Indeed he was ruled out. And for some strange reason the expertise of these "experts" has never been questioned. As a matter of fact, in virtually all the literature on the Ramsey case, there is only one group whose expertise is consistently upheld as definitive and unchallengeable: this same group of "handwriting experts" who decided John Ramsey could not possibly have written the incriminating note.
Oh, excuse me. There is one exception. And it's quite revealing.
In The Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes of "experts" hired by his attorneys "to analyze our handwriting samples. Our experts had impeccable law enforcement reputations. They went through the same materials the police did. In the end, they totally eliminated me as a potential writer of the ransom note, and Patsy came out with a low similarity score, indicating little likelihood of having written it." (p. 140.) In short order, four more "experts," hired by the Boulder District Attorney, rubber stamped the decision of the Ramsey "experts," agreeing that John must be "ruled out."
Fast forward to the case of Wolf vs. Ramsey, March 2003, judge Julie Carnes presiding. Chris Wolf, whom the Ramseys once listed as a potential suspect, is suing them for libel. New York lawyer, Darnay Hoffman, is representing Wolf, giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that the note must have been written by Patsy, meaning the murder was an inside job. To make his case, he presents the testimony of his own lineup of "experts," all convinced Patsy and only Patsy could have written it.
From Carnes's summation:
Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review. (Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine 68 at 2.) (Carnes 2003:49) (my emphasis).Fascinating! The only principals ever to have questioned the expertise of the handwriting "experts," are John and Patsy Ramsey themselves. So. Regardless of their "impeccable law enforcement reputations," all handwriting "experts," including those who ruled John out, must be regarded as "not sufficiently reliable" since their "field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review."
I agree. From the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia:
Courts Have Split on Admissibility of Handwriting Evidence. "Since the Daubert and Kumho Tire decisions, courts have been split on the admissibility of expert testimony of a forensic document examiner. Some courts have found the testimony to be reliable and fully admissible. Some courts have determined that the forensic document examiner's testimony was not sufficiently reliable and therefore fully excluded their testimony. However, other courts have taken a middle position, permitting the forensic document examiner to testify as to particular similarities and dissimilarities between the documents, but excluding the ultimate opinion on authorship." (US v. Thornton) (My emphasis.)In other words, if this case ever comes to trial, the opinions of the various "experts" with respect to either John or Patsy (or anyone else for that matter) may very well be inadmissible, with the examiners allowed to testify only "as to particular similarities and dissimilarities."
How ironic, that the one finding that's convinced so many John must be ruled out, would very likely not be admissible in a court of law. Nor should it.
Nevertheless, this one finding by the so-called "experts" remains to this day the insuperable barrier to prosecution of the most likely suspect by far: John Ramsey.