CLPEX Chat Board

5. Reporting Conclusions
The following criteria should be met in order to reach the appropriate conclusion:
5.1. Identification
5.1.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains substantial significant similarities;
5.1.2. There are no significant dissimilarities; and
5.1.3. No limitations associated with absent characters, dissimilarities, and/or quantity of writing are present.
5.2. Highly Probable Did Write
5.2.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains substantial significant similarities;
5.2.2. There are no significant dissimilarities; and
5.2.3. Limitations associated with absent characters, dissimilarities, and/or quantity of writing are present.
5.3. Probably Did Write
5.3.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains some significant similarities;
5.3.2. There are no significant dissimilarities; and
5.3.3. Limitations associated with absent characters, dissimilarities, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing may be present.
5.4. Indications Did Write
5.4.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains few significant similarities;
5.4.2. There are no significant dissimilarities; and
5.4.3. Limitations associated with absent characters, dissimilarities, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing may be present.
5.5. No Conclusion
5.5.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains insufficient significant similarities and insufficient significant dissimilarities; and
5.5.2. Limitations associated with absent characters, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing may be present.
5.5.3. There may be similarities and/or dissimilarities.
5.6. Indications Did Not Write
5.6.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains few significant dissimilarities; and
5.6.2. Limitations associated with absent characters, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing may be present.
5.6.3. There may be similarities.
5.7. Probably Did Not Write
5.7.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains some significant dissimilarities; and
5.7.2. Limitations associated with absent characters, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing may be present.
5.7.3. There may be similarities.
5.8. Highly Probable Did Not Write
5.8.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains substantial significant dissimilarities; and
5.8.2. Limitations associated with absent characters, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing are present.
5.8.3. There may be similarities.
5.9. Elimination
5.9.1. The range of variation exhibited in the questioned writing and in the known writing contains substantial significant dissimilarities; and
5.9.2. No limitations associated with absent characters, identifying characteristics, and/or quantity of writing are present.
5.9.3. There may be absent characters.
5.9.4. There may be similarities.

Identification: A definite conclusion that two or more handwritten items were written by the same person.
Identifying Characteristics: Marks or properties that serve to individualize writing (e.g., formations, relative sizes and heights of letters).

AFTE Procedures Manual – Appendix 1 Range of Conclusions
The following information is provided for your review and consideration. IT IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO MANDATE COMPLIANCE OR SUPER CEDE THE EXAMINERS LABORATORY’S STANDARDS
1.0 Firearms
1.1 Identification
1.1.1 The fired evidence in question was fired with the suspect firearm.
1.1.2 The fired evidence in question was fired from the same firearm, firearm not received.
1.2 Elimination
1.2.1 The fired evidence in question was not fired with the suspect firearm.
1.2.2 The fired evidence in question was not fired from the same firearm, firearm not received.
1.2.3 The discipline recognizes that an elimination of a firearm by other than class characteristics is possible but that such an elimination is an exceptional situation.
1.2.4 The discipline does not consider the routine comparison of test shots to the open case file to normally constitute an exceptional situation.
1.2.5 If an examiner arrives at an opinion where he/she eliminates a firearm, for any reason, the examiner must substantiate the reasons supporting his/her opinion and incorporate them into his/her work notes.
1.3 Inconclusive
1.3.1 The fired evidence in question cannot be identified or eliminated as having been fired with the suspect firearm.
1.3.2 The fired evidence in question cannot be identified or eliminated as having been fired with the same firearm, firearm not submitted.
1.4 Unsuitable
1.4.1 The fired evidence in question is not suitable for comparison purposes.
1.5 Unidentifiable
1.5.1 The evidence in question cannot be identified as being fired evidence.
2.0 Toolmarks
2.2 Identification
2.2.1 The toolmark evidence in question was made with the suspect tool.
2.2.2 The toolmark evidence in question was made with the same tool, tool not received.
2.3 Elimination
2.3.1 The toolmark evidence in question was not made with the suspect tool.
2.3.2 The toolmark evidence in question was not made with the same tool, tool not received.
2.3.3 The discipline recognizes that an elimination of a toolmark by other than class characteristics is possible but that such an elimination is an exceptional situation.
2.4 Inconclusive
2.4.1 The toolmark evidence in question cannot be identified or eliminated as having been made with the suspect tool.
2.4.2 The toolmark evidence in question cannot be identified or eliminated as having been made with the same tool, tool not submitted.
2.5 Unsuitable
2.5.1 The toolmark evidence in question is not suitable for comparison purposes.
2.6 Unidentifiable
2.6.1 The evidence in question cannot be identified as being a toolmark.

Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Footwear and Tire Impression Examinations
1. Scope
1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic footwear and tire examiners in expressing conclusions based on their examinations.

2. Terminology
2.1 Identification (definite conclusion of identity) – this is the highest degree of association expressed in footwear and tire impression examinations. This opinion means that the particular shoe or tire made the impression to the exclusion of all other shoes or tires.

Example –The Q1 questioned impression was made by the K1 known left shoe.
2.2 Probably made (very high degree of association) – this opinion means that the evidence is very persuasive that the shoe or tire made the impression, yet some critical feature or quality is lacking and/or missing so that an identification is not in order.

Example – The Q1 questioned impression corresponds in physical size, design, general wear, and some individual characteristics with the K1 known left shoe and was probably made by this shoe.
2.3 Could have made (significant association of multiple class characteristics) – this opinion means that the design and physical size correspond, and there may also be some correspondence of the general condition of wear.

Example – The Q1 questioned impression corresponds in design, physical size, and general condition of wear with the K1 left shoe and could have been made by that shoe or another shoe with the same characteristics.
2.4 Inconclusive (limited association of some characteristics) – this opinion means some similarities are noted; however, there are significant limiting factors in the questioned impression that do not permit a specific association between the questioned impression and the known shoe or tire.

SWGTREAD 1 of 3 Terminology for Expressing Conclusions Final 3/2006 of Footwear and Tire Impression Exams
Example – The Q1 questioned impression shares similar design features with the K1 left known shoe; however, due to the lack of sufficient detail and/or proper scale, a more conclusive association was not made.
2.5 Probably did not make (very high degree of non-association) – this opinion means that the evidence is very persuasive that the shoe or tire did not make the impression, but the impression lacks sufficient quality or clarity for an elimination.

Example 1 – The Q1 questioned impression probably was not made by the K1 left shoe. The Q1 impression appears to exhibit some dissimilarities, however, certain details or features are not sufficiently clear to permit an elimination.
Example 2 - Although the Q1 questioned impression shares general design features with the K1 left shoe, some possible dissimilarities were noted which would indicate that this impression probably was not made by the K1 left shoe.
2.6 Elimination (definite exclusion) – this is the highest degree of non association expressed in footwear and tire impression examinations. This opinion means that the particular shoe or tire did not make the impression.

Example – The Q1 questioned impression was not made by the K1 known left shoe.
2.7 Unsuitable (lacks sufficient detail for a meaningful comparison) – this opinion means that insufficient detail was present in the questioned impression to enable any meaningful comparison with any known shoe or tire.

2.8 Discouraged expressions Several expressions occasionally used by examiners are troublesome because their meaning may be unclear, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. The use of other terms is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused. These expressions include:

Consistent with - used as a conclusion. This terminology is appropriate when used to describe a similarity of characteristics.
Match / No Match
Responsible for / Not responsible for
Done by / Not done by
Caused with / Not caused with
SWGTREAD 2 of 3 Terminology for Expressing Conclusions Final 3/2006 of Footwear and Tire Impression Exams
3. Significance and Use
3.1 We, as examiners, must agree on and limit the terminology we use in expressing our opinions regarding the evidence to terms that are readily understandable to other footwear and tire examiners as well as to those who use our services such as investigators, attorneys, judges, and jury members.
3.2 The “Examples” used in Section 2 should not be regarded as the only ways to express opinions in reports and testimony. In following any guideline, 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.

I) Forensic DNA testing is the identification and evaluation of biological evidence in criminal matters using DNA technologies.