The fact that a signature genuinely belongs to a particular person does not always mean that the document bearing that signature was validly or knowingly signed by that person.
This distinction can be particularly important in cases involving documents signed under deception. A person may genuinely place their own signature on a document while believing that they are signing something entirely different.
I would like to illustrate this distinction with a real case I encountered during my time working in a forensic laboratory.
A $10 Million Check
During my time working as a forensic document examiner in a forensic laboratory, a $10 million check was submitted to me for examination. The question was whether the signature on the check genuinely belonged to the person whose name appeared as the signatory.
Before the case reached me, the businessman had submitted the check for examination to four different experts or institutions, at different times and on separate occasions. Each time, after the previous examination concluded that the signature was genuine, he sought another expert opinion because he continued to maintain that the signature was not his and that he had never signed the check.
Ultimately, all four examinations reached the same conclusion: the signature was genuine and had been written by the businessman himself.
However, the businessman strongly disputed these conclusions. He maintained that the signature was not his and that he had never signed the check.
We therefore began our examination.
As a matter of principle and methodology, the examination of such documents involves more than simply comparing a questioned signature with known signatures. Both the handwriting and signature characteristics are examined, while the document itself is also assessed for possible alterations, additions or other forms of manipulation.
Our comparative examination confirmed that the signature on the check was indeed genuine. It had been written by the businessman himself.
However, our examination of the document for possible manipulation revealed physical findings that had not been identified in the four previous expert examinations.
I will not go into the technical details of those findings here. However, the evidence led to a very different understanding of what had happened.
The physical evidence indicated that the check had been concealed beneath another document—apparently a document associated with a delivery transaction—and that the businessman had been induced to sign the check while believing that he was signing the other document.
In other words, the signature itself was genuine.
What was not genuine was the circumstances under which the signature had been obtained.
The businessman believed that he was signing a document relating to a delivery transaction. In reality, his signature had been placed on a $10 million check.
This distinction was crucial.
The previous four examinations had correctly established that the signature belonged to the businessman. However, they had not identified the physical evidence indicating that the signature had been obtained through deception.
Fortunately, our examination brought those findings to light.
The businessman had spent years seeking expert examinations in an effort to establish what had actually happened. Unfortunately, four different examinations had failed to identify the evidence indicating that the document had been signed under deceptive circumstances.
In forensic document examination, therefore, examining the signature alone may not always be sufficient. The document as a whole, including its physical characteristics and any indications of alteration or manipulation, may provide essential evidence about how the document was created and signed.