“Handwriting analysis was the first investigative discipline developed specifically to help courts resolve disputes, and for most of the last century judges accepted it uncritically in cases involving contested documents like wills, ransom notes and forged checks. In the last decade, though, prompted by a United States Supreme Court decision on “junk science,” federal courts have grown increasingly skeptical.”…
Okay, is it just me? It seems to me that the article is doing a major job of confusing one kind of handwriting analysis – detecting whether a signature is original or forged – with another kind – that which purports to reveal the writer’s personality traits (and which, as far as I know, is B.S.).
I’ve always heard that so-called ‘graphology’ – the second kind of handwriting analysis – was junk science. But I’ve never heard that same criticism applied to the practice of analyzing a piece of writing to determine if it was produced by the same person from whom you have an existing handwriting sample. I’ve always thought that form of analysis was relatively UN-controversial.
UNcontroversial.
Apparently they’re talking about fingerprint analysis as in “that’s a forged signature”. There have also been recent moves to re-evaluate the reliability of fingerprints (see Annals of Crime: Do Fingerprints Lie? in The New Yorker).
Obviously defense attorneys frequently have a motive to question things like this. However, apparently a number of well-known forensic techniques were never really scientifically established as accurate (with controlled studies and so on); it was just claimed that they were, and everyone’s been buying it ever since.
In the case of fingerprints, as far as I can tell no one is seriously questioning that all humans have unique fingerprints; rather, their questioning the reliability of identifying people based on partial and incomplete prints–which necessarily involves having a human being squint at a bunch of squiggly lines and use his or her personal judgement.
Getting back to handwriting analysis, everyone has again accepted certain ideas–that handwriting is unique, and that an expert can tell who really wrote something, probably even if they’re trying to disguise their handwriting–without it ever really having been proven to the rigorous standards of scientific (or judicial) proof. To some extent, we’re just seeing scientists go back and actually test this stuff properly; it may well be that these techniques will pass with flying colors.
Basically I agree with MEBuckner. However, the following sentences from the Times article look to me like a case of the confusion pointed out in the OP.
Somewhat of an aside, but where I work (a pharmaceutical lab) every document we produce (i.e. reports, notebooks, etc) need to be signed by us, and they have legal merit. They even asked us to sign a “signature card” and told us that we should always sign our names the way we did on that card, so that they can confirm that it was, in fact, us who signed the page.
Perhaps this is just a “safeguard”, but considering the possible problems that could occur with false documentation, and that each document has legal standing, obviously associating a signature to a particular person is still a significant thing.
Yeah, I know, I didn’t add much to the discussion. This is why I don’t usually post in GD
I get the point others made that we have perhaps prematurely assumed the point that the uniqueness of an individual’s handwriting can be detected. But I don’t think that’s in the same league as astrology or phrenology. And I think the Times erred in blurring the distinction between that sort of handwriting analysis and the truly junk science kind that purports to detect underlying personality traits in the writer.
it would appear that Prof. Mark P. Denbeaux is arguing Mr. MEBuckner’s point and The Times is not confused at all. If it is an “unproven science” then the experts aren’t really experts and handwriting identification is in the same league with astrology and phrenology.
My personal opinion has always been that the experts in this field are no more capable of judging handwriting than any layman who’s willing to put in the time and effort required to study a given case. I do, however, respect their opinions on paper, ink analysis, etc.
A slight aside regarding analyzing personality through one’s handwriting:
The company my husband works for actually bases their hiring partially on an analysis of the individual’s handwriting. As part of the interview process, everyone is required to hand-write a memo.
My hubby’s manager says she hired him when she saw his handwriting. It “revealed” that he is intelligent and detail-oriented (which is true.)
This isn’t a quirk of this manager - it is a company-wide policy. The company is based in Finland.
An interesting policy – and as far as I can tell, the result of junk science… I also know that it is not the only such employer to use the technique.
(Your husband is lucky, I guess, that the manager chose to interpret his handwriting favorably. But she might as well have relied on his astrological sign, from what I’ve read on the subject!)
Thanks for that reference; perhaps I spoke too soon. Still, I think the story might have benefited from a sharper distinction on the point.
I note that the article you cite makes use of the term ‘Handwriting Identification’ which I like as a more precise term for the task in question and helpfully distinguishes it from the psychological form of ‘Handwriting Analysis.’
I was once denied food stamps because I couldn’t get my name on the receipt to match the one on my photo ID.
I had to come back when a less idiotic person was there.
My signature never comes out exactly the same way twice, because I don’t belabor it, but just wing it.
