The ransom note

[sissi]

When reading information, I tend to read between the lines. Sometimes by doing so , I can find the inferences as well as the motives. There are many who can recall ,far better than I, the nitty gritty details of the black and white. I can't do this, we all have our talents.

When Jayelles, et al, decided that they would , "unite to keep me from posting a picture", I took this as a threat. Evidently, even though I had others pm me that felt the same, the moderators here feel I was at fault.

They did this by copying verbatum, exactly my words as they appeared on webbsleuths and giving them their own twist and interpretation. Since my interpretation of events carries no weight, I am saying goodbye. It's been fun debating with the fair minded, and not such a bad experience debating with the closed minds, but I will NOT tolerate this nonsense of pm's over days with some mod acting as judge and jury. How could I have expected better, not very bright on my part.

Good bye!

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by icedtea4me

not
It's actually "dovparticularly like you", where the writer used a journalist's proofreading caret to insert the word "not". (The "not" is supposed to be over the v.)


-Tea

BTW, there's no such thing as a 'journalist's proofreading caret'. It could be an 'editor's caret,' though.

[narlacat]

Originally Posted by sissi

When reading information, I tend to read between the lines. Sometimes by doing so , I can find the inferences as well as the motives. There are many who can recall ,far better than I, the nitty gritty details of the black and white. I can't do this, we all have our talents.

When Jayelles, et al, decided that they would , "unite to keep me from posting a picture", I took this as a threat. Evidently, even though I had others pm me that felt the same, the moderators here feel I was at fault.

They did this by copying verbatum, exactly my words as they appeared on webbsleuths and giving them their own twist and interpretation. Since my interpretation of events carries no weight, I am saying goodbye. It's been fun debating with the fair minded, and not such a bad experience debating with the closed minds, but I will NOT tolerate this nonsense of pm's over days with some mod acting as judge and jury. How could I have expected better, not very bright on my part.

Good bye!

Good bye Sissi.

FWIW I always enjoyed your posts even if I didn't agree with much of what you said lol.
I'm sorry you feel you have to leave, not everyone disliked you.
You were one of the most polite Ramsey supporters I've come across.
I wish you well

[tumble]

Originally Posted by icedtea4me

not
It's actually "dovparticularly like you", where the writer used a journalist's proofreading caret to insert the word "not". (The "not" is supposed to be over the v.)


-Tea

Yes, that adds another twist to it doesn't it. A sarcasm with a twist.

[SuperDave]

"FWIW I always enjoyed your posts even if I didn't agree with much of what you said lol. I'm sorry you feel you have to leave, not everyone disliked you. You were one of the most polite Ramsey supporters I've come across."

I would agree with that sentiment.

[tumble]

Anyone else that sees a connection to the Leopold&Loeb ransom note.

In the Ramsey note the kidnappers feel the need to tell who they are and what they feel about JR. Also it is very personal at the end but...

other than that the notes are quite similar.
1. Describing in detail how the money should be delivered and in what values.
2. What will happen if the notes instructions is not followed.
3. They will call the next day for further instructions
4. The wording "at present"(L&L) and "at this time"(R) in the beginning of the note is similar and appears at about the same place.
5. To follow instrunctions 'to the letter'
6. A meaningless signature
7. Both victims were dead by the time the parents got the RN.

I think that the L&L note could have lingered in the mind of the writer. Did any of the R's know about L&L?
As the L&L note was written in a case where the victims was planned to be killed the writer may have thought that note was a good blueprint as he/she was faced with the same situation.

A nice twist to this is that the Loeb's actually had a country estate in Charlevoix too.

And of course the biggest difference is that L&L actually called the day after even though the body of the victim had been found.

[Camper]

Just a tiny mental bubble this morning.

Anyone know whether the Leopold & Loeb ransom note newspaper coverage could be a learning topic in college journalism classes? PR's college class for example.

Writing styles of various journalists on all topics of news.



Edited to add: Here is a great link on Leopold and Loeb, the impact on their families, their prison experiences, and their deaths.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...termath_7.html

For residents of Charlevoix not to have been aware of this case and the intricate details, is quite unlikely.

.

[SuperDave]

"Anyone know whether the Leopold & Loeb ransom note newspaper coverage could be a learning topic in college journalism classes? PR's college class for example."

Possible. Crime coverage was a big issue in the ones I took.

[Camper]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

"Anyone know whether the Leopold & Loeb ransom note newspaper coverage could be a learning topic in college journalism classes? PR's college class for example."

Possible. Crime coverage was a big issue in the ones I took.

--->>>Interesting that Loeb and Leopold were supremely smart in a number of topics, languages etc. No ransom note written on a brown paper bag for them, using the college typewriter helped do them in, and losing a pair of odd prescription eyeglasses near the body was another.

JUST HOW smart do WE all think the writer of the JonBenet Ramblingsome note IS/WAS?

I drag this old saw out every chance I get because it fits so many theorists who work with not enough sparkplugs.

That being Will Rogers and his popular saying, at least with me it is, "Everyone is ignorant only on different subjects".

So where was the ignorance in 'the' note that would shine a light on the who of 'who' wrote the note?

WHY would an INTRUDER say or speak of 'familiar family isms', fat cat, the exact figure of John Ramseys bonus check for the ransom amount, etc? Would the writer think that John Q Public would assume that a family member would NOT focus on familiar family terms?

To me the note speaks of a creative and innovative persons ability to make things appear as they were not in actual reality.

Journalism requires a person who is creative, and able to compose dull information and turn it into something more interesting and readable making the story flow, sometimes twisting the truth. Haven't we all experienced reading news accounts about something that we actually witnessed in person and noted the gaps in coverage?

.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Camper

--->>>Interesting that Loeb and Leopold were supremely smart in a number of topics, languages etc. No ransom note written on a brown paper bag for them, using the college typewriter helped do them in, and losing a pair of odd prescription eyeglasses near the body was another.

JUST HOW smart do WE all think the writer of the JonBenet Ramblingsome note IS/WAS?

I drag this old saw out every chance I get because it fits so many theorists who work with not enough sparkplugs.

That being Will Rogers and his popular saying, at least with me it is, "Everyone is ignorant only on different subjects".

So where was the ignorance in 'the' note that would shine a light on the who of 'who' wrote the note?

WHY would an INTRUDER say or speak of 'familiar family isms', fat cat, the exact figure of John Ramseys bonus check for the ransom amount, etc? Would the writer think that John Q Public would assume that a family member would NOT focus on familiar family terms?

To me the note speaks of a creative and innovative persons ability to make things appear as they were not in actual reality.

Journalism requires a person who is creative, and able to compose dull information and turn it into something more interesting and readable making the story flow, sometimes twisting the truth. Haven't we all experienced reading news accounts about something that we actually witnessed in person and noted the gaps in coverage?

What has always struck me as extremely odd in the ransom note was why Patsy, who was the wife of a millionaire who could have raised up to ten million dollars for ransom, would put that ridiculously low $118,000 sum in the note.
Patsy may have known nothing about tying ligatures and constructing garrotes which work, but in terms of the ransom sum, she can't have been that dumb. Impossible.
And isn't it interesting that Patsy herself asked Linda Arndt around 10 a.m. on Dec 26 (PMPT paperback, p. 15) why the author of the ransom note had not asked for a larger sum of money, or at least a round sum of money.
To me this shows that Patsy consciously laid out that red herring, putting a ridiculously low sum in the RN, which was not even a round sum, and which happened to be the sum of John's bonus. I suppose that her intention was that in case the sexual assault or political kidnapping scenarios should not be swallowed by investigators, they should focus on a disgruntled, low-paid Access Graphics employee who happened to know John's bonus and for whom $118,000 was an awful lot of money.

[tumble]

What has always struck me as extremely odd in the ransom note was why Patsy, who was the wife of a millionaire who could have raised up to ten million dollars for ransom, would put that ridiculously low $118,000 sum in the note.

Leopold&Loeb demanded $10000 in 1924. If she had that in her mind maybe she thought $118000 could be a plausible amount in 1996.
And I think you are right that it was meant to deceive.

[Camper]

My thought process about the bonus amount took several paths.

My initial thought took me to PR being chastised for spending so much money on JonBenet for the costumes. John could have thought it was way over the top in spending. My thinking was that in the trauma of the actual death and the note writing, it was a reaction to the 'stop spending so much for this activity' and feeling righteous indignation over the 'budget' cutting.

Another thought was that the older son had wanted something that was very costly, and the father refused the expenditure for it. A son of any RICH father who had remarried and had more children, could have been made angry over the denial, particularly when he had watched the money sailing out for the contests, costumes etc. An older son ordinarilly should have or could have rightfully ascended into a position of 'Apple of his fathers eye, status.' Appears not so in this case. His name is hardly mentioned in DOI.

He was most likely not receiving support money from his father, (he was 20 at the time, as I recall someone correct me if I err here) and would he not then ask dad for something that he knew his dad could afford, and expect to get it, or?


Why would an 11 year old boy write this specific amount into a note if he wrote it as BlueCrab had once surmised?

An unwrinkled note is the biggest clue here. Could an intruder write the note AFTER killing?

IF as the R's wanted us to believe, the killer hid in the home and wrote the note, where was the note kept prior to middle of the night and then getting it out and onto the stairs? Where did he put the big wad of missing sheets of the legal pad?

Better yet where did he hide until they all went to bed and fell asleep?

.

[tumble]

An unwrinkled note is the biggest clue here. Could an intruder write the note AFTER killing?

The not could definitely be written after the fact, this is what I think happened.
But actually the note could have been written a long time before the killing, even by an intuder. This is not likely though.

IF as the R's wanted us to believe, the killer hid in the home and wrote the note, where was the note kept prior to middle of the night and then getting it out and onto the stairs? Where did he put the big wad of missing sheets of the legal pad?

I think they wanted to make it look like the perp did the writing in their kitchen on a pad they found by the phone with a pen nearby. This is why they left the flashlight in the kitchen.
The missing sheets should be found in the pocket of the intruder. Where they are for real..., somewhere the BPD didn't look.

The amount of 118' I think was chosen to give the BPD somewhere to direct their intruder efforts at.

[SuperDave]

"The amount of 118' I think was chosen to give the BPD somewhere to direct their intruder efforts at."

Completely agree. The writer threw a whole mess of stuff in there in the hope that some would stick. The figure was designed to point to an employee.

"JUST HOW smart do WE all think the writer of the JonBenet Ramblingsome note IS/WAS?"

Generally intelligent, but in over her head. There's an old saying: it's better to be lucky than good. (Having a lawyer who owns half the state can't hurt!)

"IF as the R's wanted us to believe, the killer hid in the home and wrote the note, where was the note kept prior to middle of the night and then getting it out and onto the stairs? Where did he put the big wad of missing sheets of the legal pad? Better yet where did he hide until they all went to bed and fell asleep?"

Where indeed.

[Toltec]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

I never noticed that, Tumble. Good catch.

This is just a guess...maybe he called home.

Patsy was in the den when Fleet called....didn't someone say she just sat there when everyone else bolted to the living room?

[narlacat]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

"The amount of 118' I think was chosen to give the BPD somewhere to direct their intruder efforts at."

Completely agree. The writer threw a whole mess of stuff in there in the hope that some would stick. The figure was designed to point to an employee.

"JUST HOW smart do WE all think the writer of the JonBenet Ramblingsome note IS/WAS?"

Generally intelligent, but in over her head. There's an old saying: it's better to be lucky than good. (Having a lawyer who owns half the state can't hurt!)

"IF as the R's wanted us to believe, the killer hid in the home and wrote the note, where was the note kept prior to middle of the night and then getting it out and onto the stairs? Where did he put the big wad of missing sheets of the legal pad? Better yet where did he hide until they all went to bed and fell asleep?"

Where indeed.

In what used to be JAR's room according to IDI theorists.
That ruffle being ruffled is surely suspect

[SuperDave]

Yeah, but not the fibers in her panties!

[RedChief]

A quite interesting discussion of the ransom note.

Although there is much about the note-where it was supposedly found, how it was displayed, and it's pristine condition, etc., that raises eyebrows, isn't it nevertheless possible that an unknown subject, wrote it after the murder hoping to collect $118,000, a "small amount" as in the movie Ransom, by secreting the body in the wine cellar? What are the odds? Was there any other room in the house that would have better served his purpose? Might John have been more willing to part with this paltry sum than with, say, two million?

John was directed to withdraw the money from an account, presumably in a local bank. Did John not have such an account? Does it surprise you that John didn't opt for direct deposit? Interestingly, the husband of the abductee in Ruthless People was advised, at one point, that he could withdraw the ransom money from his retirement account. Another parallel?

So it just now occurs to me that some naive person, lacking in life experience and relying on "knowledge" gained from various books and movies, who may have discovered a check stub with the bonus amount on it, as John has opined, mistakenly believed the money was in a local account and could be easily accessed. Wouldn't Patsy have known better? Who would demand that the ransom money be withdrawn from an account?? Further, doesn't it seem, as John Douglas has pointed out, that an insecure/unconfident/inexperienced and therefore probably young person wrote the note, considering that it is boisterous and full of unnecessary threats? A college kid, possibly a journalism student?

As for "I will call you...tomorrow" and "..I advise you to be rested."; tomorrow is the 27th and John might get the money "early"-on the 26th, so it all makes perfect sense.

To sleep, perchance to dream....

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by tumble

Anyone else that sees a connection to the Leopold&Loeb ransom note.

In the Ramsey note the kidnappers feel the need to tell who they are and what they feel about JR. Also it is very personal at the end but...

other than that the notes are quite similar.
1. Describing in detail how the money should be delivered and in what values.
2. What will happen if the notes instructions is not followed.
3. They will call the next day for further instructions
4. The wording "at present"(L&L) and "at this time"(R) in the beginning of the note is similar and appears at about the same place.
5. To follow instrunctions 'to the letter'
6. A meaningless signature
7. Both victims were dead by the time the parents got the RN.

I think that the L&L note could have lingered in the mind of the writer. Did any of the R's know about L&L?
As the L&L note was written in a case where the victims was planned to be killed the writer may have thought that note was a good blueprint as he/she was faced with the same situation.

A nice twist to this is that the Loeb's actually had a country estate in Charlevoix too.

And of course the biggest difference is that L&L actually called the day after even though the body of the victim had been found.

When I was onto the IDI kick, I wondered about the guy that left his cowboy boots in JonBenet's Charlevoix bedroom. Did this fellow see her at the Charlevoix summer pageant and become infatuated then? Did this fellow live in Charlevoix and thus know about Leopold and Loeb? Or was this fellow visiting Charlevoix because he was studying the history of L&L? We do know the RN writer was atleast a little fixated on the kidnap crime movie thing. Maybe he had a hate problem as well or maybe he was trying to be smart like Leopold.

I also realized that Patsy might have heard about the L&L connection to Charlevoix. The L&L crime was basically solved by some journalists. I learned later that their crime has been taught in Journalism schools. After all it was news. It wouldn't have surprised me if we found out also that Janet McReynolds studied L&L.

I also was aware that the cowboy boots was an after the fact so so; not legal evidence collected by the police, a bit like the Helgoth episode.

[narlacat]

Originally Posted by RedChief

A quite interesting discussion of the ransom note.

Although there is much about the note-where it was supposedly found, how it was displayed, and it's pristine condition, etc., that raises eyebrows, isn't it nevertheless possible that an unknown subject, wrote it after the murder hoping to collect $118,000, a "small amount" as in the movie Ransom, by secreting the body in the wine cellar? What are the odds? Was there any other room in the house that would have better served his purpose? Might John have been more willing to part with this paltry sum than with, say, two million?

John was directed to withdraw the money from an account, presumably in a local bank. Did John not have such an account? Does it surprise you that John didn't opt for direct deposit? Interestingly, the husband of the abductee in Ruthless People was advised, at one point, that he could withdraw the ransom money from his retirement account. Another parallel?

So it just now occurs to me that some naive person, lacking in life experience and relying on "knowledge" gained from various books and movies, who may have discovered a check stub with the bonus amount on it, as John has opined, mistakenly believed the money was in a local account and could be easily accessed. Wouldn't Patsy have known better? Who would demand that the ransom money be withdrawn from an account?? Further, doesn't it seem, as John Douglas has pointed out, that an insecure/unconfident/inexperienced and therefore probably young person wrote the note, considering that it is boisterous and full of unnecessary threats? A college kid, possibly a journalism student?

As for "I will call you...tomorrow" and "..I advise you to be rested."; tomorrow is the 27th and John might get the money "early"-on the 26th, so it all makes perfect sense.

To sleep, perchance to dream....

According to PR she didn't know anything about the bonus on the morning of the 26th.
I'm sure she knew damn well where his money was and how much he had.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at RedChief.
He must have kept his money in an account as is the norm, where else would it be?

[Camper]

I, Camper will comment, on Ruperts quoted post, in Red right after his or her point.

Originally Posted by Rupert

When I was onto the IDI kick, I wondered about the guy that left his cowboy boots in JonBenet's Charlevoix bedroom. WE donut know if they were male or female boots, and sometimes women wear mens boots) Did this fellow see her at the Charlevoix summer pageant and become infatuated then? Did this fellow live in Charlevoix and thus know about Leopold and Loeb? Or was this fellow again WE donut know if male or female)visiting Charlevoix because he was studying the history of L&L? We do know the RN writer was atleast a little fixated on the kidnap crime movie thing. Maybe he had a hate problem as well or maybe he was trying to be smart like Leopold. Wellll Loeb was smart too, why not him - who actually dictated/thought or actually typed the ransom note Leopold or Loeb - WE donut know do WE?

I also realized that Patsy might have heard about the L&L connection to Charlevoix. The L&L crime was basically solved by some journalists. I learned later that their crime has been taught in Journalism schools. After all it was news. It wouldn't have surprised me if we found out also that Janet McReynolds studied L&L. This case has become a classic, L&L case is only one of a tiny handful of kidnap cases in American history.

I also was aware that the cowboy boots was 'were'inserted here for grammatical correctness an after the fact so so; not legal evidence collected by the police, a bit like the Helgoth episode.

The Helgoth 'episode' came after the Ramsey murder, no connection with the case was ever firmly established.

[Camper]

I, Camper will comment in purple, right after RedChiefs points.

Originally Posted by RedChief

A quite interesting discussion of the ransom note.

Although there is much about the note-where it was supposedly found, how it was displayed, and it's pristine condition, etc., that raises eyebrows, isn't it nevertheless possible that an unknown subject, wrote it after the murder hoping to collect $118,000, a "small amount" as in the movie Ransom, by secreting the body in the wine cellar? What are the odds? Was there any other room in the house that would have better served his purpose? Might John have been more willing to part with this paltry sum than with, say, two million? One might believe that John would not have a 'problem' with $118,000 rather than 1,2,3,4,5 or whatever millions that could have but was not asked for in the note. I have a big problem with the fact that John did not openly question or ask aloud WHY DIDN'T THE KIDNAPPER CALL? EVEN the BPD expected the call on the 26th. John did not even speculate OR vocalize to the BPD that the 'kidnapper' might be calling on the next day - the 27th. In the movie Ruthless People, Beth Midler was kidnapped but her husband did NOT want her back, yet he anxiously awaited the kidnappers call/s.

John was directed to withdraw the money from an account, presumably in a local bank. Did John not have such an account? Does it surprise you that John didn't opt for direct deposit? WE meaning WS'ers do not know that information. Someone correct me if that has been in our collection of information. Interestingly, the husband of the abductee in Ruthless People was advised, at one point, that he could withdraw the ransom money from his retirement account. Another parallel?

So it just now occurs to me that some naive person, lacking in life experience and relying on "knowledge" gained from various books and movies, who may have discovered a check stub with the bonus amount on it, as John has opined, mistakenly believed the money was in a local account and could be easily accessed. Wouldn't Patsy have known better? Who would demand that the ransom money be withdrawn from an account?? Well someone who knew that the R's did not keep their cash buried in a tin can in the back yard Further, doesn't it seem, as John Douglas has pointed out, that an insecure/unconfident/inexperienced and therefore probably young person wrote the note, considering that it is boisterous and full of unnecessary threats? A college kid, possibly a journalism student?
In previous posts I have already placed PR at the top of my list on this one, along with her artistic talent, ambidextrous ability, creativity, and strong control under the gun.

As for "I will call you...tomorrow" and "..I advise you to be rested."; tomorrow is the 27th and John might get the money "early"-on the 26th, so it all makes perfect sense.I covered this above

To sleep, perchance to dream....

[SuperDave]

"Although there is much about the note-where it was supposedly found, how it was displayed, and it's pristine condition, etc., that raises eyebrows, isn't it nevertheless possible that an unknown subject, wrote it after the murder hoping to collect $118,000, a "small amount" as in the movie Ransom, by secreting the body in the wine cellar? What are the odds?"

According to the FBI, the odds were not good. Sexual predators and ransom kidnappers are two separate animals, Chief. One is motivated by lust, the other by greed. They never co-exist. Not only that, but if he was hoping to collect, he wouldn't have left the body, even if she was dead.

"Was there any other room in the house that would have better served his purpose? Might John have been more willing to part with this paltry sum than with, say, two million?"

That would be the first time a kidnapper ever cared about the financial strain on a victim, Chief! Think about it, if he's just killed their daughter, he's not going to give a damn about John going to the poor house! Besides, ransom kidnappers know that people cave when their kids are involved.

"So it just now occurs to me that some naive person, lacking in life experience and relying on "knowledge" gained from various books and movies, who may have discovered a check stub with the bonus amount on it, as John has opined, mistakenly believed the money was in a local account and could be easily accessed. Wouldn't Patsy have known better?"

She claimed she didn't know at all, Chief. Besides, you forget: this note was full of conflicting motives. He's a pedophile...no, he's a ransom kidnapper...no, he's an employee with a grudge...no, he's an Islamic terrorist...no, he's a left-wing nut! See where this is headed? The person writing this note was just throwing stuff in hoping that some of it might stick. IMO, the amount was specifically chosen to cast suspicion on an employee of Access Graphics.

"Who would demand that the ransom money be withdrawn from an account??"

An amateur.

"Further, doesn't it seem, as John Douglas has pointed out, that an insecure/unconfident/inexperienced and therefore probably young person wrote the note, considering that it is boisterous and full of unnecessary threats? A college kid, possibly a journalism student?"

Well, Douglas's credibility is about zero in regard to this case, Chief. I posted Robert Ressler's interview if you want to listen to it. I recommend you do.

Leaving that aside, ransom notes are kind of an old game.

[Camper]

Originally Posted by tumble

Anyone else that sees a connection to the Leopold&Loeb ransom note.

In the Ramsey note the kidnappers feel the need to tell who they are and what they feel about JR. Also it is very personal at the end but...

other than that the notes are quite similar.
1. Describing in detail how the money should be delivered and in what values.
2. What will happen if the notes instructions is not followed.
3. They will call the next day for further instructions
4. The wording "at present"(L&L) and "at this time"(R) in the beginning of the note is similar and appears at about the same place.
5. To follow instrunctions 'to the letter'
6. A meaningless signature
7. Both victims were dead by the time the parents got the RN.

I think that the L&L note could have lingered in the mind of the writer. Did any of the R's know about L&L?
As the L&L note was written in a case where the victims was planned to be killed the writer may have thought that note was a good blueprint as he/she was faced with the same situation.

A nice twist to this is that the Loeb's actually had a country estate in Charlevoix too.

And of course the biggest difference is that L&L actually called the day after even though the body of the victim had been found.

--->>>HUH, regarding your ----> 7. Both victims were dead by the time the parents got the RN.

What two (both) victims are you referring to?

.

[tumble]

What two (both) victims are you referring to?

JBR in the Ramsey case and the Franks boy in the Leopold & Loeb case