Results 37 to 48 of 98
Thread: Handwriting analysis
-
May 29, 2007, 9:03 pm, Tue May 29 21:03:41 UTC 2007 #37
Originally Posted by Elle_1
Thanks again...
-
May 29, 2007, 9:03 pm, Tue May 29 21:03:43 UTC 2007 #38
Originally Posted by AMES
"We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis
MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!
-
May 29, 2007, 9:05 pm, Tue May 29 21:05:16 UTC 2007 #39
Originally Posted by AMES
JonBene♥t
Awww,,,look, I got a widdle bitty heart..."We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis
MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!
-
May 29, 2007, 9:15 pm, Tue May 29 21:15:05 UTC 2007 #40
Originally Posted by heymom
-
May 29, 2007, 9:16 pm, Tue May 29 21:16:26 UTC 2007 #41
Originally Posted by heymom
AWWWW...that's no fair. How did you do that?? If its not one of the smilies...then I don't know how to insert it. LOL
-
May 29, 2007, 9:26 pm, Tue May 29 21:26:19 UTC 2007 #42
I just tried the same thing that Elle told you, hold on, let me try it again...
JonBene♥t
I did it just like this - hold down ALT, go 1-3-0 on number pad and let up the ATL, keep holding down the numbers. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ You can do it with 1-0-3 too."We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis
MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!
-
May 29, 2007, 9:28 pm, Tue May 29 21:28:56 UTC 2007 #43
Originally Posted by heymom
Bummer...I can't get anymore of them to work.
-
May 29, 2007, 10:06 pm, Tue May 29 22:06:28 UTC 2007 #44
FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 8,381
Originally Posted by AMES
Here is the url for the character codes for Times New Roman
http://rmhh.co.uk/ascii.html
If you forget, just type what you're looking for in a google search Ames, and you'll also find the answers there.elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
Just my opinion.
-
May 29, 2007, 10:22 pm, Tue May 29 22:22:55 UTC 2007 #45
FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 8,381
Originally Posted by Little
elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
Just my opinion.
-
May 29, 2007, 10:27 pm, Tue May 29 22:27:45 UTC 2007 #46
OKaaaaaaay....let's see if the old pyrate can do it....
JonBenét
Oh, goody! That one worked. Let me try the heart thingy....
JonBen♥t
Awwwwwwwwwww...now that's sweet! Thanks Elle and heymom!
"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
FF: WRKJB?
-
May 30, 2007, 4:22 am, Wed May 30 4:22:10 UTC 2007 #47
I can't post the Standard for 2 reasons - 1) when I downloaded it in PDF format, they had very cleverly inserted my personal details into the document and I can't edit them out! 2) a condition of same was that I had to agree not to reproduce it. I'm therefore trying to summarise it without getting into copyright issues.
The standard is roughly split into three sections 1) AN overview of its purpose 2) Recommended practice in terms of use and terminology 3) Terminology to be avoided.
From the "terminology to be avoided" list:-
4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document
examiners are troublesome because they may be misinterpreted
to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is
deprecated.
could not be identified/cannot identify—these terms are
objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also
because they are biased; they imply that the examiner’s task
is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or not
the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it
should always be followed by “or eliminate[d]”.
None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]
This certainly makes sense to me.This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
May 30, 2007, 4:27 am, Wed May 30 4:27:24 UTC 2007 #48
Here is an overview of the recommended terminology.
1. Identification – this should be used when the examiner is certain that the writer of the known material also wrote the questioned material.
Recommended terminology - “It has been concluded that Joe Bloggs wrote” or “It is my opinion/conclusion that Joe Bloggs wrote”
2. Strong probability (highly probable, very probable) – the evidence is very persuasive but is missing some critical feature.
Recommended terminology - “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs very probably wrote...”
3. Probable – evidence points strongly towards the same person having written the known material and questioned material but falls short of certainty.
Recommended terminology - “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs probably wrote...”
4. Indications (evidence to suggest) – this is a weak opinion. A few significant features are in agreement between known material and questioned material. Should always be qualified to say that it is far from conclusive.
Recommended terminology - “evidence to suggest Joe Bloggs wrote...but falls far short... to reach a definite conclusion”
5. No conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable) – There may be significantly limiting factors – disguised writing, lack of comparable writing.
Recommended terminology - “could not determine whether Joe Bloggs”
6. Indications did not – this is a weak opinion. Little significant evidence between known material and questioned material. Should always be qualified to say that it is far from conclusive.
Recommended terminology - “Indications Joe Bloggs did not write .... far from conclusive”
7. Probably did not – Evidence points against known and questioned materials having been written by the same person but uncertainty still exists.
Recommended terminology - “it has been concluded that Joe Bloggs probably did not....” or “It is unlikely that Joe Bloggs...”
8. Strong probability did not – examiner is virtually certain that known and questioned materials were not written by the same person.
Recommended terminology - “Strong probability that Joe Bloggs did not write” or “Highly probable that Joe Bloggs did not write” or “Highly unlikely that Joe Bloggs did not write”.
9. Elimination – Examiner has no doubt that the known and questioned materials were not written by the same person. Extreme care should be taken in using this conclusion especially if exemplar materials are limited.
Recommended terminology - “It has been concluded that Joe Bloggs did not write”. “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs did not write”This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
Similar Threads
-
Cherokee's Thread/Analysis
By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 241Last Post: January 27, 2006, 8:55 am, Fri Jan 27 8:55:17 UTC 2006 -
Comments to the FOX Analysis
By 1000 Sparks in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 21Last Post: January 7, 2005, 5:06 pm, Fri Jan 7 17:06:17 UTC 2005 -
Catherine Crier - Scott's Handwriting Analysis
By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha PetersonReplies: 1Last Post: July 23, 2004, 4:14 pm, Fri Jul 23 16:14:54 UTC 2004 -
Statement Analysis: Detecting Deception
By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 4Last Post: May 23, 2004, 12:16 pm, Sun May 23 12:16:19 UTC 2004 -
JBR's underwear sent for DNA analysis
By Tez in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 64Last Post: January 22, 2004, 9:40 pm, Thu Jan 22 21:40:21 UTC 2004