Is there an actual science to signature matching?

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect your handwriting has some consistent traits, i.e.- pressure points,, curves, slants, and spatiality. Right?

I just specifically said that stuff is not consistent and greatly depends on my mood and how many times I have to sign my name. Just as it is with everyone. Our signatures and hand writing are not entirely consistent and to have a tendency for much variation. Hand writing analysis/graphology is total rubbish and pseudoscience, not science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is considered juridically reliable. In court.
Otherwise it would be easy to falsify testaments and any written act having juridical value.

We accept polygraph tests despite those being total bs and not being reliable for their intended purpose.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know if a forger can be that proficient. Those who get fooled are not Forensic experts, like the bank people in India, perhaps sometimes intentionally. But they have insurance cover.

I suppose it depends on the experience and skill of both the forger and the analyst, but I would still suggest that more evidence should be necessary to convict someone, not just the word of a handwriting analyst.

 

[Stevicus]

We accept polygraph tests despite those being total bs and not being reliable for their intended purpose.

I thought polygraph tests were inadmissible in court.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought polygraph tests were inadmissible in court.

Most states still do, last I knew.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I thought polygraph tests were inadmissible in court.

Yeah, they are inadmissible in India.

.. but I would still suggest that more evidence should be necessary to convict someone, not just the word of a handwriting analyst.

True. Just signature analysis would not be enough.

 

[Heyo]

I just specifically said that stuff is not consistent and greatly depends on my mood and how many times I have to sign my name. Just as it is with everyone. Our signatures and hand writing are not entirely consistent and to have a tendency for much variation. Hand writing analysis/graphology is total rubbish and pseudoscience, not science.

It may be that the ignorance of the reliability is enough to keep people from misusing it but I'd expect many more court cases were people deny to have signed a contract. The signed contract has been the gold standard for proof of agreement for centuries. If it weren't accepted, we'd be signing with thumb prints.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It may be that the ignorance of the reliability is enough to keep people from misusing it but I'd expect many more court cases were people deny to have signed a contract. The signed contract has been the gold standard for proof of agreement for centuries. If it weren't accepted, we'd be signing with thumb prints.

That is an excellent point. If we expected hand writing analysis to be worth the paper the claims are printed on, we should see some cases where exactly that thing has happened, with perpetrators deliberately signing their name differently to claim it wasn't actually their signature.
But I'm not aware of any court that would accept such a claim without some exceptionally good evidence to support such a claim.

 

[Suave]

Easy to fake.
Easy to get wrong.
Ever see graphology used in court?
It's little better than phrenology.

That is an excellent point. If we expected hand writing analysis to be worth the paper the claims are printed on, we should see some cases where exactly that thing has happened, with perpetrators deliberately signing their name differently to claim it wasn't actually their signature.
But I'm not aware of any court that would accept such a claim without some exceptionally good evidence to support such a claim.

Perhaps we can agree the addition of computerized handwriting analysis systems to the process, including the FISH (Forensic Information System for Handwriting) system, which allows examiners to scan in handwritten documents and digitize the comparison process, may speed up the process of general acceptance of handwriting analysis as a science and as expert evidence in court.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps we can agree the addition of computerized handwriting analysis systems to the process, including the FISH (Forensic Information System for Handwriting) system, which allows examiners to scan in handwritten documents and digitize the comparison process, may speed up the process of general acceptance of handwriting analysis as a science and as expert evidence in court.

There is no science to be accepted. Hand writing analysis is not science. It is pseudoscience, no better than palmistry, Meyers-Briggs, phrenology, or astrology. It is a heresy to justice, science, and a dedication to evidence for this nonsense to be accepted as valid in a court of law.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In my precinct you sign in to get a ballot. There is no attempt to match signatures. Would these people even be qualified to match signatures? Perhaps if they have a question, they might ask you for ID.

 

[Valjean]

I'd be for the bill if I lived in Arizona. I'd want to know if my ballot got rejected and I'd want to know how many ballots get rejected, where and by whom. I'd want this to be investigated. Rejecting ballots by signature mismatch may be the biggest voter fraud (voters getting frauded) there is.

Oh, there are bigger ones....

 

[Valjean]

I thought polygraph tests were inadmissible in court.

The police sometimes use them in interrogation to rule suspects out or in, so they can narrow their investigative focus. Not admissible as evidence in court, though, and needs consent of the subject.

 

[Martin]

My signature has morphed and simplified over the years, and is now just a small squiggle which bears no resemblance to my actual name.
So I'm just "making my mark".
It's all nonsense really, particularly in an age of photo ID and pass codes. I rarely sign for anything these days.

 

[Martin]

I suspect your handwriting has some consistent traits, i.e.- pressure points,, curves, slants, and spatiality. Right?

But who writes regularly these days?

 

[Wandering Monk]

But who writes regularly these days?

and how the hell would election works be qualified to make the judgment about signatures?

 

[Valjean]

and how the hell would election works be qualified to make the judgment about signatures?

What motivation would impel a voter to attempt such high risk, low reward crime?

 

[Revoltingest]

What motivation would impel a voter to attempt such high risk, low reward crime?

Political fanaticism.
But it's extremely rare <snicker>.