What a scientifically and forensicly responsible Jonbenet Documentary be about

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What a scientifically and forensicly responsible Jonbenet Documentary be about

Post by redpill on Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:41 pm

What a scientifically and forensicly responsible Jonbenet Documentary be about

in the past couple of weeks there were several documentaries about Jonbenet from

A&E Jonbenet
CBS Jonbenet
NBC Dateline Jonbenet
investigative discovery Jonbenet
Dr Phil interview of Burke Ramsey

of these A&E comes closest to what a what a scientifically and forensicly responsible Jonbenet Documentary be about.

it's very simple back in the day there was a show called Forensic Files

it had actual experts in the relevant areas of expertise commenting on the case.

the following describes what an actual expert is like

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:


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:

of the documentaries A&E comes closest in handpicking experts who actually meet the Daubert standard. their conclusion: intruder did it.

It is not possible to summarize all the experts in a single 1 hour episode. Since the forensics in the Jonbenet Ramsey case are very complex, there are many episodes that would be required.

first episode general overview of case facts and identify relevant forensics

in succeeding episodes,

have actual forensic document examiners, not phonies like Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein, explain the findings of the 6 ABDFE who examine the originals conclusions are, and where on a 1-9 scale with 9 being elimination Patsy John handwriting falls. A&E and NBC Dateline were the only 2 that referenced it, and A&E stated John was eliminated and Patsy cannot be concluded to be her handwriting.

actual forensic linguists, not frauds like Donald Foster, Andrew Hodges, James Fitzgerald, but real forensic linguists do a linguistic comparison between Patsy and John and Burke's known statements, and the ransom note to determine whether match or should be excluded, and where on a 1-9 scale that is.

actual fiber evidence examiners, trace evidence examiners, shoe print experts, finger print experts, ligature experts comment on the actual forensic trace evidence found at the crime scene.
A&E had one that was qualified.

actual DNA experts who examine the DNA in totality of all trace evidence found at the crime scene, and seriously discuss whether DNA has value or is the result of secondary DNA transfer. these DNA experts should be in communication with trace evidence examiners.
A&E had one that was qualified.

actual medical experts and pathologists and neuropathologists who examine whether the head blow came first or ligature, and whether Jonbenet was sexually abused. significance of pine apple, etc.
A&E and several pathologists and their conclusion strangulation came first A&E pathologists also discounted prior sexual abuse as a huge extrapolation based on some vaginal inflamation that could be due to any number of cause one that is not justified by science. so when you see an RDI poster claiming prior sexual abuse such as on forumsforjustice, ask if they have conditionals as a pathologist and examined the case file. the A&E pathologist did review the pediatrician claim of prior sexual abuse and he ridiculed the idea of a pediatrician saying she felt in her heart jonbenet was abused, and saying that's not what science deals with.

actual criminalists who are experience in crime scene reconstruction.
CBS had one - Henry Lee. Henry Lee is not shown considering intruder theory as an explanation for trace evidence. A&E had one as well.

experts in science explaining the issues in forensics and why certain individuals from detectives to authors like Andrew Hodges thought prints in mother gone bad and statement analysis are total forensic frauds. FBI profiling is not a science validated experts.

A&E comes closest and their conclusion is an intruder did it.
CBS has several non-experts like James Fitzgerald and Steven Thomas and FBI profilers.
Investigative discovery had non-expert fbi profiler Gary Mccrary.

based on the totally of expert witness testimony, come up with a scenario that explains all evidence found in the crime scene, and explain why one theory better accounts for that evidence than the rival theory.

it would take maybe a dozen hour long episodes or two hour long episodes, and cover a vast array of forensics sciences in many areas. it'd be pretty expensive sure. they would discuss the relevant science, from dna to fiber analysis to pathology. then the relevant evidence found at the crime scene and how it is to be interpreted.

i have no doubt the conclusion of such a series

the conclusion based on science and forensics: an intruder did it.

none of the rdi posters you see on the internet have done the most rudimentary study of the relevant forensics. additionally, the documentaries didn't either, with the exception of A&E

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

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 1488
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