- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Handwriting Analysis Can’t Exonerate Roy Moore
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:32 pm
LINK
quote:
But such an examination1 would be unlikely to empirically prove Moore’s position — or much of anything. Despite its widespread use, handwriting analysis is neither reliable nor scientifically confirmed. “There are few, if any, well-designed studies that show how well handwriting analysts can identify a forgery under conditions that mimic those that might exist in legal cases,” said Jonathan Koehler, a law professor and forensic science expert at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. “Even major treatises on handwriting analysis concede that it is extremely difficult for anyone to be able to figure out if a signature or other very limited writing sample has been forged.” Even without a firm scientific basis, handwriting analysis is often presented in trials. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, increased the scrutiny of supposedly scientific evidence and expert testimony presented in court, but case law remains pretty favorable to the admissibility of handwriting analysis, particularly in state courts, said Vanderbilt Law School professor Edward Cheng, a coauthor of “Modern Scientific Evidence.” Federal courts tend to be a little less open to allowing it, but, “There are very few places where it’s excluded,” he said. Cheng speculates that the reason there hasn’t been much policing of handwriting evidence from the courts is that the technique seems intuitive. People can imagine how it works, and think they understand the evidence before them. But this eagerness to believe might also mislead. The technique is “highly subjective” and “vulnerable to context effects such as expectation and suggestion,” according to an examination of cases involving handwriting identification by Seton Hall law professor and forensic handwriting expert Michael Risinger.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:33 pm to CommoDawg
Well, a yearbook isn't a sign of rape either, so....
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:34 pm to CommoDawg
Can't prove it either way then.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:34 pm to CommoDawg
Have to get in front of the forgery. I get it. What I don't get is that you Dems expect Moore to prove a negative.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:34 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
Handwriting Analysis Can’t Exonerate Roy Moore by CommoDawg
But I'll bet ink analysis will be a bitch for that lying whore accuser
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:34 pm to CommoDawg
I don't see how the yearbook is evidence of anything beyond that he (may have) signed someone's yearbook.
How this has evolved into some kind of gotcha is a signal to how far into the abyss we have fallen.
How this has evolved into some kind of gotcha is a signal to how far into the abyss we have fallen.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:35 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I don't see how the yearbook is evidence of anything beyond that he (may have) signed someone's yearbook. How this has evolved into some kind of gotcha is a signal to how far into the abyss we have fallen.
It certainly disproves Moore's claim that he never met the woman
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:36 pm to CommoDawg
Her lawyer refused to say that the accuser saw him sign it when asked multiple times.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:36 pm to CommoDawg
Except its a fake.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:37 pm to CommoDawg
Dear God you people can't really be this dumb. I don't even know where to start.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:37 pm to CommoDawg
Is it just me, or does the article state it can’t be used to exonerate him, then go on to make the case for why it could??
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:38 pm to CommoDawg
The ink can be dated very accurately.
And we all know what that's going to show.
And we all know what that's going to show.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:43 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
It certainly disproves Moore's claim that he never met the woman
It was 40 years ago. I've got friends on Facebook that I went to high school with for 4 years that I have no memory of, and it was way less than 40 years ago.
Even if he did sign it, it only proves that they were acquainted.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Have to get in front of the forgery. I get it. What I don't get is that you Dems expect Moore to prove a negative.
The do not, the allegation is far more important than the evidence to support or contradict. You do not really think they care about guilt or innocence, they care about winning or losing that election and getting back in power.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:46 pm to CommoDawg
In the real world, not your lib fantasy world, it's up to the accuser and jer lawyer to prove his guilt. So, this point of yours is worthless in furthering that notion.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:49 pm to Jake88
quote:
it's up to the accuser and jer lawyer to prove his guilt.
Tell that to Mitt Romney.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:50 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
CommoDawg
Why do you want to frame an innocent man?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:51 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Is this a Toddy thread?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:56 pm to CommoDawg
Yet people being able to certify autographs as authentic can determine if a piece of memorabilia is worth thousands or worth nothing. Yet the signature can't be use to exonerate him. Lol so dumb.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News