Justice Watch "The Ransom Note" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... The Ransom Note, Ally, 08:26:21, 8/21/2001 Ally, Nedthan Johns, 11:54:36, 8/21/2001, (#1) Ally, Ayeka, 12:26:22, 8/21/2001, (#2) Ayeka, Nedthan Johns, 12:31:58, 8/21/2001, (#3) Something, Ally, 13:37:59, 8/21/2001, (#4) Ally, vic, 13:58:34, 8/21/2001, (#5) WHAT IF ?, coralie, 07:06:45, 9/05/2001, (#51) Er...let me think..., DAWN, 07:15:11, 9/05/2001, (#53) ...The note screams Patsy...WHY...???, DAWN, 14:50:06, 8/21/2001, (#6) dawn, have you ever seen john's printing, purr, 20:32:18, 8/21/2001, (#16) ..Hi Purr.., DAWN, 05:31:54, 8/22/2001, (#21) ill have to find the link, purr, 20:38:24, 8/22/2001, (#33) The Note...., Phantom, 15:05:11, 8/21/2001, (#7) This is my, Gemini, 15:11:40, 8/21/2001, (#9) Ally..., LurkerXIV, 15:10:16, 8/21/2001, (#8) My thoughts , Nedthan Johns, 15:30:03, 8/21/2001, (#11) RN, austingirl, 15:26:07, 8/21/2001, (#10) As in, Ally, 15:59:17, 8/21/2001, (#12) my theory is that, purr, 20:13:50, 8/21/2001, (#14) Pre-thought out content, ayelean, 19:47:06, 8/21/2001, (#13) ally, i believe a kid did NOT write the ransom not..., purr, 20:26:50, 8/21/2001, (#15) My belief., Ellique, 00:33:16, 8/22/2001, (#17) Ellique, Tricia, 00:55:20, 8/22/2001, (#19) (c) Ellique, JR, 00:53:30, 8/22/2001, (#18) Technically, pinker, 03:43:58, 8/22/2001, (#20) The Ransom Note, ACandyRose, 06:43:39, 8/22/2001, (#22) Candy, Ally, 07:05:02, 8/22/2001, (#23) I'm sorry, Ally,, LurkerXIV, 09:16:29, 8/22/2001, (#27) ST's pass to JR, ACandyRose, 08:32:42, 8/22/2001, (#25) The Ransom Note, momo, 07:29:07, 8/22/2001, (#24) I agree, Jerrya, 09:01:27, 8/22/2001, (#26) Just because..., Phantom, 11:14:36, 8/22/2001, (#28) JR, et al, Ellique, 11:34:22, 8/22/2001, (#29) Slightly off topic, Ayeka, 12:35:11, 8/22/2001, (#30) (c) Ellique, JR, 16:32:51, 8/22/2001, (#31) i did read all the links that candy posted, purr, 20:37:20, 8/22/2001, (#32) (c) Purr, JR, 20:50:14, 8/22/2001, (#34) Nothing, Ally, 05:35:25, 8/23/2001, (#35) Purr, docg, 08:54:54, 8/29/2001, (#36) good to hear from you, docg, purr, 19:59:09, 8/30/2001, (#43) Ramsey Note, doScubie, 09:13:26, 8/29/2001, (#37) Saved by the Cross...Victory, Dunvegan, 18:35:35, 8/29/2001, (#38) SBTC, Ally, 18:48:54, 8/29/2001, (#39) Ally, docg, 22:47:05, 8/29/2001, (#40) Docg, JR, 01:26:16, 8/30/2001, (#41) I guess, Ally, 06:12:54, 8/30/2001, (#42) to ally or docg, purr, 20:09:58, 8/30/2001, (#44) purr, docg, 20:51:41, 8/30/2001, (#45) JOHN AGAIN, coralie, 07:43:37, 9/05/2001, (#55) JOHN RAMSEY ?, coralie, 07:02:20, 9/05/2001, (#49) FYI , v_p, 21:27:53, 8/30/2001, (#46) DocG, v_p, 11:32:36, 9/01/2001, (#47) v_p, docg, 13:05:10, 9/01/2001, (#48) ummmm, Watching you, 07:04:30, 9/05/2001, (#50) So far..., river, 07:22:34, 9/05/2001, (#54) The topic, Ally, 07:14:10, 9/05/2001, (#52) ID of handwriting, docg, 09:56:43, 9/05/2001, (#56) inconsistency, major factor, river, 07:29:48, 9/07/2001, (#57) Overall appearance, Ally, 07:53:39, 9/07/2001, (#58) Excellent thread!, Ayeka, 11:39:34, 9/07/2001, (#59) ................................................................... "The Ransom Note" Posted by Ally on 08:26:21 8/21/2001 Who do YOU think wrote it, and why? There are good arguments for all sides, as evidenced here: http://www.almapintada.com/ramsey/ransomnotes.htm Note Analysis: Junk Science or Valuable Evidence? Tell me. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Ally" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:54:36 8/21/2001 Very interesting. I haven't seen those samples from Patsy before. I find NO similarities to the ransom note, except for the use of exclaimations. That site makes a good arguement that an adolesent or young adult composed that note. I would like to see more samples of John's handwriting. Are they posted anywhere on the web? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Ally" Posted by Ayeka on 12:26:22 8/21/2001 ... is that as in "friend" or as in "McBeal"? :) Interesting page, but I don't know if I buy it. The comparison between the Leopold and Loeb ransom notes and the Ramsey notes is a little eerie. I'm sure DocG will be along at any time to provide us with JR's handwriting samples. :) :D Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Ayeka" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:31:58 8/21/2001 I am hoping DocG had more then the one he povided on his link. That's the only comparison of JR's I have seen. His handwriting bares far more resemblence to the RN then patsy's IMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Something" Posted by Ally on 13:37:59 8/21/2001 tells me this topic's been done to death. I picked this link because the arguments are fairly convincing for ANY of the targets to have written it. So I thought maybe we could organize a focus group to disassemble the note. (Judging from the response, maybe NOT). If a teenager wrote that note he or she is capable of some pretty complex sentence structure and a few fifty-cent vocabulary words. On the other hand, overall it's a pretty childish note. I don't know WHAT to make of it even after all these years, of following the case. Anyways thank you Nedthan Johns and Ayeka for some input. Maybe the night crowd will have more??? Ayeka, Ally is part of my real name, which is McNally, like the map. 8-D. What about you? I've already outed Dunvegan, guess you are next! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ally" Posted by vic on 13:58:34 8/21/2001 Interesting site and comparison. I've always thought the penmanship was somewhat childish but to me it is easily explained by Patsy's role as a mother. One of a mother's "chores" is helping the kids learn to write their letters. When one has written the alphabet over and over and over, it is not surprising that the "practice" of writing those letters can have an influence, even on an adult. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "WHAT IF ?" Posted by coralie on 07:06:45 9/05/2001 Hi I just wondered , what if there was NO ransom note ......bear with me ....what would people's theory be had there NOT been a ransom note? would it be murder , if so by whom? please let me know what you think? Regards Coralie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL coralie ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Er...let me think..." Posted by DAWN on 07:15:11 9/05/2001 Doesn't change who killed the little one...all that changes is the fact that none of us would have to be fighting our guts out for justice...the Rammeringtonskisteds would have been long disposed of...IMO Nice to meet you Coralie...I am from London... dawn [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "...The note screams Patsy...WHY...???" Posted by DAWN on 14:50:06 8/21/2001 ...IMHO...And OMHO... Patsy sat down at her kitchen snook...sucked her pen...then calmly composed the note... 1. Wording...strange phrases..."small foreign faction"..."hense"..."pickup"..."delivery"... 2. Kidnapper addresses father only...not normal practice...and NEVER mentions JonBenet's name...but uses a strange similar word "attache" (JonBenet...???) Tries to dissociate oneself from actually mentioning the child's name...a true killer who had no affection for the child would use the name...over and over...to endorse their message of wanting MONEY... 3. Shows disgust and anger towards Mr Rammer...but uses strange terms..."grow a brain" 4. The continual use of the wording "she dies" was repeated too many times...almost to let the reality sink in...that the baby was indeed already dead... 5. "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter"...this scares me the most...purely because if Patter wrote it...she would have been sitting exactly over the basement...where the bubbie was lying...I want to cry...this makes the most sense... 6. "Un harmed"...well, whoever wrote this definately knew that little JonBenet was already harmed... I could go on and on and on...but I won't... ONLY PATTER COULD CREATE THE WORDING LIKE THIS... dawn [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "dawn, have you ever seen john's printing" Posted by purr on 20:32:18 8/21/2001 compared to the ransom note's printing? you would be amazed if you saw it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "..Hi Purr.." Posted by DAWN on 05:31:54 8/22/2001 ...No...show me...??? Is it similar...?? d [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "ill have to find the link" Posted by purr on 20:38:24 8/22/2001 and get back to you dawn... but i did just read all the links that candy posted, and i now understand why the experts believe patsy wrote it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "The Note...." Posted by Phantom on 15:05:11 8/21/2001 Had to have been planned. You don't write a note like that just off the top of your head. It was written in code. It didn't mean what you would think it would mean. He took lines from movies, for Christ's sake. THAT should tell you that it didn't mean any of it. The few facts that he knew about the Ramseys were just that all all, just a few facts. But he knew about the Ramseys somehow, or from someone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "This is my" Posted by Gemini on 15:11:40 8/21/2001 best guess, too, Phantom ... I have 3 guesses, but this is the one that's always seemed most likely to me. The note was planned, not spur of the moment, and the writer knew about the Ramseys from someone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ally..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 15:10:16 8/21/2001 Just one question...why are you promoting Bluefire's website when the ransom note can be accessed at dozens of other sites? ALmapintada=Ally ????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "My thoughts " Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:30:03 8/21/2001 are too the note seems childish. Too well planned for a parent to write out. Was probably written while the perp waited in the home and had hours to think of the content. I think it is very unlikely that Patsy wrote it, however I am open to JR still, only because handwriting seemed more of a match. Patsy could have written it and JR copied it over, but I still have a hard time with this, because I think he would have shortened it and left it at that. The ransom note is another piece of evidence to me that points to an intruder because of the loose way the experts have Patsy pinned on it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "RN" Posted by austingirl on 15:26:07 8/21/2001 I believe the ransom note was written in collaboration by John and Patsy, both in the sense of syntax and physical writing. They are movie buffs and John at least is a true crime fan. They used that amateurish knowledge in the staging of which the note is part. I think John and Patsy took turns writing words and/or letters in any attempt to disguise the handwriting. I think Patsy used both hands; John may have also a time or two. The wording of the note was designed to fool the authorities and send them looking in a direction away from the family, and it succeeded beyond their wildest hopes. It gave them the time to present the crime as a kidnapping rather than a murder and get their friends and neighbors over to contaminate and confuse the crime scene. No foreign faction identifies itself as such, and certainly it doesn't call itself small. When the initial police search did not turn up JonBenet's body, and most of the police withdrew, John panicked, wondering what the authorities were planning back at headquarters. He was forced to act and "discover" the body himself. Of course, he then proceeded to contaminate the crime scene and move the body, carrying his beloved daughter upstairs as if she were an ironing board. He had the gall to ask, "Is she dead?" IMO, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "As in" Posted by Ally on 15:59:17 8/21/2001 "Duh." Lol! He is a smart man, or would seem to be if he had his own small version of Microsoft Inc., I think if he killed her would he bother with that childish note? Search me!! Who is Lurker, please? Legitimate or troll? I am familiar with trolls. I already said why I chost that site, so don't put me on the defensive. And I've been through this before on another board. Serious topics obscured because of a few posters obsession with whose hat's whose. It gets old very fast. So, "Lurker," are you the resident "J'accuse" on this board? Have yourself some fun then, but leave me out of it. Gemini, for that reason I can't rule out intruder either, but I thought the ransom note had been determined further than that. I admit Ihaven't followed JBR in a while but I always felt is was all in the family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "my theory is that" Posted by purr on 20:13:50 8/21/2001 john wrote the note.... i agree with docq's theory. and the major reason is.... have you seen john's writing and the note's writing side by side.......letter by letter? you would be amazed if you really saw it. to me there is no comparison. john wrote it. do you all know that john hired his own handwriting experts to say he did NOT write the ransom note? how very convenient!!! docq, are you there? can you please state your theory and how the ransom note.....being written by john......works in with your theory? i used to think that Patsy was involved with all of this....i think that John did it now. and just John. i think the motive was.......John was sexually abusing JonBenet.....and she finally had enough.......and she was going to tell. maybe just maybe.......Patsy found out.......and she bludgeoned JonBenet on the head. docq, please restate your theory. ok? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Pre-thought out content" Posted by ayelean on 20:30:02 8/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:30:02, 8/21/2001 IMHO (Maybe I should use one of those (c) thingys here) I think the note was printed by someone with a dissociative disorder, hence the changes in the appearance of the printing from time to time. I think the personality that wrote it, filed movie script lines in its disturbed mind, when they fit its angry mode. Then, when in this angry mode, the recall was easy. I think the printing is representative of the ages of the personalities. I think the anger within one or more of the personalities festered for a long time. I think the stresses in the life of the host, e.g. 40th year, possible unfaithful husband, JB becoming non-compliant, anxiety of friends ganging up to confront her, and most of all angst about JB revealing a dark family secret, all worked together to make the host unstable. The demons within set about to premeditate silencing JB, with the idea that it would end the stress. The result was staged, to implicate a number of others who, each, could and/or would look guilty, based on the history known by the host. Host=Patsy edited, eached, ouch. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "ally, i believe a kid did NOT write the ransom not..." Posted by purr on 20:30:39 8/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:30:39, 8/21/2001 it is hard enough to believe that an intruder came into their house that night and did NOT leave any real footprints.....remember it was icy, snowy, wet, dirty, muddy outside. and the intruder did NOT leave ANY clothing fibers....remember it was cold outside..so he/she probably had a coat on. and the intruder did NOT leave any hair fibers/any skin cells/any urine evidence. (how could you be in the house for hours and hours and NOT pee!!!) and the intruder found his/her way to that wine cellar in the dark....remember NO lights were on in the house. and the intruder found his way up to JonBenet's room and lured her down to the basement with NO one hearing anything.......remember he/she had to find his/her way in the dark and down 3 floors. and the intruder found Burke's knife........ and remember it was hidden by the housekeeper. and the intruder had JonBenet in her favorite nightgown and covered in her favorite blanket.........remember only people who know someone fondly would cover a murdered child with her own favorite things. and the intruder knew that John's bonus pay was $118,000 dollars. i humbly do NOT believe that an intruder did all this........and i really, really dont believe a young child......a teenager could do all of this either? it just doesnt make sense. and i dont feel an fbi profiler would believe it either. only someone in that house did it!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "My belief." Posted by Ellique on 00:33:16 8/22/2001 I believe the Ransom note was written. Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Ellique" Posted by Tricia on 00:55:20 8/22/2001 Thank you . That clears it all up. Now we can pack it up and go home... Ellique come on now. I know you can do better than that or have you been dipping into some of that expensive bubbly again:)? Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "(c) Ellique" Posted by JR on 00:53:30 8/22/2001 I challenge your belief. I believe the ransom note was printed. Sorry just had to razz you some. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Technically" Posted by pinker on 03:48:07 8/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 03:48:07, 8/22/2001 it isn't a ransom note and shouldn't be referred to as such. Isn't there a better term to describe that dissertation? It has more similarity to a scavanger hunt map than a true ransom document. The RN is obviously fraudulent as the threat to behead JonBenet if the instructions weren't followed and denial of the body for burial were expressed and not carried out. The biggest obstacle in determining who is responsible for the 'note', just like the entirety of the crime, is the collaberative effort of more than one confuses any identification. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "The Ransom Note" Posted by ACandyRose on 06:43:39 8/22/2001 My personal opinion is that the ransom note was not written by a child. I think it is just as important to show analysis of text as well as the actual formation of letters. I have a collection of various examples that others have done if anybody would like to view them. Some of you may be familiar with these example and others not. Let me say, I am not selling these as my theory but more as examples. http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransomnote.htm There is a another link from the top link site to one I did showing an illustration of what Steve Thomas gives in his book on the "placement" of the sheets within the ransom note "pad" and that is below: http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm And let me say that everybody says John didn't write the note but unlike the others including Steve Thomas, I don't give John a pass, not so much on the writing of the ransom note itself but in knowing something or another on who did the murder. ACandyRose www.acandyrose.com [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL ACandyRose ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Candy" Posted by Ally on 07:05:02 8/22/2001 I agree, Candy Rose, and thanks for the better links, MUCH better, no WONDER "Lurker" got so frothy at the mouth. Anyone giving John the father a blanket pass must be in denial. I don't know how far Det. Thomas is willing to extend "the pass," but he probably is referring to the night of the murder. He seems to think Patsy Ramsey killed her and she acted alone. I think, that's his take.\ But, Even if he didn't have anything to do with killing JonBenet, he probably knows who did and he IS covering now, you think? He's had a phalanx of legal beagles overseeing their every last legal right, no crime in that I guess, but if you're innocent why bother? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "I'm sorry, Ally," Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:16:29 8/22/2001 if I appeared to be "frothy". I thought you were an oldbie with a new name (although whenever that happens, Dunvegan has asked us to acknowledge it on the daily thread, to avoid confusion). Bluefire, and his website, have an unsavory history. Bluefire is a suspected child pornographer, and according to some, he is currently living in Bolivia to avoid prosecution. Hopefully, he will be swept up in the latest sting of worldwide child pornographers. I saw where they caught a guy-- a ringleader-- in Singapore this week. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "ST's pass to JR" Posted by ACandyRose on 08:32:42 8/22/2001 Considering Steve Thomas was actually there a couple days after the murder and for 18 months later and I wasn't there at all then I have to give him the consideration that he knows more than I do. That being said, what we don't know is "exactly" what ST is giving the "pass" on and whether it is a "blanket" pass as in all aspects of the crime or just in the fact that ST doesn't believe that John actually killed his daughter. What is interesting to me is to read so many different views and opinions of why some think these parents (or any parents) would not be capable of doing this from the actual murder to the cover up. How some believe that because there appears to be no past history that a parent could not go into a rage. I am also amazed to read that others think that because the parents went into this massive grieving that because of that she/he/they couldn't have murdered JonBenet when in fact she/he/they could have went into just as much if not more grieving knowing they caused the death if in this case that is what happened. But getting back to the ransom note because that is what this thread is about and is the one piece of major evidence that all of us have access to that can be dated as an actual document left at the scene of the crime (opposed to recent crime scene photos of the crime scene that we have no idea when they were photographed with the exception of those of JonBenet). My opinion is that the note was written to point the finger at John, "maybe" because the note writer is blaming John for causing the killer to cause the death of the JonBenet, not necessarily directly that night but as past pressure issues that aided in the build up silently within that person to snap one night into a moment of rage. That and issues that related directly toward the child, control issues in my opinion. I believe the initial killing was accidental and all the steps that followed were staged to point the finger at John. I think that John realized the finger was being pointed at him and that the ransom note was a fake and that there was not going to be any 10am call. I ask myself what John was doing wandering around the house (upstairs with binoculars, downstairs in the basement) when, in my opinion he should have been glued to the telephone "if" he really believed that was the life line (according to the ransom note) to finding his daughter. Plus one of them (or both) was making telephone calls to others thus tying up that very life line. If they had more than two telephones (two lines or a cell phone) then how did the kidnapper know which line to call? And then there was Linda Arndt's observation that nobody seemed to be concerned that 10am came and went. ACandyRose www.acandyrose.com [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL ACandyRose ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "The Ransom Note" Posted by momo on 07:29:07 8/22/2001 served as only a decoy, not a true ransom note. It bought time, seeing as how JonBenet's body was in the basement. Little did whoever wrote the note realize just how much time the ransom note bought them. And not just time, but freedom. No, this was no child who wrote the note. It was a crafty adult who was used to getting what he/she wanted. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "I agree" Posted by Jerrya on 09:01:27 8/22/2001 that no child wrote the ransom note. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Just because..." Posted by Phantom on 11:14:36 8/22/2001 Steve Thomas (nice name) was there, doesn't mean he knows anything about profiling a crime. And you know he was put on the case to back the other police, that have been after the Rams the whole time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "JR, et al" Posted by Ellique on 11:35:27 8/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:35:27, 8/22/2001 Why is it that some posters preface the posts with that copyright thing-a-ma-gig. How do you get it to print..... by using the alternate key? Enlighten me RIGHT NOW !!! I may one day say something so brilliant that it would make me a ton of money. It would be a shame for me to learn that somebody snatched my words right out of my copyrighted mouth. Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Slightly off topic" Posted by Ayeka on 13:31:00 8/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:31:00, 8/22/2001 Ell, you have to put the ampersand (&) + "copy" plus a semi colon (;) = & copy ; only without the spaces. Ally, I just wanted to know how to pronounce it mostly. My hat comes from a Japanese anime called "Tenchi Muyo!". Ayeka (Aeka) is one of the characters in Tenchi's life. [edited to include: http://www.geocities.com/beta_trooper/PrincessAeka.html -- see her pic on this page -- I don't want to remotely infringe on a copyright, even though the page itself is surely infringing :) ] This is a good thread, a nice summary of the different thoughts on what is probably the best piece of evidence in the case. Thanks all. Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "(c) Ellique" Posted by JR on 16:34:11 8/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:34:11, 8/22/2001 I keep the symbol in an open draft copy email on my desk top. I do a control C for copy then click in the subject box and do a control V to paste it add a space then my subject name. I try to remember to use it now with each post because my messages to hirself were being ignored and I was getting tired of wasting bandwidth to write them. However, it seems hirself has no respect for the (c) symbol either. Attorneys are being talked to at this point. It's one thing to quote portions of a sentence in " " but to come to another forum, grab those posts you don't like, and post them elsewhere, especially when you have been told in the body of the message or by the little (c) that they are copyrighted is pushing you luck IMHO. Once I have all the legal scoop, hirself just might find hirself thinking hir should leave my posts where they originally reside. Edited to clarify - this is not a threat just answering old "L's" question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "i did read all the links that candy posted" Posted by purr on 20:37:20 8/22/2001 and i now understand why lots of the experts believe patsy wrote the note. i had never seen side by side comparisons of patsy's handwriting and the ransom note. some letter really do match. anyway, now i am really confused. but from all i read......the person who wrote the note...took their time, wrote practice notes, and was not "afraid" of the ramseys coming home to "catch" them because.... one of the ramseys really did write that note. and hence, one or both of the ramseys killed jonbenet! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "(c) Purr" Posted by JR on 20:50:14 8/22/2001 IMHO, you last statement isn't 100% correct. Even if the Ramseys wrote the note, a third person could have been involved in the murder and the Ramsey's are covering up for that person and their part in what ever wickedness was going on that caused the death of an innocent child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Nothing" Posted by Ally on 05:35:25 8/23/2001 is 100% correct in a circumstantial-evidence case. But all case players have conceded to the fact that whoever penned the note IS the killer. And I can see why. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Purr" Posted by docg on 08:54:54 8/29/2001 Sorry to take so long responding to your plea. I was away last week. There are many reasons to see John Ramsey as the primary suspect in the murder AND the writing of the note. Also many reasons why Patsy could NOT be involved. 1. The printing on the note strongly resembles John's deposition, as available on the Internet, but NOT other printed samples we've seen from John -- indicating that he may well have two printing styles, which could have confused the "experts." 2. There were in all only four "experts" who had an opportunity to thoroughly compare John's exemplars with the note. Two of these were hired by John himself. Another was Chet Ubowski, of the CBI. Finally there was a consultant, hired by the BPD. Ubowski merely stated there were "indications" that John didn't write the note. We don't know what the consultant concluded. The "ruled out" verdict originated with the experts John hired. We have no way of knowing how many he hired before finding the two willing to rule him out. 3. Assuming the note was written by an insider, its purpose would be clear: to defer the calling in of the police for at least a full day, to give the killer that day and the following night to dump the body and stage a convincing breakin. The insider would also have had opportunity to destroy the note (after showing it to some friends), claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned to them. 4. But Patsy called 911 THAT morning, thus negating the intent of the note writer. AND the reports the Ramseys have provided regarding whose idea that call was are contradictory and generally not credible. IMO Patsy was prevailed upon to "be a team player" by ultimately going along with the story that it was John's idea. But this was NOT what she says in the Tracey documentary. 5. If Patsy wrote the note, then why would she have undercut its whole purpose by calling 911? 6. If we want to argue an intruder could have written it, then we have to explain what he might think he'd have to gain by providing the police with such a huge clue to his identity. 7. Conclusion: John is by far the most likely to have written the note. If Patsy were in on it, she would not have called 911 when she did. She is in all likelihood innocent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "good to hear from you, docg" Posted by purr on 19:59:09 8/30/2001 thanks for the info. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Ramsey Note" Posted by doScubie on 09:13:26 8/29/2001 Pasty wrote it. Dumb broad changed her printing habits after the murder. Hmmm. no one else had to do that. Wonder why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Saved by the Cross...Victory" Posted by Dunvegan on 18:36:32 8/29/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:36:32, 8/29/2001 From "Glorying Only in the Cross" by Rev. Carl Haak http://www.prca.org/refwitness/1998apr05.html "Now, what about you? Is the world crucified to you by the cross so that the wicked world no longer has an appeal to you? And are you crucified to the world by the cross so that the world of unbelief looks upon you with contempt and scorn as you stand in Jesus Christ? Then you will never be put to shame. Then, by the grace of God, you have been saved by that cross. God will never leave you. Yours is the victory right now, and the victory finally and completely in the day of days. Yours will be glory, a glory which was obtained for you only through the cross." Edited to say: (A search engine search on (+"saved by the cross" +victory -jonbenet -ramsey) comes back with about 183 hits. These terms are often closely related in Christian teachings.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "SBTC" Posted by Ally on 18:48:54 8/29/2001 Wow, Dun, that is great. Patsy seems fond of both French and religion judging from her other writings. There is no other religious reference in the kidnapping note, however, right? It's weird but I think you have something there. And doScoobie, I copy. What's this though about her changing handwriting? Steve Thomas' book made reference to that, didn't he. And why doesn't that surprise me ha, ha, ha. dogc, girlfriend, no way can you rule out a woman's touch in THIS homicide. Patsy and John together,or Patsy alone. I don't see John alone as a likely scenario, though. And why would he kill his daughter? He said so himself. lol, maybe HE should tell US! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Ally" Posted by docg on 22:50:26 8/29/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:50:26, 8/29/2001 >Wow, Dun, that is great. Patsy >seems fond of both French and >religion judging from her other writings. > There is no other religious >reference in the kidnapping note, however, >right? It's weird but I >think you have something there. I agree there is some possibility SBTC could be a Christian reference. But how does that point to Patsy as writer of the note? If she wrote the thing, why on Earth would she want to sign off in that particular way? Please explain. >And doScoobie, I copy. What's this >though about her changing handwriting? >Steve Thomas' book made reference to >that, didn't he. And why >doesn't that surprise me ha, ha, >ha. Foster claims to have noticed that Patsy usually used "manuscript a" prior to the writing of the note and avoided it afterward. But every sample we have on the 'net of her printing prior to the murder uses the standard "a", NOT the manuscript version. And the manuscript "a"s in the note look like the "cap" on the a has been tacked on later as part of an effort to decieve. >dogc, girlfriend, I am NOT your girlfriend. (I am not your boyfriend, either. But you never know, maybe some day . . . ;-) >no way can you rule >out a woman's touch in THIS >homicide. Patsy and John together,or >Patsy alone. I don't see >John alone as a likely scenario, >though. One usually normal person losing it on a given night is disturbing but believable. Two such individuals snapping in tandem is even more disturbing -- but NOT believable. Listen to the odds. They tell us: 1. no intruder; 2. no "conspiracy." IMO one person did the whole thing, the murder, the coverup, the stonewalling. >And why would he >kill his daughter? He said >so himself. lol, maybe HE >should tell US! John is the only suspect with any sort of plausible motive, the sadly rather common one of incest. Happens in the "best" of families. And it always needs to be covered up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Docg" Posted by JR on 01:26:16 8/30/2001 Well...they didn't call it "The Silent Sin" for nothing, now did they? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "I guess" Posted by Ally on 06:12:54 8/30/2001 I was thinking that was staging, as several experts have intimated. I still think Dun's SBTC reference brings up a lot of good points to think that this tres-religious mom authored the kidnap note. docg sorry, your hat looked non-denominational and your post sounded a little feminine, as you can see I'm no sleuth! I also thought Dun was a Vegan, so I suppose you're not a "doc" either. Just a suggestion, but it's annoying to read a post that methodically restates what's already been posted followed by your own rebuttal. Maybe everyone else likes it but I notice nobody else does it. I have a head-list of 3 petty posters to avoid, who have given me a hard time, I guess I'll have to put YOU down as the resident *flirt.* To let you down gently, you are barking up the wrong tree. Go see those women at the WorkingOut forum. And good luck to you. Very Married Ally [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "to ally or docg" Posted by purr on 20:09:58 8/30/2001 ally, you must read all of docg's theory it is quite fascinating. docg, why dont you post your whole theory for ally and the other newbies. i would like to read it again too. it is thought provoking. i hope it doesnt take you a month to read or reply to this post. and ally, docg is a real doc. he has a doctorate in music. he teaches at a university. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "purr" Posted by docg on 20:51:41 8/30/2001 Thanks for your support, Purr. And I wouldn't dream of flirting with anyone but you. :-) Since you are twisting my arm, here it is, the official "DocG" theory (or one version of it): What follows is a hypothetical scenario based on my analysis of the Ramsey case posted some time ago at the Webbsleuths Case Files site. It demonstrates how John Ramsey could have murdered his daughter and covered up his actions, essentially on his own, with just a small amount of help from a basically innocent Patsy. The key to the scenario is the ransom note itself, for which it supplies a very thorough (if speculative) explanation. If you can "read" the note, then, in my opinion, this scenario simply pops right out at you. Because the note looks to me like the outline of a plan: (Remember, this is all HYPOTHETICAL -- I'm not saying I'm sure it happened this way, just that this is a possible scenario that has to be taken seriously.) 1. John, during an episode of sexual molestation, kills JonBenet in a sexual frenzy by strangling her with his hands and, almost in the same act, smashing her head against a hard object, the floor, a pipe, something hard but not sharp. He realizes that if the police suspect manual strangulation, they may try to retrieve prints from her neck. So he constructs a "garrotte" to point investigators in another direction. 2. John then devises a plan, a phoney kidnapping, followed by a fatal sexual attack on the part of the kidnapper. To make this work he needs two things: a ransom note; a staged break-in. 3. He stores the body temporarily in the windowless room, in a remote corner, covered by blankets, planning later to get it into the trunk of the car and dump it. 4. He writes the ransom note at his computer, then either traces it or copies it, imitating the look of the font he's chosen. (He dare not print it for fear of waking Patsy or Burke.) It is carefully constructed to accomplish several tasks: discourage Patsy from searching the house for JonBenet; frighten her into not calling the police; setting up a phoney kidnapping scenario; calling for a reasonably small ransom amount, something that won't make the people at the bank suspicious - he makes it $118,000 rather than, say, $100,000 so that this particular amount will be seen as having primarily symbolic rather than monetary significance - the kidnapper he is creating will be someone "out to get" John; setting up a situation where it is up to him to deal with raising the ransom and getting it to the "kidnapper"; giving him a full day to do what he will have to do (the note says the call will come "tomorrow.") 5. He then stages a break-in at the basement window, breaking a hole in the window, dumping debris from the window well onto the floor, making a scuff mark on the wall, placing the suitcase under the window and leaving it ajar. He realizes, however, that this is not sufficient, that at some point he must actually crawl through that window and displace the grate. Too risky to do that now. He plans to take care of that the following night when, as he hopes, he will be alone in the house. 6. John's plan (plan A) involves calling in friends to witness the staged break-in and the note's contents and then take Patsy and Burke with them, for their safety, leaving John alone to deal with raising the ransom and delivering it. 7. Once everyone is gone, John will be able to safely get the body into the car trunk, along with all the evidence, including the note itself. He'll dump the body in a remote place and burn the note. Later he will claim the kidnappers contacted him again and gave him instructions as to where to take the ransom. He'll also claim they demanded the return of the note. And he'll claim they then told him to pick JonBenet up somewhere, but when he arrived no one was there. 8. The above plan could not be implemented, however, because John was never able to convince Patsy not to call the police. For whatever reason, most likely in all innocence, she makes that 911 call, spoiling his carefully worked out plan. He must now move to plan B. IMO it could well be the shift from plan A to plan B that has made this case so difficult to piece together. 9. As the police are arriving, John is already at work attempting to undo plan A and move to plan B. Since the window break-in had never been completed, this is now his main concern. Because the way things now stand, it will be all too clear to the police that this is a staged break-in. He attempts to undo his earlier staging by secretly closing the window and then claiming it had been broken long ago, by him, when he'd locked himself out of the house. Unknown to him, however, the police had already spotted the window when it was open. This IMO is his most serious mistake, not getting that window closed soon enough. Later, when questioned about this, why he closed the window and why he informed no one, he is unable to explain. 10. When Arndt asks John to search the house, he goes directly to the basement because it is necessary for him to discover the body - so he can claim it was right out in the open rather than carefully hidden in a corner under blankets (which is why Fleet White didn't see it earlier). This, rather than any attempt at "contaminating the crime scene," is his real reason for "discovering" the body. 11. After the body is found, John cannot permit the police to interrogate Patsy. Because she might reveal the fact that John was totally against calling the police, and this might well give away his plan. This is the real reason why "the Ramseys" stonewalled the police for so long. Patsy needs to be convinced to tell some white lies about what happened. John lets his lawyers do this, the argument being that to tell the whole truth will tend to make John look bad. Patsy is convinced John is innocent, so she tries to do all she can to help in his defense. Patsy is convinced IMO to this day, which is why they have presented a united front. John depends on Patsy because he's afraid she'll tell the whole truth about whose idea the 911 call was. Patsy depends on John because he, with his legal "team," has become her principal defender. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "JOHN AGAIN" Posted by coralie on 07:43:37 9/05/2001 Her is one of thories....just that ....unfortuneately I have a few 1 What if the ransom note had never been written ? what would people imagine happened then? ... I'd love to hear your responses please ? here is one theory .... in "DOI" Just a thought - John Ramsey states in his book he " was amazed at how sound asleep Jonbenet was" when they brought her home that night in the car on the 25th .... Steve Thomas says that after interviewing Burke , ( apparantly they shouldnt have done without a parent there, however ) Burke said that Jonbenet WALKED out the car in front of him and WALKED up the stair .... mmm..one of them is wrong aren't they ? John Ramsey was the last in bed and the First up 26th so he states. From "DOI" by the Ramseys : Page 15. of "DOI" John Ramsey states "I race upstairs and find a pair of binoculars . I start looking up and down the street. There's a strange vehicle in the alley behind the Barnhills', I note." he says nothing to anyone page 20 of "DOI" was odd to me ...John Ramsey states "10.am I look at my watch again, and wonder where are the FBI? I remember a day back in summer when I got locked out and had to break a window in the basement "- (at 10 am ) The ransom deadline !! and goes on "I jump up and hurry down there . (That entry place needs to be looked at) I tell myself . I move down the basement hall and find the window. The pane is still broken and the window is open, with a large old samsonite suitcase sitting right under it. Odd,I think. This doesn't look right .This suitcase is not normally kept here. Maybe this is how the kidnapper got in and out of our house .The window ledge is a few feet off the floor, so a person would need something to stand on in order to get up and out" . he says nothing to anyone "helloooo" I just wonder why he didnt run like a bat out of hell and tell the police lady Linda Arndt....IF this is how it happened ...why didnt he? If he did ....wouldn't he have sort of mentioned it in this book ???? indeed on this very page ....HE DID NOT because ...... he says nothing to anyone Page 11 ...Patsy in her words "SCREAMED" for "J-o-h-nnn! J-o-h-nn help me" from the bottom of the spiral stairway and John is on the third floor , wouldn't Burke have heard these "Screams" ?? Plus he never asked "where was Jonbenet ?" nothing?, and they were going to DISNEYLAND after Charlevoix?? If that were my grandson he would be begging questions about his sister ...and why the parents were so upset, and what were all these people & police doing here at this time of the morning ?? even disregarding Burke , how can the police in Boulder NOT see the discrepancy here in their book , or is this case just all history now , politically and financially incorrect !.....now that they have all failed one little girl- that is -Jonbenet. Page 11 Patsy states that John is Examining the ransom note , and holding it up to the light, she doesnt say he is reading it ...Examining it , so therefor his finger prints MUST be on it ...but no finger prints were found on it , only the cops.... no one says anything I would say tho , to see both sides of the story , read both books ... mind you I still have no real ideas as to WHY..yet ! Just plain simple theories .!! Has this case just finished due to the financial affluence of the Ramseys ..or to the total disregard of the police to be bothered , due to their lack of Financial affluence , as John Ramsey states in his book- "money talks" That is about the only thing that DOES TALK JOHN , sadly! In all the pics/videos of these two I have NEVER seen them holding each other , not once !!If that were me ...my Dave and I would be like cling-film to each other ... they dont look each other in the eye either ! The video we saw in UK says no one will employ John Ramsey , and that he is broke and broken....Erm this is an astute businessman here ..he doesn't NEED to work ....You can bet he has a great pension (index linked for life!) !and you can bet he still has his finger in many pies under assumed names , no doubt! If he were broke , (and he is not) we would ALL know the truth ....as he would not then be able to hide behind money grabbing lawyers... I think Patsy knows who did this to their daughter ...but doesn't want John to go to jail ....it would REALLY ruin her life then!...so She says nothing ....One day someone MUST SAY SOMETHING .... Hello Lou Smit , please look at page 20 "DOI" - "The pane is still broken " not in the picture you are holding it isn't!!nor on the video ? PS am still looking to the possibility that John Ramsey hid the body untill he bought it out at 10 am when he went down to the basement , there was a freezer down there ..it could have been turned off ....exept for the water to have drained( if indeed it was ON) ....and the rigor mortis ( LHP did say there was a load of clutter in Burkes train room) ...I will read more ..... I firmly believe this body was hidden somewhere in the basement ... Please will someone let me know whether MIKE BYNUM was ever investigated ? If JR needed anyone it would be him, and I think he knows a lot more than he is letting on- I think JR rang him that morning ...which is why they would NOT hand over the phone records ...JR being head of a billion dollar COMPUTER company as was MIKE BYNUM legal executive needed time to erase THAT CALL from the records ..... plus John Ramsey would NOT have needed anyone like JAMESON to show him how to use the internet .... he had a BILLION DOLLAR TURNOVER in the ermm COMPUTER INDUSTRY !! Please dont say nothing ! Regards Coralie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL coralie ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "JOHN RAMSEY ?" Posted by coralie on 07:02:20 9/05/2001 Ramsey documentary presents intruder theory By Sandra Fish Camera Staff Writer "Who Killed the Pageant Queen?" opens with one of the videos seen so often since JonBenet Ramsey's death: the 6-year-old dressed in red, white and blue, signing "God Bless America" in a child beauty pageant. The 50-minute documentary co-produced by University of Colorado journalism professor Michael Tracey has plenty of footage seen before and some never before shown (Patsy Ramsey playing the only song her daughter ever learned on the piano at the end of the film). Between video clips of JonBenet in pageants or celebrating Christmas with her family are a variety of the girl's autopsy photos, showing the ligature around her neck, her bashed skull and what retired investigator Lou Smit says are stun-gun marks. The photos aim to support the theme of the documentary - that an intruder killed the Boulder girl in her home on Dec. 26, 1996. The film also features a tour of key spots in the Ramsey home, with Smit opening a grate and climbing through a basement window where he says an intruder could have entered the house on Christmas night. Smit notes that JonBenet's bed sheets were clean, dispelling notions that her mother got into a dispute over bedwetting with the girl. He also notes that the guest room next door to JonBenet's room offered a view of the family's garage and backdoor, giving an intruder a view when they returned home from a party Christmas night. Then there's the stun gun (and the test on a pig), the scream in the night, the suitcase beneath the window and more evidence. Tracey says he got the idea to base a second documentary on Smit's intruder theory almost a year ago. It airs Wednesday night in England. In the meantime, "Today" show host Katie Couric got first dibs on the story - and the evidence Smit compiled while investigating the case then took with him when he left. "What I never understood is the level of certainty most people had," Tracey says. "You could never be as certain as you believed you were if you looked at this." Tracey hopes to find a network or station to buy an American version of the documentary, focusing on the investigation of the homicide. "The issue of the politics of this case are way more important than the fact that JonBenet was murdered," he says. "For me, it's the metaphor. For me, it's about the society. I find this an extraordinarily disappointing society. In my own tiny way, I really want to say things are badly out of whack in this culture." It's a culture that will watch another video about JonBenet, though. Rich Noyes, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, says true crime stories play well on TV magazine programs. "They tend to swell an audience when you do more of the Court TV type things," Noyes said. "I think people like crime stories, even crime news documentaries echoing the good crime stories they see in entertainment programs." Belle Adler, a documentary filmmaker and broadcast journalism professor at Northwestern University in Boston, agrees. She says the Ramsey case has all the elements of a whodunit for most viewers - a pretty child entered in beauty pageants, a beauty queen mother, a successful father, wealth, a beautiful locale. "The fact that they had all that video of that little girl in the family ... everybody really feels for the girl," Adler says. "The other thing is everybody's got a theory." This time around, Tracey takes a tougher stance in discounting the theory that Ramseys were involved in their daughter's death. The documentary begins by referring to them as "the most hated couple in America." It concludes with 1998 footage of Patsy Ramsey playing the piano, saying the couple are trying to sell their Atlanta home, "broke and broken." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL coralie ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "FYI " Posted by v_p on 21:27:53 8/30/2001 Ally, docg is much enamoured with a certain woman of laciness so I doubt seriously your tree is being barked at... I miss her laciness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "DocG" Posted by v_p on 11:32:36 9/01/2001 Have you read this? It mentions John as the writer of the ransom note.. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SHEw8XI02gg:www.trialrun.com/midweek_article.html+JonBenet+Ramsey+Foundation&hl=en "In September, Newsweek ran a story entitled "A Case Forever Unraveling," which focused on the ransom note sent to the victim's father, John Ramsey. Many criminal investigators still strongly believe one or both of the parents were involved in the crime. Iannetta concurs. "It looks like a woman's words, but it appears to be a man as the writer," she says. "I feel it's either them or someone who knows them. Actually, I think it's John Ramsey." " [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "v_p" Posted by docg on 13:05:10 9/01/2001 Yeah, I too miss "Our Lady of Lace." Farther than that I will not go. Wild horses will not drag any further comments out of me on that topic. Nevermind. :-) Thanks for posting the Ianetta link. I've seen that before -- and remain skeptical of her graphology methods as described in the article. They seem unduly subjective to me, almost like reading tea leaves or entrails or something. There are scientific means of testing the validity of methods such as that and until I see some references to such tests I remain *highly* skeptical. I *am* pleased to learn that Fausto Brugnatelli and I (and Sheila Lowe also) are not alone in seeing a resemblance between John's printing and that of the note. But this resemblance is only one part of a much larger pattern which IMO points in his direction. It seems obvious to me that he must be treated as the primary suspect. The decision to rule him out as writer of the note is IMO the key blunder of the investigation, the reason all of us are still here, puzzling endlessly over what may well turn out to be a fairly straightforweard case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "ummmm" Posted by Watching you on 07:04:30 9/05/2001 nevermind, doc. You know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "So far..." Posted by river on 07:22:34 9/05/2001 I haven't seen any handwriting which I thought matched the ransom note. Whoever wrote it either carefully diguised their handwriting, or more likely wore heavy gloves when writing it. Most handwriting experts are in business to identify forgery, but this situation is completely different. I think it would be most difficult to identify handwriting which has purposely been disguised. I can disguise my handwriting, and it doesn't look a thing like my own. But the main thing is, it doesn't look consistent either, and it isn't as smooth as the ransom note, which makes me fairly sure that the handwriting was never diguised at all by any natural means. I think if it was disguised, the writer wore heavy garden gloves to write with. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "The topic" Posted by Ally on 07:42:56 9/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:42:56, 9/05/2001 has a life of its own! Identification may come down to the actual style of the writer. River- What about if they did content analysis to complement the handwriting analysis, which really doesn't tell that much anyway. Don't forensic document examiners test the note against a variety of elements? Actual handwriting may be the least of these criteria. Agree it's disguised. Garden gloves, left-handed, pen held in a manner not familiar to the killer: all these would help distort their handwriting to a level that would be difficult to identify, to say the least. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "ID of handwriting" Posted by docg on 09:56:43 9/05/2001 Yes River, good point. Document examiners deal mostly with forged documents, NOT disguised writing, which can be a much tougher nut to crack. But everyone has certain aspects of his/her writing/printing that are so unconscious it's unlikely that person would think to disguise them. And there are so many things to consider when disguising ones hand, it would be very hard for the writer to think of everything -- certain revealing characteristics would almost have to be present. The problem is that a great many people share the same characteristics. Much has been made, for example, of the downstrokes that begin the letter "m" in the note because Patsy also has a tendency to begin her "m"s with a downstroke. But so do millions of other people! (And as we've recently learned, thanks to some new samples of his printing provided by Lovely Pigeon, John also begins his "m"s with a downstroke.) Another consideration is slant. The deposition we have from John pretty consistently slants backwards (suggesting, by the way, that he is left handed, though that may not necessarily be the case). Most of the letters in the ransom note slant forwards, though some are back slanted. What can we make of this? Should John be "ruled out" because his slant differs from the slant of the majority of letters in the note? Or could John have deliberately altered his slant to disguise his hand? No way to tell for sure. The bottom line is that we on the 'net simply do not have enough samples of either Patsy or John's printing to make any sort of meaningful judgement as to who could have printed the note. And this goes for Darnay Hoffman's "experts" as well. My argument has never been that I can "prove" John wrote it. However, based on some striking similarities noted by myself and Fausto Brugnatelli, I have for a long time argued against the decision to rule him out. Which is a VERY different matter. It's awfully hard to prove someone wrote a given document. But it is equally hard IMO to prove that person could NOT have written that document. How the "experts" could have come to such a conclusion continually baffles me. Makes no sense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "inconsistency, major factor" Posted by river on 07:29:48 9/07/2001 The thing is, when you try to disguise your handwriting, and I'm sure everybody here as made a stab at it, it just doesn't look consistent. You can't make the same letters look the same each time because it's not your natural handwriting. When I try and do it, my letters look sort of wobbly, and they all look different. Can't make the same letter look, the same way over and over again. As to my left hand, absolutely no consistency. The handwriting on the ransom is basically consistent, BUT it is wobbly, which means it might have been disguised. There may be a few letters that the perp changed from time to time, but you can sort of see that. But, I also do that sometimes, when I write, and a letter comes out weird, so I try and fix it. I don't have very good handwriting and my writing isn't always exactly the same. Sometimes I write, with just certain letters printed right in the middle of a word, or at the end or beginning. But, they're not always the same ones. (Don't know why I do that.) Partly, I think because I have some arthritis in my hands and wrists and it's hard for me to write well. In any case the one consistency I find in the whole letter is that some of the letters wobble. Especially, the L's. That may be a definite sign that the note was disguised, or it may be that the writer was lying down when he wrote it, or in a cramped postition. Other than that, it does appear rather consistent throughout. So, I'm not convinced the writing was disguised. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Overall appearance" Posted by Ally on 07:55:44 9/07/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:55:44, 9/07/2001 is shaky, tentative, yet growing in confidence with every page. To me it kind of morphs into a haughty, taunting message with threatening repercussions. Another thing, it appears that the writer maybe went back thru the letter and traced over some letters (like a's), maybe as a further attempt at disguise? Also I think the beginning of the letter looks very shaky but evens out by the end- in form AND in substance. So in these respects I think we are dealing with a note that is not as evenly (i.e., consistently) written as it might appear at first glance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Excellent thread!" Posted by Ayeka on 11:39:34 9/07/2001 Am loving reading this, loving the points brought up by river and Ally... One thing we should not forget is that none of us have ever seen the original note. We've been exposed to who-knows-how-many-generations-old photocopies. I would love to see a scan of the actual note. Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE