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

[JMO8778]

Whoa, SD, where'd the lie go? What transcript?

I asked for 'proof' that PR/JR were 'caught' in any lie. So far, you've not sourced any official lie, that would justifiably put RDI in a position to disqualify all of their other testimony based on said lie.

Is there an official lie (as opposed to lies perceived by outsiders like yourself)? You know, a lie that those involved in the interviews/investigation actually stated that JR or PR made?

Why does RDI always seem to come up just a little bit short? BR almost but not quite offically in the 911 call, PR almost but not quite officially handwriting match, the R's almost but not quite the owners of the cord or tape, JBR almost but not quite officially a victim of chronic abuse??

says who? microscopes don't lie.chronic infiltrate into the cells was THERE.
as for lies,there's a word that rhymes that tends to go with it,hand in hand.it's called..DENY,which is just what you're doing.

 

[Chrishope]

In Mr. Hat's alternate universe, nothing counts as a lie, because the Rs have not been convicted of perjury. Therefore the "most direct and obvious conclusion" is that the Rs are telling the truth.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've wasted enough of my time in conversation with Mr. Hat.

 

[Solace]

In Mr. Hat's alternate universe, nothing counts as a lie, because the Rs have not been convicted of perjury. Therefore the "most direct and obvious conclusion" is that the Rs are telling the truth.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've wasted enough of my time in conversation with Mr. Hat.

Amen. It is ridiculous. Not even a scintilla of an objection to the Ramseys, not even an interest in the fact that JB had vaginal wall prior abuse and healing; 4 and 5 and 6 year olds do not, DO NOT, have issues with prior healing unless there is a chronic problem with cleanliness or some sort of corporal punishment (cleaning) or sexual abuse. The doctor saw none of the above regarding bedwetting - so WHY DOES SHE HAVE PRIOR INJURIES. The Hat chooses to ignore it. Unfortunately, JB was not that lucky.

 

[BBB167893]

Whoa, SD, where'd the lie go? What transcript?

You want it, you got it:

PMPT, pb pg 372.

I asked for 'proof' that PR/JR were 'caught' in any lie. So far, you've not sourced any official lie, that would justifiably put RDI in a position to disqualify all of their other testimony based on said lie.

Did you read the areas in red?

Is there an official lie (as opposed to lies perceived by outsiders like yourself)? You know, a lie that those involved in the interviews/investigation actually stated that JR or PR made?

Lawrence Schiller has often used the term "total number of inconsistencies." But yeah, the police did believe that they were lying about the pineapple and the 911 call.

PMPT, pb pg 385: "The police said they had discovered enough inconsistencies in both John and Patsy's stories--combined with Patsy's handwriting analysis--that there was now probable cause to arrest Patsy."

Why does RDI always seem to come up just a little bit short? BR almost but not quite offically in the 911 call, PR almost but not quite officially handwriting match, the R's almost but not quite the owners of the cord or tape, JBR almost but not quite officially a victim of chronic abuse??

Unfortunately Holdon, in criminal investigations (especially the areas you mention) "almost" is the rule, not the exception. How you get around that is by taking it all together--the "big picture" as it were, like I keep saying.

Let me lay this illustration on you:
I wasn't going to do this, but since you brought up the chronic abuse angle, here goes. Now, Holdon, I don't want to cast any aspersions, but you seem to be one of those "physical-findings-aren't-enough," people (correct me if I'm wrong). Well, (and we can keep this hypothetical if you like), if you take the physical findings (which I'll be happy to repost if you want), then combine that with the little one's soiling and wetting problems, what do you get? What's that? Still not enough for you? Okay, try this:

Even Patsy expressed occasional doubts about the effect of the pageant circuit on her daughter: "She is too friendly, just too friendly with people," she told Michael and Pam. “She flirts with people.”

A diaper-wearing six-year-old who flirts with people, who later turns up with chronic vaginal injuries. MM-HMM...

It does make you wonder.

Don't it, though?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Lawrence Schiller has often used the term "total number of inconsistencies." But yeah, the police did believe that they were lying about the pineapple and the 911 call.

PMPT, pb pg 385: "The police said they had discovered enough inconsistencies in both John and Patsy's stories--combined with Patsy's handwriting analysis--that there was now probable cause to arrest Patsy."

PMPT, pb pg 385: "Again, Hofstrom pointed to the fact that the police had no eyewitnesses, had ambiguous forensic evidence, had parents with no history of mistreating their children, and--maybe most importantly--no evidence of a motive. Hunter said he wanted to see evidence beyond reasonable doubt. A case he was sure he could win in court. The DA said their (ed note, 'there' ) would be no arrest warrant issued at this time."

SD, I think this says what I said, that of all the RDI 'facts' and 'lies', there was never anything complete. It was always 'almost' for RDI. You state that this is the rule, when really there is no such rule. There are cases happening all the time, every day, that effectively go 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Yet 12 years later and for some strange reason still no 'beyond reasonable doubt' for RDI'.

Go figure.

 

[Solace]

PMPT, pb pg 385: "Again, Hofstrom pointed to the fact that the police had no eyewitnesses, had ambiguous forensic evidence, had parents with no history of mistreating their children, and--maybe most importantly--no evidence of a motive. Hunter said he wanted to see evidence beyond reasonable doubt. A case he was sure he could win in court. The DA said their (ed note, 'there' ) would be no arrest warrant issued at this time."

SD, I think this says what I said, that of all the RDI 'facts' and 'lies', there was never anything complete. It was always 'almost' for RDI. You state that this is the rule, when really there is no such rule. There are cases happening all the time, every day, that effectively go 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Yet 12 years later and for some strange reason still no 'beyond reasonable doubt' for RDI'.

Go figure.

Hat, you couldn't figure out how to get from one room to the other in the Ramsey house, so your saying go figure is exactly what is expected.

Hunter never went to trial in his entire term. He settled every single case. Why would he start now. And why would he not let a subpoena go through for the telephone records. One would think that would raise your interest, but no. Go figure that one out.

 

[BBB167893]

PMPT, pb pg 385: "Again, Hofstrom pointed to the fact that the police had no eyewitnesses, had ambiguous forensic evidence, had parents with no history of mistreating their children, and--maybe most importantly--no evidence of a motive. Hunter said he wanted to see evidence beyond reasonable doubt. A case he was sure he could win in court. The DA said their (ed note, 'there' ) would be no arrest warrant issued at this time."

SD, I think this says what I said, that of all the RDI 'facts' and 'lies', there was never anything complete. It was always 'almost' for RDI.

You forget one very important thing, Holdon: this was a DA's office that set it's own standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," a standard no one could hope to meet. They hadn't taken a case to trial in ten years. Doesn't that mean anything to you? It says "reasonable doubt," not "all doubt." Sadly, a lot of people don't know the difference.

You state that this is the rule, when really there is no such rule.

Oh, but there is. That's why we have the term "circumstantial," which was the point I was trying to make. About 90% of cases are circumstantial.

There are cases happening all the time, every day, that effectively go 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Yet 12 years later and for some strange reason still no 'beyond reasonable doubt' for RDI'.

If you're ACTUALLY trying to compare the Boulder DA's office with the majority of tough, hard-working prosecutors in this country, the joke is on you, my friend. If you want a list of incidents from this case alone where the DA's office has performed inadequately, incompetently, unprofessionally, or just flat-out suspiciously, I'm just the man who can provide it.

Oh, and incidentally, I remembered another lie the Ramseys have been caught in: when John Ramsey's lawyers first hired the private investigators, he said, and would say for several years afterward, that they were there to perform a parallel investigation, following up on the leads that the police weren't pursuing. But in 2001, John Ramsey confessed that they were doing no such thing, but were instead building a defense to keep the Ramseys out of prison. Let's see you get around that one.

 

[DeeDee249]

No DA's office in the country needs "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence to issue arrest warrants, issue search warrents, etc. All they need is probable cause. And in this case, there was PLENTY of it. Of course, the biggest "probable cause" was the dead child found by a parent in the home, with a ransom note in the mother's handwriting. But hey, this is Boulder- why let THAT make a difference.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You forget one very important thing, Holdon: this was a DA's office that set it's own standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," a standard no one could hope to meet. They hadn't taken a case to trial in ten years. Doesn't that mean anything to you? It says "reasonable doubt," not "all doubt." Sadly, a lot of people don't know the difference.

Anyone who has chosen to face facts knows that there is no RDI smoking gun. How do you go from 'no smoking gun' to 'DA's office set its own standard?' Are you saying that there was enough circumstantial evidence to take this case to trial, without a smoking gun? That the R's should have been arrested/tried based on accumulated circumstantial evidence?

And doesn't it concern you that after 12 years there has still not been discovered any smoking gun evidence? Except the DNA of course, but thats a smoking gun for whoever owns the DNA.

 

[DeeDee249]

The body with parents' fibers in incriminating places, as well as the RN in PR's handwriting are all the "smoking guns" anyone would need.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No DA's office in the country needs "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence to issue arrest warrants, issue search warrents, etc. All they need is probable cause. And in this case, there was PLENTY of it. Of course, the biggest "probable cause" was the dead child found by a parent in the home, with a ransom note in the mother's handwriting. But hey, this is Boulder- why let THAT make a difference.

Your opinion stated as fact is not officially supported. Likewise, that the R's knowingly lied seems to be opinion stated as fact and not officially supported.

Since there is no 'official' R lie, I can feel free to view the R's testimony as witness testimony instead of lies or clever stories. I believe I know where those are coming from.

 

[Solace]

Ames,
As a Journalist major for Patsy to misspell once is forgivable but not twice, that smacks of deliberation. Anyway the misspelling is consistent with other examples of misspelling in the RN. She probably did it as a fall back position if ever she was accused of authoring the RN in court.

Since the RN is fake, anything in it cannot be used to prove anything, other than it is part of the overall staging.

Not even if it is intentional? What is the matter with you Hat. Do you take everything the Ramsey's say at face value. What kind of a sleuth are you. Have you no questions at all regarding their behaviour?

 

[BBB167893]

Anyone who has chosen to face facts knows that there is no RDI smoking gun.

Right. My POINT was that the great majority of cases are not smoking gun cases. That's what I've been trying to explain.

How do you go from 'no smoking gun' to 'DA's office set its own standard?'

I'll get to that in a minute.

Are you saying that there was enough circumstantial evidence to take this case to trial, without a smoking gun?

YES! Unequivocally, yes!

That the R's should have been arrested/tried based on accumulated circumstantial evidence?

Absolutely. Plenty of people have gone to prison for life or even to death row on less. A WHOLE LOT LESS. Ask Scott Peterson, if you don't believe me. Casey Anthony seems to be on that road now, and they don't even have a body.

And doesn't it concern you that after 12 years there has still not been discovered any smoking gun evidence?

Doesn't it concern YOU that the attempts to GET a smoking gun were refused by the DA's office? I can tell you, it bothers the hell out of me.

See, that's what I'm trying to tell you about the DA's impossible standard: they would not do things that are standard operating procedure for prosecutors across the country. I'll give you an example.

Do you know how the majority of these domestic homicide cases are solved, Holdon? They're solved by arresting the two parents, throwing them in a jail cell to stew for a while, then giving them the third degree separately until one of them cracks and confesses. That's the truth, or may I be struck dead. That's how Lisa Steinberg's murder was solved. The NYPD arrested Joel Steinberg and his wife Hedda Nusbaum, threw them in jail, and it worked. Hedda Nusbaum and her lawyer cut a deal, she confessed, testified against Joel for immunity, and he went to prison.

Would you consider a confession to be a smoking gun, Holdon? What the New York cops did with the Steinbergs is EXACTLY what the cops in Boulder WANTED to do to the Rs. The DA said no. He said he didn't charge on probable cause.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I can show you incidents where the DA's office interfered with interviews, shot down operations, even undercut their own witnesses.

Does any of this concern you, or am I just talking to myself?

Except the DNA of course, but thats a smoking gun for whoever owns the DNA.

Good luck finding him.

 

[Chrishope]

Do you know how the majority of these domestic homicide cases are solved, Holdon? They're solved by arresting the two parents, throwing them in a jail cell to stew for a while, then giving them the third degree separately until one of them cracks and confesses. That's the truth, or may I be struck dead.

The leson we learn from this case is clam up, and lawyer up. When people are separated and questioned, all the police really have going for them is the suspect's fear. If nothing else, the Rs were smart. They didn't talk w/o their lawyer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Solace, to reiterate what has already been iterated, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL LIE. Only third party, outsider claims of lies. And magazines that can sometimes believe in martian 'truth' that you seem to hold in high regard. Not too surprising.

Don't forget that BR claimed long afterwards to be pretending to be asleep, that the parents found out later what he said. Thats not a lie, the R's simply appear to have been unaware that BR was awake, if BR was truely awake. Not that he got up, and was in the background for the 911 call.

Get back to me when there's an 'official' lie. If what you say is true then it shouldn't be too hard to quote LE officials stating that they in fact lied. Until then, there's no technical reason to discount all their other testimony, other than a predisposition for RDI which you apparently have, correct? I don't have that predisposition. You know, I haven't already decided they're guilty like you have.

 

[JMO8778]

In Mr. Hat's alternate universe, nothing counts as a lie, because the Rs have not been convicted of perjury. Therefore the "most direct and obvious conclusion" is that the Rs are telling the truth.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've wasted enough of my time in conversation with Mr. Hat.

he/she reminds me of Mr. Hat on South Park..probably someone who is totally animated.
I have to rescind my prior Palin comment though,since it has come to my attention that it may not be quite fitting for Hold.

 

[JMO8778]

Anyone who has chosen to face facts knows that there is no RDI smoking gun. How do you go from 'no smoking gun' to 'DA's office set its own standard?' Are you saying that there was enough circumstantial evidence to take this case to trial, without a smoking gun? That the R's should have been arrested/tried based on accumulated circumstantial evidence?

And doesn't it concern you that after 12 years there has still not been discovered any smoking gun evidence? Except the DNA of course, but thats a smoking gun for whoever owns the DNA.

maybe not.why won't Lacy test possible innocent sources of the dna,such as anyone who might have touched the paintbrush handle?? SUCH AS,any male painting instructors Patsy may have had at the painting classes she took.Or any other students in the class,that may have touched the paintbrush?? It would be a good place to start,but alas,her true agenda is obvious,seeing as she is not pursuing any and all possibles avenues of the source of dna.
Lacy's only interest was in exonerating the R's,for reasons of her own personal interest.

 

[Tadpole12]

Your opinion stated as fact is not officially supported. Likewise, that the R's knowingly lied seems to be opinion stated as fact and not officially supported.

Since there is no 'official' R lie, I can feel free to view the R's testimony as witness testimony instead of lies or clever stories. I believe I know where those are coming from.

Since there is no 'official' R lie, I can feel free to view the R's testimony as witness testimony instead of lies or clever stories.- HOTYH

HI Hotyh.

That's kinda the issue I've been wondering about, Hotyh. R's testimony doesn't exactly equate to 'witness testimony' or complete truth. Post LKL interview, I wonder what responses or vague responses were crafted by their lawyers. How much or litlle of the truth these represent, I'm unsure of their weight?........ given the R's need for self protection.'

 

[Solace]

Solace, to reiterate what has already been iterated, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL LIE. Only third party, outsider claims of lies. And magazines that can sometimes believe in martian 'truth' that you seem to hold in high regard. Not too surprising.

Don't forget that BR claimed long afterwards to be pretending to be asleep, that the parents found out later what he said. Thats not a lie, the R's simply appear to have been unaware that BR was awake, if BR was truely awake. Not that he got up, and was in the background for the 911 call.

Get back to me when there's an 'official' lie. If what you say is true then it shouldn't be too hard to quote LE officials stating that they in fact lied. Until then, there's no technical reason to discount all their other testimony, other than a predisposition for RDI which you apparently have, correct? I don't have that predisposition. You know, I haven't already decided they're guilty like you have.

I posted an interview GIVEN by the Ramseys to the National Enquirer. In it John plainly says Burke was awake but I thought he was asleep. He was upset and had tears in his eyes. They lied and it is out there ONLY because Burke admitted it to the Grand Jury.

I have never seen you once question ANY of their behaviour. At least you will hear RDIs say they believe Patsy loved her child and that this was a rage incident gone very bad. But you will not even question the fact that she recants about seeing the heart, or that there is even a possibility that this incident may have taken place (the murder), that they have no memory of countless things when questioned in their 1998 interviews, but Patsy says her memory of that day is "vivid". It does not seem to bother you that John in DOI says he wishes the police had been more discreet when coming to the house that morning, yet he and Patsy invite five people to the house who are there within the hour.

I would take you more seriously if you would at least ask "why" once in a while.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I posted an interview GIVEN by the Ramseys to the National Enquirer. In it John plainly says Burke was awake but I thought he was asleep. He was upset and had tears in his eyes. They lied and it is out there ONLY because Burke admitted it to the Grand Jury.

I have never seen you once question ANY of their behaviour. At least you will hear RDIs say they believe Patsy loved her child and that this was a rage incident gone very bad. But you will not even question the fact that she recants about seeing the heart, or that there is even a possibility that this incident may have taken place (the murder), that they have no memory of countless things when questioned in their 1998 interviews, but Patsy says her memory of that day is "vivid". It does not seem to bother you that John in DOI says he wishes the police had been more discreet when coming to the house that morning, yet he and Patsy invite five people to the house who are there within the hour.

I would take you more seriously if you would at least ask "why" once in a while.

Lied, admitted? There is no lie here. You can't find JR admitting to lying, or BR admitting to lying, anywhere. You can't find an official LE who stated 'they lied' or 'they lied under oath'. This whole lying thing was brought up by SD and I to help decide whether we can toss all R testimony as lies because they were caught in a lie. They were never caught in a lie in anyones eyes except RDI story tellers.