Patsy Ramsey handwriting, the ransom note and actual genuine scientific research part 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Patsy Ramsey handwriting, the ransom note and actual genuine scientific research part 4

Post by redpill on Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:09 am

Intruder theorists such as myself rely on genuine actual scientific research, scientific research that passes the Daubert Standard. scientific reasoning and scientific research guided by actual testing and experiments. and scientific expert witnesses.
longtime IDI er Jameson may not have a scientific background, but her conclusions of an intruder is grounded in scientific expert witness evidence, as it is the case for all IDI'ers.



RDI theorists can claim no such use of science, real genuine forensic science. the only science that is permitted in the court room

RDI are anti-science anti-intellectual anti-expert, anti-Daubert fringe extremists who disregard scientific expert witness testimony in favor of their pet RDI theory. most RDI theories holds either Patsy or even John wrote the ransom note

their methodology?

this is science, handwriting the JonBenet ransom note, Patsy Ramsey and justice part  4

one forumsforjustice poster is koldkase, who is also on websleuth and topix

this is her claim
koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.
koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,
Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.


RDI like koldkase and capricorn are lazy anti-science trolls who have never studied science and never at any time studied the relevant forensics involved in this case. their level of dogmatism is as astounding as their ignorance.

at the core is the claim

Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.
koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

regarding Daubert

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]
Illustrative Factors: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:

Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
Whether it can be and has been tested;
Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.[4]

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)

the scientific question and scientific issue to be resolved forensically is whether a lay person like koldkase and capricorn two women who have never studied any science of any kind ever, and have never studied any statistics which is used in science, nor studied the revelance

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis (a "false positive"), while a type II error is incorrectly retaining a false null hypothesis (a "false negative").
Type I and type II errors - Wikipedia

the null hypothesis is that there is no evidence Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note
alternative hypothesis is there is evidence Patsy wrote the ransom note

Type 1 error would be incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis, that Patsy wrote the ransom note
Type 2 error would be incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis, that Patsy wrote the ransom note

no RDI on any forum has ever conceived of these possibilities of the ransom note and Patsy Ramsey in terms of null hypothesis, and type 1 and type 2 errors.

the second question is whether these claims can be tested

the most basic aspect of science, which is also present in scholarly fields, medical fields and legal fields,
is what is called a review of literature

at no time does any RDI on any forum, ever, review the relevant scientific research, again

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.
koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,
Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

at no time does Forumsforjackass forensic fraud koldkase or capricorn cite any textbooks or research papers in support of this claim.

is it scientifically true, based on testing and experiments, that a lay person with no training can look at Patsy's writing and the ransom note and conclude Patsy wrote the note?

here is actual scientific research on the issue, i am including only the first 3 pages







conclusion

lay persons such as capricorn and koldkase are totally completely refuted. lay persons engage in overmatching.

lay persons can see 2 different handwritings from 2 different writers and correctly say they are different.

the problem, they see 2 similar looking handwriting and immediately proclaim a match and are wrong close to 100% of the time.


this is the problem here in this case, they believe Patsy wrote it, they only look at Patsy's handwriting and not say John Karr or Christian Wolfe and proclaim a match. this is overmatching.

ABDFE have been tested and found to be extremely accurate close to 98% using only eyes, not special equipment.
first they always look for differences first. differences are more important.

second, they correctly reject 2 similar handwriting from 2 different authors correctly 98%

they have actual scientific principles and scientific training to arrive at scientific theories that they then apply in deciding if 2 documents should be matched as same author or rejected as coming from 2 different authors.

conclusion when they apply this to the Patsy Ramsey and Jonbenet ransom note

"There is no evidence Patsy wrote any of the questioned documents"
Richard Dusick on a 0 point ASTM scale this is somewhere between an 8, highly improbable, and 9 elimination

there is Zero scientific evidence to say the handwriting is Patsy's and it is scientifically incorrect to say, Patsy can't be eliminated therefore Patsy wrote it

as an intruder theorist i use actual science to arrive at my conclusions that an intruder murdered Jonbenet.
actual science based on textbook scientific research

not anti-science fringe theories.

docG of solvingjonbenet is a total forensics fraud. he has ZERO scientific training, and puts "daubert" in quotation marks.
he is totally ignorant of the actual scientific issues that underpin Daubert

forumsforjustice is full of frauds. cherokee is a fraud forensic linguist. she has never studied any linguistics
tricia griffith promotes the fraud and hoax and con artist cina wrong.

cynic aka southerngoodsense introduced me to delmar england. after reading his posts on acandyrose the guy is a total forensic fraud who has never studied nor read nor reviewed scientific aspects of crime scene reconstruction. standard textbook material.

you know, there are science textbooks on handwriting and crime scene reconstruction. i promise you no RDI has ever read any of them on any forum ever. certainly not on forumsforjustice

once upon a time as a Science lord and master of the daubert side of the forensics i invited my apprentice SD to study the daubert side of the forensics which leads directly to intruder on Jonbenet case





i told SD about these science textbooks and i invited SD to either buy them from amazon or barnes and nobles or borrow from library, which is what i did.


he said he would read it but never did.

i actually read these textbooks relevant to Jonbenet, in told SD about this, i asked SD if he had and he admit he had not, but said he would. i even told him he could either buy from amazon or borrow via interlibrary loan and he said he would and get back to me. then he disappears for 3 years. he returns to crimeshots

and instead of discussing forensics, like a true SITH apprentice, student of the dark side of the force, he came back to crimeshots to ban me. like a sith hahahaha! i told SD i sense darkness in you. survivor blindside

SD-Ren, you did well. he was too dangerous to be kept alive Smile

SD-ren does the dark side of the Force and kills his master, does not do the daubert side of the forensics and joins IDI
cynic aka southerngoodsense, delmar england is a total fraud



cynic aka southerngoodsense the fact you promote cina wrong letter by letter, cheroke fake forensic linguists and delmar england the forensic phony tells me you are unable to spot a fake. therefore you have never studied any forensic science relevant in the Jonbenet case despite you and trasha writing petitions since what 1999?

cynic when you compare standard textbooks on forensic document examination and standard textbooks on crime scene reconstruction from trace evidence, and you compare it to the total gibberish and nonsense of Delmar the fraud and other frauds on forumsforjustice and websmear and reddit, these are all notjobs. they did not study the job. as well as nutjobs. cynic you have never studied any forensics relevant to the jonbenet case at any time ever. you can't spot a fake. delmar england is a fake.

the Daubert side of the Forensics is a pathway to many IDI truths the RDi would consider to be unnatural.

would it be possible to learn the power of science?

Not from an RDI


_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1695
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum