Whew! This is a long thread! I didn't read it all, but I'll add this fyi, just in case:
Our info base is sketchy, but the only logical place a group of signatures could be observed for fraud would be on the absentee or provisional ballots.
Visualize looking over the log signatures for the voters who went to the polls. Would it mean anything if the handwriting of a signature on page 12 was similar to the handwriting of a signature on page 41?
No, it wouldn't. Without some way to group the signatures for inspection, this would be a futile task unless some other information of fraud was known or apparent.
However, if you have a stack of absentee or provisional ballots, the examiners can more easily review individual documents and look for trends. Those documents bearing similar handwriting cannot be examined for validity (without seeking out the voter himself), but those documents can be examined to show that the same person may have signed multiple documents.
The handwriting itself cannot be matched, since all the signatures will be of different names and not subject to the type of positive comparison needed in a courtroom, where the questioned signature is compared against a known signature, both being for the same name.
There could be more information on the documents themselves. Was the ink the same on the questioned signatures? Do the documents originate from a particular location, or were they filed on the same date? Things like that, trends, if substantial enough to create doubt about the validity of the group of suspect ballots, will invalidate the vote(s). "Courtroom proof" is not required, logically based doubt is enough.
The info reported by Fund is almost too preliminary to even be mentioned, unless the similarities were just obvious, such as if the defrauder(s) signed them "en masse", one after the other. Visual observation of similarities would be likely in that case, but, IMO, that's about the only scenario that fits the info supposedly coming from Fund.
I'm 60/40 on whether this whole deal is a hoax or not. (60% that it's a hoax.) We should know pretty soon, I guess.
Now I don't know how Washington state ballots look (in Ohio, the provisionals I think actually look different) but after three recounts, one could easily assume the provisionals were legitimately added after first checking them...except I can't imagine Roll Call (or else Hot Line, forget which) would report that story, LOL!!
It may be a pain, but I'm really thinking a re-vote is called for here...what happens if Gregoire is already sworn in (which is happening very soon, yes?) and it's definitely proved a few days later that Rossi actually won?!
Also, not all counties added in their "extra" ballots, did they? There was a court ruling allowing votes that were rejected in error to be put back in, but I think only King County got the advantage of that, right?
Sheesh! What a mess! It's like Ukraine on the left coast!