RDI myth "there is no evidence of an intruder"

The Jonbenet case is probably the only true crime i am aware of that has such a strong contingent of partisans who claim as a fact something discreditted by forensic science. specifically i am referring to RDI myth "there is no evidence of an intruder"

so many posters in so many ways have repeated this claim
"there is no evidence of an intruder"

it's clear they have not studied forensics and have some kind of emotional and psychological need that is being met in lynching the R's with their denialist rhetoric.

i'm reprinting my earlier post from crimeshots before i was banned

Suppose an intruder did sneak into the R's house and kill JB. What evidence would you expect to find, and do we find such evidence?

A common RDI objection is that there is no evidence of an intruder. There is no evidence that proves an intruder was there the night JB was killed.

on this forum

brothermoon wrote:
Your inability to understand my theory is understandable considering your limitations. Your misquoting my theory is understandable considering your bias.
What is not understandable is the intruder theory as there is no evidence that anyone other than the Ramseys was in the house that night. If there is please post it.

one can turn it around and demand proof that the Ramsey's were directly involved in their daughters death, a common reply

brothermoon wrote:
It is always the same IDIotic response to being unable to post the evidence of an intruder to ask the opposition to post the evidence of Ramsey guilt, because you cannot give the evidence of an intruder.

Well you know, there's the process of elimination - if the Ramsey's didn't write the RN, then an intruder did. If you can not prove the Ramseys murdered their daughter than an intruder did. Also, if you do not find the evidence of an intruder to meet your arbitrary standards, it's certainly reasonable to ask whether you consistently apply those standards in asking for evidence of Ramsey guilt.

This is coming from a poster who believes, without any evidence, Patsy was suffering from dissociated identity disorder.

Similar sentiments exist over at websmear, where pretty much all the posters -- cynic, UKguy, Trasha, echo the claim there was no evidence of an intruder. (The ransom note is indeed the smoking gun of an intruder)

Of course there is no evidence the Ramseys were directly involved in their daughter's death. So it appears we are at an impasse. There is no proof of an intruder and no proof of Ramsey's involvement.

Which leads to this topic? Suppose an intruder did sneak into the R's house and kill JB. What evidence would you expect to find, and do we find such evidence?

This question leads into the scientific principles of crime scene reconstruction.
Recall that the following ethical guidelines

   Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
   Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
   Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
   Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
   Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
   Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
   Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
   Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
   Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
   Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
   Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations.

Disregarding ethical guidelines is unethical, and characteristic of lynch mob and smear campaign.

Of particular concern here are these ethical guidelines

    Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
   Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
   Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
   Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

When FDE provide the opinoin that Patsy is eliminated as the author of the Ransom note, and IDI provide evidence in the form of fiber, DNA, shoe print, animal hair, etc. it is immediately discounted, or it is maintained such evidence does not prove an intruder was there that night. Such attitude violates these ethical guidelines

   Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
   Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
   Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
   Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence

What are the principles of conducting an investigation in a generally accepted scientific manner so as to comply with the above guidelines?


The scientific principles of crime scene reconstruction have been codified
and made into textbooks


Henry Lee's Crime Scene handbook

and Brent Turvey



based on the contents of the book, this is a review of trace evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_evidence

Trace evidence is created when objects contact. Material is often transferred by heat or induced by contact friction.

The importance of trace evidence in criminal investigations was shown by Dr. Edmond Locard in the early 20th Century. Since then, forensic scientists use trace evidence to reconstruct crimes, and to describe the people, places and things involved in them. Studies of homicides published in the forensic science literature show how trace evidence is used to solve crimes. Trace evidence is important in accident investigation, where movement of one part against another will often leave a tell-tale mark. Such analysis is of great use in forensic engineering.

Examples

Examples of typical trace evidence in criminal cases include glove prints, hairs, cosmetics, Lipsticks,[1] plant fibers, mineral fibers, synthetic fibers, glass, paint chips, soils, footprints, botanical materials, gunshot residue, explosives residue, and volatile hydrocarbons (arson evidence). For such evidence to be useful, it must be compared to similar items from suspects, but particular care is necessary to ensure a thorough analysis.

Ladder feet often leave a trace pattern on the ground, so showing how the ladder moved and caused an accident to the user. Skid marks from tires are often critical in determining the sequence of events before and during a car crash. Vehicular accident reconstruction relies on such marks to estimate vehicle speed before and during an accident, as well as braking and impact forces. Fabric prints of clothing worn by pedestrians in the paint and/or road grime of the striking vehicle can match a specific vehicle involved in a hit-and-run collision. Such traces are also known as "witness marks", especially in engineering and may be critical in understanding how a product failed. A typical witness mark could be an impact depression which broke a product, especially if that mark can be matched to the product which made the impact such as a hammer or nail. Such marks are also commonly encountered in criminal cases, and include bite marks, puncture marks, bullet holes etc.

since the jonbenet crime scene was examined and it was discovered to have multiple forms of trace evidence in the form of fiber, animal hair, DNA shoeprint, that is unidentified and unsourced to the Ramsey home, that is indeed evidence of an intruder.

any suggestion otherwise shows a complete lack of scientific integrity.

RDI are anti-science denialists. they have some strange psychological need to repeat "there is no evidence of an intruder" for reasons that can only be guessed at. but when they say this, they show they lack the most rudimentary understanding of what constitutes evidence, and how to reconstruct a crime from the said evidence.

let's be honest, no RDI has ever studied crime scene reconstruction. none. no RDI has ever used science and scientific methodology in arriving at his or her conclusions