Forensic Files II - Season 2 Episode 6 and The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:07 pm

I once told my apprentice, allow me to show you the subtleties of the Forensics. My mentor taught me everything I know about the Forensics, even the nature of the Daubert Side.


obviously i was a huge star wars fan before I met my apprentice , but I also watched every episode of the Forensic Files prior to meeting him on websmear.

more importantly, I apply the lessons presented in Forensic Files to The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

with that in mind,

suppose I told you that this ligature is from The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey as presented in

Forensic Files II - Season 2 Episode 5

these are actual screenshots from the episode, posting under fair use,

this episode features an actual home (apartment) intruder, with a murder victim, also a white female, in her own apartment, but in 1977, long before DNA technology was available

pictured below is "Jonbenet"





pictures of her bedroom




crime scene



how "Jonbenet" was found



here





they found no semen or biological fluid

the "parents" were the prime suspect





the suspect was a neighbor who had a criminal record and had unexplained fresh scratches on his face and torso, but they didn't have direct evidence tying him to the crime

this crime happened in 1977 flash forward 40 years into the future

they use touch DNA













they obtain a DNA profile via touch DNA on piece of clothing




how should this DNA be evaluated scientifically? is this touch DNA have any value?


well these are RDI views,


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.

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?

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?




this detective said DNA, even touch DNA, doesn't lie. it ruled out the chief and prime suspect of over 40+ years. his scratches were from whatever but the DNA said he wasn't the killer.

this crime happened in Utah

they entered into CODIS and found a match in Florida





he confessed after 40 years of freedom.

He admitted he entered this is a home intruder case, and he entered with the intention to rape her based on his urges to rape.

He decided not to, leaving behind no semen, but he decided to kill her as she woke up and was a witness.

He still left behind DNA via touch DNA on articles of clothing.

Later in 98 he raped a 14 year old girl so his DNA was entered into CODIS, but touch DNA didn't identify him as the killer till 2018.

so question here is, if you apply the same scientific methodology in this case as to the Jonbenet case what conclusion would you draw?

is finding 3 DNA profiles on 2 separate articles of clothing via touch DNA in Jonbenet case stronger or weaker evidence than finding just 1 DNA profile via touch DNA in this case?

compare what RDI like Tricia and Delmar England of forumsforjustice understanding of how DNA solves crimes using scientific methodology with how it is done as seen in this episode of the Forensic Files.

are you prepared to say, in this case, the touch DNA

this is episode

Forensic Files II - Season 2 Episode 6 -Knots

A building manager finds the violated and lifeless body of a young woman, Lecia Schollmeyer, in the bathtub of her first apartment. When questioned, an ex-con living downstairs lies to police. But the lies alone do not prove murder and the case goes cold. Then a new forensic tool examines the old evidence. Will science point to a hidden suspect and crack the case?

vs




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.

yet applying it results in this







applying the same scientific methodology in this episode to the Jonbenet case results in the conclusion of an intruder.

Delmar England and Tricia Griffith are ignorant of the most basic principle of crime scene reconstruction, Locard's exchange principle, and therefore get an F- on their understanding of Forensics