Source please, or is that asking too much? (LOL)
No, it's not asking too much. Let me get back to you.
Source please, or is that asking too much? (LOL)
Lin Wood confirmed the authenticity of the documents that Cina Wong used in her analysis.
Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I am going to tell you that that
document, along with reports, handwriting reports, were prepared by
document examiners Cina Wong and David Leadman. And other handwriting
was prepared -- other handwriting was used in the form of the police exemplars
that were given to my office by Mr. Wood pursuant to discovery requests.
And those documents are, without a doubt, your handwriting because they were identified
by Mr. Wood as being the handwriting exemplars that you personally gave to law
enforcement in Colorado at their request during that five-day period.
Now, the problem for Mr. Wolf in this case is the fact that not one of the
experts -- Cina Wong, David Leadman, an expert known as Gideon Epstein,
Larry F. Siegler, and an expert known as Don Lacey have all identified you
as the ransom note writer. It is not a close call, as far as they are concerned.
They have identified you. One of them, in fact, said, without doubt you are
the author of the ransom note. So in order to be certain that they are, in
fact, correct in what they are looking at as examples of your handwriting,
I wanted you to look at some of the documents that I gave you. Now I want
you to look at the document there and see why, in fact this, the issue of your
authorship, is such a problem.
Deposition of Patricia P. Ramsey
December 11, 2001
You clearly don't wish to see what is obvious, that's fine, I'm happy to let other posters decide for themselves.
Well, that's that!
That article is from 1997, 4 years later at the deposition for the civil trial the sources were confirmed as per my post #113"However, the pair (Leibman and Wong) said they do not know whether the unrehearsed samples were actually written by Patsy Ramsey."
They were available to Cina Wong, that's what matters.Thats nothing. They could've handed her her own actual exemplars. That doesn't mean the a-z list on this thread is really from PR.
There IS a sourcing problem here. Cynic cant demonstrate the documents from which these letters came. At least the tabloid pages of PR's exemplars are a document. See what I mean? Probably not, because you LIKE WHAT YOU HEAR so long as its RDI.
That article is from 1997, 4 years later at the deposition for the civil trial the sources were confirmed as per my post #113
That's nothing. They could've handed her her own actual exemplars. That doesn't mean the a-z list on this thread is really from PR.
There IS a sourcing problem here. Cynic can't demonstrate the documents from which these letters came.
At least the tabloid pages of PR's exemplars are a document. See what I mean? Probably not, because you LIKE WHAT YOU HEAR so long as its RDI.
Boy, am I SICK of hearing that! I've been a good sport up to now, but even my tolerance has limits.
I'd like to thank you for reopening this thread.
You have to remember, beneath the heated arguing and rudeness, our arguments all have good intentions.
Happy New Year to all.
I'd like to thank you for reopening this thread.
You have to remember, beneath the heated arguing and rudeness, our arguments all have good intentions.
Happy New Year to all.
hey, beck! do you think i should???
absolutely!