Project Tricia Griffith rebuttal: why Tricia is unprofessional troll and an idiot

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Project Tricia Griffith rebuttal: why Tricia is unprofessional troll and an idiot

Post by redpill on Sat May 14, 2016 11:04 pm

Suspect the troll pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist






as you can see she's been eating a lot.

here tricia griffith claims

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9272-FORUMS-FOR-JUSTICE-answers-Mary-Lacy-with-press-release
tricia griffith wrote:

Forums for Justice.org would like to ask Mary Lacy one final question; WHAT ABOUT THE 2 1/2 PAGE RANSOM NOTE. The note has been matched to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting by several well respected handwriting analysts.


let's get something clear

this is tricia griffith



in all the years she has stalked, haranged on forumsforjustice and other forums, she has never studied the Jonbenet case, and she lacks the most rudimentary understanding of the crime.

she has even written about "the truth about the carnes case"

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?4708-THE-TRUTH-About-Judge-Carnes-Decision-A-Documented-Rebuttal

where she claims
trasha wrote:
In this thread you will read the truth about the civil case in which Judge Julie Carnes ruled that an "intruder" killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Please keep in mind that the Ramsey's civil attorney, Lin Wood, gave a one sided presentation of the case. He showed the judge only what he wanted her to see and also misrepresented the facts in my opinion.

in all these years stalking and harassing the ramseys, she has never studied the most basic aspects of the forensics


she does not possess the most rudimentary understanding of the relevant forensics.

this is her background


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.

in other words, she has ZERO qualifications in any area of forensics.

tricia, this is the Daubert Standard


The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings.

In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:

   Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
   Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
   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]
   Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test")[4] that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:

       Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
       Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
       The known or potential error rate.
       The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
       The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

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)

While some federal courts still rely on pre-2000 opinions in determining the scope of Daubert, as a technical legal matter any earlier judicial rulings that conflict with the language of amended Rule 702 are no longer good precedent.

now again let's look at the face of this bully


tricia, you are using your forums, websleuths and forumsforjustice to promote anti-science fringe nonsense.  shame on you!

if you had the most elementary understanding of the relevant forensics, you would know that only 6 handwriting experts who examined the ORIGINALS meets the Daubert standard in reliability of scientific expert witness testimony. Gideon epstein does not. Donald Foster does not. Cina Wong and Tom miller do not. only  only 6 handwriting experts who examined the ORIGINALS meets the Daubert standard.

their conclusion is that all 6 eliminated John Ramsey on handwriting alone. all 6 said there is a lack of indication that Patsy wrote it, and that on a 4.5 scale of 5, or 8 of 9, that it is highly improbable that Patsy wrote it. 2-4 handwriting experts eliminated Patsy via handwriting. There is little to no scientific basis for stating the handwriting on the ransom note is either John or Patsy.



Shame on you! shame on you for not doing the most rudimentary research into the relevant forensics. shame on you for taking a position for which you know nothing about. shame on you for using your forums that you started to harass the Ramseys over scientific subjects you've never studied. shame on you for promoting anti-science agenda and promoting unqualified experts for your lynch mob agenda. shame on you Tricia!

when 6 ABDFE who examined the originals all agree there is a lack of indication Patsy wrote the ransom note, and that they say it is an 8 on a 9 point scale, highly improbable, you call this Patsy wrote the ransom note, and say this is not a scintilla of evidence for an intruder.



shame on you for engaging in cyber-bullying and harassment!

when you see the name tricia and tricia griffith on websleuths and forumsforjustice claiming there's not a scintilla of evidence for an intruder and the handwriting experts "prove" patsy wrote the note, remember this face




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.

she has never studied the forensics and she lacks the most rudimentary understanding of the case facts, she she is determined to promote her vendetta against the Ramseys No  No No

_________________
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