What we know about Ransom Note

New Posts

halycon said:
Oh no. Please delete my vote!

I picked Completely Relevant because I assumed it meant that it was critical to the case, not for the reason you cited (which doesn't make sense, frankly).

The ransom note is the single biggest clue to this case... and it leads directly to Patsy Ramsey.
Click to expand...
I'd like to delete your vote but I don't know how.
 
I picked "Mostly Relevant", because I think the note is quite relevant in solving this crime. It says a lot. However, I do not think it fits the definition of "Completely Relevant", as you define it.

I think the poll choices may be a bit skewed, because I find the note relevant, but in the way you define it, maybe I should have answered "Not Relevant at all".
 
halycon said:
Oh no. Please delete my vote!

I picked Completely Relevant because I assumed it meant that it was critical to the case, not for the reason you cited (which doesn't make sense, frankly).

The ransom note is the single biggest clue to this case... and it leads directly to Patsy Ramsey.
Click to expand...

halycon,

I deleted your vote so you can change it now if you'd like.
 
halycon said:
Oh no. Please delete my vote!

I picked Completely Relevant because I assumed it meant that it was critical to the case, not for the reason you cited (which doesn't make sense, frankly).

The ransom note is the single biggest clue to this case... and it leads directly to Patsy Ramsey.
Click to expand...
This "Poll" is comparable to one where you vote "For the children", then find out you've supported a move to close the schools. The pollster here believes a real foreign faction came to Boulder town that fateful day, and "Completely Relevant" means you agree.
 
IMO this poll should be aborted and perhaps reworded without the term "relevant" in it. As it stands, the results will be meaningless, partly because too many voters will interpret it "Is the ransom note relevant to the crime?"

I think what is trying to be found out here is: Was the ransom note written by an intruder or was it written by a Ramsey family member? If written by an intruder, was the writer:

o representing a foreign faction?

0 a pedophile who had targeted JonBenet?

o .....?

o .....?

etc.
 
its relevant because patsy wrote the note...and she said that whoever wrote the note was the killer.
 
The note was written AFTER JonBenet was murdered, therefore it was NOT a kidnapping note, it was a CYA note.

Non of the options given for my voting on this poll fit my conclusions about the note.

The note was a diversionary effort to point a finger at someone who did not exist. There was no foreign faction either as an I/We or a group of FF's.

I did not vote.



.
 
Although I think the note did try to establish a "You don't know me,but I know you." if written by some one outside of the family.

The $118,000 (which was the amount of JR's bonus) and the use your good southern common sense(used by only his inner circle.) The rest was filler,to sound like a typical run of the mill ransom note.

So (again,if not written by a family member),I think the author was playing head games with JR. You don't know me John,but I am close enough to you,to know some of your "inner" information.

So I guess the rn would have some revelance ... I'm ready to vote!
 
Relevant to whom?

The Ramseys - no, because there was no kidnapping.

The Police - no, because there was no kidnapping.

Linguistic analysts - yep, because the author identifies herself through her use of language.

JonBenét - no, because it was already too late when it was written.

As a linguistic analyst, I don't know what to vote. Of course, the note is relevant to me, and I'm sure I could point out its relevance to a jury, but ... there was no intruder, no foreign faction, no group of individuals, no 2 gents, no ransom, and no S.B.T.C ... ~sigh~ so go figure. Is it relevant? Who knows?

So, like Camper ... I can't vote. But I will tell you - Patsy wrote the note.
 
Thank you for deleting my vote, Bee Bee. I don't want to vote for this "poll" at all.

But here's one that holdontoyourhat might like:

How relevant is the charge of child molestation to the Michael Jackson trial?

Not relevant at all. We can't be sure Michael Jackson exists, so the charge can be completely disregarded.

Somewhat relevant. Just because someone molests a few kids doesn't make him a child molester.

Mostly relevant. Most child molesters are not named Michael Jackson, so why should we think this one is?

Completely relevant. We can't be sure a foreign faction didn't molest this boy.
 
capps said:
Although I think the note did try to establish a "You don't know me,but I know you." if written by some one outside of the family.

The $118,000 (which was the amount of JR's bonus) and the use your good southern common sense(used by only his inner circle.) The rest was filler,to sound like a typical run of the mill ransom note.

So (again,if not written by a family member),I think the author was playing head games with JR. You don't know me John,but I am close enough to you,to know some of your "inner" information.

So I guess the rn would have some revelance ... I'm ready to vote!
Click to expand...

You're post is remarkable from my POV.

Your post:

You don't know me John,but I am close enough to you,to know some of your "inner" information.

If you directed that statement at me, I would be intimidated. Maybe that was the goal of the perp, to intimidate Mr. Ramsey, and thereby control Mr. Ramsey's reaction.
 
HOTYH ..

It certainly is a possiblility,and may be steering me to my (stll working on)theory.

Although I considered all theories that was posted on this forum ... my gut feeling kept bringing me back to this:

John Ramsey's company.
It grew fast,and along the way deals with important people were made.It happens in big companies every day.

But ... maybe along the way John got too confident and was not keeping his side of the bargain.

Pay back time. Did these important powerful people hurt JonBenet ... I don't think so. But money talks,and I think they hired some people who would,for the right price. And they are good at what they do.

What better way to "get" to John,then to hurt his little girl in a most vicious way.

Why the cover up? John is afraid. Could he blow these people in to the authorities ... sure. But John knows that there would be other people right behind them to pick up the slack,maybe even with more revenge.

Could it be that this has something to do with the remark said by Patsy: We never thought that THIS would happen.

Some times money IS the root to all evil.

This all of course is IMO.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
You're post is remarkable from my POV.

Your post:

You don't know me John,but I am close enough to you,to know some of your "inner" information.

If you directed that statement at me, I would be intimidated. Maybe that was the goal of the perp, to intimidate Mr. Ramsey, and thereby control Mr. Ramsey's reaction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone like Patsy.
 
"At this time, however, we"
"Doing so will only serve to jeopardize "
" of law enforcement agencies "
" respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department."
"who are in possession of compelling facts "
"whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion "
"Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now."



I see some similarity here!
 
Sissi,

Whom and where are those quotes from,and I'm assuming your referring to the ransom note as for the similarities ... correct?
 
Perhaps the note was long to reinforce the kidnap distraction or maybe it was long to set up Patsy. Who knows? I just find it difficult to believe either or both of the Ramseys could come up with all that movie stuff under such emotional strain. Maybe they had a talented and trusted cel consultant in the middle of night, but I find that difficult to believe as well.

There is more in the RN that is subtle but clever.
 
The length of the ransom note could be a desperate attempt to throw the police off the scent. It is way over the top.

Experts say that a real kidnapper would have written few words - "got the kid, get $1m, will call". A short, functional note which means business. This killer wasn't a kidnapper but wanted police to think he was and didn't know how to go around it. In the staging of the crime, the killer's mind was not clear enough to realise that a real ransom note would be short. In a desperate attempt to get into the part of a kidnapper, the killer waffled on and on for three pages.

Nor do I believe that the killer wanted to shock. If he had, he'd have displayed Jonbenet's body - perhaps below the Christmas tree. Or he'd have hung her up somewhere - like a trophy. Instead, he wrapped her in a blanket and hid her in a far recess of the basement. I think this killer was personally more shocked by what he'd done than that he wanted to shock others.
 
why_nutt said:
John Ramsey practiced the trappings of a criminal background when he had his affair during his first marriage. During that time, he had to become skilled in being able to deceive two people he was intimately close to, being his wife (who he fooled into thinking he still loved her) and his mistress (who he fooled into thinking he was devoted to her). Obviously, subspecialties of criminal behavior became part of his personal toolkit. He had to learn how to make items of evidence of his affair look like innocent items of ordinary life to his wife. He had to become a skilled manager of time and how to make the best use of it. He had to learn how to hide his true emotions from everyone. He had to do this while feeling shame over what he was doing, yet doing it every day, over and over and over again. This skillset practice would have served him well if he had killed JonBenet, and had to call on those skills yet again, can you agree with that?
Click to expand...


John called his mistress "Fatal Attraction"...the title of a MOVIE...heh heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 185 more.
Total: 3,665 (members: 186, guests: 3,479)

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
3,479
Total visitors
3,665
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,299
Messages
17,966,985
Members
228,737
Latest member
clintbentwood
Back
Top