Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[vlpate]

<snipped>
On Sept. 13-14, 1997, an intruder got into a Boulder home occupied by a mother and daugher. The father was out of town when the crime occurred. The girl was 14 years old. There was no sign of a forcible break-in. It's unclear how the intruder got in, but he may have entered through a back door that was unlocked before the mother went to bed that night.

The intruder apparently snuck in and hid in the house for several hours, waiting until 3:00 a.m. before going to the girl's bedroom. He wore black clothing, knew the girl's name and knew his way around the house in the dark. The house had motion detectors and an alarm system which were set at 11:00 p.m., but he didn't set off the alarm.

AK = The Ramsey attacker, who may or may not be Amy's attacker, could have done the same thing while the Ramsey's were at the Christmas Party. Giving him/her plenty of time to write the ransom note, even time to look at Patsy's writing.

DESCRIPTION OF AMY'S ATTACKER

First, she thought she saw blonde hair from underneath a backwards cap. The blonde hair would rule out BDM, unless he dyed it or was wearing a wig.

Other aspects match him. A black "ninja" out fit sounds similar to clothes he wore.

"The victim 'did not recognize the voice of the suspect.' She said the suspect had a "deep voice....his jaw line stood out," his throat was real "thin," and the suspect's face was "very angular."

The mother described the assailant as about 5 feet 7 inches tall, 20 to 30 years old, with blond hair.

She noted that he had an angular, thin face, with a jaw line that "really stood out."

<snipped>

Seems to me there is a real simple solution to finding out if Mitchell was the one in Amy's bedroom, ASK HER!!

 

[vlpate]

Bump....

Here's the thing. We don't allow ANYWHERE on the forum for people to pull suspects out of their orifices.

To suggest Brian David Mitchell had anything to do with JonBenet makes the whole forum look nutty.

If anyone has anything that logically points to another suspect I am all ears.

If you are going to whine because I ask you to please abide by our Terms of Service then perhaps Websleuths is not for you.

 

[vlpate]

I'm sure someone has already noticed this but I just saw it. The picture drawn by the psychic and the picutre of John Karr are very similar. How odes the drawning compare to the picture of the guy who took Smart?

I think the picture looks like John Ramsey when he was younger. I've always suspected Amy's "rapist" was her boyfriend. Were DNA samples ever taken from Amy as evidence? I don't recall...but if so, and if it matched the DNA from JBR, we would have heard about it.

 

[Roy23]

Please source the documentation.

No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]

Numerous Significant Dissimilarities Rule Out Patsy. "The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)"

Expertise of Examiners. The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."1.Osborn Expertise. Paul A. Osborn himself is at the top of his field with over 50 years of experience: "he has been qualified as an expert and has testified on the subject of disputed documents in civil and criminal courts on more than four hundred and fifty occasions in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and seventeen other states, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, Virgin Islands and Canada....In 1992, Mr. Osborn was awarded the Gesellschaft F&#65533;r Forensische Shriftuntersuchung E. V. Medal of Recognition for Outstanding Merit from the European Society of forensic document examiners."
2.Experts Being Referenced by Osborn. The four experts alluded to in Hoffman's fax are Dusak, Ubowski, Speckin and Alford.
Individual Expert Opinions Favorable to Patsy Ramsey

Experts Consulted By BPD/BDA (6 experts inclusive of 2 hired by Ramseys)

Richard Dusak•Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."
Chester A. Ubowski•Ubowski Findings
1."Indications" Patsy May Have Written RN. Some of Ubowski's preliminary findings were revealed in the affidavit used as justification for the Charlevoix search warrant. According to affiant Jane Harmer, Ubowski provided Detective Linda Arndt the following information: "The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from Patsy Ramsey showed "indications" which suggest that Patsy Ramsey may have written the reported ransom note."
2.Evidence Falls Short. Later in the affidavit, Harmer further states "He determined that there is evidence which indicates the ransom note may have been written by Patricia Ramsey but "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."
•Speckin Findings.
1.Unable to Eliminate. "Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those 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." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency 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." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6).
Edwin F. Alford, Jr.•Alford Findings
1.Evidence Fell Short. "Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Alford Qualifications. Alford is a diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ZoomInfo.com).
Consultants Hired by Ramseys (2 experts)

Lloyd Cunningham•Cunningham Findings.
1.No Significant Similar Characteristics. "Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
2.Cannot Identify or Eliminate Patsy as Author. In his Wolf v. Ramsey deposition, Gideon Epstein agreed with Ramsey attorney James Rawls' characterization of Cunningham's findings: "he cannot identify, nor eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note..." and "he has spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and found that there were no significant individual characteristics, but much significant difference between Patsy's writing and the note" (p. 148:9-11 and 13-17).
•Cunningham Qualifications. Cunningham was a police officer in the San Francisco Police Department from 1963-1991; he became the department's first forensic document examiner after receiving training with the U.S. Secret Service. He is a member of the Southwestern Association of Document Examiners and served as its president from 2001-2003. He is best known for being the world's leading expert on the handwriting in the Zodiac killer case.
Howard C. Rile, Jr.•Rile Findings. "Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). This also is confirmed in Epstein Deposition, p. 150:6-9).
•Qualifications. Rile is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the only professional certifying organization in the profession.
For purposes of Daubert, the 6 ABDFE who examined the ORIGINALS, were unable to identify PR as the author, there exists numerous dissimilarities between PR and the handwriting of the RN, and a couple excluded her.

You know, I try to keep an open mind but not so open my brains spill out. The simplest explanation for these findings are

"
Richard Dusak•Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."

 

[vlpate]

No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]

Numerous Significant Dissimilarities Rule Out Patsy. "The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)"

Expertise of Examiners. The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."1.Osborn Expertise. Paul A. Osborn himself is at the top of his field with over 50 years of experience: "he has been qualified as an expert and has testified on the subject of disputed documents in civil and criminal courts on more than four hundred and fifty occasions in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and seventeen other states, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, Virgin Islands and Canada....In 1992, Mr. Osborn was awarded the Gesellschaft F&#65533;r Forensische Shriftuntersuchung E. V. Medal of Recognition for Outstanding Merit from the European Society of forensic document examiners."
2.Experts Being Referenced by Osborn. The four experts alluded to in Hoffman's fax are Dusak, Ubowski, Speckin and Alford.
Individual Expert Opinions Favorable to Patsy Ramsey

Experts Consulted By BPD/BDA (6 experts inclusive of 2 hired by Ramseys)

Richard Dusak•Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."
Chester A. Ubowski•Ubowski Findings
1."Indications" Patsy May Have Written RN. Some of Ubowski's preliminary findings were revealed in the affidavit used as justification for the Charlevoix search warrant. According to affiant Jane Harmer, Ubowski provided Detective Linda Arndt the following information: "The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from Patsy Ramsey showed "indications" which suggest that Patsy Ramsey may have written the reported ransom note."
2.Evidence Falls Short. Later in the affidavit, Harmer further states "He determined that there is evidence which indicates the ransom note may have been written by Patricia Ramsey but "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."
•Speckin Findings.
1.Unable to Eliminate. "Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those 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." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency 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." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6).
Edwin F. Alford, Jr.•Alford Findings
1.Evidence Fell Short. "Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Alford Qualifications. Alford is a diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ZoomInfo.com).
Consultants Hired by Ramseys (2 experts)

Lloyd Cunningham•Cunningham Findings.
1.No Significant Similar Characteristics. "Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
2.Cannot Identify or Eliminate Patsy as Author. In his Wolf v. Ramsey deposition, Gideon Epstein agreed with Ramsey attorney James Rawls' characterization of Cunningham's findings: "he cannot identify, nor eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note..." and "he has spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and found that there were no significant individual characteristics, but much significant difference between Patsy's writing and the note" (p. 148:9-11 and 13-17).
•Cunningham Qualifications. Cunningham was a police officer in the San Francisco Police Department from 1963-1991; he became the department's first forensic document examiner after receiving training with the U.S. Secret Service. He is a member of the Southwestern Association of Document Examiners and served as its president from 2001-2003. He is best known for being the world's leading expert on the handwriting in the Zodiac killer case.
Howard C. Rile, Jr.•Rile Findings. "Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). This also is confirmed in Epstein Deposition, p. 150:6-9).
•Qualifications. Rile is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the only professional certifying organization in the profession.
For purposes of Daubert, the 6 ABDFE who examined the ORIGINALS, were unable to identify PR as the author, there exists numerous dissimilarities between PR and the handwriting of the RN, and a couple excluded her.

You know, I try to keep an open mind but not so open my brains spill out. The simplest explanation for these findings are

"
Richard Dusak•Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."

You forgot to add this one to Speckin....Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy. However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs." (Thomas 2000age number not provided;

 

[BBB167893]

You forgot to add this one to Speckin....Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy. However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs." (Thomas 2000age number not provided;

He forgot a LOT of things, vlpate. So let's have a go at it.

 

[Roy23]

He forgot a LOT of things, vlpate. So let's have a go at it.

I didn't forget that still to this date LE has stated they do not have enough probable cause to make an arrest or go to court.

 

[BBB167893]

No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]

As has been mentioned only a million times, pilgrim (and that's lowballing it), the Carnes ruling is filled with statements of "fact" that are not fact at all. And this seems to be one of them.

Let us remember: the passage above refers to the unchallenged assertions of Lou Smit and Lin Wood, neither of whom I would trust any farther than I could throw an aircraft carrier. Those reports were preliminary reports taken illegally by Lou Smit and made public. As Carol McKinley and Cina Wong pointed out on Aug 15th's radio broadcast, there were a lot of problems with this.

Moreover, as I was telling vlpate, Lin Wood had a chance to prove that the handwriting experts' reports actually said what the Carnes ruling say they do, and Hal Haddon, who would have access to those reports, refused to let him use them. Why? What is he hiding?

I'm just taking a guess here, pilgrim, but I don't think you listened that night. Did you?

Numerous Significant Dissimilarities Rule Out Patsy. "The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)"

Well, the fact that these experts were hired by the Ramseys themselves ought to tell you something. But more importantly than that; one, they themselves did not testify, so all we have is Lou Smit's word that they said this. Two, as Cina Wong pointed out, they did very little actual examination. They GLANCED at it, basically.

Expertise of Examiners. The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."1.Osborn Expertise. Paul A. Osborn himself is at the top of his field with over 50 years of experience: "he has been qualified as an expert and has testified on the subject of disputed documents in civil and criminal courts on more than four hundred and fifty occasions in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and seventeen other states, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, Virgin Islands and Canada....In 1992, Mr. Osborn was awarded the Gesellschaft F&#65533;r Forensische Shriftuntersuchung E. V. Medal of Recognition for Outstanding Merit from the European Society of forensic document examiners."
2.Experts Being Referenced by Osborn. The four experts alluded to in Hoffman's fax are Dusak, Ubowski, Speckin and Alford.

My understanding is that the experts he's referencing are the experts the Ramseys hired.

Individual Expert Opinions Favorable to Patsy Ramsey

Experts Consulted By BPD/BDA (6 experts inclusive of 2 hired by Ramseys)

Richard Dusak•Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
•Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."

This is what I was talking about. Carol McKinley brought this up, and you can actually go back as far as PMPT for this, that the police and DA's office shopped the note around before the CBI man, Ubowski, had even completed his report. And, as Gideon Epstein pointed out in his deposition, by that time, the Ramseys had hired Rile and Cunningham, and the other experts weren't willing to go against them in court, so they weaseled out of giving their true opinions. McKinley hinted at that as well. Lastly, Epstein pointed out that Dusak does not do very much actual examination.

Chester A. Ubowski•Ubowski Findings
1."Indications" Patsy May Have Written RN. Some of Ubowski's preliminary findings were revealed in the affidavit used as justification for the Charlevoix search warrant. According to affiant Jane Harmer, Ubowski provided Detective Linda Arndt the following information: "The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from Patsy Ramsey showed "indications" which suggest that Patsy Ramsey may have written the reported ransom note."
2.Evidence Falls Short. Later in the affidavit, Harmer further states "He determined that there is evidence which indicates the ransom note may have been written by Patricia Ramsey but "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

This one is interesting. As Carol McKinley said, Ubowski believed that Patsy wrote it, but not to the degree that he could say so in court. Back in 2002, McKinley reported that Ubowski fell short on that because the pen used to write it was a bleeding pen.

What he DID do was show Carol a chart of 100 people he had examined, and only ONE came out above the 50% mark: Patsy Ramsey.

Lloyd Cunningham•Cunningham Findings.
1.No Significant Similar Characteristics. "Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).
2.Cannot Identify or Eliminate Patsy as Author. In his Wolf v. Ramsey deposition, Gideon Epstein agreed with Ramsey attorney James Rawls' characterization of Cunningham's findings: "he cannot identify, nor eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note..." and "he has spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and found that there were no significant individual characteristics, but much significant difference between Patsy's writing and the note" (p. 148:9-11 and 13-17).
•Cunningham Qualifications. Cunningham was a police officer in the San Francisco Police Department from 1963-1991; he became the department's first forensic document examiner after receiving training with the U.S. Secret Service. He is a member of the Southwestern Association of Document Examiners and served as its president from 2001-2003. He is best known for being the world's leading expert on the handwriting in the Zodiac killer case.
Howard C. Rile, Jr.•Rile Findings. "Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). This also is confirmed in Epstein Deposition, p. 150:6-9).
•Qualifications. Rile is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the only professional certifying organization in the profession.

Well, now that's a might peculiar, since Epstein and Wong said specifically that there were NO differences, and that what Rile took for differences were just variations. Not surprising, since Patsy was said to have numerous handwriting styles.

Pilgrim, there are so many problems with the handwriting analyses in this case, I'd have to write a SECOND book just to cover them all. But instead, I'll just guide you back to this:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2011/08/15/websleuths-radio

And try to LISTEN to it this time.

For purposes of Daubert, the 6 ABDFE who examined the ORIGINALS, were unable to identify PR as the author, there exists numerous dissimilarities between PR and the handwriting of the RN, and a couple excluded her.

Oh, GOD. Roy, as rough as it's been between you and me, I've never insulted your intelligence. PLEASE do not insult mine! I know who you got that garbage from, and it saddens me that an intelligent man like yourself would be taken in by it.

You know, I try to keep an open mind but not so open my brains spill out.

You could have fooled me, cowboy!

 

[Roy23]

Well Dave it takes two to play nice. Many RDI's on here make an assumption that matches were made to writing. And that is not true. I tend to give some Leeway that Patsy can't be excluded while others can. Really, I do. But that is the jist of the evidence here. And I have compared it myself.

Quoting examiners that do not have the qualification to be an expert witness is bush league. This is a science that I don't have a lot of faith in anyhow. Numerous examples of that. Especially in big cases where money is to be made.

When you look at all the evidence concerning this the bottom line is that many credible examiners can't eliminate Patsy as the writer and many others can. Thats it. But I think it is something that RDI can use in their beliefs since we know Patsy was in the house and it was her utencils.

I imagine that is not fair enough but thems the facts.

 

[BBB167893]

I didn't forget that still to this date LE has stated they do not have enough probable cause to make an arrest or go to court.

I meant on this subject in particular, pilgrim. But I'll oblige you.

Which "LE" are we talking about, anyway? I'm assuming you mean the DA, because as the police have told us many times, they had more than enough probable cause for an arrest. The FBI, the Dream Team guys and Mark Beckner TOLD them to arrest the Ramseys. But the DA wouldn't go for it. He was too lefty and "enlightened" and politically correct for anything like that. It's been said multiple times that the DA had a standard that was nearly impossible to meet, and had stated (proudly, as Darnay Hoffman pointed out), that he did not arrest on probable cause.

And don't forget the single biggest problem of all: WHICH one do you charge with what? Since the police were not allowed to arrest the Ramseys and separate them until one confessed, which is absolutely STANDARD proceedure in domestic homicide cases when more than one adult is present, that was unlikely to happen.

You might fool some newbie to this case with that stuff pilgrim. But don't even WASTE it on me. And that goes for the rest of your new friends. But don't worry. I'll get to them, too. And when it's over, you may find yourself a bit lonelier than when you started out. So what'cha gonna do, brother, when the power of SD-Mania runs wild on YOU??!!

 

[Roy23]

I meant on this subject in particular, pilgrim. But I'll oblige you.

Which "LE" are we talking about, anyway? I'm assuming you mean the DA, because as the police have told us many times, they had more than enough probable cause for an arrest. The FBI, the Dream Team guys and Mark Beckner TOLD them to arrest the Ramseys. But the DA wouldn't go for it. He was too lefty and "enlightened" and politically correct for anything like that. It's been said multiple times that the DA had a standard that was nearly impossible to meet, and had stated (proudly, as Darnay Hoffman pointed out), that he did not arrest on probable cause.

And don't forget the single biggest problem of all: WHICH one do you charge with what? Since the police were not allowed to arrest the Ramseys and separate them until one confessed, which is absolutely STANDARD proceedure in domestic homicide cases when more than one adult is present, that was unlikely to happen.

You might fool some newbie to this case with that stuff pilgrim. But don't even WASTE it on me. And that goes for the rest of your new friends. But don't worry. I'll get to them, too. And when it's over, you may find yourself a bit lonelier than when you started out. So what'cha gonna do, brother, when the power of SD-Mania runs wild on YOU??!!

You no match for me Dave. You schtick is outdated. And your day is coming. And you guys can never say I didn't point you in the right direction. It is each persons responsibility to decide which information in the public to believe. I know many have been misled but it is not their fault anymore.

Mark Beckner is looking for an intruder that killed JBR. That is a fact.

 

[Roy23]

I meant on this subject in particular, pilgrim. But I'll oblige you.

Which "LE" are we talking about, anyway? I'm assuming you mean the DA, because as the police have told us many times, they had more than enough probable cause for an arrest. The FBI, the Dream Team guys and Mark Beckner TOLD them to arrest the Ramseys. But the DA wouldn't go for it. He was too lefty and "enlightened" and politically correct for anything like that. It's been said multiple times that the DA had a standard that was nearly impossible to meet, and had stated (proudly, as Darnay Hoffman pointed out), that he did not arrest on probable cause.

And don't forget the single biggest problem of all: WHICH one do you charge with what? Since the police were not allowed to arrest the Ramseys and separate them until one confessed, which is absolutely STANDARD proceedure in domestic homicide cases when more than one adult is present, that was unlikely to happen.

You might fool some newbie to this case with that stuff pilgrim. But don't even WASTE it on me. And that goes for the rest of your new friends. But don't worry. I'll get to them, too. And when it's over, you may find yourself a bit lonelier than when you started out. So what'cha gonna do, brother, when the power of SD-Mania runs wild on YOU??!!

Oh yeah lets separate them until one confesses. That was gonna work. The cross fingerpointing crap again. Its not like either of the Ramsey's would ever have to testify against the other anyway. Had one of them really done it then the other would have run to the police anyway. But don't stop trying to put that round peg in that square hole.

 

[BBB167893]

Well Dave it takes two to play nice.

I didn't say, "play nice." I said don't insult my intelligence. There is a difference. Here's an example: you and I may not like each other, but I would not for a MINUTE consider LYING to you or anyone else.

Don't take that the wrong way, either. I'm not saying that YOU have lied. But it seems that you (and the person you got this misinfo from) have chosen to repeat the lies of Lin Wood. We talked about that on the radio show. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Wood should have been disbarred for what he did in this case. And if it were within my power to do so, I'd stake him on an anthill with syrup smeared on his body!

Many RDI's on here make an assumption that matches were made to writing.

It's a bit more than an assumption, cowboy.

And that is not true.

So you say. But for someone such as myself who has actually studied this case and not just taken Ramsey propaganda at face value, it's a lot different than you make it out. And I have to be honest with you, cowboy: I'm saddened at how thoroughly you've imbibed of the spin (LOL) of others who cannot be trusted. And I know this. I was one of you.

I tend to give some Leeway that Patsy can't be excluded while others can. Really, I do.

Glad to hear it, pilgrim.

But that is the jist of the evidence here. And I have compared it myself.

Oh, so you mean you've ACTUALLY looked at the comparison charts we have for viewing here at WS? I know that quite a few people have changed their minds from looking at them.

Quoting examiners that do not have the qualification to be an expert witness is bush league.

Roy, don't even WASTE my time with that old bit, okay? I know who you got them from, and I know where HE got it from, and it's a bunch of crap. They are LIES, flat out. Lin Wood told lies in court and because he was not challenged, IDI touts them as if they were established as fact. We examined those very claims of who is and isn't qualified. Cina Wong went to lengths to correct the lies that have been told about her supposed lack of qualifications, AND about the BS political game the ABFDE has tried to play on the courts. It's a pity that the people who most NEEDED to learn from the radio show were the least LIKELY to learn from it!

So don't talk to me about bush league, pilgrim. Because these attempts by IDI propagandists are SO damn transparent, they'd be funny if they weren't so sinister.

This is a science that I don't have a lot of faith in anyhow. Numerous examples of that. Especially in big cases where money is to be made.

Yeah, you've made yourself clear on that point, brother. And for my money, I think it's a dodge, a rationalization for ignoring important evidence, just like this claim that the examiners who had the GUTS to nail Patsy on the writing aren't qualified.

Well, you can't have it both ways, friend. Either handwriting analysis is not reliable enough to make a decision one way or another, or it's reliable enough to include or exclude someone. It can't be BOTH. And as Mike Kane pointed out a few years ago, if you look at the arguments made by the Ramseys in the Wolf case, they tried to have it both ways. They tried to claim that since their hired goons said Patsy wasn't likely to be the note writer, that was the end of it. THEN, when qualified experts DID name her as the author, they tried to claim that handwriting analysis is not reliable enough to be considered as evidence in court.

WHICH IS IT?

Here's an illustration for you: if an astrologist tells me I have great misfortune in my future, I can't say "astrology is a bunch of garbage," then turn right around and say, "and besides, my astrologer says the opposite." That would look kind of funny, wouldn't it?

That's not to say that I'm not aware of the various issues that go on with it. But I've done my homework, and this idea that School A is qualified and School B isn't, even though there's not a dime's worth of PRACTICAL difference between them is nonsense to me. As I see it, it takes a lot more than what org a person pays membership dues to to come to my decision. It takes individual considerations, too: practical experience, dedication, and time devoted to analysis. Some people don't like that I do that. Well, too f'ing bad!

When you look at all the evidence concerning this the bottom line is that many credible examiners can't eliminate Patsy as the writer and many others can. Thats it.

You must be reading different ones than me, pilgrim. NONE of the examiners ever said the words "Patsy did not write this."

But I think it is something that RDI can use in their beliefs since we know Patsy was in the house and it was her utensils.

NOW you're talking! This is an area where you prove that you are your own man. Because it seems like the majority of IDIs don't seem to understand just how important these two factors are. Even IF what you say is true, and that's a very, VERY big if, you have a person established as being in the house who owned the materials who can't be eliminated, whereas it cannot be established that anyone else was in the house at all. The odds, then, that anyone OTHER than Patsy wrote it are pretty slim, wouldn't you say? I sure wouldn't gamble on them!

 

[BBB167893]

You no match for me Dave.

LOL Proud words, but futile. Many have tried, all have failed. And if you IDIs weren't such weak material, I might be satisfied NOW!

You schtick is outdated.

Don't bet on it. Pilgrim, the radio show was just the beginning.

And your day is coming.

You better BELIEVE my day is coming, pilgrim! And it's been a long time in getting here!

And you guys can never say I didn't point you in the right direction.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

It is each persons responsibility to decide which information in the public to believe.

My point exactly! What do you THINK I've been saying?! It all comes down to trust. And personal experience has shown me that, with VERY few exception, IDI is INCAPABLE of being trusted.

Mark Beckner is looking for an intruder that killed JBR. That is a fact.

Fact, my butt. Beckner knows the truth.

 

[Roy23]

Dave,

Many examiners did not feel this was Patsy's writing. Give me a break. See when you just completely discredit everyone that doesn't pander to your opinion somehow they are tainted. This is not the facts. Just like the comparison of ST to LS. ST never worked a murder case while LS was a very highly respected investigator that had glowing reviews by his peers. It is a fact.

Nevertheless, I give RDI its due that some respected examiners can't exclude Patsy Ramsey. That is important but that is all you guys got on this.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh yeah lets separate them until one confesses. That was gonna work.

A lot of LE agents were convinced it would work, at least early on. It worked like a charm in the Lisa Steinberg case, so don't waste your sarcasm on me. It's not my fault if you don't understand this stuff.

The cross fingerpointing crap again.

Call it whatever you want, pilgrim. But I'm not the only one to bring it up. People with a LOT more experience in law enforcement than I have mentioned regarding this case time and time again. I should think you'd be a little bit more openminded, considering it was the cross fingerpointing strategy that let Casey walk.

Its not like either of the Ramsey's would ever have to testify against the other anyway.

I can't help but wonder if it would go that way, myself. I'm convinced that there would not have been a trial, and that they would have plea-bargained for no jail time.

Had one of them really done it then the other would have run to the police anyway.

Heard that argument a million times, pilgrim. I know John R tried to sell that idea. But it's no good. It SOUNDS really great in theory, but that's just not how it works in real life. If I had a nickel for every time a spouse protected another one, I'd be a rich man. Don't take my word for it, either.

But don't stop trying to put that round peg in that square hole.

You REALLY shouldn't give me a set-up like that! Indeed, I'm sure it was shoving things in holes that was foremost in the minds of the Ramseys when they decided to stage the scene, if you take my meaning!

 

[Roy23]

"Pilgrim, I'd be more than happy to tell you what hole YOU can put it in, but I won't. "

Nice. But I am okay with that. I feel the same about you sometimes. Prepare to meet your doom. Sooner or later Beckner or Garnett will talk. And RDI will add them to their list of corrupt Ramsey supporters. As a matter of fact, I heard Beckner already wrote a letter to JR through Lin Wood. It explains why he can't be all lovey dovey like ML.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

Many examiners did not feel this was Patsy's writing.

So YOU say. If that's true, why don't they release the handwriting reports? They release everything else.

Give me a break.

I AM giving you a break, pilgrim. I'm going EASY on you. I'm wondering if that's a mistake.

See when you just completely discredit everyone that doesn't pander to your opinion somehow they are tainted.

You're a FINE one to criticize me about that!

Look, if the boot fits, I'll put it on 'em.

Just like the comparison of ST to LS. ST never worked a murder case while LS was a very highly respected investigator that had glowing reviews by his peers. It is a fact.

Maybe so, and that makes it even worse. It's also a fact that ST worked with the best and brightest while LS threw his objectivity right out the window. He thought he knew better than everyone, like some others I could mention!

Nevertheless, I give RDI its due that some respected examiners can't exclude Patsy Ramsey. That is important but that is all you guys got on this.

Even if it is, and like I said, that's doubtful, it's the nature of the beast. It's not just that PR can't be eliminated. It's all the OTHER stuff that points to her. It comes back to that whole totality thing. You know, the concept you IDIs have such a damn hard time understanding?

 

[BBB167893]

"Pilgrim, I'd be more than happy to tell you what hole YOU can put it in, but I won't. "

Nice.

LOL!:floorlaugh: You never know WHERE I'm gonna strike next!

Prepare to meet your doom.

I'm shaking in my boots, pilgrim!

Sooner or later Beckner or Garnett will talk. And RDI will add them to their list of corrupt Ramsey supporters.

That line's too long already!

As a matter of fact, I heard Beckner already wrote a letter to JR through Lin Wood. It explains why he can't be all lovey dovey like ML.

And just where did you hear THAT?

 

[Roy23]

"Even if it is, and like I said, that's doubtful, it's the nature of the beast. It's not just that PR can't be eliminated. It's all the OTHER stuff that points to her. It comes back to that whole totality thing. You know, the concept you IDIs have such a damn hard time understanding? "

I don't see this other stuff you are referring to. But I see this. Either way, RDI doom is coming. In this instance, I am not saying it to rub anyone's nose in it. Just as fact. And I wonder how RDI spins it when Beckner proves to you he is looking for an intruder. And Garnett supports it?

Is it gonna be just another bad DA? Another bad cop? It is gonna be interesting for sure.