Just for the record, the Chris Wolf case was not about murder or other homicide. It was a defamation of character case that issued a verdict of whether or not Wolf had been defamed by the Ramsey team, not a verdict of who killed JonBenet Ramsey.
I found a handwriting match to the RN
- Thread starter voynich
- Start date
Just for the record, the Chris Wolf case was not about murder or other homicide. It was a defamation of character case that issued a verdict of whether or not Wolf had been defamed by the Ramsey team, not a verdict of who killed JonBenet Ramsey.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
You know exactly what I mean so stop twisting it and replying like I have no idea what it was about.Even LE experts came to the conclusion that it wasn't PR who wrote the note.
It doesn't even matter if we're talking about defamation or something else.It was a civil case and they could have gotten even Donald Duck on the stand stating that she wrote the note because they CAN do that,they're not prosecutors.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
The autopsy report is an official document,so is Carnes decision ,so is Lacy's statement re the DNA.Maybe I don't agree with some stuff written in them but they are official.
You show me ONE official report that PR wrote the note or that parental fibers are a match (consistent with).Don't send me to do my homework,I did,there are NO such reports.
You show me ONE official report that PR wrote the note or that parental fibers are a match (consistent with).Don't send me to do my homework,I did,there are NO such reports.
All good points, Tadpole. But after having looked at it as you suggest, it keeps coming back to the simplicity principle.
I appreciate your zeal, Fang. But I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that it's not quite that simple. DNA is not the black-and-white thing you make it out to be. There are any number of ways for it to end up on places it supposedly "shouldn't" be. It's the easiest thing in the world to pick up and spread around. And as an FBI criminologist informed us on Bill O'Reilly's show, DNA testing science is a double-edged sword: as testing methods become more and more sensitive, the more likely they are to detect artifact DNA. It can be explained. It's not a lead-pipe cinch.
Kind of a dumb thing to say out loud in front of others who could and did hear you, when, all along, you know your wife killed the child and wrote the note at your direction (because you were molesting her.) No?[/QUOTE]
I can think of a few reasons:
1) It's fairly obvious from their actions that their first "fall guy" was someone who knew them and theoretically could have studied PR's writing enough to try and imitate it.
2) There's the possibility (one I've considered thoroughly) that he was setting Patsy up. There's no honor among thieves.
No strategy. I simply believe you were right.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Far as I go, it's BECAUSE of who said it that I stick to it.
Damn right.
First I've heard of it!
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Beckner's depo:
7 Q The other individuals Speckin, Alford and
18 Dusak, were employed by the Boulder Police
19 Department --
20 A Yes.
21 Q -- to analyze handwriting?
22 A Yes.
ST's depo:
8 Q. You don't know that. You do know
9 that there were other experts that reviewed
10 Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and did not find
11 evidence of authorship, true?
12 A. Who were those?
13 Q. Do you think there were not three
14 other people that looked at this and did not
15 find that there was evidence to find that she
16 wrote the note?
17 A. I don't know who you're referring
18 to.
19 Q. Well, there was a Secret Service
20 examiner, Mr. Dusak?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Speckin Laboratories?
23 A. Mr. Speckin, yes.
24 Q. Right. And there is one other,
25 help me. I can pull it if you want me to?
212
1 A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.
2 Q. Did you look at their conclusions
3 and remember them?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
6 A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official
7 conclusion on his report for courtroom
8 purposes was no evidence to indicate.
9 Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy
10 Ramsey executed any of the questioned material
11 appearing on the ransom note, was that
12 Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
13 A. Among other things.
14 Q. And he was a document analyst for
15 the United States Secret Service, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford,
18 Jr., police expert, examination of the
19 questioned handwriting, comparison of the
20 handwriting specimen submitted has failed to
21 provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey
22 as the writer of the letter. Is that his
23 conclusion?
24 A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you
25 have a document that would help --
213
1 Q. This is Mr. Alford.
2 A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak.
3 If you have a document that would help me
4 refresh my memory on Mr. Alford, I don't
5 recall --
6 Q. Not beyond what I have just told
7 you, but if that helps you refresh you one
8 way or the other what I've just told you is
9 I believe Mr. Alford concluded?
10 A. Will you repeat his --
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. -- what he concluded.
13 Q. The examination of the questioned
14 handwriting comparison with the handwriting
15 specimen submitted has failed to provide a
16 basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the
17 writer of the letter?
18 A. If that's what the report says.
19 I certainly don't disagree with --
I knew about all of that, madeleine. The problem there is that, from what I can gather, those were preliminary reports from analyses conducted early on in the case before the examiners had a more complete range of materials to work with. Chet Ubowski, the CBI analyst, even said that the materials they had at the time "do not suggest the full range of her handwriting." That's a direct quote. That seems to be the basis for this line of questioning. There's no mention of what the police file actually says because it was never introduced.
PLUS, you have to remember that there's a difference between believing that someone wrote something and being able to say so in court. Don't forget: the year before this case occured, the judge in the McVeigh trial had put handwriting analysis through the wringer. As a result, what had been up to then an accepted part of trials became much more difficult to get through the Daubert reliability test.
There's also question as to how much actual examination was done by these people you mention. Epstein himself said that proper document examination is not a question of hours, it's a question of days, even weeks or months. Based solely on what has been mentioned, it just doesn't appear that these people conducted a very thorough examination.
By contrast, Chet Ubowski, who did the most extensive analysis for the law enforcement side, had a few very interesting things to say.
PMPT, pages 536-537. (This refers specifically to the Secret Service analysis):
The police had never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis into his report and whether it was his final report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, "Patsy wrote the note."
PMPT, page 740:
He had also told his boss, Pete Mang, that his gut told him it was her handwriting.
This is a confusing issue, isn't it? For my part, I agree with Alex Hunter: trust your own eyes.
Now, just to be sure here, earlier I asked you if you thought that the people who analyzed the note and concluded she wrote it were just hacks in it for money or publicity. You said you didn't think that. I'm just wondering if you still stand by that. Because on a personal note, if I were to be absolutely pinned down, Epstein is the man I'd stand behind, for a couple of reasons. One, his credentials are about as good as you can get in this field (however far that goes). I have yet to find anyone who doubted his ability. It helps to rememeber that he likely had significant experience with disguised writing since as the head of the INS's document examination department, he was primarily responsible for tracking down escaped European war criminals who had slipped into the country and were living under assumed names; i.e., people whose entire LIVES were a deception. Moreover, he has a reputation as a maverick in a field which is known for its groupthink tendencies. He's not afraid to speak against his colleagues. I don't know of anyone who doubts his integrity either. I find it unlikely he'd throw all of that down the drain so late in life.
That's not even mentioning the attempted sabotage of at least two others that I know of.
I don't know, madeleine. It seems like the more we dig into this, the less we understand it.
It can be explained most simply as proof that an unidentified male was in contact with a six year old's underwear when she was murdered. The best and most obvious, direct, simple conclusion how it got there is that the murderer placed it there as he killed this child. Check-mate can be explained in a variety of ways. This is direct, overwhelming proof of a crime by an UnSub. It is so simple and so straight forward and so strong that everything else pertaining to this case is as nothing. It is evidence that cannot be denied.
To theorize endlessly about all the possibilities who, what, where and why is useless. No matter how strongly, no matter how much we may wish for another solution, this is proof. It will stand up in a court of law and it is more than sufficient to remove the Ramseys from suspicion, whether or not we want that outcome.
There is no legitimate way to get around it. It speaks for itself.
if you examine it in a vacuum, that's true. Trouble is, this case can't be taken like that. I had to learn that the hard way.
I'm confused as to what an UnSub is.
That's where you and I have to part company, friend. It's precisely everything else that causes me to doubt what you say.
This is proof. It fills the cup to overflowing. The vacuum in this matter consists of endless theories based on opinions which are based on hearsay, which are built on hunches, that come from rumors, that stand on leaks that came from the mouths of blithering idiots, "I think somebody investigated that, but I don't remember who it was or when I found out, because I may have been in Turkey at the time when we were snowed in for a month..." and "when she looked into his eyes she knew at that moment he was guilty of killing his daughter." Now that's what they call scientific, deductive reasoning. The contentions rest firmly on the sinking foundation of wet sand and they are endless and equally without proof.
That is the reality, SuperDave, and the unwillingness, or inability to recognize it stretches on ad infinitum.
It is not what I say. Them thar's the facts.
That is the reality, SuperDave, and the unwillingness, or inability to recognize it stretches on ad infinitum.
It is not what I say. Them thar's the facts.
You can't make a cow out of hamburger meat, Fang. It's just another random finding that no one can be linked to. It's only "proof" in the minds of those who believe. That's pretty much the problem.
Yeah, there's an inability to see the reality, all right.
Don't patronize me. I'm a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.
The assistant DA made a comment in this case long ago. He said (referring to Patsy) "So what if she wrote the note. It doesn't prove she killed her kid". He was right. Yet, many in the IDI camp feel the RN author is also the killer. Maybe, maybe not.
I feel the same about the male DNA. Doesn't prove it was the killer. Could it be? Maybe, but not without leaving more of that DNA on other things at the crime scene, not just JB's clothes. Even if he was in the room when she was killed, doesn't prove he was the killer. One of the more frustrating things in the case is that I don't think I have seen where the cord, tape, suitcase handle, even the bowl of pineapple (though that did yield only Patsy's prints) were tested RECENTLY with this new method. They shoud still have the bowl, and I think they MAY even have the pineapple frozen somewhere. They should have kept everything taken into evidence, no matter how long the case is open.
I feel the same about the male DNA. Doesn't prove it was the killer. Could it be? Maybe, but not without leaving more of that DNA on other things at the crime scene, not just JB's clothes. Even if he was in the room when she was killed, doesn't prove he was the killer. One of the more frustrating things in the case is that I don't think I have seen where the cord, tape, suitcase handle, even the bowl of pineapple (though that did yield only Patsy's prints) were tested RECENTLY with this new method. They shoud still have the bowl, and I think they MAY even have the pineapple frozen somewhere. They should have kept everything taken into evidence, no matter how long the case is open.
The DNA of an unidentified male was found on the underwear of a six year old girl. She was found murdered by her parents. This unknown male has not been identified yet.
The murdered remains of a six year old girl were discovered by her father this afternoon. The body was covered in blankets and and a sweatshirt as Mr. JR rushed up his basements steps screaming for someone to call for an ambulance. It was too late, however. The coroner determined the little girl had been dead for hours. DNA of an unknown male was found on the child's underwear.
Now that we're all a little more calm (and I've made my position on condescension plain), allow me to say this: Fang, I respect you and your position, most of the time. But quite frankly, it strikes me as ill-advised to take such a hardline stance. If you can't see the myriad problems surrounding the DNA and the conclusions that can be drawn from it, I'm at a loss as to how to explain them to you.
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 52
Just to add a few more details to your news article:
Mr. JR rushed up his basement steps screaming for someone to call for an ambulance, while his wife, the little girl's mother(who also believed her child had been kidnapped for ransom) never left the sofa on which she had been sitting.
WHITEFANG, I really wish that I could believe the way you do, but this is one of the reasons I first started doubting the IDI theory. As a mother, I know without one doubt ANY mother would have been up and running as soon as she heard her husband shouting. Doesn't matter what he was shouting either, I would have known it was about my little girl and I would have been running to her side. Why on earth did she just sit there?
This is an example of media reports that are not completely accurate. She was found covered in a blanket. That blanket was left behind in the basement. The sweatshirt was placed on her after she was already moved (for the second time) by Det. Arndt to the living room rug, under the tree. The sweatshirt was placed over another blanket (that has been described as a afghan).