Misty April Morse 22 and JonBenet Ramsey, how RDI and forumsforjustice lies

*spoiler warning*

this post contains spoilers to ID

THE LAST 24  S1 • E4
Bound to Die

Published on May 19, 2018
A young woman is found floating in a river off Merritt Island, east of Orlando, Florida.  And as the circumstantial evidence piles up, the shifting story of one suspects' timeline ultimately becomes the smoking gun.

i've never heard of murder of Misty April Morse 22 prior to waching this show

BIRTH 10 Apr 1978
DEATH 20 Jul 2000 (aged 22)
murder




as seen on Last 24 hours s01 e04

the forensic files is over and not been updated but ID channel frequently discuss forensics

this post shows how incompetent, how full of lies RDI and forumsforjustice are

when Misty April Morse 22 was found

she had black rubber binding tied around her body



how does this compare with JonBenet Ramsey?

her wrists were bound with nylon cord






how does this compare with JonBenet Ramsey?

her mouth and eyes was covered in tape




how does this compare with JonBenet Ramsey?

when removing the tape from her head





they find a single fiber or hair stuck to the tape

how does this compare with JonBenet Ramsey?


Misty Morse 22 lived in an apartment with her mom






but no items in her mom's apartment, no nylon cord or tape, in Misty apartment she shared with her mom matched what was found on her body

how does this compare with JonBenet Ramsey?

with this evidence, how would a scientific forensic trace evidence expert go about reconstructing the crime and the events ?

what tests would you order? what questions would you ask? how would you go about reconstructing the crime scene from these evidence?

does finding a single fiber or hair stuck to the tape constitute a scintilla of evidence?

now imagine you use RDI forumsforjustice lies



here is statements  of Delmar england analysis that forumsforjustice abide by

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?

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's claim is

Delmar England 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:
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.

Delmar England wrote:
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

and


now this is RDI and forumsforjustice 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.

apply the pure nonsense tricia griffith and delmar england forumsforjustice lies and dishonesty

to the Misty April Morse 22 case,

and what conclusions would you draw?

since at the initial beginning the investigation the last known person to see Misty alive was her mother,

did Misty's mother murder Misty and the evidence listed is not a scintilla of evidence?

using delmar england and tricia griffith forumsforjustice bullshit

on this





what conclusions would you draw?

what role did this





actually play in solving the crime?

how does this compare with what was found in Jonbenet Ramsey case?

forumsforjustice are obstructing justice and lying to the public. they have no qualifications

and the jonbenet wiki is doing  a massive disservice in linking to websleuth forum with posters with no actual qualifications in trace evidence analysis

either watch the documentary or read up on the case,

consider the importance of this single





found stuck to the tape wrapped around Misty's face and mouth

in solving the crime, then re-read how Tricia and Delmar the fraud evaluate trace evidence.

they are frauds and they are misleading the public.

when trasha says no one can show a scintilla of evidence of an intruder, uses both websleuth and forumsforjustice to tell the public this,

is this qualify as a scintilla of evidence




trasha lies. delmar england lies. forumsforjustice lies. they are total ignorance.

forensic files has cases similar to this, but older, where fiber hair shoe prints unsourced becomes clinching evidence.

the point isn't to say well shoe print could come anywhere and fibers where they're everywhere so there's no evidence of an intruder, as opposed to looking at ALL of the unsourced evidence and ask if an intruder could explain it.