Scribd
Upload
94 views

Forensic PDF

This forensic document examiner's report analyzes signatures from a forgery case in Kitui, Kenya. The examiner, John Muinde, has over 10 years of experience and qualifications in forensic document examination. He examined the disputed signature on Exhibit K against specimen signatures on Exhibits B1-B4 and known signatures on Exhibits A1-A3. Through various examination techniques, the examiner determined the signatures were not written by the same person. The full report was submitted to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for their review and action in the forgery case against Alexander Mativu Kitheka.

Uploaded by

mike mikee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views

Forensic PDF

This forensic document examiner's report analyzes signatures from a forgery case in Kitui, Kenya. The examiner, John Muinde, has over 10 years of experience and qualifications in forensic document examination. He examined the disputed signature on Exhibit K against specimen signatures on Exhibits B1-B4 and known signatures on Exhibits A1-A3. Through various examination techniques, the examiner determined the signatures were not written by the same person. The full report was submitted to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for their review and action in the forgery case against Alexander Mativu Kitheka.

Uploaded by

mike mikee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

C./.D Headquarters, Kiambu Road, P. O. Box 30036-00100, Nairobi- Kenya.

Tel + 254 20 8512090/6, E-MAIL [email protected]


The Kenya Police Service
Directorate of C r i m i n a l Investigations
Forensic Document Examiner's Report

Case W o r k Diary:

CaseWork Ref: .....'-CID/ORG/8/3/1/75

Station: DCIO Kitui

--Charge.ixgister.sNoi INQ'5/2012-

S a b m issio n Date: 28/1/2014

Examination Date: 12/1/2014

Name of Complainant: Ngulungu Kitheka Ngao

Na me of Accused: . A levander Mativo Kitheka

I/O: Cpl Sylvester Mwenza

Examiner: John Muinde (SP)

Statement of Qualification:

I wish to state as follows:


That. I am the head o f the forensic document examination section and. a
qualified forensic documents examiner o f over ten years experience with the
Kenya Police Service Forensic Department on a l u l l time basis. I have been a
practicing forensic document examiner in Kenya since 2002 where I have
expressed expert opinion on forensic document examination field on thousands
of cases in various law courts country wide, I hold a Bachelor o f Science (wst)
degree from M o i University (1997), and training in counterfeit forensics from
the United States Secret Service, training in the use o f forensic documents
examination machines by Foster + Freeman L t d in the U K . I have also been
trained as a forensic documents examiner at the National Ribat University,
Institute of Forensic Evidence in Khartoum, Sudan and at the Interpol
headquarters in Lyon, France.
laminations and Findings:

I have today examined and compared the disputed signature pointed by arrows
in red ink on the exhibit marked " K " with the standard signatures on exhibits
marked "S1-B4" and the known signatures also pointed by arrows in red ink on
the exhil

opinion the signatures have not been made by the s


Ta-red photographs marked VSC 5000-A to VSC 5000-B)

Methodology:

In my examination, I subjected the signatures to image enhancement procedures


of stereo microscopy, Infra-red photographic techniques of the video-spectral
comparator machine (VSC 5000) and the Eye-D machine for better visibility of
the identifying peculiarities and for absolute identification. -

I also considered all the possibilities" of natural variations resulting from the
time span the signatures were appended, sickness, age factors, poor sight,
voluntary intoxication by alcohol, natural pen failures and writing instruments.

Cfraracterisfics and Dissimilarities:

My considerations . in arriving at my opinion are based on the peculiar


characteristics in the signatures which did not provide me with, forensic
evidence of common authorship, these are mainly dissimilarities in terms of;
Freedom of pen movement, ink spread, relative proportions of characters, the
slope, baseline alignment, initial and terminaJ strokes, speed of pen, pen lifts,
Curves and loops characteristics, movement o f pen from start to the end, pen.
pressure patterns and the general comparative resemblance.

I forward herewith all the documents submitted to me and a copy of my report


detailing my findings for your perusal and action.

jQHrmuiNpE
FORENSIC DOCUMENT E X A M I N E R
FOR: DIRECTOR D I R E C T O R A T E OFOEUMXNAL INVESTIGATIONS.
.5- CO

E X H I B I T MEMO FORM
fe-Station CiD Drraion K|.IUf
Ad Charge Registers INQ 5/2012

Hollerith Code No.


TV

THE DOCUMENT EXAMINER


c.LD H Q , .
NAIROBI

•By Registered Mail


I forward herewith NO.42254 CPL SYLVESTER M V / E N Z A
* Under escort of
(*Strjke out whichever is inapplicable)

Exhibit and identification marking:- !*!' A COPY OF THE QUESTIONED DOCUMENT


4

B1-B4 SPECIMEN SIGNATURES OF N G U L U N G U KITHEKA NGAO


A1-A3 ARE KNOWN SIGNATURES OF NGULUNGU KITHEKA NGAO

Precise of offence:
UN UNKNOWN DATE AND TIME AT UNKNOWN- PLACE WITHIN THE REPUBLIC OF
KENYA/THE ACCUSEfib ALEXANDER MATIVU KITHEKA FORGED JHE SIGNATURE OF
ONE NGULUNGU KITHEKA NGAO.

I t is desired to aseertain:-
J. WHETHER THE SIGNATURE POINTED BY RED ARROW ON EXHIBIT MARKED K
WHEN COMPARED WITH SPECIMEN SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT MARKED B1-B4 AND
THE KNOWN SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT MARKED A1-A3

Name of complainant: N G U L U N G U K I T H E K A NGAO

Name of accused (if known); ALEXANDER MATIVU KITHEKA

Offence and section: FORGERY C/SEC 349 OF THE PENAL CODE.

Time, dare and place committed: MATINYANI

Time, date place exhibits found and by whom; B Y CPL SYLVESTER M W E N Z A

Taken possession of by: NO.42254.CPL SYLVESTER MWENZA

Date M l / 1 4 ; Signed flp

Exhibits enumerated above. Sipirri • Dale ^

Mole; this form to be completed in triplicate, three copies to accompany exhibit, second copy to icturried as report, third copy ;o he returned as
receipt.

You might also like