See No Evil S04E02 Susan Casey vs JonBenet Ramsey a project Tricia Griffith Delmar England forumsforjustice rebuttal

Thu Jan 25, 2018

i just watched

See No Evil S04E02

A woman vanishes after a night out, and the only clues left behind are suspicious drag marks outside her home; closed-circuit television footage reveals three different suspects on the scene.

On April 12th 2008, Susan Casey vanishes after a night out. The only clues left behind are suspicious drag marks outside her home. CCTV footage reveals three different suspects on the scene. Which one is lying and who can tell police where Susan Casey is?

you can watch it here



i've never heard of this murder investigation in Montana, prior to watching this show

Susan Casey vs  JonBenet Ramsey



trasha of forumsforjustice 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.

similarly delmar england, also forumsforjustice

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

delmar england - total gibberish indeed. how does delmar england know any of this? oh because he just says so. total incompetence.

in the disappearance of Susan Casey On April 12th 2008



at the crime scene of where they think Susan Casey was abducted, they found 2 sets of unidentified shoe prints.

they found a suspect they identified via video surveillance  ,




they took his shoe print




here




and they seized his car for a forensic examination






investigators observe the car was soaked in water, it was pressured wash, and fingerprints, dna, fibers were all gone.
it was completely wiped clean due to pressure washing

except for one thing






a single strand of hair 9 inches long




which matches via DNA



is finding shoes from the suspect that match "fresh" shoe prints outside Susan Casey's residence and finding a single strand of hair in the suspects car forensic evidence the suspect abducted Susan Casey?

if we apply this reasoning,





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.

similarly delmar england, also forumsforjustice

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

what conclusions would you draw as to the value of that evidence in the Susan Casey case?

what would be an objective scientific reason a single strand of hair in the suspect's vehicle, and shoe prints at the crime scene that match the suspects shoes be evidence the suspect abducted and murdered Susan Casey, but far more forensic evidence in multiple categories in the Jonbenet case isn't a scintilla of evidence of an intruder?

Tricia Grffith and Delmar England and all the forumsforjustice posters get an F in basic forensics.

the scientific evidence in the Susan Casey abduction and murder case is almost the same as Murder of Brooke Wilberger



Susan Casey



and Brooke Willeberger in both cases the suspect van interior was cleaned, but a single strand of hair in both cases was what led to the conviction of their killer.

re: Delmar England claims

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

these statements are in direction contradiction both to science and observation, and into accepted practices of crime scene reconstruction.

the fact cynic aka goodsouthernsense promotes this ignorant idiot tells me cynic has never studied the relevant forensics at any time in his life ever. he's a not job.

In California there was the East Area Rapist/Original night stalker who is a home intruder. In Melbourne Australia Mr Cruel was also a home intruder, and there have been plenty of home intruder rapists.

what scientific forensic evidence did they recover in these cases in which there was a known intruder, and how does it compare both to the Jonbenet Ramsey case and the claims of Tricia Griffith and Delmar England?