Forensic files s10e34 and Jonbenet Ramsey A project Tricia Griffith RDI Rebuttal

this is 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.

so she claims there is scintilla of evidence of an intruder

as i went to great pains to point out
Tricia Griffith nor any RDI on any forum websleuth reddit topix ffj has any qualifications in the relevant areas of expertise.

to hammer this point in

here is an actual episode of Forensic Files

it involves a home intruder

listen to what they list as evidence and how it solves



based on what they list as evidence

is Tricia Griffith and RDI denialist claims have any scientific merit when applied to the Jonbenet Ramsey case?

as an IDI, i use the same scientific forensic scientists and reasoning actual forensic scientists use, and demonstrate as exampled by Forensic files and standard textbooks in forensic science and apply them to the Jonbenet Ramsey case.

in this Forensic Files case, no foreign fingerprints inside the home.
no murder weapon at the crime scene.

how does this compare with Jonbenet Ramsey?

they found a shoe print in the mud outside the home.

using RDI denialist tactics, is that a scintilla of evidence?

RDI logic anyone can have left that shoe print at any time, including the victim himself.
therefore it is not scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

there is no "proof" the shoe print is related in any way to the murder therefore
it is not scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

is this acceptable reasoning in forensic science?

how does finding a shoe print in the mud outside the home, in the garden area

compare with the shoe print evidence found in the Jonbenet Ramsey investigation?

you do realize that the perp in this case said he left the shoe print several days prior to the murder, which is how RDI claim the hi-tech shoe print found in Jonbenet Ramsey basement near where her body was found, and therefore no evidentiary value.

they didn't find the murder weapon at the home, but they did find murder weapon several blocks from home of victim, which had blood and hair that matched william lowe.
no fingerprint on that weapon.

did they find a murder weapon in Jonenet that based her head with transfer of hair, dna of Jonbenet?

how does the evidence in the intruder Bryan Crews murder of step father compare with evidence found in the Jonbenet Ramsey case?

given that a shoe impression found in the house outside the home was forensic evidence Bryan Crews an intruder killed Bill Lowe's.

for Tricia Griffith to say the hi-tech shoe print found in the basement close to where Jonbenet's body was found, unsourced to the Rs house is not a evidence of an intruder leads to one conclusion




is an ignoramus.

the evidence of the crime scene doesn't support RDI denialists claim of no evidence of an intruder.