Handwriting analysis

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thank you Jay and Little for this important information you both posted. Will go over it tomorrow.Very interesting.

 

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

JonBenét

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

JonBen♥t

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

 

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:-

SNIP

This reiterates my concern about the wiki which stated:-

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.

 

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 wroteâ€

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...â€

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...â€

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 conclusionâ€

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 Bloggsâ€

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 conclusiveâ€

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...â€

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 writeâ€.

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 nowriteâ€. “It is my opinion/conclusion/determination that Joe Bloggs did not writeâ€

 

Richard Dusak was cited as one of 4 high ranking secret service officials who were complicit in perjury during the Martha Stewart trial. If he had been of the opinion that Patsy wrote the note, would that have been sufficient to discredit him in the eyes of the RST?

 

The Wiki quotes Judge Carnes judgement (this is about Cina Wong):-

That is very misleading! On the ABFDE website it states that:-

Nowhere does it say that this list is comprehensive! I think the source of Judge Carnes statement was Gideon Epstein.

It goes on...

 

This is what was said when the ransom note was first published:-

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon134.htm

 

It has come to my attention that Miss Marple has linked to this post because he thinks it showed my "true colours" and that the only reason I posted a (slightly) truncated version of it at Crimelibrary was because I am overly fond of my little green boxes (reputation level).

Firstly, I think that is a low blow because I actually had my reputation level hidden until a change to the software a few days ago meant no-one could hide their reputations anymore. I chose to hide mine because I thought the reputation levels might be a target for bullies and that they could potentially distract from the discussion. In making his snide remark about my reputation level, Miss Marple proved my point.

Now to the post. My original post here was identical to the post I made at Crimelibrary but included the comment at the end that I thought someone was frantically updating /spinning on the wiki page (as it turns out, I was right!)

Since Miss Marple has chosen to attack me for this comment, I will elaborate. In his post complaining about my comments above, Marple referred to the wiki in order to argue his point. His point was (naturally) that my opinion was unreasonable/unmerited. However, if one goes to the History page of the wiki and does a comparison between the current version of the wiki and one from several days ago, one can see that this page of the wiki has been significantly changed over the past few days:-

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/sd...Patsy+Ramsey+as+RN+Author.2007-05-18-20-56-39

Deleted text is shown in red, added-in text is shown in green.

Bottom line is that this is akin to someone visiting a restaurant and making negative observations about the hygiene of the place. The restaurant owner then quickly spruces the place up and then invites people to come and see how clean his restaurant is whilst accusing the critic of lying! OK, it was the first analogy I came up with but I'm sure you get the point. Marple defended his wiki with a REVISED version of the page I criticised... and I think that's dishonest - especially since his posts were laced with snide little personal attacks on me. He's lucky I didn't report him to the mods at Crimelibrary. Perhaps next time I will.

 

Did I read this correctly, Jay? Good grief!

Thank you again for your valuable research. Glad you noticed your personal information would have been included. Crafty, aren't they? However, they are just protecting their material.

 

This one stands out for me, Jay. I agree with Gregg McCrary. I've read what he had to say before, and thought he was right way back. I can just see Patsy Ramsey writing this ransom note in the same way she tackled her speech for the talent competition, and won. Her friend Linda McLean helped her. As for the writing part, she was smart enough to print it, cutting out any repetitive slanting. Patsy Ramsey knew this 3 page ransom note would throw everyone into a tizzy. No doubt about it, she had the experience and was well rehearsed.

 

Apparently specialised training is optional. However, members cannot put the certification letters after their name without taking exams.

Professional bodies are a bit of an oddity IMO. Many of them are little more than a money-making scam. Take Plastic Surgeons for example. There are numerous professional bodies for plastic and cosmetic surgeons but there are also plenty of really good surgeons who aren't members of them because their reputations speak for themselves.

There are aslo different qualifications for the same professions For example, in Scotland we have PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate of Education) as well as Dip Ed (Diploma of Education). Both are perfectly acceptable teaching qualifications which are recognised throughout the UK. Our professional body is the GTCS (General Teaching Council for Scotland) but although you need to be a member of the GTC to work in the State system, you need only be "eligible for registration" in the private system - i.e. they recognise that some teachers aren't members but that they would meet the requirements if they had to join. I'm sure the same applies in other professions.

 

Thank you for this valuable update. As per usual, Jay, you are right on top of it all, and a wealth of information relating to the JonBenét case.

Soon, school will be over for you, and time for you to go sailing.

 

You betcha! I stocked the boat up on Sunday and weather permitting, we're going racing on Saturday

 

Thanks Elle...I will give that a try.

 

"When there's a note at the Ramsey residence, there shouldn't have been a dead child. When there's a dead child at the residence, you shouldn't find a note," he said. "It's totally stupid."

Yes, TOTALLY!!!

 

Exactly, Ames. Totally stupid.