Justice Watch Discussion Board "The Key" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... The Key, docg, 20:48:35, 6/25/2000 And the writer is!, canadiana, 21:21:58, 6/25/2000, (#1) If you aren't setting us up, MJenn, 21:41:29, 6/25/2000, (#3) docg, Nandee, 21:23:35, 6/25/2000, (#2) MJenn, docg, 22:07:08, 6/25/2000, (#5) OK, Doc, MJenn, 22:18:56, 6/25/2000, (#6) docg, Luvsa Mystery, 21:50:31, 6/25/2000, (#4) Analysis and some questions, docg, 08:16:31, 6/26/2000, (#7) Nerves of Steel?, RiverRat, 08:29:53, 6/26/2000, (#8) docg, fly, 08:45:48, 6/26/2000, (#9) LOL RiverRat!/ DocG, Starling, 09:02:24, 6/26/2000, (#10) or maybe, Edie Pratt, 09:45:47, 6/26/2000, (#11) ..whazzup' docg, Nikki, 10:10:08, 6/26/2000, (#13) docg, Nandee, 10:01:45, 6/26/2000, (#12) docg, Seashell, 11:09:20, 6/26/2000, (#17) I thought the CBI , momo, 10:59:28, 6/26/2000, (#16) graphology, river, 10:51:00, 6/26/2000, (#14) River, Docg, frankg, 11:19:26, 6/26/2000, (#19) I think they can tell, Edie Pratt, 10:59:15, 6/26/2000, (#15) re-post, Seashell, 11:12:46, 6/26/2000, (#18) wrong info....., Nandee, 11:46:48, 6/26/2000, (#20) It's just gotta be , gaiabetsy, 12:53:00, 6/26/2000, (#21) frankg & Nandee, fly, 13:12:28, 6/26/2000, (#23) fly, Nandee, 13:44:39, 6/26/2000, (#26) ..we don't know how Patsy is in Realsville, Nikki, 13:08:02, 6/26/2000, (#22) Docg,, zoomama, 13:40:20, 6/26/2000, (#25) Zoomama, momo, 15:48:55, 6/26/2000, (#29) #29 Momo, zoomama, 18:17:55, 6/26/2000, (#33) Oh, Nikki,, gaiabetsy, 13:34:39, 6/26/2000, (#24) Response, docg, 14:55:27, 6/26/2000, (#27) Wait a minute!!, ConnieToo, 16:22:59, 6/26/2000, (#30) docg, Nandee, 15:11:17, 6/26/2000, (#28) Go, docg!, Seashell, 16:24:14, 6/26/2000, (#31) Seashell, Nandee, 17:46:09, 6/26/2000, (#32) Seashell and Nandee, docg, 19:27:38, 6/26/2000, (#34) docg, Nandee, 19:57:36, 6/26/2000, (#35) Nandee, docg, 21:38:35, 6/26/2000, (#37) I don't think Thomas is naive, so much as...., ConnieToo, 13:29:31, 6/27/2000, (#53) I agree with Seashell, starfish, 21:21:58, 6/26/2000, (#36) Nikki, Greenleaf, 06:41:20, 6/27/2000, (#42) some comments, Ryder, 22:03:30, 6/26/2000, (#38) Ryder, Nandee, 22:18:52, 6/26/2000, (#39) slants, Nandee, 22:32:33, 6/26/2000, (#40) docg--you make interesting points,, fiddler, 23:17:12, 6/26/2000, (#41) fiddler, Greenleaf, 07:44:07, 6/27/2000, (#43) Interesting Thought!, shadow, 08:01:52, 6/27/2000, (#44) shadow, Greenleaf, 09:01:00, 6/27/2000, (#45) if Patsy is Jams, Edie Pratt, 09:26:02, 6/27/2000, (#46) several things, Seashell, 10:34:03, 6/27/2000, (#49) EdiePratt--of course they are,, fiddler, 10:09:02, 6/27/2000, (#47) gosh, Fid, Edie Pratt, 10:24:25, 6/27/2000, (#48) Edie, Seashell, 10:39:17, 6/27/2000, (#51) Just a quick, Seeker, 10:39:08, 6/27/2000, (#50) how does that work?, Edie Pratt, 10:50:24, 6/27/2000, (#52) Tangents, docg, 13:43:51, 6/27/2000, (#56) I second your opinion..., ConnieToo, 13:43:37, 6/27/2000, (#55) ..Jams is the Star on the Rams Poison Tree, Nikki, 13:33:08, 6/27/2000, (#54) docg--so, what are the, fiddler, 16:14:24, 6/27/2000, (#57) an inconveinient truth, Edie Pratt, 16:25:28, 6/27/2000, (#58) Fiddler, docg, 19:19:04, 6/27/2000, (#59) Docg, pisces, 22:21:51, 6/27/2000, (#60) Pisces, docg, 06:13:01, 6/28/2000, (#61) Nandee, docg, 12:34:54, 7/01/2000, (#62) hey, Docg!, Edie Pratt, 12:44:40, 7/01/2000, (#63) ................................................................... "The Key" Posted by docg on 20:50:11 6/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:50:11, 6/25/2000 Ryder has been doing a pretty good job of analyzing the ransom note. And he/she definitely seems on the verge of figuring it out. As are some other posters. But, IMO (and please forgive me Mandarin, if I pursue this just a WEEE bit more) Ryder as well as most on this list are hampered by an overly idealized notion of the powers of certain handwriting experts, and as a result, may never attain their goal. So I want, one more time, to post a comparison gif I've posted a few times in the past, so we can really focus on the question of who actually is most likely to have penned that infamous document. This is something I originally threw out as a challenge to those who were saying John Ramsey's hand looked "nothing like" the note. If that were true, then these folks would have had no trouble sorting the gif, which is a mix of exemplars from John and from the note. NO ONE who tried was able to do better than 50%. One person actually did sort out one line correctly, but one line ONLY. This time I'm going to do things a bit differently. I'm going to show you the gif (in a version that includes some exemplars from Patsy also, on the extreme right, for comparison sake), but this time I'm also going to give you the key. Because I think a lot of people who've studied this is in the past may have made certain assumptions, thus failing to grasp how revealing it really is. So first, here's the gif: And I need, as in the past, to clarify a couple points: 1. I cleaned up most of the letters so the guidelines wouldn't get in the way; 2. I flipped one exemplar horizontally, just for fun. Now, let's sort the thing out, so everyone can see just how close John's printing is to certain exemplars from the note. Basically, I alternated. Each line begins with an exemplar from the note and is then followed by one from a well known court deposition by John, and so on, alternating exemplars from the note with exemplars from John. The only exception is line 6, which contains the letters "sey" from "Ramsey" as found, first on the note and second and third, from Ramsey's deposition. In this version of the gif, I've added some relevant exemplars from Patsy, on the extreme right of every line but line 4. They are always separated by a space. In the next post, I will analyze this gif. But first I'd like to see some responses from those who still want to argue that John must absolutely be "ruled out" as writer of the note. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "And the writer is!" Posted by canadiana on 21:21:58 6/25/2000 who? How DID JR get 'excluded' from being the writer? Dog, are you saying that the first examples are a mixture (alternatively) of JR's handwriting and the 'note' and PR's are on the far right? I have said it before and I will say it again. Of course I am no expert, but I sure think this looks more like JR's handwriting (even the pressure) than it does Patsy's handwriting. JMO though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "If you aren't setting us up" Posted by MJenn on 21:41:29 6/25/2000 as in double blind research, the samples you've provided of John's writing compared with the note's are obviously similar to the point of being exactly alike. As for Patsy's there is a problem with any comparison: whereas John's samples appear to be written with the same type of dense pen and ink and are print letters, Patsy's are cursive, for the most part, and written by a much thinner ballpoint pen. Comparing the Ramsey's samples, written in different inks and pen points, to the note samples is like comparing apples and oranges to apples. So I'm not sure how you justify these as comparable exemplars. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "docg" Posted by Nandee on 21:30:07 6/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:30:07, 6/25/2000 I have completed an extensive course on graphoanalysis, so this is an area I know pretty well. (I am by no means an expert!!) It is very hard to take individual letters and compare strokes and slants. I have only seen a couple of lines written by John. It would be helpful if you can direct me to more of his handwriting. I only have cursive samples for Patsy, so if you know of any printed samples, that would be great! I will look over your exemplars in the morning..... (Remember, BPD has MANY samples of both of their writings..... Having them use both hands and print words from the note.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "MJenn" Posted by docg on 22:07:08 6/25/2000 "the samples you've provided of John's writing compared with the note's are obviously similar to the point of being exactly alike." In many cases, it does seem that way, yes. And I am NOT setting you up. Anyone can check what I've found by comparing the note with the example from John posted at Sunshine Kid's Web site, among other places. "As for Patsy's there is a problem with any comparison: whereas John's samples appear to be written with the same type of dense pen and ink and are print letters, Patsy's are cursive, for the most part, and written by a much thinner ballpoint pen." Actually only one exemplar from Patsy is cursive, the "sey." The "to"s look cursive but they are just printed with the letters close together. As far as the type of pen is concerned, you have a point. But these were taken from different sources and what we see consistently is that, as Canadiana has pointed out, Patsy has a lighter touch than either John or the writer of the note. And her hand is more flowery and more flowing, even printed (which is why her printed letters give the impression of being cursive). "Comparing the Ramsey's samples, written in different inks and pen points, to the note samples is like comparing apples and oranges to apples. So I'm not sure how you justify these as comparable exemplars." Well the focus of the gif is the comparison between John and the note and as you can see, the similarities are so strong that any differences between pen types can easily be discounted -- they just don't seem to matter. Which is in itself quite significant I'd say. The exemplars from Patsy are there just for comparison sake, to give you an impression of how different Patsy's hand can look. I wasn't attempting to be particularly systematic on that aspect, just to throw in some letters for comparison sake. But I think it does give us some idea of how different Patsy's printing can be from that of both John and the note writer. Whether it is always that different is another matter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "OK, Doc" Posted by MJenn on 22:18:56 6/25/2000 You made your point, and I haven't made my mind up about who murdered JonBenet by any means. I've always felt that everything about the actual kill looks masculine, and the everything in the note rides on John. I also think the Subic Bay connections are very strong in the note, so much so that I'm still hunting some down. One thing I've always found curious: like the ambiguity of the polygraph, if you really apply yourself, is it that hard to disguise your handwriting? I'm genuinely asking--I don't have a clue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "docg" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 21:52:32 6/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:52:32, 6/25/2000 Somewhere online I saw John Ramsey's signature pre-murder superimposed over RAMSEY in the r-note and they looked practically identical to me. Then there was another sample of how JR changed his signature post-murder. It had much more flourish. Do you know the exemplars I'm referring to and can you post those samples here? Edited to add: I always thought the writing looked more like JR's writing, but, the voice of the note sounds like PR. IMHO. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Analysis and some questions" Posted by docg on 08:16:31 6/26/2000 OK, here's my promised analysis of the gif. Take a look first at line one, the row of "y"s. At first glance it looks like they were made by two hands, the first three by one person and the last four by another (we'll ignore the two by Patsy for the moment). Actually they alternate, the first coming from the note, the second from John, etc. (as do all the other rows, except for row 6). What this tells us is that BOTH John and the writer of the note are inconsistent and moreoever inconsistent in similar ways. There are obviously very strong resemblances between John's "y"s and those in the note. Moving over to the pair of "y"s from Patsy, we see a very different picture. Her "y"s are more florid and "artistic" and her touch is noticably lighter (though this could be due to the use of a different sort of pen). Of course, it's possible that Patsy has other ways of printing "y". We don't have enough exemplars from her to be sure. I find the "w"s in the next row to be very interesting. We see that both John and the note writer have an odd tendency to curve the rightmost segment of the "w" upward and to the left. The first two exemplars show how similar John's "w" and the note's "w" can be. Usually, however, the writer of the note added an extra upward squiggle to the "w" -- but the rightward curve is still apparent. The upward squiggles look to me as though they were added on in a crude attempt at disguise. Another interesting aspect of this row is the way the letters slant. The text we have from John tends to be pretty consistently slanted to the left ("backslant"), which has led many to conclude he is left handed. His "w"s confirm this. The ransom note is mostly slanted to the right, but there are some very interesting exceptions. On this row, the third and fifth examples (from the note) are slanted to the right, but the first (also from the note) is slanted slightly leftward. If the note was indeed written by John, he must have made an attempt to reverse his normal slant -- but was not completely consistent. Patsy's "w", the last two on the row, are obviously very different -- again we have too few exemplars to draw anys sort of strong conclusion from this, but the differences are interesting nonetheless. The six "e"s on row three are strikingly similar to one another. All are backslanted, in contrast with the right slanted "e" from Patsy, which is, again, quite different. Slant is the most interesting aspect of row 4, containing the word "will." The first two "ll"s from the note slant to the right. John's first "will" (the second example on this row) slants strongly to the left. Example four is the one I flipped horizontally, so it could better be compared with the double "ll"s in the previous "will," from the note. Reversing the slant of John's exemplar in this way reveals a strong similarity between the two sets of double "l"s. The final example, another set of double "l"s from the note, is slanted to the left and should be compared with example 2 on this line, by John. Again I think it possible John attempted to reverse his normal slant as a method of disguising his hand, but failed to be totally consistent. The "ll"s in examples 2 and 5 are remarkably similar (neither was flipped). Continuing down the page I think the resemblances between John and the note are quite clear and quite strong. Note that the first two "sey"s on row six seem closer to one another than the second and third, both by John, whose "e"s are quite different from one another. Moving briefly to line seven -- it's been pointed out that the crosses on Patsy's "t"s tend to carry smoothly into the next letter, as in certain examples from the note. As this line reveals, this can be true also of John's. What does the gif tell us? Does it demonstrate that John Ramsey wrote the note? No -- we'd need more exemplars to come to that conclusion. What it does demonstrate is that there is certainly something very wrong with the "official" assessment of John's hand. In DOI John writes about hiring two world renowned handwriting experts. Their conclusions were that John must be "ruled out" as writer of the note and that Patsy's hand showed some similarities to the note, but that these were not significant. This very odd assessment was then, according to John himself, accepted by the expert(s) at the CBI and ever since there has been no hint anyone connected with the case suspects John might have written the note. John "ruled out." Patsy not quite ruled out -- because of some "similarities" between her hand and that of the note. Yet, as is obvious from the gif, there certainly ARE similarities between John's hand and the note. Strong similarities. Similarities that can hardly be ignored. Yet apparently they were. Why? One educated guess is that this example of John's printing may never have been examined by any of the experts. A special warrant was made out in order that the authorities could access "historic exemplars" from Patsy. But there is no evidence of a warrant similarly requesting such exemplars from John. One has the impression the experts based their assessment strictly on exemplars he provided AFTER the murder. And, if he is the one who wrote the note, one would assume he'd make every effort at that point to eliminate any resemblance to it in the examples he gave the police. If the authorities DID examine the exemplar we've been using, then IMO they blundered VERY badly in not picking up on the obvious similarities. With respect to the reservations offered in Nandee's post, if you study a thousand exemplars and find no resemblance whatsoever and then come across one more and at that point you DO find some strong resemblances, the weight of that single exemplar becomes very considerable indeed. If only one sample text bears strong resemblances to the ransom note, that's more than enough, in my opinion, to rule that suspect IN. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Nerves of Steel?" Posted by RiverRat on 08:29:53 6/26/2000 Anyone can alter their handwriting style but who could have written a 3 page letter with little indication of trembling hands and no teardrop stains? Maybe Melatonin Head? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "docg" Posted by fly on 08:45:48 6/26/2000 docg - Your analysis of the Ws ignored what I think is a much more consistent feature - the relative size of the parts. The Ws from the note pretty consistently have the right U larger than the left. However, JR pretty consistently has the left U larger than the right. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "LOL RiverRat!/ DocG" Posted by Starling on 09:02:24 6/26/2000 Melatonin Head - too funny! Just when I basically start accepting, that more than likely Patsy wrote the note, along comes DogG with his gifs. and I have to once again re-think my position. What really sways me on my position is the "sey" gifs. The likeness is very creepy. For myself, the actual linguistics of the note on page 1 are John's and they also match more closely to him on page 2 - but that is Patsy speaking on page 3. DocG - how do you explain the third page of the ransom note? Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "or maybe" Posted by Edie Pratt on 09:47:16 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:47:16, 6/26/2000 they took turns, doc. Maybe they BOTH had a hand in it, because I see what you see, and the "experts" see what we don't. And, I agree with RiverRat, who else could pen that in a steady hand? Naw, only one person did the writing, now that I think about it. nevermind:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "..whazzup' docg" Posted by Nikki on 10:10:08 6/26/2000 ..what's the 'g' for? glue mebbe? you stick like glue to this Johnboy wrote the note thing..Patsy was an 'art-tist!'..a painter, an artsyfartsy little belle..so she changed her a's and put on a show on paper..the note screams 'I hate you, John'..and you know why? He knows and she knows and they know..what happened that night, to 'that child!'..see? ..simple as one, two ..three ..little Indians.. ..one of them is a killer ..a stone cold 'accidental on purpose' killing machine.......deadly as the cobra.. ..until rikki tikki tavi came along, that is... .. ..was it a MWoman doppleganger dressed in wolf's clothing...the wolf sure didn't stand at the door huffing and puffing..while the 3 little pigs took their long winter's nap,, ..no no Docg...John Ramsey had nothing to do with that note, nor did he put the paper against a rough cement wall and write to make it all weak and shaky looking... nor did he get out the sharpie and legal pad...nope... ..he knows ..she knows ..they know ..but they won't tell...they are too busy obstructing justice..and corpse tampering..and laying all kinds of gruesome devilish games to save some sorry-butts.... ..all hail, black queen! ..no exhumation? ..why was that? ..a child dead below your sunroom with dust on her feet..she walked across the basement floor on her way to the gallows didn't she? but she was stun gunned? no no no ..neither was she beheaded although someone could have had marie antoniette on their mind..some woman who wrote that cursed note.. ..(swig that vodka John...maybe somebody will take mercy on you and send you some Johnny Walker Red..Gawd knows who you are...and how you can't be caught with a beer can...in you bloodstained claw...) ..so, how's your pal docg, the diwi anyhow? ..Nikki ..in a sober and somber moment.. ..JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "docg" Posted by Nandee on 10:01:45 6/26/2000 Post the sites where you extracted this information, or this is nothing more than a witch hunt..... (My second request) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "docg" Posted by Seashell on 11:09:20 6/26/2000 I'm glad you posted these again, thanks. The sey in Ramsey is the most revealing and maybe the hardest to disguise since it's the real "who" of the person. Assuming JR wrote the note alone, the question must be asked: Why does it ramble (like PR) use hackneyed phrases (like PR) and change voice to John from Mr? The only answer is that JR was trying to SOUND like it was PR writing the note, while trying to disguise his handwriting. A JR note would have been something like, "We've got your daughter. We want 2 million dollars. We'll call you the 27t at 10AM. Don't call the cops or she dies." Something like that. JR doesn't ramble but he certainly could if he wanted to implicate Patsy, which I think he does/did, rather than take the rap himself. Throwing Burke and JAR into the mix was crafty to say the least. Ånd yes, we must remember that the people who claim JR did not write the note were hired by JR. Give me a break. And didn't those same people say the PR couldn't be eliminated? Perhaps they were "encouraged" to say that. This from a newspaper article: "* The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from John Ramsey showed `indications' that John Ramsey did not write the reported ransom note" Now just what would those indications be? It looks like the examiner went thru and said, "Hmm, this t does not look like the exact slant of JR and this dotted i doesn't either, therefore he didn't write the note." INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR LIKENESSES, THEY LOOKED, AND EVEN SOUGHT OUT, DIFFERENCES. Am I the only one to interpret the above quote this way? Whereas with PR's exemplars, they sought out likenesses. Something is terribly wrong here and, docg, don't give up posting about it. Maybe one power that be will read it and history will change. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "I thought the CBI " Posted by momo on 10:59:28 6/26/2000 handwriting expert said that 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet matched Patsy Ramsey's handwriting in the note? What if it was Patsy copying John's handwriting? This of course could only happen if the murder of JonBenet was premeditated. But I must say that docg has opened up some possibilities of John writing the note. That is something I thought I would never say. The note just dosen't "sound" like John. It sounds more like Patsy very angry at John. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "graphology" Posted by river on 10:51:00 6/26/2000 is mainly used to identify forgery. BUT, to do graphology, you need originals, because pressure on the note and individual letters has just has much meaning (sometimes more) than the shape of the letter itself, which can change from time to time anyway. People often change their handwriting without even realizing it. For instance, sometimes I write certain letters, and sometimes I print them. I don't know why I change around. But if someone is deliberatly disguising their handwriting, as the perp likely was, how can that handwriting be identified as belonging to anyone? I can disguise my handwriting, and nobody would ever know it was mine. Betcha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "River, Docg" Posted by frankg on 11:19:26 6/26/2000 River, someone asked that in a post above and I too would like to hear an opinion from an expert. I remember at Christmas time writing some things to my daughters as Santa. I commented to my wife how difficult it was to disguise my handwriting. Perhaps only for me, but I would think it would be difficult to do for 2.5 pages. JMO... I really have no clue. Docg, it's my understanding that the CBI first did the handwriting analysis and leaned towards Patsy but the report was basically inconclusive. They did not think John wrote the note. Apparently at about the time that CU of the CBI was rethinking his position and becoming more convinced that Patsy wrote the note, Hunter asked the SS to analyze the note. The SS also determined John did not write the note and were less convinced that Patsy did than even the CBI's first analysis. As far as I know, these were the only two organizations that were officially asked to do an analysis and the only ones who had all the originals. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "I think they can tell" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:59:15 6/26/2000 by the way the writer lifts off a letter. And, where the writer starts to form that letter. Little serifs we add subconsciously, the pressure of the pen, etc. It is quite difficult for me to write consistently in another style. I'm a longhand writer, and sticking to print is nearly impossible for me. I always break into cursive, can't help it. This ransom note was written with some degree of discipline, which is hard to maintain when your entire nervous system is shot. IF the writer HAD a nervous system to begin with. Seems not to be the case, however. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "re-post" Posted by Seashell on 11:12:46 6/26/2000 17. "docg" Posted by Seashell on 11:09:20 6/26/2000 I'm glad you posted these again, thanks. The sey in Ramsey is the most revealing and maybe the hardest to disguise since it's the real "who" of the person. Assuming JR wrote the note alone, the question must be asked: Why does it ramble (like PR) use hackneyed phrases (like PR) and change voice to John from Mr? The only answer is that JR was trying to SOUND like it was PR writing the note, while trying to disguise his handwriting. A JR note would have been something like, "We've got your daughter. We want 2 million dollars. We'll call you the 27t at 10AM. Don't call the cops or she dies." Something like that. JR doesn't ramble but he certainly could if he wanted to implicate Patsy, which I think he does/did, rather than take the rap himself. Throwing Burke and JAR into the mix was crafty to say the least. Ånd yes, we must remember that the people who claim JR did not write the note were hired by JR. Give me a break. And didn't those same people say the PR couldn't be eliminated? Perhaps they were "encouraged" to say that. This from a newspaper article: "* The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from John Ramsey showed `indications' that John Ramsey did not write the reported ransom note" Now just what would those indications be? It looks like the examiner went thru and said, "Hmm, this t does not look like the exact slant of JR and this dotted i doesn't either, therefore he didn't write the note." INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR LIKENESSES, THEY LOOKED, AND EVEN SOUGHT OUT, DIFFERENCES. Am I the only one to interpret the above quote this way? Whereas with PR's exemplars, they sought out likenesses. Something is terribly wrong here and, docg, don't give up posting about it. Maybe one power that be will read it and history will change. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "wrong info....." Posted by Nandee on 11:58:06 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:58:06, 6/26/2000 Graphoanalysis is a system of identifying and assessing the character and personality of an individual through a detailed study of handwriting. The operative words here are "detailed study". In order to evaluate a sample, you need to have at least 100 measurable strokes. You do not need the original copy to do an analysis. It would give you indications like pressure or weight, but it's not needed. The Experts: Thomas C. Miller/ Forensic Document Examiner The additional categories of size, slant, baseline, continuity and arrangement add significantly to the opinion that Patsy Ramsey wrote the "ransom" note. Based upon the exemplars available, the handwriting of the "ransom" note and that of Patsy Ramsey have numerous and significant areas of comparison. Cina L. Wong, B.C.D.E. (Board Certified Document Examiner) The relatively large number of distinctive similarities (32) found in both the "ransom note" and exemplars allegedly written by Patsy Ramsey, however, cannot be ignored. David Liebman, M.A., C D.E, Certified Document Examiner/President of NADE There are far too many similarities and consistencies revealed in the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note for it to be coincidence. In light of the number of comparisons and similarities between Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note writer (51), the chances of a third party also sharing the same characteristics is astronomical. http://members.aol.com/SundanceIM/Kid/JBR/writing.htm (full reports from these experts) According to Steve Thomas, out of 73 samples taken , Patsy is the ONLY ONE who can not be excluded as the author of this note!! So.... docg.... What are your qualifications? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "It's just gotta be " Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:53:00 6/26/2000 that John dictated to Patsy, while she took some detours and embellished. Look, Patsy must have been flipped out that night, since she's obviously so emotional and demonstrative. John had to help her write that note or she just couldn't have done it. But, I think it's highly unlikely John did the actual writing of the note, even though some of the exemplars seem to indicate otherwise. It would just work out that way. Patsy goes nuts, John calms her down (after some time and effort) and the big male head of the family begins to dictate to her how it has to be. She' No. 2 (even if she is a beauty queen) behind John and defers to him. Sounds Japanese, doesn't it? It also used to reflect the way southern women were to defer to their husbands. Let's face it, Patsy was not raised in the "deep south" but her mom sure reflects it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "frankg & Nandee" Posted by fly on 13:12:28 6/26/2000 Nandee - While I certainly put more stock in an expert's opinion than in an amateur's (like docg), those experts you quote not only didn't have the original note but also a very, very limited sample of PR's handwriting. frankg - Another point of significance is that when the original analysis of the handwriting was done, JR was the prime suspect, I believe. That would open the door for some subtle bias to favor JR as the note's author. The fact that they very quickly pretty much dismissed JR as the author given that context says a lot, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "fly" Posted by Nandee on 13:44:39 6/26/2000 I agree. I have the same samples and they are cursive. It is harder to compare printing to cursive, but it is possible. These are experienced document examiners who would have not voiced an opinion if the samples were not adequate. The slant and formations would be similar as would be the size of the letters. When you consider that the experts who have had access to the samples taken by the BPD all conclude Patsy can not be excluded, it's a pretty good bet that Patsy's "good for it"...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "..we don't know how Patsy is in Realsville" Posted by Nikki on 13:10:03 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:10:03, 6/26/2000 ..she acts like a pathetic flakey girlfriend on television ...a sugarbaker type, beauty queen extraordinaire... ..in reality she is one tough cookie... ..he mind is razor sharp and her innards are spun steel ..she needed all those V's like a hole in her heart.. ..the chiq is clever and nobody's fool...John has t sit on her to shut her up cause she wants the last word...! ..I think she is a dynamite manipulator and has more built in smoke and mirrors than the wizard of oz.... ..all hail...the black queen.. what what what did she do? what what what does she know? everything...or nothing? JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Docg," Posted by zoomama on 13:40:20 6/26/2000 This is an interesting thread. I think that if I could live my life over again I would like to be a document examiner. I've been facinated by it since I've read some books about how they solved some crimes or proved documents to be faked. Interesting stuff. But all of this leads me to this question and I don't mean to be flip or insensitive to you or anyone here...but why was there a ransom note in the first place with a dead body in the basement. What possible purpose could it have, the note I mean. It wasn't followed in any measure, not one. Wondering... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Zoomama" Posted by momo on 15:48:55 6/26/2000 The ransom note was meant to throw the authorities off in another direction. A dead body in a basement without a note would have landed those two in prison. The note was meant to buy time, doubt and freedom. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "#29 Momo" Posted by zoomama on 18:17:55 6/26/2000 Yes, I am aware of the Ramseys as being masters of misdirection or at least JR is. But again I ask the question why the note if they did not follow one shred of instructions from the note. Yes, the body is in the basement and it looks bad but the note was very specific, do this, don't do that and so on. They didn't follow it. Isn't that the same as no note or am I being oblique? And yes, it points to them as authors. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Oh, Nikki," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:34:39 6/26/2000 i think you are on track. Don't for one moment believe I think this Patsy Ramsey is a weakling knuckling under to the John Ramsey strong hand. Quite the opposite. Here's my scenario: John is smart and so is Patsy, but about different things. John wouldn't betray her if it was an accident; especially if he contributed to the problem (i.e. sexual abuse ). John doesn't like messes, however. Can't tolerate them and will do most anything to circumvent messy problems. Patsy is not much different, but her motivation is. She want's a perfect world where everything works out the way it's supposed to, in spite of difficulties, so she provides unlimited help to John in the coverup. These two work together like two peas in a pod, yet they are very much different in personality. Each one has a different but very significant motivation for covering up this crime - no matter who is truly at fault. In some ways, I envy them. They went full throttle in regards to addressing the circumstances. I reiterate - they're both smart and both have a lot to lose besides their daughter. As a matter of fact, they would both have an easier time being "human" if they lost something less than their daughter. That took them over the edge. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Response" Posted by docg on 15:07:10 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:07:10, 6/26/2000 Many good questions have been raised on this thread and I can't begin to deal with them all. But I'll try to hit some of the most important issues. First, I'd like to share my sources. Here is Sundance Kid's Web site containing the superposition of the two "Ramsey"s, a reproduction of the deposition by John, along with a copy of the note AND another of DocG's comparisons. There are also links to three of the comparisons commissioned by Darnay Hoffman. http://members.aol.com/SundanceIM/Kid/JBR/writing.htm The link to Patsy's writing, accessible from Sundance's main page is no longer accessible, I'm not sure why. Now-- for those inclined to weigh the opinions of the "experts" against that of that "amateur", DocG: please don't. My opinion should carry no weight at all, since I am certainly no expert, believe me. I don't expect you to go by my opinion. Which is why I made up the comparison gifs, so you could draw your own conclusions. I am certainly willing to present my analysis of the comparisons, but, since I am NOT an expert, my analysis is simply expressing my own viewpoint, that's it. YOU gotta make up YOUR OWN mind about this stuff. If you are agreeing with me because you think I'm an expert, please don't, that's the wrong reason. And speaking of expertise, one of the problems with this case is that the "experts" have been all over the place. Weighing in at one extreme, we have the experts John hired, who see some resemblances between certain details in the note and certain details of Patsy's hand, but who nonetheless have concluded she couldn't have written the note, since there are far too many dissimilarities. Basically expressing the same view are the Secret Service experts, who concluded there was "no evidence" Patsy wrote the note. (By the way there is as far as I have learned, and please correct me if you know better, NO reason to believe the Secret Service people saw ANY exemplars from John -- by the time they got involved, all the focus was on Patsy and John was not even being considered as a possibility as far as the note was concerned.) At the other end of the spectrum, we have four experts hired by Darnay Hoffman, all of whom concluded quite strongly that the writer of the note was Patsy. Again, no evidence they even considered any of John's exemplars. And somewhere in between, but clearly closer to the Secret Service position, we have Chet Ubowski, who has found NO solid evidence that Patsy wrote the thing, but has concluded she can't be ruled out. John's experts and Ubowski have both indicated that John must be "ruled out." The Secret Service seems not to have considered John at all and neither did Hoffman's experts. One other expert has become involved, i.e., the Italian questioned document expert, Fausto Brugnatelli, who has devoted a WEB page to the comparison between John's deposition and the note: http://web.tiscalinet.it/faustobrugnatelli/index.htm I corresponded briefly with Brugnatelli and can tell you that he was outraged at the idea John could be "ruled out." According to Brugnatelli, whenever deliberate deception is at work, "you never rule out, you rule in." He feels that his comparisons show strong resemblances between John's hand and the note, resemblances which can't be (as they apparently have been) ignored. Since there has been such a wide divergence among the experts, one has to wonder why -- and one is forced to conclude something rather unpleasant. Such people make their living as expert witnesses and even though it's not supposed to happen that way, they often do function as "hired guns," and often provide their clients with the results the clients expect. John hires two "renowned" experts and they both decide he must be "ruled out." These same experts also decide Patsy could not have written the note either. Darnay Hoffman hires four experts and they all agree (unanimously -- surprise surprise) that Patsy wrote it, NO QUESTION! Of course, Darnay was after Patsy even before he hired those experts, so it was very clear what he wanted and they very clearly gave it to him. The situation with CBI expert Chet Ubowski is a bit more complex. He might have been giving the police what they wanted (since there was NO hard evidence linking John to the murder, but there was some linked to Patsy) or he might have been attempting to be objective. There is no question however that he pursued Patsy far more strongly than John -- he apparently didn't even bother to subpoena historic exemplars from John. The only experts totally out of the loop, with no particulr reason to favor either Patsy or John, OR an intruder, for that matter, the Secret Service people, essentially ruled Patsy out and never even considered John at all (apparently). And, of course, we should not discount Brugnatelli, who does not seem to have any particular bias one way or the other but nevertheless clearly suspects John. So -- all the above to argue as strongly as I can that if we think we can fall back on "expert opinion" on this matter we can't. There is no such thing. The "experts" have effectively neutralized one another in this matter of who wrote the note. Finally. As most of you know, I have a very good suspicion that John wrote the note and did the whole crime on his own and I have many good reasons for suspecting this. But that is NOT the point of this particular thread. All I want to argue here is that the gif I'm presenting is very strong evidence that John should never have been ruled out as writer of the note. I'm not saying it proves he wrote it, simply that it presents compelling evidence that he cannot and should not be ignored in this matter, that he cannot and never should have been "ruled out." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Wait a minute!!" Posted by ConnieToo on 16:22:59 6/26/2000 Even the Ramsey experts, when questioned by the BPD "could not rule Patsy Ramsey out" as the note writer. They made this admission when pressed. You see, they don't like their credibility undermined, and hence, don't offer information, but will respond honestly if asked a direct question. Patsy, I think you are good for it!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "docg" Posted by Nandee on 15:19:21 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:19:21, 6/26/2000 I don't put too much weight in John's "self-sponsered" handwriting experts. We have NO idea what kind of exemplars they were given. In order to do an analysis, you take the suspect document and the handwriting sample from one person and compare the two. Whether or not these experts had John's samples when they did their analysis is of no consequence and would not affect their analysis in any way. I just checked the Italian's site. Can you explain where his samples came from. He claims to be using the court document, which was written in ball point pen, but all of his exemplars are written in felt tip pen????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Go, docg!" Posted by Seashell on 16:24:14 6/26/2000 "John's experts and Ubowski have both indicated that John must be "ruled out." The Secret Service seems not to have considered John at all and neither did Hoffman's experts." As I recall, the ruling out of JR as perp and notewriter happened rather swiftly, at the same time that his own people started finger pointing strongly at Patsy. He was thought to be the suspect in the beginning and then all of a sudden we have him refusing more writing samples and no one went after any historic examples, as docg pointed out. Also, there is a connection between either HH or JR to Ubowski's boss and now I can't remember how we determined that - only that Ubowski may have been told that JR didn't write the note and that's that! Does anyone remember that odd connection? His ruling out remains suspect; he refused to give more samples (WHY? Patsy didn't refuse) He hired people to clear him like he hired polygraph experts. Hired guns of a suspect should never be given any credibility. AND, CU has a connection to the case which would make him suspect as well. So what we really have is JR being ruled out for no good reason. Who was the woman on TV recently that said that she could prove that JR wrote the note? Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they both had a hand in it, but then, why would PR call 911? Putting aside pre-conceived notions, anyone looking at docg's comparison would have to logically conclude that JR should not have been ruled out. How many posters can put aside their pre-conceived notions and opinions? What's more important, justice or pet theories? The evidence is there right before our eyes. Docg, try sending these comparisons to the FBI or someone who doesn't have a vested interest in hanging Patsy alone. Just imagine what would happen if JR were suddenly included as the possible notewriter. The 911 call would make sense; so would the incest/dictionary thing; also the basement vanishing trick- so many things would fall into place. It's bad enuf the authorities are hounding only Patsy but many here are also becuz of "experts" who can be bought and sold - who can lie, be wrong, overlook and not be given enuf evidence. Oh well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Seashell" Posted by Nandee on 17:52:20 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:52:20, 6/26/2000 "So what we really have is JR being ruled out for no good reason." I think Steve Thomas and the BPD would disagree with this statement. JR and PR were the prime suspects. To think even the inept BPD would rule JR out as the writer of the note without looking seriously at him is just silly. According to Schiller, (PMPT, pg 78) JR had given 3 handwriting samples by January 5th. He was eliminated as the author of the note, so why collect more samples from him? Patsy was the one who they couldn't clear, AND HENCE the need for more samples from her. Even JR didn't need to grow a brain to figure this one out!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Seashell and Nandee" Posted by docg on 19:27:38 6/26/2000 Thanks for your ongoing support, Seashell. Much appreciated. The rumor I heard was that one of the people hired by JR was Ubowski's (retired) mentor at CBI. If that's true, I'd say John did a very smart thing hiring this guy, no? Of all the thousands of experts he could have hired, he picks out the MENTOR of the person who's going to be investigating him. Of course, I could be wrong. Anyone here know for sure? As far as sending this to the FBI, CBI, BPD or whatever, I can't imagine that having any effect. For one thing, these people are overwhelmed with theories about this case. For another, I can't imagine any of the people already involved in the investigation changing their basic outlook at this point. John being "ruled out" is THE ONE piece of certainty these poor folks have permitted themselves. It is their rock, the mainstay of their existence. Why deprive them of it? They obviously want to believe Patsy dunnit. So why spoil it for them? Besides, the damage has been done. John's being "ruled out" is etched permanently into the fabric of the case. Rule him back in again and the whole fantasy they've created for themselves simply crumbles into dust. Any outlook change on their part so far into the case would be the equivalent of handing the Ramsey lawyers the perfect defense: the testimony of the prosecution's own star witnesses. What I'm presenting here I'm presenting in the interest of truth, because I know how badly we all would like to know what really happened. As far as JfJBR is concerned: forget it. Won't happen. Thanks to some major bungling early on, any case against John would self-destruct in no time. Nandee writes: "I don't put too much weight in John's "self-sponsered" handwriting experts. We have NO idea what kind of exemplars they were given." I don't think much of them either. They were given what John wanted them to have, clearly, and not a bit more (not that they asked). But that's not my point. My point is that ALL privately hired "experts" tend to take on the role of "hired guns" and tend (consciously or not) to give the people who hire them what they want. So there's no reason to think much of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" either. And they are the ONLY ones who've alleged Patsy wrote the note. "In order to do an analysis, you take the suspect document and the handwriting sample from one person and compare the two. Whether or not these experts had John's samples when they did their analysis is of no consequence and would not affect their analysis in any way." I have no idea what the above means. "I just checked the Italian's site. Can you explain where his samples came from. He claims to be using the court document, which was written in ball point pen, but all of his exemplars are written in felt tip pen?????" Come again? His exemplars come from the same document mine do. How do you know what type of pen it was written with? Are you JR by any chance? And what difference would it make, given all the many similarities. Differences could be explained by the use of different pens. But similarities are similarities whether different pens are used or not and if different pens WERE used then the similarities are even more striking, aren't they? Nandee again: "I think Steve Thomas and the BPD would disagree with this statement. JR and PR were the prime suspects. To think even the inept BPD would rule JR out as the writer of the note without looking seriously at him is just silly." What are you suggesting? That it's silly to assume that "inept" investigators would do something stupid? "He was eliminated as the author of the note, so why collect more samples from him?" Exactly. The inept investigators (your term) decided to rule him out (probably because all the evidence they thought they had came from Patsy, not John), so once they made that inept decision they ineptly failed to follow up on any possibility he might have written it, and just, ineptly, concentrated on Patsy. You've got it perfectly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "docg" Posted by Nandee on 20:00:53 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:00:53, 6/26/2000 The confusion I have over the type of instrument used is because a felt tip pen is heavier than a ball point, or a pencil. We know the note was written with a felt tip and the Italian's samples that he says are John's are not consistant. The court document appears to be a ball point pen but his exemplars appear to be felt tip. Did he "copy" them? Hoffman's experts were given samples of Patsy's writing writen before the murder. I happen to have copies of all of them. They were not altered in any way. John could have given anyone's writing to his experts and claimed it was his, or he could have written like the note to muddy the waters. The man was involved in the murder of a child, so there is no telling what he would stoop to. If I follow your convoluted logic, the other 72 people who were eliminated by the BPD experts could also still be the author of the note, but the BPD just decided, out of the blue to focus on Patsy. It's clear your mind is made up on this subject, but Steve Thomas' words seem so appropriate here: "Patsy, I think you're good for it!" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Nandee" Posted by docg on 21:38:35 6/26/2000 > The confusion I have >over the type of instrument used >is because a felt tip pen >is heavier than a ball point, >or a pencil. We know >the note was written with a >felt tip and the Italian's samples >that he says are John's are >not consistant. The court document appears >to be a ball point pen >but his exemplars appear to be >felt tip. Did he "copy" >them? I think I understand. The enlarged details from the deposition at Brugnatelli's site look less sharply defined than the small image of the entire document. That's simply an artefact of the way these images have been reproduced. Brugnatelli has greatly enlarged all the examples he's presented, so they tend to look kind of chunky, that's all. If you look carefully you'll see they are taken from the documents he says they're from. Actually he's done a great job of enlarging these images without producing the usual digital artefacts. The ones from John's deposition seem to be slightly out of focus, so that might be part of your problem as well. >Hoffman's experts were given samples of Patsy's >writing writen before the murder. >I happen to have copies of >all of them. They were >not altered in any way. I'm not suggesting they were. But there are several problems here. First, as I mentioned, these experts are "hired guns" employed by an individual who very clearly wanted to see a certain outcome. We have no way of knowing how many "experts" Hoffman consulted before he got the results he wanted -- any more than we know that about John and HIS "experts" -- or his polygraphers, for that matter. Second, Hoffman gave his "experts" only a very small sampling of Patsy's printing, far smaller than the CBI or Secret Service people had access to. The only really extensive sampling was from Patsy's writing NOT her printing. Finally, there is good reason to believe there were problems with some the exemplars provided by Hoffman, problems none of his "experts" ever caught. For example, some of them commented on the fact that the margins in the note drift leftward and down, "just like" the margins in Patsy's exemplars. What they failed to notice was that the "drifting" margins in the note were caused by crooked xeroxing. The margins in the note itself are perfectly straight -- no drift. Also one of the very few examples of Patsy's printing which Hoffman provided was something that read "Rainbow Fish Players." Even an amateur like myself can see that this very juvenile script was written by a different person, probably Burke. Yet all Hoffman's "experts" suggested the note had many details so similar to what we find in this example that they "must have" been written by the same hand. These people couldn't or didn't want to see that obviously this exemplar was NOT consistent with the others allegedly by Patsy. They found something in it they could use to make their points -- so they did so. Depressing but true. >John could have given anyone's writing >to his experts and claimed it >was his, or he could have >written like the note to muddy >the waters. The man was >involved in the murder of a >child, so there is no telling >what he would stoop to. Well, if John DID murder his daughter, as I think he well might have, then yes, certainly. But I think he managed basically to control what the CBI people saw as well. I have a feeling he has more than one printing style and he let them see only the one. I'd be really surprised to learn that the deposition we've been studying had been examined by Ubowski. >If I follow your convoluted logic, the >other 72 people who were eliminated >by the BPD experts could also >still be the author of the >note, but the BPD just decided, >out of the blue to focus >on Patsy. Suspects get eliminated for various reasons. What Thomas has suggested about this matter has been contradicted, Thomas has been confronted with this and has backed down. Most of the suspects he mentions were eliminated for reasons other than their handwriting. The great majority had reasonably acceptable alibis. Others passed polygraph tests. Thomas has suggested all these people except for Patsy were eliminated on the basis of their handwriting only and that does NOT in fact seem to have been the case at all. If a large sampling of printing from a large number of suspects had been examined blind -- i.e., with the examiner(s) not knowing whose exemplars they were looking at -- and if under such circumstances they picked out Patsy -- then I'd be impressed -- and so would ANY jury, Grand or Petite. This has NOT happened. I think it should happen -- but unfortunately the investigators seem to want to continue bumbling along in their own inept (your word) fashion. The BPD are focussing on Patsy, NOT because her printing resembles that of the note (it doesn't) but because they've managed to convince themselves John couldn't have written the thing, they know there was no intruder (I agree), so the only one left, as far as they are concerned, is Patsy. >It's clear your mind is made up >on this subject, but Steve Thomas' >words seem so appropriate here: "Patsy, >I think you're good for it!" Nandee, if it's so clear that Patsy did it, Thomas would have had a clear case to take to the DA and there would have been an indictment long ago. No such case exists. It seems crystal clear to me that Thomas, who means well, but seems at times VERY naive, has been looking in the wrong direction. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "I don't think Thomas is naive, so much as...." Posted by ConnieToo on 13:31:39 6/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:31:39, 6/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:30:30, 6/27/2000 maligned by the BPD. I believe that due to another poster's interference, (i.e. the Foster scam pulled by another webmistress, who had forwarded some notes that she, while posing as a 20 year old male), got from Foster. The very fact that this poster made a concerted effort to discredit him under false pretenses, using the good professor Mike Tracey, who said, "We had to take him out!," says it all to me. This webmistress got in bed early with Lou Smit, who decided the Ramseys were innocent after praying with them in his van, and used hir version of the story as his theory. Hunter and his goons could very well have rehabilitated that image with some good research on this webmistress. Hunter, probably with coaching from Roy Roemer, had already seized on this as a way of NOT presenting the very damning handwriting and linguistist analysis to the GJ. Gail Schoettler has a great deal to answer for in the political forum that surrounds this case, too. IMHO, a police detective expects cooperation and alliance with the prosecutors office. I believe that prosecutorial malfeasance was and is the ONLY way that Foster's evidence has not been taken forward. As Lou Smits says, "Muders are usually what they seem." Hunter told the FBI that (the decision to go forward) "was a political decision," and shocked the FBI into silence. They went to great lengths to help with this investigation, and got away from it as soon as they could, given the "political climate" in Boulder, CO, and quite possibly, Washington. I put NO credence in the fact that Foster's writings, evidentiary data, et al, are discredited. They were torpedoed at the express wish of an internet junkie and an old dick who is slip sliding slowly into senility. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "I agree with Seashell" Posted by starfish on 21:21:58 6/26/2000 and have, for over three years now. I think John wrote the ransom note. I think John was molesting JonBenet. I think Patsy caught them. I think Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet. Seashell may not agree with all of the above, but we have been on the same wavelength about a lot of things for a long long time. And John and the ransom note have been consistent all along. You go, Boulder Person!!! I love you and all you stand for. starfish [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Nikki" Posted by Greenleaf on 06:41:20 6/27/2000 You wrote: ".he knows ..she knows ..they know ..but they won't tell...they are too busy obstructing justice..and corpse tampering..and laying all kinds of gruesome devilish games to save some sorry-butts...." Ah, Nikki, you are right on target. This is a very interesting thread. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "some comments" Posted by Ryder on 23:26:42 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:26:42, 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:19:23, 6/26/2000 I remember a net site where it was asked why JR was ruled out as the writer and some samples were posted to suggest that JR's writing was more similar to the note than PR's. Ramsey signature. Did anyone else come across that site and know the link for it? Certainly that suggestion with the samples were thought-provoking. But I also recall reading a rather detailed handwriting analysis (2 of them, actually) where they picked up on an incredible number of things to back up the view that PR was the writer. I believe one of these analysts said that there was a 95% chande PR wrote it and the other said something like 7.5 out of 10. I didn't bookmark these sites, so maybe someone else can provide the links and the sources. All that said, yes, it is JR who appears to be in charge of hiring experts and could he control the opinions that get aired? When I first saw PR's cursive writing, I saw no clear relationship to the printed ransom note. Then I also saw some printing by her - captions from photos and there I saw the similarity. Bottom line, docg, I don't know where to go with this. However to the poster (and others) who feel that maybe this was JR writing but adopting PR's style. Hey, anything is possible, but if that were the case what we would have here would be: JR imitating PR who is imitating kidnapper. It sounds a bit complicated to me, though perhaps not impossible. It's like this: some of us could imitate one another's style of writing (that's about all most of us know about one another). But don't forget that the writer of the note is attempting to pose as a kidnapper. So, while I could try to imitate any poster's style, could I imitate that poster in the process of trying to imitate a kidnapper (and fumbling it?). I think this is the infinity question of the TV in the TV in the TV... etc. Okay, I'll stop, since I have now confused even myself. Does anyone get my drift? Could be possible, but just how difficult would it be? P.S. docg, I do have to wonder about this and it may well lean towards your theory: Why the heck didn't the "handsomely paid" polygraph expert ask JR if HE wrote that darned note? (Okay, so I don't believe ANY of Gelb's test, but I still wonder why Gelb couldn't have asked a total of 3 questions to JR, rather than just 2 - I still can't believe that these jokers expect the world to be satisfied with 2 or 3 questions about this case, answered behind closed doors - sorry, but this just boggles my mind! What sort of stinginess is this? or maybe I should be asking just how much each question cost, because it sure looks like someone had the meter running.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Ryder" Posted by Nandee on 22:18:52 6/26/2000 I'd be very interested in seeing Patsy's printing. Did you find any of it online? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "slants" Posted by Nandee on 22:56:13 6/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:56:13, 6/26/2000 Check the examples here: http://web.tiscalinet.it/faustobrugnatelli/7.htm First Line: Pay close attention to the way the letters slant. Notice that the T crossing on the first example does not touch the h formation. The h in the second sample has a v formation where the rounded stroke diviates from the initial downstroke. Notice the difference in the width of the rounded stroke of the h. Second Line: Notice where the T crossings are placed in relation to the rounded stroke of the h. Notice the difference in the width of the rounded stroke of the h. Third Line: The first m slants toward the left the first rounded stroke is smaller than the second one. The second example has an initial downstroke, (a straight line is the first stroke. Both of the rounded strokes are slanted in the same direction and are similar in width. Fourth Line: The i downstroke slants to the left and is dotted with a bold dot, to the left of the downstroke. The top of the ll's slant to the left. In the second example, the i is dotted high and a little to the right. The ll's are taller than the initial w which is not the case in the first example. Fifth Line: The initial stroke slants slightly to the left and the finish stroke turns back to the left. (Almost creates a backward c stroke.) The middle stroke (the peak of the w)on the second sample is made a little lower than the first sample. (docg.... I see what was done. The handwriting sample was blown up to a point where it distorts the ball point ink making it mimick the blurring of a felt tip pen. Not really conducive to doing an accurate analaysis.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "docg--you make interesting points," Posted by fiddler on 23:17:12 6/26/2000 both about the handwriting and the "tomorrow being today" business. BUT you are completely leaving out Donald Foster's analysis. Did jameson's nonsense blind you to the fact that his record in matching questioned documents to their authors is 152-0? (Okay, one of those was a disputed Shakespearean sonnet, so that one's iffy--make it only 151-0.) He's the guy who identified the Unabomber as Ted Kaczinski. Also the guy who identified the author of "Primary Colors". And, to me at least, he's the guy who identified the author of the Ramsey ransom note. Content trumps appearance, every time. You can disguise your handwriting. You can't disguise your thinking. Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "fiddler" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:44:07 6/27/2000 You wrote: "Content trumps appearance, every time. You can disguise your handwriting. You can't disguise your thinking. Patsy Ramsey wrote the note." Exactly! And, I might add, Patsy is probably the author of some of jams' posts, from which Foster made his conclusions about the murderer. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Interesting Thought!" Posted by shadow on 08:01:52 6/27/2000 Greenleaf - "And, I might add, Patsy is probably the author of some of jams' posts, from which Foster made his conclusions about the murderer." I'm sure you and others have discussed this before, but I'm very slow... this is an interesting thought given the fact that PR, SS, and SB were working together long ago. Maybe Foster was "right-on" and the media has been sold the Brooklyn Bridge again? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "shadow" Posted by Greenleaf on 09:01:00 6/27/2000 You wrote: "I'm sure you and others have discussed this before..." No, shadow, I don't remember reading this before. I have thought this for a long time, but am just now getting around to posting it. I have thought that, in the end, Foster may come out on top, IF he was making his analysis on Patsy's writings, via jams. I doubt if this can ever be proved, and, short of a confession, we will probably never know. jams did a "bang up job" on Foster. No question about that. If these new "hints" I'm hearing are true, of jams possibly being thrown under the ram bus, no telling what an irate hir would unload on the public. The rams have to be careful with this one. IMHO, if they discredit hir, it'll be through a paid "third party." And, what about Foster? He's probably working, at this moment, on bringing hir down to hir knees. Anyway, hello there, shadow. How's THE MAN? I spent the week-end in New Orleans. I went to the new D-Day (WWII) Museum. It is absolutely wonderful. It brought back many memories. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "if Patsy is Jams" Posted by Edie Pratt on 09:26:02 6/27/2000 etc., then does that mean that all her hired help KNOW she killed JonBenet, and they want to save their employer? Why would grown women spend so much time playing games of subterfuge and deceit, when they have their own families to torture? What is the payoff to all this? It's not like their cause is just, afterall. Shouldn't they be looking for the killer rather than hiding one? Boy, some people's children! I cannot believe at this point and time, that the "friends" of the Ramsey's don't/haven't figured it out. I believe at this point, that those friends are aiding and abetting the murderers of a little girl. Period. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "several things" Posted by Seashell on 10:34:03 6/27/2000 What's this about jams maybe being thrown under the Rambus? starfish, sweety pie, thank you! "Why the heck didn't the "handsomely paid" polygraph expert ask JR if HE wrote that darned note?" That also amazed me and if we put all of this together, not only about the note, but about what we can remember about the case, :-) JR looks very bad. I feel quite positive he manuevered it that way or an unbiased polygrapher would have asked. So the question is, why didn't JR want to be asked if he wrote the note? The answer appears obvious. I find it almost impossible to believe that every single person working this case has a mind-set so rigid that this discussion doesn't even exist. What I DON'T find impossible is that JR may have paid someone very very well to make sure he's not the notewriter and to make sure Patsy is. He even had her admit on TV that the writer is the killer. The coup de grace. He must be very pleased with himself. Patsy the patsy. There's one other thing which I don't think is farfetched. The note examiners were, to my knowledge mostly men. To claim that JR may have written it would be to declare that incest may have played a big part in the murder. On some level, I don't think men want to admit that one of their own could be so vile. In this case, all it would take would be one or two men in high positions to screw up the case from the start. Men who were either paid to protect JR; men who may have been involved in some dirty stuff themselves and vulnerable to blackmail; men who couldn't confront their own sexual dark shadows; men who were simply stupid. If woman had been mostly in charge of this case, I believe JR would be in jail now or fighting for his freedom. We would not have allowed JR to resist giving more samples, nor would we so blithely overlook the very obvious sexual molestation, chronic and acute. In this particular case at least, the men have been especially myopic and I'm not sure why. But I do feel that slippery slimy HH and his cronies had a lot to do with it. We needed good solid womens intuition in the beginning and didn't have anyone except LA; altho with HH and Co., maybe even women couldn't have prevailed. Look what happened to MW? And the camera reporter? Kimberly Ballard? These women are gone or discredited - women who talked or wrote about the sexual aspects of the case and who spoke less than glowingly about JR. Gone gone gone! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "EdiePratt--of course they are," Posted by fiddler on 10:12:35 6/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:12:35, 6/27/2000 but they don't see it like that. They're too busy "killing the messenger" to pay any attention to the message. And the more qualified the messenger is, the harder they have to work--thus the vehemence directed toward Foster. If the "friends" were forced to face the fact of Ramsey guilt, they would be massively inconvenienced. Their world would be messed up--icky! And they would look like fools. Any of us non-millionaires have to live with those things daily. But rich people are different--they all live in their own little "perfect towns". They have enough money to make everything unpleasant just GO AWAY. So to them, the real mystery is why we won't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "gosh, Fid" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:24:25 6/27/2000 I could see standing by people with a vengeance, IF their stories never changed,lol! The Stines are educated people, for crying outloud. Susan Stine even declares herself a "skeptical person", said so in the crock. But, is she deaf? Hell-o? The R's have gone on 3 different network shows and have given 3 different answers to the same question, what's so fuzzy about THAT? They downright lie, and the people that are closest to them are handing out press packages! So, it HAS TO BE TRUE that SS and SB and all the little heads out there, KNOW THEY'RE WORKING ON BEHALF OF BABY KILLERS! Yeah, Fiddler, how inconveinient to realize your fighting the wrong windmill. But, for now, I'm sure ignorance is BLI$$. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Edie" Posted by Seashell on 10:39:17 6/27/2000 People see and hear only what they want. SS has selective hearing. Or if not, then there is a conspiracy of child sex abuse and the friends are all involved. Which is it? Or, number 3, the friends have pasts which they want unrevealed and JR has threatened to reveal things if they talk. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Just a quick" Posted by Seeker on 10:39:08 6/27/2000 post. Here is why all the Ramsey's "friends" are defending them. $$ talks and people listen. Many, many people can be "bought" or at least "rented". Think about it. Some people will do anything for money and why derail their money train? Get it now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "how does that work?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:50:24 6/27/2000 Does JR write a check once a month? Or, is it a subtle payment plan where the Stine's rent gets mysteriously paid? I'm curious how that one works, money is such a touchy subject. How do those Stine people look eachother in the eye, she knowing her husband's not man enough to say, "No thanks,JR, I'll provide for my own family. Susan, get your things, we're out of here!", and Glen, knowing his wife's in love with another? The Stines are PIGS,IMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Tangents" Posted by docg on 13:43:51 6/27/2000 It would be nice if for a change we did NOT veer off into all the usual tangents, airing everyones pet fantasies about the case. Foster's analysis is, to say the very least, controversial. There are IMO many reasons for not taking it seriously. But that, and all the other stuff about SS, SB, etc. has been aired already ad nauseum on this forum. What I think would be most useful here would be to limit ourselves to the question of whether or not John must be "ruled out" as writer of the note. What the gif I've presented demonstrates, IMO, is that it was indeed a mistake to rule John out. This does NOT mean he definitely wrote the note. It does NOT mean that Patsy didn't write the note. It does not even mean there wasn't an intruder. ALL it means is that, on the basis of the handwriting evidence, the many similarities found by myself and others demonstrate that John can't be ruled out as writer of the note. The content evidence (according to Foster) is another issue entirely and I'll be happy to deal with that if someone wants to start (yet another) thread on that topic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I second your opinion..." Posted by ConnieToo on 13:45:46 6/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:45:46, 6/27/2000 the Steins are pigs, and fit right into the Ramsey mistique.. the lengthy silences, the internet association (changing styles, wearing clothes two or three times, yada yada yada). I'll bet SS had to beg the Patsy to wear the same outfit two days in a row. The spin is almost laughable, if it didn't concern the death of a six year old baby in her parents' house on Christmas. their souls moulder under the weight of their deception. their hearts quake knowing that the axe is forever hanging over their throats. they know in their minds that they are the most despised people ever to try to spam the american public.. yet they carry on... trying to garner support from anyone who will give it.. so far the Steins seem to have become ascendent only because their other friends are gone, gone, gone... and thrown under the bus... and will never, ever be their friends again... because of the tire tracks from the RamBus on their backs... Oh, yes, the Patsy is good for it. And JR kept quiet after he found that poor savaged little body in the basement at 11:00 AM. and had his attorneys calling Fleet White on the afternoon of the 26th to solidify the story.. but FW now had his own suspicions... and was thrown under the bus after he complained about the incompetants in the DAs office. Did you all know that he was taken into the BPD in handcuffs for a parking ticket after he wrote the letter calling for the special prosecutor?? and that jameson dug up MW?? They are both guilty. Patsy of the killing, and John for protecting the woman he knows in his heart killed his BABY!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "..Jams is the Star on the Rams Poison Tree" Posted by Nikki on 13:33:08 6/27/2000 ..and they..the so-called friends.. have all tarbabyed themselves to the two who drank vodka and clung to the sunroom on that morning.. ..can anyone stop those windmills from spinning? the one who should have, Mr Hunter has long hung up his sword and is ready to leave the building.. ..leaving a vacant spot for who? ..a man of courage to face the big guns..or another spinless wonder..to whom the death of a small girl means nothing.. ..money and power feed the black tree and the blossoms have swallowed up so many lives..so many have lost jobs, respect of others and their own reputations...and for what/ to watch the Ramsey couple go on their merry way dragging Lou Smit along for the ride... ,,he needs to change his shoes..and go out and find that 'perp' now and not 40 years down the road..I don't suppose it bothers him that no other murder of a child has been committed with the same Modus than this one... ..put an end to it ..so that the child might find her freedom ..and be able to rest. ..bring the poison tree down and the Ramsey's to their knees.. ..this dead, abused child--will never be forgotten! ..JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "docg--so, what are the" Posted by fiddler on 16:14:24 6/27/2000 many reasons not to take Foster seriously? I don't mean that to sound as confrontational as it looks, typed out. I'm just curious as to how you can possibly rationalize this guy away, given that you already lean toward Ramsey guilt. So.....? EdiePratt--the thing is, you're interpreting "knows" to mean the same as "cares". I believe a lot of the John and Patsy crowd, when they bother to think about anything, think that John and/or Patsy are guilty of murder. They just don't care. Because to care would mean that they, themselves, would have to be inconvenienced. And if there's anything a wealthy, powerful person can't stand, it's inconvenience. No matter what. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "an inconveinient truth" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:25:28 6/27/2000 eh? Well, Fiddler, in my mind, they might as well have killed her, too. To turn a blind eye or deaf ear to the truth, is, unspeakable. Remember the case of the little girl in Vegas? That friend of Strohmeier's didn't "care" either, and he DID NOTHING ILLEGAL. Unless you call breaking a human code, illegal. The $tine$ have no conscience, either, so I guess they all deserve eachother. I wonder, will the $tine$ move into a cell with the Ramseys, should that scenario become reality? I think they keep a low profile just in case that should happen. The general population doesn't know about them and their present, ahem, opportunity. They can slip back into society without too much hate email. PIGS. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Fiddler" Posted by docg on 19:19:04 6/27/2000 Sigh. I guess there's no escaping it. I've already expressed myself regarding Foster on other threads. And would rather not get into him here. But I suppose the damage is done, everyone else has gotten into it here, so what the . . . Reasons for not taking Foster's conclusions regarding Patsy and the note seriously: 1. All the already well hashed over business involving his letter to Patsy and his relationship with Jameson. No matter what you think of Jameson's role in this, no matter how devious you may think she's been, the letter and the Jameson flap make it clear, as far as I'm concerned, that Foster has lost credibility, especially regarding this particular case. If he was such an expert on content analysis, he would never have allowed Jameson to mislead him (assuming that was what she did). Nor would he have declared Patsy innocent in such absolute terms and then done a 180 degree about face. This speaks not only of unprofessional behavior but out and out naivete. I'll be very interested to read what he has to say regarding this case in his book, but if he's just going to be whining about how Jameson misled him, I won't be interested. 2. Most of Foster's successes, as far as I know, have involved rather extensive texts, such as the Unabomber Manifesto and the book whose author he managed to reveal. This makes sense, as it would be in keeping with his methods, which are essentially statistical. Statistical methods require large samplings. While the ransom note is long as ransom notes go, it is extremely short as texts in general go. IMO 2 1/2 pages is simply not enough text for statistical methods to apply. My guess is that Foster has simply fallen back on more subjective methods where this case is concerned and in so doing has placed himself in the ranks of the rest of us, i.e., in the ranks of the amateur sleuths. He's made some interesting observations about certain aspects of the note. Fine. So have most of US. Without being able to apply his usual statistical methodology, he becomes, IMO, just another JBR freak. Welcome to the club, Donald. 3. Finally, I doubt very much if Foster has ever encountered a text like the Ramsey ransom note. While the Unabomber certainly wanted to disguise his identity, as did the author the book Foster figured out, there is no reason to believe either of these people went out of their way to disguise their usual literary manner. This is, in any case, almost impossible to do in a lengthy document. The Ramsey note, on the other hand, was almost certainly designed to be misleading through and through. The writer clearly made some efforts to disguise his/her hand and it's almost certain there was a similar effort to disguise his/her style. Any given statement could well have been designed to mislead and there is no way of knowing which sentences were so designed and which weren't. E.g. "Use that good Southern common sense" is far more likely to be a sarcastic comment than the sort of thing the note writer would be known to have said. Even the exclamation points could have been placed in the note as part of an effort to deceive. Until the author of the note is finally revealed, there is simply NO way of knowing for sure. Until the author is revealed, all anyone can do on this matter is speculate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Docg" Posted by pisces on 22:21:51 6/27/2000 I was re-reading ST's book and thought you would be interested in this quote from page 326 last paragraph. Patsy is being questioned by Haney "Later she said, "If John Ramsey was involved, honey, we wouldn't be sitting here I'd have knocked his block off. Read my lips! This was not done by a family member. DIDN'T HAPPEN. PERIOD. END OF STATEMENT." I put in caps what I thought looked familiar. When I have lurked over on the Jameson forum, I think that I have seen those words used under a Jameson/Jams post. Perhaps Foster wasn't wrong when he said that Jameson was the writer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Pisces" Posted by docg on 06:13:01 6/28/2000 The difference between a subjective approach and a systematic approach to issues such as whether or not Patsy might "actually" be Jameson (or the writer of the ransom note) is vast. Millions of people tend to use similar expressions, so the isolation of a single sentence or phrase means little. I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate based on such similarities, because you never know, they COULD mean something. But you can never pin down anything on such a basis. As I understand it, the method used successfully by Foster is based on a *statistical* analysis that compares texts of substantial length. If a certain type of expression or sentence structure crops up, say, 4% of the time in document X and 4% of the time in the writings of Mr. Y, then that would be a potentially meaningful similarity, though in itself it might mean nothing. A pattern of such similarities could well tell you that document X was written by Mr. Y. This is a method of GREAT promise IMO, but not until it is taken up by more than one person and not until its methods are refined and TESTED should it become something used in a court of law. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Nandee" Posted by docg on 12:34:54 7/01/2000 Nandee wrote a very thorough and interesting post which I haven't been able to respond to till now. Hope it isn't too late, because this is just the sort of thing I was hoping we could get into. Nandee: "Check the examples here: http://web.tiscalinet.it/faustobrugnatelli/7.htm First Line: Pay close attention to the way the letters slant." Yes, the prevailing slant of the note is to the right and the letters in John's sample slant left (backslant). Perhaps this is what made the "experts" decide to rule him out. Realistically, however, it's not hard to see how someone with a distinctive backslant might want to correct that when disguising his hand. The note does contain some backslanted letters as well, as though he tried but did not completely succeed in correcting his natural slant. "Notice that the T crossing on the first example does not touch the h formation." Not on that particular sample, but take a look at the third line. "The h in the second sample has a v formation where the rounded stroke diviates from the initial downstroke. Notice the difference in the width of the rounded stroke of the h." The width differences could be due to use of different pens or different blowup methods. But he "v formation" of the note's "h"'s is VERY interesting and different from anything in the sample from John. Good observation. The note actually contains both types of "h," some very close to what you see in John's deposition and others formed with the initial downstroke and following upstroke resembling a "v." It would be very helpful if we had more exemplars from John. "Second Line: Notice where the T crossings are placed in relation to the rounded stroke of the h. Notice the difference in the width of the rounded stroke of the h." Are you referring here to the THIRD line? In any case, if you look at all three lines with the "t" crossing in mind you'll see three different placements in relation to the "h". In fact the tendency to continue the "t" crosses over into the horizontal stroke of the "h"s, which we do find in Patsy's hand is actually NOT really what happens very often in the note. They tend to abut one another, but one doesn't get much sense of continuity. "Third Line: The first m slants toward the left the first rounded stroke is smaller than the second one. The second example has an initial downstroke, (a straight line is the first stroke. Both of the rounded strokes are slanted in the same direction and are similar in width." You mean FOURTH line. The slant could easily have been adjusted (see above). The initial downstroke is the most interesting thing here and the strongest link with Patsy's hand. The "m"s in the note AND the "m"s in Patsy's samples both tend to begin with downstrokes. This is the ONLY really interesting similarity I've noticed between the note and Patsy's hand. (Of course there are probably millions of people who also begin their "m"s with a downstroke.) It's very hard to tell from John's deposition whether he too shares this tendency because the beginnings of the very few "m"s tend to be crushed against the previous letter. If he does not, then that also could be a reason why he was ruled out, since that sort of thing is usually unconscious, not likely to be something the writer would deliberately think to alter. (But of course there is no way to be sure.) "Fourth Line: The i downstroke slants to the left and is dotted with a bold dot, to the left of the downstroke." If you look at the initial "This" in John's sample you'll see the "i" dotted to the right. And there is a very non-bold dot over the second "i" in "notified". "The top of the ll's slant to the left. In the second example, the i is dotted high and a little to the right. The ll's are taller than the initial w which is not the case in the first example." Again, the slant could have been adjusted by John if he wrote the note. The exact placement of the dots and height of the "ll"s vary in the note and in John's sample. "Fifth Line: The initial stroke slants slightly to the left and the finish stroke turns back to the left. (Almost creates a backward c stroke.) The middle stroke (the peak of the w)on the second sample is made a little lower than the first sample." You mean SIXTH line. Yes there are differences, but no stronger than the inconsistencies we find in the note itself. Your points are well taken, Nandee. There are some possibly significant differences. The thing foremost in my mind is that initial downstroke on the "m." If we had more samples from John we could determine whether he does that or not. Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "hey, Docg!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:44:40 7/01/2000 wouldn't it make more sense to analize the "practice note"? Did the writer stop and start over because the original was too close to the writer's hand? I know it only says, "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey", but that might be enough to get the slant and such, figured out. Just a thought. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]