Wisdom Wednesday self-taught vs forumsforjustice.org JonBenet Ramsey incompetence

Wed May 02, 2018

when i first met superdave in 2009 I was amazed how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him. i was wrong

at the time i knew next to thing about Jonbenet, forensic linguistics, handwriting, crime scene reconstruction, forensics. now i watch crime shows, at the time, on 60 minutes and 20/20 and other primetime, plus unsolved mysteries and american's most wanted. discover channel had forensic files.

while i didn't know much of Jonbenet i did watch the Forensic files, and i was aware that the slightest trace evidence in the form of a shoe print or fiber could be the decisive evidence in solving the crime

i'm writing this on Wed May 02, 2018

forumsforjustice is a website created by trasha griffith owner, solely to bash the ramseys and promote rdi

when i read their nonsense

one example

one forumsforjustice.org poster is koldkase

koldkase
koldkase is offline FFJ Senior Member

Autopsy evidence of ONGOING SEXUAL ABUSE.....

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10255-Autopsy-evidence-of-ONGOING-SEXUAL-ABUSE

koldkase is forumsforjustice.org Senior Member

this is how koldkase is forumsforjustice.org Senior Member lies and deceives the public

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." -

it's clear that understanding the relevant forensic science is tantamount in understanding the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey,
and understanding the science of questioned document examination, specifically forensic handwriting and linguistics
is essential in understanding the case.

part of what is involved is a review of the relevant scientific literature.

i.e



similarly cherokee

cherokee wrote:
My sentiments exactly.

In my humble opinion ... anyone (like Paula Woodward) who believes the Ramseys are innocent and would shill for them, after ALL the documented evidence otherwise, is either:

a. delusional

b. an idiot

c. corrupt

or

d. all of the above

cherokee, of course never consulted never did a review of the relevant scientific literature and writes

cherokee wrote:
As soon as the ransom note was matched to Patsy's handwriting and linguistics, the Ramseys distanced themselves from it and have refused to talk about it since! The ransom note is the one verifiable link to JonBenet's killer, and the Ramseys want nothing to do with it! Why? The answer is obvious!

review of relevant expert witness

“None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF, 196; PSMF 196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low."

Richard Dusak

Dusak Findings. "Richard Dusick (sic) of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin F. Alford, Jr.

"Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter."

cherokee's reading comprehension and intelligence results in this conclusion

cherokee wrote:
As soon as the ransom note was matched to Patsy's handwriting and linguistics, the Ramseys distanced themselves from it and have refused to talk about it since! The ransom note is the one verifiable link to JonBenet's killer, and the Ramseys want nothing to do with it! Why? The answer is obvious!

a review of the relevant scientific literature



conclusion
Patsy is eliminated as the author

similary forumsforjustice senior memeber/mod cynic recommend delmar england as the finest example of their poster

Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts.

Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

cynic presented delmar england as the finest mind forumsforjustice.org has to offer.

delmar england has never read



again, to understand why delmar england is a complete and ignorant fraud

this is an actual case on the forensic files



they ROUTINELY present crimes in which fiber, hair, shoe prints, handwriting are unmatched to anyone. is there any example of any forensic scientist saying, well we found this single strand of artificial fiber on the victim that is unmatched, but if you look anywhere in the house, you'll find fibers so this fiber actually found on the murder victim has zero forensic value and indulges in intruder fantasies?

of course not.

this girl



was found murdered in her bedroom. she had unsourced fiber, hair and other trace evidence found on her person.

was she a victim of an intruder or did her father murder her?

if an actual forensic scientists looks at the fiber, shoe print, hair and other trace evidence and says that it is evidence of an intruder, would you agree with delmar england that is an intruder mental creation, no other conclusion is possible?

no forumsforjustice poster at anytime in their life, has ever studied the relevant scientific material ever.

yet they comment on topics they are wholly ignorant of. and they call this "justice for jonbenet"

it never occurred to a single one of them, to visit the library or book store and make sure they correctly understand the relevant forensic issues.

when you read RDi opinions on Jonbenet, concluding Jonbenet was killed by the parents,

is that poster using actual genuine textbook science on forensics in arriving at this conclusion?

of course not. no RDI is.

the only conclusion using science is that Jonbenet was murdered by an intruder.