Intruder probability more, less, or same?

DeeDee249 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Matching perfectly, written hurriedly, and possibly not with her dominant hand are unsubstantial claims. Its stuff literally pulled right out of thin air. If thats what is needed to support RDI these days, I fully understand.

Holdontoyourhat said:

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.

Click to expand...

Brought up and answered effectively many times including here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62383"]Did You Know That Patsy Spelled Advise Wrong In The Sample RN? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

madeleine said:

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:

Click to expand...

Q. When you were first retained did you agree to assist for a fee?
A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior to being officially retained and while still an employee of the department of justice, I contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked for permission to become involved in the case on a pro bono basis
…
I had put in more than 50 hours of examination time in the case for which I did not bill anyone.

Epstein was asked why his opinion differed from some other document examiners, including Dusak.
His answer:

Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field.
…
it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor.
…
I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time.
This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary.
If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short.
And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do.
DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
May 17, 2002

cynic said:

Brought up and answered effectively many times including here:
Did You Know That Patsy Spelled Advise Wrong In The Sample RN? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Click to expand...

What was answered effectively? I never asked a question. Were you responding to another post?

What I did was make an assertion. Put another way, RDI will force fit new information into the RDI model, no matter what the new information is. This is true because RDI tends to use unsubstantial claims whenever the new information doesn't fit the RDI model.

Holdontoyourhat said:

What was answered effectively?

Click to expand...

The "issue" of advise and advize.

cynic said:

The "issue" of advise and advize.

Click to expand...

The only effective answer is you don't know why the RN has 'advise' and PR's exemplars have 'advize'. And I know you don't know. Obviously you're free to claim anything you want, but its unsubstantiated. Thats my whole point, by making unsubstantial claim RDI embarrasses itself. Better to not have a spontaneous knee-jerk answer to everything that doesn't fit.

cynic said:

Q. When you were first retained did you agree to assist for a fee?
A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior to being officially retained and while still an employee of the department of justice, I contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked for permission to become involved in the case on a pro bono basis
…
I had put in more than 50 hours of examination time in the case for which I did not bill anyone.

Epstein was asked why his opinion differed from some other document examiners, including Dusak.
His answer:

Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field.
…
it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor.
…
I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time.
This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary.
If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short.
And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do.
DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
May 17, 2002

Click to expand...

Gawd can't we make up our mind? These personal or professional insults really. Multiple unrelated claims of simply going along, not taking enough time, afraid to state what was really believed, or refusing to go up against others are curiously unsubstantiated.

Can just one of these professionally insulting claims be substantiated? I didn't think so. Par for the course.

HOTYH,

You believe it was a SFF/unknown killer.Then you probably believe that FW is not involved in the crime.What do you think happened between him and the Ramsey's then?John points fingers at Fleet,Fleet points fingers at John and now I am sure that this happened after reading all the depo's again.(Levin confirms that FW is on the top of John's suspect list,Steve Thomas confirms that Fleet implies that a Ramsey did it,Mason confirms that there was a big fight between the two in Georgia,and so on)What was it about if a stranger killed JB and they're both innocent?

There's no smoke without a fire.They key to this crime is the permanent fighting between FW and JR IMO.I mean it's not like they just yelled at each other.All the letters,the pointing fingers (through official channels) and the stuff we don't even know of yet.Publicly they both always stated that the other one is not a suspect.BS,behind the scenes BOTH accused one another.We don't even know their arguments.Why is that.Why the secrecy.Maybe both know/did something,or maybe they just waited for the incompetent ones to figure it out by themselves without saying too much,how convenient.
JR thinks it's FW but he never says why and publicly he denies it.FW does the same.WTH is this about.

Q. Has Fleet White ever made any
23 statement to you about his opinion on who
24 killed JonBenet Ramsey?
25 A. Mr. White has always been very

286

1 careful with his language around me, as is
2 his wife and I don't know that I could sit
3 here and say today that he has come out and
4 made a declaration as to who he believes
5 killed JonBenet Ramsey. But the tone and
6 inferences of some of these conversations made
7 it fairly clear to me. 8 Q. You think you understood from the
9 tone and inferences what he was trying to say
10 but not saying directly; is that your
11 testimony?
12 A. I think I believe that I know who
13 Fleet has in mind as the offender in this
14 case.
15 Q. Why don't you just ask him?
16 A. I did not, that I recall, ask him
17 outright who he thought did it. (BULLS##T STEVE imo)
18 Q. I mean, you've talked to him since
19 you left the Boulder Police Department,
20 haven't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When is the last time you talked
23 with Fleet White?
24 A. I think I last saw them in
25 probably July or August of 2000 and then

287

1 again had a pleasant hallway conversation in
2 Jefferson County, Colorado, outside a
3 courtroom in the last couple months.
4 Q. What was the nature of your seeing
5 him in July of 2000?
6 A. A personal visit.
7 Q. Personal, but tell me, please, if
8 you would, the nature of the visit?
9 A. I think I had finished a carpentry
10 job up on -- in that part of the world and
11 in the late afternoon or early evening, drove
12 by their house to say hello and they invited
13 me to stay for dinner.
14 Q. Drinks?
15 A. I don't really drink.
16 Q. Whether you really drink or not --
17 most people either drink or they don't drink.
18 I don't know about I don't really drink.
19 That sounds like you might occasionally take
20 a glass of wine or drink, I don't know. Do
21 you?
22 A. I won't drink three beers in a
23 year's time.
24 Q. Did you have a glass of wine with
25 the Whites that night you had dinner?

288

1 A. No.
2 Q. Did they?
3 A. I don't know whether or not they
4 had alcohol.
5 Q. How many times do you think you've
6 seen them on a social basis since you left
7 the department in August of 1998?
8 A. Two or three maybe.
9 Q. And one was the dinner in July of
10 2000. What were the other two occasions?
11 A. Post resignation in August of '98,
12 maybe a time or two in 1999, I'm not sure.
13 Q. What were the occasions? You had
14 dinner one time. What were the other social
15 occasions; do you recall what they were?
16 A. That was the only time I ever ate
17 with the people.
18 Q. What were the other social
19 occasions, sir, what did you do with them?
20 A. Probably just stopped by their
21 house and said hello. I didn't meet them at
22 other locations.
23 Q. Do you consider Fleet and
24 Priscilla White personal friends of yours?
25 A. I don't know how I would

289

1 characterize these people who I have a lot of
2 compassion for.
3 Q. Do you know what you consider
4 someone -- do you know what it is to
5 consider someone a personal friend of yours?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do they fall in that category or
8 not?
9 A. It's an unusual characterization.
10 I have never had a relationship with somebody
11 that I met wearing one hat and continued that
12 in this context. So if you're asking me am
13 I friendly and would I consider myself
14 friends with these people, yes.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.txt

Q. (By Mr. Levin) Hang on. I

21 suppose what I'm -- I don't mean to cut you

22 off, Mr. Ramsey, obviously. But what I am

23 interested in, I mean, we had a list of

24 names that you provided early on, and I was

25 interested if there are recent people. I

0010

1 mean, obviously we've looked at Chris Wolf

2 and we looked at Fleet and we've looked at

3 Priscilla and we've looked at Merrick, and

4 those people, and I'm looking for --

5 MR. WOOD: Have they been

6 cleared, Bruce? Have they been cleared?

7 MR. LEVIN: I can't comment on the

8 status of the investigation.

9 MR. WOOD: Has he been cleared

10 from your list. Are we wasting our time?

11 Tell us so we won't waste Ollie's resources.
12 They can go elsewhere.



http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

Q And generally speaking, what were you doing in Georgia?
20 A We went to Georgia to basically just do background
21 investigations. We got some information that there had been
22 a major fight in the house between Mr. Ramsey and one of the
23 other people that were there. I don’t remember --
24 Q Does “Mr. White” ring a bell?
25 A “White,” that’s who it was, Mr. White, and we had heard

LARRY MASON - DIRECT (JONES)

18

1 that there was problems there in the house, and we wanted to
2 find out what was going on.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05312001-ArndtTrial-LarryMasonTestimony.txt

It's obvious to ME now that it's

1.JR knows or did something
2.FW knows or did something

or
3.BOTH know or did something (hey,maybe that crazy woman was right after all or at least she came up with a theory that shouldn't be disregarded imo) )

And what about that jacket PW owned that was IDENTICAL to PR's?If you have two identical jackets how can you know the fibers belonged to X or Y.


6:03 AM Whites Arrived. Fleet & Priscilla White arrived at Ramsey house
6:06 AM Fleet White Searched Basement. Fleet White went downstairs to basement to look for JBR (Schiller 1999a: 44). This time is supported by Carnes (2003:14): "The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival.
After 6:06 AM Fleet White Searched Wine Cellar Room. "Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch.

Riiiiiiiiight to the basement....okay.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/December 26

DNA doesn't exonerate any of them.I will always argue that whoever did this could have had an accomplice and no one can prove otherwise.

FW was in bed with the cops all the time,JR was in bed with the DA all the time ,both pointing fingers at each other and you want me to believe this was all about an innocent argument/misunderstanding?BS.

Okay,I am done now.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Matching perfectly, written hurriedly, and possibly not with her dominant hand are unsubstantial claims. Its stuff literally pulled right out of thin air. If thats what is needed to support RDI these days, I fully understand.

Click to expand...

Dare I say it ... no, I won't. :snooty:

The reasoning you use to support that someone other than Patsy wrote the note is based on the same type thinking you use to dismiss the evidence that supports her writing the note.

BOESP said:

Dare I say it ... no, I won't. :snooty:

The reasoning you use to support that someone other than Patsy wrote the note is based on the same type thinking you use to dismiss the evidence that supports her writing the note.

Click to expand...

Thats funny. Unlike RDI, I never characterized how it was written, by which hand, or whether the author was disgusing their writing or spelling. What are you talking about? I did once suggest the RN was written by BOTH hands at the same time, but I was just kidding around.

Suppose the RN and PR's exemplars both had the same misspelled word 'bussiness'. Then suppose I argued that its a commonly misspelled word and both PR and the intruder misspelled it. THEN I would be dismissing evidence that PR wrote the note, by formulating an unsubstantial claim in response to RDI-favoring evidence. See what I mean?

Patsy owned a jacket SIMILAR, but not identical, to one owned by Pricilla White. Patsy speaks about it on one of her interviews. She mentioned that PW had a jacket that she fancied, and she was able to find one like it for herself in a Marshalls (or some similar shop). There is often confusion when this garment has been described as a jacket or sometimes a sweater.
It was made of polyester fleece- of a type many women would be familiar with. So in this respect could be classified as either a sweater or jacket, though I would call it a jacket. Not an outerwear type of jacket, though. More like a soft, unconstructed fabric jacket that you would wear to complete an outfit (more like a suit jacket). In Patsy's case, it was a black/red/white pattern that I can imagine looked nice with the black velvet pants and red sweater that Patsy wore with it.
It was never said that it was identical to PW's, though Patsy and the RST would certainly like it out there that it was. Forensics would probably be able to discern the difference in the fibers, by the dyes and finishing process, between two similar garments, but made by different manufacturers (or maybe even the same one) yet shipped to different stores at different times.
They were able to discover, even in 1997, exactly which manufacturing batch the tape and Sharpie pen ink came from, and so were able to seen when and where they were made and to what stores they were shipped.
We have already discussed that NO forensic specialist will state that a fiber came from a SPECIFIC garment. Rather they will describe it as "being consistent with" fibers from a particular garment. This is because, even in one-of-a-kind garments (as in a handknit sweater), the yarns and dyes may not be exclusive to that ONE garment. However, fibers from garments found to be from particular shops or manufacturers can be identified with a high degree of accuracy.
For example, JR's wool Israeli-made shirt may not be the only one in the world. BUT it was the only one in the house. The likelihood of an intruder coming into contact with JB's panty crotch (and leaving NO fibers anywhere else) wearing the exact same shirt that the victim's father wore that exact day is virtually non-existent. And not to make light of this tragedy, but claims to the otherwise are actually...laughable.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Oh, its over alright.

Click to expand...

Don't you believe it.

The most evidence ever left at a child murder + the two perpetrators living in the same house + ten years + no charges filed = incompetence.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with that more!

Not simply on the part of LE or the DA either,

Click to expand...

Agreed. They were dealt a lousy hand to begin with. But the fact remains that they didn't have the intelligence to play it well.

IOW if you haven't gotten it by now...

Click to expand...

One of doesn't get it, all right...

madeleine said:

I am sorry but aren't these experts both examining the SAME NOTE and the SAME HANDWRITINGS??

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Epstein had a lot more comparison material and knowledge, among other things.

I thought this is SCIENCE.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it isn't. It's still "one person, one opinion."

Then how come both are so extreme and one says black and the other says white?

Click to expand...

A few reasons, really. Not the least of which is that one was (at least at the time) a member of a group which is dominated by a few guys who convince everyone else to go along with them, and the other one LEFT said group because he was sick of the political BS and groupthink which led "experts" to agree with their colleagues' conclusions even when they were wrong.

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?

Click to expand...

1) It isn't a science.

2) As for being biased or corrupt, that charge has been thrown around on both sides.

Geez,this example shows clearly why I hate experts and why you can't trust any of them.........:banghead:

Click to expand...

You just nailed it. One of the few good ideas Hunter had was not to rely on experts and let the jury hash it out for themselves.

Holdontoyourhat said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's something we all can agree on.