JonBenet Ramsey forumsforjustice are scientific frauds by forensic files

Thu Mar 21, 2019

this is




delmar england is a poster at this forum

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?

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.

forumsforjustice cynic, who has never studied any forensics, represents delmar as the finest they have to offer. delmar has never studied forensic science.

this claim,

delmar england wrote:
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.

he is claiming that to say these evidence is unknown and therefore is a latin "ignotium per ignotius", of unknown by unknown,

is contradicted by this claim

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.

he is now claiming that you can only spend a few minutes on the conclusion Ramseys did it.

so his claim that to argue the evidence found at the crime scene is not evidence of an intruder, and now is evidence of Ramseys and only the Ramsey's.

so his explanation of the crime, that the Ramseys did it is the only valid explanation, he claims, and that alternative explanation of an intruder is " "ignotium per ignotius",

pure scientific nonsense.

how does real scientists use science to explain events?



i don't know what Jameson said that causes him to call IDI nonsense but his reasoning is clearly self-contradictory.

as far as forensic files,

forensic files features cases involving home invading intruders.

what evidence was recovered in those cases? how were they evaluated? were they evaluated the way delmar england and the other frauds were?

where there are cases involving a home intruder entering a home, what evidence do they find at the crime scene? how does it compare with The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

and there are cases where touch dna found on clothing solved the case.

this is colorado girl Alie Berrelez age 5



she went missing,

her body was found

she was fully dressed, like  JonBenet Ramsey

they tested her clothing for touch DNA.

on her panties was unknown male DNA profile

how would you evaluate this using science?

how would RDI like delmar england cynic and the other frauds evaluate this?

which is the scientifically correct way to evaluate this evidence.

this unknown male DNA profile was matched to  Nicholas Stofer

: Solved. Investigators taking a new look at Alie's murder matched a DNA sample to Nicholas Stofer, ending a saga for her family. As advancements in technology emerged, evidence gathered in the case has been resubmitted for additional testing and comparison, police said. On February 8, 2011, several items of evidence were submitted to the CBI for new DNA testing. A CBI agent developed a complete DNA profile from an area of Alie’s underwear and from the waistband. That DNA profile matched that of Stofer. "We had to wait 18 years for forensic science to catch up to the evidence we had on hand," said Englewood police Chief John Collins, announcing the end to the Berrelez case on Tuesday. "It was unequivocally his DNA in her underwear and it had no business being there."
At the time of the abduction, Stofer lived in the apartment complex where Alie lived with her mother and two brothers. He had been there for three weeks prior to her abduction and abruptly moved to California just five days after it. He made the reservations for his flight on the morning of May 18, the day she disappeared. He was a focus of the investigation within days when her three-year-old brother told the police, "The old man" took her and then took them to Nick Stofer's apartment.
Detectives traveled to Redlands, California to take blood and hair samples from him. However, DNA testing did not exist at that time.

how do you explain scientifically Nicholas Stofer DNA on Allie's panties, and this is touch DNA, when she was found fully clothed.

what would be a scientific principle that states DNA in the form of touch DNA on panties found in one case, Alie Berrelez is evidence but that the same evidence is as delmar england would claim " "ignotium per ignotius",

based on this, how would you explain DNA found on The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

Delmar england and forumsforjustice are forensic frauds.

DNA in combination with shoe prints, fibers, hair, injuries, ransom note are evidence of an intruder.


the posters at forumsforjustice from cynic to delmar england to cherokee to trasha are all frauds. they are scientific frauds. they have never studied science, and never studied forensic science. they are totally ignorant of how science actually works.

forumsforjustice are lying to the public about their lack credentials and misleading the general public as to the science relevant to this case.


Jameson and holdontoyourhat are right