From: Jonathon Blake <grafolog@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:23:07 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 5th protect password?
In-Reply-To: <m0uBZkb-000986C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604230552.A27763-0100000@netcom2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	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             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************