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

[Chrishope]

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.


I see. So anyone asked for a handwritting sample should always misspell a few words, words spelled correctly in the RN or other original document that the exemplars are being compared with. By doing so, LE can "logically" excuse that person as a suspect because no one can possibly misspell intentionally.

Yes, you've convinced me - PR was a journalism major who didn't know how to spell the word advise. That she misspelled it twice in exemplars PROVES she didn't write the RN. Very sound reasoning - at least in some alternate universe.

On a more serious note - in the actual RN, the letter s in the word advise is formed so that it almost looks like the letter z. Almost, but not quite. What are we to make of that?

 

[anyc]

I say she did it on purpose - she was a journalism major...of course she knew how to spell a commonly-used word like 'advise.'

We're all supposed to shake our heads and smile at what a naive and sheltered woman Patsy was:

"Oh, look, ahaha. Patsy not only thought she still money in the bank if she still had checks in her checkbook, but she also doesn't know to spell 'advise.' There's no way a simple lil ole Southern country gal like Patsy could have possibly written that horrid RN."

I don't believe Patsy was that ignorant about either financial matters or the correct spelling of a 4th grade vocabulary word like 'advise.'

She still wasn't intelligent enough to say "John and me" instead saying "The police then spoke to John and I" - that kind of atrocious grammar was rampant throughout her interviews, and that's about as basic as it gets!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.


I see. So anyone asked for a handwritting sample should always misspell a few words, words spelled correctly in the RN or other original document that the exemplars are being compared with. By doing so, LE can "logically" excuse that person as a suspect because no one can possibly misspell intentionally.

Yes, you've convinced me - PR was a journalism major who didn't know how to spell the word advise. That she misspelled it twice in exemplars PROVES she didn't write the RN. Very sound reasoning - at least in some alternate universe.

On a more serious note - in the actual RN, the letter s in the word advise is formed so that it almost looks like the letter z. Almost, but not quite. What are we to make of that?

I can introduce you to a new concept: prima facie evidence.

Thats where YEARS after the initial investigation, a small amount of prima facie evidence is found that, at first glance, supports an initial or obvious conclusion. What would the initial or obvious conclusion be? That the RN author and PR are two different people. It just so happens that this conclusion supports IDI.

RDI has to drop the initial and obvious conclusion because it supports IDI. RDI can't ignore the facts, so a fictional tale is created to incorporate the new fact in whatever way is possible and still support the RDI conclusion.

Very interesting investigative technique.

Lets see, what other prima facie evidence has been dropped to support RDI? Oh yeah, the garrote with deep furrow and local large hemmorhage indicting initially that JBR was violently strangled to death. Thats what the coroner said, but RDI wont have it. Intead have to create or invent a fictional tale where the cord amounted to a prop.

So you see, prima facie evidence has to be discarded right and left for RDI to work. That should be a clue that RDI is wrong. Even without the suspect DNA found at the crime scene, RDI can be seen as wrong.

 

[BBB167893]

I can introduce you to a new concept: prima facie evidence.

Thats where YEARS after the initial investigation, a small amount of prima facie evidence is found that, at first glance, supports an initial or obvious conclusion. What would the initial or obvious conclusion be? That the RN author and PR are two different people. It just so happens that this conclusion supports IDI.

Things are not always as they first appear.

Lets see, what other prima facie evidence has been dropped to support RDI? Oh yeah, the garrote with deep furrow and local large hemmorhage indicting initially that JBR was violently strangled to death. Thats what the coroner said, but RDI wont have it. Intead have to create or invent a fictional tale where the cord amounted to a prop.

We've been over that. (I'm game to get back to it, whenever you're ready.)

 

[Solace]

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

Me too AMES. She had to have heard the crack when JB FELL BACK AND LOST CONTROL and fell hard again and she ran to her and felt that 8 1/2 inch fissure.

TO KOLDKASE,

I once again cannot get into FFJ, but to answer your question - YES.

Also, I sent you a message, but I think that failed. HAVE A GOOD ONE.

 

[Ames]

Me too AMES. She had to have heard the crack when JB FELL BACK AND LOST CONTROL and fell hard again and she ran to her and felt that 8 1/2 inch fissure.

TO KOLDKASE,

I once again cannot get into FFJ, but to answer your question - YES.

Also, I sent you a message, but I think that failed. HAVE A GOOD ONE.

I meant to tell you that I emailed the FFJ Webmaster a few days ago for you, but so far I haven't heard anything back.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Things are not always as they first appear.

I can fully understand how RDI sees NOTHING is as it first appears. Thats because RDI has to redefine the entire crime to get things to work.

Its like you have a puzzle. Initially, none of the pieces fit your imagined view of the completed puzzle. So you cut here and trim there until it does?

I would question your imagined view instead. Then your pieces will fit.
PR and RN author misspelling different words fits nicely in the IDI puzzle.

 

[Solace]

I can fully understand how RDI sees NOTHING is as it first appears. Thats because RDI has to redefine the entire crime to get things to work.

Its like you have a puzzle. Initially, none of the pieces fit your imagined view of the completed puzzle. So you cut here and trim there until it does?

I would question your imagined view instead. Then your pieces will fit.
PR and RN author misspelling different words fits nicely in the IDI puzzle.

No, we don't have to redefine anything. There is enough evidence for a first grader to see that Patsy is involved up to her nose and then some. With all those fibers and that handwriting and the bs call to her friends, that is just about all that is needed. Things are usually what they seem. Unfortunately, the actual crime itself is much more horrific than people usually realize (any crime I mean). So I imagine that JB had a pretty bad time of it and Patsy terrorized her fairly well before killing her.

Get that head out of the desert Holdon. How can you breathe. No wonder you are not thinking clearly.

 

[Solace]

I meant to tell you that I emailed the FFJ Webmaster a few days ago for you, but so far I haven't heard anything back.

You are so nice AMES, as usual. Not a problem. If I can get in, I will, if not, I guess I won't. Hope all is well with your beautiful children. Happy Holloween!!!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Me too AMES. She had to have heard the crack when JB FELL BACK AND LOST CONTROL and fell hard again and she ran to her and felt that 8 1/2 inch fissure.

TO KOLDKASE,

I once again cannot get into FFJ, but to answer your question - YES.

Also, I sent you a message, but I think that failed. HAVE A GOOD ONE.

It instead has to be your imagination running wild. Where do you get this junk?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Some of the RDI stuff has some support in evidence, and I have to respect those ideas even though I think they are wrong.

There's other RDI stuff that has no support. That PR deliberately misspelled words or forgot and then remembered how to spell words has no support. These ideas then take on the appearance of simply being made up to suit. I think that has lowered the esteem of RDI.

It would've been better for RDI to not quickly contrive alternative explanations for obscure prima facie evidence that indicated PR and RN author are two different people.

 

[Solace]

It instead has to be your imagination running wild. Where do you get this junk?

Junk,

Oh you think this was a silent killing? Not with a crack that size. It was loud. If you did not have your head squarely planted in the sand, this would not be foreign to you.

 

[BBB167893]

I can fully understand how RDI sees NOTHING is as it first appears. Thats because RDI has to redefine the entire crime to get things to work.

Really?

Its like you have a puzzle. Initially, none of the pieces fit your imagined view of the completed puzzle. So you cut here and trim there until it does?

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.

I would question your imagined view instead. Then your pieces will fit.

Thank you, Master Jedi.

PR and RN author misspelling different words fits nicely in the IDI puzzle.

Speaking as a former IDI myself, good luck.

 

[Tadpole12]

No, we don't have to redefine anything. There is enough evidence for a first grader to see that Patsy is involved up to her nose and then some. With all those fibers and that handwriting and the bs call to her friends, that is just about all that is needed. Things are usually what they seem. Unfortunately, the actual crime itself is much more horrific than people usually realize (any crime I mean). So I imagine that JB had a pretty bad time of it and Patsy terrorized her fairly well before killing her.

Get that head out of the desert Holdon. How can you breathe. No wonder you are not thinking clearly.

So I imagine that JB had a pretty bad time of it and Patsy terrorized her fairly well before killing her.

Hi Solace

I hadn't imagined that ...

even though I've read that the parietial fracture is an indicator of a history of child abuse

I've been wondering, within the RDI, what could have gone soooooo wrong between the pineapple snack and the time of JBR's death ...

 

[Chrishope]

Some of the RDI stuff has some support in evidence, and I have to respect those ideas even though I think they are wrong.

There's other RDI stuff that has no support. That PR deliberately misspelled words or forgot and then remembered how to spell words has no support. These ideas then take on the appearance of simply being made up to suit. I think that has lowered the esteem of RDI.

It would've been better for RDI to not quickly contrive alternative explanations for obscure prima facie evidence that indicated PR and RN author are two different people.

Two things.

First, reaching conclusions which go beyond the available evidence is called deductive inference. Deductive reasoning is used in the physical sciences, and in police work.


Second, you pose the question why is the RN spelling of "advise" different than PR's exemplars, where she spells it "advize" ?

If we start with the premise that PR wrote the note (base on the opinions of several hadwritting experts) then follow with the premise that most college grads, to say nothing of journalism majors, can spell the word advise, then it's reasonable to conclude that PR misspelled "advize" on purpose.

Of course you needn't accept either premise. You can say that PR didn't write the RN, based on a few opinions by handwritting experts) In this case of course, it's irrelevant that PR spells the word "advize" in the exemplars, since it's already been decided that she is not the author of the RN.

You can also deny the second premise - most college grads, to say nohing of journalism majors, know how to spell advise. Perhaps this is untrue. Perhaps most college educated people really are in a quandry as to whether the word requires an s or a z. Perhaps a survey of journalists would find that 63% spell it with a z. Perhaps dictionaries show that either the s or z spelling is acceptable.

What you're attempting is this -

A person always spells words the same way.
PR spells "advize", whereas the RN author spelled it "advise".
Therefore PR is not the author of the RN.

The problem is that the first premise is just plain false, and if we can find some exemplars where PR has wrote "advise" then we'll know the second premise is also false. But we don't need both premises to be false to invalidate the conclusion. Only one false premise will do the trick.

But of course, you know all this. You aren't here to share insights or opinions. You aren't interested in solving the case. You are merely trolling.

 

[Solace]

So I imagine that JB had a pretty bad time of it and Patsy terrorized her fairly well before killing her.

Hi Solace

I hadn't imagined that ...

even though I've read that the parietial fracture is an indicator of a history of child abuse

I've been wondering, within the RDI, what could have gone soooooo wrong between the pineapple snack and the time of JBR's death ...

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.

 

[Tadpole12]

I dunno

The balance between factions?

more like shuffling and dealing cards?


The writer of the ransom note is a more than adequate speller

Both the errors made are not common and not the most frequent of errors
ie doubling the 's' in business buisness/busines

http://www.texttrust.com/about/Articles/2006-04-26-top50spellingmistakes.html

 

[Tadpole12]

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.

okay...

Thanks for expanding on that thought.

 

[BBB167893]

I've been wondering, within the RDI, what could have gone soooooo wrong between the pineapple snack and the time of JBR's death ...

Depends on who you ask, I guess.

 

[Solace]

Depends on who you ask, I guess.

I think Patsy was absolutely exhausted by 10 p.m. that night and they got home about 9:30 or so - she had been up since six - couple of glasses of wine at the party and a few xanax (I don't believe for a second that she was without it). It can happen in a split second and then the person comes out of their rage and realizes what they have done.

Maybe she was in the bed watching tv and fell asleep and then wet the bed. She is strangled before the headwound which is evidenced by the mark on her neck. Someone grabbed her with a lot of force.

That night had to be insane.


This case is one that will drive you crazy becuase there is definitely evidence of prior abuse. Maybe Patsy caught John. I don't know. But it is possible. And then decided to erase that from her mind.