Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, May 26, 2007.
Sounds like a lot of fun. Be careful, have fun and Good luck!
It's been called off. True to form, the Scottish weather has let us down! Force 7 and heavy/persistent rain :-(
Oh, poor baby, how pitiful you are. I'll be thinking of you as the wind whips my hair and the sails billow under the blue sky. I'll toast you when the spray off the bow tickles my nose. I'll wave at the sea gulls for you. I'll pocket an extra doblÃ²n for you.... irate:
Isn't that interesting..?
That sounds oddly familiar...
This might be a record! That's the SECOND time I agree with Alex! I must be feeling lightheaded...Nope! I double-checked!
John says handwriting is similar to Patsy's.
From JR 1997 interview.
16 LOU SMIT: Okay. And I know, John, that it
17 really hurts to talk about this guy, but that's
18 probably all you've thought about since day one.
19 You must have a mental picture of the type of
20 person this is. I mean, in your mind. I know I
21 have a mental picture of various people that I
22 would look at. But I'm sure you think about this
23 all the time.
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, absolutely, everyday. You
25 know. Of course, my first instinct is, it was a
1 man. Because of some of the similarities,
2 apparently in Patsy's handwriting, I wondered if
3 it was a woman.
Now what are the odds that some intruder would write a ransom note, and have a handwriting SIMILAR to Patsy's? Gee...how "ironic".
Why do I find that statement so odd? lol
Are you just joking, KK, or do you go sailing too? What a shame the rain prevented Jay from sailing.
Bumped for discussion of handwriting analysis.
[PS Elle! I'm a pyrate! Of course I sail! Just not on water.... irate:]
You would have fitted in just fine in "The Pirates of Penzance" KK.
I must admit I like sailing too. I really enjoyed being in my son's boat on French River, Ontario this summer even with my swollen foot - idiot that I was missing a small step down in a restaurant, with my left foot buckling right under me.
No warning sign was present, and I was right behind my Gentleman Jim husband who usually warns me... "Mind your step!" I usually do it for him. However we are both oldie Seniors now and I have learned a lesson. I must look after myself and keep my eyes peeled to the ground wherever I go. I was walking too close to my husband's back and missed it.
Now what were you saying about John Ramsey?
Steve Thomas says that Hunter confused the Five Daubert Reliability Factors with the standard nine-point scale and started calling it "the five-point scale."
That's sort of like walking into your refrigerator to take a shower. Kind of hard to explain a mistake like that.
In his depo, Smit says he got the info that Patsy scored a 4 or a 4.5 on the "five-point scale" from Hunter and unnamed others. My question is: Did the mistake originate with Hunter or did these others plant the mistake in Hunter's mind?
Ubowski rated Patsy as a 4 or a 4.5 on the standard nine-point scale.
The Five Daubert Reliability Factors:
Brown, here is some info on how Hunter first heard of this non-existent scale. Yep, it was in the Ramseys' very own book. I knew it made me crazy when I read Hunter quoting the Ramseys lies! argh!
Okay, brown, here is a copy of my second attempt to post the excerpt from Hunter's depo, leaked by none other than swamp queen jams. I copied it from those attempts at topix, because brown can't see it, but I can. Leading us to wonder if one--or both--of us is barking mad, as brown put it. What's the verdict, Guttah snipes?
Phew! I can see it.
What it tells me is that Hunter was extremely persistent in his error about the scale.
Thomas says that he confused the Five Daubert Reliability Factors with the standard nine-point handwriting scale.
Here are some other things I posted, which may not be showing up, either, since no one is responding:
It tells me Hunter was extremely persistent in his determination not to charge the Ramseys with any crime, no matter how much evidence he had against them.
You must read this thread. There are other articles in here that illustrate how Hunter discredited the whole handwriting analysis process! The man was a criminal's wet dream!
I suspect that the Ramseys and Hunter both got the idea for this scale from someone else.
Okay, just spit it out. We can take it.
I don't believe the Ramseys knew anything about handwriting analysis scales in advance of the murder, either. Hunter...should have. But he could be that dumb, he certainly is that corrupt.
What's amazing, now that you mention it, is how NO ONE from the field came out and denounced the claims made by Hunter and the Ramseys!
That tells me what Epstein said about the field being very small and inbred is absolutely true. Epstein said he believed that the reason none of the expert examiners would just state that they believed Patsy wrote the note, if that's actually what they did believe professionally after analyzing it, was because they all worked and trained in a small circle with each other and were afraid, more or less, to go up against each other and get themselves involved in a situation that would end up with someone getting blackballed, or something like that.
I see what he meant. Because NOT ONE EXPERT came out and straightened that fake scale out for the public. Dear god. The Ramseys' lawyers and Hunter really knew how to play this one to the hilt, didn't they?
A curse upon all their houses. May they become as barren as the grave.
Yeah, even Epstein didn't say "Nobody uses a 5 scale!" even though you could tell from that he wanted to. When asked if he knows that Hunter said the Ramseys were a 4 or 4.5 on a scale of 5, Epstein just nods his head." When the Ramsey attorney prods him more he comes out with "That's what he says."
Smit claims to have worked with handwriting analysts in his career. He repeats the "4 out of 5" thing too. But not very well. It's like it dawns on him that what he's saying doesn't make any sense. Or maybe he just forgot his lines. Anyway, the Ramsey attorney is there to give him the correct answer.
From the Smit depo:
"Q. I want to ask you first about the four police examiners. Are you familiar with the conclusions drawn by those individuals about Patsy Ramsey?
Q. How would you collectively describe the opinions reached, the conclusions reached, by the police handwriting examiners as to where on the scale of probabilities Patsy Ramsey would be placed in terms of being the author of the ransom note?
A. Generally inconclusive and below. Inconclusive and below. I have heard and was told by Alex Hunter that, if Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, the score was five that she wrote it, or that -- on a scale. That she did not write it.
Q. Five being that she did not write the note?
A. Five being that she did not write the note. She would score a 4.5. Low on the scale."
I can believe that Smit was befuddled and I can almost believe that Hunter was. But I'm sure that Lin Wood and Co. knew exactly what was going on.
There are only two choices with Smit: he was befuddled much of the time, or he was purely deceitful.
I put this post from topix on the Thomas thread, but it's about the handwriting scale we're discussing, so I'm going to stick it here too, if you and CSIEngland don't mind, fr brown.
I want to encapsulate here the discussion we had over at topix about the 5 handwriting scale (minus CSIEngland's "contribution").
An adamantly pro-Ramsey poster to "The Handwriting Scale" thread at topix provided us with a 5-scale which I accepted for the sake of argument. Here it is:
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
The same poster provided Smit's testimony before Carnes. This is a portion of it:
"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 [sic], 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."
Using Smit's testimony, I converted the experts' opinions to a numeric on the 5-scale. The pro-Ramsey poster agreed with my conversion. Here it is:
For the police:
Ubowski 2.5 indications did write
Speckin 3.0 no conclusion
Dusick 4.0 probably did not write
Cunningham 3.0 no conclusion
Rile 4.5 highly probable did not write
So it's abundantly clear, both from Smit's testimony and from looking at the experts' opinions numerically, that their collective opinion cannot be characterized as 4.5 on a scale of 5. Only one expert out of six put her that close to elimination.
Separate names with a comma.