Barbara Rowan 14 and JonBenet Ramsey scientific forensic evidence

Wed Aug 15, 2018

searchinGirl wrote:I don’t know of any documentaries about Mary Mount, nor have I seen any about John Rice, the guy that killed his family. Before moving to Connecticut, I lived in Bethesda MD where Clark’s murders took place much later. I think the Clarks lived there too before moving to CT as well. My mother was on some welcoming committee. And so, the situation was forced, more or less. Hadden had something wrong with his legs from birth and so, he wasn’t too hard to run away from. He was a big problem in school if I remember right. He wasn’t there long.

I went to college in North Carolina. While there, my folks moved to Cleveland OH. Cleveland never really felt like home and after college, I moved to Boulder.

i've never heard of Mary Mount, and until just recently, i've never heard of Barbara Rowan 14 either

but i do watch documentaries and one is On the Case with Pauala Zahn

Season 17

On the Case with Paula Zahn
Published on Jul 30, 2018
Police must sift through puzzling evidence and misleading accounts in order to solve a young girl's mysterious disappearance.

S17 • E3 A Different Time



here are some screen shots

Barbara Rowan 14

ben salem Pennsylvania




found here





now,


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.

in the Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

they found tape on Jonbenet's mouth.

is this tape, unsourced to Jonbenet's home, evidence of an intruder? the tape was on her mouth and taken off by her farther.

is this tape scientific evidence of an intruder?


Barbara Rowan 14 , at the crime scene, found near her body, but iirc not on her body was
tape

evidence






was the tape they found on Barbara Rowan 14 , evidence of her killer? the tape could already be in the crime scene, it could be incidental.

now let's look at RDI delmar england claims handpicked by ffj cynic

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?

apply this "logic" of RDi of delmar england to the value of tape in this case what conclusion would you draw.

what investigators using actual forensic scientists, not frauds you find like tricia grffith and delmar england,

is direct investigators, they found several suspects, they searched their homes for a roll of tape that matched the tape found near Barbara Rowan 14 crime scene.

several suspects they were unable to find a matching roll of tape in their residence, so they were de-emphasized.

they finally found a suspect who had a roll of tape that was identical to the tape found near Barbara Rowan 14 body, at the crime scene.

they used this match as evidence in his prosecution at trial.

using the same simple reasoning, how would you evaluate the tape found in Jonbenet?

is trasha grffith and delmar engalnd and the total forensic frauds correctly using actual forensic science that was used to eliminate suspects and identify suspects in the Barbara Rowan 14 case to the Jonbenet case?

and trasha had the nerve to ban intruder theorists from websleuth, who were never invited to forumsforjustice

holdonyourhat and jameson are right.

an intruder did this