Justice Watch Discussion Board "The discreting of Donald Foster" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... The discreting of Donald Foster, Ryder, 20:50:21, 6/07/2000 Foster, lake, 21:14:01, 6/07/2000, (#1) Lake, Ruthee, 21:42:03, 6/07/2000, (#2) Ruthee, lake, 22:29:05, 6/07/2000, (#3) Lake, socks, 00:44:51, 6/08/2000, (#6) Well, lake, 00:54:06, 6/08/2000, (#8) Lake, Cutter, 06:46:45, 6/08/2000, (#15) Ryder, rico, 00:22:11, 6/08/2000, (#4) And, lake, 00:38:49, 6/08/2000, (#5) Lake, socks, 00:50:51, 6/08/2000, (#7) socks, lake, 00:55:30, 6/08/2000, (#9) Lake,, filomena, 07:41:46, 6/08/2000, (#17) Little head?, Jeanilou, 12:10:36, 6/14/2000, (#61) Dear Jeani,, filomena, 12:30:50, 6/14/2000, (#65) Ryder ..., Bloo, 01:13:36, 6/08/2000, (#10) I'll bet, momo, 03:29:09, 6/08/2000, (#11) Why doesn't, Florida, 04:30:23, 6/08/2000, (#12) Thank You, Ruthee, 06:22:19, 6/08/2000, (#13) There are two things, Watching you, 06:33:16, 6/08/2000, (#14) Foster is writing a book?, Jeanilou, 12:12:00, 6/14/2000, (#62) lake, rico, 11:18:43, 6/08/2000, (#22) I agree,, ddown, 06:58:40, 6/08/2000, (#16) Foster, DrTee, 09:21:10, 6/08/2000, (#18) Foster made 2 mistakes, fly, 09:47:03, 6/08/2000, (#19) Ryder, Real Stormy, 09:49:01, 6/08/2000, (#20) Todays lake , momo, 10:33:14, 6/08/2000, (#21) oh, my!!, ConnieToo, 14:44:49, 6/14/2000, (#68) Excellent post Ryder>>>, ayelean, 21:01:02, 6/08/2000, (#23) Ryder, check this out, lecarl, 23:58:15, 6/08/2000, (#24) lecarl, Ryder, 11:56:33, 6/09/2000, (#26) lake, where are you?, lecarl, 07:20:50, 6/09/2000, (#25) Ryder, lecarl, 12:12:14, 6/09/2000, (#27) lecarl, Ryder, 13:02:59, 6/09/2000, (#28) Ryder--your surmises about posters could be true., fiddler, 16:46:20, 6/09/2000, (#29) fiddler, Ryder, 01:25:10, 6/10/2000, (#33) Foster, docg, 19:19:47, 6/09/2000, (#30) Foster as linguist, DrTee, 20:36:39, 6/09/2000, (#31) Foster, lake, 22:26:32, 6/09/2000, (#32) Lake, momo, 10:18:44, 6/10/2000, (#34) LOL momo, Lacey, 18:13:42, 6/10/2000, (#35) No, Lacey, lake, 20:52:15, 6/10/2000, (#38) Lake, kathryn33, 00:35:54, 6/11/2000, (#39) More on Foster, DrTee, 19:07:56, 6/10/2000, (#36) Another question, DrTee, 19:15:01, 6/10/2000, (#37) ..The Shakespearian, Nikki, 06:26:33, 6/11/2000, (#40) Unless I'm mistaken..., Ginja, 09:53:33, 6/11/2000, (#41) Special Indeed!, Lacey, 18:47:16, 6/11/2000, (#42) Ginja, lake, 19:31:42, 6/11/2000, (#43) Right Ginja, DrTee, 20:15:32, 6/11/2000, (#44) Lacey, docg, 21:15:47, 6/11/2000, (#46) Foster, lake, 20:49:39, 6/11/2000, (#45) lake, Nandee, 21:45:37, 6/11/2000, (#47) I know what you mean Nandee, lake, 00:29:23, 6/12/2000, (#48) lake, Nandee, 08:26:34, 6/12/2000, (#49) lake identifys killa, Nandee, 12:34:04, 6/12/2000, (#50) Just One Comment!, shadow, 13:10:00, 6/12/2000, (#51) shadow, Nandee, 14:13:18, 6/12/2000, (#52) Take the Challenge!, Lacey, 17:17:34, 6/12/2000, (#53) The note, the killer, DrTee, 17:27:43, 6/12/2000, (#54) I agree, Jeanilou, 12:27:23, 6/14/2000, (#64) patsy profile, Nandee, 21:09:18, 6/12/2000, (#55) Nandee..., shadow, 07:11:52, 6/13/2000, (#56) sorry shadow, Nandee, 08:42:53, 6/13/2000, (#57) Ok, Nandee..., shadow, 09:08:07, 6/13/2000, (#58) no prob, Nandee, 09:21:16, 6/13/2000, (#59) ..the sleight of hand trick, Nikki, 06:21:36, 6/14/2000, (#60) Here, here Ryder , Jeanilou, 12:14:06, 6/14/2000, (#63) ransom note info, Nandee, 16:01:16, 6/14/2000, (#69) ................................................................... "The discreting of Donald Foster" Posted by Ryder on 21:06:03 6/07/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:06:03, 6/07/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:02:00, 6/07/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:00:28, 6/07/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:58:25, 6/07/2000 As recently as May 31 of this year, John Ramsey expressed his strong conviction that, one day, the killer of his daughter would be caught, largely because of the three page ransom letter he left behind. Thus, while downplaying the opinions of both handwriting and psycholinguistics analysts who have already expressed their belief that his wife wrote the infamous ransom note, Ramsey nevertheless appears to think that it will be precisely such expert opinion which will eventually crack the case. Somewhat reminiscent of his contradictory views regarding the FBI, which appears to him to be the desired agency to work on future crimes against other people's children, but not his own, Ramsey is now endorsing the expertise of handwriting and psycholinguistics analysts in the identifying of the hypothetical intruder responsible for his daughter's death, while at the same time discrediting the opinions of those same experts regarding the relationship between the ransom note and his wife. Of these experts, perhaps none has been so thoroughly maligned and ridiculed by internet Ramsey supporters as Donald Foster. So much so, that it has become a given in many circles to take for granted that Foster's reputation as a textual analyst has been completely and successfully destroyed to the point where his opinion has become meaningless in the Ramsey case. It has been emphasized that Foster's opinion is totally worthless because prior to attributing authorship of the ransom note to Patsy Ramsey, Foster is said to have incorrectly guessed that jameson was really John Andrew Ramsey and that the latter was both the author of the ransom note and the killer of JonBenet. The internet's jameson claimed total victory in proving the incompetence of Donald Foster's skills as a textual analyst capable of identifying authorship when she revealed to him what he had failed to guess: her sex, age and true identity. Since then, even individuals who remain convinced of the Ramseys' involvement in their daughter's death, have shied away from alluding to Foster and even the authorities are said to find themselves divided about the advisability of relying on his opinion and credentials, for fear of ridicule in the courts and among the public. The discrediting of Donald Foster in the Ramsey case, in my opinion, deserves careful scrutiny, since it clearly rests on many questionable assumptions. 1] The attempt to ground any hat on a forum to a definite identity, as Susan Bennett attempted to do in her television appearance, is absolutely ludicrous. It does not take into account the possibility of multiple authorship under one name, something I have witnessed on many forums. One day we have hat Jane Doe posting with perfect spelling, the next day Jane's posts are studded with countless and even ridiculous spelling mistakes. It is not that this "could be done", but rather that it is done all the time - either because there ARE different authorships OR because the poster is out to defy possible identification on the basis of textual analysis - i.e. attempting to set a trap. Therefore, when faced with certain accusations that the hat jameson has been used by different individuals, at different points in time, we are supposed to simply accept the word of one individual regarding this matter. 2] Certainly the posting of the jameson forum URL in the Ramseys' DOI, although not surprising, has certain implications regarding jameson's objectivity and therefore credibility in the Ramsey case. In inscribing for all time the jameson URL in their book, the Ramseys attest not only to their complete faith in a perfect alliance between themselves and jameson with no apparent future possibility of there ever occurring in the jameson forum any theoretical realignment based on future developments in the case. For people who have sought total control over every aspect of this investigation and of their media image, such a risk can only lead us to believe that the Ramseys have an unusual and, quite frankly, a highly suspicious confidence in there never existing a rift between their interests and those of the jameson forum. How can one explain such confidence without suspecting some degree of Ramsey control in this forum? 3] We must also then look at the relationship between Foster and jameson, as documented in the latter's forum. When we do this, we find that Foster's suspicions regarding jameson led him to establish contact with this internet entity through e-mails and calls which Foster's initial subject of suspicion now so gleefully holds out for all to see. Could we not then assume that one of the ways which Foster sought to confirm his theory was to elicit some direct communication with his suspect, which would provide him with more direct material for his ongoing suspicion of jameson. Such tactics, although objectionable to some, are frequently used in other forms of investigative work. It should be mentioned in passing, that for jameson to offer copies of private e-mails as proof of her case is reminiscent of the Ramseys belief that the goings-on behind the doors of a hired polygrapher should be swallowed by the public as proof positive of their truthfulness. Returning to Foster, we clearly see that, as he is lauding jameson for "telling it like it is" (assuming these e-mails are for real), he is also at the same time suspecting hir of being the killer. This would suggest to me that his alliance with jameson theory was never very genuine. Why then would we not assume the same thing regarding the letter to Patsy Ramsey. Such a letter could have been an attempt, albeit possibly an unsuccessful one, to elicit further texts and correspondence from his suspect, Patsy Ramsey. While some could question the ethics involved here, they seem to me to be in keeping with many investigative maneuvers. Once one acquaints one's self with the process by which jameson claims to have successfully discredited Donald Foster's expertise, it becomes clear that hir claims fall seriously short of what they set out to do. Unless jameson can provide a devout 24 hour witness who has been perched over the shoulder of the hat "jameson" since the internet birth of the latter - and by that I mean a witness with impartial views on the Ramsey case, hir claims regarding a single individual's authorship of jameson posts amount to nothing of possible relevance to this case. And finally, unless jameson is also in reliable contact with yet another psychic in this case who can purport to read Foster's mind during his private correspondence with both hirself and Patsy Ramsey, nothing of reliable value to this case is garnered from her publicizing such materials. The Ramsey's role in this case has been fraught with so many attempts at media manipulation, so many virulent attacks on people's reputations, so many manifestations of deception and the discrediting of both the public and private lives of honest people that virtually everything and everyone they now touch, no longer turns to gold but rather becomes a focus of justifiable public suspicion. It is because Ramsey supporters' attacks of key witnesses like the Whites and Donald Foster have been particularly virulent and relentless that the public should step back and re-examine the exact tactics by which the discrediting of these individuals' testimony is being fabricated. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Foster" Posted by lake on 21:16:16 6/07/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:16:16, 6/07/2000 Hung himself when he wrote that letter to Patsy Ramsey in 1997 saying that he knew that she did not write the ransom note and would stake his professional reputation on that. Then the idiot agreed to work with the BPD when the Ramseys lawyers had no interest in his offer to prove that Patsy Ramsey did not write the Ransom note. Foster was dead in the water before Jameson ever heard of Donald Foster. And Fleet has been hiding his dirty little family secrets for years before he ever heard of JonBenet Ramsey. You certainly do use a lot of words to spin disinformation, Ryder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Lake" Posted by Ruthee on 21:42:03 6/07/2000 Turn around is fair play! You are a moron and You are wrong! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Ruthee" Posted by lake on 22:29:05 6/07/2000 Stick to your "visions" Ruthee. Maybe you could come up with a psychic sketch of what you KNOW the killer looks like. I am sure you have a picture in mind. Not an objective and scientific one. But since when have psychics been objective and scientific? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Lake" Posted by socks on 00:44:51 6/08/2000 I agree with Ruthee. Foster was deliberately sat up. Who, if innocent would turn down free help that Professor Foster offered to Patsy to prove her innocense? Patsy, because she knew that Foster would nail her. She wrote the ransom note, she killed JonBenet. I happen to believe it did start as an accident, but when it came down to the real truth or dare, Patsy took the dare, she did not call 911. Instead she fashioned a garrotte and wrapped it around JonBenet's neck twice, and the coward could not look her in the face when she did it. She did not know that JonBenet's head wound was serious, beyond repair, since she had no medical training. Was she afraid that JonBenet would survive the head blow, and tell who had struck her? I can not believe that Patsy did not learn to fashion a knot such as might be used in sailing, she and she alone fashioned that garrotte, and when she chose not to call 911, instead, choke the balance of life from her daughter, she became a cold blooded murder. The Ramsey's think they got away with murder, but it is not over until the fat lady sings, and the fat lady is getting ready to sing. Justice will be done in this case. I know it in my heart. This act was dispicable to God, and he will not let them get off unscathed. Jammy is on hir board going crazy, dragging up every suspect she can dredge, just like the Ramsey's, and their sketch. They are getting desperate. The few people with ears and knowledge that were left believing in their innocense, they themselves killed that with their disgraceful performance on Larry King, and the pay per polygraph interview. They have done them =selves in old chap. This case is alive an well, so be careful how you gloat. Thanks to Steve Thomas and his courage, the Ramsey's will end up paying for their crimes. They may take a few more down with them, like Stine and Jameson. It is only just that they pay for their crimes also. JonBenet lays rotting in the grave, and Patsy and John go on television to protest their innocense. When a private investigator like Armistead resigns, you better know he knows there are no other suspects. Ms. Patsy is getting ready to meet her Waterloo. JMO socks/midnite [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Well" Posted by lake on 00:54:06 6/08/2000 Thanks for your opinion socks, but what took Eillis so long to discover that the Ramseys are guilty when most here seem to have know that for years? He was on the payroll for three years and only resigned 7 months after the GJ heard the case and failed to indict the Ramseys. I think you are spinning the Armistead resignation just like you spun everything else in your post. If you know so darned much for sure, you should have been in Boulder helping out that poor excuse for a detective Steve Thomas before he got his butt kicked off the case in 1998. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Lake" Posted by Cutter on 06:46:45 6/08/2000 Tell me Lake, exactly why is it that you ignore the evidence and deny Foster the right to change his mind? Have you read the letter Foster wrote to Patsy? In it, he clearly states that he has formed the opinion she is innocent based on the limited information he has at the time. Only later when he had access to the actual ransom note and Patsy's hand writing samples did he change his mind and proclaim her guilty. Where is your problem with that? Have you never formed an opinion only to find yourself wrong when you got ALL the facts? Nevermind, you don't need to answer that last question, because that is exactly what you ARE doing right now. Read the note Foster wrote Patsy, get the FACTS, Lake. You have the same right to change your mind as Foster does, *IF* you're as smart as he is, and have as much class and integrity to admit you were wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ryder" Posted by rico on 00:22:11 6/08/2000 Excellent post! I always look forward to your articulate and objective line of reasoning. More importantly, your comments have brought back into focus what case-followers must never forget: there is still a concerted and never-ending effort being made by the R's and their cronies to obscure the truth. As long as there are people such as Ruthee and yourself (among many) seeking the truth, there is hope yet that there will be a day of reckoning for the murder of JonBenet. Thanks again for the terrific thread!! JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "And" Posted by lake on 00:40:03 6/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:40:03, 6/08/2000 As long as there are publicity hounds like Foster who write a letter to a suspect saying on thing and then go to the invesigators and say the opposite, you can expect the so called expert the get his clock cleaned by any fair minded observer. And as long a "key witness" like Fleet White allow himself to be presented in the press for three years as fair minded and seeking only justice for a murdered six year old little girl, when probable facts are alleged that the man's objective just may be to keep the cops away from the filth in his family, then that guy should expect to be called into question by any fair minded observer. But I am sure that Ryder appreciates your moronic support rico. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Lake" Posted by socks on 00:50:51 6/08/2000 Ruthee is correct, you are a moron. Show me the proof that there is filth in Fleet White's family. You do not have prove, and if you do post it, if not shut-up. Why are you and Jameson such defender's of a child murderer? Are you sick? JMO socks/midnite [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "socks" Posted by lake on 01:07:07 6/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:07:07, 6/08/2000 OK. If you will show me proof of that junk you are posting. And if you can't do that, then shut up. But if you read at Jameson's,notice that she and most of hers are attempting to bury the MW story as hard as people like you are. STRANGE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Lake," Posted by filomena on 07:41:46 6/08/2000 Are you a "little head"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL filomena ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Little head?" Posted by Jeanilou on 12:15:44 6/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:15:44, 6/14/2000 >Are you a "little head"? (This was asked of Lake, not me. I am just commenting on the terminology) I first heard this expression when a fellow JW wrote me to ask if I was joining the "little heads". I like to have fell off my chair laughing. NO WAY. I only went there to DEFEND myself. I wrote ONE long response and even though I have until Thursday morn, my work is DONE over there. I accomplished what I wanted. I stood up for myself. You could not PAY ME to post over there again. (The Jameson forum, just to be clear) Jeani [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Dear Jeani," Posted by filomena on 12:30:50 6/14/2000 You should have been forwarned! There is no defending yourself in the land of the little heads and the mindless. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL filomena ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Ryder ..." Posted by Bloo on 01:13:36 6/08/2000 You said, "Unless jameson can provide a devout 24 hour witness who has been perched over the shoulder of the hat "jameson" since the internet birth of the latter - and by that I mean a witness with impartial views on the Ramsey case, hir claims regarding a single individual's authorship of jameson posts amount to nothing of possible relevance to this case." There may be such a witness ... the internet itself. Every message that goes out over the internet leaves a footprint ... a trail back to its owner that can be traced. It's the same technology used to track authors of highly destructive e-mail viruses ... and put them in jail. I'm no computer expert, but there are plenty of them out there. Many hackers would be delighted to trace these just for the fun of it. My bet is the messages came from different computers, in different parts of the country. A good hacker could put a name and address to them. If someone could provide the appropriate information to such a person, Foster might have his reputation restored, Jameson might pee hir pants and the Perpster's face lift might crack. jmho, of course. Bloo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I'll bet" Posted by momo on 03:29:09 6/08/2000 jameson was never counting on Foster writing a book and including their correspondence. What she has not posted will be in the book. We'll get both sides of the story. I can't wait! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Why doesn't" Posted by Florida on 04:30:23 6/08/2000 hir post the email correspondence between the two (three,four, five????) of them? There is a constant attempt to continue to try to discredit Foster - since he wasn't used before the GJ why continue this - seems like someone is afraid of something. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Thank You" Posted by Ruthee on 06:23:45 6/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:23:45, 6/08/2000 Socks and Rico. Lake, here is my psychic impression: You are a moron and you are wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "There are two things" Posted by Watching you on 06:33:16 6/08/2000 one can count on in this life - Ruthie is right and Lake is a moron. Oh, there is a third thing, too. Anything that the hat "jameson" or "jams" (and others) attests to as truth can automatically be judged as skewed. Jameson has been very selective in publishing certain documents she says came from Foster, and maybe it did, but jameson has kept other documents, such as e-mail etc., hidden from public view. Now hir is spinning her wheels off in an effort to further discredit Foster, because hir knows the truth is going to come out in his book. It's so freaking obvious - Susan Bennett is so transparent. Bad stuff always catches up with the perpetrator. Bennett will get hirs. She knows it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Foster is writing a book?" Posted by Jeanilou on 12:12:00 6/14/2000 Where do I go to reserve my copy? Jeani [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "lake" Posted by rico on 11:18:43 6/08/2000 A *hit sandwich is A *hit sandwich is A *hit sandwich... and YOU are what you eat! Bon apetit! JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "I agree," Posted by ddown on 06:58:40 6/08/2000 excellent post Ryder. It always gets a bit swampy around here when intelligent posters like yourself and Ruthee post. I just scroll by the crud. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL ddown ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Foster" Posted by DrTee on 09:21:10 6/08/2000 I spoke to one of Foster's colleagues at Vassar last spring and he said that Foster is guilty only of being somewhat naive. In his enthusiasm to solve the case, he clearly acted too soon in writing to Jameson. Besides, most of us are certain that more than one person posted under the name Jameson. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Foster made 2 mistakes" Posted by fly on 09:47:03 6/08/2000 Foster made 2 big mistakes, IMO. (1) He strayed from authorship attribution to profiling when he claimed jameson was such and such. (2) He came to a conclusion on what he had to know was insufficient samples and began chasing the Ramsey ambulance, shoving his business card through the window. He should have known beter on both counts. Lacey has it right: he did himself in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Ryder" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:49:01 6/08/2000 Your post is excellent. I agree with all you have said about Jameson, and if that were the only reason to doubt Foster's credibility, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. The thing I have the most problem with is the letter Foster sent Patsy. While it is true that everyone does, from time to time, change one's mind, I question his judgement in writing the letter to Patsy prior to his having sufficient exemplars to make a determination. For the purpose of this post, I am assuming that the Foster letter is genuine. I have no proof that it is and I suppose that if it is not, the truth will eventually come out. However, if it is genuine, his saying that he would stake his faith in humanity on Patsy's innocence is eccentric, to say the least. It does make me wonder about his judgement, if not his credentials. Ruthee--I usually do not take seriously psychic "impressions." However, in the case of your reading of Lake, I must say that if you continue to bat 1000, you'll make a believer of me yet! Has anyone noticed that today's Lake shows a tremendous improvement in spelling ability? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Todays lake " Posted by momo on 10:33:14 6/08/2000 is tomorrows dirty dishwater. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "oh, my!!" Posted by ConnieToo on 14:44:49 6/14/2000 a DEPENDS moment for sure! By the way, seeing your nick, momo, brings fond memories of an evening with David Brenner, who calls everyone a momo. The dinner was fabulous, Brenner was hysterical!! And I don't think you are a David Brenner kind of MOMO. You have smarts! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Excellent post Ryder>>>" Posted by ayelean on 21:01:02 6/08/2000 and if you had any doubts about its effect, your fears should be allayed when 'Lake' jumped on it. LOL Ironic, how Lake's postings are the exact same technique that 'Jameson's' were 3+ yrs ago. Leopards don't change their spots, do they? I hope Foster reads here, and I hope his book lays it bare. The world needs to know what the posters here know, that the perps of this crime are devious to the core. Jameson, Stine, and/or the 'Lakes' are abetting crimminals and deserve to go down with them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Ryder, check this out" Posted by lecarl on 23:58:15 6/08/2000 If Foster HAD REALLY sent PR a letter proclaiming her innocence, you can rest assured we'd have seen her on every talk show, waving it in the air and using it to "prove" she "had nothing to do with killing that child." As far as I know I haven't heard of her doing this, so I suspect there never was a letter from Foster. What I think is that, shortly after Foster went public saying PR wrote the note, a few days later the "news" comes out about Foster having sent one to PR. I remember thinking at the time, "Yeah, right, PR! What are you going to say when asked to produce the note? That you accidentally threw it away?" Trust me, Ryder, there was never such a note from Foster. Case closed! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "lecarl" Posted by Ryder on 11:58:49 6/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:58:49, 6/09/2000 Well, I certainly thing that what you say is a possibility. The bottom line is that I can't understand how people can expect to make allusions to private correspondance, the circumstances involved etc. and have everyone take it as the word of God. But, if you wonder over there to the swamp, and take a good look around at the dynamics of power, it will be an eye-opener. There is an image of the actual letter, very difficult to read, which is posted somewhere. What really struck me is the logic in place regarding his first suspicion of jameson which appears to be simultaneous to him playing buddy to her theories. While I think some could question the ethics of this double-sided approach, it is in keeping with the jameson account of things in HIR case, so i simply wondered if it was not in place concerning Patsy as well. This would amount to a trap which perhaps didn't work - don't know enough about the behind-the-scenes happening. What I mainly was trying to say was that HIR discrediting of Foster is very suspicious, for many reasons. Do HIS arguments add up? I don't know but I will be interested in reading his book. What I say is that HIR arguments DO NOT add up. You are right, though in saying that we don't even know if any of this correspondance really happened at all. Although I once got slammed (by you know who) for saying that I did know something about textual analysis (I just remembered that my attacker compared me to Foster, whom I didn't even know about at the time, saying that Foster had certainly shown just how reliable textual analysis really was) - the fact is that indeed, that is a field I am well acquainted with. And on the basis of that, I do believe that it is possible to notice that whereas some hat's posts do indeed show that they come from 1 author with a consistent style of expression and content - other posters (particularly in other forums) point to multiple authorship. AND what has been really interesting for me is to actually identify a hat (in another forum) who consistently sounds like PR herself. What I am saying is that internet textual analysis IS possible but claims that 1 hat = 1 author are preposterous, no matter whose face is flagged up on TV. I am also saying that it is a common occurrence in forums for posters to conceal their identities - some doing so more successfully than others, no doubt. The entire case against Foster as portrayed in the OTHER forum, makes assumptions which would only be swallowed by idiots. But hey in Ramsey prime time - this is certainly a common occurrence. If DOI taught me something is that PR and SS (who also posts regularly, I'm sure and has a very different style than PR's) love to play games of identity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "lake, where are you?" Posted by lecarl on 07:20:50 6/09/2000 I'm so disappointed you didn't jump right in and start calling me names. Actually, I'm depressed! Does this mean I've lost my edge? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ryder" Posted by lecarl on 12:12:14 6/09/2000 That's interesting that you think PR & SS post on this forum. I don't know how to get to the other forum altho I know which one you're talking about. During the 3-4 days that the R's were traveling around, giving interviews, someone pointed out that HIR was also missing. I do think there is a connection between PR, SS & the other thing--I just wish someone could figure it out. Surely the FBI could find the common thread. I think there's a lot more to the case that we don't know about. I'll pay attention to your posts and maybe you can give me a hint about who you think PR & SS are! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "lecarl" Posted by Ryder on 09:37:36 6/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:37:36, 6/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:12:07, 6/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:10:19, 6/09/2000 I didn't say that PR posts on THIS forum. To my knowledge, there are at least 3 other forums with which I am acquainted which carry JBR case discussions. I won't break any rules here, either regarding this forum or even the other ones, pertaining to this issue. As individuals, PR and SS strike me as being quite different, though clealry allied in this "Save the Ramseys mission". PR's ploy (even according to ST and we saw it on LKL, as well) is to play ignorant of the facts as in "I believe I heard, but I'm not sure, (then follow facts 1 to 3,000 regarding the case + more importantly ALL the Ramsey arguments A to Z). This is the doe-eyed expression ST picked up on. Patsy always pretends she is totally clueless, again astro buffs know where this comes from, when in fact, if one listens to her long enough in the interview, she is on top of all details right down to the letter. And she slips into this ignorant/knowledgeable tune and dance constantly. She strikes me as having a long history of manipulating by playing clueless. Not so SS. The portrait of SS which both DOI and other scattered comments from other written sources flag up to me could be reduced to one word: venom. It has also NOT escaped my attention that this venom appears to consistently target some individuals in this case more than the Ramseys themselves appear to do. But the bottom line, is that DOI shows us PR and SS clearly enjoying games of James Bond -type shenanigans. And SS is reported to have told someone something like "If you're not with us, you're against us" AND to take charge whenever possible. She is also reported in DOI to have hit the internet from day 1 of this case and to begin her day on the net, on a regular basis. My hypothesis is that the core Ram team members, monitor at least 1 forum each. These forums are handy to see how a statement flies before it is thrown out in the major media events. They are also handy to tap into the identification of both the adversaries' weaker and stronger arguments. But both sides up on the media do this. Both ST and AH, during their appearances, appeared to be knowledgeable about forum opinion and argument. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Ryder--your surmises about posters could be true." Posted by fiddler on 16:46:20 6/09/2000 In fact, they probably are. But as far as Foster goes, I don't agree that "he has only himself to blame" for being discredited. I don't think that his expert opinion IS discredited. I just think his judgement, in human terms, isn't perfect. And what's more, I think a jury would be able to see the difference. And that's why the campaign has been so fierce to KEEP Foster from testifying before a jury. You have to remember, the more venom and resistance directed at someone, the greater the threat that person poses. And I think a full-scale, professional textual analysis of the ransom note, by Donald Foster, is probably the greatest objective threat existing to the Rams. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "fiddler" Posted by Ryder on 01:25:10 6/10/2000 Since I agree with everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you say, I'm assuming that you're confusing my posts with someone else's? Unless you are agreeing with me... Some confusion here. I was trying to say that Foster had been unjustly discredited. I don't think he HAS been discredited at all. Were you addressing someone else? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Foster" Posted by docg on 19:19:47 6/09/2000 Even if it's possible to demonstrate Jameson somehow "set Foster up," his credibility can never be restored for the very reason that his alleged area of expertize should have prevented him from being set up in precisely that way. In other words, if there was more than one "Jameson," that should have been apparent to Foster. If that was NOT apparent, then he lacks the expertize he has been claiming and his pronouncements regarding the ransom note are NOT worthy of special notice. One other thing. As I understand it, Foster's principal contribution to Thomas's investigation had more to do with aspects of the note that were NOT part of his specialty -- i.e., handwriting and layout. Thomas has given special importance to Foster's observations regarding the indentations at the very end, and the use of exclamation points. But this is clearly the provence of questioned document examiners, NOT practitioners of content analysis, which is Foster's field. WHAT IS IT, exactly, that gives special weight to his observations regarding anything other than content analysis? Especially in the light of the fact that handwriting experts from both the CBI and the Secret Service have found little reason to believe Patsy wrote that note. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Foster as linguist" Posted by DrTee on 20:36:39 6/09/2000 First of all, I have to say that Foster is not really a linguist at all. He is a Shakespearean scholar. He does not teach linguistics, and he has not yet published in linguistics. He has, of course, had some high profile success identifying the authorship of certain texts. But when Steve Thomas says Foster is the leading linguist in the country, that is simply not true. He is not even the leading forensic linguist in the country. I am not saying that Foster is wrong, I'm just pointing out some inaccuracies that have been reported. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Foster" Posted by lake on 22:38:40 6/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:38:40, 6/09/2000 Foster was all the BPD could "buy" to say PR wrote the note. There were so called experts being pushed forward by Dumbo Hoffman who were just making fools of themselves with the unprofessional approach they were taking to arrive at their conclusions. The investigation experts who examined the note and extensive sample of PR's writing concluded that it was highly unlikely, or no evidence of, or very low indications that PR wrote the note. The one guy at the CBI who ranked PR the highest had her ranked just above inconclusive. Hardly a compelling judgement. So where was the BPD to go? Well to a fraud and a fool that could be bought with publicity. And that would be Donald Foster. The same way the BPD went to the tabloid press to create the presumption of guilt in the public because they (the BPD) did not have a case, but they had theories. Oh they have a number of theories. And all Foster really has a theory. Just like the housekeeper Hoffman has a theory that apparently was planted in her weak mind by by Thomas and the tabloids. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Lake" Posted by momo on 10:18:44 6/10/2000 Thank you for making it clear that everyone has a theory. I can now rest a little easier. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "LOL momo" Posted by Lacey on 18:13:42 6/10/2000 Some folk make it their business to try to discredit any professional with an opinion that contradicts their theory! Docg in particular, you are well known in these parts for shopping the handwriting geeks like the Ramseys shop polygraphers. To you, as long as they say John Wrote the Note, they have established credibility. Bool sheet. The majority believe she wrote it and that incudes forensic and questioned document examiners from the CBI and FBI and, and, and,, Aw nevermind it's like beating a dead horse. My point and I do have one is that when you get that kind of consensus, like it or not, that's it and like, live with it. Those of us with the correct homicide theory do not have to do any shopping. We just let the pro's prove our points LOL Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "No, Lacey" Posted by lake on 21:10:33 6/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:10:33, 6/10/2000 Handwriting experts who have examined the note and adequate samples of Patsy Ramsey's writing have concluded that is is possible but highly unlikely that PR wrote the note. The CIA ruled that there is no evidence that PR wrote the note. The CBI rating is that it is possible that PR wrote the note but there is no evidence that she write the note due to the many differences in the writing of PR and the writing on the note. You need to stop making things up if you want to be taken seriously. I realize that you want to believe that PR wrote the note because that is apparently the only way you can understand this complex case. You and Thomas are apparently two of a kind. Shallow. Lina Hoffman, Judith Phillips and the Hoffman handwriting clowns would say you wrote the note for a few bucks and some publicity. I hope you have a good alibi if you think the cops and the public should rely on publicity hounds to decide the evidence in a murder case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Lake" Posted by kathryn33 on 00:35:54 6/11/2000 Did you know GOD is watching your lying fingers peck along on that keyboard? Get some conscience before it's too late. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL kathryn33 ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "More on Foster" Posted by DrTee on 19:11:35 6/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:11:35, 6/10/2000 What do we know about this letter from Foster to Patsy? I've read it, and it appears to be on Vassar stationery and signed by Foster. Do we have reason to believe it isn't authentic? If it isn't, how could it be posted on the internet for all to see? It's a disturbing letter, too. I would expect more from a professional and an academic. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Another question" Posted by DrTee on 19:15:01 6/10/2000 Was Foster posting on the old forums back in 97, or was he just lurking? If he was posting, does anyone know what hat he was using? I'm just curious, since I remember the Jams of the old days. And I'm always trying to spot fellow academics on the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "..The Shakespearian" Posted by Nikki on 06:26:33 6/11/2000 .leaded his own foot and became the humpty-dumpty man.. .he will not solve this case anyway... .his bit has bitten the dust .and uncovered no secrets.. .the new buzzword is 'complicated!'....! ..this case is complex, they say.. .one child .one night .one death .it's a case of figure it out, .a puzzle with pieces gone or shredded forever.. .JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Unless I'm mistaken..." Posted by Ginja on 09:53:33 6/11/2000 ...Foster was brought in to analyze the content, not the handwriting itself. If that's the case, then I don't see how handwriting experts' opinions have to do with any of this. The handwriting analysts are split and based primarily on "preponderance". That is, of all samples analyzed, only Patsy has similarities. They've found this true from both sides, Rammers and State. The difference being that the Ram Camp will come back at us with something like, "Patsy had a mere x (small) number of similar exemplars, which puts her squarely at the bottom of the barrel and clearly out of contention." Whereas the State would hit us with something like, "Of 93 people sampled, only Patsy had any similarities, therefore she's the only one in contention." Authorities are also fully aware of the fact that whoever wrote the note, intentionally and deliberately disguised their writing to thwart investigators. The RamCamp's response would be that the experts could tell the difference, so their client is still out of contention. The State would respond that even disguised, Patsy had similarities, therefore she's still in contention. But to further support their case against Patsy, the State went to linguistic analysis. Obviously, a determined perp could have done some researche or known the family well enough to know of the numerous familial references made in the note. But the linguist would look for more than that...how the note was constructed. So they brought in Foster. As one poster pointed out, he was supposedly an expert and should have 'caught' the Jameson hat. As another poster pointed out as well, Foster went beyond his scope, trying to profile the writer. In both respects, Foster found himself wearing other's 'hats': Smit's, for falling for the cyber-"intruder"; and Douglas, for defunct profiling. Foster's no longer a credible witness. And the way I look at the whole picture, it has an ending...in a courtroom. What do we have here that will make it there (trial)? Surely, the State won't be calling Foster for obvious reasons. And just because they lost him doesn't mean they've lost an opportunity -- or strategy. There are plenty of experts out there who can, and have, analyzed the note's construction. None of them have gotten caught in the wheels of the Ram Bus or internet. Construction evidence is different than writing evidence in that the State's not "stuck" with Foster. They've not been hurt by the fallible Foster. And so they'll bring in other experts who'll attest to the same thing: every indication is that the note was written by Patsy. The only way the jurors would ever hear of Foster is if the Rams bring him on the stand themselves. The State's cross would annilihate them by bringing in the "jameson factor". So in essence folks, perhaps hir unwittingly did us all a favor! Wouldn't that be special? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Special Indeed!" Posted by Lacey on 18:47:16 6/11/2000 Yo Ginj. Very well stated! And like, brief, too! My thing on this note analysis is it comes up Patsy no matter who's analyzing - be it document examiner, content analyst, linguist, handwriting analyst, CBI, Effbeeyi (am I leaving anyone out?, lol), she's good for it - that's a lot of consensus, eh? I think the fact that Steve Thomas got the Ramseys to agree that whoever wrote the note done the deed is impressive. So, the question IS (drum roll).. how do we get from here to there! Thomas is not the rogue Hunter has characterized him as. He has presented in ITRI the official case against the Ramseys. How I wish we as a forum could unite and work with that.. or with, what works and what doesn't. I believe the basic theory is sound. There are parts that would be difficult to convince a jury.. I just don't know. JW has split into many small forum factions with case theories as different as night and day. Some say it's good for discussion, but this is a real homicide with a real victim. I would like to see some real justice. LOL, what ever am I really talking about? Maybe the media is right.. we are ALL a buncha fanatic fringe folk who just like to gossip. NAH Well, whatever. Great post Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Ginja" Posted by lake on 20:22:06 6/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:22:06, 6/11/2000 Seems to me that most of the witnesses for The State would make good witnesses for the defense if one of the Ramseys were ever charged with this crime. And the fact that the police think they know who did this crime is about a relevant to a trial as most of the posters here thinking what they know did the crime. The fact that Steve Thomas thinks PR killed JBR over some bedwetting issue and wrote the note to cover up, means about as much to me as a poster thinking JR wrote the note or a poster thinking Patsy wrote the note. Because it is clear that the evidence of the note does not support either conclusion. Sure the evidence supports the fact that PR could have written the note, but the rest of the circumstantial evidence does not support the conclusion that PR did the crime. And if PR could have written the note, the evidence does not offer support for why she would have written the note and not done the crime, So the "could have" of the note really is not adequately supported by the other evidence and circumstances of the case to charge either Ramsey with the crime. And that, along with the way this case was handled by the BPD and the DA, leaves plenty of questions open as to who and why of this crime. I guess the bottom line is that until the Ramseys or the BPD are willing or can produce someone whose handwriting is as good or better match to the note as that of PR, and could be considered a suspect from the case evidence and circumstances, PR is on the hook with the public. However, Lin Wood seems to have confidence that such a person just might be able to be pulled out from behind the smoke screen in a civil trial. My money would be on the bet that Patsy Ramsey did not write the ransom note. Because I think it would be highly unlikely that she could have written that particular note if she did not kill the child. And the fact that it cannot be established that she killed the chid, along with the low handwriting ID probability, lets her off the hook as the probable writer of the note with me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Right Ginja" Posted by DrTee on 20:15:32 6/11/2000 Foster does not analyze handwriting. He looks at things like characteristic use of punctuation, spelling (including use or misuse of capitalization), grammatical patterns, and, of course, any unusual language which mirrors or does not mirror the text. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Lacey" Posted by docg on 21:15:47 6/11/2000 Lacey, our ideas meet rarely. For me you are in denial mode. Chat away blithely, tomorrow, next week, at noon or nine or whenever, you will never, will NEVER convince, like NEVER -- forget it! "My thing on this note analysis is it comes up Patsy no matter who's analyzing - be it document examiner, content analyst, linguist, handwriting analyst, CBI" I kind of think that possibly you omitted what are significant people. Soooo don't be nice! Ignore me if you like, you don't really know anything about what the Hell I really do mean. Do you? (LOL) DocG [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Foster" Posted by lake on 20:56:53 6/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:56:53, 6/11/2000 Would likely never be an expert witness in any trial to establish the ID of the person who wrote a ransom note. That is just pure foolishness. On what basis could he possibly be established as an expert on such a question? NONE. A ransom note is not a questioned document where it can be establihed that the person is expected to only write content the way that person normally writes content. Nor can it be assumed that the writer of a ransom note would not make extreme efforts not to come across as the way they normally write. On the other hand, if one writes a 500 or 600 page book, the book is expected to reflect the style of the writer. If a person writes a 60 page thesis, the writer is expected to come across as the writer of the document. This business of punctuation and spelling and margins in a ransom note is just too much like voodoo to pass the laugh test in passing someone off as an expert witness in a murder trial. You may as well admit the opinions of psychics and internet posters in murder trials if one is to take this fellow seriously. Oh, I know some of you would be all for psychics as expert witnesses, but we have to draw the line somewhere. The gerneral public must have some degree of confidence in the criminal justice system. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "lake" Posted by Nandee on 21:45:37 6/11/2000 "A ransom note is not a questioned document where it can be establihed that the person is expected to only write content the way that person normally writes content. Nor can it be assumed that the writer of a ransom note would not make extreme efforts not to come across as the way they normally write." Document examiners are considered experts in our judicial system. It's done every day in forgeries. Even when handwriting is being disguised there are unconscious elements like slant that can be measured. Of course, the formation of each letter is also a key. Add to that things like dotting i's and crossing t's and you can get a pretty good picture of who wrote the note. The linguistics expert adds to that picture. It's amazing what experts can do these days..... Patsy already knows that!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "I know what you mean Nandee" Posted by lake on 00:36:11 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:36:11, 6/12/2000 But the handwriting experts who examined the note and writings under accepted conditions have already concluded that there is no evience that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Sure they say she could have written the note, but the same could be said for several others that the BPD took handwriting samples from and could not eliminate as suspects based only on the handwriting. They were eliminated for some other reason by the BPD. Maybe they should not have been eliminated. And for Foster to represent himself as an expert in the area of ransom note ID does not pass the laugh test. A ransom note is just a much too limited sample of a persons work for Foster to get involved with. That is not the area of the man's expertese. He may want to branch out in his field of work, but to do it at the expense of someone suspect of killing their own child is idiotic on Foster's part. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "lake" Posted by Nandee on 08:28:35 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:28:35, 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:28:04, 6/12/2000 I'm sure BPD has an expert who can stand up to scurrility. ST said that out of 73 handwriting samples taken, Patsy was the only one who could not be eliminated as the writer of the note. I am trained in this area and I, (although I do admit, I don't have 72 other samples to compare it to.) can see the similarities. Just because Foster blew it does not mean she's in the clear on this one..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "lake identifys killa" Posted by Nandee on 12:34:04 6/12/2000 "Sure the evidence supports the fact that PR could have written the note" Finally.... a true statement! The evidence does support the fact that PR could have written the note, and by her own admission, the writer of the note was the killer...... Steve Thomas deserves credit for getting Patsy to confess on TV!! (Remember out of 73 samples, Patsy was the ONLY ONE who could not be eliminated!!!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Just One Comment!" Posted by shadow on 13:10:00 6/12/2000 FWIW, my next door neighbor (CIA/Langley,VA) says that "no one in the CIA analyzed the infamous ransom note" (his words). 'Course, this could be another facet of the well-known, wide-spread JBR case "conspiracy." shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "shadow" Posted by Nandee on 14:13:18 6/12/2000 ....So, maybe there is more information to be gleaned from the note that might nail the author..... very interesting!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Take the Challenge!" Posted by Lacey on 17:17:34 6/12/2000 What do these words have in common? diarrhea dysentery backdoor trots flux john runs scour squirts trots lake The solution is encoded within. Please provide answer in one hundred words or less. Then wash your hands. Good luck to you! . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "The note, the killer" Posted by DrTee on 17:27:43 6/12/2000 I still don't see the logic in assuming that the writer of the note is also the killer. The writer of the note certainly knows who the killer is, but that doesn't necessarily mean he or she was the killer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "I agree" Posted by Jeanilou on 12:27:23 6/14/2000 I don't think that whoever wrote the note is automatically the killer. It may be that the killer and the writer of the note are one and the same. But the writer could just be a "ghostwriter" for the real author. Won't be the 1st time the Ramseys have USED a ghostwriter.(More specificly, DOI) Jeani [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "patsy profile" Posted by Nandee on 21:24:44 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:24:44, 6/12/2000 In 1997 our company was contacted by the Boulder Police Department to assist them in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. We were asked to submit an analysis of the ransom note and in 1998 we were asked to write a psychological profile on Patsy Ramsey. Here are those reports: http://www.seraph.net/jonbenet.html (full report) Our conclusion is that you are investigating a child's murder with ritualistic overtones. Mrs. Ramsey's motives and post incident actions cannot be understood with rational thought. This crime was committed by a delusional individual who has convinced herself of her own innocence. Sociopaths always view their violent actions as justified. When a divine intervention is added to this justification pathology, you have a highly volatile individual. We do not believe as has been theorized that this murder was the result of sexual assault. The autopsy report clearly states that the vaginal trauma was superficial and not consistent with known forensic profiles of sexual assault. There is no evidence in pedophile research of strangulation as a means of sexual gratification for a child molester. Strangulation and sexual assault are most commonly seen in sadomasochism between heterosexual and homosexual adults. Or by late adolescent and young adult males during masturbation. We do not believe that John Ramsey was involved in a sexual relationship with JonBenet. We do believe that he played a role in the cover up that followed the murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Nandee..." Posted by shadow on 07:11:52 6/13/2000 Very interesting... believe it or not, I remember hearing of SERAPH when I worked on an EPA contract some time ago, but I can't remember in what context. Could you enlighten me on what your company did for the EPA? I'm not questioning SERAPH's involvement, but I would like to know who within the Boulder law enforcement community asked for and approved funding for the help of SERAPH? Wasn't the FBI doing much the same thing working with the BPD? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "sorry shadow" Posted by Nandee on 08:42:53 6/13/2000 This was just an interesting site I found. I don't know anything about them..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ok, Nandee..." Posted by shadow on 09:08:07 6/13/2000 Boy, do I feel dumb! I misintrepreted your post... assumed you worked for this company. I wish you did, because I have questions... It appears to me that the FBI could provide the same type info free... thus, I wondered who approved the expenditures for these reports. And, BTW, it also appears that everything written in the reports begins with the assumption that PR wrote the note - were they told to assume this in their analysis? There always seems to be more questions than answers in this case! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "no prob" Posted by Nandee on 09:21:16 6/13/2000 Shadow.... Your questions are excellent ones. Hey, we all make mistakes! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "..the sleight of hand trick" Posted by Nikki on 06:24:27 6/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:24:27, 6/14/2000 ..the the Art of Disillusionment ..if Patsy is like this..she will never succumb to the Truth..she has her 'fatcat' husband covered by a deadly blanket of Disillusionment or else he helped cover this terrible crime out of fear, guilt or just a type of stupidity.. couple that with the thought his wife is/was more important to the karma wheel as his young, helpless daughter...in other words, ..she might believe that no matter what... she can talk her way out of the note and go on pretending 'nothing happened that night concerning Me..as I am a victim too, I am the grief stricken mother so get off my back!'...'I am innocent..just ask the 'fatcat'..he'll tell ya..!' ..Lou Smit believes her..so the majik trick is complete with 'back-up' by seasoned investigator.. ..(sigh)..I still think..She Did It..or knows who did.. ..Nikki, ..Studying Zen and the Art of Budweiser.. ..Be One With the Beer...:) ..l8r .. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Here, here Ryder " Posted by Jeanilou on 12:14:06 6/14/2000 Well said. You filled me in of a lot of what I was missing about the Donald Foster issue. Jameson was quite gleeful on the phone, patting herself on the back for "discrediting" Foster. Jeani [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "ransom note info" Posted by Nandee on 16:01:16 6/14/2000 http://www.lepassagenouveau.com/jonbenet/index.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]