Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Just a note: A jigsaw puzzle consists of pieces with 'interlocking' or 'tessellating' sides. Interlocking sides have one or more pairs of 'tabs' and 'holes'.

This is puzzle jargon I found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle#Construction

Maybe it would help you to first describe each piece of the puzzle, but make sure the piece is 'real', and that any piece added is 'real' and not imaginary (e.g. an 'opinion'). See what I mean?

How do you really know your pieces fit 'quite nicely' when many of the pieces aren't known facts?

 

[DeeDee249]

Just a note: A jigsaw puzzle consists of pieces with 'interlocking' or 'tessellating' sides. Interlocking sides have one or more pairs of 'tabs' and 'holes'.

This is puzzle jargon I found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle#Construction

Maybe it would help you to first describe each piece of the puzzle, but make sure the piece is 'real', and that any piece added is 'real' and not imaginary (e.g. an 'opinion'). See what I mean?

How do you really know your pieces fit 'quite nicely' when many of the pieces aren't known facts?

We do the best we can considering the public (us) has about 10% of all the evidence against the family. If real LE are stymied by the DA's obstruction of justice, how more difficult is it for the rest of us. And just with the 10% we do have, it gives us a pretty good idea of where the guilt lies.

 

[BBB167893]

Just a note: A jigsaw puzzle consists of pieces with 'interlocking' or 'tessellating' sides. Interlocking sides have one or more pairs of 'tabs' and 'holes'.

This is puzzle jargon I found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle#Construction

I think you're taking this whole metaphor just a bit literally.

Let me be clear. When I use terms like "big picture" and "puzzle pieces," and the like, I'm talking about how circumstantial cases are pursued. You take the real facts, to use your words and add them up to come to a reasonable conclusion. The "puzzle" metaphor refers to this: one piece shows you nothing, but when put all together, you have a picture.

This is precisely what the CASKU agents told the BPD. Thomas describes this in his book.

And I'll go further than that, just to show you that this isn't some cooked-up anti-Ramsey BS that would never be used in any other case. Jim Cron is one of the cops who put Darlie Routier away. He's a veteran investigator in the mold of Tom Haney. Some years ago, he was asked what convinced him and his colleagues that Darlie, another mom with no violent history, murdered her two boys and staged a break-in to cover it up. His answer was straightforward: "Nothing. There is not one thing that points to Darlie Routier. It's the combination of everything."

Maybe it would help you to first describe each piece of the puzzle, but make sure the piece is 'real', and that any piece added is 'real' and not imaginary (e.g. an 'opinion'). See what I mean?

Actually, I do. I understand all too well the need to distinguish fact from opinion, even informed opinion.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to show you how my "puzzle-assembly" process works, not just in regard to this case, but in my daily life:

FACT:JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found.

FACT: It was not tied around her head.

FACT: It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape.

FACT: They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips.

FACT: It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it.

All of this together suggests she had not made any attempt to fight against it.

Thus. a reasonable person could conclude that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead. From there, a reasonable person might find them asking themselves, "why would someone put tape on a dead person?" I asked myself that question many times, and the answer was always the same.

That's how I work it.

How do you really know your pieces fit 'quite nicely' when many of the pieces aren't known facts?

See the above example.

I always feel like Geordi LaForge talking to Data when you get like this. (LOL)

 

[BBB167893]

We do the best we can considering the public (us) has about 10% of all the evidence against the family. If real LE are stymied by the DA's obstruction of justice, how more difficult is it for the rest of us. And just with the 10% we do have, it gives us a pretty good idea of where the guilt lies.

Let me lay this illustration on you folks:

It's a nice day. You're walking along, enjoying the weather. Suddenly, you fall. You've just landed in a pit. It's a BIG pit with a funny shape. You go over it, but it still doesn't look like anything. Climbing out doesn't help. To get a better look, you climb a nearby tree. And it's only then do you realize that the pit you fell into is Godzilla's footprint!

 

[JMO8778]

I always feel like Geordi LaForge talking to Data when you get like this. (LOL)

problem is,unlike Data,Holdon always refuses to actually PROCESS the information!

 

[JMO8778]

In July, Garnett's predecessor, Mary Lacy, issued a public apology for the suspicion surrounding the Ramsey family after a DNA test performed using new technology showed DNA found on JonBenet's underwear and under her fingernails belonged to an unidentified man.

MAN?? Strike One for Mary Lacy...the DNA could have come from a child! There is no way to determine that yet,since it came from skin cells.

Someone should make a poster that says :

Boulder DA's Office:

It's not a Clown Car!

 

[madeleine]

Alcohol mixed with pills can turn a person into a monster,I witnessed it unfortunately.Yes I believe it could have been a factor.

 

[BBB167893]

problem is,unlike Data,Holdon always refuses to actually PROCESS the information!

Easy, JMO8778. No need to take it literally.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

problem is,unlike Data,Holdon always refuses to actually PROCESS the information!

This is that 'mob' mentality I was referring to.

Did you need to 'chime in' every time SD makes a post, and likewise does SD need to 'chime in' with 'oh, my words exactly' every time you make a post??

It is trite and exposes an immaturity.

Doesn't anyone have an independent thought, or is it the same stuff over and over again?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think you're taking this whole metaphor just a bit literally.

Its understandable that you don't like this metaphor, because you probably know where I'm going with it.

The puzzle that I am referring to is the puzzle of JBR's murder. There are pieces that are interlocked that RDI and IDI can agree on. There are pieces that RDI and IDI each claim fit, when the other side claims they don't.

Some pieces fall directly into IDI's version of the puzzle, some don't. Some pieces fall right into RDI's version, and others don't.

Some recent pieces fall 'quite nicely' into IDI's version of the puzzle (e.g. 'advize' and 'unknown male DNA'). Those pieces DON'T fit 'quite nicely' into RDI's version of the puzzle. Even if you carve and push, they'll never fit in RDI puzzle like they fit in IDI's puzzle: perfectly. Everybody knows this.

Truth is, we're both working the same puzzle out of the box. The puzzle when completed represents the truth.

 

[BBB167893]

Its understandable that you don't like this metaphor, because you probably know where I'm going with it.

I have an inkling. Still, it would have been nice if you had taken the rest of what I had to say under consideration. After all, you did ask. Moving on.

The puzzle that I am referring to is the puzzle of JBR's murder. There are pieces that are interlocked that RDI and IDI can agree on.

Sure. You won't get any argument out of me.

There are pieces that RDI and IDI each claim fit, when the other side claims they don't.

No argument there, either. That's why I felt you were being too literal. At least the puzzle box shows you what it's supposed to look like. You don't have that luxury with crime.

Some pieces fall directly into IDI's version of the puzzle, some don't. Some pieces fall right into RDI's version, and others don't.

I realize that, as well.

Be honest with me, Holdon. You do your best to point out the pieces that don't fit my puzzle, and I actually appreciate that. But I'm quite curious to know which pieces you think don't fit yours. We're just talking here, right?

Some recent pieces fall 'quite nicely' into IDI's version of the puzzle (e.g. 'advize' and 'unknown male DNA'). Those pieces DON'T fit 'quite nicely' into RDI's version of the puzzle. Even if you carve and push, they'll never fit in RDI puzzle like they fit in IDI's puzzle: perfectly. Everybody knows this.

Ah, and that brings up a very good point which I have been meaning to address regarding this puzzle business. Unlike a real jigsaw puzzle, when it comes to crime, not every piece is going to fit. That's not just some self-serving rationalization, either, Holdon. I don't know how long you've been studying true crime (probably longer than I have), but it's been a passion of mine since 1995, and in all that time, I have YET to see a case where every single piece of the puzzle clicked together all kosher. Not a single one. That only happens in Hollywood. And that's not just my opinion, either. More than a few good, and I mean GOOD cops will tell you the same. Don't take my word for it. Ask Tom Haney, one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. Page 735 of PMPT:

"Haney knew that in every case, there was something that didn't fit."

The problem as I see it is you have a bunch of people in charge who don't know that or just don't know how to deal with it.

Truth is, we're both working the same puzzle out of the box. The puzzle when completed represents the truth.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But you don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Oh, and incidentally, if I had known my "Data" comment, which was purely meant to keep a light mood, would start all this, I wouldn't have said it. While I think you're being a bit sensitive, I agree there was no need for it, and I blame myself.

Other than that, JMO can defend herself, except to say that if someone says something I find worthy of attention, I'm going to be on it, and I make no apologies for that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No argument there, either. That's why I felt you were being too literal. At least the puzzle box shows you what it's supposed to look like. You don't have that luxury with crime.

True enough. We don't know what the finished puzzle looks like.

Unlike a real jigsaw puzzle, when it comes to crime, not every piece is going to fit.

It might be better to say 'not every piece is going to be found'. This puzzle, by definition, represents what really happened. Therefore, all found pieces will fit.

There are many pieces that are found, inarguably existing. Some favor IDI and some favor RDI.

There's a whole collection of found interlocked pieces representing JBR's underwear, long johns, a deposit of DNA, another deposit of DNA, the matching of the two deposits as belonging to the same person, and the basement crime scene itself.

This collection exists in the finished puzzle, so it is inarguable. It also happens to 'favor' IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

It might be better to say 'not every piece is going to be found'. This puzzle, by definition, represents what really happened. Therefore, all found pieces will fit.

No, I meant what I said. I'm sure Tom Haney did, too. Not all found pieces will fit, Holdon.

I'll give you an example. There's a guy in Maine who is currently serving a life sentence for a murder he committed 20 years ago. His name is Dennis Dechaine. The person he killed was a 12-year-old named Sarah Cherry. Everything pointed to him. A witness described the truck they saw in the driveway, papers with Dechaine's name on them were found at the scene, he was found in the woods with no tackle despite his claim to be fishing, his truck was found in the woods near where they found him, the body had rope tied around the wrists that matched rope from his truck, and he confessed. He even tried to pull a Westerfield and tell them where Sarah's body was before she was found.

So WHY are so many people, including a former ATF agent, trying to free him? Because of DNA, what else. Sarah had DNA that did not belong to him under her nails. It didn't match her parents, the woman she babysat for, etc.
Sound familiar? It SURE doesn't fit, and yet he was convicted for the crime.

Would that not constitute a "paradox," as you like to say? Just something to chew over.

There are many pieces that are found, inarguably existing. Some favor IDI and some favor RDI.

Frustrating, isn't it?

There's a whole collection of found interlocked pieces representing JBR's underwear, long johns, a deposit of DNA, another deposit of DNA, the matching of the two deposits as belonging to the same person, and the basement crime scene itself.

This collection exists in the finished puzzle, so it is inarguable. It also happens to 'favor' IDI.

BUT, how does it stack up against the rest of the pieces? That's my question. Think of it as a measuring scale. (I know I'll regret this!)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The puzzle represents reality, therefore all valid pieces will fit.

They made a conclusion about the puzzle without all the pieces, in your example. More pieces later became available, and allowed a different conclusion to be drawn. That doesn't remove the original pieces from the puzzle.

If JBR's unidentified male DNA is by innocent transfer, then anyone who believes in IDI would be misled by the pieces of the puzzle that 'favor' IDI.

I said 'favor,' meaning that the pieces don't necessarily 'conclude' IDI. Some in LE apparently think it does conclude IDI, so maybe they have more information than us.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BUT, how does it stack up against the rest of the pieces? That's my question. Think of it as a measuring scale. (I know I'll regret this!)

The rest of the pieces? Well, you've got a ransom note, a large collection of interlocked pieces with several missing ones.

You've got the R's behavior after-the-fact, but I don't think PR sitting in a room is really interlocked with JR's arrangement to leave town. They only tessellate a bit. As puzzle pieces go, we know the cord is interlocked with JBR's wrist. We know the other cord is interlocked with a paintbrush.

 

[DeeDee249]

PR sitting in a room (while her supposedly "missing" daughter is "found" is a big piece. The refusal to speak to LE is even bigger, and (I assume you have read her interviews when they finally were "allowed" to take place) the questions her lawyer LW would NOT allow her to answer gave better indications of her guilt than the ones she actually did answer (though most if her answers were "I don't remember"). It isn't just a few pieces. And though we don't have all the pieces, the ones we have seem to make the same picture. Parental involvement SOMEHOW.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree,and nobody would ever think of going to SIT after learning their child is missing,unless they already knew where she was.There is just far too much adrenaline going at that time,and the parents would likely collapse from exhaustion before ever thinking of sitting down on their own.

 

[JMO8778]

This is that 'mob' mentality I was referring to.

Doesn't anyone have an independent thought, or is it the same stuff over and over again?

It is really not our fault if you choose to view our responses only in aggregate.

 

[JMO8778]

Easy, JMO8778. No need to take it literally.

oh believe me, I wasn't,was only joking.

 

[BBB167893]

The puzzle represents reality, therefore all valid pieces will fit.

They made a conclusion about the puzzle without all the pieces, in your example. More pieces later became available, and allowed a different conclusion to be drawn. That doesn't remove the original pieces from the puzzle.

If JBR's unidentified male DNA is by innocent transfer, then anyone who believes in IDI would be misled by the pieces of the puzzle that 'favor' IDI.

I said 'favor,' meaning that the pieces don't necessarily 'conclude' IDI. Some in LE apparently think it does conclude IDI, so maybe they have more information than us.

Just remember: YOU said it, not me.

The rest of the pieces? Well, you've got a ransom note, a large collection of interlocked pieces with several missing ones.

I like how you phrased that.

You've got the R's behavior after-the-fact,

Damn right! And if you tried to tell a cop that anything after-the-fact doesn't count as you've tried to do here a few times, he'd probably laugh in your face. That's not me just saying that.

but I don't think PR sitting in a room is really interlocked with JR's arrangement to leave town. They only tessellate a bit.

Oh?

As puzzle pieces go, we know the cord is interlocked with JBR's wrist. We know the other cord is interlocked with a paintbrush.

And that alone opens up a whole new can of tuna.

Look, maybe I don't have ALL the pieces, but so far the pieces I have are looking really ugly.