>>Have not looked into graphology, but I am dubious that error margins are comparable to dactylosopy, genetic analysis of DNA or chemical analysis of hair of a substance abuser - I am not too certain that he would be toast after each side releases 3 graphology tests and results are mixed.

I agree that even expert evidence is subjective in the absence of reproducible tests, of which there are far more in other disciplines than in QDE (questioned document examination). So I agree it's possible you'll see conflicting evidence- but also it's possible there will be compelling findings, especially if there's consistency in the pen pressure or velocity that would be difficult for a forger to mimic. FWIW, some of the so-called Autist Army over on 4Chan that managed to identify a masked assailant by processing hours of footage of multiple protests to spot tiny consistencies that nailed him, now reckon that looking at the signature's exuberant R and M in particular, you'd expect to see some consistent flourish that can be highly recognizable and reproducible. But they can't do it without access to the original plus validated signatures.

Meanwhile the sort of Alabama wisdom that will be applied is that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, so why is lawyer Allred determined to miss?