SWGDOC Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners

ver. 2013-2 Page 1

Copyright by SWGDOC (all rights reserved); Wed Jan 14 13:26:05 CDT 2015

SWGDOC Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners

1. Scope 

1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic document examiners in expressing conclusions or opinions based on 

their examinations. 

1.2 The terms in this terminology are based on the report of a committee of the Questioned Document Section of the 

American Academy of Forensic Science that was adopted as the recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by 

the Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American Board of Forensic 

Document Examiners.1

2. Referenced Documents 

2.1 Standards

SWGDOC Standard for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Examiners

3. Significance and Use 

3.1 Document examiners begin examinations from a point of neutrality. There are an infinite number of gradations of 

opinion toward an identification or toward an elimination. It is in those cases wherein the opinion is less than definite 

that careful attention is especially needed in the choice of language used to convey the weight of the evidence. 

3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminology we use in expressing our degrees of confidence in the 

evidence to terms that are readily understandable to those who use our services (including investigators, attorneys, 

judges, and jury members), as well as to other document examiners. The expressions used to differentiate the 

gradations of opinions should not be considered as strongly defined “categories”. These expressions should be 

guidelines without sharply defined boundaries. 

3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use one of the terms defined below, the listener or reader can 

assume that this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. To avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term 

where the expert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard, the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted 

in or appended to reports. 

3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and in third person since both methods of reporting are used by 

document examiners and since both forms meet the main purpose of the standard, that is, to suggest terminology that is 

readily understandable. These examples should not be regarded as the only ways to utilize probability statements in 

reports and testimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner should always bear in mind that sometimes the 

examination will lead into paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines can cover exactly. 

3.5 Although the material that follows deals with handwriting, forensic document examiners may apply this 

terminology to other examinations within the scope of their work, as described in SWGDOC Standard for Scope of 

Work of Forensic Document Examiners, and it may be used by forensic examiners in other areas, as appropriate. 

3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the 

responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the 

applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 

4. Terminology 

4.1 Recommended Terms: 

identification (definite conclusion of identity)—this is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document 

examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from 

using the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the 

known material actually wrote the writing in question. 

Examples—It has been concluded that John Doe wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that 

John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. 

strong probability (highly probable, very probable)—the evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or 

quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned 

and known writings were written by the same individual. 

Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or it is 

my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material very probably wrote the 

questioned material. 

DISCUSSION—Some examiners doubt the desirability of differentiating between strong probability and probable, and 

certainly they may eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire “gray 

scale” of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. 

 

1 McAlexander T.V., Beck, J., and Dick, R., “The Standardization of Handwriting Opinion Terminology,” Journal of 

Forensic Science, Vol 36, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 311–319.
SWGDOC Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners

ver. 2013-2 Page 2

Copyright by SWGDOC (all rights reserved); Wed Jan 14 13:26:05 CDT 2015

probable—the evidence contained in the handwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings 

having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the“ virtually certain” degree of confidence. 

Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material, or 

it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the 

questioned material. 

indications (evidence to suggest)—a body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting 

comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing. 

Examples—There is evidence which indicates (or suggests) that the John Doe of the known material may have written 

the questioned material but the evidence falls far short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion. 

DISCUSSION—This is a very weak opinion, and a report may be misinterpreted to be an identification by some 

readers if the report simply states, “The evidence indicates that the John Doe of the known material wrote the 

questioned material.” There should always be additional limiting words or phrases (such as “may have” or “but the 

evidence is far from conclusive”) when this opinion is reported, to ensure that the reader understands that the opinion 

is weak. Some examiners doubt the desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, and certainly they cannot be 

criticized if they eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire “gray scale” 

of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. 

no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)—This is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when 

there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of 

comparable writing, and the examiner does not have even a leaning one way or another. Examples—No conclusion 

could be reached as to whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or I could not 

determine whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. 

indications did not—this carries the same weight as the indications term that is, it is a very weak opinion. 

Examples—There is very little significant evidence present in the comparable portions of the questioned and known 

writings, but that evidence suggests that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or I 

found indications that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material but the evidence is far 

from conclusive. 

See Discussion after indications. 

probably did not—the evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written 

by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain” 

range. 

Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned 

material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material probably did not 

write the questioned material. 

DISCUSSION—Some examiners prefer to state this opinion: “It is unlikely that the John Doe of the known material 

wrote the questioned material.” There is no strong objection to this, as “unlikely” is merely the Anglo-Saxon 

equivalent of “improbable”. 

strong probability did not—this carries the same weight as strong probability on the identification side of the scale; 

that is, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same 

individual. 

Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, 

or in my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highly probable that the John Doe of the known material did not 

write the questioned material. 

DISCUSSION—Certainly those examiners who choose to use “unlikely” in place of “probably did not” may wish to 

use “highly unlikely” here. 

elimination—this, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the 

document examiner in handwriting comparisons. By using this expression the examiner denotes no doubt in his 

opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. 

Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or it 

is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned 

material. 

DISCUSSION—This is often a very difficult determination to make in handwriting examinations, especially when 

only requested exemplars are available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at this conclusion. 

4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there is usually a necessity for additional comments, consisting of such 

things as reasons for qualification (if the available evidence allows that determination), suggestions for remedies (if 

any are known), and any other comments that will shed more light on the report. The report should stand alone with no 

extra explanations necessary. 

4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: 

4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document examiners are troublesome because they may be 

misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is deprecated. Some of the terms are so 
SWGDOC Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners

ver. 2013-2 Page 3

Copyright by SWGDOC (all rights reserved); Wed Jan 14 13:26:05 CDT 2015

blatantly inane (such as “make/no make”) that they will not be discussed. The use of others is discouraged because 

they are incomplete or misused. These expressions include: 

possible/could have—these terms have no place in expert opinions on handwriting because the examiner’s task is to 

decide to what degree of certainty it can be said that a handwriting sample is by a specific person. If the evidence is so 

limited or unclear that no definite or qualified opinion can be expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion. To 

say that the suspect “could have written the material in question” says nothing about probability and is therefore 

meaningless to the reader or to the court. The examiner should be clear on the different meanings of “possible” and 

“probable,” although they are often used interchangeably in everyday speech. 

consistent with—there are times when this expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when “evidence consistent 

with disguise is present” or “evidence consistent with a simulation or tracing is present, but “the known writing is 

consistent with the questioned writing” has no intelligible meaning. 

could not be identified/cannot identify—these terms are objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also 

because they are biased; they imply that the examiner’s task is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or 

not the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it should always be followed by “or eliminate[d]”. 

similarities were noted/differences as well as similarities— these expressions are meaningless without an 

explanation as to the extent and significance of the similarities or differences between the known and questioned 

material. These terms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions. 

cannot be associated/cannot be connected—these terms are too vague and may be interpreted as reflecting bias as 

they have no counterpart suggesting that the writer cannot be eliminated either. 

no identification—this expression could be understood to mean anything from a strong probability that the suspect 

wrote the questioned writing; to a complete elimination. It is not only confusing but also grammatically incorrect when 

used informally in sentences such as. “I no identified the writer” or “I made a no ident in this case.” 

inconclusive—this is commonly used synonymously with no conclusion when the examiner is at the zero point on the 

scale of confidence. A potential problem is that some people understand this term to mean something short of definite 

(or conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, and the examiner should be aware of this ambiguity. 

positive identification—This phrase is inappropriate because it seems to suggest that some identifications are more 

positive than others. 

[strong] reason to believe—there are too many definitions of believe and belief that lack certitude. It is more 

appropriate to testify to our conclusion (or determination or expert opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term in 

a report? 

qualified identification—An identification is not qualified. However, opinions may be qualified when the evidence 

falls short of an identification or elimination.