Re: 5th protect password?

At 02:25 PM 4/21/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote:

>
>	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.  

Tell this to Unicorn.  He seems to disagree, although he hasn't cited specifics 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?

Adding the conditional "for graphological purposes," I can't.  I was merely 
referring to a SC decision previously quoted here.  The writing of that 
reference didn't make clear what purposes the sample could be used for.

>
>> 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.

No.  What I was trying to do is to get people to stop thinking of legal 
precedent as being some sort of end-all incident that makes all further 
discussion pointless.  



>> 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. 

If that's really the case, and this would today be considered a clear violation of the 5th, what does that say about the claim that "current government policy" must be right?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim:

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> >> 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.  
> 
> Tell this to Unicorn.  He seems to disagree, although he hasn't
> cited specifics yet.

	I was only thinking in terms of US Courts.

	Black Unicorn didn't limit himself to that.
	His citations are early than 1900.  
	Think Ecclesiastical Courts.   Or use Lexis.

> >	Can you provide a citation where a 
>>      court has demanded a handwriting
> >	sample for graphological purposes?
> 
> Adding the conditional "for graphological purposes," I can't. 

	Why doesn't that surprise me?   You raised the conditional
	"for graphological purposes".   

> I was merely 
> referring to a SC decision previously quoted here.  The writing of that 
> reference didn't make clear what purposes the sample could be used for.

	I guess you didn't read any of the SC decision.  It was
	only for Questioned Document Examination.   

> No.  What I was trying to do is to get people to stop thinking of legal 
> precedent as being some sort of end-all incident that makes all further 
> discussion pointless.  

	So you totally ignore what was practiced.  Thus creating
	hypothetical situations that could never have occured.

> >	Note in passing that rules for admitting something into 
> >	evidence was a lot looser then, than it is now. 
> If that's really the case, and this would today be considered a 
> clear violation of the 5th, what does that say about the claim that 

	I guess you are not familiar with the _current_ requirements 
	for one to be qualified as an expert witness in court.

	Or studied _Federal Rules for Evidence_.   

	Or faced a hostile attorney whose sole intent is to 
	totally discredit you, because the facts don't support 
	the client's allegations.  

> "current government policy" must be right?

	Given a choice between being able to prove my innocence,
	based on scientifically demonstrable facts, or on the
	heresay of unsubstantiated opinion, I'd rather use the
	scientific facts, anytime.  

	And as you've been told, the items you gave in your list
	were for identification of an individual. 

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.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.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Tell this [statement about the use of handwriting analysis in
> court] to Unicorn.  He seems to disagree, although he hasn't
> cited specifics yet. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Unicorn offer Mr. Bell a 
wager on this issue?  Isn't the ball in Mr. Bell's court to put
his money where his mouth is?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~