People Magazine Investigates - Season 7 Episode 11 - The Times Square Killer and Jonbenet

Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:55 pm

I just watched

People Magazine Investigates - Season 7 Episode 11 - The Times Square Killer

In the '60s and '70s, a serial killer stalks young women in New Jersey; at the same time, three women in New York City are sadistically murdered; no one expects that one man is causing the mayhem, let alone a seemingly ordinary father of three.

   Genres: News, Mystery & Thriller, Crime

   Network: ID

   Air Date: Sep 18, 2023

it is about serial killer Richard Cottingham

let's summarize RDI claims about DNA


does that DNA have any forensic value?

now this is RDI and forumsforjustice Tricia griffith


Tricia 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.

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?

again this is tricia griffith





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?


I have never heard of Richard Cottingham or any of these victims or murders prior to this documentary.

This documentary is an hour and a half long but of relevance to

The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey


Diane Martin Cusick, 23



along with her killer Richard Cottingham

case summary

Diane Martin Cusick, 23,[27] a Long Island dance teacher, was found dead on February 16, 1968, in the back seat of her car, a 1961 Plymouth Valiant, outside the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream, New York with adhesive tape around her mouth and neck. She had been beaten, raped, and strangled. Her hands had defence wounds.

these pictures are from the documentary posted under fair use




Diane Martin Cusick daughter who was 3 at the time of her mother's murder and has no memories of her mother sent a letter to the police department in 2003 for DNA testing.

in 2003 they agreed to do DNA testing on Diane Martin Cusick, 23 shirt and pants who we know with 100% certainty was a victim of a sexual assault and a beating with violent force




and this is the testing






this is a summary

Although Mr. Cottingham was first convicted in 1982, Ms. Donnelly said, there was no law at the time that required him to submit a DNA sample to law enforcement. His DNA was entered into the federal database in 2005, her office said.

In 2003, investigators tested the DNA from Ms. Cusick’s case as part of an effort to clear a case backlog. But the results did not meet the minimum requirements to be uploaded to the federal database, prosecutors said. More sophisticated testing emerged over the years and ultimately helped investigators to crack the case.

ref https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/nyregion/dna-torso-killer-long-island.html

so Diane Martin Cusick, 23 was found dead on February 16, 1968,

in 2003 they performed a DNA analysis and found no usable DNA results based on DNA technology that existed in 2003, and could not be entered into CODIS.

how does the 2003 DNA results on Diane Martin Cusick, 23 clothing, that they found some unknown male DNA, but was too weak and insufficient to enter into CODIS compare with Jonbenet 1997 DNA results?

well

Investigators revived the Cusick case last year, when police in neighboring Suffolk County shared information raising the possibility that Mr. Cottingham was responsible for additional murders. Ms. Donnelly did not reveal what the information was, but she said Nassau County police then compiled a list of their unsolved homicides.

Earlier this year, the police generated a DNA profile from evidence collected in Ms. Cusick’s case. They submitted it to a federal DNA database, where it matched in January to Mr. Cottingham, whose profile was already in the database.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/nyregion/dna-torso-killer-long-island.html

in January 2022 they retested  Diane Martin Cusick, 23 same clothing as before, but with more advance DNA technology than what existed in 2003.

They found a perfect CODIS hit to serial killer Richard Cottingham

so advances in DNA technology from 2003, which found no usuable DNA, to 2022, which found a perfect match, and Richard Cottingham confessed, and gave details only the killer would know, such as that Diane Cusick had groceries in the car trunk and she was killed in the back seat and left there, based on DNA testing on the same clothing but with more advance DNA technology.

In many ways this is like the 1991 Austin Yogurt shop murders where they did DNA testing in 1991 but it was not conclusive. 2 suspects spent 10 years in jail, with several more also suspected, but in the end advances in DNA technology in 2006 exonerated them.

The fact that was crude 1997 DNA technology, of the OJ Simpson era, was able to find a DNA profile that could be entered into CODIS. and Jonbenet clothing has been tested and re-tested as DNA technology advances.

1991 Austin Yogurt shop murders and  Diane Martin Cusick, 23  and Richard Cottingham are 2 very good examples where a 1990s and 2000s era DNA technology failed to create a viable DNA profile. in the Yogurt shop murders 2 suspects actually spent 10  years in prison. Then DNA technology advances, and in the Yogurt shop murders the 2 suspects were freed, and all other known suspects were also exonerated. In the Diane Cusick 1968 murder it took to January of 2022 for DNA technology to advance and DNA testing on her clothing to find her murderer, which in this case was in CODIS.

Apply this to Jonbenet Ramsey what conclusions would you draw about intruder vs a Ramsey.