This is a redacted example of a forensic document examination report. All identifying details of parties, case references, locations, and dates have been obscured. The structure, methodology, and reporting format reflect our standard court-admissible reporting practice.
I was instructed by [Redacted] to conduct a forensic document examination of one (1) questioned document, being a document purporting to be a signed [Deed of Variation] dated [Redacted] (the “Questioned Document”), together with four (4) known exemplar documents containing the disputed signatures (the “Known Specimens”).
The specific questions put to me were:
This report is prepared for the purpose of proceedings in the [Supreme Court of New South Wales].
I make the following declarations in accordance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct contained in Schedule 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and Part 23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth):
My full curriculum vitae is provided as a separate document. In summary:
The examination was conducted in accordance with the ASFDE Code of Practice and established forensic document examination methodology. The following techniques were employed:
The Questioned Document (Q1) was received in good condition. The disputed signature appears on page 2 at the designated execution line. The signature was executed in blue ballpoint ink and measures approximately 52 mm in length and 12 mm in height.
The known specimens (K1–K4) contain signatures attributed to [Mr A. B. Sample] spanning a period of approximately [five] years. The known specimens exhibit a consistent range of natural variation consistent with genuine handwritten signatures.
The questioned signature (Q1) was compared with the known specimen signatures (K1–K4) across the following parameters:
The document substrate and ink were examined for evidence of alteration, erasure, or any forensic irregularity. Observations were recorded under visible light, ultraviolet illumination, and infrared reflectance.
The following significant similarities and differences were observed between the questioned signature (Q1) and the known specimens (K1–K4):
| Feature | Observation | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| General form | The questioned signature broadly replicates the overall form and letter sequence of the known specimens | Class characteristic — indicates the writer had knowledge of the general appearance of the genuine signature |
| Line quality | The questioned signature exhibits evidence of drawn, hesitant stroke formation with periodic pen lifts inconsistent with fluent writing | Individualising — strongly indicative of simulation (copying) |
| Pen pressure | Uniform, heavy pressure throughout the questioned signature, lacking the natural pressure variation seen in known specimens | Individualising — characteristic of traced or slowly executed simulation |
| Initial stroke | The initial stroke direction and curvature differ from the known specimens; the known specimens show a consistent upward-left initiation absent in Q1 | Significant difference |
| Letter ‘[B]’ formation | The questioned signature constructs the letter ‘[B]’ with a closed loop structure; known specimens consistently use an open formation | Significant difference — improbable in natural variation |
| Terminal stroke | The questioned signature ends with a short, abrupt terminal; known specimens exhibit a tapered, descending terminal flourish | Significant difference |
Examination of the document substrate revealed no evidence of erasure, alteration, chemical washing, or ink obliteration. The document appears to be a single continuous production with no substituted pages or irregular binding. The ink of the signature is consistent with the ink used in the body text of the document.
Question 1: Was the signature on the Questioned Document written by [Mr A. B. Sample]?
Opinion: Strong probability that the disputed signature was NOT written by [Mr A. B. Sample].
The questioned signature exhibits a combination of significant differences from the known specimens—specifically in line quality (drawn, hesitant formation), pen pressure distribution (uniform heavy pressure), initial stroke direction, and letter construction—that are collectively inconsistent with the natural variation observed within the known specimen set. The characteristics observed are more consistent with a simulated signature, produced by a person who had knowledge of the general appearance of the genuine signature but was not the genuine author.
Question 2: Do any characteristics permit an opinion on the identity of the writer?
The characteristics observed in the questioned signature are insufficient to identify the writer. The drawn, slowly executed line quality indicates simulation, but there are insufficient individualising features present to attribute the signature to a particular person. The simulation may have been produced by tracing or by careful freehand copying.
Question 3: Is there evidence of alteration or irregularity?
No evidence of alteration, erasure, or forensic irregularity was detected in the document substrate.
I confirm that I have made all enquiries which I believe are appropriate and that no matter of significance which I regard as relevant has, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Court. I am available to attend Court to give oral evidence and be cross-examined on the contents of this report if required.
Important notice: This is a redacted sample document for educational and illustrative purposes only. It does not represent an actual forensic report prepared for any real proceedings. All identifying details—including names, dates, case references, client details, and locations—have been altered or removed. The opinions expressed in this sample are illustrative only and do not constitute forensic advice. Actual forensic reports are prepared on a case-by-case basis after full examination of the materials submitted. © 2026 Signature Forensic.