A&E The Killing of JonBenet vs CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

vs



you have 2 documentaries, one by A&E TV and another by CBS
A&E The Killing of JonBenet vs CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

they arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions

A&E The Killing of JonBenet
concludes an intruder murdered Jonbenet Ramsey

CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey
concludes a Ramsey, specifically Burke, which was then staged by Patsy and John

both claim to have "experts" and here we have dueling "experts"

CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

conclusion, based on James Kolar is that the Ramseys arrive home from the White Party, and John Ramsey carried a sleepy Jonbenet to bed and tucked her in. Burke either stayed awake or woke up, went to the kitchen and ate pineapple. Jonbenet woke up,  went to the kitchen with burke present while he was eating pineapple, stole some of his pineapple. Burke got mad, struck her on the head with a flashlight, enough to kill Jonbenet. John and Patsy decide to stage the scene to look like a predator, and proceeded to add the ligature, some time, possibly up to 2 hours, after she was hit first.
One of the Ramseys then took train tracks from a toy train set and impaled Jonbenet in the lower back and cheek, causing the abrasions.

sounds entirely plausible. sounds like something could happen. sounds like something that explains all the facts.

time for a redpill

I'm going to offer you a choice



take the blue pill



and believe in CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey  

or take the red pill



A&E The Killing of JonBenet

let's get to the forensic problem with CBS scenario


this is the daubert standard

n Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:

   Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
   Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
   Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]
   Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test")[4] that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:

       Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
       Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
       The known or potential error rate.
       The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
       The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "Daubert trilogy." The rule then read as follows:

   Rule 702. Testimony by Experts


   If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
   (As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)

In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:

RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011)

While some federal courts still rely on pre-2000 opinions in determining the scope of Daubert, as a technical legal matter any earlier judicial rulings that conflict with the language of amended Rule 702 are no longer good precedent.

CBS had one so-called possible expert in Werner Spitz, who is a pathologist, though an old and possibly senile one.



there are serious problems with Werner Spitz as an expert witness

Werner Spitz lied

The defense attorney for Robert E. Chambers Jr. confronted the prosecution's key witness yesterday and angrily suggested that the witness, a forensic medical expert, had lied under oath and changed his medical opinion of how Jennifer Levin died.

The cross-examination occasionally turned into a shouting match between the defense attorney, Jack T. Litman, and the witness, Dr. Werner Spitz, the Chief Medical Examiner of Detroit. The confrontation dealt with the pivotal element in the prosecution's case against Mr. Chambers: the explanation of how Miss Levin died, based on the medical and forensic evidence.

Dr. Spitz, who said to Mr. Litman that he ''never told lies,'' testified last week and again yesterday under questioning by the prosecutor, Linda Fairstein, that Miss Levin had been strangled with her own blouse, which Dr. Spitz said had been twisted into a ''noose'' and held tightly against her throat.

Mr. Chambers told the police after his arrest that he killed Miss Levin accidentally from behind with a single blow of his arm after she hurt him during a sexual act in Central Park behind the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A Telephone Conversation

Mr. Litman, who at least three times last week asked the judge in the State Supreme Court trial, Justice Howard E. Bell, to declare a mistrial on the basis of Dr. Spitz's testimony, confronted the doctor yesterday with what the lawyer said were transcripts of a telephone conversation between Mr. Litman and Dr. Spitz early last year.

Quoting from the conversation, which Dr. Spitz said he did not recall in detail, Mr. Litman suggested that the doctor's opinion had become much more favorable to the prosecution since agreeing to testify in the case.

Mr. Litman ''challenged'' Dr. Spitz to re-enact the prosecution theory of strangulation with a spectator from the gallery, indicating to the jury that he considered the theory impossible.

''I'll show it to you on yourself if you'd like,'' Dr. Spitz shot back.

Ms. Fairstein then objected and court was adjourned for the day after a lengthy conference before Justice Bell, with the issue apparently undecided.

Dr. Spitz is to resume his testimony this morning, still under questioning by Mr. Litman. 'Like a Rope'

In the cross-examination yesterday, which did not appear to shake the witness significantly from his earlier testimony, Mr. Litman repeatedly asked why - if Miss Levin were strangled with the blouse ''taut around her neck like a rope'' - there were no bruises or scrapes on the back of her neck, and what specific part of the blouse was pressed against the back.

Dr. Spitz said the lack of such injuries was not unusual in clothing strangulation cases, but he said he could not tell what exact part of the blouse was at the back of the garment at the moment of death since no marks were left on the body.

Mr. Litman, who tried to retain Dr. Spitz early last year as a defense witness, referred extensively to what he said was a transcript of a conversation between them. He quoted the doctor as saying in the conversation, for example, that Miss Levin's injuries could have been caused by a fall and not a punch to the face, as Dr. Spitz testified under direct questioning. Seconds or Minutes? He asked the witness if he recalled saying Miss Levin's injuries could have been caused in seconds, rather than ''several minutes,'' of neck compression, as Dr. Spitz described last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/01/nyregion/defense-in-chambers-case-suggests-key-witness-lied.html

there are plenty of articles which show Werner Spitz is incompetent.

Werner Spitz in CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

claims that the head blow came first. in one instance he had a 10 year old boy strike a skull
with a flashlight



while this shows a boy could deliver a strike from a flashlight with enough force to crack a 6 year old girl skull, it did not show that the head blow came first.

at no point in Werner Spitz in CBS The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey  considers whether the strangulation came first. It was head blow then the strangulation was staging


this is the second half of the criteria of Daubert

RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011)

Werner Spitz failure to even consider the possibility the strangulation came first, then the head blow violates this

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

A&E The Killing of JonBenet featured not one, not two, but 6 pathologists and neurologists who evaluated the case file

it featured

Dr Stewart Hamilton



Dr. Leon Kelly, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, El Paso County Office of the Coroner - Board of Directors




Dr. Daniel du Pleuss



unlike Werner Spitz,

all 3 plus 2 more (not named) explicitly look  at the x-rays, forensic reports, had models of skull, and they explicitly stated, in no unambiguous term, they are trying to decide

did the headblow come first and strangulation was staging
did the strangulation come first, then the headblow?

Werner Spitz did NOT do this.


Dr Stewart Hamilton Dr. Leon Kelly,  Dr. Daniel du Pleuss did. their qualifications

University of Colorado Colorado Springs
Leon Kelly, M.D. is a Deputy Chief Medical Examiner/Forensic Pathologist who has ... Dr. Kelly has also appeared as the forensic pathology consultant on the.

Dr. Leon Kelly, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, El Paso County Office of the Coroner - Board of Directors

Dr. Kelly has been a community advocate and supporter of child abuse and neglect prevention through his work as Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Board Member for Peaceful Households, Governor Appointed member of the Colorado State Child Fatality Review Team and past member of the El Paso County Child Death Review Committee. His community influence extends to the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) where he is a Lecturing Professor on Investigation of Death and Injury.

Dr. Kelly is American Board Certified in Forensic Pathology, Anatomic Pathology, and Clinical Pathology and has a Medical License from the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners. He is a fellow member of the National Association of Medical Examiners, member of the College Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the American Society of Clinical Pathology.

Dr Stuart Hamilton

Deputy Chief Forensic Pathologist

East Midlands Forensic Pathology Unit
Contact Details

   Email: sjh107@le.ac.uk

Qualifications

   BMSc(Hons) First class Dundee 1995
   MB ChB Dundee 1998
   FPCPath in forensic pathology 2008
   Subspecialty registration in forensic pathology with the General Medical Council

Societies

   Member of the British Association in Forensic Medicine
   Member of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine
   Member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Name : Dr Daniel G Du Plessis
Address : Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust
Stott Lane
  Lancashire
Post Code : M6 8HD
Country : England
Telephone : 0161 789 7373
Expertise : Accidental / unnatural death (Pathology)
Homicide Investigation
Pathology Of Trauma / Death

Dr. Daniel du Plessis MB, ChB, HonsBSC, MMed (Anat Path), FRCPath

Dr Daniel du Plessis hails from South Africa where he started his medical career. He received his MB, ChB degree from the University of Stellenbosch where he also began his training in Anatomical Pathology. He obtained his MMedPath degree cum laude in 1995, after which he was appointed as a Consultant Histopathologist (Anatomical Pathologist) at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town. Whilst in this post he obtained an Honours degree in Molecular Biology cum laude. He subsequently relocated to the UK to undergo further training in neuropathology at the Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Liverpool. He held training and research posts here from 1998 to 2003, becoming a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists with subspecialty accreditation in neuropathology in 2002.

He was appointed as a Consultant Neuropathologist at Salford Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre in 2003. He is currently the Clinical Lead of the Department of Cellular Pathology at Salford Royal Hospital and an Honorary Lecturer at the University of Manchester Medical School. He also holds honorary consultant appointments at the Walton Centre and at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.

His research interests are neurodegenerative disease, neuro-oncology and forensic neuropathology. He has been invited to be a co-editor for the planned second edition of Whitwell’s Forensic Neuropathology. Apart from his NHS commitments relating to clinical neuropathology he regularly receives instructions to provide adult and paediatric forensic neuropathology expert opinions and is regularly called upon to act as an expert witness (prosecution and defence) in High Court proceedings in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. The Salford-based Neuropathology Unit acts as a forensic neuropathology training centre for the forensic pathology specialist registrars at the 3 forensic pathology-training centres in England. Dr du Plessis also contributes to the popular Euro-CNS forensic neuropathology course held regularly in Amsterdam as an invited lecturer. He is Treasurer of the British Neuropathological Society and a member of the British Association for Forensic Medicine (BAFM).

He was an invited participant at the closed experts meeting on the pathology of traumatic head injury in children held by the Royal College of Pathologists in December 2009 under the chairmanship of the President of the College. He has joined the UK National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) Expert Advisers Database upon invitation. In 2014 Her Majesty’s Special Coroner for the Hillsborough Disaster Inquests instructed Dr du Plessis to act as neuropathology expert witness for the Coroner in these proceedings.

they also looked at the amount of blood and swelling in the brain as reported in the autopsy report, photos

they also looked at this photo




so you have a team of pathologists and neuropathologists, pathologists specializing in head trauma and brain damage, and they explicitly consider whether the head blow came first then strangulation or strangulation then head blow.

what Werner Sptiz did NOT do is look at this photo





Dr Stuart Hamilton and Dr Kelly believe to a high degree of medical certainty that both the amount of what is called  petechiae hemorrhaging under the ligature and the nail marks around the neck, establishes to a medical certainty Jonbenet was strangled first, then the headblow. Jonbenet was alive then the ligature was placed around her and she clawed with her own nails away at the ligature, causing semi-lunar marks on her own neck. She was alive and conscious when this happened. This happened first. Then she was struck in the head by a blunt object.

This better explains the findings then the headblow first followed by staging.

A&E medical experts basically refutes James Kolar, Steve Thomas, Werner Spitz and CBS conclusion that Jonbenet was hit in the head first, possibly over pineapple.

So any RDI scenario of a headblow either in anger or accident first, is not supported by expert witness testimony of those with actual medical training in the matter.

Strangulation happened first. While one could conceive of an RDI scenario of perhaps burke decides to strangle his sister with ligature unsourced to the home, it is much more consistent with an intruder's actions as the Ramseys have no history of this kind of child abuse.

Even the CBS documentary says John and Patsy loved their children, in the context that they staged the scene to protect Burke.

The CBS documentary based on James Kolar and Steve Thomas and others, is that the head blow came first, specifically Burke took a flash light and struck her sister Jonbenet in anger over pineapple.

the actual evidence and medical facts, backed by expert witness opinion does not support this scenario.

Jonbenet was strangled first, and was alive, and attempted to remove the ligature while conscious, and she used her nails, clawing at her neck, causing the nail marks. she was then struck on the head.

werner spitz conclusion is to be rejected since he never at any time even considers the possibility the strangulation came first, and makes no mention of the photo shown above.

strangulation came first strongly supports the intruder theory

you've been redpilled.