Now that we've come to the section on expert witnesses I will be drawing on aspects discussed about misleading evidence so if you haven't already done so you may wish to read through it to ensure that what follows makes sense to you.

Since the term 'expert witness' suggests the need for more weight to be given to the reports and testimonies they provide, with the greatest respect to them all in fairness it is also necessary to highlight the difference between scientific evidence and subjective evaluations. With the exception of some particular fields, most experts findings involve varying degrees of science along with subjective opinions which can be heavily influenced by non-scientific factors and cause a significant difference in final outcome. The importance of preserving the scene of an incident in its raw state cannot be over stated and the same applies to any evidentiary articles which need to be analysed in any way. Clearly if anything is moved or tampered with, it will hinder the experts ability to successfully draw the correct conclusion which in many cases will ultimately be similar to 'In my opinion the most likely......'.

In some cases several experts with varying degrees of knowledge will be asked to survey a scene or item and not all will come to agreement in conclusion. That being the case, what real worth is expert testimony? Reports from experts in my experience are in some ways akin to the law itself, for every expert that concludes one thing, there is likely to be another that concludes the opposite, highlighting how the scientific aspects can be very easily interpreted differently depending on what non-scientific input is involved and the general differences in a personal perspective of any given data.

For the moment I will concentrate on handwriting analysis as it is the area I have researched most extensively since being released. In my own case there was a note written in crayon on what to me appears to be a standard piece of plain A4 paper. Although this 'evidence' was used by the prosecution against me I think since court I have managed to piece together all the inconsistencies which proves beyond doubt that it could not have been written by me, something I have never been in any doubt of simply because I know 100% that I didn't write it. Great emphasis was put on this piece of paper in the trial against me and it was clearly very divisive in terms of which direction the investigation took and what directions were eliminated at an early stage. So obviously I have a personal need to know who wrote it and who if not the same person put it where it was since the result clearly is perverting the course of justice, hence the reason I have concentrated my research on finding out why a 'handwriting expert' can possibly testify that I wrote something I know I didn't.

Perhaps I should first state the many reasons why I could not have been the author of such a ridiculous note. Firstly, the writing looks nothing like mine with perhaps the exception of a letter 't', not a single person who has been shown it that know my writing recognise it as being anything like mine including my wife. Secondly the spelling and grammar were frankly absurd, Andy was spelt with an i instead of a y, 'your' was written I think as 'you're' though the writing was so poor it’s hard to be sure and there was an s that looked like a 2. Now while I may not have achieved grade A in my English higher, I did study it; sit the exam and get a result, there are absolutely no circumstances whereby I could write as terribly as that note was. Thirdly as was remarked by people observing in court who saw both the evidence note and the samples I provided willingly, the differences were as stark as night and day even to the lay person. Those are some minor details which alone cast some considerable doubt as to the 'probability' that I was its author. Now I will move on to the more compelling facts which along with the above show beyond any doubt whatsoever that the note in question physically could not have been written by me.

Analysis showed that the note was written in crayon yet there were no crayons in our house because my wife Kareen had thrown them out due to the kids persisting in drawing on tables and walls when they ran out of paper. She'd told them we would get more when they learned only to draw or write on paper. This detail was known to the police.

Quantities of paper were removed from the house to try and establish a link between the paper available within to the paper on which the note was written on. Despite checks from note to paper, paper to note searching for indents from one to another along with various other tests, NO LINK other than that they 'were of similar size' was found. In conclusion the note was written by someone with access to blank a4 paper and a crayon.

The context of the note had absolutely no relevance to anything that had happened or was spoken about at any time prior to the fire.

Finally, though quite significantly is the precise details of where and when the note was found. During the neighbours efforts to gain access to the house and the various attempts to see in the windows, and find something to break them with, the vast majority of all the witnesses were either collectively or singly in the very spot that the note was discovered yet not a single one of them noticed it. Then some 10-15 minutes later after the fire brigade had arrived during the course of their duties, one of them noticed it sitting plainly, prominently and obviously in the very area the witnesses had previously been. Now, I'm no police man but this information was available to them in the hours immediately following the incident and I know what this shows as does everyone who is aware of ALL the details. The note was NOT there when the neighbours discovered the fire but APPEARED sometime before or while the firemen were in attendance! ;Throughout this period I was unconscious.

If it takes me the rest of my life I will find out who wrote it and insist they be brought to justice.

So bearing all those points in mind, I will turn to the evidence provided by the handwriting analysis and detail what my research has highlighted about it.

In terms of attempts made to eliminate everyone else with regard to the note, not a single other person present at the scene was asked to provide a sample. For any investigation to be conclusive all other possibilities MUST be ruled out. At a glance given that the report stated a 'high probability' that authors of the note and the samples were from the same person, this seems a trivial point. BUT, in accordance with my studies people from the same area, educated to a similar level who have similar types of work and are subject to the same environmental conditions will be likely to have broadly similar writing styles. Due to this larger sample sizes are required to obtain any degree of accuracy at all which is a point I will expand upon later.

Although the report concluded that both pieces were written naturally and fluently (which rules out forgery or attempts to disguise), it noted similarities but also differences. Given that the note and my provided samples were naturally and fluently written, how would there be any differences at all?

In any handwriting comparison analysis, particularly when samples are of limited size, spelling is of considerable importance. Note the details above.

1. In many states of America, handwriting analysis is permitted ONLY to prove someone could not be the author since the error rate involved in suggesting that someone is the author can be in the region of 40% inaccurate hence is not sufficiently certain to be considered proof. In other states it is permitted ONLY in conjunction with other evidence regarding authorship such as a sole witness having seen it being written to prevent the 'one person’s word against another' scenario.

2. To expand on the sample size issue raised in point 1, I will refer to a case involving one of Shakespeare's plays. There were some 150 lines of revision and there was a dispute as to whether or not they were written by Shakespeare himself or not. Following being analysed by several handwriting experts, it was ultimately considered that the sample quantity was of insufficient size to be conclusive and that to say they 'probably' had been written by him was as definite as they could be. In my case, the note consisted of a mere 12 words!

3. Perhaps the most conclusive assessment of handwriting analysist's reliability comes from the case of the so called Hitler Diaries. Historians were keen to ensure that the supposed diaries they had discovered were definitely of Hitler’s own hand. Many handwriting analysist’s conducted tests on the documents and compared them with known texts written by Hitler and concluded that "The possibility of anyone other than Hitler being the author of these documents are so remote as to be considered impossible." It was later discovered by scientific methods that it was physically impossible that the diaries could have been written by him. If it were down to handwriting experts they would be part of history books, instead thanks to science they are known to be nothing more than an elaborate fake.

In court experts are presented in such a way as to persuade the jury that their testimony is to all intents and purposes undisputable however I think in this particular field I have sufficiently demonstrated the actual worth of such a report. With all of the above in mind, I would appeal to anyone who has any information regarding the note involved in my case to contact me with a view to bringing the matter to a conclusion. And to everyone else, an expert’s opinion is purely and simply an opinion, it is neither definite nor infallible. Link: You needn't take my word on it, see what the independent Law Commission Said in its report published on 7th April 2009 about the reliability of 'expert witnesses'!