scientific testing forumsforjustice Delmar England home intruder Golden State killer and JonBenet Ramsey

Sat Jun 09, 2018

MurderMysteryReader wrote:Yes, Jameson is right and always was. I have believed it was someone else that entered the home and did it all and not the Ramsey's. It was always a gut feeling but backed up by the evidence unsourced to the Ramsey's. The RDI deny the evidence because it isn't linked to the Ramsey's and points to someone other than them.

to recap  forumsforjustice mod cynic as goodsouthern sense directed i read the finest mind on forumsforjustice who is delmar england.

tricia griffith endorsed this fraud as do every poster at forumsforjustice cult





cynic provided me links.  forumsforjustice delmar england in some of his posts responded to jameson, but i don't know what jameson said that delmar england was replying to.

but to give an idea of how incompetent  forumsforjustice  delmar england is

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?

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?

first set of claims

delmar 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.

there are many crimes in remain unsolved in which fibers, hair, ligature, tape are unsourced. the task is to find theories  to account for them being there

they found fibers in the OCCK victims, which remain unsolved, and Amy Mihalavic, which is unsolved. It is scientific forensic evidence. to say that a cause must be identified is simply false. it is present and identified at the crime scene, and the purpose of an investigator is to explain how they got there.

to give an example, in the Misty Moore crime scene, they found this stuck to the tape



is thsi evidence, before a suspect was identified?

using science, yes.

delmar wrote:
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 Golden state killer is a home invading sex offender.

he actually entered homes.

at the crime scenes they found shoe prints



compare with Jonbenet



ligature



compare with Jonbenet



tape

fibers, disturbances at windows

Golden State killer is an actual home invading intruder, and the evidence he left behind is comparable to the evidence found in the  JonBenet Ramsey crime scene.

Mr. Cruel BTK and various other examples of intruders have left behind forensic evidence.

Since Golden State Killer Mr. Cruel BTK entered the homes and brought with them ligature, weapons, shoes, tape, and left that evidence behind, it is indeed evidence of an intruder, and indeed the actions that were taken that left that evidence there is clear

Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

actual home intruders home invaders Golden State killer, Mr. Cruel, BTK et al, enter via the window causing a disturbance at that window. or door.

they bring with them ligature, tape, wearing gloves. they make contact with victims,



leaving behind on the victims ligature, tape, covered with fibers that are unsourced to the victim's home.

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?

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?

all the evidence that points to an intruder in the Jonbenet crime scene is comparable to the evidence found in other crime scenes involving homes with known intruders

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.

imagine you take the evidence from the Jonbenet crime scene and swap it with evidence found in the Golden state killer crime scene or Mr. Cruel crime scene.

you present ligature, unsourced shoe print , tape, unidentified fibers, DNA, handwritten messages.

you falsly claim this came from the Jonbenet crime scene.

using Delmar England nonsense

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.

you would arrive at the incorrect conclusion that it's not evidence of an intruder, when in fact that is precisely the evidence an  intruder actually left behind at the crime scene

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.

if there were any scientific validity of this claim then dna that does not match the main suspects is never entered into evidence. in the Heather Coffin murder they found DNA that did not match the father. does it mean it's speculation?

what about DNA found on cigarette butts or bear cans?

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.

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.

one it is factually incorrect to say all the evidence is local as the hi-tech shoe print, fibers, tape, ligature was never matched to anything in the Ramsey home.

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 shows a total igornace of the Forensic Files.

science is about using the same objective standards in every case equally.

imagine they find murdered children Amy Mihalavic or OCCK victims, and they find fiber, hair, pollen etc that is unsourced. does this mean this is "negative evidence"

is this



negative evidence?


every single RDI poster is completely and totally ignorant of how forensic evidence is actually scientifically evaluated.

for starters, watch every single episode of the Forensic Files, which also covers unsourced fiber, hair, shoe prints ligature, knots

compare how forensic experts evaluate that evidence in comparison to the ignorant at forumsforjustice


you will never find an actual competent forensic scientist, upond learning of unsourced fiber, hair, dna, the kind of evidence found in the Jonbenet Ramsey case, saying

well we don't know how to source it there fore it is not evidence of anything it's intruder mental creation



delmar england and the entire rdi posters at forumsforjustice websleuth reddit topix amazon youtube are all forensic frauds who do not use scientific methods and scientific standards in using and evaluating the crime scene evidence