Is the following a reasonable assumption? (I realize the following IS assumption based and therefore mere speculation, so please correct me if I’m way off);

1) Given that it is uncommon (though not necessarily highly uncommon, or rare) for two people to have highly similar handwriting as one another, 2) Given that it is considerably MORE uncommon (perhaps even rare) for two people to have handwriting that is SO similar to one another that they are NOT easily distinguishable from one another (after some scrutiny) ny a casual observer, despite their high similarity, 3) Given that it is even considerably MORE uncommon (even likelier to be rare) for two people to have handwriting that is SO similar to one another that they are NOT easily distinguishable from one another after EXTREME scrutiny) by a professional handwriting expert, 4) That the standard in a court of law in the eyes of a jury (emphasized repeatedly by a defense lawyer) is essentially, “if the handwriting expert testifies that the ransom note’s handwriting COULD be that of someone OTHER than Patsy’s, then it must NOT be interpreted by jurors as evidence that it IS Patsy’s handwriting.” (and many jurors would discount the expert’s testimony entirely based on such a perspective), 5) and finally, that the odds of two people having VERY similar handwriting in an event that occurs at the SAME time as an event about who authored a RANSOM note, are astronomically rare,

…Then it’s therefore reasonable to assume that one can proceed as though Patsy was directly involved, no question…even though the decision to do so IS assumption-based?