forensic science JonBenet Ramsey ransom note and the immaturity of RDI forumsforjustice posters

Tue Jul 31, 2018

this post is a continuation of

JonBenet Ramsey ransom note and scientific forensic document examination questions RDI never ask

https://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/post?p=10536&mode=editpost

searchinGirl wrote:Thank you.

MurderMysteryReader wrote:Very interesting reading @Redpill

this is forumsforjustice




by

Tricia griffith

claim




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Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.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

what is immaturity?

the state of being immature or not fully grown.

   behavior that is appropriate to someone younger.

What are signs of immaturity?

Can you recognize childish adult behavior?

   10 Signs Therapists Note When They Assess Emotional Childishness or Maturity. ...
   Emotional escalations. ...
   Blaming. ...
   Lies. ...
   Impulsivity (or as therapists say, "poor impulse control") ...
   Need to be the center of attention. ...
   Bullying. ...
   Budding narcissism.

RDI posters are immature.

i'll explain why,

recall the daubert standard requires

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held in 1993 that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead;

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.

let's revisit these claims


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.

koldkase freely admits

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

and capricorn

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

these two RDI posters are highly immature. they admit they are not experts, they are not qualified under Daubert, they show no familiarity with the ASTM handwriting identification scale, but they bluntly assert Patsy wrote it.

this is immaturity. RDI posters are immature adults.

now, Daubert requires testing.

how can you test both RDI posters like koldkase and capricorn and handwriting "experts"

using science.

science and scientific technical expertise requires validation and testing.

how would you test and validate handwriting expertise?

well here's a proposal,

take lay persons and handwriting experts

provide them 2 sets of document

the first set of documents are the questioned document, with handwriting on it.

the second set of documents are the source document.

the first group are a simply a random group of people writing two sets of documents in their own handwriting, and the researchers know the names

the testors remove the names of the questioned document and source documents, but instead have a randomized serial number.

the testors performing the experiment know who wrote the questioned document by name, and the source document, but the targets, the lay persons and experts do not.

the lay persons and handwriting experts receive the questioned document, with a serial number.

the goal is to see how well lay persons and handwriting experts are able to correctly match the questioned document with the source document.

the testing also determines how well lay persons and handwriting experts are able to correctly reject the questioned document and source documents as coming from different authors.

testing also determines both type of errors, when they incorrectly match the source document with the questioned document as coming from same author and incorrectly rejecting the two when they in fact come from the same document.

what i described is actual science, and scientific testing scientific methodology scientific excellence, scientific understanding

the application of science methodology on a forensic question.

this requires maturity. it requires an understanding of science and forensics.


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.

if koldkase and capricorn were mature adults, they could have reasoned as i have done, and they could have done research to make sure they understand the scientific issues as i have outlined.

if RDI posters like koldcase and capricorn were mature, they could have made sure they understand the scientific issues involved in questioned document examination.

testing i have described has actually been done. this is called the review of the relevant literature. it requires maturity to do this.

RDI posters like koldcase and capricorn lack the maturity to do a review of the relevant scientific literature



conclusion laypersons who admit having no expertise engage in overmatching

they frequently incorrectly match two similar looking handwriting, yet coming from different authors, as a match, which is called overmatching.

as a result there is ZERO scientific credibility of koldkase and capricorn and all RDI who say they see a match.

koldcase and capricorn are very immature adults as are all RDI.

that same research validates one and only one handwriting experts with very impressive performance, impressive enough that their conclusions meet the Daubert standard

american board of forensic documented explainers.


their conclusion

"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).

an ASTM score of 9, elimination

"Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

an ASTM score of either 8, highly improbable or 9 elimination

koldkcase and capricorn and all RDI conclusions that patsy wrote the ransom note, it's patsy's handwriting, patsy was the only one who couldn't be elimianted

are misinformed and immature

forumsforjustice is lying to the public with their incompetence and immaturity

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

cherokee is another forumsforjustice poster and she is also very immature. and wrong.

this is the standard mature adults use

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)

on this list let's look at 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.

following these guidelines requries maturity.

disregarding this is immature and in fact a lynch mob

applying that to this


their conclusion

"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).

an ASTM score of 9, elimination

"Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

an ASTM score of either 8, highly improbable or 9 elimination

conclusion is that Patsy is eliminated as author by handwriting alone.

it is scientific incorrect to say Patsy wrote the ransom note, it's Patsy's handwriting.

it is highly immature to say the things RDI posters superdave cherokee capricorn and koldkase have said

holdontoyourhat and jameson is right

the scientific forensic evidence is that an intruder wrote the ransom note. which means there was an intruder someone other than the Ramseys