how forumsforjustice.org RDI lies and deceives the public re: JonBenet Ramsey where's the nutjob, in Delmar England or IDI

forumsforjustice.org RDI cynic at goodsouthersense on reddit loves to crow about IDI nutjobs

cynic speaks of just another IDI nutjob.

when i told superdave on crimeshots to contact cynic on websleuth to come over so we can discuss cynic turned it down claiming he only wants to talk to real people.

cynic promotes Delmar England as a warrior for truth for RDI

cynic, thinks he's so smart.

in that case, i challenge  forumsforjustice.org RDI cynic to a battle of wits.

read but do not examine.

cynic smells nothing fishy about  forumsforjustice.org RDI delmar england

what cynic cannot smell is called nutjob. for a  forumsforjustice.org RDI poster its orderless tasteless and one of the deadlier poisons known to man.

so the battle of wits has begun.

it ends when cynic decides and we both drink. and who is right. and who is dead.

everyone knows nutjobs come from  forumsforjustice.org

this is what delmar england says

delmar england wrote:
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

cynic, you must have missed this point from delmar england



this is what delmar england, who cynic had picked hand selected that i read to prove rdi is correct

delmar england wrote:Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts.

delmar england by his own admission spent and i quote "Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence "

and this is how he evaluates the evidence

delmar england 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.

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.

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 comes to these conclusions after only a few minutes.

and cynic calls idi nutjobs and delmar england as the very best thinker  forumsforjustice.org has to offer

the nutjob is on forumsforjustice.org

this is a statement of code of ethics

turvey wrote:
Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations. (Turvey 1999: 722)

delmar england by his own admission

delmar england by his own admission spent and i quote "Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence "

violates

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

delmar england is dead.

cynic is still alive.

cynic,
in what ways does delmar england

delmar england by his own admission spent and i quote "Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence "

what would this criteria

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

and

Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

what does this

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.

and

Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

imply for  JonBenet Ramsey

here's one idea

what is science, and how does science acquire knowledge?
what is scientific knowledge?

compare delmar england claims

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?

you do realize there are other examples of crimes where that evidence was also found in the crime scene. is this how actual forensic scientists using the scientific method evaluate that evidence?

if you find a cigarette butt at a crime scene or a beer bottle, do you just say well it's all hot air so what?

a simple visit to Wikipedia

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.
Professional Associations

science is based on observation.

it is clear neither delmar england nor cynic nor trasha nor anyone at forumsforjustice have ever studied any science at anytime in their life ever.

there have been other crimes and crime scenes involving an intruder.

what scientific forensic evidence was recovered at the crime scene?

what actions did the intruder take that resulted in the evidence being found at the crime scene?

neither trasha nor cynic nor delmar england have ever at any time in their life ever study



science is based on observation.

in other crimes committed by an intruder, such as EARS/ONS and Mr. Cruel

they find shoe prints, fiber, ligature, handwriting

how does this compare with the forensic evidence found in the Jonbenet Ramsey crime scene?

delmar england is a nutjob. he has never studied any forensic science, but he and forumsforjustice posters are then claiming  there's no intruder. cynic is a nutjob for putting his credance in delmar england

in all these years of jonbenet, not once ever did it occur to cynic or delmar england or cherokee or tricia griffith to ever take the time to study all relevant forensics for jonbenet.

that's a not job, as in not doing the work. its also nutjob

oh by the way here's some powerpoint slides on a lecture on a course in crime scene reconstruction i have



and




because i actually studied textbook crime scene reconstruction and i have lecture slides and how they apply to Jonbenet Ramsey.

science is based on observation of the real world.

what are some real world examples of home invasion home intruder crimes

EARS/ONS MR Cruel and BTK are 3 actual examples of home invading home intruder, where the crime scene was at the home via home intrusion, resulting in victims having  in ligature, tape, handwriting, fiber shoe prints at the crime scene, and DNA at the crime scene

what actions did EARS/ONS and MR. Cruel take that resulted in ligature, tape, handwriting, fiber shoe prints at the crime scene, and DNA at the crime scene

how does this compare with delmar england's claim

delmar england wrote:
Now ain't that a caution? Smile I take it you are saying that only an "expert" is qualified to post his thoughts? How about you Jameson? You post your thought don't you? Are you an "expert?"

BTW, what in the hell is an "expert" and what does "expert" have to do with fact or fiction. If an "expert" told you that pigs fly and some non expert said otherwise, would you book a flight on the next swine going south?

Let's examine your statement is considerable detail and see what it reveals.

Are you familiar with the phrase, floating abstraction? It means a thought, idea or concept that exists in the mind as a subjective and vague feeling, but is without any definitive connection to objective reality. Ergo, all thinking referenced to a floating abstraction is likewise a floating abstraction.

The term, expert, is denotive only in that it connotes knowledge and experience. Note that at this juncture, we still have a floating abstraction. To bring this down to earth, knowledge and experience must be connected to something real, i.e., to a specific area of knowledge and experience regarding specific entities and specific relationships between these entities.

regarding expert on crime scene

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) had previously offered the only nationally recognized Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist program in the United States. Whilst the board continues to support their currently certified reconstructionists, the program has been suspended as of 21 March 2017 due to a lack of participants[6]. 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.[7] Certification is valid for five years. The IAI maintains a roster of certified crime scene reconstructionists on the organization's website.[8]

regarding delmar england claim

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.

of a mind match between patsy and the ransom note, delmar claims of his new idea of a mind match and no one has refuted it.

daubert requires

Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge",

A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]

    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]

delmar england has the burden to show his mind match meets this criteria, not for anyone to refute it. that's how science work, you provide evidence, not ask anyone to come and refute it.  apparently cynic nor delmar england nor any rdi poster knows this most basic fact of science


forumsforjustice.org RDI cynic delmar england trasha cherokee are such notjobs they don't even bother to visit wikipedia to make sure they have a wikipedia level understanding of the relevant forensics. wikipedia spells out what an expert relevant to jonbenet is in this case.

forumsforjustice.org posters cynic delmar england trasha cherokee have never not once ever in their life ever studied any forensic science at anytime in their life ever, yet they comment on the forensic evidence in the Jonbenet Ramsey case


fyi i told this to superdave on crimeshots

i told him about brent turvey and crime reconstruction, i even shared with him textbooks and power point slides on crime slides

crimeshots is down and my posts are forever lost, but i told superdave the same things i am saying here.
that superdave contention is there's no evidence of an intruder. in mr cruel and ears/on crime scene, they found on the victims ligature, tape, sexual assault shoe prints, handwriting. how does the actions of these home invading intruders compare with the evidence collected at the jonbenet crime scene.

this is what superdave did to me




the house of IDI sends my regards