Please take a minute...go back through the posts and cut n paste
those where you feel I've "said one thing in one" and "something
different in another."
I'm sure you'll find what I said was "I haven't ever testified in
court using handwriting analysis"...but I also referred you to others
BTW...Did you or anyone on the list perhaps see the handwriting
analysis done this past week on Court-TV regarding the Lori Hacking
Here's a link you might find interesting to explore:
NightWerx Investigations, Inc
P. O. Box 1534
Southaven, MS 38671
NAIS, IABPA, CHAI, IACSP, NAPSOA
--- In email@example.com
, "twnsnd_mrk" <twnsnd_mrk@y...>
> Logic and persuasiveness may not be your strong points. Your
> in the question cited below is false. Polygraph evidence is in fact
> admissible in some courts under some circumstances. Handwriting
> analysis that involves graphology, by your own earlier admission,
> The glaring question is why do you consistently say one thing in one
> post and the opposite in another?
> Mark Townsend
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Arnold De Armond"
> <NightWerx@a...> wrote:
> > Dr. Daniels:
> > Moreover, your scientific citations leave one glaring question:
> > polygraph isn't admissible in court, how is it that handwriting
> > analysis is?