I believe the Ramseys are innocent.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
Even John Ramsey said the note sounded childish.

BC, when asked by the NE what she thought about when recalling what happened to JonBenet, Patsy said, "It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child."

How's that for sounding childish?

 

[BlueCrab]

BC, when asked by the NE what she thought about when recalling what happened to JonBenet, Patsy said, "It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child."

How's that for sounding childish?

Yes Ivy, I agree that sounds childish too -- but "pitty-pat" is a typical female childish term.

Typical MALE childish terms might sound more violent and physically threatening, such as:

o "... if you want her to see 1997,"

o "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter."

o "... will result in your daughter being beheaded."

o "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies."

o "If you alert bank authorities, she dies."

o "If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies."

o "You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies."

o "Don't try to grow a brain John."

o "You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult."

0 "Use that good southern common sense of yours."

JMO

 

[Ivy]

BC, I don't think those quotes sound childish. They sound amateurish, yes, because the Ramseys had never written a phony ransom note before and had to rely on lines they'd heard in movies. Peppered throughout the note are Rasmeyisms...fat cat, etc., but many of the lines in the note were straight out of Hollywood. Before you say that Burke and his friends would be more likely to know movie quotes than adults like John and Patsy, thousands of adult MST3K fans, myself included, would disagree.

imo

 

[Spade]

23 MIKE KANE: Have you ever seen "Dirty Harry?"
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Seems like I have. That's an
25 old movie, right?
0346
1 MIKE KANE: Um hmm.
2 JOHN RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE) that it's Clint
3 Eastwood, but I don't remember what it's about or
4 (INAUDIBLE).
5 MIKE KANE: Did you see it before, or had
6 you seen it since?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I haven't seen it since.
8 If I saw it, it was well before.
9 MIKE KANE: Did you see that in a theatre or
10 rented it?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember seeing it.
12 I just remember I know the name and it's Clint
13 Eastwood. Usually what we did was we rented. If we
14 watched a movie we rented them. We watched them at
15 home. We very rarely went to the theater. I'm not
16 sure that I did go to the theater and see "Dirty
17 Harry."
18 MIKE KANE: How often did you rent?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Actually not that often.
20 We had a projection, video thing in our bedroom
21 which would probably used it more frequently when
22 we first got it. But the kids watched, they liked
23 their kinds of movies.
24 The thought was when we rented a movie, we put it
25 in the bedroom so we could all pile in the bed and
0347
1 watch a movie together. But (INAUDIBLE), the kids
2 liked and I liked the ninja movies and Patsy liked
3 something else, so. It was always difficult to
4 rent a movie that appealed to the whole audience.

 

[Islander]

Speaking of movies, while reading the NE book, I came across a response from Patsy that struck me as being odd coming from someone who professes not to be a movie fan. On page 269, Patsy explains how she wants to help in the investigation. She says “Send the guy up the river that did this…” I admit to being a lot older that Patsy, but I haven’t heard that saying “up the river” since black & white movies went out of style.

 

[vicktor]

I've always appreciated what this site has to say about the statistical probabilities of the matching letter combinations.... it's not handwriting analysis, it's a bit different.... Helps to understand those winning powerball odds....

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/index.html

While a bit interesting the analysis isn't really valid. There are a number of reasons for this. Especially the part about the multiplier being 5281 in the final equation. It would appear that (as pointed out by Tipper) the multiplier is 1 or not needed. BTW, using this analysis to look at one suspects handwriting would probably show that it was similar in between 7 and 9 respects. BY doing that the probability that this suspect was the notewriter would be 1/6 to 1/10 or so. Pretty good
, considereing all the circumstantial ways he was connected to the case.

 

[BlueCrab]

Peppered throughout the note are Rasmeyisms...fat cat, etc., but many of the lines in the note were straight out of Hollywood.

Ivy,

I agree, and Burke is a Ramsey, and he loved action movies but Patsy didn't.

Here's another reason I suspect the ransom note was written by a juvenile -- The term "Use that good southern common sense of yours" was used in a serious manner in the note. But when used by adults in the Ramsey family it was a subtle joke, since John is really a northerner. Only a kid would likely fail to get the joke's import.

JMO

 

[Blazeboy3]

It might be that you have "set your mind to a certain outlook" and therefore "you see what you want to see" ... just maybe ???

 

[BlueCrab]

The CBI examiners DID NOT conclude "it was a very low probability" that Patsy wrote the note. Nowhere in ANY document does it say that.

BC, you have GOT to quit posting this misinformation, or so help me, I shall have to strangle you on the spot.

Cherokee,

Getting strangled probably ain't no fun at all. It's a very low probability I'd enjoy that.

You may be right. So far I haven't found the source for my stating "It's a very low probability Patsy wrote the note", but I remember reading it somewhere. I hope I didn't make it up and started to believe it. Or worse, I hope it wasn't a statement from John Ramsey that became a "fact", similar to the ridiculous "the blow could fell a 300 pound man".

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Furthermore, Patsy was the only one they could not EXCLUDE.

You know nothing about the field of handwriting analysis or graphology or you would not make such ridiculous statements.

I don't care if it was Thomas who reported the facts. They are still facts. No one from the Ramsey camp has disputed what Thomas reported regarding the handwriting analysis. If it was false, they'd have made sure everyone would have heard about it.

Cherokee,

I realize that, to some of you, saying things about Steve Thomas is like burning the American flag, but they nevertheless have to be said. Thomas was a phony who followed his own PDI theory to the detriment of the investigation, and lied to support his theory.

During the Thomas deposition in the Wolf v Ramsey lawsuit:


WOOD: "Your understanding there were 73 suspects whose handwriting was analyzed?"

THOMAS: "That was the number."

WOOD: "And of those 73, how many of those individuals were eliminated as the author of the note based on the handwriting analysis itself?"

THOMAS: "I don't know."

WOOD: " ... it is simple when it comes to the question of ELIMINATION, that's simple because that's one of the categories, elimination."

THOMAS: "Right."

WOOD: "And how many of the 73 were eliminated as the author of the note based on the handwriting examples or exemplars?"

THOMAS: "I don't know."

WOOD: "Not many, true?"

THOMAS: "I know that the MAJORITY fell into the no evidence to indicate category."

WOOD: "But they couldn't go to elimination, could they?"

THOMAS: "Again, I don't know."

WOOD: "You don't have any idea?"

THOMAS: "No. As I have previously said on the record, that number is very low."

WOOD: "Did you review the reports on any of the 73?"

THOMAS: "No, I never saw anything like that."

WOOD: "Nor does the CBI do handwriting analysis and reach a conclusion, for example, that 24 of 26 letters of the alphabet are similar. They don't do that, do they, sir? Mr. Ubowski has in fact denied that as being accurate."

THOMAS: "No, I don't know that."

WOOD: "Were you aware that Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note?"

THOMAS: "No. You're telling me this for the first time."


Cherokee, as you can see, the majority of the 73 were not eliminated as the writer of the ransom note. In fact, only a very few were eliminated. Patsy and Burke were among the MAJORITY of the 73 who could not be eliminated. Thomas brazenly lied to support his PDI theory.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

Getting strangled probably ain't no fun at all. It's a very low probability I'd enjoy that.

You may be right. So far I haven't found the source for my stating "It's a very low probability Patsy wrote the note", but I remember reading it somewhere. I hope I didn't make it up and started to believe it. Or worse, I hope it wasn't a statement from John Ramsey that became a "fact", similar to the ridiculous "the blow could fell a 300 pound man".

JMO

You're right, BC ... it'll be no fun at all ... in fact, it probably "will be exhausting, so I advise you to be rested." ;-)

Actually, in light of your post, I may have to give up the idea totally.

I am sincerely glad you are trying to find a source for your statement. It very well could have come from John Ramsey as it sounds like something he might say. As you know, sometimes it's hard to separate fact from fiction in this case.



IMO

 

[Shylock]

Cherokee, as you can see, the majority of the 73 were not eliminated as the writer of the ransom note. In fact, only a very few were eliminated. Patsy and Burke were among the MAJORITY of the 73 who could not be eliminated. Thomas brazenly lied to support his PDI theory.

Not eliminated according to whom BlueCrab, Lin Wood? You're assuming that because Wood asks a question that makes it a fact. That's silly. Wood can ask anything he wants, it doesn't make it reality. In this case Wood was fishing for information, and Thomas wasn't playing along. It doesn't mean or prove anything.

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

I realize that, to some of you, saying things about Steve Thomas is like burning the American flag, but they nevertheless have to be said. Thomas was a phony who followed his own PDI theory to the detriment of the investigation, and lied to support his theory ....

Cherokee, as you can see, the majority of the 73 were not eliminated as the writer of the ransom note. In fact, only a very few were eliminated. Patsy and Burke were among the MAJORITY of the 73 who could not be eliminated. Thomas brazenly lied to support his PDI theory.

JMO

Oh, where to begin.

1. I am not a blind follower of Steve Thomas (or anyone else) in this case. He has faults just like the rest of us, but is not the lying, scheming devil some have made him out to be. He tried to investigate the case and was stymied by a corrupt Boulder DA's office who was in bed with the prime suspects. I had already done my analysis of the ransom note before I ever read Thomas' book, and I do not base my view of the case from what he said. I am not an absolute PDI theorist, but I know the Ramseys were involved.

2. If you think Steve Thomas is such a liar, why are you quoting his deposition answers to me as if they were Gospel? You either believe him or you don't. You can't pick and choose what answers you like. If you think he was lying before, what makes you think he's telling the truth now?

3. I do not interpret this exchange between Lin Wood and Steve Thomas the way you do, and I never will. Steve is "playing dumb" with Lin Wood just as Patsy "played dumb" with investigators. Steve is determined not to give Lin Wood any more case information than he already has.

4. The "no evidence to indicate" (authorship) category is basically the same as the "elimination" category, but Steve Thomas is playing word games with Lin Wood in an effort to keep from giving case information.

5. Thomas says he doesn't know how many people were eliminated, so how how can his later response of "the number is very low" refer to that knowledge? I believe he was referring to the number of people left AFTER the elimination because he states it with "As I have previously said on the record."

6. There may have been a few others who could not be completely eliminated along with Patsy, but they had alibis or other factors that did not make them a suspect. Patsy was the one in the house that night with access and motive to write the ransom note who could not be excluded by experts and investigators.

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Shylock,

Steve Thomas HIMSELF, not Lin Wood, finally admitted the number of suspects among the 73 tested who could be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note was very low.

IOW, most could NOT be eliminated as the writer. Besides, if he didn't know how many were eliminated and not eliminated, how would he know, according to him, Patsy was the ONLY ONE who couldn't be eliminated? Thomas brazenly flipped the CBI's results upside down during his VIP presentation on June 1 and 2, 1998 to suit his theory. Unbelievable!

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

The "no evidence to indicate" (authorship) category is basically the same as the "elimination" category,

There may have been a few others who could not be completely eliminated along with Patsy, but they had alibis or other factors ...

Cherokee,

The "no evidence to indicate" and the "elimination" categories are separate and distinct categories.

MOST of the 73 suspects tested could not be eliminated as the possible writer of the ransom note, not "just a few".

Thomas, during the deposition, was testifying under oath. It's a criminal offense to lie under oath so I tend to believe whatever is finally squeezed out of him during the deposition.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Shylock,

Steve Thomas HIMSELF, not Lin Wood, finally admitted the number of suspects among the 73 tested who could be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note was very low.

Read it again BlueCrab, you're twisting his words--that's not what he's saying.

Wood is asking about the "no evidence to indicate category" versus the "eliminate" catagory. Thomas states that the number of people tested who fell into the "eliminate" catagory was very low, and that most fell into the "no evidence to indicate" category.

Thomas never said that 72 out of the 73 people tested were "eliminated" as the possible author. He stated that out of the 73, Patsy was the only one who showed she could be the author.

You have THREE catagories, BlueCrab - and Patsy is alone in one of them.

 

[Cherokee]

Read it again BlueCrab, you're twisting his words--that's not what he's saying.

Wood is asking about the "no evidence to indicate category" versus the "eliminate" catagory. Thomas states that the number of people tested who fell into the "eliminate" catagory was very low, and that most fell into the "no evidence to indicate" category.

Thomas never said that 72 out of the 73 people tested were "eliminated" as the possible author. He stated that out of the 73, Patsy was the only one who showed she could be the author.

You have THREE catagories, BlueCrab - and Patsy is alone in one of them.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Great post, Shylock. Thank you for stating with clarity what I tried to say earlier ....

>Wood is asking about the "no evidence to indicate category" versus the "eliminate" catagory. Thomas states that the number of people tested who fell into the "eliminate" catagory was very low, and that most fell into the "no evidence to indicate" category.<

As I said before, the "no evidence to indicate (authorship)" is basically the same thing as "elimination" which means 100% elimination. The only difference is the "no evidence" category starts at a 99% chance the writer was not the ransom note writer instead of 100%.

A 100% elimination is very difficult to state, especially when it's obvious the ransom note writer tried to disguise their handwriting. That very fact throws a wrench in the works when trying to determine authorship. Most examiners will err on the side of caution, and put people in the "no evidence to indicate" category even if they are sure a person is not the author. They are not willing to go the extra 1% because at 99%, or 90%, or 85%, etc. it is meaningless. It's obvious the person is NOT the ransom note writer.

In addition, the name of the category "no evidence to indicate" says it all. There is NO EVIDENCE IN THE HANDWRITING TO INDICATE THE PERSON IS THE AUTHOR OF THE RANSOM NOTE. No evidence. No similar traits. No similar loops, or word spacings, or T crossings, or line spacings, or beginning hooks, or ending strokes, etc.

This is why I said "no evidence to indicate" is basically the same as "eliminated."

But Steve Thomas is not going to give Lin Wood the satisfaction of knowing more details regarding the CBI's handwriting analysis results. Wood knows it, and he tries to press for more information, stating and restating the question in various ways over and over again. Thomas dodges him any way he can. It's like two sword fighters ... parry and thrust.

At the end, Thomas stands by what he has "previously said on the record." Lin Wood gets nothing from him to add to his Hunter-given collection of case evidence.


IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Read it again BlueCrab, you're twisting his words--that's not what he's saying.

Wood is asking about the "no evidence to indicate category" versus the "eliminate" catagory. Thomas states that the number of people tested who fell into the "eliminate" catagory was very low, and that most fell into the "no evidence to indicate" category.

Thomas never said that 72 out of the 73 people tested were "eliminated" as the possible author. He stated that out of the 73, Patsy was the only one who showed she could be the author.

You have THREE catagories, BlueCrab - and Patsy is alone in one of them.

Shylock,

Perhaps you had better read it once again my friend. According to Thomas there were very few people "eliminated" as the possible writer. John was apparently one of the few. Most were under the "no evidence to indicate" category, which would have included Patsy and Burke. If the CBI had positively identified anyone as the writer the case would have been solved.

When it comes to Patsy you're making up numbers and loading up this thread with misinformation. Neither Thomas, nor Wood, nor anyone else in this deposition stated anything about "72 out of 73" or that "Patsy was the only one who showed she could be the author". You're drawing on the kind of stuff Thomas has used in the past and what likely caused him to be fired.

In fact, as you know, the CBI had already placed Patsy's 4.0 to 4.5 score (with a 5.0 meaning elimination) as being on the verge of Patsy being eliminated as the writer.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

According to Thomas there were very few people "eliminated" as the possible writer. John was apparently one of the few. Most were under the "no evidence to indicate" category, which would have included Patsy and Burke. If the CBI had positively identified anyone as the writer the case would have been solved.

When it comes to Patsy you're making up numbers and loading up this thread with misinformation. Neither Thomas, nor Wood, nor anyone else in this deposition stated anything about "72 out of 73" or that "Patsy was the only one who showed she could be the author". You're drawing on the kind of stuff Thomas has used in the past and what likely caused him to be fired.

In fact, as you know, the CBI had already placed Patsy's 4.0 to 4.5 score (with a 5.0 meaning elimination) as being on the verge of Patsy being eliminated as the writer.

BlueCrab,
Where are you getting this information?

1) Patsy was not in the "no evidence to indicate" category. Nowhere does either Wood or Thomas say that. In his book, Thomas says she was the ONLY one of 73 people who showed evidence of authorship. (That's where the 72 out of 73 people I quoted came from...)

2)Thomas wasn't fired, he resigned.

3) The CBI never rated Patsy "4.5 out of 5" That crap came from the Ramsey bought and paid for experts. No CBI handwriting experts use any such meaningless scale.

4) You keep pointing out that Patsy was "on the verge of being eliminated as the writer", but you manage to overlook that TEN experts have all said that Patsy can NOT be eliminated as the author of the ransom note. When TEN experts say a bird can't be ruled out as being a "duck", I think you can pretty much expect it to start quacking.

 

[BlueCrab]

Thomas says she was the ONLY one of 73 people who showed evidence of authorship.

That's exactly what he said. And that is exactly what makes Steve Thomas a flat-out LIAR. The proof he lied is in the excerpts from his deposition noted above in this thread.

NO ONE was identified as being in "the writer" category and there were only a few of the 73 in the "eliminated" category, one of whom was John. MOST of the 73 were in the "no evidence to indicate" category, and that would have included Patsy and Burke.

Thomas lied about the silly "24 out of 26" coming from Ubowski, and Ubowski had to publicly deny it. Thomas also lied about quoting Ubowski as saying Patsy wrote the ransom note, and Ubowski had to publicly deny that too.

Thomas' problem seemed to be that he had no homicide experience and thought he was still dealing with some scum of the earth druggies whom he could lie to and get away with it. IMO his lies in support of his personal "Patsy Did It" theory slowed down and misdirected JonBenet's murder investigation as much as the Ramseys' lies and foot-dragging did.

JMO