Patsy's Plagarized Painting

[LinasK]

I see; so it was the Ramseys, the DA who sided with them, and his fellow bumbling officers fault. Not his.

[size=-1][font=helvetica,arial,sans]"[/font][/size][font=helvetica,arial,sans][size=-1]Among those criticized are Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter , veteran prosecutors Peter Hofstrom and Trip DeMuth, former Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby and current Chief Mark Beckner ."[/size][/font]

If there was anyone who bungled the case, it was Thomas. He bears ultimate responsibility.

Just how did Steve Thomas bungle this case? It was Linda Arndt who let John Ramsey wander unescorted through the house, didn't separate suspects, allowed visitors, and allowed John to carry JB's body up the stairs contaminating evidence!!!

 

[Eagle1]

Beginners often paint pictures from books or other paintings. But no, they do not enter it in a showing. That is plagerizing. That is taking credit for art you did not create.

I can't argue it wasn't plagarism of some contemporary, not familiar with the picture in question, but some assignments to copy famous pictures are part of degree programs, even if you've painted all your life. We had to do four with related subjects, for instance, and since I'm into classical music, I chose old masterpieces with musical instruments in them, I remember, for one assignment. In a watercolor class and with pastels I did a madonna or two.

TONY COUCH and other artists who advertize in art magazines hold workshops and say they don't mind if you try to copy their style. He's my favorite, watercolor, and his landscape tree branches often look like wild letter z's. It was easier to copy a scene from one of his books the first time I tried, and then my own style took over.

Maybe this was a deception case. I don't know the details.

What instrument do you play, Cappy?

 

[cappuccina]

I understand what you are saying...However as I and other posters have stated here, it's one thing taking art classes and doing studies of known paintings, and it's quite another thing to enter a pianting in an art show as an original work...

To answer your question, I play the piano, have played for over 40 years...I have arthritis and cannot play as well as I used to, but I was classically trained and can still play Bach Inventions and things like that...Lately, I've been into playing some ragtime, as well as some jazz and rock-n-roll with my son who plays the bass and bass guitar, and playing little songs with my daughter who just started cello a year ago...

You should post some of your artwork Eagle; we would love to see it!

...(I don't think Tony would be too happy though if someone entered an art show, art fair, or entered something in a juried show at a gallery as an original work if it were a copy or variation of one of his paintings, though.... )

 

[BBB167893]

"LS, honey pie...I'm looking at an established pattern of behavior.....every credible LE and forensic scientist out there thinks PR did it with accessory after the fact by her husband....Every LE I spoke to at the time said that the evidence strongly pointed to PR and PR alone being the murderer with help from hubby with staging, perhaps..."

Unfortunately, LS, that's true. The FBI CASKU division, Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Cyril Wecht, Gregg McCrary, Robert Ressler, and it goes on and on.

"There are many LE, attorneys, judges, and scientists out there who believe the opposite."

Yeah, but a lot of them have records as mavericks.

"Take the judge who clearly stated there was no "virtually no evidence" connecting her to the crime."

That judge said there was no evidence because she SAW no evidence. If you reviewed the case, you'd know that.

"Certainly it seems like the current DA and LE don't feel PR did it."

Can't help that.

"No, he quit because the D.A. hampered his case, read up more on this case..."

That's accurate. The DA did NOTHING to help the cops.

"I see; so it was the Ramseys, the DA who sided with them, and his fellow bumbling officers fault. Not his."

If the shoe fits. I'm not even saying that ST was blameless. Far from it.

"If there was anyone who bungled the case, it was Thomas. He bears ultimate responsibility."

Wrong. The DA bears responsibility. It's his job to put together a case, not deny search warrants and hamstring his own witnesses.

 

[Eagle1]

I understand what you are saying...However as I and other posters have stated here, it's one thing taking art classes and doing studies of known paintings, and it's quite another thing to enter a pianting in an art show as an original work...

To answer your question, I play the piano, have played for over 40 years...I have arthritis and cannot play as well as I used to, but I was classically trained and can still play Bach Inventions and things like that...Lately, I've been into playing some ragtime, as well as some jazz and rock-n-roll with my son who plays the bass and bass guitar, and playing little songs with my daughter who just started cello a year ago...

You should post some of your artwork Eagle; we would love to see it!

...(I don't think Tony would be too happy though if someone entered an art show, art fair, or entered something in a juried show at a gallery as an original work if it were a copy or variation of one of his paintings, though.... )

Welcome to the club, classical-trained lifelong pianists. Marthatex in the P.P. is another one. Surely you didn't learn all the 2 and 3-part Inventions? I remember starting with #8, think I memorized it, and maybe #13 and 14, did the Bach "Italian Concerto" for one recital and that was about enough Bach.
Sorry about your arthritis and my handicap is diabetic retinopathy scarring, macular degeneration, and cataract surgeries in both eyes all within a year. As usual for diabetics, I may have retinal swelling for about a year, sure hope things get better after that. I was memorizing one of the Concerto's I used to study, the Grieg, for a group where I also played section violin. My kids and grandkids have had some music too, and so's Martha's. I still pay Union dues although I'm not playing anywhere right now, been working on a reduction of the last section of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, for string quartet and the necessary other parts for synthesizer, don't know if I can get it published. Just got the 95th page laid out so I could print it out and start correcting, adding the soprano vocal part using a recording because it's in a clef I never saw before or heard of. Extracting and printing the parts will be nothing. I'm having to use a magnifying glass besides strong readers. Did you ever play any of the 2-piano repertoire? And church organ? I used to get on sub lists, was practicing in a dark sanctuary by myself when the eye thing came to a head, seeing a big black spot. Don't anyone wait too long to find good retina specialists as I did. Playing's more exciting than teaching, isn't it? Lots of good memories.

Don't know but what Tony Couch might be flattered that someone tried to copy his style, and those who were trying to honor Patsy about her work may not have known it was a copy. I dunno, just trying to look at all sides of a thing. He'd know those in the know about art would know the picture plan is his and "Imitation is the sincereist form of flattery." I'm sure Patsy's version of the woman's work wasn't too exact, y'know.

Thanks for the reply. Guess everyone in this thread knows by now they've arrested an American in Thailand for JonBenet's murder, but it sounds much like one of those false confessions. Some excitement at least.

 

[MagicRose99]

Where in the article does it say that Patsy tried to pass it off as her own "original" creation? Where in the article does it say Patsy chose the paintings that were displayed in the show?

Quite frankly, if the original artist of the copied work has no issue with this I don't understand why anyone else should?

Is it just to blacken a dead woman's name more than it already is?

I think I'll reserve my judgement...

 

[HollywoodBound]

If Patsy was already dead when the painting was shown how could she credit the original. She's dead, you need to give her the benefit of the doubt that she would have credited the original painter.

 

[Eagle1]

I meant to say, I've been trying for years to do Tony Couch's style. Still don't have it. I don't think we can post pictures here and you don't really want to see my tries. (Had a 2nd place one time in my 75-member guild, and an Honorable Mention one time, never a blue ribbon or Best of Show. Just cannot do Tony Couch, much as I admire his work!)

I'd be inclined to be kind to Patsy after all that's happened to her.

That Karr guy who's confessed but looks nuts really does look like Sketch Man, Dorothy Allison's psychic composite, and he looks a little like Lee Harvey Oswald too, doesn't he?

Could be another "patsy", maybe hypnotized to confess? Sorry, I'm off topic for this thread. You don't have to reply to that here.

 

[sleuthin4fun]

http://www.denverpost.com/carman/ci_4064157#

....very interesting "final artwork" by PR....again, layer after layer of lies and the arrogance that no one would figure thiemout... Yes, I know that this is old news, but it just adds fuel to the profile of someone who was very deceptive, and who I believe "staged" her entire life, and controlled those around her...

Who says that Patsy attempted to decieve anyone? She was dead at the time of the show. She had been ill for a very long time and I would doubt she was even involved in the planning of this show. Sounds to me like she died, someone gathered up her paintings and delivered them to the gallery. Yes she may have used the original painting as a guide but, my guess is that is commomn practice. I think the woman was just painting and nothing more.

 

[LinasK]

If Patsy was already dead when the painting was shown how could she credit the original. She's dead, you need to give her the benefit of the doubt that she would have credited the original painter.

I interpreted what I read as Patsy being alive when the painting was shown. I believe Patsy either had a hand in her daughter's death or in the cover-up, and her dying of Cancer doesn't change that- so NO I don't have to give her the benefit of the doubt. She lied to the police, why should I believe she would credit the painter?

 

[sleuthin4fun]

I interpreted what I read as Patsy being alive when the painting was shown. I believe Patsy either had a hand in her daughter's death or in the cover-up, and her dying of Cancer doesn't change that- so NO I don't have to give her the benefit of the doubt. She lied to the police, why should I believe she would credit the painter?

"The painting was among several of Ramsey's artworks featured in a show in Charlevoix, Mich., just days after she died."

 

[BBB167893]

"I'd be inclined to be kind to Patsy after all that's happened to her."

If it turns out that this is the guy, Eagle1. I reserve judgment.

 

[JBean]

Who says that Patsy attempted to decieve anyone? She was dead at the time of the show. She had been ill for a very long time and I would doubt she was even involved in the planning of this show. Sounds to me like she died, someone gathered up her paintings and delivered them to the gallery. Yes she may have used the original painting as a guide but, my guess is that is commomn practice. I think the woman was just painting and nothing more.

Thanks S4F...I missed that she was dead when this show was held. So now I guess this reporter wants to make PR arrogant from the grave.Talk about a slow news day.
As many have said and agree , it is very common to copy the work of others when learning to paint. But it would appear as though PR wasn't even the one to enter her handmade work in the show.

 

[HollywoodBound]

"Patsy's Plagarized Painting"
I can't believe how much the title of this thread pisses me off. How in hell is it plagarizing when you sit at home and practice painting??? Is there evidence the woman conspired to say she never saw the original??? I can't understand how someone could say this about a dead woman who painted a painting and didn't showed it publicaly herself.

 

[curious1]

Wow. It's one thing to hypothesize on this thread about PR being guilty, but the originator of the article and the person who commented on it originally are showing such vitriolic dislike for this woman over such a seemingly trivial thing. I can just imagine that Patsy had put together some work for the show and then she passed away and whoever was coordinating sending her works to the gallery sent the ones tagged to go and then maybe saw this on in a corner and thought it sweet and poignant and decided to include it with the others. To just assume that Patsy stuck it in there to claim it as her own is a bit riduculous. JMHO And for the record I am on the fence in regards to how committed the murder. I can see excellent points on both sides of this argument.

 

[BBB167893]

curious1, even I have to admit, it doesn't mean much to me. But cappucina has her reasons, as do we all. The way I figure it, if it turns out that this freak did it, a lot of us will feel very guilty, but should we? I mean, we all had our reasons.

 

[Eagle1]

If people recognized the work as someone else's, Patsy must have been pretty good. It's rather hard to copy someone else, their style and all. You only have to give credit in an exhibit if it looks enough like the original to be recognizable, we were taught.

Hope I didn't post this same thing yesterday. Apologies if I'm repeating.

 

[curious1]

curious1, even I have to admit, it doesn't mean much to me. But cappucina has her reasons, as do we all. The way I figure it, if it turns out that this freak did it, a lot of us will feel very guilty, but should we? I mean, we all had our reasons.

Yep. I agree Cap had her reasons and we all do, but it was just seemed to be stated so harshly with so much hate. JMHO

I never decided one way or the other and I am not convinced about this new suspect either. This whole case is just one twist, turn and blind alley after another.

 

[JBean]

Yep. I agree Cap had her reasons and we all do, but it was just seemed to be stated so harshly with so much hate. JMHO

I never decided one way or the other and I am not convinced about this new suspect either. This whole case is just one twist, turn and blind alley after another.

I think the bigger question is why would the author have even written such a nonsensical article?

 

[curious1]

Well, that's an easy one. The JBR case was back and big news and this 'reporter' :loser: had absolutely nothing substantial to contribute about the case so he dug around for anything he could find that would link back to the BIG story of the day. Ugh, I really really am developing a huge dislike for the media.