The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Anti-K]

The only scale references that I can remember were those that had her as a 4 or 4.5 on a 5 point scale. There is some talk of this in some of the Wolf law suit depositions, <1> and I think Hunter mentions it, possibly on Larry King?

Are there &#8220;experts&#8221; who have identified Mrs Ramsey as the author? Certainly. Are there amateurs and case followers, etc who have identified Mrs Ramsey as the author? Certainly.

If you want, you can go with an Epstein who claimed 100 % certainty that Mrs Ramsey was the author. Carnes found Epstein to be a credible witness, but dismissed his opinion because he could not explain how it was derived. <2>

I accept the conclusions (as much as we know of them) of those experts hired by BPD, <3> as these experts met the courts standards and because they meet the necessary criteria as required if An Appeal to Authority (expert) is to be sound:
1. The &#8220;expert&#8221; has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the &#8220;expert&#8221; is within the &#8220;experts&#8221; area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other &#8220;experts&#8221; in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The &#8220;expert&#8221; in question must be identified.
6. The &#8220;expert&#8221; is not significantly biased.

Epstein failed on 3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other &#8220;experts&#8221; in the field in question. The other experts in this case are the experts hired by BPD &#8211; the credible experts &#8211; and Epstein&#8217;s 100% certainty is in contrast to those expert&#8217;s conclusions! If Epstein could demonstrate how he came to his conclusion and if his methods were shown to be sound, then we could argue for its acceptance; but, this just isn&#8217;t the case.

<1> Epstein Depo:
Q (Rawls). You've read the testimony of Alex Hunter --
A (Epstein). I have.
Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit 9; have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understand that from Alex Hunter's perspective, the sum total of the handwriting analysis done by the investigation on Patsy Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being elimination.
A. (Nods head).
Q. Do you not, sir?
A. That's what he says.
Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not eliminated by the experts chosen by the district attorney, but she was close to elimination; correct?
A. That's what he says, yes.
.

<2> Carnes Decision: ...Epstein's explanation for his conclusion seems to be little more than "Trust me; I'm an expert." Daubert case law has indicated that such an assertion, which seems to be based more on intuition than on scientific reasoning, is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court concludes that while Epstein can properly assist the trier of fact by pointing out marked differences and unusual similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's writing and the Ransom Note, he has not demonstrated a methodology whereby he can draw a conclusion, to an absolute certainty, that a given writer wrote the Note.

<3> Four of the experts were &#8220;hired&#8221; by BPD: Handwriting expert P. Osborn told Hoffman (Wolf&#8217;s lawyer in lawsuit) that these experts were, &#8220;top of their field&#8230;with impeccable ethical credentials.&#8221; Hoffman notes in a fax that these experts said, &#8220;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."
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

Steve Thomas' Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation/kindle location 1894

The coziness between the DA's office and Team Ramsey was illustrated once again in early January when the Colorado Bureau of Investigation wanted to see more of Patsy's handwriting. Pete Hofstrom brokered an unbelievable deal that she would not have to enter any law enforcement building, and she gave the sample not in the police department but at the kitchen table in Hofstrom's home.

[snip]

It was so bizarre that even Chief Tom Koby, who rarely got upset, almost shouted at Hofstrom in disbelief when he learned of it. "You took a handwriting exemplar from a murder suspect in your home?"

IRMI/kindle location 2273

Sergeant Wickman concentrated on the ransom note, and when he indicated that our handwriting expert thought Patsy was the possible author, the room went pin-drop silent. Hunter pushed back his chair and groaned, "Awwww, Jesus."

We reported on the preliminary FBI determinations. The FBI had been given a chance to look at the note and determined that it was written in the comfort of the home and probably after the killing, not before. The crime scene reflected careful staging, they said, a criminally unsophisticated killer attempting to cover up what had happened.

IRMI/kindle location 2808

While I steered Don Paugh into a conversation about taxes, Gosage sought some unrehearsed writings by Patsy and struck gold. "If Patsy didn't write the [ransom] note, why not offer some handwriting to prove it?" he asked Nedra. She defiantly thrust a piece of paper at him and declared, "Patsy wrote that just this morning."

As we drove away, Ron examined the list of addresses and telephone numbers Patsy had written. It included the name of her friend Barbara Fernie with an important, telltale correction.

In the 376-word ransom note, the small letter "a" was printed in manuscript style 109 times and written in cursive lower case only 5 times. The entry on Fernie contained just such a printed manuscript "a" as the second letter of the word Barbara, but it had been boldly written over with a black felt tip pen and made into the cursive style "a".

We had noticed earlier that in pre-homicide writings, Patsy consistently used the manuscript "a", but post-homicide, it disappeared from her samples of writing. This was a major find, for it looked as if she was consciously changing her lettering. She had more handwriting styles than a class of sixth graders and was seemingly able to change as easily as turning on and off different computer fonts.

I thought about how big a mistake it had been to provide the defense attorneys with a copy of the note. A suspect could study it prior to giving writing samples and consciously avoid certain characteristics, such as the style of writing the first letter of the alphabet.

[snip]

Chet Ubowski of the CBI, who was being asked to make the call of a lifetime, couldn't do it with courtroom certainty. Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy's handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, "I believe she wrote it."

[snip]

The problem was demonstrated once again when I called Trip DeMuth about our handwriting find from Nedra Paugh and found the prosecutor unimpressed. "She probably doesn't want to make her "a" like that anymore because she knows we are looking at her handwriting and the ransom note," he said.

"Yes, Trip," I agreed. "You're probably right." I hung up the phone very gently to keep from throwing it against the wall.

IRMI/kindle location 4010

The FBI also wondered, since the police had not been offensive or confrontational in December 1996, why had the parents lawyered up so fast?

[snip]

Did "anyone look good on the handwriting?" Detective Gosage said that of the dozens of people examined so far, Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the author of the note. Deputy DA Hofstrom said handwriting analysis was an art, not a science, and had the gall to describe to disbelieving agents how "John and Patsy" had been invited into his own home to give a handwriting sample. They just stared at him.

IRMI/kindle location 5168

The documents he studied from Patsy Ramsey, in his opinion, formed "a precise and unequivocal match" with the ransom note. He read a list of "unique matches" with the note that included such things as her penchant for inventing private acronyms, spelling habits, indentation, alliterative phrasing, metaphors, grammar, vocabulary, frequent use of exclamation points, and even the format of her handwriting on the page.

Chief Koby was so impressed that over lunch he confided in total seriousness, "You know, this is exactly what Hunter has thought from day one - that Patsy did it."

[snip]

The professor examined the construction of the letter "a" in the ransom note and in Patsy's handwriting and noted how her writing changed abruptly after the death of JonBenet.

In the decade prior to the homicide, Patsy freely interchanged the manuscript "a" and the cursive "a". But in the months prior to December 1966, she exhibited a marked preference for the manuscript "a". The ransom note contained such a manuscript "a" 109 times and the cursive version only 5 times. But after the Ramseys were given a copy of the ransom note, Foster found only a single manuscript "a" in her writing, while the cursive "a" now appeared 1,404 times!

That lone exception was in the sample that her mother had unexpectedly handed to Detective Gosage in Atlanta.

Not only did certain letters change, but her entire writing style seemed to have been transformed after the homicide. There were new ways of indenting, spelling, and writing out long numbers that contrasted with her earlier examples, and she was the only suspect who altered her usual preferences when supplying writing samples to the police.

 

[ZBob]

Steve Thomas' Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation/kindle location 1894

IRMI/kindle location 2273

IRMI/kindle location 2808

IRMI/kindle location 4010

IRMI/kindle location 5168

ZBob - I believe in Kolar's book with the addition of more time and further analysis that there were additional points that reinforce the likelihood of her being the writer. The above quotes are much of what was the basis of my belief and I am certain that Kolar's book reinforced it as I found his information to have the benefit and insight of an extra 10 years of information.

 

[Anti-K]

ZBob - I believe in Kolar's book with the addition of more time and further analysis that there were additional points that reinforce the likelihood of her being the writer. The above quotes are much of what was the basis of my belief and I am certain that Kolar's book reinforced it as I found his information to have the benefit and insight of an extra 10 years of information.

I have Kolar’s book and I don’t recall him writing anything like you suggest. In fact, as I recall it, Kolar spends very little time discussing this aspect of the case (I am referring specifically to analysis of the handwriting; see pages 95-96), and he offered nothing new.

I could be wrong, it’s been quite some time since I read the book. If you think I missed something than maybe you can post a page number and I’ll go have a look.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The story that Ubowski said that Mrs Ramsey could not be excluded as author of the ransom ote originated with the release of court documents, specifically a Search Warrant Affidavit. The relevant part of that warrant can be found here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix4.html

The other source for this story is, of course Thomas. Supposedly, Wickman told Eller and Eller told Thomas, and, well we all know how these things go. From the Thomas depo:
2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book
3 came out, sir, were you aware that
4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of
5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey
6 wrote the ransom note?
7 A. No. You're telling me this for
8 the first time.
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski
10 stated that he had never reached the
11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the
12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with
13 the ransom note?
14 A. No, I have not heard that.
15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in
16 your book, didn't you?
17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by
18 my detective sergeant.

So, did Thomas ever talk to Ubowski? Or, is this all heresy? I don&#8217;t know.

<quote; 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. <end quote> PMPT p.873

14 Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF 197; PSMF, 197.) Carnes Decision.

Ubowski is the only BPD expert who may have reported that there were some indications that Mrs Ramsey could have written the note - one expert out of three!

For me, the ransom note is key, and I think it most likely that whoever wrote the note committed the crime. IMO, the only aspect of the note that seems to points towards the Ramseys is that it seems to have been written in the house, and whoever wrote it seems to have done so at leisure, and without concern. IMO, every other aspect points elsewhere; its very existence points elsewhere (people don&#8217;t fake kidnappings unless they&#8217;ve disposed of the body). Curious, indeed.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.

When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just can’t beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?

One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.

Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend “The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts.” Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5

Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but I’ll leave you with this:

Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.

From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.

“No Evidence to Indicate” authorship and “Elimination” are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that…
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.

Remember, how it’s been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Here’s a five point scale:
1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination

There are other scales. A 9 point:
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

A 7 point:
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...
AK

And the Republican Response:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9964931&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - An "Expert" Reassessment[/ame]

I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.

I agree. The problem is, finding out exactly who IS credible.

When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just can’t beat the Carnes Decision.

As what? A demonstration of how the best bull****ters tend to win the day?

There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?

It only failed because Hoffman allowed the other side to control the proceedings. That proves NOTHING.

One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.

You've got to be kidding. The Carnes decision is NO place to gain insight as to who is or isn't credible. Each court decides which expert is credible and is not. That's the big problem. Some judges will let all experts give their opinions. Some won't allow handwriting evidence at all. The rest take the middle road and don't allow opinions as to matches or elimination, only specific similarities and differences.

Incidentally, that's what Hoffman's experts WANTED to do, and were not allowed to do it.

Remember, how it’s been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale?

I'll get to that in a minute.

 

[BBB167893]

The 5 point scale was something Alex Hunter got from the Ramsey's book IIRC

Not just from the Ramseys' book, Cranberry. From the two "experts" they hired. (AKA, SOLD OUT!) Since we're talking about who is credible and who is not, now might be a good time to remind everyone that the two hired experts, Rile and Cunningham, made their "findings" after only examining the materials for three-and-a-half hours. THAT'S IT! You can't tell me that 3-1/2 hours is enough to make a legitimate decision! Even if we grant that Gideon Epstein had more material to work with, he still took over 100 hours to to his analysis.

And this is the crux of the problem: within the profession, Rile and Cunningham are considered (for reasons I can't understand) the tops, which means that, as Epstein himself said, EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted by them, because these experts are more interested in groupthink than actually getting things right, even if it does ruffle some feathers. Frankly, if THIS is typical of the profession, I think it could STAND to be shaken up a bit!

Here, read this:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9964931&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - An "Expert" Reassessment[/ame]

It'll explain things better. For my part, I'm ready to just scrap the "experts" altogether and just go by what I can see. Which is what a jury would most likely have to do anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't know how people can look at the comparisons and deny PR wrote the note. She may have done it left handed, or she may have been actively trying to change her writing (my theory) to disguise it, but I honestly can't understand the denial. It's obvious to me. All, JMHO.

That goes for me, too!

 

[BBB167893]

If you want, you can go with an Epstein who claimed 100 % certainty that Mrs Ramsey was the author. Carnes found Epstein to be a credible witness, but dismissed his opinion because he could not explain how it was derived. <2>

That's precisely the point I made earlier, Anti-K. He was not ALLOWED to explain it. He was never ASKED. In fact, don't take my word for it. Here's what he said:

HOFFMAN: With respect to today's deposition, you haven't been asked to show any of your exhibits, is that correct?

EPSTEIN: That's correct.

H: Have you attended many depositions in the past?

E: Over the years, I've attended a number of them, yes.

H: In all of those depositions you remember, were you asked to show your charts and comment on them?

E: I was asked to certainly show what I was going to testify to and to illustrate and provide copies of what those illustrations would be, yes.

H: But you weren't asked that today, were you?

E: I was not.

H: Is this the first time this ever happened?

E: If it has happened before, I don't recall it.

Epstein failed on 3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.

If you read my "Expert" Reassessment thread, you'd see that may be exactly the problem.

The other experts in this case are the experts hired by BPD – the credible experts –

YOU say they're credible. The problem is, two of them made their decision in less time than it takes me to complete a doctor's appointment, and the rest just seemed to follow their lead. Doesn't sound very credible to me.

and Epstein’s 100% certainty is in contrast to those expert’s conclusions!

Even granting that he overreached himself--and I admit he probably did--if you would read what he said in that regard, you'd probably be surprised.

If Epstein could demonstrate how he came to his conclusion and if his methods were shown to be sound, then we could argue for its acceptance; but, this just isn’t the case.

Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally, none of the "experts" you accept seem to have demonstrated it. In fact, when Hoffman challenged Lin Wood to produce the actual expert reports to prove they actually said what he and the Rs claim, he couldn't do it. Why? Because Hal Haddon would not give them to him. Even AFTER the Grand Jury secrecy law was struck down. Isn't that odd?

 

[BBB167893]

So, did Thomas ever talk to Ubowski? Or, is this all heresy? I don’t know.

I think you mean "hearsay." And I don't think so. Carol McKinley was actually shown a chart by Ubowski that listed who was likely to have written it and who was not. Patsy was the only one in the likely column.

<quote; emphasis added> The police had hung their hat on the Ramseys as culprits, but they were still unable to provide the DA’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’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. <end quote> PMPT p.873

Here's some more:

"The police never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as another missed opportunity" (Schiller 1999a:536-537)

Schiller further notes: "experts from the CBI presented their evaluations into evidence, including Chet Ubowski. He also told Pete Mang, his boss at the CBI, that his gut told him it was her handwriting" (Schiller 1999a:740)

Ubowski is the only BPD expert who may have reported that there were some indications that Mrs Ramsey could have written the note - one expert out of three!

Probably because he's the only one who did more than glance at it.

IMO, every other aspect points elsewhere; its very existence points elsewhere (people don’t fake kidnappings unless they’ve disposed of the body).

Oh, what "how-to" crime manual is that from? I must have missed that one! :banghead:

 

[Anti-K]

And the Republican Response:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - An "Expert" Reassessment



I agree. The problem is, finding out exactly who IS credible.



As what? A demonstration of how the best bull****ters tend to win the day?



It only failed because Hoffman allowed the other side to control the proceedings. That proves NOTHING.



You've got to be kidding. The Carnes decision is NO place to gain insight as to who is or isn't credible. Each court decides which expert is credible and is not. That's the big problem. Some judges will let all experts give their opinions. Some won't allow handwriting evidence at all. The rest take the middle road and don't allow opinions as to matches or elimination, only specific similarities and differences.

Incidentally, that's what Hoffman's experts WANTED to do, and were not allowed to do it.



I'll get to that in a minute.

Well, you determine credibility as I described in post 881, above. The courts, when expert testimony is challenged, use the Daubert Standard to determine credibility. Carnes made clear use of Daubert with regards to Epstein and Wong, as those were the challenged experts. Epstein passed in part and failed in part, and Wong failed in whole.

The remaining experts were deemed credible simply because neither part challenged them. Both sides agreed. I think it would be fair to speculate that Hoffman et. al did not challenge these experts (ot their conclusions) because Hoffman had already been informed that these experts were, “top of their field…with impeccable ethical credentials.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Not just from the Ramseys' book, Cranberry. From the two "experts" they hired. (AKA, SOLD OUT!) Since we're talking about who is credible and who is not, now might be a good time to remind everyone that the two hired experts, Rile and Cunningham, made their "findings" after only examining the materials for three-and-a-half hours. THAT'S IT! You can't tell me that 3-1/2 hours is enough to make a legitimate decision! Even if we grant that Gideon Epstein had more material to work with, he still took over 100 hours to to his analysis.

And this is the crux of the problem: within the profession, Rile and Cunningham are considered (for reasons I can't understand) the tops, which means that, as Epstein himself said, EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted by them, because these experts are more interested in groupthink than actually getting things right, even if it does ruffle some feathers. Frankly, if THIS is typical of the profession, I think it could STAND to be shaken up a bit!

Here, read this:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - An "Expert" Reassessment

It'll explain things better. For my part, I'm ready to just scrap the "experts" altogether and just go by what I can see. Which is what a jury would most likely have to do anyway.

Handwriting scales do exist.

I would be surprised it learn that Hunter testified to something that he read in a book. I would venture that he testified to the 4 or 4.5 on a 5 point scale because he saw those results.

Regardless, I posted the scales because they help to illustrate the various categories and how each ranks.

I’ve made no reference to Rile and Cunningham except in the most tangential way – it is their scale Hunter referenced – and I have not included them in my group of credible experts.

Epstein’s assessment (as you describe it) is disputed by P. Osborns claim that these experts were, “top of their field…with impeccable ethical credentials,” and is, in part, proved false by the number of “experts” who have (supposedly) identified Mrs Ramsey, and even Mr Ramsey as author. It is frightening to think that jurors should be allowed to make determinations of this sort. If an expert cannot do it, than a layperson cannot.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

That's precisely the point I made earlier, Anti-K. He was not ALLOWED to explain it. He was never ASKED. In fact, don't take my word for it. Here's what he said:

HOFFMAN: With respect to today's deposition, you haven't been asked to show any of your exhibits, is that correct?

EPSTEIN: That's correct.

H: Have you attended many depositions in the past?

E: Over the years, I've attended a number of them, yes.

H: In all of those depositions you remember, were you asked to show your charts and comment on them?

E: I was asked to certainly show what I was going to testify to and to illustrate and provide copies of what those illustrations would be, yes.

H: But you weren't asked that today, were you?

E: I was not.

H: Is this the first time this ever happened?

E: If it has happened before, I don't recall it.



If you read my "Expert" Reassessment thread, you'd see that may be exactly the problem.



YOU say they're credible. The problem is, two of them made their decision in less time than it takes me to complete a doctor's appointment, and the rest just seemed to follow their lead. Doesn't sound very credible to me.



Even granting that he overreached himself--and I admit he probably did--if you would read what he said in that regard, you'd probably be surprised.



Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally, none of the "experts" you accept seem to have demonstrated it. In fact, when Hoffman challenged Lin Wood to produce the actual expert reports to prove they actually said what he and the Rs claim, he couldn't do it. Why? Because Hal Haddon would not give them to him. Even AFTER the Grand Jury secrecy law was struck down. Isn't that odd?

<quote>Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document. <unquote> Carnes

Plaintiffs made no attempt to show Epstein’s methodology. Not just in the case of Ramsey, but in any case.

It would have been plaintiffs (and Epsteins! This wasn’t his first circus) responsibility to submit Epstein’s “exhibits” and “charts” and such. They didn’t do that. Should defendants be expected to query Epstein on this, or ask to see his charts or whatever?

“My” group of experts does not include Rile and Cunningham. The experts I have deemed credible are those four used by BPD. I accept them as credible because they meet the criteria for acceptability for an Appeal to Authority, and because in the Wolf suit both plaintiff and defendants agreed on them (neither experts nor expert’s conclusions were challenged), and because others in the field (ex.: P. Osborn) find them credible, and because they all had access to verified and original documents.

I’ve been through Epstein’s deposition more than once.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think you mean "hearsay." And I don't think so. Carol McKinley was actually shown a chart by Ubowski that listed who was likely to have written it and who was not. Patsy was the only one in the likely column.



Here's some more:

"The police never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as another missed opportunity" (Schiller 1999a:536-537)

Schiller further notes: "experts from the CBI presented their evaluations into evidence, including Chet Ubowski. He also told Pete Mang, his boss at the CBI, that his gut told him it was her handwriting" (Schiller 1999a:740)



Probably because he's the only one who did more than glance at it.



Oh, what "how-to" crime manual is that from? I must have missed that one! :banghead:

“I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.” Carl Sagan

We all know Ubowski’s conclusion. Indications, but falls short of identification. I’m not interested in what his gut told him.

.

No, you didn’t miss any “how-to” crime manual.

Do you have any examples of killers who lived with their victim and who have reported their victim kidnapped while the body is still in the house (not in the trunk of the car, or in a garage or stashed outside somewhere “waiting” for the opportune time for a disposal)?

Reporting, even faking, a kidnapping seems a sensible thing to do if they’ve disposed of their victim. They have to explain the absence. But, if there is no absence, then nothing is explained, a contradiction is created and suspicion turns inwards. Reporting a fake kidnapping and disposing of a body simply and reasonably go hand-in hand.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Well, you determine credibility as I described in post 881, above. The courts, when expert testimony is challenged, use the Daubert Standard to determine credibility.

And when they do, in the REAL WORLD, it doesn't always go quite the way you suggest. I quote from the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia:

Courts Have Split on Admissibility of Handwriting Evidence. "Since the Daubert and Kumho Tire decisions, courts have been split on the admissibility of expert testimony of a forensic document examiner. Some courts have found the testimony to be reliable and fully admissible. Some courts have determined that the forensic document examiner's testimony was not sufficiently reliable and therefore fully excluded their testimony. However, other courts have taken a middle position, permitting the forensic document examiner to testify as to particular similarities and dissimilarities between the documents, but excluding the ultimate opinion on authorship." (US v. Thornton) The bold is by me.

Carnes made clear use of Daubert with regards to Epstein and Wong, as those were the challenged experts. Epstein passed in part and failed in part,

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the quote I provided about him not being allowed to present his physical examples, the first time in his career where he was not allowed to do so. It's one thing to strike out. It's another thing altogether to not get up to bat.

and Wong failed in whole.

So I've been told. Funny thing is, I've actually talked to her, and to hear her tell it, her complete deposition has never been released. She carries it with her to show other courts just how Lin Wood and the Ramsey attorneys were not entirely truthful (I'm being polite).

Pretty odd how she's accepted as reliable in all her other cases, isn't it? Actually, it is NOT odd, for reasons I shall explain momentarily.

The remaining experts were deemed credible simply because neither part challenged them. Both sides agreed.

Again, that's not entirely true. Hoffman DID attempt to challenge them. As I've often pointed out, In 2006, during the media frenzy over John Mark Karr, Darnay Hoffman pointed out that the Ramseys had never released their handwriting reports publically, whereas they had released anything else that helped their case. In John Ramsey’s deposition, Hoffman confronted Lin Wood with that knowledge. Wood said that he would do exactly that: make the reports public and shut Hoffman up. That never happened. A clue as to why that did not happen may be found in the deposition. Wood claims that he asked Hal Haddon, the Ramsey criminal lawyer for the reports, but Haddon wouldn’t give them to him. Haddon cited Grand Jury secrecy laws. In mid-2001, Hoffman got a judge to rule Colorado’s Grand Jury secrecy laws unconstitutional. Wood tried again after that ruling, and Haddon still wouldn’t give them up. So I ask again: what are they hiding?

Hoffman didn't challenge a LOT of things that he could have. Might have been better off if he never got involved to start with.

I think it would be fair to speculate that Hoffman et. al did not challenge these experts (ot their conclusions) because Hoffman had already been informed that these experts were, “top of their field…with impeccable ethical credentials.”

You're referring to the message to Tom Miller, right? The "experts" referenced in that are often misunderstood. It actually refers to the experts hired by the RAMSEYS: Rile, Cunningham and Don Vacca.

But even if it WERE true, as Esptein pointed out, the "experts" were tainted by Rile and Cunningham.

And let me ALSO remind you, this is what the Ramseys and their lawyers said themselves in the Carnes case:

Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review. (Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine 68 at 2.) (Carnes 2003:49). (Again, I bolded those parts)

In other words, the Ramseys themselves are the ONLY ones to challenge the expertise of the "experts," regardless of their supposedly wonderful reputations. Look at it carefully, Anti-K: they're not talking about the "experts" Hoffman hired. They're talking about the ENTIRE FIELD, including their OWN hires!

And if my "Expert Reassessment" thread wasn't clear enough, I agree completely. This is not a reliable field. It's time to start over.

 

[BBB167893]

Handwriting scales do exist.

Yes, the Thornton one.

I would be surprised it learn that Hunter testified to something that he read in a book. I would venture that he testified to the 4 or 4.5 on a 5 point scale because he saw those results.

Actually, in 2000, he dismissed it as "mumbo-jumbo" Here you go:

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me turn to the other, what I find particularly significant piece of evidence: the ransom note. In the Ramsey book, Patsy and John Ramsey write that John has been excluded from being the author of the note. And that Patty, on a one to five scale, five meaning excluded, hit 4.5. Do you endorse those two findings? Is that...

HUNTER: Well, I think that's close, but I think that this is a mumbo jumbo area, and we saw Judge Matsch in the McVeigh case, you know, not allow this handwriting stuff in. And I think it is stuff.

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.

I think these handwriting guys, you know, they have tried to build reliability in order to meet Fry and/or Daubert, and in doing what, they have created such standards that -- Well that's why Matsch, I think, looking at his ruling, wouldn't allow that. He let the jury look at the note, or the writings, and make their own judgments.

So I think an awful lot is made of that, when in fact I'm not sure we are ever going to be able to get before a jury what these various handwriting people say about where they fit on a scale.

I’ve made no reference to Rile and Cunningham except in the most tangential way – it is their scale Hunter referenced – and I have not included them in my group of credible experts.

Good thing!

Epstein’s assessment (as you describe it) is disputed by P. Osborns claim that these experts were, “top of their field…with impeccable ethical credentials,” [/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm sure it IS disputed, for reasons I listed in the "Expert Reassessment" thread. For my part, I don't see how anyone could make a decision in just three and a half hours, no matter HOW good they might be!

and is, in part, proved false by the number of “experts” who have (supposedly) identified Mrs Ramsey, and even Mr Ramsey as author.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how that proves it false.

It is frightening to think that jurors should be allowed to make determinations of this sort. If an expert cannot do it, than a layperson cannot.

What's the alternative, Anti-K? That's what I'd like to know.

 

[BBB167893]

<quote>Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document. <unquote> Carnes

Plaintiffs made no attempt to show Epstein’s methodology. Not just in the case of Ramsey, but in any case.

Yes, that's the point I'm trying to make!

It would have been plaintiffs (and Epsteins! This wasn’t his first circus) responsibility to submit Epstein’s “exhibits” and “charts” and such. They didn’t do that.

No, they didn't. I'm not disagreeing with you. What I want to know is WHY they didn't.

Should defendants be expected to query Epstein on this, or ask to see his charts or whatever?

I certainly wouldn't expect them to do so! Even though THEY were the ones paying his expenses.

“My” group of experts does not include Rile and Cunningham.

The experts I have deemed credible are those four used by BPD. I accept them as credible because they meet the criteria for acceptability for an Appeal to Authority, and because in the Wolf suit both plaintiff and defendants agreed on them (neither experts nor expert’s conclusions were challenged), and because others in the field (ex.: P. Osborn) find them credible, and because they all had access to verified and original documents.

All of that is addressed in "An Expert Reassessment."

I’ve been through Epstein’s deposition more than once.

Whatever.

 

[BBB167893]

We all know Ubowski’s conclusion. Indications, but falls short of identification. I’m not interested in what his gut told him.

You should be, because the two are not separate as you suggest.

No, you didn’t miss any “how-to” crime manual.

Damn right.

Do you have any examples of killers who lived with their victim and who have reported their victim kidnapped while the body is still in the house (not in the trunk of the car, or in a garage or stashed outside somewhere “waiting” for the opportune time for a disposal)?

Reporting, even faking, a kidnapping seems a sensible thing to do if they’ve disposed of their victim. They have to explain the absence. But, if there is no absence, then nothing is explained, a contradiction is created and suspicion turns inwards. Reporting a fake kidnapping and disposing of a body simply and reasonably go hand-in hand.
AK

Well, at the risk of sounding dismissive, Anti-K, (and I've only said it a million times) what may seem sensible to you or me sitting calmly at our computers is a far cry from what someone in the heat of the actual moment might think. Add to that, these people had no real knowledge of crime or criminals. In other words, trying to make sense of the senseless is a losing game. Frankly, the murder of a child NEVER makes sense to me. And the day that it DOES, I'll pray for Death.

 

[renah]

Im glad you're here, SuperDave. Thank you.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, the Thornton one.



Actually, in 2000, he dismissed it as "mumbo-jumbo" Here you go:

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me turn to the other, what I find particularly significant piece of evidence: the ransom note. In the Ramsey book, Patsy and John Ramsey write that John has been excluded from being the author of the note. And that Patty, on a one to five scale, five meaning excluded, hit 4.5. Do you endorse those two findings? Is that...

HUNTER: Well, I think that's close, but I think that this is a mumbo jumbo area, and we saw Judge Matsch in the McVeigh case, you know, not allow this handwriting stuff in. And I think it is stuff.

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.

I think these handwriting guys, you know, they have tried to build reliability in order to meet Fry and/or Daubert, and in doing what, they have created such standards that -- Well that's why Matsch, I think, looking at his ruling, wouldn't allow that. He let the jury look at the note, or the writings, and make their own judgments.

So I think an awful lot is made of that, when in fact I'm not sure we are ever going to be able to get before a jury what these various handwriting people say about where they fit on a scale.



Good thing!

Epstein’s assessment (as you describe it) is disputed by P. Osborns claim that these experts were, “top of their field…with impeccable ethical credentials,”

Oh, I'm sure it IS disputed, for reasons I listed in the "Expert Reassessment" thread. For my part, I don't see how anyone could make a decision in just three and a half hours, no matter HOW good they might be!



I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how that proves it false.



What's the alternative, Anti-K? That's what I'd like to know.[/QUOTE]
“In short, the Court is satisfied as to Epstein's ability to testify concerning perceived similarities and differences in Mrs. Ramsey's known handwriting and the Ransom Note. Any criticism of Epstein's analysis by defendants goes to the weight of his testimony.” – Carnes Decision
...
You did not provide a quote showing that Epstein was “not being allowed to present his physical examples.” The quote you provided shows that no one asked Epstein to show anything.

The Ramseys filed a Motion in Limine to exclude Epstein (and Wong). Epstein might have been asked to show his “physical examples” if Hoffman had made a proper response to that Motion. He did not.

“Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.” – Carnes Decision

Also:
26 In his response to defendants' Motion In Limine, plaintiff has provided conclusory affidavits from other experts indicating that they agree with Epstein's methodology and conclusion. Yet, those opinions beg the question. One does not know by what methodology these other individuals reach their conclusion that Epstein can make a determination with "absolute certainty." When the predictive ability of a professed skill is questioned, the belief of multiple practitioners of that skill that its exercise produces a reliable result still provides no basis for determining the ultimate soundness of the determination. Further, these individuals were not disclosed as experts in the case and they did not provide expert reports, as required by Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2) (B) (requiring that, unless otherwise agreed, the proponent of an expert must disclose the expert's name and a written report "prepared and signed by the witness" that, inter alia, includes a "complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons thereof.") – Carnes Decision

...

5 Q. Would you read, sir, please, into
6 the record Mr. Darnay Hoffman's remarks? And
7 I'll show you where I'd like for you to begin.
8 The second full paragraph of Mr. Hoffman's
9 remarks about Paul Osborn.
A. "You might be interested to know
11 that I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A.
12 Osborn, who is, as you probably already know,
13 the grandson of Albert S. and son of Albert D.
14 Osborn. He refuses to touch the Ramsey case
15 with a ten-foot pole. His reasons: He knows
16 the handwriting experts who gave their reports
17 to the defense team and to CBI -- four in all.
18 According to Osborn these experts are supposedly
19 top of their field. (He won't give me their
20 names) with impeccable ethical credentials.

So, you are incorrect. The experts referred to include at least one who was hired by BPD. Maybe,more than one?

...

Wong: of no interest to me. If the Ramseys/Wood or whoever were note entirely truthful than I guess Hoffman let them get away with it. Regardless, Epstein was less than kind to Wong. He didn’t find her credible either.
Hoffman made no attempt to challenge the BPD or Ramsey experts in the Wolf suit.

Actually, the Ramseys only challenged the plaintiff’s experts. “Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable.” This point is without relevance because Carnes refuted the argument.
...

AK