The Handwriting Scale

Yes, there is a scale.

From UNITED STATES v. JANET L. THORNTON, Case No. 02-M-9150-01, decided January 24, 2003. The document examiner in this case was a Mr Hammond. According to the ORDER <1> Mr Hammond uses,“a 9-point scale, ranging from: Identification, Highly probable did write, Probably did write, Indications did write, No conclusion, Indications did not write, Probably did not write, Highly probable did not write, and Elimination.......The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has also promulgated standards for forensic document examiners. The nine-point scale used by Mr. Hammond in this case for expressing his opinions was established under the auspices of the ASTM."

Also, United States vs Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2005), arguing for admissibility of handwriting expert testimony:
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s Operation
“The court recognized that although this area has not been completely standardized, it is moving in the right direction. The Secret Service laboratory where Storer works has maintained its accreditation with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors since 1998, based on an external proficiency test. Furthermore, the standard nine-point scale used to express the degree to which the examiner believes the handwriting samples match was established under the auspices of the American Society for Testing and Materials (‘ASTM’). The court reasonably concluded that any lack of standardization is not in and of itself a bar to admissibility in court. <2>

Here’s the 9-point scale:

1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

A five point scale based on the above standards would look like this:

1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination
…

<1> (http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/handwrtg... )
<2>
http://federalevidence.com/node/258

AK

The nine-point scale is standard so the Ramseys only sought out examiners who used do not use the standard?(Or did the Ramseys just chop the scale in half?)

I think these examiners should step forward and explain themselves.

Me, I prefer to believe my lying eyes.

Let me try that again....

The nine-point scale is standard so the Ramseys only sought out examiners who do not abide by the standard?(Or did the Ramseys just chop the scale in half?)

I think these examiners should step forward and explain themselves.

Me, I prefer to believe my lying eyes.

(Ah, much better.)

Is there a common sense scale?

Anti-K wrote:

Yes, there is a scale.
From UNITED STATES v. JANET L. THORNTON, Case No. 02-M-9150-01, decided January 24, 2003. The document examiner in this case was a Mr Hammond. According to the ORDER <1> Mr Hammond uses,“a 9-point scale, ranging from: Identification, Highly probable did write, Probably did write, Indications did write, No conclusion, Indications did not write, Probably did not write, Highly probable did not write, and Elimination.......The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has also promulgated standards for forensic document examiners. The nine-point scale used by Mr. Hammond in this case for expressing his opinions was established under the auspices of the ASTM."
Also, United States vs Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2005), arguing for admissibility of handwriting expert testimony:
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s Operation
“The court recognized that although this area has not been completely standardized, it is moving in the right direction. The Secret Service laboratory where Storer works has maintained its accreditation with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors since 1998, based on an external proficiency test. Furthermore, the standard nine-point scale used to express the degree to which the examiner believes the handwriting samples match was established under the auspices of the American Society for Testing and Materials (‘ASTM’). The court reasonably concluded that any lack of standardization is not in and of itself a bar to admissibility in court. <2>
Here’s the 9-point scale:
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination
A five point scale based on the above standards would look like this:
1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination
…
<1> (http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/handwrtg... )
<2>
http://federalevidence.com/node/258
AK

If you notice it states that a 5 point scale "would" look like this IF it was in fact, the one used. How interesting that the 9 point scale is the STANDARD.

Now it makes sense. Patsy probably scored a 4.5 out of the 9 point scale and by the time it got down to whomever was going to present the results, THEY used the 5 point scale. Remember, it was Alex Hunter who bullchitted his way through that discussion, NOT the examiners themselves. On the 9 point STANDARD scale a 4.5 result is quite suspicious indeed

Thanks for clearing that up AK. Now we know how Alex Hunter and the rest of the "dream team" lied.

Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me

Thanks.

I'd say a 4.5 definitely rules Patsy in.

Like you, Capricorn, I don't need a scale to show me Patsy wrote the note. The indenting of paragraphs, the placement of the signature, the similarity of the letters, the exclamation points, the words chosen, they all say, "Patsy."

CSIEngland wrote:

I'd say a 4.5 definitely rules Patsy in.
Like you, Capricorn, I don't need a scale to show me Patsy wrote the note. The indenting of paragraphs, the placement of the signature, the similarity of the letters, the exclamation points, the words chosen, they all say, "Patsy."

As AK said earlier. Patsy was never determined to be the writer of the RN. They said she could not be excluded. They did not say she was ruled in. With better technology, the RN's can be better analyzed by today's standards. These comparisons of Patsy are far outdated and obsolete by today's standards

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
As AK said earlier. Patsy was never determined to be the writer of the RN. They said she could not be excluded. They did not say she was ruled in. With better technology, the RN's can be better analyzed by today's standards. These comparisons of Patsy are far outdated and obsolete by today's standards

I don't think they are outdated and obsolete. A comparison of handwriting styles is a comparison of handwriting styles. But I shouldn't have said "ruled in." You're right. Patsy was not determined to be the author of the note. She just could not be excluded. I don't think handwriting analysis can really determine or exclude anyone. I don't think it's exact enough to be able to do that. It's not like uncontaminated DNA.

Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy. Just like the make believe stun gun marks

CSIEngland wrote:

I don't think they are outdated and obsolete. A comparison of handwriting styles is a comparison of handwriting styles. But I shouldn't have said "ruled in." You're right. Patsy was not determined to be the author of the note. She just could not be excluded. I don't think handwriting analysis can really determine or exclude anyone. I don't think it's exact enough to be able to do that. It's not like uncontaminated DNA.

Analyzing a document written with a felt-tip pen complicates things. You don't get information about pressure patterns. The ransom note was written with a felt-tip pen.

fr brown wrote:

The nine-point scale is standard so the Ramseys only sought out examiners who used do not use the standard?(Or did the Ramseys just chop the scale in half?)
I think these examiners should step forward and explain themselves.
Me, I prefer to believe my lying eyes.

No, the 9 point scale is not standard. As far as I can tell there is NO standard. The 9 point scale is a standard developed by The American Society for Testing and Materials; I have no idea which or if any of the experts consulted in the Ramsey case used or followed these standards. As far as it goes, it seems that a 5 point scale was used.

Here’s a 7 point scale. <2> The categories are
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...

<2> http://209.85.173.132/search?q =cache:oB8MScu5uGcJ:www.osti.g ov/bridge/servlets/purl/5703-1 LmbJ5/webviewable/5703.pdf+%22 Indications+did+not+write%22 &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 7&gl=ca&client=firefox -a

AK

Scales are developed like this:
1) Yes
2) Don’t know (No conclusion; Inconclusive, etc
3) No

Now, add Probably Yes and Probably No:
1) Yes
2) Probably Yes
3) Don’t Know
4) Probably No
5) No

One can categorize further by adding Indicating Yes and Indicating No.
1) Yes
2) Probably Yes
3) Indicating Yes
4) Don’t Know
5) Indicating No
6) Probably No
7) No

Further categorizing by adding Highly Probable gives us the 9 point scale.
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

AK

fr brown wrote:

Let me try that again....
The nine-point scale is standard so the Ramseys only sought out examiners who do not abide by the standard?(Or did the Ramseys just chop the scale in half?)
I think these examiners should step forward and explain themselves.
Me, I prefer to believe my lying eyes.
(Ah, much better.)

The 4.5 isn’t a Ramsey or a Ramsey expert determination.

“During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts.(SMF 1 191; PSMF 1 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey.(SMF 205; PSMF , 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants.(SMF, 191; PSMF, 191.)”

AK: Four BPD experts plus two Ramsey experts, all with access to original and authentic documents.

“All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 194; PSMF 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.(SMF, 196; PSMF 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0.(SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF. 204; PSMF 1 204.)”

AK: All six experts (four BPD experts plus two Ramsey experts) agreed that Mrs Ramsey "probably did not" write the note (4 = probably did not write; 4.5 = highly probable did not write).

“The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note.(SMF 254.)”

AK: All quotes from Carnes: http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10...

AK

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
If you notice it states that a 5 point scale "would" look like this IF it was in fact, the one used. How interesting that the 9 point scale is the STANDARD.
Now it makes sense. Patsy probably scored a 4.5 out of the 9 point scale and by the time it got down to whomever was going to present the results, THEY used the 5 point scale. Remember, it was Alex Hunter who bullchitted his way through that discussion, NOT the examiners themselves. On the 9 point STANDARD scale a 4.5 result is quite suspicious indeed
Thanks for clearing that up AK. Now we know how Alex Hunter and the rest of the "dream team" lied.
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Thanks.

Good grief!

Mrs Ramsey “scored” a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 (FIVE) point scale. Y’all should have this quote memorized by now:“On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note…”

4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination

AK

CSIEngland wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think they are outdated and obsolete. A comparison of handwriting styles is a comparison of handwriting styles. But I shouldn't have said "ruled in." You're right. Patsy was not determined to be the author of the note. She just could not be excluded. I don't think handwriting analysis can really determine or exclude anyone. I don't think it's exact enough to be able to do that. It's not like uncontaminated DNA.

Using the 5 point scale as referent: only 5 is Elimination. That is, everything above 5 is NOT Elimination. To say that Mrs Ramsey could not be excluded doesn’t actually say much and it has a disingenuous ring to it. While, it is strictly true, it does not properly define the truth which is that Mrs Ramsey was not included either. If Mrs Ramsey could be included, then that is what would have been said.

Look at the scales above in post 12 above. The middle position (3 on the 5 point, 4 on the 7 point, 5 on the 9 point) means NO conclusion and everything above is Maybe Yes and everything below is Maybe No until we reach the outer extremes of the scale (Yes and No).

Most people fell into the same category as Mrs Ramsey

AK

Anti-K wrote:

<quoted text>
Using the 5 point scale as referent: only 5 is Elimination. That is, everything above 5 is NOT Elimination. To say that Mrs Ramsey could not be excluded doesn’t actually say much and it has a disingenuous ring to it. While, it is strictly true, it does not properly define the truth which is that Mrs Ramsey was not included either. If Mrs Ramsey could be included, then that is what would have been said.
Look at the scales above in post 12 above. The middle position (3 on the 5 point, 4 on the 7 point, 5 on the 9 point) means NO conclusion and everything above is Maybe Yes and everything below is Maybe No until we reach the outer extremes of the scale (Yes and No).
Most people fell into the same category as Mrs Ramsey
AK

The writing looks like hers, but I, personally, don't think anyone, Ramsey or non-Ramsey, can be included or excluded based on handwriting. It's just too imprecise.

Anti-K wrote:

<quoted text>
The 4.5 isn’t a Ramsey or a Ramsey expert determination.
“During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts.(SMF 1 191; PSMF 1 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey.(SMF 205; PSMF , 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants.(SMF, 191; PSMF, 191.)”
AK: Four BPD experts plus two Ramsey experts, all with access to original and authentic documents.
“All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 194; PSMF 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.(SMF, 196; PSMF 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0.(SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF. 204; PSMF 1 204.)”
AK: All six experts (four BPD experts plus two Ramsey experts) agreed that Mrs Ramsey "probably did not" write the note (4 = probably did not write; 4.5 = highly probable did not write).
“The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note.(SMF 254.)”
AK: All quotes from Carnes: http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10...
AK

I don't know who these BPD experts can be because Chet Ubowski of the CBI thought that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Speckin Forensic Laboratories thought it unlikely that a random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so similar to Patsy Ramsey. I guess Carnes used the other four BPD-hired experts, none of whom eliminated Patsy Ramsey as author, let us note.

Anti-K wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the 9 point scale is not standard. As far as I can tell there is NO standard. The 9 point scale is a standard developed by The American Society for Testing and Materials; I have no idea which or if any of the experts consulted in the Ramsey case used or followed these standards. As far as it goes, it seems that a 5 point scale was used.
Here’s a 7 point scale. <2> The categories are
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...
<2> http://209.85.173.132/search?q =cache:oB8MScu5uGcJ:www.osti.g ov/bridge/servlets/purl/5703-1 LmbJ5/webviewable/5703.pdf+%22 Indications+did+not+write%22 &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 7&gl=ca&client=firefox -a
AK

If all these examiners used it, it sounds like the five point scale is the standard. But I've read that all this information actually came from the Ramseys because Darnay Hoffman didn't bother to show up to present his side of the case.

fr brown wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know who these BPD experts can be because Chet Ubowski of the CBI thought that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Speckin Forensic Laboratories thought it unlikely that a random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so similar to Patsy Ramsey. I guess Carnes used the other four BPD-hired experts, none of whom eliminated Patsy Ramsey as author, let us note.

Dusak, a document analyst with the Secret Service, reported that there was no evidence to indicate that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

This is what Ubowski actually said, and not what fr brown thinks he said, from the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001:

2 Q.(BY MR. WOOD) After your book

3 came out, sir, were you aware that

4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of

5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey

6 wrote the ransom note?

7 A. No. You're telling me this for

8 the first time.

9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski

10 stated that he had never reached the

11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the

12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with

13 the ransom note?

14 A. No, I have not heard that.

15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in

16 your book, didn't you?

17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by

18 my detective sergeant.

19 Q. And you weren't even, I guess,

20 aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they

21 don't even make that kind of analysis with

22 respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of

23 the alphabet, you don't know anything about

24 that --

25 A. No.

fr brown wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know who these BPD experts can be because Chet Ubowski of the CBI thought that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Speckin Forensic Laboratories thought it unlikely that a random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so similar to Patsy Ramsey. I guess Carnes used the other four BPD-hired experts, none of whom eliminated Patsy Ramsey as author, let us note.

“All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 194; PSMF 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.(SMF, 196; PSMF 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0.(SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF. 204; PSMF 1 204.)”

SMF = Statement of Material Fact; PSMF = Plaintiff (Wolf) Statement of Material Fact

The Six Experts:
Chet Ubowski
Leonard Speckin
Edwin Alford
Richard Dusick
Lloyd Cunningham
Howard Rile

Everyone involved agreed that the six experts (4 BPD; 2 Ramsey) came to the conclusions as stated in the above quote. Hoffman, representing Wolf, simply had his own experts (rejected by the Court).

AK