Question about pad & pen used in note

I just joined & have read alot, but may have missed if this has been discussed. I was thinking that they said the ransom note was written from a pad in the house & a pen that was replaced in the kitchen. If this is true, this is one of the most convincing things that it was not an intruder. I can't believe that a kidnapper would wait until they were in the house to write a note, especially such a long one. If it was an intruder who meant to sexually assault JB and/or kill her, why hang around to write a note? Please give me your thoughts on this.

This is what Steve Thomas was talking about when he described the note as the "War and Peace of ramsome notes."Alot to beleive that somone would hang around to find a papper and pen,start several notes and wind up writing a three page dialog and then place it where Patsy would be sure to see it. :waitasec:

sbtrn said:

I just joined & have read alot, but may have missed if this has been discussed. I was thinking that they said the ransom note was written from a pad in the house & a pen that was replaced in the kitchen. If this is true, this is one of the most convincing things that it was not an intruder. I can't believe that a kidnapper would wait until they were in the house to write a note, especially such a long one. If it was an intruder who meant to sexually assault JB and/or kill her, why hang around to write a note? Please give me your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Welcome sbtrn,

I agree there was no intruder. Why would an intruder return the pad and pen to the place he found them? It doesn't make any sense.

Boy, we could play a lot of spooky games with that hat of yours. sbt returns? S.B.T. C what I mean? Can you give us a clue?

BlueCrab

sbtrn said:

I just joined & have read alot, but may have missed if this has been discussed. I was thinking that they said the ransom note was written from a pad in the house & a pen that was replaced in the kitchen. If this is true, this is one of the most convincing things that it was not an intruder. I can't believe that a kidnapper would wait until they were in the house to write a note, especially such a long one. If it was an intruder who meant to sexually assault JB and/or kill her, why hang around to write a note? Please give me your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Hi, sbtrn,

Yes, why indeed?

Agree: kidnappers wouldn't wait until they were in the house to write the note. They probably wouldn't even utilize a note. A phone call saying "We have your kid" would work better--a short call which couldn't be traced to them and no handwriting that could be traced to them. However, I believe the most popular theory on the part of the IDI people is that the "kidnapper" entered the home while the Ramseys were away and wrote the note. He used their paper and their pen, so neither of those could be traced to him. But, he did leave a long exemplar (as it were) which, if he were ever to become a suspect might be matched to him. He also may have left some DNA. So, what did he gain by using the Ramseys' pad and pen? He could easily ditch pads and pens; not so easy to ditch one's writing habits. So, I've always been skeptical of this theory. John Douglas suggested that this person was somewhat organized and somewhat disorganized--he remebered his cord, tape and stungun, but forgot his note. Because he had memorized the note, he was able to duplicate it on the scene in short order. Of course it was way too long, but Douglas had an explanation for that too.

Why hang around and write a ransom note, not to menton leave the body behind, if it is his intention to sexually assault her and/or kill her? Another good question. But remember he may have gotten the idea to kidnap her after he'd been in the house for a spell and ran across that check stub with the $118,117.50 printed on it (John's bonus for 1995; paid in Jan of 1996). The Ramseys were out of the house for several hours that evening. This is John's pet theory; naturally he would tout the IDI theory, since the RDI theory is a painful alternative for him. A slight variation of this theory is that he came intending to kidnap but his passions got the better of him and he botched the job. This theory makes Helgoth a better candidate because his significant other accused him of being unnaturally fond of little girls, to the point where he didn't trust himself to be alone among them.

About the pad and pen being convincing evidence of the non-involvement of an intruder: it's possible that someone who had access to the house; e.g. LHP, wrote the note while in the house or removed the paper from the pad that the note was written on and wrote the note elsewhere. Some aren't convinced that the paper came from that pad. That it had come from that pad was a finding reported by CBI's Chet Ubowski. Also, some aren't convinced that the pen came from the house that night either. LHP was in the habit of borrowing notepads and pens. It's probably pretty hard to distinguish one pen from another, on the bases of the ink and the wear, in a set of pens which are purchased at the same time and both used frequently. Lot of alternatives explanations. Hope you come up with the right ones.

BlueCrab said:

Welcome sbtrn,

I agree there was no intruder. Why would an intruder return the pad and pen to the place he found them? It doesn't make any sense.

Boy, we could play a lot of spooky games with that hat of yours. sbt returns? S.B.T. C what I mean? Can you give us a clue?

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about the sbtc thing. But it's nothing exciting--just my initials (SBT) and occupation (R.N.)

If you are an intruder come associate of the Ramsays, and you feel confident enough to enter their house abduct and murder JonBenet. Then its possible that you may feel just as confident about hanging about to write the ransom note.

Also if the perp is forensically aware, then using materials from the ramsay household is perfect, so it depends on how clever you think the perp might be.

Also the note may have been already composed, brought along with some other murder-kit items, using a "borowed" pad and pen, then for reasons unknown, it was re-edited resulting in what was left behind, so possibly it never took as long as suggested.

Then although it looks a serious ransom note, you have to consider to what extent it was part of staging, that is just one component in a staged homicide, all done to cause you to run like a hare down the kidnap and ransom track?

Assuming this could be the case then you have to ask, when was it penned , at what part of the staging sequence , currently most people think the ransom note was penned first. But this does not have to be, it could have come say last, and deliberately designed to buy time and confuse investigators. Since why kidnap then leave the body, any intruder or ramsay associate who entered and left the ramsay house that morning, was at liberty to take JonBenet with him. Away from the house nobody knows her status , dead or alive, so in financial terms there is an incentive to remove JonBenet's body. This was not done despite the perp LEAVING?

So its possible that the ransom note is not really just that , its really a deliberate diversionary device, possibly done towards the end of a staging process with the intention of buying time, so the stager can get away, cover their tracks, just in case JonBenet's body is discovered seconds after they leave the house. They need time to get back home and do a cover up and the ransom note may have been designed to supply just that?

UKGuy said:

So its possible that the ransom note is not really just that , its really a deliberate diversionary device, possibly done towards the end of a staging process with the intention of buying time, so the stager can get away, cover their tracks, just in case JonBenet's body is discovered seconds after they leave the house. They need time to get back home and do a cover up and the ransom note may have been designed to supply just that?

Click to expand...

Good point. So when the Rs got up in the morning and JB was missing, instead of looking all over the house for her, they immediately believed she HAD been kidnapped. Perp gets time to dispose of evidence (duct tape, rope) and perhaps compose self to appear uninvolved, or just have time to think of what to do next.
But this theory seems to dump Patsy's involvement in the writing of the letter. Where do you think Patsy fits in with this?

UKGuy said:

Since why kidnap then leave the body, any intruder or ramsay associate who entered and left the ramsay house that morning, was at liberty to take JonBenet with him.

Click to expand...

UKGuy,

In my opinion NO ONE, especially a Ramsey, could have taken JonBenet from the house that morning without leaving a clue. Mother nature had mysteriously intervened and timely prevented the killer from taking JonBenet from the house.

Mother Nature had blanketed the ground with a surprise light dusting of snow that would have left foot prints from the house AND BACK AGAIN. When the killer opened the door to carry JonBenet from the house, he saw the fresh snow blocking him. He was trapped inside of the house with a dead body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

The killer didn't know the snow would soon melt. And it had to have been a Ramsey or the snow wouldn't have stopped him. An intruder wouldn't care all that much about leaving foot prints from the house so long as he escaped with the body, but the foot prints BACK to the house would be a smoking gun for a Ramsey.

Mother Nature did her part by keeping the killer, the body, and the ransom note together in the house. Why aren't we reading what she's telling us?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

UKGuy,

In my opinion NO ONE, especially a Ramsey, could have taken JonBenet from the house that morning without leaving a clue. Mother nature had mysteriously intervened and timely prevented the killer from taking JonBenet from the house.

Mother Nature had blanketed the ground with a surprise light dusting of snow that would have left foot prints from the house AND BACK AGAIN. When the killer opened the door to carry JonBenet from the house, he saw the fresh snow blocking him. He was trapped inside of the house with a dead body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

The killer didn't know the snow would soon melt. And it had to have been a Ramsey or the snow wouldn't have stopped him. An intruder wouldn't care all that much about leaving foot prints from the house so long as he escaped with the body, but the foot prints BACK to the house would be a smoking gun for a Ramsey.

Mother Nature did her part by keeping the killer, the body, and the ransom note together in the house. Why aren't we reading what she's telling us?

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

BlueCrab

Thanks for you comments,

Might be we are not reading what she's telling us? Because with a touch of literary flourish, you have dropped some philosophy into your JonBenet certainties?

Those that interpret scripture will tell you, that as Francis Bacon held, that Adam possessed abstract knowledge to a very high degree. To him the whole of nature was a book which he could read with ease. But he lost the skill to read this language as a result of the Fall. And alone amongst men only Solomon recovered the power to read the book of nature.

So it may be we all cannot read what you can because we have lost this occult skill to see nature and read her cryptic messages.

And as you suggest yourself in another thread:
In my BDI theories I call that person "the fifth person in the house that night".

If there was a fifth person in the Ramsay house that night/morning, he/she obviously left it, and the snow was no obstacle to his/her departure!

So he/she could have simply carried JonBenet away along with them, and possibly wrapped up in a blanket, consealed from view?

Dangit, it was Patsy's pad and Patsy's pen, so Patsy must've written the note. Criminy!

Maybe Patsy had arranged for JonBenet to be kidnapped--a sort of publicity stunt. So, Patsy wrote the note (her part of the bargain, if you don't count the $118,000) as act 1 of the hoax. Just think of the publicity for JonBenet!

Maybe the guys she hired to nab the kid weren't as reliable as she had anticipated, and botched the job, killing JB in the process, maybe out of fear that she'd identify them, or whatever.

Maybe this would explain her incredulity--"Why did they do this?", and her confession, "We never meant for this to happen." And, John's lament, "I'm so sorry."

Now, they don't dare reveal the the identity of the killers, lest they be found guilty of complicity in their daughter's murder.

Now admit it: this is the best theory yet.

RC, no, Patsy is literal, she was wondering why "they" did this, clearly because they said they were "three gentlemen". Wasn't it one writing the note, and two watching over the child? John was sorry, I'm guilty of feeling guilty and understand this.
Don't we all have friends like them, the woman we call an *advertiser censored* for being so girly,girl married to the nerd that she sets up play dates for? Both have "gullible" printed on their foreheads. These people really are clueless, JMO, of course.

sissi said:

RC, no, Patsy is literal, she was wondering why "they" did this, clearly because they said they were "three gentlemen". Wasn't it one writing the note, and two watching over the child? John was sorry, I'm guilty of feeling guilty and understand this.
Don't we all have friends like them, the woman we call an *advertiser censored* for being so girly,girl married to the nerd that she sets up play dates for? Both have "gullible" printed on their foreheads. These people really are clueless, JMO, of course.

Click to expand...

sissi,

But it was "two gentlemen" watching over the child, and one hooligan writing the note. He didn't identify himself as a gentlemen. So, by "they", she meant the two, and didn't include the one. Well, of course, she was literal. The "two gentlemen" she hired to nab the kid weren't apparitions.

As for John's mea culpa: you're making it too complicated. He meant he was sorry for not having taken Patsy seriously when she outlined her plan to him. He thought she was kidding.

If I live to be a 100, I'll never understand that woman!

RC, HA! :clap:

UKGuy said:

BlueCrab

And as you suggest yourself in another thread:
In my BDI theories I call that person "the fifth person in the house that night".

If there was a fifth person in the Ramsay house that night/morning, he/she obviously left it, and the snow was no obstacle to his/her departure!

So he/she could have simply carried JonBenet away along with them, and possibly wrapped up in a blanket, consealed from view?

Click to expand...

UKGuy,

On a bicycle?

There were no footprints, but there were bicycle tracks in the snow across the Ramsey's lawn, and it seems as though Patsy's new bicycle was missing. There's a crime scene photo of the tracks.

The testimony from John gets garbled at this point in the interviews, but if there was a fifth person in the house that night, he apparently used Patsy's bike to escape. The bike was later recovered, although this part of the interview was also hard to understand.