We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[andreww]

.
.

Incidentally, the above BBM answers your question, “what would the judge consider to be acceptable methodology?”

From Carnes: Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.
...

AK

What I am asking is :

Was it a common practice for document examiners to have to reveal a detailed report on their methodology when testifying before a court?

Was Epstein given the opportunity to come back with a presentation detailing his methodology at a later date?

Something tells me that the answer to both questions is NO, simply because if it was common practice, he would have included it, and since it was not presented, one can only assume he wasn't given the opportunity.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

BBM Are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. It is a fact, and I am not aware of anyone who argues otherwise. “None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Besides possible hubris and just lack of preparation? I already told you why: he was saving himself for the jury. And, if it must be said, because he placed too much faith in one aspect of the case rather than taking an holistic approach. Having several of his experts drop out didn't help.



The hell it doesn't!



I doubt that very strongly, Anti-K. Maybe you've already forgotten, but he said himself that this was the first time in all the cases he'd worked on where he was not allowed to use comparison charts.



Like Epstein himself, I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of people more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in actually doing a good job.



You said it yourself:

maybe it just wasn’t something that could be done unless one were to let jurors decide the issue for themselves.

That's one thing we can agree on.



I have a lot to say.

It is a fact that, “Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.”
.

To my knowledge, Epstein did NOT say that he was not allowed to use comparison charts. He said that he was not asked to use them. Big difference. And, once again, this is something that Hoffman should have done.

However, Carnes does “[factor] into the analysis the testimony of Mr. Epstein that there are similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the Ransom Note.”

And, don’t confuse Epstein’s charts with his methodology. These are two different things.
This is what Epstein did:
8 I went through the note and identified the
9 significant handwriting similarities, and I
10 numbered the lines, I identified various
11 combinations of habits that were repeated
12 throughout the note. I studied the writing over
13 a considerable period of time. I did those
14 kinds of things.

Epstein did not create a written analysis, he did not show how he came to his conclusion. Emphasis added:
17 Q. And did you commit to writing your
18 observations about the ransom note that you've
19 just described to us, the significant handwriting
20 similarities, the various combinations of habits
21 that were repeated throughout the note?
22 A. They were reflected in my work right
23 here (indicating).
24 Q. Well, you're showing us pages of
25 your report, but did you, when you first studied
0111
1 the ransom note, create a written document or
2 any notes that --
3 A. I DID NOT.
4 Q. -- summarized your study of the
5 ransom note?
6 A. What I created was the information
7 that led to the creation of these charts.
8 Q. And did you create that in writing?
9 A. I DID NOT CREATE IT IN WRITING. I
10 created it through actually cutting out the
11 various combinations and various words within the
12 ransom note and comparing them against the known
13 similar writings from the exemplars.

The bottom line of all this is that it is a fact that Epstein’s conclusion was not found to be acceptable to the Court. You can disagree all that you like, it won’t change it.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

I think Carnes had more to go on than what is available to us, but really what it came down to is that “None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.”

As far as I know, this claim regarding these particular experts is not controversial or contested anywhere. None of the six experts accepted by the Court was able to identify Mrs Ramsey as the author.

For Hoffman to be successful he needed to have Mrs Ramsey identified as the author. To say that she “could not be excluded” fails to meet that demand.
...

AK

I see where you are coming from AK but a jury trial might have added in some common sense along with the expert opinions supplied.

The Carnes decision was not then or now a trial to prove guilt or innocence of any Ramsey family member for the death of JonBenet. There are some of us who see that and others who don't.

 

[Anti-K]

I see where you are coming from AK but a jury trial might have added in some common sense along with the expert opinions supplied.

The Carnes decision was not then or now a trial to prove guilt or innocence of any Ramsey family member for the death of JonBenet. There are some of us who see that and others who don't.

It is what it is. A civil suit where one side needed to establish Ramsey guilt in order to make their case. That side failed in spectacular fashion. Blame it on Cain.

They failed because they could not show that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note. Even if their expert’s conclusion had been accepted (Carnes considered matters AS IF it had been accepted) it would not have been enough to carry the day (as explained by Carnes).
It all comes down to this quote: None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.

If none of these six experts could do it, how could anyone. If the experts couldn’t do it, how could a juror? How could you? Or, anyone. If the experts can’t be trusted or believed then how do we trust or believe the layperson?
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

Coming to a decision based only on one piece of evidence (or lack thereof) is not good enough for me (although the courts reign supreme in the USA).

Expert opinions are useless since either side can find one whose opinion is the one the prosecution or defense wants.

We can agree to disagree again. :thinking:

 

[BBB167893]

No, I am not kidding. It is a fact, and I am not aware of anyone who argues otherwise. “None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.”
...

AK

Sorry, Anti-K. I misunderstood you.

 

[BBB167893]

It is a fact that, “Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.”

To my knowledge, Epstein did NOT say that he was not allowed to use comparison charts. He said that he was not asked to use them. Big difference. And, once again, this is something that Hoffman should have done.

Now we're agreeing!

And, don’t confuse Epstein’s charts with his methodology. These are two different things.
This is what Epstein did:
8 I went through the note and identified the
9 significant handwriting similarities, and I
10 numbered the lines, I identified various
11 combinations of habits that were repeated
12 throughout the note. I studied the writing over
13 a considerable period of time. I did those
14 kinds of things.

Epstein did not create a written analysis, he did not show how he came to his conclusion. Emphasis added:
17 Q. And did you commit to writing your
18 observations about the ransom note that you've
19 just described to us, the significant handwriting
20 similarities, the various combinations of habits
21 that were repeated throughout the note?
22 A. They were reflected in my work right
23 here (indicating).
24 Q. Well, you're showing us pages of
25 your report, but did you, when you first studied
0111
1 the ransom note, create a written document or
2 any notes that --
3 A. I DID NOT.
4 Q. -- summarized your study of the
5 ransom note?
6 A. What I created was the information
7 that led to the creation of these charts.
8 Q. And did you create that in writing?
9 A. I DID NOT CREATE IT IN WRITING. I
10 created it through actually cutting out the
11 various combinations and various words within the
12 ransom note and comparing them against the known
13 similar writings from the exemplars.

For some reason, it doesn't figure. Here's a guy with 30+ years experience who did his analysis on his own, with the Justice Department saying it was okay, and took it to the Boulder DA's office first. He had to have something.

The bottom line of all this is that it is a fact that Epstein’s conclusion was not found to be acceptable to the Court. You can disagree all that you like, it won’t change it.

I'm not trying to CHANGE it, Anti-K. But you better believe I disagree with it.

Just in case you didn't read it a while back, let me remind you of this: Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong were threatened before and after the Wolf case to get them to renounce their findings and no-show the depositions. Wong got threatening calls and both were threatened with libel suits afterwards if they ever stated that PR wrote the note again. Despite these scare tactics, neither shrank away. Neither of them hid behind lawyers or rules and regulations, and neither of them has EVER recanted or shied away from their findings.

 

[BBB167893]

It is what it is. A civil suit where one side needed to establish Ramsey guilt in order to make their case. That side failed in spectacular fashion. Blame it on Cain.

The son of Adam and Eve?

They failed because they could not show that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note. Even if their expert’s conclusion had been accepted (Carnes considered matters AS IF it had been accepted) it would not have been enough to carry the day (as explained by Carnes).
It all comes down to this quote: None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.

If none of these six experts could do it, how could anyone. If the experts couldn’t do it, how could a juror? How could you? Or, anyone. If the experts can’t be trusted or believed then how do we trust or believe the layperson?

BOESP can answer in his own way, but for my money, I'll tell you how: common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions.

Incidentally, that was one idea Alex Hunter had that I actually agree with:

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.

Bottom line: whether or not I trust or believe an expert, I believe and trust my own eyes!

As for them not being "able" to do it, I haven't got enough time right now.

 

[otg]

I really wanted to stay out of the RN discussion, but I have to point out something that everyone seems to be losing sight of when quoting all these “document examiners” -- no matter what their qualifications, no matter which organizations they belong to, and regardless of how many trials they may or may not have testified at. There are two types of questioned documents that they deal with: (1) forged documents made to look like they were authored by a particular person and (2) documents that were written by someone whose intent was to disguise their own natural handwriting to make it appear NOT to have been authored by them. The problem here lies in trying to use the same scale for both types of documents.

An example of the first type is the alleged handwritten will of Howard Hughes that turned up after his death. If the questioned document (handwritten will) is indeed a forgery, how could any QDE (Questioned Document Examiner) come to a “1” on either scale? Simply examining the document with a sufficient number of historical exemplars would still not be enough for a reputable QDE to come to a “1”. For confirmation of authorship, I don’t see how any expert could be that absolutely certain without something of a more “evidentiary” nature -- like say, a verifiable written reference to the questioned document by the alleged author (in this case, Hughes), a videotaped confirmation before his death, etc.

An example of the second type is what we have in the RRN (Ramsey Ransom Note). It is a document that was written by an unknown person who presumably attempted to deliberately disguise their handwriting in order to avoid detection. Given the same understanding of the difficulty of absolute “Identification” or “Elimination” without more than historical exemplars, how could a reputable QDE come to a conclusion either way without that some type of confirming information of an “evidentiary” nature (confession of responsibility, another known example of a suspect’s attempt at disguised handwriting, a credible witness to the act, etc.)? The 5-point scale refers to each end of the scale as having “conclusive evidence”. Without that, only three possibilities are left on the 5-point scale: (1) maybe they did, (2) maybe they didn’t, and (3) I just don’t know.

So the most that can be expected from any QDE would be somewhere between the two absolutes (2 through 8 on the 9-point, or 2 through 4 on the 5-point) without some other “conclusive evidence” which would most likely be obvious enough to anyone as to eliminate the need for a QDE at all.

Another problem is that the document examiners might use either the 5-point or the 9-point scale indicating the likelihood of authorship for both types of questioned documents. There seems sometimes to be confusion on the part of some in relating a QDE’s number assignment of probability between the two different scales. Below is a table showing the two scales side-by-side for comparison. I believe (meaning IMO) that when we read that a suspect was determined to be a “4.5”, that is simply an average of different QDEs rather than an actual assignment by a single “expert”, and then I would question what the individual opinions were. Also, if one QDE assigns a “4” to a suspect, notice the big difference in meanings between the two scales and therefore how important it is to know which scale is actually being used.

[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
​

An expectation of certainty without “conclusive evidence” is hoping for the impossible and will never happen in our lifetimes. No one will ever be able to “prove” who wrote the RRN. All we have are our (and others&#8217 opinions.

I’ll let the rest of you hash it out over the opinions of the different “experts”. I have my own opinions, but I certainly claim no special knowledge or training. Just reading Judge Carnes’ Summary Judgment (link below) and knowing the background on it (and information about evidence that has come out since then) is enough for me to know how bogus it is. And seeing the similarities for myself between Patsy’s historical writings and the RN is enough for me to form the same opinion I think a jury would have formed had they been allowed to see the evidence (even without testimony from so-called “experts&#8221. Add to this the way the Ramseys tried to even deny recognizing the writing they knew that Patsy had done in family photos (see the video of their deposition linked in this post http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-amp-Discussion-ONLY!&p=11845563#post11845563 by eileenhawkeye), Patsy’s changing her “a”s post-crime, and then using typed notes to Burke’s school after she was aware that BPD was looking for exemplars of her handwriting. I really don’t see why there is any question about who penned the RRN, but again, that’s just my opinion.



Judge Carnes Decision:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031576253FSupp2d1323_11466.xml/WOLF v. RAMSEY

 

[InstantProof]

If a jury saw PR denying her own handwriting in her family photo album, I think they would have come to the conclusion that she wrote the RN.
If she did not write the RN;
-How do you not recognize your own handwriting?
-If PR did not caption her kids photos in the photo album, who did? Why is this handwriting so similar to the RN? Are the R's not concerned about this strange situation?

 

[icedtea4me]

If a jury saw PR denying her own handwriting in her family photo album, I think they would have come to the conclusion that she wrote the RN.
If she did not write the RN;
-How do you not recognize your own handwriting?
-If PR did not caption her kids photos in the photo album, who did? Why is this handwriting so similar to the RN? Are the R's not concerned about this strange situation?

Oh, come on now, InstantProof? Isn't it obvious? The intruder wrote the note and then decided to write captions on the Ramsey family photos.

 

[andreww]

Oh, come on now, InstantProof? Isn't it obvious? The intruder wrote the note and then decided to write captions on the Ramsey family photos.

Haha. IDIs love to point at the Carnes report as evidence that Patsy did not write the note, but when you look at all the evidence of how she changed her handwriting, how she began submitting typed reports to the school, and how she wouldn't take credit for authoring family photo albums, even the staunchest Patsy supporter has to have second thoughts. AK you listening?

 

[inspector rex]

If a jury saw PR denying her own handwriting in her family photo album, I think they would have come to the conclusion that she wrote the RN.
If she did not write the RN;
-How do you not recognize your own handwriting?
-If PR did not caption her kids photos in the photo album, who did? Why is this handwriting so similar to the RN? Are the R's not concerned about this strange situation?

BBM Can you clarify?

 

[Rootless]

I'm confused, does this mean only RDI theories are allowed and the rest is hogwash because as far as I am concerned there is no evidence of anything, it is all speculation.

Seems silly to me, as it opens websleuths up to slander charges should an intruder be identified, which I have news I wish I could share but I believe he will be soon : P

 

[InstantProof]

BBM Can you clarify?

[video=youtube;yl5Ll3sLFs8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl5Ll3sLFs8[/video]

 

[Anti-K]

The son of Adam and Eve?


BOESP can answer in his own way, but for my money, I'll tell you how: common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions.

Incidentally, that was one idea Alex Hunter had that I actually agree with:

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.

Bottom line: whether or not I trust or believe an expert, I believe and trust my own eyes!

As for them not being "able" to do it, I haven't got enough time right now.

How do you know that the odds are astronomical?

How do you then explain that Wolf’s handwriting showed enough similarity that at least one of the experts could not eliminate him; that his girlfriend believed that the ransom note had been written by him?

Are you aware that “no evidence to indicate” and “eliminated” are two different categories and that the majority of Thomas’ 73 people whose handwriting was compared could not be eliminated? Incidentally, “could not be eliminated” would be 4.5 on a 5 point scale. This is what the Court found – Mrs Ramsey was a 4.5. We can disagree with that finding, but it is a finding of fact.

Do you remember that Peterson guy who claimed he could show that McReynolds was the author, or Brugnatelli who claimed that Mr Ramsey was the author; do you remember when a sample of Thomas’ handwriting went around and people were commenting on the similarities; and, what about those who think Karr’s handwriting matches the ransom note? Holy cow! It’s crazy out there!

Which brings me back to your claim that the odds must be astronomical. How do you know that?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If a jury saw PR denying her own handwriting in her family photo album, I think they would have come to the conclusion that she wrote the RN.
If she did not write the RN;
-How do you not recognize your own handwriting?
-If PR did not caption her kids photos in the photo album, who did? Why is this handwriting so similar to the RN? Are the R's not concerned about this strange situation?

Hahaha! I’d deny it, too! And, trust me, I did not kill Jonbenet.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Haha. IDIs love to point at the Carnes report as evidence that Patsy did not write the note, but when you look at all the evidence of how she changed her handwriting, how she began submitting typed reports to the school, and how she wouldn't take credit for authoring family photo albums, even the staunchest Patsy supporter has to have second thoughts. AK you listening?

If the world was convinced that I wrote the ransom note and therefore was responsible for sexually assaulting and asphyxiating to death my critically injured child, than I might change my handwriting, too; etc.

Sorry, not impressed (and, a little skeptical of these claims).
...

AK

 

[andreww]

If the world was convinced that I wrote the ransom note and therefore was responsible for sexually assaulting and asphyxiating to death my critically injured child, than I might change my handwriting, too; etc.

Sorry, not impressed (and, a little skeptical of these claims).
...

AK

AK, I honestly respect you and your viewpoint. You are obviously a logical guy, well read and somebody that looks at all information. However, there are times when you simply avoid all logic and turn a blind eye to fact simply to perpetuate your long held stance. You have long said that Patsy's handwriting didn't match. You have repeatedly declared that six experts couldn't tie that note to Patsy. So why on gods earth would she feel the need to alter her handwriting, lie under oath and have their legal team threaten experts? Unlike most IDIs I think you are smarter than that. I far more respect someone that admits they might be wrong than someone that clings to a ridiculous notion until their last dying days simply because they don't want to admit they were wrong. There were plenty of people that believed in OJ at one point and nobody thinks any less of them now. However, somebody that still believes in his innocence to this day is... well, just sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk