ASTM E2289 - 08 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions (Withdrawn 2017).pdf

《ASTM E2289 - 08 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions (Withdrawn 2017).pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2289 - 08 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions (Withdrawn 2017).pdf（3页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E2289 08Standard Guide forExamination of Rubber Stamp Impressions1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2289; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parent

2、heses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This guide provides procedures that should be used byforensic document examiners (Guide E444) for examinationsand comparisons involving rubber stamps a

3、nd their impres-sions.1.2 These procedures are applicable whether the examina-tion(s) and comparison(s) is of questioned and known items orof exclusively questioned items.1.3 These procedures include evaluation of the sufficiencyof the material available for examination.1.4 The particular methods em

4、ployed in a given case willdepend upon the nature and sufficiency of the material avail-able for examination.1.5 This guide may not cover all aspects of particularlyunusual or uncommon examinations.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its u

5、se. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory requirements prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic DocumentExaminersE1732 Terminolo

6、gy Relating to Forensic ScienceE2195 Terminology Relating to the Examination of Ques-tioned Documents3. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsFor definitions of terms in this guide, referto Terminology E1732 and Terminology E2195.3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:3.2.1 coincidental peripheral p

7、rinting, nprinting resultingfrom an impression of unintended printing areas, often on theperiphery, of a stamp. This may be due to the manufacturingprocess or the stamping technique.3.2.2 rubber stamp, nany of a wide variety of handprinting devices made of many materials not necessarilyrubber. Syn.h

8、and stamp, cachet.4. Significance and Use4.1 The procedures outlined here are grounded in thegenerally accepted body of knowledge and experience in thefield of forensic document examination. By following theseprocedures, a forensic document examiner can reliably reachan opinion concerning whether tw

9、o or more impressions havea common origin or if a rubber stamp impression was createdby a specific rubber stamp.5. Interferences5.1 Items submitted for examination may have inherentlimitations that can interfere with the procedures in this guide.Limitations should be noted and recorded.5.2 Limitatio

10、ns can be due to submission of non-originaldocuments, limited quantity or comparability, or condition ofthe items submitted for examination (for example, impressionsmade with over-inked or inadequately inked stamps, partiallyimprinted impressions, or variations in surface texture). Suchfeatures are

11、taken into account in this guide.5.3 The results of prior storage, handling, testing, or chemi-cal processing (for example, for latent prints) can interfere withthe examination of certain characteristics. Whenever possible,document examinations should be conducted prior to anychemical processing. It

12、ems should be handled appropriately toavoid compromising subsequent examinations.5.4 Consideration should be given to the possibility that arubber stamp can be manufactured which duplicates theimpressions of another stamp, and that various forms ofsimulations, imitations, and duplicates of rubber st

13、amps orrubber stamp impressions can be generated by computer andother means.6. Equipment and Requirements6.1 Appropriate light source(s) of sufficient intensity toallow fine detail to be distinguished.1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on ForensicSciences and is the direct r

14、esponsibility of Subcommittee E30.90 on Executive.Current edition approved April 1, 2008. Published July 2008. Originallyapproved in 2003. Last previous edition approved in 2003 as E2289 031. DOI:10.1520/E2289-08.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Cu

15、stomer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesNOTICE: This standard has either be

16、en superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information1NOTE 1Natural light, incandescent or fluorescent sources, or fiberoptic lighting systems are generally utilized. Transmitted illumination,side lighting, and vertical incident

17、 lighting have been found useful.6.2 Magnification sufficient to allow fine detail to be distin-guished.6.3 Astamp pad, stamp pad ink and adequate smooth (bond)paper or other suitable substrate to collect specimens from therubber stamp if available.6.4 Other apparatus as appropriate.6.5 Imaging or o

18、ther equipment for recording observationsas required.6.6 Sufficient time and facilities to complete all applicableprocedures.7. Procedure7.1 All procedures shall be performed when applicable andnoted when appropriate. These procedures need not be per-formed in the order given.7.2 Examinations perfor

19、med, relevant observations, andresults shall be documented.7.3 At various points in these procedures, a determinationthat a particular feature is not present or that an item is lackingin quality or comparability may indicate that the examinershould discontinue or limit the procedure(s). It is at the

20、discretion of the examiner to discontinue the procedure at thatpoint and report accordingly or to continue with the applicableprocedures to the extent possible. The reasons for such adecision shall be documented.7.4 Determine whether the submitted questioned impres-sion(s) were produced by a rubber

21、stamp. If not a rubber stampimpression (original or copy), discontinue examination andreport accordingly.7.5 Determine whether the examination is a comparison ofquestioned impressions; a comparison of a questioned impres-sion(s) with a known impression(s); or a comparison of aquestioned impression(s

22、) with a rubber stamp(s).7.6 Determine whether the submitted questioned impres-sion(s) is suitable for comparison. If it is not suitable forcomparison, discontinue the procedure and report accordingly.Factors that affect the suitability include clarity, detail, degreeof inking or condition of the do

23、cument.NOTE 2Examination of the original is preferable, and considerationshould be given to obtaining the original, if not submitted.NOTE 3Limited sufficiency and comparability of the impressions canbe a restrictive factor in an examination and its conclusions but does notnecessarily require the dis

24、continuation of the examination.7.7 If no known specimen impressions or rubber stamp(s)were submitted, go to 7.13.7.8 If a known document(s) is submitted, determine whetherthe known document(s) is suitable for examination, or com-parison, or both. If it is not suitable, discontinue the procedureand

25、report accordingly. Factors that affect the suitabilityinclude clarity, detail, or condition of the document.7.9 If the original is not submitted, evaluate the quality ofthe best available reproduction to determine whether signifi-cant details have been reproduced with sufficient clarity forcomparis

26、on purposes and proceed to the extent possible. If thereproduction is not of sufficient clarity for comparison pur-poses, discontinue these procedures and report accordingly.7.10 If a rubber stamp(s) is submitted, its condition shouldbe noted (for example, clean, dirty, inked, worn, damaged).7.10.1

27、Note, when applicable, class characteristics (for ex-ample, typeface design and size). Consideration should begiven to sampling ink from the stamp prior to taking exem-plars.7.10.2 Note any visible features that reproduce on theimpression.7.10.3 Prepare appropriate specimens, as needed.7.11 Determin

28、e if any of the known specimen impressionsare suitable for comparison.7.12 If none of the known specimen impressions are suit-able for comparison and no others are obtained, discontinuethese procedures and report accordingly.7.13 Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the questionedimpressions, or the

29、 questioned impression to the known im-pressions and/or to the rubber stamp(s).7.13.1 Compare class characteristics (for example, size,type style, text, shape). If different, discontinue and reportaccordingly.7.13.2 Compare individualizing characteristics in commonsuch as wear and damage defects, re

30、producible blemishes,impression voids, improper and extraneous inking, or coinci-dental peripheral printing.7.14 Evaluate similarities, differences, and limitations. De-termine their significance individually and in combination.7.15 Reach a conclusion and report accordingly.8. Report8.1 Conclusion(s

31、), opinion(s), or findings resulting from theprocedures in this guide may be reached once sufficientexaminations have been conducted. The number and nature ofthe necessary examinations is dependent on the question athand.8.2 The bases and reasons for the conclusion(s), opinion(s),or finding(s) shoul

32、d be included in the examiners documen-tation and may also appear in the report.8.3 IdentificationWhen the examination reveals no sig-nificant, inexplicable differences between two or more items,and there is agreement in all individualizing characteristics, anidentification is appropriate (that is,

33、compared impressions orcompared impression and rubber stamp contain substantialsignificant similarities; there are no differences; and no limita-tions associated with absent characters; and any possibility ofa duplicate rubber stamp can be eliminated).8.4 EliminationIf significant, inexplicable diff

34、erences be-tween two or more items are found at any level of the analyses,an elimination is appropriate (that is, the impressions containsubstantial significant, inexplicable differences). There may besimilarities.E2289 0828.5 Qualified OpinionsWhen there are limiting factorsand the examination reve

35、als similarities or differences oflimited significance between two or more items, the use ofqualified opinions can be appropriate (that is, the impressionsor observed features contain limited similarities or differences;or limitations associated with absent characters, individualiz-ing characteristi

36、cs, or distorted impressions are present; orlimitations associated with the possibility of the existence of aduplicate rubber stamp; or a combination of these). Thisopinion requires explanation of the limiting factors.8.6 No ConclusionWhen there are significant limitingfactors, and the examination r

37、eveals no significant differences,a report that no conclusion can be reached is appropriate (thatis, the impressions or observed features contain insufficientsignificant similarities and insufficient differences). This opin-ion requires explanation of the limiting factors.9. Keywords9.1 forensic sci

38、ences; questioned documents; rubber stampimpressions; rubber stampsREFERENCES(1) Casey, M.A., “The Individuality of Rubber Stamps,” Forensic ScienceInternational, Vol 12, 1978.(2) Ellen, D., The Scientific Examination of DocumentsMethods andTechniques, 2nd ed., Chapter 8, Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Lon

39、don, 1997.(3) Herbertson, G., Rubber Stamp Examination: A Guide for ForensicDocument Examiners, WideLine Publishing, Colorado Springs, CO,1997.(4) Herkt, A., “Rubber Stamps, Manufacture and Identification,” Journalof the Forensic Science Society, Vol 25, No. 1, 1985.(5) Kelly, J.S., Forensic Examina

40、tion of Rubber Stamps, Charles C.Thomas Publishing, Springfield, IL, in press.(6) Levinson, J., and Perelman, B., “Examination of Cachet Impressions,”Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol 28, No. 1, 1983, pp. 235241.ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights assert

41、ed in connection with any item mentionedin this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the riskof infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.This standard is subject to revision at any time by t

42、he responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years andif not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standardsand should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive

43、 careful consideration at a meeting of theresponsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you shouldmake your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.This standard is copyrighted by ASTM Interna

44、tional, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the aboveaddress or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or serviceastm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/COPYRIGHT/).E2289 083