The two-page document had given rise to a criminal lawsuit. The signature on the first page was not in question. However, the signature at the bottom of the second page was suspected to be fraudulently prepared. The court ordered that the handwriting analyses be conducted at the offices of the Law Courts in the presence of authorized staff and with equipment available on the premises. Three document examiners studied the questioned signature and a series of unquestioned signatures. They concluded that the questioned signature did not belong to the author's client. An appellate court declared the trial null and void. A second examination took place under less restrictive conditions and used the dichroic filter and microphotographs. Results revealed furrows where strokes gradually faded due to a lack of ink and supported the argument that the questioned signature was genuine. The questioned signature actually represented two signatures. Findings demonstrated that an incomplete or restricted document examine may result in inconclusive findings that might lead to misinterpretations by the court. Figures and 11 references