Journalistic Ransom Note
- Thread starter Camper
- Start date
New Posts
-
Found Deceased NY - Jaylen Griffin, 12, Buffalo, 4 Aug 2020- Latest: modesty blaise
Camper
New Member
Just returned from bible class and a luncheon to find my thread has been clonified, the DNA got funny I guess.
As a child I spent hours just reading the dictionary, day after day after day. Words fascinated me and still do. In fact the dictionary is full of OLDE words.
One thing that struck me is that early ransom notes in early movies were short and sweet. Therefore my stricken thought, right or wrong is that a 'WOMAN' wrote the note. A man would never go into the story telling mode, and use up three pieces of paper. My theory on this is based upon men in general that I have observed over time.
I am going hunting, googling and such and see if I can round up some Olde ransom notes for comparative value. Please feel free to join the hunt.
.
As a child I spent hours just reading the dictionary, day after day after day. Words fascinated me and still do. In fact the dictionary is full of OLDE words.
One thing that struck me is that early ransom notes in early movies were short and sweet. Therefore my stricken thought, right or wrong is that a 'WOMAN' wrote the note. A man would never go into the story telling mode, and use up three pieces of paper. My theory on this is based upon men in general that I have observed over time.
I am going hunting, googling and such and see if I can round up some Olde ransom notes for comparative value. Please feel free to join the hunt.
.
tipper
Former Member
In a world that contains not only Leopold and Loeb's note but also the writings of Fleet White and Delmar England, I think you may be on thin ice.Camper said:
ostealthone
Former Member
I'm not an expert on the facts of the Ramsey case. I followed the Laci case a lot and can hold a conversation with most anyone on its important aspects. I don't have that kind of knowledge on the JBR case.
However, I do have an opinion or two based on what I did read pretty early on and then occasionally afterwards.
I don't believe that the Ramseys murdered their daughter, nor do I believe they know who did.
Needless to say, it's very suspicious that little JonBenet's body was found lifeless in the home. It's also suspicious that there was no BLATANTLY OBVIOUS signs of breaking and entering (like a broken lock on the front door).
However, let us remember the Elizabeth Smart story. I never believed that the Smarts knew what happened to their daughter other than what MaryKatharine had told them. Remember that most of America was convinced of family guilt somewhere. In this case, Elizabeth just disappeared and there were no BLATANTLY OBVIOUS signs of breaking and entering. I even saw the lead detective on one of the news magazine shows showing the open window and its lack of scuffs and smudges - he was certain an intruder didn't enter there. (As it turned out, that's exactly where he entered).
If MaryKatharine hadn't seen what she did, this would be a case of a daughter who just disappeared and the vast majority of people would have believed that Ed Smart sexually abused his daughter and then finally had to get rid of the evidence - or that the older brother did it and better to save him than lose both Elizabeth and Charles, or that his brother sold her to a slave sex ring - You get the message.
So, it is possible that an intruder came in the open basement window while the Ramsey's were out, spent his time while alone in the house writing the ransom note, and then while fully intending to kidnap JB, murdered her and left. This is not out of the realm of possibility.
There was a retired detective who was brought in to make the case against the Ramseys. (I forget his name, but will try to locate it). He came to believe the intruder theory and when I read his account, I have to agree with him. One of the biggest reasons is there was dna evidence in JBR'S panties, but it didn't match either John Ramsey or Burke. That is HUGE. The police said that it could have been there from the point of manufacture. HUH????
So, based on what information I do have about the case, I do believe that the murderer is still on the loose and that the Ramsey family is totally without fault in this heartbreaking case.
However, I do have an opinion or two based on what I did read pretty early on and then occasionally afterwards.
I don't believe that the Ramseys murdered their daughter, nor do I believe they know who did.
Needless to say, it's very suspicious that little JonBenet's body was found lifeless in the home. It's also suspicious that there was no BLATANTLY OBVIOUS signs of breaking and entering (like a broken lock on the front door).
However, let us remember the Elizabeth Smart story. I never believed that the Smarts knew what happened to their daughter other than what MaryKatharine had told them. Remember that most of America was convinced of family guilt somewhere. In this case, Elizabeth just disappeared and there were no BLATANTLY OBVIOUS signs of breaking and entering. I even saw the lead detective on one of the news magazine shows showing the open window and its lack of scuffs and smudges - he was certain an intruder didn't enter there. (As it turned out, that's exactly where he entered).
If MaryKatharine hadn't seen what she did, this would be a case of a daughter who just disappeared and the vast majority of people would have believed that Ed Smart sexually abused his daughter and then finally had to get rid of the evidence - or that the older brother did it and better to save him than lose both Elizabeth and Charles, or that his brother sold her to a slave sex ring - You get the message.
So, it is possible that an intruder came in the open basement window while the Ramsey's were out, spent his time while alone in the house writing the ransom note, and then while fully intending to kidnap JB, murdered her and left. This is not out of the realm of possibility.
There was a retired detective who was brought in to make the case against the Ramseys. (I forget his name, but will try to locate it). He came to believe the intruder theory and when I read his account, I have to agree with him. One of the biggest reasons is there was dna evidence in JBR'S panties, but it didn't match either John Ramsey or Burke. That is HUGE. The police said that it could have been there from the point of manufacture. HUH????
So, based on what information I do have about the case, I do believe that the murderer is still on the loose and that the Ramsey family is totally without fault in this heartbreaking case.
Camper
New Member
Toltec said:
-------------->>>Thank you Toltec, that means a lot coming from you.
I just did a little digging on 'ransom' notes. Here is a little back up on my thought that the initial ransom note in the Lindbergh case was short and sweet and written by supposedly Haupfmann.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/Ransom.htm
Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We
warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes.
========But, But, But, the Ramsey ?note? writer left no wiggle room for negotiation on getting the money. The Lindbergh note writer left instructions for HOW the money was to be handled in a future time. The Ramsey note sets forth what denomination bills they want, but the note shows absolutely ZERO chance of receiving funds, and ZERO instructions for transferring the money. I totally discount any child writing the Ramsey note, and asking for specific kinds of bills.
The link above, shows all of the letter writing supposedly by Haupfmann for the ongoing negotiations.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/Hauptmann.htm
Access to the basic link on the Lindbergh Kidnapping will provide a nice source of information.
After all a ransom note by definition is a request for money in exchange for a loved one/ OR a loved inanimate valuable object. There were ZERO words in the ransom note 'found' in the Ramsey home that had any negotiations involving 'getting' the money. EVEN IF IF IF the supposed drooling perp could not handle removing JonBenet from the home, 'HE' never anticipating GETTING money after the fact initially.
After all the note they want us all to believe was WRITTEN BEFORE JonBenet was to be KIDNAPPED, with NO instructions on HOW the exchange of money for valued person, might be expected to happen at a future time.
The whole note was bogus imop, and was indeed a coverup for a family involvement.
:boohoo:
Edited to add: Tipper can you provide a copy of Leopold and Loeb's note? Thanks .
tipper
Former Member
Thanks to Rainsong in the Struggling with English thread -
Leopold & Loeb
Dear Sir:
As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you line up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty.
1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today $10,000. this money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. the money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.
3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.
4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o'clock. See that the telephone is not in use.
You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course.
As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions.
However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.
Yours truly,
George Johnson
310 words
Compare to the Ramsey note:
Mr. Ramsey:
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed, and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache, to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. 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.
You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics. You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities. Dont try to grow a brain, John. You are not the only fat cat around so dont think that killing will be difficult. Dont underestimate us, John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. Its up to you now, John! Victory. S.B.T.C.
371 words
Leopold & Loeb
Dear Sir:
As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you line up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty.
1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today $10,000. this money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. the money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.
3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.
4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o'clock. See that the telephone is not in use.
You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course.
As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions.
However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.
Yours truly,
George Johnson
310 words
Compare to the Ramsey note:
Mr. Ramsey:
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed, and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache, to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. 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.
You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics. You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities. Dont try to grow a brain, John. You are not the only fat cat around so dont think that killing will be difficult. Dont underestimate us, John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. Its up to you now, John! Victory. S.B.T.C.
371 words
This is an interesting thread!
The comparison of the ransom notes above is startling.
Can I ask, what format was the Leopold & Loeb note written in?
How was the writing disguised?
One thing that bugs me about accepting the note as genuine, among many other things, is that it was hand written. Assuming the demand for a ransom was planned in advance, I would have thought more effort would have gone into handwriting disguise.
Assuming, even, that the perp, if not a Ramsey, planned the note in order to create a diversion from the murder, the same set of doubts spring up in my mind. Even if the intent all along was murder, not ransom, that still doesn't explain the lack of handwriting disguise. YES, I know that the experts almost 100% agree that there WAS considerable effort in disguising the writing. But any reasonably intelligent perp would know that they couldn't keep this up for 2 and a half pages, and indeed, the note DOES seem to bear evidence that the attempt at disguise wore off towards the end.
The ransom note, which SHOULD be the smoking gun in this case, ISN'T. Which is incredible, and which makes me love this case.
You could say, oh, well that proves that whoever wrote the JBR note was a MASTER, a hideously intelligent fiend who knew from the start that the note was untraceable... who knew from the start that they had written an impenetrable masterpiece.
Otherwise, if they were NOT sure of the impenetrability of the note, why was it handwritten?
To me the fact that it's handwritten, by itself, disegarding the origin of the pad of paper, pen, and the "practice note", indicates that this was NOT a planned ransom demand, or alternatively that the murder was not pre-meditated.
To me, even if no RDI, the note itself was probably not planned.
But this again is one of the fascinating contradictions inherent in this case.
The comparison of the ransom notes above is startling.
Can I ask, what format was the Leopold & Loeb note written in?
How was the writing disguised?
One thing that bugs me about accepting the note as genuine, among many other things, is that it was hand written. Assuming the demand for a ransom was planned in advance, I would have thought more effort would have gone into handwriting disguise.
Assuming, even, that the perp, if not a Ramsey, planned the note in order to create a diversion from the murder, the same set of doubts spring up in my mind. Even if the intent all along was murder, not ransom, that still doesn't explain the lack of handwriting disguise. YES, I know that the experts almost 100% agree that there WAS considerable effort in disguising the writing. But any reasonably intelligent perp would know that they couldn't keep this up for 2 and a half pages, and indeed, the note DOES seem to bear evidence that the attempt at disguise wore off towards the end.
The ransom note, which SHOULD be the smoking gun in this case, ISN'T. Which is incredible, and which makes me love this case.
You could say, oh, well that proves that whoever wrote the JBR note was a MASTER, a hideously intelligent fiend who knew from the start that the note was untraceable... who knew from the start that they had written an impenetrable masterpiece.
Otherwise, if they were NOT sure of the impenetrability of the note, why was it handwritten?
To me the fact that it's handwritten, by itself, disegarding the origin of the pad of paper, pen, and the "practice note", indicates that this was NOT a planned ransom demand, or alternatively that the murder was not pre-meditated.
To me, even if no RDI, the note itself was probably not planned.
But this again is one of the fascinating contradictions inherent in this case.
Camper
New Member
Thank you Tipper.
Mr. Ramsey:
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed, and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache, to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. 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.
You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics. You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities. Dont try to grow a brain, John. You are not the only fat cat around so dont think that killing will be difficult. Dont underestimate us, John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. Its up to you now, John! Victory. S.B.T.C.
371 words
=====Well I am still thinking, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Note that in the beginning, 'they' are a group, yet through the note they shift from a single person to 'we, us, our'. A group would have to be more than two, yet in the latter part of the note, there are two gentlemen.
The last part of the note about the fat cat and killing make no sense whatever to me. What does having money have to do with their killing of others that had money.
The Leopold and Loeb letter was more to the point, in what they wanted, written more like a business letter.
IF IF IF the Ramsey perp was more than one and less that three people, or more than three people, I would have thought they would have killed the perp ASAP for letting the money get away. IF IF IF it was a single perp as the note 'sometimes' suggests and IF IF IF the perp wrote the note on behalf of others, why not leave a correction note quickly saying, "Your daughter is dead and she is in the basement". tic
NOW then IF IF that was the case, and two or one other participant in this scheme was left over why not go after the rest of the family, since IT IT was a foreign faction. But wait they say they respect the Ramsey business, but NOT the country it serves. I say they must not respect much if they do not respect a small child. This was a double tongued note that was a total of confused coverage, as to motives.
The Leopold/Loeb note did not include any "WHO" of who is writing the note.
Why bother with identifying yourself for no end result. The L/L note makes references to two 'ours', two 'we's', and one 'us'.
:boohoo:
Mr. Ramsey:
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed, and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache, to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. 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.
You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics. You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities. Dont try to grow a brain, John. You are not the only fat cat around so dont think that killing will be difficult. Dont underestimate us, John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. Its up to you now, John! Victory. S.B.T.C.
371 words
=====Well I am still thinking, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Note that in the beginning, 'they' are a group, yet through the note they shift from a single person to 'we, us, our'. A group would have to be more than two, yet in the latter part of the note, there are two gentlemen.
The last part of the note about the fat cat and killing make no sense whatever to me. What does having money have to do with their killing of others that had money.
The Leopold and Loeb letter was more to the point, in what they wanted, written more like a business letter.
IF IF IF the Ramsey perp was more than one and less that three people, or more than three people, I would have thought they would have killed the perp ASAP for letting the money get away. IF IF IF it was a single perp as the note 'sometimes' suggests and IF IF IF the perp wrote the note on behalf of others, why not leave a correction note quickly saying, "Your daughter is dead and she is in the basement". tic
NOW then IF IF that was the case, and two or one other participant in this scheme was left over why not go after the rest of the family, since IT IT was a foreign faction. But wait they say they respect the Ramsey business, but NOT the country it serves. I say they must not respect much if they do not respect a small child. This was a double tongued note that was a total of confused coverage, as to motives.
The Leopold/Loeb note did not include any "WHO" of who is writing the note.
Why bother with identifying yourself for no end result. The L/L note makes references to two 'ours', two 'we's', and one 'us'.
:boohoo:
Camper
New Member
Guru Josh, here is a link that tells of the entire murder case of Leopold and Loeb. There is a picture, not a very good one of the ransom note, but a most informative and interesting link. I had not read of this case.
http://www.prairieghosts.com/leopold.html
http://www.prairieghosts.com/leopold.html
"So, it is possible that an intruder came in the open basement window while the Ramsey's were out, spent his time while alone in the house writing the ransom note, and then while fully intending to kidnap JB, murdered her and left. This is not out of the realm of possibility."
No its not out of the realm of possibilty...but why would the Ramsey's lie for an intruder?? To say that they have not lied is pointless, when they werent lying, they couldnt remember anything...
"There was a retired detective who was brought in to make the case against the Ramseys. (I forget his name, but will try to locate it). He came to believe the intruder theory "
In my opinion Smit came to believe the intuder theory after meeting( and praying with)the Ramsey's.
"One of the biggest reasons is there was dna evidence in JBR'S panties, but it didn't match either John Ramsey or Burke. That is HUGE. The police said that it could have been there from the point of manufacture. HUH????"
The DNA evidence is flimsy at best. It was degraded and could not be dated.
No its not out of the realm of possibilty...but why would the Ramsey's lie for an intruder?? To say that they have not lied is pointless, when they werent lying, they couldnt remember anything...
"There was a retired detective who was brought in to make the case against the Ramseys. (I forget his name, but will try to locate it). He came to believe the intruder theory "
In my opinion Smit came to believe the intuder theory after meeting( and praying with)the Ramsey's.
"One of the biggest reasons is there was dna evidence in JBR'S panties, but it didn't match either John Ramsey or Burke. That is HUGE. The police said that it could have been there from the point of manufacture. HUH????"
The DNA evidence is flimsy at best. It was degraded and could not be dated.
Camper
New Member
narlacat said:
=============>>>narlacat, some years ago I explained the dna in JonBenets panties. First of all it was winter, and she was wearing long pants, and panties. I had given a link to a Harriet Carter catalog, showing a putting green for the bathroom. The picture showed a fellow sitting on the throne, with his pants wrapped around the bowl and seat of the thrown, putting while sitting.
My thought on the dna in her panties is this. She had attended a party at the Whites that evening, and no doubt had gone to the bathroom in the house (did they have more than one bathroom, possibly) would that toilet seat and bowl have dna thingies there from others using the toilet, imop, yes.
6 year old little 'girls' are not tall enough to sit on the throne AND have their feet touch the floor. Little boys are a different story since they do not use the throne in the same situation, the same as little girls.
To think there was not some dna on a toilet seat or bowl from all manner of Christmas time guests, and mixed one with any number of others, is to deny reality.
Those of us who have observed small children with their pants and panties wrapped around that bowl and seat, while sitting on the throne are missing the boat, imop, on this one.
I thought and still think my theory has merit.
.
Camper said:
Patsy would not be stupid enough to use the computer to print out a ransom letter...
And if one of the members of this foreign faction "accidently" killed JonBenet...then why not take Burke, who was still alive?
FOREIGN GENTLEMEN BELIEVE THE MALE SON IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FEMALE DAUGHTER...SO WHY DID THEY NOT TAKE THE RAMSEY "HEIR" IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
The idea that the RN was entertainment for the killer is unnerving, but has plenty of support from the evidence.Rainsong said:
Placing the calmness and the professional levels of organization (observed attributes of the RN) in contrast with the violence directed at children both in word and deed, does suggest a calmly violent perp, AKA: a cold blooded killer.
IMO, given the perp is a cold blooded killer, as opposed to a panicked accident cover-upper, could mean that:
- the perp feels he can explain or justify his action. He feels he's right and therefore 'killing wont be difficult', and
- the perp may be amusing himself, or even boasting or bragging to his cohorts.
Camper
New Member
Welllllll, we have the who, what, where, when, why and how come of the note, but the subject of the note should have been. 'We/I have your daughter.'
My thoughts and observations of the perp, hereinafter called 'HE'.
--------------------:
Wellllll, IF IF IF 'HE' the perp came in the basement window, when the
Ramseys were 'AT' the White's party, 'HE' must have left his garote in the
basement, AND his tape in the basement, in a bag maybe. He leaves his
'equipment' in the basement, huh, er?
'HE' comes up from the basement and goes to the main floor and finds writing equipment, cuz he didn't bring any, heck 'HE' shoulda brought his note with him IF IF 'HE' was a real kidnapper wanting money $$$$$$$$$. BUT HEY IF IF his plan was to kidnap JonBenet WHY did he bring a garote?
Welllll it probably wasn't a garote when he came, probably was just plain
ole rope to tie her up with, BUT why bring rope if he had duct tape.
Welllll, 'HE' was gonna cover her mouth with tape so she could not scream.
BUT heck the neighbor heard a scream, then said there wasn't a scream, YET
woke her husband to tell him she heard a scream, duh, huh.
SOOOOOOO now we have a scream, so the tape didn't work for that. 'HE'
now takes her to the basement to tie her up, BUT while there 'HE'
decides to make a garote instead, er did he make the garote JUST after
he came in through the basement window, er huh? NOOOOOO cuz 'HE' was
gonna kidnap her, and needs the rope to tie her up with.
SOOOOOOO, what am I to believe, that JonBenet screamed upstairs, nooo, cuz it would have awakened JR/PR, did JonBenet scream while eating the pineapple nooo, cuz same story it would have wakened PR/JR. Soooo she must have screamed in the basement. Sooooo why didn't 'HE' put the tape on her mouth when 'HE' first entered JonBenet's bedroom?
'HIS' ?original? plan was to sneak upstairs after dark and get JonBenet, when everyone was asleep, and GO OUT the door on the main Really really fast, and run. I am confused.
SOOOOOOOO, he goes up to the second floor and gets her without a peep,
and starts for the basement with her, but w-a-i-t a m-i-n-u-t-e
WELLLLLLLLL, he didn't need the rope cuz on the way to the basement
she was gonna eat some pineapple first then they go to the basement.
Question just where was the ransom note through the entire prepping and
get ready activity? Did 'HE' take the note on the way upstairs or put
it there as he came down carrying JonBenet. 'HE' musta been agile, to
have stepped over the note on three steps, carrying his victim rope, tape and the flashlight. This is one muddled up perp, to have pulled this all off. The
note had no wrinkles in it, no fingerprints either. Plus IF IF IF he
was carrying a flashlight up and down while carrying JonBenet, and the
note. HOW did 'HE' get up the stairs from the BASEMENT, without the
flashlight? Answer, 'HE' left it on the 'kitchen counter'. JUST when did 'HE' leave the flashlight IN THE KITCHEN, was it when 'they' stopped on the way down from her bedroom, so JonBenet could have some pineapple? Answer, maybe, cuz 'HE' could have turned on the basement stairway light, no one would have seen it on, although the 'neighbor' did see a strange 'moving' light in the kitchen 'that' night.
Question: Exactly 'when' were the batteries changed on 'the' flashlight. Did JR take the flashlight to the airport Christmas Day to peep into the plane on places that needed pre-flight checking. But why wipe the fingerprints off the batteries, or was he wearing gloves when he did the pre-checking? Then how come JR's prints are not on the flashlight at all?
After 'HE' and his 'victim' get to the basement, he decides to create a
garote, and do some stuff of a sexual nature, that 'HE' has done before. Nope, he was gonna take his kidnapped victim to the basement to push her up and out that tiny basement window. Welllllll, heck that won't work cuz once she is in the window well, he cannot get up in there too, what to do what to do, hmmm. I will just kill her, then leave.
Leftover loose end wonderments
NOW keep in mind, 'HE' knows that 'HE' has to carry the tape and rope upstairs, but first he changed the batteries in the flashlight, Mr. Neat whom we have called 'HE' wipes his fingerprints from the flashlight, and notices
pineapple out on the table. Hmmm. Did 'HE' leave the flashlight there
when he changed the batteries, or take it to the basement in his prep
activity. W-a-i-t-a-m-i-n-u-t-e HOW did he know the batteries needed changing, er? Answer: 'HE' didn't, how could he?
NOW then IF IF the pineapple was taken out AFTER the Ramseys returned
home that night and JonBenet had some before she went to bed, why lie
about the pineapple? IF IF she ate the pineapple right after they came
home from the party, what difference would this make in the entire
LE question asking, OR the coverup?
I needed more time to refine this joke of a kidnapping note. Why not just a simple note?
WE/I/Our Group have JonBenet, WE/I/The Group want/s $118,000.00 in UNMARKED BILLS OR she is dead. Do not call anyone, WE/I/The Group will call you at 10:00AM for the pickup.
Now then IF IF IF WE/I/The Group, knew they were attending the Whites Party, they surely knew the vacation plans as well, why not? IF no why not? They were a foreign faction, with high tech equipment, monitoring devices.
IF IF IF the group were real, and IF IF IF the perp was real, WHY, didn't they call at 6:30 AMBEFORE the Ramseys awakened? Wake em up, and like the movie Ransom, SAY on the phone, 'Listen Carefully' WE have your daughter, check it out, we will be in touch?
Feel free to make changes to my outlined activity schedule of our perp.
:boohoo:
My thoughts and observations of the perp, hereinafter called 'HE'.
--------------------:
Wellllll, IF IF IF 'HE' the perp came in the basement window, when the
Ramseys were 'AT' the White's party, 'HE' must have left his garote in the
basement, AND his tape in the basement, in a bag maybe. He leaves his
'equipment' in the basement, huh, er?
'HE' comes up from the basement and goes to the main floor and finds writing equipment, cuz he didn't bring any, heck 'HE' shoulda brought his note with him IF IF 'HE' was a real kidnapper wanting money $$$$$$$$$. BUT HEY IF IF his plan was to kidnap JonBenet WHY did he bring a garote?
Welllll it probably wasn't a garote when he came, probably was just plain
ole rope to tie her up with, BUT why bring rope if he had duct tape.
Welllll, 'HE' was gonna cover her mouth with tape so she could not scream.
BUT heck the neighbor heard a scream, then said there wasn't a scream, YET
woke her husband to tell him she heard a scream, duh, huh.
SOOOOOOO now we have a scream, so the tape didn't work for that. 'HE'
now takes her to the basement to tie her up, BUT while there 'HE'
decides to make a garote instead, er did he make the garote JUST after
he came in through the basement window, er huh? NOOOOOO cuz 'HE' was
gonna kidnap her, and needs the rope to tie her up with.
SOOOOOOO, what am I to believe, that JonBenet screamed upstairs, nooo, cuz it would have awakened JR/PR, did JonBenet scream while eating the pineapple nooo, cuz same story it would have wakened PR/JR. Soooo she must have screamed in the basement. Sooooo why didn't 'HE' put the tape on her mouth when 'HE' first entered JonBenet's bedroom?
'HIS' ?original? plan was to sneak upstairs after dark and get JonBenet, when everyone was asleep, and GO OUT the door on the main Really really fast, and run. I am confused.
SOOOOOOOO, he goes up to the second floor and gets her without a peep,
and starts for the basement with her, but w-a-i-t a m-i-n-u-t-e
WELLLLLLLLL, he didn't need the rope cuz on the way to the basement
she was gonna eat some pineapple first then they go to the basement.
Question just where was the ransom note through the entire prepping and
get ready activity? Did 'HE' take the note on the way upstairs or put
it there as he came down carrying JonBenet. 'HE' musta been agile, to
have stepped over the note on three steps, carrying his victim rope, tape and the flashlight. This is one muddled up perp, to have pulled this all off. The
note had no wrinkles in it, no fingerprints either. Plus IF IF IF he
was carrying a flashlight up and down while carrying JonBenet, and the
note. HOW did 'HE' get up the stairs from the BASEMENT, without the
flashlight? Answer, 'HE' left it on the 'kitchen counter'. JUST when did 'HE' leave the flashlight IN THE KITCHEN, was it when 'they' stopped on the way down from her bedroom, so JonBenet could have some pineapple? Answer, maybe, cuz 'HE' could have turned on the basement stairway light, no one would have seen it on, although the 'neighbor' did see a strange 'moving' light in the kitchen 'that' night.
Question: Exactly 'when' were the batteries changed on 'the' flashlight. Did JR take the flashlight to the airport Christmas Day to peep into the plane on places that needed pre-flight checking. But why wipe the fingerprints off the batteries, or was he wearing gloves when he did the pre-checking? Then how come JR's prints are not on the flashlight at all?
After 'HE' and his 'victim' get to the basement, he decides to create a
garote, and do some stuff of a sexual nature, that 'HE' has done before. Nope, he was gonna take his kidnapped victim to the basement to push her up and out that tiny basement window. Welllllll, heck that won't work cuz once she is in the window well, he cannot get up in there too, what to do what to do, hmmm. I will just kill her, then leave.
Leftover loose end wonderments
NOW keep in mind, 'HE' knows that 'HE' has to carry the tape and rope upstairs, but first he changed the batteries in the flashlight, Mr. Neat whom we have called 'HE' wipes his fingerprints from the flashlight, and notices
pineapple out on the table. Hmmm. Did 'HE' leave the flashlight there
when he changed the batteries, or take it to the basement in his prep
activity. W-a-i-t-a-m-i-n-u-t-e HOW did he know the batteries needed changing, er? Answer: 'HE' didn't, how could he?
NOW then IF IF the pineapple was taken out AFTER the Ramseys returned
home that night and JonBenet had some before she went to bed, why lie
about the pineapple? IF IF she ate the pineapple right after they came
home from the party, what difference would this make in the entire
LE question asking, OR the coverup?
I needed more time to refine this joke of a kidnapping note. Why not just a simple note?
WE/I/Our Group have JonBenet, WE/I/The Group want/s $118,000.00 in UNMARKED BILLS OR she is dead. Do not call anyone, WE/I/The Group will call you at 10:00AM for the pickup.
Now then IF IF IF WE/I/The Group, knew they were attending the Whites Party, they surely knew the vacation plans as well, why not? IF no why not? They were a foreign faction, with high tech equipment, monitoring devices.
IF IF IF the group were real, and IF IF IF the perp was real, WHY, didn't they call at 6:30 AMBEFORE the Ramseys awakened? Wake em up, and like the movie Ransom, SAY on the phone, 'Listen Carefully' WE have your daughter, check it out, we will be in touch?
Feel free to make changes to my outlined activity schedule of our perp.
:boohoo:
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Its an established fact that the perp was in the house for hours and hours, writing notes, kidnapping, and killing.GuruJosh said:
During the writing of the final lines of the ransom note, where the handwriting is NOT disguised AT ALL, the author seems relaxed.
On the one hand, there is the calmness to be in the house while others slept, and the presense of mind to write a ledgible three page ransom note, while not worrying about leaving handwritten evidence behind.
In contrast, you have unusually high levels of violence directed at a child, both in word and deed.
From this you can say that the perp was calmly violent, IOW, a cold blooded killer.
Cold-blooded killers, lacking remorse obviously at the time of the killing, usually feel they can explain and justify their actions. Since the perp left a rambling note, it can be checked for any possible negative explanatory remarks.
I found three possible negative explanatory remarks:
"...but not the country that it serves."
"...do not particularly like you..."
"...not the only fat cat..."
The remark against this country means the perp identifies with a foreign country.
The remark against fat cats, or 'haves', means the perp identifies with those opposed to fat cats, or 'have-nots'.
"We are a group of individuals that represent [a have-not foreign country]?"
Camper
New Member
Nopey nope, imop, it is NOT an established fact that the perp was in the house for hours and hours. IF IF IF as the note would have us believe, the writers were 'from another country', and WANTED MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR JonBenet.
Yet, no money changed hands, and JonBenet was killed. The note is NOT violent it portends violence to JonBenet IF IF IF the Ramseys do NOT follow the instructions outlined in the note.
Ramseys did NOT follow the instructions in the note IN ORDER TO PROTECT JonBenet, they did everything BUT follow the instructions. The note writer was worried about the Ramseys getting their rest, HOW COME?
I quote directly from the note: The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter. Note how it begins I then switches to we HOW COME?
I believe that the note writer was so upset emotionally that the note writer slipped up on that tiny detail, because it belies the whole effort of the note, to make US ALL believe that it WAS a foreign faction.
IF IF IF the note writer ACTED on his own sexual impulses, and disobeyed his orders to KIDNAP JonBenet, we need look no further for the perp, because his COHORTS in crime probably did him in themselves!!
Toltec made a WONDERFUL point about the WHY didn't this foreign faction take Burke instead, since the son is the most valuable to many races of people. HOW COME no further attempts to GET Burke and MORE MONEY? Especially since the FACTION had already killed JonBenet, the Ramseys could be assured any future note writer was INDEED SERIOUS. Hmmm.
Nope, imop, the note was prepared as a cover for a disastrous event in the Ramsey home that night.
.
sissi
Former Member
I believe I posted this in the wrong area.
"At this time, however, we"
"Doing so will only serve to jeopardize "
" of law enforcement agencies "
" respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department."
"who are in possession of compelling facts "
"whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion "
"Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now."
These are quotes from the White's 1998 letter.
I find the way they formed their phrases very similar to the way the ransom note was phrased. The wording may be a bit different, but not much so.
The last statement, rings (to me) It's up to you now John!
Camper did such a nice job with the L&L comparison, I was hoping someone would take a shot at finding the phrases that "match" the ones above.
"At this time, however, we"
"Doing so will only serve to jeopardize "
" of law enforcement agencies "
" respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department."
"who are in possession of compelling facts "
"whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion "
"Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now."
These are quotes from the White's 1998 letter.
I find the way they formed their phrases very similar to the way the ransom note was phrased. The wording may be a bit different, but not much so.
The last statement, rings (to me) It's up to you now John!
Camper did such a nice job with the L&L comparison, I was hoping someone would take a shot at finding the phrases that "match" the ones above.
Camper
New Member
The quotes you provided, sound pretty rambly to me.
A letter that would have been more to the 'point' might have gotten a better result.
Your quotes from Whites letter as follows: My comments in red to each.
"At this time, however, we" Here is one of favorites used "we", why not say 'I' in this instance HE is the letter writer - yes or no ? hmmm.
"Doing so will only serve to jeopardize " Out of context, but he is pushing his opinion of what would or could happen, how does he really know this ?
" of law enforcement agencies "WELLLLLLLLLL, how many were there, name em' all, nebulous at best, imop.
" respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department." WHO is the 'it' he refers to, is it the GJ ? I Camper need to read the entire White letter to get smarter.
"who are in possession of compelling facts " IS HE referring to the GJ ?
"whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion " Sounds like he is trying to use legal language and also PRE determine what would be successful in court or what would not. HOW would he know this for a fact?
"Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now." Again, IF IF I 'Camper' had the support of the people in MY city, HOW could or would I 'Camper' attend to matters NOW with 'the people of My City'? !
Geeze HOW could Gov Romer do the same, would take a lot of leg work er huh, just HOW would a Governor get 'the people' of Boulder to attend to matters NOW? Does Fleet mean the DA's office are they 'the people', or does he mean the BPD are 'the people', or exactly 'which group of people in Boulder, OR does he mean ALL of 'the people' in Boulder. PLUS some of 'the people' in Boulder have moved by now, perhaps to Toledo
IF IF IF Fleet has specific information that could have taken this case into the courtroom to be tried, he should have sent it private courier to the Governor, the FBI, the CBI, and 'the people' - whomever he is referring to. OR OR better yet, he could have made a personal visit to see and speak with the governor then. Course Governor Romer was very very busy playing footsie with a female not his wife, and playing chase cars with the State Patrol, with her in 'his' car.
I suspect, and am totally guessing that HE knows that a certain family member was IN TOWN 'that night' The neighbor SAW him then was told, Nopey, the person HE saw was in GA. Well we can all just keep wondering can't we?
.
A letter that would have been more to the 'point' might have gotten a better result.
Your quotes from Whites letter as follows: My comments in red to each.
"At this time, however, we" Here is one of favorites used "we", why not say 'I' in this instance HE is the letter writer - yes or no ? hmmm.
"Doing so will only serve to jeopardize " Out of context, but he is pushing his opinion of what would or could happen, how does he really know this ?
" of law enforcement agencies "WELLLLLLLLLL, how many were there, name em' all, nebulous at best, imop.
" respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department." WHO is the 'it' he refers to, is it the GJ ? I Camper need to read the entire White letter to get smarter.
"who are in possession of compelling facts " IS HE referring to the GJ ?
"whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion " Sounds like he is trying to use legal language and also PRE determine what would be successful in court or what would not. HOW would he know this for a fact?
"Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now." Again, IF IF I 'Camper' had the support of the people in MY city, HOW could or would I 'Camper' attend to matters NOW with 'the people of My City'? !
Geeze HOW could Gov Romer do the same, would take a lot of leg work er huh, just HOW would a Governor get 'the people' of Boulder to attend to matters NOW? Does Fleet mean the DA's office are they 'the people', or does he mean the BPD are 'the people', or exactly 'which group of people in Boulder, OR does he mean ALL of 'the people' in Boulder. PLUS some of 'the people' in Boulder have moved by now, perhaps to Toledo
IF IF IF Fleet has specific information that could have taken this case into the courtroom to be tried, he should have sent it private courier to the Governor, the FBI, the CBI, and 'the people' - whomever he is referring to. OR OR better yet, he could have made a personal visit to see and speak with the governor then. Course Governor Romer was very very busy playing footsie with a female not his wife, and playing chase cars with the State Patrol, with her in 'his' car.
I suspect, and am totally guessing that HE knows that a certain family member was IN TOWN 'that night' The neighbor SAW him then was told, Nopey, the person HE saw was in GA. Well we can all just keep wondering can't we?
.