testing RDI forumsforjustice claim of "no evidence of an intruder" The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

Tue Dec 11, 2018


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.

Tricia 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.

the posters at forumsforjustice aka forusmfor frauds and jackasses have no qualifications in forensic science. they are all frauds, cynic cherokee delmar england all frauds

now, let's carefully examine this claim

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.

first trasha is claiming posters on websleuth and forumsforjustice have

Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

this is home invading home killing serial killer Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo



when home intruder home invader Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo enters a home, he brings with him ligature ties up the victims and leaves it at the crime scene



is the ligature that Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo left behind evidence of an intruder?

he brought with him tape and applied it to the victims

is the tape that Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo left behind evidence of an intruder?

at the crime scene they recovered shoe prints that did not match the victim's footware



is the shoe print that Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo left behind evidence of an intruder?

they found unidentified hair and fibers on the murder victims



is the fibers and hair that Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo left behind evidence of an intruder?

in one crime scene a home intrusion home invasion Golden state killer Joe DeAngelo left behind these handwritten documents



are these handwritten documents written on looseleaf ruled notebook paper at the crime scene which did not match the handwriting of the victims evidence of an intruder?

lastly when delmar england claims

delmar england wrote:
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.

delmar 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:
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?

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.

is this how actual forensic scientists reason, that if you find unidentified hair and fiber shoe prints, that if you search any random location you'll find this therefore this has no evidence of an intruder?

RDI are forensically incompetent. this is


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.

Tricia 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.

yet when we look at actual home invasion home intruder crimes of the most famous home invasion of the United States, the Golden state killer Joe Deangelo

we find evidence on par with the intruder evidence in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

it should emphasized that this same evidence was also present in Mr. Cruel's crime in Australia, and there was a lot of speculation Mr. Cruel and GSK were the same person.

competence is doing research both of the science of forensics and other crimes involving home intruders.

RDI are ignorant. RDI are incompetent. RDI are wrong.

holdontoyourhat and jameson are right.

the rdi claims of no evidence of an intruder falls apart when considering the actual scientific evidence

the posters at forumsforjustice are lying.