Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[Mama2JML]

BBM: I'd like to read this public statement. Is it available online? As for Chet Ubowski's alleged denial of saying Patsy was the author of the ransom note, I found this here:

"Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramseys' house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

"Convinced that the ransom note had most likely been written at the house, investigators next took writing samples from dozens of people, including John, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, John Ramsey's children from his first marriage, former friend Fleet White, Bill McReynolds, who portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys' Christmas party, neighbor Joe Barnhill, and others.

"Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with 'historic' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

"Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that 'This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave 'do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'"


By "full range of her handwriting" I assume he's talking about the 24 out of 26 letters.

Why is this your assumption?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Why is this your assumption?

Because Ubowski said it did not, "suggest the full range of her handwriting". Full range being the key words. Did you interpret what he said differently?

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

:floorlaugh:

This is destined to be a classic line in the future, OliviaG. But let's throw Carnes in with the Ramseys for basing her opinion only on information provided by one side of a lawsuit -- yet constantly being quoted as irrefutable.

 

[Mama2JML]

Because Ubowski said it did not, "suggest the full range of her handwriting". Full range being the key words. Did you interpret what he said differently?

Yes. My interpretation is different. "The samples she gave 'do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'" This might indicate a need for access to more (& varied) samples such as historical exemplars?...

I would really like to know if the statements attributed to Ubowski came directly from Ubowski. Of course, context could certainly provide some clarity too.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: I'd like to read this public statement. Is it available online? As for Chet Ubowski's alleged denial of saying Patsy was the author of the ransom note, I found this here:

"Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramseys' house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

"Convinced that the ransom note had most likely been written at the house, investigators next took writing samples from dozens of people, including John, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, John Ramsey's children from his first marriage, former friend Fleet White, Bill McReynolds, who portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys' Christmas party, neighbor Joe Barnhill, and others.

"Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with 'historic' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

"Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that 'This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave 'do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'"


By "full range of her handwriting" I assume he's talking about the 24 out of 26 letters.

I’d love to read that public statement, too. I’ve kept an eye open for it, but don’t recall ever coming across it. Or, any reference to it.

However, the interesting thing about these depositions is that the interviewers are not permitted to lie or intentionally mislead or misrepresent evidence. This is in contrast to the interviews where in the interviewers (yes, Levin included as during the interviews he was acting in an investigative role <1>) are permitted to do these things.
<1> http://tinyurl.com/bpvd2d4
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I LOVE this quote. &#8220;Sorry, I can't provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions.&#8221;
So much stupid all in one place, it&#8217;s almost perfect. Even better when it came from Kolar.

Setting aside the bit about exonerating &#8220;based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime,&#8221; we have this laughable nonsense about the &#8220;totality&#8221; of it all. The totality INCLUDES that &#8220;small piece of evidence,&#8221; it includes all the unsourced trace evidence; the family and behavioral history, the lack of motive, etc. This is all evidence. It is part of the totality regardless of who you think did it.

People like Garnett, who said that the evidence was equivocal, pointing in both directions, and Kane who said there was evidence for this, but on the other hand... These are people who are talking about the totality. Beckner and Kolar are talking about something else entirely. It&#8217;s a good thing I&#8217;m typing because I can&#8217;t speak about this without cracking up. Seriously, I think this quote should be reposted once a month just so we can marvel at how ridiculous it is. Things get too serious around here, sometimes.

As to whether or not that &#8220;small piece of evidence&#8221; is connected to the crime &#8211; it is trace evidence found in an incriminating location. An incriminating location &#8211; that&#8217;s the connection. Why are the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket connected to the crime? Because they were found in an incriminating location.

Sure, it can have an innocent explanation, but we can&#8217;t just assume that. The presumption is that this is evidence was transferred during the commission of the crime. That&#8217;s how the areas examined are chosen. Where would the perpetrator leave a trace? It is the driving principle behind this aspect of an investigation.

Mrs Ramsey, or someone knowledgeable, has to explain her fibers because they connect her to the crime. They connect her to the crime because they were found in an incriminating location. DNA-Man, or someone knowledgeable, has to explain his fibers because it connects him to the crime. It connects him to the crime because it was found in incriminating locations.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

BBM: I'd like to read this public statement. Is it available online? As for Chet Ubowski's alleged denial of saying Patsy was the author of the ransom note, I found this here:

"Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramseys' house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

"Convinced that the ransom note had most likely been written at the house, investigators next took writing samples from dozens of people, including John, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, John Ramsey's children from his first marriage, former friend Fleet White, Bill McReynolds, who portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys' Christmas party, neighbor Joe Barnhill, and others.

"Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with 'historic' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

"Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that 'This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave 'do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'"


By "full range of her handwriting" I assume he's talking about the 24 out of 26 letters.

Regardless of what ST said someone said Ubowski said, when Ubowski spoke for himself at the grand jury he said "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

That's pretty final don't you think?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Regardless of what ST said someone said Ubowski said, when Ubowski spoke for himself at the grand jury he said "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

That's pretty final don't you think?

I just think that proves how unreliable Ubowski is, saying one thing to investigators (according to the sources I've provided) and another to the grand jury. Not how Steve Thomas is unreliable.

 

[inspector rex]

I just think that proves how unreliable Ubowski is, saying one thing to investigators (according to the sources I've provided) and another to the grand jury. Not how Steve Thomas is unreliable.

Really? Well, if you think he is that unreliable then you would dismiss his conclusions regardless of whether he thought she did write it or not, so there is no further need to discuss them.

 

[Anti-K]

I just think that proves how unreliable Ubowski is, saying one thing to investigators (according to the sources I've provided) and another to the grand jury. Not how Steve Thomas is unreliable.

IIRC (from his deposition), Thomas didn&#8217;t get his information from Ubowski or from any official report. Supposedly, Wickman told Eller and Eller told Thomas.

Here&#8217;s another source (emphasis added): The police had hung their hat on the Ramseys as culprits, but they were still unable to provide the DA&#8217;s office with enough evidence to warrant an arrest. Neither Alex Hunter nor the police were ready to admit that the case was unsolvable, however. Knowing that the ransom note was the best piece of evidence that they had, Hunter hoped that the CBI&#8217;s handwriting experts would find something solid, but Chet Ubowski would not take the leap and say that Patsy had written the note. The CBI expert REFUSED TO TAILOR HIS CONCLUSIONS TO THE NEEDS OF THE POLICE AND THE DA. PMPT p.873

The story that Ubowski said that Mrs Ramsey could not be excluded originated with a release of court documents, specifically a Search Warrant Affidavit. The relevant part of that warrant can be found here (old link): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix4.html The warrant notes that Ubowski needed further handwriting samples &#8211; &#8220;primarily printing samples&#8221; &#8211; if he was going to make a &#8220;more conclusive determination.&#8221; As we know from the Epstein deposition (and Hunter&#8217;s, as discussed during Epstein) one of the experts were able to identify Mrs Ramsey as the author and they had placed her low on the scale of probability. During his AMAA Beckner said, &#8220;Handwriting experts noted some similarities, but not enough to say she wrote the note.&#8221;
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

I LOVE this quote. “Sorry, I can't provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions.”
So much stupid all in one place, it’s almost perfect. Even better when it came from Kolar.

Setting aside the bit about exonerating “based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime,” we have this laughable nonsense about the “totality” of it all. The totality INCLUDES that “small piece of evidence,” it includes all the unsourced trace evidence; the family and behavioral history, the lack of motive, etc. This is all evidence. It is part of the totality regardless of who you think did it.

People like Garnett, who said that the evidence was equivocal, pointing in both directions, and Kane who said there was evidence for this, but on the other hand... These are people who are talking about the totality. Beckner and Kolar are talking about something else entirely. It’s a good thing I’m typing because I can’t speak about this without cracking up. Seriously, I think this quote should be reposted once a month just so we can marvel at how ridiculous it is. Things get too serious around here, sometimes.

As to whether or not that “small piece of evidence” is connected to the crime – it is trace evidence found in an incriminating location. An incriminating location – that’s the connection. Why are the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket connected to the crime? Because they were found in an incriminating location.

Sure, it can have an innocent explanation, but we can’t just assume that. The presumption is that this is evidence was transferred during the commission of the crime. That’s how the areas examined are chosen. Where would the perpetrator leave a trace? It is the driving principle behind this aspect of an investigation.

Mrs Ramsey, or someone knowledgeable, has to explain her fibers because they connect her to the crime. They connect her to the crime because they were found in an incriminating location. DNA-Man, or someone knowledgeable, has to explain his fibers because it connects him to the crime. It connects him to the crime because it was found in incriminating locations.
...

AK

Anti-K.
Exoneration is only something the current Pope can undertake. Its not a legal duty of the DA's Office.

The case is RDI as demonstrated by the true bills, the parents are involved!


.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Really? Well, if you think he is that unreliable then you would dismiss his conclusions regardless of whether he thought she did write it or not, so there is no further need to discuss them.

Of course. There are many other handwriting experts involved in this case, so we shouldn't get hung up on only one of them.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K.
Exoneration is only something the current Pope can undertake. Its not a legal duty of the DA's Office.

The case is RDI as demonstrated by the true bills, the parents are involved!


.

Yeah, well, I don&#8217;t trust the Pope, either. Anyway, I made no mention of the exoneration. So, here you are again responding to me with non sequiturs.

The True Bills show that most (all?) of the Grand Jurors thought there was sufficient grounds to charge the Ramseys so that they could be tried. Probable Cause. Apparently, the DA and his advisors, although divided, disagreed with the Jurors.

All the gj decision shows is that there is an RDI case. Some (most?) of us IDI already knew this. We just happen to agree with the DA&#8217;s decision, not so much because the IDI case is strong, bur because the RDI case is so weak.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

Of course. There are many other handwriting experts involved in this case, so we shouldn't get hung up on only one of them.

Yes, best to concentrate on the ones that agree with your position.

It doesn't change the fact that ST stated as a fact in his book something (that RDI rely on as part of their "totallity" of evidence), that the person who supposedly said it denies.

You asked me "Can you give me an example of something written in Steve Thomas's book that was proven incorrect, please? And by whom was it proved incorrect by?".
When I do, you simply dismiss this expert's opinion, blaming him for the confusion actually caused by Thomas' misquoting, misrepresenting or flat out falsifying what Ubowski had said.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
This is why the case is RDI. No amount of nonsense put out by the IDI apologists can delete those Ramsey charges.


Not unless its really BDI?

.

I not much on lying or in dealing with liars. It destroys confidence. But, if they felt the need to lie (although the true bill suggests the adult Ramseys were chargeable) then someone should have put a muzzle on John and Patsy ... loose lips sink ships and all that jazz. :gaah:

 

[UKGuy]

I not much on lying or in dealing with liars. It destroys confidence. But, if they felt the need to lie (although the true bill suggests the adult Ramseys were chargeable) then someone should have put a muzzle on John and Patsy ... loose lips sink ships and all that jazz. :gaah:

BOESP,
I think they, i.e. the parents, were playing the long game, both knew they had been indicted, get that all those IDI protagonists, but decided to play the media along with Lou Smit for all it was worth? Anything that shifted the focus from BDI was fine, since they knew a JDI or PDI was legally unworkable!

 

[OliviaG1996]

Yes, best to concentrate on the ones that agree with your position.

It doesn't change the fact that ST stated as a fact in his book something (that RDI rely on as part of their "totallity" of evidence), that the person who supposedly said it denies.

You asked me "Can you give me an example of something written in Steve Thomas's book that was proven incorrect, please? And by whom was it proved incorrect by?".
When I do, you simply dismiss this expert's opinion, blaming him for the confusion actually caused by Thomas' misquoting, misrepresenting or flat out falsifying what Ubowski had said.

It seems as though you are the one, "concentrating on the ones that agree with your position," considering you try to disprove excerpts from any book/article/interview/etc. that brings suspicion to the Ramseys. Didn't you suggest we not discuss Ubowski any further since I deemed him unreliable? So, I guess we're not done discussing him now? Okay.

I never dismissed his opinion or blamed anyone for anything. I just rebutted your implication of how Steve Thomas was intentionally lying or misleading others in his book. It seems this is the only "incorrect" portion of Thomas's book, since it's the only one you've mentioned, so why are you so sure Thomas was, "misquoting, misrepresenting or flat out falsifying what Ubowski had said"? Because Ubowski and Wood said so?

 

[questfortrue]

I just think that proves how unreliable Ubowski is, saying one thing to investigators (according to the sources I've provided) and another to the grand jury. Not how Steve Thomas is unreliable.

Olivia, Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ. No one here is privy to what he said; his testimony is part of the sealed records of the GJ. If he was not credible, and the members of the GJ felt an intruder wrote the note, then the assumption from the indictment would be that Patsy and JR allowed their daughter to be placed in danger, and then covered for the intruder who wrote the note and killed their daughter.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Olivia, Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ. No one here is privy to what he said; his testimony is part of the sealed records of the GJ. If he was not credible, and the members of the GJ felt an intruder wrote the note, then the assumption from the indictment would be that Patsy and JR allowed their daughter to be placed in danger, and then covered for the intruder who wrote the note and killed their daughter.

I truly don't understand why these GJ documents are not being released in full. Has anyone involved explained why they aren't?

 

[inspector rex]

It seems as though you are the one, "concentrating on the ones that agree with your position," considering you try to disprove excerpts from any book/article/interview/etc. that brings suspicion to the Ramseys.

Well, you ask me to provide a quote to back up my statement about ST's book not being accurate.
When I provide this, you accuse me of concentrating only on things that back my position?
And then go on to argue that the example I gave did not mean that ST's book was unreliably sourced, but that the expert Ubowski himself was unreliable instead!!

Didn't you suggest we not discuss Ubowski any further since I deemed him unreliable? So, I guess we're not done discussing him now? Okay.

I was suggesting that " if you think he is that unreliable then you would dismiss his conclusions regardless of whether he thought she did write it or not, so there is no further need to discuss them.", but you then continue the discussion, by trying to further discredit the expert witness that you previously relied on for incriminating evidence against the Ramseys.
In which case I suggested that it makes sense "to concentrate on the ones that agree with your position."

I never dismissed his opinion or blamed anyone for anything. I just rebutted your implication of how Steve Thomas was intentionally lying or misleading others in his book. It seems this is the only "incorrect" portion of Thomas's book, since it's the only one you've mentioned, so why are you so sure Thomas was, "misquoting, misrepresenting or flat out falsifying what Ubowski had said"? Because Ubowski and Wood said so?

What I said was "ST himself when under oath, was forced to admit that much of what he wrote in support of his theory about the Ramseys was either incorrect or unable to be verified and much of it came by word of mouth third or fourth hand."
I've given you an example which you argued with, finally dismissing the expert as the one whose credibility is being questioned.
I can see if I were to give you further examples, it would lead to the same conclusion.