JonBenet Ramson letter - written before or after + linguistics

Hello,
This is my first thread I hope it is in accordance with forum rules.

I am well aware that if you a RDI then the letter was probably written by Patsey (maybe John) AFTER the accidentally killing. Terms like "the killing won't be difficult...she dies, she dies...." is considered conclusive.

RDI have argued that the ransom note was written after JB death, as there are certain phrases like "she dies, not she will dies, she will be beheaded (she wasn't beheaded) as evidence the note was written and the author knew she was dead.


While an IDI could have written it before or after JonBenet's death, it most likely was written before. The statements in the present tense "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.

is present tense not future tense, but b/c the author may be quoting Dirty Harry and other films, he chooses to continue the convention in writing the present rather than past tense. Also to be considered is that if these lines do come from those movies, it would be something Patsey or John would write.

Another statement "Don't try to grow a brain John" may come from Speed, and suggests the letter was written to conform to hollywood conventions, which case these statements may not reflect knowledge Jonbenet is dead (yet) but attempting to create a charade.

another statemetn "
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." has some resemblence to historical ransom notes, such as Leopold ad Lowe.

Lastly, this individual Forensic linguistics
By Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi


Apply statistical linguistics on known exemplars and the RN, as well as previous known material where PR might have used similar find. His conclusion as a forensic linguists to a high degree of statistical certainly, PR could not have authored RN. By itself this is "interesting" but add that hand writing is unable to conclusively match it to her or JR strongly implies IDI.

voynich said:

Hello,
This is my first thread I hope it is in accordance with forum rules.

I am well aware that if you a RDI then the letter was probably written by Patsey (maybe John) AFTER the accidentally killing. Terms like "the killing won't be difficult...she dies, she dies...." is considered conclusive.

RDI have argued that the ransom note was written after JB death, as there are certain phrases like "she dies, not she will dies, she will be beheaded (she wasn't beheaded) as evidence the note was written and the author knew she was dead.

Click to expand...

Among other things.

While an IDI could have written it before or after JonBenet's death, it most likely was written before. The statements in the present tense "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.

is present tense not future tense, but b/c the author may be quoting Dirty Harry and other films, he chooses to continue the convention in writing the present rather than past tense. Also to be considered is that if these lines do come from those movies, it would be something Patsey or John would write.

Another statement "Don't try to grow a brain John" may come from Speed, and suggests the letter was written to conform to hollywood conventions, which case these statements may not reflect knowledge Jonbenet is dead (yet) but attempting to create a charade.

Click to expand...

Very astute.

another statemetn "
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." has some resemblence to historical ransom notes, such as Leopold ad Lowe.

Lastly, this individual Forensic linguistics
By Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi


Apply statistical linguistics on known exemplars and the RN, as well as previous known material where PR might have used similar find. His conclusion as a forensic linguists to a high degree of statistical certainly, PR could not have authored RN. By itself this is "interesting"

Click to expand...

I would just remind you that the only OFFICIAL forensic linguistics examination turned up the opposite.

but add that hand writing is unable to conclusively match it to her or JR strongly implies IDI.

Click to expand...

If handwriting analysis required a direct 100% match 100% of the time, there would be an AWFUL lot of guilty people walking around out there.

voynich said:

Hello,
This is my first thread I hope it is in accordance with forum rules.

Click to expand...

Hi voynich. Welcome.

voynich said:

I am well aware that if you a RDI then the letter was probably written by Patsey (maybe John) AFTER the accidentally killing. Terms like "the killing won't be difficult...she dies, she dies...." is considered conclusive.

RDI have argued that the ransom note was written after JB death, as there are certain phrases like "she dies, not she will dies, she will be beheaded (she wasn't beheaded) as evidence the note was written and the author knew she was dead.


While an IDI could have written it before or after JonBenet's death, it most likely was written before. The statements in the present tense "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.

is present tense not future tense, but b/c the author may be quoting Dirty Harry and other films, he chooses to continue the convention in writing the present rather than past tense. Also to be considered is that if these lines do come from those movies, it would be something Patsey or John would write.

Click to expand...

Hey, grammar, syntax? 's not my strong suit ... and I've often wondered about the errors within the rn....
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm

is present tense not future tense,-voynich

Is it a conditional clause, first conditional? present imperative?
???
reminds me of the french language ... again.

voynich said:

Another statement "Don't try to grow a brain John" may come from Speed, and suggests the letter was written to conform to hollywood conventions, which case these statements may not reflect knowledge Jonbenet is dead (yet) but attempting to create a charade.

another statemetn "
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." has some resemblence to historical ransom notes, such as Leopold ad Lowe..

Click to expand...

Ya. It's very visual piece. whomever? the author/s may be. IMO congenial. cordial in parts.
not sterile.

voynich said:

Lastly, this individual Forensic linguistics
By Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi


Apply statistical linguistics on known exemplars and the RN, as well as previous known material where PR might have used similar find. His conclusion as a forensic linguists to a high degree of statistical certainly, PR could not have authored RN. By itself this is "interesting" but add that hand writing is unable to conclusively match it to her or JR strongly implies IDI.

Click to expand...

I wonder where PR results may have been distibuted if the provided sample was larger. Her sample's been critiqued as not being representative or inclusive of all the variations of form that may have existed pre Dec 1996.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFM...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA182,M1

"a limited sample of non request "natural" writings, produced before Dec 26, 1996....."

I've also been wondering how a sample thought to be written by 2 writers would be analysed? What type of model is used for that and how that combination would affect form and analysis.

Hello,

Yes, the book I am referring to is found at that link.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFMW...um=1#PPA182,M1

Page 205 10.6 conclusion, states that "Patricia Ramsey is excluded as the writer of the ransom letter". IF independent hand writing analysis also excludes her then the conditional probability of two separate lines of research excluding Pat R is pretty strong. The official linguistic analysis you speak of -- is it Donald Foster? While I have no way of identifying which linguistic analysis is more likely to be valid, at least one linguistic analysis rules out PR as RN author.

The RN author does write in the future tense "You will withdraw $118,000.00" "The delivery will be exhausting" "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."

vs

f we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies

Not "she will die". Not using "she will dies" destroys the parallelism that the earlier statements "will result, you will withdraw" so it sounds like the RN author is intentionally using the present tense since the author appears to be quoting various movies, and possibly earlier RN notes like Leopold and Loeb. Consequently, this line of reasoning would not support the conclusion the author is either female (since males are more likely to watch such movies) nor knows JonBenet is dead (indeed the RN fails to mention JB by name).

I am aware that it is alleged that the "feminine" concerns in the RN like "be well rested" and "you will be denied a proper burial" implies a female writer, however this by itself is not conclusive since the Leopold and Loeb ransom note has

"Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him" " we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you" sounds feminine in the way the JB RN does.

IMO...Patsy wrote that RN, with help from John...after the fact. I believe that the part in the note that says..."Listen Carefully", was actually John saying that to Patsy...for HER to listen carefully to his words, as she wrote them down...but, in her grief and anxiousness, she actually wrote those words down on the paper. Also IMO...an intruder that had spent time writing the note inside of the Ramsey home, while they were away..would NOT have had any clue WHERE the Ramseys were, or WHAT TIME they would be home. As far as "he" was concerned...they could have been at the next door neighbors house....and could have returned at ANYTIME. So why would an intruder take the time to sit there in the home, and write an almost three page RN, not knowing where the Ramsey's were, or when they would returned? That would have been rather ballsy...for lack of a better word. Wonder what "he" would have had planned to say, if the Ramseys had of walked in on him? Hmmm...Hi there...I didn't expect you home so soon. I was just sitting here bored, while I waited for your return...so, I decided to write this three page ransom note, using your sharpie and pad. Ya see, I was planning on kidnapping and maybe murdering your daughter, and I wanted to write you this ransom note, so that you would know what was going on. So, here you go. I will see myself out.

I believe Patsy was PO'd at John in that last part...'don't try to grow a brain,John,you are not the only fat cat around'..IOW-----'shut your mouth,buddy...and don't even THINK about telling on me,because I have something on YOU!!!' (iow, she was just as big as he was!).IMO she was talking about the chronic sexual abuse found on JB.

I agree.Now if it was intruder that knew his bonus.Thats means research into his whole income. Even if ex partner or employee surly knows hey need to ask for more.PR wrote the note and John Ramsey most likely was standing there beside her.

I agree that it's hard to imagine an intruder waiting there, however, there is a precedent -- "Amy" and JonBenet, and Amy took lessons at the same dance studio, Dance West, live very close to one another and happened 9 months. The current theory of details of the crime is that the intruder entered premises several hours earlier and waited.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtm

"Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding." .... "He was like a ghost," recalls Amy's father. "We couldn't figure out where he came from, or where he went."

Amy's rapist faced the same informational hurdles an IDI

Your account of "listen carefully" is as consistent w/IDI (mis) quoting or alluding to movie Dirty Harry (1971) similar with Don't try to grow a brain (speed).

If the RN author did indeed intend to allude to these movies, and quite possibly Leopold Loeb murders ransom note, is it more likely that Patsy or John had these quotes in mind, or an IDI, perhaps an adolescent or college young male who likes this genre of movies/true crime?

Ravyn said:

I agree.Now if it was intruder that knew his bonus.Thats means research into his whole income. Even if ex partner or employee surly knows hey need to ask for more.PR wrote the note and John Ramsey most likely was standing there beside her.

Click to expand...

John Karr offered his "explanation" for the unusual amount, $100k + $18k for 18 years of age. Leopold and Loeb asked for thousands and in a post-conviction interview just fabricated the number as sounding convincing, as they were from wealthy families. They did it for the intellectual challenge, not money. If JR and PR did write it, it's somewhat surprising to me they didn't pretend ask for millions of dollars knowing JB is dead. The figure could be just as consistent with an IDI trying to show how inside he is to JR, and that this affair is some kind of intellectual challenge. If JR and PR did do this together, there's the risk that they might accuse the other, as L&L did.

voynich said:

I agree that it's hard to imagine an intruder waiting there, however, there is a precedent -- "Amy" and JonBenet, and Amy took lessons at the same dance studio, Dance West, live very close to one another and happened 9 months. The current theory of details of the crime is that the intruder entered premises several hours earlier and waited.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtm

"Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding." .... "He was like a ghost," recalls Amy's father. "We couldn't figure out where he came from, or where he went."

Amy's rapist faced the same informational hurdles an IDI

Your account of "listen carefully" is as consistent w/IDI (mis) quoting or alluding to movie Dirty Harry (1971) similar with Don't try to grow a brain (speed).

If the RN author did indeed intend to allude to these movies, and quite possibly Leopold Loeb murders ransom note, is it more likely that Patsy or John had these quotes in mind, or an IDI, perhaps an adolescent or college young male who likes this genre of movies/true crime?

Click to expand...

But was Amy bashed on the head, garotted and murdered? Was a Ransom note written for Amy's parents? The answer is no. Let's not forget that Patsy only scored 4.5 out of a possible 5...as someone that did NOT write the RN. Five being DEFINATELY didn't write it. If she DEFINATELY didn't write that RN, her score would have been 5. There are WAY too many similarities, so much so that even Nedra...Patsy's own mother, said that it looked like Patsy's handwriting. Even John says that it appears that a woman wrote it...and HE should know. IMO...this is the very reason that he didn't write it himself...I don't believe that he thought that they would ever get away with it. So, he let Patsy do the writing, while he dictated to her what to write. And if the same guy did it, that broke into Amy's house...why did he stick around to take her down to the basement, wipe her down...redress her in another pair of panties, that were size 12's, she wore a size 6, fashion a garotte, find and wrap her in a blanket, wouldn't he have gotten the heck out of dodge.

Ames said:

But was Amy bashed on the head, garotted and murdered? Was a Ransom note written for Amy's parents? The answer is no. Let's not forget that Patsy only scored 4.5 out of a possible 5...as someone that did NOT write the RN. Five being DEFINATELY didn't write it. If she DEFINATELY didn't write that RN, her score would have been 5. There are WAY too many similarities, so much so that even Nedra...Patsy's own mother, said that it looked like Patsy's handwriting. Even John says that it appears that a woman wrote it...and HE should know. IMO...this is the very reason that he didn't write it himself...I don't believe that he thought that they would ever get away with it. So, he let Patsy do the writing, while he dictated to her what to write. And if the same guy did it, that broke into Amy's house...why did he stick around to take her down to the basement, wipe her down...redress her in another pair of panties, that were size 12's, she wore a size 6, fashion a garotte, find and wrap her in a blanket, wouldn't he have gotten the heck out of dodge.

Click to expand...

In the case of "Amy"

****************
Before going to bed, Amy's mother turned on the burglar alarm. Around midnight, Amy woke up to find a man standing over her bed, his hand over her mouth. "She remembered the intruder addressing her by her name," says Peterson. "He said, 'I know who you are.' He repeated those things a few times, apparently. 'I'll knock you out. Shut up.'"

Peterson says Amy's mother heard whispering, and proceeded through the doorway, and saw a person, who just brushed her aside and quickly made his escape by jumping out a second-floor window.

"He was like a ghost," recalls Amy's father. "We couldn't figure out where he came from, or where he went."

By the time the Boulder police arrived, the man was long gone. Because the intruder had gotten in and out of the house so easily, Amy's father began to think this wasn't the first time he had done something like this.



************

The crime was interrupted by the mother. He threatened to knock her out. He made it a point to tell her he knows who she is. He repeated his knowledge of this several times. He was interrupted and fled. No further details were offered publicly AFAIK. Without further details, it's speculation, for example, maybe the rapist did not think another kidnapping/ransom was worthwhile due to Amy's family wealth, that the handwriting might deflect attention from Ramseys, etc. How did this rapist know "Amy's" name? How, apparently did he enter without any signs of forced entry? Why did he state he knows who she is and repeat this to her several times? Why threaten with knocking her out? How did he know where is her bedroom? How did he know to wait several hours? How did he know about the burglar alarm would not be set? etc. What would he have done to Amy if he had not been interrupted? Did Amy and JR respond the same way to the rapist? How much time did he have with Amy vs JR? Why did he take this risk given he knew the mother was present in the house? How did he know how to exit (jumping from second floor?) and not risk say twisting an ankle or breaking a leg? Amy only lived 2 miles away, this happened 9 months after, both attended West Dance at same time period (West Dance itself was closed down) nothing was stolen, family was away when perp entered, to list some coincidental similarities.


4.5/5 could be interpreted either way. How often are there false positives and negatives in other handwriting with this score, say independently confirmed with say hard evidence like DNA? I admit I don't know. The linguist I cited though states using quantitative measurements like sentence length and structure and 20 variables, that PR can be statistically ruled out as the author. This alone I don't know, this in combination with a 4.5/5 sounds more like IDI than RDI.

the 118k doesn't necessarily refer to JR's bonus.In fact,I don't think it does.It was also the amt Jeff Merrick settled with AG for..and if you read the interview,you will also find out who the three ppl (the 'SFF') were in the note (that JR helped write,IMO)...JM and friends were used because JM was known to have been upset with JR,and JR used him to try and set him up in the note.
Thomas repeated mentioned that JR kept bringing up JM's name..and he wanted to know why.It wasn't until the so-called RN was released that he was able to put 2 and 2 together..

http://www.acandyrose.com/20060830BoylesGuestJeffMerrick.htm

remember that as soon as JB's body was 'found',JR already had an explanation formed..that it was an 'inside job'.he already KNEW whom he was going to set up,and it all started in the note.

and BTW,IMO Patsy GAVE AWAY the method they used to write the RN in their book..(DOI)..when she said that she and JR both wrote a version of the liturgy of the day,which they merged together into one..and the final version contained the words 'and hence'.
Gotta love Patsy..she just never could stop confessing!

The biggest clue in the note is where the perp says he will call tomorrow. Tomorrow would have been the 27th, with the Ramseys reading it on the morning of the 26th. I don't think that was the intent------the intent was after they read the note, JR was suppose to get the money, and the perp would call between 8 and l0 on the 26th. Saying "tomorrow" indicates the note was written on the 25th.

voynich said:

Hello,

Yes, the book I am referring to is found at that link.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFMW...um=1#PPA182,M1

Page 205 10.6 conclusion, states that "Patricia Ramsey is excluded as the writer of the ransom letter". IF independent hand writing analysis also excludes her then the conditional probability of two separate lines of research excluding Pat R is pretty strong. The official linguistic analysis you speak of -- is it Donald Foster?

Click to expand...

It is.

While I have no way of identifying which linguistic analysis is more likely to be valid, at least one linguistic analysis rules out PR as RN author.

Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine, voynich. From what I understand, there's no scientific basis behind it anyway. The only reason I brought it up is because one was an insider and one wasn't.

The RN author does write in the future tense "You will withdraw $118,000.00" "The delivery will be exhausting" "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."

vs

f we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies

Not "she will die". Not using "she will dies" destroys the parallelism that the earlier statements "will result, you will withdraw" so it sounds like the RN author is intentionally using the present tense since the author appears to be quoting various movies, and possibly earlier RN notes like Leopold and Loeb. Consequently, this line of reasoning would not support the conclusion the author is either female (since males are more likely to watch such movies) nor knows JonBenet is dead (indeed the RN fails to mention JB by name).

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but a few other things would. The fact that JB was not mentioned by name speaks volumes to me. Especially when coupled with other things.

I am aware that it is alleged that the "feminine" concerns in the RN like "be well rested" and "you will be denied a proper burial" implies a female writer,

Click to expand...

Damn right.

voynich said:

I agree that it's hard to imagine an intruder waiting there, however, there is a precedent -- "Amy" and JonBenet, and Amy took lessons at the same dance studio, Dance West, live very close to one another and happened 9 months. The current theory of details of the crime is that the intruder entered premises several hours earlier and waited.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtm

"Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding." .... "He was like a ghost," recalls Amy's father. "We couldn't figure out where he came from, or where he went."

Amy's rapist faced the same informational hurdles an IDI

Click to expand...

Personally, I think that's a wild goose chase.

Your account of "listen carefully" is as consistent w/IDI (mis) quoting or alluding to movie Dirty Harry (1971) similar with Don't try to grow a brain (speed).

If the RN author did indeed intend to allude to these movies, and quite possibly Leopold Loeb murders ransom note, is it more likely that Patsy or John had these quotes in mind, or an IDI, perhaps an adolescent or college young male who likes this genre of movies/true crime?

Click to expand...

Like you said: intend. But even if so, what about all of the familial references in there?

voynich said:

4.5/5 could be interpreted either way.

Click to expand...

Not really, when you consider its origin. I'm actually surprised Ames gives it any weight at all.

How often are there false positives and negatives in other handwriting with this score, say independently confirmed with say hard evidence like DNA? I admit I don't know.

Click to expand...

Me, neither. But if I were a betting man, I'd say not many.

The linguist I cited though states using quantitative measurements like sentence length and structure and 20 variables, that PR can be statistically ruled out as the author. This alone I don't know, this in combination with a 4.5/5 sounds more like IDI than RDI.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you didn't know anything else.

SuperDave said:

Not really, when you consider its origin. I'm actually surprised Ames gives it any weight at all.



Me, neither. But if I were a betting man, I'd say not many.



Yeah, if you didn't know anything else.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't, considering it came from THEIR OWN experts.

Hi,

If RDI then Amy's rapist = wild goose chase.
If IDI then Amy's rapist is strong suspect.


Whoever wrote the RN is killer or accomplice. If RDI r/o then it must be IDI, and vice versa.

The posted linguistic analysis "Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics documents current advances in this field, including quantitative methods of data analysis, a new way to provide scientific standardization, and new research directed at providing baseline data for determining the significance of style markers." If Gerald R. McMenamin is correct, then RN is IDI, which explains why 4.5/5 rather than 1/5


I regard a 4.5/5 considering what PR had to do (provide exemplars, write in both left and right hands, provide copies of the RN in her own hand writing, including having it dictated to her) seems to me to be low. It's not enough to look at similarities, the HW analyst must also look at differences.

I don't see the language in the RN as indisputably feminine -- L&L RN has similar language.

I agree that it is significant JB was not mentioned by name. PR is also not mentioned by name. I actually think if PR or JR wrote it, they *would* mention JB. Since JB is not mentioned the perp may not have known her name, or is following the example set by L&L RN note, which also omits mentioning name. I would imagine that at the least, they would write Jonbenet, cross it out, and write in your daughter.

"all of the familial references in there" I'm not sure JR is a "southerner" PR was a Southerner, and obviously this is not a mistake JR or PR would make, but an IDI would.

The silence on Burke and PR could be consistent with either IDI or RDI. I would imagine if RDI, they would also threaten Burke as next to make it sound more convincing, and his wife, however, I'd think IDI would as well, unless the IDI was unaware R had a son.

voynich said:

Hi,

If RDI then Amy's rapist = wild goose chase.
If IDI then Amy's rapist is strong suspect.


Whoever wrote the RN is killer or accomplice. If RDI r/o then it must be IDI, and vice versa.

The posted linguistic analysis "Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics documents current advances in this field, including quantitative methods of data analysis, a new way to provide scientific standardization, and new research directed at providing baseline data for determining the significance of style markers." If Gerald R. McMenamin is correct, then RN is IDI, which explains why 4.5/5 rather than 1/5


I regard a 4.5/5 considering what PR had to do (provide exemplars, write in both left and right hands, provide copies of the RN in her own hand writing, including having it dictated to her) seems to me to be low. It's not enough to look at similarities, the HW analyst must also look at differences.

I don't see the language in the RN as indisputably feminine -- L&L RN has similar language.

I agree that it is significant JB was not mentioned by name. PR is also not mentioned by name. I actually think if PR or JR wrote it, they *would* mention JB. Since JB is not mentioned the perp may not have known her name, or is following the example set by L&L RN note, which also omits mentioning name. I would imagine that at the least, they would write Jonbenet, cross it out, and write in your daughter.

"all of the familial references in there" I'm not sure JR is a "southerner" PR was a Southerner, and obviously this is not a mistake JR or PR would make, but an IDI would.

The silence on Burke and PR could be consistent with either IDI or RDI. I would imagine if RDI, they would also threaten Burke as next to make it sound more convincing, and his wife, however, I'd think IDI would as well, unless the IDI was unaware R had a son.

Click to expand...

First of all...JB was not raped...like "Amy"'s attacker was trying to do to her.

The 4.5 came from the Ramsey's hired experts. Why didn't they let an unbiased expert do the test? Afraid of what the outcome would be??

The Ramsey's NEVER referred to JB by name on ANY of their televised interviews, (and I am not sure about the police interviews, I would have to go back and check) Patsy always referred to her as "that child".


----------------------

Opinion of just ONE expert...there is more where this came from if you are interested...

Leonard Speckin

• Speckin Findings.

1. Unable to Eliminate. "Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6).
2. Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy. However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs." (Thomas 2000age number not provided; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher).

• Speckin Qualifications.

1. "Leonard Speckin is a forensic document analyst, retired from the Michigan State Police. He has given expert witness testimony in this area over 500 times, for many courts, state committee hearings, and federal grand juries. He is certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners" (pdf).

voynich said:

I regard a 4.5/5 considering what PR had to do (provide exemplars, write in both left and right hands, provide copies of the RN in her own hand writing, including having it dictated to her) seems to me to be low.

Click to expand...

If it was legit. There's good reason to believe it isn't.

It's not enough to look at similarities, the HW analyst must also look at differences.

Click to expand...

I know that.

I don't see the language in the RN as indisputably feminine -- L&L RN has similar language.

Click to expand...

Hey, I can only tell you what the profilers said.

I agree that it is significant JB was not mentioned by name. PR is also not mentioned by name. I actually think if PR or JR wrote it, they *would* mention JB.

Click to expand...

I don't. Or maybe you haven't noticed how seldom JB is mentioned by name by her parents in their interviews, a fact we here have pointed out many times. It's a classic dissociation technique, a way to distance oneself from it. That's my point.

"all of the familial references in there" I'm not sure JR is a "southerner"

Click to expand...

He isn't. It was a joke used by Patsy's relatives to refer to him.

PR was a Southerner, and obviously this is not a mistake JR or PR would make, but an IDI would.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say it's "obvious," considering. Moreover, I'm not so sure it WAS a mistake. I think the writer may have deliberately been hedging their bets in the hope of framing someone specific.

The silence on Burke and PR could be consistent with either IDI or RDI. I would imagine if RDI, they would also threaten Burke as next to make it sound more convincing,

Click to expand...

Except the ransom letter (LETTER) was most likely an attempt to undo the crime in the writer's mind (per CASKU). A person in such a predicament would probably not want to think about doing the same to BR.

and his wife, however, I'd think IDI would as well, unless the IDI was unaware R had a son.

Click to expand...

That's I'll agree with.