Unusual Suspects S09E04 Frances Craig and JonBenet Ramsey touch DNA Forensics solves case home intruder

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Unusual Suspects S09E04 Frances Craig and JonBenet Ramsey touch DNA Forensics solves case home intruder

Post by redpill on Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:10 pm

i'm writing this on Thu Oct 26, 2017

I just watched Investigation Discovery channel's Unusual Suspects S09E04

Unusual Suspects: Deadly Intent Nightcrawler

Published on Oct 26, 2017

In Summit Township, Michigan a mother is gunned down in her home in the middle of the night. Suspicion swirls around those close to her before a plot unravels to reveal how being in the wrong place at the wrong time can lead to paying the ultimate price.



like 99% of the cases featured on Investigation Discovery this features a case i've never heard of before,

the home invading, home intruder murder of

Summer township Michigan August 10, 2014 Frances Craig




her fiance eric wolfe was prime suspect



this is a must watch for everyone interested in JonBenet Ramsey case bc the fact crime and evidence is almost identical in both murder crimes.

Frances Craig was found murdered in her own bed, in her own bedroom by her fiance in the morning daylight hours
Michigan August 10, 2014

the central question in the murder investigation - was it an intruder or was it the fiance eric wolfe

the detectives and investigators believed it was an inside job.

they noted eric wolfe seemed to have a very flat affect, not very emotional, matter of fact. he seemingly acted suspicious. his alibi for his wife was he was at work, but his work is very close to home so he could have come from work to home, murdered his fiancee and then returned to work.

they did a computer forensics and discovered eric had a dating profile and despite supposing to be married to the victim, he still was meeting women though online dating.

so they had a theory and a motive - he wanted to kill Frances to be freed of wedding vow and perhaps start a new life with someone he met online dating.

the crime was extraordinary.

Frances Craig was killed in her bedroom in the night, with 3 young daughters who slept the whole thing and they had dog(s)



the detective theory is that Eric Wolfe left work in the middle of night, slipped into the house, murdered his wife, then returned to work.

the intruder theory is an intruder entered the home in the middle of the night, slipped into the house, murdered Frances then slipped out undetected.

The bedroom was something of a blood bath. blood all over. Frances was stabbed. 3 daughters slept.

They did find she was restrained around wrists with cable ties. The cable ties were unsourced to the house.
Frances was stabbed.

cable ties



Eric story was unbelievable. He returned from work when it was still dark, he saw his wife next to the bed, didn't disturb her, didn't turn on light, but it was dark but could still see, then slept on couch.

it was the 3 daughters in the daylight morning who saw mother reported to Eric then Eric returned to bedroom saw blood and called police.

Detectives didn't buy it. Detectives do not believe an intruder entered the home undetected and killed Frances

Forensics was called in. They were expecting to find Eric's DNA since he lived there.

At this point, the question is, are the cable ties evidence of an intruder?

after all, it could be Eric was staging it?

In the Jonbenet murder they found ligature and tape unsourced to the house.
is this evidence of an intruder?

you can't prove it came from an intruder so therefore it was not evidence, according to anti-science RDI

Forensics did touch DNA. same touch DNA as found in Jonbenet case.

on just one cable tie, in one location on a cable tie, they found DNA from an unknown male

so when you read for example,


this is trasha 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.

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.

last time, i asked whether finding unknown male DNA mixed in the blood of Diane Zeleki, who was stabbed to death, evidence of an intruder who killed her, as opposed to her family and brother, who were all suspects.

this time,

is finding unknown male DNA through touch DNA on a cable tie one scintilla of evidence of an intruder in the Frances Craig case?

detectives and investigators were convinced Frances murder was an inside job, specifically her fiancee Eric Wolfe.

Watch the episode

Forensic Files ended a decade or two ago.

This case would make an awesome Forensic Files but it happened in 2014.

actual real world cases of touch DNA such as this shows just how stupid and ignorant RDI really are. can't fix stupid.

for anyone familiar with the actual science of crime scene reconstruction, it also shows how ignorant RDI posters actually are.

for example,

cynic aka southerngoodsense on reddit recommended i read Delmar England a fellow forumsforjustice poster


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.

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.

I think he has a lot of nerve posting his thoughts when he is -- well - - he is NOT an "expert"....

Now ain't that a caution? Smile I take it you are saying that only an "expert" is qualified to post his thoughts? How about you Jameson? You post your thought don't you? Are you an "expert?"

BTW, what in the hell is an "expert" and what does "expert" have to do with fact or fiction. If an "expert" told you that pigs fly and some non expert said otherwise, would you book a flight on the next swine going south?

Let's examine your statement is considerable detail and see what it reveals.

Are you familiar with the phrase, floating abstraction? It means a thought, idea or concept that exists in the mind as a subjective and vague feeling, but is without any definitive connection to objective reality. Ergo, all thinking referenced to a floating abstraction is likewise a floating abstraction.

The term, expert, is denotive only in that it connotes knowledge and experience. Note that at this juncture, we still have a floating abstraction. To bring this down to earth, knowledge and experience must be connected to something real, i.e., to a specific area of knowledge and experience regarding specific entities and specific relationships between these entities.

that cynic promotes this charlatan delmar england and nonsense shows how ignorant cynic really is.

one delmar england claims are materially false and two he makes statements no one who is actually educated in forensic science would make.

delmar england could make the same claims about any crime involving an intruder, such as Frances Craig murder, you can't "prove" touch DNA on a cable tie is in any way connected with her murder, therefore it has zero value as forensic evidence.

total anti science junk. the very opposite of what real forensic scientists teach and practice

i did ask cynic / goodsouthern sense who is delmar england, and what makes him qualified in forensic science? what is his qualifications in forensic science? .

cynic reply was he is a warrior of justice on forumsforjustice for rdi

forumsforjustice and rdi only exist bc the vast majority of people never bothered to actually study forensic science, and watch the application of forensic science in solving real crimes, esp trace evidence, on shows like forensic files and unusual suspects.

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

Posts : 1694
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