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

[BBB167893]

I don’t know how the jurors would be instructed. Perhaps they would be told that they must consider the expert’s opinion, or maybe they would be told that they could ignore the expert’s opinion; or, that the field is questionable and so the handwriting should be ignored. So many ways it could play out.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a jury identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, if left to their own devices. But, what would that mean? That a group of people made a decision on something that they weren’t qualified to make a decision on? I don’t think that this sort of thing should ever be allowed.

If jurors are permitted to make these kinds of decisions on their own, then I hope some method of ensuring impartiality would be devised. Show them samples from 10 different people and let them choose which one (if any) they think was written by Mrs Ramsey (or, any known sample). Let them use the same 10 samples and have them match one (or, none) to the ransom note.

If it was up to me to decide, I would probably tell jurors to ignore the handwriting. I would tell prosecutors/defence to make their case for/against authorship through some other means. IMO, this is how most jurors would be thinking, anyway.

Anti-K, you and I probably agree on more than you think. Especially that last paragraph.

 

[Mama2JML]

What's the status of the IDI thread? Is it locked for good? What's the hold up?

 

[Mama2JML]

No, I don't think she did.



Excuse me, Mama2JML, but WHERE did I say that? And, to be brutally honest, I figured that's where you were heading with that, so I did some more checking. Turns out the police gave Hoffman the exemplars in discovery. As for more than that, maybe someone with a better memory can help us out?

What were you going to say, Mama2JML? That the photo album was a forgery, a fake? Lotsa luck with that.

So, did the court have access to BPD evidence or not? ...b/c presently your claim is affirmative, but on many/most occasions the opposite is assumed to be "fact". BTW, cite your sources, please, this is all new to me...

 

[lawstudent]

Back after a long absence of being busy with work etc. This case drives me crazy. I'm still undecided. And I think a big issue is that people are screw ups - I work in law and other industries where details matter, but most people don't think like we do here. People submit documents full of errors, misinterpret things, and come to legally or logically inconsistent conclusions. There are so many unrelated (in legal or logical sense) issues in this case that we all try to fit together. Certain things may be relevant or may be coincidence - we just can't know. Things that seem like big deals to us may not end up being that relevant if we ever figure this out. The legal stuff in this case is all over the place and so much info is missing. A lot was just never fully investigated.

One thing that keeps bugging me is when people talk about whether there is evidence against someone. Can't there really only be evidence against the perpetrator and anyone who somehow set things in motion? Anything perceived as evidence against anyone else who turns out to be innocent would in reality just be circumstances that made them suspicious. If they did not commit the crime, it was never evidence of anything at all - it was in fact irrelevant to the actual crime. It just looked bad. The way I look at it, 'present your evidence' presupposes we know the killer. For posters who do not feel they know, whether they think it wasn't a Ramsey or just don't know which one(s), all that can be offered is logical speculation based on some sort of reasonable premise. I agree ridiculous arguments need to stop and there are too many. But support is still usually given for why they suspect a certain person or type of person. It's just ridiculous to take a small bit of information consistent with involvement and then add an elaborate theory around it. That is where it is an issue. For example, the way the ransom note reads to me calls to mind certain types of people, and makes me speculate. But I couldn't possibly have a fully fleshed out suspect on that alone. It should just be a point made and taken note of. I see a lot of RDI fantasy stories as well, and I think both need to stop. There is a lot of good info to piece together a story with, but whatever happened is still very bizarre if RDI. There is stuff we just do not have the information to make sense of, but i see so many detailed scenarios to make it "make sense" that are wholly independent of any actual 'evidence.' It's just important to make a distinction between fact, conclusion, and suggestion/inference when you write a post on such a complicated case.

 

[BBB167893]

So, did the court have access to BPD evidence or not? ...b/c presently your claim is affirmative, but on many/most occasions the opposite is assumed to be "fact".

No, it is fact. Not one single bit of the actual case file made it into the Wolf suit. Michael Kane confirmed that back in 2003. Hoffman only had access to what was public by that time.

And like UKGuy said, what difference does it make now?

BTW, cite your sources, please, this is all new to me...

You don't say.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

No, it is fact. Not one single bit of the actual case file made it into the Wolf suit. Michael Kane confirmed that back in 2003. Hoffman only had access to what was public by that time.

And like UKGuy said, what difference does it make now?



You don't say.

This is only true in the strictest, most technical sense. Much of what was in the case file did make it into the suit via the depositions of Thomas, Smit, Hunter, the Ramseys, White, etc.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

BBM


This is only true in the strictest, most technical sense. Much of what was in the case file did make it into the suit via the depositions of Thomas, Smit, Hunter, the Ramseys, White, etc.

That's not how Mike Kane tells it:

the federal court was making a ruling based on the civil case and the civil case presented the evidence that had been gathered in discovery in that case. And given what was agreed to by both parties in the presentation of facts to the court, I think that the court made the right decision. I guess the bigger question then is were the facts presented to the court in the context of the civil case consistent with the facts that were developed in the police case, and I don’t think you can draw that correlation, because there was no access that the parties had been given to information that had been contained in the police files.

http://www.acandyrose.com/20030717DanAbramsReport911Rope.htm BBM

 

[lawstudent]

If the same witnesses were deposed, then that part of the information should be the same. Unless they lied under oath at one or both proceedings. If there is a lot of stuff not known to the witnesses that was given to the grand jury, then there would be a disparity. But it's hard to know. And hard to know what the jury ultimately found credible.

That's not how Mike Kane tells it:

the federal court was making a ruling based on the civil case and the civil case presented the evidence that had been gathered in discovery in that case. And given what was agreed to by both parties in the presentation of facts to the court, I think that the court made the right decision. I guess the bigger question then is were the facts presented to the court in the context of the civil case consistent with the facts that were developed in the police case, and I don’t think you can draw that correlation, because there was no access that the parties had been given to information that had been contained in the police files.

http://www.acandyrose.com/20030717DanAbramsReport911Rope.htm BBM

 

[Anti-K]

That's not how Mike Kane tells it:

the federal court was making a ruling based on the civil case and the civil case presented the evidence that had been gathered in discovery in that case. And given what was agreed to by both parties in the presentation of facts to the court, I think that the court made the right decision. I guess the bigger question then is were the facts presented to the court in the context of the civil case consistent with the facts that were developed in the police case, and I don’t think you can draw that correlation, because there was no access that the parties had been given to information that had been contained in the police files.

http://www.acandyrose.com/20030717DanAbramsReport911Rope.htm BBM

So, Thomas knew nothing about what was in the case file, and Smit knew nothing about what was in the case File; and, Hunter and so on? The information given by the Ramseys in their depositions wasn’t already in the case file; and information given by White wasn’t in the case file; etc and so on? Nonsense.

If Kane wants to say that there was more in the case file than what was heard by Carnes – fine. I think that that is true, but to say that Carnes heard nothing that was in the case file? Let’s not be silly (I refer to Kane).
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

So, Thomas knew nothing about what was in the case file, and Smit knew nothing about what was in the case File;

The Wolf suit happened thru 2001-2003, right? Smit and Thomas both left the case in 1998. That's quite a gap. If I had to guess, I'd say that both of them knew bits of case file information. (The fact that Smit took his illegally apparently makes you no mind, but I digress.)

and, Hunter and so on?

I have serious doubts as to just what Hunter knew about the case.

The information given by the Ramseys in their depositions wasn’t already in the case file; and information given by White wasn’t in the case file; etc and so on? Nonsense.

You say "nonsense" but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of different questions were asked in the suit than by the police.

If Kane wants to say that there was more in the case file than what was heard by Carnes – fine. I think that that is true, but to say that Carnes heard nothing that was in the case file? Let’s not be silly (I refer to Kane).

Tell you what, Anti-K: if that's how you want to take it, I'll play that game. There was definitely information in the case file that contradicts the Carnes ruling. You want examples? Okay. In that same interview, Kane gives the example of the cord knots. Smit asserted that they were complicated knots--too complicated for the Ramseys to know. That assertion was not challenged and accepted as fact. Except, it wasn't:

KANE: but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots.

That's one.

Which brings me to the main point: we have yet to hear from Tricia whether or not the Carnes ruling can or cannot be used based on our new rules about facts. My argument is that it can't, because it in itself is not based on facts. The above example is just one exhibit. Another one is that the ruling states as fact that the Ramseys were never indicted, and we KNOW that's not true. (Funny how Hunter never mentioned that, isn't it?)

 

[CherCher]

No, I’m making a judgment. I have no problem with people saying that in their opinion Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. Opinions are fine. The problem arises when someone says that they KNOW that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note.
I’m saying that decisions on authorship made by persons (including MYSELF!) not qualified to make such decisions hold no meaning for me and I don’t think they should hold any meaning for anyone. I’m not sure how this can be construed as insulting or trying to cause trouble.

????
...

AK

I guess you, like Richard Pryor's wife, can't believe your own "lying eyes". You're funny.

 

[inspector rex]

I don’t know how the jurors would be instructed. Perhaps they would be told that they must consider the expert’s opinion, or maybe they would be told that they could ignore the expert’s opinion; or, that the field is questionable and so the handwriting should be ignored. So many ways it could play out.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a jury identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, if left to their own devices. But, what would that mean? That a group of people made a decision on something that they weren’t qualified to make a decision on? I don’t think that this sort of thing should ever be allowed.

If jurors are permitted to make these kinds of decisions on their own, then I hope some method of ensuring impartiality would be devised. Show them samples from 10 different people and let them choose which one (if any) they think was written by Mrs Ramsey (or, any known sample). Let them use the same 10 samples and have them match one (or, none) to the ransom note.

If it was up to me to decide, I would probably tell jurors to ignore the handwriting. I would tell prosecutors/defence to make their case for/against authorship through some other means. IMO, this is how most jurors would be thinking, anyway.
...

AK

I would have thought that they would be instructed that they must consider the evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If the 'experts' disagree then there would be doubt and they would be instructed to find her not guilty.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. There was insufficient evidence to even charge PR so we will never know what a jury might have thought.

 

[UKGuy]

No, I’m making a judgment. I have no problem with people saying that in their opinion Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. Opinions are fine. The problem arises when someone says that they KNOW that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note.
I’m saying that decisions on authorship made by persons (including MYSELF!) not qualified to make such decisions hold no meaning for me and I don’t think they should hold any meaning for anyone. I’m not sure how this can be construed as insulting or trying to cause trouble.

????
...

AK

Anti-K,

I’m saying that decisions on authorship made by persons (including MYSELF!) not qualified to make such decisions hold no meaning for me and I don’t think they should hold any meaning for anyone. I’m not sure how this can be construed as insulting or trying to cause trouble.

Your position here is simply insulting to most of websleuths members who are quite capable of deciding what construes meaning and whether they know something or not. It is not your responsibility to decide for others what they should think.

I’m saying that decisions on authorship made by persons (including MYSELF!) not qualified to make such decisions hold no meaning for me ...

This is an invalid form of reasoning, known as an argumentum ad verecundiam or an argument from authority.

Example from wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Inaccurate chromosome number:

In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared based on his findings that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,[24] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.

As Robert Matthews said of the event, "Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes". As such, their reasoning was an appeal to authority.

Another example is that of the Estate of Sam Sheppard vs State of Ohio Case No 312322, where Brent E Turvey MS offered professional opinion as to why former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary's testimony should be limited, i.e. criminal profiling is not scientific.

In the second trial of the State of Ohio v. Samuel Sheppard. In 1955, Dr. Paul Kirk offered an affidavit on blood spatter analysis, which was the earliest instance for the legal system to be made aware of the value of blood spatter analysis. Kirk’s analysis was able to show the location of the victim and the assailant, and it showed that the victim was struck by the assailant’s left hand. Yet Sam Sheppard was right handed, he was released a free man.

Subsequently it has been demonstrated using blood spatter experiments that handedness cannot be determined exclusively via blood spatter distribution since the assailant could be making sweeping movements that mimic handedness.

All this has made the Sam Sheppard case contentious since some think it was a staged crime scene others a bona fide Intruder Homicide, does this sound familiar? Here is a parallel with the Ramsey case: after regaining consciousness and finding his dead wife in her blood spattered bedroom, Sam Sheppard phoned some of his neighbors over, who then contaminated the crime scene followed by the media.

All the above should suggest that once established forensic evidence is open to interpretation by human beings.



.

 

[CorallaroC]

Anti-K,


Your position here is simply insulting to most of websleuths members who are quite capable of deciding what construes meaning and whether they know something or not. It is not your responsibility to decide for others what they should think.


This is an invalid form of reasoning, known as an argumentum ad verecundiam or an argument from authority.

Example from wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


Another example is that of the Estate of Sam Sheppard vs State of Ohio Case No 312322, where Brent E Turvey MS offered professional opinion as to why former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary's testimony should be limited, i.e. criminal profiling is not scientific.

In the second trial of the State of Ohio v. Samuel Sheppard. In 1955, Dr. Paul Kirk offered an affidavit on blood spatter analysis, which was the earliest instance for the legal system to be made aware of the value of blood spatter analysis. Kirk’s analysis was able to show the location of the victim and the assailant, and it showed that the victim was struck by the assailant’s left hand. Yet Sam Sheppard was right handed, he was released a free man.

Subsequently it has been demonstrated using blood spatter experiments that handedness cannot be determined exclusively via blood spatter distribution since the assailant could be making sweeping movements that mimic handedness.

All this has made the Sam Sheppard case contentious since some think it was a staged crime scene others a bona fide Intruder Homicide, does this sound familiar? Here is a parallel with the Ramsey case: after regaining consciousness and finding his dead wife in her blood spattered bedroom, Sam Sheppard phoned some of his neighbors over, who then contaminated the crime scene followed by the media.

All the above should suggest that once established forensic evidence is open to interpretation by human beings.
.

Very good analytical comparison UKGuy, thanks. It gives plenty of food-for-thought in this case IMO

 

[Mama2JML]

Anti-K,


Your position here is simply insulting to most of websleuths members who are quite capable of deciding what construes meaning and whether they know something or not. It is not your responsibility to decide for others what they should think.

No reason to feel insulted, UKGuy. You've basically reiterated Anti-K's 'position':

I have no problem with people saying that in their opinion Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. Opinions are fine. The problem arises when someone says that they KNOW that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note.

This is an invalid form of reasoning, known as an argumentum ad verecundiam or an argument from authority.

Not so. An argument from authority can be fallacious, but in this context, the argument is valid as AK's appeal is to qualified authority.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[Anti-K]

The Wolf suit happened thru 2001-2003, right? Smit and Thomas both left the case in 1998. That's quite a gap. If I had to guess, I'd say that both of them knew bits of case file information. (The fact that Smit took his illegally apparently makes you no mind, but I digress.)



I have serious doubts as to just what Hunter knew about the case.



You say "nonsense" but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of different questions were asked in the suit than by the police.



Tell you what, Anti-K: if that's how you want to take it, I'll play that game. There was definitely information in the case file that contradicts the Carnes ruling. You want examples? Okay. In that same interview, Kane gives the example of the cord knots. Smit asserted that they were complicated knots--too complicated for the Ramseys to know. That assertion was not challenged and accepted as fact. Except, it wasn't:

KANE: but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots.

That's one.

Which brings me to the main point: we have yet to hear from Tricia whether or not the Carnes ruling can or cannot be used based on our new rules about facts. My argument is that it can't, because it in itself is not based on facts. The above example is just one exhibit. Another one is that the ruling states as fact that the Ramseys were never indicted, and we KNOW that's not true. (Funny how Hunter never mentioned that, isn't it?)

I’m not sure that the case against the Ramseys made any progress between 1998 and the Wolf suit.
Some percentage of the case file would concern leads, investigations, etc into other potential suspects and such. IOWS, the bulk of the case against the Ramseys could be known while leaving a large portion of the case file unknown.
.

The Carnes ruling came down to plaintiff’s failure to show that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note. Everything else is – for the Decision – beside the point.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,


Your position here is simply insulting to most of websleuths members who are quite capable of deciding what construes meaning and whether they know something or not. It is not your responsibility to decide for others what they should think.


This is an invalid form of reasoning, known as an argumentum ad verecundiam or an argument from authority.

Example from wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


Another example is that of the Estate of Sam Sheppard vs State of Ohio Case No 312322, where Brent E Turvey MS offered professional opinion as to why former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary's testimony should be limited, i.e. criminal profiling is not scientific.

In the second trial of the State of Ohio v. Samuel Sheppard. In 1955, Dr. Paul Kirk offered an affidavit on blood spatter analysis, which was the earliest instance for the legal system to be made aware of the value of blood spatter analysis. Kirk’s analysis was able to show the location of the victim and the assailant, and it showed that the victim was struck by the assailant’s left hand. Yet Sam Sheppard was right handed, he was released a free man.

Subsequently it has been demonstrated using blood spatter experiments that handedness cannot be determined exclusively via blood spatter distribution since the assailant could be making sweeping movements that mimic handedness.

All this has made the Sam Sheppard case contentious since some think it was a staged crime scene others a bona fide Intruder Homicide, does this sound familiar? Here is a parallel with the Ramsey case: after regaining consciousness and finding his dead wife in her blood spattered bedroom, Sam Sheppard phoned some of his neighbors over, who then contaminated the crime scene followed by the media.

All the above should suggest that once established forensic evidence is open to interpretation by human beings.



.

I’m familiar with argumentum ad verecundiam. I’m not making that argument. In fact, people who disagree with my position are making that argument. Appeals to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) become a fallacy when the authority is someone outside of the field in question. That means all of us – we’re authorities outside of the field in question. So, when you say you think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note because you compared handwriting, you are committing an argumentum ad verecundiam. I’m actually arguing against that position. It is fallacious.

What I’m saying is pretty simple. The field in question requires a degree of training, experience and expertise that none of us possess. Yes, we can look at pictures and say this looks like that, but if that was all there was to it then we wouldn’t have any controversy about it. Experts wouldn’t be needed or even arise. The field would not exist. BPD would have no one to hire and no reason to hire anyone.

BTW, Appeals to Authority are not necessarily fallacies. 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.
...

AK

 

[lawstudent]

One of the reasons I have trouble with this case is because what a grand jury found means nothing to me in terms of determining actual guilt or innocence or what exactly happened. And at trial, juries can "nullify" and use opinions on all sorts of issues - there are lots of different rules of evidence that are all over the place. I still believe in the jury system overall and I do believe most juries make a reasonable decision based on the instructions and information before them. I'm sure they made a reasoned decision to indict based on the circumstances. I also find the indictment legally inconsistent and I feel like they didn't fully understand the nuances of the law, which is common. So I find it hard to determine what exactly they were going for, but that's really not what they were tasked with doing. They were just determining the charges should go forward - they didn't have to pin down an exact scenario. A trial would have forced that issue a bit more, but what is an "expert" science is debatable. Juries can make all sorts of calls. Regular people can tell whether one's handwriting looks like another's and assess that as part of the case. If they decided based on that alone with no other circumstances, i think that would be an issue.

 

[UKGuy]

One of the reasons I have trouble with this case is because what a grand jury found means nothing to me in terms of determining actual guilt or innocence or what exactly happened. And at trial, juries can "nullify" and use opinions on all sorts of issues - there are lots of different rules of evidence that are all over the place. I still believe in the jury system overall and I do believe most juries make a reasonable decision based on the instructions and information before them. I'm sure they made a reasoned decision to indict based on the circumstances. I also find the indictment legally inconsistent and I feel like they didn't fully understand the nuances of the law, which is common. So I find it hard to determine what exactly they were going for, but that's really not what they were tasked with doing. They were just determining the charges should go forward - they didn't have to pin down an exact scenario. A trial would have forced that issue a bit more, but what is an "expert" science is debatable. Juries can make all sorts of calls. Regular people can tell whether one's handwriting looks like another's and assess that as part of the case. If they decided based on that alone with no other circumstances, i think that would be an issue.

lawstudent,
I do not know what your age is or experience in the legal arena, but a GJ is simply the states first call on what determines forensic evidence or whether a prosecution is realistic.

It has nothing to do with due legal process or justice as an ideal etc. The expert stuff is an illusion, hopefully my exegesis on Dr. Paul Kirk will have illuminated this as such. My reference to Brent E Turvey MS is the opposite it demonstrates where legal process has accepted external opinion as legal authority do you get it?

In the field of science what constitutes Expert is if the proponent is willing to accept third party experiment on their position or claims, its that simple!

.

 

[lawstudent]

lawstudent,
I do not know what your age is or experience in the legal arena, but a GJ is simply the states first call on what determines forensic evidence or whether a prosecution is realistic.

It has nothing to do with due legal process or justice as an ideal etc. The expert stuff is an illusion, hopefully my exegesis on Dr. Paul Kirk will have illuminated this as such. My reference to Brent E Turvey MS is the opposite it demonstrates where legal process has accepted external opinion as legal authority do you get it?

In the field of science what constitutes Expert is if the proponent is willing to accept third party experiment on their position or claims, its that simple!

.

I wasn't replying to you so I'm not sure why you took this to be disagreeing with you. I know what a grand jury does, and I know how expert testimony works. I was agreeing with you for the most part. And there are a lot of rules on what a layperson v. expert can speak to - experts are neither an illusion under the law nor legal authority. I mostly understand what you are getting at, but your wording is confusing to me.