Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Michael 5260
Re: Looking at the trim board
Tue Oct 2, 2018 13:11
24.185.60.218

Are you comprehending what I write? I'm starting to have some doubts.

What did I say about the Ramsey case? I don't have any opinion about the Patsy Ramsey handwriting. How could I have one when I haven't examined anything? John Trendley should be alive today. He would give you an opinion about the handwriting without leaving his house.

I do not understand why you consistently put things in boxes. Something has to either go into a "like" box or an "unlike" box. Or it has to go into a "good" box or a "bad" box. I don't get it.

Let's look at three opinions given after examinations of the Lindbergh ransom notes and Hauptmann's handwriting. All three of the examiners are competent, qualified, and have reputations for honesty. All three of them examined the same documents that were submitted to them:

Gideon Epstein- "It was found that there was overwhelming evidence that the notes were written by one person and that person was Richard Bruno Hauptmann."

Grant R. Sperry- "It is highly probable that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote the questioned handwritten entries depicted within Exhibits Q-1 through Q15."

Dr. Peter E. Baier- "There are enough similarities for saying that the ransom letters were written by one person."

"Hence, it can be assumed that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote probably the ransom notes."

Do we have anyone saying there are only "indications"? No.

Did one of them say his findings are "inconclusive"? No.

Did anyone say there is "insufficient evidence" on which to base a conclusion? No.

Is there some imaginary conflict of opinions that I missed?

I remember you carrying on about Dr. Baier's handwriting report like it was some kind of exculpating evidence or exoneration of Hauptmann. I do not understand why you have that conclusion based on a reading of Dr. Baier's report.

Read the complete handwriting reports. All three of them. As they say in poker, read em and weep. Or doesn't it work for you.

So you believe that fingerprint identification is a "true" science? There are many defense attorneys today that would harshly disagree with you. Fingerprint identification is a forensic science and just like other forensic sciences it is "probability evidence."

You think there is a carved in stone accepted guideline regarding ridge counts or points of identification? There isn't.

There are no universal standards of matching points for a fingerprint identification. The FBI puts this clearly, "there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner."

The United Kingdom uses the same standard. In other countries they do have a set number, which varies among countries, of points of identification.

Identification of handwriting follows the same principle. If you are attempting to identify the writer of an anonymous letter there are no set number of points of identification on which an examiner relies. Once a sufficient number of points of identification(handwriting characteristics) are found and it is reasonable to conclude that the points of identification would not be found in another person's handwriting, you can safely conclude that you have identified the writer. As you can see the examination is objective, just like the fingerprint examiner, and the identification or conclusion is subjective, just like the fingerprint examiner.

I don't have graphology on the brain. I can't help but notice how many graphologists were floating around the Lindbergh case. Kennedy has one in the back of his book. Gunter Haas.

Polygraph? Of course it can be beaten. If you are examining a psychopath that committed a crime they will probably pass the polygraph examination. Why? Because you might as well be testing a General Motors crash test dummy. There is no internal remorse, or a guilty conscience in them. This is like testing a cadaver.

You may have a delusional person. They absolutely believe what they are saying. They will pass the polygraph because what they are saying is the truth to them.

There are some courts, I think federal, that sometimes allow polygraph evidence. It is allowed at the discretion of the judge.

You don't think there is anything more to discuss about the questioned documents in this case? Man, that was quick. I guess I'll post to the Forum members. They may have more curiosity and a desire to learn something new.

There is much more to discuss but I know this topic gives you heat rash.

Say, I meant to ask you. What are your thoughts about the Thomas Wolfe connection to the LKC?

  • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Tue Oct 2 08:00
    Just a little reminder concerning what you accused me of: The reason for it is that you are closed minded, you do not like forensic evidence, and you scoff at scientific method. So if what you write... more
    • Re: Looking at the trim board — Michael 5260, Tue Oct 2 13:11
      • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael , Tue Oct 2 15:17
        Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in! You are all over the place and it would take me about an hour to counter what you've written and I just don't have the time. I do like discussing... more
        • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Tue Oct 2 21:06
          I see you have completely avoided the three handwriting reports I mentioned. Your response to them is avoidance? Funny, at the time Dr. Baier gave his opinion you were in nirvana. I'm talking about... more
          • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 08:23
            By the way... If this is the guy the QDE says wrote those notes that should be YOUR "cup of tea" since a its coming from a fellow "expert." Remember, I'm the guy who doesn't believe its a real... more
            • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Wed Oct 3 10:38
              The person that made the claim about Thomas Wolfe is a "woman" not a "man" or as you say a "guy." I guess you didn't know this because it didn't have a "footnote" with it and it wasn't found in the... more
              • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 11:29
                So a QDE can be either a man or a woman. But they are only "good" ones if they conclude as you do. Got it. I see you agree with Gideon Epstein. Why? Because he believes Hauptmann wrote the notes. So... more
                • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5250, Wed Oct 3 13:04
                  Did I say I agreed with Gideon Epstein? I most certainly did not. I posted the three handwriting reports for you to read. Don't be putting me down that I believe Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.... more
                  • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 13:59
                    So if you do not agree with Epstein do you still believe he's "good?" And if so, how could you both be "good" and still come to different conclusions IF you are both "experts" in this "science?" Or... more
                    • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Wed Oct 3 14:54
                      I did not say I agree with Epstein and I did not say I disagree with him. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. The technique you are so fond of. Do you think there is some kind of... more
          • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 08:21
            Not going to work Script. I am not going to be consumed by a wild goose chase based upon your misrepresentation of what you think I believe or believed. You want to know what that is you read both... more
            • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Wed Oct 3 10:52
              You have qualms about being consumed by a wild goose chase? You have been on one for 18 years. You have this idea that a "footnote" is some kind of powerful weapon of truth. It isn't. All a footnote... more
              • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 10:58
                You have qualms about being consumed by a wild goose chase? You have been on one for 18 years. And you would know this how exactly? I think it would require actual research, but then again, that's a... more
                • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Wed Oct 3 11:20
                  I know it because you said so. You mentioned it on you board. Does it require a footnote?
                  • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael, Wed Oct 3 11:42
                    Of course it does. You have a history of taking things out of context or misunderstanding even the most basic ideas. Was I playing "Devils Advocate," testing a theory, or looking for challenges to a... more
                    • Re: Looking at the trim boardMichael 5260, Wed Oct 3 13:20
                      BS. Your a contrarian and you get off on it. Debate?! You better go back and reread the Socratic Method. There is actually such a thing as cooperative argumentative dialogue. While you are at it read ... more
Click here to receive daily updates