Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Patsy wrote the note. No examiner could eliminate her. And Carnes simply didn't allow the examiners that were anti Patsy to testify.
And let's not forget that Patsy's print was on that page despite her denials of ever touching it.
Patsy wrote the note.
Just because the Ramsey's lawyers were far better, and were clever enough to convince Carnes, does not make her decision to disallow certain handwriting experts correct. Just because they weren't allowed to speak, it does not negate what they had to say.
Just like when Johnny Cochrane said the glove didn't fit, it didn't mean the glove didn't fit. All it meant was that he was a better lawyer than Chris Darden.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope, you got this all wrong.
Mrs Ramsey’s print was not on the ransom note.
Carnes did not consider expert’s conclusions when deciding against experts. Wong was disqualified because she was not found to be credible; even Epstein said she wasn’t credible and Kane, in preparation for the Grand Jury, wrote Wong a letter explaining why he did not consider her to be credible. Epstein was found credible as an expert but his conclusion was not allowed because he was unable to show how he arrived at his questionable conclusion (100% certainty).
None of the other experts identified Mrs Ramsey and that, too, is a fact. Quote from Carnes: …the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF, 196; PSMF 196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low."
These are Facts.
…
AK