The ransom note and staging

[icedtea4me]

Andrew Hodges says that misspelling was her subconscious mind coming out meaning she was disgusted by the incestuous affair going on with JonBenet, since buss means kiss.

I know what you're saying, Solace. There's so much more to this note than meets the eye and the left-side of the brain.


-Tea

 

[Solace]

Why did the FBI bow out? I can't answer that one. Probably it was a mistake on their part.

10 years later, we have an unsolved murder. There still remains:

1. Possibility of a foreign involvement, as stated clearly by the ransom note author.
2. Kidnapping for ransom conspiracy, also clearly stated by the author.
3. There still has been no positive ID of the perp, either by handwriting or DNA.
4. The meaning of SBTC is still unknown.

There have been other famous cases, the Lindbergh case, Leob and Leopold, the Unabomber, etc. etc. where the perp has been positively identified. As long as JBR's killer is not positively identified, you kinda have to be open to various ideas, the most apparent one being the botched kidnapping/murder idea, because thats what it seems to be.

It beats me, then, why the FBI isn't involved in what has presented itself as a botched kidnapping turned murder, with a foreign involvement. On the surface thats what it seems to be.

Call it a mirage if you want, thats still what it appears to be.

The FBI was involved as long as it was a kidnapping and then once it becomes a murder it is not their jurisdiction. HOWEVER, they did offer their services and the services were refused.

 

[Solace]

Handwriting is used to establish one's identity. If PR's handwriting matched the handwriting in the RN, she would've been arrested and tried. There is no match, so she wasn't.

Holdon: There are six experts who believe her handwriting matches:
Among the six experts who believe Patsy Ramsey wrote the note are Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were "100 percent certain" Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

 

[Solace]

PR didn't kill her dress-up girl. She was having fun with her daughter, and you've made up this rage thing all on your own, from out of thin air. I don't know how much fun JonBenet was having. All that practicing tends to rid a child of their "childhood" and as we all know, we only get ONE crack at childhood and it is gone.

The real scenario of what happened to JBR doensn't need any 'bull' cards. IOW, everything will fit. RDI has to discard practically all the major evidence in order to force-fit any R as the perp. Disposing of the RN, garrote, DNA, etc. as 'bull' is like pushing the wrong piece into a puzzle, and trimming the corners to make it fit.

Yeah, you have to stop doing that Holdon.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

[/b] Yeah, you have to stop doing that Holdon.

Doing what? IMO all the evidence worked for the perp. The garrote worked for the perp (there's photographic evidence of this, that RDI will deny). The 2nd ligature, RN, etc. all worked for the perp as weapons, not props. They are not for pretend as RDI claims. They are for real.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

PR didn't kill her dress-up girl. She was having fun with her daughter, and you've made up this rage thing all on your own, from out of thin air.

The real scenario of what happened to JBR doensn't need any 'bull' cards. IOW, everything will fit. RDI has to discard practically all the major evidence in order to force-fit any R as the perp. Disposing of the RN, garrote, DNA, etc. as 'bull' is like pushing the wrong piece into a puzzle, and trimming the corners to make it fit.

No, that "rage thing" idea surfaced from others way before anyone on this board was talking about it...people like LE and FBI.

It's not discarding the evidence to see it a different way than you do. There are some pretty qualified experts, such as FBI, who "discard" the evidence as staging and not an authentic kidnapping-gone-wrong. There's plenty of good reason to "discard" things like the RN and the wrist restraints and tape as staging and not as what they were meant to appear as.

 

[Solace]

Doing what? IMO all the evidence worked for the perp. The garrote worked for the perp (there's photographic evidence of this, that RDI will deny). The 2nd ligature, RN, etc. all worked for the perp as weapons, not props. They are not for pretend as RDI claims. They are for real.

Are you in possession of some strange mushrooms or something. Let's try to talk plainly here and not in some foreign tongue. "All the evidence worked for the perp" - there is photographic evidence of this". What is that Holdon, some sort of police like rhetoric. I am starting to think you are one of those posters who frequents forums and likes to have fun, either that or you are a sixteen year old also trying to have fun.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, that "rage thing" idea surfaced from others way before anyone on this board was talking about it...people like LE and FBI.

It's not discarding the evidence to see it a different way than you do. There are some pretty qualified experts, such as FBI, who "discard" the evidence as staging and not an authentic kidnapping-gone-wrong. There's plenty of good reason to "discard" things like the RN and the wrist restraints and tape as staging and not as what they were meant to appear as.

Yeah maybe, but did the 'rage thing' surface based on before-the-fact behavior on the part of PR or JBR?

Discarding evidence is discarding evidence. Even if its a prop, you can't exclude evidence to suit any given theory.

If the FBI discarded evidence as staging, then they probably made a mistake.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Both John and Patsy have been known to exhibit some behavior that does not mesh with the image they wish to project, both before and after the murder.

Perhaps discarding isn't the right word - no evidence has been discarded, but there are many in this investigation who thought some evidence was staging, and therefore not true to the actual crime and crime scene. An attempt to misconstrue the intention of the murder into something else entirely. That affects how the evidence is viewed, and not everyone believes the RN is an authentic RN, written by the kidnapper to extort money for a child he never even took out of the house to hold for ransom. Not everyone believes the tape was meant to silence JonBenet while alive, nor that the wrist restraints were meant to contain her while she was strangled.

I think CASKU is capable of discerning a real crime scene from a staged one. It's a panel of experts who specialize in crimes like this. If they thought it looked staged, and saw "staging within staging", then I think they knew exactly what they were talking about.

 

[Solace]

Both John and Patsy have been known to exhibit some behavior that does not mesh with the image they wish to project, both before and after the murder.

Perhaps discarding isn't the right word - no evidence has been discarded, but there are many in this investigation who thought some evidence was staging, and therefore not true to the actual crime and crime scene. An attempt to misconstrue the intention of the murder into something else entirely. That affects how the evidence is viewed, and not everyone believes the RN is an authentic RN, written by the kidnapper to extort money for a child he never even took out of the house to hold for ransom. Not everyone believes the tape was meant to silence JonBenet while alive, nor that the wrist restraints were meant to contain her while she was strangled.

I think CASKU is capable of discerning a real crime scene from a staged one. It's a panel of experts who specialize in crimes like this. If they thought it looked staged, and saw "staging within staging", then I think they knew exactly what they were talking about.

Considering that this is what they do 24 hours a day, I would think they should pretty much know what they are doing and have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO IMPLICATE SOMEONE IN A MURDER UNLESS THEY ARE FAIRLY CERTAIN. And they were certain.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Both John and Patsy have been known to exhibit some behavior that does not mesh with the image they wish to project, both before and after the murder.

Perhaps discarding isn't the right word - no evidence has been discarded, but there are many in this investigation who thought some evidence was staging, and therefore not true to the actual crime and crime scene. An attempt to misconstrue the intention of the murder into something else entirely. That affects how the evidence is viewed, and not everyone believes the RN is an authentic RN, written by the kidnapper to extort money for a child he never even took out of the house to hold for ransom. Not everyone believes the tape was meant to silence JonBenet while alive, nor that the wrist restraints were meant to contain her while she was strangled.

I think CASKU is capable of discerning a real crime scene from a staged one. It's a panel of experts who specialize in crimes like this. If they thought it looked staged, and saw "staging within staging", then I think they knew exactly what they were talking about.

What CASKU says or said, may not be applicable today, in light of the DNA evidence. I'd be interested in knowing their take on it today. In any case, you can't assign too much weight to who is implicated or who isn't, or what was staged and what wasn't, WHILE THE CRIME IS UNSOLVED. In other words, nobody will know what really happened until after it is solved. The rest is conjecture.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Both John and Patsy have been known to exhibit some behavior that does not mesh with the image they wish to project, both before and after the murder.

It doesn't get any more vague than that.

 

[Solace]

What CASKU says or said, may not be applicable today, in light of the DNA evidence. I'd be interested in knowing their take on it today. In any case, you can't assign too much weight to who is implicated or who isn't, or what was staged and what wasn't, WHILE THE CRIME IS UNSOLVED. In other words, nobody will know what really happened until after it is solved. The rest is conjecture.

What DNA evidence. Do you mean the "OLDER" DNA, that was found to be unsourced. It is older than JonBenet's. If we have nothing, we have at least the fact that THIS DNA IS OLDER AND WAS THERE BEFORE THE MURDER, which means the "imaginary intruder" DID NOT PUT IT THERE.

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THE DNA A MILLION TIMES.

 

[Solace]

It doesn't get any more vague than that.

Let's unvague it for you. Patsy and John lawyered up within hours of the finding of JonBenet. We know this because Fleet White and his wife said investigators from the Ramsey camp were INTERVIEWING THEM that very same day. John tried to leave town within 20 minutes of finding the body. Patsy tells Detective Haney that she saw the "red"heart painted on JonBenet that morning - which is impossible because she said she did not see her after she put her to bed - she changed her story the next morning before being interviewed again and said she read it, even though she is adamant the day before that she saw it - she says this THREE TIMES.

John says he was never asked to take a lie detector test. This is patently false. Patsy refused to take a lie detector test when asked to take a urine test first. She then found the infamous Dr. Gelb. You don't need a drug test with Gelb. He is so good that he can be sure if you are weighing the answers to go in your favor with drugs. She finally passed, but not before failing a few times with others.

The handwriting analysis. Some would say she is exonerated and there are six other experts who disagree, two of whom are 100% sure that she wrote it. Chet Ubowski of CBI says she CANNOT BE ELIMINATED.

Patsy lies about JonBenet being awake when they came home Christimas evening. Patsy first says she walked in, as do John and Burke, and then they ALL CONVENIENTLY REMEMBER THAT SHE WAS ASLEEP. Burke later says in his testimony that she was awake.

Patsy's fingerprints are found on the bowl of pineapple in the kitchen. When confronted with this, she says, I don't care. I didn't touch it. John at first says he read to JonBenet and then changes his story.

So, here we have some of the inconsistencies. Why are there any? We can say well they lost their daughter and they are not remembering correctly. Okay, but prints on a bowl of pineapple, remnants of which are found in JonBenet's intestines, prove that she was fed pineapple some two hours before she died. So someone is lying. And it looks like it is Patsy.
John and Patsy say Burke was asleep that morning. They later admit in a National Enquiror interview that he was awake. Burke says he was pretending.

Let's see what else.

Oh, yes, then there is that pesky evidence of "prior sexual abuse". There are several experts who say this evidence of prior sexual abuse.

And last but not least, the fibers from Patsy's sweater are found under the tape, the tape which was placed over Jon Benet AFTER she was unconscious. They know this because there is a perfect indentation of her lips. This would not happen had she been struggling. This is staging.

Patsy was asked how the fibers got on the tape and in the garrote. She said it was probably when she hugged JonBenet when she was brought upstairs by John, who by the way WENT RIGHT TO JONBENET AND FOUND HER when Detective Arndt said "look again". BUT THE TAPE WAS DOWNSTAIRS AND SO WAS THE PAINT TRAY. SHE DID NOT HUG THEM.

Blue Crab would have you believe that thousands of fibers float around and it is possible they FLOATED downstairs right into the garrotte and the paint tray. I don't know, do you think that is possible. Possible, maybe, but not likely.

And that, as they say, is that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Let's unvague it for you. Patsy and John lawyered up within hours of the finding of JonBenet. We know this because Fleet White and his wife said investigators from the Ramsey camp were INTERVIEWING THEM that very same day. John tried to leave town within 20 minutes of finding the body. Patsy tells Detective Haney that she saw the "red"heart painted on JonBenet that morning - which is impossible because she said she did not see her after she put her to bed - she changed her story the next morning before being interviewed again and said she read it, even though she is adamant the day before that she saw it - she says this THREE TIMES.

John says he was never asked to take a lie detector test. This is patently false. Patsy refused to take a lie detector test when asked to take a urine test first. She then found the infamous Dr. Gelb. You don't need a drug test with Gelb. He is so good that he can be sure if you are weighing the answers to go in your favor with drugs. She finally passed, but not before failing a few times with others.

The handwriting analysis. Some would say she is exonerated and there are six other experts who disagree, two of whom are 100% sure that she wrote it. Chet Ubowski of CBI says she CANNOT BE ELIMINATED.

Patsy lies about JonBenet being awake when they came home Christimas evening. Patsy first says she walked in, as do John and Burke, and then they ALL CONVENIENTLY REMEMBER THAT SHE WAS ASLEEP. Burke later says in his testimony that she was awake.

Patsy's fingerprints are found on the bowl of pineapple in the kitchen. When confronted with this, she says, I don't care. I didn't touch it. John at first says he read to JonBenet and then changes his story.

So, here we have some of the inconsistencies. Why are there any? We can say well they lost their daughter and they are not remembering correctly. Okay, but prints on a bowl of pineapple, remnants of which are found in JonBenet's intestines, prove that she was fed pineapple some two hours before she died. So someone is lying. And it looks like it is Patsy.
John and Patsy say Burke was asleep that morning. They later admit in a National Enquiror interview that he was awake. Burke says he was pretending.

Let's see what else.

Oh, yes, then there is that pesky evidence of "prior sexual abuse". There are several experts who say this evidence of prior sexual abuse.

And last but not least, the fibers from Patsy's sweater are found under the tape, the tape which was placed over Jon Benet AFTER she was unconscious. They know this because there is a perfect indentation of her lips. This would not happen had she been struggling. This is staging.

Patsy was asked how the fibers got on the tape and in the garrote. She said it was probably when she hugged JonBenet when she was brought upstairs by John, who by the way WENT RIGHT TO JONBENET AND FOUND HER when Detective Arndt said "look again". BUT THE TAPE WAS DOWNSTAIRS AND SO WAS THE PAINT TRAY. SHE DID NOT HUG THEM.

Blue Crab would have you believe that thousands of fibers float around and it is possible they FLOATED downstairs right into the garrotte and the paint tray. I don't know, do you think that is possible. Possible, maybe, but not likely.

And that, as they say, is that.

There's only after-the-murder stuff here. Nothing before the murder?

 

[Toltec]

What DNA evidence. Do you mean the "OLDER" DNA, that was found to be unsourced. It is older than JonBenet's. If we have nothing, we have at least the fact that THIS DNA IS OLDER AND WAS THERE BEFORE THE MURDER, which means the "imaginary intruder" DID NOT PUT IT THERE.

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THE DNA A MILLION TIMES.

I don't believe Patsy was ever asked the last bath JonBenet took. Let's assume JonBenet bathed Christmas Eve.

She went to Megan Kostankas home to play with her.

She put on her beautiful purple dress, went to church.

Went to dinner at Pasta Jays.

Took a drive to the big star.

Stopped by the Whites.

Christmas day she played outside, inside, at the Whites...

Plenty of time for DNA found under her nails to degrade.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't believe Patsy was ever asked the last bath JonBenet took. Let's assume JonBenet bathed Christmas Eve.

She went to Megan Kostankas home to play with her.

She put on her beautiful purple dress, went to church.

Went to dinner at Pasta Jays.

Took a drive to the big star.

Stopped by the Whites.

Christmas day she played outside, inside, at the Whites...

Plenty of time for DNA found under her nails to degrade.

Toltec,
Sure she was asked, here is her reply

TOM HANEY: "Did JonBenet have panties with the names of each day of the week on it?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "YES."

TOM HANEY: " OKAY. And did she wear those according to the day of the week or was it just kind of ---"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Just whatever."

TOM HANEY: "Did she know, pay much attention to what day of the week it was?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No."

TOM HANEY: "So what ever would come out of the drawer?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."

.....

TRIP DeMUTH: "After she bathed though on the 24th, she would have had clean underwear on after that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh yeah. I am sure she would have had clean underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not have taken a bath."

TRIP DeMUTH: "She would have changed them Christmas morning?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Or Christmas afternoon, getting dressed."

No bath, and a definite on fresh underwear!

.

 

[Solace]

I don't believe Patsy was ever asked the last bath JonBenet took. Let's assume JonBenet bathed Christmas Eve.

She went to Megan Kostankas home to play with her.

She put on her beautiful purple dress, went to church.

Went to dinner at Pasta Jays.

Took a drive to the big star.

Stopped by the Whites.

Christmas day she played outside, inside, at the Whites...

Plenty of time for DNA found under her nails to degrade.

We are referring to the DNA in the underwear.

 

[Toltec]

We are referring to the DNA in the underwear.

oh yeah...wasn't the dna on her panties the same as the dna under her fingernails?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

oh yeah...wasn't the dna on her panties the same as the dna under her fingernails?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

"Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-28-karr-colorado-court_x.htm

"Investigators have said DNA was found in blood spots on JonBenet's underwear, but a Ramsey family attorney said two years ago it didn't match any of the 1.5 million samples in an FBI database at the time. Other DNA recovered under the girl's fingernails is degraded, Grant said."


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/24/acd.02.html

"SILVERMAN: I believe it is strong and reliable. And understand that that advanced testing in 2003 probably led Mary Lacy to the startling statement, I'm clearing the Ramseys. We know it's white male DNA, we know it doesn't match John Ramsey, it couldn't be Patsy Ramsey. It was strong enough and enough of a profile that they could submit it to the FBI database. So it's just nonsense that this DNA is not quality DNA."