Daubert side of the Forensics leads to intruder theory - RDI as the quick and easy path

Go down

Daubert side of the Forensics leads to intruder theory - RDI as the quick and easy path

Post by redpill on Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:21 pm

following my observation of cynic/goodsouthern sense and his claim that delmar england is a expert at crime scene "analysis"

that cynic delmar england trasha griffith koldkase et all are all forumsforjackasses

it's worth observing

RDI as the quck and easy path - anyone can be RDI

it takes no effort, no training, no education no science.
just say my theory is John did it or Burke or Patsy. there were there so they did it.

RDI have taken no professional code, no code of ethics to research the material.

To be RDI you don't have to know any forensics. no need to study forensic documentation.

the internet is full of stalkers, bullies, trolls, and certainly many of them are attracted to RDI
and to the Ramseys who are easy targets.

what's more, RDI are lazy and have made no efforts to education themselves in the interest in justice

take for example,

another example of RDI making stuff up

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Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.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.

easy to state. easy to say

Patsy wrote it. just look at the writing. Patsy wrote it. no need to do research. No need to do experiments. no need to validate these claims.

that is the way of RDI

and they call this "justice" and even have an entire forum titled forumsforjustice

it's easier to say this than say to do actual research and actual study

had koldkase and "Capricorn and cynic and the failures over at forumsforjackasses done the most minimal research

so the RDI way is to simply declare patsy wrote it just look at it.

the path of the IDI is to use science and scientific methodology to determine questioned document examination

similarly, RDI call what they do justice, and there's no need to actually study the relevant textbook science

using actual science is what i call the Daubert side of the forensics, which is a pathway many RDI would consider to be unnatural

RDI have taken no promises no oath no ethics no code of professional to use science, textbook science to arrive at their conclusions

no RDI on any forum have never for example studied

RDI cynic/goodsouthernsense has never read these books, has never said he would, yet he considers IDI who use science to conclude patsy did NOT write the ransom note as "nutjobs"

similarly, it's easy for RDI to make claims along the lines of

detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.

ukguy wrote:
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!

nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim
docg wrote:


An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.


No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

no citations, no reference, no argument as to why these claims are credible RDI is the quick and easy path

easier to say this than study this


Forensic files or crime scene reconstruction discusses how to reconstruct evidence from trace evidence, among others.

what an actual forensic scientist does is catalogue the forensic evidence found at the crime scene and considers scientific explanations on how that evidence got there.

what they don't do is say well an intruder won't leave a body and ransom note behind.

Daubert side of the Forensics leads to intruder theory.

intruder theorists are committed to studying, learning actual relevant textbook science, and applying science to this case.

RDI have made no such commitment. the world is full of trolls.

you know who else does not study the relevant science and uses science and case facts ?

a lynch mob.

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.

anyone who has seen and is familiar with

as well as forensics in successfully solved using science would know that trace evidence, unsourced, fiber hair shoeprint, dna forensic document examination are all important in solving the cases featured on this program.

for her to deny unsourced, fiber hair shoeprint, dna forensic document examination is not evidence of an intruder in the Jonbenet case, when it is evidence alone in some of the cases solved in real world using science, shows a total lynch mob mentality.

and again, trasha has never studied any forensic science at any time ever in her life. she still promotes the discredited debunked works of cina wong.

Daubert side of the Forensics leads to intruder theory
RDI as the quck and easy path that requires no study, no education, no use of textbook science, no use of actual genuine scientific and medical experts

the scientific issue is that using occam's razor, and bayesian reasoning, what theory best explains, scientifically, the actual evidence found on the crime scene, and that includes unsourced shoe print, ligature, dna, tape, fiber animal hair injuries etc, in combination with the actual conclusions of real FDE and forensic linguists on the ransom note.

an intruder theorist uses science and scientific reasoning

RDI just make stuff up, disregards science and calls this all "justice"

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2819
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

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