project tricia griffith rebuttal Jonbenet Ramsey and Amy Schulz

View previous topic View next topic Go down

project tricia griffith rebuttal Jonbenet Ramsey and Amy Schulz

Post by redpill on Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:47 pm

from time to time i watch true crime shows, i recently watched






On the Case with Paula Zahn

Season 14 Ep. 7 From Dusk to Darkness

the relevance to Jonbenet Ramsey

in response to ignorant comments like this



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



this is what she claims

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page92
tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

this is her qualifications

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

in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.



true crime shows frequently show the actual evidence that links the offender to his victim. this episode shows the actual evidence that linked the victim

10 year old Amy Rachelle Schultz of Illinois





to her killer Cecil SUTHERLAND



basic case facts

Cecil Sutherland, 45, was convicted in 1989 of murdering 10-year-old Amy Rachelle Schulz of Kell illinois
 Date of murder: July 1, 1987 Date of arrest: October 22, 1987


When they found 10 year old Amy Rachelle Schulz lifeless body on July 1, 1987



they found unidentified fiber and human pubic hair in her genital region. they also found tire tracks near her body.

is this evidence ? is this a scintilla of evidence as Tricia Griffith relates?

well, it was the actual evidence that in 1989 convicted
Cecil Sutherland, 45 in 1989 and sentence to death.

they found his car, and the tire marks on his car matches the tire marks left at the crime scene. they found fibers from the car that matched the unidentified fibers on Amy's lifeless body. Fibers from her clothing were found in his car, and the hair they found was consistent with his pubic hair reference sample.

as a result a jury sentence him to death for murder of Amy Schultz.

using the same standard used to convict Cecil to Jonbenet Ramsey case, what conclusions can we draw from unidentified fibers, animal hair, dna, ransom note, unsourced cord and tape, and undentified hi-tec shoe print to the Jonbenet case and intruder theory?

that's not the end of the story. Cecil's defense team appealed on the grounds fiber and tire impression is not enough to convict and order a new trial and the appeal courts granted it. he got a new trial. however in the 12 years of appeals, dna testing advance enough to test the dna of the hair found. it matched cecil's hair.

cecil confessed, explained what happened and requested the death penalty. it was granted but on 2009 governor il quin banned death penalty in illinois.

Cecil Sutherland was originally convicted based on matching fiber trace evidence linking Amy Schultz to fiber found in his car, and car tire treadmarks matching tire impressions found near her body. DNA would later prove it and he confessed.

How is this any different than the intruder theory of Jonbenet Ramsey, where not one but multiple types of trace evidence in different categories of fiber, animal hair, human hair, unsourced ligature handwriting and lingusitcs, and dna and hi-tech show prints established intruder theory?

RDI have never studied any forensics. RDI do not watch crime shows where they present evidence linking victim to the offender. They do not use the same standard of forensics used in other crimes.

if RDI claims that multipe types of unidentified fiber, hair, animal hair, unsourced ligature shoe print dna handwriting and linguistics do not provide evidence of an intruder theory, then how can you say fiber and tire impressions are not evidence of Cecil Sutherland's murder of 10 year old Amy Schultz?

RDI= anti-science lynch mob

you've been redpilled. cherry cherry cherry

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1603
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum