Tweet
Mike,
To avoid, derailing a rather interesting discussion, I have started this thread in answer to your quote below.
The following quote is from your post #549, from Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account:
Please accept my apologies for the length of the following post.
This is not a comprehensive summary of the law--that would take far too long and this is not the forum--but a basic framework concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence (specifically, forensic handwriting) in the United States. For convenience, I have referenced the relevant case law and provided links rather than summarize each case in full.
In addition, the following post cites the complete findings of the forensic handwriting study submitted by Dr. Kam in, United States v. Saelee, and subsequent cases. Furthermore, this post clarifies why the expert's testimony in Saelee, cited by Mike above, was ruled inadmissible.
*Mike, having briefly reviewed Saelee, I can not find another expert's study, other than Dr. Kam's, containing the statistical findings you note above. If I am in error, please provide me with the link to the study you have cited above in, Saelee.
If you wish to read an opposing view regarding the admissibility of forensic handwriting experts' testimony, please read the following paper by Michael J. Saks: http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...oundation.html . It should be noted, however, that Saks's arguments have failed to reverse the courts' rulings concerning the admissibility of forensic handwriting experts' testimony in at least two subsequent cases.
As will be shown, Saelee was not devastating, nor were the study's full findings.
1)A Brief Legal History of the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the United States:
Expanding on Frye v. United States (App. D.C. 1923), the Supreme Court of the United States in, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) set out a five-point test--the Daubert Standard--to govern the rules of admissibility for scientific evidence. For a good overview of the Daubert Standard please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
The tests set out in Daubert were broadened in, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), to include all expert and technical testimony, and permit a pre-trial assessment of the admissibility of scientific evidence on a case-by-case basis.
After the ruling in, Saelee, the Court in, United States v. Prime (220 F.Supp.2d 1203 [W.D. Wash., 2002], ruled that expert handwriting analysis was admissible under the Daubert Standard. Please see: http://federalevidence.com/blog/2008...bility-factors.
The ruling in Prime was reaffirmed in, United States v. Thornton Case No. 02-M-9150-01, decided January 24, 2003.
The decision in Saelee is one example of one court rejecting one handwriting expert's scientific testimony. If you wish, I can provide recent examples of similar occurrences with fingerprinting. The inadmissibility of scientific evidence is a common legal occurrence, and integral to the legitimacy of the legal system.
2.1) Dr. Kam's Study:
The following summation, quoted from, http://www.forensic-evidence.com/sit..._prime_ID.html, examines Dr. Kam's full findings as considered in, Saelee, (see also, Prime and Thornton), and explains the Court's reasoning for ruling the expert's testimony was inadmissible.
Dr. Kam's Study (my italics):
"In his studies, Professor Kam compared the performance of professional forensic document examiners with non-professionals in matching handwriting. Professor Kam testified in court that the first of his studies that lay persons made far more types of errors than professional examiners."
"The second study showed that as a group, examiners' performance was different from that of lay persons: Lay persons rivaled professional examiners in being able to select different documents written by one person. However, lay persons also claimed erroneously that documents written by different people had the handwriting of the same person 38 percent of the time, whereas experts made the same mistake 6.5 percent of the time As Professor Kam stated: "It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me [sic] what's different."
"The third [Kam] study showed that a different incentive scheme did not make a difference in the results; it apparently also showed an unexplained improvement in the ability of lay persons to avoid false positives."
"The fourth study showed that professionals and lay persons did not differ significantly in detecting forgeries, but professionals were better at finding genuine signatures . Professionals erroneously concluded that forgeries were genuine 0.5 percent of the time whereas lay persons did so 6.5 percent of the time; professionals mistakenly concluded that genuine signatures were forgeries 7.1 percent of the times, lay persons did so 26.1 percent of the time."
"The Kam studies indicate that handwriting identification is not error-free; however, the differences in error rates and results between professionals versus lay persons show that the field is one that is amenable to developing an expertise and that, with proper training, professionals can improve their accuracy. For the purposes of this case, the Court considers the expertise and testimony of Storer (United States v. Prime(220 F.Supp.2d 1203 [W.D. Wash., 2002] )to be adequately tested. Further scientific testing on handwriting comparison would undoubtedly aid in gauging the field's legitimacy; however, as a legal matter, the field has been sufficiently tested by its long-established use, and the research that already has been concluded. Daubert does not require more: The test of admissibility is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation or whether it is demonstrably correct. Rather, the test is whether the particular opinion is based on valid reasoning and reliable methodology."
2.2) The Court's rejection of the expert's testimony:
"The Saelee court's problem with the Kam studies was that "they did not conclusively establish that forensic document examiners can reliably do what they say they do." However, the context of the Saelee court's ruling was entirely different: As already noted, the court was dealing with a writer whose native language was not known and with a small quantity of questioned writing. The Saelee court specifically noted that:
'The court would point out that it is not holding that handwriting analysis can never be a field of expertise under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court is merely holding that the Government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the proffered expert testimony in this case is admissible under Rule 702.' "
Mike, the ruling you have cited was not devastating, it is merely one example among thousands where scientific evidence is ruled inadmissible. Furthermore, Dr. Kam's findings were statistically significant (in favour of the expertise demonstrated by forensic handwriting experts over the control group). Indeed, there are other studies I can cite, if you require further reading.
It is a necessary function of a healthy legal system to demand the highest and most exacting standards for scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be constantly tested, retested, refined, and challenged, for without such rigorous practices all scientific evidence would be regarded with suspicion and rendered inconsequential.
To this end, the Daubert Standard was not appropriate in Saelee for specific reasons, but the standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence--forensic handwriting expert testimony--have been upheld in Prime, and Thornton because the Courts' methodically constructed tests have been met.
Again, my apologies for the length of the post.
Regards,
Dorian
To avoid, derailing a rather interesting discussion, I have started this thread in answer to your quote below.
The following quote is from your post #549, from Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account:
Originally posted by The Good Michael
View Post
This is not a comprehensive summary of the law--that would take far too long and this is not the forum--but a basic framework concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence (specifically, forensic handwriting) in the United States. For convenience, I have referenced the relevant case law and provided links rather than summarize each case in full.
In addition, the following post cites the complete findings of the forensic handwriting study submitted by Dr. Kam in, United States v. Saelee, and subsequent cases. Furthermore, this post clarifies why the expert's testimony in Saelee, cited by Mike above, was ruled inadmissible.
*Mike, having briefly reviewed Saelee, I can not find another expert's study, other than Dr. Kam's, containing the statistical findings you note above. If I am in error, please provide me with the link to the study you have cited above in, Saelee.
If you wish to read an opposing view regarding the admissibility of forensic handwriting experts' testimony, please read the following paper by Michael J. Saks: http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...oundation.html . It should be noted, however, that Saks's arguments have failed to reverse the courts' rulings concerning the admissibility of forensic handwriting experts' testimony in at least two subsequent cases.
As will be shown, Saelee was not devastating, nor were the study's full findings.
1)A Brief Legal History of the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the United States:
Expanding on Frye v. United States (App. D.C. 1923), the Supreme Court of the United States in, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) set out a five-point test--the Daubert Standard--to govern the rules of admissibility for scientific evidence. For a good overview of the Daubert Standard please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
The tests set out in Daubert were broadened in, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), to include all expert and technical testimony, and permit a pre-trial assessment of the admissibility of scientific evidence on a case-by-case basis.
After the ruling in, Saelee, the Court in, United States v. Prime (220 F.Supp.2d 1203 [W.D. Wash., 2002], ruled that expert handwriting analysis was admissible under the Daubert Standard. Please see: http://federalevidence.com/blog/2008...bility-factors.
The ruling in Prime was reaffirmed in, United States v. Thornton Case No. 02-M-9150-01, decided January 24, 2003.
The decision in Saelee is one example of one court rejecting one handwriting expert's scientific testimony. If you wish, I can provide recent examples of similar occurrences with fingerprinting. The inadmissibility of scientific evidence is a common legal occurrence, and integral to the legitimacy of the legal system.
2.1) Dr. Kam's Study:
The following summation, quoted from, http://www.forensic-evidence.com/sit..._prime_ID.html, examines Dr. Kam's full findings as considered in, Saelee, (see also, Prime and Thornton), and explains the Court's reasoning for ruling the expert's testimony was inadmissible.
Dr. Kam's Study (my italics):
"In his studies, Professor Kam compared the performance of professional forensic document examiners with non-professionals in matching handwriting. Professor Kam testified in court that the first of his studies that lay persons made far more types of errors than professional examiners."
"The second study showed that as a group, examiners' performance was different from that of lay persons: Lay persons rivaled professional examiners in being able to select different documents written by one person. However, lay persons also claimed erroneously that documents written by different people had the handwriting of the same person 38 percent of the time, whereas experts made the same mistake 6.5 percent of the time As Professor Kam stated: "It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me [sic] what's different."
"The third [Kam] study showed that a different incentive scheme did not make a difference in the results; it apparently also showed an unexplained improvement in the ability of lay persons to avoid false positives."
"The fourth study showed that professionals and lay persons did not differ significantly in detecting forgeries, but professionals were better at finding genuine signatures . Professionals erroneously concluded that forgeries were genuine 0.5 percent of the time whereas lay persons did so 6.5 percent of the time; professionals mistakenly concluded that genuine signatures were forgeries 7.1 percent of the times, lay persons did so 26.1 percent of the time."
"The Kam studies indicate that handwriting identification is not error-free; however, the differences in error rates and results between professionals versus lay persons show that the field is one that is amenable to developing an expertise and that, with proper training, professionals can improve their accuracy. For the purposes of this case, the Court considers the expertise and testimony of Storer (United States v. Prime(220 F.Supp.2d 1203 [W.D. Wash., 2002] )to be adequately tested. Further scientific testing on handwriting comparison would undoubtedly aid in gauging the field's legitimacy; however, as a legal matter, the field has been sufficiently tested by its long-established use, and the research that already has been concluded. Daubert does not require more: The test of admissibility is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation or whether it is demonstrably correct. Rather, the test is whether the particular opinion is based on valid reasoning and reliable methodology."
2.2) The Court's rejection of the expert's testimony:
"The Saelee court's problem with the Kam studies was that "they did not conclusively establish that forensic document examiners can reliably do what they say they do." However, the context of the Saelee court's ruling was entirely different: As already noted, the court was dealing with a writer whose native language was not known and with a small quantity of questioned writing. The Saelee court specifically noted that:
'The court would point out that it is not holding that handwriting analysis can never be a field of expertise under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court is merely holding that the Government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the proffered expert testimony in this case is admissible under Rule 702.' "
Mike, the ruling you have cited was not devastating, it is merely one example among thousands where scientific evidence is ruled inadmissible. Furthermore, Dr. Kam's findings were statistically significant (in favour of the expertise demonstrated by forensic handwriting experts over the control group). Indeed, there are other studies I can cite, if you require further reading.
It is a necessary function of a healthy legal system to demand the highest and most exacting standards for scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be constantly tested, retested, refined, and challenged, for without such rigorous practices all scientific evidence would be regarded with suspicion and rendered inconsequential.
To this end, the Daubert Standard was not appropriate in Saelee for specific reasons, but the standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence--forensic handwriting expert testimony--have been upheld in Prime, and Thornton because the Courts' methodically constructed tests have been met.
Again, my apologies for the length of the post.
Regards,
Dorian
) in your own eyes, never once thinking your own prejudices might be influencing what you see by leading you to conclusions you are predisposed to make...i think Dorian refers to this as confirmation bias. Your own eyes, which have only copies, some corrupted, to judge on!
Comment