Create a Profile

In this activity, we (each group) were given a set of three to five clues, and had to create a profile, or possible story, for the crime based on the evidence.The evidence provided ranged from a variety of different prints to hairs and fibers to a torn up letter. For my group, we were assigned the 3rd set of clues. This contained two fingerprints(one identified, one unidentified), a small footprint,. hair and a torn letter. We used then concluded these evidences into a story.

In Class Activity: Crime Scene Analysis

In this activity, we (each group) was assigned a miniature crime scene. My group was assigned crime scene #1, where there were  11 evidences, and the body was found at the edge of a wooded area, near a small pond.
Evidence 1: torn leter
Evidence 2: Hair
Evidence 3: Fingerprint
Evidence 4: Possible poison
Evidence 5: Maggots
Evidence 6: Decaying face
Evidence 7: Footprint walking away from crime scene & victim's fooprint
Evidence 8: Fingerprint needed to be lifted off of glass
Evidence 9: Additional fingerprint
Evidence 10: Possible fiber
Evidence 11: Syringe

For the first clue, once the letter was reconstructed, we found it was a (possibly forged) suicide note. The cursive flowed with small gaps between the words,. did not have a slant, the words were directly on top of the line, the writer applied a great amount of pen pressure, letters such as the lowercase 'l' had big loops, and the dot for the 'i' was placed over the next letter.
For the next clue, through microscopic analysis, we proved the hair as Caucasian.
Next, clue #3, the fingerprint was identified as a plain arch.
Clue #4 was not any poison  or drug we know how to identify, so it remained unidentified.
Clue #5 and #6 proved that the body was in the Active decay stage, which is then sub-categorized as Butyric fermentation, which is 20 to 50 days after death and/or disposal.
For the seventh clue, the victim footprint had a height of 6 7/8", width of 4" and looked like an athletic shoe of a child. The suspect's footprint height was 11", width 4", and it was an athletic shoe.
Next, the 8th clue was a fingerprint needing to be lifted. We successfully lifted it to find it was an ulnar loop.
Continuing, the 9th clue, the additional fingerprint, was proved to be a double loop.
The unknown fabric, clue #10, was nylon. we proved this with microscopic analysis.
Lastly, clue #11 was the syringe, most likely used to poison the victim with the unknown poison.

Crime Story:

Lucas Moore got into a heated argument with his wife about their child and stormed out of their house. His wife filed for divorce, which drove Lucas into insanity. He was instituted to a mental asylum, where he built up anger over his child, which he blamed for the divorce. He escaped after a year of captivity, and planning how to kill his child. He located the residence of his ex-wife and child and left the forged note on the kitchen table. He later stalked his child down, who was on his way to school, taking a short-cut through the woods. Lucas tried to poison his child, but his son fought back, not recognizing his child after his year in the asylum. Lucas accidentally killed his son before he had planned to, so he fled the scene. 

In Class Activity: Witness Experiment

In class, each group was given a stack of magazines and we had to cut faces of about the same size out of them. Then, we cut out the major facial features, such as forehead, hair, nose, eyes, cheeks, mouth and chin.In our group, me mixed each others features together into their corresponding piles. After this, we then tried to recreate each person's cut-out, based on memorization.once we got the correct face, we repeated the process for another person's cut-out. This activity helped us realize how important a witnesses memorization is when it comes to finding the suspect.

In Class Activity: Poison Analysis

For this activity, different stations were set up that contained a variety of possible poisons. At each station, there were three different samples of potential poisons that we (our group) had to identify by using various methods such as pH testing and reagent testing. Ammonia, aspirin, cyanide, iodine, and metal poison are some of the various poisons that we were able to identify in the lab.  We were also able to use the methods learned in our lab in the crime scene activity done in a later class.

In Class Activity: Lipstick

In this activity, all(including the boys) of the students were required to put on lipstick, leave our lip print on an index card, and examine the properties of lips.During examination, we recorded different properties that were visible on our lips. Then later we (our individual group) allowed another group to compare our lip prints to their prints on their index cards and matched them together. This lab exemplified the use of looking at the characteristics of things left behind at a crime scene (such as lip prints), observing them and then recording them in order to find the possible suspects.

In Class Activity: Drug Analysis

For this lab, we were given various simulated drug sample that resembled real drugs and were required to properly identify and label them according to the test. First, we were given “drugs” and was told to dilute them to the point where the substance was mostly dissolved in the mixture. Then we took a small sample of the dilute, tested it with pH paper, and recorded the pH and the color that it displayed. Then we used both LSD and Cocaine reagent that would display a color if the substance was positive for the reagent. For example, the Cocaine reagent would turn blue if the mixture was positive for "Cocaine" and would remain colorless if it was negative. With the LSD, the mixture would turn yellow if the presences of "LSD" were apparent. Out of the six tested substances, three were positive of "Cocaine", two were positive for "LSD" and the last one did not contain either. This lab provided us with the knowledge needed to understand how to test and verify substances as being positive or negative for drugs.
In the picture, the given dilute is positive for "Cocaine", so the indicator turned blue:

In Class Activity: Footprinting

In this activity, we left a footprint in a tub of soil provided and observed the characteristics of our impression. Almost like real forensic analysts, we recorded  crime scene data such as weather information, time, date, location, and direction of the footprint. Then we also recorded properties of the print such as the length and width of the shoe impression, as well as any visible characteristics such as the ridges or flatness. We were soon able to determine the gender and size of the person leaving the print due to the depth of the imprint. For example, males generally leave a deeper print because of their size and have a larger print because they usually have larger feet than women. Also, men and women tend to wear different shoes, for instance, some men wear boots and some women wear heels.With this lab we were able to visualize and apply the techniques used by real crime scene investigators in recording and narrowing the possible suspects by foot impressions that they could have left at a crime scene. 

History of Handwriting Analysis

Prospero Aldorisio's 1611 manuscript is probably the first book to describe how to analyze handwriting. The major contender is Camilo Baldi's manuscript which was unofficially published in 1622. The 1625 edition was probably the first authorized edition of Baldi's book.

Around 1830 Abba Michon became interested in handwriting analysis. He published his findings shortly after founding Sociate Graphologique in 1871. The most prominent of his disciples was J. Crapieux-Jamin who rapidly published a series of books that were soon published in other languages. Starting from Michon's integrative approach, Crapieux-Jamin ended up with a holistic approach to graphology.

J. Crapieux-Jamin

Alfred Binet was convinced to do research into graphology from 1893 to 1907. He ended up calling it "The science of the future", despite graphologists' rejecting the results of his research.


After World War I, interest in graphology continued to spread in Europe as well as the United States. In Germany during the 1920s, Ludwig Klages founded and published his finding in Zeitschrift fur Menschenkunde (Journal for the Study of Mankind). His major contribution to the field can be found in Handschrift und Charakter.

 Ludwig Klages

Thea Stein Lewinson and J. Zubin modified Klage's ideas, based upon their experience working for the U.S. Government, publishing their method in 1942. 

In 1929 Milton Bunker founded The American Grapho Analysis Society teaching Graphoanalysis. This organization and its system split the American graphology world in two. Students had to choose between Graphoanalysis or Holistic Graphology. Whilst hard data is lacking, anecdotal evidence indicates that 10% of the members of International Graphoanalysis Society(IGAS) were expelled between 1970 and 1980 ^[36]. By the time Peter Ferrera died in 1991, the decimation of IGAS members had resulted in a decline of the influence of Graphoanalysis, and IGAS on American graphology.

 Milton Bunker

Klara G. Roman was the most prominent of the German refugee scholars. Her books are still considered to be foundations for contemporary American Holistic graphology. She taught at the New School for Social Research in New York, and was succeeded there by Daniel S. Anthony and Florence Anthony.

 Klara G. Roman's book on handwriting

Handwriting Workshops Unlimited was organized by Charlie Cole as a series of lectures for advanced students of Graphoanalysis. These lectures featured holistic graphologists such as Thea Lewinson and Klara Roman. By 1960 all of the participants had been expelled by IGAS. These individuals went on to form the American Handwriting Analysis Foundation. Later mass expulsions of IGAS members led to the formation of other societies, such as the American Association of Handwriting Analysts that were orientated towards Holistic graphology.


In 1972 talks between the American Handwriting Analysis Foundation and the American Association of Handwriting Analysis started, with the aim to form a single organization. Those talks resulted in the creation of the Council of Graphological Societies in 1976.

 Logo of the Council of Graphological Societies

Since the rise of the Internet in the early 1990s, the graphology organizations have suffered major declines in membership. However, due to email lists, communication between graphologists representing different approaches has increased.

Twelve Basics Characteristics of Handwriting

Experts usually examine the following characteristics when examing handwriting samples:
1. Line quality: Do the letters flow or are they written with very intent strokes?
2. Spacing of words and letters: What is the average space between words and letters?
3. Ratio of height, width, and size of letters: Are the letters consistent in height, width, and size?
4. Lifting pen: Does the author lift his or her pen to stop writing a word and start a new word?
5. Connecting strokes: How are capital letters connected to lower-case letters?
6. Strokes to begin and end: Where does the letter begin and end on a page?
7. Unusual letter formation: Are any letters written with unusual slants or angles? Are some letters printed rather than written in cursive?
8. Pen pressure: How much pen pressure is applied on upward and downward strokes?
9. Slant: Do letters slant to the left or right? If slant is pronounced, a protractor may be used to determine the deegree of slant.
10. Baseline habitys: Does the author write on the line or does the writing go above or below the line?
11. Fancy writing habits: Are there any unusual curls or loops or unique styles?
12. Placement of diacritics: How does the author cross the t's or dot the i's?

Hand Writing Template

In handwriting forgery, there are two ways of forging someone's handwriting: free handing and tracing. With free handing, the forger spends time learning and practicing the signature. They begin to develop the signature and soon their replication becomes very similar if not exactly the same signature that they are trying reproduce. However, the other method, tracing, involves less learning and/or skill because the forger is just merely writing over the original print. Unlike the learning aspect of free handing, tracing is an inaccurate method due to untraceable handwriting characteristics such as line quality, words spacing, and slant that have more noticeable differences because of the forger’s persistence on recreating the exact same signature or writing. With free hand, the forger has learned and practiced the signature and its second nature to them. Overall, free handing is a better method of forgery than tracing due to the learning process, time, and dedication involved with free handing.

Check Forgery Activity

One of the forensics activities done in class was an lab involving handwriting. Blank checks were printed for each student to fill out and sign under their alias. Each person was to fill out the check as if they normally would, then rip the checks into pieces, and place them separately into an envelope provided. The envelopes were given anonymously between each member and the checks were reconstructed. The handwriting on the checks identified the group member who wrote the check by comparing the known characteristics over each member to the characteristics seen on each check. Characteristics such as slant, spacing of words, and connecting strokes were all factors in indentifying the group member who created the check. 

Famous Forgery Case

Early in 1972 a Federal Grand Jury heard the testimony of a Questioned Document Examiner from the Crime Laboratory of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service regarding questioned documents allegedly written by Howard R. Hughes. In these documents permission was granted for a biography of Mr. Hughes to be written by Clifford Irving. Mr. Irving had used these questioned documents to convince the editors of McGraw-Hill Book Co. and Life Magazine that he had a deal with Mr. Hughes - an allegation hotly contested by Howard Hughes when he learned of it.

The testimony of the experts from the Postal Inspection Service was that the questioned documents were not written by Mr. Hughes. Often in forgery cases it is possible to conclude that the alleged author of a document did not do the writing, but it is more difficult to conclude that a particular person did do it. This is because the writing habits of the forger will often be buried in the attempt to simulate the pictoral look and style of the "target" writing. However, in this case, there was a large amount of writing in question. Mr. Irving had even had "Mr. Hughes" write a letter to the editors of Mc-Graw Hill to validate his agreement with Mr. Irving. The volume of questioned writing was enough that Mr. Irving was not able to keep up his "disguise" and his own individual writing characteristics showed through the veneer of the simulated "Hughes" writing.