# JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

## JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

I'm writing this on Wednesday July 19, 2017

of the tens of millions of RDI JonBenet Ramsey was an inside job, Patsy Ramsey or even John Ramsey wrote the ransom note posters out there, how many have an actual background in forensic science and scientific training?

i venture none.

of the tens of millions of RDI posters who have speculated that Patsy had psychosis or was drunk or whatever

how many have used actual genuine scientific reasoning in evaluating the scientific evidence?

thus far, I found zero.

take for example, Tricia 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

this is her qualifications

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

let's quickly review her qualification again

so Tricia Griffith has Zero qualifications in science.

has any RDI poster on JonBenet Ramsey evaulated the scientific forensic evidence using scientific reasoning?

one common way to evaluate scientific evidence is what is known as the null hypothesis

what would be the null hypothesis regarding the scientific evidence found in Jonbenet Ramsey case?

application

in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case

evaluating the scientific forensic evidence with actual genuine scientific reasoning

what is the null hypothesis?

what qualifies as scientific forensic evidence?

what is the alternate hypothesis?

what sort of scientific forensic evidence would cause one to reject the null hypothesis?

what are scientific evidence recovered specifically in the JonBenet Ramsey case?

what would be the conclusion when it comes to ramsey did it versus intruder theory, if the null hypothesis is rejected?

using this kind of actual scientific evaluation and scientific training and scientific reasoning, not only is RDI rejected but the claims of RDI posters like Tricia Griffith ignorant and anti-science

neither James Kolar nor Steve Thomas are scientifically trained forensic scientists.

of the tens of millions of RDI JonBenet Ramsey was an inside job, Patsy Ramsey or even John Ramsey wrote the ransom note posters out there, how many have an actual background in forensic science and scientific training?

i venture none.

of the tens of millions of RDI posters who have speculated that Patsy had psychosis or was drunk or whatever

how many have used actual genuine scientific reasoning in evaluating the scientific evidence?

thus far, I found zero.

take for example, Tricia 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.

let's quickly review her qualification again

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

so Tricia Griffith has Zero qualifications in science.

has any RDI poster on JonBenet Ramsey evaulated the scientific forensic evidence using scientific reasoning?

one common way to evaluate scientific evidence is what is known as the null hypothesis

wiki wrote:

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought”, "H-null", "H-O", or "H-zero").

The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data are significantly unlikely to have occurred if the null hypothesis were true. In this case the null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted in its place. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis is not rejected. In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree).

In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.

Proponents of each approach criticize the other approach. Nowadays, though, a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks. The hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent—for details, see Statistical hypothesis testing.

what would be the null hypothesis regarding the scientific evidence found in Jonbenet Ramsey case?

application

wiki wrote:

Principle[edit]

Hypothesis testing requires constructing a statistical model of what the data would look like given that chance or random processes alone were responsible for the results. The hypothesis that chance alone is responsible for the results is called the null hypothesis. The model of the result of the random process is called the distribution under the null hypothesis. The obtained results are then compared with the distribution under the null hypothesis, and the likelihood of finding the obtained results is thereby determined.[3]

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true, when the study is on a randomly selected representative sample. The null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables in the population from which the sample is selected.

If the data-set of a randomly selected representative sample is very unlikely relative to the null hypothesis (defined as being part of a class of sets of data that only rarely will be observed), the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false. This class of data-sets is usually specified via a test statistic which is designed to measure the extent of apparent departure from the null hypothesis. The procedure works by assessing whether the observed departure measured by the test statistic is larger than a value defined so that the probability of occurrence of a more extreme value is small under the null hypothesis (usually in less than either 5% or 1% of similar data-sets in which the null hypothesis does hold).

If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made: namely, that the observed data set provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, because the null hypothesis could be true or false, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion; in other contexts it is interpreted as meaning that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one.

For instance, a certain drug may reduce the chance of having a heart attack. Possible null hypotheses are "this drug does not reduce the chances of having a heart attack" or "this drug has no effect on the chances of having a heart attack". The test of the hypothesis consists of administering the drug to half of the people in a study group as a controlled experiment. If the data show a statistically significant change in the people receiving the drug, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Basic definitions[edit]

The null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis are terms used in statistical tests, which are formal methods of reaching conclusions or making decisions on the basis of data. The hypotheses are conjectures about a statistical model of the population, which are based on a sample of the population. The tests are core elements of statistical inference, heavily used in the interpretation of scientific experimental data, to separate scientific claims from statistical noise.

"The statement being tested in a test of [statistical] significance is called the null hypothesis. The test of significance is designed to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis. Usually, the null hypothesis is a statement of 'no effect' or 'no difference'."[4] It is often symbolized as H0.

The statement that is hoped or expected to be true instead of the null hypothesis is the alternative hypothesis.[4] Symbols include H1 and Ha.

Statistical significance test: "Very roughly, the procedure for deciding goes like this: Take a random sample from the population. If the sample data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then do not reject the null hypothesis; if the sample data are inconsistent with the null hypothesis, then reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the alternative hypothesis is true."[5]

The following sections add context and nuance to the basic definitions.

Example[edit]

Given the test scores of two random samples of men and women, does one group differ from the other? A possible null hypothesis is that the mean male score is the same as the mean female score:

H0: μ1 = μ2

where

H0 = the null hypothesis,

μ1 = the mean of population 1, and

μ2 = the mean of population 2.

A stronger null hypothesis is that the two samples are drawn from the same population, such that the variances and shapes of the distributions are also equal.

in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case

evaluating the scientific forensic evidence with actual genuine scientific reasoning

what is the null hypothesis?

what qualifies as scientific forensic evidence?

what is the alternate hypothesis?

what sort of scientific forensic evidence would cause one to reject the null hypothesis?

what are scientific evidence recovered specifically in the JonBenet Ramsey case?

what would be the conclusion when it comes to ramsey did it versus intruder theory, if the null hypothesis is rejected?

using this kind of actual scientific evaluation and scientific training and scientific reasoning, not only is RDI rejected but the claims of RDI posters like Tricia Griffith ignorant and anti-science

neither James Kolar nor Steve Thomas are scientifically trained forensic scientists.

_________________

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

**redpill**- Posts : 1728

Join date : 2012-12-08

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

You got that right. It irked me when James Kolar and Steve Thomas opined about the forensics in the case. Steve Thomas wasn't a homicide detective when he went to the Ramsey home and his inexperience showed. As far as James Kolar goes he knows nothing and I wonder why he even went into police work. He should have been in a patrol car watching for speeders and handling other traffic related violations.

**MurderMysteryReader**- Posts : 117

Join date : 2015-10-19

Location : My room

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

while strictly speaking lou smit isn't a forensic scientist, he is a detective, like Steve thomas and james kolar, he does cite conclusions of actual forensic scientists, such as when he mentioned Patsy and handwriting and DNa

i don't recall either steve thomas or james kolar saying that forensic scientists have arrived at same conclusions regarding trace evidence

i don't recall either steve thomas or james kolar saying that forensic scientists have arrived at same conclusions regarding trace evidence

_________________

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

**redpill**- Posts : 1728

Join date : 2012-12-08

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

Lou Smit had the experience Thomas and Kolar lacked and was a much better detective. If he had more time I have no doubt Lou Smit would have figured out who killed JonBenet Ramsey. Thomas and Kolar are RDI and never looked at this case with objectivity.

Last edited by MurderMysteryReader on Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I wanted to add something)

**MurderMysteryReader**- Posts : 117

Join date : 2015-10-19

Location : My room

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

MurderMysteryReader wrote:Lou Smit had the experience Thomas and Kolar lacked and was a much better detective. If he had more time I have no doubt Lou Smit would have figured out who killed JonBenet Ramsey. Thomas and Kolar are RDI and never looked at this case with objectivity.

as far as the trace evidence, handwriting linguistics, that is all in the purview of qualified experts, and the conclusions of these experts using science, esp handwriting lingusitics dna, is very far removed from conclusion of detectives Steve thomas and james kolar.

Lou smit is a detective whose conclusions are in alignment of these experts.

if my mr cruel theory is correct lou smith had no chance of solving. mr cruel flew in from australia to boulder to vacation, after killing jonbenet, flew back to australia.

_________________

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

**redpill**- Posts : 1728

Join date : 2012-12-08

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

I agree about Lou Smit not being to solve JonBenet Murder if Mr. Cruel killed her. I doubt very highly anyone could solve it if Mr. Cruel was the killer.

**MurderMysteryReader**- Posts : 117

Join date : 2015-10-19

Location : My room

## Re: JonBenet Ramsey inside job, intruder theory and the null hypothesis

MurderMysteryReader wrote:I agree about Lou Smit not being to solve JonBenet Murder if Mr. Cruel killed her. I doubt very highly anyone could solve it if Mr. Cruel was the killer.

the only way would be for Australia to find some objects Mr Cruel handled, get touch DNA and then compare it with JonBenet Ramsey dna as reference by Mary Lacy

_________________

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

**redpill**- Posts : 1728

Join date : 2012-12-08

The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey :: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey-BLOGS :: Redpill's Blog

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum