What we know about Ransom Note

[UKGuy]

I don’t think Burke did anything but if he did he can’t be charged or even implicated under Colorado children’s law. So he is cleared whether he did it or not.

David Rogers,
Colorado's State Statutes as applied to children just mean they should never be identified in relation to a crime where they are underage.

Which is why Burke Ramsey is never mentioned by name in the True Bills and since either parent could have been charged with Murder In The First Degree, but was not it surely follows that the unnamed person must be one who cannot be legally named?

COUNT VII (Accessory to a Crime)

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

.

 

[Dragognosis]

The un named person in each indictment is one of the parents not named as the named person in each indictment.

 

[David Rogers]

David Rogers,
Colorado's State Statutes as applied to children just mean they should never be identified in relation to a crime where they are underage.

Which is why Burke Ramsey is never mentioned by name in the True Bills and since either parent could have been charged with Murder In The First Degree, but was not it surely follows that the unnamed person must be one who cannot be legally named?



.

We don’t know what the other bills were. There has been some speculation as to what the other bills are but we won’t know until they are unsealed. They jury could not tell who caused the blow to the head and who strangled her. We do know they both worked to cover up the crime.

 

[Dragognosis]

"We do know they both worked to cover up the crime."

No we don't, you assume.

 

[David Rogers]

"We do know they both worked to cover up the crime."

No we don't, you assume.

I don’t assume. It’s fact.

On a second count of accessory to a crime, it alleged that each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

 

[Dragognosis]

You assume the G J indictment was correct.

Just because a person is indicted does not mean they are guilty. That is why we have trials.

We in fact do not know they both "worked to cover up the crime."

It's a good thing we have a judicial process to protect us from the mistake you make in assuming guilt by accusation.

 

[David Rogers]

You assume the G J indictment was correct.

Just because a person is indicted does not mean they are guilty. That is why we have trials.

We in fact do not know they both "worked to cover up the crime."

It's a good thing we have a judicial process to protect us from the mistake you make in assuming guilt by accusation.

Everyone knows they are innocent until proven guilty. Why are you here if you don’t want to discuss the case?

 

[David Rogers]

The un named person in each indictment is one of the parents not named as the named person in each indictment.

This is just your opinion. You have no proof of this.

 

[UKGuy]

Everyone knows they are innocent until proven guilty. Why are you here if you don’t want to discuss the case?

David Rogers,
Yes, loadsa money, so they are innocent, oh and their White, guess that helps.

This gnosis character patently lacks any gnosis, wants to quibble over opinions, which are allegedly a sign of ignorance, since those with knowledge, just know dont they?

Over here in the UK the talking heads and elite refer to folks having views these days, opinions are evidently passe.

Why are you here if you don’t want to discuss the case?

Good question, this character seems to be trolling across the threads, posting nonsense as he goes, it breaks up discussions and stops folks from viewing since they see his moniker and know there will be nothing to read. Lowering the tone as they say.


Was thinking today, maybe the case is JDI, after PDI its what most folks expect. JR was certainly involved with all his helpful explanations, including telling Lou Smit in interview that Patsy never knew about the partially wrapped gifts in the wine-cellar, i.e. was JR taking a bullet for Patsy or telling the truth, then there is the suitcase and the broken window? For a man who just went to bed on Christmas Night and then awoke to find his daughter kidnapped, he sure has some tales to tell.



Anyone any thoughts if the case were JDI why John would dress JonBenet in Patsy's niece's size-12's and Burke's longjohns?

I remember someone posted years ago, maybe John had a fetish for underwear in that size, assuming Patsy played ball?

.

 

[fr brown]

Coincidence vs. signature

John Ramsey used "percent" more than the two times illustrated in your example: in that same interview he used it 12 times. Lou Smit said "percent" first and then John Ramsey was off to the races.

I do think that the detectives tried to entice both Ramseys to use language from the ransom note, but I don't think Smit was doing that. I think by then Smit was totally convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. If he had been aware, he'd have been dismayed by what he had wrought, but instead Smit says "percent" again toward the end of the interview.

 

[blackcatsarecool]

If JBR was murdered by an intruder, why was the ransom note in pristine condition without any creases or folds? If the note was written before the murder, it seems unlikely the murderer would leave it out in plain sight, on a desk or bench while he snatched JBR from her bed, carried her down several flights of stairs, carried out the crime then come back upstairs to lay out the note before leaving the house. If he wrote the note before the murder, would he have carried the note while he carried JBR downstairs? In that case the note would have been crumpled. So that either means (A) the ransom note was written before the murder and left out in plain sight while he crept through the house, snatched her from her bed, carried her down to the basement risking being caught red handed or someone waking up during the night and finding the note Or (B) the ransom note was written after the murder, leaving himself vulnerable to being caught writing a lengthy letter after having murdered a 6 year old child. I doubt a murderer would hang around the crime scene leaving himself vulnerable to being caught after murdering JBR by coming back up stairs to write the ransom note. He would have wanted to get out as quickly as possible. The more i think about it, there would be no benefit to the murderer to potentially expose himself by wasting time writing a 3 page note and walking to the middle of the house out in plain view to leave the note on the stairs. It doesn't make sense.

 

[DeeDee249]

So little of this case DOES make sense, including how the investigation was conducted. But it smacks of a cover up. No real kidnapper would have done that note- as you say, wasting time but also chancing leaving evidence on it. No kidnapper expects ransom when the victim is left behind IN the family home. Even dead, the victim's body is important to the loved ones. Had she died under the kidnapper's control, remove the body and ask for ransom anyway. No parent in this situation is going to as for proof of life. They want her back either way.

 

[wonderllama]

I can't even carry a bit of paper from the printer on the desk on the other side of the room to my own desk without it being crumpled!

I think it's well established that the paper and pen originated from within the house. Like pretty much everything else in this case!!!

 

[Veronica Lodge]

Ooh I like you wonderllama.

It doesn't make sense.

yup, that about sums it up

 

[neednewhobbie]

hi all - I have another thought on the ransom note; I am a newbie, but have read and read and read so hopefully I can contribute to this forum positively. Others have wondered about the seemingly excessive spacing between words on the ransom note, and compared it to double computer spacing. My thought is a little different; a person that is usually right handed (PR), using her left hand to would not be used to writing w left hand whereby the word you have written is covered by your left hand, making the spacing between words hard to judge and thus potentially larger.
I tried it - My unnatural left hand writing has large spaces between words.
What do you think?

 

[neednewhobbie]

I'm a newbie; Firstly, I am in awe of all your knowledge, care and commitment to Jonbenet. Much admiration! I hope I can also make some positive contributions now that I have taken the plunge!?
I have read wonderful analysis of the ransom note, but I don't think many people have commented on the unusually large spaces between words; ( besides the idea of it being like computer typing) I am right handed, but if try to write with my unnatural left hand - aka PR - my left hand covers the previous word and makes me guess on where to start the next word. I over estimate and my spacing is bigger! This to me seems the simplest explanation for the big gaps. A right handed person trying to disguise writing by using their left.
Thankyou for reading and what do you think?

 

[UKGuy]

hi all - I have another thought on the ransom note; I am a newbie, but have read and read and read so hopefully I can contribute to this forum positively. Others have wondered about the seemingly excessive spacing between words on the ransom note, and compared it to double computer spacing. My thought is a little different; a person that is usually right handed (PR), using her left hand to would not be used to writing w left hand whereby the word you have written is covered by your left hand, making the spacing between words hard to judge and thus potentially larger.
I tried it - My unnatural left hand writing has large spaces between words.
What do you think?

neednewhobbie,
Yes that sounds quite likely. Patsy with her *advertiser censored* laude english degree is the number one suspect for writing the ransom note, as it is filled with literary devices unknown to the average american, particularly some brain-dead psychopath prowling the streets of Boulder late at night!

Also for those in the loop the tropes and finesse applied to the RN, e.g. the use of film genre quotes, etc tell us how premeditated the RN was as the elements are mainly fictional in character, i.e. they do not point back to Patsy, evidently this was not accomplished by accident.

.

 

[neednewhobbie]

neednewhobbie,
Yes that sounds quite likely. Patsy with her *advertiser censored* laude english degree is the number one suspect for writing the ransom note, as it is filled with literary devices unknown to the average american, particularly some brain-dead psychopath prowling the streets of Boulder late at night!

Also for those in the loop the tropes and finesse applied to the RN, e.g. the use of film genre quotes, etc tell us how premeditated the RN was as the elements are mainly fictional in character, i.e. they do not point back to Patsy, evidently this was not accomplished by accident.

.

Thanks UKGuy! It is abit exciting getting my first post reply!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks UKGuy! It is abit exciting getting my first post reply!!

Welcome. It was often said that the note looked like Patsy had tried to disguise her handwriting. After the crime, one of the teachers at the children's school made a comment that after JB's death, any notes written by Patsy did not look the same as the previous notes sent when JB was alive. We'll never know for sure, of course, but it is a very possible theory.

 

[jaejae]

Here is a recent You Tube video with an Aussie analysing the linguistics of the Ransom Note: