Why this project?
Questioned-document examination is one of the oldest forensic disciplines, yet the method is almost never made tangible. People see a signature and want a yes/no. The discipline, codified in standards like the Academy of Forensic Sciences' ANSI/ASB 070, is deliberately the opposite: a structured comparison against the full "range of writing" of a suspect, scored on a fixed rubric, culminating in an opinion with an explicit statement of strength. This project makes that hidden structure interactive so you can feel why "looks the same" is not a scientific answer.
What is it?
A forensic examination bench. Each case presents a questioned signature (Exhibit A) and a set of known exemplar signatures from the alleged writer. You zoom and pan over the specimens, then score each of the ten examiner's criteria as Consistent, Inconclusive, or Inconsistent, and finally render a formal written opinion (Identified / Same handwriting / Not the same hand / Inconclusive) with a strength rating. The report is typeset on paper like a real examiner's opinion.
How does it work?
Specimens are rendered on <canvas> from per-case stroke data (procedural, self-contained — no external images). Each case encodes a ground truth: some are genuine (the questioned signature shares the suspect's individual characteristics), some are forgeries or forgeries by a non-suspect, and some are inconclusive. The rubric mirrors the real literature:
- The 5S — Speed, Skill, Slant, Shading (pen pressure), Spacing.
- Class characteristics — general writing traits shared by a group.
- Individual characteristics — letterform construction, connecting strokes, embellishments/habitual hooks. These are the ones that actually drive an identification.
Your aggregate score across the ten criteria drives a tendency meter, and your final opinion + strength is written into a rendered report. The "strength" scale follows the standard 6-point forensic scale from Absolute (only for exact duplications) down to Weak.
How to use it
- 1. Pick a case file at the top — each is a different examination.
- 2. Study the questioned signature and each exemplar. Use the zoom buttons / scroll and drag to inspect letterforms. Toggle Align / Solo.
- 3. Expand each criterion and mark Consistent / Inconclusive / Inconsistent for how the questioned signature compares to the suspect's habits. Add short notes where useful.
- 4. Choose your opinion and its strength, and write your findings.
- 5. Hit Render opinion to typeset your formal report on paper, then compare your reasoning against the examiner's notes in the case brief.
Take it further