Audit Topics / Questions
Questions about the evidence in Prof. Dr. Nyman’s expert opinion on the forgery characteristics with digital image processing – state of the art 2015
1. Is it true that the new scientific examination methods (applied by the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman, see enclosure ./A) provide new insights for experts, with which exact and scientifically sound findings can be made regarding
a. the different line formations;
b. the exact sequences of the line formation;
c. the internal stroke characteristics of the ink flow at line intersections as well as d. the line thickness due to superimposed ink flows,
e. the surface roughness and
f. the absorption capacity of individual paper fibers
can be made?
2. Is it true that the enormous further development of digital cameras that took place after July 25, 1999, up to October 18, 2016 (for example, the digital camera Nikon D800, which has been on the market since March 2012 and achieves a far greater richness of detail and tonal range for image analysis), and the further development of image sensors have enabled more detailed and tonally more accurate image capture and image enhancement, which has led to a gain in knowledge for handwriting experts?
3. Is it true that the newly developed option for storing and analyzing image information after July 25, 1999, up to October 18, 2016 – in particular by storing and analyzing the lossless RAW data format, which enables 1,024 to 16,384 brightness gradations – has improved and thus led to a gain in knowledge for handwriting experts?
4. Is it true that the software solutions for digital image capture and digital image processing available at the time of the preparation of the defendant’s expert opinion on October 18, 2016, in particular the application of digital image filters for edge detection, low-pass and high-pass filters and contrast enhancers, led to an increase in knowledge for handwriting experts after July 25, 1999?
5. Is it true that the image processing software Adobe Lightroom 5 (version 5 was released in 2013) and Photoshop CS 6 (released in 2012), which appeared in 2007, led to a gain in knowledge for handwriting experts compared to the state of the art on July 25, 1999?
6. Is it true that the defendant, as a handwriting expert, could and should have had knowledge of the knowledge gained for handwriting experts due to scientific advances after July 25, 1999 at the time of the preparation of his expert opinion on October 18, 2016 before the Salzburg Regional Court in case no. 13 Cg 10/15y (Exhibit ./B)?
7. Is it true that the defendant stated in his expert opinion on October 18, 2016 at the Salzburg District Court in case no. 13 Cg 10/15y (Annex ./B) that the scientific progress made after July 25, 1999, in particular in micro- and macro-photography and computer-aided image processing, merely serve to better document findings that have been collected or established and do not serve to gain knowledge when assessing the question of whether a handwritten document has been forged?
8. Is the finding of the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman on page II of his expert opinion (Annex ./A) correct, according to which micro- and macro-photographs in any case provide a gain in knowledge for handwriting experts, whereby the visualization of writing passages, different color applications, interruptions, overlaps and continuity, uneven partial strokes as well as density of color application is possible?
9. Are the findings of expert Prof. Dr. Nyman on page III of his expert opinion (Annex ./A) correct, in which he describes exactly how these clear forgery characteristics can be made visible by the correct use of macro- and microphotography?
10. Are the findings of expert Prof. Dr. Nyman on page IV of his expert opinion (Annex ./A) correct, according to which he was able to identify a number of striking differences between the forged will and the comparative documents using the technical means available to him on October 18, 2016, which were not available to the expert when he prepared his expert opinion of July 25, 1999?
11. Are the findings of the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman in his expert opinion (Annex ./A) correct, according to which such a comparison and/or visualization of the striking differences between the compared fonts in the expert opinion of 25 July 1999 was not possible solely because the technical possibilities, in particular the corresponding micro- and macro-photography as well as digital image processing, did not exist at that time?
12. Is the finding of the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman in his expert opinion (Annex ./A) correct, according to which significant differences in the vertical smear of the “a” between the comparative writings could be determined (extracts on pages 25 to 35 of the expert opinion Annex ./A)?
13. Is the finding of the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman correct in his expert opinion, according to which these differences were not dealt with in the expert opinion of 25 July 1999 because this was not possible due to the technical and digital tools available at that time, which is why only the external graphic writing characteristics were evaluated (page 12 of the expert opinion of SV Rettenbacher, enclosure ./F)?
14. Is the statement of the expert Prof. Dr. Nyman in his expert opinion correct, according to which the significant differences in the letter “g” in the expert opinion of July 25, 1999 could not be determined due to a lack of technical and digital possibilities? In the expert opinion of July 25, 1999, only the external graphic writing characteristics could be evaluated (page 12 of the expert opinion of SV Rettenbacher, enclosure ./F)?
15. Is the finding of the expert witness Prof. Dr. Nyman correct in his expert opinion that he has established clear internal graphic differences in the letter “g” based on the technical and digital image recording and processing developed after July 25, 1999 (page 36, Nyman expert opinion, enclosure ./A)?
