Rebuttal to Tricia Griffith and cynic Rebuttal to Discovery I.D. Show about JonBenet pt1

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Rebuttal to Tricia Griffith and cynic Rebuttal to Discovery I.D. Show about JonBenet pt1

Post by redpill on Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:59 pm

listed here
tricia griffith and cynic have a thread
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?455-Rebuttal-to-Discovery-I-D-Show-about-JonBenet

Rebuttal Discovery I.D. Show/Handwriting and ransom note
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?147111-Rebuttal-Discovery-I-D-Show-Handwriting-and-ransom-note

   Dr. James Pennebaker is the handwriting expert Jones uses in the program.

Pennebaker is not a handwriting expert. Tricia apparently does not know this. the most rudimentary research into Pennebaker would establish this.  as for her second claim

she claims cynic rebuts this

cynic wrote:
Did Pennebaker consider the astonishing similarities between Patsy’s handwriting exemplars and the ransom note?

We were called upon to examine the ransom note that was left at the crime scene. The other handwriting expert was in Maryland. Both of us were kept separate so our opinions would be independent. In my opinion, I found that it was highly probable that Patsy was the person who wrote the note. I found over 243 similarities between her handwriting and the ransom note. The other handwriting expert said that he was 100 positive that Patsy wrote the note.
- Cina Wong
http://www.cinawongforgeryexpert.com...debusiness.asp

with invitation


Of course you can see with your own eyes how closely Patsy's handwriting resembles the ransom note thanks to handwriting expert Cina Wong.

considering how much time cynic and tricia spend promoting the discredited debunked work of cina wrong a simple visit shows how crazy they are, on ffj and ws,


   Wong Qualifications

   Her report to Darnay Hoffman lists her as a Court Qualified Board Certified Document Examiner Her deposition in the Chris Wolf case, (posted at jonbenetindexguide.com and Starting Over-JonBenet), provides extensive details about her background.
   No Professional Credentials. Furthermore, Judge Julie Carnes noted that "Wong has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, been an apprentice to an ABFDE certified document examiner, or worked in a crime lab. (Wong Dep. at 87-112.) She does, however, claim nearly ten years of experience in the field. (Pl.'s Br. In Opp. To Defs.' Mot. In Limine 87 at 9.)"
   Not a Member of ABFDE. "She, however, is not a member of the ABFDE, the sole recognized organization for accreditation of qualified forensic document examiners. Although she is the former vice president of the National Association of Document Examiners ("NADE"), (PSDMF P 2), defendants note that this organization does not meet ABFDE certification requirements, has no permanent office and has no membership requirements other than the payment of a fee. (Defs.' Mot. In Limine 68 at 6.) Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training or experience for its certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.)
   Gideon Epstein Testifies Wong Not Qualified. In his deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case, Epstein, a handwriting expert testifying against the Ramseys said of Cina Wong that "she does not meet the standards of a forensic document examiner as accepted by the profession" (p. 167:23-25). Epstein also rendered a scathing opinion of NADE in the same deposition (summarized here.
   Alex Hunter Claims Wong Lacks Credibility. However, "in September 1998, Ms. Wong wrote District Attorney Hunter, Assistant District Attorney Michael Kane, and Judge Roxanne Bailin, asking to testify before the Grand Jury. (SMF P 347; PSMF P 347.) "By letter dated January 20, 1999, Mr. Hunter rejected the request, informing Ms. Wong that it was his opinion that she did not use scientifically reliable methods, her testimony would be inadmissible, and that she lacked credibility. (SMF P 348; PSMF P 348.)" (Carnes 2003:41).
   Carnes Rules Wong Not Qualified. "Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case." [Emphasis added] (Carnes 2003:57)

   Critique of Wong Methodology: No Originals Used. As noted above, Judge Carnes found that Wong did not rely on originals of either the RN or exemplars, nor did she know what generation copy of the RN she was used. Moreover, "Ms. Wong received her copy of the Ransom Note and certain writings alleged to be historical writings of Mrs. Ramsey from the tabloid The National Enquirer. (SMF P 258; PSMF P 258.)" (Carnes 2003:27).


cina wong is wrong. relying on cina wong's discredited debunked nonsense in no way promotes "justice" for jonbenet.

cynic is also wrong in characterizing Chet ubowoski's statement on Patsy's handwriting as a match can be evidence in the gideon epstein deposition, and steve thomas deposition. gideon epstein himself is a crackpot.

cynic and tricia, in the name of justice, ignore the scientific work of 6 handwriting experts who are Abdfe qualified and studied the originals, and instead promote the works of crackpots.

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

Posts : 1599
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