Re: 5th protect password?

[Jonathon Blake <grafolog@netcom.com>]

	Jim:

On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> >	illiteracy was the standard, till the begining of the Industrial
> >	Revolution.   <<   Remember that John Dee had an incredibly large
> >	library of 200 volumes.  >> 
> 
> Yikes! You REALLY need to learn to read!  I wasn't referring to handwriting 

	& you totally missed my point that when literacy was a rare thing,
	there was no presumption that any individual could either read, or
	write.   The rest of the things listed required no presumption
	about anything related to an individual.  

> itself , or for that matter to graphology ( the study of handwriting; which 
> goes back perhaps 2000 years) but in fact the _forensic_ use of graphology.  

	The first book about graphology was written in 1622 by
	C Baldi.  The first book on questioned document examination
	was written in the 1860s.   

	The first forensic use of graphology may have occurred as early 
	as 1960.  In 1975, a Juvenile Court Judge in Boulder CO used
	graphology forensically to determine the most appropriate method
	of handling some of the cases that appeared in _his_ court.

	Most courts in the United States regard the forensic use of
	graphology as dubious, at best.   A few have ruled against 
	it. 

> The point is that the demanding of handwriting samples is a fairly new 
> What do you want to bet that it first occurred in this century?

	For questioned document examination?   Sometime during the
	sixties.  
	For graphological examination?  Hasn't occurred yet.  

> If that were the case, there there would be no justification for demanding a 
> handwriting sample.  Nevertheless, it is apparently done.   And while a 

	Can you provide a citation where a court has demanded a handwriting
	sample for graphological purposes?   

	They can, and do require handwriting samples for questioned
	document examination.   

> In any case, the initial reference to handwriting samples came from the 
> Supreme Court, as quoted above, not me.  Pay more attention.  I was using 

	A ruling that had no relationship to graphology ---- which is a 
	subject that you brought up.

> >	I suspect you confusing graphology with questioned document
> >	examination. 
> No, that's a larger issue. Graphology is a tool which can be used, but there 

	I was wondering how you were going to try to wriggle out of 
	this one.  

> Question:  Let's suppose, for the purposes of argument, the policy was 
> diametrically opposite, and no such samples were taken, ostensibly because 

	The gist of the argument is that handwriting samples are public,
	and that things are written for public consumption, not private 
	consumption.  

> would come to the opposite conclusion.  You would have to explain to people 
> why the precedents were all wrong.


	You are taking a completely hypothetical situation that never had
	a basis in what could have happened.

	An individual who had seen another individual's handwriting _once_
	could deem themselves to be an expert, for that particular person's
	writing.  As such, an illiterate stable boy, who had seen his 
	master writing something twenty years prior, was deemed 
	more knowledgable
	about his master's script, than a QDE who had exemplars and
	the suspect document, and could demonstrate the authenticity or
	lack thereof, from the script.  

	After several cases where the QDE's opinion was deemed incorrect,
	and later it was discovered that the QDE's opinion was correct,
	the rules of the acceptability of an expert witness became somewhat
	stricter.  

	As the rules regarding who could be an expert witness became
	stricter, the requirements for obtaining authentic samples
	of writing became more urgent.   Subpoenaing documents from
	numerous bodies << corporations and individuals >> became a 
	standard way of obtaining exemplars.  Such exemplars were/
	are not always satisfactory, because they may be signatures
	only -- in the case of checks, or be written under non-ordinary
	conditions --- such as filed tax forms, or other reasons.

	By requesting an individual provide an authentic sample, 
	the ease with which a document can be demonstrated to be
	authentic, or not, is considerbly increased.  And the 
	likelyhood of error creeping in, is decreased dramatically.

	Now if you'd rather have an illiterate stabhle boy, that saw
	you write something 20 years ago be considered an expert as
	regards what your handwriting looks like...

> demanded of a defendant in 1783, which was about when the 5th amendment was 
> written.

	What they said.
	Where they said it. 
	What they had in their possession.
	Where they had said items in their possession.

	Note in passing that rules for admitting something into 
	evidence was a lot looser then, than it is now. 

> >        Owner:     Graphology-L@Bolis-com 
> Aha!  Yet another person who benefits from current government policy! 

	I do?   That's news to me, and the rest of graphological profession
	that we benefit from current government policy --- especially in
	light of rulings that imply that graphology can not be used for 
	employment screening, selection or profilling.   

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com

        Owner:     Graphology-L@Bolis-com 


**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************