As with Liebman's report (see my comments on that thread) this to shows signs of rank amateurishness. I'm speaking not as a professional doc. examiner, but a professional scholar and scientist. One cannot simply, out of the blue, decide on ones own methodology and standards. These must be based on previous research, either ones own or that of others. Sources of methodology and standards must be cited. Explanations of methodology and standards must be provided.<P>Wong, like Liebman, also falls into the trap of confusing a crooked xerox with margin drift. This is laughable, folks. No excuse for such an error.<P>Her notion of "statistics" is particularly embarrassing, as in the following:<P>"The relatively large number of distinctive similarities (32) found in both the "ransom note" and exemplars allegedly written by Patsy Ramsey, however, cannot be ignored. Statistically, it can only be concluded that it is very likely the same hand wrote all the documents<BR>involved."<P>The "statistics" cited here are absurd. Assuming she had twice as many exemplars to work with, then we can assume she'd have found around 62 similarities. If she had hundreds of exemplars to work with, we can assume there would have been thousands of similarities. So how does the number "32" come to be a "relatively large number"? This number is the product of the size of the sample (and the resourcefullness of the examiner), clearly, and has little other significance. A percentage figure is appropriate here, NOT an absolute number.<P><P>