this is my opinion of course

[ICU]

Gee ICU, for someone who claims that they don't know every part of this case, you sure do seem hell bent on bashing Fleet White. Rather unusual for someone who hasn't been on top of the case for very long.

What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?

Hmmmmmm....I do believe we have met before.

Hello Barbara,

We have never met before, because if we did I sure as hell would not forget you.
You are right, I was not very well informed about the case when I started, but it does not take long to familiarize your self with it.

I usually try to think outside the box, when I read about this stuff, because there is too much crazy conjecture out there. I have to think on my own.
I was dumping on Fleet because to me he seemed a bit suspicious.
You said “What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?” well he was a friend of the Ramsey’s and had a key and went out with them, I’m sure he was invited down to the wine cellar with John at one time or another, and does know were the light switch is. Haven’t you ever been invited over to a friends house and they showed you around, seems like the thing to do, in a social gathering, at least once.

_______________
IMO


_______________
IMO

 

[ICU]

The door was latched - no reason to think she was in the wine cellar. The sun wasn't out yet either - still dark. The light switch was set back and FW had never been in there before.

Officer French didn't even open the door to look in.

Also, if you've seen the layout of the "wine cellar" - JonBenet was not in a clear path by the door.

Interesting that French didn't notice the broken window....

You said "FW had never been in there before." How do you know that?
Is it because he said so? You can't be that trusting in people, are you?

 

[ICU]

The real reason the Ramseys had a fallout with the Whites was because the Whites knew who was responsible for the death of their daughters best friend.

One instance is when Priscilla White confronted Patsy by telling Patsy that she knows a thing or two about a thing or two. What was Patsy's response?

NONE.

Early on in the investigation, the Ramseys had their pit bull Stine keep watch and keep the Whites away from them.

The Fernies no longer have contact with the Ramseys. Remember Barbara Fernies observation of Patsy? Barbara said that it was she who mourned more than Patsy did.

You said “The real reason the Ramseys had a fallout with the Whites was because the Whites knew who was responsible for the death of their daughters best friend.” Assuming that they were referring to the Ramseys, as the responsible parties, well the only way that they could be that certain is if they were there at the time, other wise it is just conjecture.
_______________
IMO

 

[little1]

You're kidding right? The answers to your questions should be obvious to you. The kidnapping was staged to point the crime outside the house. And why would they even TRY to get the body out of the house and take the chance of being seen by someone.

If you had a dead kid on your hands and couldn't leave your house, just what would YOU do?

Um, not write a 3 page ransom note and hide her body in the basement. It's got to be one or the other. Can't be both. I think we all have heard stories of people moving bodies in the middle of the night. Ever heard of plastic garbage bags? There are lots of ways to get a body out of a house without being seen, especially in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. You guys have to be kidding right? I live in Greenville, Sc, a couple of years ago a guy beat his girlfriend to death, wrapped her body in an air mattress and proceeded to drag her across a heavily traveled road at about 7:30 in the morning. People stopped to ask him if he needed help, several people actually, one of those folks noticed that the mattress was trailing blood behind it. Needless to say, this guy was caught. But I think we all know there are PLENTY of ways to get a body out of a home without being noticed.

I have a question, though.....
I have read that no one noticed any unusual lights or flashlight beams, anything like that on the night of the murder.
> How could someone, even being familiar in the house, wirte a 3 page ransom note in the dark. We can assume that another person held the flashlight for them, but why not cut a light on? It is obvious that some sort of thinking went into this note, and they took their time writing it and possibly hiding the handwriting. So how can you do that in the dark?

 

[little1]

Gee ICU, for someone who claims that they don't know every part of this case, you sure do seem hell bent on bashing Fleet White. Rather unusual for someone who hasn't been on top of the case for very long.

What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?

Hmmmmmm....I do believe we have met before.

Lots of people here bash the R's. they bash Lou SMit, they bash DA Hunter, why is Fleet any better?

What makes you so certain he didn't know where the light switch was?

 

[Barbara]

Some have responded rather interestingly, and I’m surprised that I have not been torn to shreds, but there is still time yet, not all the votes are in. This is why I think that it was an intruder, now this is my opinion, There was no evidence of forced entry, you can exclude the cellar window because it was found to be too small for a person to fit into with out getting hurt, there is a window well there and no disturbance of dust was found. Now someone would have to have a key, because even if the alarm was not activated or not working, John would have at least locked the door. It is known that a few people had copies of the keys, John let people he knew use his house when they were away. One of the so called friend of John’s let himself in through the front door, he knew that the alarm was not activated, because John would have told his friends with a key that the alarm is not functional, now this intruder knows were JonBenet is sleeping, this person may have had fantasies about her, this is not a transient because of the neighborhood. This is an educated person, with a fantasy, what time of the night this happened who knows? The intruder goes to the girls room and picks her up, she awakes IMO and recognized the intruder and was not alarmed, I do not think that the intruder planned to kidnap the child but to for fill the fantasy, the murder was commited because the intruder would be identified, JonBenet would not want to be near this person again and would have alerted people that something was wrong, so the murderer had to finish his crime, besides what better way to cover up your crime than to leave the body in the parents basement, so the intruder may have offered her the pineapple to keep her calm, most pedophiles are loving to the victims they are going to violate it helps with the fantasy, so they go to the cellar, now why would JonBenet just follow the intruder to the cellar? Well if the pedophile was good at it, he could have said anything to keep her calm and convince her to go along with him, this is a six year old girl whom is trusting this intruder. I have read about different kinds of killings of children by their mothers and what I have read is, they would just kill them by drowning, stabbing, poison, suffocation, etc…, it was quick and simple, look at the way JonBenet was murdered, with ligatures, knots that slipped to strangle, ligatures on the wrist, the ligature around the neck was not only designed to tighten, it also had a paint brush handle, which the end of the ligature was wrapped around it. All this is time consuming and methodical, I believe that the blanket was used to stop her from kicking, (and the tape to keep her quiet, so why bother if both parents were in on it, so what if she started to scream beg for her life), because there was not enough rope for her legs, I read that some one suggested that the paint brush was used as a pull like on a lawn mower. To the intruder the rope around the paint brush means something to them in his fantasy, this was not a functional device as it was a fantasy, you could pull the rope without the paint brush handle, because the murder was not straight forward in the way most mother have killed their children, this crime was committed with fantasy. The ransom note needs to be looked at real carefully, I do not believe it was written by Pat Ramsey. This is my opinion and I’m hoping that I can have an opinion without being crucified for it. Does anyone remember the mother and father in Australia, a few years back, they said that their baby was carried off by wild dogs. Now the only thing that the public were noticing was that she did not seem to be grieving hard enough for her child, so they thought that she did away with her own child, the woman said that she just could not carry on the way the public thought she should, as it turns out they found her child, the child was found to have been devoured by the wild dogs, It was a common thing for children to be carried off by wild dogs in that part of the country, but the public was on a witch hunt.

_______________
IMO

Why would you assume, being "new" and all to the case and forums, that you would be crucified/torn to shreds, etc. for your opinion? As far as John's "so called" friend, who did you have in mind?

As far as the woman in Australia, yes, I am familiar with the story. I am familiar with many stories where innocent parents are accused of things they have not done. I don't believe that is happening in this case.

There was no forced entry because the "perp/s" were already inside.

There were no obvious signs of an intruder because there was no intruder.

I take the knowledge of this case, read all the forums, books, etc. and then when others try to make this case more convoluted, I realize that sometimes, just sometimes, things are exactly as they seem, plain and simple and in this case, for me, it is simple. The family is involved in this murder.

 

[Shylock]

The ransom note needs to be looked at real carefully, I do not believe it was written by Pat Ramsey. This is my opinion and I?m hoping that I can have an opinion without being crucified for it.

You need to take a serious look at the evidence file listed below in my signature. You will be able to see with your own two eyes that exemplars of Patsy's known handwriting were found to match virtually every letter in the ramsom note. Forget what the dueling experts say, engage your own eyes and brain to find the truth.

Then you need to face the reality that it would be totally impossible for any unknown MALE intruder to break into someone's house, and have handwriting that matches the FEMALE of the house's handwriting in so many examples. You would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening THREE TIMES then that ever happening.

Once you wake up to the fact that Patsy wrote the note you'll also realize that there was no intruder. There are ONLY three legitimate suspects in this case--and all three have "Ramsey" for a last name.

 

[Shylock]

Um, not write a 3 page ransom note and hide her body in the basement. It's got to be one or the other. Can't be both. I think we all have heard stories of people moving bodies in the middle of the night. Ever heard of plastic garbage bags? There are lots of ways to get a body out of a house without being seen, especially in the dead of night on Christmas Eve.

Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. One or the other? They work hand-in-hand. If you can't get the body out of the house, you HAVE TO point the crime outside the house.

I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?

You say it was the "dead of night" on Christmas, but you are not considering the reality of the timing. It was Christmas, the vast majority of people DID NOT have to be up early for work the next morning. People were out late at Christmas gatherings. Some people, like the Ramseys, might even have been getting up very early for a Christmas trip. Can you imagine if John Ramsey tried to drive away from his home at 3 A.M. and just happened to run into someone from down the block out walking their dog because they had just gotten home from a party? How would he explain THAT one!

Trying to remove a body from a house in the middle of night is a VERY stupid thing to do.

 

[little1]

Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. One or the other? They work hand-in-hand. If you can't get the body out of the house, you HAVE TO point the crime outside the house.

I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?

You say it was the "dead of night" on Christmas, but you are not considering the reality of the timing. It was Christmas, the vast majority of people DID NOT have to be up early for work the next morning. People were out late at Christmas gatherings. Some people, like the Ramseys, might even have been getting up very early for a Christmas trip. Can you imagine if John Ramsey tried to drive away from his home at 3 A.M. and just happened to run into someone from down the block out walking their dog because they had just gotten home from a party? How would he explain THAT one!

Trying to remove a body from a house in the middle of night is a VERY stupid thing to do.

What I am saying makes perfect sense, it just doesn't fit into your scheme. I understand one would want to point a finger in any direction other than at themselves, writing a 3 page ransom note then hiding the body in the basement IS NOT the way to do it. Does nayone here think it is? It seems irrational to me. In all honesty, they could have put her body outside, maybe that would make it more "realistic."

Also, he could easily explain leaving his own home on that night. Who says he needs to dump the body then, why not hide it in his car? He did leave the house didn't he? (At some point?)

ALso, I would like to know what you think of the "lighting" question I asked earlier.

How does one create such staging in the dark? We have a 3 page ransom note, we have garrotes, etc. How does one do that in the dark?

 

[little1]

I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?
QUOTE]

Why would someone need an excuse to exit or enter their home? Christmas would give anyone a decent reason, "I was taking out all the extra boxes and trash." I know that on Christmas when I was a kid, my parents put all my toys together--and got rid of all the junk that night--so it wasn't laying around everywhere.

 

[BlueCrab]

You need to take a serious look at the evidence file listed below in my signature. You will be able to see with your own two eyes that exemplars of Patsy's known handwriting were found to match virtually every letter in the ramsom note. Forget what the dueling experts say, engage your own eyes and brain to find the truth.

Then you need to face the reality that it would be totally impossible for any unknown MALE intruder to break into someone's house, and have handwriting that matches the FEMALE of the house's handwriting in so many examples. You would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening THREE TIMES then that ever happening.

Once you wake up to the fact that Patsy wrote the note you'll also realize that there was no intruder. There are ONLY three legitimate suspects in this case--and all three have "Ramsey" for a last name.

Shylock,

There is a chance that Patsy wrote the ransom note, but the "proof" you provide at the bottom of each of your posts is not convincing. Just about everyone in the U.S. was taught in schools using the same textbooks and the same lesson plans. Therefore, we all write similarly. The exemplars in your "proof" could likely be matched by tens of millions of U.S. citizens, perhaps even including you and me.

By being selective in choosing what letters to use for comparison purposes, you or I could be accused of writing the ransom note.

That's why expert handwriting examiners look not only to how often letters MATCH when comparing exemplars but, more importantly, how often they DO NOT match.

The six professional examiners used by the CBI concluded it was highly unlikely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

That's why expert handwriting examiners look not only to how often letters MATCH when comparing exemplars but, more importantly, how often they DO NOT match.
The six professional examiners used by the CBI concluded it was highly unlikely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

There is a BIG problem with the six experts you mention above. They were either hired by the Ramseys and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. Or, they did what they do best and exactly what you just said; they compared Patsy's known writing to the ransom note and based their conclusion on how many letters matched versus those that didn't. That was their mistake.

That type of handwriting analysis would make a lot of sense, EXCEPT that the ransom note is in DISGUISED handwriting. The only time the exemplars in the note match Patsy's are when she slips up and doesn't disguise her writing well enough. So naturally the majority of the note doesn't match Patsy. Only Gideon Epstein approached the note as being disguised writing, and he is 100% sure Patsy wrote it. How do we know the note is in disguised writing? Because the author is not consistant in the disguise. Efforts to camouflage letters in one area of the note are not consistant in other areas.

When you establish only the disguised note exemplars that match Patsy, it's obvious that a male stranger couldn't possibly have made that many matches. Furthermore, some of the most damning evidence is Patsy switching back and forth between upper and lower case in certain words, and switching the normal and manuscript style letter "a". How many male intruders do you actually think would have that in common with the mother of the child they kill?

 

[little1]

There is a BIG problem with the six experts you mention above. They were either hired by the Ramseys and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. Or, they did what they do best and exactly what you just said; they compared Patsy's known writing to the ransom note and based their conclusion on how many letters matched versus those that didn't. That was their mistake.

That type of handwriting analysis would make a lot of sense, EXCEPT that the ransom note is in DISGUISED handwriting. The only time the exemplars in the note match Patsy's are when she slips up and doesn't disguise her writing well enough. So naturally the majority of the note doesn't match Patsy. Only Gideon Epstein approached the note as being disguised writing, and he is 100% sure Patsy wrote it. How do we know the note is in disguised writing? Because the author is not consistant in the disguise. Efforts to camouflage letters in one area of the note are not consistant in other areas.

When you establish only the disguised note exemplars that match Patsy, it's obvious that a male stranger couldn't possibly have made that many matches. Furthermore, some of the most damning evidence is Patsy switching back and forth between upper and lower case in certain words, and switching the normal and manuscript style letter "a". How many male intruders do you actually think would have that in common with the mother of the child they kill?

Well, I am sure glad those experts have the likes of you to correct them! WHat are you doing on a message board!? You could be working cases!

 

[Shylock]

Well, I am sure glad those experts have the likes of you to correct them! WHat are you doing on a message board!? You could be working cases!

Stick around, you might learn something...

 

[Barbara]

Stick around, you might learn something...

Not likely Shylock.

 

[Barbara]

little1, I have read your replies and I am convinced that you are a good sleuth, and do not follow a witch hunt that have no substance in it. I believe that hard questioning and logical thinking, not innuendos conjectures and wild guesses, I can not believe the steadfast belief of ones guilt on nothing else but feelings about them, none of which can be proven. They seem to like the sound of it and that is all they are going on. Now watch this, I will be attacked by all the ones I’m talking about, it never fails.

_______________
IMO

Witch hunt? No substance? Innuendos? Conjectures? Wild guesses? Nothing else but feelings? and my personal favorite....."THEY"?

You keep predicting attacks, and slams, and all these other terrible things that have yet to happen to you for voicing your opinion. Why do you feel the need to be offensive about others' opinions?

Why do you say that? ...especially since you are so "new" to the case and forums.

You don't expect anyone to believe this do you? We have all met you before, just not with that hat and not on this forum.

You give yourself away with every post that insults us here at WS...especially the "they" part. Just who is "they"?

 

[little1]

Stick around, you might learn something...

I doubt I will learn anymore here on this website about handwriting analyses than I could in college? Wow! WHy should I go to college! I have a few websites I can study, right? Puh lease!

 

[little1]

Not likely Shylock.

I wonder why anyone would not post here thinking they would get attacked? Hmm? Just because we all don't agree with you, and your kind, doesn't mean we are wrong. Keep in mind, this case is still open.

 

[Shylock]

WHy should I go to college! I have a few websites I can study, right?

Ya got that right! Hey, before reading here you didn't even know that Smit was a common crook who stole case evidence when he left the job.
So you already know more today than you did yesterday. Keep up the good work!

 

[Barbara]

I wonder why anyone would not post here thinking they would get attacked? Hmm? Just because we all don't agree with you, and your kind, doesn't mean we are wrong. Keep in mind, this case is still open.

And my "kind"? Just what kind is that.

Funny, you didn't mention anything when ICU was insulting my "kind". HMMMM