home intruder Golden State Killer and JonBenet Ramsey intruder theory

the following is far beyond forumsforjustice b.s

Scientific observation is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation.
Scientific Observation - Collecting Empirical Evidence

- ref Explorable.com

I'm talking about science.

science is based on observation

science is empirical.

scientists who want to understand something make observations, formulate hypothesis, propose tests

have RDI say over at forumsforjustice ever discussed any home intruder cases, and how these might shed light
on the scientific forensic evidence found on the Jonbenet crime scene?

of course, they have not. you won't find a single post to this effect. just lynch mob mentality

there have been other crimes based on home invasion, home intruders.

when you read forumsforjustice posters like trasha griffith saying there's not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder, koldkase saying there's no intruder, cherokee saying there is no intruder, delmar england saying intruder mental creation,

do they based their conclusion on observatinos of actual home intruder crimes?

of course not.

I'm referring to

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

vs

MurderMysteryReader wrote:I agree. RDI won't even get the facts straight about the case or they just want to believe what they want to believe.

so who is more closely align with actual facts of the case and forensic science.

in the Jonbenet case, in addition to DNA they also found multiple types of fiber trace evidence that was unsourced to the Ramsey home.

compare for a second

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.

and again this is her qualification

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

today Thu May 03, 2018 i click on listverse and i find

Top 10 Creepiest Facts About The Golden State Killer by SARAH SCHU MAY 3, 2018,

Golden State Killer, East Area Rapist, Original Night Stalker, and now also the Visalia Ransacker was arrested on April 24, 2018. Joseph DeAngelo Jr.

ref http://listverse.com/2018/05/03/top-10-creepiest-facts-about-the-golden-state-killer/

since the claim of RDI was there was no intruder in the Jonbenet Ramsey case, but they never actually state facts and observations about crimes in which there was an intruder.

here is several pulled from that article

man who burglarized 120 homes, raped nearly four dozen victims, and murdered 12 people during a more than decade-long crime spree in California from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.[1] The Golden State killer wasn’t a rage-filled psycho; he was a calculating creep who would survey neighborhoods night after night. Lucky for us, he left ample DNA behind, which finally led to his arrest.

Before he was a murderer known as the Golden State Killer or the Original Night Stalker, he was a serial rapist known as the East Area Rapist. The killer started by raping single women. He would wake them up in the middle of the night, usually around 3:00 AM or 4:00 AM, and immediately blindfold them.[2] He always wore a ski mask just to be safe. He would tie up his victims, who reported the rape itself to be quick, but he would stay in their house for hours, tormenting them.

Before he was a rapist, he was known as the Visalia Ransacker. Although this connection has been pondered by many investigators in the past, it seems to have been confirmed after DeAngelo’s arrest.[3] Records show he was working as a police officer in the area during the years the Ransacker was active.He was a prowler, a creep, a voyeur; he would watch and document details about his victims. He knew when each family member would be home and when the house would be completely empty. He stole odd items like Blue Chip stamp books, cuff links, rings, and once, 17 rolls of pennies.

What items were known to be missing from Jonbenet crime scene?

8 Weeks Of Planning

The Golden State Killer would stake out houses long before he would enter to rape and murder. When he did go inside, he already knew the entire layout of the home. He knew how many people lived in the house. He knew their schedules. He even learned their names. Sometimes, he would enter days or hours before an attack and prepare the home to his liking. This would entail small actions that could go unnoticed, like disabling a porch light and unlocking windows, but also more advanced planning like emptying bullets from guns, cutting phone lines, and staging the patio for an easier exit.[4] He would also hide shoelaces and other materials that could used for ligatures inside the house in preparation for the attack.

how does this compare with Jonbenet crime scene and ransom note?

7 Need To Be In Control

The East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer had an intense need for control and power. He would demonstrate this by escalating to raping wives while their husbands were home and eventually killing couples. He would insist that the wife tie up the husband instead of doing it himself.[5] He would have victims pleasure him only after they were tied up. He would use their names and reference familial relationships, implying that he knew each victim, although it is postulated that this was a ruse. He would also exert his power by eating victims’ food from their fridges and by stealing valueless personal items, but his creepiest habit was keeping their phone numbers.

how does this compare with Jonbenet crime scene and ligature found on Jonbenet?

6 Endless Patience

The killer’s skill set was disturbing, and he proved to be committed to it as he stood and watched his victims for hours. He would stand outside homes so long that his shoe prints were several inches deep. Tennis shoe prints and DNA evidence were present at most crime scenes.[6]

how does this compare with Jonbenet crime scene such as the shoe print

5 Crawling On Roofs

Police kept finding change, jewelry, and other stolen objects on the roofs of homes in the targeted neighborhoods. Initially, they thought he was throwing the goods onto the rooftops, but eventually, they realized their quarry was crawling around the roofs, and the small items were actually just falling from his pockets. While it is still unknown if the alleged murderer kept trophies from his break-ins, rapes, and murders, it was obvious that theft was not his main motivation.[7] Often, he dropped these items outside somewhere or even in the homes of future victims.

what does this say about other potential access points for Jonbenet

Once the Golden State Killer graduated to attacking couples, he formed a horrifying new routine meant to strip the male of his perceived power. He would demand the wife tie up her husband, and then he would place a teacup and saucer on the bound husband’s back. “If I hear those dishes rattle, she’s dead,” he would threaten. He would then take the wife into the living room and sexually assault her there. This tactic worked, as there was only one instance where the male partner attempted to fight back, which lead to the Golden State Killer murdering both victims.The teacup and saucer move, among other actions like the use of sophisticated diamond knots, lead authorities to believe the perpetrator spent time in the armed services

How does this compare with Jonbenet garrotte?

there is substantial overlap between Golden State Killer, East Area Rapist, Original Night Stalker, and now also the Visalia Ransacker was arrested on April 24, 2018. Joseph DeAngelo and Australia's Mr. Cruel, but they are 2 different offenders.

tricia griffith





states

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

that there is not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder, in the Jonbenet crime scene they found ligature, tape, shoe prints, broken paintbrush and missing piece, garrotte, sexual assault fiber DNA

in crimes in which there is an actual home intruder involved, crimes like Golden state killer, Mr. Cruel, BTK Dennis raider

they found ligature, tape, shoe prints, broken paintbrush and missing piece, garrotte, sexual assault fiber DNA

for trasha

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

trasha is fundamentally deceiving and lying to the public with her incompetence

similarly

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.

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.

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 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?

science is based on observation,
what actions did GSK, Mr Cruel and BTK take, when inside the homes as home intruders, that resulted in ligature shoe prints fiber hair sexual assautl DNA found on the victims and at the crime scene?

how does this compare with the scientific forensic evidence on the Jonbenet crime scene

forumsfurjustice lies. forusmforjustice are incompetent. forumsforjustice has never studied science and made no observations.

forusmforjustice is forumsforlynchmob mentality

forusmforjustice has failed in its mission in seeking justice for Jonbenet, and quite the opposite are providing misinformation