Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/handwriting-analysis-cant-exonerate-roy-moore/

Because otherwise people could forge signatures, or frame someone for some shit, etc. etc.

There's a valid reason it exists...

That being said Roy Moore's defense is extremely pathetic from everything I've seen lol.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Because otherwise people could forge signatures, or frame someone for some shit, etc. etc.

There's a valid reason it exists...

That being said Roy Moore's defense is extremely pathetic from everything I've seen lol.
But...

I'd assume because handwritng can also be used for psychological analysis in court, given that handwiritng is pretty much unique to a particular person.

Originally posted by Stigma
I'd assume because handwritng can also be used for psychological analysis in court, given that handwriting is pretty much unique to a particular person. I'd be interested in any Scientific studies that are evidential and not opinioned re Psychological Analysis of Handwriting, particularly with a decent sample group that have been scientifically peer-reviewed.

Originally posted by Stigma
I'd assume because handwritng can also be used for psychological analysis in court, given that handwiritng is pretty much unique to a particular person.
Right, but it's an unreliable form of evidence with no scientific backing. Why would we use that in court?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/handwriting-analysis-cant-exonerate-roy-moore/


They have to prove it in court in front of a Jury. Doesn't matter if it is a tribal shaman: it's to convince the jury of x or y.


So if courts do not think of HA or other things like it as snake oil, it can be admissible with an expert testimony.


Edit - Also, if I become familiar enough with people's handwriting, a large number of them, I can look at a paper and in less than a second, tell exactly who it is. Almost like recognizing a face. There is definitive science behind HA. If a layman can "pattern match", all the more (pun) reason to say that an expert can match it. In this scenario, we are not dealing with Moore trying to pretend to be someone else. It is someone else trying to pretend to be Moore.


Computer Tests Proves Handwriting Analysis Is Legitimate

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97978&page=1



National Institute of Science and Technology decided to check for the validity of HA to an extreme level to see if they could find the suspects out of 1000 writing samples including when the suspects obfsucated their writing styles:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oles/David-Parrett-POWER-POINT-FINAL.pdf

Conclusion:

All Four Examiners reached definitive
conclusions.

All Four Examiners were correct.





The reason HA is being considered is if true Forensic HA Experts show that Moore did not write this, this calls into question ALL the allegations. And no body wants that. But just because one is determined to be forged does not mean that all people claiming to be victims are wrong. It could just mean that that person is a liar trying to get in on some of this: definitely not uncommon. We saw this with Bill Cosby, too: one or two victims had stories that were easily proven wrong. But what about the other 10+?

Originally posted by dadudemon
They have to prove it in court in front of a Jury. Doesn't matter if it is a tribal shaman: it's to convince the jury of x or y.


So if courts do not think of HA or other things like it as snake oil, it can be admissible with an expert testimony.

Whether or not it can be used doesn't address whether or not it should be used.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Right, but it's an unreliable form of evidence with no scientific backing. Why would we use that in court?

But this is false.


I think what you're confusing is using HA for Psychoanalysis. Not pattern matching. The pattern matching is what is being used, here, not the pseudoscience of psychoanalysis. I think this is what you've confused and also what the author of the 538 article didn't know. They should write a retraction.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whether or not it can be used doesn't address whether or not it should be used.

Read my edits. It can be used and it should be used and it is science. You're just simply wrong about it. So is the 538 author.

hmmm... interesting