The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2

Go down

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Empty Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2

Post by redpill Mon Jul 31, 2023 12:16 pm

Mon Jul 31, 2023 11:32 am

the following discussion contains copyrighted screenshots from

On the Case with Paula Zahn - Season 26 Episode 12 -
Love Lost, Justice Found

posted under fair use.

Will the chilling evidence found inside a quaint Utah bookstore bring the killer of its beloved owner to justice?

this is an actual crime and actual case solved via touch DNA

crime tv shows like the Forensic Files and On the Case with Paula Zahn discuss the actual crimes and actual evidence and actual science, which in some cases, overlaps with The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

it is also an actual intruder case, specifically a book store intruder

in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey RDI claim there's no evidence of an intruder, DNA is not evidence of an intruder.

we'll call this victim Jonbenet' a victim of an intruder

crime scene was inside a bookstore, in the backroom

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1126
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1125
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1127

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1128

investigation who dunnit

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1129
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1130

murder victim who we will call Jonbenet' and husband, Earl who found his wife murdered

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1132
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1131

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1133

actual crime scene photos

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1134
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1137
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1139
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1138
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1142
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1141
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1140
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1143
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1144



Jonbenet' was stabbed to death by scissors, from the bookstore itself

this is a key evidence found at the crime scene

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1135


a belt that the husband said did not belong to his wife we will call Jonbenet'

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1145

more pictures

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1146
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1147
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1148


picture of murder victim of an intruder "Jonbenet'" Sherry

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1149

suspects were her husband Earl, a customer, a killer who killed another woman with stabbing.

they did touch DNA evidence of crime scene evidence and found via touch DNA on the belt with no match to CODIS

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1151
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1152
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1150

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1153
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1154


so the question is this

all crime scene evidence was tested for DNA, including scissors that was used in stabbing, bottle, blood, victim's clothing.

they only found unknown male DNA profile via touch DNA on a belt found at the crime scene but was not involved in the crime

how should this touch DNA on a belt found at the crime scene with no clear connection to Jonbenet' murder be evaluated?

this is how RDI evaluates DNA found in the crime scene which forumsforjustic posters like Cynic et al


does that DNA have any forensic value?

now this is RDI and forumsforjustice Tricia griffith


Suspect Tricia pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 08282010
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Tricia10

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?


what about DNA found on a belt

again this is tricia griffith


Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 08282010
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Tricia10

and delmar england


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.


are these statements true?

what would happen if you apply Tricia Griffith and Delmar England RDI claims to this case, a case of finding unknown male DNA on a belt that was not used in the attack?

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1156
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1157
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1155

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1160
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1158
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1159

so they were able to do genetic genealogy on the touch DNA on the belt and found this guy

Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1162
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1163
Why touch DNA is scientific forensic evidence of an intruder in JonBenet Ramsey 2 Vlcs1161

he is a complete and total stranger to the victim, and was not on any suspect list.

he confessed and gave a full account that matched the crime scene

according to RDI Tricia Griffith and Delmar England, using the same reasoning that solved this case via touch DNA on a belt is not a scintilla of evidence and is an absurdit.

RDI are absurd.

Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
redpill
redpill

Posts : 6344
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum