Ransom note analysis

[BBB167893]

If for example, you are an expert, who is ready to condemn people and send them to the hell for the rest of their life with your handwriting analysis , and I`m for example the judge, I would request that you are serious expert, you better have your basis , otherwise you are wasting my precious time.

I agree with that sentiment, tovarisch. I would only ask that, as a judge, you would give said expert a fair chance to present that basis.

Incidentally, you've provided a new way of looking at this for me. I'm not really sure how to say what I'm thinking, but if I were an expert in this case, and knew that my testimony could possibly send this woman to death row, I might get a bit hesitant.

Just spitballing.

 

[BBB167893]

From the history, it may help you to understand what I`m trying and trying to say:


"Consideration of Epstein'. Testimony That He Was Absolutely Certain that Mrs. Ramaey Wrote the Ransom Note
The Court has earlier indicated its conclusion that there is insufficient reliability to Mr. Epstein's methodology to permit him to state his conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note. As noted supra, Epstein opined that he is "100 percent certain" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note and that "there is absolutely no doubt" that she is the author. Supra at 51. The Court believes its conclusion on the admissibility of this evidence to be correct. Further, as the identify of the writer is virtually the only evidence that plaintiff can offer to shoulder its burden, then the question of the identity of the writer is synonymous with the underlying question in this litigation: did Mrs. Ramsey kill her child. Nevertheless, even if the Court were to permit Epstein to testify as to the above conclusion, the Court does not believe his testimony would provide the "clear and convincing evidence" necessary for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.

That's as good an example of what I said about not being allowed to state your basis. We've been over this.

 

[BBB167893]

One can rail against Carnes as they wish and certainly some criticism can be directed towards what was presented to Carnes, but within the context of what was presented, the Carnes Decision was sound.

BBM. That's one thing we'll agree on.

So, disagree or argue against; that’s fine. But, let’s not say that we don’t know what the experts might say.

Then why didn't Lin Wood present the damn REPORTS like he said he would?

 

[BBB167893]

"so called experts"?

Why are they so called and not just experts?

Frankly, Tawny, I have my doubts about the entire profession.

 

[BBB167893]

I think some of what you’ve written re: Ubowski is misleading and possibly incorrect. Specifically: 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." Ubowski "is said to have found 24 of 26 letters in the ransom note which matched exemplars from Patsy Ramsey"

This reads as if the “24 of 26 letters” is stated in the search warrant/affidavit. I’ve been wrong before, but I don’t think that I am this time. This quote does not come from the search warrant/affidavit, nor does it come from any official source.

As it turns out there is reason to doubt that Ubowski ever made such a claim.

I think it's helpful to remember what he told Carol McKinley.

As some (sadly, not all) of us understand, interviewers are not permitted to lie or deceive during depositions (unlike the interviews conducted by Thomas, Smit, Levin, Kane, etc wherein deception is permitted). Of course, during a deposition one might lie anyway, but the consequences can be quite serious. In the Thomas deposition we learn – unless Wood is breaking the law and violating the code ethics, etc – that “...Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they don't even make that kind of analysis with respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet...”

1) Kane and Levin were not allowed to use deception, due to said ethics.

2) I wouldn't put it past Lin Wood to do exactly as you say if he thought he could get away with it.

Out of your list of experts, Epstein and Wong were both rejected by the Court.

UNJUSTLY. Don't leave that out.

YOU can disagree with the Court and that’s fine but it doesn’t change the fact that in this matter a court of law did not find these experts to be credible (Epstein didn’t find Wong credible, either!). This is something that should be taken into consideration when considering expert’s opinions.

Damn right I disagree with it, for a multitude of reasons.

Incidentally, I think that even if these experts had eliminated her one could still argue that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note (experts can be fooled) just as some argue, despite elimination, that Mr Ramsey wrote the note.

Given the state of the profession, I can't argue with that.

 

[BBB167893]

Epstien and Wong were rejected, not for any incompetence on their part, but because of factors that were out of their control. Mainly that they did not use the original note or samples, only copies.

It was more than just that, andreww. A lot of their requests were refused by the Rs, and the judge did nothing about it. To say nothing about how Hoffman either wasn't allowed, or just didn't bother, to ask the right questions.

I'll give you an example: I have no doubt Epstein would have explained his methodology quite well if he'd been allowed to use the comparison charts like he was allowed to do every OTHER case he was involved in.

As this was a civil suit and the criminal investigation was still active, I highly doubt that the BPD were anxious to turn over the original. Im Sure Lin Wood and crew worked overtime getting that decision.

They did. And the judge let 'em get away with it.

 

[BBB167893]

No, Andreww, Epstein was rejected because he was not able to show how he came to his conclusions;

Not allowed, you mean. Let's not kid ourselves.

and, Wong was rejected because – and, Epstein agreed – she was simply not qualified.

Funny how she was qualified before and after, isn't it?

 

[questfortrue]

Note: From what I’ve read, there is no 5 point scale the Forensic Document Examiners use (even though Carnes references it.) They typically use the ASTM 9 point scale. (IIRC, it was reported that AH came up with that 5 point scale when he was on the LKL program. No one knows where he got it.) The ASTM 9 point scale is copyrighted, so I can’t copy it here. (ASTM=American Society for Testing and Materials) The number 1 categorization is an absolute ID of the writer, down to 9 which is that the Examiner has no doubt that the materials were not written by a person under review.

Ubowski testified at the Grand Jury and we don’t know the facts of his testimony nor do we know what weight the GJ gave the testimony of Ubowski. But looking at the conclusions of the GJ does lead one to wonder. Several possibilities:

1) No way did Patsy write the RN. [9 on the document examiners’ scale]
And the GJ decided just on other evidence to indict the couple, even though they would have to speculate that an Intruder wrote it to make the couple seem guilty of complicity in their child’s homicide or . .

2) There is evidence to suggest or the evidence is inconclusive that Patsy did write it. [1 on the scale is absolute certainty. 2 or 3 would be highly probable and probable, 4 would be only evidence to suggest she wrote it or 5 would be the handwriting is inconclusive.]
And the GJ thought she might have written it for the Intruder and decided to indict them for allowing the Intruder to come in, kill their daughter and for obstructing justice or . . .

3) High probability or probability that Patsy did write it.
And the GJ believed that she did so to delay the determination of what happened and that she and her husband should be indicted on child abuse leading to death and accessory after the fact.

Robert Ressler, a retired FBI agent, called the note "bogus."
"It provides information about the alleged kidnapper, which immediately tells you it's a phony note," Ressler said. "And it was obviously written after the child's death, written for no other reason than to conceal reality." The entire note is inconsistent with what he knows from years of investigating kidnappings, he said.

_________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment.

 

[Anti-K]

I think it's helpful to remember what he told Carol McKinley.



1) Kane and Levin were not allowed to use deception, due to said ethics.

2) I wouldn't put it past Lin Wood to do exactly as you say if he thought he could get away with it.



UNJUSTLY. Don't leave that out.



Damn right I disagree with it, for a multitude of reasons.



Given the state of the profession, I can't argue with that.

Kane and Levin, and Thomas, and Smit and anyone else conducting the interviews were permitted to use deception. Levin and Kane because they were acting in an investigatory fashion.

“[P]prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case.” http://tinyurl.com/oonojnd

LE excels at lying and conning and playing tricks on anyone that they target. They have a rich history of just making up bull***** to get what they want. This means that it would not be unusual or unexpected or even controversial for Levin (or Smit et. al) to fabricate or exaggerate a piece of evidence or information in an attempt to push a button or gain a point. That’s the way the games played and I think that it’s probably naïve to believe otherwise.
.

Carnes reasons for dismissing Epstein (in part) and Wong were sound, and explained quite clearly in her report.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Note: From what I’ve read, there is no 5 point scale the Forensic Document Examiners use (even though Carnes references it.) They typically use the ASTM 9 point scale. (IIRC, it was reported that AH came up with that 5 point scale when he was on the LKL program. No one knows where he got it.) The ASTM 9 point scale is copyrighted, so I can’t copy it here. (ASTM=American Society for Testing and Materials) The number 1 categorization is an absolute ID of the writer, down to 9 which is that the Examiner has no doubt that the materials were not written by a person under review.

Ubowski testified at the Grand Jury and we don’t know the facts of his testimony nor do we know what weight the GJ gave the testimony of Ubowski. But looking at the conclusions of the GJ does lead one to wonder. Several possibilities:

1) No way did Patsy write the RN. [9 on the document examiners’ scale]
And the GJ decided just on other evidence to indict the couple, even though they would have to speculate that an Intruder wrote it to make the couple seem guilty of complicity in their child’s homicide or . .

2) There is evidence to suggest or the evidence is inconclusive that Patsy did write it. [1 on the scale is absolute certainty. 2 or 3 would be highly probable and probable, 4 would be only evidence to suggest she wrote it or 5 would be the handwriting is inconclusive.]
And the GJ thought she might have written it for the Intruder and decided to indict them for allowing the Intruder to come in, kill their daughter and for obstructing justice or . . .

3) High probability or probability that Patsy did write it.
And the GJ believed that she did so to delay the determination of what happened and that she and her husband should be indicted on child abuse leading to death and accessory after the fact.

Robert Ressler, a retired FBI agent, called the note "bogus."
"It provides information about the alleged kidnapper, which immediately tells you it's a phony note," Ressler said. "And it was obviously written after the child's death, written for no other reason than to conceal reality." The entire note is inconsistent with what he knows from years of investigating kidnappings, he said.

_________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment.

9 point scale

1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination
.

7 Point Scale:

1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
.

5 point scale

1) Identification
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
5) Elimination
.

I have no idea what weight the grand jurors assigned to the opinion of various experts, but I do think that they believed that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. IMO, the facts that the note was written in the house, with materials from the house, that it took time to write the note in the house, etc ae enough to convince some that a Ramsey must have written it regardless of what any handwriting experts might have to say about it.
...

AK

 

[Muy Curioso]

View attachment J letter.pdf
View attachment K letter.pdf

This week they are thin.

 

[tovarisch]

What year approximately writing style changed to typing style in American schools? How old would be people in 1996 who were accustomed to typing style? It could give an idea about age of the author. Is it correct to assume that older people use writing style, young people typing?

 

[icedtea4me]

What year approximately writing style changed to typing style in American schools? How old would be people in 1996 who were accustomed to typing style? It could give an idea about age of the author. Is it correct to assume that older people use writing style, young people typing?

I remember being taught cursive writing when I was in 4th grade, so I'd say anyone 10 years of age and older would be capable of both print and cursive.

 

[tovarisch]

I agree with that sentiment, tovarisch. I would only ask that, as a judge, you would give said expert a fair chance to present that basis.

Incidentally, you've provided a new way of looking at this for me. I'm not really sure how to say what I'm thinking, but if I were an expert in this case, and knew that my testimony could possibly send this woman to death row, I might get a bit hesitant.

Just spitballing.

SuperDave,
thank you, I take your post as a compliment. As a judge, I would treat ransom as a significant factual evidence, right from the hands , literally, the killer. I would order to form opinions of three experts :
-graphologist- for writing comparison
-linguist- for the sex , age and educational level of the author, native or second language
-criminal profiler-- for the motive and state of mind, age, sex, organized or loner, looser or professional and etc
I would give the experts as much time as they need, and their scientific basis would be the first to hear, yes, I would be a "serious gardener" as a judge, before I harvest my own opinion. (this is my favorite saying from old comedy, actor Peter Sellers).

 

[BBB167893]

Kane and Levin, and Thomas, and Smit and anyone else conducting the interviews were permitted to use deception. Levin and Kane because they were acting in an investigatory fashion.

“[P]prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case.” http://tinyurl.com/oonojnd

In the example you gave, the prosecutor in question had charges brought against him. Not so here.

Just in case anyone wants it, this is what I quoted in An Angel Betrayed:

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/22195

Carnes reasons for dismissing Epstein (in part) and Wong were sound, and explained quite clearly in her report.

Tempting as it is for me to ask "what report were you reading?" I'll say this: I realize she had her reasons. It's HOW she arrived at them that bothers me. I'm not blaming Carnes herself. I hold the legal system AND the profession of document examination in general to blame.

 

[BBB167893]

9 point scale

1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination
.

7 Point Scale:

1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
.

5 point scale

1) Identification
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
5) Elimination
.

I have no idea what weight the grand jurors assigned to the opinion of various experts, but I do think that they believed that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. IMO, the facts that the note was written in the house, with materials from the house, that it took time to write the note in the house, etc ae enough to convince some that a Ramsey must have written it regardless of what any handwriting experts might have to say about it.
...

AK

Every now and then, AK, you and I are sympatico on the issues. (Though probably for different reasons.)

 

[BBB167893]

What year approximately writing style changed to typing style in American schools? How old would be people in 1996 who were accustomed to typing style? It could give an idea about age of the author. Is it correct to assume that older people use writing style, young people typing?

That's an interesting point, tovarisch. I forget who it was (I WANT to say Robert Ressler, but it could be Clint Van Zandt), but one of the analysts pointed out that the acronyms in the note were written with periods after each letter, which was the standard way of writing them before 1980 but fell into disuse after that. Thus, a person who wrote them that way would likely have been educated before that.

PR was born in 1956 (if I remember it right). That means that she would have attended school during said period.

I'm not just talking out my butt here, either. My mother, RIP, was only slightly older than PR and wrote hers like that.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
thank you, I take your post as a compliment.

You're quite welcome. I may be hard-bitten, but there is a heart under there.

As a judge, I would treat ransom as a significant factual evidence, right from the hands , literally, the killer. I would order to form opinions of three experts :
-graphologist- for writing comparison
-linguist- for the sex , age and educational level of the author, native or second language
-criminal profiler-- for the motive and state of mind, age, sex, organized or loner, looser or professional and etc
I would give the experts as much time as they need, and their scientific basis would be the first to hear, yes, I would be a "serious gardener" as a judge, before I harvest my own opinion. (this is my favorite saying from old comedy, actor Peter Sellers).

An admirable position.

 

[icedtea4me]

That's an interesting point, tovarisch. I forget who it was (I WANT to say Robert Ressler, but it could be Clint Van Zandt), but one of the analysts pointed out that the acronyms in the note were written with periods after each letter, which was the standard way of writing them before 1980 but fell into disuse after that. Thus, a person who wrote them that way would likely have been educated before that.

PR was born in 1956 (if I remember it right). That means that she would have attended school during said period.

I'm not just talking out my butt here, either. My mother, RIP, was only slightly older than PR and wrote hers like that.

Good. I was wondering about that. So, basically, someone in their 20's would not have written the abbreviations with a period behind each letter.

 

[tovarisch]

You're quite welcome. I may be hard-bitten, but there is a heart under there.



An admirable position.

SuperDave,

I know you have a big heart. You went to the frontline of the war and have thrown yourself on the embrasure.
But the was is still going on, seams it`s never ending.
You know, historians are still arguing about the soldiers that thrown themselves on the embrasures , as to were their acts effective or not.