RDI it's Patsy's handwriting claims vs power of the daubert side of the Forensics

i'm writing this on Wedday Oct 25, 2017

What I have to say shows what total scientific, intellectual and moral failures and reprobates are over at forumsforjustice, topix, websleuth reddit really are

on all these forums you will find RDI claims similar to


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Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.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

had they done the responsible research they would ask

does a lay person with no training, someone like forumsforjustice koldkase or topix capricorn claims meet the daubert standard?

i.e

The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:

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]

using the criteria of the daubert standard and applying it to the claims of RDI which is what i call power of the daubert side of the Forensics

how would you test RDI claims?

well here's a paper





imagine you provide koldkase, capricorn and other RDI lynch mob anti-science say thousands or even tens of thousands of exemplars that are similar to Patsy's and the ransom note, would they be able to pick out Patsy as say this is a match to the Jonbenet ransom note?

or if you provide them historical exemplars of John Mark Karr or Christian Wolfe and falsely claim this is Patsy, do you see a match?

what these RDI lynch mob are doing is

it's like a police lineup with just 1 suspect, and asking the witness to point it out.

here the RDI lynch mob are only looking at Patsy's and have a fervent fanatical belief Patsy wrote it.

surprise surprise they see a match.

as far as the courtroom and justice is concern, science, and only science may be used.

the actual results eliminates Patsy as the author and that yes, the handwriting is most likely that of an intruder.

power of the daubert side of the Forensics is the power to discern the actual scientific forensic issues involved in the Jonbenet investigation, which leads to the conclusion an intruder murdered Jonbenet.

you've been redpilled.



there's been an awakening. have you felt it?