JonBenet Ramsey and forumsforjustice websleuth - no RDI has an actual knowledge of forensic science

the lay public is of course curious about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey
so many turn to forums such as websleuth and forumsforjustice on JonBenet Ramsey

they read those RDI posters promoting RDI propaganda and come away convince Jonbenet's murder was an inside job.

Much of the evidence in JonBenet Ramsey is scientific in nature, covering a wide range of science topics from forensic documentation to DNA to fiber, shoe, hair, to crime scene reconstruction, etc.

Unfortunately, neither the owner, Tricia Griffith, nor any of the posters have any actual knowledge of forensic science.

trasha pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist




her qualification

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

None of them have any background in forensic science. None of them have studied science, taken any course work in forensic science, nor have any training or education in science and forensic science.

To qualify for forumsforjustice for example,


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Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.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

in what they call "justice" they propose that they can simply look at the ransom note and then Patsy's and say it is Patsy's.

Intruder theorists such as myself suggest that we use SCIENCE to determine who wrote the ransom note.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1][2]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

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]

here's a test




the posters on forumsforjustice have not and do NOT have any background in forensic document examination.

cynic aka goodsouthernsense is promoting the posts of a person, Delmar England. Delmar England has never studied any forensic science. He has never consulted the scientific textbooks.

using actual forensic science, the kind taught and used, leads to the conclusion that the scientific evidence found in the Jonbenet crime scene is best explained as an intruder.