Features of objects in solving forensic tasks on text borrowing

Abstract

One of the main categories of forensic expertise is object. Our article conceptualizes this category concerning the forensic authorship examination of text borrowings. We model a system of speech objects that arise when text is illegally borrowed (plagiarism, copy-paste) and should be investigated during the forensic examination of speech. From the standpoint of criminalistic identification theory, we describe the process and mechanism of borrowing (copy-paste) in various situations: rewriting or retyping someone else’s text manually, scanning a document or part of it from paper, borrowing in digital space using the copy + paste method. For the last method, the most commonly used, we consider in detail the “roles” of objects in borrowing and their significance for the identification procedure. The article demonstrates that the totality of compositions and texts is interconnected due to the reflection of textual material. According to general rules of criminalistic identification, objects are divided into verifiable and searched, identifying and identifiable. The presenting model of the objects system for the first time provides a criminalistically adequate understanding of the essence of borrowing. That is the basis for a future forensic methodology that will reliably establish the presence or absence of text borrowing.

References

1. Abramkina, E.E. (2019). Identification features of the interrogation protocol and the methodology of authorship analysis. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University. Series Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Vol. 17, 3, pp. 97–108 (in Russ.).
2. Boytsov, A.A., Kuleshova, A.A. and Lizorkin, A.M. (2018). A new approach to comparative analysis of texts in the framework of a comprehensive computer-technical and linguistic examination. Theory and practice of forensic examination, Vol. 13, 3, pp. 47–52 (in Russ.).
3. Izotova, T.M., Plotnikova, A.M., Kuznetsov V. O. et al. (2020). Methodological recommendations for conducting forensic authorship examinations. Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Koldin, V.Ya. (2003). Forensic identification. Moscow (in Russ.).
5. Kuznetsov, V.O. and Kryuk, E.K. (2019). Distinction of competencies of an expert linguist and an expert author scholar in the study of objects of copyright and objects of related rights. Theory and practice of forensic examination, Vol. 14, 3, pp. 15–25 (in Russ.).
6. Mesropyan, L.M. (2017). Linguistic examination of interrogation protocols: speech identification of the interrogated as a means of identifying procedural violations. In Procedural actions of a verbal nature: collection of articles based on the materials of the All-Russian round table. St. Petersburg.
7. Raspopova, T.A. (2015). Forensic authorship examination: research experience. Yearbook of the Research Institute of Fundamental and Applied Research, 1–1 (6), pp. 133–144 (in Russ.).
8. Rubtsova, I.I., Ermolova, E.I., Bezrukova, A.I. et al. (2007). Integrated methodology for producing authorship examinations: methodological recommendations. Moscow (in Russ.).
9. Steksova, T.I. (2005). Plagiarism case: experience of linguistic examination. Jurislinguistics, 6, pp. 269–272 (in Russ.).
10. Rossinskaya, E.R. (Ed.). (2023). Theory of information and computer support for forensic activity. Moscow (in Russ.).