Post by Tom Sorensen on Dec 29, 2022 14:04:56 GMT -5
You likely know this joke already: How can you tell Patsy Ramsey is lying? When her lips move! Enjoy this piece of video1 when she's asked about her and her husband's piece of trash book, The Death of Innocence. A journalist named Chris Wolf sued the Ramsey's for naming him a suspect and in this part of the video his attorney, Darnay Hoffman, is questioning Patsy Ramsey. Below I've listed the times to detail how her ongoing deflection and deceptions become increasingly easy to decode.
@34:20. Only the truth, right?
@34:30. The reason for writing the book, notice it's "My husband and I" who wrote the book. Slight hesitation, but the answer is concise. The "our own harts and lips", apart from "own" being unnecessary, makes you wonder why the truth would need their harts to be involved? The truth is the truth! Also note that the only purpose of the book is to get the truth out.
@36:30. But maybe there's also an other reason, as the book contains a profile of the murderer...
@37:35. Lawyer interrupts, he can see where this is going... Patsy keeps quiet.
@37:50. Question to be rephrased. Note her fake eye squint, as if she doesn't quite get what's being asked, something she does over and over when preparing to deflect or divert. Slightly cocky gotcha smile there to show they scored a point.
@38:25. Was part of the goal [of writing the book] to assist in finding the killer?
@38:35. Yes/No question not answered. Note deflection and use of qualifier "believe", weakening her answer. Since she wrote the book, as we hear, why wouldn't she know what's in the book? Ramsey Classic using the phrase "we were told", they do it repeatedly, and the profile is just "information". The emphasis on "profile" in a condescending, lecturing style, something she uses a lot during interviews. "Lead us to leads that would lead us to the killer", not the most elegant wording, but she knows already she's got busted.
@39:15. So, there were multiple goals and she was lying a few minutes back.
@39:35. Yes/No question, again not answered. Continued deflection, and now she wrote the book!
@40:10. Nice move by the interviewer to quickly switch focus from the goal of the book (he proved his point) to the process of writing the book. Patsy was obviously unprepared for this, watch breathing and facial expression... WTF is he up to?!
@40:30. Saved by the lawyer, initially, objecting to compound questions.
@40:52. Smart move by Patsy to quickly latch on to the suggested methods, but note how weak and uncommitted her answer is: it could be any or all of the above! Does it seem plausible she didn't know if she wrote the book?
@41:10. Again, "Some of all of that" is weak, and I suppose John was away during work hours, or...?
@41:25. Did anyone else assist her in writing the book?
@41:28. An editor and a.......ghostwriter, if you wanna call it that. Well, you just did, LOL, and now she didn't write the book, we also have a ghostwriter.
@41:40. Who's the ghostwriter? Now comes the money shot...
@41:45. She knows that he knows she's faking it, LOL.
@41:46. Busted!
@41:47. Help!
@41:48. Getting all girly now in an attempt to appeal to the interviewer. How cheap is that?
@41:52. Oh....Robert Wise2!!! Well, you knew that all along, didn't you?
@41:56. The seasoned pageant queen quickly regained her composure, a real performer.
@42:13. Lin Wood bitching over an assumed manuscript, question withdrawn.
@42:40. The process detailed, but no mention of John.
@43:10. Tape recorder? considering to flat out lie or just waffle: "I believe so.", accompanied by fake eye squint.
@43:20. Written notes? Again taking too long to not remembering exactly what she did, despite having just said she handed him stuff.
@43:30. Comparing notes? Nice, she's now cornered and realizes there's no way around the written notes at least being compared.
@43:40. Notes, "we just talked about". Classic use of "just" when there's something else on her mind, like giving him the notes?
@43:48. Notes thrown away, but shaking her head. Body language in-congruent with answer.
@44:00. Seen copy of rough draft?
@34:30. The reason for writing the book, notice it's "My husband and I" who wrote the book. Slight hesitation, but the answer is concise. The "our own harts and lips", apart from "own" being unnecessary, makes you wonder why the truth would need their harts to be involved? The truth is the truth! Also note that the only purpose of the book is to get the truth out.
@36:30. But maybe there's also an other reason, as the book contains a profile of the murderer...
@37:35. Lawyer interrupts, he can see where this is going... Patsy keeps quiet.
@37:50. Question to be rephrased. Note her fake eye squint, as if she doesn't quite get what's being asked, something she does over and over when preparing to deflect or divert. Slightly cocky gotcha smile there to show they scored a point.
@38:25. Was part of the goal [of writing the book] to assist in finding the killer?
@38:35. Yes/No question not answered. Note deflection and use of qualifier "believe", weakening her answer. Since she wrote the book, as we hear, why wouldn't she know what's in the book? Ramsey Classic using the phrase "we were told", they do it repeatedly, and the profile is just "information". The emphasis on "profile" in a condescending, lecturing style, something she uses a lot during interviews. "Lead us to leads that would lead us to the killer", not the most elegant wording, but she knows already she's got busted.
@39:15. So, there were multiple goals and she was lying a few minutes back.
@39:35. Yes/No question, again not answered. Continued deflection, and now she wrote the book!
@40:10. Nice move by the interviewer to quickly switch focus from the goal of the book (he proved his point) to the process of writing the book. Patsy was obviously unprepared for this, watch breathing and facial expression... WTF is he up to?!
@40:30. Saved by the lawyer, initially, objecting to compound questions.
@40:52. Smart move by Patsy to quickly latch on to the suggested methods, but note how weak and uncommitted her answer is: it could be any or all of the above! Does it seem plausible she didn't know if she wrote the book?
@41:10. Again, "Some of all of that" is weak, and I suppose John was away during work hours, or...?
@41:25. Did anyone else assist her in writing the book?
@41:28. An editor and a.......ghostwriter, if you wanna call it that. Well, you just did, LOL, and now she didn't write the book, we also have a ghostwriter.
@41:40. Who's the ghostwriter? Now comes the money shot...
@41:45. She knows that he knows she's faking it, LOL.
@41:46. Busted!
@41:47. Help!
@41:48. Getting all girly now in an attempt to appeal to the interviewer. How cheap is that?
@41:52. Oh....Robert Wise2!!! Well, you knew that all along, didn't you?
@41:56. The seasoned pageant queen quickly regained her composure, a real performer.
@42:13. Lin Wood bitching over an assumed manuscript, question withdrawn.
@42:40. The process detailed, but no mention of John.
@43:10. Tape recorder? considering to flat out lie or just waffle: "I believe so.", accompanied by fake eye squint.
@43:20. Written notes? Again taking too long to not remembering exactly what she did, despite having just said she handed him stuff.
@43:30. Comparing notes? Nice, she's now cornered and realizes there's no way around the written notes at least being compared.
@43:40. Notes, "we just talked about". Classic use of "just" when there's something else on her mind, like giving him the notes?
@43:48. Notes thrown away, but shaking her head. Body language in-congruent with answer.
@44:00. Seen copy of rough draft?
@44:17. There were many...nice deflection.
@44:23. Squishy wording.
@44:40. No more BS, did she review the final manuscript?
@44:50. More fake eye squint, considering how to hedge her answer: "I believe...".
@44:55. Cornered, what does she actually recall RE reviewing manuscript?
@45:00. "Not specifically...", busted again! More deception, and she's now babbling about the previous iterations of drafts!
@45:05. Boxed in, excellent. As published!
@45:15. Lin Wood actually helps keeping up the pressure by naming "galley" when Patsy hoped he'd get her off the hook!
@45:20. Hardback (vs. paperback)? Just tactics to buy time to come up with another deflection.
@45:22. "Probably when it was completely...published". BS, busted again. Note how she's shaking her head while answering. Flat out lying.
@45:30. Did she see anything like galleys? Pure gold, and note more fake eye squint. She's now trapped!
@45:34. No galleys, so she must know what a galley is...
@45:38. So her first read was the hard cover version?
@45:40. Patsy attempts backpedaling by reintroducing the "manuscript" to question what "the book" means, but she's screwed anyway...
@45:52. So, she read the manuscript?
@46:01. Again, eye squint faked.
@46:03. Now "believe so", while two minutes ago she did "not specifically" remember, LOL.
@46:04. ...and review it?
@46:06. Note eyes -- lie or keep using qualifiers?
@46:07. Qualifier, "I believe I did."
@46:09. Lip grooming, she knows where this is headed...
@46:09. Reviewing for accuracy?
@46:15. Immediate deflection. Why would she only focus on her own contributions if the whole book is all about the truth?
@46:17. Continued deflection about the way the book was written. It's correct or it's not correct. "Primarily", "mainly", more pageant singing and dancing.
@46:26. A theory of the crime in the book?
@46:44. "I'm not sure...what you mean...", flat out lying3,4, accompanied by her usual eye squint.
@46:50. Clarifying what's quite clear already -- Lin Wood objecting.
@46:56. Patsy about to talk nonsense: "I mean the whole book...", but the theory is not all over the book and the whole book is not about the theory.
@47:00. Back and forth bitching over the question...
@47:47. Question withdrawn. Theory developed over time?
@48:00. She forgot: "...and left a three page ransom note and the body", which makes no sense.
@48:33. Interviewer losing traction and Lin Wood objects.
@49:15. How was the theory developed based on the events of that evening and the next day?
@49:28. Shaking her head while explaining, LOL. Actually not really clear that someone came into their home and left a ransom note with a dead body.
@49:53. Don't feel it was a member of her own family?
@49:57. No, sir.
@50:10. Clarifying.
@50:30. Break.
Conclusion: Roughly 15 minutes of Patsy's deposition concerning this book is all you'll need to conclude that she's a habitual liar. She even lied when there was no reason to lie. The most prominent example of faking it being her apparent failure to remember the name of the ghost writer. When realizing she'd been caught, she did a little school girl acting in an attempt to cover it up. Remember that she had a degree in journalism but doesn't seem to recognize the concept of proofreading and fact checking a manuscript! I doubt she suddenly began lying when her daughter died. This was her way of dealing with any problem that came along: Lie, fake it, wing it.
Conclusion: Roughly 15 minutes of Patsy's deposition concerning this book is all you'll need to conclude that she's a habitual liar. She even lied when there was no reason to lie. The most prominent example of faking it being her apparent failure to remember the name of the ghost writer. When realizing she'd been caught, she did a little school girl acting in an attempt to cover it up. Remember that she had a degree in journalism but doesn't seem to recognize the concept of proofreading and fact checking a manuscript! I doubt she suddenly began lying when her daughter died. This was her way of dealing with any problem that came along: Lie, fake it, wing it.
_______________
1 YT-PATSY-DARNAY, can't embed this video.
2 This must be the dude: WISE-REF
3 In chapter 34 (paperback), THE MURDERER, a theory is outlined starting on page 399. The beginning of this section is even highlighted in caps.
4 From the back cover (paperback): "... they reviel their own theories of the crime."
4 From the back cover (paperback): "... they reviel their own theories of the crime."