Posted on by RB Ostrum

Accreditation vs. Certification

For a long time now, various groups have recommended that forensic service providers become accredited and/or certified,1,2,3 with accreditation taking a front seat in the discussions.

While these terms have very specific meaning and purpose they are sometimes confused.  I have discussed certification elsewhere but, until now, I have not discussed accreditation, at length.  This post, hopefully, will resolve that and provide my view of these two things.

Each has clear benefits, but there are also some negative aspects.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

FDE Linked 2023

The inaugural Forensic Document Examiners Live INternational Knowledge Exchange on Documents (i.e., FDE Linked) event occurred on March 31-April 1, 2023. It was a virtual event for qualified Forensic Document Examiners and available free of charge. The organizing committee consisted of: Nikolaos (Niko) Kalantzis (from the Chartoularios Institute, https://www.chartoularios.gr/en/), Carolyne Bird (Australasian Society of Forensic Document Examiners, Inc., https://asfdeinc.org), and Samiah Ibrahim (American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, https://www.asqde.org).

The event ran through a full 24-hour period. There were three live panel discussions, as well as five pre-recorded scientific session blocks. The program was designed to accommodate attendees regardless of their location around the world. The working language of this conference was English.

Chartoularios logo
ASFDE, Inc.
ASQDE logo
Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

Three principles

Three principles… that’s all.

There are three simple principles1 necessary to ensure proper application of the logical approach to evidence evaluation. Yet, despite this elegant simplicity, some examiners feel the logical approach is too complicated, or confusing, to be used in our work.

Now, to be fair, real-world case things can be a bit complex and challenging from time to time , but that isn’t unique to the logical approach. It is simply a reflection of the nature of forensic document examination. Our work is difficult and challenging at the best of times and every properly trained document examiner must be able to deal with, and explain, complex topics to laypersons. It is the reason why forensic handwriting examination (FHE) expertise is necessary in a court of law.

When one applies the logical approach, that inherent complexity is more exposed… and that is a good thing.

In my opinion, a very strong argument can be made that the logical approach is simpler and easier than any other alternative, even in its most complicated form. That is certainly true once you get over the initial hurdle of comprehension. In my opinion, the real issue for examiners, and for others who argue against the use of the logical approach, is their lack of understanding coupled with a failure to appreciate what the logical approach does to clarify our reasoning processes, how it functions to guide those processes, and how it assists us in explaining and defending our opinions.

Perhaps most important of all, the logical approach demands a different view of the evidence and what it means. Ultimately, it also demands a different view of the role of the examiner. Hence, some people find it difficult to come to terms with the process and what it requires of them.2

I’m often asked for a simple overview or summary of the process — a short-hand description or ‘briefer’ version that explains the basics. Well, here it is…

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

Science, experimentation & forensic examination

People sometimes question whether forensic work is scientific in nature. Given that the overall discipline is called ‘forensic science’ this is an interesting, if rather meaningless, question. I say ‘meaningless’ because, practically speaking, it is a non-issue.

Why? Simply because a court may choose to admit anyone as an expert, whether their expertise is scientific, purely experiential, or something else entirely. Nonetheless, it is interesting to consider the issue, if only because forensic document examination is one of those disciplines where this is a common challenge — does it involve any “science” at all?

As a result, this topic is worth some discussion.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

R.C.M.P. Seminars 4 and 5 — Attendee information

Many years ago, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Crime Detection Laboratories1 sponsored a series of Seminars relating to forensic science and two of those events, RCMP Seminars 4 and 5, focused on forensic document examination; a.k.a., questioned document examination.

The first seminar, #4, was entitled “The Examination of Questioned Documents” and it was held May 10-11, 1956 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada at R.C.M.P. Headquarters.  In 1958, again in Ottawa and at the same location, seminar #5 was held Oct 27 through Nov 1. The second seminar was entitled “Questioned Documents in Crime Detection”.  Both seminars were attended by several R.C.M.P. examiners and many invited guests from various laboratories around the world as well as several well-known private examiners. The event produced several interesting papers and each of the resulting books of proceedings included a photograph of attendees together with their names and affiliations. Each of the proceedings was published by the Federal Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Canada.

A number of document examiners have asked about the photograph and attendees because often the photograph has been distributed without the accompanying attendee information.

Read more

Posted on by RB Ostrum

Impinging on the Court’s authority

One of the strangest things I have heard raised in argument against the logical approach is that use of the approach means the expert’s testimony will end up impinging upon the authority of the Court.1 I have heard this a few times recently. I find this particularly troubling because it has come from lawyers. Unfortunately, this has always happened in circumstances where I could not actually discuss the matter with them.

As an objection to the logical approach, this is the most unexpected thing I have ever heard, without a doubt. In reality, proper application of the logical approach is one of the few ways to ensure that this issue will not happen.

To clarify, it is important to first understand the concept of “usurping the role of the Court” which means, in essence, to improperly influence the court’s procedures and decision-making, often by speaking inappropriately to or about the ultimate issue. Or, in other words, to impinge on the Court’s authority to make decisions about the ultimate issue, or ‘what happened’. To be sure, there is a legitimate concern that this could be a problem, particularly when the court is listening to an expert. As a result, the concept has been discussed literally for years and it is not a new concern.

In fact, it can be found in various codes and directives regarding expert evidence. Indeed, Justice Sopinka noted this precise issue in the 1994 R. v. Mohan ruling when he stated, in part, “There is also a concern inherent in the application of this criterion that experts not be permitted to usurp the functions of the trier of fact.” 

Read more