Freshwater: DIY Handwriting Analysis

The D's tend to look like P's in both documents, too.
If there's a forgery, there must be a forger. Hamilton have the shorts to accuse anyone yet?

Looks like a no-brainer to me; the handwriting is by the same person.

It's easy to see a novice forger's work, unless Hamilton wants to claim this is the work of a pro. Look for stops and starts in unnatural places on the letters. It's caused by the forger pausing to see if they are still doing it right. I don't see any of that here.

I got quite an education in this kind of forgery while preparing the testimony for a case involving forged checks.

fnxtr said: The D's tend to look like P's in both documents, too. If there's a forgery, there must be a forger. Hamilton have the shorts to accuse anyone yet?

The "Tower" document is an obvious forgery.

It all comes down to motive.

I mean, the forger is trying to make his victim, a young earth creationist Biblical literalist religious fanatic look like a young earth creationist Biblical literalist religious fanatic.

Oh, wait ...

Fascinating (in the freeway pile-up sense) how these servants of the God of Truth are apparently trying to lie their way out of trouble. Reminds me of Dover.....

Notice how he also extends the vertical leg of the D to turn it into a P. In the Tower document ther are two phrases to note: "GOP- 'Nothing will unnattainable for them'" and GOP- "Scattered the people" - "Different lang."

Could this character be voting for the wrong GOD?

On Mr. Freshwater's lesson plan, he writes "specific complexity" and "irreducible complexity" --
these are creationist terms, not biological, are they not?

veritas36 said: On Mr. Freshwater's lesson plan, he writes "specific complexity" and "irreducible complexity" -- these are creationist terms, not biological, are they not?

veritas36 said: On Mr. Freshwater's lesson plan, he writes "specific complexity" and "irreducible complexity" -- these are creationist terms, not biological, are they not?

First column, third day down

"
-PepperMoth-Worksheet
-PowerPoint
-VCR-Tape
"

I'd like to know what those were.

But Freshwater and his attorney wouldn't lie, would they? I mean, they're Christians, right?

:^D

Another similarity is that the letter T in words are in the shape of a 7.

See words, worksheet and assessment, on the lesson plan.

See words, the, tower, nothing, in the worksheet document.

If the school board's attorney gets a handwriting expert I think J. Freshwater will be "cooked".

seabiscuit said: Another similarity is that the letter T in words are in the shape of a 7. See words, worksheet and assessment, on the lesson plan. See words, the, tower, nothing, in the worksheet document. If the school board's attorney gets a handwriting expert I think J. Freshwater will be "cooked".

Wheels said: Since Freshwater has contested writing those notes, can a handwriting expert be brought in to examine them?

one of the best things to look at in these cases is E ... there are several different stroke orders, and people nearly only ever do one of them. In this case, it's obviously L-middle stroke-upper stroke (I'm a square C-middle stroke), and in both cases there's a sloppy habit I've never seen before: the tendency to go immediately from the middle to the upper stroke without properly positioning the pen for the second, even sometimes joining the two together.

The truth is that both documents have reference to creationism, so while I'd love to see his "claim" that the one document is a "forgery" be proven wrong, I'm not sure that it will change the outcome.

The thing that bothered me the most about this particular document in relationship to the hearing was Hamilton's actions when the document was presented by Millstone. As he held on to the document, he looked into the gallery and mouthed the words "fake" multiple times. It was a bit too theatrical for me.

snaxalotl said: there's a sloppy habit I've never seen before: the tendency to go immediately from the middle to the upper stroke without properly positioning the pen for the second, even sometimes joining the two together.

"On Mr. Freshwater’s lesson plan, he writes “specific complexity” and “irreducible complexity” – these are creationist terms, not biological, are they not?"

"Actually, they don’t mean anything, which is the real problem. But they sound sciency, which, of course, is the whole idea".

Nick Lane, in one of his books, I think it was "Power, Sex and Suicide" (on the evolution of eukaryotic cells and mitochondria) used the term "irreducible complexity" to pour scorn on Michael Behe. Of course a lot of things are irreducibly complex (take one component away and the complex stops working). But Michael Behe's idea that complexes can't evolve gradually is just stupid.

The mere fact that both samples are entirely capital letters is also significant. Like the person or persons who wrote these samples (which sure look similar to me), I also print almost exclusively, but most of us printers use both upper & lower case.

A pity there's no letter "Y" in the Babel sample. It's very distinctive in the lesson plan.

chuck said: First column, third day down " -PepperMoth-Worksheet -PowerPoint -VCR-Tape " I'd like to know what those were.

I think Hamilton is looking to be censured. These insinuations plus the way they've tried to taint the review process and go after opposing counsel. All of it is simply out of bounds.

The "t"s are particularly interesting.

RBH said: ... he didn't make the "forgery" comment aloud: he mouthed it at David Millstone, the Board's attorney who had just introduced the article into evidence, across the hearing room.

MPW said:

RBH said: ... he didn't make the "forgery" comment aloud: he mouthed it at David Millstone, the Board's attorney who had just introduced the article into evidence, across the hearing room.

Seriously? Is this guy thirteen? Maybe he has snapped and is hallucinating that he's at a middle school dance in a pink gown and is mouthing "Slut" across the gym to the girl who stole his boyfriend.

Another delicious coup, reading the scans. The T that looks like a 7 or 2 in both samples is a dead giveaway that the author was the same, but even more hilarious is the idea of the allegedly excellent science teacher not only slipping into the lesson plan items not approved (specified and irreducible complexity) but that these were notations that under his own admission he claimed not to know what they meant.

We've slipped into Cabinet of Dr. Caligari expressionism here, where the somnambulist teacher annotates without meaning. What ever did he think he was going to say about these things he did not know the meaning of in his course? Freshwater's tortucan ruts are starting to look like C5A runways!

Surely the Explanatory Filter will sort this out?

Surely the Explanatory Filter will sort this out?

raven said:

Surely the Explanatory Filter will sort this out?

Do they show the same amount of Specified Complexity?

raven said:

Surely the Explanatory Filter will sort this out?

Do they show the same amount of Specified Complexity?

Entertaining as this all is (and it's been very entertaining!), it's probably moot, unless Hamilton has the cojones to say this out loud in public or in court, or unless it was recorded on video.

My guess is that he's found out about postings like this, and will realize that for him to claim that Millstone forged one of the documents will immediately result in censure (and, IANAL, but other punishments as well?). This kind of unethical and childish behavior will also be very damaging to his client's case, both legally and in the court of public opinion.

eric said: Specified Complexity is measured in units of Bill-Stevens, named for its inventors.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Entertaining as this all is (and it's been very entertaining!), it's probably moot, unless Hamilton has the cojones to say this out loud in public or in court, or unless it was recorded on video.

stevaroni said:

eric said: Specified Complexity is measured in units of Bill-Stevens, named for its inventors.

I'm sure we've discussed this before, I though it was measured in "dits", for "Dembski Information Thingies". Maybe there's a new standard, how many old-style dits are in a Bill-Stevens?

NYT's has article on the hearings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html?ref=us

... I though[t] it was measured in "dits", for "Dembski Information Thingies".

No doubt there are others, but the specific and obvious similarities I described together with the impression of overall similarity induced by such things as the relatively close spacing between letters within words as compared with a relatively wide spacing between words strongly suggests to me that the same person wrote both documents.

Isn't the point of a forgery to mimic the handwriting such that you can't tell the difference? For what it's worth, there is no "science" of handwriting analysis that allows an expert to distinguish a forgery from a "genuine" signature, or to prove based on handwriting alone that a "signature" was fake.

Experts that claim otherwise are junk peddlers.

Matt Young said: I think I probably coined the term dit, for Dembski bit

unregistered troll: For what it’s worth, there is no “science” of handwriting analysis that allows an expert to distinguish a forgery from a “genuine” signature, or to prove based on handwriting alone that a “signature” was fake. Experts that claim otherwise are junk peddlers.

mglaw.net: HANDWRITING ANALYSIS There is some dispute regarding whether handwriting analysis is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Rule 702. However, most courts agree that the field of forensic document examination is premised on the assumption that no two persons' handwriting is exactly alike. The field assumes that each person has a unique handwriting pattern that allows the person to be identified through a comparison of proper handwriting specimens. Analysts subjectively assess the qualities and quantities of characteristics such as pen lifts, shading, pressure and letter forms. All acknowledge that this is not an exact science and that different experts can reach different conclusions. Many courts have recognized the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners ("ABFDE") as an appropriate accrediting organization for handwriting experts. This organization has been held to have a legitimate certification process and verifiable professional standards. There are other organizations that purport to certify experts in this field, but some are simply mail order businesses that sell certificates. Other organizations have their roots in graphology, which is the "art" of determining personality traits from looking at a person's handwriting.

federal evidence review: 5. General acceptance “The court recognized the broad acceptance of handwriting analysis and specifically its use by such law enforcement agencies as the CIA, FBI, and the United States Postal Inspection Service. Given the comprehensive inquiry into Storer’s proffered testimony, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the expert handwriting analysis testimony. The district court’s thorough and careful application of the Daubert factors was consistent with all six circuits that have addressed the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony, and determined that it can satisfy the reliability threshold. See United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 269–70 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Mooney, 315 F.3d 54, 63 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Jolivet, 224 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906, 911 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147, 1161 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 850–52 (3d Cir. 1995).” Prime, 431 F.3d at 1153-54 (other citations omitted). Based on the consideration of the five non-exclusive factors, the introduction of the handwriting expert testimony was affirmed. The Prime case is useful not just for its conclusion concerning the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony but also to show how the five Daubert factors were applied.

Science Nut said: NYT's has article on the hearings: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html?ref=us

stevaroni said: Still... I do kinda like my "Dembski Information Thingie" version....

Registered User said: Isn't the point of a forgery to mimic the handwriting such that you can't tell the difference? For what it's worth, there is no "science" of handwriting analysis that allows an expert to distinguish a forgery from a "genuine" signature, or to prove based on handwriting alone that a "signature" was fake.

I’d be surprised. As I said, what I see in the two documents “…strongly suggests to me that the same person wrote both documents.”

Dave Luckett said:

Science Nut said: NYT's has article on the hearings: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html?ref=us

It's a "he-said-she-said" attempt at seeming neutrality, with local colour. The most salient fact noted about the hearing is that it has dragged on for a year and cost the local school board half a million dollars, which is certain to give pause to any other.

Maya said: I've been wondering for a while if dragging out the proceedings like this is usual for this type of hearing or if the referee has completely lost control of the process. Couldn't he just say "We're meeting every day until this is resolved. Clear your calendars." and have it over in a month?

There is more to authenticating documents than handwriting analysis.

The scientific basis for handwriting comparisons needs to be strengthened.⁹⁸ Recent studies have increased our understanding of the individuality and consistency of handwriting and computer studies⁹⁹ and suggest that there may be a scientific basis for handwriting comparison, at least in the absence of intentional obfuscation or forgery. Although there has been only limited research to quantify the reliability and replicability of the practices used by trained document examiners, the committee agrees that there may be some value in handwriting analysis.