Intruder probability more, less, or same?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
You wish. "Totality" is a fairly common phrasing in circumstantial cases. I've explained that before.
Dr. Richard Krugman has spoken about it several times, in case you were interested.
So has Holly Smith: Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."
As you can see from your previous post, I thought it was agreed that if PR authored the RN, she may not have killed JBR, but was undoubtedly an accomplice.
The reason that I asked for a clarification, (or a dumbing down, as you charmingly put it) is that you are now saying that if she wrote the RN then it follows that she did it.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is, If she wrote the RN then she had a part in the death of JBR. If someone else wrote the RN then someone else had a part in the death of JBR?
That I would agree with.
I respond with Gideon Epstein:
Q. As best you recall, how many times have you been mistaken on the authorship of a document?
A. To the best of my knowledge, if I have made a mistake it's never been brought to my attention.
Q. So is it your view that your success at questioned document examination has been 100 percent throughout your career?
A. As I say, if I have made a mistake in this work, it has never been brought to my attention. So I'm not aware of my mistakes that I've made in the identification of handwriting.
Q. What is your degree of certainty yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?
A. I am absolutely certain that she wrote the note.
Q. Is that 60 percent certain?
A. No, that's 100 percent certain.
Q. You are 100 percent certain that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in this case; is that your testimony?
Q. You will acknowledge that as a human being the possibility of error is a part of your genetic makeup.
A. Absolutely.
Q. But you will not testify that there's any possibility of a mistake on your part with respect to Patsy Ramsey; am I correct?
A. No, that's -- in regards to Patsy Ramsey I feel that the conclusion that I reached is the correct one, and that is that she is the author of that note.
Q. And again, that is with not just a little bit certainty, that is with 100 percent positive conviction.
A. Yes, sir.
DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
May 17, 2002
His qualifications:
ASSIGNMENTS
Served with the Army Crime Laboratory System as a Forensic Document Examiner from 1967 to retirement as Chief, Forensic Document Examiner in February 1978. Then served as a Senior Forensic Document Examiner with the National Laboratory Center, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Rockville, Maryland from 1978-1980. Established the Immigration and Naturalization Service Forensic Document Laboratory in 1980 and served as the Chief Forensic Document Examiner until retirement in December of 2000. Opened his private practice in January 2001
CERTIFICATION
Certified by the Department of Defense (Army); Department of the Treasury (ATF) and Department of Justice (INS), U.S. Department of State, Federal Prison System as well as the Department of Homeland Security (FDL), to perform forensic document examinations for them.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
How humiliating.
To be 100% certain, to be certified by everybody, but to be completely ignored and inconsequential on something so serious as a child murder.
The investigation seems to be going the way that PR didn't write the note. That is, Richard Dusak's evaluation is supported by the DNA result. Corroborating. See what I mean?
Where is Epstein's corroboration?
Patsy wrote the note, but that doesn't prove she killed her daughter. It DOES prove she knows who did. It may have been her anyway, but the writer is not necessarily the killer.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Enough to witness how inconsequential RDI is? I mean, there's no PR 'wrote the note' coverage.
Only 'intruder DNA' coverage.
We'll see about that. Like the man says, "it ain't over till it's over."
Quite frankly, I haven't got the patience to rehash that one again.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Oh, its over alright.
RDI put JR and PR 'under the umbrella' for more than a decade and came up empty. If its not over because IDI, then it should be over anyway simply due to incompetence.
The most evidence ever left at a child murder + the two perpetrators living in the same house + ten years + no charges filed = incompetence. Not simply on the part of LE or the DA either, but on the part of RDI as a general argument.
IOW if you haven't gotten it by now...
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
I am sorry but aren't these experts both examining the SAME NOTE and the SAME HANDWRITINGS??I thought this is SCIENCE.Then how come both are so extreme and one says black and the other says white?So if this is science and not a joke then my only conclusion is that ONE of them is biased or corrupt or just.......lying.Which one is it.
Geez,this example shows clearly why I hate experts and why you can't trust any of them.........:banghead:
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
This will never end.
RDI's trust Epstein,IDI's trust the other one and it's all about quoting the expert who supports your own theory.But it CAN'T be both ways.All these experts turned this case into a joke.It happened with the note,it happened with the DNA,it happened with the COD,the abrasions,everything.And the problem is it can't be that one side is 100% correct and the other one is lying about everything.It's about people who don't care about the truth.
RDI's trust Epstein,IDI's trust the other one and it's all about quoting the expert who supports your own theory.But it CAN'T be both ways.All these experts turned this case into a joke.It happened with the note,it happened with the DNA,it happened with the COD,the abrasions,everything.And the problem is it can't be that one side is 100% correct and the other one is lying about everything.It's about people who don't care about the truth.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Epstein's opinion could've been reinforced by the discovery of parental DNA mixed with blood in underwear and on two places on either side of the longjohns. RDI would never wait for an innocent explanation for THAT. I can guarantee an indictment with that kind of evidence.
Instead, it was Dusak's opinion that was reinforced.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
What makes you so sure that PR didn't write the note to cover for the misterious intruder for example?You can't know.No one can.DNA doesn't make the other evidence go away,it just changes the puzzle.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Correct. I suggest filtering the expert and witness testimony by the context within which the expert spoke. Was it for publicity, were they hired by the R's? the tabs? Did they already have an axe to grind?
It seems to me that the most valid testimoy were from those closest to the case, who gave their statements in the course of being there, as they had no choice. If they were asked by LE or DA to do a job, or if they would normally be there.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
PR didn't write the note because she demonstrated she doesn't know how to spell 'advise'. She clearly spelled it 'advize' in both right and left hand exemplars. She misspelled it more clearly and neatly in both right and left hand exemplars than the RN author spelled it in the first place.
RDI themselves never caught this, and has since made a series of unsubstantial claims in order to fit this phenomenon into the RDI model. This was embarrassing for RDI who now downplays it understandably.
Patsy could have misspelled any word she wished, as she did with "bussiness". She can't seriously be ruled out as the author because of a misspelled word. especially when her handwriting matched the note and practice note which she admitted writing.
Actually, the misspelled words can't be used to link anyone definitively to the note. ANYONE, not just Patsy, could have deliberately misspelled anything.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
I guess its possible to ask, then, if any subject can disguise their handwriting and spelling at will, then why ask for samples in the first place?
If PR's exemplars matched the ransom note exactly, then it would be a positive test result and RDI would wave it high over their heads. Instead, there were dissimilarities as to writing and spelling, making for a negative test result.
How to make the negative test result still fit the RDI model?
Make a wildcard claim that PR deliberately disguised her writing and spelling. Trouble is, the claim is unsubstantial. Its a claim that uses circular logic to desperately arrive at an invalid conclusion just for the sake of fitting the RDI model.
Experts can tell things we can't. And I never said Patsy disguised her handwriting. To me, it matched perfectly. Written hurriedly and possibly not with her dominant hand, but Patsy all the same.