Okay, doctor semantical.
I am in "wait and see" mode, rather than in "embrace" mode. That's one of the things I most fault with you guys. You're so d@mn certain. Certainty is often the enemy.
What I most fault with your guys, is your failure to use your own brain and to rely on 'experts' to tell you the truth of what is right in front of you. It comes from a lifetime of conditioning, which is hard to throw off.
Once you come to understand that truism, the shackle removal is almost instantaneous. I know this to be a fact from personal experience and my decisive nature.
And you have a willigness to jump to a conclusion you like based on very flimsy evidence. I am reminded of the "carpet fiber" evidence the FBI likes to use.
Carpet fibers are your strawman. Carpet fibers are not handwriting. This argument is deemed irrelevant.
So you think handwriting is good evidence?
I absolutely do. Within the realm of identifying who wrote something. Outside of that, you're right. It's total crap.
First of all, that sample is too small. You need quite a bit of writing to make a comparison that has a high probability of being accurate.
Disagree, inspector.
Even so, it's not that unusual to find people who have similar writing styles.
Some might say its unusual and outside the realm of coincidence that two people in a four man meeting would have almost identical handwriting. People like me, for example. You're stretching the limits of credulity to win an argument, you self confessed contrarian.
And still losing.
My eldest son's writing is virtually indistinguishable from my own. It looks like my writing.
He copied his daddy. This is common. Obama is not Priestap's daddy. That we know of.
Without a lot of material from which to make comparisons, handwriting evidence is crap.
Define 'a lot of material', detective.
Are you one of those guys that knows everything about everything?
Both samples were written by the same hand.
Science.
