A CRIME TO REMEMBER Marilyn Sheppard and JonBenet Ramsey science every intruder theorist should know

I just watched

A CRIME TO REMEMBER  A Crime to Remember Season S3 • E6



Published on Dec 16, 2015

Bay Village, OH, 1954: When Marilyn Sheppard is found beaten to death in her bedroom, it will take more than thirty years to piece together the truth of what happened the night she died.

now, a message to furyofdragon aka superdave



our time has come, while RDI believed thier b.s was safe and protected. RDI were trusted to protect justice for Jonbenet investigation. But you were deceived. As  our powers in the daubert side of the forensic grows we grew stronger

RDI assumed no IDI force could challenge you. And now, finally, we have returned to get our revenge. and now, RDI shall fall.



*spoiler warning*

here is something no ignorant untrained RDI had ever considered, using SCIENCE to solve crimes. specifically, scientific reasoning, scientific evidence scientific methods, and scientific expert witnesses trained in scientific method.

I've pointed this out earlier regarding RDI claims it's patsy's handwriting



one forumsforjustice poster is koldkase, who is also on websleuth and topix

this is her claim

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,

Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me

Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

in what they call "justice" they propose that they can simply look at the ransom note and then Patsy's and say it is Patsy's.

had they done the responsible research they would ask

does a lay person with no training, someone like  forumsforjustice koldkase or topix capricorn claims meet the daubert standard?

i.e

The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:

      Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
      Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
      Whether it can be and has been tested;
      Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
      Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.[4]

using the criteria of the daubert standard and applying it to the claims of RDI which is what i call  power of the daubert side of the Forensics

how would you test RDI claims?

well here's a paper





imagine you provide koldkase, capricorn and other RDI lynch mob anti-science say thousands or even tens of thousands of exemplars that are similar to Patsy's and the ransom note, would they be able to pick out Patsy as say this is a match to the Jonbenet ransom note?

i call using the power of science, scientific thinking, scientific reasoning, the power of the  daubert side of the forensics, which is a pathway that leads to many IDI theories the RDI would consider to be unnatural.  


A CRIME TO REMEMBER covers the murder of Marilyn Sheppard

images copyrighted to ID, posting a few under fair use



the fundamental question in this murder investigation as is the case with  JonBenet Ramsey

was Marilyn Sheppard murdered by an intruder, or an inside job, specifically her husband Samuel  Sheppard,

Samuel Sheppard told a fantastic story to detectives, police, investigators that he woke up on a coach, heard his wife moaning, he went up and saw a biped figure.

Dr. Sheppard used the word biped to describe it. He approach close and was struck from behind and was knocked out. So detectives ask him if it was 1 perp or 2.

He came to, kinda like Luke Skywalker after encounter with Kylo Ren, and saw this tall thin bushy haired man looking out the window and gave chase, they then entered near a lake shore where he was struck and knocked out a second time. When he came to, he returned to the house saw Marylin absolutely butchered and called police.

he denied killing his wife and he denied making this story up.

he denied any problems in marriage but it eventual came out he was having an affair with another woman, leading to speculation he killed Marilyn in a fit of rage.

The jury and detectives and media did not believe this story, of an intruder, and Samuel Sheppard was convicted and sentence to prison where he spend 12l years there. the press the media, police, detectives believe Sameul Sheppart was guilty , there was NO intruder.


F Lee Baily was able to get Samuel Shepard released and retried on the grounds Samuel Sheppard did not get a fair trial to the supreme court.

State of Ohio pursued a second trial. This time, defense produced an actual forensic scientist Dr. Paul Kirk. In 1966 in the retrial the public has never heard of a forensic scientist, and that it sounds like more of a sicko than a scientist, according to narrator they don't even know what a forensics expert is.




now, the question in the Samuel Sheppard case is this, did an intruder murder Marylin or was it an inside job?


How would a forensic scientist, using scientific methodology, scientific reasoning, and scientific evidence evaluate this claim?

What was the actual scientific reasoning Dr. Kirk used to determine whether  intruder murder Marylin or was it an inside job?









applying the scientific reasoning Dr. Kirk used in evaluating the scientific forensic evidence, specifically blood spatter, does this lead to the conclusion an intruder murdered   or was it an inside job?

in the 90s, they performed DNA testing on the samples Does DNA testing confirm Dr. Kirk's conclusion or contradict it?




imagine Dr. Kirk, or a modern day forensic scientist were to evaluate the scientific forensic evidence found in the JonBenet Ramsey using similar scientific reasoning.

would he conclude an intruder murdered Jonbenet or the parents or inside job?

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.

this is Delmar England

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.

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.

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.

Delmar England has never studied any forensic science at any time in his life ever, yet forumsforjustice promote him as their forensic expert, esp cynic aka goodsouthernsense

would Dr. Kirk



arrive at the same conclusions as Tricia Griffith or Delmar England?

I'll tell you right now, forumsforjustice consists of total forensic frauds who have never studied any textbook forensic science at anytime in their life, ever. Delmar England is not a forensic scientist and his dismissal of the scientific forensic evidence does not come from a trained scientist evaluating scientific forensic evidence. doing so leads to the conclusion an intruder murdered JonBenet Ramsey

Delmar the forensic fraud England statement here

delmar england 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.

is this how forensic scientists dismiss evidence? is this how Dr Kir or an episode of Forensic Files evaluate these key evidence? i.e there is fiber everywhere therefore it is no evidence of an intruder that is found on the murder victim.


RDI are obstructing justice.

i'll revisit this in future threads, unless i die prematurely like in a car crash

i think its funny furyofdragon aka superdave called me placebo hahaha!

I have heard of the Marilyn Sheppard case, but didn't know very many details. I am glad that they finally cleared him in it. It is a shame that he was ever convicted of it in the first place.

MurderMysteryReader wrote:I have heard of the Marilyn Sheppard case, but didn't know very many details. I am glad that they finally cleared him in it. It is a shame  that he was ever convicted of it in the first place.

wow you're back again i thought u r gone like TracyB

Nope, still around. Just reading and posting when I can. I care too much about this case and finding the real killer of JonBenet to just walk away.