Richard Dusak & Edwin F. Alford, Jr. and the questions that proves RDI and forumsforjustice.org lies

Go down

Richard Dusak & Edwin F. Alford, Jr. and the questions that proves RDI and forumsforjustice.org lies

Post by redpill on Mon May 07, 2018 11:16 am

i'm writing this on Mon May 07, 2018

what I have to say in this post is how actual forensic scientists, using science, determine whether Jonbenet was murdered by the parents or an intruder.

sadly no poster at forumsforjustice has ever spelled it out in this way, and quite the contrary, they contradict what is posted here.


RDI and forumsforjustice.org offers a simple proposal on how to determine whether Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note


forumsforjustice.org FFJ Senior Member

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." -

so forumsforjustice.org FFJ Senior Member claims simply looking at Patsy's and then the ransom note with untrained eyes is enough to conclude Patsy wrote the ransom note.

the conclusion of koldkase contradicts the conclusion

Richard Dusak & Edwin F. Alford, Jr.

Richard Dusak

Richard Dusak wrote:
Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin F. Alford, Jr.



Edwin F. Alford, Jr.

"Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter.

we have a contradiction here.

forumsforjustice.org posters koldkase and cherokee and cynic and trasha all claim you can tell it's patsy by looking at it.

Richard Dusak and Edwin F. Alford, Jr.have eliminated Patsy as the author of the Jonbenet ransom note based on handwriting alone.

kodlkase and cherokee's method of determine to that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note contradicts the conclusion
of Richard Dusak & Edwin F. Alford, Jr.

how should we determine which testimony is credible?

forumsforjustice.org Cherokee suggests an answer

anyone who relies on Richard Dusak and Edwin F. Alford, Jr conclusion, Patsy Ramsey is eliminated, is

cherokee wrote:
My sentiments exactly.

In my humble opinion ... anyone (like Paula Woodward) who believes the Ramseys are innocent and would shill for them, after ALL the documented evidence otherwise, is either:

a. delusional

b. an idiot

c. corrupt

or

d. all of the above


is this true?

how can we tell who to believe? should we believe in koldkase and cherokee and forumsforjustice.org, or Richard Dusak and Edwin F. Alford, Jr?

Brent Turvey outlines the code of ethics


Brent Turvey wrote:
Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations. (Turvey 1999: 722)

of these


Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.

Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.


is there a scientific way to determine whether Koldkase and Cherokee's judgments are reliable, or Richard Dusak and Edwin
F. Alford, Jr?

as trinity of the matrix said to neo, it is the question, the question that drives you.

like a splinter in the mind driving you mad - morpheous

actually there is, the daubert standard, or what i call the power of the daubert side of the forensics

this is the daubert standard

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]

how would you test koldkase and cherokee's claims? how would you test Richard Dusak and Edwin
F. Alford, Jr?

does koldkase and cherokee meet the daubert standard? what about Richard Dusak and Edwin
F. Alford, Jr?

here is an example of scientific testing



koldkase and cherokee have never studied any forensic document examination at any time in their life

Richard Dusak and Edwin F. Alford, Jr

Qualifications. Dusak is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. According to ABFDE: "The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) is the only certifying board sponsored by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences, The Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and is recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences."

Richard Dusak and Edwin F. Alford, Jr are both members of American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, same organization that were explicitly tested in the paper above.

so compare cherokee's claim,


cherokee wrote:
My sentiments exactly.

In my humble opinion ... anyone (like Paula Woodward) who believes the Ramseys are innocent and would shill for them, after ALL the documented evidence otherwise, is either:

a. delusional

b. an idiot

c. corrupt

or

d. all of the above


with a forensic scientist using this standard



Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.

Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.

using this expert witness testimony


Richard Dusak

Richard Dusak wrote:
Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin F. Alford, Jr.



Edwin F. Alford, Jr.

"Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter.

what conclusions would a forensic scientist advising the DA's office arrive at the question whether Patsy wrote the ransom note draw

using the daubert standard to determine which experts are qualified, and then using this code of ethics


Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.

Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.

and especially

Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

everything i've written is something forumsforjustice should have written way back in 1999, that's almost 20 years ago, and informing the public what the daubert standard is, what professional and science is, and how this leads to the conclusion that Patsy has been ELIMINATED on the ASTM 1-9 scale

instead, forumsforjustice does the opposite and calls itself "justice"

what I've spelled out here, is how actual forensic scientists advising the DA's office will actually go about investigating the case.

what I said also applies to every scientific evidence in the case, from DNA to fiber, trace evidence, to crime scene reconstruction. they identify evidence that is scientific in nature, then consult with experts, actual experts, experts who meet the dauber standard, as to what their conclusion is on the said evidence and how they arrived at their conclusion

the RDI psoters at forumsforjustice are not experts at anything, their statements contradicts those with actual expertise.
consulting these experts,

this leads to the scientific conclusion using scientific expert witness testimony, in evaluating scientific evidence that Jonbenet was murdered by an intruder.

you've been living in a dreamworld Neo



Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven

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

Posts : 2914
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