Case 1:18-cv-03202-DKC Document 48-20 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 12
Avi T. Kamionski
May 15, 2020
Page 6 of 9
EXEMPLARS OF GREGORY S. MACGILLIVARY (continued)
M-6:

Police Department Baltimore, Maryland Information Sheet containing the known handwriting
of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary, dated 8/22/02. Original.

M-7:

Police Department Baltimore, Maryland Information Sheet containing the known handwriting
of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary, dated 8/10/02. Original.

M-8:

Police Department Baltimore, Maryland Information Sheet containing the known handwriting
of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary, dated 7/11/02. Original.

M-9:

Police Department Baltimore, Maryland Information Sheet containing the known handwriting
of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary, dated 7/5/02. Original.

M-10: Police Department Baltimore, Maryland Information Sheet containing the known handwriting
of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary, not dated. Original.
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED:
The first step in the examination of handwriting is to determine if the questioned writing contains
enough complexity to make it difficult to copy. Complexity is measured by the number of changes
of direction of the writing line and the intersections that occur in the signatures. The exemplars are
then compared to the questioned writing to determine if they are suitable for comparison. Suitability
is based upon the same type of writing, signatures to signatures, handwriting versus handwriting,
and handprinting compared to handprinting although some similar characteristics can be found when
comparing handwriting to handprinting and signatures. Ideally, exemplars should be written within
two years of the questioned handwriting although some writing samples outside the two-year range
can also assist us in making a determination. All of the handwriting characteristics are then
compared between the questioned and known writing to determine if the handwriting is genuine,
disguised or simulated. The handwriting was examined and compared using magnification.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on our education, training and experience and on the examination of the questioned document
and comparison with the known documents submitted, it is our opinion that the questioned document
is not authentic and is rather a fabricated document. This opinion is based on the following:
1.

Each of the two-page known “Baltimore Police Department” reports have their own unique
identifying number located on the lower right-hand corner of both pages of the document. The
questioned document, however, has the same identification number as an existing document.

Q-1:

K-4A:

Report of Katherine M. Koppenhaver and Diana J. Mears

 Case 1:18-cv-03202-DKC Document 48-20 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 12
Avi T. Kamionski
May 15, 2020
Page 7 of 9

K-1A:

K-2A:

K-3A:

Page 2 of K-4A is a blank, not yet filled out, BPD report. As such, Q-1 was created by typing
onto page 2 of another copy of K-4A labeled as K-4B.
2.

The signature of Sgt. Garnell Green that appears on the Questioned Document was not written
by Sgt. Garnell Green and therefore is not genuine. We can reach this conclusion because the
signature of Sgt. Garnell Green on Q-1 is a simulation from the document labeled K-5. There
is tremor in the Q-1 signature, a lack of pressure patterns, and blunt endings. These features in
a signature are all indicative of a copying process. These charts below showcase these defects
in Q-1.

Q-1
12/10/02

K-5
7/7/02

Additionally, Q-1 was written at a slower speed than K-5, deliberate care was given to the
formation of some letters such as the “g”, “G”, and “e” as well as dark, round dots in the initials
of Q-1 not present in K-5.
3.

The questioned signature of Detective Mark E. Veney that appears on the Questioned Document
is not a signature. It is a hand printed name. It was not written by Detective Mark E. Veney and
therefore is not genuine. An example of Detective Veney’s known signature is V-5 and an
example of Detective Veney’s known hand printed name is V-11.

Q-1

V-5
06/02/02

Report of Katherine M. Koppenhaver and Diana J. Mears

V-11
05/11/02

 Case 1:18-cv-03202-DKC Document 48-20 Filed 07/22/20 Page 9 of 12
Avi T. Kamionski
May 15, 2020
Page 8 of 9
The known handprinted last name of Det. Veney from (V-11) has lowercase letter, “e.” Questioned
signature (Q-1) has capital “E”. The “V” in Q-1 is narrower and the right side of the “V” is taller. The
final stroke of the “N” in Q-1 is diagonal and connects to the letter “Y” and then the letter “E” was
added between the “N” and “Y”. Document Q-1 contains more angles in the letter forms than in V-11.
Furthermore, M-8 contains the known writing of Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary found in the
Baltimore Police Department (BPD) Homicide file. Detective Gregory S. MacGillivary filled out the
complete form and signed his own signature on the bottom left corner. Det. MacGillivary also wrote
“VENEY” on the bottom right corner. It should be noted that “VENEY” on M-8 appears to be the
model that was used to create “VENEY” on Q-1. Although, M-8 was used as the model, the “VENEY”
on Q-1 was not created by the same person who wrote “VENEY” on M-8. The features of each letter
are different and there is evidence of tremor, lack of pressure patterns, and blunt endings, indicative of
a copying process. The speed in Q-1 is slower than in M-8. Also, Q-1 is more angular than M-8.

4.

Q-1
M-8
The questioned document was created from an existing document from the State’s Attorney’s
Office (K-4B) as demonstrated in the attached 1½ page table. The second page of K-4B was
empty with no content filled in. It is that page that was used to create the questioned document.
***SEE TABLE ATTACHED***

5.

Furthermore, the D.O.B. on the upper right corner of the questioned document is handwritten.
It was written very carefully to make it appear as if it was typewritten, particularly with the
number 4. Also, the 1’s has serifs.

6.

On February 21, 2020 Katherine Koppenhaver and Diana J. Mears went to the Baltimore
Homicide Unit and reviewed the files for 02H0131 consisting of two books. Katherine reviewed
Part 1 consisting of 560 pages front and back covers included. Diana reviewed Part 2 consisting
of 296 pages front and back covers included. The questioned document was not found in either
book.

COMMENTS:
In order to establish that a questioned signature was written by a particular person, an examination with
known genuine signatures must show substantial agreement in sufficient handwriting characteristics to
identify the maker and eliminate the possibility of any other writer. The handwriting characteristics
that are evaluated include line quality, pressure patterns, rhythm, slant, size and proportions, utilization
of space and spatial alignment, initial and terminal strokes, writing speed, legibility, skill level, letter
forms, types of connectors, method of construction, and pattern formations.

Report of Katherine M. Koppenhaver and Diana J. Mears

 Case 1:18-cv-03202-DKC Document 48-20 Filed 07/22/20 Page 12 of 12

State’s Attorney’s Office Copy Compared to Questioned Document
STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

QUESTIONED DOCUMENT

K-4B Dated 07/03/02 or 07/05/02 3 pages not 2 separate sets
Has Hole Punches (Green Arrows – 3 on left)
Note: Holes do not penetrate the margin as far as K-5A above
Has Trash Marks (Red Arrows)

Q-1 Dated 12/10/02
Has Hole Punches (Green Arrows – 3 on left)
Note: Holes in same position as K-4B and not K-4A above
Has Trash Marks (Red Arrows)

CASE #3502

PREPARER: DJM