how forumsforjustice.org promotes total forensic frauds on JonBenet Ramsey case Killer Clown Case & Allison Feldman

Go down

how forumsforjustice.org promotes total forensic frauds on JonBenet Ramsey case Killer Clown Case & Allison Feldman

Post by redpill on Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:49 pm

2 recent cases, that will in all probablility be featured on future episodes of ID showcase and highlight how scientifically incompetent  forumsforjustice.org are.

forumsforjustice.org claims to be a forum that promotes justice in the  JonBenet Ramsey, but the posters there are all completely and woefully ignorant of basic forensic science. none of them, not a single one of them have ever studied any forensics.

scientifically ignorant and profoundly irresponsible claims like
cherokee wrote:
My sentiments exactly.

In my humble opinion ... anyone (like Paula Woodward) who believes the Ramseys are innocent and would shill for them, after ALL the documented evidence otherwise, is either:

a. delusional

b. an idiot

c. corrupt

or

d. all of the above

questfortrue questfortrue is offline wrote:
Rereading cynic’s profoundly expressed synopsis from December 2014, we know not to expect anything from JonBenét’s family. And it’s generally accepted that JonBenét’s case will never see a courtroom.

Nonetheless there have been trail markers this year; trail markers that lead us to the same place we always end up. The culpability is still at the doorstep of those who lived at 755 15th Street.

Worth recounting are such announcements as:

-The tDNA finally publicly debunked, exposing DA ML’s actions. (A columnist named her not just incompetent, but willfully derelict.)

are fundamentally deceiving the public with misinformation about this case, and show complete and total incompetence.

once upon a time i told superdave on crimeshots to invite cynic to crimeshots so we could have a discussion. superdave sent a pm to cynic who then told me cynic refused on the grounds he only wants to talk to real people. this is coming from someone who has never studied any forensics and promotes cina wong and tom miller and delmar england.

i actually met cynic on reddit, as goodsouthersense and he recommend i read delmar england

tricia wrote: I will miss our dear Delmar. There was no one that came close to his intelligence and perseverance.

It's hard to imagine a discussion about JonBenet without Delmar.

Until we meet again sweet Delmar we will continue to fight for what you wanted, Justice for JonBenet.

Tricia  

elle wrote:I agree with everything you have said in your post above Tricia, about Delmar England, he was one very special intelligent man, although many others couldn't accept his thoughts relating to the JonBenét case. He was very much his own person when it came to his beliefs, he stuck by them. He was a very nice man away from the boards, and his stories of living on a farm in Kentucky were interesting. This is where he became a pro relating to tying knots. One look at the garrote in the JonBenét case told him it was a fake. I first met Delmar on CrimeNews 2000.com in 2000.

I'm so glad I talked to you on the phone Delmar and heard your Kentucky accent. I loved it! I shall miss you, Delmar. Love, Elle
karen wrote:I was a Delmar Fan...and I still am. My condolences to his family and to all who knew and loved him.  

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9898-Sad-to-Report-the-Passing-of-Delmar-England


cynic as goodsouthern sense on reddit was the one who brought him to my attention.

to give some idea of the level of fraudulence of  forumsforjustice.org says about delmar england

here is delmar england analysis on forensic evidence, keep in mind he has never studied the topic at any time in his life ever

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 wrote:
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.


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 wrote:
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.

delmar england fraud wrote: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.

the posters that comprise forumsforjustice.org have promoted delmar england and to the public as an expert on trace evidence and that this is how actual forensic scientists, using accepted scientific methodology, evaluate scientific forensic evidence.

delmar wrote:
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 posters that comprise forumsforjustice.org are deceiving the public



she was found shot

at the crime scene they discover

hair samples that did not match the victim. they 28 years later they found DNA and a suspect to match it,
the fatal May 1990 shooting of Marlene Warren

in 2018 it was announced that the DNA they found in a hair sample matched Sheila Keen, who is now charged.


Allison Feldman was found murdered in her own home in 2015



Feldman, 31, was found murdered and naked in her home, according to court records, and her body smelled of bleach. She had been sexually assaulted with a beer bottle, strangled and bludgeoned to death, the Arizona Republic reported.

The killer left DNA on the broken beer bottle found at the scene and also on a bloody couch and a knob in the laundry room, the newspaper reported.

this DNA found in Feldman home was touch DNA, and Feldman was found dead in her own home.

using this reasoning and claims Delmar england the forensic fraud to the touch DNA found on certain items in the Allison Feldman 2015 home intruder murder, only substituting Jonbenet Ramsey and Ramsey with Allison Feldman


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 wrote:
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.


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 wrote:
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.

delmar england fraud wrote: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.

the posters that comprise forumsforjustice.org have promoted delmar england and to the public as an expert on trace evidence and that this is how actual forensic scientists, using accepted scientific methodology, evaluate scientific forensic evidence.

delmar wrote:
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 DNA then must not have been of any forensic value in the Allison Feldman case.

except that it was.

DNA in 2018 was matched to Ian Mitcham via familial DNA testing.



delmar england and all the posters at forumsforjustice are incompetent


Mary Lacy is not a DNA expert, but she is presenting the conclusions of DNA experts who have reviewed the case file.

it should be clear no one on forumsforjustice.org of science of forensics

it is clear no one on forumsforjustice have any idea on how trace evidence, including DNA is actually evaluated, using science.


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

Posts : 2434
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum