Imagine JonBenet Ramsey were featured on the Forensic Files

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Imagine JonBenet Ramsey were featured on the Forensic Files

Post by redpill on Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:07 am

this is Forensic Files



this is an episode of Forensic Files



https://youtu.be/czfF-Bn6ZkI

another episode of Forensic Files



https://youtu.be/iRVFnD7BEV4

another episode of Forensic Files



https://youtu.be/qgQkzZxa4eo

as i type this on Sunday June 25, 2017

there are scores of episodes still on youtube, that have not yet been taken down
for DCMA claims. some episodes have been.

real crime cases, real forensics, real forensic scientists
showing how science is used to solve real crimes successfully

now imagine JonBenet Ramsey were featured on Forensic Files

how would real forensic scientists evaluate the trace evidence in the case

for example, take tricia griffith


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.


let's quickly review her qualification again


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


do you think the forensic scientists featured on Forensic files, would consider the unsourced fiber hair DNA evidence, the knot and ligature and garrotte, and hi-tech shoe print and ransom note

not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder? esp when 6 handwriting experts eliminated John and essentially ruled out Patsy as the author?

similarly, when you see RDI posters claim


detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?


If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.


ukguy wrote:
Mama2JML,
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!


nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim
docg wrote:

Questions

An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?



how would the forensic scientists, the ones featured on Forensic Files, working with fiber, hair, DNA, shoe print, handwriting and linguistics, and reconstructing the crime scene using scientific methodology reply to such claims?

would any forensic scientist say, well the fiber DNA hi-tech shoe print etc, all point to an intruder, but an intruder wouldn't leave a ransom note behind so it's got to be the parents.

is this a scientific valid way of reasoning?
is there a single episode of forensic files where a forensic scientist employs this manner of reasoning?

if we were to limit RDI posters to those who

1- have a scientific background, and versed in scientific reasoning and methodology
2- familiar with scientific crime scene reconstruction and trace evidence
3- see its application to solving real crimes such as watching at least 20+ episodes of Forensic Files
4- apply the same standard to the facts in Jonbenet Ramsey case

#of RDI who meet this qualification is 0

as in Zero


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

Posts : 1726
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Imagine JonBenet Ramsey were featured on the Forensic Files

Post by MurderMysteryReader on Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:02 am

True. They shouldn't even comment on this case if they don't possess knowledge of or don't take the time learn about forensic. They probably won't even take the time to watch forensic files or any type of show like that.
avatar
MurderMysteryReader

Posts : 117
Join date : 2015-10-19
Location : My room

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