intruder theorist Jameson the forensic files happy intruder Halloween candy

Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:06 pm

intruder theorist Jameson the forensic files happy intruder Halloween candy

on web sleuths i met super david "SD"  and ...





we clashed with light sabers

In Star Wars the Jedi and the Sith uses the Force for their super powers.

in Spin Wars (after RST = Ramsey Spin Team - Wars) the Justice-IDI uses the Forensics for his super powers

the Forensics, like the Force, is an energy field created by all living things, it binds us, penetrates us and holds the galaxy of intruder theory together.

So before I met SD I obviously am  a huge fan of Star Wars, as was SD, which is why I ended up sticking around.

but I also watched this tv Show





The Forensic Files, this was before I had any interest in Jonbenet

each episode is only 20 minutes long, and on TV back in the day, they often had 8 hour marathons of back to back episodes of the Forensic Files on the Discovery channel, before youtube, in the 1990s and early 00s

in each and every episode they talk about the murder victim, the crime, and then present the crime scene evidence.

now some episodes feature blood splatter, others, firearms or fire, which is not relevant to Jonbenet. But there are also episodes that feature fiber, tape, handwriting, linguistics etc and more modern ones, touch DNA, that is relevant to Jonbenet

watching all these episodes of Forensic Files, in which they present over and over again, the crime scene evidence, the injuries on the victim, any trace evidence they collect, and listening to the actual scientific forensic experts explain their finding and their reasoning, I actually learned a lot on how science of trace evidence is done.

this episode of the Forensic Files featured an actual intruder, of  a young woman missing from her home and they present what they found at the crime scene


in her bedroom on her drawer



they find a hair brush



of the 40 strands of hair matched to the victim they find a single artificial hair





they find just 1 fiber



on her pillow case




they find a single thumb print



that did not match the victim. it didn't match anyone.

so is this




and

this



evidence of an intruder?

the Smear Lords, or BORG if you prefer, or RDI claim there's not a scintilla of evidence of an intruder in Jonbenet



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?

each episode of Forensic Files has a scientific expert explaining using the scientific textbook knowledge how scientific evidence is to be evaluated using the scientific method.

in every single episode they find crime scene evidence that cannot initially be matched to anyone, yet no one actually says as what Delmar says, since it is uncaused therefore Ramsey thinking is a contradiction.

its clear when you compare how scientific experts treat crime scene that Delmar England is a complete and total fraud. in each and every episode of Forensic Files, the scientific experts carefully comb the crime scene and murder victim for trace evidence like fiber hair tape ligature, and then consider how the murderer transferred that evidence to the victim, via Locard's exchange principle.

in the Forensic Files above they found a single synthetic blonde hair in the hair brush of a wig, and in no way does the scientific expert who has an actual degree in trace evidence analysis, say, this is not evidence of an intruder as Delmar England would have you believe.

The most basic concept of scientific reconstruction of crime from trace evidence, is Locard's exchange principle, and Delmar England shows total ignorance, and he's an esteemed member of forumsforjustice and websleuth

so if Jonbenet were featured on an episode of Forensic Files, how would those scientific experts evaluate the trace evidence, fiber, hair, tape, medical injuries, ransom note using acceptable scientific methodology, and would it lead to RDI or IDI?

the answer is obvious.

pictured below is an intruder theorist using the Forensics to guide a missile a proton torpedo into the RDI websleuth forum




you can watch Forensic Files on youtube for example here

FilmRise True Crime


https://www.youtube.com/@FilmRiseTrueCrime



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bwciotcnYo


just simply type Forensic Files on youtube search and you'll get plenty of episodes.

compare how actual forensic scientists evaluate crime scene evidence with how RDI do, and its clear they don't know what they are talking about.

Use the Forensics

I actually shared this with SD and this is what he did to me

I asked SD if he's seen the Forensic Files, and how experts evaluate trace evidence in other crimes and apply the same scientific reasoning to Jonbenet, would lead to intruder and so he did this





it was fun while it lasted.

Understanding how the Forensic Files experts apply science to Forensics leads to one conclusion

an intruder did it.

there are also text books on this subject






happy halloween. I want to be a sith lord, Qimir

funny that superdave and I were arguing which of us is a true sith lord LOL