Did You Know That Patsy Spelled Advise Wrong In The Sample RN?

[my_tee_mouse]

According to Holdontoyourhat, most RDI's didn't even realize that Patsy misspelled the word advise (she spelled it advize), in both her left and right hand SAMPLE RN. I told him that there were probably one or two RDI's that didn't know that...including me. He doesn't believe me...so I am taking a poll. Did you guys know that Patsy misspelled advise (advize) in both of her sample RN's? If so...then WHY? Did she do it on purpose? (Which is MY guess), or accidently (which is what Holdontoyourhat believes).

Not sure about where HOTYH got the "most RDI's" stuff. Of course it's misspelled, and I've seen that fact referenced a number of times.

 

[Annie Maude]

As a newcomer to the JB forum, I've been reading through threads about all the evidence and non-evidence, and am interested in the different theories proposed by the awesome sleuth-posters here. That ransom note is the biggest hooey I've ever read. I believe Patsy wrote it because I think John would be smarter than that to write such an obvious fake. And it's Patsy's handwriting. Period. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Ames]

As a newcomer to the JB forum, I've been reading through threads about all the evidence and non-evidence, and am interested in the different theories proposed by the awesome sleuth-posters here. That ransom note is the biggest hooey I've ever read. I believe Patsy wrote it because I think John would be smarter than that to write such an obvious fake. And it's Patsy's handwriting. Period. Just my opinion of course.

Welcome aboard!! I totally agree!! As does most of the posters on this board.

 

[parakeet]

I want Holdon to address this:
(From superDave 2008)"Oh, and incidentally, I remembered another lie the Ramseys have been caught in: when John Ramsey's lawyers first hired the private investigators, he said, and would say for several years afterward, that they were there to perform a parallel investigation, following up on the leads that the police weren't pursuing. But in 2001, John Ramsey confessed that they were doing no such thing, but were instead building a defense to keep the Ramseys out of prison. Let's see you get around that one."

And holdon also wrote that JB was restrained with cord and tape, then fed pineapple. Ignoring whatever insane reasoning a killer would have to feed a child pineapple before killing him/her; how does the mechanics of this scenario work? Holdon wrote that JB was silenced via cord/tape, then why was JB not silent when presented pineapple to eat? Of course, the tape would have to be removed to allow JB to consume pineapple. Wouldn't she , at this moment, scream bloody murder? And certainly, a mess would be made while trying to forcefeed JB pineapple. I don't recall a notation of pineapple juice/bits and broken bowl all over the place anywhere. This theory is perhaps one of the stupidest I've ever read- but I know some people will continue to write, so maybe not. Please, holdon, address why a child rapist/killer would stop to feed a victim pineapple, and how this was acheieved- quietly. Don't forget superdave's quote while you're at it.
And regarding the xanax addiction: being a pill head myself, I can tell you that a huge quantity of tranquilizers can cause irrational violent behavior; and certainly so when one finds themselves suddenly without a supply of the substance, "brain zaps" and nervous energy explode. not a comfortable feeling. Really, prescription narcotics obliterate sense of self, and change you into a demon. Not saying this is what happened, but I can picture it happening this way.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I want Holdon to address this:
(From superDave 2008)"Oh, and incidentally, I remembered another lie the Ramseys have been caught in: when John Ramsey's lawyers first hired the private investigators, he said, and would say for several years afterward, that they were there to perform a parallel investigation, following up on the leads that the police weren't pursuing. But in 2001, John Ramsey confessed that they were doing no such thing, but were instead building a defense to keep the Ramseys out of prison. Let's see you get around that one."

And holdon also wrote that JB was restrained with cord and tape, then fed pineapple. Ignoring whatever insane reasoning a killer would have to feed a child pineapple before killing him/her; how does the mechanics of this scenario work? Holdon wrote that JB was silenced via cord/tape, then why was JB not silent when presented pineapple to eat? Of course, the tape would have to be removed to allow JB to consume pineapple. Wouldn't she , at this moment, scream bloody murder? And certainly, a mess would be made while trying to forcefeed JB pineapple. I don't recall a notation of pineapple juice/bits and broken bowl all over the place anywhere. This theory is perhaps one of the stupidest I've ever read- but I know some people will continue to write, so maybe not. Please, holdon, address why a child rapist/killer would stop to feed a victim pineapple, and how this was acheieved- quietly. Don't forget superdave's quote while you're at it.
And regarding the xanax addiction: being a pill head myself, I can tell you that a huge quantity of tranquilizers can cause irrational violent behavior; and certainly so when one finds themselves suddenly without a supply of the substance, "brain zaps" and nervous energy explode. not a comfortable feeling. Really, prescription narcotics obliterate sense of self, and change you into a demon. Not saying this is what happened, but I can picture it happening this way.

bbm

Why do you care so much about what my theory is? Heck I'm not even sure pineapple exists as part of the crime, because I personally never read the report that came back from the lab officially stating it was pineapple, and the word 'pineapple' isn't even in the autopsy report.

Kindly quote my theory, from the member theories thread, where I state the tape was removed and JBR forcefed pineapple. Then maybe I'll get over your petty and trite remarks and answer your questions directly.

In the meantime don't worry, its all good in RDI:

RDI has extraneous DNA from an unknown male raining down on a murdered 6 year old girl, and have 'perfectly reasonable' possibilities for this to happen. Oh, but they conveniently forget to include the criminal possibility!

Is there credit to the discoverer of unknown male DNA on JBR's nightime clothing? Not in the massively distorted world of RDI there isn't!

 

[parakeet]

From post 143. 12, Oct 2008:
"...By using all the evidence and going directly to the most obvious conclusion, rather than going to examination or challenges of the validity of the evidence, produces the following scenario:Intruders restrained JBR by means of cord and tape, and moved her from her bedroom to the basement while her parents slept. JBR was fed pineapple, secondarily injured, and sexually assaulted, not necessarily in that order. Finally she was murdered by strangulation and headbash. Intruders wrote practice notes, wrote the ransom note, prepared and drank tea, and prepared pineapple while in the kitchen..."


From Post 165, Oct. 2008:
"...JonBenet didn't get to it herself this is true in intruder alsono one fed JonBenet pineapple under any circumstances, since she wouldn't have eaten it from an intruder anyway. the most obvious conclusion here is that she ate the pineapple involuntarily..."

No, you didn't say that the tape was removed then she was fed pineapple, but it is implied. An intruder would have to keep her quiet to remove her from the bedroom without alerting the parents. And even if the tape was not applied then and there, forcing somebody to eat would make a racket, and a mess.
Yes, that DNA had me an IDI until I learned it was touch DNA. Not semen or blood, which would be a smoking gun pointing towards an intruder, no matter how the ramseys acted or what statistics tell us. Somebody on topix likened touch DNA to virus colds, spreading here and there on doorknobs and handshakes.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, that DNA had me an IDI until I learned it was touch DNA. Not semen or blood, which would be a smoking gun pointing towards an intruder, no matter how the ramseys acted or what statistics tell us. Somebody on topix likened touch DNA to virus colds, spreading here and there on doorknobs and handshakes.

Then it should be easy for you to return to IDI because skin cells have to be present in enough numbers to produce a DNA profile. The profile that is produced is not LCN DNA, and produces a profile equal to blood or semen. This comes from the Bode website, and it seems to be very reputable. I'm not sure they need to show RDI or IDI.

Enough skin cells were present in two separate areas on the waistband to produce two separate DNA profiles that matched each other, and also matched the CODIS DNA mixed with blood on the inside crotch of her underwear. It requires quite a stretch of the imagination that would place this genetic material from someone not in the family in such proximity of the sexual assault innocently. My imagination doesn't stretch that far.

 

[cynic]

Then it should be easy for you to return to IDI because skin cells have to be present in enough numbers to produce a DNA profile. The profile that is produced is not LCN DNA, and produces a profile equal to blood or semen. This comes from the Bode website, and it seems to be very reputable. I'm not sure they need to show RDI or IDI.

Enough skin cells were present in two separate areas on the waistband to produce two separate DNA profiles that matched each other, and also matched the CODIS DNA mixed with blood on the inside crotch of her underwear. It requires quite a stretch of the imagination that would place this genetic material from someone not in the family in such proximity of the sexual assault innocently. My imagination doesn't stretch that far.

Perhaps you should contact the BPD and the current DA and explain that to them, because if they believed it they would not have un-exonerated the Ramseys.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117504"]The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
It’s clear that, unlike Mary Lacy, they believe that there can be “an innocent explanation” for the DNA evidence.
Apparently, their “imagination” does stretch that far.

 

[cynic]

Yes, that DNA had me an IDI until I learned it was touch DNA. Not semen or blood, which would be a smoking gun pointing towards an intruder, no matter how the ramseys acted or what statistics tell us. Somebody on topix likened touch DNA to virus colds, spreading here and there on doorknobs and handshakes.

You are right to be skeptical with respect to touch DNA.
I addressed this in a number of posts:
PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Annual Scientific Meeting, Denver, CO
February 16-21, 2009
“Touch and Transfer” DNA Samples: Practical and Ethical Issues
Valerie K. Fahrnow, BSN*, Clinical Reference Laboratory, 8433 Quivira
Road, Lenexa, KS 66215

After attending this presentation, the attendees will understand the practical and ethical issues of “touch and transfer” DNA in the judicial system.
…
Previously undetectable evidence is being presented to facilitate the administration of equal justice. However, forensic DNA is not a panacea. Limitations of touch DNA need to be recognized and respected. Selected practical and ethical issues of touch DNA will be addressed.
Touch and transfer DNA samples are minuscule amounts of DNA (< 50 pg) from any cellular or biological material which comes into contact with another object or body. Transference may occur from person to person, person to object, object to person, and object to object.
…
The novelty and potential use of this rapidly emerging technology must be tempered through addressing practical considerations. These recognized scientific and analytical limitations include, but are not limited to: discretion in the selection of a typing kit, recognition of potential stochastic effects, the infallibility of low-level mixtures,
adherence to established detection thresholds and compliance with analytical standards. Data analysis and impartial statistical significance of the results cannot be neglected. Presentation by the proponent, of these material factors must be competently and completely presented, in good faith, as an integral part of the judicial process.
In addition, ethical standards regarding the weight of the evidence must also be elucidated. Critical considerations for determining the reason for sample collection, issues of primary, secondary, and tertiary transfer, and sample contamination must all be considered. These issues foster speculation regarding evidential viability. Presence of a DNA profile, does not answer the question of when or how it get there nor its ensuing implications. The perseverance of introducing phantom suspects due to speculative testimony must be substantively examined. The potential of wrongfully convicting an innocent bystander or exoneration of a guilty person are of primary concern. The totality of the evidence is integral to the case. The mere existence of a DNA profile is not indicative of innocence or guilt.
The recognition and impact of touch and transfer DNA evidence in the judicial system is commonly neglected and misunderstood by the courts. In scrutinizing evidentiary standards for minuscule amounts of DNA in criminal cases, the court in State v. Freeman, 2008 WL 142299, (Mo.App.S.D. Jan. 16, 2008 - No.28150) determined, “DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.” Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence. The analytical process, misconceptions and powerfully persuasive evidential impact of touch DNA in criminal prosecutions must be understood and properly utilized. Limitations of low level DNA need to be recognized and respected. The importance of ethical and good faith application of this invisible evidence is paramount.
http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

Also have a look here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=3
Posts 64 and 65
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=7
Post 158
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91605&page=4
Post 99
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
Posts 367 - 370
See also:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=8
Post 177

 

[BBB167893]

Apparently, their “imagination” does stretch that far.

There's just something about an IDI talking about how far their imagination stretches that makes me laugh.

 

[horatio]

IMO Patsy spelled 'advise' wrong on purpose. She had a copy of the ransom note from her legal team before she did her samples and altered her handwriting drastically from what it was before (eg wrote different style 'a's, spelled out numbers instead of writing them, switched back and forth between cursive) How many adults suddenly start writing differently for no good reason?

 

[DeeDee249]

IMO Patsy spelled 'advise' wrong on purpose. She had a copy of the ransom note from her legal team before she did her samples and altered her handwriting drastically from what it was before (eg wrote different style 'a's, spelled out numbers instead of writing them, switched back and forth between cursive) How many adults suddenly start writing differently for no good reason?

Not only that, but one of BR's teachers said that before JB's death, Patsy's notes to her were always handwritten, bit after they were typed....

 

[BBB167893]

Not only that, but one of BR's teachers said that before JB's death, Patsy's notes to her were always handwritten, bit after they were typed....

It's too bad IDI has gone MIA around here, because I'd sure like to ask them just how many "coincidences" we're supposed to accept!

 

[DeeDee249]

It's too bad IDI has gone MIA around here, because I'd sure like to ask them just how many "coincidences" we're supposed to accept!

No matter. They'd want us to "accept" as many as there WERE. We can't win with them. And that's that. :banghead: So I don't try. I keep my own counsel, as I know you do.

 

[BOESP]

Initial Post With Response below:

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
I did.

You're claim is that the R's lied about Burke being asleep during the 911 call. JR states in DOI that he awoke Burke after police and friends arrived. BR confirms that in separate interview, where he stated he was awake pretending to be asleep, but still in his room (PMPT pb pg 686).

Neither JR or BR ever admitted to BR speaking in the background in the 911 call.

The only evidence to support the claim that the R's lied during the 911 call comes from a company that conducted an analysis of the 911 audio. The secret service conducted an analysis and couldn't find anything.

As for myself, I couldn't hear "what did you find" in either the 911 recording or the enhanced recording. I would have to hear it to believe it, since we're talking simple audible words and not microscopic DNA or anything.

It was never officially proven or shown that the R's lied during the 911 call. Were you saying it had been proven to be a lie? Because it hadn't really. Not even in PMPT were the R's shown as liars on this. I probably would not lower their credibility based on this, in a sense that if they lie about one thing then they're lying about all things, because its not a proven lie.

I'm missing something here. The idea that the R's lied is being used to lower their credibility, but I couldn't find that they were ever caught in a lie. Was there some other thing besides 'Burke in the background' that is really a proven lie, known to be a lie? (END of original post)

ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO ABOVE POST:

Read it and weep: This is an interview granted to the National Enquirer by John and Patsy Liar, I mean Ramsey.

HOLD ON , THE BOLDED AND THE RED AND THE PURPLE PARTS ARE ESPECIALLY INTERESTING.

THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER
April 3, 2001

RAMSEYS CHANGE THEIR STORY ABOUT MURDER NIGHT

By David Wright & Don Gentile

"John and Patsy Ramsey have changed the story they told cops about their daughter JonBenet's murder -- they now admit their son Burke was awake during that Christmas 1996 nightmare!

In an exclusive ENQUIRER interview, the nation's most infamous murder suspects say Burke was jolted awake by screams in their Boulder, Colo. home.

"Burke knew something horrible had happened. He heard us screaming. He heard Patsy ...a woman in terror," John confessed. "We thought he was asleep but he wasn't. Burke was awake.

"Burke was frightened. He had tears in his eyes. He knew something very, very wrong was going on."

Until being questioned by The ENQUIRER, the Ramseys had always insisted that Burke was still sleeping when police arrived at their home after Patsy's 911 call.

But now John has admitted to The ENQUIRER that Burke woke up before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 a.m. to summon police.

In the Ramsey's face-to-face, in-depth interview with The ENQUIRER:

* The Ramseys - who still staunchly proclaim their innocence - broke their silence about what Burke knows of the murder and revealed fears their son will explode emotionally from keeping "a lot inside."

* Even though it's almost inconceivable that John and Patsy wouldn't talk to Burke about the murder, they say they didn't find out Burke was awake the morning of the tragedy until he testified before a grand jury nearly two and a half years later! - (BUT WITH PEOPLE LIKE HOLDON, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL - JUST KEEP TELLING THE BIGGEST LIE AND THE HOLDONS OF THE WORLD WILL BELIEVE IT)

* In chilling detail, the couple described the haunting nightmares and dreams they have about their murdered daughter.

* Patsy recently asked her dying mother to come back after her death and reveal JonBenet's murderer.

* John admits he saw the movie "Speed," which contains a key line found in the ransom note -- but claims he saw it on an airplane and didn't wear the headphones!

When the Ramseys arrived for the interview in Atlanta, oddly enough, Patsy gave an ENQUIRER reporter a hug -- then served up a dish of shamrock shaped St. Patrick's Day cookies.

In opening up about Burke for the first time, the Ramseys insisted they never once sat down with him to discuss the murder, but just said his sister "was gone...and was in heaven."

They also never told him they'd signed papers to make John's brother Burke's guardian if they were arrested.

The Ramseys were asked whether Burke, now 14, ever asked for details of JonBenet's death.

"He has never...we have never talked about anything," said Patsy, who wore a purple suit and white blouse. (THE WHOLE FAMILY IS SO FULL OF IT)

John, looking weary in shirtsleeves, said they also never told Burke that they are suspects in the murder. But he revealed that an attorney he hired to represent Burke told the boy before he testified at a grand jury proceeding in May 1999.

"His attorney sat him down and said, 'Understand, they are suspicious of your parents. Do you have any questions?'"

Surprisingly, Burke said he didn't.

"He's a pretty quiet kid," said John. (LUCKY FOR YOUR JOHN)

John and Patsy worry that Burke is keeping things inside and they fear it will lead to an emotional blowup as an adult.

"Yeah, I worry, you betcha we do," John said with a sigh. "In fact that's one of the risks you have with a child with a traumatic experience like that.

"They keep a lot inside and they don't really start thinking about it until they get to be 40 years old and that's when it hurts." (NO CHIT)

Burke has been strangely quiet about his sister's murder, the Ramseys reveal. They say it wasn't until Burke's 1999 grand jury testimony that they found out he was awake before police arrived -- but was pretending to be asleep.

"Yeah, he testified to that. We thought he was asleep but he wasn't," said John, who had told police their son slept through the tragedy.

A source close to the case declared: "It's hard to believe that John and Patsy didn't find out until tow and a half years after the murder that Burke was awake.

"I know the reaction of the cops will be: 'Why didn't Burke tell them? Why couldn't he discuss his sister's death with them? Was it because Burke knew more than he dared to say about his parents' involvement?'

"Whatever the reason, John and Patsy have changed their story."

When asked when Burke woke up, John said it was after Patsy discovered the ransom note shortly after 5:30 a.m. Then he quickly changed his answer to say Burke woke up after the 911 call.

But then John changed his story again, calling The ENQUIRER as we went to press to say that Burke was awake BEFORE the 911 call. John told us:

"Burke recalled his mother screaming, 'Where's my baby?' and me saying, 'Calm down, calm down, we need to call the police.'"

John's admission that Burke was awake came after The ENQUIRER revealed to him and Patsy the details of our earlier exclusive report that Burke's voice is heard on an enhancement made of the 911 call. The youngster says, "What did you find?" and "What do you want me to do?"

John Ramsey tells his son, "We're not talking to you."

But Patsy still insists: "When I made that phone call, burke Ramsey was nowhere in the vicinity of the telephone."

Asked what goes through her mind when she recalls the events of JonBenet's death, Patsy gave a bizarre childlike answer.

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." (THIS REPLY DESERVES THE COLOR PURPLE)

During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.

She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night." (THIS MUST HAVE MADE JOHN FEEL BETTER, JUST WHAT EVERY HUSBAND WANTS TO HEAR)

The Ramseys maintain that JonBenet's bed-wetting was not a problem.

"This bed-wetting is nonsense stuff...a red herring," said John.

Patsy added, her voice rising: "When children are really tired and they don't go potty before they go to bed, sometimes they have accidents."

But the close source declared: "The investigators will never buy Patsy's claim that JonBenet's bedwetting wasn't significant.

"Right after the murder, the Ramseys' housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh told police the bed- wetting was a big problem within the family."

In discussing the ransom note, the Ramseys were reminded of an ENQUIRER exclusive that revealed police believe it was written by a killer using their opposite hand.

Patsy, who is naturally right-handed, was asked if she can write with her left hand.

"Can I write with my left hand?" she said, pondering the question. A smile crossed her face and she replied: "I can-- but not very well."

She confirmed that to get a sample of her handwriting, police made her write the ransom note "every which way."

The ENQUIRER asked if her left-handed writing was legible.

"Oh, I don't know," she said, then changed her answer, saying it wasn't legible.

That contradicts a source close to the investigation who said her left-handed printing of the note was legible.

Both John and Patsy expressed a stunning ignorance about the most notable line in the ransom note, which reads, "Don't try to grow a brain, John."

Even though references to the line have appeared in published reports many times since JonBenet's murder, they said they were totally unaware that the words are nearly an exact repeat of a line from the movie "Speed."

"Oh, is that from that movie?" asked Patsy, her eyes opening wide.

John admitted he had seen the film but insisted there's no way he could have remembered the line.

"I watched part of 'Speed' on an airline one day -- without the headphones. All I see is this bus."

In the years since the murder, Patsy said she has been haunted by a recurring nightmare about that tragic Christmas night.

"I am in Boulder and walking the alleyways, the alleys behind our home -- and just searching and searching and searching. And you know I'll come upon a group of people standing there.

And I'll say be careful, be careful, there's someone around here that's killing people. I have that dream over and over.

"I kind of picture myself sitting up kind of toward the Flatirons (part of the Rocky Mountains overlooking Boulder) and just wondering in which house the murderer resides."

John also has recurring dreams involving JonBenet -- but not as a 6-year-old, her age at the time of her death.

"She's usually about 2 or 3 years old and I'm holding her," John said, describing the dreams as "very comforting. I wake up with a very close feeling."

Patsy revealed she talked about her daughter -- whom she called Jonnie B. -- in her last conversation with her mother Nedra Paugh, who died recently.

"You know you're going to be with Jonnie B. soon and you're gonna know everything soon," Patsy said she told Nedra. Then she added: "If anybody can come back and tell me, I know she will."

Patsy was the last person to see JonBenet alive, sleeping in her bed -- "zonked," as she put it.

She said she kissed her daughter and recited the prayer, "Now I lay me down to sleep." But she can't remember if there was a blanket on the bed, or if it was the one JonBenet was wrapped in when her body was found in a windowless basement room the next day.

Pressed for further details of that night, Patsy responded like a woman who has had lawyers in her life for too many years: "It was 4 1/2 years ago. I have not rehearsed or reread my previous statements."

In closing, Patsy said she "would love nothing more from The National ENQUIRER than to say "The ENQUIRER finds the killer.'" And if that happened, she added "I'll be your poster for for the rest of my life."

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner would not comment on the Ramsey interview.

But in a gloomy assessment of where the case stands, he told The ENQUIRER: "there's really not much happening right now."

The Ramseys remain under an umbrella of suspicion.

Bumping this for a refresher on several things we've been discussing here recently.

 

[icedtea4me]

Initial Post With Response below:

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
I did.

You're claim is that the R's lied about Burke being asleep during the 911 call. JR states in DOI that he awoke Burke after police and friends arrived. BR confirms that in separate interview, where he stated he was awake pretending to be asleep, but still in his room (PMPT pb pg 686).

Neither JR or BR ever admitted to BR speaking in the background in the 911 call.

The only evidence to support the claim that the R's lied during the 911 call comes from a company that conducted an analysis of the 911 audio. The secret service conducted an analysis and couldn't find anything.

As for myself, I couldn't hear "what did you find" in either the 911 recording or the enhanced recording. I would have to hear it to believe it, since we're talking simple audible words and not microscopic DNA or anything.

It was never officially proven or shown that the R's lied during the 911 call. Were you saying it had been proven to be a lie? Because it hadn't really. Not even in PMPT were the R's shown as liars on this. I probably would not lower their credibility based on this, in a sense that if they lie about one thing then they're lying about all things, because its not a proven lie.

I'm missing something here. The idea that the R's lied is being used to lower their credibility, but I couldn't find that they were ever caught in a lie. Was there some other thing besides 'Burke in the background' that is really a proven lie, known to be a lie? (END of original post)

ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO ABOVE POST:



Bumping this for a refresher on several things we've been discussing here recently.

Wow. That's quite the defense Patsy has of John regarding him sexually molesting JonBenet. According to her, the only reason he couldn't have done it is because her mother slept in the same room as JonBenet. Nothing about his character.

 

[Ringfinger]

Hello. A person of high intelligence may also be a poor speller. The two do not have to go together. I have struggled with spelling my entire life, and people are very quick to associate poor spelling with lower intelligence. For more information, see "15 famous thinkers who couldn't spell" [ http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/ ]

And hello, this is my first post. :scared:

 

[Backwoods]

Hello. A person of high intelligence may also be a poor speller. The two do not have to go together. I have struggled with spelling my entire life, and people are very quick to associate poor spelling with lower intelligence. For more information, see "15 famous thinkers who couldn't spell" [ http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/ ]

And hello, this is my first post. :scared:

:greetings:

Welcome to Websleuths, Ringfinger!

 

[Ringfinger]

:greetings:

Welcome to Websleuths, Ringfinger!

Thank you. =)

 

[Ringfinger]

I have an issue with spelling, myself. I have read that it is hereditary. I don't think I would have noticed "Advise" being spelled wrong, if it had not been pointed out here.

Is it spelled "Advise" in the RN and in her samples? If so, why would she do that on purpose? Wouldn't that make her look more guilty?

Is there a thread where people discuss the pineapple? I am new here, and I get lost on side thoughts whenever I start digging around =)