We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[BBB167893]

And, what if Mrs Ramsey did have 200 similarities? Is this high, is this low; is this out of the norm (remember, we’re dealing with printing!)? How much weight do we assign to similarities, anyway? Based on what?

I'm in an answering mood, so allow me to expand on what I said earlier.

--I'm under the impression that 200+ similarities is quite high.

--As for what is the "norm," I'm well aware that printing provides extra challenges to document examiners, Anti-K. Mostly because we're all taught to write our letters the same way. Taking that into account, I would not consider 10 or 20 similarities out of the ordinary. 50 or 60 might make me give a second look. 100 or more would start ringing the bell.

--As for how much weight to give them, I guess that would depend both on how many and how many kinds.

As an aside, I would mention that I am not relying solely on similarities to PR's writing. Far from it.

I apologize for being slightly abrasive earlier.

 

[Mama2JML]

I didn't want to dive in until I knew how deep it was. Also, your question seemed to be a non-sequitur: I didn't understand what that had to do with PR not wanting to go on the stand in front of a jury.

She didn't want to go on the stand in front of a jury?...

So, while you ponder that, I shall try to provide an answer. Aside from Hoffman himself requesting materials from the Ramseys during the process of discovery, if my memory serves, the photo album, along with other exemplars, were already in possession of Tom Miller. And he was involved (still is) with Judith Phillips, a friend of the Ramsey family, who took a lot of their photographs. There you go.

SO, there really is no certainty with regard to the origin of the photo album.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm in an answering mood, so allow me to expand on what I said earlier.

--I'm under the impression that 200+ similarities is quite high.

--As for what is the "norm," I'm well aware that printing provides extra challenges to document examiners, Anti-K. Mostly because we're all taught to write our letters the same way. Taking that into account, I would not consider 10 or 20 similarities out of the ordinary. 50 or 60 might make me give a second look. 100 or more would start ringing the bell.

--As for how much weight to give them, I guess that would depend both on how many and how many kinds.

As an aside, I would mention that I am not relying solely on similarities to PR's writing. Far from it.

I apologize for being slightly abrasive earlier.

No offence, but it sort of sounds like you’re just making things up. It doesn’t really matter too much because IMO believing that one can make a determination on authorship without any training or experience in the field and just using materials from the internet, etc is the height of intellectual arrogance and I just don’t buy it.

Appeals to Authority may be sound if the following six criteria are met:
1. The “expert” has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the “expert” is within the “experts” area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The “expert” in question must be identified.
6. The “expert” is not significantly biased.

In this case, you and everyone else who claims to have identified or not identified Mrs Ramsey (or, anyone) is the expert. You fail to meet almost all of the criteria. And, one of them – the field in question - is somewhat controversial to being with!

Good grief, I say. Holy cow.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

She didn't want to go on the stand in front of a jury?...

No, I don't think she did.

SO, there really is no certainty with regard to the origin of the photo album.

Excuse me, Mama2JML, but WHERE did I say that? And, to be brutally honest, I figured that's where you were heading with that, so I did some more checking. Turns out the police gave Hoffman the exemplars in discovery. As for more than that, maybe someone with a better memory can help us out?

What were you going to say, Mama2JML? That the photo album was a forgery, a fake? Lotsa luck with that.

 

[UKGuy]

She didn't want to go on the stand in front of a jury?...

SO, there really is no certainty with regard to the origin of the photo album.

Mama2JML,
Really? Playing games again, not much is certain in life other than taxes and death, and the photo album, well maybe smit found it in a skip, who cares anymore?

.

 

[BBB167893]

No offence, but it sort of sounds like you’re just making things up.

Offense TAKEN, Anti-K. But I'm not mad YET.

It doesn’t really matter too much because IMO believing that one can make a determination on authorship without any training or experience in the field and just using materials from the internet, etc is the height of intellectual arrogance and I just don’t buy it.

Your thoughts on intellectual arrogance aside, the people who would make the determination of authorship WOULD (at least very likely) be people without any training or experience in the field. They're called jurors.

We seem to have gone off the rails somewhere along the line here. I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming to be any kind of expert. It was never my intent to claim that. The point I'm trying to make in our conversation is what a jury would likely think. You said much the same thing yourself, for crying out loud! (And forgive me if I don't go back and get the exact quote.)

Let's review:

I see where you are coming from AK but a jury trial might have added in some common sense along with the expert opinions supplied.

If none of these six experts could do it, how could anyone. If the experts couldn’t do it, how could a juror? How could you? Or, anyone. If the experts can’t be trusted or believed then how do we trust or believe the layperson?

I'll tell you how: common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions.

Incidentally, that was one idea Alex Hunter had that I actually agree with:

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.

Bottom line: whether or not I trust or believe an expert, I believe and trust my own eyes!

At that point, you went off talking about how I needed to explain how the odds were astronomical. And, to be honest, that is my fault. I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking as a juror, not an expert.

So, let's clear it up once and for all. When I said, common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions, (which was just a GUESS, BTW--I'm not a *ing math expert) what I should have said was, when confronted by what has been illustrated on this thread so far, a layperson juror would conclude that the odds were astronomical.

There, is everybody happy now? In fact, Anti-K, since you want proof of that, let's put it to a vote. All who agree, say yay. All who disagree, say nay.

Appeals to Authority may be sound if the following six criteria are met:
1. The “expert” has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the “expert” is within the “experts” area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The “expert” in question must be identified.
6. The “expert” is not significantly biased.

In this case, you and everyone else who claims to have identified or not identified Mrs Ramsey (or, anyone) is the expert. You fail to meet almost all of the criteria.

I'll let the others answer in their own ways. As for me, I'm not claiming to be an expert in document examination, and I never have claimed to be. We're just taking what the experts have said and applying our judgment---exactly what a jury would do. And I'm confident that had the Wolf case gone to a jury, they'd reach the same conclusions. You can agree with that or not.

And, one of them – the field in question - is somewhat controversial to being with!

I don't see anybody arguing that point, Anti-K. That's WHY we have juries, at least in theory.

Good grief, I say. Holy cow.

Leave the cow out of it.

 

[UKGuy]

Offense TAKEN, Anti-K. But I'm not mad YET.



Your thoughts on intellectual arrogance aside, the people who would make the determination of authorship WOULD (at least very likely) be people without any training or experience in the field. They're called jurors.

We seem to have gone off the rails somewhere along the line here. I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming to be any kind of expert. It was never my intent to claim that. The point I'm trying to make in our conversation is what a jury would likely think. You said much the same thing yourself, for crying out loud! (And forgive me if I don't go back and get the exact quote.)

Let's review:





At that point, you went off talking about how I needed to explain how the odds were astronomical. And, to be honest, that is my fault. I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking as a juror, not an expert.

So, let's clear it up once and for all. When I said, common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions, (which was just a GUESS, BTW--I'm not a *ing math expert) what I should have said was, when confronted by what has been illustrated on this thread so far, a layperson juror would conclude that the odds were astronomical.

There, is everybody happy now? In fact, Anti-K, since you want proof of that, let's put it to a vote. All who agree, say yay. All who disagree, say nay.



I'll let the others answer in their own ways. As for me, I'm not claiming to be an expert in document examination, and I never have claimed to be. We're just taking what the experts have said and applying our judgment---exactly what a jury would do. And I'm confident that had the Wolf case gone to a jury, they'd reach the same conclusions. You can agree with that or not.



I don't see anybody arguing that point, Anti-K. That's WHY we have juries, at least in theory.



Leave the cow out of it.

SuperDave,
Some people are so stupid they reckon any form of discourse is relevant. Can we be certain about this piece of evidence, did it arrive yesterday or today, did a Ramsey touch it, etc?

On the ransom note, it requires no elucidation, it is staged artifact, so any debate should focus on how the mythical intruder knew in advance the intended R's writing style.

We all have a writing style, it is taught in kindergarten, your style is not the same as that of George Washington, or that of Abraham Lincoln, so for the mythical intruder to adopt the same style as that of PR or JR who both had different writing styles, reflecting their different origins, is to determine up front that JonBenet's death was planned!

Writing can be faked, easy, no problem. I can learn to write in Adolph Hitler's, or Joseph Stalin's longhand, so to authenticate some artistic masterpiece, or work of literature.

After style there are 26 characters that require perfection, yet people make mistakes, and it is by the mistakes we recognise people. So PR or JR would exhibit a constant number of mistakes in their writing, e.g. x in 26.

So once again the mythical intruder would have to analyse and copy all of JR or PR's hand writing mistakes!

Hey wait, why would the mythical intruder need to copy any R's writing style, would they not have their own?





.

 

[InstantProof]

SO, there really is no certainty with regard to the origin of the photo album.

If it were not their book then it could be proof of the killers identity, or evidence tampering, and the R's just let it slide?

 

[BOESP]

She didn't want to go on the stand in front of a jury?...

SO, there really is no certainty with regard to the origin of the photo album.

It's my understanding that Patsy was deposing under oath when shown the photos and captions. The photos had to have been of forensic quality to be used in a sworn deposition.
I'm uncertain why the photos are being questioned. :thinking:

 

[BOESP]

No offence, but it sort of sounds like you’re just making things up. It doesn’t really matter too much because IMO believing that one can make a determination on authorship without any training or experience in the field and just using materials from the internet, etc is the height of intellectual arrogance and I just don’t buy it.

Appeals to Authority may be sound if the following six criteria are met:
1. The “expert” has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the “expert” is within the “experts” area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The “expert” in question must be identified.
6. The “expert” is not significantly biased.

In this case, you and everyone else who claims to have identified or not identified Mrs Ramsey (or, anyone) is the expert. You fail to meet almost all of the criteria. And, one of them – the field in question - is somewhat controversial to being with!

Good grief, I say. Holy cow.
...

AK

Frankly, it sounds like you are making a judgement that it is *not* Patsy's writing based what you call "intellectual arrogance." Or you are saying we can't say one way or the other because of "intellectual arrogance." Either way, your statements seem designed to arouse anger or insult. Most of us, whether IDI or RDI or undecided, can figure out most of this stuff. :giggle:

I believe websleuths is for discussion and not criminal decisions that will uphold in court. Insults fall in the realm of ad hominem argument.

 

[InstantProof]

A jury probably would have heard different experts give different opinions. Which adds up to nothing. The R's lying would have told the real story.

 

[DeDee]

Most respectfully, I may be wrong but, to me, it seems some posters are intent on having the JonBenet forum shut down. Instead, I hope Tricia issues TOs but that's her decision.

This thread has turned into a battleground. It is most unpleasant to read. Please stop arguing to the point of offending other posters.

 

[Anti-K]

Offense TAKEN, Anti-K. But I'm not mad YET.



Your thoughts on intellectual arrogance aside, the people who would make the determination of authorship WOULD (at least very likely) be people without any training or experience in the field. They're called jurors.

We seem to have gone off the rails somewhere along the line here. I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming to be any kind of expert. It was never my intent to claim that. The point I'm trying to make in our conversation is what a jury would likely think. You said much the same thing yourself, for crying out loud! (And forgive me if I don't go back and get the exact quote.)

Let's review:





At that point, you went off talking about how I needed to explain how the odds were astronomical. And, to be honest, that is my fault. I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking as a juror, not an expert.

So, let's clear it up once and for all. When I said, common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions, (which was just a GUESS, BTW--I'm not a *ing math expert) what I should have said was, when confronted by what has been illustrated on this thread so far, a layperson juror would conclude that the odds were astronomical.

There, is everybody happy now? In fact, Anti-K, since you want proof of that, let's put it to a vote. All who agree, say yay. All who disagree, say nay.



I'll let the others answer in their own ways. As for me, I'm not claiming to be an expert in document examination, and I never have claimed to be. We're just taking what the experts have said and applying our judgment---exactly what a jury would do. And I'm confident that had the Wolf case gone to a jury, they'd reach the same conclusions. You can agree with that or not.



I don't see anybody arguing that point, Anti-K. That's WHY we have juries, at least in theory.



Leave the cow out of it.

Yes, well, scary thought that laypersons should be permitted to draw conclusions in a matter for which they are not qualified, regardless of what case is being discussed.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Frankly, it sounds like you are making a judgement that it is *not* Patsy's writing based what you call "intellectual arrogance." Or you are saying we can't say one way or the other because of "intellectual arrogance." Either way, your statements seem designed to arouse anger or insult. Most of us, whether IDI or RDI or undecided, can figure out most of this stuff. :giggle:

I believe websleuths is for discussion and not criminal decisions that will uphold in court. Insults fall in the realm of ad hominem argument.

No, I’m making a judgment. I have no problem with people saying that in their opinion Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. Opinions are fine. The problem arises when someone says that they KNOW that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note.
I’m saying that decisions on authorship made by persons (including MYSELF!) not qualified to make such decisions hold no meaning for me and I don’t think they should hold any meaning for anyone. I’m not sure how this can be construed as insulting or trying to cause trouble.

????
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Offense TAKEN, Anti-K. But I'm not mad YET.



Your thoughts on intellectual arrogance aside, the people who would make the determination of authorship WOULD (at least very likely) be people without any training or experience in the field. They're called jurors.

We seem to have gone off the rails somewhere along the line here. I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming to be any kind of expert. It was never my intent to claim that. The point I'm trying to make in our conversation is what a jury would likely think. You said much the same thing yourself, for crying out loud! (And forgive me if I don't go back and get the exact quote.)

Let's review:





At that point, you went off talking about how I needed to explain how the odds were astronomical. And, to be honest, that is my fault. I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking as a juror, not an expert.

So, let's clear it up once and for all. When I said, common sense. Specifically, the odds of someone from outside the house having that many similarities to PR has got to be astronomical. One out of billions, (which was just a GUESS, BTW--I'm not a *ing math expert) what I should have said was, when confronted by what has been illustrated on this thread so far, a layperson juror would conclude that the odds were astronomical.

There, is everybody happy now? In fact, Anti-K, since you want proof of that, let's put it to a vote. All who agree, say yay. All who disagree, say nay.



I'll let the others answer in their own ways. As for me, I'm not claiming to be an expert in document examination, and I never have claimed to be. We're just taking what the experts have said and applying our judgment---exactly what a jury would do. And I'm confident that had the Wolf case gone to a jury, they'd reach the same conclusions. You can agree with that or not.



I don't see anybody arguing that point, Anti-K. That's WHY we have juries, at least in theory.



Leave the cow out of it.

I don’t know how the jurors would be instructed. Perhaps they would be told that they must consider the expert’s opinion, or maybe they would be told that they could ignore the expert’s opinion; or, that the field is questionable and so the handwriting should be ignored. So many ways it could play out.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a jury identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, if left to their own devices. But, what would that mean? That a group of people made a decision on something that they weren’t qualified to make a decision on? I don’t think that this sort of thing should ever be allowed.

If jurors are permitted to make these kinds of decisions on their own, then I hope some method of ensuring impartiality would be devised. Show them samples from 10 different people and let them choose which one (if any) they think was written by Mrs Ramsey (or, any known sample). Let them use the same 10 samples and have them match one (or, none) to the ransom note.

If it was up to me to decide, I would probably tell jurors to ignore the handwriting. I would tell prosecutors/defence to make their case for/against authorship through some other means. IMO, this is how most jurors would be thinking, anyway.
...

AK

 

[InstantProof]

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a jury identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, if left to their own devices. But, what would that mean? That a group of people made a decision on something that they weren’t qualified to make a decision on? I don’t think that this sort of thing should ever be allowed.



AK

I'm confused. Isn't this what all jurors do? Weigh all the evidence given to them and make a decision? They don't need to be handwriting experts. If they believe that any piece of this crime was staged then the letter is a part of that, and it was likely written by Patsy. They might not need to specify who wrote the note.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm confused. Isn't this what all jurors do? Weigh all the evidence given to them and make a decision? They don't need to be handwriting experts. If they believe that any piece of this crime was staged then the letter is a part of that, and it was likely written by Patsy. They might not need to specify who wrote the note.

Sure, but we’re specifically discussing Mrs Ramsey being identified as the author through handwriting analysis.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Mama2JML,
Really? Playing games again, not much is certain in life other than taxes and death, and the photo album, well maybe smit found it in a skip, who cares anymore?

.

Yes, we HAVE it. That's the main thing.

 

[BBB167893]

Frankly, it sounds like you are making a judgement that it is *not* Patsy's writing based what you call "intellectual arrogance." Or you are saying we can't say one way or the other because of "intellectual arrogance." Either way, your statements seem designed to arouse anger or insult.

It's working!

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, well, scary thought that laypersons should be permitted to draw conclusions in a matter for which they are not qualified, regardless of what case is being discussed.

What's your alternative, Anti-K? Disband the entire jury system? Admittedly, there have been times when I've thought about that. While I wait for your answer, consider this:

The comedian Dennis Miller once said that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is too high a standard; after all, what do any of us know beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, I wouldn't go that far. My problem isn't with the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt; my problem is with people (mostly judges and prosecutors--and you put Alex Hunter and his merry band of morons as the poster children) who interpret "reasonable" beyond reason.