11. "Epstein and Foster -- what egos!"
In response to message #10


126
20 Q. What is your degree of certainty
21 yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey
22 wrote the note?
23 A. I am absolutely certain that she
24 wrote the note.
25 Q. Is that 60 percent certain?

127
1 A. No, that's 100 percent certain.
2 Q. You are 100 percent certain that
3 Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in this case;
4 is that your testimony?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. And the word 100 percent came out of
7 your mouth, not mine; correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. At least first.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And you are an individual who, to
12 the best of your knowledge, has never made an
13 error in determining the authorship of a
14 document; am I correct?
15 A. As I stated, if I have, and it's
16 very possible that I have, it's never been
17 brought to my attention.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:15 AM (GMT)

12. "only in America"
In response to message #11


160
17 Q. And you've previously told us that
18 you believe Edwin Alford, Richard Dusick and
19 Chet Ubowski to be qualified document examiners;
20 do you not?
21 A. I know them to be qualified document
22 examiners, but I don't know the circumstances of
23 this case, how they worked.
24 Q. So one can only conclude that Alex
25 Hunter was correct to consult and to obtain a

161
1 report from Chet Ubowski, from Edwin Alford and
2 from Richard Dusick; am I correct?
3 MR. ALTMAN: Objection as to form.
4 A. He was correct in what he attempted
5 to do.
6 Q. Thank you. And his decision was not
7 necessarily easy; was it?
8 A. I would not think so, no.
9 Q. This is the original of Defendant's
10 Exhibit 8, Mr. Epstein. Tell me if I'm right
11 or wrong about this, based on your
12 understanding.
13 Am I correct that Chet Ubowski had
14 access to the original ransom note?
15 A. I would certainly expect that he
16 would have had access to the originals.
17 Q. And you did not.
18 A. I did not.
19 Q. Have you ever requested the
20 opportunity to view the original ransom note?
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. When?
23 A. From the very beginning.
24 Q. To whom did you make that request?
25 A. When we -- when I first became

162
1 involved in the case I told Mr. Hoffman that,
2 you know, that we would like to see all of the
3 original documents, if they were still available,
4 of the documents that were examined previously,
5 and obviously that included the ransom note.
6 Q. Mr. Epstein, I believe your
7 microphone may have slipped.
8 A. Slipped off.
9 Q. Were you finished with your answer?
10 A. Yes. Between, I -- when I first
11 became involved in this case I asked to see
12 whatever original documents were previously
13 examined by the document examiners before.
14 Q. And why did you want to see the
15 original ransom note?
16 A. Whenever an original is available,
17 it's just standard and automatic to want to see
18 it.
19 Q. There are some things you can tell
20 from the original that you cannot tell from a
21 copy; correct?
22 A. The line quality can be more
23 adequately examined. You can do a microscopic
24 examination of the microstructure of the line.
25 You can sometimes get a better idea of why the

163
1 line quality is what it is. There are obvious
2 advantages to having the original.
3 Q. You can determine the amount of
4 pressure that was used on the writing implement;
5 can you not, sir?
6 A. You can. But from what you could
7 see already in the ransom note you could see
8 that the pressure was probably fairly even.
9 There was no feathering or up stroke and down
10 stroke differences, so --
11 Q. Is it your understanding that Chet
12 Ubowski also had access to the originals of the
13 exemplars which he compared to the original
14 ransom note?
15 A. I would certainly expect that he
16 would.
17 Q. Was that an advantage?
18 A. It is an advantage to have the
19 originals. It's not always absolutely necessary,
20 but it's always an advantage.
21 Q. And did you understand that Chet
22 Ubowski also had access to original historical
23 writings of Patsy Ramsey?
24 A. Yes, and I felt those were very
25 important.

164
1 Q. And did you have access to any of
2 those?
3 A. None other than those that were
4 listed in my report. Not originals.
5 Q. Did you have access to the originals
6 of any historical writings?
7 A. I did not.
8 Q. To the best of your knowledge did
9 Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick
10 have access to the original ransom note, to the
11 original handwriting exemplars of Patsy Ramsey
12 and to the original historical writings of Patsy
13 Ramsey?
14 A. I don't know. I don't know what
15 they had access to. I would imagine that
16 Howard Rile had access to the original documents
17 and Lloyd Cunningham would have had original
18 documents.
19 Q. As well.
20 A. As well.
21 Q. And for Lloyd Cunningham and Howard
22 Rile, were those advantages, i.e. the access to
23 the original ransom note, historical writings of
24 Patsy Ramsey and handwriting exemplars of Patsy
25 Ramsey?

165
1 A. They are advantages.
2 Q. You've read the testimony of Alex
3 Hunter --
4 A. I have.
5 Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit
6 9; have you not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you understand that from Alex
9 Hunter's perspective, the sum total of the
10 handwriting analysis done by the investigation on
11 Patsy Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about
12 a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being
13 elimination.
14 A. (Nods head).
15 Q. Do you not, sir?
16 A. That's what he says.
17 Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's
18 perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not eliminated by
19 the experts chosen by the district attorney, but
20 she was close to elimination; correct?
21 A. That's what he says, yes.
22 Q. And from Alex Hunter's perspective,
23 you also understood that there were other
24 individuals under suspicion who were not
25 eliminated; correct?

166
1 A. That's what I understand, yes.
2 Q. Who were not eliminated as the
3 author of the ransom note.
4 A. I understand that, right.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:17 AM (GMT)

13. "spit, sputter, spew"
In response to message #12


175
12 Q. And as I understand what you've just
13 said, you think that Chet Ubowski, Leonard
14 Speckin, Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick may
15 have been so concerned about the mere retention
16 of Howard Rile that they pulled their punches;
17 is that your testimony?
18 A. No, I didn't say that. You did.
19 Q. Do you think that's what happened?
20 A. No, I don't think it has anything to
21 do with fear that anybody was retained. I
22 think it was a sequence of events of what had
23 been done previously, and people talk, it's a
24 small profession, everyone knows what everyone
25 else does in these kinds of cases, and there

176
1 are certain people who don't have the stomach
2 for going up against someone else if they feel
3 that, you know --
4 Q. Which of these individuals does not
5 have the stomach to go up against Howard Rile?
6 A. I don't -- I'm saying that there are
7 people in the profession who may fear -- it's
8 the same thing, if I attempted to contact
9 individuals after I became involved in this case
10 to see whether or not they would be interested
11 in doing some pro bono work in this case, and
12 I did try to contact some people who I had
13 confidence in, and to a person, even though some
14 of them were familiar with the case and were
15 familiar with the findings in the case, chose
16 not to get involved because it's not the kind
17 of case everybody wants to be involved in.
18 And some people consider that it's
19 not worth it. Whether they may agree or not
20 agree, that's not the thing that they weigh.
21 They weigh how difficult is it going to be on
22 me, what am I going to have to go through, am
23 I going to have to sit through a deposition for
24 eight hours, I don't need that.
25 So to a person, the people I

177
1 contacted who I know can do this work and do
2 it right said that at this point in the case
3 they didn't want to become involved.
4 Q. Did you contact anybody who was
5 comfortable being co-expert with Cina Wong?
6 A. I didn't mention Cina Wong and until
7 I -- as I told you, I didn't know until this
8 morning riding over here that Cina Wong was even
9 involved, and you're trying to push my buttons,
10 I realize that.
11 Q. Sorry, sir, I have no opportunity to
12 push your buttons.
13 A. You do know which ones to push.
14 Q. I'm only given the right to ask you
15 questions.
16 A. And I'm here to answer them.
17 Q. Thank you. And if you have any
18 buttons visible, I'll try to stay away from
19 them.
20 A. I hope I can keep them concealed.
21 Q. You told us earlier that other
22 document examiners have come to you to say that
23 they believe that Patsy Ramsey authored the
24 ransom note; did you not, sir?
25 A. I did have some document examiners

178
1 -- I'm -- if you're going to ask me who they
2 were, I'm not going to mention their names
3 because they did not -- some of them were given
4 access to these documents, and had an
5 opportunity to look at them, and I don't --
6 they didn't want their names mentioned, and I
7 don't think it would be right for me to mention
8 them.
9 But I can tell you that I -- that I
10 did contact some people, and that was their
11 response. I would prefer to leave it that way.
12 I don't think -- if they wanted to come forward
13 they would have come forward themselves, and
14 it's not up to me to mention who they are.
15 Q. Well, no need for you to mention
16 Larry Zieglar, Cina Wong --
17 A. I wouldn't mention Cina Wong.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:23 AM (GMT)

14. "Talk is cheap!"
In response to message #13


A. I can tell you that Richard
23 Williams, who is an ex retired FBI document
24 examiner who I have a lot of respect for and
25 who had an opportunity to see the documents

179
1 because he is also a contract document examiner
2 for the Department of Justice, and at one time
3 we considered -- he considered becoming involved
4 in the case because he, after he had seen the
5 documents he -- and examined them he believed
6 that our findings, my findings and Larry
7 Zieglar's at the time were correct.
8 But there were personal circumstances
9 that came up involving another case in England
10 and it's a very large case, and he couldn't
11 jeopardize his position in that case because of
12 the circumstances of this case, and so he chose
13 not to become involved.
14 But there are other -- there are
15 some other document examiners who also are
16 familiar with the documents, who, when I
17 contacted them to see if they would be willing
18 to take this on on a pro bono basis -- and I
19 don't think it was the fact that it was pro
20 bono, it was simply the fact that I could tell
21 that they simply didn't want to become involved,
22 even though they knew that the findings that had
23 been previously reached were not correct.
24 Q. What documents did Richard Williams
25 have access to?

180
1 A. Well, he certainly had access to a
2 copy of the ransom note, the copies of the
3 normal course of business writings that we
4 originally received.
5 I'm trying to think if he was still
6 considering involvement at the time that we got
7 the exemplars. I'm pretty sure that -- I'm
8 pretty sure that he may have seen the exemplars.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, do you need
10 anything more definitive than what he knows?
11 Because I can tell you either on or off the
12 record.
13 MR. WOOD: Is Williams the guy you
14 withdrew as an expert?
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, uh-huh, I can
16 tell you because I actually sent material --
17 MR. WOOD: I don't think we need
18 anything further.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
20 MR. WOOD: If he's not an expert,
21 he's not an expert. He didn't have the stomach
22 for it.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, then if
24 he's not then I'm just wondering why the
25 questioning about what he looked at. If he's

181
1 not in the case, he's not in, but if he's in
2 in terms of your questions in the deposition, if
3 you really need the answers to that, I can
4 answer them for you.

jameson comment:

Ziegler said it was Patsy too - - but when he was asked to back up that claim, he withdrew.

This is a situation where talk is damn cheap.

These experts NYL has are a JOKE - - NO jury would go with this crap.

I do NOT understand why any judge is dragging this out unless they think it is just time to expose
these hired guns for once and for all.

Too bad normal people (not Internet junkies) aren't reading this crap.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:27 AM (GMT)

15. "The truth at last"
In response to message #14


Epstein: "I'm very disappointed in my profession right now ..."

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:39 AM (GMT)

16. "in fairness - - the other side said"
In response to message #15


Q by Darnay Hoffman
16 Q. Now, with respect to today's
17 deposition or whatever, you haven't been asked
18 to show any of your exhibits; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Okay. Have you attended many
21 depositions in the past?
22 A. I attended one just last week, and
23 over the years I've attended a number of them,
24 yes.
25 Q. In all of those depositions that you

206
1 remember, were you asked to show your charts and
2 comment on them?
3 A. I was asked to certainly show what I
4 was going to testify to and to illustrate and
5 actually provide copies of what those
6 illustrations would be, yes.
7 Q. And were you actually questioned at
8 that time about your charts and asked to
9 actually give demonstrations with them?
10 A. I was asked to illustrate what it
11 was that I would demonstrated it at the time of
12 testimony.
13 Q. Using your charts?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. But you weren't asked that today;
16 were you?
17 A. I was not.
18 Q. Is this the first time this has ever
19 happened?
20 A. To the best of my recollection, it's
21 an unusual situation. If it has happened
22 before, I don't recall it.

Epstein wanted to show his exhibits?

I would hope that Lin Wood already had them with the report.

But really, if I was Lin, I wouldn't feel any need to really study the exhibits.

There are similarities - we all know that. We all know this guy was looking for them and I BELIEVE most
of us think he wasn't being unbiased or honest but giving the opinion he thought Darnay wanted.

PLEASE, people, feel free to jump in with comments!

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:40 AM (GMT)

17. "blowing smoke - what is it"
In response to message #16


207
7 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to a
8 concept called blow smoke, is that a term of
9 art that you've actually heard in the
10 handwriting profession?
11 A. It's often used in the handwriting
12 profession when a document examiner comes into a
13 case simply to cast doubt or dispersions on a
14 particular finding, primarily to inject out into
15 the minds of the jury or to attempt to add
16 some sort of confusion to the case, without
17 specifically saying that the previous examiner
18 was wrong, in other words, they simply say there
19 wasn't enough evidence or the evidence was not
20 comparable, that kind of thing. So they -- the
21 term blowing smoke comes from that particular
22 type of testimony, if you will.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:51 AM (GMT)

18. "Final thoughts"
In response to message #17


Q. Do you feel her (Cina Wong) conclusions were wrong with respect to her identifying Patsy
Ramsey as the ransom note writer?
A. No, I don't believe that her conclusions were wrong.

Just he himself doesn't think she is certified in the area.

Q. ... do you feel that David Leibman arrived at the wrong conclusion when he concluded that Patsy
Ramsey was, in fact, the ransom note writer?
A. No, I don't believe he reached the wrong conclusion.

But he also wouldn't work with the man because he doesn't feel he is a certified handwriting expert.

Q. Were you aware of a report by a Donald Lacy ...
MR. RAWLS: Darnay, I don't believe the name Donald Lacy came up today before now.
MR. HOFFMAN: I wasn't sure whether it had or hadn't, because I know that you had talked about the
other handwriting experts in the case and I wasn't sure whether I had heard his name or not. If you
didn't mention his name then I won't continue along those lines.
MR. WOOD: Lacy's one of the graphologists?
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, he likes to think of himself as a questioned document examiner, but you know
how people are with that.

Yep - - we know Epstein doesn't count them as colleagues.

Epstein: "Richard Williams at one time was willing to come into the case because he believed that the
conclusions that we had reached were the correct conclusions. .... That the ransom note was written
by Patsy Ramsey.
Q. And that is the same conclusion that Larry Zieglar had reached; is that correct?
A. That's the same conclusion that Larry Zieglar had reached, that's correct.

But Larry Zeigler dropped out when asked to provide a detailed report with his name (and reputation
riding) on it.

Q. (By Darnay Hoffman) Were you surprised that you never heard anything from the district attorney's
office after you had contacted them with your credentials and your letter offering to help them pro
bono?
A. I wasn't really that surprised, because so many crackpots have come out of the woodwork in this
case that I assume that they just considered me another one of them, and maybe if I had been one of
the district attorneys and been exposed to what they had been exposed to I may have taken the
same action. But I would have liked to have heard from them, but I wasn't totally surprised that I
didn't.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 09:52 AM (GMT)

19. "bump"
In response to message #0


just moving the margins

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

KitKat
Charter Member
1980 posts
Aug-16-02, 10:40 AM (GMT)

20. "who is James Gardiner?"
In response to message #19

Have we heard of him by another name?

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-16-02, 07:54 PM (GMT)

21. "nope"
In response to message #20


you heard of him by his real name. He worked for Pasta Jay and was arrested for stabbing Jay Elowsky
after seeing visions of murdered children, including JonBenét.

Remove | Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Charter Member
5676 posts
Aug-17-02, 08:57 PM (GMT)

22. "Epstein on other handwriting experts"
In response to message #21


- - these others examined the ransom note or a first geneation copy and numerous actual samples
from Patsy and said either they couldn't make a match or felt it unlikely she wrote the ransom note.

Q. ... are you familiar with Chet Ubowski?
A. I've met him many years ago. I'm not really acquainted with him, but I think I've met him.
Q. Do you know that he is --
A. I do know that he's a document examiner at the Colorado bureau.
13

Q. Do you know Leonard Speckin?
A. He's a chemist. Yes, I know him.
Q. Is he a qualified document examiner?
A. Not in my view, no.
20

Q. Do you know Edwin Alford?
A. Ed Alford I've known for many years.
Q. Is he a qualified document examiner?
A. He is.
24

Q. Do you know Lloyd Cunningham?
A. I do know him, yes.
Q. Is he a qualified document examiner?
A. He has all of the credentials.
Q. Do you mean to say he is or he is
not?
A. I really don't know much about his
work.
Q. But by all of the credentials, does that include board certification?
A. I believe he's board certified. I'm
not sure.
Q. By the proper board, not by the --
A. Yeah, whenever I say board certified
I'm only assuming one board. And I believe heis, but I don't really know for sure.

Q. Do you know Richard Dusick?
A. Secret Service, yes.
Q. Is he a qualified document examiner?
A. Best of my knowledge, he is.
...... I have -- you know, I have no qualms about his qualification.

Q. And do you know Howard Rile?
A. I do.
Q. Is he a qualified document examiner?
A. He meets all the qualifications.