Patsy Ramsey April 1996

[UKGuy]

I think some people are capable of all sorts of things. Never ever will I believe the Ramseys were anything but loving and doting parents. Considering the Boulder environment, and subculture of drugs and transcients, a 20 something lowlife is more in keeping with my profile of the perp. The touch DNA exonerates the Ramseys. It was a full profile in places which can only be associated with the perp.

Maikai,

Never ever will I believe the Ramseys were anything but loving and doting parents.

Nobody is asking you to believe otherwise. Anyone can believe anything they want, and they do. Count up all the worlds religions, past and present, and thats quite few beliefs.

Nobody on this board is concerned or particularly bothered by what you believe. What we are interested in is evidence that will demonstrate that an IDI makes sense or that an RDI explains the evidence better.

The touch DNA exonerates the Ramseys.

Its normally the church authorities which exonerate people. The touch DNA, may be there for an innocent reason, you are guilty of confirmation bias, a mistake in elementary reasoning.

The person who killed JonBenet may indeed be an intruder, but he need not be the owner of the touch DNA.


.

 

[Maikai]

There is no other reason for the touch DNA to be where they found it---around the waistband in the underwear for one. The secondary level of the skin cells where the DNA is found, comes off when someone applies pressure. The DNA matches the earlier areas, including DNA under JBR's fingernails. It was the perps, and it exonerates the Ramseys.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no other reason for the touch DNA to be where they found it---around the waistband in the underwear for one. The secondary level of the skin cells where the DNA is found, comes off when someone applies pressure. The DNA matches the earlier areas, including DNA under JBR's fingernails. It was the perps, and it exonerates the Ramseys.

Maikai,

There is no other reason for the touch DNA to be where they found it

Again you make an elementary mistake in your reasoning, they do not even do this on the TV on CSI.

There may be any one of numerous reasons why the touch dna was found on JonBenet, and only one is that of a connection to a homicide. To rule out all the others must suggest you have some kind of agenda or are intellectually challenged?

It was the perps, and it exonerates the Ramseys.

Seriously you are whistling in the wind. The touch dna clears nobody, since it has been identified with nobody.

Have you ever asked yourself was there any other foreign touch dna on JonBenet's person, was any Ramsey touch dna found on JonBenet's person and where?

Notice this information has never been made public.



.

 

[DeeDee249]

Maikai,

Again you make an elementary mistake in your reasoning, they do not even do this on the TV on CSI.

There may be any one of numerous reasons why the touch dna was found on JonBenet, and only one is that of a connection to a homicide. To rule out all the others must suggest you have some kind of agenda or are intellectually challenged?



Seriously you are whistling in the wind. The touch dna clears nobody, since it has been identified with nobody.

Have you ever asked yourself was there any other foreign touch dna on JonBenet's person, was any Ramsey touch dna found on JonBenet's person and where?

Notice this information has never been made public.



.

For that touch DNA to have anything to do with this crime, it would have to be found in many other places that the "intruder" would have HAD to touch. The door to the WC, the LATCH to the WC (it was latched when Officer French tried the door, therefore the last person to touch it was the perp. The window and grate, since IDI seems bound to the idea the intruder came and/or left that way, the suitcase handle, the chair that JB insists the perp was "clever" enough to pull THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR behind him, the note, the pen, the blanket, the tape, the broken paintbrush, the tote handle....yep- TONS more places for that touch DNA.

Or- the more likely scenario- the parents (BOTH of whom touched the longjohns and panties) transferred those skin cells, which they very likely picked up at the party that day.

 

[UKGuy]

For that touch DNA to have anything to do with this crime, it would have to be found in many other places that the "intruder" would have HAD to touch. The door to the WC, the LATCH to the WC (it was latched when Officer French tried the door, therefore the last person to touch it was the perp. The window and grate, since IDI seems bound to the idea the intruder came and/or left that way, the suitcase handle, the chair that JB insists the perp was "clever" enough to pull THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR behind him, the note, the pen, the blanket, the tape, the broken paintbrush, the tote handle....yep- TONS more places for that touch DNA.

Or- the more likely scenario- the parents (BOTH of whom touched the longjohns and panties) transferred those skin cells, which they very likely picked up at the party that day.

DeeDee249,
Absolutely, and thats why we think there was no intruder. Why? Because you can bet if there is foreign touch dna anywhere else RST would have published this at the drop of a hat!

Or- the more likely scenario- the parents (BOTH of whom touched the longjohns and panties) transferred those skin cells, which they very likely picked up at the party that day.

Yes, this is what I have always assumed, its a variant on the asian manufacturer theory, as is the person who wrapped the original gift-wrapping transferred touch-dna onto the gift-wrapping, and from there one of the R's on opening the underwear package transferred the touch-dna to JonBenet. The latter is testable, although not conclusive, since the chain of custody for the size-12's is suspect?

One inference that can be drawn from Lacy's exoneration is that there is Ramsey touch dna on JonBenet, and that this touch dna may be located around JonBenet's genital area.

We can infer this because we know the testing was done. With no reference to Ramsey touch dna, suggests it exists and is important in evidentiary terms, otherwise we would have been told about by now, because it does not matter right?

Another missing piece of the touch dna jigsaw, and my interest in it, is Burke Ramsey. Was his touch-dna found on JonBenet, when we allege that JR wiped JonBenet down, we may be making a mistake in assuming it was his own dna that he was wiping away? Also in theory JonBenet's foreign touch dna might be on any of the eating utensils in the breakfast bar, if so this would rule out certain theories?

The latter question can also be linked to Burke Ramsey and whether why this information has never been released, never mind referenced, is that of the inability to convict an under age child?

I apply the same reasoning to the size-12's and the missing pair of size-6's, here again lea offer very limited information!


So I reckon the forensic evidence in the JonBenet case, yet to be published, is huge, and will probably, in circumstantial terms, implicate the parents in the death of JonBenet.

 

[twinkiesmom]

The death of JonBenet was in all likelihood an accident. So I doubt anyone was thinking about killing her.

I don't agree. She had several different injuries, and it's possible one was intended to finish her off rather than leaving her comatose, in a vegetative state, or mentally handicapped.

 

[DeeDee249]

In addition to testing the bowl with pineapple and empty glass with tea bag for prints, which WAS done, they could have tested the spoon and glass for saliva DNA, and the tea bag tag for that "touch DNA" or ANY DNA or prints. I can bet the rent they never tested that little paper tag on the tea bag. I bet they never tested for saliva on that spoon and glass either.
Let's also test that box of tissues, too, since Patsy (in one of her more ridiculous suggestion) implied that the intruder brought in that tissue box with him.

 

[shotgunhomicide]

I don't believe there was prior molestation---JBR wasn't a shrinking violet--she would have said something.

Can we please, PLEASE eradicate this line of thinking? It's both insulting and detrimental to the victims of sexual abuse. There are a myriad of different reasons a child doesn't vocalize their assault. They could be afraid of their attacker, ashamed of what's going on, unaware that there's something wrong with it and sometimes, they even suffer a form of Stockholm syndrome where they feel an intense urge to protect their abuser. By believing JB (or any victim) couldn't have been abused because she had a big mouth that surely would have led her to tattle on him/her, you're basically spitting in her face and downplaying what happened to her. I know, because i've been there and witnessed the lasting affects of being molested and having people accuse me of lying simply because they didn't think I would have been able to keep it a secret. Unless you've been there, please refrain from acting as if you know how this little girl was thinking by not revealing her prior abuse, and there was prior abuse. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Hymens don't spontaneously erode by themselves. Nor does a vaginal opening stretch to such an unusual length after one molestation that occurred shortly before death. This has been covered so many times on this forum, I can't believe people still contest it. :banghead:

As for the rest of it, no one has said it HAD to have been JR that was doing the molesting. You're projecting your subconscious thoughts on the rest of us.

 

[DeeDee249]

Can we please, PLEASE eradicate this line of thinking? It's both insulting and detrimental to the victims of sexual abuse. There are a myriad of different reasons a child doesn't vocalize their assault. They could be afraid of their attacker, ashamed of what's going on, unaware that there's something wrong with it and sometimes, they even suffer a form of Stockholm syndrome where they feel an intense urge to protect their abuser. By believing JB (or any victim) couldn't have been abused because she had a big mouth that surely would have led her to tattle on him/her, you're basically spitting in her face and downplaying what happened to her. I know, because i've been there and witnessed the lasting affects of being molested and having people accuse me of lying simply because they didn't think I would have been able to keep it a secret. Unless you've been there, please refrain from acting as if you know how this little girl was thinking by not revealing her prior abuse, and there was prior abuse. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Hymens don't spontaneously erode by themselves. Nor does a vaginal opening stretch to such an unusual length after one molestation that occurred shortly before death. This has been covered so many times on this forum, I can't believe people still contest it. :banghead:

As for the rest of it, no one has said it HAD to have been JR that was doing the molesting. You're projecting your subconscious thoughts on the rest of us.

I am so sorry for your past pain. NO ONE should ever say a child wasn't molested because they "would have told someone". JB was SIX YEARS OLD! There are many victims who cannot speak about it till they are adults. If ever. And who is to say JB did NOT tell someone? Most adults brush that off more than you think, or they know it is happening and simply cannot confront the abuser. This happens all the time, and it is naivete of the most destructive type to say that kids (big mouths or not) would have to have said something.
In my own family, the victim was threatened with having his mother lose her (much-needed) job if he told anyone. He was also about JB's age when the abuse began, and while it was not a family member, it was someone with repeated, close, private contact.
Let's please not go down this road again, whether IDI or RDI. That is a slap in the face to anyone, on the forums or not, who has ever been a victim of abuse as a child.
Would you blame a rape victim as well?

 

[Maikai]

1. A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
2. A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid

Again, every statement you made above is your beliefs/disbeliefs and assumptions, what you think a criminal is supposed to be like, what you think the Ramseys were like. All unknowns on your part that shape your belief of what you think happened - fallacies.

There were specific references to movies in the note.....especially Dirty Harry. That was an old movie. Neither Ramsey was known to have an interest in extortion movies, let alone quote lines from them. Neither one knew how to make the garrotte---and JBR was garrotted first---doesn't make any sense that either parent would murder her in such a manner.....nor leave the pad of paper in plain view. Patsy did not have the emotional temperament to stage a crime---her first response if JBR had been hurt would have been to call 9ll.

 

[Maikai]

In addition to testing the bowl with pineapple and empty glass with tea bag for prints, which WAS done, they could have tested the spoon and glass for saliva DNA, and the tea bag tag for that "touch DNA" or ANY DNA or prints. I can bet the rent they never tested that little paper tag on the tea bag. I bet they never tested for saliva on that spoon and glass either.
Let's also test that box of tissues, too, since Patsy (in one of her more ridiculous suggestion) implied that the intruder brought in that tissue box with him.

I've always thought the cigarette butts found outside should have been tested. Especially if they were bunched in strategic places and appeared fresh. I think the perp would be more likely to help himself to the liquor than tea. I doubt they tested the tea bag or spoon or glass, and excused it away as someone in the house that morning.

 

[Maikai]

For that touch DNA to have anything to do with this crime, it would have to be found in many other places that the "intruder" would have HAD to touch. The door to the WC, the LATCH to the WC (it was latched when Officer French tried the door, therefore the last person to touch it was the perp. The window and grate, since IDI seems bound to the idea the intruder came and/or left that way, the suitcase handle, the chair that JB insists the perp was "clever" enough to pull THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR behind him, the note, the pen, the blanket, the tape, the broken paintbrush, the tote handle....yep- TONS more places for that touch DNA.

Or- the more likely scenario- the parents (BOTH of whom touched the longjohns and panties) transferred those skin cells, which they very likely picked up at the party that day.

There's been people released from prison based on touch DNA. 48 hours had someone--can't remember his name, from Fort Collins that was in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor. They found skin cells in pertinent places on the victim's clothing--under her arms (when she was dragged)...in her panties. Apparently it matched an ex-boyfriend. The guy charged did 8 years in prison....he was released, and made a settlement with the City for $2M. They showed the touch DNA being run in I believe Belgium....and they explained it's the second level of cells from the skin, and it's found in places where the perp had to exert pressure--like under the arms, when the victim was dragged. At the time of the crime they didn't have touch DNA...that's not to say that there couldn't be touch DNA on other items taken in evidence. On the other hand it's more pertinent I would think if found on places of JBR's clothing where it shouldn't be found.

 

[Agatha_C]

The case of Janelle Patton clearly illustrates that matching DNA in three locations can have an innocent explanation and have no bearing, whatsoever, on the prosecution of the case. The DNA of the man who committed the crime (McNeill) was not found on the body of the victim.

McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.

Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.

The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.

Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.

Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/t...-1111113128516

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.

And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html

 

[sandover]

Has anyone ever commented on this parallel between the ransom note and the Christmas letter of 1996? To me it is just as significant as the repetition of "and hence" from the later note from Patsy.

In the ransom letter the writer writes "if you want your daughter to see 1997" -- quite specific language.

In the Christmas letter from a few weeks before, Patsy wrote of Burke, "I'm sure we'll be seeing the orthodontist in 1997!"

In the same letter she writes that she and her family "look forward to seeing you in 1997!"

The words "see" and "1997" are very specific and while I know they are common ways of thinking about the new year, I do find the repetition startling.

Also, let me offer another theory for why the practice letter stopped where it did: in addition to Patsy perhaps feeling anxiety about addressing herself ("Mrs.") in a letter she was writing... in the Christmas letter she writes "Dear Friends and Family" -- at the initial stage of writing the ransom note she may have been trying more consciously to write in a "different" way than she herself would, and forced herself to stop when she was writing a greeting that felt too "Patsy-like" for her ("Mr. and Mrs" too similar to "Friends and Family").

I know these are small points, but all the small points sometimes add up to one large one. I've posted my theory under members' theories and would appreciate any feedback anyone can give.

The only way to know reality is to have others critique where we are going wrong. We can only grow through being challenged and constructively criticized.

 

[DeeDee249]

There's been people released from prison based on touch DNA. 48 hours had someone--can't remember his name, from Fort Collins that was in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor. They found skin cells in pertinent places on the victim's clothing--under her arms (when she was dragged)...in her panties. Apparently it matched an ex-boyfriend. The guy charged did 8 years in prison....he was released, and made a settlement with the City for $2M. They showed the touch DNA being run in I believe Belgium....and they explained it's the second level of cells from the skin, and it's found in places where the perp had to exert pressure--like under the arms, when the victim was dragged. At the time of the crime they didn't have touch DNA...that's not to say that there couldn't be touch DNA on other items taken in evidence. On the other hand it's more pertinent I would think if found on places of JBR's clothing where it shouldn't be found.

The point being that DNA MATCHED SOMEONE. That is not the case with the DNA in this crime. Until there is a match- NO ONE- especially anyone who was in the house at the time- is cleared, no matter what ML babbled about.

 

[Whaleshark]

There were specific references to movies in the note.....especially Dirty Harry. That was an old movie. Neither Ramsey was known to have an interest in extortion movies, let alone quote lines from them. Neither one knew how to make the garrotte---and JBR was garrotted first---doesn't make any sense that either parent would murder her in such a manner.....nor leave the pad of paper in plain view. Patsy did not have the emotional temperament to stage a crime---her first response if JBR had been hurt would have been to call 9ll.

You quoted my fallacy definition and then proceeded to further prove my point with your statements above.

Methinks the definition of fallacy is lost on you.

Your point about Dirty Harry being an old movie? That they aren't old enough to know it?? Uh, no, the opposite would be true would it not?
Again, you say they were not 'known to have an interest in extortion movies'. First of all, how do YOU know what they were 'known to have an interest in'?
And just because someone doesn't know something about someone doesn't make it not true. And anyway, there IS proof of movie interest and knowledge of that genre anyway, even if they outright lied and downplayed it - which they did -
FACT: they had a home theater with a screen in their home;
FACT: JR and BR watched movies together on that screen;
FACT: there was a lot of action novels in the home that they BOTH read, including crime-solving, etc;
FACT: there were movie posters in the home;
FACT: they both saw Speed on airplanes and traveled a lot;
FACT: JR knew what Dirty Harry was... and yes, it IS an old movie; therefore, they are apt to know it more because they were not a couple of teens or twentysomethings who might be unfamiliar with Clint Eastwood movies anyway...

How do you know that neither one of them knew how to make the garrotte?
You were there? You asked them? Cuz they said so? Why do we waste time on this? Why?

Does any murder of any child make sense? Better yet, what type of murder of a child 'makes sense' to you? Honestly.

All the rest of your statements are assumptions based on your beliefs of them.

FALLACIES. You quoted my fallacy definition and then promptly below that reiterated your fallacies.

Classic.

 

[UKGuy]

You quoted my fallacy definition and then proceeded to further prove my point with your statements above.

Methinks the definition of fallacy is lost on you.

Your point about Dirty Harry being an old movie? That they aren't old enough to know it?? Uh, no, the opposite would be true would it not?
Again, you say they were not 'known to have an interest in extortion movies'. First of all, how do YOU know what they were 'known to have an interest in'?
And just because someone doesn't know something about someone doesn't make it not true. And anyway, there IS proof of movie interest and knowledge of that genre anyway, even if they outright lied and downplayed it - which they did -
FACT: they had a home theater with a screen in their home;
FACT: JR and BR watched movies together on that screen;
FACT: there was a lot of action novels in the home that they BOTH read, including crime-solving, etc;
FACT: there were movie posters in the home;
FACT: they both saw Speed on airplanes and traveled a lot;
FACT: JR knew what Dirty Harry was... and yes, it IS an old movie; therefore, they are apt to know it more because they were not a couple of teens or twentysomethings who might be unfamiliar with Clint Eastwood movies anyway...

How do you know that neither one of them knew how to make the garrotte?
You were there? You asked them? Cuz they said so? Why do we waste time on this? Why?

Does any murder of any child make sense? Better yet, what type of murder of a child 'makes sense' to you? Honestly.

All the rest of your statements are assumptions based on your beliefs of them.

FALLACIES. You quoted my fallacy definition and then promptly below that reiterated your fallacies.

Classic.

Whaleshark,
Excellent post. As usual since the IDI proponents have no forensic evidence to support their claims, they have to resort to drawing erroneous conclusions about certain aspects of the case. Mostly this involves, as your list demonstrates, making inferences about unknown events or behaviour, this is described as the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.


I reckon members are too savvy to fall for the IDI rhetoric.



.

 

[Agatha_C]

Whaleshark,

Good post with excellent points. I dont think IDI reads any of the info on this case, if they did, they would have noticed how many video cassettes and vhs tapes were hauled out of that house.

The garrote was not an expert rendition (which IDI would know if they did their research) but the knots those were another story. Those knots were expertly done. I can think of at least one person in that home that night that knew all about knots and dry mouth....

Shark, theres an old saying "Can't see the forest for the trees." I think that pretty much sums up the IDI theorist.....

 

[Maikai]

You quoted my fallacy definition and then proceeded to further prove my point with your statements above.

Methinks the definition of fallacy is lost on you.

Your point about Dirty Harry being an old movie? That they aren't old enough to know it?? Uh, no, the opposite would be true would it not?
Again, you say they were not 'known to have an interest in extortion movies'. First of all, how do YOU know what they were 'known to have an interest in'?
And just because someone doesn't know something about someone doesn't make it not true. And anyway, there IS proof of movie interest and knowledge of that genre anyway, even if they outright lied and downplayed it - which they did -
FACT: they had a home theater with a screen in their home;
FACT: JR and BR watched movies together on that screen;
FACT: there was a lot of action novels in the home that they BOTH read, including crime-solving, etc;
FACT: there were movie posters in the home;
FACT: they both saw Speed on airplanes and traveled a lot;
FACT: JR knew what Dirty Harry was... and yes, it IS an old movie; therefore, they are apt to know it more because they were not a couple of teens or twentysomethings who might be unfamiliar with Clint Eastwood movies anyway...

How do you know that neither one of them knew how to make the garrotte?
You were there? You asked them? Cuz they said so? Why do we waste time on this? Why?

Does any murder of any child make sense? Better yet, what type of murder of a child 'makes sense' to you? Honestly.

All the rest of your statements are assumptions based on your beliefs of them.

FALLACIES. You quoted my fallacy definition and then promptly below that reiterated your fallacies.

Classic.

The Boulder police didn't find any incriminating tapes....except the home protection one they tried to spin. It would have been leaked. There's a certain personality and age group that are into quoting movies....look at the contestants in the Boulder Movie line contest every year. A lot of people have home movie theatres---it doesn't mean they have a full collection of extortion movies. You can't do what you don't know, and there is absolutely no evidence that either of the Ramseys were interested, let alone be able to quote the lines in the note. Much more likely a younger male perp. Since the Boulder police didn't follow up on a large percentage of the leads, who knows if someone turned in a possible suspect because of his movie interest.

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

No murder of a child makes sense---but I'm convinced in the case of JBR it's not a parent--for from it.

 

[Whaleshark]

The Boulder police didn't find any incriminating tapes....except the home protection one they tried to spin. It would have been leaked. There's a certain personality and age group that are into quoting movies....look at the contestants in the Boulder Movie line contest every year. A lot of people have home movie theatres---it doesn't mean they have a full collection of extortion movies. You can't do what you don't know, and there is absolutely no evidence that either of the Ramseys were interested, let alone be able to quote the lines in the note. Much more likely a younger male perp. Since the Boulder police didn't follow up on a large percentage of the leads, who knows if someone turned in a possible suspect because of his movie interest.

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

No murder of a child makes sense---but I'm convinced in the case of JBR it's not a parent--for from it.

someone else want to take this one apart? my head is starting to hurt from all the banging of it on the wall...sigh.

i really -- i can't -- but i will....

we've been through this exact discussion over and over --

first of all, what 'proof' is there of someone quoting movie lines? I know a lot of lines from movies I thought were funny and am fond of, doesn't mean I advertise on the 'movie quoting line' club forum. just because movie lines were quoted does not mean the person has to be a movie buff. they just have to remember lines -or look them up - if they think they sound like what a ransom note should say. movies are memorable. can you not remember any lines from any movie? because if you do, i guess that means you are 'a certain personality and age group' that likes to quote movies.

and by the way, patsy was into memorizing, performing, and acting. there's 'a certain personality and age group' (or at least type) for you that has a reason to learn lines....

since you think it's a young male perp who is into extortion movies and quoting them and the like, I guess he was also into words like 'attache', including the accent on it, and adding a caret to insert a word in the note, and knowing the inside phrases of John Ramsey's inner circle like calling each other 'fat cats', and bothering to tell John Ramsey that he respected his business....oh, and telling him to 'use that good ole southern common sense of his'. and this young male extortion movie buff using the words 'the two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you'. I guess this guy also likes to you use the words 'and hence' as well.

You think that 'certain personality and age group' -- extortion movie quoting young male perp-type talks like that, and would make a comment about John Ramsey's good southern common sense? why is he asking for $118,000? if he knows this much about John Ramsey, certainly he would know he is worth a lot more than that - or I guess this young male perp also knew about his bonus as well.

"We see only what we know" - Goethe

Just in case you don't know what that reference means - like fallacies, in your case:

from a cognitive scientist and a computer programmer:

"...thus, the more you know about a subject, the more you are able to understand the "language" of that subject and the more you able to understand exactly what it is you are looking at. this holds true in science, music, art, language, medicine, etc."

____

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

- Patsy took macrame, arts/crafts, what have you
- Burke took Boyscouts and knew how to tie knots - there are quotes about Burke going around the house making things with his string, whittling with his knife, and sailing with his dad
- John Ramsey had a sailboat and knew how to tie knots
- John Ramsey was in the service, in the Philippines, learned skills there as well, knew what a 'twister' was - read it in his interviews, reference to an old term for a garrotte
Regardless, you don't have to 'know' what a garrotte 'is' to make a strangulation device. The word is being used to name the device, but that doesn't need to employ a sophisticated knowledge of what one defines as a 'garrotte'. That's Lou Smit talking through you.

Fallacies, assumptions, and beliefs....