Scientific Testing of RDI claims "there is no evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey murder" debunking denialism

A common RDI claim is "there is no evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey murder"

This is an experiment, it will show how scientifically baseless RDI claims are.

first let's define some terms from wiki

denialism

"there is no evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey" is a form of  denialism

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

science

Science :58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies,

when you read RDI posters like Tricia Griffith Delmar England et al, do they have a science background, in evaluating scientific evidence?

experiment

An experiment is a procedure carried out to support, refute, or validate a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated.

the following is an experiment, a test for RDI denialist claim.

this is the test, this is the experiment,

imagine presenting an RDI crime scene evidence recovered in the  JonBenet Ramsey murder scene,

two examples of RDI denialism is Tricia Griffith and Delmar England both memebers of forumsforjustice

at the JonBenet Ramsey crime scene, investigators found

a dead body, with fiber and hair unsourced to the Ramsey home,
is this evidence of an intruder?

at the crime scene they recovered a shoe print of an adult male outside the home that did not match the shoes found by any Ramsey family person in the home, pictured below



is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

ligature on the dead body




this ligature was unsourced to anything in the Ramsey home. it also contains fiber unsourced to the Ramsey home. Some of the fibers found on the ligature was also found on the victim's clothing

the ligature was tied in a way that was sophisticated, no evidence the Ramseys could tie such such knots into a garrote

is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

they found tape on the murder victim



the tape was from a previously used roll. no source of the tape was found in the Ramsey home. the tape was only found on the murder victim and no where else in the home. the tape contains fiber and hair unsourced to anything in the Ramsey home.

is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

certain items were missing from the crime scene, such as JonBenet Ramsey class rings



is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

they find touch DNA on Jonbenet's panties, in the context of a sexual assault



is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

the touch DNA they find on  Jonbenet's panties, in the context of a sexual assault also matches DNA found via touch DNA on Jonbenet's backpack



is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?


at the crime scene they recovered these handwritten documents on notepad paper , outside the home



the conclusion of qualified handwriting experts under Daubert is that John is eliminated and "there is no evidence Patsy exuted any of the examined documents"

is this evidence of an intruder?
is this evidence of an intruder in combination with the other evidence found at the crime scene?

imagine you present all these evidence and the conclusions to forumsforjustice Tricia Griffith and Delmar England

their analysis and conclusion


trasha of forumsforjustice 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

delmar england, also forumsforjustice

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?

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.

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.

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 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 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.

neither Tricia Griffith nor Delmar England nor cynic nor any RDI has ever watched any episode of the Forensic Files nor have any background in forensic science.

esp this claim

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?"

is this scientifically correct?

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.

is this scientifically correct?

when you watch the Forensic Files, is this how they analyze unsourced, unidentified fiber hair shoe print evidence?



Forensic files features actual experts in forensic science.

is there every a where a forensic scientists upon identifying hair fiber shoe print etc say as delmar england did

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?"

would these lead to the correct conclusions in cases where DNA does solve the crime? or fiber or shoe print?

is this the reasoning actual forensic scientists employ in evaluating crime scene evidence?

do they say, well this fiber is unknown origin, therefore the parents did it.
since fiber and hair and shoe print and DNA are all unknown, and unsourced to the Ramsey home, therefore there was no intruder, parents did it.
well if you examine any random location of the Ramsey home you'll find unknown fiber so the parents did it.

What is the actual reasoning actual scientists using the scientific method use to evaluate unidentified trace evidence, and why does every single RDI poster on forumsforjustice and websleuth reddit topix show complete and total ignorance of this?

re

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 know where the test items from my experiment originate from?

an actual home invading predator. the east area rapist aka golden state killer, tape is from BTK Dennis Rader

science is based on observation.

the fact all the forusmforjustice posters praise delmar englad tells you forusmforjustice and RDI in general is pure junk science.    

Very profound. A human put all that evidence there and it is stupid to discount it just because it can't be linked to the Ramseys. Typical RDI dribble.