is there really an acute mark on "attache" in the note?

[BlueCrab]

Do any of you seriously think a child wrote this? Do any of you HAVE an 8-10 year old that could write a letter like this? I mean seriously... if a child that age wrote a letter that complex (even given the errors) - they would have to be A child of extraordinary intellect and talent.

jennerbear

Jennerbear,

I seriously think a child wrote the ransom note. The CBI handwriting experts couldn't eliminate Burke as the writer. IMO Burke was the scribe as an older person helped with some of the text.

And Darnay Hoffman's experts (assembled for the Wolf v Ramsey lawsuit) said that whoever wrote the captions in Burke's personal photo album also likely wrote the ransom note. IMO Burke wrote the captions. When Patsy was asked who wrote the captions she suspiciously responded that she didn't remember.

When John Ramsey first commented on the note he said it read like it was written by a juvenile. I too think the naive ransom note, from "representatives of a small foreign faction", with its unnecessary threats and tough talk, reads like it was written by a juvenile male.

BlueCrab

 

[Jennerbear]

Again, I say - do you have a child that age? I have an extremely bright 8 year old girl who has been moved forward a grade. Someone would have had to dictate the letter to her and help her spell many of the words. Nope. I don't buy it. Uh uh. :snooty: Who was his partner in crime, hmmm? Do you think for a moment an adult was TRYING to sound foreign? Maybe? And perhaps that comes across as childish?

:twocents:


Jennerbear

 

[GuruJosh]

Again, I say - do you have a child that age? I have an extremely bright 8 year old girl who has been moved forward a grade. Someone would have had to dictate the letter to her and help her spell many of the words. Nope. I don't buy it. Uh uh. :snooty: Who was his partner in crime, hmmm? Do you think for a moment an adult was TRYING to sound foreign? Maybe? And perhaps that comes across as childish?



:twocents:


Jennerbear

I could have written it when i was 10. When I was 9, I wrote a complex Choose-Your-Own-Adventure which my primary (elementary) school considered publishing - but didn't I was programming in BASIC on the Apple IIe. I was reading books such as "Broca's Brain" by Carl Sagan, "The Universe" by Patrick Moore, "Dune" by Frank Herbert, etc etc. I'm not blowing my own trumpet- I honestly couldn't care less if people think I am dumb as a brick, and in fact I don't regard myself as being particularly bright, as an adult. Maybe I partied too much at university But your challenge - the unlikelihood of a young male writing the ransom note - does not present a stumbling block for me, in my experience as a young male. Burke was just shy of 10. If Burke was smarter than I was, which is quite likely, then why couldn't he have written it? There is a HUGE intellectual difference between a boy of age 8 and a boy of age 10. I'm sorry, I don't know how the sexes compare so I can't comment on your example of your own daughter.

And what if he had help from a slightly older male - say, an adolescent?

I remember when I was 10, riding on my dad's boat. The party on the boat were all drunk. When adults get drunk, they often become haughty, especially towards children. A middle-aged woman came over to me while I was driving the boat (yes, my dad let me drive... I was the only sober one on board). She looked at me, and smiled in a condescending way, and said, "I wonder what's going on in that little brain of yours?"

I remember thinking, very distinctly: "A lot more than what's going on in yours." I didn't say it, because at the age of 10, not only was I capable of a one-line quip, but I had enough modesty and self-doubt to know when things are best left unsaid.

That memory has stayed with me all my life. It is a reminder to me, as I age, that children are often much brighter than you think. Not all of them - some of them are pretty stupid. But there are some very bright ones mixed among them.

Personally, I am coming to the opinion that Patsy wrote that note to cover for Burke. That's my (wavering) opinion for now. But it is simply untrue to say that a very bright almost-10-year-old boy could not have written the note, especially if he had help from someone older. In my opinion, he could have written it solo.

The only indicators (in my opinion) that the note was written by an adult are older-style phrases like "fat cat". As for the text itself, & the narrative structure etc., it is wildly naive. If there's one thing a 9 year old boy is, it's naive. So don't dismiss this possibility out of hand.

 

[Jennerbear]

I don't disagree that children often are brighter than we give them credit for. However, there were certain phrases that sounded childish for an adult ("adequate size attache" for example) yet too mature for an almost 10 year old. I was very precocious as a child, and quick witted (I don't know what happened)... I suppose anything is possible. Burke just seems the least likely author of the RN. IMO.


jen

 

[Rupert]

Once again to the 'child as author people' - the syntax is way, way too complex for a child.
We are a group (of individuals) [that represent a small foreign faction].
She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions (to the letter).

Constructing multi-level text with interdependent clauses is not the work of children. It's not even the work of most of the posters to this forum. Now, journalism majors - Yup! Probably even American ones...(that's parody)

It belongs, I'm afraid, to a much older generation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it comes from about a 1940's movie. {{Maybe even Shirley Temple??}} I know it's been around about as long as I can remember. It gets '5 million +' hits on google.

PR was a journalism major. Of course so was Santa, JM, and CW.

I recall that JonBenet had alot of Shirley Temple movies. I think LHP stated that.

"We are a group ..... that represent...." sounds like a statistical sampling.

"If you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter" is saying that JonBenet is dead. Kidnap crime movies repeat through the RN. Leopold & Loeb RN word for word insisted that the parents must "follow our instructions to the letter", yet had already killed Bobb Franks. Charlevoix was where Leopold had a summer mansion. Journalists study crime reports.

"bussiness = kissiness"? ; "country = JonBenet"?
"bussiness = square sails"? ; "country = Miss America" John's boat?

"Fat Cat; provoke" makes me think of you know who's post behaviour.
Again, those crazy F's? Seen them anywhere else?

 

[Toltec]

From the Ramsey 1996 Christmas letter, Patsy uses the year 1997 three times!

....so I'm sure we'll be seeing the orthodontist in 1997!

....the Charlevoix house was on the home tour in July and will likely appear in one of the Better Homes and Gardens publications in 1997.

We are all enjoying good health and look forward to seeing you in 1997!

Here's more...

Access recently celebrated it's one-billion $$ mark in sales,

There has never been any doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note!

MY OPINION

 

[Nehemiah]

she wrote the note $118,000.00, because she thought she could outsmart LE.

That's what lawyering up immediately can do for a person, IMO.

 

[KatherineQ]

Again, I say - do you have a child that age? I have an extremely bright 8 year old girl who has been moved forward a grade. Someone would have had to dictate the letter to her and help her spell many of the words. Nope. I don't buy it. Uh uh. :snooty: Who was his partner in crime, hmmm? Do you think for a moment an adult was TRYING to sound foreign? Maybe? And perhaps that comes across as childish?

:twocents:


Jennerbear

I absolutely agree with you, Jennerbear. A child didn't write that, and a child most CERTAINLY didn't tie that garrotte - a classic sado masochistic knot with a long history behind it. NO way, no way, no way. (Spoken as a mom who's had to teach cub scouts to tie knots. A child did NOT tie that knot).

 

[Zman]

But what would be the purpose on an intruder writing the ransom note in the first place?

You know that you're never going to collect any ransom: the child's body is in the house - which you know will be thoroughly searched. You know she'll be found.

Add that to the fact that no phone call came in when the note said it would (and that John or Patsy showed no interest in waiting for said call).

So, why not only waste time and take the chance at being caught while writing the note - but also leave it as evidence?




IMO, there's only one reason for that note: one of the parents (probably accidently) killed her. Now there's the problem of what to do about. Hide her in the house and then call the police and say that she's missing? Okay......but wait! There's no evidence of an intruder and it will be obvious that it was one of us.

So.....we have to write the note to stage some evidence of an intruder.

Gee, ya think they would of just opened a door.

 

[aussiesheila]

I still like my idea that Patsy wrote the entire note herself with her left hand. I have read somewhere that she was ambidextrous.

 

[Nehemiah]

I took the trashed page with a changed "greeting" in the note the same way you suggest. In addition, the very act of rethinking the greeting suggested to me a state of relaxed reflection, which seemed to fit the idea of a plan as opposed to a panicked coverup. (By " hesitations and restarts" I was thinking of individual points in writing where an imitator stops, hesitates, or redirects the pen in trying to match a writing style.)

Good points, LW. I had a little different thought about the relaxation aspect. To me, the writer felt a degree of relaxation just being in the home--for him/her to actually take the time to begin a note, and then rewrite....with no apparent "fear" of someone walking in, no apparent "fear" of taking too long to get the job done, no apparent "fear" of someone looking over his/her shoulder.

 

[aussiesheila]

You're right! Why the heck would you need to write the .00? To make sure that someone didn't misunderstand and think that the ransom was for $118,000.32? Silly!
Why not just make it $120,000? Well actually, if you're going to go to the trouble of kidnapping a child why stop at $120,000? Why not ask for $1,000,000? It's not like the Ramsey's couldn't have gotten their hands on that kind of cash.

I think the very unusual sum demanded as ransom was a deliberate attempt to point to someone at John's workplace as the kidnapper. Since John's bonus was $118,000, it would have been easy to suggest that a work colleague who would have known of the amount, chose to demand it as the ransom.

 

[GuruJosh]

I think the very unusual sum demanded as ransom was a deliberate attempt to point to someone at John's workplace as the kidnapper. Since John's bonus was $118,000, it would have been easy to suggest that a work colleague who would have known of the amount, chose to demand it as the ransom.

yes good thought Aussiesheila. So in other words, either P or J wrote the note (or was the mind behind it), since both knew J's bonus, and would have liked to point it at someone who worked for john?

I mean i spose the people who knew J's bonus amount were P & J (although i heard P denied knowing the amount in an interview, might be wrong tho) and a select group of people at John's work, plus his accountant, if he had one? ( i suppose he did)

and perhaps Don?

Someone would have to know the amount in order to point at J's employees/colleagues.

 

[GuruJosh]

Also, BC, in your theory that Burke wrote the note, how do you explain the $118K amount?

Is it a coincidence?

(i've often thought that it could very well be a coincidence myself. Pick a number, any number. Then spend 2 years looking for "correspondences". You'll find many. And if you are a Bible-believer, well that's just a treasure trove of numbered verses isn't it?)

 

[aussiesheila]

yes good thought Aussiesheila. So in other words, either P or J wrote the note (or was the mind behind it), since both knew J's bonus, and would have liked to point it at someone who worked for john?

I mean i spose the people who knew J's bonus amount were P & J (although i heard P denied knowing the amount in an interview, might be wrong tho) and a select group of people at John's work, plus his accountant, if he had one? ( i suppose he did)

and perhaps Don?

Someone would have to know the amount in order to point at J's employees/colleagues.

Well actually GuruJosh, while I think Patsy wrote the note, I think she had input from one or two others when she started it but they left off once the essentials had been written down.

I'm thinking the one or two others were the ones that had the idea of the $118,000 to lay suspicion on someone at Access Graphics.

The one I'm thinking of I'm sure you know who is John's ex-best friend.

I'm interested in the name you've mentioned. He might well have been the other one. Have you unearthed anything of interest about him?

 

[tipper]

I expect LHP knew the amount and could have mentioned it to people in her family.

 

[aussiesheila]

I expect LHP knew the amount and could have mentioned it to people in her family.

Tipper,
Do you mean by this that you suspect LHP or an LHP family member as being involved in the murder and/or coverup?
If so what makes you suspect an HP?

 

[tipper]

Tipper,
Do you mean by this that you suspect LHP or an LHP family member as being involved in the murder and/or coverup?
If so what makes you suspect an HP?

Not LHP herself. But she had the info needed to do this, plus a key. She could, in all innocence, have passed on gossip about the bonus amount, the fact the Ramseys would be out in the early evening, and a copy of her key could have been made. Both her husband and son-in-law were in the wine-cellar recently and knew the lay-out of the house. Given that and their cash shortage I think they all should have been investigated more thoroughly than it appears they were.

 

[sissi]

Reasons for BPD's dismissing (in their minds so therefore in their investigation) certain suspects:

LHP's- no one within that family was smart enough to write the ransom note

Santa- to0 physically weakened by surgery to "murder" a six year old

Barnhill- too palsied to write the ransom note

White- too angry to investigate without "upsetting" him

Everyone else- the dna doesn't match

Ramseys as suspects= the dna means nothing/ all others = dna clears?

 

[aussiesheila]

Not LHP herself. But she had the info needed to do this, plus a key. She could, in all innocence, have passed on gossip about the bonus amount, the fact the Ramseys would be out in the early evening, and a copy of her key could have been made. Both her husband and son-in-law were in the wine-cellar recently and knew the lay-out of the house. Given that and their cash shortage I think they all should have been investigated more thoroughly than it appears they were.

Given all that you would have thought they would have been investigated, but then weren't the BPD just concentrating on the Ramseys and not investigating anyone else anyway?

Has there been anything else suspicious reported about husband and/or son-in-law?