Forensic Document Examinations
Done on the Retailers Survey
Brought to you by ...
The Lotto Report
A Bi-Weekly Publication Since 1993
(FYI - This Survey Is How The TLC Justified Adding 4 Balls!)
A little history first - On March 14, 2000 Linda Cloud asked the
Commissioners to consider a new proposed rule which would change
the matrix of Lotto Texas. After receiving the Commissioners approval, the
Texas Lottery issued a press release to the media which was their way of
educating the players and their way to receive public comment.
Also that
afternoon, the TLC contacted the Texas Association
of Lottery Retailers
(TALR) and asked if they would help spread the word to
their Retailers
(approx. 213 members) so they could comment on the rule too.
Then shortly thereafter, the TLC recontacted the TALR and
told them
that G-Tech was willing to help spread the word to the retailers too if
they were interested. The TALR said "Yes" to the help so
G-Tech picked up one copy of the survey from TALR.
Now as of today, May 12, the Texas Lottery has in its possession 4600 + surveys
that were brought in by the TALR. According to Rick Johnson, the President of
TALR,
he says the TALR only received about 150 surveys back and that
G-Tech brought
him all the rest of the surveys in boxes. So, one can only
assume that G-Tech
brought in 4450 surveys. According to the
"testified" figures, 88% of the
retailers were in favor of these changes.
I found this too hard to believe so I wanted to audit the surveys.
I purchased 601 copies. But after reveiwing them, I found there
was virtually
no way to audit the majority of them because they
only had a store name
and a signature on them for the most part.
I did, however, question the
handwriting on them. So, I had
them examined and below is
what the forensic experts determined.
In the Commissioners meeting on May 12, I told them that the
surveys were questionable and that after still another review of the surveys,
I discovered where one survey was signed by one person and the same
survey zeroxed 69 times but had other stores names placed on each of the
69 surveys. This was done MULTIPLE times. In my professional opinion, this
does not constitute the opinion of the majority of the players or retailers.
Yet, in yesterdays meeting, the Commissioners still asked GTech and TALR
if this was still the opinion of the Retailers and both said "Yes."
How 'bout them apples?
Now, scroll on down and read these two separate Reports. You will "see" interesting things!
After you've read the reports, be sure and see the "qualifications" of the examiners.
|
Linda Collins James
|
| A1- Name: Karina Ocampo Store name: Sellers #1 A2- Name: Nereida Del Carmon Store name: USA checks cashed See Exhibit One |
B1- Name: Aziz (?) Ali Store name: 1st Stop Neighbor B2- Name: Karim Ali Store name: 1st Stop Neighbor See Exhibit One |
| C1- Name: Jose R. Guerra Store name: CCs Food Mart C2- Name: Chong C. Guerra Store name: CCs Food Mart See Exhibit One |
D1- Name: Nguyen Phan(?) Store name: Galene store D2- Name: Chau Nzuyen (?) Store name: Galene store See Exhibit Two |
| E1- Name: ? Store name: TX Slam (?) E2- Name: ? Store name: 4 Way Kwik See Exhibit Two |
F1- Name: ? Store name: Right Time F2- Name: ? Store name: Super Food F3- Name: ? Store name: P.B. Liquor See Exhibit Two |
In my opinion, subject to the examination of the originals, the same individual probably wrote the following signatures:
F4- Name: ?
Store name: Quick Sak
F5- Name: ?
Store name: Super Kwik
See Exhibit Two, Click Here
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS:
A copy of my current statement of qualifications, which outlines my background and experience to undertake this examination and render an opinion, has been attached to this report.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan E. Abbey
Forensic Document Examiner
identification (definite conclusion of identity)-This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons.
strong probability (highly probable, very probable)-The evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same individual.
probable-The evidence contained in the handwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the "virtually certain" degree of confidence.
indications (evidence to suggest)-A body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing.
no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)-This is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner - does not have even a leaning one way or another.
indications did not - This carries the same weight as the indications term above; that is, it is a very weak opinion.
probably did not - The evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the "virtually certain" range quite.
strong probability did not (highly probable did not, very probable did not) -This carries the same weight as strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, there is a virtual certainty that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.
elimination - This, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed b the document examiner in handwriting comparison. By using this expression, the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were- not written by the same individual.
Note: Due to the size of each of the exhibits, I placed them on separate pages... but I've provided links so you can go from one page to the next. Just click on "Continued..."
Even though the testimony is "re-clarified" as a result
of submitting these reports - the Commissioners still
voted to add the 4 balls - click here to read the testimony.
Linda James -Qualifications
Sue Abbey - Qualifications
To see the handwriting exhibits, just click here.
They are large files so they may take a while to load.
These exhibits show the actual handwriting.
Home
Drawing Results
Site Map
E-mail Me - (The Lotto Report)
E-mail the Texas Lottery
The Lotto Report
P. O. Box 495033
Garland, Texas 75049-5033
(972) 686-0660
(972) 681-1048 (Fax)