why forumsforjustice is anti-science and the biggest hypocrites

i believe that goodsouthersense on reddit is same person as cynic on forumsforjustice

i did reply on reddit and thus far cynic has not replied but he did direct me to delmar england

btw i agree with jameson that cynic is wrong. delmar england isn't an expert of anything.

delmar england wrote:
None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

delmar england wrote:

Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

http://www.acandyrose.com/07272001delmaranalysis5.htm[/quote]

this is pure nonsense.

to home in this point,

suppose there was another girl found murdered in her home while the parents slept.

we will cause this "heather"

forensic scientists are trying to determine if "Heather" was murdered by her parents, or an intruder.

using delmar england's gibberish,

we start by saying

"None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility."

when evidence in the form of unsourced boot print, hairs, fibers, etc is provided, it is said it doesn't prove anything.

therefore, the parents did it. heather was murdered by her parents.

this is forumsforjackasses approach to solving crime.
they claim this is justice.

they even when you visit their forum say "act ethically"

that is delmar england's approach, one that cynic trasha and others approve of.

but is this a scientific approach?

as described for example



to give you some idea

and in forensic files



unsourced boot print, hairs, fibers is exactly the evidence that establishes an intruder.

imagine on another case, and this is an actual case, they found a woman murdered. her scarf was fished out of the river. they found a single strand of fiber on her clothing and the scarf that was under water had dna in the form of touch dna.

is that forensic evidence of her killer?

using delmar england method is it?

using the scientific method is it?

everyone on forumsforjustice is a total failure and fraud. none of them have any background in forensic science and crime scene reconstruction. they are misinforming and misleading the public, with their total incompetence.

there is something seriously psychologically wrong with those people if they do not have the basic understanding of how trace evidence works and how crimes are reconstructed from trace evidence.