No offence, but it sort of sounds like you’re just making things up.
Offense
TAKEN, Anti-K. But I'm not mad YET.
It doesn’t really matter too much because IMO believing that one can make a determination on authorship without any training or experience in the field and just using materials from the internet, etc is the height of intellectual arrogance and I just don’t buy it.
Your thoughts on intellectual arrogance aside, the people who would make the determination of authorship WOULD (at least very likely) be people without any training or experience in the field. They're called jurors.
We seem to have gone off the rails somewhere along the line here. I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming to be any kind of expert. It was never my intent to claim that. The point I'm trying to make in our conversation is what a jury would likely think. You said much the same thing yourself, for crying out loud! (And forgive me if I don't go back and get the exact quote.)
Let's review:
BOESP said:
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.
Anti-K said:
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?
SuperDave said:
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!
At that point, you went off talking about how I needed to explain how the odds were astronomical. And, to be honest, that is my fault. I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking as a juror, not an expert.
So, let's clear it up once and for all. When I said,
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, (which was just a GUESS, BTW--I'm not a *advertiser censored**ing math expert) what I should have said was,
when confronted by what has been illustrated on this thread so far, a layperson juror would conclude that the odds were astronomical.
There, is everybody happy now? In fact, Anti-K, since you want proof of that,
let's put it to a vote. All who agree, say yay. All who disagree, say nay.
Appeals to Authority may be sound if the following six criteria are met:
1. The “expert” has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the “expert” is within the “experts” area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The “expert” in question must be identified.
6. The “expert” is not significantly biased.
In this case, you and everyone else who claims to have identified or not identified Mrs Ramsey (or, anyone) is the expert. You fail to meet almost all of the criteria.
I'll let the others answer in their own ways. As for me, I'm not claiming to be an expert in document examination, and I never have claimed to be. We're just taking what the experts have said and applying our judgment---exactly what a jury would do. And I'm confident that had the Wolf case gone to a jury, they'd reach the same conclusions. You can agree with that or not.
And, one of them – the field in question - is somewhat controversial to being with!
I don't see anybody arguing that point, Anti-K. That's WHY we have juries, at least in theory.
Good grief, I say. Holy cow.
Leave the cow out of it.