How forumsforjustice RDI like delmar england promote forensic science fraud and incompetence
The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey :: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey-BLOGS :: Redpill's Blog
Page 1 of 1
How forumsforjustice RDI like delmar england promote forensic science fraud and incompetence
Thu Feb 07, 2019
forumsforjustice RDI 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
this is her qualifications
in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims
forumsforjustice and websleuth mod admin cynic pointed me to delmar england
here's a quote from Delmar England
of particular note is this claim
this is forensic files
they feature actual forensic experts.
in a crime scene a home intruder crime scene involving
this is a home intruder case.
they featured
this is Susan Ballou, an actual forensic scientist, not like the total RDI frauds like tricia griffith or delmar england
at the crime scene they collected evidence
a hair brush
found on her dresser
Susan lookts at the brush under a microscope
and out of 40 hairs matched to the victim, they find 1 artificial fiber
at no point does Susan say anything like
here's a quote from Delmar England
what
actually said, is that since the cause of that fiber being on that brush is unknown, they consider a variety of explanations, one of which was that the killer wore a wig with blonde hair and used that brush and 1 single fiber of the wig was transferred.
this was the correct explanation when they went through a variety of suspects and found a match.
using the same science, scientific reasoning and scientifc methodology and applying to the conclusion The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey
how DO we explain the presence of hi-tech shoe print, DNA, fibers, and do so using science, and occam's razor.
an intruder came in, made contact with Jonbenet, during this contact, fiber, hair, DNA and shoe print was transferred, which is what was discovered, and that a suspect would have items that match this trace evidence, which was transferred.
delmar england claim well cause is unknown therefore its' not evidence of anything it's just an intruder mental creation is exactly the opposite of an actual forensic scientist.
forumsforjustice RDI posters cynic delmar england cherokee are all frauds. they are frauds. they are totally ignorant of the most basic understanding of forensic science. they are commenting on something they've never studied in any capacity whatsoever.
delmar england is a fraud. cynic promotes this fraud. cynic has never studied any forensic science at any time in his life. the posters at these rdi forums are frauds. forensic frauds.
regarding this claim
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
this is her qualifications
in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims
vs
in the forensic files and in science, it takes just 1 single fiber and a thumb print to provide evidence of an intruder.
searchinGirl wrote:Delmar England’s letter to Mary Lacy is just laughable. I can only imagine how much fun they had in the DAs office making fun of it. That being said, I think websleuths does some good things. However The decision to walk down the RDI only road is contrary to what I read her basic mission to be; and that is to assist law enforcement in apprehending criminals. The wisdom of the crowd if you will.
forumsforjustice RDI 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.
forumsforjustice and websleuth mod admin cynic pointed me to delmar england
here's a quote from Delmar England
delmar the fraud 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.
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.
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?
of particular note is this claim
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.
this is forensic files
Forensic Files is an American documentary-style television program that reveals how forensic .... Scientists and forensic experts in many fields are interviewed.
they feature actual forensic experts.
in a crime scene a home intruder crime scene involving
this is a home intruder case.
they featured
this is Susan Ballou, an actual forensic scientist, not like the total RDI frauds like tricia griffith or delmar england
at the crime scene they collected evidence
a hair brush
found on her dresser
Susan lookts at the brush under a microscope
and out of 40 hairs matched to the victim, they find 1 artificial fiber
at no point does Susan say anything like
here's a quote from Delmar England
delmar the fraud 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.
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.
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?
what
actually said, is that since the cause of that fiber being on that brush is unknown, they consider a variety of explanations, one of which was that the killer wore a wig with blonde hair and used that brush and 1 single fiber of the wig was transferred.
this was the correct explanation when they went through a variety of suspects and found a match.
using the same science, scientific reasoning and scientifc methodology and applying to the conclusion The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey
how DO we explain the presence of hi-tech shoe print, DNA, fibers, and do so using science, and occam's razor.
an intruder came in, made contact with Jonbenet, during this contact, fiber, hair, DNA and shoe print was transferred, which is what was discovered, and that a suspect would have items that match this trace evidence, which was transferred.
delmar england claim well cause is unknown therefore its' not evidence of anything it's just an intruder mental creation is exactly the opposite of an actual forensic scientist.
forumsforjustice RDI posters cynic delmar england cherokee are all frauds. they are frauds. they are totally ignorant of the most basic understanding of forensic science. they are commenting on something they've never studied in any capacity whatsoever.
delmar england is a fraud. cynic promotes this fraud. cynic has never studied any forensic science at any time in his life. the posters at these rdi forums are frauds. forensic frauds.
regarding this claim
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.
vs
in the forensic files and in science, it takes just 1 single fiber and a thumb print to provide evidence of an intruder.
_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
redpill- Posts : 6206
Join date : 2012-12-08
Similar topics
» how RDI forumsforjustice.org posters promote fraud - Delmar England & Browns Chicken
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud - cynic goodsouthernsense
» rebuttal to forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud gibberish indeed
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud - cynic goodsouthernsense same scientific standards
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England and Tricia Griffith are forensic frauds - Suzanne Nauman & JonBenet Ramsey
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud - cynic goodsouthernsense
» rebuttal to forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud gibberish indeed
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England is a total forensic fraud - cynic goodsouthernsense same scientific standards
» why forumsforjustice Delmar England and Tricia Griffith are forensic frauds - Suzanne Nauman & JonBenet Ramsey
The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey :: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey-BLOGS :: Redpill's Blog
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum