scientific testing of RDI claims of no evidence of an intruder example by tricia griffith delmar england

Fri Aug 31, 2018

this is a test, the daubert side of the forensics requires scientific principles be subjected to rigorous testing.

this test is designed to assess the scientific competence of RDI posters.

at The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey crime scene

they found

shoe print



ligature



tape



and a handwritten document written on notepad paper



and items missing

the tape ligature and victim, in this Jonbenet Ramsey crime scene also had this



the victims stomach contents include recently eaten food from the refrigerator

is any of this evidence of an intruder in  The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

let's look at what rdi forumsforjustice tricia griffth and delmar england has to say about the value of this forensic evidence


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.

similarly with Delmar England

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?

so if we apply tricia griffith and delmar england's claims to the evidence cited,

it's not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder - tricia griffith
it's all an intruder mental creation - delmar england

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations. (Turvey 1999: 722)

is tricia griffith delmar england cynic et al showing professionalism and scientific analysis?

those items were all recovered from home intruder golden state killer Joseph James DeAngelo


except the tape, which was recovered from another home intruder BTK Dennis Raider


using this




this is a powerpoint slide from an actual course on forensic crime scene reconstruction



what conclusions would you draw?

is  tricia griffith delmar england correct, is it a intruder mental creation to evaluate the said evidence in Jonbenet as evidence of an intruder?

how does the scientific forensic evidence recovered in the Jonbenet crime scene compare with actual crime scenes that involved real intruders like Golden state killer, BTK and Mr Cruel and other rapists and home invading sex offenders?

golden state killer mr cruel and btk are all home invading home intruders the crime scenes are at the victim's homes, and they all fed their victims food and water. so an intruder feeding jonbenet pineapple is inline with what is observed with other home invading intruders, in addition to ligature, tape shoe prints and handwritten documents

now, imagine you take tricia griffth






you put a serial number on the crime scene evidence, this is a double blind experiment neither tricia griffith nor the experimenter knows where and from which crime scene the ligature shoe print tape fibers comes from

you proceed to show actual shoe prints from 50 crime scenes from actual home invaders like the Bennett family to Golden State, and the Jonbenet,

then do the same with the ligature tape and fiber.

at this point neither the person providing this evidence nor RDI posters like tricia griffith and delmar england know ahead of time

whether the ligature came from Jonbenet crime scene, or Golden State/East area rapist, Bennett family, Mr. Cruel, BTK, or other crime scenes, and same with other evidence like shoe prints and tape

would tricia griffith and delmar england be able to correctly identify which ligature is not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder, or creates an intruder mental creation, and which came from a crime scene with an actual intruder?

Q

what conclusions would you draw about the ignorance tricia griffith delmar england and RDI posters?

A

Tricia Griffith and delmar england have never studied any forensic science of any science of any kind at any time in their life whatsoever. they are doing a huge disservice, disseminating misinformation on their total incompetence in the case.

i originally posted this thread on crime shots way back when
on crimeshots

i told superdave to tell cynic to register and come to crimeshots. cynic refused saying he only wants to talk to real people.

had cynic done so i'd basically ask him the same questions i'm asking here and i'd quickly discover cynic has never, not once ever studied any forensic science at any time in his life whatsoever.

i actually asked my apprentice superdave about this, and then i told him i will show you the power of the daubert side of the forensics

i asked superdave if he has ever actually read or studied forensic science

this is what superdave did instead





superdave then told rdi Smear he did not hesitate to kill spin solo when the time came.