You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    Volume 48, Issue 4 (July 2003)

    Authors' Response

    Published Online: 2003


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (16K) 2 $25   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    In response to Professor Saks’s critique we first wish to provide some background to our work. Numerous challenges have been made in the courts against presenting expert forensic testimony on the grounds of whether the particular modality of forensic evidence has a scientific basis (1). Our research group has been engaged, for over two decades, in the domain of processing handwriting by computer (2). Both the legal debate and our research experience motivated us to undertake computer-based studies of handwriting individuality. Having worked with millions of samples of handwriting encountered by postal services we were familiar with the automatic analysis of computerscanned handwriting. We had explored how to take advantage of the individual characteristics of a writer in deciphering an address but had not done, prior to the work reported in Ref (3), a study of whether handwriting was individual.

    Stock #: JFS2003022


    DOI: 10.1520/JFS2003022

    Title Authors' Response
    Symposium ,
    Committee E30