Type Writing

  The first row is photographic enlargements of individual keybar damage patterns from questioned document
The second row contains known samples collected from the suspect's outgoing correspondence file.
The third row is samples taken directly from the suspect's typewriter after repairs were made to conceal damage that was present earlier.
A positive identification was made using the individual damage such as the lower right serif of the "A" and the broken bowl of the "g".
We have the ability to identify the manufacturer and model of the machine which created the questioned typewritten text through our computerized database of over 3000 type fonts. This can be used for two main purposes. The first is to determine if the typing instrument was in existence when the document was allegedly prepared. The second is to narrow the range of possible suspects who could have prepared an anonymous letter or similar document.
Through the use of instrumentation, we are able to detect additions to a typewritten document that were made in a different typing insertion at a subsequent time.

CASE STUDY: The pictures labeled QD are letters from the questioned documents in this case; they are all the same between each of the four displays shown here. The questioned document was purportedly from 1987. The typefaces K-1 through K-10 show the typeface of documents created by a particular company in that time frame. The typefaces K-A through K-Z show the typeface of documents created by that same company in the middle to late 1990s. The two boards at the top of the page contain the dissimilarities between K-1 through K-10 typeface and the QD typeface. The two boards at the bottom of the page contain the similarities between K-A through K-Z typeface and the QD typeface. As the display boards show, the questioned document, which was supposedly from 1987, is similar to the more recent documents and dissimilar to the older 1987 documents. From this evidence, it was concluded that the questioned document is not actually from 1987. It is likely that it was produced much more recently than that.

Type Writing : Speckin Forensic Laboratories

Type Writing

  The first row is photographic enlargements of individual keybar damage patterns from questioned document
The second row contains known samples collected from the suspect's outgoing correspondence file.
The third row is samples taken directly from the suspect's typewriter after repairs were made to conceal damage that was present earlier.
A positive identification was made using the individual damage such as the lower right serif of the "A" and the broken bowl of the "g".
We have the ability to identify the manufacturer and model of the machine which created the questioned typewritten text through our computerized database of over 3000 type fonts. This can be used for two main purposes. The first is to determine if the typing instrument was in existence when the document was allegedly prepared. The second is to narrow the range of possible suspects who could have prepared an anonymous letter or similar document.
Through the use of instrumentation, we are able to detect additions to a typewritten document that were made in a different typing insertion at a subsequent time.

CASE STUDY: The pictures labeled QD are letters from the questioned documents in this case; they are all the same between each of the four displays shown here. The questioned document was purportedly from 1987. The typefaces K-1 through K-10 show the typeface of documents created by a particular company in that time frame. The typefaces K-A through K-Z show the typeface of documents created by that same company in the middle to late 1990s. The two boards at the top of the page contain the dissimilarities between K-1 through K-10 typeface and the QD typeface. The two boards at the bottom of the page contain the similarities between K-A through K-Z typeface and the QD typeface. As the display boards show, the questioned document, which was supposedly from 1987, is similar to the more recent documents and dissimilar to the older 1987 documents. From this evidence, it was concluded that the questioned document is not actually from 1987. It is likely that it was produced much more recently than that.