$100,000 explained

[Plenum7]

I should say, though, that my first impressions of the RN are:

1. This person knows John Ramsey.
2. John Ramsey must know who wrote this note.

That's my second and third impression too. The content of the note says so all the way through. The author knows JR and must be someone in his circle of family or friends and there are surely things in the note that are meant to be significant to JR (the signature, for example) and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't know who wrote it. This also suggests to me that he probably didn't have a hand in writing it. But he must know who wrote it. My impressions.

Signals I think the author is giving to JR knowing he would understand them (shared idiom):

"small foreign faction"
"fat cat"
"stray dog"
"don't grow a brain"
"that good southern common sense of yours"
"victory"
S.B.T.C.

 

[Plenum7]

If they wanted an amount easily divisible by 3, why didn't they choose $15,000, or $21,000? Why $18,000?

No answer to that Paladin, except that we could ask thje same about any figure. If they'd asked for $21,000 we would be saying 'Why didn't they ask for $18,000.'

My surmise is that for some reason the figure is based on three people needing $6000 each. So 6000 x 3 = 18,000. It couldn't be $15,000 because, for some reason, $5000 each is not enough. The $6000 figure might be based on costs calculated for flying somewhere and laying low for a few months. I have no ready explanation. Why $6000 each? Not sure. Why $100,000 for the ransom (and the reward)? I can't explain the chosen sums but I do want to explain the division of the ransom into two portions.

Are there other explanations for the division of the ransom into two portions? Other than "Another red herring from ingenious Patsy?"

 

[tumble]

This is a part of the Leopold & Loeb ransom note.

"2. Secure before noon today $10,000. This money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. The money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile."

Why did they chose to divide up the ransom in these parts. Can we say they wanted to stash away 8000$ and use 2000$ for expenses? No, they had no real purpose for this, they did it for the thrill.

I think the L&L ransom note ligered in the JBR writers mind when he/she fakes it.
Check it out there are more similarities.

 

[wenchie]

The note doesn't give me the impression that there are supposed to be only three people involved.

There is the writer of the note, and the "two gentlemen" who are watching over Jonbenet (who presumably left at a different time, leaving the ransom note writer behind to write the note).

But then, there are the people who are going to "monitor" John picking up the money, etc. It's presumed that there would be more than one person doing this monitoring, as they were monitoring both the house and the bank.

 

[Bev]

I think the amount was divided because usually in fictional ransoms, the perps always ask for the bills to be broken into denominations. It's corny and derivative - any "professional" would know that the money would be either fitted with an exploding dye device, it would be marked with ultra violet ink and the serial numbers recorded. That's why kidnappers leave short, terse notes - "I have the kid, will call with details." They don't want law enforcement to have the time to do all this. They'll call and say "I want a million now, go to the bank and get it and I'll give you instructions on how to deliver it." That's why kidnapping is so rare in this country - the money is so easily traceable - that's how they got Hauptman and he waited years to spend the money.

I should have said kidnapping for money is rare.

 

[roving_ranger]

I can understand the use of movie references in the RN, but to pull parts from a historic ransom note, such as the L&L note, would take more than just learning about it in school, imo. Who would have had such knowledge?

 

[tumble]

I can understand the use of movie references in the RN, but to pull parts from a historic ransom note, such as the L&L note, would take more than just learning about it in school, imo. Who would have had such knowledge?

PR was a journalist graduate with magna *advertiser censored* laude.
Also the R's had a house in Charlevoix as well as the Loeb family.
The L&L case played out in Chicago and I am sure JR had learned about it as he was from Michigan.

Check out the similarities, you'll be amazed.

The one big difference is that L&L called the day after even though Bobby Franks had already been found by LE.

 

[wenchie]

The book "Compulsion" was very widely read.

 

[Eagle1]

If they wanted an amount easily divisible by 3, why didn't they choose $15,000, or $21,000? Why $18,000?

I was waiting for a place to post "Why wouldn't they be more inclined to say $130,000?" Aren't you actually saying they'd settle for a mere $6000 each just because they were so suggestible, and affected by the $18,000 surplus, rather than free thinkers who'd go creative? Did they want to look stupid or what? Or like some mastermind manipulater of people and events decided that amount for a bonus and then ordered that company not to let JR return?
It seems most every logical point made in this case can be contradicted by some other one, which may be illogical. Seems it was all planned out to be self-contradictory.

Welcome to WS, and thanks much for trying to come up with an original idea and for taking the trouble to post.

 

[Chrishope]

Plenum7

Welcome. I'm new here myself. Glad to have you aboard.

Few people have said much about how the ransom amount is split. I think you offer an interesting take on things. However, after considering your theory, I believe that the idea that the author knew the amount of JR's bonus, or the Ramseys wrote that amount to lead the cops away from themselves is more plausible.

Here's why- If there are 3 people, then each gets $33,333, + $6K for immediate expenses. Would you participate in the kidnapping of a child and risk life in prison for $39,333 ? I wouldn't. It's not much money, in relation to the risk. Lot's of ordinary people earn that kind of money. I'm just a janitor at a school and I'll earn close to that amount, with overtime. The amount is simply too low for 3 people.

In addition you have to admit it's one hell of a coincidence that they want 100K + 18K for expenses and that just happens to be the amount of JR's bonus.

Finally, I do not agree with you when you say the demand is for 100K. The demand is for 118K. If you are the one paying you wouldn't think of it as 100K, you'd think of it as 118K, because it is.

I think you are correct that the 18K is for immediate expenses - that is, if there were actually and intruder.


******************************************************

Since we are trying to look at this in a fresh way on this thread, let me throw out this idea (I'm sure I'm not the first to say it)

The note states "Listen carefully..." Of course one cannot listen to a note.
Does this mean the note was intended to be read to the Ramseys? Over the phone perhaps?

 

[cindysnow3]

With regard to the original post, I personally don't find any significance in the number theory presented, but I applaud Plenum7 for looking at things in a fresh, new, different way. That's what it is going to take to solve this case, i.e., new perspectives, assuming nothing, looking at the crime from every angle, forming theories based on hard facts, not opinion. No disrespect intended, but contrary to what PagingDrDirect and others have stated above and elsewhere, it is not FACT that Patsy wrote the ransom note, no matter how many websites one posts as evidence. It is my belief that the handwriting evidence I have seen thus far has been made to fit a particular theory, i.e., the PR wrote it theory. Maybe Patsy did write it, but you cannot shape the evidence, pay attention to details that support a theory while ignoring those that don't, in order to arrive at truth. No need to go into a long discussion about this particular point as so many other posts exist (and, yes, I have read many if not most of them on this site and others), the FACT remains that there is no absolute proof or admission that Patsy wrote the note. This case will never be solved if people keep perpetuating non-facts such as this as solid truth. I firmly support a special investigator appointment to this case to re-examine every shred of evidence with no RDI/IDI predisposition in mind, and, while waiting for this to happen (if indeed it ever does), its going to take people like you and me, Plenum7 and PagingDrDirect included, to sort through the evidence, separate fact from opinion, and toss up different ideas and rebuttles until justice is found for JonBenet. There is no need to slap down someone's brainstorming of possibilities based on someone else's so called presentation of fact when it really isn't fact at all. Again, bravo to Plenum 7 for at least trying to look at things in a different light.

I feel this case will IMO never be solved, due to the fact eveyone is so biased in their own facts about the case, they are not willing to look at the TRUE facts in it to base a case in the matter.

 

[Toltec]

Patsy Ramsey was pulling a "The Usual Suspects" scenario to write the note.

The movie references. Patsy watched the movie "Speed" during a flight.

The brown paper bag....(brown paper bag found outside the den)

The $118,000...(Johns bonus or the bible verse)

Patsy was never asked by LE if she had seen the 1996 hit movie "The Usual Suspects".

 

[rashomon]

I should say, though, that my first impressions of the RN are:

1. This person knows John Ramsey.
2. John Ramsey must know who wrote this note.

I heartily agree. the whole note just screams that John's wife Patsy wrote it.

That's my second and third impression too. The content of the note says so all the way through. The author knows JR and must be someone in his circle of family or friends and there are surely things in the note that are meant to be significant to JR (the signature, for example) and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't know who wrote it. This also suggests to me that he probably didn't have a hand in writing it. But he must know who wrote it. My impressions.

Signals I think the author is giving to JR knowing he would understand them (shared idiom):

"small foreign faction"
"fat cat"
"stray dog"
"don't grow a brain"
"that good southern common sense of yours"
"victory"
S.B.T.C.

Then please explain to us why on earth, suppose John knew the killer, he would have covered up for this person who murdered his child? Where is the logic in that?

The note doesn't give me the impression that there are supposed to be only three people involved.

There is the writer of the note, and the "two gentlemen" who are watching over Jonbenet (who presumably left at a different time, leaving the ransom note writer behind to write the note).

But then, there are the people who are going to "monitor" John picking up the money, etc. It's presumed that there would be more than one person doing this monitoring, as they were monitoring both the house and the bank.

Plenum7, and Magnolia, you should attentively read this 'voice of reason' post by Wenchie.
Don't waste your time figuring out the number of intruders and the sum they were going to divide up, Plenum7.
Per the RN, there is the writer of the ransom note plus the two gentlemen watching over the Ramseys' daughter. this makes threee. Then there is the crew under whose 'constant scrutiny' the Ramseys allegedly were still in their home. How many people do you think is a reasonable number? Let's keep it low and say two, ok? So this makes five: the RN author plus the two gentlemen plus two people watching over the house.
But it doesn't end there: for logic dictates that the people watching the house were not the same people who were going to 'monitor' the bank.
For would the kidnappers watching the house leave the crime scene together with JR to 'follow' him to the bank? Very unlikely. For kidnappers keep their people in strategic locations beforehand, and communicate per cell phone. So let's assume there were two additional people monitoring the bank: so now we come up with seven (the RN author + the two gentlemen + two people watching the house + two people watching the bank).
But my absolute favorite in the RN is the threat that John Ramsey "will be scanned for electronic devices". Imagine this scenario: a kidnapper stepping out in broad daylight, scanning John Ramsey for electronic devices. LOL!
Even the dumb Boulder police would have had a field day with such a kidnapper stepping out of the bushes and presenting himself on a platter to them. Priceless!!
But back to the arithmetic before I get carried away ROFL: now we have arived at a number of about eight kidnappers involved in this. And these kidnappers were to split up the measly sum of $118,000 among them? Hilarious, don't you think so?

But kidding aside, there really is no need to rack your brains about the contents of the ransomnote, Magnolia and Plenum7. Remember that the Ramseys themselves did not take the contents of the note seriously, so why should you?
Patsy Ramsey only spoke of 'one' intruder, and so did John.

 

[Darlene733510]

One of the most noticeable things about the RN was the S.B.T.C at the bottom.

JR had a plaque with these letters on it. S.B.T.C =
Subic Bay Training Camp, where he had been stationed.

I am sure that the writer of the note had seen it many times in her husband's office.

 

[Plenum7]

Some thoughts on various posts to this thread:

1. The Ramseys didn't take the note seriously. Neither do I. The minute you read it you realise it can't be taken at face value. But it still remains a clue. Even if Patsy did the deed the note will be revealing. If a criminal leaves a three page note,even if their intent is to deceive, it will be revealing. So I think analysis of the note is a worthwhile exercise. What did the author want us to believe from the note and why?

2. Kidnappings are rarely for the money. I agree. The supposed motive that stands out in the note is animosity to John Ramsey. Several motives are suggested - political, financial and then just the fact that these "gentlemen" really don't like JR. Of these the political motives are transparently nonsense, the ransom amount is too small for financial motives to be taken seriously, so this leaves animosity to JR.

3. Can someone give more info about that "brown paper bag found outside the den"? That is important because it is a tangible piece of evidence that matches the content of the note. I am curious as to why the perp did not go to greater lengths to make the crime scene match their ransom note.

4. Rashomon wrote: "Then please explain to us why on earth, suppose John knew the killer, he would have covered up for this person who murdered his child? Where is the logic in that?" No logic in that. Things like fear are not logical. I take your point though. And yet I detect real animosity to JR in the note, as well as familiarity. The author *certainly* knows JR. And I feel that he knows them. Why cover up? I don't know. But that is just another feature of this case that doesn't add up. Why would the Ramsey's write the note anyway? Diversion? But they themselves admit that the diversion is transparent and can't be taken seriously.

5. I'm not convinced that the note contains allusions to specific films or to previous ransom notes. But it is cliched. The author is trying to make a bogus ransom note sound like the real thing. So there are echoes of popular conceptions of how ransom notes go and such popular conceptions are, of course, formed by films and famous cases.

6. True, the ransom asks for $118,000, but $100,000 in $100 bills is the core amount. Again, I point to the police questioning of Ramsey. In his book JR says he'd offer a million dollars reward. Instead, he offers $100,000. This is the same amount as the core amount in the note. The authorities seem curious about this reward. JR's answers are satisfactory so they don't pursue it. I remain curious about it. I think the significant amount mentioned in the notre is $100,000. I feel that that is the sum that is significant, not the total of $118,000 (and no cents).

7. The note does suggest a wider team of people that it calls a "small faction". But there are only three people to be identified - the author and the "two gentlemen". All else is too obviously bluff.

 

[Plenum7]

Obviously the signatures SBTC is tantalizing. The credible possibilities I have heard of so far are:

Subic Bay Training Camp
Swallowed By the Competition
Saved by the Cross
Slow Boat to China

or else, a random and meaningless series of letters.

I don't believe they are meaningless. Specifically, I think they are at least intended to be meaingful to JR even if he doesn't understand them - he is supposed to understand them.

Are there any other possibilities to add to this list?

 

[Chrishope]

What did the author want us to believe from the note and why?

The author didn't want "us" to believe anything. He, or she, probably didn't figure on "us" ever reading it. It's what the author wanted the cops to believe that counts. It can't function as a ransom note with the dead body in the basement. That pretty much leaves diversion.

In the transcripts of the 911 call, we see that PR made a point to tell the 911 operator that the note mentions SBTC. I don't know what SBTC means, but PR sure wanted the cops to be aware of it.

2. Kidnappings are rarely for the money. I agree. The supposed motive that stands out in the note is animosity to John Ramsey. Several motives are suggested - political, financial and then just the fact that these "gentlemen" really don't like JR. Of these the political motives are transparently nonsense, the ransom amount is too small for financial motives to be taken seriously, so this leaves animosity to JR.

I'm not sure that's a fact. It seems to me that kidnappings are mostly about the money - at least when a ransom is asked for. (At least in those cases where ransom is asked for and the kidnappers know better than to leave the body in the basement)

Animosity? Keying someone's car is animosity, not raping and killing someone's daughter.

6. True, the ransom asks for $118,000, but $100,000 in $100 bills is the core amount. Again, I point to the police questioning of Ramsey. In his book JR says he'd offer a million dollars reward. Instead, he offers $100,000. This is the same amount as the core amount in the note. The authorities seem curious about this reward. JR's answers are satisfactory so they don't pursue it. I remain curious about it. I think the significant amount mentioned in the notre is $100,000. I feel that that is the sum that is significant, not the total of $118,000 (and no cents).

Why is it significant? Doesn't seem very significant to me. It's true that the 100k could be in larger bills, but other than that I see nothing special aobut the figure 100k.

 

[Plenum7]

The note and the crime scene don't match imo. Here is an analysis of the note line by line. There has been no attempt to connect the content of the note with the crime scene. A perp might have staged the murder as outright sexual molestation and then written a pedophilic note to match, but they have not done so. The staging and diversions in note don't match the staging and diversions in the crime scene. As follows:


"Mr. Ramsey."

Yet the note was not placed where Mr Ramsay - as opposed to Burke and Patsy - is likely to find it. It is addressed to him but not placed appropriately. It might have been placed on his car windscreen, for instance, or somewhere else that he was liukely to encounter it before others. Instead, it is at the bottom of the stairs where anyone can find it, and as it happens Mrs Ramsey finds it before John. This is the first incongruity between the note and the crime scene.

"We are a group of individuals"

No effort has been made to leave the impression that a group of individuals have been at the crime scene. No match between note and crime scene, and no effort to make them match. The author of the note might have tried to leave some evidence to corroborate this claim of the note, but nothing.

"that represent a small foreign faction."

No effort to lace the crime scene with evidence to corroborate the note on this claim. The author could have laced the scene with something exotic or some item of evidence to corroborate the idea that "foreigners" were involved. But nothing.

"but not the country that it serves."

No effort to make this sentiment tangible. The author might have added something anti-American to the crime scene to corroborate the note on this point. Nothing. There is no attempt to add a political element to the crime scene so that it matched the political claims of the note.

"At this time we have your daughter in our posession."

There is nothing accompanying the note (leaving aside the body in the basement) to corroborate this claim. For example, a ransom note can be accompanied by a lock of hair or a severed toe to corroborate the kidnapping. Nothing in this case.

"She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter."

Nothing at the crime scene says "You didn't follow our instructions, John, so we've killed her!" The crime itself fulfills the threat made in the note, but there has been no attempt to make it seem that the girl had been safe but JR didn't cooperate so she has been killed. Nothing in the crime scene suggests that, as per the threat in the note, the girl has been killed because Ramsey did not follow instructions. The author might have staged it so, but didn't. A note on the body saying "You didn't follow our instructions!" would have linked ransom note to crime, but not so.


"You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills."

Nothing at the crime scene corroborates the claim that the motive is money and no attempt to make the crime scene look like the crime was financially motivated.

"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. "

Yes, some reports of a brown paper bag at the crime scene, a point of consonance between note and crime scene. But the bag at the crime scene is out of context - it has not been placed there to provide JR with a bag for the money.

"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery."

The time signatures here seem incongruous. The note was found 5.30AMish. The note contains the promise to call at 8-10am of the same morning, but calls this "tomorrow". The note is placed at the bottom of the stairs and it seems the author expects it to be found when someone (John) gets up in the morning of the 26th Dec. So what does "tomorrow" mean? The police and co. all took it to mean 8 to 10 of the morning the note was found, not the morning of the 27th which would be "tomorrow". It can be read as if by "tomorrow" the author means "later today".

"If we monitor you getting the money early"

There is nothing at the crime scene to corroborate the claim that this "group" is capable of monitoring JR. They might have left something to demonstrate their ability to monitor to JR, but no.

"Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter."

No attempt to make the crime scene look like an "execution". It would have been possible to dress the murder up as an execution to conform to this threat, but no, the crime scene staging suggests an erotic assault or ritualized eroticism more than an execution-style slaying.


"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."

Obviously this threat is not carried out. It seems a very strange threat to make if the author knows the body of the girl is in the basement and will be found soon enough. The crime scene directly contradicts the note here. It is intended to menace JR, but it is empty menace. As far as the author knows JR might have got up in the morning, read the note, searched the house and found the girl. This menace, therefore, would only have tormented him for a few minutes until he found the body. As it happens, JR faced the menace of never recovering her (dead or alive) only until she was found that afternoon.

"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter"

No attempt to make it seem that two men were involved. In fact, virtually no attempt (if any) to make it look as if there was even one intruder. A smart perp might have laced the scene with a few hairs or something else to corroborate the claim that the giorl had been in the keeping of two men, but no.

"do not particularly like you"

Other than the murder of JR's daughter, nothing at the crime scene to corroborate this claim. The perp might have smashed a photo or something to underline their animosity to JR, but nothing.

"so I advise you not to provoke them."

Again, nothing at the crime scene that says "You provoked them John, so they killed her."

"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."

Again, an empty threat if the writer knows the girl (head intact) is in the basement and will be found soon enough. No attempt to behead the girl, although the garroting of course is an attack upon the neck. Some consonance, therefore, between beheading and garroting.

"If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies."

Again, no attempt to make the crime seem like a consequence of JR not following insatructions.

"You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics."

No corroborating evidence of this left at the crime scene except perhaps the fact that the perp (Ramsey or intruder) has run rings around the cops since day one.

"You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities."

Nothing at the crime scene to back up this claim. Again, the perp might have left some evidence to demonstrate to JR their powers of surveillance. Nothing.

"You are not the only fat cat around"

Nothing at the crime scene to suggest the crime is motivated by class animosity. If the perp was envious of wealth and contemptuous of Ramsey as a "fat cat" they might have attacked some aspect of the Ramsey house, but nothing.

"so don't think that killing will be difficult."

The body doesn't seem to match this claim. The killer has employed not one but two methods of killing and has not treated the body with contempt.


"Victory!"

Nothing about the crime scene that suggests the idea that the crime was any sort of "victory" for the killer. If the crime was sexual, for instance, no sign it brought the perp to the "victory" of ejaculation. Nothing like that.

 

[Tristan]

It is widely believed that the RN "wanted to make it appear to be someone that knew them and would know how much his bonus was that year." But I don't believe that to be the case. It is a coincidence.

Plenum7.... There are no coincidences.

 

[Plenum7]

Plenum7.... There are no coincidences.

Is that a theological position Tristan? Because there certainly appear to be coincidences in life, and often spectacular ones that stretch the imagination. The more I see the more I am unimpressed by coincidences and especially neat coincidences. I study unexplained documents for a living and, believe me, one can encounter some very, very strange coincidences that turn out to be nothing more. And the internet world has reinforced my impression of this fact even more. I once searched for an Indian born man named McKenzie who had been a maths teacher, worked in Sydney Australia in the 1970s and had three sons. How many of 'em do you think there could be? Answer = several, and some genuine coincidences led me in the wrong direction for months. It seemed fantastically unlikely, but it was a case of strange but true. I have followed lots of leads in lots of documents and have learned that coincidences do indeed happen.

In this case, I entirely agree that lots of evidence points to the Ramseys, but I don't count the $118,000 as a strong connection because, to my mind, it can be explained in other ways. Similarly, I think it is entirely possible for the plaque of 'Subic Bay Training Camp' belonging to JR to have the initials SBTC purely as coincidence. It may not be, but at the same time it is erxactly the sort of thing that *can* turn out to be coincidence. So I don't agree - there are no coincidences. Yes there are. Just as I disagree with the sentiment 'Loving parents don't kill their children.' Yes they do. Strange but true. You wouldn't credit it, but it is true all the same.

And coincidences happen often. Examples? Didn't you encounter strange coincidences connected to the 911 attacks? In the months before September 11 2001 a black rap band spouting anti-Us lyrics in NY released a CD with the Two Towers in flames from a plane attack on the front cover. Eerie. Uncanny. But a complete coincidence. No connection. It happens. Often.