Desiree Wheatly, 15 and why RDI like forumsforjustice are total forensic incompetents

Mon Sep 24, 2018

I just finished watching

ON THE CASE WITH PAULA ZAHN S17 • E10
Buried Dreams

On the Case with Paula Zahn
Published on Sep 24, 2018
A mother's relentless investigation of her daughter's disappearance leads police to a terrifying string of murders.

this post contains spoilers for those who want to watch it


it's about a serial killer and one of the victims was Desiree Wheatly, 15



now, let's review RDI claims

cynic of forumsforjustice recommended i read delmar england
cynic was wise to avoide me on crimeshots, but , now his failure is complete.

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.

so tricia is claiming that all the RDI posters on forumsforjustice have refuted an intruder theory.


one such poster is delmar england.

now when Desiree Wheatly, 15



was found buried in a shallow grave,




one of the items they found was Desiree's tshirt



on her tshirt

using a microscope



they found orange fibers.

how would you evaluate these orange fibers found on Desiree Wheatly, 15 tshirt

let's listen to how RDI evaluate fibers, unsourced to the Ramsey home, on Jonbenet

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?

is the science RDI tricia griffith and delmar england claims about unidentified unsoruced orange fiber found on Desiree Wheatly 15 tshirt when using similar unsourced fiber on Jonbenet clothing


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.

lead to the correct conclusion?



since i actually watched this documentary, i know exactly what scientific role the orange unsourced fiber on unsoruced orange fiber found on Desiree Wheatly 15 tshirt buried for several months and she was decomposed and her tshirt was also badly damaged played.

are RDI using the same scientific methodology that forensic scientists and forensic trace evidence experts use when they find unidentified fiber hair DNA and animal hair and pollen on victims, to the Jonbenet crime scene?

the answer of course is they are not.

the fact cynic and tricia griffith use delmar england on forumsforjustice only proves one thing, every single poster on websleuth reddit forumsforjustice is scientifically incompetent and ignorant.

how does delmar england know that the unsourced fibers and hair could not have come from transfer from her killer, which was an intruder? how do you explain the same unsourced fibers found on the clothing of other murder victims, such as Desiree Wheatly, 15

Desiree Wheatly, 15 was a victim of a sexual assault, much like Jonbenet.

her killer was actually a serial killer with 6 proven but is believed to be 9 or even more

David Leonard WOOD

the second thing i'm thinking when watching this, is

wow.

so many young women murdered like Desiree Wheatly, 15

if i had been born a girl, would i wind up murdered like Desiree Wheatly, 15?

at some point when she left walking out a convenience store

she somehow got abducted then raped and murdered.

Desiree Wheatly, 15 was decomposed so no DNA evidence was found linking Desiree Wheatly, 15 to David Leonard WOOD

the orange fiber found on her tshirt was the critical scientific forensic evidence linking Desiree Wheatly, 15 to David Leonard WOOD

There was questions about what police described as orange fiber, that Wood's claims he can explain. Woods claims the orange fiber in question came from the Wheatly crime scene. Woods claims that when Wheatly was found buried, the detectives set up around the crime scene, did a preliminary search, exhumed the body, and left. He claims the police work was incompetent, and that the grave site was left open to the public for 8 days before they returned to look for evidence. He claims one of the four that went to look for evidence was from the bomb squad, one was an ID sergeant, and none were the detectives that were working on the case

http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/wood-david-leonard.htm

Woods claimed that the police and detectives planted that orange fiber found on Desiree Wheatly, 15 tshirt, to frame him.

jury didn't buy it he was sentence to death. he's on death row in texas, though appeals court halted his execution.

using delmar england's claim, where if you examine anywhere you will find fibers therefore the fibers found on Jonbenet mean nothing apply to this Desiree Wheatly, 15 case or any case involving fiber evidence?


since in the Jonbenet Ramsey case multiple types of unidentified fibers was found on her clothing, how would you evaluate it, based on how it was scientifically evaluated in the Desiree Wheatly, 15 case?


delmar england and the frauds of forumsforjustice do the exact opposite of what actual trained forensic experts do in evaluating trace evidence found at the crime scene