The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

She also refers to the "two gentlemen from the CBI" -- as in "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you."

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/patsychart8letter2.gif

More:
http://blabbieville.tripod.com/index.htm
and:
http://blabbieville.tripod.com/ramseysamples.htm
.

DeeDee249 said:

LE was also given some letters Patsy wrote- one of which describes her "good looking attorney". This was just one of several writing samples that were used to match Patsy to the RN.

Click to expand...

This is the handwriting sample note I was referring to.

She starts out writing in cursive, and is told to switch to print.

I am wondering if the words contained in that note were off the top of patsy's head. Was she told to write about anything? Was she told to write about what she observed in the room? Why did she sign it Love Mommy? The note was not written to JB or Burke.

qtc said:

This is the handwriting sample note I was referring to.

She starts out writing in cursive, and is told to switch to print.

I am wondering if the words contained in that note were off the top of patsy's head. Was she told to write about anything? Was she told to write about what she observed in the room? Why did she sign it Love Mommy? The note was not written to JB or Burke.

Click to expand...

That was an "extemporaneous" handwriting sample, meaning off the top of her head.

She had already been given specific words to write, etc., in the "London Letter," a commonly used transcript composed to include various letters of the alphabet in various combinations, and the words from the ransom note, as well.

That Patsy and John often used phrases we find in the ransom note in their extemporaneous writings, conversation, and interviews has always been striking to those of us aware of what the ransom note actually contained, linguistically speaking.

It's simply far fetched to imagine an intruder not known to or familiar with them on a very personal level could have written that note. It's also far fetched that in addition to those red flags, Patsy's handwriting exemplars matched 24 out of 26 letters in the ransom note, according to CBI handwriting analyst Chet Ubowski, but she didn't write it.

Add in that she was in the house during the commission of the crime, with no alibi (JR and Burke claimed to be asleep), the note was written on her pad, with her pen, and the writer felt comfortable enough in the home to spend time to write one, and possibly two, practice notes before the final one was completed, and that's a lot of evidence that Patsy wrote the note.

Now factor in the fiber evidence includes fibers from her clothes which were tied into the ligature knots and stuck on the duct tape from the child's mouth. Also the paintbrush used was hers.

Add in her fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple to which the pineapple in JB's digestive system was matched.

Read all the evasions, changing stories, and outright lies she told LE and the public, and it's hard not to find her at least suspicious.

I believe there is no doubt she was involved in this murder.

KoldKase: Newbie here. Have followed your posts quite a while, heard you on radio with Kolar. Agree - Patsy is author, and involved. Two quick comments: Notice linguistically in RN minimum use of contractions. Printed copies of Patsy interviews also denote her use of full language over use of contractions, i. e. "we will", as opposed to "we'll". Also, in the published exemplar of the Pageant Entry she completed for JB, notice in the description space about JB, she MISSPELLED the word "crowned". BTW, what is your take on the tape around JB's legs that was stated in the Kolar book, pg 123?

midwest mama said:

KoldKase: Newbie here. Have followed your posts quite a while, heard you on radio with Kolar. Agree - Patsy is author, and involved. Two quick comments: Notice linguistically in RN minimum use of contractions. Printed copies of Patsy interviews also denote her use of full language over use of contractions, i. e. "we will", as opposed to "we'll". Also, in the published exemplar of the Pageant Entry she completed for JB, notice in the description space about JB, she MISSPELLED the word "crowned". BTW, what is your take on the tape around JB's legs that was stated in the Kolar book, pg 123?

Click to expand...

The "tape on the legs" was determined to be a transcription error- i.e. an error when the sentence was transcribed. It is supposed to be "tape on the LIPS".
Sometimes things are transcribed from a recording, and words are heard incorrectly. KK will weigh in, I am sure, with her own opinion.

midwest mama said:

KoldKase: Newbie here. Have followed your posts quite a while, heard you on radio with Kolar. Agree - Patsy is author, and involved. Two quick comments: Notice linguistically in RN minimum use of contractions. Printed copies of Patsy interviews also denote her use of full language over use of contractions, i. e. "we will", as opposed to "we'll". Also, in the published exemplar of the Pageant Entry she completed for JB, notice in the description space about JB, she MISSPELLED the word "crowned". BTW, what is your take on the tape around JB's legs that was stated in the Kolar book, pg 123?

Click to expand...

Regarding the tape:
The section of the interview where JR mentioned “legs” contained many inaudible areas:
JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.
TT: (Inaudible)
JR: I’m all right.
TT: I know this is (inaudible) after you found JonBenet, and (inaudible) if you would, where was Fleet at when that happened?

The transcription of that portion of the interview in the book, JonBenet, The Police Files pg.117, says, “lips.” That would be consistent with the evidence as it is presented in every other interview about the duct tape.

Here is another example of a transcription error:
JOHN RAMSEY: I just remember just talking and, (Come on baby.̃ And I tried to untie her
arms; they were tied up behind her head.
LOU SMIT: Were they tied tight?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, very tight.
LOU SMIT: They were very tight?
JOHN RAMSEY: I noticed a spot in her coat, below the surface.
LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied tight?
-JR interview, 1998

I know what the word should be, but I’ll leave it as a little quiz for the newcomers.

cynic said:

Regarding the tape:
The section of the interview where JR mentioned “legs” contained many inaudible areas:
JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.
TT: (Inaudible)
JR: I’m all right.
TT: I know this is (inaudible) after you found JonBenet, and (inaudible) if you would, where was Fleet at when that happened?

The transcription of that portion of the interview in the book, JonBenet, The Police Files pg.117, says, “lips.” That would be consistent with the evidence as it is presented in every other interview about the duct tape.

Here is another example of a transcription error:
JOHN RAMSEY: I just remember just talking and, (Come on baby.̃ And I tried to untie her
arms; they were tied up behind her head.
LOU SMIT: Were they tied tight?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, very tight.
LOU SMIT: They were very tight?
JOHN RAMSEY: I noticed a spot in her coat, below the surface.
LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied tight?
-JR interview, 1998

I know what the word should be, but I’ll leave it as a little quiz for the newcomers.

Click to expand...

In the context of the events, he likely said "on her throat".

If that was the case, it seems like superflous information that had little or nothing to do with the "restraints".

But could he really see that well. I'm assuming he meant a spot under the surface of the skin. It was so red in pics it might have been mistaken for blood in poor light.

And of course NO one ever called him out on the FACT that there were NO marks whatsoever on JB's wrists to indicate they had been tied at all, let alone tightly. And rigor mortis PROVED her arms were not tied over her head, behind her or any other way other than the way they were when she was brought up from the basement.

The cord on the wrist did look to me to be too tight to slip off but not tight enough to jive with what john said. It was obvious she was immobile when it was applied. The shirt sleeve was was creased and laying undisturbed around where the cord tightened a bit but no buckling or pullin g of the material. Even the wrist openin g on the sleeve was even . Some crazy intruder or a kid wouldn't have been that neat.

Bump.

DIRK SCHILLER said:

I´ve a question
I do not know who wrote the RN ,either whether PR is a smart woman or not...
why did she write such a long RN and the amount 118.000?

Click to expand...

The sheer length of the note all but rules out PR and JR as having written the note. The stress either of them would have been under at the time would have been unbearable. Thus, they would have written the most succinct letter possible.

The length of the letter suggests that the author was either consciously or unconsciously stalling for time. The next question is: "Stalling against what?" Most likely, she (yes, the author was a female) was stalling against the alternative of killing JonBenet, which is what her psychopathic male accomplice was suggesting, and which he ultimately acted upon. (See my theory on this case in the "Theories" thread.)

That the author of the note cited the peculiar amount of $118,000, the approximate figure of JR's bonus, and a rather paltry ransom demand as ransom demands go, suggests that she or her male accomplice, was inside the Ramsey social circle deep enough to have overheard such intimate financial information, and that she was young enough and naive enough to think of such a sum of money as adequate, or included that specific figure because her male accomplice had been carping about it as a symptom of JR avarice, perhaps in the familiar style of collegiate idealistic fervor, and she was trying to placate him against the idea of murdering JonBenet.

Edmond.DantesIII said:

The sheer length of the note all but rules out PR and JR as having written the note. The stress either of them would have been under at the time would have been unbearable. Thus, they would have written the most succinct letter possible.

The length of the letter suggests that the author was either consciously or unconsciously stalling for time. The next question is: "Stalling against what?" Most likely, she (yes, the author was a female) was stalling against the alternative of killing JonBenet, which is what her psychopathic male accomplice was suggesting, and which he ultimately acted upon. (See my theory on this case in the "Theories" thread.)

That the author of the note cited the peculiar amount of $118,000, the approximate figure of JR's bonus, and a rather paltry ransom demand as ransom demands go, suggests that she or her male accomplice, was inside the Ramsey social circle deep enough to have overheard such intimate financial information, and that she was young enough and naive enough to think of such a sum of money as adequate, or included that specific figure because her male accomplice had been carping about it as a symptom of JR avarice, perhaps in the familiar style of collegiate idealistic fervor, and she was trying to placate him against the idea of murdering JonBenet.

Click to expand...

Edmond.DantesIII,
All extremely fanciful speculation, hand waving might elicit a better explanation.

The Ransom Note is part of a staged crime. It is not evidence found at the the primary crime-scene i.e. it is secondary order evidence.

There is Zero evidence of any Intruders, i.e. Foreign Faction, ever being in the Ramsey household, despite them allegedly moving from room to room, level to level and on down to the basement.

Nobody phoned with instructions regarding the Ransom Note, JonBenet was not Abducted or Kidnapped, she was merely relocated within the Ramsey household.

So to draw conclusions from patently fake, staged evidence is to inject flaws into whatever theory you hold.

.

UKGuy said:

There is Zero evidence of any Intruders,
.

Click to expand...

There is glaring, obvious evidence of an intruder, namely, the ransom note which was not written by anyone in the Ramsey household and most certainly did not write itself. Please think about what you are saying.

Thank you Cynic for 'bumping' this discussion thread.

I'm the one who always feel uneasy with the hands binding. I have questions which for years and years I couldn't find the acceptable answers.

1. What was the purpose of binding JB hands?

- the rope was placed on her hands not tide enough to keep her hands restrained;
- according to available pictures, the rope itself wasn't attached to anything to keep her hands up (as far as we know);
- the distance between loops are too long to keep her hands in UP and close to each other position.

2. If hands binding has no purpose and performs no harm/restraining mean to JB then why the first thing John did: took the tape out and unties ONE hand???

- I do understand why tape is the first thing the parents would take out from child's mouth. But John sees the blood spot on her NECK (he said that himself during interview). So, why his attention was to hands? And why ONE hand? By freeing one hand (untie one loop) did he disturb the true means of the hand binding?;
- Is it possible that rope itself was looped around the wooden 'garrote' and as soon as John inties one loop on one hand - he disturbed the true purpose of hand binding?

3. Problem with authopsy pictures.

- I don't want to copy these pictures but I'll provide the links to two of them: RIGHT hand with ring. Please look carefully;

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenethandright.jpg
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenethandleft.jpg

- so, where was the knot originally? On front of her wrist or on the back???

Sorry for starting this 'beaten horse' discussion again. It's all your fault Cynic!!!....The hands position/binding and the round 'abrasion' on JB face are the most intriguing mystery to me in this case.

jmo

Edmond.DantesIII said:

There is glaring, obvious evidence of an intruder, namely, the ransom note which was not written by anyone in the Ramsey household and most certainly did not write itself. Please think about what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Edmond.DantesIII,
You cannot demonstrate your claims regarding the ransom note to be factually correct.

Its simply speculation on your part, without any evidence to back it all up!


You should follow the evidence not your theory.


.

Edmond.DantesIII said:

There is glaring, obvious evidence of an intruder, namely, the ransom note which was not written by anyone in the Ramsey household and most certainly did not write itself. Please think about what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Unless you were a credible witness as the note was being written, and are prepared to make your assessment public, verifiable knowledge, then you might consider 'thinking about what you are saying'.

This is a public forum, and I, for one, am open to any opinions that are supported by the factual, proven evidence we have seen at this juncture. If it can one day be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, at a trial, that an Intruder(s) was responsible for the death of JonBenet, then we will finally have a true victory - which is the justice we are so desperately seeking for her.

Most of us usually (and I emphasize this because I allow for emotions running high at times) quantify our comments or statements in the discussion threads as being: speculation, opinions, or even uninformed rationale. We do this by using words and phrases such as, "in my opinion", "I believe", "I speculate", "I feel" or "I think", just to name a few. We share theories and ideas using this format because to make comments in using phrases such as "it was", "she is", "did not", etc., we would then be relating certainty and to do that we must have absolute conviction of that knowledge, and consider it a true fact.

I can only surmise something to be factual to me if I see it with my own eyes. (Notice, I said surmise, because a good magician is quite experienced at making us think something is true even when it is not.) I can accept certain other information as true fact if I am convinced the source of that information is credible by either former validation or has a proven reputation for correct assessment.

So, if you decide to 'think about what you are saying' in future posts, you might want to consider altering your comments to be those of speculation or opinions, since otherwise as we read through your information, some of us are being led to believe either you do have factual information that is being withheld from authorities, or your comments are being purposefully crafted to erode the RDI camp, rather than to offer insight that might be valuable in our 'sleuthing' process.

If you will indulge my suggestion, I will offer this edit of your statement above: "There is, IMO, glaring, obvious evidence of a possible intruder, namely, the ransom note, which cannot with 100% accuracy be scientifically proven to have been written by anyone in the Ramsey household and most certainly did not write itself. Please think about what you are saying." The use of the word "Please" in your last sentence now imparts respect for others, rather than emphasizes what was, I FEEL (see above), an arrogant chastisement.

In plain English, bring yourself down off your self-imposed, all-knowing pedestal, play by the rules of respect, courtesy and clearly stated opinions or questions, and some of us will look forward to hearing your reasoning as to why you can cling to an intruder theory. I'll state it again, but with different words, I doubt there is even one poster in the entire forum who would not WELCOME the final proof and conviction of an Intruder(s) in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

May she rest in peace.

UKGuy said:

Edmond.DantesIII,
You cannot demonstrate your claims regarding the ransom note to be factually correct.

Its simply speculation on your part, without any evidence to back it all up!


You should follow the evidence not your theory.


.

Click to expand...

I envy your ability to make such clearly, concise and rational statements.:rocker:

Thank you MM! You said well from all of us!

midwest mama said:

I envy your ability to make such clearly, concise and rational statements.:rocker:

Click to expand...

midwest mama,
Thank You. I credit my Mother with helping me to learn to read, she bought me books, and encouraged me from an early age.

The rest is down to experience, unless I must cite my Mother's milk too.


.