The ransom note

[Jayelles]

Wow, countrygirl: the similarites between the ransom note and the movie Ruthless People is simply incredible! (see #31 post on this thread).
Has this ever been discussed here before?
Hmm, seems that the 'small foreign faction' were avid moviegoers.

I believe that the panicked perp in her adrenaline rush wildly threw together into that ransom note what she remembered from kidnapping movies.

I've never seen a post linking the Ruthless People ransom note to the Ramsey ransom note.

That is interesting.

(Does this put Huey and Duey in the frame? ;-))

 

[aussiesheila]

Cause of death is asphyxia by stragulation, no mention of a ligature. It's possible she was manually strangled, or strangled by someone twisting her shirt tight round her neck as well as being possible it was with the "garotte."

Coroner Meyer noted there was a lack of damage to the front of JonBenet's neck - no fractures of the hyoid or thyroid cartileges. No damage to the cricoid cartileges in the trachea. The tongue showed no damage or injury. There was no hemorrhaging in the so-called "strap" muscles of the neck.

Nuisanceposter, I don't think these autopsy findings you listed mean that she couldn't have been strangled with the ligature that was found around her neck. I think the findings indicate that she was strangled very slowly as opposed to a sudden strangulation which would be expected to cause fracturing of the cartilage. Slow strangulation with that ligature could have killed her without causing damage to the front of the neck IMO.

 

[Camper]

Nopey nope not discussed here before to my memory!!

This link will disturb yer socks go to - http://feedmyego.com/movies/R/RuthlessPeople1986.html

"For starters, they (this is referring to the producers/writers of the movie) didn't write it. Dale Launer adapted the O. Henry short "The Ransom of Red Chief"
from a single kidnappers-intimidated- by-victim plot into a delightful farce packed with, well, ruthless people. "

Camper says, The preceding link refers to the PRODUCERS of "Ruthless People". First of all to have the 'plot' of the Ramsey kidnapping note so CLOSELY matching the MOVIE PLOT is UNCANNY. First of all the MOVIE does not have a note, all transactions are on the PHONE. I dug out my movie last night and rewatched it and MY JAW fell to my knees when the realization struck me. The movie was made in 1986 and I bought it when it was released for public purchase.

Burke would have been about one year old then when the movie came out.

BUT I am guessing that PR MAY have read the original O'Henry book, called "The Ransom of Red Chief", OR IF IF she didn't I am guessing that John did, IF IF as I recall he was the one who had mystery books on his book shelf and was the reader of mystery books, someone help me out here???

That O'Henry book sounded to ME (color me nuts) like a title that HE might have read. O'Henry died in 1910.

Another thought that is crossing my mind is wondering if PERHAPS Burke or John Andrew Ramsey had an interest in Indians and either of them had read it in school.

[size=+2]To follow the Ramsey ransom note in such detail, would just about have to have had the writer sitting and reading the book, and pre writing the ransom note, MOO.[/size]

So some big questions

a. Who in the family had read the O'Henry book?
b. Was this book in the Ramsey collection of books?
c. Does this book show up as a required reading for any class that a Ramsey might have taken in school, or college - book report, journalism class written review, er, hmmm[/b]

Someone on line here has to go get this book '"The Ransom of Red Chief", I am getting ready for a BIG trip very soon, to DC, and life is getting in my way now. I had read a couple of O'Henry books when younger, but NOT this one.[/b]

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0377958/bio = You will find a biography for famous author O' Henry at this link!!

My consensus, the note was pre written OR had been involved in a complex school project by a Ramsey, ie written review of the book in college, or someone in the family HAD the book handy WHILE PRE writing the note BEFORE the murder.

MOO

Be interesting to discover whether B's school had

a. been studying Indians,
b. Had a list of required reading for study of Indians.
c. Was there a recommended reading list in distribution just prior to Christmas 1996?

---Yep accidentally hitting a person TWICE at such a young age, sounds like sibling rivalry. Been there done that.

.


DID PR just recopy the original note, with her special artistic abilities to disguise the writing?

.

 

[Camper]

Go here, dug this up after I posted above.

READ ---------

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/ohenry/bl-ohenry-ransomred.htm

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Cause of death is asphyxia by stragulation, no mention of a ligature. It's possible she was manually strangled, or strangled by someone twisting her shirt tight round her neck as well as being possible it was with the "garotte."

Coroner Meyer noted there was a lack of damage to the front of JonBenet's neck - no fractures of the hyoid or thyroid cartileges. No damage to the cricoid cartileges in the trachea. The tongue showed no damage or injury. There was no hemorrhaging in the so-called "strap" muscles of the neck.

The ligature left a deep furrow around JBR's neck. Beginning at the furrow is a large hemorrhage. This establishes that JBR was strangled with the cord while she was still alive.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I said that's possible.

My exact words were, "It's possible she was manually strangled, or strangled by someone twisting her shirt tight round her neck as well as being possible it was with the 'garotte.'"

I'm not denying that she could have been strangled with the garotte. In fact, I think it looks like she was. I'm also not discounting that she could have strangled another way.

 

[BBB167893]

If I may?

It might not be as black and white as all that. Strangulation is a funny thing. With certain materials, it can be more subtle.

For now, for the sake of agument, let's say that the garrote as found was used as the strangling weapon. If the knot was a noose knot, it really doesn't take that much pressure. Add to that the cord itself might not let the pressure off very easily. Like a snake, it might lock into position. That could have happened.

OR

Let's try something I did. If the cord was taken as a raw cord and the ends pulled behind the neck, it would be exceedingly simple. I did this with myself and the help of a trusted friend, and came up with an interesting result.

Not only that, but the garrote as seen would be difficult to put on a fighting child. And lastly, the pressure was greatest in front, which suggests to me that the cord was pulled from behind. The one who did this couldn't even look her in the face. Now, does anyone think that a vicious sex criminal would have a sudden attack of conscience?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not only that, but the garrote as seen would be difficult to put on a fighting child. And lastly, the pressure was greatest in front, which suggests to me that the cord was pulled from behind. The one who did this couldn't even look her in the face. Now, does anyone think that a vicious sex criminal would have a sudden attack of conscience?

The evidence suggests the garrote was put on a sleeping child, not a fighting child. And lastly, the claim that a more reluctant child murderer will stand behind their victim while denying them air is yet another nonexistent rule.

 

[Brefie]

The evidence suggests the garrote was put on a sleeping child, not a fighting child. And lastly, the claim that a more reluctant child murderer will stand behind their victim while denying them air is yet another nonexistent rule.

Rather like the rule that says if you haven't murdered before, you didn't do it this time.

Our prison's are just FULL of none murderers and of course no one was ever actually murdered because there is never a first time.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

The evidence suggests the garrote was put on a sleeping child, not a fighting child.

Her being asleep when the garotte was introduced does not account for the pineapple. The Rs say she was asleep, yet she ate some of the pineapple from the bowl in the breakfast room. ST's book says the pineapple in her intestines was consistent with the pineapple in the bowl right down to the rind.

 

[BBB167893]

The evidence suggests the garrote was put on a sleeping child, not a fighting child. And lastly, the claim that a more reluctant child murderer will stand behind their victim while denying them air is yet another nonexistent rule.

Never suggested otherwise. That garrote was obviously not used on a fighting child.

Nonexistant rule? Maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Solace]

If I may?

It might not be as black and white as all that. Strangulation is a funny thing. With certain materials, it can be more subtle.

For now, for the sake of agument, let's say that the garrote as found was used as the strangling weapon. If the knot was a noose knot, it really doesn't take that much pressure. Add to that the cord itself might not let the pressure off very easily. Like a snake, it might lock into position. That could have happened.

OR

Let's try something I did. If the cord was taken as a raw cord and the ends pulled behind the neck, it would be exceedingly simple. I did this with myself and the help of a trusted friend, and came up with an interesting result.

Not only that, but the garrote as seen would be difficult to put on a fighting child. And lastly, the pressure was greatest in front, which suggests to me that the cord was pulled from behind. The one who did this couldn't even look her in the face. Now, does anyone think that a vicious sex criminal would have a sudden attack of conscience?

I agree with you Dave. In PM/PT, Schiller has Smit saying as he demonstrates the strangulation (Kris Kristopherson) that the killer was looking at her JB, and therefore he didn't think that Patsy could have done that.

I did not get the impression from reading everything that the killer was looking at JB. I got the impression that it was done from behind as you suggest.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Her being asleep when the garotte was introduced does not account for the pineapple. The Rs say she was asleep, yet she ate some of the pineapple from the bowl in the breakfast room. ST's book says the pineapple in her intestines was consistent with the pineapple in the bowl right down to the rind.

How does a garrote placed around JBR's neck in her bedroom not account for the pineapple?

 

[Solace]

How does a garrote placed around JBR's neck in her bedroom not account for the pineapple?

Since we know she ate the pineapple, probably when she got home, does anyone have any theory on why the Ramseys are denying this?

 

[Old Broad]

Ever see the movie Ruthless People and notice the similarity?

RUTHLESS PEOPLE SCRIPT (Touchstone/Disney 1986)

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/ruthless-people-script-transcript-bette.html

Mister Stone. Listen very carefully.
We have kidnapped your wife.
We have no qualms about killing and will do so at the slightest provocation.
Do you understand?

I have no patience for stupid questions, Mister Stone, and I don’t like repeating myself. Do you understand?

You are to obtain a new, black, American Tourister briefcase. Model number eight-one-o-four. Do you understand?

In it you will place five hundred thousand dollars in unmarked, non-sequentially numbered one-hundred dollars bills. Do you understand?

Monday morning, at eleven A.M., you will proceed, with case in hand, to Hope Street Plaza and wait for a phone to ring. You will receive further instructions then. Do you understand?

You will be watched at all phases of execution. If anyone is with you, or if any action is not carried out to our complete satisfaction, it will be considered an infraction of the rules, and your wife will be killed. Do you understand?

If you notify the police, your wife will be killed. If you notify the media, she will be killed. If you deviate from our instructions in any way whatsoever, she will be killed. Do you understand?

Ruthless People is a favorite of mine.
One thing I've always wondered about with there being so much in the ransom note about being watched and how JonBenet would be killed if they called the authorities, they seem to not have hesitated to do just that along with contacting everyone else they could think of. In no time at all there were tons of people coming to the house. Was there anything said by the Ramseys about trying to keep their contact with police low key?
In the movie Ruthless People Danny Devito was quick to call the police because he wanted the kidnappers to do exactly what they had threatened, kill his wife.

Old Broad

 

[rashomon]

My consensus, the note was pre written OR had been involved in a complex school project by a Ramsey, ie written review of the book in college, or someone in the family HAD the book handy WHILE PRE writing the note BEFORE the murder.

Or after the murder, someone in the family who had read the book quickly got it to help the perp to compose her note. Or the perp herself knew the book (as a jounalism major, Patsy certainly was well-read).

 

[BBB167893]

I agree with you Dave. In PM/PT, Schiller has Smit saying as he demonstrates the strangulation (Kris Kristopherson) that the killer was looking at her JB, and therefore he didn't think that Patsy could have done that.

I did not get the impression from reading everything that the killer was looking at JB. I got the impression that it was done from behind as you suggest.

Since the thing was tied behind her, I'd say it's a good bet.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Since we know she ate the pineapple, probably when she got home, does anyone have any theory on why the Ramseys are denying this?

How can the R's be denying something that is only supposed? The idea that JBR ate pineapple when she got home is only a supposition.

 

[BBB167893]

How can the R's be denying something that is only supposed? The idea that JBR ate pineapple when she got home is only a supposition.

Semantically, that may be true. But the fact that she did eat it at some point is not disputed. And since there was a bowl of it in the house that matched it right down to the rind, I'd say it's a good "supposition."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Semantically, that may be true. But the fact that she did eat it at some point is not disputed. And since there was a bowl of it in the house that matched it right down to the rind, I'd say it's a good "supposition."

That she ate pineapple is evidenced by the autopsy. At what point that night, and where she was that night when she ate it, isn't resolved. I'd guess it was in the basement.