JonBenet Ramsey fiber microtrace evidence scientific evaluation leads to intruder theory

Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:22 pm

i once told my apprentice that my ally is the Forensics, and what a powerful ally it is.

I told him if you only knew the power of the Daubert side of the Forensics.

during my time on websleuth i met a websleuth and forumsforjustice poster named cynic.


cynic told me that Jameson is an idi nutjob. jameson if you're reading this cynic admits he thinks all IDI are nutjobs, and speaks of idi as another idi nutjob. one thing tricia griffith told all websleuth posters is that if they encounter jameson, to shout her real name sue benett to silence her and her intruder theory nuttiness.

cynic told me to read forumsforjustice finest thinker and debator, delmar england.

with that in mind,





here is a summary of fiber and microtrace evidence in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

It was originally reported "Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area." These allegedly were consistent with John Ramsey's bathrobe.
Beckner Testimony. In his November 26, 2001 deposition for the Wolf/Ramsey suit, Mark Beckner was asked: "Because there were blue fibers found on the crime scene?" and responded "Yes" (p. 116, lines 10-12).

"Earlier in the case, the police had thought the fibers from the body came from John Ramsey’s bathrobe or Patsy’s black pants or from the blanket found near JonBenét or from the blanket that had been found inside the suitcase under the broken basement window. The fibers might also have come from JonBenét’s own clothes or from one of her stuffed animals. By now, however, all of those possibilities had been excluded [emphasis added], and the only logical explanation was that the fibers came from whatever had been used to wipe JonBenét or possibly from someone who might have rubbed up against her when she was unclothed, which allowed fibers to find their way along her skin and eventually into the folds of her labia. In any event, the clothes worn by Patsy and John on Christmas would have to be compared with the fibers" (Schiller 1999a:563;

"Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point." (Carnes 2003:71).

how should this evidence be evaluated?



now this is RDI and forumsforjustice Trasha griffith


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.

compare RDI with actual forensic scientists,

in

Cold Blooded Alaska

Season 1 Episode 3 -The Last Walk

Mandy Lemaire goes missing in August of 1991, and the town of Tazlina comes together to search for one of their own. However, as days pass with no sign of Mandy, troopers shift their focus to the community for answers.

the following are screenshots from this documentary posted under fair use for educational purposes only


Mandy Lemaire was just 11 when she was kidnapped in broad daylight before being raped and murdered in Tazlina, Alaska.

this is Mandy Lemaire 11






she was abducted in broad daylight, raped and murdered, yet they found NO DNA evidence.

this guy was brought in to examine her clothing





he is an actual forensic microscopist who has actual expertise in forensic microtrace evidence

this is him in action





compare what he's doing with this creature





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.

this is what he found on Mandy Lemaire clothing





and he also found on her clothing,



under a microscope





compare




with


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.

this is Mandy Lemaire 11





the evidence above resulted in



compare and contrast how RDI evaluate microtrace evidence with how intruder theorists do in the Jonbenet case.


in Jonbenet, is the microtrace evidence, in combination with DNA, unsourced ligature, tape and shoe print, and the ransom note, stronger or weaker evidence than in the Mandy Lemaire 11 case

i was going to share this with my apprentice, before in the real world he got carted off to prison

i told him, 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 dark side.

while this case was featured in Cold Blooded Alaska, the Forensic Files also deals with similar topics,

namely they find a murder victim and in this case an actual scientifically trained forensic trace examiner finds fiber and other trace evidence.

what they do is the very opposite of what delmar england and other RDI do.

which is to say there's no evidence of a killer.




RDI is pure ignorance.