Many identification methods have developed over the history of forensic handwriting examination. Before the modern graphical comparison method emerged, various approaches to manuscript analysis were used, relying mainly on observation of the writing’s graphic features. The specialist literature identifies, among others, the calligraphic, signaletic and photographic-descriptive methods, which played an important role in the development of forensic handwriting examination (Całkiewicz, 2009).
Calligraphic method
The calligraphic method, also known as the calligraphic-comparative method, is considered the oldest approach to handwriting identification. It dates back to the Middle Ages, when document authenticity analysis primarily involved simple comparison of letter forms and writing characters (Całkiewicz, 2009).
At that time, examinations of this kind were carried out by so-called ‘expert writers’, who were in fact calligraphers or people highly skilled in writing. In more significant cases, special commissions were even appointed to assess manuscripts. The method focused almost exclusively on analysing letter forms, overlooking other important handwriting characteristics.
Over time, however, its serious limitations became apparent. An analysis based solely on the shape of characters did not account for deliberate imitation of handwriting or attempts to disguise one's own writing. For this reason, the calligraphic method is now considered insufficient as a standalone identification method and may only be used in a supporting role in certain examination situations (Całkiewicz, 2009).
The signaletic method
The next stage in the development of handwriting identification methods was the signaletic method, also known as the descriptive method. It represented significant methodological progress over the earlier approach by expanding the range of handwriting characteristics analysed (Całkiewicz, 2009).
Unlike the calligraphic method, which focused solely on letter forms, the signaletic method also considered other handwriting properties, such as:
- writing instrument pressure,
- the way letters are connected,
- writing movement dynamics,
- proportions of graphic characters,
- handwriting slant angle,
- the arrangement of letters and words within the text.
Using this method allowed a more comprehensive analysis of handwriting and the identification of less obvious characteristics, which often remain outside the control of a person imitating someone else's handwriting in a forgery. However, the literature emphasises that the method focused primarily on formal handwriting characteristics, so it is now regarded as a historical stage in the development of handwriting examination methods (Całkiewicz, 2009).
The photographic descriptive method
The photographic-descriptive method develops the signaletic method and documents examination results using photographs showing parts of the questioned material and reference material. This allows shared and distinguishing features of the manuscripts being analysed to be compared visually (Całkiewicz, 2009).
The introduction of photographic documentation was an important stage in the development of handwriting examination. Previously, findings were presented only in descriptive form, making the expert’s reasoning difficult for people without specialist knowledge to understand. Photographic illustrations made it possible to observe the handwriting features being analysed directly.
This method significantly improved the clarity of handwriting opinions because it allowed the procedural authority and parties to the proceedings to review illustrative material showing the expert’s reasoning for themselves. Photographic documentation remains an important element of handwriting examination opinions today (Całkiewicz, 2009).
References (APA 6)
Całkiewicz, A. (2009). Kryminalistyczne badania patologicznego pisma ręcznego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.