“Our firm retained M. Patricia Fisher as an expert in a marital dissolution proceeding. A well respected trial judge (now retired) in the San Francisco Bay area who presided for several years in the “Complex Civil Trial” Department, found that Ms. Fisher’s analysis was more thorough than the opposing expert, more credible, and more worthy of belief. The opposing expert testified that in the “expert handwriting analysis” and independent document examiner field it is possible to deem an authentic signature as “identified.” Here, he was unable to do that. The most he could say was that it was “highly probable” our client signed it. However, the opposing expert also acknowledged that their analysis was limited by the lack of an original signature. They only had poor reproduction copies. Ms. Fisher’s analysis of the signature in question was more persuasive and explained more carefully. The opposing expert testified he agreed with Ms. Fisher’s careful observations (but not her conclusions). Where Ms. Fisher reported discrepancies between the signature in question and the known specimens of our client’s handwriting, the opposing expert simply said the handwriting analysis was within “the range of variation.” Therefore, acknowledging the signatures on the various documents were noticeably different, but dismissed those differences by referring to a “range of variation” without explaining convincingly how they determined the breadth of that “range.” Ms. Fisher, used a Video Spectral Comparator to examine the signatures in considerable detail. (The opposing expert testified that such an “overlay” is an appropriate methodology yet they didn’t apply it.) Also, she noted the absence of a middle initial in the signature on the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (which wasn’t on the other signatures). She compared the plane on which the signatures were written, observed how the first initial differed from that character in the known signatures, and compared the first initial in all the signatures. She noted that the “final stroke” in the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt was “less constricted” than the counterpart strokes in the known signatures. “This is a subtle characteristic, and it would be an easy mistake made by a person attempting to simulate the signature”. Exhibit V, p.4. Despite the opposing expert being a document examiner for a considerable time, it was difficult to assess his credentials. It appeared their primary affiliation was with a now defunct organization called the “American College of Forensic Examiners.” Ms. Fisher testified, without contradiction, the “American College” was created by someone which ceased to exist when that person died in a murder-suicide. She said the person’s organization offered no formal certification to document examiners. (no evidence suggests the organization’s work related primarily to document examiners.) She also knowledgeably testified organization had a questionable reputation within the independent document examiner field. Ms. Fisher has been practicing in this field for nearly forty years. She’s been certified by the Board of Forensic Document Examiners since 2003, also by the Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and the Association of Certified Fraud Specialists. She has served as Vice-President of the Board of Forensic Document Examiners and editor of the Journal of Forensic Document Examination, a peer reviewed journal. Ms. Fisher explained that the Board of Forensic Document Examiners has been accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, which, she said, is “an organization set up with a grant from the Department of Justice in conjunction with the American Academy of Forensic Science to provide a way for judges and attorneys to know what certification bodies have met the highest standards in their field.” Trial Transcript, 115:16-20. The Court carefully considered all of the testimony of the experts, including those matters they included and excluded from consideration. It has weighed all that testimony and the exhibits they discussed. This is quintessentially a case in which the Court must determine which expert’s opinion is more credible and worthy of belief. In this case, it finds that Ms. Fisher’s analysis was more thorough than the opposing expert, is more credible, and is more worthy of belief.” 
— Greg C. Abel, Esq.
Family Law

“Patricia is a consummate professional, thoroughly schooled in her profession, and one of the most composed witnesses I have every watched testify.”

— Michael J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Landlord – Evictions and Unlawful Detainer Actions

 “Patricia Fisher was selected by joint agreement of my opposing counsel, who represented a government entity, and me, to conduct a questioned document examination to determine if a disputed signature on a document was that of my client, or another person who had denied signing the document. She performed the examination in a prompt fashion, and her ultimate conclusions were clearly and thoroughly explained and well-supported in a detailed report provided to both parties. Ultimately, her report let to an evidentiary hearing before an arbitrator where Ms. Fisher testified about her work, the opinions she reached concerning the signature, and provided the basis for those opinions. The arbitrator who presided over the matter found that Ms. Fisher’s work, ultimate conclusions, and testimony were entitled to great weight and made findings consistent with her opinions. I would not hesitate to call upon Ms. Fisher in the future and an objective and thorough analysis of a disputed signature.”

— Michael L. Rains, Esq.
Criminal Defense

Testimonials

Watch Patricia Debunk a Theory
About the Zodiac Killer

From the TV Mini Series: The Most Dangerous Animal of All

Copyright 2023 Fisher Forensic Document Laboratory, Inc.
All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy