Superior document examination of various types of forgeries

The most common document forgeries are committed within the signature. Handwriting is my specialty of expertise. My case history includes discovery of self disguised forgery, distorted age forgery, cut and paste forgery, tape forgery, texture distortion, alteration forgery, typewriter forgery, and freehand forgeries.

To show you my exceptional skills, I've prepared samples from some of the cases I've worked on.

Is this a freehand forgery or self disguised?

Here's a case where the client claimed he didn't sign the Qdoc [questioned document] below. A "cut out" of his signatures are displayed in the second sample below. Let's see how I solved this case.

The above case seems simple enough, doesn't it? The capital "J" matches in form, orientation, and movement, but none of the other letters do. The problem is this one letter is easy enough to replicate by a freehand with practice.

Although the rest of the signature is a poor replication, using slow writing, it doesn't prove it was a freehand forgery. Maybe, Johnny himself attempted to disguise his own signature. Which one is it?

The answer is in trait 3, the very inconspicuous and highly individualized, unique "underhand" lead in hook. This is a case of self disguised forgery.

Is this document authentic or an example of "cut and paste" forgery?

Here's a unique case where the signer of the document [Q102] below claims he didn't sign it. His authentic signature is shown in the second sample below [K102]. Let's see what I came up with.

There's no doubt that the signatures are a perfect match. In fact, would you believe it's too perfect? Like a snowflake, no two signatures are exactly alike, neither are these. I performed a "backlighting test", superimposing both signatures one on top of the other.

The results were puzzling. They were exactly the same except the length of the signature in Q102 was longer. Cute. Very cute. When two signatures are exactly the same, then one has been used as a "model" for the other. In this case, Q102 was "cut and paste" from K102, evidenced by the thickening of line quality in Q102.

To hide the "model signature" from detection, the forger took the signature and using computer graphics simply stretched the signature out! Sample Q103 is my own "test sample" of replicating the forgery. [In addition to proving a document has been forged, I often will duplicate the process.]

"Cut and paste" is one of the most common types of forgeries. However, it's rare to come across the original "model signature" the "cut" came from. This case also had the "twist" with the forger "stretching" the "model".

Is this document authentic or an example of "tape" forgery?

Here's another unique case. John Henry claims he didn't sign the document [Q101] below. Compare John Henry's known signature on the second sample below [K104]. Now examine Q101 again. Notice anything unusual?

As you can see by "John" in Q104 above, the lower zone of the capital "J" has been broken off in such a manner that it wasn't a disfunction of the pen. White dots inside the downstroke are of vital imporatance. Line quality varies between smooth, quick writing and "touched up" portions.

In the lower case "t" above, pay special attention to the guideline. Notice how on the right hand side it is "split" and the thickness under the "t" is "doubled".

What does all this mean? Simple. All the aforementioned evidence proves that this was a case of "taped" forgery. The forger uses tape to "lift" John Henry's signature off a document and transfer it onto the Qdoc.

However, portions of the "lift" don't come off cleanly, leaving the broken lower zone loop of the "J", the need to "touch up" letters like the upper zone loop of the "h" in "John" and "double" guidelines.

"Tape" forgery is a rare choice for forgers; obviously, from it's innate problems shown above.