the truth about forumsforjustice JonBenet Ramsey is the posters are ignorant and incompetent

Go down

the truth about forumsforjustice JonBenet Ramsey is the posters are ignorant and incompetent

Post by redpill on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:25 am

Sat Jul 14, 2018

i've touched on it before but i'd like to emphasis some points before

Forums for Justice
https://www.forumsforjustice.org/

stated purpose

Forum for Justice is a forum dedicated to discussion and awareness-building on topics related to current trials and court cases, missing or abducted and ...



it was created by tricia griffith




posters there include cynic delmar england cherokee  Jayelles ookie  RiverRat Watching You, Moab

here are claims of delmar england

delmar england is

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 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 wrote:
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.


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.


cynic promoted delmar england as forumsforjustice finest most competent poster.

the fundamental truth about forumsforjustice

is that all the posters are ignorant and incompetent and have never studied any forensic science at any time in their life ever

this is a statement of the canon of ethics that govern forensic science
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)


is delmar england and the thugs and incompetents at forumsforjustice following these ethical guidelines?

delmar england own admission

delmar england wrote:
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.


delmar england, by his own admission, only spent a few minutes examining the evidence, concludes the parents did, and that it's impossible to reach any other conclusion

how does he reach this conclusion?

delmar england wrote:
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

science is based on observation.

there are examples of crimes in which an intruder enter the home, committing murder

what scientific evidence do they recover?

at a home intruder crime scene, is this evidence of an intruder?



what about this?



or this?



imagine that you're told they recovered this evidence at the JonBenet Ramsey crime scene

is this evidence of an intruder?

then you're told it is an experiment designed to test the competency of the RDI poster

they were all recovered at the golden state killer/east area rapist home intruder crime scene

given that ligature, tape, handwritten notes, shoe prints were  all recovered in the crime scene found at known crimes involving home intruders, what would be a basis to determine how delmar england decided the same evidence isn't evidence of an intruder in the jonbenet ramsey crime scene?

given that the canon of ethics

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.

and forumsforjustice by his own admission

delmar england wrote:
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.

he is violating ethical guidelines

what delmar england and the incompetents at forumsforjustice never do is say what is involved in this



it is his ethical duty to first investigate crimes in which there were intruders, then carefully construct a theory

this is lecture slides on the subject delmar england has never studied





it takes more than a "few minutes" to apply these scientific crime scene methods to the facts at hand.

delmar wrote:
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.

crime reconstruction is a form of event reconstruction. an event has happened, it leaves behind evidence, then the crime scene scientist offers hypothesis as to how the evidence became where they are.

there have been other crime scenes in which the offender was known to have been the result of an intruder.
what scientific forensic evidence was found at those crime scenes.

how do you explain the presence of ligature tape handwritten messags at the golden state killer home intruder crime scenes?

delmar england and the frauds at forumsforjustice and all the rdi on any forum, including voynich's old friend sd-won kenobi, have never studied any forensic science at any time in their life.

the question is, how do you explain the fibers, hair ligature tape found at the jonbenet ramsey crime scene. how do you explain the dna and ransom note, how do you explain her medical injuries.


no RDI poster at forumsforjustice has any real understanding of forensic evidence

delmar england and the frauds of rdi at forumsforjustice and elsewhere, have never studied forensic science, textbook forensic science, at any time in their life, ever.

they are all frauds, their posts have zero forensic scientific value.

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

Posts : 2914
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