JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
indeed it does,we get to defend our positions.
Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?
- Thread starter Ames
- Start date
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Thats an easy one: Foreign Faction. YOu don't know if he has or hasn't struck again. You really have no idea about that.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
oh don't be fooled.the RST loves it when we disagree,for without us...they'd wouldn't have a JOB
I don't have any connection to RST.
Isn't taking a ransom note, DNA, ligatures, sexual assault, etc., and calling them all fake more of a 'spin' anyway? I mean, you're taking things at face value and spinning them into something else, right?
It seems to me that the misspelling of 'advise' was spun into a deliberate act by RDI, to avoid making the conclusion that PR didn't write the note. A conclusion the treasury dept. was willing to make.
That's a damn good thing!
I don't know, Holdon. You'd have to ask the FBI profilers who called them fake in the first place.
Well, if you want to get absolutely pedantic about it, we're doing the exact opposite: cutting through the staging clutter to get to the meat-and-potatoes of the matter.
I didn't want to do this, Holdon, but you have left me with no choice. When I said that Sarah Cherry had been the victim of a REAL sexual assault, you picked up on my implication immediately: that the sexual assault on JB was a phony, staged for benefit of someone (I'm not sure if fooling LE was top of the list). I could give you a big dissertation on that, but I think it would be even better to just give you the tale of the tape, no pun intended:
Sarah Cherry was found in the woods with sticks still protruding from her anus and vagina. That animal Dechaine assaulted her with them, left them in, killed her and just left her to rot.
That didn't happen with JB. Most likely what happened there is the person who "assaulted" her couldn't bear to look at what they were doing, so they took a blind shot that didn't even rupture the hymen (what was LEFT of it). They then wiped off the minimal blood caused by the intrusion, redressed her, wrapped her in a blanket and put the child's favorite piece of clothing in it with her.
Dennis Dechaine did not show that kind of tenderness. Jeffrey MacDonald did when he killed his children. (I STRONGLY suggest you research that case in regards to this one.) And as for the foreign faction idea, last I knew, these "foreign factions" weren't exactly known for their tenderness, as this captured Al-Qaeda manual shows:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
I don't know about that. A person flying by the seat of her pants, possibly on drugs to calm themselves, makes a spelling mistake? It's not that hard to believe, is it? Heck, I make spelling mistakes all the time, and I graduated from college with a 3.6 gpa.
On that note, Holdon, there was only ONE person who changed their writing after the murder. ONE. Do you know who it was?
Wrong. The Treasury Department never examined the note. I think you refer to the retired Secret Service agent who made a hasty preliminary report (based on gods know how little material), and who, from what some of his collegues have said about him, doesn't even do that much document examination.
Now if you all will excuse me for a moment, I'm so sick I could vomit.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
that was a difficult post to write,I'm sure.
and you are right on about Jeffrey MacDonald...(I'm pretty well-versed in that one,it was the one that got me interested in true crime to begin with).For starters,he went and got a little bottle of chocolate milk for the baby and put it in her mouth after he killed her.
and you are right on about Jeffrey MacDonald...(I'm pretty well-versed in that one,it was the one that got me interested in true crime to begin with).For starters,he went and got a little bottle of chocolate milk for the baby and put it in her mouth after he killed her.
Hi JMO. meaning what?
That there are 'unknown' tox results, that the public is unaware of? or known results are related to a speific test, only?
Sorry, still playing catch up.
Hey .... so?
Hi Hotyh,
.... So who is the 'resident' hand writing expert anyway?
CK would be the authority. here and at ffj:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404
(can I post this link?)
A couple of links on handwiting analysis
http://www.writinganalysis.com/ramsey.html
http://www.writeanalysis.com/ramsey.htm
Seagrams link, 7 drinks: http://www.handwriting.org/images/samples/seagrams.htm
handwriting and cancer: http://www.articlesbase.com/cancer-...tion-through-handwriting-analysis-501070.html
so, Hotyh ... the merit of handwriting analysis seems to be???,
*("seems to me") representative? reflective? of the criteria used for analysis (some analysis excluded personality profiles and only related to form and/or linguistics)
....**is not expressed as a statistical probablity with a degree of statistical significance, but rather results are distinguished by scale
Repudiation Analysis: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ing+analysis+results&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca
So a quick Q, Hotyh, re: repudiation
To what do you attribute the difference in interpretations? .... the interpretation that PR's sample can not be excluded .... is it small sample size? quality of sample? that the method of repudiation has an intrinsic bias?
..."However, due to the bias introduced by hypothesis testing (tests are done under the assumption that null hypothesis is true), the results will be confined to the values of no conclusion, indications did not, probably did not, strong probability did not and elimination, in the case of repudiation."
Different 'experts' use different methodologies? is there 'really' a comparative?
Now if you all will excuse me for a moment, I'm so sick I could vomit. - SD
Yes. A graphic difference. Brutality.
You know what really unsettles me though .... the thought of how many children have fallen through the cracks in BC, those not victim of a sensational crime. I should read more about CPS.
Yes. A graphic difference. Brutality.
You know what really unsettles me though .... the thought of how many children have fallen through the cracks in BC, those not victim of a sensational crime. I should read more about CPS.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
oh don't be sorry,there's just so much to this case!
Wendy Murphy,a former prosecutor (she wrote a book,And Justice for Some,I believe is the name),said that it is possible there could have been more than one tox test.So the one released to the public,(which said no drugs were found in JB's system),may not be the only one.
I just found it intriguing,and so I wonder if there is more than we're seeing to it.We know the R's were q'd about meds found in their home.
If there were drugs found in her system,then to me,it speaks volumes,and says that JB probably had been drugged in prep for being molested,IMO.
What is CPS, may I ask?
As for your post on handwriting, that's some heavy stuff. Best thing I can figure is to let Holdon give his answer, then you can make up your own mind.
Ty for the response.....JMO8778.
Now .... I'm at a loss for words .....I had never thought or read of that possibility ....
I should have known that.
nah ....
but,
I do get to some definite recesses while reading online, just kinda meander ... some of the links I get to do have some weight..... the link to the Seagrams site is amusing.
PR provided a large sample for comparison.
Parents Still Called Suspects in Death of Beauty Princess, NY Times, December 6, 1997
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...5A35751C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Mrs. Ramsey, who is also known as Patsy, has submitted five handwriting samples for comparison by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation with the 370-word ransom note that was found in her house.
''We can't exclude her as author of this document,'' Carl Whiteside, director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said in a recent interview. ''But we have never been able to say with specificity that she is the author of the document.''
On Wednesday, Mr. Hoffman asked Gov. Roy Romer ''to order an investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's handling of the handwriting evidence in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.''
but,
I do get to some definite recesses while reading online, just kinda meander ... some of the links I get to do have some weight..... the link to the Seagrams site is amusing.
PR provided a large sample for comparison.
Parents Still Called Suspects in Death of Beauty Princess, NY Times, December 6, 1997
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...5A35751C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Mrs. Ramsey, who is also known as Patsy, has submitted five handwriting samples for comparison by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation with the 370-word ransom note that was found in her house.
''We can't exclude her as author of this document,'' Carl Whiteside, director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said in a recent interview. ''But we have never been able to say with specificity that she is the author of the document.''
On Wednesday, Mr. Hoffman asked Gov. Roy Romer ''to order an investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's handling of the handwriting evidence in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.''
I think it would be best if I waited until after Holdon has responded before I say anything about that.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
The idea that a mere signature is relied upon to qualify one's identity, to cash large checks for instance. Now we have what, 1500 or so handwritten characters and the CBI 'cant say with specificity'?
PR didn't write the note, or all CDE's would be saying it with specificity, given the length and variability of the note. There's too many darn letters and words, too many instances of smooth writing especially at the end of the note, for CDE's to come up empty. "Can't say with specificity" is basically coming up empty, when the sample size is 1500 or so characters.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
..no,they said they couldn't rule her out,either.not that she 100% did *not write it.and I'm sure you recall the posts about them not being able to say with 100% certainty that Patsy wrote the note because it was written with a felt-tip pen.
Personally,*I think she wrote the note,and that's good enough for ME.
Personally,*I think she wrote the note,and that's good enough for ME.
Before I get started, I strongly urge everyone, regardless of how they fell about the case, to check out an interview with Clint Van Zandt at
www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage It is extremely informative. Specific attention should be paid to his take on the ransom letter.
Now, it's my turn.
Tadpole, I won't bore you with a lot of technical details, so let me put it plainly:
YES, there is a bias. Most of the document examiners I've spoken to admit that it is not an exact science. It's basically one person, one opinion. And that bias comes in when the repudiation principle is affected. In other words, most document examiners start out on the premise that the two samples were written by different people. That article about the repudiation process has helped me greatly. Now I know where that 5-point scale nonsense came from!
And yes, different examiners do have different methodologies.
Sadly, analyzing cursive writing, i.e., signatures, and analyzing handprinting are as different as night and day. I mean, on the surface, Holdon's argument seems solid, but it's a bad comparison. It has a few other problems with it, which we will see as we go along.
If ONLY it were that simple!
The fact is, document examination is not an exact science. It's not like fingerprint comparison or blood-typing. If it really WERE as simple as Holdon makes it out to be, dueling experts would not exist, flat-out. The simple fact is you're just as likely to get a negative as a positive. It all depends on how the conclusion was reached: sample size, examination time, repudiation bias, that sort of thing. In this case, you have another problem: the writing was so heavily disguised. Let's face it, if you compare regular writing to regular writing, you'll come out one way. If you compare regular writing to disguised writing, it gets more interesting.
In all, a unanimous consensus is just about unheard of in document examination. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but I have YET to find a case involving multiple document examiners where every single expert came to the same conclusion.
The second problem is that, as JMO8778 stated, the note was written with a felt-tip pen, which just about every document examiner involved with this case, regardless of where they came down on it, has said is the single WORST writing implement to do comparisons with. Especially in this case because the pen used to write the letter itself was very likely NOT used to write exemplars.
The third problem is that article from the Times was written very early on in the case. Let's take a look at what the CBI had to say a year later:
PMPT, pb, pages 536-537: "Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as one more missed opportunity."
PMPT, pb, page 740: "the CBI presented their evaluations of the evidence, including Chet Ubowski, the handwriting expert, who reported that Patsy could not be excluded as the writer. He had also told his boss, Pete Mang, that his gut told him it was her handwriting."
In December of 2002, FOXNews did a piece on this case. Even though Ubowski was not interviewed directly, the reporter stated that Ubowski has said the only things that kept him from saying that it was her writing 100% were that the ink had bled so sloppily and that the letters themselves had been disguised." That meshes with what Steve Thomas wrote about him: that the methodology his group uses would not allow him to swear under oath with what he had.
And that brings me to the fourth problem. Groupthink. There are several groups of document examiners out there, with varying methodologies. To hear some people tell it, only one group has the seal of approval from US courts: the ABFDE (American Board of Forensic Document Examiners). That's not true; plenty of document examiners have been court-certified without belonging to it (including some in this case), but what you have to understand is the ABFDE has a vested interest in being the only one. Most people do not know about the amount of politicking that goes on with document analysis. Even I was not aware of it until recently. But the ABFDE has a vested interest in people believing that they're the real McCoy and that only their methodology is the correct one and everybody else is a fraud and a scam-artist. The reasons for this are fairly obvious: they don't want competition for all of those big-money government contracts. (To use a rather crude analogy, most of us pick the apple on top of the pile, right?) Document examination is a very small field. VERY small. Just about everyone knows each other. And for that reason, they very rarely challenge each other. Most of the document examiners probably did not want to challenge any of their own in court.
Now, to elaborate on this, most of the experts in this case are ABFDE members. Their conclusions are widely varying. Gideon Epstein (THE very best, from what I can gather), Larry Ziegler and Richard Williams all said that they were 100% sure PR wrote the ransom letter. Going down the scale, we have Ubowski, who was pretty sure; Leonard Speckin, who said he couldn't say she wrote it, but felt it was unlikely an intruder could have; Ed Alford, who wouldn't say one way or the other, and finally Richard Dusak, who said he had no reason to think she wrote it. (It has been noted, however, by Epstein AND OTHERS that Dusak is basically a DE in name only and does very little actual analysis).
Once you get outside the ABFDE bubble, the odds stack up very rapidly on my side of it. Trouble is, thanks to the politics and groupthink, these people are looked down upon by the ABFDE as frauds. Even Epstein was not immune to this. Even though he agreed with their findings, he said that they were essentially shooting in the dark and were not to be trusted.
Well, something must have changed his mind, because Epstein, who has always had a reputation as a maverick, is now one of the loudest voices for non-ABFDE examiners to be accepted as legit, challenging what he called the "narrow-mindedness of the profession I love so dearly."
Ah, except they DIDN'T come up empty, as I have just demonstrated.
To finish up, I offer my sincere admiration to Holdon. When he bothers to respond to a question or rebut a statement, he often does a fine job, keeping it simple and getting to the point. I expect nothing less from him.
So, Tadpole, you now heard the arguments. Who would you put your money on?
www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage It is extremely informative. Specific attention should be paid to his take on the ransom letter.
Now, it's my turn.
Tadpole, I won't bore you with a lot of technical details, so let me put it plainly:
YES, there is a bias. Most of the document examiners I've spoken to admit that it is not an exact science. It's basically one person, one opinion. And that bias comes in when the repudiation principle is affected. In other words, most document examiners start out on the premise that the two samples were written by different people. That article about the repudiation process has helped me greatly. Now I know where that 5-point scale nonsense came from!
And yes, different examiners do have different methodologies.
Sadly, analyzing cursive writing, i.e., signatures, and analyzing handprinting are as different as night and day. I mean, on the surface, Holdon's argument seems solid, but it's a bad comparison. It has a few other problems with it, which we will see as we go along.
If ONLY it were that simple!
The fact is, document examination is not an exact science. It's not like fingerprint comparison or blood-typing. If it really WERE as simple as Holdon makes it out to be, dueling experts would not exist, flat-out. The simple fact is you're just as likely to get a negative as a positive. It all depends on how the conclusion was reached: sample size, examination time, repudiation bias, that sort of thing. In this case, you have another problem: the writing was so heavily disguised. Let's face it, if you compare regular writing to regular writing, you'll come out one way. If you compare regular writing to disguised writing, it gets more interesting.
In all, a unanimous consensus is just about unheard of in document examination. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but I have YET to find a case involving multiple document examiners where every single expert came to the same conclusion.
The second problem is that, as JMO8778 stated, the note was written with a felt-tip pen, which just about every document examiner involved with this case, regardless of where they came down on it, has said is the single WORST writing implement to do comparisons with. Especially in this case because the pen used to write the letter itself was very likely NOT used to write exemplars.
The third problem is that article from the Times was written very early on in the case. Let's take a look at what the CBI had to say a year later:
PMPT, pb, pages 536-537: "Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as one more missed opportunity."
PMPT, pb, page 740: "the CBI presented their evaluations of the evidence, including Chet Ubowski, the handwriting expert, who reported that Patsy could not be excluded as the writer. He had also told his boss, Pete Mang, that his gut told him it was her handwriting."
In December of 2002, FOXNews did a piece on this case. Even though Ubowski was not interviewed directly, the reporter stated that Ubowski has said the only things that kept him from saying that it was her writing 100% were that the ink had bled so sloppily and that the letters themselves had been disguised." That meshes with what Steve Thomas wrote about him: that the methodology his group uses would not allow him to swear under oath with what he had.
And that brings me to the fourth problem. Groupthink. There are several groups of document examiners out there, with varying methodologies. To hear some people tell it, only one group has the seal of approval from US courts: the ABFDE (American Board of Forensic Document Examiners). That's not true; plenty of document examiners have been court-certified without belonging to it (including some in this case), but what you have to understand is the ABFDE has a vested interest in being the only one. Most people do not know about the amount of politicking that goes on with document analysis. Even I was not aware of it until recently. But the ABFDE has a vested interest in people believing that they're the real McCoy and that only their methodology is the correct one and everybody else is a fraud and a scam-artist. The reasons for this are fairly obvious: they don't want competition for all of those big-money government contracts. (To use a rather crude analogy, most of us pick the apple on top of the pile, right?) Document examination is a very small field. VERY small. Just about everyone knows each other. And for that reason, they very rarely challenge each other. Most of the document examiners probably did not want to challenge any of their own in court.
Now, to elaborate on this, most of the experts in this case are ABFDE members. Their conclusions are widely varying. Gideon Epstein (THE very best, from what I can gather), Larry Ziegler and Richard Williams all said that they were 100% sure PR wrote the ransom letter. Going down the scale, we have Ubowski, who was pretty sure; Leonard Speckin, who said he couldn't say she wrote it, but felt it was unlikely an intruder could have; Ed Alford, who wouldn't say one way or the other, and finally Richard Dusak, who said he had no reason to think she wrote it. (It has been noted, however, by Epstein AND OTHERS that Dusak is basically a DE in name only and does very little actual analysis).
Once you get outside the ABFDE bubble, the odds stack up very rapidly on my side of it. Trouble is, thanks to the politics and groupthink, these people are looked down upon by the ABFDE as frauds. Even Epstein was not immune to this. Even though he agreed with their findings, he said that they were essentially shooting in the dark and were not to be trusted.
Well, something must have changed his mind, because Epstein, who has always had a reputation as a maverick, is now one of the loudest voices for non-ABFDE examiners to be accepted as legit, challenging what he called the "narrow-mindedness of the profession I love so dearly."
Ah, except they DIDN'T come up empty, as I have just demonstrated.
To finish up, I offer my sincere admiration to Holdon. When he bothers to respond to a question or rebut a statement, he often does a fine job, keeping it simple and getting to the point. I expect nothing less from him.
So, Tadpole, you now heard the arguments. Who would you put your money on?
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Well, thanks SD for the VanZandt radio tape. My impression is that he has no opinion. That is, he is torn between RDI and IDI.
A fence sitter.
I heard him state that the R's were twice victims. Once of losing their daughter, and once by being accused. Then he stated that the DNA found in both JBR's underwear and longjohns that matched one another were 'strong evidence' of an unknown person.
But then, he went on about how the ransom note and the handling of JBR fit a coverup scenario.
He also talked about DNA and how there's only a few thousand DNA in CODIS, but over 300 million people. My opinion is if you had all 300 million DNA, you still wouldn't have a match. There's no rule that says perps only victimize people of their own nationality, or that they don't travel across borders to do crime. There's 6 or 7 billion people in that DNA pool.
His knowledge of the case seems superficial, or at least his devotion to the case seems superficial.
I think he was closer to the solution in 1997, when he stated that the expressions in the ransom note was from someone 'used to exerting authority over others,' and that the expression victory 'harked back to foreign powers' as if it corroborated the other expression 'foreign faction'.
A fence sitter.
I heard him state that the R's were twice victims. Once of losing their daughter, and once by being accused. Then he stated that the DNA found in both JBR's underwear and longjohns that matched one another were 'strong evidence' of an unknown person.
But then, he went on about how the ransom note and the handling of JBR fit a coverup scenario.
He also talked about DNA and how there's only a few thousand DNA in CODIS, but over 300 million people. My opinion is if you had all 300 million DNA, you still wouldn't have a match. There's no rule that says perps only victimize people of their own nationality, or that they don't travel across borders to do crime. There's 6 or 7 billion people in that DNA pool.
His knowledge of the case seems superficial, or at least his devotion to the case seems superficial.
I think he was closer to the solution in 1997, when he stated that the expressions in the ransom note was from someone 'used to exerting authority over others,' and that the expression victory 'harked back to foreign powers' as if it corroborated the other expression 'foreign faction'.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 145
- Guests online
- 2,497
- Total visitors
- 2,642