Ransom note analysis

[DeeDee249]

TeaTime,
Why would a Foreign Faction cite an american corporation in a ransom note?

.

They wouldn't. They also wouldn't refer to themselves as a "small foreign faction".

 

[OliviaG1996]

TeaTime,
Why would a Foreign Faction cite an american corporation in a ransom note?

.

This small foreign faction's English is really good, too. It's almost as if they've lived in the U.S. their whole life! Is the term "fat cat" used in the Middle East? :thinking:

On a serious note, if the author's intent was to convince us someone foreign wrote this note, they failed. Three misspellings in the whole note with the only grammatical errors being as simple as the absence of two commas? C'mon.

JMO.

 

[Anti-K]

This small foreign faction's English is really good, too. It's almost as if they've lived in the U.S. their whole life! Is the term "fat cat" used in the Middle East? :thinking:

On a serious note, if the author's intent was to convince us someone foreign wrote this note, they failed. Three misspellings in the whole note with the only grammatical errors being as simple as the absence of two commas? C'mon.

JMO.

Well, the note is fake, and maybe the author wanted investigators to see it as being fake.

But, setting that aside, if we take the note at face value: the note was written by SBTC, a group of individuals representing a small foreign faction. SBTC is NOT the small foreign faction, and there is nothing in the note that suggests that SBTC is foreign. They simply represent a faction that is foreign.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

Well, the note is fake, and maybe the author wanted investigators to see it as being fake.

But, setting that aside, if we take the note at face value: the note was written by SBTC, a group of individuals representing a small foreign faction. SBTC is NOT the small foreign faction, and there is nothing in the note that suggests that SBTC is foreign. They simply represent a faction that is foreign.
...

AK

Whether RDI or IDI, I don't believe a foreign faction had anything to do with the writing of the ransom note or the murder of JBR.

I agree the note is fake. "Fake", to me, meaning if IDI, they were going to kill JBR no matter what the note said or no matter what the Rs did. If RDI, "fake" would mean the ransom note was used as a part of the cover-up to point the finger at anyone but themselves for what LE would eventually see. Now, if the note was in fact fake, why would an intruder bother writing one at all? The note would be "proof" the said intruder was there, whereas no note would point more towards the Rs being responsible.

 

[BBB167893]

Patsy placed a decimal point after the dollar amount, like the note writer, in addition to making two lines through the dollar sign instead of one.

Good eye, IT4M!

 

[Anti-K]

This is a continuation from here:
http://tinyurl.com/q3gd2nm

When it comes to the experts in this case I accept those hired by BPD and, with some reservation, those hired by the Ramseys/DA.

I understand how some might reject the Ramsey experts because – well, you know, they’re Ramsey experts. But, I think the same objection can be made against the BPD experts. Everybody is hired by somebody. I don’t think that that’s enough to reject someone out-of-hand.

In this case, the BPD experts didn’t give BPD the analysis/conclusion they might have liked. This provisionally removes the objection of being influenced by their employers. We can’t do the same with the Ramsey experts (at least, not in the same way) but their analysis/conclusions are corroborated by that of the BPD experts.

Let’s let Wong and Epstein into the mix. They don’t belong, but let’s be generous. Now, we have 2 against 7 (or, 8? I forget). Why should we believe these two over the rest? Why do you, SuperDave, think Epstein’s analysis/conclusion is more accurate or believable than, for example, Ubowski’s? Why does anyone?
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

When it comes to the experts in this case I accept those hired by BPD and, with some reservation, those hired by the Ramseys/DA.

I understand how some might reject the Ramsey experts because – well, you know, they’re Ramsey experts. But, I think the same objection can be made against the BPD experts. Everybody is hired by somebody. I don’t think that that’s enough to reject someone out-of-hand.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, Anti-K.

In this case, the BPD experts didn’t give BPD the analysis/conclusion they might have liked. This provisionally removes the objection of being influenced by their employers.

Let's say I agree with that. There's still the little problem of what the BPD wanted vs what the DA wanted. Wouldn't that have been confusing?

We can’t do the same with the Ramsey experts (at least, not in the same way)

Isn't that the truth!

but their analysis/conclusions are corroborated by that of the BPD experts.

According to who? Among other problems with that assertion, let's not forget that Ubowski told the Grand Jury that the only reason he couldn't say Patsy wrote it for certain was due to the writing implement used and the disguise attempt on the writing.

Let’s let Wong and Epstein into the mix. They don’t belong, but let’s be generous.

Who are YOU to say they don't belong?

Now, we have 2 against 7 (or, 8? I forget).

Yeah, you do forget. There were a few more than just these two. There were also Larry Ziegler, Richard Williams, Tom Miller and David Liebman. That's 6. Put Ubowski in there, and I think it's fair to do that, gives us 7. That leaves 3 on your side (the Ramsey-hired guys don't count), and none of them actually said that she didn't write it, just that they hadn't seen anything that indicated she did. That's IF, as I said, the actual reports say what is claimed. It doesn't (or SHOULDN'T) take a genius to figure out why Haddon wouldn't release them.

Why should we believe these two over the rest? Why do you, SuperDave, think Epstein’s analysis/conclusion is more accurate or believable than, for example, Ubowski’s? Why does anyone?

Well, I can't speak for "anyone" (though I certainly hope he/she/they will respond!), but for my part, there's a couple of reasons. I could just direct you to this thread http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226144-An-quot-Expert-quot-Reassessment and leave it at that, but I won't do that to you. You asked a question, and I'll make sure you get an answer.

First and foremost, even if we take for granted that Epstein overreached himself by claiming 100% certainty (and I think he did, even if I could forgive it), there's the question of how much analysis was done. Epstein put in over 100 hours of examination. Rile and Cunningham put in three, just as an example. I would also add that Epstein, when he did his analysis, potentially had more material to work with. (As an example, it was not known until after the GJ was dismissed that PR could write left-handed.)

Two, there's the level of experience these people had or didn't have. To quote Darnay Hoffman, "[Epstein and Ziegler] are giants compared to the CBI people." This is something I think should be kept in mind. For me, it's not a question of what group you belong to; it's how much individual skill and experience they have.

Three, in this specific case, we have to ask how much experience the analysts had with disguised writing. I say that because it's highly unlikely they have as much as Epstein does. Just to remind you and everyone reading this, Epstein made his name by matching the writing of Nazi war criminals who had slipped the Allied nets at the end of WWII and were living under false identities in the US; in other words, people whose whole LIVES were a disguise. Even discounting the possibility that they learned to write in different ways, we're talking a period of 30-40 years between leaving Europe and going to trial. You think their handwriting hadn't changed a little??

Four, and I touch on this in the redirected thread, are Epstein's maverick tendencies. He's not known for just going along to get along. He felt the need to speak up in this case because nobody else was.

Five, he reached his conclusion on his own. No prompting from any side got him into it.

There you have it. My hypothetical answer to your (I'm presuming) hypothetical question. Back here in the real world, I say now what I've said previously: I agree, for once, with Alex Hunter, that it's too opinion-based to be a truly reliable science and that the jury should draw their own conclusions.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, Anti-K.

Well, I’m sure that it is a fair comparison.

Let's say I agree with that. There's still the little problem of what the BPD wanted vs what the DA wanted. Wouldn't that have been confusing?

Okay, you agree with that. I don’t know what the DA wanted, but I suspect it was the same as BPD – experts saying that one of the Ramseys wrote the note. I don’t know what you think would have been confusing or what is meant by the comment, sorry.

Isn't that the truth!



According to who? Among other problems with that assertion, let's not forget that Ubowski told the Grand Jury that the only reason he couldn't say Patsy wrote it for certain was due to the writing implement used and the disguise attempt on the writing.

According to the conclusions made by these experts (see Carnes).
How do you know what Ubowski told the jurors?

Who are YOU to say they don't belong?

I’m no one, but it was determined by the Court that they don’t belong (and in the case of Wong, also by Kane and Epstein).

Yeah, you do forget. There were a few more than just these two. There were also Larry Ziegler, Richard Williams, Tom Miller and David Liebman. That's 6. Put Ubowski in there, and I think it's fair to do that, gives us 7. That leaves 3 on your side (the Ramsey-hired guys don't count), and none of them actually said that she didn't write it, just that they hadn't seen anything that indicated she did. That's IF, as I said, the actual reports say what is claimed. It doesn't (or SHOULDN'T) take a genius to figure out why Haddon wouldn't release them.

Sorry, you don’t get Ubowski. You’re welcome to your opinion, but the Court has spoken on this and Ubowski goes with the rest of the BPD experts and the Ramsey/DA experts. As to other so-called experts you mention, they’re not forgotten, but can’t really think of a sound reason for including them. I could toss in a Brugnatelli (identified John) or one or two of those so-called experts who identified Karr, etc and we could go on adding all day but I think all we should concern ourselves with is those experts not rejected by the Court.

Well, I can't speak for "anyone" (though I certainly hope he/she/they will respond!), but for my part, there's a couple of reasons. I could just direct you to this thread http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226144-An-quot-Expert-quot-Reassessment and leave it at that, but I won't do that to you. You asked a question, and I'll make sure you get an answer.

First and foremost, even if we take for granted that Epstein overreached himself by claiming 100% certainty (and I think he did, even if I could forgive it), there's the question of how much analysis was done. Epstein put in over 100 hours of examination. Rile and Cunningham put in three, just as an example. I would also add that Epstein, when he did his analysis, potentially had more material to work with. (As an example, it was not known until after the GJ was dismissed that PR could write left-handed.)

Two, there's the level of experience these people had or didn't have. To quote Darnay Hoffman, "[Epstein and Ziegler] are giants compared to the CBI people." This is something I think should be kept in mind. For me, it's not a question of what group you belong to; it's how much individual skill and experience they have.

Three, in this specific case, we have to ask how much experience the analysts had with disguised writing. I say that because it's highly unlikely they have as much as Epstein does. Just to remind you and everyone reading this, Epstein made his name by matching the writing of Nazi war criminals who had slipped the Allied nets at the end of WWII and were living under false identities in the US; in other words, people whose whole LIVES were a disguise. Even discounting the possibility that they learned to write in different ways, we're talking a period of 30-40 years between leaving Europe and going to trial. You think their handwriting hadn't changed a little??

Four, and I touch on this in the redirected thread, are Epstein's maverick tendencies. He's not known for just going along to get along. He felt the need to speak up in this case because nobody else was.

Five, he reached his conclusion on his own. No prompting from any side got him into it.

There you have it. My hypothetical answer to your (I'm presuming) hypothetical question. Back here in the real world, I say now what I've said previously: I agree, for once, with Alex Hunter, that it's too opinion-based to be a truly reliable science and that the jury should draw their own conclusions.

Sorry, not impressed. Carnes dismissal of Epsteins; analysis/conclusion (NOT Epstein himself!) was soundly argued. I’ve yet to see a meaningful rebuttal.

You seem be making two, incompatible arguments: 1) we should accept Epstein, Wong, etc because of.... and 2.a) we can’t rely on expert testimony so 2.b) we should judge for ourselves.

This second argument sort of contradicts your first. But, it is the second argument that (part b) that worries me the most. Determinations of this kind should not be left to the layperson. That IMO would be insane. OMG!
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I’m sure that it is a fair comparison.

No, it isn't. Defense "experts" are under far less rigorous standards. Makes sense if you think about it: defendants don't have to prove anything. The state has to prove guilt.

Okay, you agree with that.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was speaking hypothetically.

I don’t know what the DA wanted, but I suspect it was the same as BPD – experts saying that one of the Ramseys wrote the note. I don’t know what you think would have been confusing or what is meant by the comment, sorry.

I'll make it clear, then: I DON'T think that the DA wanted the experts to say the Ramseys wrote the note.

According to the conclusions made by these experts (see Carnes).

Well, that's kind of my point, Anti-K: since Haddon refuses to release the actual reports, all we have is Lou Smit's word for what they said. (Guess what that's worth to me.) And even according to him, the consensus was "inconclusive, ie, right down the middle.

If you want to take their word without an available analysis, go right ahead. Not me, brother.

How do you know what Ubowski told the jurors?

We can thank FOX NEWS' own Carol McKinley for that:

Carol McKinley: Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found only one person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey.

She elaborated on the radio a few years ago.

I’m no one,

Glad we got that settled!

but it was determined by the Court that they don’t belong (and in the case of Wong, also by Kane and Epstein).

Isn't it funny how all the OTHER courts they've testified in (before AND since) had no problem with them "belonging?" Of course, that's what happens when their side's counsel isn't sleepwalking (when he bothered to show up--rest in peace, Darnay).

Sorry, you don’t get Ubowski. You’re welcome to your opinion, but the Court has spoken on this and Ubowski goes with the rest of the BPD experts and the Ramsey/DA experts.

There's no reason to believe that the court's decision was in any way accurate. Even Kane said as much right after it came down.

As to other so-called experts you mention, they’re not forgotten, but can’t really think of a sound reason for including them.

I'm sure YOU can't. Let's see what everyone else thinks.

I could toss in a Brugnatelli (identified John) or one or two of those so-called experts who identified Karr, etc and we could go on adding all day

Don't make ridiculous comparisons. That's not even apples and oranges; that's apples and grenades.

but I think all we should concern ourselves with is those experts not rejected by the Court.

Sorry, 'K, but I'm not letting you out of it that easily. Especially since, as I tried to make clear with both my previous post and the Reassessment thread, those rejections and acceptances may not be for the best of reasons.

And at the risk of picking nits, I'll also point out that Ziegler, Williams, Miller and Liebman were not rejected, as they never appeared, for reasons still not apparent to me. (Although, Hoffman could be difficult to get along with.) The Ramsey lawyers certainly believed that Miller would be accepted in court, and did their best to make sure that didn't happen. But, that's a whole 'nother issue.

Sorry, not impressed.

Somehow, I doubt you READ it in any meaningful way.

Carnes dismissal of Epsteins; analysis/conclusion (NOT Epstein himself!) was soundly argued. I’ve yet to see a meaningful rebuttal.

Well, until the decision is appealed (I'm not holding my breath), what I just gave you is what you're gonna get.

Maybe someone else would like to weigh in? Maybe I've missed something.

You seem be making two, incompatible arguments: 1) we should accept Epstein, Wong, etc because of.... and 2.a) we can’t rely on expert testimony so 2.b) we should judge for ourselves. This second argument sort of contradicts your first.

What is reality often contradicts what is ideal, Anti-K.

But, it is the second argument that (part b) that worries me the most. Determinations of this kind should not be left to the layperson. That IMO would be insane. OMG!

OMG, is right, because you've just said that we don't need juries anymore. You wanna call up the Surpeme Court and tell them that, or would you prefer I do it?

 

[Anti-K]

No, it isn't. Defense "experts" are under far less rigorous standards. Makes sense if you think about it: defendants don't have to prove anything. The state has to prove guilt.



Don't put words in my mouth. I was speaking hypothetically.


I'll make it clear, then: I DON'T think that the DA wanted the experts to say the Ramseys wrote the note.



Well, that's kind of my point, Anti-K: since Haddon refuses to release the actual reports, all we have is Lou Smit's word for what they said. (Guess what that's worth to me.) And even according to him, the consensus was "inconclusive, ie, right down the middle.

If you want to take their word without an available analysis, go right ahead. Not me, brother.



We can thank FOX NEWS' own Carol McKinley for that:

Carol McKinley: Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found only one person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey.

She elaborated on the radio a few years ago.



Glad we got that settled!



Isn't it funny how all the OTHER courts they've testified in (before AND since) had no problem with them "belonging?" Of course, that's what happens when their side's counsel isn't sleepwalking (when he bothered to show up--rest in peace, Darnay).



There's no reason to believe that the court's decision was in any way accurate. Even Kane said as much right after it came down.


I'm sure YOU can't. Let's see what everyone else thinks.



Don't make ridiculous comparisons. That's not even apples and oranges; that's apples and grenades.



Sorry, 'K, but I'm not letting you out of it that easily. Especially since, as I tried to make clear with both my previous post and the Reassessment thread, those rejections and acceptances may not be for the best of reasons.

And at the risk of picking nits, I'll also point out that Ziegler, Williams, Miller and Liebman were not rejected, as they never appeared, for reasons still not apparent to me. (Although, Hoffman could be difficult to get along with.) The Ramsey lawyers certainly believed that Miller would be accepted in court, and did their best to make sure that didn't happen. But, that's a whole 'nother issue.



Somehow, I doubt you READ it in any meaningful way.



Well, until the decision is appealed (I'm not holding my breath), what I just gave you is what you're gonna get.

Maybe someone else would like to weigh in? Maybe I've missed something.



What is reality often contradicts what is ideal, Anti-K.



OMG, is right, because you've just said that we don't need juries anymore. You wanna call up the Surpeme Court and tell them that, or would you prefer I do it?

Of course, I never said that we don’t need juries anymore, nor did I say anything even close to that. I’m talking about a means of ensuring that expert testimony presented to the jury is credible as determined by a set of criteria (Daubert, for example).
.

Haddon refused to release what reports? The BPD reports? You’ve already dismissed the Ramsey experts, so isn’t it the BPD reports that you’re concerned with? Are you blaming Haddon for not releasing those?

And, we have more than Smit’s deposition regarding the opinion of the handwriting experts. We also have the Thomas deposition, snippets of Hunter’s (via Epstein). Etc, and I’m not aware of anyone associated with the investigation or of any expert denying any of the claims made regarding those claims as made in those depositions.

.
The McKinley quote is nice and all that and I’ve read it before but McKinley doesn’t actually say what Ubowski told the GJ, and she should not have known what he told the grand jury. She merely tells us that he testified. AND, she tells us a version of his opinion (as partly learned through Investigative Sources!). BUT, she doesn’t say anything about what Ubowski told the grand jury.

.
I think this all boils down to either saying that expert opinions are equally unreliable (which means that a layperson’s opinion is even more unreliable) or that some expert opinions are reliable and then set about determining how to determine which ones are reliable. Experts should have to show how they arrived at a conclusion and they should be able to demonstrate the certainty of that conclusion (in each instance Epstein failed IN THIS CASE, perhaps he faired better in other cases).

It seems to me that in many cases, and with many people (both sides) expert opinions are primarily accepted or rejected on the merits of their concordance with prior held convictions. But, factually, I think that the most that RDI will ever get out of a valid assessment of relevant expert opinion is that Mrs Ramsey cannot be excluded as the author. Or, as Thomas used to say in words more or less similar, she was the only person known to be in the house that night that could not be excluded. not such a big deal, really.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

RDI will ever get out of a valid assessment of relevant expert opinion is that Mrs Ramsey cannot be excluded as the author. Or, as Thomas used to say in words more or less similar, she was the only person known to be in the house that night that could not be excluded. not such a big deal, really.
...

AK

There were two adults in that house capable of writing that note. Not one expert could eliminate Patsy as the author. And you are saying that it is more likely some random stranger just happened to have almost identical handwriting to Patsy? And that is not a big deal to you? Now I know you are just being purposely argumentative. Patsy wrote that note, you know she did. You can argue the legalese al you want, I don't have a problem with that, but it really irks me when people like you can look at evidence that even a three year old could comprehend, and pretend you don't see it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the argument more than your concern for the truth. I don't believe I've ever heard you concede that even one tiny piece of evidence against the Ramsey's is even the slightest bit incriminating. That in itself tells me your agenda here is not about truth or justice.

I think it's time to ***** or get off the pot. Why don't you tell us exactly what happened that night in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

There were two adults in that house capable of writing that note. Not one expert could eliminate Patsy as the author. And you are saying that it is more likely some random stranger just happened to have almost identical handwriting to Patsy?

No, that's not what AK is saying at all. Have you seen Chris Wolf's handwriting? Is it identical to Patsy's? What about Bill McReynolds'? ...Mervin Pugh's?

And that is not a big deal to you? Now I know you are just being purposely argumentative. Patsy wrote that note, you know she did. You can argue the legalese al you want, I don't have a problem with that, but it really irks me when people like you can look at evidence that even a three year old could comprehend, and pretend you don't see it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the argument more than your concern for the truth. I don't believe I've ever heard you concede that even one tiny piece of evidence against the Ramsey's is even the slightest bit incriminating. That in itself tells me your agenda here is not about truth or justice.

I think it's time to ***** or get off the pot. Why don't you tell us exactly what happened that night in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, the irony... :sigh:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

No, that's not what AK is saying at all. Have you seen Chris Wolf's handwriting? Is it identical to Patsy's? What about Bill McReynolds'? ...Mervin Pugh's?

Oh, the irony... :sigh:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

if you want to send links to samples, I'll look at them and give an honest opinion. I've seen the ridiculous video where the cherry pick samples of Wolf's handwriting and overlay it, so please don't list that.

 

[Anti-K]

There were two adults in that house capable of writing that note. Not one expert could eliminate Patsy as the author. And you are saying that it is more likely some random stranger just happened to have almost identical handwriting to Patsy? And that is not a big deal to you? Now I know you are just being purposely argumentative. Patsy wrote that note, you know she did. You can argue the legalese al you want, I don't have a problem with that, but it really irks me when people like you can look at evidence that even a three year old could comprehend, and pretend you don't see it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the argument more than your concern for the truth. I don't believe I've ever heard you concede that even one tiny piece of evidence against the Ramsey's is even the slightest bit incriminating. That in itself tells me your agenda here is not about truth or justice.

I think it's time to ***** or get off the pot. Why don't you tell us exactly what happened that night in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m saying that Mrs Ramsey isn’t the only person who couldn’t be eliminated as the author. There’s nothing special about that fact. You have to add, as Thomas did, the fact that she was the only person in that group that was known to be in the house.

IMO, it is a gross exaggeration to say that the rn author “happened to have almost identical handwriting to Patsy,” and I think the significance you attribute to said similarities is exaggerated.

I think it is a problem that one thinks that the field of handwriting analysis is one that even a three year old could comprehend. If this were the case than there would be no such field and no such experts and no need for either.

You sometimes claim to have never heard me admit or concede to this or that or some other thing but they’re always things that I have admitted or conceded to; for example, I’ve admitted that some of the trace evidence is inculpatory (ex: red fibers). There are other things that have some inculpatory value of some degree or other, like the note being written in the house, the use of materials from the house, etc.
I sent a cpl or three years wavering back and forth from one side of the fence to the other and that happened because I do recognize, and admit and concede that there is evidence that can go towards RDI.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Anti-K,
There much more forensic evidence that directly links all three Ramsey's resident in the house that night, with the wine-cellar than there is for any particular IDI theory.

As you well know to date no forensic evidence has ever been linked to anyone outside the Ramsey house.

Just those resident, kinda curious that!

 

[andreww]

Anti-K,
There much more forensic evidence that directly links all three Ramsey's resident in the house that night, with the wine-cellar than there is for any particular IDI theory.

As you well know to date no forensic evidence has ever been linked to anyone outside the Ramsey house.

Just those resident, kinda curious that!

Good question. If somebody was sitting on the fence for several years, why the heck would they fall and land on the Ramsey's side when there is virtually no evidence of an intruder and so much that points towards the Ramsey's.

Start at step one and explain how an intruder got in and out???? You can't even do that with an even slightly believable account!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoldBear]

Start at step one and explain how an intruder got in and out???? You can't even do that with an even slightly believable account!

I don't believe in the IDI theory, but I take you up on step one:

1) On the Ramsey House thread, one of the members commented how dark the street was at night in front of the house.

2) I don't know how much we've argued that the killing and the ransom note took hours with the killer having full access to the 1st floor and the basement.

3) How would an intruder get out? That would be as simple as using the front door.

As for getting in, that could have happened while they were at the party or after they went to bed. John may have checked all the doors the family normally used, but this house had 6 doors on the first floor. He may have not checked an unlocked door. Entry may have been as easy as turning a doorknob. With everyone in and out of the house for the party, forensic evidence of the entry would have been next to impossible to find.

I can also see why John wouldn't admit to checking all the doors at night. "Oh by the way, I didn't check all the doors that night and so I'm probably inadvertently responsible for my daughter's death." Would you admit that to the police and the press? Could you admit that with your wife sitting next to you?

This case is already complicated enough and there are too many things that point to an "inside job". We don't need to validate John and Smit's theories about the basement window to show how the intruder may have entered/exited.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[ElleElle]

There were two adults in that house capable of writing that note. Not one expert could eliminate Patsy as the author. And you are saying that it is more likely some random stranger just happened to have almost identical handwriting to Patsy? And that is not a big deal to you? Now I know you are just being purposely argumentative. Patsy wrote that note, you know she did. You can argue the legalese al you want, I don't have a problem with that, but it really irks me when people like you can look at evidence that even a three year old could comprehend, and pretend you don't see it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the argument more than your concern for the truth. I don't believe I've ever heard you concede that even one tiny piece of evidence against the Ramsey's is even the slightest bit incriminating. That in itself tells me your agenda here is not about truth or justice.

I think it's time to ***** or get off the pot. Why don't you tell us exactly what happened that night in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Patsy wrote the note. This case was a weird fetish mixed with frustration gone-bad. JMHO!

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
There much more forensic evidence that directly links all three Ramsey's resident in the house that night, with the wine-cellar than there is for any particular IDI theory.

As you well know to date no forensic evidence has ever been linked to anyone outside the Ramsey house.

Just those resident, kinda curious that!

You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong on many occasions. Forensic evidence was found that does not link “just those residents.”

There is forensic evidence – hair, fibers, DNA , handwriting – that has not been connected to the house or anyone in the house. This forensic evidence (handwriting notwithstanding) was all found in incriminating locations.

And, the Ramseys lived in the house. Of course there is forensic evidence connecting them to it. Good grief.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Good question. If somebody was sitting on the fence for several years, why the heck would they fall and land on the Ramsey's side when there is virtually no evidence of an intruder and so much that points towards the Ramsey's.

Start at step one and explain how an intruder got in and out???? You can't even do that with an even slightly believable account!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, and others, have offered a range of possible means of entry and exit. I can’t imagine that you ever accepted any of them. Which is an odd thing, because RDI wouldn’t negate any of these means. It would simply mean that no one used any of these means.

Although I can think of several possibilities, I don’t actually have an opinion on how, if IDI, the intruder entered the house. I do think that he exited via the butler door, leaving the ransom note on the stairs as his final act before leaving.

To enter the house, he may have found an unlocked door, he may have had a key, he may have bumped a lock; he may have used the basement window (I don’t think he did). He may have used an electronic device to raise the garage door a bit, slid in underneath and then entered the house through the garage (that door was normally left unlocked); he may have hid around the corner of the building and, with stealth, slid under the garage door as it closed behind the Ramseys after they drove into it when they came home from the White’s.
IMO, if IDI, the intruder took intentionally took steps to minimize his forensic footprint. We don’t know how he entered the house, but hair, fibers, DNA, handwriting, the nature of the crime, etc all suggest that he was inside the house.
...

AK