PhDr. Jiří Závora, Ph.D et Ph.D., soudní znalec, Katedra psychologie, Právnická fakulta UJEP v Ústí nad Labem, email:

The paper discusses the relationship between the scientifically correct procedure of formulating the case-specific conclusion identifying the writer and the defense of the convention which has no foundation in critical thinking and contradicts the objectivity, as well as the scientific and legal consequences of case-specific conclusions of expert opinions. The correlations between scientific and legal implications of case-specific conclusions, the communicative act of the writer, the principle of nemotenetur se ipsumaccusare, the competence to make the written test (handwriting experiment) and the court evaluation of expert opinions is examined. The author uses the current scientific methodology and the principles of critical thinking to argue the existing procedures and practices that are declaratively defended by graphology expert Jiri Straka. The study of the case-specific expert conclusions thus reveals deeper meanings which are reflected in the principal foundations of both of these contradictory approaches. The paper presents emerging implications for the legal theory and practice.