This year the Annual General Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) 
is being held in Indianapolis, Indiana on August 24 through 29, 2013. In keeping with the theme, “Demonstrative Science: Illustrating Findings in Reports and Court Testimony”, I will be presenting a one-day workshop entitled “Conclusion Scales and Logical Inference” on Sunday, August 25.
Read more
Introduction to the Logical Approach to Evidence Evaluation
Forensic scientists, individually and as a group, want to be completely logical, open and transparent in their approach to the evaluation of evidence. Such an assertion is unquestionable. Further, I am sure that most document examiners believe this is exactly what they are achieving when they apply the procedures outlined in various traditional textbooks or the SWGDOC/ ASTM standards; for example, the SWGDOC Standard for Examination of Handwritten Items. Given the very understandable desire to be logical, I find it strange that so many people have a negative attitude towards anything and everything “Bayesian” in nature. After all, a logical approach to evidence evaluation that conforms to the overall Bayesian philosophy or approach is, quite literally, the embodiment of logic (more specifically, probabilistic logic).
Read moreAccuracy and precision
The terms accuracy and precision are often confused or misunderstood. But every scientist, forensic or otherwise, should understand what they mean. In simple terms, ‘accuracy’ relates to how closely the value comes to the real score or true value (being ‘on target’). ‘Precision’, on the other hand, relates to the consistency of the value in repeated testing. Any given test, statistic or process may produce results that are one or the other, both or neither.
Read moreForensic or Questioned?
Some document examiners prefer to be called forensic document examiners while other prefer the term questioned document examiner. So, in this context, is there any actual difference between forensic or questioned?
The simple answer is ‘no’; there is no real difference. Historically, the term used was “questioned document examiner” but in the last 15-20 years, “forensic” has become a much more common adjective applied to almost any (scientific) endeavour intended for court purposes. Just to add another variation to the discussion, when I began working in this field in the mid-1980’s my colleagues were called “examiners of questioned documents”.