The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[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]
Hunter may dismiss the field as “a mumbo jumbo area,” but, in answer to the question, “that Patty, on a one to five scale, five meaning excluded, hit 4.5,” Hunter replied, “Well, I think that's close.”

I do not include Rile and Cunningham in my group of credible experts. Yes, they’ve come up in discussion, but so have Epstein and Wong and I don’t consider them credible, either.

Regardless, you wrote: ...as Epstein himself said, EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted by [Rile and Cunningham], because these experts are more interested in groupthink than actually getting things right...

I don’t know that Rile and Cunningham came before the BPD experts. They certainly did not come before Ubowski (and Ubowski did not eliminate Mrs Ramsey). Since Rile and Cunningham were not the first to analyze the note it cannot be true that, as you say, “EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted” by them. Since other “experts” have claimed to identify Mrs Ramsey as author, it cannot be true that all other experts are interested in “interested in groupthink” or that they were unduly influenced by the opinions of Rile and Cunningham. Epstein’s claims in this regard are unsupported speculation devised to dismiss the opinions of those experts not in agreement with his own findings.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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



Damn right.



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.

“Indications, but falls short of identification.” It means exactly what it says.

...

Yes, “trying to make sense of the senseless is a losing game.” But, forum after forum, thread after thread, post after post, years and years and years gone by and RDI continue to play that game. Progress made since Day One? None.
...
AK

 

[Uberfairy]

I didn't find anything in this forum about touch DNA on the ransom note. Did anyone ever think to test the letter? While PR's DNA could be on the sides of the note, presumably from holding and reading the letter, it wouldn't be everywhere on the note. When a person writes, their hand rests on the paper, and slides along as things are written. Wouldn't her DNA be all over the note, not just select places, if PR wrote it?

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Just to update this, if you'd check out my thread, "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" you'd see a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house.

 

[BBB167893]

“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.

What's the difference, Anti-K? Civil cases aren't like criminal cases, where each side is obligated to turn over information.

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.

That's what I'm saying!

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

Hard to say. But the other three refer to the "experts" hired by the Rs.

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.

My point precisely! Which is WHY she SHOULD be of interest to you.

Regardless, Epstein was less than kind to Wong. He didn’t find her credible either.

He still had that old mentality. He changed his mind later on.

Hoffman made no attempt to challenge the BPD or Ramsey experts in the Wolf suit.

How could he challenge them when they weren't there? Or when he didn't have their actual reports? He didn't challenge a lot of things he could have. I'll say it flat-out: a lot of people could have done a better job than he did, RIP.

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.”

Look again, Anti-K. They CLEARLY refer to the field as a whole.

This point is without relevance because Carnes refuted the argument.

"Without relevance," my EYE! In their book they talk about how the experts they hired had impeccable reputations in law enforcement, so they should be believed. THEN, they submit a legal motion claiming that the entire field is illegitimate, regardless of how "impeccable" those reputations might be. They can't have BOTH.

 

[BBB167893]

Hunter may dismiss the field as “a mumbo jumbo area,” but, in answer to the question, “that Patty, on a one to five scale, five meaning excluded, hit 4.5,” Hunter replied, “Well, I think that's close.”

I saw. He was referring to Greta question being close to what he was told by the R's experts, not close to the truth.

I do not include Rile and Cunningham in my group of credible experts.

Good thing! The problem that I'm trying to express to you is that, whether or not YOU find them credible, the other experts did, and that influenced (tainted is the word I use) any of their analyses.

Yes, they’ve come up in discussion, but so have Epstein and Wong and I don’t consider them credible, either.

Well, you've been straightforward so far, and I owe you the same. I'm not necessarily saying that I do find their opinions credible as far as the ability to voice an opinion that so-and-so is or is not the writer with a degree of certainty. I just don't think that's possible anymore. My issue is this: Epstein has always put his own convictions above the politics of his field, and he's usually been right, as far as court decisions go. That's why he decided to go public in this case. And he spent about a hundred hours in examination before he did. Contrast that to however long any of the others worked. As for Wong, she's been found credible in the past. Maybe you disagree with that. But she had a number done on her dishonestly by the Ramsey lawyers and they got away with it. I say wait until her full depo is released, if Wood ever allows that.

Regardless, you wrote: ...as Epstein himself said, EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted by [Rile and Cunningham], because these experts are more interested in groupthink than actually getting things right...

That's right.

I don’t know that Rile and Cunningham came before the BPD experts. They certainly did not come before Ubowski (and Ubowski did not eliminate Mrs Ramsey).

Actually, Ubowski was the only one they DIDN'T come before, if the PMPT timeline is anyway accurate. And even then, his analysis was not complete before they did. Ubowski did the most extensive analysis of any of them, and did not eliminate Patsy, and he believed privately that she wrote it. He just couldn't say so in court. The question you need to ask yourself is this: was he unable to say so because he lacked the confidence in his analysis, or because he knew he'd have to go up against Rile and Cunningham and that would have damaged his profession too much?

Since Rile and Cunningham were not the first to analyze the note it cannot be true that, as you say, “EVERY analysis (at least early on) was tainted” by them.

Oh, but it can. And it most likely is, in some degree.

Since other “experts” have claimed to identify Mrs Ramsey as author, it cannot be true that all other experts are interested in “interested in groupthink” or that they were unduly influenced by the opinions of Rile and Cunningham.

I think you misunderstand me. I meant all ABFDE-member experts, excluding Epstein, Larry Ziegler and Richard Williams, who had the courage to break from the pack. I'm not saying that necessarily makes them right, but it is something to think about. The other experts, like Wong, Miller and Liebman, were not members of ABFDE, thus not bound to their groupthink or to their 50-years-old methods.

Epstein’s claims in this regard are unsupported speculation devised to dismiss the opinions of those experts not in agreement with his own findings.

That's your claim, and that's all it is.

 

[BBB167893]

“Indications, but falls short of identification.” It means exactly what it says.

We know he privately believed she wrote it and everyone else fell much shorter. That also means what it says.

Yes, “trying to make sense of the senseless is a losing game.” But, forum after forum, thread after thread, post after post, years and years and years gone by and RDI continue to play that game.

What's the alternative?

Progress made since Day One? None.

I'll ignore that.

 

[Anti-K]

We know he privately believed she wrote it and everyone else fell much shorter. That also means what it says.



What's the alternative?



I'll ignore that.

The case against the Ramseys has not been advanced one bit since the earliest days of this case. Ignoring this won’t make it go away.
The alternative is to stop trying to make sense out of nonsense.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I saw. He was referring to Greta question being close to what he was told by the R's experts, not close to the truth.



Good thing! The problem that I'm trying to express to you is that, whether or not YOU find them credible, the other experts did, and that influenced (tainted is the word I use) any of their analyses.



Well, you've been straightforward so far, and I owe you the same. I'm not necessarily saying that I do find their opinions credible as far as the ability to voice an opinion that so-and-so is or is not the writer with a degree of certainty. I just don't think that's possible anymore. My issue is this: Epstein has always put his own convictions above the politics of his field, and he's usually been right, as far as court decisions go. That's why he decided to go public in this case. And he spent about a hundred hours in examination before he did. Contrast that to however long any of the others worked. As for Wong, she's been found credible in the past. Maybe you disagree with that. But she had a number done on her dishonestly by the Ramsey lawyers and they got away with it. I say wait until her full depo is released, if Wood ever allows that.



That's right.



Actually, Ubowski was the only one they DIDN'T come before, if the PMPT timeline is anyway accurate. And even then, his analysis was not complete before they did. Ubowski did the most extensive analysis of any of them, and did not eliminate Patsy, and he believed privately that she wrote it. He just couldn't say so in court. The question you need to ask yourself is this: was he unable to say so because he lacked the confidence in his analysis, or because he knew he'd have to go up against Rile and Cunningham and that would have damaged his profession too much?



Oh, but it can. And it most likely is, in some degree.



I think you misunderstand me. I meant all ABFDE-member experts, excluding Epstein, Larry Ziegler and Richard Williams, who had the courage to break from the pack. I'm not saying that necessarily makes them right, but it is something to think about. The other experts, like Wong, Miller and Liebman, were not members of ABFDE, thus not bound to their groupthink or to their 50-years-old methods.



That's your claim, and that's all it is.

The Epstein deposition makes it clear that Epstein’s opinion regarding why other experts could not identify Mrs Ramsey as author is purely speculative.

“...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.” PMPT p.873 (my emphasis)

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

AK

 

[Anti-K]

What's the difference, Anti-K? Civil cases aren't like criminal cases, where each side is obligated to turn over information.



That's what I'm saying!



Hard to say. But the other three refer to the "experts" hired by the Rs.



My point precisely! Which is WHY she SHOULD be of interest to you.



He still had that old mentality. He changed his mind later on.



How could he challenge them when they weren't there? Or when he didn't have their actual reports? He didn't challenge a lot of things he could have. I'll say it flat-out: a lot of people could have done a better job than he did, RIP.



Look again, Anti-K. They CLEARLY refer to the field as a whole.



"Without relevance," my EYE! In their book they talk about how the experts they hired had impeccable reputations in law enforcement, so they should be believed. THEN, they submit a legal motion claiming that the entire field is illegitimate, regardless of how "impeccable" those reputations might be. They can't have BOTH.

Epstein’s analysis was rejected (not found to be credible) because, as Carnes wrote, “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.”

It may be that this was simple incompetence on Hoffman’s part, or it could be that Epstein simply was not able to demonstrate or explain his methodology – a methodology which, if true, must exist independent of the Ramsey case – thus leaving Hoffman with little choice and resulting in his submission instead of “conclusory affidavits from other experts indicating that they agree with Epstein's methodology and conclusion.” Of course, as Carnes further noted: 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."

...

Yes, they refer to the filed as a whole, but Defendants (the Ramseys) were clearly challenging “the opinions of plaintiffs' expert.” Quote: “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. That’s what happens when an argument is refuted – it is made irrelevant.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Just to update this, if you'd check out my thread, "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" you'd see a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house.

No, you did not post about “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread.

Elaina Steinfurth was reported missing NOT kidnapped.

Also, she was found hidden in a box covered by a tarp in the garage of a home owned by her mother’s ex-boyfriend (or owned by someone in the ex-boyfriend’s family; I forget which). Although this was the last house she was known to have been seen in while alive, it was not her own home or the garage of her own home.

So, we still await that one examples of a killer who lived with their victim and who 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 a victim has been disposed of, and we can find examples of this. Such a killer needs to explain the absence his victim’s absence. But, if there is no absence, then nothing is explained, a contradiction is created and suspicion turns inwards, towards the killer. Reporting a fake kidnapping and disposing of a body simply and reasonably go hand-in hand.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

The case against the Ramseys has not been advanced one bit since the earliest days of this case. Ignoring this won’t make it go away.

And WHOSE fault is THAT? Who says I'm ignoring anything? Indeed, my mission is to place the blame for that where it belongs!

The alternative is to stop trying to make sense out of nonsense.

I guess we'd all better close down the forum, then.

 

[BBB167893]

The Epstein deposition makes it clear that Epstein’s opinion regarding why other experts could not identify Mrs Ramsey as author is purely speculative.

It's not clear to me that it's "purely" speculative. He is speaking from experience.

“...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.” PMPT p.873 (my emphasis)

Sadly, with what we know about Hunter, it's just as likely he was hoping for a "solid" elimination.

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

Then I don't know what to tell you, except that I stick by my statement: only specific points of similarity or difference should be allowed, not an opinion one way or the other.

 

[BBB167893]

Epstein’s analysis was rejected (not found to be credible) because, as Carnes wrote, “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.”

Yeah, we've been over that already. Hoffman being called away at the last minute, thus unable to fully present his side didn't help.

It may be that this was simple incompetence on Hoffman’s part, or it could be that Epstein simply was not able to demonstrate or explain his methodology – a methodology which, if true, must exist independent of the Ramsey case – thus leaving Hoffman with little choice and resulting in his submission instead of “conclusory affidavits from other experts indicating that they agree with Epstein's methodology and conclusion.” Of course, as Carnes further noted: 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."

We may never know for sure which one it was.

Yes, they refer to the filed as a whole, but Defendants (the Ramseys) were clearly challenging “the opinions of plaintiffs' expert.” Quote: “Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable.”

Doesn't matter WHO they were challenging, friend. It's what they said. They can't have it both ways.

 

[BBB167893]

No, you did not post about “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread.

Elaina Steinfurth was reported missing NOT kidnapped.

I fail to see the difference, practically speaking. You're just splitting hairs, now.

Also, she was found hidden in a box covered by a tarp in the garage of a home owned by her mother’s ex-boyfriend (or owned by someone in the ex-boyfriend’s family; I forget which). Although this was the last house she was known to have been seen in while alive, it was not her own home or the garage of her own home.

So, we still await that one examples of a killer who lived with their victim and who 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).

Folks, you just can't PLEASE some people.

Reporting, even faking, a kidnapping seems a sensible thing to do if a victim has been disposed of, and we can find examples of this. Such a killer needs to explain the absence his victim’s absence. But, if there is no absence, then nothing is explained, a contradiction is created and suspicion turns inwards, towards the killer.

That's what I'm saying happened with the Rs.

Reporting a fake kidnapping and disposing of a body simply and reasonably go hand-in hand.

It's good to know that you'd be so clear-headed after you just killed your kid. If I roll my eyes any HARDER, I'll look like a human slot machine!

 

[Anti-K]

And WHOSE fault is THAT? Who says I'm ignoring anything? Indeed, my mission is to place the blame for that where it belongs!



I guess we'd all better close down the forum, then.

Who says you’re ignoring anything? You did (post 907, above). I said the case against the Ramseys has not been advanced since the early days and you said you were going to ignore that.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I fail to see the difference, practically speaking. You're just splitting hairs, now.


Folks, you just can't PLEASE some people.



That's what I'm saying happened with the Rs.



It's good to know that you'd be so clear-headed after you just killed your kid. If I roll my eyes any HARDER, I'll look like a human slot machine!

You see no difference between reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped? I don’t believe you.

...

Elaina’s father came to pick up Elaina and her sister. Mom claimed Elaina was sleeping and refused to let Dad see her. After some period of time she was convinced that she should go get the child. She went into the house and then some time later returned saying that the baby was gone.

Elaina was reported missing. She could have wandered off on her own. In fact, this is what people first believed.

Elaina Steinfurth was hidden in a garage. Not in “her” garage, not “at home.” She was hidden in a garage that belonged to her mom’s ex-boyfriend’s family. Elaina did not live there on that property, in that house with that garage. She was not hidden in her own home.

No self-incriminating evidence was created by mom or by ex-boyfriend. No staging, no posing. No intruder, no kidnapping, no crime scene.
...

AK

 

[Linda7NJ]

You see no difference between reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped? I don’t believe you.



...



Elaina’s father came to pick up Elaina and her sister. Mom claimed Elaina was sleeping and refused to let Dad see her. After some period of time she was convinced that she should go get the child. She went into the house and then some time later returned saying that the baby was gone.



Elaina was reported missing. She could have wandered off on her own. In fact, this is what people first believed.



Elaina Steinfurth was hidden in a garage. Not in “her” garage, not “at home.” She was hidden in a garage that belonged to her mom’s ex-boyfriend’s family. Elaina did not live there on that property, in that house with that garage. She was not hidden in her own home.



No self-incriminating evidence was created by mom or by ex-boyfriend. No staging, no posing. No intruder, no kidnapping, no crime scene.

...



AK

I'm sorry, I completely missed whatever point you were trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see the difference.
Zarah Baker was reported kidnapped, iirc there was even a note. There was staging, a parent did murder her, yes she was removed and disposed of first.

IMO many murdering parents make mistakes when trying to conceal the crime.
Seems the Ramsey's didn't think it all the way through...or there was a quick change of plans.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm sorry, I completely missed whatever point you were trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see the difference.
Zarah Baker was reported kidnapped, iirc there was even a note. There was staging, a parent did murder her, yes she was removed and disposed of first.

IMO many murdering parents make mistakes when trying to conceal the crime.
Seems the Ramsey's didn't think it all the way through...or there was a quick change of plans.

The original point was to show that SD did not post about “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread. He was, and is, clearly wrong – Elaina was not reported kidnapped, and she was not found in the house.
More to the point is this: murderers report their victims as missing or kidnapped after they’ve disposed of them, and not before. The report of missing or kidnapped explains the absence of victim.

The Zahra Baker case is interesting in that it illustrates this point exactly. Zahra was murdered and her body disposed of. The ransom note makes an appearance after the body had been disposed of and the ransom note was supposed to explain the disappearance.

This is exactly the opposite of the Ramsey situation.

A ransom note made sense in the Zahra case because there was no body and it is nonsense in the Ramseys case because there was a body.
...

AK

 

[Nom de plume]

Seems to me a lot of murdering parents have learned a very valuable lesson from the Ramseys. Get rid of the body before producing a fake ransom note. They'd be pretty stupid to follow the Rs lead. Look what it got them! Maybe not prison time, but a lifetime of scrutiny at the least.