Dynamic signatures: A review of dynamic feature variation and forensic methodology

This article focuses on dynamic signatures and their features. It provides a detailed and critical review of dynamic feature variations and circumstantial parameters affecting dynamic signatures. The state of the art summarizes available knowledge, meant to assist the forensic practitioner in cases presenting extraordinary writing conditions. The studied parameters include hardware-related issues, aging and the influence of time, as well as physical and mental states of the writer. Some parameters, such as drug and alcohol abuse or medication, have very strong effects on handwriting and signature dynamics. Other conditions such as the writer’s posture and fatigue have been found to affect feature variation less severely. The need for further research about the influence of these parameters, as well as handwriting dynamics in general is highlighted. These factors are relevant to the examiner in the assessment of the probative value of the reported features. Additionally, methodology for forensic examination of dynamic signatures is discussed. Available methodology and procedures are reviewed, while pointing out major technical and methodological advances in the field of forensic handwriting examination. The need for sharing the best practice manuals, standard operating procedures and methodologies to favor further progress is accentuated

Forging a Stable Relationship?: Bridging the Law and Forensic Science Divide in the Academy

The marriage of law and science has most often been represented as discordant. While the law/science divide meme is hardly novel, concerns over the potentially deleterious coupling within the criminal justice system may have reached fever pitch. There is a growing chorus of disapproval addressed to ‘forensic science’, accompanied by the denigration of legal professionals for being unable or unwilling to forge a symbiotic relationship with forensic scientists. The 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report on forensic science heralds the latest call for greater collaboration between ‘law’ and ‘science’, particularly in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) yet little reaction has been apparent amid law and science faculties. To investigate the potential for interdisciplinary cooperation, the authors received funding for a project: ‘Lowering the Drawbridges: Forensic and Legal Education in the 21st Century’, hoping to stimulate both law and forensic science educators to seek mutually beneficial solutions to common educational problems and build vital connections in the academy. A workshop held in the UK, attended by academics and practitioners from scientific, policing, and legal backgrounds marked the commencement of the project. This paper outlines some of the workshop conclusions to elucidate areas of dissent and consensus, and where further dialogue is required, but aims to strike a note of optimism that the ‘cultural divide’ should not be taken to be so wide as to be beyond the legal and forensic science academy to bridge. The authors seek to demonstrate that legal and forensic science educators can work cooperatively to respond to critics and forge new paths in learning and teaching, creating an opportunity to take stock and enrich our discipline as well as answer critics. As Latham (2010:34) exhorts, we are not interested in turning lawyers into scientists and vice versa, but building a foundation upon which they can build during their professional lives: “Instead of melding the two cultures, we need to establish conditions of cooperation, mutual respect, and mutual reliance between them.” Law and forensic science educators should, and can assist with the building of a mutual understanding between forensic scientists and legal professionals, a significant step on the road to answering calls for the professions to minimise some of the risks associated with the use of forensic science in the criminal process. REFERENCES Latham, S.R. 2010, ‘Law between the cultures: C.P.Snow’s The Two Cultures and the problem of scientific illiteracy in law’ 32 Technology in Society, 31-34. KEYWORDS forensic science education legal education law/science divid