ASTM E2289-2003e1 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions《橡胶图章印记检验的标准指南》.pdf

《ASTM E2289-2003e1 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions《橡胶图章印记检验的标准指南》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2289-2003e1 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions《橡胶图章印记检验的标准指南》.pdf（3页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E 2289 03e1Standard Guide forExamination of Rubber Stamp Impressions1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2289; 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 pa

2、rentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.e1NOTESections 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 were editorially corrected in September 2007.1. Scope1.1 This guide provides procedures that should be used byforensic docume

3、nt examiners (Guide E 444) for examinationsand comparisons involving rubber stamps and 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 th

4、e sufficiencyof the material available for examination.1.4 The particular methods employed 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

5、does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. 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

6、Standards:2E 444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic DocumentExaminersE 1732 Terminology Relating to Forensic ScienceE 2195 Terminology Relating to the Examination of Ques-tioned Documents3. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsFor definitions of terms in this guide, referto Terminology E 1732 and Terminology

7、E 2195.3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:3.2.1 coincidental peripheral printing, 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

8、 wide variety of handprinting devices made of many materials not necessarilyrubber. Syn.hand 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 thesepr

9、ocedures, a forensic document examiner can reliably reachan opinion concerning whether two 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

10、 with the procedures in this guide.Limitations should be noted and recorded.5.2 Limitations 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 sta

11、mps, partiallyimprinted impressions, or variations in surface texture). Suchfeatures are taken into account in this guide.5.3 The results of prior storage, handling, testing, or chemi-cal processing (for example, for latent prints) may interferewith the ability of the examiner to see certain charact

12、eristics.Whenever possible, document examinations should be con-ducted prior to any chemical processing. Items should behandled appropriately to avoid compromising subsequent ex-aminations (for example, with clean hand coverings).5.4 Consideration should be given to the possibility that arubber stam

13、p can be manufactured which duplicates theimpressions of another stamp, and that various forms ofsimulations, imitations, and duplicates of rubber stamps orrubber stamp impressions can be generated by computer andother means.1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on ForensicScie

14、nces and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on QuestionedDocuments.Current edition approved March 10, 2003. Published April 2003.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards

15、 volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.6. Equipment and Requirements6.1 Appropriate light source(s) of sufficient intensity toallow fine de

16、tail to be distinguished.NOTE 1Natural light, incandescent or fluorescent sources, or fiberoptic lighting systems are generally utilized. Transmitted illumination,side lighting, and vertical incident lighting have been found useful.6.2 Magnification sufficient to allow fine detail to be distin-guish

17、ed.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 other equipment for recording observationsas required.6.6 Sufficient time and facilities to complete a

18、ll applicableprocedures.7. Procedure7.1 Perform all procedures when applicable and note eachwhen appropriate. These procedures do not have to be per-formed in the order given.7.2 Document the examinations performed, the relevantobservations, and the results.7.3 At various points in these procedures,

19、 a determinationthat a particular feature is not present or that an item is lackingin quality or comparability can indicate that the examinershould discontinue or limit the procedure(s). It is at thediscretion of the examiner to discontinue the procedure at thatpoint and report accordingly or to con

20、tinue with the applicableprocedures to the extent possible. Document the reasons forsuch a decision.7.4 Determine whether the submitted questioned impres-sion(s) were produced by a rubber stamp. If not a rubber stampimpression (original or copy), discontinue examination andreport accordingly.7.5 Det

21、ermine 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) with a rubber stamp(s).7.6 Determine whether the submitted questioned impres-sion(s) is suitable for compariso

22、n. 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 document.NOTE 2Examination of the original is preferable, and considerationshould be given to obtaining the origin

23、al, 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 discontinuation of the examination.7.7 If no known specimen impressions or rubber stamp(s)were submitted, go to 7.1

24、1.7.8 If a rubber stamp(s) is submitted, its condition should benoted (for example, clean, dirty, inked, worn, damaged).7.8.1 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.

25、7.8.2 Note any visible features that reproduce on the im-pression.7.8.3 Prepare appropriate specimens, as needed.7.9 Determine if any of the known specimen impressionsare suitable for comparison.7.10 If none of the known specimen impressions are suit-able for comparison and no others are obtained, d

26、iscontinuethese procedures and report accordingly.7.11 Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the questionedimpressions, or the questioned impression to the known im-pressions and/or to the rubber stamp(s).7.11.1 Compare class characteristics (for example, size,type style, text, shape). If different,

27、discontinue and reportaccordingly.7.11.2 Compare individualizing characteristics in commonsuch as wear and damage defects, reproducible blemishes,impression voids, improper and extraneous inking, or coinci-dental peripheral printing.7.12 Evaluate similarities, differences, and limitations. De-termin

28、e their significance individually and in combination.7.13 Reach a conclusion and report accordingly8. Report8.1 Conclusion(s), opinion(s), or findings resulting from theprocedures in this guide may be reached once sufficientexaminations have been conducted. The number and nature ofthe necessary exam

29、inations is dependent on the question athand.8.2 The bases and reasons for the conclusion(s), opinion(s),or finding(s) should 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

30、 two or more items,and there is agreement in all individualizing characteristics, anidentification is appropriate (that is, compared impressions orcompared impression and rubber stamp contain substantialsignificant similarities; there are no differences; and no limita-tions associated with absent ch

31、aracters; and any possibility ofa duplicate rubber stamp can be eliminated).8.4 EliminationIf significant, inexplicable differences 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 d

32、ifferences). There may besimilarities.8.5 Qualified OpinionsWhen there are limiting factorsand the examination reveals similarities or differences oflimited significance between two or more items, the use ofqualified opinions can be appropriate (that is, the impressionsor observed features contain l

33、imited similarities or differences;or limitations associated with absent characters, individualiz-ing characteristics, or distorted impressions are present; orlimitations associated with the possibility of the existence of aduplicate rubber stamp; or a combination of these). Thisopinion requires exp

34、lanation of the limiting factors.8.6 No ConclusionWhen there are significant limitingfactors, and the examination reveals no significant differences,a report that no conclusion can be reached is appropriate (thatis, the impressions or observed features contain insufficientE228903e12significant simil

35、arities and insufficient differences). This opin-ion requires explanation of the limiting factors.9. Keywords9.1 forensic sciences; questioned documents; rubber stampimpressions; rubber stampsREFERENCES(1) Casey, Maureen A., “The Individuality of Rubber Stamps,” ForensicScience International, 12, 1978.(2) Ellen, David, The Scientific Examination of DocumentsMethods andTechniques, 2nd ed., Taylor or through the ASTM website(www.astm.org).E228903e13