Patrixia Ross, 38, brings a distinguished family background to her life in America. She is a naturalised United States citizen originally from the Philippines, and reports indicate she was raised in an environment of high professional achievement, as both of her parents were respected doctors in her home country.
That upbringing in the medical field suggests a life of relative privilege and education before she moved to the United States and married the federal agent. Neighbours in their Minnesota community described her as a dedicated mother who was deeply involved in raising their children.
She appears to enjoy cooking, having previously shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook on social media. In July 2013, she also posted a snap of herself next to a US Border Patrol helicopter, when the couple was living around El Paso, Texas, according to the Daily Mail.
Neighbours told the outlet that Patrixia is ‘polite, very nice, [and] very outgoing’, a stark contrast to her ‘very reserved’ husband. The couple reportedly shares ‘a couple of kids’, and despite the intense scrutiny currently facing her husband, Patrixia has no personal history of legal trouble or public controversy prior to the shooting.
Her status as a naturalised citizen, however, adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, given that her husband’s career was dedicated to enforcing immigration laws.
Same as it ever was
ICE agent who makes a living targeting immigrants has an immigrant partner
Just like staunch anti-gay politicians using Grindr
There’ll be loads of other examples
As a Filipino myself, I can’t help but wonder what the “real” reasons are for her marriage. I’ve seen a lot of Filipino women who marry white men for less-than romantic reasons. Incidentally, a good number of those marriages don’t seem to last very long past the path of citizenship…
makes me really want to know the psychology behind these kinds of people ngl
Had to buy a wife. Simple as that.
This sounds exactly an AI generated slopicle, with all the typical phrasing and re-wording you expect. It basically takes lines straight from the refenced articles and slightly rewords and/or adds little interpretative phrases to them.
Folks, we need to start learning to recognize this kind of crap and not be fooled by it. For example:
Hindustan Times simple statement: “A neighbor further told the Daily Mail that she spotted Jonathan Ross’s wife Patrixia pacing around the driveway on Wednesday afternoon.”
This: “She was spotted looking frantic as she walked back and forth in the driveway, according to the Hindustan Times, suggesting a woman suddenly grappling with the reality that her husband had been involved in a lethal force incident during his shift.” <-- (oh please! no reporter writes shit like that, “… suggesting a woman suddenly grappling with the reality that…”)
Daily Mall simple statement: > “She also shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook.”
This: > She appears to enjoy cooking, having previously shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook on social media.
And what is this?: “Shortly after the shooting, Patrixia and the children were never seen at home again.” That doesn’t even make sense! No human would say that.
Fair enough. Please link to an article about Patrixia Ross that isn’t AI.
I’m saying, there’s not a lot out there.
The ones this article links to appear to be non-AI, though that doesn’t mean Daily Mail is a good place to get news. I read similar info on some major media news site in the US, again them not being AI is not necessarily a guarantee of unbiased info. Let me look in my history for a link. - (edit: I’m not finding anything in my history from a major US media source, so I guess what I read was probably also the Daily Mall.)
The Daily Mail is a shit source for additional reasons besides AI, not least for historically supporting Hitler and Oswald Mosley. Goggle “Hurrah for the blackshirts!” for further context.
and her reaction to the incident
There was no reaction, her and the children went into hiding and cannot be found
Patrixia’s Immediate Reaction to Fatal Shooting
On 7 January 2026, Jonathan Ross made headlines after an encounter with Good ended with him shooting her dead. The moments following the incident, which quickly dominated news cycles, were marked by visible distress within the Ross household, according to those living nearby.
Witnesses saw Patrixia in a state of high agitation shortly after the news reached the family home. She was spotted looking frantic as she walked back and forth in the driveway, according to the Hindustan Times, suggesting a woman suddenly grappling with the reality that her husband had been involved in a lethal force incident during his shift.
Shortly after the shooting, Patrixia and the children were never seen at home again. They have ‘gone into hiding’, the outlet noted, with the Ross family reportedly leaving the Minneapolis suburbs, probably because of threats Jonathan received following the shooting.
That is not a reaction. That is an action of an individual explained by complete supposition.
And a different article so the original criticism of the title of the article in OP seems to hold
I was agreeing with the original criticism.
Yep, I’m agreeing with your comment and adding to it with more notes for the comment above yours
Your comment doesn’t link to an article so I didn’t think I’d need to clarify
Not really sure why I need to know anything about her. She’s not in trouble. She didn’t commit any crimes I’m aware of. It’s her fascist husband that needs to be strung up not her. This just feels weird.
There was a very specific not knowing about her other than she was a naturalized citizen. The other recent story about her fascist murderer husband stated that not even her name was known.
Well, she gets to hide from the press and Renee Good is murdered. If it happens that her immigration paperwork is incomplete, well. Wouldn’t that be something. Her murderous ICE husband’s whole remit is to brutalize and terrify people exactly like her. She’s in it, and he’s the cause of all of it. It can’t be a surprise to her.
When they were praying together that Jesus Christ deliver the election to trump, or when she took that smiling picture in front of the Border Patrol helicopter she was living the faux-Christian right-wing fantasy of us versus them and she was the us. Now she’s in the shit that all of that lead to.
I’m not hoping she gets any more shit; she’s already got enough including, dog help her, two little boys. She’s living a tragedy and she chose a lot of it. I hope she can get out of it.
And?
And now you know
“I’m not a racist; just look at my mail-order bride” - Ross probably
As a natural-born American of Filipino descent, that was, quite honestly, my first thought.
I don’t feel like I met her. I feel like she drove by in a car at 100 km/hr.
Reads like AI. Thoughts?
I had the same feeling reading the text. It’s filled with repetitive sentences in reused topics, like the basic texts from some years ago when AI bots produced bio web pages about famous people.
It’s the specifically banal tone, where it’s like, intentionally trying to be aloof on a topic which is practically impossible to be aloof about.
I mean, not to me. Not unless they’ve trained it to write like that including proper use of single quotations and bracketed words that aren’t in the original quote. Which for the AI that I’ve seen of today would be kind of impressive.
I’ve never seen a modern AI be challenged by those issues. And I’m not suggesting a human editor(s) wasn’t involved.
But there is something about the sentence structure, framing, and tone. It doesn’t read human to me. It reads like someone pushed a big list of stuff they found out through and AI to summarize and write an article with a specifically neutral tone.
Specifically this line:
Neighbours told the outlet that Patrixia is ‘polite, very nice, [and] very outgoing’, a stark contrast to her ‘very reserved’ husband.
You think the AI took the comment, interpreted it as needing an “and” for - reasons - then knew to bracket it because it was part of the quote? That seems like a lot of work for essentially nothing. But maybe.
I think you may misunderstand how AI works. In fact your example suggests that AI did write the article.
The original text in the Daily Mail is
‘The wife is polite, very nice, very outgoing, while he’s very reserved. They have a couple of kids.’
This is a very human way to speak - not adding in the ‘and’ because it’s not needed, and is actually clunky - and the human reporter recorded it in that way.
It was the AI that took that quote and added the ‘[and]’ because that is the grammatically correct expectation - that is, it’s the most likely way that sentence would be written in English, and it is trained on written text - even if it’s not the human way to speak.
A human would not add the ‘and’ because it’s not needed.
Plus there are dozens of other examples of AI phrasing in the article.
