crime scene reconstruction trace evidence and intruder theory

View previous topic View next topic Go down

crime scene reconstruction trace evidence and intruder theory

Post by redpill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:05 pm

Suspect trasha pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist


trasha 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.

one trasha has never studied forensics. she has never studied crime scene reconstruction. she has no background in criminalistics. as far as evidence is concern
she along with other anti-science denialists ukguy andrewww boesp superdave koldkase etc have some weird creepy desire to bash the r's

as far as evidence is concern this is what the FBI says is evidence
fbi wrote:
Trace Evidence

Mission

The Trace Evidence Unit (TEU) identifies and compares specific types of trace materials that could be transferred during the commission of a violent crime. These trace materials include human hair, animal hair, textile fibers and fabric, rope, feathers, soil, glass, and building materials. The physical contact between a suspect and a victim can result in the transfer of trace materials. The identification and comparison of these materials can often associate a suspect to a crime scene or with another individual. Physical anthropology (skeletal remains) examinations are also performed. These examinations are conducted to assist in the identification of human remains.

The Team

Physical scientist, geologist, and forensic examiners

The Work

The unit maintains reference collections of human and animal hair, natural and man-made textile fibers, fabrics, feathers and wood.

Hair

Hair examinations can determine if a hair is animal or human. If animal, the species and possibly breed of the animal can be determined. If human, the racial characteristics, body area, length, root type (naturally shed/forcibly removed), and any artificial treatment or damage can be determined. Hairs associated by microscopic comparison are also examined by the Mitochondrial DNA Unit.

Fibers

Fiber examinations can determine if a fiber is natural or manmade. Questioned fibers can be compared to fibers from a known source to determine if they are consistent with having originated from that source. Questioned fibers can also be compared to other questioned fibers to determine if they are consistent with originating from the same source, though that source is not known.

Fabric

Fabric examinations can determine if a questioned piece of fabric and a known piece of fabric are consistent in color, construction, and composition. Torn pieces of fabric can be physically matched to a damaged garment.

since they found not one but multiple forms of unsourced trace evidence, that is evidence of an intruder.

how trace evidence originates
wiki wrote:
Trace evidence is created when objects contact. Material is often transferred by heat or induced by contact friction.

The importance of trace evidence in criminal investigations was shown by Dr. Edmond Locard in the early 20th Century. Since then, forensic scientists use trace evidence to reconstruct crimes, and to describe the people, places and things involved in them. Studies of homicides published in the forensic science literature show how trace evidence is used to solve crimes. Trace evidence is important in accident investigation, where movement of one part against another will often leave a tell-tale mark. Such analysis is of great use in forensic engineering.

Examples

Examples of typical trace evidence in criminal cases include glove prints, hairs, cosmetics, Lipsticks,[1] plant fibers, mineral fibers, synthetic fibers, glass, paint chips, soils, footprints, botanical materials, gunshot residue, explosives residue, and volatile hydrocarbons (arson evidence). For such evidence to be useful, it must be compared to similar items from suspects, but particular care is necessary to ensure a thorough analysis.

Ladder feet often leave a trace pattern on the ground, so showing how the ladder moved and caused an accident to the user. Skid marks from tires are often critical in determining the sequence of events before and during a car crash. Vehicular accident reconstruction relies on such marks to estimate vehicle speed before and during an accident, as well as braking and impact forces. Fabric prints of clothing worn by pedestrians in the paint and/or road grime of the striking vehicle can match a specific vehicle involved in a hit-and-run collision. Such traces are also known as "witness marks", especially in engineering and may be critical in understanding how a product failed. A typical witness mark could be an impact depression which broke a product, especially if that mark can be matched to the product which made the impact such as a hammer or nail. Such marks are also commonly encountered in criminal cases, and include bite marks, puncture marks, bullet holes etc.

the intruder theory is that someone outside the R's home entered the home that night, made direct contact with the victim Jonbenet and with the crime scene, resulting in the primary transfer of all unsourced trace evidence in the form of fibers, animal hair, tDNA, palm print shoe print, brought with him cord and tape.

since they found many different types of unsourced fibers, animal hair, tape etc., there is evidence of an intruder.

trasha ironically asked for a connect the dots. well the intruder theory connects the dots from the unsourced fibers to tdna to the ransom note.

crime scene reconstruction is a form of event reconstruction.
wiki wrote:
Crime reconstruction or crime scene reconstruction is the forensic science discipline in which one gains "explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime using deductive and inductive reasoning, physical evidence, scientific methods, and their interrelationships."[1] Gardner and Bevel explain that crime scene reconstruction "involves evaluating the context of a scene and the physical evidence found there in an effort to identify what occurred and in what order it occurred."[2] Chisum and Turvey explain that "[h]olistic crime reconstruction is the development of actions and circumstances based on the system of evidence discovered and examined in relation to a particular crime. In this philosophy, all elements of evidence that come to light in a given case are treated as interdependent; the significance of each piece, each action, and each event falls and rises on the backs of the others."[3]

Methods

Crime scene reconstruction has been described as putting together a jigsaw puzzle but doing so without access to the box top; the analyst does not know what the picture is supposed to look like. Furthermore, not all of the pieces are likely to be present, so there will be holes in the picture. However, if enough pieces of a puzzle are assembled in the correct order, the picture may become clear enough that the viewer is able to recognize the image and answer critical questions about it.

In forensic science, there are three areas of importance in finding the answers and determining the components of a crime scene: (1) specific incident reconstruction, (2) event reconstruction, and (3) physical evidence reconstruction. Specific incident reconstruction deals with road traffic accidents, bombings, homicides, and accidents of any severity. Event reconstruction looks at connections between evidence, sequence of events, and identity of those involved. Physical evidence reconstruction focuses on such items as firearms, blood traces, glass fragments, and any other objects that can be stripped for DNA analysis.
Expertise

To be competent as a crime scene reconstructionist, one must possess the requisite technical knowledge and have a thorough understanding of forensic investigations. There are no set educational requirements; however, many practicing crime scene reconstructionists possess undergraduate or graduate degrees in forensic science, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, or criminal justice. In addition, a crime scene reconstructionist must have considerable experience in the investigation and analysis of crime scenes and physical evidence. Most crime scene reconstructionists have gained such experience either as a crime scene investigator, homicide investigator, or medicolegal death investigator.

Arguably, a crime scene reconstructionist is a forensic scientist who specializes in interpreting and assembling evidence in a coherent manner. Chisum and Turvey explain that to perform crime reconstruction one need not "be an expert in all forensic disciplines" but "must become an expert in only one: the interpretation of the evidence in context."[4] The crime scene reconstructionist may not be the person who carries out laboratory analysis of evidence such as developing DNA profiles or performing firearms and toolmark analysis; however, the competent crime scene reconstructionist must understand the meaning of each various piece of evidence and how it fits within the overall context of the scene. In this way, the crime scene reconstructionist is able to assemble the necessary puzzle pieces to make the picture visible.


a crime scene reconstruction involving an intruder entering the home, inflicting violence on Jonbenet, resulting in the primary transfer of unsourced trace evidence, explains all of the unsourced evidence and wrote the ransom note, it explains it better than RDI, it is more evidence than RDI.

it's basically pointless to argue with an anti-science fundamentalists RDI like trasha ukguy andreww superdave brothermoon et al with their denialists tactics since interpreting the results requires training
wiki wrote:

Professional Associations

The Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction was formed in 1991 by a group of crime scene professionals who "saw a need for an organization that would encompass an understanding of the whole crime scene and the necessity of reconstructing that scene in order to better understand the elements of the crime and to recognize and preserve evidence."[5] The association publishes a peer-reviewed journal and holds an annual conference in which members gain information about the latest techniques and technologies used in crime scene reconstruction and share case examples. Many crime scene reconstructionists are also members of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the International Association for Identification or one of its state chapters.
Certification

The International Association for Identification (IAI) offers the only nationally-recognized Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist program in the United States. To be eligible for certification, applicants must have a minimum of five years experience in the crime scene reconstruction field; must have completed a minimum of 120 hours of related professional training including coursework in bloodstain pattern analysis, shooting incident reconstruction, and other related areas; and, must meet other qualifications such as being published in a professional journal, presenting to a professional association, or being an active instructor in the field. Once approved by the board, applicants must pass a 300-question multiple choice examination and a series of practical questions involving actual analysis of crime scene evidence as presented in photographs.[6] Certification is valid for five years. The IAI maintains a roster of certified crime scene reconstructionists on the organization's website.[7]

No RDI has any training or certification in crime scene reconstruction, therefore, it's pointless to deal with their ignorant anti-science tactics. their conclusions contradicts the conclusions of  crime scene reconstruction experts who were consulted and concluded the best explanation of the unsourced trace evidence is an intruder.

under the Daubert standard only a forensic scientists trained in crime scene reconstruction, and is a member of The Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction and certified by The International Association for Identification (IAI) can comment as to the significance of fiber, dna animal hair shoe print, etc. in deciding between RDI and IDI and it is clear they were consulted and their conclusion is that between the hypothesis of RDI and hypothesis of IDI, IDI has more evidence, and by evidence it is trace evidence as described above, plus expert witness testimony on the handwriting and linguistics of the ransom note.

when reading an RDI book, ask if the author has any such qualifications and if the answer is no, then the book is trash.

their conclusion is intruder. Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1605
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum