According to Thomas, Douglas and Kolar it is a fact and I really dont understand your confusion. The l is supposed to represent a downstroke, not a letter; Im typing it as Thomas and Kolar depict it in their books: Mr. and Mrs. lYou stated it as "fact" that it was addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. l". I was responding to what your actual post said.
I don't understand This....According to Thomas, Douglas and Kolar it is a fact and I really dont understand your confusion. The l is supposed to represent a downstroke, not a letter; Im typing it as Thomas and Kolar depict it in their books: Mr. and Mrs. l
I suppose Douglas is the only one of the three who described it accurately: Mr. and Mrs., along with a single downstroke that could have been the beginning of a capital R
Also, as an aside, the l Im using is a lower case L, but as I said it is supposed to represent a downstroke and is not meant to be any specific letter.
...
AK
May I ask why you think that it doesn't make sense?
Did they take the leftover duct tape and rope with them when they left? If they wanted to implicate the parents by using things from the home, why wouldn't they leave them there?
But how would they be aware of what was available in the Ramsey household before they entered the house? How? And what exactly would be their intent? If they wanted to railroad Ramseys for some reason why just not murder the girl, do the fake staging and get out? Why even bother with the note?
On the other hand, if they wanted to kidnap JonBenet and failed for some reason, why to do any staging and redressing and why even bothering with that note again?
This isnt about what RDI or IDI say. It is about what Thomas, Douglas, and Kolar say. Thomas, Douglas and Kolar say this:I don't understand This....
RDI say Thomas Koler, etc. say it said Mr. And Mrs Ramsey...IDI says...No they said Mr and Mrs l.....RDI Ramsey's Ramsey's Ramsey's it's a bit ridiculous? Maybe it was supposed to say Ramsey, but, it did not say that and that is the fact. Stop twisting things just to support your opinion.
True kidnappers would leave a short note saying "We have your child. We will call you for further instructions".
Only a "Drama Queen" would write such a long note. while her imagination ran wild with
warning to a "Fat Cat", and words like attaché! Knowing that JB was deceased, and in the wine cellar, IMHO a scheming diabolical person wrote the RN to keep themselves from being arrested. The saddest thing about this whole mess is that there was no arrest, and we are
here still wanting justice for this precious child
Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?
Could someone please tell me the timeline of the note. What time did PR awaken and what time did she find the note? When she ran back upstairs, was her husband in the shower or still sleeping? What time was that?
If the person or persons had been inside the home previously, by either invite or break-in, they would know the layout of the house.
The note is part of implicating the parents and confusing the case. They want the police to scratch their heads over this and not be able to explain the circumstances.
I don't believe kidnapping was ever a factor. It was a red-herring.
I agree with everything you said, except when you wrote "Only a "Drama Queen" would write such a long note." It made me wonder who else, other than a drama queen would write such a note. If a person was well-educated, stalked and spied on the family, they could familiarize themselves with the writing styles of both parents. If he chose to implicate PR, he would use phrases she used in speaking or writing. He could match her style, if he was well-versed in English. He would know that long and rambling would not be indicitive of a real ransom note. (At least, I don't think so.) The note would have been prewritten and brought with them to the house. The test or sample note was simply to cause confusion and implicate PR.
Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?
I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?
I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.
When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just cant beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?
One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.
Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts. Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5
Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but Ill leave you with this:
Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.
From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.
No Evidence to Indicate authorship and Elimination are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.
Remember, how its been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Heres a five 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
There are other scales. A 9 point:
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
A 7 point:
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
...
AK
I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.
When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just cant beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?
One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.
Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts. Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5
Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but Ill leave you with this:
Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.
From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.
No Evidence to Indicate authorship and Elimination are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.
Remember, how its been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Heres a five 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
There are other scales. A 9 point:
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
A 7 point:
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
...
AK