Ransom note analysis

[andreww]

I don't believe in the IDI theory, but I take you up on step one:

1) On the Ramsey House thread, one of the members commented how dark the street was at night in front of the house.

2) I don't know how much we've argued that the killing and the ransom note took hours with the killer having full access to the 1st floor and the basement.

3) How would an intruder get out? That would be as simple as using the front door.

As for getting in, that could have happened while they were at the party or after they went to bed. John may have checked all the doors the family normally used, but this house had 6 doors on the first floor. He may have not checked an unlocked door. Entry may have been as easy as turning a doorknob. With everyone in and out of the house for the party, forensic evidence of the entry would have been next to impossible to find.

I can also see why John wouldn't admit to checking all the doors at night. "Oh by the way, I didn't check all the doors that night and so I'm probably inadvertently responsible for my daughter's death." Would you admit that to the police and the press? Could you admit that with your wife sitting next to you?

This case is already complicated enough and there are too many things that point to an "inside job". We don't need to validate John and Smit's theories about the basement window to show how the intruder may have entered/exited.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I agree that an intruder could have gained entry through a locked door. But when cops arrived John told them he had checked all the doors and found them locked. He even went to the garage to check that one from the outside. So if an intruder left through a door he would have had to have had a key and locked it from the outside.

Although the basement window is a possible entry point, police would have found it locked as well. It was three months later that John would announce that he found it wide open and closed and latched it without telling anybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

You seem be making two, incompatible arguments: 1) we should accept Epstein, Wong, etc because of.... and 2.a) we can’t rely on expert testimony so 2.b) we should judge for ourselves. This second argument sort of contradicts your first.

What is reality often contradicts what is ideal, Anti-K.

I'd like to expand on that answer. My arguments are not incompatible or contradictory. If you want incompatible arguments on this issue, I suggest you read what the Ramseys claimed in the Wolf case. They claim handwriting analysis proves they didn't write the ransom letter, but then try to discount the opposing experts by saying that handwriting analysis isn't a science. Even Mike Kane got a laugh out of that one.

No, what I'm trying to do is reform the system, not destroy it. If you'd read the link I gave you, you'd know that.

 

[BBB167893]

Of course, I never said that we don’t need juries anymore, nor did I say anything even close to that.

Oh, forgive.

Haddon refused to release what reports? The BPD reports? You’ve already dismissed the Ramsey experts, so isn’t it the BPD reports that you’re concerned with?

Any of them! Even Hoffman said it: the Ramseys and their team release anything they think is helpful to them: polygraph results, etc. This is the ONE thing they're determined to keep locked away. To illustrate:

Are you blaming Haddon for not releasing those?

I guess you haven't read the depositions of the Ramseys in a while. Darnay Hoffman challenged, outright, Lin Wood to produce those reports to prove that what his side claimed was accurate. Wood said it would be a pleasure to rub them in Hoffman's face. But when Wood approached Haddon for the reports, which Haddon would have, being defense counsel, Haddon refused. Grand Jury secrecy, he said. When the secrecy law was struck down by Judge Roxanne Balin, Wood tried again. Haddon STILL would not give them up, and refuses to this day.

The McKinley quote is nice and all that and I’ve read it before but McKinley doesn’t actually say what Ubowski told the GJ, and she should not have known what he told the grand jury. She merely tells us that he testified. AND, she tells us a version of his opinion (as partly learned through Investigative Sources!). BUT, she doesn’t say anything about what Ubowski told the grand jury.

She knows what he told HER. Check out the interview she did sometime. I think it's the one at the top of the main forum page. Add to that what we know the Grand Jury concluded...

I think this all boils down to either saying that expert opinions are equally unreliable (which means that a layperson’s opinion is even more unreliable) or that some expert opinions are reliable and then set about determining how to determine which ones are reliable.

Precisely my point.

Experts should have to show how they arrived at a conclusion and they should be able to demonstrate the certainty of that conclusion (in each instance Epstein failed IN THIS CASE, perhaps he fared better in other cases).

I'd call that a safe assumption. In his deposition, he said flat-out that this was the first case he'd worked in 30 years where he was not allowed to demonstrate exactly that.

But, factually, I think that the most that RDI will ever get out of a valid assessment of relevant expert opinion is that Mrs Ramsey cannot be excluded as the author. Or, as Thomas used to say in words more or less similar, she was the only person known to be in the house that night that could not be excluded. not such a big deal, really.

Andreww already answered that one for me.

 

[Anti-K]

I'd like to expand on that answer. My arguments are not incompatible or contradictory. If you want incompatible arguments on this issue, I suggest you read what the Ramseys claimed in the Wolf case. They claim handwriting analysis proves they didn't write the ransom letter, but then try to discount the opposing experts by saying that handwriting analysis isn't a science. Even Mike Kane got a laugh out of that one.

No, what I'm trying to do is reform the system, not destroy it. If you'd read the link I gave you, you'd know that.

If you’d like to expand on your answer then please do so.

Never mind what the Ramseys said I Wolf, it has nothing to do with what you said: expert opinion is unreliable; let’s rely on amateur opinion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Oh, forgive.


Any of them! Even Hoffman said it: the Ramseys and their team release anything they think is helpful to them: polygraph results, etc. This is the ONE thing they're determined to keep locked away. To illustrate:



I guess you haven't read the depositions of the Ramseys in a while. Darnay Hoffman challenged, outright, Lin Wood to produce those reports to prove that what his side claimed was accurate. Wood said it would be a pleasure to rub them in Hoffman's face. But when Wood approached Haddon for the reports, which Haddon would have, being defense counsel, Haddon refused. Grand Jury secrecy, he said. When the secrecy law was struck down by Judge Roxanne Balin, Wood tried again. Haddon STILL would not give them up, and refuses to this day.



She knows what he told HER. Check out the interview she did sometime. I think it's the one at the top of the main forum page. Add to that what we know the Grand Jury concluded...



Precisely my point.



I'd call that a safe assumption. In his deposition, he said flat-out that this was the first case he'd worked in 30 years where he was not allowed to demonstrate exactly that.



Andreww already answered that one for me.

For me, the bottom line is this: none of BPD’s experts identified Mrs Ramsey as the author. Say whatever you want about Ubowski, he didn’t identify her, either. And, people who read or were aware of the BPD expert’s conclusion, under oath, agreed that none of those experts identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, and that she “scored” very low.

Everything else on this specific topic (handwriting/expert opinion) is just blah, blah, blah; so what?
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I've made up my mind, so thanks for the time it took you to construct that informative post Dave, but blah blah blah blah.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

And that was sarcasm directed elsewhere Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

If you’d like to expand on your answer then please do so.

Never mind what the Ramseys said I Wolf, it has nothing to do with what you said: expert opinion is unreliable; let’s rely on amateur opinion.
...

AK

I DID expand upon it. You just quoted it. And I did it specifically to show that I am NOT saying what you claim I said. I should think that would be fairly obvious.

 

[BBB167893]

For me, the bottom line is this: none of BPD’s experts identified Mrs Ramsey as the author. Say whatever you want about Ubowski, he didn’t identify her, either. And, people who read or were aware of the BPD expert’s conclusion, under oath, agreed that none of those experts identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, and that she “scored” very low.

Everything else on this specific topic (handwriting/expert opinion) is just blah, blah, blah; so what?
...

AK

Obviously, you and I are of differing viewpoints on this. So I'll make it plain for you. Even if what you say is true, and as I've shown through various posts, that's a GIGANTIC "if," it all comes back to what Epstein said about groupthink and not having the courage to accept the consequences of going with what they truly believed.

The British SAS have a saying: "He who dares, wins." Consider the meaning of that.

 

[BBB167893]

And that was sarcasm directed elsewhere Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were a lot more gentlemanly than I feel like being.

 

[Anti-K]

I DID expand upon it. You just quoted it. And I did it specifically to show that I am NOT saying what you claim I said. I should think that would be fairly obvious.

I did quote you, but nothing in that quote served to expand on anything. You denied that your arguments were contradictory and then you pointed the finger in the Ramsey direction and made some claim against them. So, sorry, if that was somehow supposed to expand upon your two contradictory claims (we should rely on experts Epstein, wong, etc vs we cannot rely on experts), or explain why they’re not contradictory, then I missed it.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I did quote you, but nothing in that quote served to expand on anything. You denied that your arguments were contradictory and then you pointed the finger in the Ramsey direction and made some claim against them.

I wanted to show you a REAL example of contradictory arguments. Clearly, it didn't take.

So, sorry, if that was somehow supposed to expand upon your two contradictory claims (we should rely on experts Epstein, wong, etc vs we cannot rely on experts), or explain why they’re not contradictory, then I missed it.

Damn right you did. If you'd go back a little farther, you'd see that I actually did arrive at a settlement.

Pardon me if I sound a bit testy, Anti-K, but I don't understand this discussion at all. Surely I have made my meaning plain by now! Shall we put it to a vote? I'm game.

 

[andreww]

I think we all know how that vote would go Dave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

I wanted to show you a REAL example of contradictory arguments. Clearly, it didn't take.



Damn right you did. If you'd go back a little farther, you'd see that I actually did arrive at a settlement.

Pardon me if I sound a bit testy, Anti-K, but I don't understand this discussion at all. Surely I have made my meaning plain by now! Shall we put it to a vote? I'm game.

You’re a forum veteran. You shouldn’t be getting “testy” over simple things like this. If I missed how you explained away your contradictory claims (and, I admitted that I might have), then why not just redirect me to the post in question (not a thread; a post).

But, tbh, I don’t think you did explain the contradiction away (we should rely on experts Epstein, wong, etc vs we cannot rely on experts) because you can’t; a contradiction is a contradiction is a contradiction.

As to your meaning, that’s easy to understand, it’s the reasoning, etc behind the meaning that is flawd.
...

AK

 

[blondegiraffe]

i always thought the ransom note sounded really familiar to me. has anyone else seen the 1986 danny devito/bette middler film ruthless people? this is the entire scene of the first ransom call made in the movie. thought it was interesting.... the listen very carefully part and also the "do anything and she dies" part.

Sam Stone: [answers phone] Hello?
Ken Kessler: [voice] Mr. Stone, listen very carefully. We have kidnapped your wife. We have no qualms about killing her and we'll do so at the slightest provocation. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Who the hell is this? Is this some kind of a joke?
Ken Kessler: [voice] I have no patience for stupid questions, Mr. Stone, and I don't like repeating myself! Do you understand?
Sam Stone: [face lights up] All right. I'm sorry, please continue.
Ken Kessler: [voice] You are to obtain a new, black, American Tourister briefcase, Model Number 8-1-0-4. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Yes.
Ken Kessler: [voice] In it, you will place $500,000 in unmarked, non-sequentially numbered $100 bills. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Sure.
[as the conversation goes on, a smile appears on Sam's face, and gets wider and wider... ]
Ken Kessler: [voice] Monday morning at 11:00 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?
Sam Stone: Yes, I do.
Ken Kessler: [voice] You will be watched at all phases of execution. If you fail to appear at the designated time, or if any phase 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?
Sam Stone: I believe so.
Ken Kessler: [voice] 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?
[Sam's grin is about to split his face open]
Sam Stone: Perfectly.

 

[BoldBear]

There are several movie references in the note. They're not word for word, but where they quote hollywood, the writing style clearly changes. If they were stealing from hollywood, they should have at least left citations.

 

[InstantProof]

i always thought the ransom note sounded really familiar to me. has anyone else seen the 1986 danny devito/bette middler film ruthless people? this is the entire scene of the first ransom call made in the movie. thought it was interesting.... the listen very carefully part and also the "do anything and she dies" part.

Sam Stone: [answers phone] Hello?
Ken Kessler: [voice] Mr. Stone, listen very carefully. We have kidnapped your wife. We have no qualms about killing her and we'll do so at the slightest provocation. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Who the hell is this? Is this some kind of a joke?
Ken Kessler: [voice] I have no patience for stupid questions, Mr. Stone, and I don't like repeating myself! Do you understand?
Sam Stone: [face lights up] All right. I'm sorry, please continue.
Ken Kessler: [voice] You are to obtain a new, black, American Tourister briefcase, Model Number 8-1-0-4. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Yes.
Ken Kessler: [voice] In it, you will place $500,000 in unmarked, non-sequentially numbered $100 bills. Do you understand?
Sam Stone: Sure.
[as the conversation goes on, a smile appears on Sam's face, and gets wider and wider... ]
Ken Kessler: [voice] Monday morning at 11:00 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?
Sam Stone: Yes, I do.
Ken Kessler: [voice] You will be watched at all phases of execution. If you fail to appear at the designated time, or if any phase 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?
Sam Stone: I believe so.
Ken Kessler: [voice] 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?
[Sam's grin is about to split his face open]
Sam Stone: Perfectly.

Sam hated his wife, and this cuts to a scene of everyone (police, media, etc) at his house. It's been brought up here before.

 

[Hatfield]

The one and main reason why I think one of the R's wrote the Ransom note was how long it was. It was way too long of a note. Way too much information. Ok another reason is the practice notes. LOL

There is no way a perp would stay in the house and take a long time to write out a long drawn out ransom note and take even more time to practice how it would come out.

My goodness. The ransom note alone points to one of the R's being involved in writing that note and therefore puts them square in the middle of a coverup at a minimum.

I think by the time PR had passed I think most of the public also felt they were involved in some way and with her passing the public was willing to let the crime get shoveled under a rug. Almost like an eye for an eye type of thing. Like Karma took care of it.
Which is also why the BPD has no desire to ever reopen this case.

 

[Snoopster]

The one and main reason why I think one of the R's wrote the Ransom note was how long it was. It was way too long of a note. Way too much information. Ok another reason is the practice notes. LOL

There is no way a perp would stay in the house and take a long time to write out a long drawn out ransom note and take even more time to practice how it would come out.

My goodness. The ransom note alone points to one of the R's being involved in writing that note and therefore puts them square in the middle of a coverup at a minimum.

I think by the time PR had passed I think most of the public also felt they were involved in some way and with her passing the public was willing to let the crime get shoveled under a rug. Almost like an eye for an eye type of thing. Like Karma took care of it.
Which is also why the BPD has no desire to ever reopen this case.

Couldn't agree more. I can't imagine how anyone can think differently about the note. (I know some do, but in my simple mind I just don't understand yet.)

The thing that amazes me the most though, is that LE didn't search the house and the Ramsey's found JBR.

 

[Hatfield]

Couldn't agree more. I can't imagine how anyone can think differently about the note. (I know some do, but in my simple mind I just don't understand yet.)

The thing that amazes me the most though, is that LE didn't search the house and the Ramsey's found JBR.

Yeah, I am guessing that the clout and money that the Ramseys had influenced LE in how they handled those early hours. Like if Mr. Ramsey said I already searched the basement so no need to go searching and tearing up the house, then it probably influenced LE where they basically believed them at first.

LE should have forcibly removed them from the house and put crime scene tape up and then maybe the case would have been solved by Day 2.