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

[JMO8778]

I

I've decided it could be even better, even more exhonerating, than DNA evidence. There is DNA at the crime scene but you don't KNOW who it belongs to. You KNOW one of JBR's attackers wrote the RN, and you KNOW PR wrote the exemplars. Yet they appear to be written by authors with two different spelling abilities. Thats why different words are misspelled in each one. It would've looked really bad for PR if advise was advize and business was bussiness in both the RN and the exemplars.

correct,and that's exactly why she didn't do it.

 

[Ames]

hycorrect,and that's exactly why she didn't do it.

Holdon can't seem to wrap his/her mind around the idea that Patsy mispelled both of these different words on purpose...for a purpose. She is a journalism major she knows how to spell business, and she knows how to spell advise...just like she knows how to spell attaché correctly. She was not an idiot...it would have been extremely stupid for her to have mispelled the same word in both the RN and the RN handwriting sample. I am sure that she remembered which one she deliberately mispelled in the real RN...so, she just chose another one to mispell in the sample RN.

 

[BBB167893]

It would've looked really bad for PR if advise was advize and business was bussiness in both the RN and the exemplars. See what I mean?

I believe that's the general idea that Ames and JMO are trying to convey.

It really looks like fiction because the claim comes so quickly, with such an ardent belief that this is the case, regardless of whether or not there's any corroboration.

If you want to talk about claims based on ardent belief without corroboration, I got two words for you. See if anyone can guess what they are.

 

[Solace]

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).

You know you are desperate when one of your arguments against RDIs is that they did not know that the word advize is spelled wrong in the practice Ransom Note. I think she misspelled the words on purpose - advize, bussiness. Contrary to what the author (Andrew Hodges?) says that she did not mean to misspell bussiness, but her subsconscious did mean to and since buss means kiss - that tells us what was going on and on and on. I happen to disagree with him. I think it was done intentionally by Mrs. Ramsey and with all that xanax in her, she probably thought she was smarter than everyone. She was trying to sound like a foreign faction. You know what they say about people who drink and take pills, they always think they are smarter than everyone and no one can tell they are loaded. Rigggggggggggggggght.

And another thing, I realize that if your child is killed, it has to be insane, especially if you did not do it, it just stops everything - HOWEVER, if you truly did not do it, and you saw how she was killed and defiled, I think it might raise a bit of RAGE in you to find out who did it. So, having said that, to see Patsy so stoned on CNN that she could barely sit up, I have come to think that she was this stoned because she was involved in it. If an intruder actually did this thing, with all the money and all their connections, they would have found that intruder. My point is that it would have brought her some relief to focus on getting the killer, even though it would be intermittant relief, it would have meant she was doing something for her child rather than just downing pills to get through it.

I would have had to gone to the extremes to find the killer to be able to sleep at night. Extremes. They did not.
Patsy immediately retreated. Patsy was too strong to retreat like that. If she truly did not hurt JB, she would have been out there full force immediately, no matter what her lawyers said. I really believe that. She just stayed stoned for days and days and in that time, if there were a killer out there, they were losing time. They knew there was no one to find. They are sooooooooooooo involved.

 

[Solace]

No, not the original one. When Patsy had to give a handwriting sample, one of the handwriting experts read the RN to her, and she had to write it...and she did spell advise wrong...she spelled it with a z...Advize. You can find this on www.acandyrose.com , I believe that she did it on purpose though, what sort of jouralism major doesn't know how to spell advise. I looked it up and its actually a third or fourth grade spelling word. So kids that age should know how to spell it, why didn't Patsy..a almost 40 year old Journalism Major?

This is strange, I just went to candyrose's site, and the site that she has listed blabbieville.com, for the samples...doesn't work anymore. When you click on it, it appears for only a second and then disappears. Can anybody else get it to work.

Trust me, it was very apparent that she spelled advise with a z, in her SAMPLE RN, does anyone else know another site that has these samples?

Everything Patsy did WAS INTENTIONAL. EVERYTHING, and at the moment that she hit her daughter, at that very instant, it was intentional, she was rabid and rage took over and she meant to hurt. It didn't last. No one actually wants to kill their own child (most people anyway), but in that split second that it took to inflict this damage, she was angry enough to throw her hard enough that it killed her. That is why it is called reckless homocide - without regard for the victim at that moment. She had none. She killed JB in an instant.

I realize JB was not dead immediately, but for all intents and purposes, she is dead.

 

[DeeDee249]

Everything Patsy did WAS INTENTIONAL. EVERYTHING, and at the moment that she hit her daughter, at that very instant, it was intentional, she was rabid and rage took over and she meant to hurt. It didn't last. No one actually wants to kill their own child (most people anyway), but in that split second that it took to inflict this damage, she was angry enough to throw her hard enough that it killed her. That is why it is called reckless homocide - without regard for the victim at that moment. She had none. She killed JB in an instant.

I realize JB was not dead immediately, but for all intents and purposes, she is dead.

Yes, even if it was the flashlight and not a tub or sink edge. It was a moment's action that was irreversible. And though she lived for a while, I hope her parents didn't know that. I say this because if they did think she was still alive but unconscious, and still did those horrendous things to her, they are even more callous and hateful than we think they are.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It would've looked really bad for PR if advise was advize and business was bussiness in both the RN and the exemplars. See what I mean?

I believe that's the general idea that Ames and JMO are trying to convey.

Oh I see the general idea. Sure, the obvious RDI conclusion is that PR would've naturally dumbed down her spelling in a subtle way, sometimes in the RN and sometimes in her exemplars. Very clever. But its the manner in which the conclusion was reached that is in question here. It uses false logic instead of facts or evidence. It uses circular reasoning.

I'll slow down. In the case of the cord and tape, RDI claims they came from the hardware store. This claim has some support in evidence, a receipt with like amounts on it. Also, RDI claims PR applied the garrote. This claim has some support in evidence because PR's fibers were found in and around the cord and JBR's hair.

OK so far?

RDI claims PR deliberately misspelled some words in the RN, other words in the exemplars. This claim has some support in evidence?

No.

Then what entitles RDI to make the claim? That PR 'would've done that'? If PR was guilty, then naturally she would've done that? RDI has now used a presumption of guilt to help create an imaginary scenario without any basis in evidence, and then incorporated it into the greater PDI theory. Even going so far as to state as fact what is only imagined.

An excellent example of lynch-mob mentality, doncha think?

Sorry but thats just not right.

 

[JMO8778]

nope,it's all just our opinions.you know that.
that's why I chose the user ID 'JMO' to stand for 'just my opinion' when I signed up.
you don't have to agree w anything.you wouldn't be here if you had to.
but if the RDI posts annoy you,then why do you keep reading them?

 

[JMO8778]

An excellent example of lynch-mob mentality, doncha think?

Sorry but thats just not right.

..that may be YOUR opinion on it,but truth is,it comes under the category of free speech.God Bless America.

 

[Chrishope]

HOTYH

I've been quite confused by this thread - confused by my own failing memory of the evidence. I've gone back over some of it to refresh my memory.

One thing you've said on this thread that I agree with is that it would make more sense for PR to spell advise wrong on the RN and not the later exemplars.

However, I still believe PR wrote the RN, so what can I conclude about the subsequent exemplar? Either she did it deliberately, or she really doesn't know how to spell advise and happened to get it right the first time, wrong the next time. It's more plausible that she did it deliberately.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh I see the general idea. Sure, the obvious RDI conclusion is that PR would've naturally dumbed down her spelling in a subtle way, sometimes in the RN and sometimes in her exemplars. Very clever.

Depends on how you look at it.

I'll slow down. In the case of the cord and tape, RDI claims they came from the hardware store. This claim has some support in evidence, a receipt with like amounts on it. Also, RDI claims PR applied the garrote. This claim has some support in evidence because PR's fibers were found in and around the cord and JBR's hair.

OK so far?

Right as rain.

RDI claims PR deliberately misspelled some words in the RN, other words in the exemplars. This claim has some support in evidence?

No.

Like I said, in the big scheme of things, it's a minor point.

Then what entitles RDI to make the claim?

Why don't you ask them? Did wonders with me, didn't it? (I notice you haven't pursued that any further yet.)

That PR 'would've done that'? If PR was guilty, then naturally she would've done that?

Not to be drawn into any existential dilemma here, but guilty in a legal sense and guilty in a spiritual sense needs to be differentiated. (For I believe it is the latter that the key lies in)

RDI has now used a presumption of guilt to help create an imaginary scenario without any basis in evidence, and then incorporated it into the greater PDI theory. Even going so far as to state as fact what is only imagined.

An excellent example of lynch-mob mentality, doncha think?

I wouldn't know. I've never been part of a lynch-mob, despite the numerous recriminations.

Sorry but thats just not right.

There's A LOT about this case that's not right, Holdon. The fact that it happened for starters.

 

[Ames]

Everything Patsy did WAS INTENTIONAL. EVERYTHING, and at the moment that she hit her daughter, at that very instant, it was intentional, she was rabid and rage took over and she meant to hurt. It didn't last. No one actually wants to kill their own child (most people anyway), but in that split second that it took to inflict this damage, she was angry enough to throw her hard enough that it killed her. That is why it is called reckless homocide - without regard for the victim at that moment. She had none. She killed JB in an instant.

I realize JB was not dead immediately, but for all intents and purposes, she is dead.

I believe that the Ramsey's thought that JB was dead immediately, though.

 

[Ames]

nope,it's all just our opinions.you know that.
that's why I chose the user ID 'JMO' to stand for 'just my opinion' when I signed up.
you don't have to agree w anything.you wouldn't be here if you had to.
but if the RDI posts annoy you,then why do you keep reading them?

I agree. Holdon could just put us all on Ignore, and then have conversations with himself.

 

[Zak]

HOTYH,

You said:

RDI claims PR deliberately misspelled some words in the RN, other words in the exemplars. This claim has some support in evidence?

No.

Yes, there is evidence to back up this claim. We know that PR wrote the RN and we know that PR wrote the exemplars. Only PR could have answered the question as to why she did what she did.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

nope,it's all just our opinions.you know that.
that's why I chose the user ID 'JMO' to stand for 'just my opinion' when I signed up.
you don't have to agree w anything.you wouldn't be here if you had to.
but if the RDI posts annoy you,then why do you keep reading them?

RDI, although wrong (can I state that as fact, after all its a free country, right?), is really a treasure trove of possibilities for IDI. Just by seeing all the loopholes in RDI does IDI scenario take shape.

For example, until Websleuths I never knew PR misspelled advise in her exemplars, in both right and left handed samples. RDI creates another myth to rationalize this fact, while IDI can see this as the most clear cut, unbiased, unfiltered, and unspun evidence that PR did not write the note.

Its staring you right in the face but you can't see it because you're blind.

Can I say that?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like I said, in the big scheme of things, it's a minor point.

Why does it make sense for you to refer to it as a minor point? Its not a minor point at all, because it presents itself as prima facie evidence to support the claim that PR and the RN author are two different people expected to spell differently.

RDI is forced into a corner on this, having to account for it.

Vacillating stories are 'created' on how PR deliberately misspelled words, or forgot and then remembered how to spell words. This is just a riot from my POV, how RDI jumbles and grasps at answers.

The fact remains that RDI cannot account for the different spelling. RDI thinks it can, when it can't. Not without inventing stories. Invented stories are usually referred to as FICTION.

Perhaps RDI should stick to fibers or something a little more subjective and vague and leave the spelling issue as a 'minor point' but a minor point for IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

Why does it make sense for you to refer to it as a minor point?

Explaining that would take a while.

Its not a minor point at all, because it presents itself as prima facie evidence to support the claim that PR and the RN author are two different people expected to spell differently.

Just as I can furnish some evidence of my own to the contrary.

Vacillating stories are 'created' on how PR deliberately misspelled words, or forgot and then remembered how to spell words.

Well, if you absolutely had to pin me down on this one, I would just remind you that even I misspell words on occasion when I am perfectly calm (and I'm a college grad. Before that I was a spelling champion). I can't imagine what this situation would be like.

The fact remains that RDI cannot account for the different spelling. RDI thinks it can, when it can't. Not without inventing stories. Invented stories are usually referred to as FICTION.

I could think of a few invented stories, myself.

Perhaps RDI should stick to fibers

My pleasure.

or something a little more subjective and vague and leave the spelling issue as a 'minor point' but a minor point for IDI.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
Why does it make sense for you to refer to it as a minor point?

Explaining that would take a while. I believe I've already got your points,
Quote:
Its not a minor point at all, because it presents itself as prima facie evidence to support the claim that PR and the RN author are two different people expected to spell differently.
Just as I can furnish some evidence of my own to the contrary. Not prima facie evidence. Sorry, but for some reason that market has been cornered by IDI, for both the obvious and the subtle evidence that was discovered.

Quote:
Vacillating stories are 'created' on how PR deliberately misspelled words, or forgot and then remembered how to spell words.
Well, if you absolutely had to pin me down on this one, I would just remind you that even I misspell words on occasion when I am perfectly calm (and I'm a college grad. Before that I was a spelling champion). I can't imagine what this situation would be like. Projecting your personality on PR, by claiming you would do the same thing PR did, is an interesting methodology.

Quote:
The fact remains that RDI cannot account for the different spelling. RDI thinks it can, when it can't. Not without inventing stories. Invented stories are usually referred to as FICTION.
I could think of a few invented stories, myself. Like what?

Quote:
Perhaps RDI should stick to fibers
My pleasure.

Quote:
or something a little more subjective and vague and leave the spelling issue as a 'minor point' but a minor point for IDI.
Whatever floats your boat.

 

[BBB167893]

I believe I've already got your points,

I hope so.

Not prima facie evidence. Sorry, but for some reason that market has been cornered by IDI, for both the obvious and the subtle evidence that was discovered.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Projecting your personality on PR, by claiming you would do the same thing PR did, is an interesting methodology.

She and I have more in common than you might be willing to believe.

Like what?

How much time you got?

 

[JMO8778]

RDI, although wrong (can I state that as fact, after all its a free country, right?), is really a treasure trove of possibilities for IDI. Just by seeing all the loopholes in RDI does IDI scenario take shape.

no loopholes,it's evidence and common sense.evidence TIED to common sense.it all works together.
for example,many ppl are willing to believe that some ppl on earth have been abducted by creatures from outer space,or that these creatures have visited here.But have one of these 'abductees' or ppl who say they have received visits from them,claim that an intruder from outer space came in and killed their child or committed some other horrendous crime,and true reality starts to sink in...someone's bluff gets called! common sense.

For example, until Websleuths I never knew PR misspelled advise in her exemplars, in both right and left handed samples. RDI creates another myth to rationalize this fact, while IDI can see this as the most clear cut, unbiased, unfiltered, and unspun evidence that PR did not write the note.

Its staring you right in the face but you can't see it because you're blind.

Can I say that?

you can say whatever you want,it's up to the mods to decide what can be allowed.since it's all just opinions,no one's saying you can't say anything,just as we RDI's can have an opinion as well.

But let me ask you this...(and I suppose the point is moot because it didn't happen that way,and you can answer any way you want),but I'll ask anyway.
If Patsy had misspelled one,or even both of the same misspelled words in the RN,I bet you'd still say she was innocent,it was all a fluke! so in this scenario,if she then went on to further misspell advise also...what would be your explanation then?