project tricia griffith rebuttal actual forensic experts

this is trasha griffith


trasha pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist



this is what she claims

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page92

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

this is her qualifications

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

this is Brent Turvey



this is Lawrence Kobilinsky



this is Howard Rile



they have stated that the trace evidence and hand writing evidence is evidence that supports the intruder theory.

their conclusion contradicts Tricia Griffith and every poster on forumsforjustice and websleuth RDI who say otherwise.

They are actual forensic scientists. RDI posters on websleuth and forumsforjustice and Tricia Griffith have never studied any forensic science.

In the interest of justice, should we accept the conclusions of highly trained professional forensic scientists whose expertise is to evaluate trace evidence such as fiber, shoe print, hair, ligature handwriting linguistics

or those of forumsposters RDI on topix fFj websleuth who have never studied any science, let alone forenisc science?



in effect you have highly trained trace evidence examiners, forensic scientists, crime scene reconstruction experts, handwriting experts who have concluded in favor of intruder, that the unsourced fiber and shoe print is evidence of an intruder, versus forum posters with no training, no qualification, who have never even read a single textbook on trace evidence analysis, claiming otherwise.

how is it "justice" to disregard expert witness conclusions in the relevant areas of training, which concludes an intruder murdered Jonbenet, for forum posters with no such training?