Signature Examination in a Major Crime | Forensic Evidence Contradicts Witness
During a major crime investigation, the prosecution established a motive which involved the forging of two signatures (of two different people) on an official document. A family member of those involved, in a genuine belief that this was the case, confirmed that the two signatures were forged.
Within weeks of the trial, our services were engaged to examine the signatures.
A forensic examination was conducted resulting in an opinion that not only was one of the signatures legitimate, but there was evidence to support that the writer of the legitimate signature was responsible for forging the second signature. This was contrary to the prosecution case.
Our evidence was presented and described in detail to the judge and jury at trial. It was ultimately accepted by both the prosecution and defence that the signatures were created in line with our examination results.
This circumstance is not uncommon, the early assumption of something occurring (in this case, the initial acceptance that the signatures were forgeries) can lead to reasonable evidence being built around that assumed event. If the initial assumption is incorrect, this will have an impact on the evidence overall.
Our examinations are impartial, as shown in this case where they were the opposite of that anticipated. The fact that our evidence was contrary to the prosecution belief in the lead up to the trial was in no way a negative outcome. All of the evidence was presented in a thorough and descriptive way, assisting the judge and jury in the decision that needed to be made.
The accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.