imagine IDI and RDI term paper on JonBenet Ramsey to forensics professor

Fri Aug 03, 2018

IDI and RDI

fringe forensics vs power of the daubert side of the Forensics

this is Brent Turvey



this is his qualification visible on linkedin

Current

   The Forensic Criminology Institute, Forensic Solutions, LLC

Previous
   Oklahoma City University, Knowledge Solutions, LLC

Education
   Bond University

he is a qualified forensic scientists

this is his textbook



imagine Brent Turvey is teaching a 4- semester forensic science course in scientific methodology and science based crime scene reconstruction.

the final exam and term paper on Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

the textbook is his crime scene reconstruction, and he lectures from this and related fields in trace evidence, shoe prints, fiber, animal hair, DNA

and the final exam and term paper is applying actual textbook forensic science to the trace evidence found on  Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

The class has both IDI and RDI posters

the midterm consists of multiple choice questions on basic aspects of forensic science and crime reconstruction

the final exam consists solely of essay answers, and same for term paper

grading A+ excellent, at the level of a professional forensic scientist report,
F- has failed to demonstrate the most remedial understanding of the relevant forensic science. has absolutely no business mis-educating and mis-informing the public on Jonbenet

Only those receiving a B or better can comment on the Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

both the essay answers and term paper would be used to creating an episode of the Forensic Files  Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

imagine that Tricia Griffith is a student in the class,





her final exam and term paper

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.

what kind of grade do you think forumsforjustice RDI poster would Brent Turvey assign to this evaluation of the forensic evidence found on the Jonbenet Ramsey crime scene.

answer: final grade F-.

has absolutely no business mis-educating and mis-informing the public on Jonbenet

similarly another  forumsforjustice RDI poster  delmar england term paper and final essay exam answer

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?

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.

what kind of grade do you think Brent Turvey would assign Delmar England's response.

answer: final grade F-.

has absolutely no business mis-educating and mis-informing the public on Jonbenet

is this response the kind of answer you find on the Forensics Files?


or superdave or cynic or ukguy or capricorn or any other RDI forensics phony you find on the websmear reddit topix websites.

answer: final grade F-.

has absolutely no business mis-educating and mis-informing the public on Jonbenet
what kind of grade would they receive

imagine intruder theorists anti-K, a topix poster, were to also submit his term paper and essay exam.

what kind of grade do you think Brent Turvey would give anti-K

imagine i were a student in this class. what kind of grade would i receive?

how should one go about answering questions as to the significance of unsourced fiber, hair, shoe prints, etc, be evaluated?

here's a hint





intruder theorists using standard textbook forensic science on the scientific forensic evidence, using accepted scientific methods and reasoning on the scientific evidence recovered at the crime scene, the kind actually taught to forensic students by forensics professors,
leads only to one conclusion

an intruder did it.

you've been redpilled.

Tricia Griffith lost me when she made the statement “the absence of evidence is evidence in itself”. I’m not sure what that means.

searchinGirl wrote:Tricia Griffith lost me when she made the statement “the absence of evidence is evidence in itself”. I’m not sure what that means.

she's not an expert at anything so i don't really care what she may or may not mean

Most of the discussion forums are social clubs. They bonded twenty years ago and they feed the media fire. it’s their insatiable desire to figure out what made Patsy snap. Some people though go to the forums to learn something they dont know or haven’t thought about before. Others are there to influence opinion and sell their book. Some people are offended by the truth, and I wish I understood that part better.

i agree.

they've had all these years to study the textbooks and they never not once have, and instead make stuff up.

reflects badly on forumsforjustice cynic that he recommended delmar england