actual forensic science exposes the RDI frauds at forumsforjustice websleuth reddit

“Also mentioned in the forensic report were a purple nylon fibre and three hairs that were found on the branch of a tree at the scene.

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.

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

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.

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?

When you don't know the difference between an idea, a speculation, a theory and evidence - you'll run into trouble trying to get to know a case.

Excluding the ninja pedo fetish trolls who have arrived in full regalia to degrade both these subs with their twisted pedo fan fic fantasies, I'd assume the rest of us who bother to even remain subscribed still would like to discuss the case at length and hash out theories and whatnot. I would too but after an extended break to come back and see some of these ludicrous IDI posts that are no such thing - I see a serious discussion may now be too much to ask for.

This is a fleshed out write up on some things that need to be addressed. It's not the tldr version. If you want that, oh well.

WHAT WE KNOW

There are two primary camps: RDI and IDI. Ramsey(s) Did It and Intruder Did It. In the RDI camp, we have three sub camps: Patsy Did It (all), John Did It (all), and Burke Did It (R/J cover up). We all have the basis elements down and we all know there are plenty of questions that will never, ever be answered so the most we can do is try the most sensical, intuitive, logical, reasonable, and rational speculation and see if it adds up.

When it comes to the IDI camp, at this place 20 years later, it's pretty clear that IDI is a dinosaur to everyone who is familiar with the case. We get it now, there's plenty of evidence of RDI - but which R remains up for grabs. The IDI debate ended years ago with new information, insight, and revelations. It's only a "thing" for those who for whatever reasons never followed this case, never paid much attention, just didn't delve into it beyond the age old headlines and going ideas that those who have been more involved have known for awhile are refuted, discarded, irrelevant, etc.

Then there's the other faction of IDIer that are not seriously IDIers. They are trolls or Ramsey shills or mentally disturbed sorts, and of course, the twisted Karr style fetishists who want a canvas to roll out their disturbing fetish nonsense and attach it to this case. This camp doesn't actually care about this case, the facts or the evidence, or what happened to JonBenet. Their sole agenda is to degrade the discussion. They will neither respect nor regard the following points and will likely argue them in spite of reality. By their fruits they shall be known.

“Also mentioned in the forensic report were a purple nylon fibre and three hairs that were found on the branch of a tree at the scene.

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?

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.

“Also mentioned in the forensic report were a purple nylon fibre and three hairs that were found on the branch of a tree at the scene.

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.

Cold case rape and murder of Scots schoolgirl could be solved by Scotland's leading forensic scientist

Angela Gallop has offered to lead a cold case team into the unsolved killing of Pamela Hastie, 16, in November 1981

Scotland’s leading forensic scientist has offered to lead a cold case team into the unsolved rape and murder of schoolgirl Pamela Hastie.

Professor Angela Gallop was one of the first people to cast scientific doubt on the conviction of the man who had been jailed and later cleared of killing Pamela.

Prof Gallop, 69, who has worked on some of the country’s most difficult murder cases, said writing a book about her lifetime’s work led her to revisit Pamela’s murder.

And, 38 years after the killing, she believes a new team of forensic experts reinvestigating the case could crack it.
Pamela Hastie was attacked on her way home from school in November 1981 (Image: Daily Record)

Prof Gallop said: “I do think that if you went back to look at Pamela’s clothing there would be something there in relation to DNA.

“Every contact really does leave a trace – it’s just that sometimes no one finds it or doesn’t find it at that time.

“I have suggested looking at any superficial debris that might have been recovered from Pamela’s body, especially the exposed parts.

“The debris could contain important transferred traces that might give the police some other avenues for investigation.
Raymond Gilmour was convicted over Pamela's murder before being later cleared (Image: Daily Record)
Read More

Twisted sister, brother and pal battered her ex to death as neighbours heard bloodcurdling screams



“I would be happy to get a forensic team together and brief them on my knowledge of this case, what I did and saw at the time of my review and help them in any cold case investigation.”

Pamela, 16, was attacked on her way home from school in November 1981 and her body was discovered in Rannoch Woods near her home in Johnstone, Renfrewshire.

Teenager Raymond Gilmour was arrested for the murder and confessed.

He was convicted the following year but claimed he had been coerced into admitting the crime.

In 2007, after 20 years in jail, the appeal court ruled the original trial verdict unsafe and released him.

Prof Gallop, who helped to solve the killings of Rachel Nickell, Stephen Lawrence and later Damilola Taylor, was asked in 1994 by Gilmour’s legal team to take a look at the forensic reports of the case.

At the time, she was given no access to any physical evidence but was allowed to comb through detailed forensic reports, including the post-mortem.

She said it left her deeply concerned that vital forensic evidence may have been missed.

Prof Gallop said: “Something that had been noted by one of the police officers involved in the original investigation was a footwear mark on the ground near where Pamela’s school books had been discovered.
Angela Gallop believes a new team of forensic experts reinvestigating the case could crack it (Image: Roland Leon Sunday Mirror)

“Although a photo had been taken of what might have proved to be a vital piece of evidence, no attempt seemed to have been made to compare it with any of Gilmour’s shoes.

“Also mentioned in the forensic report were a purple nylon fibre and three hairs that were found on the branch of a tree at the scene.

“The fact that all three of the hairs were apparently like Pamela’s suggested she had come into contact with the branch at some point.

“So if the fibre was associated with the hairs and, assuming it hadn’t come from Pamela herself, one obvious explanation would be that it had come from her attacker. But that was another loose end that appeared not to have been followed up.”

It is not known what evidence from the time of the original murder investigation remains for potential future forensic testing.

Prof Gallop, a forensic scientist for 45 years, has pulled together details of her most famous cases in her book, When The Dogs Don’t Bark.

The title refers to the alarm bells she said should ring when forensic evidence is missing and how that can be just as important as when it’s found.

She said the case against Gilmour, now 56, is one of the best examples of “the dogs not barking”.

No evidence of any physical contact between Gilmour and Pamela was found at the crime scene. Prof Gallop said: “During the close contact that would have been involved in the assault prior to Pamela’s death, textile fibres would inevitably have been transferred from her clothing to her assailant’s and vice versa.

“The conclusion I came to after considering all the reports and other information from the original investigation was that there were holes in the scientific evidence to raise serious doubts about the safety of Raymond Gilmour’s conviction.”
Serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, also known as the Yorkshire Ripper (Image: Unknown)
Read More

Dad-of-four killed ex-partner then told son 'mum's body is in the kitchen'



In the years since the conviction was overturned, a number of serial killers have been suggested as possible suspects for Pamela’s murder, including Peter Tobin and Robert Black.

The first crime scene Prof Gallop attended was the murder of 18-year-old Helen Rytka in February 1978 – one of the victims of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe.

She went on to work on cases including the killing of Jamie Bulger, the Pembrokeshire Coastal Path murders and the hanging of Italian banker Roberto Calvi.

Though she started her career as part of the UK government’s Forensic Science Service, helping police forces across England and Wales, she went on to set up her own forensic services laboratories.

She is now also strategic director for forensic science at Strathclyde University.

Prof Gallop, who was awarded a CBE in 2015, will appear at the Edinburgh Science Festival on April 9 to give a talk on the advances in forensics that have influenced her work.

She said: “I have been very lucky to have worked as part of some amazing teams – forensic science is very much a team effort.

“A forensic scientist has to keep an open mind about everything and let only the facts and evidence guide you.

“You might think you understand what happened at a crime scene but then you dig a little further and discover it is not quite so clear-cut.

“Some of the things you see are horrendous but you are part of a team that has a job to do so you can’t allow yourself to get emotional and have to concentrate on knowing your work might help keep other people safe.

“One thing that helps tremendously is that, in my experience, every dead person I have seen at a crime scene always looks as if they are at peace.”

Neither Police Scotland nor the Hastie family responded to our requests for a comment.

“Also mentioned in the forensic report were a purple nylon fibre and three hairs that were found on the branch of a tree at the scene.

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.

Prof Gallop said: “I do think that if you went back to look at Pamela’s clothing there would be something there in relation to DNA.

“Every contact really does leave a trace – it’s just that sometimes no one finds it or doesn’t find it at that time.

“So if the fibre was associated with the hairs and, assuming it hadn’t come from Pamela herself, one obvious explanation would be that it had come from her attacker. But that was another loose end that appeared not to have been followed up.”

Prof Gallop said: “I do think that if you went back to look at Pamela’s clothing there would be something there in relation to DNA.

“Every contact really does leave a trace – it’s just that sometimes no one finds it or doesn’t find it at that time.

“So if the fibre was associated with the hairs and, assuming it hadn’t come from Pamela herself, one obvious explanation would be that it had come from her attacker. But that was another loose end that appeared not to have been followed up.”