Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 94
  1. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    AMES. Hold the Alt key down, then type 130 on the calculator and then release your finger from the Alt key and you will have the accent above the letter e ... é as in JonBenét.
    Okay...let me try it....attaché.....JonBenét. WHOA....thank you SO MUCH. I have always, ALWAYS wondered how to do that...and I used to be a secretary....LOL How in the world did you figure that one out?? I have always thought that instead of being such a mystery....they should have just put one of those on the keyboard. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Now I can brag, and show all of my friends!!! Thanks again...

  2. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES
    I agree...but, I think that those womanly touches...."be well rested", etc. were Patsy's too. I think that they probably wrote two versions...his and hers...and merged them together. Either that, or John told her some stuff to write, (dictated) and she just started writing...adding her own touch here and there. I think that if she had of just listened to John's version....without putting in her two cents...it would have been more like a REAL ransom note. "I have your kid. She will not be harmed. Don't call the cops. Bring $118,000.00 to such and such a place". No, Patsy had to throw in the word attache....with the mark over the e, that I can't figure out how to make with the computer keyboard....LOL , and she had to ramble on and on and on.....I don't think that John trusted Patsy to write it by herself. And WHY would a real kidnapper CARE what kind of bag it was in.....attache??? Shoot, it could have been a brown paper bag....they wouldn't have cared...they would have just wanted the money.
    Yep, totally agree with Patsy adding her own particular flair. John may not have liked the end result, really, being that he is an engineer and used to few words. He was probably worried that she had been too wordy and flowery.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  3. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES
    Okay...let me try it....attaché.....Jonbenét. WHOA....thank you SO MUCH. I have always, ALWAYS wondered how to do that...and I used to be a secretary....LOL How in the world did you figure that one out?? I have always thought that instead of being such a mystery....they should have just put one of those on the keyboard. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Now I can brag, and show all of my friends!!!
    There are a bunch of those number pad tricks...I used to be able to insert a little cross, but I can't remember it any more...

    JonBene♥t

    Awww,,,look, I got a widdle bitty heart...
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  4. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom
    Yep, totally agree with Patsy adding her own particular flair. John may not have liked the end result, really, being that he is an engineer and used to few words. He was probably worried that she had been too wordy and flowery.
    I am sure that he hated the end result. But, he had to accept it, because there was no time to write another one. He probably said..."Dam- it Patsy, I TOLD you to make it short and simple. Why did you take it upon yourself to write a book? This looks so fake, that its not even funny, but we don't have time to re-write it, so we are just going to have to go with it, and hope for the best".

  5. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom
    There are a bunch of those number pad tricks...I used to be able to insert a little cross, but I can't remember it any more...

    JonBene♥t

    Awww,,,look, I got a widdle bitty heart...

    AWWWW...that's no fair. How did you do that?? If its not one of the smilies...then I don't know how to insert it. LOL

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    I just tried the same thing that Elle told you, hold on, let me try it again...

    JonBene♥t

    I did it just like this - hold down ALT, go 1-3-0 on number pad and let up the ATL, keep holding down the numbers. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ You can do it with 1-0-3 too.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  7. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom
    I just tried the same thing that Elle told you, hold on, let me try it again...

    JonBene♥t

    I did it just like this - hold down ALT, go 1-3-0 on number pad and let up the ATL, keep holding down the numbers. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ You can do it with 1-0-3 too.
    ♥ There I did it....I am going to try some more.

    Bummer...I can't get anymore of them to work.

  8. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES
    Okay...let me try it....attaché.....JonBenét. WHOA....thank you SO MUCH. I have always, ALWAYS wondered how to do that...and I used to be a secretary....LOL How in the world did you figure that one out?? I have always thought that instead of being such a mystery....they should have just put one of those on the keyboard. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Now I can brag, and show all of my friends!!! Thanks again...
    You're welcome. Here is the url for the character codes for Times New Roman

    http://rmhh.co.uk/ascii.html

    If you forget, just type what you're looking for in a google search Ames, and you'll also find the answers there.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  9. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little
    I didn't find the LKL statement either KK but I have this saved. I have a DNA/Handwriting folder so the DNA stuff is mixed in with it.

    Little
    Thank you Jay and Little for this important information you both posted. Will go over it tomorrow.Very interesting.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #46

    Default

    OKaaaaaaay....let's see if the old pyrate can do it....

    JonBenét

    Oh, goody! That one worked. Let me try the heart thingy....

    JonBent

    Awwwwwwwwwww...now that's sweet! Thanks Elle and heymom!

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I can't post the Standard for 2 reasons - 1) when I downloaded it in PDF format, they had very cleverly inserted my personal details into the document and I can't edit them out! 2) a condition of same was that I had to agree not to reproduce it. I'm therefore trying to summarise it without getting into copyright issues.

    The standard is roughly split into three sections 1) AN overview of its purpose 2) Recommended practice in terms of use and terminology 3) Terminology to be avoided.

    From the "terminology to be avoided" list:-


    4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document
    examiners are troublesome because they may be misinterpreted
    to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is
    deprecated.
    SNIP


    could not be identified/cannot identify—these terms are
    objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also
    because they are biased; they imply that the examiner’s task
    is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or not
    the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it
    should always be followed by “or eliminate[d
    ]”.
    This reiterates my concern about the wiki which stated:-


    None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]
    According to the Standard, unless elimination is absolute, "cannot be identified" should always be qualified with "or eliminated" to avoid ambiguity and bias.

    This certainly makes sense to me.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Here is an overview of the recommended terminology.

    1. Identification – this should be used when the examiner is certain that the writer of the known material also wrote the questioned material.

    Recommended terminology - “It has been concluded that Joe Bloggs wrote” or “It is my opinion/conclusion that Joe Bloggs wrote”

    2. Strong probability (highly probable, very probable) – the evidence is very persuasive but is missing some critical feature.

    Recommended terminology - “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs very probably wrote...”

    3. Probable – evidence points strongly towards the same person having written the known material and questioned material but falls short of certainty.

    Recommended terminology - “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs probably wrote...”

    4. Indications (evidence to suggest) – this is a weak opinion. A few significant features are in agreement between known material and questioned material. Should always be qualified to say that it is far from conclusive.

    Recommended terminology - “evidence to suggest Joe Bloggs wrote...but falls far short... to reach a definite conclusion”

    5. No conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable) – There may be significantly limiting factors – disguised writing, lack of comparable writing.

    Recommended terminology - “could not determine whether Joe Bloggs”

    6. Indications did not – this is a weak opinion. Little significant evidence between known material and questioned material. Should always be qualified to say that it is far from conclusive.

    Recommended terminology - “Indications Joe Bloggs did not write .... far from conclusive”

    7. Probably did not – Evidence points against known and questioned materials having been written by the same person but uncertainty still exists.

    Recommended terminology - “it has been concluded that Joe Bloggs probably did not....” or “It is unlikely that Joe Bloggs...”

    8. Strong probability did not – examiner is virtually certain that known and questioned materials were not written by the same person.

    Recommended terminology - “Strong probability that Joe Bloggs did not write” or “Highly probable that Joe Bloggs did not write” or “Highly unlikely that Joe Bloggs did not write”.

    9. Elimination – Examiner has no doubt that the known and questioned materials were not written by the same person. Extreme care should be taken in using this conclusion especially if exemplar materials are limited.

    Recommended terminology - “It has been concluded that Joe Bloggs did not write”. “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs did not write”
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission



Similar Threads

  1. Cherokee's Thread/Analysis
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 241
    Last Post: January 27, 2006, 8:55 am, Fri Jan 27 8:55:17 UTC 2006
  2. Comments to the FOX Analysis
    By 1000 Sparks in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 7, 2005, 5:06 pm, Fri Jan 7 17:06:17 UTC 2005
  3. Catherine Crier - Scott's Handwriting Analysis
    By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 23, 2004, 4:14 pm, Fri Jul 23 16:14:54 UTC 2004
  4. Statement Analysis: Detecting Deception
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 23, 2004, 12:16 pm, Sun May 23 12:16:19 UTC 2004
  5. JBR's underwear sent for DNA analysis
    By Tez in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: January 22, 2004, 9:40 pm, Thu Jan 22 21:40:21 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •