INTRODUCTION

Analysis of Characteristics
UNKNOWN SPECIMEN
We analyze the questioned writing specimen and notice that the person writes at
the middle line of the paper. Some of the letters are written at a rapid speed,
deformed, and deviate from the standard copybook form, such as the letter "s,"
which sometimes resembles the number "8." Additionally, we observe that the
person elongates the ending strokes of the letters "y" and "g," making them look
like tails.
 KNOWN SPECIMEN
[SPECIMEN NO.2]
In known specimen no. 2, the word "kasintahan" exhibits unique writing. If we
closely examine this word, we'll notice that the foot of every letter forms an almost
straight line. Additionally, it creates a rounded inner part of an upper curve with the
letters "a," "n," and "h." The spacings are in normal space and can be observed by
the naked eye. As for the strokes of this word, we observed that they were executed
with normal pressure, and the diacritics in the letter "I" were blunt. Lastly, this
word has no connection; they were executed in hand lettering.

In known specimen no. 2, the small letter "i" exhibits a unique feature. The writer
forms the small letter "i" with diacritics, using blunt writing on top of it. The
spacing of this letter in relation to other letters is at a normal distance. Regarding
the stroke, it was executed with normal pressure. Lastly, this letter has no
connection with the other letters.
 KNOWN SPECIMEN
[SPECIMEN NO. 3]
In known specimen no. 3, in our observation, the word "Nakapag-pahinga" has a
unique composition. If we look closely at the word, we see that the letters are
elevated, and almost all letters are on the same level of height. In forms, the letters
'a,' 'p,' 'g,' 'h,' and 'n' have a good form of arc. In spacing, it was at a normal
distance, although there's a connection to the letters "n & g". Next, strokes, as we
observed, there were continuous strokes between the letters "n and g". Lastly, the
connection between "n and g" has angular connecting strokes.

Other than that, we observed that the letter "S" has a unique form. The writer
shapes it almost like the number 8. The spacing of the letter "S" in relation to other
letters was at a normal distance. We also observed that the hitch of "S" has a
unique pattern, more akin to writing habits. There is no connection of this letter to
other letters
 KNOWN SPECIMEN
[SPECIMEN NO. 4]
In my Observation to Specimen 4 I’ve observed that every small letter y and g has
its own unique style the long tail of y and g make them unique, in terms of its
forms this small y and g we can say it is the length of tail of small letter y and g is
consistent, Another thing is the spacing between the letters in word ‘iyong’ the
spacing in this words is well maintained , in terms of strokes, the stroke is likely
executed with less pressure because there is no signs of heavy pressure in specimen
and last the connection of the stroke there is no connection between letters they
executed in lettering for. With its own unique style of the writer.
 Complete Comparison of Characteristics
The small letter "u" from the unknown standard and the requested standards are
totally the same, indicating consistency as class characteristics commonly seen in
copybook form. It shows no unusual uniqueness or individual characteristic aside
from being written in a small way. We can infer that the subject lifted his pen,
adhering to both unknown and requested standards, before continuing to write the
next letter. This observation is supported by the noticeable pressure at the ending
stroke of the letter, indicating a deliberate stop.

From both the unknown standard and the requested standards, we will notice the
consistency of the individual characteristic of writing the small letter "k." We can
see that the small letter "k" looks like a small letter "l" and a small letter "c" joined
but still not connected to each other.
 One of the individual characteristics that we noticed from the subject is how he
wrote the small letter "s" in both the unknown standard and requested standards. It
was consistently written angularly in the first or upper curve of the letter "s."

The word "bebetime" from the unknown standard has a space between the words
"bebe" and "time," creating two words. On the requested standards, however, the
word "bebetime" was written in the correct form.

We can observe differences among those handwritten documents, possibly

influenced by the situations in which he was writing them. However, we can still
notice similarities between the specimens from different standards, such as the way
the subject wrote the letters. Additionally, the subject has the habit of connecting
the letter "m" and the letter "e," which gives an individual characteristic.
Consistency in writing letters and words that do not lie on the baseline is also
evident. The small letter "t" and the small letter "i" in the unknown standard are
connected, while in the requested standards, they are consistently disconnected.

The "f" in the unknown writing exhibits similarities to Request Standards 2, 3, and
4. If you observe the alignment and the distance from the baseline consistently, it
indicates a purely positive baseline displacement. However, the dissimilarities lie
in the fact that the letter "f" in unknown writing is smaller than the requested
 standard. Additionally, the letter "F" in Request Standards 2 and 3 has an extra
stroke in the middle.

When comparing the word "comment" in unknown writing to Request Standards 2,

3, and 4, the word in the requested standard is more precise and clear. The word in
unknown writing may have affected the subject's ability to write quickly, resulting
in a less clear "comment." Despite the dissimilarities, they are equally consistent in
their distance from the baseline, having the same positive baseline displacement.
The alignment is straight in both cases.

Similarly, the word "management" in the unknown writing and the requested
standard differs. In unknown writing, the word "management" is improper, and the
letters are not complete. For example, the letter "m" in "management" resembles
the letter "n," possibly due to rapid writing. The execution of writing can vary in
speed—slow, moderate, or rapid. Additionally, the letter "e" in unknown writing
has a squeezed loop rather than being rounded. In Request Standards 2, 3, and 4,
the word "management" is clearer and more defined.

As we observe from the unknown standard to the requested standard, the way the
small letter 'p' is written remains the same. This is unique and differs from the
 commonly seen and learned copybook forms of the small letter 'p.' It has also
maintained consistency from the unknown standard to Requested Standards 2, 3,
and 4. The dissimilarities in these letter 'p' include not maintaining the curvature of
the circle back in the small letter "p," and we can observe variations in size from an
unknown standard to the requested standard, possibly due to rushing while writing.

The word 'yung,' from an unknown standard to the requested standard, will also be
noticed to be the same, with its writing of the letter 'y' having a curve in the ending
stroke. There is also consistency in the use of the apostrophe at the beginning of
the letter 'y,' which can be observed from the unknown standard to Requested
Standards 2, 3, and 4. Their dissimilarities, on the other hand, involve uneven
lengths in the curved ending stroke of the letter 'y.'
 Correct Interpretation of Characteristics
In conclusion, based on our examination, the Unknown Standard and the
Requested standard came from the same writer.
The decision to attribute the unknown writing to the person from whom we
requested a standard is grounded in a meticulous analysis of both the similarities
and dissimilarities between the two specimens. Upon careful consideration, it
became evident that the weight of the similarities significantly outweighed the
differences. As a result, our group has reached the conclusion that the unknown
writing is most likely authored by the individual from whom we obtained the
requested standard. This determination is based on a comprehensive examination
that considered various elements, including the consistent features shared between
the unknown writing and the requested standard, ultimately leading us to this
informed conclusion.
The methodology employed in reaching our affirmative conclusion adheres to
the systematic and rigorous Scientific Method for Handwriting Examination. This
methodological framework comprises three integral stages: Analysis, Comparison,
and Evaluation, each playing a pivotal role in our investigative process.
During the Analysis phase, we meticulously identified, located, and precisely
pinpointed all distinctive characteristics present in both the unknown writing and
the requested standard. This step involved a comprehensive scrutiny of minute
details, delving into the nuances of handwriting styles to discern unique attributes.
In the subsequent Comparison phase, we undertook a thorough examination of
these identified characteristics, meticulously investigating the intricacies of
similarities and dissimilarities between the unknown writing and the requested
standard. This step involved a discerning juxtaposition of the features, ensuring a
comprehensive understanding of the shared traits and distinctions.
Lastly, in the Evaluation phase, we applied a judicious approach to weigh the
significance of the observed similarities against the dissimilarities. Through a
meticulous and nuanced assessment, we ascertained that the collective weight of
similarities identified in the unknown and requested writing surpasses the
dissimilarities amassed. Consequently, this led us to the conclusion that the person
from whom we requested a standard is, indeed, the author of the unknown writing.
DOCUMENTATION