MURDER CALLS S3 • E4 The Silencer DNA JonBenet Ramsey a project tricia griffith rdi forumsforjustice rebuttal

Go down

MURDER CALLS S3 • E4 The Silencer DNA JonBenet Ramsey a project tricia griffith rdi forumsforjustice rebuttal

Post by redpill on Fri May 11, 2018 2:27 pm

I just watched

MURDER CALLS S3 • E4 The Silencer DNA




Murder Calls
Published on May 11, 2018
With the help of a neighbor, an injured woman calls 911 saying an intruder broke into her boyfriend's home and shot them both. Police respond and find the boyfriend executed. Cops must decipher strange evidence left behind to identify the killer.

I've never heard of this crime and murder prior to this program

i'm posting a few pics under Fair Use

*spoiler warning*

this is a home intruder case.

on




Craig Nail



victim was shot 14 times in his own home, and found dead in his closet



his gf Theresa was also shot inside the home, in critical condition, shot behind the ear and entered her jaw



investigators found Craig's blood in kitchen stairwell leading up to bedroom, and another outside, .22 shell casings and .22 bullets,

and white cotton fibers in kitchen





investigators state they don't know what it was used for or what its significance is

is cotton fibers evidence of an intruder

as part of the investigation they go to the back yard




they find 2 beer cans, which they collect into evidence






Craig Neil was shot in the bedroom in the closet

are the 2 beer cans found in the backyard outside the home near the ally by the fence, of unknown age, evidence of an intruder?

should you test them for DNA?

suppose they find DNA on the beer cans that were found in the back yard, near the ally, and it doesn't match the victims or to the prime suspect.

does that DNA have any forensic value?

now this is RDI and forumsforjustice 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.

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.


are cotton fibers and 2 beer cans found in the ally a scintilla of evidence of an intruder?

similarly with Delmar England


delmar england wrote:
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.
delmar wrote:
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 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?


the investigators of the Craig Neil murder said the cause of the cotton fibers were unknown. what they meant.

and the cause of the 2 beer cans are unknown.

again this is tricia griffith





and delmar england


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.


are these statements true?

are the 2 beer cans evidence of an intruder?

should you test the beer can for fingerprints and DNA?

you don't know who put those beer cans there, for long they have been there, they are not shown to be connected to the crime, they occurred far removed from the crime scene, the murder happened in the closet of the bedroom inside the home, but the beer can is foudn outside the home.

using trasha griffith and delmar england "logic" endorsed by every single rdi poster on forumsforjustice

they are no evidence of an intruder

should you collect cotton fibers?


actual results







2 beer cans when tested for DNA led them to the suspect who confessed.

he implicated Craig Neil wife who was divorcing as she wanted sole custody of the daughter so she wanted her husband murdered and hired a killer.

using RDI delmar england trasha griffith denialist methods would you arrive at the scientifically correct conclusion as to the forensic value of the DNA?

what about using a scientific approach to scientific evidence.

is the DNA evidence found on Jonbenet' s clothing in the context of a sexual assault stronger DNA evidence or weaker DNA evidence in comparison to 2 beer cans found outside the home, in the backyard in the ally?

no RDI poster, and no RDI poster on forumsforjustice or websleuth understand the relevant science

science is about using the same objective fact based standards of the natural world, in this case hard physical evidence of the crime scene,

what would be an objective standard that states that DNA found on 2 beer cans outside the home, far removed from the crime scene, is evidence of an intruder, of unknown age and unknown relation, but DNA found on Jonbenet clothing, 3 identical DNA samples on 2 separate articles of clothing, in the context of a sexual assault, is not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

Delmar England first claims that the DNA doesn't prove anything then calls all the evidence of an intruder taken together as a mental creation, and by his own admission he only spent a couple of minutes to arrive at this conclusion then dogmatically asserts there's no other possible explanation for the evidence.

delmar england is a complete and total forensic fraud

and cynic promoted this fraud, as does trasha griffith

both promtoed cherokee who is a complete and total forensic handwriting and linguistics fraud

forumsforjustice promotes fraud

if you're created a forum informing the public, inform them correctly
imagine they find a person who matches the DNA found on Jonbenet

is this person a suspect or not?

say this person owns hi-tech shoes that are identical to the shoe prints found near Jonbenet's body, cordage that is identical to what was found on Jonbenet, and tape identical to what was found on Jonbenet, covered with animal hair and fibers identical to what was found on Jonbenet. they find a piece of wood identical to missing piece in the broken paintbrush that was used to fashion a garrotte. they examine his handwriting and find a match to the handwriting found on the ransom note, by experts from ABFDE who studied the ORIGINALS.

would any of these forensic matches be evidence of an intruder, when matched to a suspect?

what is the scientific approach to scientific evidence collected in the crime scene?

how is it neither trasha griffith delmar england cynic cherokee nor any RDI on forumsforjustice or websleuth show any understanding of forensic science?

RDI and trasha griffith and delmar england cynic cherokee all morally and intellectually bankrupted anti-science

safety lesson

if you are involved in a divorce and your wife really wants sole custody of the kid,

she may resort to hiring a hit man to kill you as craig nail found out

of all the reasons craig was murdered and his gf was almost killed as a witness, was over wife wanting sole custody

she paid $10k

both are in jail for a long time

_________________
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