re The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey scientific experiments and testing

Thu Oct 04, 2018

i'm writing this on Thu Oct 04, 2018

think of the countless millions of RDI posters who have posted on The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

all that speculation all that nonsense,

the woman who claimed to solve the The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey as reported in the news articles, and on twitter
pointed out how creepy Burke Ramsey was in the interview with Dr Phil therefore he did it.

you have rdi claiming patsy wrote the ransom note, no question, no debate.

rdi claiming there's no evidence of an intruder.

in all these years, and i'm writing Thu Oct 04, 2018

there is one question no RDI has ever asked, which shows their ignorance

the question is,

since science and scientific methodology requires subjecting claims to experiments and testing

what kind of scientific experiments and scientific testing can you perform that will help determine whether The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey is best explained as an intruder or an inside job?

Can an RDI describe in detail scientific experiments and scientific testing can you perform on the handwriting and linguistics of the ransom note to determine disputed authorship?

Can an RDI describe in detail scientific experiments and scientific testing can you perform on the DNA to determine if its best explained as intruder or incidental?

Can an RDI describe in detail scientific experiments and scientific testing can you perform on the shoe print, the ligature, the fibers, the pineapple, etc?

Can an RDI describe in detail describe in detail scientific experiments and scientific testing can you how to assess the significance of the trace evidence, fiber, hair and other evidence?

how is it that Thu Oct 04, 2018 not a single RDi poster ever asked a question about scientific experiments and scientific testing that can be done in the unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey to ascertain whether it is best explained as an intruder or an inside job?

what is a good scientific explanation and what makes one scientific explanation preferred or another, alternative one?

if these tests and experiments were conducted according to accepted scientific standards of evidence,

would they support intruder or RDI?

remember, a scientific explanation that explains more facts found at the crime scene (i.e DNA, fiber, hair shoeprint, handwriting and linguistics) is preferred to one that explains fewer facts or is ad hoc, or violates occam's razor.

conclusion: an intruder is the best scientific explanation for what happened to Jonbenet

holdontoyourhat and jameson are right.