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

[Tadpole12]

This case is one that will drive you crazy becuase ......

Ya, I can see that it has that potential.

I'm just reading bout' Ramsey case side show,
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

and I'm floored

Really appreciate this crime's affect on Boulder and what its destructive nature has bred.

 

[JMO8778]

I am not saying that Patsy terrorized her family on a regular basis. I am saying that the night she killed JB, she had to have terrorized JB and the child had to have been very frightened. Anyone who inflicts that kind of injury on a child is terrorizing them right up until they kill them. The actual event had to be horrific. It always is. We read about murders, etc. but unless we really delve into them, it is a murder, a rape, etc. But the actual event is ALWAYS horrific and much worse than we can imagine.

I agree,and IMO that is evidenced by Pasty slipping and saying she had flashbacks of JB screaming..because she was there,and it was horrific.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I would stick with your puzzle idea, Holdon, but from a different angle. I've studied true crime for years, and in all that time I have not once seen a case where every single piece fit completely together. Cases just don't "click" that way, except in the movies and on television. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.



Thank you, Master Jedi.



Speaking as a former IDI myself, good luck.

No thank you young Luke.

My puzzle is easier than RDI's because I don't have to challenge the existing evidence, like you do. This is a prima facie murder by intruder case, remember?

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.

This is using the prima facie evidence:

• Strangulation injury to JBR's neck known to have happened while she was alive.
• Other injuries not related to strangulation or sexual assault.
• Injuries related to sexual assault that happened that night.
• 911 call from panicked parents reporting a kidnapping, hours after JBR had died.
• Unknown male DNA found in places that are related to the sexual assault that took place that night.
• Ligature cord fibers found in JBR's bed
• Secondary injuries not obviously related to movement, sexual assault, strangulation, or headbash
• Unexplained tea, pineapple
• Practice ransom note pages, pen, paper

Has RDI disproven any of this evidence?

 

[misterymind]

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).

She probably just thought it was spelled with a z

 

[Chrishope]

No thank you young Luke.

My puzzle is easier than RDI's because I don't have to challenge the existing evidence, like you do. This is a prima facie murder by intruder case, remember?

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.

This is using the prima facie evidence:

• Strangulation injury to JBR's neck known to have happened while she was alive.
• Other injuries not related to strangulation or sexual assault.
• Injuries related to sexual assault that happened that night.
• 911 call from panicked parents reporting a kidnapping, hours after JBR had died.
• Unknown male DNA found in places that are related to the sexual assault that took place that night.
• Ligature cord fibers found in JBR's bed
• Secondary injuries not obviously related to movement, sexual assault, strangulation, or headbash
• Unexplained tea, pineapple
• Practice ransom note pages, pen, paper

Has RDI disproven any of this evidence?

You've got it completely backwards, precisely because you don't understand the prima facie evidence.

We have a dead child. 12:1 probability of the perpetrator being the parents, as oppossed to an intruder. With no evidence other than the body, and no analysis at all, we are already starting with a very high probability that the parents did it.

We have a dead child and a RN. This shouldn't be. We can have one, or the other, but not both. Kidnappers don't leave their victim behind because then they can't get the ransom. Paedophiles don't leave ransom notes. So right away we have prima facie evidence that the RN is a fake.

The RN is 2.5 pages in length, so again, prima facie evidence that it's a fake. Most (not all, but most) RNs are short and to the point.

Small foreign factions don't take out their hatred of the USA on obscure 6 year old girls. Again, prima facie evidence that the RN is fake.

The amount of Ransom asked for is very small in relation to the parent's wealth - again prima facie evidence of a fake RN.

Intruders have little motive for leaving fake RNs, especially intruders who don't actually hold their victim for ransom. So, prima facie, the parent(s) wrote the RN.

• Strangulation injury to JBR's neck known to have happened while she was alive.

• 
  
  This is not prima facie evidence of an intruder. It is evidence that she was strangled - a point not in contention between RDI/IDI. The fact that she was strangled doesn't tell us, prima facie, whether it was an intruder or family who did it.
  
  

  [*]Other injuries not related to strangulation or sexual assault.

  
  Again, not prima facie evidence of an intruder, or prima facie evidence that it was the parents. Simply it is evidence that she had certain injuries.
  
  

  [*]Injuries related to sexual assault that happened that night.

  
  Once again, this is evidence of a particular injury, not prima facie evidence for an intruder. Nor is it prima facie evidence that one (or both) parent(s) did it.
  
  

  [*]911 call from panicked parents reporting a kidnapping, hours after JBR had died.

  
  OK. I agree, prima facie, this is starts out as a kidnapping case. Later we find a dead body, which - prima facie- turns it into a murder within the family case. We also later learn that Burke is up, because we hear his voice on the 911 tape, which the Rs lied about. So, while it's fine to start with "prima facie" evidence, it's not fine to ignore subsequent evidence which calls into question things at first taken at face value.
  

  [*]Unknown male DNA found in places that are related to the sexual assault that took place that night.

  
  OK.
  
  

  [*]Ligature cord fibers found in JBR's bed

  
  This is not prima facie evidence of an intruder. It's prima facie evidence that the ligature was applied while she was in her bed, or at least that the ligature was in the bedroom, or at least that the person who applied the ligature was also in the bedroom to transfer fibers. Fibers found in her bed does not prima facie mean an intruder, nor does it prima facie mean the parents.
  
  

  [*]Secondary injuries not obviously related to movement, sexual assault, strangulation, or headbash.

  
  Once again, this is not prima facie evidence that an intruder did it. This is simply evidence that she sustained injuries.
  
  

  [*]Unexplained tea, pineapple

  
  Prima facie, tea and pineapple is sourced from the Rs home. Prima facie, the Rs made the tea and put out the pineapple.
  
  

  [*]Practice ransom note pages, pen, paper

  
  Prima facie, these items are from the Rs home, therefore most likely used by one of the parents, rather than in intruder who would most likely come prepared with a RN already written. Prima facie, this is evidence of staging by the parents.
  
  
  

  Has RDI disproven any of this evidence?

  
  As I've pointed out, much of it doesn't amount to evidence supporting an intruder theory, and some of it points strongly at the parents.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yikes, Chrishope, settle down. Yes, its a prima facie murder by intruder case, and that is inarguable. You can't pick and choose which items of evidence. Its all of them together.

"We have a dead child. 12:1 probability of the perpetrator being the parents, as oppossed to an intruder. With no evidence other than the body, and no analysis at all, we are already starting with a very high probability that the parents did it. "

Prima facie says you can't pick and choose which evidence, or discount, discard or challenge any of the evidence. Thats exacly what you're doing here. You can't override the evidence with statistics either. Prima facie requires that you take the evidence as it is and draw the most obvious conclusion.

This is NOT a prima facie murder by parents case, because prima facie does not allow you to state that the 911 call, or the pineapple and tea, were lies told by the parents. You are challenging the 911 call and the pineapple/tea testimony, and the DNA evidence. This then becomes a challenge to the prima facie case. Its OK to challenge the evidence, but thats not what you're doing.

I'm not claiming that prima facie murder by intruder has to be right. I am claiming there is one and only one prima facie case here, and its murder by intruder.

Maybe you should just admit that this IS a prima facie murder by intruder. That is the only thing it can be. Its the only possiblity. See what I mean?

Prima facie concept requires us to look at the totality of the available evidence, not the totality of the evidence after it has been statistically discounted, discarded out of hand, tabloid processed and spun, etc.

 

[BBB167893]

No thank you young Luke.

If you only knew the power of the dark side!

My puzzle is easier than RDI's because I don't have to challenge the existing evidence, like you do.

I haven't challenged anything. I have an army of law enforcement pros on my side.

This is a prima facie murder by intruder case, remember?

No, I don't remember. I can't remember what isn't there.

By using all the evidence and going directly to the most obvious conclusion,

Which I should have done in the first place, instead of making myself look like a maroon for the first 5-1/2 years.

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,

Not possible.

and moved her from her bedroom to the basement while her parents slept. JBR was fed pineapple,

How? An IV?

secondarily injured, and sexually assaulted, not necessarily in that order. Finally she was murdered by strangulation and headbash.

Headbash came first, about forty minutes first. What were they doing for all that time?

Intruders wrote practice notes, wrote the ransom note, prepared and drank tea, and prepared pineapple while in the kitchen.

Uh-huh.

This is using the prima facie evidence:

• Strangulation injury to JBR's neck known to have happened while she was alive.

• 
  
  I explained that one to you. (Or tried. I'm anxious to get back to that thread.)
  
  

  [*]Other injuries not related to strangulation or sexual assault.

  
  You mean the scratches?
  
  

  [*]Injuries related to sexual assault that happened that night.

  
  Right.
  
  

  [*]911 call from panicked parents reporting a kidnapping, hours after JBR had died.

  
  Don't get me started on the 911 call.
  
  

  [*]Unknown male DNA found in places that are related to the sexual assault that took place that night.

  
  What's unknown is how it got there or even if it was left that night.
  
  

  [*]Ligature cord fibers found in JBR's bed

  
  Right.
  
  

  [*]Secondary injuries not obviously related to movement, sexual assault, strangulation, or headbash

  
  I think you repeated that one.
  
  

  [*]Unexplained tea, pineapple

  
  Do you REALLY want to play the pineapple card with ME?
  
  

  [*]Practice ransom note pages, pen, paper

  
  Again, do you REALLY want me to go there?
  

Has RDI disproven any of this evidence?

You've seen my list. Can you disprove IT?

 

[Chrishope]

No, it's not a prima facie murder by intruder. It was a prima facie kidnapping case until JBR's body was found. Then it instantly became a prima facie case of murder by the parents. I'm not claiming murder by the parents has to be right, just that most of the evidence, as soon as the body is discovered, indicated murder by the parents.

The RN instantly becomes prima facie fake when the body is found. (Not that it was very realistic before the body was found).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI behaves exactly as if it were a prima facie murder by intruder case. This is because RDI stands in contrast to the existing evidence, and therefore has to challenge the existing evidence in order to exist.

Evidence: 911 call --> intruder
RDI Challenge: they were faking it.

Testimony: Tea and pineapple testimony--> intruder
RDI Challenge: they were lying

Evidence: DNA at the scene relates to sexual assault---> intruder:
RDI Challenge: its not related

Evidence: Sexual assault that night with associated DNA-->intruder.
RDI Challenge: it was staged

Evidence: Cord in deep furrow, JBR was alive at the time-->intruder.
RDI Challenge: They THOUGHT she was dead when really she wasn't.

Its the R's testimony and the DNA evidence that fully establish this as a prima facie murder by intruder case. Again, this is inarguable. If the parents effectively staged the whole thing, IT WOULD BE A PRIMA FACIE MURDER BY INTRUDER CASE. See what I mean?

You could be overreacting to a small point, really. Its OK for RDI to challenge the evidence, and that is exactly what RDI does.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, it's not a prima facie murder by intruder. It was a prima facie kidnapping case until JBR's body was found. Then it instantly became a prima facie case of murder by the parents. I'm not claiming murder by the parents has to be right, just that most of the evidence, as soon as the body is discovered, indicated murder by the parents.

The RN instantly becomes prima facie fake when the body is found. (Not that it was very realistic before the body was found).

Thats an oxymoron. Evidence found at a crime scene can't be 'prima facie fake' by definition. You are challenging or claiming that the evidence is fake, thats all.

 

[Chrishope]

Sure evidence can be prima facie fake. Prima facie just means to take it at face value. Face value changes as new evidence comes in.

The RN started out -prima facie- as a genuine RN. A bizzare RN, but a RN none the less. As soon as the body is found, it's a fake, taken at face value, because kidnappers don't leave bodies behind if they want to collect ransom.

Prima facie doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that everything has to be taken as it appeared at 6am the morning of the 911 call, and never changes.

But even if you want to think that's what it means, subsequent evidence still leads us in another direction. So even if you want it to be a prima facie kidnapping at the start, it only remains so until the body is found. Then, evidence starts to lead us to think it's a murder done by the parents.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The RN started out -prima facie- as a genuine RN. A bizzare RN, but a RN none the less. As soon as the body is found, it's a fake, taken at face value, because kidnappers don't leave bodies behind if they want to collect ransom.

Thats your analysis, your deduction, your 'claim'.

For all you know there were three foreign intruders there that night. A better statement, a more correct statement would be this: "As soon as the body is found, the content of the RN becomes less descriptive of what actually happened." It doesn't override the 911 call, the tea and pineapple testimony, or the DNA evidence. There is no overriding, discarding, or disqualifying existing evidence in any prima facie case.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI behaves exactly as if it were a prima facie murder by intruder case.

I hadn't noticed.

Evidence: 911 call --> intruder
RDI Challenge: they were faking it.

If there's a question in there, just ask.

Testimony: Tea and pineapple testimony--> intruder
RDI Challenge: they were lying

Like I said, if you need a walkthrough, I'm game.

Evidence: DNA at the scene relates to sexual assault---> intruder:
RDI Challenge: its not related

Not only us.

Evidence: Sexual assault that night with associated DNA-->intruder.
RDI Challenge: it was staged

Evidence: Cord in deep furrow, JBR was alive at the time-->intruder.
RDI Challenge: They THOUGHT she was dead when really she wasn't.[/QUOTE]

If you want to go over that again, just say the word.

If the parents effectively staged the whole thing, IT WOULD BE A PRIMA FACIE MURDER BY INTRUDER CASE. See what I mean?

WHOA! Stop the car, everybody out. Did you just say what I think you said?

You could be overreacting to a small point, really.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Chrishope]

Thats your analysis, your deduction, your 'claim'.

For all you know there were three foreign intruders there that night. A better statement, a more correct statement would be this: "As soon as the body is found, the content of the RN becomes less descriptive of what actually happened." It doesn't override the 911 call, the tea and pineapple testimony, or the DNA evidence. There is no overriding, discarding, or disqualifying existing evidence in any prima facie case.

No, it's not just a claim. As soon as the body is found, the RN's "face value" changes. Now it does not look like a RN anymore. It could still turn out that it really was three foreign intruders there that night, but that's not how it looks after the body is found. With the body present, the note looks like a fake due to the inconsistency of a demand for ransom and leaving the body behind.

The 911 call is not prima facie evidence of an intruder. It's prima facie evidence that the caller is claiming a kidnapping has occurred.

The tea and pineapple are prima facie sourced from the R's kitchen, so I'm not sure where you are trying to go with that, unless you're assuming that we must take all of the R's statements at face value - there is of course no such requirement, even the first time we hear the statement.

Sure you can override, disqualify, and discard prima facie evidence. Again, it simply means to take at face value. Face value changes as new evidence comes in. There is no requirement that LE stick to a theory of the case as it appeared at 6am.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, it's not just a claim. As soon as the body is found, the RN's "face value" changes. Now it does not look like a RN anymore. It could still turn out that it really was three foreign intruders there that night, but that's not how it looks after the body is found. With the body present, the note looks like a fake due to the inconsistency of a demand for ransom and leaving the body behind..

Well, thats a switch from your claim that the RN is a fake.

The intruder is not bound by anything to have an exact written description of the crime he is committing. Nor is the ransom note required to be disregarded. In other words, the fact that a ransom note was found does not add or subtract from prima facie murder by intruder, just because it contradicted the body found in the basement. In fact, the ransom note author threatened several times to murder JBR.

It seems like you're taking each item of evidence and assigning some prima facie value to it, independent of the other items. Do you add up how many prima facie intruder vs. prima facie parent and decide on a winner?

Obviously it doesn't work that way.

Again, this IS a prima facie murder by intruder case, here in 2008. IDI knows it, and RDI knows it. All evidence supports a direct and obvious conclusion of intruder. It is only by challenging and contesting this evidence that RDI can exist.

 

[Chrishope]

An additional thought.

There is no prima facie case against an intruder, because for the case to come to trial, a particular individual has to be charged. The prosecution can't charge an anonymous defendant.

There is nothing that links any evidence at all to a particular individual intruder. The only chance of that is the dna, but so far, no luck.

The most you have is evidence that can be used defensively if the Rs were to be charged.

So all we can possibly be talking about when we say prima facie is what the detectives think as they sift the evidence. There is no reason at all they can't override, discard, discount etc.

 

[Chrishope]

Well, thats a switch from your claim that the RN is a fake.

The intruder is not bound by anything to have an exact written description of the crime he is committing. Nor is the ransom note required to be disregarded. In other words, the fact that a ransom note was found does not add or subtract from prima facie murder by intruder, just because it contradicted the body found in the basement. In fact, the ransom note author threatened several times to murder JBR.

It seems like you're taking each item of evidence and assigning some prima facie value to it, independent of the other items. Do you add up how many prima facie intruder vs. prima facie parent and decide on a winner?

Obviously it doesn't work that way.

Again, this IS a prima facie murder by intruder case, here in 2008. IDI knows it, and RDI knows it. All evidence supports a direct and obvious conclusion of intruder. It is only by challenging and contesting this evidence that RDI can exist.

Again, it's not a prima facie murder by intruder.

No, my position on the RN hasn't changed. I do claim it's fake, but I don't have to make that claim to say that it appears to be fake because of the dead body in the home. That's what any reasonable detective would start thinking as soon as the body is found. I don't say the existence of the body in the home proves the RN is a fake, just that it makes the RN appear to be a fake, on the face of it.

No, there is no requirement to disregard the RN. It's just a sensible way of thinking, given the contents, the body, the lack of a ransom call, the R's lack of conformity with the instructions, etc.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Strangulation injury to JBR's neck known to have happened while she was alive.

• Other injuries not related to strangulation or sexual assault.
• Injuries related to sexual assault that happened that night.
• 911 call from panicked parents reporting a kidnapping, hours after JBR had died.
• Unknown male DNA found in places that are related to the sexual assault that took place that night.
• Ligature cord fibers found in JBR's bed
• Secondary injuries not obviously related to movement, sexual assault, strangulation, or headbash
• Unexplained tea, pineapple
• Practice ransom note pages, pen, paper

Has RDI disproven any of this evidence?

You've seen my list. Can you disprove IT?

Can you disprove any prima facie evidence of murder by intruder? Can you prove JR and PR lied about pineapple, or faked the 911 call? Can you prove the DNA isn't related? Can you prove PR misspelled advise on purpose or accidentally?

Note to Chrishope: Misspelling advise is obscure prima facie evidence of murder by intruder, not discovered until years later.

 

[BBB167893]

Can you disprove any prima facie evidence of murder by intruder? Can you prove JR and PR lied about pineapple, or faked the 911 call? Can you prove the DNA isn't related? Can you prove PR misspelled advise on purpose or accidentally?

I can try!

 

[Chrishope]

Can you disprove any prima facie evidence of murder by intruder? Can you prove JR and PR lied? Can you prove the DNA isn't related? Can you prove PR misspelled advise on purpose or accidentally?
Yes, we can prove they lied about Burke being in bed during the 911 call.


Note to Chrishope: Misspelling advise is obscure prima facie evidence of murder by intruder, not discovered until years later.

Not really, because, on the face of it, it's hard to believe a journalism major can't spell advise. On the face of it, it appears she misspelled deliberately.