Handwriting analysis

[fr brown]

I'm redoing my previous post to make it clear that the Ramsey lawyers were provided a photocopy of the ransom note after the Jan. 4 session, not the other way around. I also reworded a couple of other things for clarity. Why not leave the ability to edit alive for a longer time? It helps to go back with fresh eyes after a few days.


Below is an example of how Patsy's manuscript a changed between sessions. I'm using photocopies of Patsy's handwriting from Forensic Linguistics by Gerald McMenamin.

Ransom Note: 10 am

January 4:
Patsy 1: 10 a.m.
Patsy 2: 10 a.m.
Patsy 3: 10 a.m.

Patsy's lawyers are provided a photocopy of ransom note after Jan. 4 session.


February 28:
Patsy 4: 10 A.m.
Patsy 5: 10 A.M.

(The period after the a in Patsy 1 might be a tail on the a. But since the other manuscript a's on the page don't have tails and the dot appears to be separated from the letter, I think it's a period. That would also make it consistent with the other exemplars from that session. I noticed that that particular period appears to be squeezed in there. Was it an afterthought?)

[fr brown]

In Paula Woodward's book she says that in May 1997 the Ramsey handwriting experts, Rile and Cunningham, gave a presentation to the DA and the police department to explain why Patsy wasn't the author of the note. This is the meeting in which Lin Wood says a "not agreed upon" 5 scale was used for purposes of discussion instead of the standard 9 scale.

When we hear "4.5 out of 5" I think we can assume that only the opinions of the two Ramsey experts are being represented.

Below is Smit's testimony about the conclusions of the handwriting experts:

'SMIT: Yes. I am referring to the slide. Chet Ubowski, his results -- and this is a very brief rendition of his results. There were indications that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. There is evidence which indicates that the ransom note may have been written by Patsy Ramsey. But the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion.

Leonard Speckin, he is a police expert, private forensic document analyst. "Lack of indications. I can find no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars. When I compared the handprinting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those presented in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number, type, and consistencies of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author."

Edwin Alford, Jr. "Lack of indications. Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison of the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter."

Lloyd Cunningham, Ramsey expert, he is the one that certified Chet Ubowski. "Lack of indications," that he cannot identify or eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. And he has spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and has found that there were no significant individual characteristics but much significant difference between Patsy's writing and the note.

Richard Dusick, he is the analyst for the United States Secret Service. These are the results of his specific report. "Lack of indications. A study and comparison of the questioned and specimen writings submitted has resulted in the conclusion that there is no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note."

Howard Ryle, the former CBI examiner, "probably not." His opinion in this case is between "probably not" and "elimination," elimination as Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He believes that the writer could be identified if historical writings were found.

The results, the general consensus is inconclusive and below that Patsy wrote the note"'

AND here are the gradations of the nine point scale:

Identification
Highly probable did write
Probably did write
Indications did write
No conclusion
Indications did not write
Probably did not write
Highly probable did not write
Elimination

Four out of six of the experts stated their opinion as "lack of indications." I haven't found this terminology in the standards, but since Ubowski and Rile both use terminology from the nine point scale, it's reasonable to think that the others must be using a correlate to something in that scale. Given that Smit says the consensus is "inconclusive and below," "lack of indications" seems to be equivalent to "no conclusion." "No conclusion" is the option when there are significant limiting factors such as disguised handwriting in questioned and/or known writings, or a dearth of comparable writings. In other words, there is insufficient data to form a conclusion.

Speckin, Alford, Cunningham and Dusick are, it seems, straddling the middle-of-the-scale fence with Speckin leaning toward the identification side and Cunningham leaning toward the elimination side.