Message Board
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,134
Reply with quote  #31 
So, here is the real question... What elements of the handwriting was missing if the only reason to have the originals is to detect something that is not detectable in this particular case? Pure hand printing that is definitely disguised, written in a slow disconnected manner, and executed with a felt tip pen. JT's favorite pen was a blue Pilot razor disposable which writes much like a fountain pen except that it has a tip of porous material for a tip that allows the ink to flow freely.
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #32 
Nanette, one site that has the info about E.Short going to Chicago to do some modeling for "Jack" is: blackdahliainfo.com, go to the biology tab and then go to the chronology tab, it's dated Jan 9th 1947.

There are several writers that say that there was a connection to the Chicago Lipstick case, some claim E.Short was fixated on the Suzanne Degnan murder and may have posed as a reporter at the inquiry on Degnan's death.

Also some sites are now posting some envelopes that I've never seen before that are very likely from the killer, the handwriting looks like JT's to me and everything about them and the  crime is Zodiac Jack 101, including and especially the way he carved her up and laid her out on display. He put her legs like a "J" and her torso like a "t", just like the "Jtee' on the wall writing. Her body was "artistically" carved up, the "tear drop" cutout on her left breast, the "clown faced" cuts to he mouth, the "extra hole" on her pelvis, the "cross hatch/tic-tac-toe" cuts on her pubic area, etc etc. very nasty.

I think he figured out he wasn't gonna get anywhere with her so he did the deed, obviously he had a lot of contempt for her, he may have had his sights on murdering her and targeted her for death and display, so the rage thing was maybe a big put on. (?)

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
Jupiter

Registered:
Posts: 96
Reply with quote  #33 
We had to make a run to the library today for a school project so while I was there I decided to look through Black Dahlia Avenger to see if I could definitively address some of the questions that have been raised.

First, regarding why Hodel chose McFarland- He was living in Washington at the time and he writes (p. 274),
Quote:
As an associate member of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Seattle, I contacted them for a referral to a handwriting expert. They recommended Ms Hannah McFarland...


As to why McFarland chose the term "highly probable" (277- 278)-

Quote:
In making her authorship identification, Ms. McFarland used the term "highly probable" because, she explained, " absent the examination of the actual original documents, due to having to work with photocopies and scans, which would allow for the possibility of cut and paste, and alterations, it is standard practice that a positive opinion cannot be given." Her "highly probable" finding, she said, is the same as her being "virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same person."


From this and what you posted about the ASTM guidelines, I gather it is her personal standard to issue a qualified opinion ( highly probable instead of with virtual certainty) in cases in which she has not examined the original documents.

Terry B- I have seen the Black Dahlia photos and I'm afraid I don't see the "JT" that you describe. I don't wish to post the photos here (they are easily available but I don't want them on my Photobucket, as it just feels disrespectful to Ms. Short), so I will see if I can, perhaps, sketch the positioning I see and post it. Although, this is a thread for the Lipstick Killings so maybe I should post it elsewhere?
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #34 
Jupiter, the victims left leg was placed with a slight bent to the knee while her right leg is extended straight, thus serving as a the letter J. The lower body  section is placed offset and away from the upper section, her upper section is poised to serve as a lower case t.

I know this sounds too incredible but I say this based on the fact that "fanciful" Jt's are found on all of the crime documents on the list except OCCK,(so far).

For those people that think this concept is too far out there; they need to read the works of former FBI profiler and author John Douglas. It just isn't going work to try to understand these cases based on your own frame of mind, that is assuming you have a normal frame of mind and thought process and I assume that you do.

And yes....you have to recognize the JT initials on the said documents. I've printed and given my highlighted copy of the JonBenet Ramsey ransom letter to some very bright people and they see the JT nuances right of the bat, so to speak, I've given it to some other people that I know that aren't very bright and they don't see as easily, if at all.

It is hard for me to believe that members of Boulder LE don't see these features, certainly former prosecutor Alex Hunter referred to the ransom note as a "fanciful" document, even Fleet White Jr was telling the Ramsey's about the "structure" of the document, Patsy Ramsey said she didn't know what he was talking about, this was early on in the crime, perhaps later on they understood the business about the "structure" of the thing but I've never read anything where they've acknowledged it, so go figure?

The JT nuances are provably in the JonBenet Ramsey ransom letter because there are so many of them, too many really....and as I say; once a student of this fact is on to it they then will see that the whole thing is saturated with J's and Jt's and j-hooks, those same nuances are found in several Zodiac killer documents. He signed his work with his initials as well as his style and/or MO.

Elizabeth Short's soul has already suffered beyond anything anybody else could do that the killer hasn't already done, hopefully it will be the killers soul that has to do the suffering, or hopefully he will at some point in time in the universe truly feel remorse for his deeds but I'm probably wishing for something that won't ever happen. Her remains serve as a reminder that we share the planet with some really messed up people. He was worse than Jack the Ripper, read what Douglas has to say about that case too.


__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #35 
Jupiter, I understand your position regarding the images of E. Short's brutalized remains, the first time I saw them I had to hold back the tears, it was just too painful to view them for very long. After I recovered from the initial shock and after feelings of rage and anger left me; I became more clinical about the thing, the damage had already been done, now the process of figuring out "who done it" took over but I also remember thinking at that point in time, that that may never happen.

For me it wasn't until I was "on" to the JT signature nuances, then I double checked Nanette's workmanship and I was satisfied that her work was and is sound, then I went looking for the JT nuances in the other crimes listed and sure enough !! They were hidden in plain view, just like they are in the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #36 
While I was trying locate the site that had the statement about E.Short going to Chicago to do some modeling with "Jack"; I came across the blackdahliasolution site, whomever the author of that site is is just plain full of nonsense. I like some of the documents posted there but the leaps in logic and reasoning remind me of catseye's crazy conclusions. Apparently it never dawned on the author of that site that the actual killer was trying to draw attention away from the pertinence of the "Jack" clue and on to the obviously false lead to Ed Burns. That site sports some really huge leaps in logic.

The author of that site made several mistakes, one where he or she claims that the shape of a figure carved into Ms.Short's pubic area is a "hex" nut, yet the shape shown is that of a square, hex means hexagon or eight sides, geez.

On the other hand the author of that  same site claims that one of the carved shapes was a small heart, however; the images shown are of very poor quality, I wanna verify if there was actually a heart shape carved into her corpse.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,134
Reply with quote  #37 
Ok, we are waaayyy ahead of ourselves with the connections to other crimes. This should be questions and answers for LK killings, and the facts page for things like matches whether culpable or ex-culpable evidence for JT. I will ask that these posts that are not on the LK subject be moved to the proper threads, or I can move them for you...TY
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #38 
Nanette, the subject of BD as how it relates to the LK case is where this posting stems from, so I would say it belongs here when viewed in the context of the discussion, otherwise there will be holes in the discussion.

As you know: many things cross-connect these two subjects.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,134
Reply with quote  #39 
It is merely a recognition of the argument of how BD was laid out that makes for too long of a statement for the LK thread. Don't you see where we have strayed? How BD was positioned has nothing to do with LK as much as it has to do with Z. The fact that we have to cover this at all is making this thread that much longer.
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #40 
Part of the  point that I am trying to make is that her body sections resemble the J-tee thing on the lipstick wall writing the most. In that regard it is "on topic" and I didn't post it in the "dedicated" information thread.

I'd like to know more about the condition of the bodies in the LK case, were there "fanciful and artistic" things that were done to their bodies too?

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,134
Reply with quote  #41 
I have had the privelege to work a case with Hannah McFarland this last couple of weeks where my client requested a second opinion, and even though I had a peer review completed by a mentor in my school, I suggested that they received an opinion from an examiner outside of our group to ensure an unbias which happened to be Hannah McFarland. I have her report on this case, and I am willing t o furnish it to anyonen who requests it.

My official conversation with McFarland was that she concurred with my findings, but would have to seriously qualify her opinion due to the poor quality of the exemplars presented.

I present to the public a portion of the requested job that she was paid in full for.


Hannah’s report qualified these signatures as probably not authentic in regards to the signatures I present. Now I ask you, the public, is there any reason Hannah should be on the fence as far as these signatures are concerned?

I have emails to back my current statements that I am about to make if anyone would like to view them.

 

Hannah asked to give me constructive criticism, and my only concern is that she should render her opinion to the client before seeing my findings, but that I was completely open to hear anything she had to say that help me to be better in my field. Her critique had to do with my education and not with my findings in the case.

 

Today I sent her my report on this file, and she called me to discuss her concerns.

 

First and foremost, her critique did not have anything to do with my opinion as much as it had to do with me separating myself from Bart or Curt Baggett because they didn’t teach the fundamentals of handwriting or the basics of it. In our conversation we covered the text books provided in my course, and she concurred with their texts rather than deny they were quacks in this industry. This tells me that she is completely unaware of what we are taught in this course.

 

Second, she referred me to take the course of Reed Hayes or Koppenhaven [sic?], and get NADE certified, which I am very interested in furthering my career with what is deemed as proper education in this field. When I researched his name, I found a link to a mentor that is NADE certified, taken the Reed Hayes course, and apprenticed under Koppenhaven [sic?] and still told me I was wrong without so much as looking at my findings based on a conversation he had with another one of my mentors who never opened my files as well.

 

I am really disgusted with this need to be part of an organization when they will really certify anyone who can pass their menial test, and who has trained under the best of who she claims I should put on my resume. I am not ashamed who I trained under, and there is no amount of resentment for the knowledge they gave me regardless of their own agendas. I am completely satisfied and uncompromised over the opinions I give my clients without regrets.

 

The simple fact that she cannot commit to a handwriting analysis where the obvious is concerned is an exact credit or lack their of that I give to an industry who has created an adversarial system that allows for people to make money.

 

THERE IS NO REASON WHY A DOCUMENT EXAMINER SHOULD HAVE A VARING POSITION ON THE HABITUATION OF HANDWRITING FROM ANOTHER. Our criteria is set, and very objective. It either is or it isn’t, and the only reason to qualify an opinion is because we cannot make out the difference in a copy.  I hope that you see above that there was no other opinion qualified in this subject other than forgery, and for the same very reason that I question her background in the BD/Z/LK case is because she is not willing to stand behind her opinion for anything less than she can change based on tomorrow’s evidence.

 

 


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #42 
Nanette, I wouldn't get too wound up about it, I understand your point.

Apparently either:  A) She doesn't have confidence in her workmanship, or: B) She was sent at you throw a monkey wrench in the works (I hope not)

For example: I see that another alleged former FBI profiler has written a book on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case where he is trying to dispel the intruder theory. I read some excerpts of the book and his screwy reasoning was making angry, the guy is a complete buffoon and a stooge, he's trying to re-write history and skew the facts. To me it's more evidence that her murder was a part of a big conspiracy and further evidence of FBI involvement. Apparently there has been a sub-culture woven into the FBI organization.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
Jupiter

Registered:
Posts: 96
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
THERE IS NO REASON WHY A DOCUMENT EXAMINER SHOULD HAVE A VARING POSITION ON THE HABITUATION OF HANDWRITING FROM ANOTHER. 


Nanette- I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this statement. No matter how many parameters are set up for how handwriting should be evaluated, ultimately, there is a subjective (read: human) component to what you and Ms. McFarland do.
The same can be said of countless other scientific fields. Take medicine, for example. 2 doctors may take a history and perform a physical examination on the same patient, yet, based upon their individual experience, knowledge and interpretation, may come up with 2 different diagnoses.
Two pathologists can read the same biopsy sample, with the same populations of cells represented, and one pathologist might read the sample as benign, while the other leans towards malignant cancer.

While two similarly trained individuals are more likely to agree than to disagree, it is entirely possible (and very common) for them to come to completely different conclusions, even though they are looking at the exact same thing. As someone who is familiar with court proceedings, you have no doubt seen this countless times. The defense presents an expert witness that states one thing, the prosecution presents an expert witness that has evaluated the same evidence and says the complete opposite. It is not fair, and not true, to suggest that just because someone is being paid for their opinion that they will be more likely to lie about something to get their money. Sure it happens, but I would be willing to bet this is the exception rather than the rule.

Humans cannot remove themselves entirely from their work. There is an element of subjectivity in everything we do, even in scientific fields with very clear and detailed rules. I don't believe it is reasonable to think that 2 people in the same field have to come to the same conclusions. Each could be following their training to the letter and still manage to not agree; it happens in just about any field you can name. 

TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #44 
In the JonBenet Ramsey case several handwriting experts gave their reports regarding whether Patsy Ramsey penned the so-called ransom note, it really came down to credibility and true experience. All of the credible ones said  that there were too many differences than there were similarities, of that group one of the most credible ones said "no match" and that was a fellow named Dusek, a few others said basically the same thing. Had these people been able to say it was her's.... she would have been indicted. A few not credible ones claimed a match but were all rejected by officers of the courts mainly because they didn't have the credentials and their methodology was greatly flawed.

Jupiter, making those analogies to those  types of medical business practices isn't really comparing things on an equal basis. Many tests are required to render a proper determination and even then there are other variables to consider. It's a very different business.

With handwriting analysis the business is much more circumspect. If you have examiners that don't do their homework then you get nonsense from them. The methodology is there but if some people don't apply themselves then you get poor results from those people. 

In the JonBenet Ramsey murder case you basically have an inexperience so-called detective in Steve Thomas claiming the parents did it verses two highly experienced and successful detectives like Lou Smit and John Douglas saying the parents didn't do it. If a clear thinking person checks their methodology and reasoning they should get sensible results. Thomas' reasoning was based on nonsense and Smit's and Douglas's was based on perfect sense.

Sorry to butt in, your turn Nanette.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
Jupiter

Registered:
Posts: 96
Reply with quote  #45 
I'll have to disagree with you as well, TerryB.

Countless studies have been done that show that when you factor in the "human influence", regardless of which field (scientific or not), there will be differences in interpretation.

For example, in a study of radiologists at Michigan State University 60 x-rays were presented to radiologists. The question- is this x-ray normal? The radiologists disagreed with one another in about 20% of the cases; a phenomenon known as inter-observer variability. Worse yet, when the same radiologists read the same x-rays at a later time, they disagreed with THEMSELVES in 5- 10% of the cases; a phenomenon known as intra-observer variability.

Below are a few other examples. Regardless of how detailed or specific measurements or rules are in a given field, there exists the possibility for some differences because people are involved in the analysis. This has been definitively proven in many studies, so I don't feel it is fair or appropriate to imply that the main reason that differences of opinion exist is because one of the experts was either lying or incompetent. 

A link to a study about variations in quantitative measurements of cancerous lesions and response to chemotherapy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423763/

Here is a link to a study regarding fingerprint analysis:
http://cognitiveprofiletesting.com/Dror_FSI_cognitive_issues_fingerprint_analysis.pdf


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.