The oversized "c" in "crash course" and "contenders" in S1 closely matches the oversized "c" of "carefully" in line 2 of the QD.
Where is THIS coming from? The words "Crash Course" and "Contenders" are not "oversized," they are capitalized. The "c" in "carefully is not oversized, but roughly the same size as the other letters. And looks nothing like any of Patsy's "C"s.
*The I'M" in S7 "Ilrp." closely matches the "M" in Line I of "Mr." in the QD. [B]oth "M's" have pointed tops, and a [cu]rved ending stroke.
Here again, I'm at a loss to understand what Wong's is getting at. The "m" in "I'm" is lower case, the "M" in "Mr." is upper case. I don't see any pointed top in the former, and the manner in which the ending strokes curve is completely different in the two exemplars. To me they look totally different.
The "W" with the larger opening to the left, and a smaller opening to the right in the "Wlsll found in Si, page 2 line 5 ("would') and in S5 the word "rainbow" matches the "WI' in "Well of Line 2 of the QD.
As there is no word "well" on line 2 of the ransom note, I'm assuming she's referring to the word "We." And yes, the openings on the left are larger in all three examples. And that's about it. I see no other resemblance among any of these three "w"s -- certainly no match.
And while we're at it, let's take a more careful look at "Rainbow Fish Players":
In a recent comment, someone using the "hat" "HKH" writes:
Seeing an enlarged and clearer version of the word "Rainbow" from the photo caption almost makes me wonder, if Patsy, or another adult, used little dots to form each letter, for one of the kids to trace. Maybe BR or JB wanted to help write the caption. I used to do this all the time for my son when we did his spelling homework in kindergarten.Can you see the dots? I never noticed that before, but looking more closely at the blowup, yes, I can see them quite clearly. I've sometimes wondered why those last three letters are harder to make out than the rest, and, looking more closely, it seems as though they're made up exclusively of dots which were never connected like the others. What this tells us is that "Rainbow Fish Players" was not actually written in any usual sense, and therefore cannot be used as an example of anyone's handwriting. Yet, time and again it crops up in the comparisons offered by Darnay Hoffman's "experts." You'd think that a real handwriting expert might use a magnifying glass from time to time and thus notice the many dots in this text, but this set of "experts" apparently failed to do that. The "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar crops up in their comparisons time after time, whenever it provides a handy opportunity to cherry pick a "match" between "Patsy's" handwriting and the ransom note.
For those of you curious to learn more about the findings of Darnay's other "experts," I refer you to the following blog posts, where similarly dubious examples of cherry picking and confirmation bias are exposed:
See also my response to the analysis of an influential independent "expert," called Cherokee:
In sum: Thanks to the seriously flawed efforts of all the various "experts" eager to demonstrate that Patsy Ramsey "must have" written the ransom note, the notion that Patsy's hand strongly resembles that of the ransom note is now widespread among followers of this case. As close examination of their work reveals, there is little to nothing to support such claims. I myself see little resemblance between any of her exemplars and anything in that note, aside from the sort of purely fortuitous similarities one would find between any two people using "manuscript" style.