On the Case with Paula Zahn S18E02 Shes Gone Rosie Tapia 6 & JonBenet Ramsey 6 same killer theory

Mon Mar 04, 2019



searchinGirl once mentioned Rosie Tapia age 6. i have never heard of it. she provided me a link. i click on the link and i saw a bunch of words.

i told searchinGirl i prefer to watch a well made documentary on ID channel, like On the Case with Paula Zahn to discuss it. i like seeing documentaries, actors, renactments, historical photos and video, computer animations etc.

well speak of the devil

i just watched

On the Case with Paula Zahn S18E02 Shes Gone

it's about  Rosie Tapia age 6

Published on Mar 3, 2019
When a young girl kidnapped from her bed in the middle of the night is found dead in a nearby canal, it marks the beginning of one of Salt Lake City's most notorious child murder investigations.

some screen shots




Rosie Tapia age 6 was kidnapped from her home while her parents slept, intruder entered via window undetected






her lifeless body was recovered here in a canal under water



an eye witness offered this sketch




police video footage of body recovery



the investigators were commenting on how extraordinary rare that a 6 year old girl would be abducted from her own bedroom in her own home, with her twin siblings age 4 were present and her parents present, a fully occupied home

i was thinking

uh.......

what about JonBenet Ramsey?




investigator comment on DNA




Paula Zahn narrates that investigators thought even the smallest amount of DNA could be key to cracking the case.

they discuss the DNA found on Rosie Tapia age 6, which was found under water in a canal






Paula Zahn and this guy



they find 1 tiny degraded DNA of an unknown male DNA sample under neath Rosie's finger nail, which had been under water. this DNA does not have enough markers to be entered into CODIS

nevertheless the working theory is that DNA could have come from Rosie's killer, they tested over 60 suspects via DNA swabs and eliminated them and propose doing genealogical DNA analysis to find relatives family of that DNA profile

there's no proof it came from the intruder, but that's their working theory.

this single DNA profile which falls short of 13 markers needed for CODIS and comes from fingernail is still assessed as evidence of an intruder

compare this with anti-science denialists


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.

are cotton fibers and 2 beer cans found in the ally a 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?

since is about using the same objective standards,

the single male less than 13 markers for CODIS DNA sample found underneath Rosie fingernail DNA profile is evidence of an intruder, certainly the 3 DNA profiles one of which is good enough for CODIS is evidence of an intruder. RDI are simply ignorant.

my newest hypothesis, is to compare Rosie's unknown male DNA with Jonbenet to see if they are consistent and if so

my newest theory is  Rosie Tapia 6 &  JonBenet Ramsey 6 same killer theory

Utah's not that far from Boulder Colorado, and it's only 1 year apart from these 2 murders.

they think it can be solved due to DNA. DNA that is evidence of an intruder, but is far less than what was found on Jonbenet.

Rosie lived in this area




this investigator



and Paula commented on the DNA






from 1 single fingernail from Rosie Tabia




more







the investigators state they are hopeful that this DNA, from a single fingernail, a weak DNA profile that is not enough to enter into CODIS is the killer, an intruder.

so when you see this


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 another crime involving a home intruder home abduction of a 6 year old girl,

DNA from this


from 1 single fingernail from Rosie Tabia




more








is evidence of an intruder.






doesn't know what she's talking about, nor any RDI. there is NO RDI "rebuttal" whereby finding DNA on an unsolved fingernail of a 6 year old victim of a home intruder is evidence of an intruder, but finding multiple such DNA profiles on Jonbenet is not evidence of an intruder.

RDI = retards displaying ignorance

if the DNA profile from Rosie matched JBR then obviously this would be evidence of the same killer.

A month or so ago they were saying that the Barbie was to undergo “cutting edge” dna testing, so it confusing that PZ didn’t mention it. But then today I read this story about a the new Video Barbie wherein she has a recording device in her chest that can capture about a half hour of video that can be streamed...


LACEY, Wash. - FBI agents are concerned a new Barbie doll could be used to make child pornography.

A FBI spokesperson said agents have no evidence the doll, which can record video, has been used to create illegal images. However, this week the FBI contacted police agencies about the existence of Video Girl Barbie.

The doll has a digital video camera placed in the middle of Barbie's chest. It comes with enough memory to record 30 minutes of video and audio, which can then be streamed to a computer.

"It frightens me," said William Poores

The rest of the story has since disappeared, it was at king5.com

I wonder how many crimes of Child Pornography involve Barbie Dolls?

And I wonder if JBR intruder was into CP?

And I wonder why PZ failed to mention the Barbie Doll that was giving the Rosie Tapia Case only a month ago?