how RDI forumsforjustice.org posters promote fraud - Delmar England & Browns Chicken

Go down

how RDI forumsforjustice.org posters promote fraud - Delmar England & Browns Chicken

Post by redpill on Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:42 am

Fri Apr 27, 2018


this is the statement of ethics for Ramsey lynch mob forumsforjustice.org
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)

to recap,

on crimeshots I told superdave to send a pm to cynic, inviting cynic to come to crimeshots so we can have a discussion.

cynic refused, telling superdave to tell me he only wants to talk to real people.

on reddit cynic as goodsouthersense told me to read delmar england, a senior forumsforjustice.org member and provided me links.

it seems clear cynic's definition of what a real person is is someone who is totally ignorant of actual forensic science, like himself.

the ethical guidelines include




Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

imagine at the Jonbenet crime scene, in the garbage can they find some eaten chicken, outside the Ramsey home, of unknown age. they test this chicken and find male DNA that did not match the family nor any friends of

what conclusions would you draw on the chicken, not found in the murder scene but outside the home, in the trash


here is statements of Delmar england analysis that forumsforjustice abide by
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?

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 claim is
Delmar England 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
.

is this how actual forensic scientists evaluate DNA?

suppose you are at a crime scene, a Browns chicken restaurant and in the kitchen area you find several dead bodies shot. and in the trash they find eaten chicken. they test the chicken in the trash and find DNA but no match for any of the dead bodies and no CODIS match.

does this mean as Delmar England that it is mere speculation?

The Brown's Chicken massacre was a mass murder that occurred at a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine, a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois, on January 8, 1993, when two assailants robbed the restaurant and then proceeded to murder seven employees.

The case remained unsolved for nearly nine years, until one of the assailants was implicated by his girlfriend in 2002. Police used DNA samples from the murder scene to match one of the suspects, Juan Luna. Luna was put on trial in 2007, found guilty of seven counts of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. James Degorski, the other assailant, was found guilty in 2009 on all seven counts of murder, and also sentenced to life imprisonment.

Background

On January 8, 1993, seven people were killed at the Brown's Chicken & Pasta at 168 W. Northwest Highway in Palatine.[1] The victims included the owners, Richard and Lynn Ehlenfeldt, and five employees: Guadalupe Maldonado, Michael C. Castro and Rico L. Solis (the latter two Palatine High School students who were working there part-time), Thomas Mennes, and Marcus Nellsen.[2] The assailants stole less than $2,000 from the restaurant.[3] Two of the Ehlenfeldts' daughters were scheduled to be at the restaurant that night, but happened not to be present at the time of the killing; a third daughter, Jennifer, was later elected to the Wisconsin State Senate.[4]

When Palatine police found the bodies, it was more than 5½ hours after the 9 p.m. closing.[3] Michael Castro's parents called the police a couple hours after closing time.[5] Later, Guadalupe Maldonado's wife called police, concerned that her husband had not returned home from work and that his car was still in the apparently closed Brown's Chicken parking lot.[5] When officers arrived at the building, they spotted the rear employees' door open. Inside, they found the seven bodies, some face-down, some face-up, in a cooler and in a walk-in refrigerator.[1]

The building was razed in April 2001,[1] after briefly housing a dry cleaning establishment[6] and then standing vacant for many years. A Chase Bank branch office was constructed at the former Brown's location.[7

after 9 years how the crime was solved

In April 2002, the Palatine Police Department matched a DNA sample from Luna to a sample of saliva from a piece of partially eaten chicken found in the garbage during the crime scene investigation.[9] The chicken was kept in a freezer for most of the time since the crime; testimony at trial indicated it was not frozen for several days after discovery, and was allowed to thaw several times for examination and testing, in the hope of an eventual match via increasingly sophisticated testing methods not available in 1993.[9]

it should be clear that if there were any validity to Delmar England b.s no crime in which DNA is immediately matched would be solved.


compare this statement

delmar england 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.

again, the standard to evaluate scientific evidence


Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner

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.

in science, you make observations, engage in research, and consider alternate hypothesis to explain observation.

Delmar England is a complete and total fraud and the fact cynic promotes him on forumsforjustice.or to a gullible public is malpractice and injustice.


re:

Delmar England wrote:
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

something every forensic textbook I've encountered defines what an expert is. it is clear Delmar England has never in his life studied any forensic science.

neither cynic nor tricia nor anyone at forumsforjustice

an expert is

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony.

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.

science is based on observation. what observations do you make on the scientific forensic evidence left in other crimes in which there was an intruder, such as east area rapist and Mr. Cruel and BTK? how does that evidence of an intruder compare with what was found in the Jonbenet crime scene?

the posters that comprise forumsforjustice.org are deceiving the public

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

Posts : 2285
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