Patsy Ramsey

[Anti-K]

There's more to DOI than meets the eye.

My sources are the same as yours; my “forensic profiles” and “scientific reports” are the same as yours (and, everyone else’s). I figured if they’re good enough for you, they’re good enough for me.

For example, on p. 229 Kolar describes unsourced fibers that were “found on four items closely associated with the body of Jonbenet and implements used in her murder.” These are the brown, cotton fibers that may (or, may not) have come from a glove (or, gloves).

From Carnes: Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.)
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)
Carnes http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

The unsourced, foreign, male DNA found in the victim’s panties commingled with her blood and accepted by CODIS as well as the matching tDNA found on the victim’s leggings is so well documented and accepted that I’m not going to bother sourcing it. Everyone know about this. Sure, there is disagreement over its importance and meaning but so far, despite effort, no innocent explanation for it has been found.

So, there you have it- using the same sources as YOU and EVERYONE else – trace evidence found in incriminating locations of the exact type that one should expect to find if an intruder had committed this crime.
.

I have several IDI theories and I have posted them and links to them more than once. And, quite recently! For Detective Pinkie and for Andreww.
...

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

Hi AK,
Noting your reference to animal hairs found on JBR's hands - I still can't access the reference from ACR (in your post above). Is it still available online? And do you know if more tests were done on the animal hair samples at a later date? TIA

 

[questfortrue]

Some here may remember poster Meara’s description last year of deductive and inductive reasoning and logical fallacies. I wanted to add a little to that excellent post with some additional thoughts about the manner in which we reach different conclusions.

Trace evidence, specifically, hairs, fibers and DNA, were found in incriminating locations – genital area, panties, ligatures and victim’s hands. So, it is factually incorrect to say that no forensic evidence (of an intruder) was left at “any of the evidential locations.”

To say that “no abductor” is going to do this or do that is mere Argument form Personal Incredulity. It is flawed reasoning. Just because you can’t think of a reason for a particular act does not mean that such a reason does not exist. ...

AK

BBM

This sounds logically correct, to me. I concede I don’t have a background in classical rhetoric or in utilizing logic in the “Skeptic” problem-based presentations.

However, even scientists will concede some limits to logic. I’ll get into that in a minute.

The thing about behavior is that it can almost always be rationalized, by use of alternative premises and with alternative conclusions. Here’s an example you may recall from the “Breaking Bad” series: Walt the main character who becomes a meth dealer has been behaving somewhat strangely. Walt’s wife Skylar claims she heard his cell phone ring. Skylar’s brother in law, a DEA agent with access to phone records, checks Walt’s number, to see if they can find a trace to someone (like to a woman with whom Walt may be having a tryst). There’s no cell phone call discovered. The conclusion the BIL and the wife deduce is that Walt has 2 cell phones.

However, Walt has an explanation: Attempting to explain away her suspicions about his second cell phone, Walt tells Skylar she might have mistaken his phone's alarm — a reminder, he claims, to take his medication — for an incoming call. In an instant, she doesn’t buy it and walks out. Walt’s explanation is logical. Why doesn’t she buy that explanation? Well, actually, she doesn’t have to use Logic. It’s the many other strange instances of odd behavior which inform her he’s lying. The totality of her experiences tells her when something does not ring true.

The system the wife uses is different than the system a logical brain uses. It is the system known as the Intuitive Brain. (Sometimes people reference the Intuitive Brain as just ‘common sense’, but it actually has a lot more capacity; for example, it is the Intuitive Brain which can understand language and semantics, or how to adjust the body to move a limb.)

So, if UKGuy thinks the idea of an intruder staying in the home so long is untenable, he is likely using his Intuitive Brain, vs. a logic based reasoning system. Sorry for dragging you into this, UKGuy, eace: but the variables in reasoning struck me so obvious that this was a convenient illustrative example.

I know Logic is used a lot in the hard sciences, such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Logic can make amazing long-term predictions like planetary orbits, etc. But logical methods require idealized conditions, and Logic just doesn’t handle bizarre systems in the life sciences, nor does it always handle everyday problems which are constantly adapting to an environment from which they can’t be separated. Imo, (Intuitive Brain reasoning here) this crime presented a bizarre set of circumstances, and the participants winged it and adapted to it as they went.

I appreciate the use of Logic and understand why Tricia asked for the application of logic in constructing questions or conclusions. But I’m pretty sure when she gave that instruction she intended not simply/only application of reasoning found in classical rhetoric, but also the reasoning revealed through the Intuitive Brain, through common sense. So, please don’t misinterpret that I am suggesting a “deviation of" the utilization of our reasoning skills. This is just my 2 cents about the applications of different “systems” used in the forum.

Did I say that I appreciate good reasoning skills? I meant to say that.

 

[Anti-K]

Hi AK,
Noting your reference to animal hairs found on JBR's hands - I still can't access the reference from ACR (in your post above). Is it still available online? And do you know if more tests were done on the animal hair samples at a later date? TIA

IIRC, they have been described as wolf hairs.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Some here may remember poster Meara’s description last year of deductive and inductive reasoning and logical fallacies. I wanted to add a little to that excellent post with some additional thoughts about the manner in which we reach different conclusions.



BBM

This sounds logically correct, to me. I concede I don’t have a background in classical rhetoric or in utilizing logic in the “Skeptic” problem-based presentations.

However, even scientists will concede some limits to logic. I’ll get into that in a minute.

The thing about behavior is that it can almost always be rationalized, by use of alternative premises and with alternative conclusions. Here’s an example you may recall from the “Breaking Bad” series: Walt the main character who becomes a meth dealer has been behaving somewhat strangely. Walt’s wife Skylar claims she heard his cell phone ring. Skylar’s brother in law, a DEA agent with access to phone records, checks Walt’s number, to see if they can find a trace to someone (like to a woman with whom Walt may be having a tryst). There’s no cell phone call discovered. The conclusion the BIL and the wife deduce is that Walt has 2 cell phones.

However, Walt has an explanation: Attempting to explain away her suspicions about his second cell phone, Walt tells Skylar she might have mistaken his phone's alarm — a reminder, he claims, to take his medication — for an incoming call. In an instant, she doesn’t buy it and walks out. Walt’s explanation is logical. Why doesn’t she buy that explanation? Well, actually, she doesn’t have to use Logic. It’s the many other strange instances of odd behavior which inform her he’s lying. The totality of her experiences tells her when something does not ring true.

The system the wife uses is different than the system a logical brain uses. It is the system known as the Intuitive Brain. (Sometimes people reference the Intuitive Brain as just ‘common sense’, but it actually has a lot more capacity; for example, it is the Intuitive Brain which can understand language and semantics, or how to adjust the body to move a limb.)

So, if UKGuy thinks the idea of an intruder staying in the home so long is untenable, he is likely using his Intuitive Brain, vs. a logic based reasoning system. Sorry for dragging you into this, UKGuy, eace: but the variables in reasoning struck me so obvious that this was a convenient illustrative example.

I know Logic is used a lot in the hard sciences, such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Logic can make amazing long-term predictions like planetary orbits, etc. But logical methods require idealized conditions, and Logic just doesn’t handle bizarre systems in the life sciences, nor does it always handle everyday problems which are constantly adapting to an environment from which they can’t be separated. Imo, (Intuitive Brain reasoning here) this crime presented a bizarre set of circumstances, and the participants winged it and adapted to it as they went.

I appreciate the use of Logic and understand why Tricia asked for the application of logic in constructing questions or conclusions. But I’m pretty sure when she gave that instruction she intended not simply/only application of reasoning found in classical rhetoric, but also the reasoning revealed through the Intuitive Brain, through common sense. So, please don’t misinterpret that I am suggesting a “deviation of" the utilization of our reasoning skills. This is just my 2 cents about the applications of different “systems” used in the forum.

Did I say that I appreciate good reasoning skills? I meant to say that.

This was a most excellent post and very nicely illustrates something that I’ve tried to get across for years – logic is good for solving some problems, but not all problems. Thanks for this, questfortrue.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Some here may remember poster Meara’s description last year of deductive and inductive reasoning and logical fallacies. I wanted to add a little to that excellent post with some additional thoughts about the manner in which we reach different conclusions.



BBM

This sounds logically correct, to me. I concede I don’t have a background in classical rhetoric or in utilizing logic in the “Skeptic” problem-based presentations.

However, even scientists will concede some limits to logic. I’ll get into that in a minute.

The thing about behavior is that it can almost always be rationalized, by use of alternative premises and with alternative conclusions. Here’s an example you may recall from the “Breaking Bad” series: Walt the main character who becomes a meth dealer has been behaving somewhat strangely. Walt’s wife Skylar claims she heard his cell phone ring. Skylar’s brother in law, a DEA agent with access to phone records, checks Walt’s number, to see if they can find a trace to someone (like to a woman with whom Walt may be having a tryst). There’s no cell phone call discovered. The conclusion the BIL and the wife deduce is that Walt has 2 cell phones.

However, Walt has an explanation: Attempting to explain away her suspicions about his second cell phone, Walt tells Skylar she might have mistaken his phone's alarm — a reminder, he claims, to take his medication — for an incoming call. In an instant, she doesn’t buy it and walks out. Walt’s explanation is logical. Why doesn’t she buy that explanation? Well, actually, she doesn’t have to use Logic. It’s the many other strange instances of odd behavior which inform her he’s lying. The totality of her experiences tells her when something does not ring true.

The system the wife uses is different than the system a logical brain uses. It is the system known as the Intuitive Brain. (Sometimes people reference the Intuitive Brain as just ‘common sense’, but it actually has a lot more capacity; for example, it is the Intuitive Brain which can understand language and semantics, or how to adjust the body to move a limb.)

So, if UKGuy thinks the idea of an intruder staying in the home so long is untenable, he is likely using his Intuitive Brain, vs. a logic based reasoning system. Sorry for dragging you into this, UKGuy, eace: but the variables in reasoning struck me so obvious that this was a convenient illustrative example.

I know Logic is used a lot in the hard sciences, such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Logic can make amazing long-term predictions like planetary orbits, etc. But logical methods require idealized conditions, and Logic just doesn’t handle bizarre systems in the life sciences, nor does it always handle everyday problems which are constantly adapting to an environment from which they can’t be separated. Imo, (Intuitive Brain reasoning here) this crime presented a bizarre set of circumstances, and the participants winged it and adapted to it as they went.

I appreciate the use of Logic and understand why Tricia asked for the application of logic in constructing questions or conclusions. But I’m pretty sure when she gave that instruction she intended not simply/only application of reasoning found in classical rhetoric, but also the reasoning revealed through the Intuitive Brain, through common sense. So, please don’t misinterpret that I am suggesting a “deviation of" the utilization of our reasoning skills. This is just my 2 cents about the applications of different “systems” used in the forum.

Did I say that I appreciate good reasoning skills? I meant to say that.

questfortrue,
For the cognocenti of the JonBenet case, Sherlock Holmes, in the short story Silver Blaze, solves the case of a kidnapped race horse, by focusing on a critical piece of evidence, i.e. a guard dog that doesn’t bark during the commission of the crime. He concludes the midnight visitor was someone the dog knew well, ultimately leading to the determination that the horse’s trainer was the guilty party.

The moral of the latter tale is to never neglect the detail and apply logic where it matters.

To get a feel for logic and its limits, an author I like is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, having read all his books, his outlook might be encapsulated in Donald Rumsfeld's quote:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.[1]

Another view of how logic is circumscribed is to apply arithmetic, arriving at first order, second order logic etc, each order only allows particular answers, an example is Counterfacual Logic, which only allows answers to what if questions, famously a domain for those proclaiming intellectual status, and pontificating on the outcome, which to note is a matter of speculation.

Another area is the use of language where famously the Sophists employed rhetoric to argue particular values are relative to particular cultures, in opposition to Plato's view that some views are absolute, always true, or ideal?


So logic is alike your makeup box, where you can apply varying faces, yet stripped down, there is only one face on offer, and some people consider this view as the truth?

So, if UKGuy thinks the idea of an intruder staying in the home so long is untenable, he is likely using his Intuitive Brain, vs. a logic based reasoning system. Sorry for dragging you into this, UKGuy, but the variables in reasoning struck me so obvious that this was a convenient illustrative example.

Its not just untenable, its like the dog that never barked, a joke. For those not in the loop, the intuitive brain has been promoted by advocates such a Dr. Steve Peters in his book, The Chimp Paradox; The Mind Management, where he suggests the limbic system can be brought under control. A devotee of Dr. Peter's methodology is none other than the world's recognized all time snooker player Ronnnie O'Sullivan. Yet he has lost in his most his most recent finals to younger players, demonstrating reliance on the limbic system might not be a feature of the teenage class.

So when somebody tells you JonBenet's hymen was eroded, that her internal entrance was enlarged, beyond that of her age, and that she displayed healed internal injuries. You can feel comfortable assuming that someone was molesting JonBenet?

Did I say that I appreciate good reasoning skills? I meant to say that.

I'm sure that you did, but how can you distinguish between those that suggest their reasoning is paramount to those that do not care?

The answer is to consider the Sophists versus the Platonists, or those that consider opinion versus the orthodox i.e. absolute truth.

So my opinion is that the JonBenet case is a staged homicide.

 

[icedtea4me]

0016
1 I didn't hear anything last night. I didn't
2 here anything that night.
3 TOM HANEY: And how about JonBenet?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: She was really a
5 sound sleeper. She was very sound asleep that
6 night. She fell asleep in the car and was just
7 wiped out. She went to bed.

She went to bed? Shouldn't it be "I/We put her to bed"? She went to bed sounds like JonBenet was capable of doing so on her own that night. A simple "She fell asleep in the car on the way home and we put her to bed" would have come across as more believable. All those mentions of sleeping make Patsy look like she doth protest too much.

 

[BoldBear]

She was a sound sleeper? Didn't Patsy stop putting her into-pull ups so the wetness would wake her up? Is this another contradiction?

Also, good question about "She went to bed."

 

[icedtea4me]

25 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
0205
1 position.
2 MR. WOOD: Okay.
3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, your
4 son Burke, when he was attending grammar
5 school in Boulder, there was a weekly sort
6 of report that was sent by the teacher to
7 the parents. Do you recall that?
8 A. Vaguely.
9 Q. And you were, as a parent, given
10 the opportunity or asked to provide some
11 input or response to teacher's little report
12 that was sent out once a week. Do you
13 remember doing that? The Friday folder I
14 think is what --
15 A. Oh, Friday folder, yeah, I
16 remember the Friday folder.
17 Q. Okay. Up until the murder of
18 your daughter, your, as a parent, your
19 response in the Friday folder was always
20 handwritten. Following the death of your
21 daughter, your responses were always typed.
22 Can you explain why you changed that?
23 A. I didn't -- I wasn't aware that
24 they were typed.

http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Notice how Patsy goes from the active tense "I didn't [type those?]" to the passive "I wasn't aware that they were typed".

 

[OliviaG1996]

25 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
0205
1 position.
2 MR. WOOD: Okay.
3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, your
4 son Burke, when he was attending grammar
5 school in Boulder, there was a weekly sort
6 of report that was sent by the teacher to
7 the parents. Do you recall that?
8 A. Vaguely.
9 Q. And you were, as a parent, given
10 the opportunity or asked to provide some
11 input or response to teacher's little report
12 that was sent out once a week. Do you
13 remember doing that? The Friday folder I
14 think is what --
15 A. Oh, Friday folder, yeah, I
16 remember the Friday folder.
17 Q. Okay. Up until the murder of
18 your daughter, your, as a parent, your
19 response in the Friday folder was always
20 handwritten. Following the death of your
21 daughter, your responses were always typed.
22 Can you explain why you changed that?
23 A. I didn't -- I wasn't aware that
24 they were typed.

http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Notice how Patsy goes from the active tense "I didn't [type those?]" to the passive "I wasn't aware that they were typed".

How convenient she doesn't remember almost anything having to do with her son after the murder of his sister. You have to ask yourself why that is.

 

[icedtea4me]

How convenient she doesn't remember almost anything having to do with her son after the murder of his sister. You have to ask yourself why that is.

That's not the point. The point is that she goes from saying that she didn't [type the responses] to making it look like someone else had typed them without her knowledge. In other words, she's distancing herself from having gone from hand writing responses to typing them.

 

[OliviaG1996]

That's not the point. The point is that she goes from saying that she didn't [type the responses] to making it look like someone else had typed them without her knowledge. In other words, she's distancing herself from having gone from hand writing responses to typing them.

Well, your point is moot, considering you don't know she was going to say "type the responses". The way I see it, she was about to say "I didn't know they were typed".

 

[icedtea4me]

Well, your point is moot, considering you don't know she was going to say "type the responses". The way I see it, she was about to say "I didn't know they were typed".

"I didn't know they were typed" and "I wasn't aware that they were typed" mean the same thing, so why not just say "I didn't know they were typed"? Why did Patsy have the need to stop after the word didn't?

 

[inspector rex]

[snipped for brevity]
17 Q. Okay. Up until the murder of
18 your daughter, your, as a parent, your
19 response in the Friday folder was always
20 handwritten. Following the death of your
21 daughter, your responses were always typed.
22 Can you explain why you changed that?
23 A. I didn't -- I wasn't aware that
24 they were typed.

http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Notice how Patsy goes from the active tense "I didn't [type those?]" to the passive "I wasn't aware that they were typed".

25 MR. WOOD: Do you have any that
0206
1 you can let her look at?

2 THE WITNESS: Do you have any of
3 those?

4 MR. LEVIN: I don't think we have
5 any in the computer.

6 MR. KANE: Not in the computer.

7 MR. LEVIN: No, no, we don't have
8 those.

9 MR. WOOD: Are you representing
10 that every one afterwards was in fact typed?

11 MR. KANE: That is what Burke's
12 teacher has told us.

13 MR. WOOD: Do you have them, the
14 actual reports?

15 MR. KANE: We certainly don't
16 have them here. I am not sure if we have
17 them.

18 MR. WOOD: Well, I --

19 THE WITNESS: I don't ever
20 remember -- I mean, I don't have any
21 recollection of ever typing anything in the
22 Friday folder, but --

23 MR. WOOD: I mean, if we can see
24 them somewhere down the road, that might help
25 refresh and give us some indication of an
0207
1 explanation if they, in fact, are as you say
2 or as his teacher says.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So I am assuming,
4 Mrs. Ramsey, then the answer to my question,
5 which was, can you explain why the change,
6 you can't offer one because you don't recall
7 the change occurring --

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. -- as you sit here today?

10 A. Right."

And I would add, that as the investigator sits there today, he can't prove that ANY change occurred.
Who are these guys - Dumb and Dumber? LOL.

 

[icedtea4me]

25 MR. WOOD: Do you have any that
0206
1 you can let her look at?

2 THE WITNESS: Do you have any of
3 those?

4 MR. LEVIN: I don't think we have
5 any in the computer.

6 MR. KANE: Not in the computer.

7 MR. LEVIN: No, no, we don't have
8 those.

9 MR. WOOD: Are you representing
10 that every one afterwards was in fact typed?

11 MR. KANE: That is what Burke's
12 teacher has told us.

13 MR. WOOD: Do you have them, the
14 actual reports?

15 MR. KANE: We certainly don't
16 have them here. I am not sure if we have
17 them.

18 MR. WOOD: Well, I --

19 THE WITNESS: I don't ever
20 remember -- I mean, I don't have any
21 recollection of ever typing anything in the
22 Friday folder, but --

23 MR. WOOD: I mean, if we can see
24 them somewhere down the road, that might help
25 refresh and give us some indication of an
0207
1 explanation if they, in fact, are as you say
2 or as his teacher says.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So I am assuming,
4 Mrs. Ramsey, then the answer to my question,
5 which was, can you explain why the change,
6 you can't offer one because you don't recall
7 the change occurring --

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. -- as you sit here today?

10 A. Right."

And I would add, that as the investigator sits there today, he can't prove that ANY change occurred.
Who are these guys - Dumb and Dumber? LOL.

But what, Patsy?

 

[andreww]

And I would add, that as the investigator sits there today, he can't prove that ANY change occurred.
Who are these guys - Dumb and Dumber? LOL.

So you are I'm assuming that you think these guys just made it up? Patsy's responses make it seem obvious that the change did occur or else she would have said "I never typed anything for the Friday file". She didn't say that because she knew it was a lie and that she would be called on it. Better to play dumb and save it for her next interview, if there would ever be one.

 

[inspector rex]

Wouldn't you think they would have had all the examples they speak of to show her?
But they didn't have any on their computer.
They didn't have the actual reports.
They don't appear to have even seen them.
All they had to go on was : MR. KANE: That is what Burke's
teacher has told us.

 

[andreww]

Wouldn't you think they would have had all the examples they speak of to show her?
But they didn't have any on their computer.
They didn't have the actual reports.
They don't appear to have even seen them.
All they had to go on was : MR. KANE: That is what Burke's
teacher has told us.

Hey I agree that they weren't prepared, I don't deny that. That doesn't change the fact that the evidence does probably exist.

I was reading something by Steve Thomas the other day regarding the first interview and remember him saying that Team Ramsey gave them absolutely no advance notification that the interview would take place. I would assume that it was probably a tactic that insured that the investigators would not be as well prepared as they should have been. And, because the interview dates and locations were selected by the Ramseys, it made it almost impossible for the investigators to have every bit of evidence on hand. You can't forget that even in 1997 computer technology was still in its infancy, scanning was slow and tedious, and digital photography was yet to be introduced. Its easy to say now "why didn't they have it?", but given the length of the interview, the volume of subject matter discussed, and the amount of effort it would have taken to have evidence on hand for every question asked, I'll cut them some slack. They wouldn't have had that problem if the interviews were conducted at the boulder police headquarters would they?

 

[OliviaG1996]

"I didn't know they were typed" and "I wasn't aware that they were typed" mean the same thing, so why not just say "I didn't know they were typed"? Why did Patsy have the need to stop after the word didn't?

Given all of PR's pageant training, she probably thought it would sound smarter if she had said, "I wasn't aware" instead of, "I didn't know". Pageant contestants pride themselves on giving very articulate and intelligent answers, maybe it's become second nature to her.

 

[andreww]

Given all of PR's pageant training, she probably thought it would sound smarter if she had said, "I wasn't aware" instead of, "I didn't know". Pageant contestants pride themselves on giving very articulate and intelligent answers, maybe it's become second nature to her.

I personally think she was going to say "I didn't type those notes" but thought better of it.