The nail on the coffin for me is the so-called "London Letter", a form letter given to suspects to copy. This is also at the back of the book. Patsy's sample of the London Letter shows a lower case "a" which is the same style as in the Ransom Note.We've already discovered that the ransom note is in fact not at all "just like Patsy's" left handed printing (see previous post) -- not remotely. So now let's turn to her London Letter:
The Ransom Note features an "a" that faces "left", such as in the typeface in which I am writing. Almost all of Patsy's samples show the "elementary school a", a circle with a post on the right side, EXCEPT for the a's in the London Letter. They are dead ringers for the Ransom Note a's, and they have the final word with me. I believe she wrote the note. I don't see how anyone else could have written it and just coincidentally have left handed printing that was just like Patsy's.
Comparing this document with the first page of the "ransom" note,
I located many of the words the two documents have in common and set them side by side:
And, sorry, but I see no resemblances whatsoever between any word pairs. Which doesn't mean that someone determined to find resemblances wouldn't be able pick out certain individual elements that appear to "match." For example, as has been noted by some of Darnay Hoffmann's "experts," the crossbeam on the letter "t" in the word "to" touches the top of the following letter "o" in both documents. However, Patsy's "t"s and "o"s look very different from those of the note, so how much weight can be given to this one point of resemblance? Should it be "counted" as a match if every other element in these exemplars is so different?
For "Cyber," the letter "a" is particularly important, and he/she is correct in noting that Patsy's document contains a mix of two different types of letter "a," the "manuscript a," resembling the printed form, and "cursive a," which lacks the little "hat" on top. According to Cyber, Patsy's manuscript "a"s "are dead ringers for the Ransom Note a's". But are they really? Aside from the fact that the ransom note contains many "manuscript a"s, I don't see much in the way of resemblance at all. Is the fact that both documents use manuscript "a" sufficient reason to conclude Patsy wrote that note?
Near the bottom of my graphic I compared the two "a"s that, to me, look most alike, in the words "and" and "anyone" -- and maybe this is what "Cyber" had in mind. Each has a very prominent "hat" at the top, clearly jutting out from the rest of the letter. On closer inspection, however, we see that the two "a"s were formed very differently. All Patsy's "a"s appear to have been formed in one continuous curve, while many of the "a"s in the note, including the "a" we see in "anyone," look as though they were originally printed in cursive, with the little "hat" on top added in a second stroke. This is especially evident in the following blowup:
Now I'm not a professional document examiner, but it seems to me that the differences between the way in which letters are formed have to be more significant than any similarities in the way they look.
With this point in mind, I decided to take a closer look at Patsy's letter "d"s, because of a similarly deceptive comparison made by Cina Wong. The "d" in the word "and," at the bottom of my graphic, exhibits a very interesting curve on the right, and this curve does seem to be a consistent aspect of Patsy's style. Wong compared a very similar "d" with the initial "d" in the word "daughter," from the ransom note, so I decided to compare the "and" from the London Letter with the same "daughter" from the note, as used in Wong's comparison. And yes, in my original graphic, it does seem as though the two not only look alike, but were formed in the same manner, from two continuous strokes, a rounded semicircle on the left, plus a curved vertical on the right.
But let's take a closer look at the above blowup. Examining the ransom note "d" in more detail we see that it was actually formed from three strokes, not two, as in the London Letter "d". What appears at first sight to be a single curve on the right, is actually formed from two straight lines. None of the "d"s in the London Letter were formed that way, telling us how easy it was for Wong and her associates to jump to the wrong conclusion by relying too heavily on appearances and failing to look more closely for the manner in which the various exemplars were formed.
In sum, what Patsy's London Letter tells us is how totally unlikely it is that she could have written the "ransom" note. Unlike the comparisons produced by Fausto Brugnatelli and myself using John's exemplars (see previous post), there are literally no meaningful points of similarity between Patsy's exemplars and those of the note.
And once again, I must emphasize the role of cherry picking in distorting the facts in this case. "Cyber"s decision to focus in on the letter "a" alone, because of some dubious points of resemblance, and ignore all the many differences between the London Letter and the "ransom" note is a perfect example of exactly the sort of error that characterizes literally all such attempts to point the finger at Patsy. This is a game that could be played with a great many pairs of documents, and in the absence of any attempt at scientific control, such results are not only worthless, but deceptive and ultimately destructive.