Kirsten Hatfield 8 JonBenet Ramsey and RDI claims of an intruder debunked with real world examples

Mon Aug 27, 2018

for the very first time in my life i learned of Kirsten Hatfield 8
i've never previously heard of Kirsten Hatfield 8 at any time in my life anywhere not on any forum ever

it was featured

ON THE CASE WITH PAULA ZAHN  S1 • E6
Taken from Her Bed




Kirsten Hatfield 8 was murdered May 14, 1997
DOB Feb 12, 1989





these real world examples of crimes act as case studies to illustrate the incompetence of RDI

the fundamental claim of RDI is that there's not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder as exampled below



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.

and


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?

are these insane remarks the claims that an actual forensic scientist would make?

at the Kirsten Hatfield 8

was reported by her mother to be missing by a 911 call, how does this compare with Jonbenet





the call was made 7am in the morning

they found her bedroom window open




is this evidence of an intruder? or did her mother stage this?

how does this compare with Jonbenet basement window?

like Jonbenet, there was a mother and a younger sister Faith who heard nothing. they went to bed at night, and when they woke up in the morning, faith was still there but kirsten was no where to be seen

Kirstin was tucked in at 9pm at night before but by 7am she was missing. the door in her bedroom was open. is this evidence of an intruder?

the police had detectives examine the crime scene, the home.

there were no signs of a struggle in the bedroom



does this mean the mother murdered Kirstin and staged the crime scene to look like an intruder did it?

actual crime scene photo



is this tiny cracked open window, too small to fit an intruder in, evidence of an intruder, or staging by the mother?



her sister faith



like burke ramsey didn't remember anything at the time and doesn't remember anything now, about night. didn't hear anything.

does this mean perhaps she killed her sister out of jealousy and her mother covered it up?

how can an intruder enter by that window which looks like staging and both mother and sister claimed not to notice anything, though mother said she heard whispers at 3am she assumed it was faith

if kirstin was abducted by an intruder, that intruder had to scale a 6 foot fence AND take kirsten over that fence that was 6 foot



does occam razor mean there was no intruder, the mother did it and sister covering it up?

neighbors didn't report anything unusual except dog barking which was common

at the fence they found kirstin underwear



is this evidence of an intruder, or did the mother place that there as part of staging of an intruder?

there was blood on the panties, is this evidence of an intruder or staging?

17 years later, cold case detectives examine the underwear and found a blood stain. they did DNA testing.

the blood was Kirsten but mixed in the blood on the panties



was the DNA of an unknown male. how does this compare with Jonbenet Ramsey?

is the DNA of an unknown male in one blood spot on Kirsten panties evidence of an unknown male, intruder?

this DNA was entered into CODIS. NO MATCH.

so then is this all staging, could the DNA be incidental, a factory worker sneeze?

if you apply RDI claims on Kirsten crime scene evidence






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.

and


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?

would you therefore concluded the forensic evidence provided is not evidence of an intruder in the abduction of 8 year old Kirstien Hatfield age 8?







so did Kirstien Hatfiled mother and sister Faith murder Kirsten then stage the crime scene, or was it an intruder?

using RDI denialist claims on Jonbenet what would you conclude as to the forensic evidence?

using actual genuine scientific analysis on the evidence, what would you conclude regarding an intruder.

was Kirsten Hatfield, with this evidence presented at the crime scene, evidence of an intruder or parents did it?


there are no scientific qualifications for RDI

Tricia griffith and delmar england have never studied forensic science at anytime in their life ever. their claims are complete scientific nonsense.

everything presented is actual evidence of an intruder. from that evidence an intruder was identified, his MO and actions were reconstructed from what was presented, and he was convicted.

now, given what was found in the Kirsten Hatfield age 8 crime scene is actual evidence of an intruder

how can Tricia Griffith and delmar england claim the much more extensive evidence of an intruder at the jonbenet crime scene, evidence in the form of unsourced ligature shoe prints fiber tape dna is not evidence of an intruder?

there is no scientific basis for making such a judgment and their analysis is not how actual scientists reason.

neither tricia grffith nor delmar england ever look at actual crime scenes of actual victims of a home intruder and talk about the actual evidence found in those crime scenes. they fail to do so because they are ignorant. RDI is ignorance

why don't you have a "Like" button?

searchinGirl wrote:why don't you have a "Like" button?

aww thank you

searchinGirl wrote:why don't you have a "Like" button?

That is what I was thinking a couple of hours ago. It would come in handy. As it stands now we would have to post "Like"