Its a shame that a large number of Americans view of the Ramsey's has been skewed by the words of two people, Carnes and Lacy. I honestly think there are a ton of people out there that would say the Ramsey's got a raw deal and that DNA has proved them to be 100% innocent. In any recent interviews John seems to be treated as a victim as opposed to the criminal he is.
We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
New Posts
-
IL - Child, 9, charged in fire deaths of 5 people, Goodfield, 6 Apr 2019 #2
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
-
Found Deceased IA - David Schultz, 53, Wall Lake, 21 November 2023 #3
- Latest: Observe_dont_Absorb
-
OliviaG1996
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 7
BBM: I know for a fact there are people who think this way because I used to be one of them. Then, I actually did my research and learned just how small the piece of DNA was and how it could've gotten there, and so my doubt in the Ramseys' innocence began.
CorallaroC
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm glad for the recent links regarding the so-called Carnes decision, I had not read facts/details because I assumed it had to have been biased (simply because it was part of a civil suit and much evidence would have been withheld by BPD considering the fact that the case is ongoing even if it's considered "cold case". So yes, what I'm reading now confirms that fact. Until the day comes that ALL evidence available becomes part of a court record, and I mean ALL including the items sealed under what was once called the "Island of Privacy" - how on Earth could this case be properly evaluated? IMO it would be impossible for anyone to discern, especially a judge or jury.
Judge Carnes ONLY received evidence from the Ramsey side of the case. Her decision was based on incomplete evidence as well as some outright lies. I am suspect of ANY judge who would issue such a comment KNOWING they did not have all the evidence (and apparently never asked for it).
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
IMO, it wouldn’t have mattered if Hoffman had performed a stellar job. It all came down to the ransom note and al he had was Epstein. Remember, although Carnes ruled that Epstein could not testify as to his conclusion the Court still analyzed the evidence AS IF Epstein were permitted to testify as to his conclusion.
Quote: For purposes of assessing whether plaintiff has met its burden of proof, however, the Court will analyze the evidence, assuming that Epstein could testify as to his proffered conclusion, as well as assuming that he could testify only as to similarities between both the Ransom Note and Mrs. Ramsey's known handwriting samples. End quote.
As to the charts: Epstein simply wasn’t asked to show them. I’m not aware the reason why Hoffman didn’t ask him, but he didn’t.
IMO, if laypersons were given the power to decide, than a jury MIGHT determine that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. Hopefully, in such an instance (ALL such instances) jurors would be given a collection of samples written by a variety of persons and have to make their determination without knowing which sample belonged to who. This would be the only way to ensure some semblance of “fairness.”
However, if left up to the experts that could meet the Court (and, critical assessment) found credible than I don’t think it’s possible to prove that any Ramsey wrote that note. That’s just not going to happen, so Hoffman was doomed from the start.
...
AK
It wouldn't have mattered that he would have been able to give his expert opinion that he believed Patsy wrote the note? Somehow I find that hard to believe. And I still don't understand why he was not allowed to do so? Isn't that why experts are called? To give their opinion?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
BBM
From Carnes:
Most significant to the Court in its determination that Epstein's conclusion cannot carry the day for plaintiff, however, is the unanimity of opinion among six other experts that Mrs. Ramsey cannot be determined to have been the writer of the Note. As noted supra, the Boulder Police Department and District Attorney's Office had consulted six other handwriting experts, all of whom reviewed the original Ransom Note and exemplars. Supra at 21-22. Although two of these experts were hired by defendants, four were independent experts hired by the pol ice. None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. Instead, their consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. Supra at n. 14.
________________________________________
Page 89
Given the contrary opinion of six other experts, whose ability to examine the documents was necessarily superior to Epstein's, and given Epstein's failure to explain the methodology by which he can make absolute pronouncements concerning the authorship of a document, this Court does not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mrs. Ramsey was the author of the Ransom Note, solely on the basis of Epstein's professed opinion to that effect. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is aware that it is not permitted to make credibility judgments in ruling on summary judgment motions. For example, were there six eyewitnesses on one side of a question and one eyewitness on the other side, the Court would not take from a jury the factual question on which these witnesses were testifying. With regard to Epstein's testimony, however, the Court is not attempting to assess credibility. Mr. Epstein may sincerely believe that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Note and the jury may well credit his sincerity. Nevertheless, no matter how earnest Epstein may be, the fact remains that he has not explained his basis for reaching absolute certainty in his conclusion and, accordingly, the weight and impact of his testimony would necessarily be less than the weight of the contrary testimony of six other experts.39
========================================
39 The Court's judgment on this matter is the same whether these other six experts were as vague concerning their methodology as was Epstein or whether they, ip fact, gave solid explanations for their reasoning.
...
AK
From Carnes:
Most significant to the Court in its determination that Epstein's conclusion cannot carry the day for plaintiff, however, is the unanimity of opinion among six other experts that Mrs. Ramsey cannot be determined to have been the writer of the Note. As noted supra, the Boulder Police Department and District Attorney's Office had consulted six other handwriting experts, all of whom reviewed the original Ransom Note and exemplars. Supra at 21-22. Although two of these experts were hired by defendants, four were independent experts hired by the pol ice. None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. Instead, their consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. Supra at n. 14.
________________________________________
Page 89
Given the contrary opinion of six other experts, whose ability to examine the documents was necessarily superior to Epstein's, and given Epstein's failure to explain the methodology by which he can make absolute pronouncements concerning the authorship of a document, this Court does not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mrs. Ramsey was the author of the Ransom Note, solely on the basis of Epstein's professed opinion to that effect. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is aware that it is not permitted to make credibility judgments in ruling on summary judgment motions. For example, were there six eyewitnesses on one side of a question and one eyewitness on the other side, the Court would not take from a jury the factual question on which these witnesses were testifying. With regard to Epstein's testimony, however, the Court is not attempting to assess credibility. Mr. Epstein may sincerely believe that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Note and the jury may well credit his sincerity. Nevertheless, no matter how earnest Epstein may be, the fact remains that he has not explained his basis for reaching absolute certainty in his conclusion and, accordingly, the weight and impact of his testimony would necessarily be less than the weight of the contrary testimony of six other experts.39
========================================
39 The Court's judgment on this matter is the same whether these other six experts were as vague concerning their methodology as was Epstein or whether they, ip fact, gave solid explanations for their reasoning.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
BBM
Andreww, Epstein was permitted to testify as to similarities but was not permitted to testify as to his conclusion.
From Carnes:
In short, the Court is satisfied as to Epstein's ability to testify concerning perceived similarities and differences in Mrs.
Page 51
Ramsey's known handwriting and the Ransom Note. Any criticism of Epstein's analysis by defendants goes to the weight of his testimony. Of more concern to the Court, however, is the reliability of Epstein's ultimate conclusion concerning the identity of the writer of the Note. As noted, Epstein claims that he is "100 percent certain that Patsy Ramsey wrote the (R]anson [N]ote," and in his professional opinion "there is absolutely no doubt she is the author." (Pl. 's Stmt. Of Disp. Mat. Facts (88] 1.) (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document. 26 Defendants persuasively argue that Epstein was unable to identify any unique.
========================================
26 In his response to defendants' Motion In Limine, plaintiff has provided conclusory affidavits from other experts indicating that they agree with Epstein's methodology and conclusion. Yet, those opinions beg the question. One does not know by what methodology these other individuals reach their conclusion that Epstein can make a determination with "absolute certainty." When the predictive ability of a professed skill is questioned, the belief of multiple practitioners of that skill that its exercise produces a reliable result still provides no basis for determining the ultimate soundness of the determination. Further, these individuals were not disclosed as experts in the case and they did not provide expert reports, as required by Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2) (B) (requiring that, unless otherwise agreed, the proponent of an expert must disclose the expert's name and a written report "prepared and signed by the witness" that, inter alia, includes a "complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons thereof.")
________________________________________
Page 52
characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting that were mimicked in the Ransom Note. (Def. 's Mtn. in Lim. [68 ] at 9). Instead. Epstein bases his conclusion on perceived similarities between the two. Id. Yet, as noted by defendants, Epstein never indicates how many similarities or what kind of similarities are required before he can reach absolute certainty, 50% certainty, or no certainty, at all. Further, as defendants also note, whenever encountering any differences between the known writing of Mrs. Ramsey and the Ransom Note, Epstein finds refuge in the explanation that Mrs. Ramsey must have been trying to disguise her handwriting. (See id.) While it is, of course, possible that differences between known writing and questioned documents are the result of a known writer's efforts to disguise her handwriting, it is just as plausible that the differences can occur because the' known writer is not the author of the questioned matter. On that issue, Epstein offers no hint of the methodology that he employs to distinguish between disguised writing and writing that is simply being provided by two different people.
The underlying notion behind Daubert, and all good science, is that a given premise or principle should be capable of being tested to determine whether the principle is, in fact, sound. Thus, if Epstein indicated, for example, that whenever a writer of known material has x number of similarities, there is a given probability that the writer wrote the note--and if this
________________________________________
Page 53
methodology had been tested by reliable means in the past--then Epstein would have shown reliability in the methodology that he used to reach a determination of the likelihood of his conclusion. As it is, however, Epstein's explanation for his conclusion seems to be little more than "Trust me; I'm an expert." Daubert case law has indicated that such an assertion, which seems to be based more on intuition than on scientific reasoning, is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court concludes that while Epstein can properly assist the trier of fact by pointing out marked differences and unusual similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's writing and the Ransom Note, he has not demonstrated a methodology whereby he can draw a conclusion, to an absolute certainty, that a given writer wrote the Note. 27
Such a holding is consistent with numerous other districts that have allowed a qualified handwriting' expert to testify as to the "similarities" between a challenged document and a known exemplar, but have not allowed the expert to express his ultimate "opinion" on the matter. See, e.g., United States v. Van Wyk, 83 F.Supp.2d 515, 524 (D.N.J. 2000)
<snip>
Factoring into the analysis the testimony of Mr. Epstein that there are similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the Ransom Note does not, however, enable plaintiff to meet that burden. The fact that there may be similarities between the two hardly constitutes persuasive evidence that Mrs. Ramsey actually wrote the Note. Without that proof, plaintiff cannot show that Mrs. Ramsey was the killer.
b. Consideration of Epstein'. Testimony That He Was Absolutely Certain that Mrs. Ramaey Wrote the Ransom Note
The Court has earlier indicated its conclusion that there is insufficient reliability to Mr. Epstein's methodology to permit him to state his conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note. As noted supra, Epstein opined that he is "100 percent certain" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note and that "there
________________________________________
Page 87
is absolutely no doubt" that she is the author. Supra at 51. The Court believes its conclusion on the admissibility of this evidence to be correct. Further, as the identify of the writer is virtually the only evidence that plaintiff can offer to shoulder its burden, then the question of the identity of the writer is synonymous with the underlying question in this litigation: did Mrs. Ramsey kill her child.
Nevertheless, even if the Court were to permit Epstein to testify as to the above conclusion, the Court does not believe his testimony would provide the "clear and convincing evidence" necessary for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.
As stated before, "clear and convincing" evidence requires "a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth." Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 2BS n. 11 (1990) . The parties have agreed that handwriting analysis is, at best, an inexact and subjective tool used to provide probative, but not clear and convincing evidence, of a questioned document's author.
...
AK
Andreww, Epstein was permitted to testify as to similarities but was not permitted to testify as to his conclusion.
From Carnes:
In short, the Court is satisfied as to Epstein's ability to testify concerning perceived similarities and differences in Mrs.
Page 51
Ramsey's known handwriting and the Ransom Note. Any criticism of Epstein's analysis by defendants goes to the weight of his testimony. Of more concern to the Court, however, is the reliability of Epstein's ultimate conclusion concerning the identity of the writer of the Note. As noted, Epstein claims that he is "100 percent certain that Patsy Ramsey wrote the (R]anson [N]ote," and in his professional opinion "there is absolutely no doubt she is the author." (Pl. 's Stmt. Of Disp. Mat. Facts (88] 1.) (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document. 26 Defendants persuasively argue that Epstein was unable to identify any unique.
========================================
26 In his response to defendants' Motion In Limine, plaintiff has provided conclusory affidavits from other experts indicating that they agree with Epstein's methodology and conclusion. Yet, those opinions beg the question. One does not know by what methodology these other individuals reach their conclusion that Epstein can make a determination with "absolute certainty." When the predictive ability of a professed skill is questioned, the belief of multiple practitioners of that skill that its exercise produces a reliable result still provides no basis for determining the ultimate soundness of the determination. Further, these individuals were not disclosed as experts in the case and they did not provide expert reports, as required by Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2) (B) (requiring that, unless otherwise agreed, the proponent of an expert must disclose the expert's name and a written report "prepared and signed by the witness" that, inter alia, includes a "complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons thereof.")
________________________________________
Page 52
characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting that were mimicked in the Ransom Note. (Def. 's Mtn. in Lim. [68 ] at 9). Instead. Epstein bases his conclusion on perceived similarities between the two. Id. Yet, as noted by defendants, Epstein never indicates how many similarities or what kind of similarities are required before he can reach absolute certainty, 50% certainty, or no certainty, at all. Further, as defendants also note, whenever encountering any differences between the known writing of Mrs. Ramsey and the Ransom Note, Epstein finds refuge in the explanation that Mrs. Ramsey must have been trying to disguise her handwriting. (See id.) While it is, of course, possible that differences between known writing and questioned documents are the result of a known writer's efforts to disguise her handwriting, it is just as plausible that the differences can occur because the' known writer is not the author of the questioned matter. On that issue, Epstein offers no hint of the methodology that he employs to distinguish between disguised writing and writing that is simply being provided by two different people.
The underlying notion behind Daubert, and all good science, is that a given premise or principle should be capable of being tested to determine whether the principle is, in fact, sound. Thus, if Epstein indicated, for example, that whenever a writer of known material has x number of similarities, there is a given probability that the writer wrote the note--and if this
________________________________________
Page 53
methodology had been tested by reliable means in the past--then Epstein would have shown reliability in the methodology that he used to reach a determination of the likelihood of his conclusion. As it is, however, Epstein's explanation for his conclusion seems to be little more than "Trust me; I'm an expert." Daubert case law has indicated that such an assertion, which seems to be based more on intuition than on scientific reasoning, is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court concludes that while Epstein can properly assist the trier of fact by pointing out marked differences and unusual similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's writing and the Ransom Note, he has not demonstrated a methodology whereby he can draw a conclusion, to an absolute certainty, that a given writer wrote the Note. 27
Such a holding is consistent with numerous other districts that have allowed a qualified handwriting' expert to testify as to the "similarities" between a challenged document and a known exemplar, but have not allowed the expert to express his ultimate "opinion" on the matter. See, e.g., United States v. Van Wyk, 83 F.Supp.2d 515, 524 (D.N.J. 2000)
<snip>
Factoring into the analysis the testimony of Mr. Epstein that there are similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the Ransom Note does not, however, enable plaintiff to meet that burden. The fact that there may be similarities between the two hardly constitutes persuasive evidence that Mrs. Ramsey actually wrote the Note. Without that proof, plaintiff cannot show that Mrs. Ramsey was the killer.
b. Consideration of Epstein'. Testimony That He Was Absolutely Certain that Mrs. Ramaey Wrote the Ransom Note
The Court has earlier indicated its conclusion that there is insufficient reliability to Mr. Epstein's methodology to permit him to state his conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note. As noted supra, Epstein opined that he is "100 percent certain" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note and that "there
________________________________________
Page 87
is absolutely no doubt" that she is the author. Supra at 51. The Court believes its conclusion on the admissibility of this evidence to be correct. Further, as the identify of the writer is virtually the only evidence that plaintiff can offer to shoulder its burden, then the question of the identity of the writer is synonymous with the underlying question in this litigation: did Mrs. Ramsey kill her child.
Nevertheless, even if the Court were to permit Epstein to testify as to the above conclusion, the Court does not believe his testimony would provide the "clear and convincing evidence" necessary for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.
As stated before, "clear and convincing" evidence requires "a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth." Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 2BS n. 11 (1990) . The parties have agreed that handwriting analysis is, at best, an inexact and subjective tool used to provide probative, but not clear and convincing evidence, of a questioned document's author.
...
AK
My question would be what would the judge consider to be acceptable methodology and what would she consider to be conclusive evidence that Patsy wrote the note? Handwriting is a very fluid act. The same person could write the same word 100 times and no two would be identical. Epstein was a professional that presumably had testified in many cases before this and many cases after. Was his opinion denied in any other case? If a methodology needed to be presented, wouldn't Epstein have had that at the ready from all the cases he had testified in previously? So I am pretty sure he was blind sided by this. How can one possibly quantify a subjective opinion? You can't. The only Quantifications can be absolute. For instance, he could say that he was 100% certain that a person did or didn't write the note, however he could not say that there is a 76.5% chance that a person wrote the note. Three options, she did, she didn't or she possibly did. The whole thing stinks of a slick attorney using every trick he could to get a damning piece of evidence thrown out.
CorallaroC
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 2
thanks andreww - I totally agree what you say: " snip: "How can one possibly quantify a subjective opinion? You can't."
In AK's post #48 (which I wont re=quote, just go the Carnes page 26 and scan to the judge's words "absolute certainty" - then anyone can get a better idea of how absurd the ruling really is. "Absolute certainty" is completely impossible regarding any sort of handwriting analysis, as you properly state Andreww, there is no such thing as evidentiary/scientific "absolute certainty" within a subjective science. Furthermore, for the judge to harp on any expert who is unable to demonstrate their "methodology" is just bizarre! In a soft science (I call it that for lack of a better word) but a science that involves expert subjective analysis - the "methodology" is impossible to put forth because we don't have access to that experts internal mental/intellectual processes.
Seems silly to be attempting to debate these matters here at WS. Someone only needs to use common sense and proper analytical reasoning to know that much of the Carnes crap is silly propaganda and courtroom shenanigans. JMO.
In AK's post #48 (which I wont re=quote, just go the Carnes page 26 and scan to the judge's words "absolute certainty" - then anyone can get a better idea of how absurd the ruling really is. "Absolute certainty" is completely impossible regarding any sort of handwriting analysis, as you properly state Andreww, there is no such thing as evidentiary/scientific "absolute certainty" within a subjective science. Furthermore, for the judge to harp on any expert who is unable to demonstrate their "methodology" is just bizarre! In a soft science (I call it that for lack of a better word) but a science that involves expert subjective analysis - the "methodology" is impossible to put forth because we don't have access to that experts internal mental/intellectual processes.
Seems silly to be attempting to debate these matters here at WS. Someone only needs to use common sense and proper analytical reasoning to know that much of the Carnes crap is silly propaganda and courtroom shenanigans. JMO.
Just wanted to say that Carnes' impression of the consensus that the QDEs stated "Patsy did not write the note" is misleading imo. Most of what I've read shows the "consensus" was varying degrees of "Patsy could not be excluded as the writer of the note." Most forensic evidence is so worded because some things just can not be considered incontrovertible.
Big difference.
Big difference.
Much as I'd like to believe the contrary, andreww, I believe it was JR himself who quoted Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister: tell a lie often enough, and it will be accepted as truth.
Oh, don't fool yourself, Anti-K.
He wasn't asked a LOT of important questions. The judge could only rule on what was presented. This blows your claim pretty much to molten pieces.
I'd go a fair bit stronger than "might," Anti-K. And, perhaps without realizing it, you've just seized upon the key: in a trial, criminal or civil, a jury made up of laypeople WOULD make that determination, not the experts.
Interesting idea.
Make no mistake, Anti-K: the Ramseys didn't hurt Hoffman and Wolf nearly as much as they hurt themselves.
The only thing this proves, Anti-K, is what a lousy venue civil suits are for establishing fact.
Exhibit A: Carnes' claim about the other experts. As John Ramsey himself admitted in his depo (check the recent Youtube video posted elsewhere), and as Hoffman himself was never hesitant to point out, the actual handwriting reports from those "experts" (and it's highly questionable just how expert they were) have never been seen.
Exhibit B: I don't accept that the other experts' ability to examine the material was necessarily "superior." Epstein (and Ziegler et al) came to his conclusion after 100+ plus hours of examination. Rile and Cunningham put in a grand total of 3 hours. (God Almighty!)
Exhibit C: As Michael Kane pointed out, the Ramseys themselves argued in this case that the profession of handwriting examination is not reliable or scientific. They can't say that it is when it can't identify them and it isn't when it can! One or the other!
Although, I'm starting to wonder if maybe they have a point! Have a look:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226144-An-quot-Expert-quot-Reassessment
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
I think whats missing from this discussion is a realization that Carnes considered how matters would be impacted if Epsteins conclusion had been permitted.
From Carnes: ...even if the Court were to permit Epstein to testify as to the above conclusion [100% certain that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note], the Court does not believe his testimony would provide the "clear and convincing evidence" necessary for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.
.
Again, from Carnes: The underlying notion behind Daubert, and all good science, is that a given premise or principle should be capable of being tested to determine whether the principle is, in fact, sound. Thus, if Epstein indicated, for example, that whenever a writer of known material has x number of similarities, there is a given probability that the writer wrote the note--and if this
________________________________________
Page 53
methodology had been tested by reliable means in the past--then Epstein would have shown reliability in the methodology that he used to reach a determination of the likelihood of his conclusion. As it is, however, Epstein's explanation for his conclusion seems to be little more than "Trust me; I'm an expert." Daubert case law has indicated that such an assertion, which seems to be based more on intuition than on scientific reasoning, is insufficient.
.
Incidentally, the above BBM answers your question, what would the judge consider to be acceptable methodology?
From Carnes: Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Andreww wrote (post 49, above), The only Quantifications can be absolute. For instance, he could say that he was 100% certain that a person did or didn't write the note...
You just wrote, Absolute certainty" is completely impossible regarding any sort of handwriting analysis...
You and Andreww just said the exact opposite thing, but your post reads as if you are in agreement!
Anyway, Carnes never asked for absolute certainty. Epstein claimed it.
.
From Carnes: ...Epstein's explanation for his conclusion seems to be little more than "Trust me; I'm an expert." Daubert case law has indicated that such an assertion, which seems to be based more on intuition than on scientific reasoning, is insufficient.
What did you just write?
"Absolute certainty" is completely impossible regarding any sort of handwriting analysis...
What did Epstein claim?
Absolute certainty.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
I think Carnes had more to go on than what is available to us, but really what it came down to is that “None of these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.”
As far as I know, this claim regarding these particular experts is not controversial or contested anywhere. None of the six experts accepted by the Court was able to identify Mrs Ramsey as the author.
For Hoffman to be successful he needed to have Mrs Ramsey identified as the author. To say that she “could not be excluded” fails to meet that demand.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Well, why didn’t Hoffman ask the right questions? It doesn’t matter; from Carnes: Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document.
Submissions. Submissions. So, no questions needed to be asked. The methodology needed to be submitted, but, since it wasn’t then why didn’t Hoffman ask about it? Blame it on Hoffman, but maybe it comes down to Epstein simply not being able to demonstrate his reasoning.
From Fisher’s “Forensics Under Fire.”
Within the forensic community, the debate over who wrote the ransom note was not over. In August 2004, at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners annual convention held that year in Memphis, Howard Rile and Gideon Epstein presented their contradictory findings to the hundred or so document examiners in attendance. Using comparison word charts and other exhibits, Rile carefully pointed out the dissimilarities in the known and questioned writing that led him to the conclusion that Patsy Ramsey had probably not written the ransom note. Gideon Epstein, without word charts or exhibits to support his conclusion, spoke about the need for independent thinking and the value of an open mind. He thought that perhaps his colleagues were a bit too critical of their graphology-oriented counterparts, going so far as to say that in some cases the graphological point of view might be helpful in the analysis of a document. This was not what most of those in the audience wanted to hear. With forensic handwriting identification being regularly challenged in court as unscientific and unreliable under Daubert criteria, this was not the time to associate it with graphology or graphologist-trained document examiners. p. 204 -05
.
Ignoring expert opinion in favor of amateur opinion is never a good thing, and in a matter such as this it is a terrifying thing.
.
I’m tired. I see you’ve written more. Oh well...
...
AK
BBM Are you kidding?
Besides possible hubris and just lack of preparation? I already told you why: he was saving himself for the jury. And, if it must be said, because he placed too much faith in one aspect of the case rather than taking an holistic approach. Having several of his experts drop out didn't help.
The hell it doesn't!
I doubt that very strongly, Anti-K. Maybe you've already forgotten, but he said himself that this was the first time in all the cases he'd worked on where he was not allowed to use comparison charts.
Like Epstein himself, I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of people more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in actually doing a good job.
You said it yourself:
maybe it just wasn’t something that could be done unless one were to let jurors decide the issue for themselves.
That's one thing we can agree on.
I have a lot to say.