the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice

by redpill Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:41 am

Mon Sep 03, 2018

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice 68b85310

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

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice 08282010

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice Tricia10

here tricia griffith claims

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.

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

reading forensic texts such as this one

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice 51odon10

and this one

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice 41kvdy10

the fact tricia griffith asks this question

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.

and no one, not a single poster on Forums for Justice.org
nor tricia griffth knows the answer tells you they are complete and total ignorant morons.

this is tricia griffith

in all these years following jonbenet neither she nor any of the posters have ever taken the time to actually study the relevant science. ever.

the answer to this question

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.

as fully explained in standard textbooks on the subject is the daubert standard

the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held in 1993 that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead;
General Electric Co. v. Joiner,[1] which held in 1997 that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony;
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[2] which held in 1999 that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific.

Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).

Definition

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]
Illustrative Factors: 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]

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.

neither tricia griffith pictured below

nor any forumsforjustice poster or superdave or any rdi show the most basic understanding of the relevant forensics.

i call using the correct science the daubert side of the Forensics.

so to answer this question

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.

do the handwriting experts who claim patsy ramsey wrote the ransom note meet the daubert standard?

the only conclusion is that the scientific expert witnesses who survive Daubert conclude Patsy is eliminated and therefore that an intruder wrote the ransom note.

rdi whether they call themselves tricia griffith superdave cynic ukguy whoever, in all these years, have never taken the time to hit the books to make sure they understand the relevant science and applying it.

doing so leads only to one conclusion

an intruder did it.

holdontoyourhat and jameson are right

forumsforjustice is anything but. justice requires understanding the relevant scientific issues and applying it, which ffj fails to show, not a single poster out of hundreds was able to answer tricia. they are all ignorant.

this is websleuth and forumsforjustice owner tricia griffith

this is her question

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.

it is the face of ignorance. it is the face of stupidity. in all these years spent on jonbenet she has never at anytime taken the time to research the science relevant to the facts of this case. and not only her but all rdi are culpable, even if they have written books like superdouche.

by MurderMysteryReader Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:07 pm

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice

the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice

Re: the daubert standard and Tricia Griffith rebuttal: pure ignorance of RDI and forumsforjustice