JonBenet Ramsey, Nancy Titterton and scientific standards in forensics

View previous topic View next topic Go down

JonBenet Ramsey, Nancy Titterton and scientific standards in forensics

Post by redpill on Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:10 am

there was a murder victim named Nancy Titterton whose  gruesome rape and murder in her own home in a time decades before DNA testing.

was it the result of an intruder, or was it an inside job? no signs of forced entry.

they find  a small line of cord pinned underneath Nancy’s body and a single strand of light-colored hair on the bedspread in her home.

is that forensic evidence of her killer?
is this a scintilla of evidence of her killer?

since a small line of cord could have come from anywhere at any time from anyone and you cannot prove it comes from her killer AND
a single strand of light-colored hair can could have come from anywhere at any time from anyone and you cannot prove it comes from her killer

therefor there is no evidence of an intruder.
it was an inside job
is this acceptable scientific forensic reasoning?

using scientific reasoning and scientific methodology, since you cannot prove  a small line of cord and  single strand of light-colored hair can from the killer, therefore it was an inside job?

is that how genuine forensic scientists evaluating forensic evidence reason?

the reason this is important is the forensic evidence consisting of multiple forms of fiber, hair, dna ligature tape is present in the Jonbenet Ramsey murder

consider

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.


this is actual case
listverse wrote:
Beekman Place might be one of Manhattan’s swankiest neighborhoods, but it is not immune from the depravity of mankind. In 1936, it was the location of the gruesome rape and murder of Nancy Titterton, the novelist and wife of high-profile NBC executive Lewis Titterton.Alexander Gettler was the man in charge of forensics. Despite the killer being very meticulous, Gettler found two pieces of evidence: a small line of cord pinned underneath Nancy’s body and a single strand of light-colored hair on the bedspread.After analyzing the trace evidence back at his lab, Gettler concluded that the hair didn’t belong to the victim. It was actually horsehair, commonly used for upholstery.[7]An examination of the cord revealed that it was low-quality Italian jute, 0.32 centimeters (0.13 in) wide. Police reached out to dozens of rope makers in the region and eventually matched it to a type of cord sold by the Hanover Cordage Company.Their product was also commonly used in the upholstery trade. Furthermore, their records showed that they recently had sold rolls of the cord to Theodore Kruger’s upholstery shop in New York. As it happened, Kruger delivered a couch to the victim on the day of the murder with his assistant, John Fiorenza. A background check revealed that Fiorenza had several arrests for theft and a state psychiatrist had labeled him potentially psychotic.During interrogation, Fiorenza caved and confessed to the murder. He was sentenced to death and executed in 1937.
http://listverse.com/2017/07/07/top-10-infamous-murder-cases-solved-through-pioneering-forensics/

it should be clear that since Tricia Griffith and her thugs at forumsforjustice and websmear have no forensic qualifications they really have no business discussing something they have never studied.

they found not one but multiple types of unidentified animal hair, on Jonbenet's had ligature and tape, so it was deposited at the time of her murder. this animal hair did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

the tape and ligature was unsourced as was the hi-tech footprint. the dna was also unsourced to the Ramseys

if we were to accept Trasha Griffith that this is all not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder

using the same denialist scientific standards,

a single strand of horse hair and unsourced small line of cord is not a scintalla of evidence an intruder raped and murdered Nancy Titterton

except it was.

what would be a scientific forensic standard that a single strand of horse hair and unsourced small line of cord is evidence of an intruder in the Nancy Titterton case

but finding multiple types of unsourced fiber, DNA tape cord hi-tech shoe print ransom note is not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder?

RDI claim you cannot "prove" that an intruder left that evidence, therefore since you cannot "prove" it, it is not evidence of an intruder. the Ramseys did it.

is this an acceptable scientific forensic reasoning? is this how actual scientists in forensics reason?

can you prove in the  Nancy Titterton case that the single strand hair later identified as horse hair and small line of cord underneath Nancy Titterton wasn't already there when she was killed, and since you cannot prove it, it is not a scintilla of evidence an intruder entered her home and murdered her?

yet that case was solved, and those were 2 pieces of forensic evidence that proved it.

there is none. RDI like tricia griffith doesn't know what they are talking about.

the scientific approach is to apply Bayesian inference and reasoning in evaluating unsourced evidence at a crime scene in deciding between competing theories.

to be IDI or more specifically a justice IDI or JIDI is to use standard textbook forensic science, that has been practiced in over 200 years, improved with latest advances in forensic science, and same scientific standards that have been successfully used to solve other unsolved crimes to the Jonbenet Ramsey crime.

to use actual real textbook forensic science on forensic evidence

when you read RDI theorists saying bad things about intruders, ask yourself, are they just trolls or do they have an actual understanding of scientific reasoning, scientific methodology, forensics, and Bayesian inference?

the answer is RDI are trolls.

you've been redpilled

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

Posts : 1599
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