Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

Recommended Posts

One person Fritz COULD have gotten info from was Holmes. HDH does insert himself early into the investigation in numerous ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think there are many indications that it is so. As a USPO-PI and FBI informant and friend of Fritz (and being a hop skip and jump from Dulles, Helms (Rockefeller?)) he appears as an info hub. (I think it likely that whoever can ID the 4-5 people with Holmes watching the assassination (which Holmes being a self described memory expert couldn't remember the names of) will likely provide an important crack in the coverup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did they know they had Oswald and not Hidell?

~sigh~

Roy Truly gave the police OSWALD'S name.

The police arrested a gun-wielding nutcase named either OSWALD or HIDELL in the Texas Theater.

Hence, putting 2 and 2 together, the Dallas police knew they had OSWALD in custody.

Did all conspiracy theorists flunk math class? Sure looks like it.

Do you have an answer as to why "Hidell" didn't officially surface until day two? Or are you going to ignore this slight inconvenience?

Oh, no! DAY TWO??!!! Tell me it ain't so! A piece of evidence didn't surface until DAY TWO??!! A whole 24 hours later! This MUST prove Oswald's innocence, huh?!! Of course it does. Turn him loose...now!

CTer motto --- Gather the chaff while ignoring the wheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for alll that info, David.

edit:add

. the diagram of the basement and the photos allow for a partial reconstruction after some study. I'm surprised not more photos were taken. I wouldn't be surprised if there were. The diagram, unlike the other floor plans unfortunately don't show the window/wall openings. (I wonder if there are any photos or descriptions of the area under the loading platform.). Given the age of the buildings (and the plaza area) I'd be very surprised of there were no interconnecting tunnel access' to adjacent buildings. What does the writing at the shaft with no openings say?

looks like elev. shaft.

A third elevator. unsure.gif

edit add : shaft so far traced to second floor, 3rd 4th not apparently online but noted in list as existing. add: 5th?

edit add2:. Oswald passed the door to the shaft.

Was the bottom of the shaft ever searched?

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that this little diversion to the basement needs to be explored. There are a number of entries and exits, perhaps 5 known some of which lead to a number of others and likely some unknown again leading to some others. Obviously it can serve as an indicator of conspiracy if one considers where the elevator is master controlled from, where persons parked, where persons were seen leaving etc. + as a sideline spec. the consideration of tunnels which previous posts by Bernice mostly indicate are/were there, a present apparently closed system with perhaps photo discernible covered exit/entries etc. Of course such an exploration can be done today as well as considering the snpers nest a recent archaeological exploration waiting to happen. Dateable and spectographic analysis of the last 50 years of detritus may yield something if the days around the assassination can be id'd by a crossectional study of stuff in cracks, posssibly sealed and preserved in various ways). If anyone can scan and post the exhibits apparently unavailable on the net that could be helpful.

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Drittal certainly isn't spelled with an "LE" (Drittle) as William Kelly suggested in an earlier post.

It looks like DRITTAL to me (via CE790).

What's it look like to you, Tom Scully?

The person that filled the form in could have misspelt Drittal for Drittle having only heard it or from a mental note to use that name and not seen it in print.

Hidell is not hidall is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Drittal certainly isn't spelled with an "LE" (Drittle) as William Kelly suggested in an earlier post.

It looks like DRITTAL to me (via CE790).

What's it look like to you, Tom Scully?

The person that filled the form in could have misspelt Drittal for Drittle having only heard it or from a mental note to use that name and not seen it in print.

Hidell is not hidall is it ?

And Oswald did know a guy named Heindell in the USMC who lived in New Orleans in 1963.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/heindel.htm

Greg Parker has a theory about the meaning of the word "Drittal" too.

And I find it interesting that John Hurt's wife's maiden name is Drittle.

BK

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

Where is DVP and Dave Reitzes and the whole LN crowd who have been so prevelant recently?

They've all been quite silent since the forum has been down.

Their enlightened views are surely missed.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can anyone look at that scribble coupon which appears to be drawn in with crayon and say that it is for sure Oswald who penned it?

Because a questioned documents expert for the FBI, James Cadigan, said it's Oswald's writing on the mail-order coupon. That's how.

And I can tell from just one look at the words "Dallas, Texas" that it was very likely written by Oswald. The lower-case E in Texas and the general style of that writing is perfectly consistent with Oswald's other known writing:

CE790.jpg?t=1281583077

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 135, which, for the record, is an order used for the purchase of the revolver that was apparently used to murder Officer Tippit. .... Did you compare Commission Exhibit No. 135 with the standard or known writings of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion as to the origin of 135?

Mr. CADIGAN. That it was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give some of the reasons that led you to form that conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; here again, it is the presence of the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics, both handwriting and handprinting.

For example, again the wording "Dallas, Texas," is handprinted on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, and the same characteristics appear in the same wording on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 9, 7, 6, and 8. The formation of the individual letters on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, the spacing of the letters, the proportions of the letters, were found to be the same as on the known standards. Additionally, the capital letter "D" in the name "Drittal" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12 has a rather unusual appearance in the upper portion of the letter in that it is very pointed and wedge-shaped, and I found this same shape present on the reverse side of the passport application on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, page 2 in the word "Dec." Again, I noted the rather long tail or ending stroke on the number "5" in the address portion of this exhibit. Again, based on finding the same combination of individual handwriting habits in the questioned and known writings, I concluded that Commission Exhibit No. 135 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can anyone look at that scribble coupon which appears to be drawn in with crayon and say that it is for sure Oswald who penned it?

Because a questioned documents expert for the FBI, James Cadigan, said it's Oswald's writing on the mail-order coupon. That's how.

And I can tell from just one look at the words "Dallas, Texas" that it was very likely written by Oswald. The lower-case E in Texas and the general style of that writing is perfectly consistent with Oswald's other known writing:

CE790.jpg?t=1281583077

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 135, which, for the record, is an order used for the purchase of the revolver that was apparently used to murder Officer Tippit. .... Did you compare Commission Exhibit No. 135 with the standard or known writings of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion as to the origin of 135?

Mr. CADIGAN. That it was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give some of the reasons that led you to form that conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; here again, it is the presence of the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics, both handwriting and handprinting.

For example, again the wording "Dallas, Texas," is handprinted on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, and the same characteristics appear in the same wording on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 9, 7, 6, and 8. The formation of the individual letters on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, the spacing of the letters, the proportions of the letters, were found to be the same as on the known standards. Additionally, the capital letter "D" in the name "Drittal" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12 has a rather unusual appearance in the upper portion of the letter in that it is very pointed and wedge-shaped, and I found this same shape present on the reverse side of the passport application on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, page 2 in the word "Dec." Again, I noted the rather long tail or ending stroke on the number "5" in the address portion of this exhibit. Again, based on finding the same combination of individual handwriting habits in the questioned and known writings, I concluded that Commission Exhibit No. 135 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

But is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting. It doesn't appear to be to me.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting[?]

Cadigan said it is, yes.

But, of course, the "D.F. Drittal" portion of the coupon is really supposed to be written by someone other than the person who is ordering the gun.

So, if Oswald had any sense at all, he would have written the name "D.F. Drittal" in a slightly different writing style from that of his own handwriting--in order to fool the people at Seaport Traders into thinking that this fictitious person named "Drittal" had really signed the order coupon and was really vouching for this guy "A.J. Hidell".

But, per James Cadigan's testimony, Oswald obviously didn't disguise his handwriting well enough to fool a questioned documents expert like Cadigan.

Why is there this extreme need by conspiracy theorists such as Jim DiEugenio to pretend that Oswald never ordered the revolver from Seaport Traders? What a bizarre notion.

Even if the order coupon never existed--who cares? It doesn't matter one bit. Because Oswald was caught red-handed with Revolver #V510210 in his hands in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after somebody killed Officer J.D. Tippit with Revolver #V510210.

This is kindergarten math here. Oswald's guilty.

Footnote---

Here's a composite photo I just now put together, showing the words "Dallas, Texas" printed on two different Warren Commission exhibits -- CE790 and CE794 -- the latter being a change-of-address card that Oswald filled out in 1963. Notice any similarities?:

Oswald+Handwriting+Comparison.jpg

DVP-Blogs-Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting[?]

Cadigan said it is, yes.

Why is there this extreme need by conspiracy theorists such as Jim DiEugenio to pretend that Oswald never ordered the revolver from Seaport Traders? What a bizarre notion.

Even if the order coupon never existed--who cares? It doesn't matter one bit. Because Oswald was caught red-handed with Revolver #V510210 in his hands in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after somebody killed Officer J.D. Tippit with Revolver #V510210.

This is kindergarten math here. Oswald's guilty.

Footnote---

Here's a composite photo I just now put together, showing the words "Dallas, Texas" printed on two different Warren Commission exhibits -- CE790 and CE794 -- the latter being a change-of-address card that Oswald filled out in 1963. Notice any similarities?:

Oswald+Handwriting+Comparison.jpg

DVP-Blogs-Logo.png

Well Dave,

I thought I was the one who asked about "Drittal."

If the FBI expert says it was Oswald, that's okay by me. I was just wondering though, since he got Marina to sign for A. J. Hidell on the FPCC card, and since "Dittal" is supposed to be a "witness," you would think that Oswald would get somebody else to sign on as a witness for him even if they made up a name.

And why "Drittal"?

And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippitt.

Okay, it's his gun, he had it on him when he was arrested in the theater, and acknowledged it to interrogators, but how come we don't have any evidence - records or witnesses of him picking it up at the Post Office, or the rifle for that matter, and when did he do it if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?

Did somebody pick up the weapons for him?

And why did he go through the whole rigeramorall of ordering the pistol and the rifle through the mails and the PO box with the aliases and money orders, when he could have gone to Green's down the street and bought both with cash and no records of his identification to purchase them?

So he's guilty in your mind, but you still haven't figured out how he go the guns from the Post Office, or where he got the bullets from, or where the rifle and pistol were when he went to New Orleans and Mexico City, and what's with that strap - the one on the rifle said to have been used to kill the President. Where'd that come from? The US AF officer holster strap.

I know, it doesn't matter, as long as Oswald is guilty, all the other questions are meaningless.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record -- I edited my last post re: the "Drittal" matter BEFORE I ever saw Bill Kelly's quoted passage below. I don't want Bill to think I saw his post and then later edited my post to mirror Bill's logical point here:

"Since he got Marina to sign for A. J. Hidell on the FPCC card, and since "D[r]ittal" is supposed to be a "witness," you would think that Oswald would get somebody else to sign on as a witness for him even if they made up a name."

============

Here's my "edit"/addendum:

"But, of course, the "D.F. Drittal" portion of the coupon is really supposed to be written by someone other than the person who is ordering the gun. So, if Oswald had any sense at all, he would have written the name "D.F. Drittal" in a slightly different writing style from that of his own handwriting--in order to fool the people at Seaport Traders into thinking that this fictitious person named "Drittal" had really signed the order coupon and was really vouching for this guy "A.J. Hidell". But, per James Cadigan's testimony, Oswald obviously didn't disguise his handwriting well enough to fool a questioned documents expert like Cadigan." -- DVP

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why "Drittal"?

Why not Drittal?

And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippit.

I think your next four words that you wrote below should tell you something....

Okay, it's his gun.

So, you're admitting that Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 WAS Lee Harvey Oswald's gun?

That's a good start to realizing that the OWNER OF THAT GUN (who had that same gun ON HIM when he was arrested) is very likely the person who used it to fire the bullets FROM THAT GUN into the body of Officer Tippit.

And please don't say: But the bullets couldn't be matched to that V510210 revolver, David. Because that fact doesn't mean Oswald's gun did not murder Tippit, and every reasonable person knows it.

And the lack of J.M. Poe's initials on two of the shells doesn't prove anything either -- because there are TWO MORE SHELLS at that crime scene that conspiracists love to ignore completely. And those OTHER two shells were ejected from the ONLY GUN that was being dumped of its shell casings on Tenth Street right after Tippit's murder.

He [LHO] had it on him when he was arrested in the theater, and acknowledged it to interrogators, but how come we don't have any evidence - records or witnesses of him picking it up at the Post Office, or the rifle for that matter, and when did he do it if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?

Why do conspiracy seekers think that Oswald HAD to pick up his guns at a specific time of the day? Maybe he got the guns BEFORE work hours...or AFTER work. Nobody can know for certain. But there's certainly at least a few minutes of a few different days when there was a window of opportunity for Oswald to collect his guns from the post office and the REA Express office. Or: maybe Oswald ducked out of worked for a short time one day. Who can know?

Did somebody pick up the weapons for him?

There was no need for that. See my last comments above.

And why did he go through the whole rigeramorall of ordering the pistol and the rifle through the mails and the PO box with the aliases and money orders, when he could have gone to Green's down the street and bought both with cash and no records of his identification to purchase them?

Can you PROVE that H.L. Green's in Dallas didn't keep records on the PEOPLE who bought guns from them in 1963?

This issue of Oswald being able to walk into any gun store or department store in the state of Texas and buy a gun without a speck of paperwork being left behind is something that I do not think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is: it's another silly myth created by conspiracy theorists.

Maybe SOME stores didn't keep records of their gun transactions. But I think that SOME did keep full records of such firearms purchases. And Jean Davison has been recently looking into this matter more deeply, and has posted some interesting information on it, such as the two posts below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2fd0d

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cbbb155031f51c94

So he's [LHO] guilty in your mind, but you still haven't figured out how he got the guns from the Post Office, or where he got the bullets from, or where the rifle and pistol were when he went to New Orleans and Mexico City, and what's with that strap--the one on the rifle said to have been used to kill the President? Where'd that come from? The US AF officer holster strap. I know, it doesn't matter, as long as Oswald is guilty, all the other questions are meaningless.

I want to know if there's ever been a murder case in U.S. history where it has been mandatory to find out WHERE the accused killer acquired his BULLETS to put into his gun(s)?

And has there ever been a case in history where it's been required to know with 100% certainty where the accused murderer got the strap that he put on his rifle?

And has there ever been a case where it's been a requirement to know WHERE the murder weapon was stored for a certain period of time TWO MONTHS BEFORE the murder was committed?

You're concentrating on all the wrong things, William Kelly. You're looking right at the killer who practically has a smoking gun in his hand (in the case of the Tippit murder anyway, with Oswald trying to kill more cops in the theater with the very same gun he had just used to kill Officer Tippit) and you are, in essence, ignoring the obvious and asking unimportant and trivial questions instead.

You might just as well ask this --- Gee, I wonder where Oswald got those shoes he was wearing when he was arrested in the Texas Theater? I really don't think he could have done all that walking on November 22 while wearing those particular shoes. They look too uncomfortable.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

David, tell us again when you suppose Oswald decided to assassinate president Kennedy? Your last post intones a scenario of premeditation cia distortion and or cover up, -to do what, exactly?

Your faith in the testimony you cited is flawed because if Oswald's interest was represented by a lawyer who had done his homework, there was at least the potential for that lawyer to argue beyond a reasonable doubt that elements of and the process of the Warren Commission had been infiltrated by organized crime.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336&st=45&p=201195entry201195

Also, there is the matter of the questionable "science" utilized by the witness in formulating his "expert" opinion, especially in that comparatively primitive era. The problem has not gone away, and here is how similar testimony has been challenged successfully, much more recently. We are supposed to have a system of laws and reasonable doubt is expected to be the bar the prosecution must overcome to achieve a conviction of an accused.:

http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS10388J.htm

Muehlberger, RJ

Document analysts/postal inspectors, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Crime Laboratory,

(Received 1 March 1976; accepted 28 April 1976)

http://tillers.net/ev-course/materials/starzecpyzel.html

UNITED STATES v. STARZECPYZEL, 880 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McKENNA, D.J.

A Grand Jury has charged Defendants with conspiring to steal paintings, sculpture, silver and jewelry from Ethel Brownstone, defendant Roberta Starzecpyzel's aunt. (S1 93 Cr. 553.) The indictment charges, inter alia, that the Starzecpyzels removed over 100 items of artwork from Brownstone's apartment, delivered them to Sotheby's and Christie's auction houses, authorized the sale of the items, and directed the auction houses to forward the sale proceeds to Swiss bank accounts. The Defendants have also been charged with Interstate and Foreign Transportation of Stolen Moneys, Mail Fraud, Laundering of Monetary Instruments, and Tax Evasion.

On December 12, 1994, Defendants moved the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 403, to exclude all expert witness testimony and other evidence relating to the alleged forgery of Ethel Brownstone's signatures on two documents dated June 3, 1985 and March 11, 1986. These writings had been examined by Gus Lesnevich, a forensic document examiner ("FDE"), who concluded that the challenged signatures were not genuine. Defendants argued that:

this alleged expertise [of forensic document examination] has never been validated as credible scientific or technical knowledge and does not comport with the requirements of evidentiary reliability articulated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, U.S. , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).

(Defs.' Mem. at 1-2.) In the alternative, Defendants requested a Daubert hearing on this issue pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and 702.

The Court granted Defendants' request for a Daubert hearing, which was held from February 28 through March 2, 1995. The government offered the testimony of Mary Wenderoth Kelly, an FDE employed by the City of Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, who currently serves as vice-president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. Defendants offered the testimony of George Edward Stelmach, Professor of Exercise Science and Psychology at Arizona State University, and Michael J. Saks, Professor of Law and Psychology at the University of Iowa.

While the Court originally considered Daubert to be controlling as to the admissibility of the forensic testimony at issue -- relating to the comparison of a large body of genuine writings to claimed forgeries -- the Court now concludes that Daubert, which focuses on the "junk science" problem, is largely irrelevant to the challenged testimony. The Daubert hearing established that forensic document examination, which clothes itself with the trappings of science, does not rest on carefully articulated postulates, does not employ rigorous methodology, and has not convincingly documented the accuracy of its determinations. The Court might well have concluded that forensic document examination constitutes precisely the sort of junk science that Daubert addressed.

Yet, as distinguished from such discredited ventures as hedonic damage expertise, n1 clinical ecology, n2 trauma-cancer expertise n3 or the Bendectin plaintiffs' statistical machinations, n4 forensic document examination does involve true expertise, which may prove helpful to a fact-finder. FDE expertise is not properly characterized as scientific, but as practical in character. In a nutshell, over a period of years, FDEs gradually acquire the skill of identifying similarities and differences between groups of handwriting exemplars. Such expertise is similar to that developed by a harbor pilot who has repeatedly navigated a particular waterway. The Court therefore treats forensic document expertise under the "technical, or other specialized knowledge" branch of Rule 702, which is apparently not governed by Daubert...

...II. The Daubert Hearing

The hearing commenced with the testimony of Mary Wenderoth Kelly, an FDE with more than a decade of experience, currently employed by the City of Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory. Ms. Kelly holds a Bachelor of Science degree in general ethics from Ohio State University and a juris doctorate from Cleveland Marshal College of Law. She currently serves as the vice-president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (the "Board"), which certifies document examiners. Kelly described her duties on the Board:

My primary duties involve the testing committee. I am chairperson of the testing committee and oversee the tests that are administered to the different candidates. I also sit as the professional review committee chairperson thus handling any kind of professional complaints that would be [lodged].

(Transcript of Daubert Hearing ("Tr.") at 18.) Ms. Kelly also serves as a director for the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and is a fellow in the questioned document section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Kelly first described the recommended two-year training program for FDEs. (Id. at 25.) She also described the process by which approximately 200 FDEs have achieved certification, and retained it through the acquisition of continuing education credits. (Id. at 280-81.)

Kelly testified that two basic principles underlie the field of forensic document examination. The first principle is that "no two people write exactly the same way." (Id. at 31.) For brevity the Court will refer to the differences between the handwriting of distinct writers as "inter-writer" differences. The second principle is that "no person will write exactly the same way when repeating." (Id. at 34.) These differences, referred to by FDEs, and hereinafter by the Court, as "natural variation," arise from the fact that human beings "lack the machine-like precision" to be able to reproduce even their signature the same way each time. (Id.)

As a matter of elementary logic, the fundamental issue in determining the reliability of forensic document examination must be the ability of FDEs to distinguish natural variation from inter-writer differences. Of course, where someone attempts to mimic the handwriting of another, there is a suppression of "ordinary" inter-writer differences, which makes the FDE's task more difficult. By characterizing natural variation and inter-writer differences as "principles underlying the field," Ms. Kelly may have suggested that these phenomena constitute solutions to the problem of forgery detection. It is clear, however, that the tension between these two sources of handwriting variation constitutes the problem itself, rather than a solution to the problem.

If forensic document examination does rely on an underlying principle, logic dictates that the principle must embody the notion that inter-writer differences, even when intentionally suppressed, can be distinguished from natural variation. How FDEs might accomplish this was unclear to the Court before the hearing, and largely remains so after the hearing.

One can speculate that while natural variation involves primarily quantitative differences (such as small changes in the "slant" of successive "t's" produced by a single individual), inter-writer variations involve qualitative differences (such as loops produced in a clockwise, rather than counter-clockwise, fashion). n5 Both the Defendants and the Court sought elucidation on this issue, but met with little success:

Q: [Osborn, questioned Documents 147 (2d ed. 1929), states that] a slight but persistent difference [in] slant in two writings of considerable length may be evidence that the writings are by two different writers, while a pronounced difference might be the result of intended disguise. What would be the difference between a slight but persistent difference and a profound difference in slant?

Ms. Kelly: I think what he is getting to, once again, is that a slight but persistent difference in two writings [**16] might indicate it's two different writers. In order to make that evaluation, you would have to have sufficient known writing of both writers. ...

Q: So slight in that context would be a comparative notion?

Ms. Kelly: It would seem like it, yes.

....

Q: So a slight difference in slant would be?

Ms. Kelly: He is using it as a comparative between two different writers ....

Q: What degree of measure might be slight?

Ms. Kelly: ... I wouldn't quantify it....

Q: How is the individuality of a feature determined?

Ms. Kelly: Once again, it goes to how much that might diverge from the standard copy book form of a given letter formation and it really is based on the training and experience of the examiner in evaluating that characteristic.

Q: So then it's a subjective determination of individuality?

Ms. Kelly: There is a subjective component, but once again there are objective components to how you have to proceed.

Q: What might one of those objective components be?

Ms. Kelly: Once again, it's the amount of known writing that is necessary, as to being able to establish the range of variation of a given writer, sufficient quantity of questioned writing, the appropriate weight and the equipment that might be used.

Q: But there is no numerical or quantifiable standard for the amount of known writing or the sufficient quantity of known writing?

Ms. Kelly: No. Once again, there is no standard measurement because every writer is very individual and very unique. Some people have a lot of individuality present in their writing and other people do not. So it's kind of evaluated for each writer.

(Id. at 204-05.)

Ms. Kelly's testimony established that there are few published studies supporting even the "two underlying principles" of forensic document analysis, much less the claim that FDEs can reliably detect forgeries. Ms. Kelly relied on a study that concerned [*1034] the uniqueness of each person's handwriting. R.J. Muehlberger et al., A Statistical Examination of Selected Handwriting Characteristics, 22 J. Forensic Sci. 206 (1977). Muehlberger concluded, however:

The survey is admittedly modest because of the size of the total population studied (200 individual writers).... This study was undertaken as an attempt to consider the possibilities for a standardized statistical approach to handwriting identification problems.

Id. at 215 (emphasis supplied).

Muehlberger also bemoaned the lack of statistical data concerning the occurrence of handwriting characteristics and noted that "while document examiners tend to assign probative values to specific handwriting characteristics and their combinations, judgments are often based almost entirely on the examiner's experience and power of recall." Id. at 206.

Ms. Kelly observed that, since Muehlberger was written in the 1970's, "I think that there [have] been a lot of studies done on the various aspects of handwriting characteristics that have since supplemented the work that was done then." (Id. at 112.) When asked to name a single such study, Ms. Kelly stated "I'm sorry, right now I can't think. I would have to go through some of the bibliographies that I brought with me." (Id.) Kelly was frequently unable to cite to studies supporting such critical propositions:

Q. Is there sufficient statistical data for document examiners to make the kinds of handwriting identifications they do?

Ms. Kelly: I believe that the principles that underlie handwriting analysis have sufficiently been proved and tested so that, yes, they can be used and applied for the purpose of handwriting identification.

Q. And the basis for your conclusion is?

Ms. Kelly: Is the studies that have been done and the papers that have been published and the work that has been done in the area.

Q. But you can't name us a particular study that would support that?

Ms. Kelly: I'm sorry, not off the top of my head I can't.

(Id. at 114.)

Ms. Kelly's inability to cite such studies, given her high standing within the FDE community and the substantial period of time that the government had to prepare both its case and its witness, leads to an inference that there are few useful scientific studies relevant to forensic document examination.

Ms. Kelly did, however, discuss a handful of articles that address the ability of FDEs to perform identifications, and the smaller number of articles that compare the relative skills of FDEs and lay examiners. The latter articles include Moshe Kam et al., Proficiency of Document Examiners in Writer Identification, 39 J. Forensic Sci. 5 (1994) and Henry T.F. Rhodes, Statistical Approaches to the Identification of Handwriting (unpublished manuscript). Ms. Kelly conceded that both Kam n6 and Rhodes believed that additional studies were required before conclusions could be drawn as to such ability. (Tr. at 115-17, 229.) Kelly also admitted that the problems attacked by FDEs did not lend themselves to rigorous (quantifiable) analysis:

Q: Wasn't Rhodes trying to examine if there is a classification system that could be used for handwriting?

Ms. Kelly: It appears that that's what he was trying to do.

Q: And wouldn't you agree that such a classification system would help provide a reliable criterion for dividing handwriting into standardized identifiable units?

Ms. Kelly: If it were possible, but he also concedes that it's not very possible.

Q: And you agree with that conclusion?

Ms. Kelly: It is -- once again, my conclusion is that it is difficult to somehow quantify and weigh and measure something that is done as dynamic [sic] as handwriting characteristics....

..The Court finds that FDEs, as a group, meet the minimum standards to qualify as nonscientific expert witnesses, by providing jurors with a helpful practical skill derived from their training and experience. No showing has been made, however, that FDEs can combine their first stage observations into such accurate conclusions as would justify a nine level scale.

Overly fine distinctions are inappropriate even in scientific efforts amenable to precise quantification. ...

...First, the jury will be instructed, in advance of any forensic document testimony, that FDEs offer practical, rather than scientific expertise. A similar expert witness instructn29 In drafting this instruction the Court was guided by Judge Broderick's charge in United States v. Williams, 583 F.2d 1194, 1199 n.13 (2d Cir. 1978), which stated in part:

You may decide that the technique of voice spectrographic analysis is not reliable. You may conclude that however reliable the technique, [the witness] has not had sufficient education, training, or experience to be relied upon as a practitioner of the technique. Or you may decide that the technique is reliable and that [the witness] is a reliable practitioner of the technique, but that you disagree with his conclusion."

See also United States v. Maivia, 728 F. Supp. 1471, 1475 (D. Haw. 1990) (citing a recommendation contained in a 1979 study by the National Academy of Sciences: "if evidence on voice identification is admitted in court ... the inherent limitations in the method and in the performance of examiners should be explained to the fact finder, whether the judge or the jury, in order to protect against overvaluation of the evidence.").

Second, the Court will consider restricting the testimony of FDEs as regards their degree of certainty in determining the genuineness of a signature. In particular, the Court may exclude testimony relating to the existence of the nine level scale, and any expert's selection of a level within the scale. This question will be discussed with counsel prior to any testimony by an FDE. ....

...Finally, at trial, Defendants will be permitted to attack the reliability of forensic document examination, as they did at the Daubert hearing, to attack the expertise of each testifying FDE, to introduce the testimony of their own FDE, or to employ any combination of such approaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...