Study of the Ransom Note

[Tadpole12]

how are the errors disributed within the rn?

If I refernce the ESL essay correction list, http://languagelearningresourcecenter.org/anglais/write_essays/errors/index.htm

which shows the common errors in ESL as follows,

adj20 adjective wrongly construed
agr10word wrongly agreed
art10there should (not) be an article here
aux20auxiliary required here
B 10barbarisme - word does not exist
cap5capitalized word
Cmod10modal wrongly construed
compa10comparative/superl. wrongly construed
Cpass10passive wrongly construed
Crel 10relative wrongly construed
Cts10tense wrongly construed
date 3, 6, 10inappropriate writing of date
F10construction taken from French
for10error on for, since or ago
gen 10genitive wrongly construed
ger5,10should be gerund (Ving) here
ill5,10cannot read this
inf10infinitive form required here
int11inappropriate interrogative form
lc5lowercase required here
lx5lexis problem
mod10wrong modal
ns10,20misunderstanding, nonsense
om10important word missing
pass5should be passive here
prep5inappropriate preposition (try Google)
pt 2, 5inappropriate punctuation
purp10purpose wrongly rendered
Q10inappropriate quantifier
rel 10wrong relative
s 103rd person s is missing
sp 2,5misspelling
Ts10wrong tense
unc10uncountable
vb?10verb is missing here
Ven10past participle required here
vww6very clumsy wording
want20(ex: want that)want wrongly construed
ww3clumsy wording

How are they distributed per sentence?

 

[Roy23]

Hmm. Fingerprints on primary evidence matched to investigators. Thats interesting. Its as if they'd already decided handling it didn't matter.

I wonder why no DNA has been matched to investigators.

No No holdon. Maybe the investigators only transferred the DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmm. Fingerprints on primary evidence matched to investigators. Thats interesting. Its as if they'd already decided handling it didn't matter.

Talk plain, HOTYH. Where are you going with this?

I wonder why no DNA has been matched to investigators.

Good question.

 

[Ravyn]

Hmm. Fingerprints on primary evidence matched to investigators. Thats interesting. Its as if they'd already decided handling it didn't matter.

I wonder why no DNA has been matched to investigators.

Well really to me the investigators acted like nothing matter..Touching a good piece of evidence like the RN then with Det.Ardnt moving JonBenet's body herself...And the time she got there cause really no one knew if the 8 to 10am meant that morning or the next day...And I believe she could had took time to find out where JR disappeared to...

 

[BBB167893]

No No holdon. Maybe the investigators only transferred the DNA.

Joke if you must, Roy. For my money, I think HOTYH has raised an excellent point. If the handling was this sloppy, it shows how the idea of transferrence gets raised to begin with.

 

[Ravyn]

Like to ask a question since we found out about the fingerprints of the LE...Did anyone ever said if they found any fibers from Det.Ardnt...Or did she handle JonBenet like JR and nothing came from her clothing...

 

[DeeDee249]

Like to ask a question since we found out about the fingerprints of the LE...Did anyone ever said if they found any fibers from Det.Ardnt...Or did she handle JonBenet like JR and nothing came from her clothing...

Nothing was mentioned about fibers from Det. Arndt. She did handle the body, though. When JR brought her up from the basement, he first placed her in a foyer area. Arndt thought this was a too high-traffic area, so she moved her into the living room under the Christmas tree. It's not known exactly how she picked her up. JR held her upright by the waist, as of he were carrying a mannequin. She was literally stiff as a board at this point. Arndt may have picked her up the same way.

And lets face it...this was a sloppy investigation from the very first moments that morning when the first officer failed to open the wneceller door. It went downhill from there. The other thing French failed to do was prevent the Rs from allowing people into an active, as yet unsecured crime scene. He could have prevented them from entering the home, or asked them to leave. He did neither.

 

[Ames]

I don't recall seeing where LE ever asked JR about the lack of prints on a note he admitted reading.

I agree..and IMO...THIS is why there were no prints. Patsy wrote the RN using latex gloves (the ones that she kept in the bathroom). The RN was NEVER on the stairs...and Patsy NEVER handed it to John for him to read (why would she? He already KNEW what it said). John never touched that note...IMO....and the only time that Patsy handled it without gloves, is when she handed it over to investigators. And she probably was just barely holding it by the edges.

 

[Ames]

Now I really wonder about JR. His statement is that he laid the RN on the floor where he could read it..So this is looking like he didn't read it...

Why should he? He already knew what it said...IMO

 

[Ames]

The answer is probably in the remainder.

BTW some interesting RN statistics for Tad:

JBR is referenced no fewer than 14 times in the note: your daughter x 6, her x 3, she x 5. This is matched only by JR, who is referenced 27 times in the note: John x 3, Mr. Ramsey x 1, You x 23.

There are no grammatical errors according to MS Word. Only spelling errors.

That is because it was written by a Journalism major, trying to throw people off of her scent...and not some Foreign dude that is a member of some small faction. Don't you find it ODD...that there were no grammatical errors...BUT...one or two spelling errors?? IMO..they were done intentionally.

 

[cami]

Not only strange but very suspicious.They admit touching it,reading it,their prints should be all over it.Sometimes lack of evidence IS evidence.But I still don't know if this is true,I read reports that say there were prints on it and some who say no R prints on it.Guess this is one of those issues we'll never know the truth about.

Why hasn't the RN been subjected to the "touch dna" like the underwear? Seems to me that would have been a better piece of evidence to try and find shed skin cells on. Especially when we shed more in times of stress.

 

[madeleine]

Why hasn't the RN been subjected to the "touch dna" like the underwear? Seems to me that would have been a better piece of evidence to try and find shed skin cells on. Especially when we shed more in times of stress.

Well because smart Lacy thought that we will buy the "whoever touched JB's pants also molested her and killed her" line.
Problem is DNA doesn't prove if it's so or not.It's SPECULATION.This is what the great DA did,exonerated some prime suspects based on speculation.

There's nothing that can prove that the one who redressed her is the one who KILLED her.You can't even prove that the one who molested her is the same one who redressed her.You can't prove that the one who killed her also molested her.Period.
No matter how much she would like to she can't link the three with that DNA .Oh but I forgot,she never even tried.Her goal wasn't to solve this case.


moo

 

[madeleine]

Of course some could argue that if they won't find the misterious male dna on something else like the RN,ligature and so on,he was wearing gloves and took them off only when he redressed her.Fair enough I guess.But I would be more interested in knowing if PR 's touch dna is on the longjohns(would confirm her story) and why JR's prints aren't on the RN which is very suspicious.I don't believe for one second that he never touched it,unless he knew that PR wrote it,knew the content of it and probably also disagreed with such a stupid idea.moo

 

[Ames]

Of course some could argue that if they won't find the misterious male dna on something else like the RN,ligature and so on,he was wearing gloves and took them off only when he redressed her.Fair enough I guess.But I would be more interested in knowing if PR 's touch dna is on the longjohns(would confirm her story) and why JR's prints aren't on the RN which is very suspicious.I don't believe for one second that he never touched it,unless he knew that PR wrote it,knew the content of it and probably also disagreed with such a stupid idea.moo

IMO...if that mysterious male dna is on those long johns...then it would also be on the blanket that she was found wrapped in, on the tape that was over her mouth, on the cord that made the ligatures, etc. He wouldn't have worn gloves for all of those things, and then taken them off to redress her, and then put them BACK on to wrap her in a blanket. He would have left them on the WHOLE time...so not to leave in DNA, or fingerprints. Those other things HAVE to be tested! The biggie is...why HAVEN'T they been? There is no telling HOW that male DNA ended up on those long johns. The "touch DNA" testing that they did doesn't tell how or when it got there.

 

[madeleine]

IMO...if that mysterious male dna is on those long johns...then it would also be on the blanket that she was found wrapped in, on the tape that was over her mouth, on the cord that made the ligatures, etc. He wouldn't have worn gloves for all of those things, and then taken them off to redress her, and then put them BACK on to wrap her in a blanket. He would have left them on the WHOLE time...so not to leave in DNA, or fingerprints. Those other things HAVE to be tested! The biggie is...why HAVEN'T they been? There is no telling HOW that male DNA ended up on those long johns. The "touch DNA" testing that they did doesn't tell how or when it got there.

Let's hope they WILL be tested this time.But Lacy's gone :woohoo: so there's some hope.

 

[BBB167893]

Why hasn't the RN been subjected to the "touch dna" like the underwear? Seems to me that would have been a better piece of evidence to try and find shed skin cells on. Especially when we shed more in times of stress.

Unfortunately, the rn no longer exists, and cannot be subjected to such testing.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think it's pretty evident why the things that should be tested haven't been. Boulder does NOT want look too closely.

 

[madeleine]

Unfortunately, the rn no longer exists, and cannot be subjected to such testing.

What do you mean by no longer exists?
Maybe I am missing something.Wasn't it stored as evidence or what happened?

TIA

 

[Ravyn]

So the main RN is gone and we are left with a photo copy...So we are left with everyone words in this case..So who made the RN disappear..So we have Clinton's tax people,DA Hunter or the LE and did the handwritting experts study the original or the photo copy...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

how are the errors disributed within the rn?

If I refernce the ESL essay correction list, http://languagelearningresourcecenter.org/anglais/write_essays/errors/index.htm

which shows the common errors in ESL as follows,

adj20 adjective wrongly construed
agr10word wrongly agreed
art10there should (not) be an article here
aux20auxiliary required here
B 10barbarisme - word does not exist
cap5capitalized word
Cmod10modal wrongly construed
compa10comparative/superl. wrongly construed
Cpass10passive wrongly construed
Crel 10relative wrongly construed
Cts10tense wrongly construed
date 3, 6, 10inappropriate writing of date
F10construction taken from French
for10error on for, since or ago
gen 10genitive wrongly construed
ger5,10should be gerund (Ving) here
ill5,10cannot read this
inf10infinitive form required here
int11inappropriate interrogative form
lc5lowercase required here
lx5lexis problem
mod10wrong modal
ns10,20misunderstanding, nonsense
om10important word missing
pass5should be passive here
prep5inappropriate preposition (try Google)
pt 2, 5inappropriate punctuation
purp10purpose wrongly rendered
Q10inappropriate quantifier
rel 10wrong relative
s 103rd person s is missing
sp 2,5misspelling
Ts10wrong tense
unc10uncountable
vb?10verb is missing here
Ven10past participle required here
vww6very clumsy wording
want20(ex: want that)want wrongly construed
ww3clumsy wording

How are they distributed per sentence?

Not sure. I'm still looking at that. Meanwhile, I did to a comparison of the RN to the top 50 most commonly used words, and to McM's book.


Top 10 most commonly used words (e.g. the, a, and, in, to) :

frequency/pct in RN: 93 words/25.1%
frequency/pct in L&L RN + 2nd note: 97 words/23.8%
frequency/pct in McM's book: 21404 words/20.4%


Top 50 most commonly used words (e.g. we, when, your, can, said):

frequency/pct in RN: 164 words/44.3%
frequency/pct in L&L RN + 2nd note: 166 words/40.8%
frequency/pct in McM's book: 32943 words/31.5%

Top 100 most commonly used words (e.g. could, people, my, than):

frequency/pct in RN: 194 words/52.4%
frequency/pct in L&L RN + 2nd note: 188 words/46.2%
frequency/pct in McM's book: 36956 words/35.3%



Top 1000 most commonly used words (e.g. island, week, less, machine):

frequency/pct in RN: 267 words/72.2%
frequency/pct in L&L RN + 2nd note: 285 words/70.0%

As you can see, the RN author drew words from the common word pool the great majority of the time, whereas McM author drew from the common word pool less than half the time.

I'm sure its a coincidence, but the fact is an ESL would tend to draw from that pool.