luvbeaches
New Member
PaperDoll said:
FWIW, I do not believe Burke was involved. I do believe he knows what happened that night...and I believe this is a large burden for this young man to carry.
Patsy's Cancer has Spread to her Brain
- Thread starter Seeker
- Start date
FWIW, I do not believe Burke was involved. I do believe he knows what happened that night...and I believe this is a large burden for this young man to carry.
concernedperson
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 14,795
- Reaction score
- 121
I always like your thinking. You are realistic and down to earth. I wish this crime had a resolve. But, unfortunately, I don't think it ever will.luvbeaches said:
luvbeaches
New Member
concernedperson said:
Thank you! I've always enjoyed reading your posts...
Well, I always hold out hope that Jonbenet's killer will be caught, but I also don't really think it will ever be resolved. In the back of my mind, I keep thinking that Burke is going to be the one who solves it (if it is to be solved). I can see him having a couple too many beers at a college party and talking. I feel so bad for Burke.
Maybe I should have elaborated instead of simply posing the question you answer here.BeeBee said:
My post was in response to the detailed assessment of the notepad the ransom note pages were torn from. The poster noted the pages were torn from the interior of the notepad and gave a detailed analysis of tear marks which identified exact page positions within the pad.
So it would seem that someone held the pad to remove the pages. When I ask if it is true that only Patsy's fingerprints were on the notepad I think you can see what I was considering...I don't think Patsy was making shopping lists the morning of the 26th, so the person who removed pages for the note was almost certainly the last to hold the notepad. If the notewriter wore gloves to tear out pages...that's a possibility. If not, someone would have had to remove his prints while leaving Patsy's, an unlikely thought.
tipper
Former Member
I suspect wearing gloves is part of Intruder 101.Lacy Wood said:
As I'm sure you know, it is not a given that prints are found whenever we touch something. It depends on how recently we washed our hands, the surface we are touching, even the age of the person doing the touching. My guess is Patsy's prints are from when she was making shopping lists etc at an earlier date.
BlueCrab
New Member
Lacy Wood said:
Lacy,
I'm the last person in the world to vouch for the veracity of what Steve Thomas says or writes, but I think the following information from his book is likely credible:
Page 152:
"Ubowski also pointed out that the tablet contained only seven fingerprints in all: five belonging to Patsy, one from the police sergeant who handled the pad, and one from a laboratory examiner."
BlueCrab
Thanks Blue Crab...I thought I had read that.
If we say an intruder may have worn gloves, that's very true. I said so myself. If we say it's Intruder 101 to wear gloves, that is a presumpton designed to explain something away. Criminals cannot be assumed or presumed to do or have done the smart thing. A poster recently held forth on how people who just bathed may not leave fingerprints to explain away issues about why the Ramsey's prints were not on the note itself. Maybe it's also Intruder 101 to take shoes off and that explains away something else, etc etc. I accept that. Perhaps the intruder was a Rhodes scholar of crime and perfectly concealed his identity...those would be additional assumptions. But the scientific and mathematical fact is that the more you have to explain away to support a position, the greater the probability that position is not correct. That is the underlying principle of Occam's Razor.
If we say an intruder may have worn gloves, that's very true. I said so myself. If we say it's Intruder 101 to wear gloves, that is a presumpton designed to explain something away. Criminals cannot be assumed or presumed to do or have done the smart thing. A poster recently held forth on how people who just bathed may not leave fingerprints to explain away issues about why the Ramsey's prints were not on the note itself. Maybe it's also Intruder 101 to take shoes off and that explains away something else, etc etc. I accept that. Perhaps the intruder was a Rhodes scholar of crime and perfectly concealed his identity...those would be additional assumptions. But the scientific and mathematical fact is that the more you have to explain away to support a position, the greater the probability that position is not correct. That is the underlying principle of Occam's Razor.
HettyWainsleuth
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
So sorry to hear that Patsy Ramsey is so very ill with brain cancer. I watched my brother die from this horrible disease. My wish for Patsy is that she will go quickly and peacefully, and that the treatments will accelerate her death before she has to go through the late symptms and suffering of brain cancer.
My brother, mercifully, died from pneumonia while his mind was still unclouded.
My brother, mercifully, died from pneumonia while his mind was still unclouded.
BlueCrab
New Member
halycon said:
halycon,
Excellent question. John HANDED the notepad to the detective. So where's John's fingerprints on the notepad?
I take back what I said about trusting Steve Thomas on this one fingerprint issue. It appears Thomas can't tell a straight story no matter what it is.
SisterSocks
What a wild and crazy trip its been
tipper said:
Hi Tipper, I agree! :furious: Thomas book is full of lies .
Sabrina
Former Member
According to a poster at the swamp named B who lives in Charlevoix, and knows Patsy-- she is recovering -- the gama procedures were successful and she looks good.
Possibly another intervention/miracle cure?
Possibly another intervention/miracle cure?
why_nutt
New Member
Sabrina said:
B also told the posters of the forum that Patsy told her personally the Ramseys were not going to move out of Georgia, because Burke enjoyed his school and wanted to finish there. So you can take both B and Patsy at their word, which under the circumstances is not very much.
If an intruder truly did use the pad to first practice a ransom note then ultimately to write it--whether in the house or not--where are all of the little pieces of the paper that get ripped out when spiral bound paper is torn out.
Why didn't Patsy say, "you know it, a week or so before the murder, I noticed little pieces of paper that indicated that paper was torn from the notepad". Or even on the day of the murder--assuming that someone wrote the note there in the Ramsey home....where were the little pieces of paper?
I doubt anyone would have taken the time and effort to clean them up.
The fact is, Patsy probably burned the pages in the fireplace after she wrote the note to cover up for herself, Burke, John, or the unknown perp. Patsy was involved.
Cal
Why didn't Patsy say, "you know it, a week or so before the murder, I noticed little pieces of paper that indicated that paper was torn from the notepad". Or even on the day of the murder--assuming that someone wrote the note there in the Ramsey home....where were the little pieces of paper?
I doubt anyone would have taken the time and effort to clean them up.
The fact is, Patsy probably burned the pages in the fireplace after she wrote the note to cover up for herself, Burke, John, or the unknown perp. Patsy was involved.
Cal
tipper
Former Member
I don't think it was a spiral notebook. More like a white legal pad. I use them a lot and when I have current lists going on the top page(s) I just tear out sheets from underneath as I need them.calus_3 said:
I believe the fireplace was checked.
Sabrina said:
HUH????
Excuse me for sounding a bit harsh...but let''s not forget that Patsy was "cured" of STAGE IV cancer through prayer...and now I'm expected to believe she is in remission for BRAIN CANCER!!!
Someone is telling BIG STORIES...and my guess would be PATSY.
Seeker
Former Member
Let's clarify something here.
This is NOT Brain Cancer that Patsy has...it's still Ovarian Cancer.
The cells have simply spread out and into other parts of her body.
If she had ever actually had Stage IV like she claimed, she would be dead already.
Five-year survival rates for women with ovarian cancer have continued to improve since 1974. At that time, only 36.9% of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer could expect to live five years. In 1995-2000, 44% of women diagnosed with the disease were five-year survivors.(That means that the other 56% probably died before 5 years and the other 44% lived up to 5 years. I have found nothing to say any Stage IV survivor ever lived 11 years. Anywhere.) Women older than 65 had a much shorter 5-year survival (29%) than younger women (56%) The survival of patients also goes down as the stage number goes up.
Stage IV 20% survive up to 5 years...only 20% (looks like the other 80% don't even live that long).
The 5-year survival rate is used to provide a standard way of discussing prognosis. It refers to the percentage of patients who live at least 5 years after their cancer is diagnosed, although many of these patients live much longer than 5 years after diagnosis.
Five-year relative survival rates exclude patients dying of other diseases and are considered to be a more accurate way to describe the prognosis for patients with a particular type and stage of cancer. Of course, 5-year survival rates are based on patients diagnosed and initially treated more than 5 years ago. Improvements in treatment often result in a more favorable outlook for recently diagnosed patients.
I would say that Patsy smoking like a freight train excludes her from being considered "healthy" IMO. Why would someone who has claimed to have the most agressive and invasive type of deadly cancer smoke?
This is NOT Brain Cancer that Patsy has...it's still Ovarian Cancer.
The cells have simply spread out and into other parts of her body.
If she had ever actually had Stage IV like she claimed, she would be dead already.
Five-year survival rates for women with ovarian cancer have continued to improve since 1974. At that time, only 36.9% of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer could expect to live five years. In 1995-2000, 44% of women diagnosed with the disease were five-year survivors.(That means that the other 56% probably died before 5 years and the other 44% lived up to 5 years. I have found nothing to say any Stage IV survivor ever lived 11 years. Anywhere.) Women older than 65 had a much shorter 5-year survival (29%) than younger women (56%) The survival of patients also goes down as the stage number goes up.
Stage IV 20% survive up to 5 years...only 20% (looks like the other 80% don't even live that long).
The 5-year survival rate is used to provide a standard way of discussing prognosis. It refers to the percentage of patients who live at least 5 years after their cancer is diagnosed, although many of these patients live much longer than 5 years after diagnosis.
Five-year relative survival rates exclude patients dying of other diseases and are considered to be a more accurate way to describe the prognosis for patients with a particular type and stage of cancer. Of course, 5-year survival rates are based on patients diagnosed and initially treated more than 5 years ago. Improvements in treatment often result in a more favorable outlook for recently diagnosed patients.
I would say that Patsy smoking like a freight train excludes her from being considered "healthy" IMO. Why would someone who has claimed to have the most agressive and invasive type of deadly cancer smoke?
tipper
Former Member
Not a smoker are you, Seeker? 
Was it ever known exactly which study she was part of? If so, we might be able to learn what the criteria were. Were results ever published? I noticed in several of the Abstracts I read Stage III and IV were lumped together. Perhaps it's difficult to be sure precisely which stage the patient is in.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Ten-Year Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer Patients After Second-Look Laparotomy With Negative Findings
STEPHEN C. RUBIN, MD, THOMAS C. RANDALL, MD, KATRINA A. ARMSTRONG, MD, DENNIS S. CHI, MD and WILLIAM J. HOSKINS, MD
From the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
...
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/1/21
Results: Mean age of patients was 57 (range 3079) years. Distribution by stage and grade was as follows: stage I, ten; II, 18; III, 57; IV, six; grade 1, 18; 2, 28; 3, 45. Forty-seven of 91 women had optimal initial cytoreduction. Recurrence-free survival rates for all subjects were 75% at 2 years, 55% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. For women with stage I disease, the recurrence-free survival rate was 90% at 2, 5, and 10 years. For women with stage II disease, recurrence-free survival rates were 78, 72, and 66% at 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients with stage III or IV disease had recurrence-free survival rates of 72, 44, and 40% at 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Risk of recurrent disease was related to tumor stage (relative risk [RR] 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 3.3; P = .005), grade (RR 2.00; 95% CI 1.3, 3.2; P = .004), and presence of a residual tumor of more than 2 cm at the end of initial surgery (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.2, 8.5; P = .02).
...
Was it ever known exactly which study she was part of? If so, we might be able to learn what the criteria were. Were results ever published? I noticed in several of the Abstracts I read Stage III and IV were lumped together. Perhaps it's difficult to be sure precisely which stage the patient is in.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Ten-Year Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer Patients After Second-Look Laparotomy With Negative Findings
STEPHEN C. RUBIN, MD, THOMAS C. RANDALL, MD, KATRINA A. ARMSTRONG, MD, DENNIS S. CHI, MD and WILLIAM J. HOSKINS, MD
From the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
...
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/1/21
Results: Mean age of patients was 57 (range 3079) years. Distribution by stage and grade was as follows: stage I, ten; II, 18; III, 57; IV, six; grade 1, 18; 2, 28; 3, 45. Forty-seven of 91 women had optimal initial cytoreduction. Recurrence-free survival rates for all subjects were 75% at 2 years, 55% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. For women with stage I disease, the recurrence-free survival rate was 90% at 2, 5, and 10 years. For women with stage II disease, recurrence-free survival rates were 78, 72, and 66% at 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients with stage III or IV disease had recurrence-free survival rates of 72, 44, and 40% at 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Risk of recurrent disease was related to tumor stage (relative risk [RR] 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 3.3; P = .005), grade (RR 2.00; 95% CI 1.3, 3.2; P = .004), and presence of a residual tumor of more than 2 cm at the end of initial surgery (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.2, 8.5; P = .02).
...