While it is a fact that the microscope and a knowledge of its uses is of the greatest importance in ascertaining the character of the signatures, when the question of their being forged or genuine is the object of the examination, it does not follow that because a person is learned in the use of the microscope in other fields of research that he is therefore qualified to become an expert in handwriting. A peculiar education made practically applicable by experience in this latter field of study is absolutely necessary to determine with accuracy what the microscope reveals, and its importance to give value to any conclusions reached by its use. The connection of effect with cause, and the determination of the latter as a matter of individualism cannot be accomplished merely from what is seen under the microscope. The examiner must by experience and education be fitted to ascertain from personal characteristics manifested in the writing of a signature necessitated their appearance as a matter of individuality.
From one of the best-known European experts on handwriting and who has figured conspicuously in important cases some interesting facts relative to this subject recently were learned. To the question, "What is the primary requisite for a conscientious opinion on the genuineness of any submitted handwriting?" this expert unhesitatingly replied, "An utter and entire absence of either feeling or prejudice. In other words, one should be perfectly dispassionate when engaged in such a work and use a first-class compound microscope."
To make his analysis the expert uses a microscope of great power, and by a strict and close attention to the subject-matter he can determine the exact means or methods employed in making the individual letters and the formation of the words and also the several inks that were used. Handwriting as defined by this expert is a mechanical operation pure and simple. Its general excellence or the reverse is largely dependent on the education which the hand has received. When a man sits down to write he mechanically reproduces on paper what is in his mind, and this may be said to be his natural handwriting. Should he stop to think even for a moment, not of what he is transferring to the paper but of the writing itself, he instantly ceases to write his natural hand, the transcription becoming only a copy or drawing from memory.
In the opinion of the expert, emphatically expressed, a person never writes twice exactly alike. This is stated to be the point around which all his subsequent developments revolve when examining a manuscript. Let several examples of the natural handwriting of an individual be compared. It is true that there will be a general similarity, but, as has been asserted, when placed in juxtaposition or subjected to a careful comparison under a microscope no two words or letters will be found to be alike. Thus it is not the similarity between two pieces of writing that would arouse suspicion with some experts, but rather the natural dissimilarity. Based on this point such experts occupy a distinct position by themselves, since other experts take what is called the positive side. With the first-named class, however, handwriting is a science of negatives. A good microscope will always be found a good detective in determining the genuineness of handwriting.
By way of illustrating one method of forgery interesting material which had played an important part in a court case was carefully examined. It consisted of five or six graded photographic enlargements of the duplicate signature which were carefully examined with the aid of a microscope. The original had been made by an elderly person and the forger had used the tracing process. To the naked eye it appeared to be a capital copy; in fact, it seemed to bear every semblance of being genuine. In the first enlargement of several diameters certain inaccuracies of tracing could be discerned, only, however, after attention had been called to them by an expert. In the next enlargement these same errors were more apparent, and so on through the series. The largest photograph was magnified several hundred diameters greater than the original and stretched across quite an area of paper. From an examination of this largest one with a microscope it was evident that the forger first had traced his copy with pencil, afterward going over it with ink, but so irregularly had his pen followed the pencil lines that in certain portions of this enlargement there was room for a man's fist between the first tracing and its inky covering.
In trying to detect forged handwriting every letter of the alphabet, wherever written, may be examined with a microscope for the following characteristics: Size, shading, position relative to the horizontal line, inclination relative to the vertical line, sharpness of the curves and angles, proportion and relative position of the different parts, and elaboration or extension of the extremities. In scarcely one of these particulars can a man make two letters so much alike that they cannot be distinguished by microscopical examination.
Although a great deal can be determined in a general way by close observation with the naked eye, it is always best to employ some magnifying power—usually an ordinary hand lens or pocket magnifier will suffice—but the writer has found it better to use a microscope objective of low power (four or five diameters), which is provided with an easily slipping sleeve, terminating in a diaphragm which cuts out the light entering the outside rim of the lens. This sleeve may be pushed out for one or two centimeters, and the particular spot under examination isolated from the adjacent parts without undue magnification. It is one of the popular fallacies that a high magnifying power is desirable in all cases of difficulty, but usually the reverse is the case in questions of handwriting.
Experts have sometimes impressed the jury with the fact that they had employed on some thick and opaque document, powers of several hundred diameters without the lately applied illumination from the side, reflected by a glass plate, introduced obliquely into the tube of the microscope. Without such aid no microscopist need be told that the light would be wanting to illuminate the field under these circumstances. The best authorities prescribe a magnifying power of not more than ten diameters for ordinary observation. For special purposes higher powers are sometimes useful. An ocular examination of the ink in the various parts of a written paper, document or instrument of any kind will generally decide whether it is the same.
SIGNATURE EXPERTS THE SAFETY OF THE MODERN BANK