References
- Osborn AS. Questioned document problems. New York, NY: Boyd Printing Company; 1946. p. 338.
- Harrison WR. Forgery detection: a practical guide. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 1964. p. 115.
- Harrison WR. Suspect documents and their scientific examination. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 1966. p. 324.
- Hilton O. Scientific examination of questioned documents. Revised Ed. New York: CRC Press; 1982. p. 185.
- Ellen D. The scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. New York: Ellis Horwood; 1989. p. 41–42.
- Huber RA, Headrick AM. Handwriting identification. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1999. p. 289.10.1201/9781420048773
- van Gemmert AWA, van Galen GP. Dynamical features of mimicking another person’s writing and signature. Amsterdam (The Netherlands): IOP Press; 1996. Handwriting and drawing research: basic and applied issues, Simner ML, Leedham CG, Thomassen AJWN, editors; 459–471.
- Sita J, Rogers D. Changes in forgers’ handwriting pressure related to the original writers’ dynamics. J Forensic Doc Exam. 1999;12:101–112.
- Franke K. Dynamic, on-line signature analysis: Trends and challenges for forensic investigation services. Salzburg (Austria); 2007. Proceedings of the seventh international congress of the Gesellschaft fur Forensischen Schriftuntersuchung (GFS); Salzburg.
- Mohammed L, Found B, Caligiuri M, Rogers D. Dynamic characteristics of signatures: effects of writer style on genuine and simulated signatures. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(1):89–94.10.1111/jfo.2015.60.issue-1
- Alewijnse LC, van den Heuvel CE, Stoel R. Analysis of signature complexity. J Forensic Doc Exam. 2011;21:37–49.
- Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. The relationship between quantitatively modelled signature complexity levels and forensic document examiners’ qualitative opinions on casework. J. Forensic Doc Exam. 2007;18:21–40.
- van Galen G. Structural complexity of motor patterns: a study of reaction times of handwritten letters. Psychol Res. 1984;46(1-2):49–57.10.1007/BF00308592
- Franke K. Analysis of authentic signatures and forgeries. Computational forensics. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Forensics (IWCF 2009); 2009 Aug 13–14; The Hague (The Netherlands): Springer Verlag, 2009.
- Hagan WE. Treatise on disputed handwriting. Albany (NY): Banks & Brothers; 1894.
- Mathyer J. The expert examination of signatures. J Crim Law and Criminology. 1961;52 ( May-June) Article 12: 122–133.10.2307/1141512
- Lewis J. Forensic document examination, fundamentals and current trends. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014.
- Leung S, Cheng Y, Fung H, Poon N. Forgery I - simulation. J. Forensic Sci. 1993;38:413–424.
- Mohammed L, Found B, Caligiuri M, Rogers D. The dynamic character of disguise behavior for text-based, mixed, and stylized signatures. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(S1):S136–S141.10.1111/jfo.2010.56.issue-s1
- Bird C, Found B, Ballantyne K, Rogers D. Forensic handwriting examiners’ opinions on the process of production of disguised and simulated signatures. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;195(1–3):103–107.10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.12.001
- Bird C, Found B, Rogers D. Forensic document examiners’ skill in distinguishing between natural and disguised handwriting behaviors. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(5):1291–1295.10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01456.x
- Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. Are expert penmen better than lay people at producing simulations of a model signature? Forensic Sci Int. 2008;180(1):50–53.10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.06.009