why forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud - cynic goodsouthernsense same scientific standards

Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:52 am


cynic aka  goodsouthernsense recommended i read   forumsforjustice Delmar England as an example of outstanding forensic analysis of a crime scene.

i then asked cynic who is delmar england, as i have never heard of him. he said he passed away but when alive he was a stalwart for truth and justice on jonbenet and a member of forumsforjustice

here's some of his stuff from both that forum and acandyrose

delmar england wrote:None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

you do realize this constitutes begging the question

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

his attempt at explaining UNSOURCED trace evidence

delmar wrote:
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.

why this is fallacious begging the question

this is 5 year old colordo murder victim Alie Berrelez



forensic scientists perform a touch DNA analysis of her underwear and find 1 DNA sample obtained via touch DNA on her underwear.

using Delmar England analysis on the touch DNA found on 5 year old Colorado murder victim Alie Berrelez

delmar england wrote:None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

and

delmar wrote:
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.

what conclusion would you draw regarding the signficance of the DNA found via touch DNA sampling 5 year old colordo murder victim Alie Berrelez underewar.

after all, since you cannot prove anything about this DNA it therefore is no evidence of an outsider as perpetrator.

would this lead to the correct conclusion in the value of DNA in 5 year old Colorado murder victim Alie Berrelez murder?


consider this girl who went missing, also from Colorado, kinda an unlucky state for girls i think



they find her backpack, and they test it for DNA and find 1 male DNA unknown in one location on that backpack

applying Delmar's reasoning

delmar england wrote:None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

and

delmar wrote:
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.

would you arrive at the correct conclusion as to the value of that DNA sample found on her back pack?

similarly,

delmar england fraud wrote: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.

is this how actual forensic trace evidence examiners explain and evaluate forensic trace evidence?

for example, consider this girl



they found gold-colored fibers on her clothes they could not match to anything from her home.
how would that be assessed scientifically?

applying delmar's "reasoning"

delmar england wrote:None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

and

delmar wrote:
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.

would Delmar England's remarks lead to the correct conclusion of finding gold-colored fiber on that victim's clothing be correct?

similarly these children it was found



they found white dog hair on their clothing they could not match to anything from her home.
how would that be assessed scientifically?

applying Delmar England's reasoning

applying delmar's "reasoning"

delmar england wrote:None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

and

delmar wrote:
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.

what conclusions would you draw on white dog hair on the victim's clothing.

would such conclusions be scientifically correct?

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.

this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

in these actual examples of forensics, the actual value of that trace evidence is the exact opposite of what Delmar England reasoning.
It's clear Delmar England is not familiar with one of the most basic and most fundamental principle in crime scene reconstruction, Locard's exchange principle


foremmsforjustice Delmar England is a complete and total fraud. and the fact cynic and trasha griffith promotes him, along with other members of forumsoforjustice and acandyrose shows they have never studied any actual forensic science of any kind ever.


forumsforjustice has never studied forensic science, and are promoting anti-science forensic frauds with no actual background in forensc science, frauds like delmar england.

cynic delmar england trasha griffith the losers and failures over at forumsforjustice have never studied any forensc science, and one the most basic principles, Locard's exchange principle, is obviously unknown to them.

using Locard's exchange principle, what conclusions would you draw as to the signficance of finding the combination of DNA, fiber, hair, tape ligature shoe print evidence on Jonbenet, in light of intruder theory?

would the proper use of Locard's exchange principle on trace evidence found on Jonbenet as well as the other cases discussed, lead to intruder conclusions?

in future posts i will contrast the actual application of forensic science versus the frauds over at forumsforjustice like delamr england