From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:32:07 +0800
To: Jonathon Blake <grafolog@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: 5th protect password?
Message-ID: <m0uBZkb-000986C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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