Understanding Handwriting Comparison: Addressing Objections
Jeffery’s Objection
Peter Jeffery critiques Anastasopoulou’s comparison between the handwriting in Clement’s Letter to Theodore and Morton Smith’s Greek handwriting, arguing that it amounts to an "apples-to-oranges" comparison due to the stylistic differences between eighteenth-century cursive script and Smith’s predominantly block-lettered Greek script. However, from the perspective of handwriting comparison theory, Anastasopoulou’s approach is justified. According to this theory, handwriting analysts assess idiographic characteristics—distinctive personal traits—in the handwriting samples they examine. Even across different scripts or languages, these idiographic features remain identifiable and crucial for determining authorship or authenticity.
Tselikas’s Observation
Agamemnon Tselikas raises the valid point that a forger would likely attempt to avoid using their own personal handwriting style when producing a forgery. However, as emphasized in handwriting comparison theory, deeply ingrained and unconscious aspects of handwriting are difficult to fully suppress. These idiosyncratic traits often manifest themselves subtly throughout a text, providing forensic document examiners with clues that can indicate whether a document is genuine or forged.
Theory of Handwriting Comparison
The theory of handwriting comparison posits that every individual develops an internalized model hand—a personalized execution of handwriting that incorporates unique quirks and nuances. These idiographic features are consistent across different writing samples by the same individual, regardless of the script or language used. Forensic document examiners leverage these features to distinguish between genuine variations in handwriting and deliberate attempts at imitation or forgery.
Application to Clement’s Letter to Theodore
In the case of Clement’s Letter to Theodore, Anastasopoulou’s analysis underscores the importance of identifying these idiographic features. Her assessment suggests that if Morton Smith were indeed the author, elements of his Greek handwriting style would subtly appear in the cursive script of the letter, despite the stylistic differences. This nuanced approach acknowledges the continuity of personal handwriting traits across diverse writing contexts, providing valuable insights into the authenticity of historical documents.
Conclusion
The objections raised by Jeffery and Tselikas regarding Anastasopoulou’s comparison highlight the nuanced nature of handwriting analysis in forensic document examination. By focusing on idiographic characteristics and understanding the theory behind handwriting comparison, forensic document examiners can effectively evaluate handwriting evidence to determine authorship and authenticity.
For further reading on this topic, including detailed studies and methodologies in handwriting analysis, refer to Paananen and Viklund’s comprehensive paper here: Handwriting Analysis in Forensic Document Examination
This blog post provides insights into the theory of handwriting comparison and addresses scholarly objections within the context of forensic document examination, emphasizing the importance of idiographic characteristics in evaluating handwriting evidence.
Comments
Post a Comment