1) The document summarizes a panel discussion with Jannie Bester on conclusion terminology and scales used in signature and handwriting examination. 2) Bester uses a 5-scale terminology in their lab: (1) above any reasonable doubt did not write, (2) on a balance of probabilities did not write, (3) inconclusive, (4) on a balance of probabilities did write, (5) above any reasonable doubt did write. 3) Bester believes the 5-scale terminology is the most appropriate as it provides clear conclusions that can be easily understood in a legal context, while other scales cause confusion in judicial proceedings.

1. JOINT MEETING OF THE ASQDE AND THE ASFDE INC, HONOLULU 2014
PANEL DISCUSSION – “CONCLUSIONS”: SIGNATURE AND HANDWRITING
CONCLUSION TERMINOLOGY AND SCALES PANEL DISCUSSION
Panel discussion contributor: Jannie Bester
Laboratory currently employed with: Pro Scripto Document Examination, Pretoria,
South Africa
Previous lab history: Forensic Science Laboratory, Disputed
Document Unit, South African Police Force,
South Africa
Short bio: Have 20 years’ experience as a Forensic
Document Examiner. Received training as a
Forensic Document Examiner at the Forensic
Science Laboratory of the South African Police
Force. Is a professional member of the Chartered
Society of Forensic Sciences. Is also a Certified
Fraud Examiner and a member of the
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners of
both the international and South African
chapters.
What conclusion terminology scale/s do you use?
We use a five scale conclusion terminology.
1.) Above any reasonable doubt did not write
2.) On a balance of probabilities did not write
3.) Inconclusive. (Here we use the terminology of a possibility. We cannot exclude the
possibility that a writer did / or did not write. We further qualify that the matter needs
further examination to express a more certain opinion.)
4.) On a balance of probabilities did writer
5.) Above any reasonable doubt did write
…../2

2. Page 2
Have you or your laboratory changed conclusion terminology scales over the years? If so,
why?
Yes, we adopted a five scale terminology. We found that the legal fraternity got rather
confused with the nine scale expression of opinions / conclusions. To understand the change,
we had to have a close look at what the function of a Forensic Expert is. To further
understand it, you have to look at what the word forensic means, it refers to an application in
investigation and the use of, to establish facts or evidence in a court of law. So ultimately it
refers in context to the judicial process, irrespective of where it is applied in the world.
So what is the function of a Forensic Expert then? Our first responsibility resides with the
judicial system. We have to present and inform in an understandable format which also can
be interpreted within the context of a legal frame work.
In the presentation of expert evidence during judicial proceedings we will steer clear of
terminology like, strong probability, very strong probability and most probable.
Another point of consideration was whether we as experts express conclusions or opinions.
To understand this we had to back track a little and get to understand the function of
presiding officers during judicial proceedings. The court is entitled to form it’s own opinion
and to use or not use the evidence of an expert witness in consideration of the facts of a
matter. It is then our view that we present opinion evidence which is based on the
interpretation of observations, inferences and conclusions which are supported by scientific
method.
A further point in support was that the examination and comparison of handwriting and
signatures, is subjective of nature very much based in the empirical science, a sub-section of
science. The subjectivity stems from the legs that support empirical science, experience,
observation, experimentation and then I would like to add, inference and interpretation into it.
This approach is strongly supported by applicable training as a Forensic Document Examiner.
Are you comfortable using the scale/s or are you confined to using that scale/s because of lab
requirements?
We are a practice in the private sector made up of two Forensic Document Examiners, myself
and my partner, who used to be responsible for Forensic Document Examiner training at the
Forensic Science Laboratory of the South African Police Force in South Africa. He has more
than 35 years’ experience as a Forensic Document Examiner. We are comfortable using the
five scale terminology for expressing opinion.
…../3

3. Page 3
Do you consider the scale (or, if multiple scales are in use, which one) to be the most
appropriate of the various scales in use around the world in today’s professional climate? If
so, why? If not, which scale do you consider to be the most appropriate and why?
We consider the five scale terminology of expressing opinion as the most appropriate. The
basis for it, is sound, and adds value to the proceedings of our “customer”, the judicial
system. We have now been experiencing the success of the five scale terminology for the past
approximate 17 years as a Forensic Document Examination business. We have seen it in
settlement agreements, the number of court cases we had to attend to give expert evidence,
inquiries and the considerable shortening of cross-examination during court cases.
Yes, I also have to add that approximately 97% plus of our cases are civil judicial proceeding
matters and very little, about 3% are criminal proceeding matters. We found that the five
scale terminology is also accepted in criminal proceeding matters.
The ultimate approach is always, not to be prescriptive but be informative.
Do you feel passionately about (for or against) any other conclusion terminology scales in
use around the world
We support the five scale terminology for expressing opinion, and are of the view that any
scale/s outside the five scale terminology, are causing confusion in interpretation during
judicial proceedings and are used by rogue lawyers and critics to create distrust in the
reliability on expert evidence about handwriting and signature evidence during judicial
proceedings.
All scientific formulae used and researched to date, to bring a mathematical solution to
handwriting and signature examination, were not successful, due to the subjective values
awarded during calculation based on experience and training. The Newcomb formula is an
example of such a subjective approach. The Bayesian Theorem is a way to assist in decision
making based on incomplete information, also a mathematical approach which seems to
remain controversial.
Do you believe that there should be international unification on conclusion terminology and
the scale used in signature and handwriting conclusions? Why?
Yes, we are of the view that there should be international unification on conclusion
terminology and the scale used to express signature and handwriting opinions.
It will support the reliability on handwriting and signature evidence during judicial
proceedings. It will also address the various issues regarding interference by charlatans
posing as so-called qualified experts. A definite advantage will also be the encouragement it
will create into further research and development of handwriting and signature evidence in a
unified manner, to cement its position as a reliable science.
…../4

4. Page 4
Other matters of relevance and importance relating to this topic that you would like to
discuss
It is common practice by Forensic Document Examiners to express an opinion of forgery.
Let us look at the definition of forgery first:
Forgery is when a person unlawfully and intentionally produces a forgery to the real or
potential disadvantage of another person.
A more general approach to forgery:
Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with
the intent to deceive.
The common thread through all of the definitions of forgery is the word “INTENT”. Intent is
necessary together with proof of the potential or real disadvantage to another person. These
two, intention and potential or real disadvantage to another person are judicial answers and
not aspects upon which we as Forensic Document Examiners are to decide upon. We are not
to express an opinion on forgery, but an opinion on authenticity or non-authenticity.
Suggestion
It is my opinion, to approach this issue on an inclusive basis, and create a sound judicial basis
or if you will, a scientific judicial basis, before developing it into more detail.
Should further research been done in this regard, it will be of critical importance that
agreement is formulated on what will be the base sources to develop the research on. Experts
with a legal background should also be included should a research team be formed. This
research team should also be formed across all judicial systems.