a statement of what "justice" for JonBenet Ramsey is, and how forumsforjustice.org completely fails

here is a choice,

 

you can take the blue bill  story ends you remain in a forumsforjustice.org fantasy land

you can take the red pill   and i'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

remember all i offer you is the truth, nothing more.


What is justice? Is there a canon of ethics and professional standards when it comes to forensic science?
and what is justice as it applies to   JonBenet Ramsey?

forumsforjustice.org comprise of posters who claim they seek "justice" for JonBenet Ramsey

no where on that forum do they state what justice actually is, and how their actions comprise in assisting justice.

here are some of their statements

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 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.)

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.

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.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"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? 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.

Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

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?

one forumsforjustice poster is koldkase, who is also on websleuth and topix

this is her claim

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications


similarly, on topix,

Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me

Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

i suspect is a woman on topix, who obviously has zero scientific or forensic qualifications.



now this is forumsforjustice.org tricia griffth




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.

I've refuted all of these claims using actual science, throughout various posts on my blog

now this is a statement of justice and a canon of ethics by Brent Turvey

Brent Turvey wrote:
Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations. (Turvey 1999: 722)

this is Brent Turvey qualification

Brent Turvey

Director at Forensic Criminology Institute

   Sitka, Alaska
   Legal Services

Current

   The Forensic Criminology Institute, Forensic Solutions, LLC

Previous

   Oklahoma City University, Knowledge Solutions, LLC

Education

   Bond University
Brent E. Turvey spent his first years in college on a pre-med track only to change his course of study once his true interests took hold. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Portland State University in Psychology, with an emphasis on Forensic Psychology, and an additional Bachelor of Science degree in History.

are any RDI fanatical  forumsforjustice.org have any qualifications in science, let alone forensic science, and are they truthfully reported the conclusion of scientific expert witnesses findings on a large array of scientifc forensic evidence, most importantly, the autopsy results, DNA, and forensic document examination?

of course not.

 forumsforjustice.org far from serving and educating the public in actual forensic science, the kind taught in universities and in textbooks, are a lynch mob, misinforming the public.

the actual conclusions of scientific forensic expert witnesses lead only to one conclusion

the best scientific explanation for the forensic evidence found at the crime scene leads to the conclusion an intruder murdered JonBenet Ramsey

no RDI poster on any forum, let alone forumsforjustice.org  has ever studied any science, particular, science of crime scene reconstruction and forensic document examination. No actual familiarity with the relevant science.

you've been redpilled

The RDI were so disappointed that the Ramsey's weren't indicted, convicted, tried, and convicted of the crime they thought the Ramseys committed. That would have been their brand of justice for JonBenet.