qualification to put themselves forward as experts in the forensic identification of handwritings and in forensic document examination in general. Not so. Prior to leaving the MPFSL, I had rarely come across the work of a graphologist. The one or two individuals actively offering themselves for forensic work in the 1980s carefully confined themselves to the Civil Sector where there was little chance of their frailties being exposed by bona jide forensic scientists. For the last ten years I have seen an everincreasing number of reports by unqualified, so-called, experts that lack a basic understanding of the principles of forensic document examination, not to mention integrity and honesty. The problem of unqualified experts in forensic document examination is, I think, more acute than in other areas of forensic science simply because by avoiding criminal work an individual can present an array of apparently impressive qualifications to a court without their being scrutinised closely. The legal profession is in ignorance as to what qualifications a forensic document examiner should be presenting. It's even harder when one is forced to admit there are no generally accepted qualifications for this work. Lesson No 4 - The need to think carefully about appropriate qualijkations An initiative by the Forensic Science Society in the 1980s to introduce a Diploma of Forensic Document Examination seemed set to give forensic document examination the type of academic qualification needed to demonstrate to the courts that this was a serious profession with standards that could be tested and monitored. Unfortunately the decision to include a grandfather clause resulted in the Diploma being awarded to a number of individuals who I can only describe as 'not having the confidence of their peers' and has drastically reduced its impact.
Much effort has been expended in developing the NVQ qualification. However, again, they have not been accepted wholeheartedly by the forensic document examiner community. So far there are still no nationally acceptable qualifications in this field.
What comes next? So much for looking backwards. What does our experience allow us to see in the future? (Here I am reminded of Jimmy Connor's words, "Experience is a great advantage," he said. "The problem is that when you get experience you're too damned old to do any thing about it!" I trust, however, that none of us is too old to do something for the future benefit of forensic science.)
Towards the paperless society
There are two ways, both of them external factors to some extent, by which improvement of the quality of experts in this field will be achieved: the new Civil Procedure Rules and the Registration of Forensic Scientists. The new Civil Procedure Rules The new Civil Procedure Rules advocate choosing a single joint expert wherever possible. I have to say that this is a process with which I have some reservation since scrutiny of one's work by another scientist is healthy and serves to keep standards high. However, lawyers will now have to be more careful about their choice of expert and must do a great deal more research to produce a credible expert report. This will involve them in more background research, more probing of qualifications, more exploration of an individual expert's previous performance. Which is why the registration of forensic scientists in the UK is so important. The Registration of Forensic Scientists The idea of regulation has always been repugnant to a large number of the practitioners in this field. We have seen major, once public, laboratories whose arrogance and complacency led them to believe that nobody could possibly question their competence. We have seen, too, private individuals who fear standards being imposed upon them by the big public laboratories and which they fear they can neither achieve nor afford. But, in my view, registration of forensic scientists is absolutely vital.
Registration of forensic scientists will present the courts with an externally and independently assessed standard by which experts can be measured. However, this will only work if the registration is seen to be achievable by all competent practitioners. If the registration process is moulded into a form only achievable by the staff of large laboratories serving the public sector, it will just become another re-run of the Forensic Science Society Diploma. I have contributed to the Working Party for the Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners. For forensic document examiners we see the way forward, and our proposals to make this work will be published soon. I repeat: registration of forensic scientists is absolutely vital - for our independence, our integrity, our future. A plea for help This is where I ask for some help. The future looks a little brighter, but the forensic document examiner profession needs all the help it can get to keep it on track. This is where I come to the role of the Forensic Science Society.
The Society has for many years provided an important focus for forensic document examiners as a group. Its journal, Science & Justice, carries a significant number of forensic document examination papers; it acts as host to a Questioned Documents meeting which is the only open scientific meeting for forensic document examiners in the UK; and it has the Diploma. Whereas it is understood that membership of the Society is not a qualification, it must also be taken on board that any forensic scientist and any forensic document examiner of any standing in this country will be expected to be a member. Membership of the Society is a sought after status. Hence membership will be particularly prized by anyone who cannot get any other credible qualifications. The Society must be vigilant that it is not being used to qualify the unqualified. I perceive difficulties with the Constitution of the Society in actively excluding some individuals. On the other hand I feel that the Society owes some support to those of us who have contributed over the years to the Society, not just in terms of membership fees, but in contributing to the journal, acting as referees for papers and examiners for the Diploma, and organising meetings. We have done this to enhance the status of not only the Society but also the whole profession of forensic science. To see that downgraded by unscrupulous individuals who only wish to use its name as an entrance to the perceived lucrative pickings in Civil Litigation is a betrayal of bonafide scientists. I have covered the past. I have outlined the lessons we can learn from it. And it is true, we can learn from our history and our experiences. But the future of our profession is also being moulded by external influences and we would be foolish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend they do not exist. The Civil Procedure Rules and proposed registration of forensic scientists will change us. They will strengthen, not weaken our profession. Mindful of Churchill's quotation, allow to me to leave you with another, this time from Stephen Covey: "Live out of your imagination, not your history".
Reference 1. Risinger, Denbeaux and Saks. Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification 'Expertise'. 137 U.Pa.L.Rev. 731 (1989). 2. United States v Starzecpyzel. 880 F. Supp. 1027 (SDNY 1995).
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112
Towards the paperless society A GILES The Giles Document Laboratory, Manor Lodge, North Road, Chesham Bois, Amersham HP6 5NA
A review of document examination over the last twenty years My career in forensic science starts, very appropriately, in this city of Nottingham where I was working as a research biologist at the University's School of Agriculture. Having always had a passion for detective literature I begged a visit to the Forensic Science Laboratory tucked away behind the Police station in the city centre. What I saw and heard there persuaded me to fill in the application form for the post of biologist at the Nottingham Forensic Science Laboratory. Fate, however, intervened and my future husband informed me that he was moving to take up a post at Kings College in London. So instead of looking to the Nottingham Laboratory I wrote to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL) to enquire if there were any vacancies. The reply from Dr Williams informed me that he had more than enough biologists but they had a vacancy for a forensic document examiner if I cared to apply. I have to say he didn't sound very encouraging.
research section where two postgraduates, Doug Foster and Bob Freeman, were trying to detect fingerprints on fabric. And things weren't going too well for them. However, Steve noted with some excitement that the equipment was showing up impressions on paper. It was only a few months before the ESDA (Electrostatic Detection Apparatus) was operating full time in the Documents Section, and Foster & Freeman were soon to become internationally known as suppliers of equipment to forensic scientists.
However, I made the application and in November 1976 joined the Documents Section of the Metropolitan Laboratory. And what a shock to the system that was. From a state-of-the-art plant physiology laboratory (then just beginning to dabble in genetic engineering) I entered a world where three people shared a microscope and relied on a Heath-Robinson type contraption made out of bits of Plexi-glass and copper sulphate solution to distinguish between inks.
Actually, the ESDA was a well-kept secret for many years. (We were none too keen for the working criminal population to know that we could now read their notes written from home with such ease.) It didn't make its debut in the press until the late 80s when a document examiner employed in the private sector was asked to determine if a statement written by a young police officer on an undercover operation to identify the members of Millwall's Intercity gang was genuine. This sparked the investigations into the football hooligan trials which dominated the work of the Questioned Documents Section for well over a year.
The department was over-excited at the time by the arrival of a Projectina Comparator, and my second job was to carry out a research programme for distinguishing between typewritings from different typewriters. Great project - nice results. But only of use for a limited period since new technologies of laser printing and ink jets were just round the comer. My first piece of casework, incidentally, was to put together several sacks of shredded telexes. Not something that I would wish to repeat. New technology was also just over the horizon in the Documents Section. In 1977 Steven Strach, on a training course at the London School of Printing, called in to the
The partnership with Foster & Freeman very quickly led to the development of the Video Spectral Comparator and its successors. The techniques employed were not particularly new at that time but the ease with which the equipment could be employed to tackle forensic document problems was highly appreciated in the department. The latest equipment, also developed by Foster & Freeman, is their Raman Spectrometer; under evaluation as yet; we hope that this application will allow further discrimination of inks beyond the optical techniques so far employed.
The ESDA also provided vital evidence in a number of other high profile cases including the Guinness trial and numerous terrorist trials throughout this period. Away from the high profile trials, the work of the Questioned Documents Section in the 1980s was changing. Fraud cases were still the staple of the section but these were becoming bigger and more complex. Nigerian gangs were targeting banks and building societies with cross-fire frauds, where money was moved rapidly between accounts before it was discovered that the first deposit had not cleared.
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112 0 The Forensic Science Society 2000
109
Towards the paperless society
The Documents Section had been slowly building up a database for handwritten characters in an attempt to place the identification of handwriting on a firmer scientific basis. The highly characteristic nature of Nigerian handwriting was noted when the first fraud arrived in the Section. But this was rapidly followed by a series of similar frauds with documents written in, what appeared to be, virtually indistinguishable handwritings. Since one individual Nigerian couldn't be that busy it was clear that another factor must be operating. Some rapid background research showed that writing in Nigeria and the West African states is very rigidly taught, using styles introduced by earlier missionary schools. Therefore, although there are identifiable differences between the writings of individual Nigerians, they weren't quite the types of differences which we had been used to seeing between individuals educated in the UK. Needless to say, some very rapid research was undertaken in the Section so that future cases could be properly evaluated. Handwriting identification has always been a contentious area. The Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and the Birmingham Home Office Laboratory, along with BKA and Dutch labs, recognised the value of a structured approach to the subject using data collections to demonstrate character frequencies and developing electronic facilities for the analysis. Our American colleagues did not take to this line of research so quickly with some disastrous effects which I will come to later.
forensic scientists, even today, see themselves in something of that light. However, when the sergeant in charge of the Millwall undercover operation telephoned to explain personally that there was no chance that there could be anything wrong with his constables' surveillance records he was astonished to be greeted with polite silence. The independence of the expert is one of the key issues of the Woolf Reforms of the Civil Justice System - but it's hardly a surprise for the well-trained forensic scientist. The innate integrity of the forensic scientists working in the public sector was thrown into sharp relief when I started to come into contact with a number of so-called 'experts' who confined their activities to the Civil Courts. Very soon the marbled halls of the Royal Courts of Justice became more familiar to me than those of the Old Bailey. I drank Guinness and watched football matches (Arsenal of course) rather than writing reports about them. There were some profound changes to my professional life, including having more conferences with counsel in the first six months of private practice than I had in thirteen years of providing evidence in criminal cases. Instructing solicitors were helpful, interested and involved with cases, until it came time to pay the bill.
Looking at the challenges facing our profession today I am conscious of Churchill's words and the sub-theme of this meeting: "The farther backward you can look the farther forward you are likely to see". What lessons do we learn?
Over the last twenty years the type of problem submitted to the forensic document examiner for analysis has not changed greatly. In spite of advances in the field of office technology and communications, people still forge signatures, pass stolen cheques and write anonymous letters. The techniques used by the forensic document examiner have developed rapidly, particularly in the last fifteen years. We are always looking for new ways to unlock the secrets of documents. One of the most difficult problems of forensic document examination remains unsolved - how to date inks - maybe developments in Raman Spectroscopy will assist in this.
Lesson No 1 - Forensic scientists need to be scientific Trouble was brewing on a number of fronts in the documents world. In 1989 Risinger et a1 published their article 'Exorcism of Ignorance as a proxy for rational knowledge. The lessons of handwriting expertise' [I]. This was a critical review of traditional crime laboratory procedure, and handwriting evidence in particular. This direct attack on the profession left our US colleagues in disarray, having little idea how to counterattack. To be frank, most preferred a state of blissful ignorance and hoped it would go away.
Contrasting life in the Civil and Criminal courts After a surfeit of football and Guinness in the 1980s I decided that it was time for a career change and I resigned from the MPFSL at the beginning of January 1989 after thirteen years.
In 1995 a judge's ruling in the US -v- Starzecpyzel regarded handwriting identification not as scientific expertise but as "technical knowledge which might assist the trier of fact" [ 2 ] . This ruling permitted one of the original 'Exorcism' authors, Professor Denbeaux, to embark on a career as an 'expert critic' of forensic handwriting identification, turning up at courts all over the US to assist defenders in trashing the handwriting evidence presented by the prosecution. This, at last, galvanised the US experts to begin to put their house in order. The whole episode can be regarded as a blessing in disguise. Serious consideration has since been given to background research which establishes the validity of handwriting identification. The American Society of
It was with mixed feelings that I left. I had learnt my entire trade in the MPFSL. But I had also learnt two important values, essential for every forensic scientist: integrity and independence. Unfortunately, many members of the public and the police see the forensic scientist as some sort of police lackey there to do the prosecution's bidding. I venture that some 110
It didn't and there was worse to come.
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112
A GILES
Questioned Document Examiners has launched its journal to provide a platform for the large number of presentations made every year at their meeting but which never previously made it to peer review. Facts and literature were assembled to counteract the disruptive activities of Professor Denbeaux. [As yet, to the best of my knowledge, no handwriting evidence has been excluded from a court hearing.] Lesson No 2 - Forensic scientists need proper scientific qualifications The American experience is one which has important lessons for forensic document examiners and perhaps other forensic scientists in the UK. One of the contributing factors to the impact of the 'Exorcism' article was the extremely diverse background and qualifications of so called "handwriting experts" in the US.
Leaving aside the graphologists and the generally untrained, there are a significant number of the US forensic document examiners who do not have basic scientific backgrounds. The reason for this possibly lies in the 1920s when the early US handwriting experts were professional penmen, experienced in teaching and developing handwriting. Different handwritings were identified by the extent that they deviated from a particular taught handwriting system. The skills of these men lay in their intimate knowledge of handwriting systems and their subtle differences. That situation no longer exists in the US and has certainly not been the case in the UK for many, many years. The whole problem of handwriting identification is much more complex. Only in August 1999, a leading US forensic document examiner explained to me why forensic document exarniners are robust individualists: it is because we frequently have to go into court, he said, and ask the jury to believe us merely on the basis that 'experience tells me that this is the way it is'. A significant proportion of the US profession still does not appear to have grasped the fact that this approach is simply not good enough. Of course, the problem of graphologists trespassing into the world of forensic document examination in the US is very significant. However, to a large extent the diversity of backgrounds, qualification and training even within the forensic document examination establishment, has bewildered the courts and the public, and has left the profession entirely vulnerable to the likes of Professor Denbeaux, the professional critic. Lesson No 3 - The UK as well as the US has unqualified people practising in the field Here in the UK the recessions of the 1990s had a significance for forensic document examination perhaps not felt so keenly by other sectors of forensic science. Up until the recession graphologists had become increasingly popular in recruitment processes. Some major firms employed their own in-house graphologist in the personnel department. However, with the down-turn in recruitment and a recogniScience & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112
tion that graphology was no substitute for a proper professional evaluation of a job applicant, the graphologists found themselves out of work. They began to look around for other sources of income. A significant number decided that since graphology was studying handwriting this was an adequate qualification to put themselves forward as experts in the forensic identification of handwritings and in forensic document examination in general. Not so. Prior to leaving the MPFSL, I had rarely come across the work of a graphologist. The one or two individuals actively offering themselves for forensic work in the 1980s carefully confined themselves to the Civil Sector where there was little chance of their frailties being exposed by bona jide forensic scientists. For the last ten years I have seen an everincreasing number of reports by unqualified, so-called, experts that lack a basic understanding of the principles of forensic document examination, not to mention integrity and honesty. The problem of unqualified experts in forensic document examination is, I think, more acute than in other areas of forensic science simply because by avoiding criminal work an individual can present an array of apparently impressive qualifications to a court without their being scrutinised closely. The legal profession is in ignorance as to what qualifications a forensic document examiner should be presenting. It's even harder when one is forced to admit there are no generally accepted qualifications for this work. Lesson No 4 - The need to think carefully about appropriate qualijkations An initiative by the Forensic Science Society in the 1980s to introduce a Diploma of Forensic Document Examination seemed set to give forensic document examination the type of academic qualification needed to demonstrate to the courts that this was a serious profession with standards that could be tested and monitored. Unfortunately the decision to include a grandfather clause resulted in the Diploma being awarded to a number of individuals who I can only describe as 'not having the confidence of their peers' and has drastically reduced its impact.
Much effort has been expended in developing the NVQ qualification. However, again, they have not been accepted wholeheartedly by the forensic document examiner community. So far there are still no nationally acceptable qualifications in this field.
What comes next? So much for looking backwards. What does our experience allow us to see in the future? (Here I am reminded of Jimmy Connor's words, "Experience is a great advantage," he said. "The problem is that when you get experience you're too damned old to do any thing about it!" I trust, however, that none of us is too old to do something for the future benefit of forensic science.)
Towards the paperless society
There are two ways, both of them external factors to some extent, by which improvement of the quality of experts in this field will be achieved: the new Civil Procedure Rules and the Registration of Forensic Scientists. The new Civil Procedure Rules The new Civil Procedure Rules advocate choosing a single joint expert wherever possible. I have to say that this is a process with which I have some reservation since scrutiny of one's work by another scientist is healthy and serves to keep standards high. However, lawyers will now have to be more careful about their choice of expert and must do a great deal more research to produce a credible expert report. This will involve them in more background research, more probing of qualifications, more exploration of an individual expert's previous performance. Which is why the registration of forensic scientists in the UK is so important. The Registration of Forensic Scientists The idea of regulation has always been repugnant to a large number of the practitioners in this field. We have seen major, once public, laboratories whose arrogance and complacency led them to believe that nobody could possibly question their competence. We have seen, too, private individuals who fear standards being imposed upon them by the big public laboratories and which they fear they can neither achieve nor afford. But, in my view, registration of forensic scientists is absolutely vital.
Registration of forensic scientists will present the courts with an externally and independently assessed standard by which experts can be measured. However, this will only work if the registration is seen to be achievable by all competent practitioners. If the registration process is moulded into a form only achievable by the staff of large laboratories serving the public sector, it will just become another re-run of the Forensic Science Society Diploma. I have contributed to the Working Party for the Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners. For forensic document examiners we see the way forward, and our proposals to make this work will be published soon. I repeat: registration of forensic scientists is absolutely vital - for our independence, our integrity, our future. A plea for help This is where I ask for some help. The future looks a little brighter, but the forensic document examiner profession needs all the help it can get to keep it on track. This is where I come to the role of the Forensic Science Society.
The Society has for many years provided an important focus for forensic document examiners as a group. Its journal, Science & Justice, carries a significant number of forensic document examination papers; it acts as host to a Questioned Documents meeting which is the only open scientific meeting for forensic document examiners in the UK; and it has the Diploma. Whereas it is understood that membership of the Society is not a qualification, it must also be taken on board that any forensic scientist and any forensic document examiner of any standing in this country will be expected to be a member. Membership of the Society is a sought after status. Hence membership will be particularly prized by anyone who cannot get any other credible qualifications. The Society must be vigilant that it is not being used to qualify the unqualified. I perceive difficulties with the Constitution of the Society in actively excluding some individuals. On the other hand I feel that the Society owes some support to those of us who have contributed over the years to the Society, not just in terms of membership fees, but in contributing to the journal, acting as referees for papers and examiners for the Diploma, and organising meetings. We have done this to enhance the status of not only the Society but also the whole profession of forensic science. To see that downgraded by unscrupulous individuals who only wish to use its name as an entrance to the perceived lucrative pickings in Civil Litigation is a betrayal of bonafide scientists. I have covered the past. I have outlined the lessons we can learn from it. And it is true, we can learn from our history and our experiences. But the future of our profession is also being moulded by external influences and we would be foolish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend they do not exist. The Civil Procedure Rules and proposed registration of forensic scientists will change us. They will strengthen, not weaken our profession. Mindful of Churchill's quotation, allow to me to leave you with another, this time from Stephen Covey: "Live out of your imagination, not your history".
Reference 1. Risinger, Denbeaux and Saks. Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification 'Expertise'. 137 U.Pa.L.Rev. 731 (1989). 2. United States v Starzecpyzel. 880 F. Supp. 1027 (SDNY 1995).
Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 109-112