How do you know that the odds are astronomical?
Do I
REALLY have to explain that to anyone?? Look, you've got someone who can be proven to be in the house on the fatal night who not only cannot be eliminated as the writer, but had something like 200 similarities.
And FURTHERMORE, even assuming you could find someone who matched up, say, 100 similarities, you'd have to be able to place them inside the house with other evidence.
THAT'S HOW!
How do you then explain that Wolf’s handwriting showed enough similarity that at least one of the experts could not eliminate him;
That was one of the Ramsey-hired experts, was it not? That's all the explanation I need.
that his girlfriend believed that the ransom note had been written by him?
Maybe it's my "faulty" memory, but wasn't his girlfriend a little cuckoo?
Now I've got one for you, Anti-K: explain to me how PR's
OWN MOTHER and sisters couldn't tell her writing apart from the RN. Take your time. After 18+ years, I'm in no hurry.
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?
I'm aware of that, Anti-K. I'm also aware that Chet Ubowski made a chart with the names of those he'd examined on it. The names above the line were likely to have written it, the names below were not likely. There was ONE name above. Guess who it was. Moreover, as usual, you're focusing on one issue rather than taking an holistic approach. By that, I mean that even if others couldn't be completely eliminated, they had other things going against them as suspects.
That's the point I'm trying to get across to IDIs in general: even if PR was not able to be identified for certain as the RN writer, that's not the ONLY thing going for her as a suspect. You follow me?
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.
Be careful, Anti-K. It's a fact that Carnes accepted that claim. The claim itself is NOT a fact. Far from it. (Incidentally, Carnes' ruling says that it's a fact that there was no Grand Jury indictment, too. We know how THAT ended, don't we?)
Do you remember that Peterson guy who claimed he could show that McReynolds was the author,
'Fraid I don't.
or Brugnatelli who claimed that Mr Ramsey was the author;
That I remember.
do you remember when a sample of Thomas’ handwriting went around and people were commenting on the similarities;
Nope. Don't remember.
and, what about those who think Karr’s handwriting matches the ransom note?
Yeah, my feelings exactly: what about them.
Holy cow! It’s crazy out there!
You're telling me!
Is there a point to this?
Which brings me back to your claim that the odds must be astronomical. How do you know that?
See above.
