JonBenet Ramson letter - written before or after + linguistics

[BBB167893]

Good. A powerful investigator you shall become. And Hence, you shall be known as SUPERDAVE. Rise, my apprentice.

(Labored, spooky breathing) I am nobody's apprentice. Once more the RDIs shall rule the galaxy!

I did read your posts about method acting and the big picture

Uh-huh! And, and?

(she's dead, John)

I'm afraid you lost me.

I did not know PR/JR was a fan of these movies and could quote them impromptu,

Actually, you will find that most of them are MISquoted.

or that this was a way to get investigators to suspect their housekeeper.

I don't think the note was written with any specific fall guy in mind. I think that the attempted framing of the housekeeper (only one of SEVERAL people whose names were thrown out, I'd like to remind you) just evolved. Although, I can't remember, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, didn't a member of Team Ramsey try to claim that the housekeeper's husband was a fan of those pictures? My memory's murky on that point.

Why would L&L write a 310 word length ransom note,

Well, it's not like we can ask them.

and to what extent would their psychology be also mirrored in PR's/JR's psychology, to the exclusion of an IDI?

Well, as to the exclusion of IDI, again, that's only one small part of the big picture I was telling you about: only when ALL is considered does it add up to the exclusion of IDI, in my own opinion. But as to the psychology aspect of it, simple arrogance will do.

I understand SD's theatrical performance idea,

Do you?

and certainly it could apply to L&L, but it wouldn't exclude an IDI.

Perhaps not alone, which is the point that I and Kane are trying to make.

Apprentice, is John Mark Karr confession qualify under your psychology as "theatrical"?

No, it doesn't. And I think I should explain why: there's a difference between being a method actor and immersing yourself in the character while still managing to keep one foot, however tenuous, in the real world, and being so completely submerged in your own fantasies that you no longer have a clue what reality is and you are basically living inside your own head.

I guess he's a method actor b/c the child in his possession is a way to imagine his role as JB's killer.

No, he's off in a different world altogether. A world most of us would probably not recognize and even more likely would not care to see.

I find your lack of investigation disturbing.

 

[BBB167893]

I thought RDI believed that PR wanted investigators to suspect a SFF?

Your doing it AGAIN! Lumping us all together! But no, HOTYH, in truth, I think PR did not really know WHAT she wanted investigators to think when she wrote it, being in the state she was most likely in, and that she only wrote that because that's how terrorists are "supposed" to talk.

Are you saying that PR wanted investigators to suspect a housekeeper, so she wrote a RN indicating SFF?

No, I'm NOT saying that. I'm saying that's how it evolved. I hate to resort to this tired cliche, but it took on a life of its own.

Makes sense, I guess. Oh yeah, filicidal parents do that a lot. They handwrite hundreds of words pointing in many directions.

It's called amateurs hedging their bets, HOTYH. Or maybe you've never heard of that. You won't ALLOW yourself to understand me. THAT's the problem, in my opinion.

Investigators don't know where to start.

Isn't THAT thr truth.

 

[BBB167893]

My new apprentice is an RDI who thinks PR wrote it to implicate falsely her housekeeper and mislead investigators to her and deflect attention from themselves by including details like $118k suggesting inside knowledge.

YOUR new apprentice?!

All kidding aside, voynich, the way you phrased that shows that at least you understand that we RDI are NOT all of a single collective mind.

And just for the record, I'm saying the housekeeper was one POSSIBLE target of what you describe (the most likely one, in my opinion).

HOTYH, it is useless to resist.

 

[BBB167893]

Elaborating, then PR impersonated a housekeeper impersonating three individuals representing a SFF. Is that right?

Something like that. Ever heard of a double-feint?

 

[BBB167893]

If PR did hand write it, I'm surprised she and John gave no thought that investigators would attempt to match the RN handwriting to her own

Who says they didn't? Leaving aside the strong attempt to disguise the writing, who's to say that the bet-hedging I've been talking about went ONE way only? Or is anyone ELSE up on that whole separate-attorneys thing, if you get my drift...

An IDI would also have problems with carrying out JB's body out of the house as evidently RDI do.

Not the kind of problems I'm talking about.

 

[BBB167893]

Boy, you guys can quote the Star Trek, eh?

I'm with a heathen! Tadpole, not "Star Trek, "Star WARS!" BIG difference between the two!

 

[DeeDee249]

Live long and prosper.....vs .......May the Force be with you.

I'm too old to be a Sci-Fi geek,but...I HAVE had a Close Encounter of the Second Kind.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI believes that PR decided the risk of leaving her own personal handwriting in that quantity was not unacceptable because she believed she had adequately disguised it. RDI says PR believed she was backed into a corner, had to write a long RN, and disguised it as best she could.

Just what part of that do you not understand?

What I'm suggesting is that this idea is too remote. You'd be waiting an eternity for somebody who wished not to be caught, to write 2 1/2 pages in disguised handwriting, and leave it next to a capital crime. And it would still never happen.

I learned a LONG time ago, never say never. Besides, I think Tadpole's on to something. It wouldn't be the first time someone subconsciously confessed. (Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened.)

RDI believes that PR was aware of the risk and disguised her handwriting.

Not necessarily aware of the risk. Disguising her writing would have just been the thing to do.

This imples that PR didn't want to be caught.

When you say it like THAT, it does.

Most criminals who are aware of the risk and don't want to be caught wind up typing the letter or cut and pasting the letter.

As I've told you MANY times, HOTYH, just how clearly were the Rs SUPPOSED to be thinking, anyway? If this had been a premeditated crime, I'd agree with you full-bore.

Good luck finding a precedent where a disguised handwritten note was written by someone closely associated with the victim.

Actually, I think ST said in his book that there WAS an instance like that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

This also grants RDI the idea that PR would've needed a long disguised handwritten note to stage a sexual assault on her daughter in the first place!

I don't think you quite understand. Staging the sexual assault created a CRIME. Writing the ransom letter (LETTER) created a CRIMINAL.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

* No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]

It would've been better for RDI if some of the BPD consulted experts identified PR as the author. They didn't.

Likewise, it would've been better for RDI if the DNA was matched to a parent or even to a known innocent transfer. It wasn't.

It would've also been better for RDI if somebody saw, heard, or read on a receipt that the cord or tape was ever purchased, owned, or even used by a family member. Nobody did.

Obviously it would've been better for RDI if there was some new information after 12 years. Like a confession, evidence, or even an accusation of familial abuse or impropriety. There isn't any.

 

[BBB167893]

I am curious as to which historical exemplars Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi used for their analysis, and whether using other exemplars would change their conclusion.

You are not alone!

Even if PR wanted to write a RN in her own handwriting, it's hard to see that this would be something JR would agree with, since if he has the foresight to stage the crime scene with garrote and other sexual devices, in anticipation of an autopsy which might reveal a past history of sexual abuse, and his foresight of his need for lawyers, he would allow the PR note to stand as evidence since he could foresee attempts on the part of LE to link the handwriting and language to them.

Well, voynich, that's something I have often thought of. I happen to like JMO's answer myself:

Patsy clearly had something on him,which I believe was the chronic sexual abuse found upon autopsy..'don't try to grow a brain,John,you are not the only fat cat..'. ..what else was he GOING to do??? she was making threats to tell on him!! the most he could do was guide evidence in her direction,yet not directly tell on her.

Letting her write the note was his BEST BET to flip on her if the s**t really hit the fan. There's a reason why "honor among thieves" is such a ridiculed idea.

He could have snatched that RN out of PR's hand, yell at her saying don't you know how self-incriminating this is to us? and destroyed it along with other unidentified and missing evidence.

What choice did he have?

I don't see PR had "no choice" about writing a RN, and certainly not a LONG one...

I do. As for a long one, that was her theatrical impulses, as I mentioned earlier.

and even if she wanted to write one, why she didn't have it printed out,

And then what? Trust JR to destroy the computer records?

or why JR would allow it.

No choice. To my way of thinking, she was hanging by a thread when she wrote that note. She was like a land mine with a hair-trigger, and he didn't want to set her off, because land mines don't care WHO they hurt.

Why she called 911 when she did, rather than delaying for more coverup preparation.

That's the easiest one of ALL, voynich. Don't forget that everyone KNEW they were leaving early that morning and that the PILOT was waiting for them. SOMEONE would have come looking for them. My brother pointed that one out to me one night.

The R's had a lot of choices after they killed JB, whenever that happened and why.

I don't see it myself. But then, that's why I accepted your teachings.

While I don't want to get into sexual abuse and post-crime conduct,

Around here, that's like jumping into a hornet's nest and not wanting to get stung.

I do like to point out that Charles Lindbergh's conduct after the kidnapping of his baby was *extremely* suspicious. I do think there should be a manual or online guidance on how [geniunely innocent] parents *should* behave after a kidnapping of their child and when they become the prime suspects.

I'm sure Marc Klaas, Erin Runnion and Brenda Van Dam would be happy to help write it!

For all we know, their lawyers gave them the advice to follow.

Of that, I have no doubt.

One RDI theory that makes sense to me is Burke did it, and the R's are covering up.

You may attract an interesting crowd, voynich.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not entirely convinced JB was a victim of chronic sexual abuse, certainly their pediatrician never mentions it or suspected it, and there are other possible alternative explanations, such as irritation due to bedwetting/soiling.

DeeDee is absolutely right:

As far as the vaginal issues - NO bedwetting or irritation, tight clothes, etc. can cause EROSION (wearing away) the hymen. That is the result of something pressing or rubbing the hymen which is inside the vagina. Bubble baths can cause irritation , as is well known by all mothers of little girls. But bubble baths do not erode the hymen.

100% I talk about this at length in the book.

Err...thanks. Okay. I did not know this.

A lot of people don't.

I don't have any more questions about this.

You should.

I guess the take-home lesson here folks is don't give your daughter a bubble bath.

I fail to see the humor in that.

Even if she were, we cannot say who, could be anybody.

NOW, you're talking. I've been saying that for a long time.

Going back to the RN, is there a reason for PR to write in the RN (if she already had him cooperating and told him orally) to include "fat cats" "don't underestimate us, use that good sense of yours" etc when she already had his cooperation? They already were together staging the crime scene and getting their story straight on what to tell the LE

Yeah, because it never hurts to remind someone. (MY OPINION!)

 

[BBB167893]

I do think the handwriting is suspiciously similar. I do wonder why many credible handwriting experts have ruled out PR.

NO credible handwriting experts have ruled out PR.

 

[KoldKase]

The Carnes decision in itself cites several who do so.
The JB wiki has several listed.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Patsy+Ramsey+as+RN+Author

Evidence Patsy Ramsey is Not the RN Writer
Summary Findings Favorable to Patsy Ramsey

* No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]



* Odds "Very Low" Patsy Wrote Note

1. Carnes Decision. "Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) 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 P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes 2003:26).

* Numerous Significant Dissimilarities Rule Out Patsy. "The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)" (Carnes 2003:27).



* Expertise of Examiners. The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."

1. Osborn Expertise. Paul A. Osborn himself is at the top of his field with over 50 years of experience: "he has been qualified as an expert and has testified on the subject of disputed documents in civil and criminal courts on more than four hundred and fifty occasions in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and seventeen other states, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, Virgin Islands and Canada....In 1992, Mr. Osborn was awarded the Gesellschaft F�r Forensische Shriftuntersuchung E. V. Medal of Recognition for Outstanding Merit from the European Society of forensic document examiners."
2. Experts Being Referenced by Osborn. The four experts alluded to in Hoffman's fax are Dusak, Ubowski, Speckin and Alford.


Individual Expert Opinions Favorable to Patsy Ramsey
Experts Consulted By BPD/BDA (6 experts inclusive of 2 hired by Ramseys)
Richard Dusak

* Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).



* Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."

Oh, Judge CARNES is your source? No wonder you're confused. That civil suit was the biggest disinformation debacle in this case.

Sorry, Carnes has so many errors in her report, if she said the sun was shining I'd question that. She got her info from Lou Smit and the RST. Smit has proven to be so ludicrously biased and incompetently wrong so often in this case, it's painful to see the old bird make such a fool of himself.

But let's talk about those "low scores": read any handwriting expert's opinion of identifying the writer of BLOCK PRINTING, especially when the person writing is TRYING TO DISGUISE HER WRITING, and you'll find that it's very difficult to determine WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY the writer. Handwriting analysts don't USE linguistics, by the way.

Just for an example of Carnes' bad info, upon which she HAD to determine whether or not to CONTINUE TO TRIAL IN THE CIVIL CASE--and that's ALL SHE DID: THERE IS NO SCALE OF 5 UPON WHICH ANY PROFESSIONAL HANDWRITING ANALYST HAS SET HIS OPINIONS. Not in this case, not in any case. This "scale of five" was nothing more than a "for instance, IF the scale was 5" example ALEX HUNTER USED ON TV ONCE. Hunter is no handwriting analyst, but he's been a passive-aggressive Ramsey supporter from the moment he obstructed the investigation by refusing to allow the BPD to get subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records and clothes. Hunter made that scale up when speaking extemporaneously and Team Ramsey ran with it. It made its way to Carnes' court, where NO TRIAL WAS EVER HELD, ONLY A CASE DISMISSAL WITH HER WRITTEN OPINION OF EVIDENCE NEVER TESTED AT TRIAL, civil OR criminal.

If you read the double talk, backwards and forward it goes: Patsy PROBABLY didn't write the note on a NON-EXISTENT SCALE OF 5, blahblahblah. Where are those individual REPORTS showing the examples mentioned that ELIMINATE Patsy? We have several that are VERY incriminating of Patsy, made by several different court certified handwriting analysts (and one impeccable expert, not to mention CBI's Chet Ubowski) with plenty of credentials, but CARNES WOULDN'T ACCEPT THEM because they didn't see the original note. Ubowski's report was not available to Carnes, along with ANY of the LE original case files. All Carnes had was Lou Smit's and Lin Wood's well-financed spin, up against lame and incompetent Darnay Hoffman--who at least got the Ramseys under OATH telling lies, I'll give him that, which no one ELSE has managed to do in this case.

To the ISSUE of that ORIGINAL NOTE: those who DID see it are few, and THEY COULD NOT ELIMINATE PATSY.

But if you want to believe Ramsey spin, believe what they tell you instead of your lying eyes.

Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As I've told you MANY times, HOTYH, just how clearly were the Rs SUPPOSED to be thinking, anyway? If this had been a premeditated crime, I'd agree with you full-bore.

Forget about the R's for a minute. You seem to be caught up in their status, personalities, and behaviors.

Think about what RDI believes happened, aside from JR or PR.

RDI believes that a person who lived in the house, who was complacent in an accidental death or murder, decided that a fake ransom note was needed, and that the note should be handwritten.

To be honest with you: This is what RDI really boils down to and its plenty absurd. There's no precedent for this behavior. There's no corroborating evidence this ever even happened. Its literally a fabricated idea, based on the preconceived notion that the person is guilty and therefore must have decided at some point to handwrite a fake ransom note.

This is not analytical or realistic. It uses circular reasoning instead of evidence.

Imagine yourself picking up a pen and paper and starting to write 1500 characters, that you know is going to be held up next to a child murder. Would you do that? Of course not.

Nobody ever has done that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's called amateurs hedging their bets, HOTYH. Or maybe you've never heard of that. You won't ALLOW yourself to understand me. THAT's the problem, in my opinion.

If I were RDI, I'd be thinking this:

All of the BPD hired experts declined to state that PR wrote the note.

That is not a win. Its a big loss.

They found unknown male DNA at the crime scene, in conspicuous places. If only the DNA was from PR or JR. They'd close the case.

Certainly not a win. A huge loss.

Cant link JR or PR to ownership or use of the cord OR tape. A win would've been sourcing these items to the house, especially in a rage accidental death, because all items would have to be on hand. Unable to source either item?

Two more losses.

Is there a win anywhere?

Why would I choose RDI when they're losing so often?

 

[voynich]

Wow, I leave for a couple of hours and KoldKase and SD give me quite a bit to chew on.

I do want to say this though

YOUR new apprentice?!

Only an RDI deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

All kidding aside, voynich,

Dude that's most entertaining. :blowkiss:

HOTYH, it is useless to resist.

Your thoughts betray you. I feel the IDI in you, the conflict. You couldn't bring yourself to embrace RDI before and I don't believe you'll do it now.

You underestimate the power of RDI. If you will not turn, then you will meet your destiny.

 

[voynich]

I fail to see the humor in that.

(MY OPINION!)

I'm just the messenger about bubble baths and young girls. It's not something I think about.

If you're a parent, and you give your daughter bubble baths, and she ends up murdered, guess who will be the prime suspects? (NOT THAT I"M DISPUTING WHAT COLD CASE SAID!)

 

[voynich]

(Labored, spooky breathing) I am nobody's apprentice. Once more the RDIs shall rule the galaxy!

Not if anything to say about it, I have. At an end to your pet theory, and not a moment too soon.

I'm afraid you lost me.

I'm a doctor, not an actor.

I find your lack of investigation disturbing.

This touch DNA and forensic linguistic analysis is now the ultimate power of the investigation. I suggest we use it.

Don't try to frighten me with your investigator's ways, Detective Dave. Your sad devotion to that discredited theory hasn't given you a definitive account of what happened that night, nor the clairvoyance to conjure up the missing data.

 

[voynich]

Oh, Judge CARNES is your source? No wonder you're confused. That civil suit was the biggest disinformation debacle in this case.

Sorry, Carnes has so many errors in her report, if she said the sun was shining I'd question that. She got her info from Lou Smit and the RST. Smit has proven to be so ludicrously biased and incompetently wrong so often in this case, it's painful to see the old bird make such a fool of himself.

But let's talk about those "low scores": read any handwriting expert's opinion of identifying the writer of BLOCK PRINTING, especially when the person writing is TRYING TO DISGUISE HER WRITING, and you'll find that it's very difficult to determine WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY the writer. Handwriting analysts don't USE linguistics, by the way.

Just for an example of Carnes' bad info, upon which she HAD to determine whether or not to CONTINUE TO TRIAL IN THE CIVIL CASE--and that's ALL SHE DID: THERE IS NO SCALE OF 5 UPON WHICH ANY PROFESSIONAL HANDWRITING ANALYST HAS SET HIS OPINIONS. Not in this case, not in any case. This "scale of five" was nothing more than a "for instance, IF the scale was 5" example ALEX HUNTER USED ON TV ONCE. Hunter is no handwriting analyst, but he's been a passive-aggressive Ramsey supporter from the moment he obstructed the investigation by refusing to allow the BPD to get subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records and clothes. Hunter made that scale up when speaking extemporaneously and Team Ramsey ran with it. It made its way to Carnes' court, where NO TRIAL WAS EVER HELD, ONLY A CASE DISMISSAL WITH HER WRITTEN OPINION OF EVIDENCE NEVER TESTED AT TRIAL, civil OR criminal.

If you read the double talk, backwards and forward it goes: Patsy PROBABLY didn't write the note on a NON-EXISTENT SCALE OF 5, blahblahblah. Where are those individual REPORTS showing the examples mentioned that ELIMINATE Patsy? We have several that are VERY incriminating of Patsy, made by several different court certified handwriting analysts (and one impeccable expert, not to mention CBI's Chet Ubowski) with plenty of credentials, but CARNES WOULDN'T ACCEPT THEM because they didn't see the original note. Ubowski's report was not available to Carnes, along with ANY of the LE original case files. All Carnes had was Lou Smit's and Lin Wood's well-financed spin, up against lame and incompetent Darnay Hoffman--who at least got the Ramseys under OATH telling lies, I'll give him that, which no one ELSE has managed to do in this case.

To the ISSUE of that ORIGINAL NOTE: those who DID see it are few, and THEY COULD NOT ELIMINATE PATSY.

But if you want to believe Ramsey spin, believe what they tell you instead of your lying eyes.

Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

Hi, I'm only stating that in then Carnes decisions, she references the hand writing experts and their conclusion. I'm not making any representation about the accuracy of this information, only that it exists.

 

[eleven]

DeeDee is absolutely right:

As far as the vaginal issues - NO bedwetting or irritation, tight clothes, etc. can cause EROSION (wearing away) the hymen. That is the result of something pressing or rubbing the hymen which is inside the vagina. Bubble baths can cause irritation , as is well known by all mothers of little girls. But bubble baths do not erode the hymen.

As you stated, SuperDave, you talk about this at length in your book. So, you must've done research on this particular subject, so hopefully you can provide some insight into my question.

Bear with me here, I realize this is a touchy subject and I will try to phrase my question with as much dignity and maturity as possible. Forgive me if I offend anyone, that is not my intent.

Question: All hymens are not "constructed" in the same fashion, i.e., they are very different in appearance from girl to girl. See, it's like noses. Everyone has a different shaped nose, some are big, some are little, some are boney, some are bumpy---they vary greatly in size, shape, appearance, consistency...etc, etc. You get the picture.

Can you tell me HOW it is that this particular anatomy can be distinguished from being "eroded" versus being "different" in appearance? In other words, is it not possible that it can APPEAR eroded, however, the appearance of erosion is simply the specific physicality and physical makeup of it? Like, if I have a bumpy nose, a doctor may visualize my nose and subsequently deem, in his/her professional opinion, that it had been broken or fractured in the past, however, maybe I was born with a bumpy nose and it had never been broken or fractured before in my life???

ETA: Again with the nose reference....I may have very thin nostrils. Thinner than many other people. My thin nostrils could APPEAR as if they have been "eroded"....??? NO?