|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2009 19:23:16 GMT -5
Handwriting expert points finger at Karr 'At least a dozen traits' link ransom note and yearbook, he says Lou Kilzer, Rocky Mountain News Published August 22, 2006 at midnight A well-known national handwriting expert said Monday he is 99.9 percent certain John Mark Karr wrote the ransom note found near the scene of JonBenet Ramsey's murder.
"Most guys are riding the fence," said Curt Baggett, the Texas-based co-founder of the School of Forensic Document Examination. "But there are at least a dozen traits that match up perfectly, when comparing a (high school) yearbook signed by Karr and the ransom note." Obviously the 0.01% came back to bite him in the ass.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2009 19:26:25 GMT -5
Statement Analysisby Mark McClish So, the Ramsey supporters would have us believe that the Ramseys not only adopted the word "hence" they also adopted the phrase "and hence" and they also adopted the killer's writing style! Possible but not probable.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 29, 2009 22:38:59 GMT -5
They both got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2009 6:45:41 GMT -5
I don't know enough about the crime to even formulate an opinion. I know Smits believed an Intruder came through the window but the original investigator claimed he ruled that out due to a spider web. Didn't they both eventually quit due to frustration? One thing that struck me was the Police believing "Inside Job" and the Prosecutor going in the other direction. Very similar to the NJSP Vs. the Governor. +++++ How Handwriting Analysis Worksby Julia Layton However, the police officers' methods of obtaining those samples has since been called into question - Hauptmann was forced to write for hours and hours until he nearly passed out from exhaustion. He was also told how to write, and he was shown a ransom note and told to copy the handwriting as best he could, to name just a few of the major no-nos. This of course means that the validity of the determined handwriting match is in question, and Hauptmann's execution makes a re-test impossible. There are now strict rules in place about how police should obtain a requested exemplar.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2009 19:11:46 GMT -5
Gideon Epstein Ramsey Ransom Note Epstein Findings.
100 Percent Certain. "Gideon Epstein, a forensic document examiner hired by Darnay Hoffman, asserted in his deposition in Wolf v. Ramsey that he was "absolutely certain" (which he clarified in follow-up questioning to mean "100 percent certain") Patsy Ramsey wrote the RN (p. 126:23-24 and p. 127:1). Lindbergh Kidnapping Ransom Note
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 30, 2009 20:54:12 GMT -5
Michael, are you trying to make a parallel to the Hauptmann id of the ransom notes? Just wondering. Handwriting analysis is completely beyond my frame of reference. I do know this though, the Ramsey case has incredible parallels to the LKC. I shunned it for years because of the tabloid exposure. Now I realize that I would have done the same with the LKC had I been around in the thirties. Look at the toll this case took on Smit. There is a great example of a man of honor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2009 8:33:50 GMT -5
I think I am trying to multiple points....
The main point is whether or not Handwriting Analysis is a Science.
If it is how can there be so many "Experts" in this "Science" disagreeing with one another? How can the same guy who many Champion the cause of re-convicting Hauptmann be the guy who is 100% convinced Patsy Ramsey wrote that Ransom Note? So it seems he divides both Schools of Thought by these very determinations.
And few other things I will get into soon.....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 31, 2009 9:56:23 GMT -5
I guess my opinion would be that if it is subjective then it is not a science. However, even if it is not a science and is quite subjective, I would definitely go with the opinion of the majority "experts". It seems to me that the majority conclude Hauptmann was the author, so unless there is good evidence to the contrary I see no good reason to doubt that conclusion. I would also say that leaving aside the actual script, there is quite a bit of evidence in the form of Hauptmann's vocabulary that ids him as the author. Not being knowledgeable in handwriting, it's the grammar which convinces me of his authorship.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2009 20:07:27 GMT -5
The more I study Handwriting Analysis the more I don't understand how so many "Experts" can disagree. It seems to me the varying conclusions the scale allows should be where each and every "Expert" falls. For one to conclude someone wrote something and for another to conclude someone else did proves their positions should never be qualified as Expert testimony. Ballistics is a Science - Handwriting Analysis seems more like educated guess-work.
|
|
|
Post by wduggan on Feb 16, 2009 14:26:16 GMT -5
It has been 15 years since the Supreme Court transformed the law of expert opinion evidence in the Daubert case. On of the most important considerations laid down in that case was the rate of error factor. "Forensic document examiners" don't do so well in this regard.
It has taken the legal and scientific community these past 15 years to get up to speed. But such organizations such as the Innocence Project have produced some remarkable results.
Under attack for a lack of scientific rigor has come blood spatter evidence, fiber matching and even finger printing. Two weeks ago, the National Science Fundation called for a standardization of scientific evidence testing techniques and labs, independent of the prosecutor, to do the testing. One thing that prompted this report was the finding that the FBI's analysis of bullet compostions was mostly malarkey. This is the stestimony where an expert says that this bullet came from this box of shells or is the same as the other bullets in the clip of a weapon . Sound a bit like the nail evidence (not used at trial) that could only come from one of 16 kegs in the whole world and one keg was in Hauptmann's garage.
Generaly an expert would only be allowed to say, for example, "To within a reasonable degree of certainty within the sience of handwriting analysis I am of the opinion that the writing on the ransom notes and the conceded writings of the defendant were written by the same person." They could not say something like "he might as well hve signed his own name." Or, "there is only a one in a trillion chance that Hauptmann did not write these notes." That's just about how Wilentz's experts testified.
I guess Clifford Irving found out how good an expert Paul Osborne was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2009 16:30:18 GMT -5
So exactly what can a "Master Forger" do? Meet Mark Hoffman. His forgeries fooled the Library of Congress, the FBI, numerous QDEs, etc. etc. George Throckmorton, Forensic Document Examiner: "The various documents he forged fooled most of the experts at that time because of new techniques that he used."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2009 16:37:13 GMT -5
While I enjoy comments with no sources, or say one from a "Popular Mechanics" Magazine, I'd have to personally posture myself behind the actual source material. Bert Farrar (EoQD - Treasury Department) was used right from the beginning by those Authorities investigating the case. The reason he isn't mentioned much in the books is because he wasn't used during the trial. And there was something else... He had a falling out with Schwarzkopf in May of '32. Later, when the decision was made to utilize Experts, Farrar was "jilted." He made a last ditch effort to be attached to the trial by asking Schwarzkopf to have a subpoena issued him for reasons of justifying any future letter to prosecuting attorneys. They decided this was a good idea and it was done. Farrar did travel to Trenton and remained there during the trial. Then of course disputes arose out of travel expenses, etc. (the usual). In Fisher's book he claims Farrar was a "rebuttal" witness to be used if necessary. Despite the fact Fisher makes so many mistakes in both of his books I would be incorrect to say its not a possibility. However, from my perspective after reviewing the material - its fairly clear their real intent was to "tie him up" by basically insuring there was no chance he could be called by the Defense. An angry Government Expert who examined everything from beginning to end wouldn't be a good situation for them at all so this seemed like the best solution. They did this elsewhere too (e.g. Curtis).... By the way, Farrar did believe Hauptmann wrote the notes. Of course like those that did he utilized the requests. Here is the most recent conclusion of his that I could find: In conclusion, I may say that there are numerous differences in form between the disputed and standard writing, and there are great differences in form and design in the standard writing itself as well as in the disputed writing. However, I believe, after a careful comparison of the two that these difference are incidental to the conditions under which the writing was done and in no way alter my opinion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2009 9:13:18 GMT -5
I was wondering, you mentioned in the other post about the police eliminating suspects due to their handwriting, but did thy check on note paper? Also did they get correspondence written by BRH around the time of the kidnapping and compare the paper with the notes? Is it possible that something exists in the archives written by BRH around that time that hasn't been compared to the ransom notes?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2009 16:11:23 GMT -5
I'd have to say (cautiously) "no" to that question. I mean any search probably had them looking at that aspect - if one was made. However, excepting Hauptmann, I don't recall anything concerning a suspects paper although to say this with a 100% certainty would be rather risky. Most suspects were brought to the station and required to pen out the Example Osborn made for Police to have suspects write.
As far as Hauptmann's writings... They chose what to use and what not to use. The supposed "boad" notebook was originally ruled out due to the fact so much writing was dis-similiar they were claiming it wasn't Hauptmann's writing. I suppose, in the end, that word (which may not even be what they claim) was more important. And so I suppose the official argument is some of it is in Hauptmann's hand while some of it is not.
My guess is there is 'something' that wasn't compared for one reason or another. I found a post card I've only ever seen referenced in a report. We'd have to find something then look up the exhibits then the later comparisons made by the various Experts. Frankly, there are those Experts from the '80's who made reports based upon Standards - but I have absolutely no idea what some were. There are still reports I've never seen so there's no way to know for sure.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2009 19:50:27 GMT -5
I guess what I'm getting at is the possibility that there might be existing documents in the archive that are of the same paper as the ransom notes. Another question, did anyone confirm that the "boad nelly" note was from the same paper stock as the ransom notes?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2009 18:50:27 GMT -5
I am sure its possible, but I'd have to say that everything they found connected to Hauptmann was examined to the hilt. It was the "watermarks" they attempted to connect up....
As far as the "Boad Nelly" note I'd have to re-read the various reports in order to answer that question. Off the top of my head I don't remember. I will start searching now. I finally have all of my files and scanner with me so things will be a little easier. Problem now is filing and filling in - also deciding what should go where, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2009 6:43:56 GMT -5
While I started with the Sellers File last night I just wanted to point out again something I found and typed up not long ago: 3. Comparison of watermarks on questioned notes to control paper taken from Hauptmann's residence. Preliminary examinations indicate that: 3. The watermarks on the control sheet do not match the ones on the questioned notes. [SFC Tidey, 3-27-1980] I would assume this too includes the "Boad Nelly" note. This is coming as a result of the NJSP "review" of the case which I believe was there defense to all of the "Baby Claimants" and later Anna Hauptmann's Civil Actions. So I don't consider it a "review", rather more like preparation and/or defense against that type of situation. The writing was on the wall and they didn't want to sit back and wait. With this in mind, when something comes out like what I cited above, its something I can usually hang my hat on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2009 17:26:25 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. It's not idle curiosity that causes me to wonder about the paper, rather it is related to Hauptmann as the note writer and the source for the paper. If he wrote the notes and made the "singnature" it stands to reason that he had this paper (or bought it) and used it for other correspondence. I wonder if current forensics could go further than simply a watermark id? The 4 notes without a signature are also interesting in relation to those with the signature. Same paper? My read on Hauptmann, for what it's worth, is that he would not throw away the unused note paper nor would he buy it for the purpose of the kidnap notes. So I believe he must have used it elsewhere and that makes me wonder if some overlooked correspondence still exists from the period. Imagine if some innocuous bit of Hauptmann ( or someone else) scrawl could be matched to the ransom note paper!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2009 6:38:48 GMT -5
Kevin, I agree with everything you wrote here: 1. If he bought the paper he wouldn't have disposed of it.
2. He would have used it later, or before for that matter.
3. It wasn't purchased specifically for the notes. Therefore, there should be other pieces which were "out there" that could have matched up. It's all "IF" of course. IF he's the Writer, and IF he was the one who bought the paper. I think this assumes too that those notes were constructed at HIS home, but even if it wasn't then that paper is always HIS or under HIS control at all times. As far as forensics on paper... That's a new one for me and I am glad you brought it up. Let's both look into this a little further and see what we come up with.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2009 8:56:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 27, 2017 15:19:22 GMT -5
In the Nova special Who Killed Lindbergh's Baby, computer software evaluated Hauptmann's known writing with a number of the ransom notes.
The result was a low probability that BRH wrote the ransom notes.
About 32 minutes in:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RvUcGC4sYk
I would trust the precision and impartiality of this software over the fallible (and well compensated) Osborns
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 27, 2017 19:45:00 GMT -5
In the Nova special Who Killed Lindbergh's Baby, computer software evaluated Hauptmann's known writing with a number of the ransom notes.
The result was a low probability that BRH wrote the ransom notes.
About 32 minutes in:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RvUcGC4sYk
I would trust the precision and impartiality of this software over the fallible (and well compensated) Osborns Who, by the way, weren't ready to say that Hauptmann wrote the notes until they knew of the evidence the state had against him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2017 7:57:39 GMT -5
I suggest a close read of Haring's The Hand of Hauptmann, impartially reviewing the trial handwriting evidence presented by Osborn and others, or just taking a casual look at the October 6, 1934 2-page "mini-autobiography" that Hauptmann penned to his lawyer James Fawcett. Then, any concerns you might have about the timing of other evidence being discovered during the course of a very active investigation, become irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 2:49:21 GMT -5
You could broaden that question out to all expert testimony, especially since they get paid quite a bit for their services and it's in their vested interest to get the 'right' answer.
The only thing Id trust is DNA and other mechanized analysis, and even that requires basic good faith from the police and that no mistakes are made. When they have made the kind of steps they've made in the Lindbergh case it shows both of these properties are in question so in essence everything is in doubt. That's why I find the arguing about the wood to be funny. Ok, so some wood, somewhere (allegedly from the ladder), possibly matches wood in this guy's attic (of all places, the least likely but if no wood is around the house then I guess there is no other alternative). OK. So what. Even Condon is more reliable than that.
|
|