Delmar England
#1
Here's one of his...

"
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."


He is talking about the DNA of an unknown male that was found under JonBenet's nails, on the sides of the longjohns she wore to bed that night - and the same DNA was found comingled with the blood in her panties.  That blood was the result of the sexual assault that took place just before she died - it had not started to heal.

He discounts this as evidence.  God save us from people like him who become detectives.
Reply
#2
delmar england wrote:
None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.


MY COMMENT -
First item - use of a stun gun that left marks on JonBenet's lower back and face. Scientific tests run by qualified people (Dr. Doberson) verify that. There was no stun gun EVER linked to the Ramseys so it is believed an intruder carried it in and out with him.

Second item - Jonbenet was found with black duct tape on her face. Scientific tests on the single piece of black duct tape proved that the two pieces of tape were not a match. It is believed an intruder carried it in and out with him.

Third item - The cord used to bind JonBenet matched nothing in the house. Only one "sealed end" of the cord was found and the length of the cord indicated it was not a full package. It is believed an intruder carried that in and out with him.

Fourth item - The handwriting on the note, to date, is not a perfect match. John was excluded as the author and on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being a match and 5 being "no way", Patsy made a whopping 4.5. Actual detectives believe the killer's historical handwriting will match that on the note. In addition, they feel the language of the note will also be similar to the killer's own.

Fifth item - there was DNA found in more than a few places on the body and at the crime scene. Under her nails, on the sides of her long johns and, most importantly, comingled with the drops of blood that she shed when sexually attacked that night. (New testing and an old test known as DNA -X seem to prove there are other areas as well.) That DNA does not match anyone in the family and tests are being done to find the person who left that behind. That EVIDENCE really shouldn't be ignored.

If Delmar would ignore all that evidence, I would like Delmar to tell me just what he might look to in order to solve any crime.
Reply
#3
The approach in Delmar's posts was very unscientific, revealing an astonishing lack of understanding of how science actually works.  Rather than merely bad physics, he used known invalid arguments and logical fallacies.  Judging by his posts, Delmar appeared to me to suffer from numerous "problem-solving inadequacies."

For example:

Delmar set as his goal a proof that John Ramsey's characterization of the knot used for the so-called "garrote" as "professional"  was for the purpose of misdirecting attention away from himself and his wife precisely because, Delmar concludes (actually assumes), they were indeed involved.


He begins by arguing that the knot used in the garrote is not factually "professional" as characterized by John Ramsey (i.e.  the knot has various engineering defects, is inefficient, uncomfortable, etc.) rather than addressing the obviously central issue of intent.  Delmar merely assumed that if the knot was factually "unprofessional" John must therefore be disingenuous, calculating, and guilty rather than simply mistaken. 

To make matters worse, Delmar's discussion of what he calls the "physics, physics, physics" of the knot used in the garrote was incompetent, wrong, unscientific, and revealed Delmar's rather extensive misunderstanding of not only physics, but of science.  Delmar revealed his dogmatic side, refusing to accept any contradictory evidence and making proclamations worthy of a cult leader.  Ignore my critics; pay attention only to what I say; etc. 

He also attempted to employ deductive logic to draw the conclusion of guilt, an incredibly foolish mistake.
 
On the positive side, Delmar England did provide us with many excellent counter-examples of "How Not to Think."  We can all learn from these and hope not to make the same foolish mistakes and avoid drawing unwarranted therefore potentially erroneous conclusions.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)