Abstract

Although the proposition had never been tested in any systematic way, many forensic document examiners have long assumed that all writing is “unique”—that “no two people write alike and no one person writes the same way twice.” A recent article by Sargur Srihari and his colleagues (1) reported a study which aimed to prove, for the first time, the truth of at least half of that proposition: that the writing of every person is distinguishable from that of every other person. Srihari et al. drew handwriting exemplars from 1568 individuals, a sample they sought to make representative of the U.S. population. The study comprised two major analyses, each involving about 700 writers. Computer algorithms were used to extract features from scanned images of the handwriting. Attributes of the handwriting were compared at different levels (document, paragraph, word, character) to try to distinguish writers from each other.

References

1.
Srihari
SN
,
Cha
S-H
,
Arora
H
,
Lee
S
.
Individuality of handwriting
.
J Forensic Sci
 0022-1198
2002
;
47
:
856
72
.
2.
Saks
MJ
,
Koehler
JJ
.
What DNA “Fingerprinting” can teach the law about the rest of forensic science
.
Cardozo Law Review
1991
;
13
: 361–72.
3.
Conway
JVP
.
The identification of handprinting
.
J Crim Law Criminology Police Sci
1955
;
45
:
605
12
.
4.
Harris
J
.
How much do people write alike: a study of signatures
.
J Crim Law Criminology
1958
;
48
:
647
51
.
5.
Sita
J
,
Found
B
,
Rogers
D
.
Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise forsignature comparison
.
J Forensic Sci
 0022-1198
2002
;
47
(
6
):
1117
24
.
6.
Kam
M
,
Fielding
G
,
Conn
R
.
Writer identification by professional document examiners
.
J Forensic Sci
 0022-1198
1997
;
42
(
5
):
778
86
.
7.
Tversky
A
,
Kahneman
D
.
Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases
.
Science
1974
;
185
:
1123
31
.
8.
Bodenhausen
GV
,
Lichtenstein
M
.
Social stereotypes and informationprocessing strategies: the impact of task complexity
.
J Personality Social Psych
1987
;
52
:
871
80
.
9.
Meehl
P
.
Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota Press
,
1954
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.