Ransom note analysis

[Springrain]

I agree. Why would an actual ransom note be so long? It'd cut to the chase, so to speak, be more like "We have JonBenet. Give us XXXX amount of money or we'll kill her by xx:xx." No reason to add all that extra stuff. Patsy probably wrote it for theatrical effect. Not to mention, it was written in a journalistic style, in handwriting similar to hers (ambidexterity?)

 

[pukasonqo2]

this is what the ransom notes reminds me of:

all elements are there, what they mean and what the total of those elements is meant to represent is a matter open to debate
like the anamorphic skull in this painting, the. note can be seen from different angles and means different things to different people


lupus est *advertiser censored* homini, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[THE BUNK]

I agree. Why would an actual ransom note be so long? It'd cut to the chase, so to speak, be more like "We have JonBenet. Give us XXXX amount of money or we'll kill her by xx:xx." No reason to add all that extra stuff. Patsy probably wrote it for theatrical effect. Not to mention, it was written in a journalistic style, in handwriting similar to hers (ambidexterity?)

Nor does the ransom not need to so specific as to the fact that it is a ransom note. It could easily say:

" we need 100,000 by 8 am or there will be consequences. Be smart!! We will call at 9:30 for instructions"

Nothing in that phrase indicates that it is a kidnapping or that Jon Benet was taken or that she will be killed if the cops are called. In court of law, you could say the note is a request for money to be wired or an account will be closed.

Yet the ransom reiterates so many times that it is a ransom note and that jonbenet will be killed if the cops are called.

 

[Springrain]

Nor does the ransom not need to so specific as to the fact that it is a ransom note. It could easily say:

" we need 100,000 by 8 am or there will be consequences. Be smart!! We will call at 9:30 for instructions"

Nothing in that phrase indicates that it is a kidnapping or that Jon Benet was taken or that she will be killed if the cops are called. In court of law, you could say the note is a request for money to be wired or an account will be closed.

Yet the ransom reiterates so many times that it is a ransom note and that jonbenet will be killed if the cops are called.

Yes, it was very...I don't know the word, it just seemed kind of theatrical. One could easily foresee the consequences without them being directly spelled out. It is obvious what *would* happen in that phrase. The ransom note, in a failed attempt to seem real, restated and restated it so much that it blew the lid even more off.

 

[andreww]

The word you are looking for is "stupid". The cops knew it was fake and that JB was likely dead the moment they read it. And let's see, of all the players, who would you consider to be over dramatic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

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.

There's something else here, too. I hinted at it earlier, but no one picked up. It was what I said about having experience with disguised writing, because the vast majority of "experts" are trained to assess handwriting that is NOT disguised. So, even if, and that's an "if" the size of the Empire State Building, that what we've been told about the expert analyses is correct, that just shows the depth of incompetence among many in the field.

I'll say something else, too. Let's take the classic scenario of contesting a signature on a will. Even allowing that true writing is easier to analyze than printing, I read somewhere that most experts need a MINIMUM of 25 exemplars (samples) to do an assessment. Some of them want as many as 100.

So will Anti-K or anyone else please explain to me how Rile and Cunningham got that many from BOTH John and Patsy, analyzed them in only 3-1/2 hours, and came to their conclusions?!

Lord almighty!

 

[BBB167893]

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

Yep. I think most people understand what I'm saying.

 

[BBB167893]

You’re a forum veteran. You shouldn’t be getting “testy” over simple things like this.

Maybe I shouldn't, Anti-K, but after almost twenty years, my patience has run out.

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).

No need for that. I'll tell you right now. As I see it, the biggest problems are that guild membership has become more important than actual experience and ability, the training methods to get into those guilds are outdated bordering on quaint, and most of all, there's really no way to train someone for disguised writing. I hinted at that earlier when I mentioned Epstein's experience.

Bottom line, Anti-K: until a truly scientific method is introduced that can remove human error from the equation, the only way I can compromise between the contradictions (as you put it) is to emphasize ability and experience over membership in preferred cliques.

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

Really? Just what is the meaning, as you see it? I want to know if you got it right.

 

[TheCuriousFrog]

My take on this is very different from many members here who still cling to the Ramsey theory being that I believe it could have been a member of their church who possibly had a conflict with John. The note is what backs up my beliefs the most.

-"Small foreign faction": A diocese faction. The Episcopal church uses that term.

-Money: The exact amount of John's bonus-a little too obvious if it were Patsy.

-"The men watching over your daughter do not particularly like you": A dead giveaway, but somehow it was completely ignored.

-"Fat cat": A term used in business. Patsy would not think to say that.

-"Good old southern common sense": Something the Ramsey's said often. Why would Patsy use it in pretending to be someone else?

-"Victory!"-Sounds like a religious thing.

-"SBTC" - Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, which was related to the Episcopal church.


Its sad how people have ignored the evidence right in front of them.

 

[TheCuriousFrog]

Also I feel the opposite about the detail of the note. If patsy had done it, right there in the house, and was trying to avoid getting caught, she would have scribbled something out quickly. The real killer was angry at John and wanted him to know it.

 

[THE BUNK]

Also I feel the opposite about the detail of the note. If patsy had done it, right there in the house, and was trying to avoid getting caught, she would have scribbled something out quickly. The real killer was angry at John and wanted him to know it.

1. A short note would not have included who, what, where, how and why of the crime. Something the ransom note provides

2. How do we know that JonBenet's body was meant to be left at the crime scene? If she was supposed to be missing forever, they would need to go through the ransom drop and give a reason why they never called and why she was killed. That's why so much of the letter was dedicated to the ransom directions. This was a process that the writer assumed would happen.

3. You also have to understand that the Ramseys are not expert criminals or expert criminologists. Everything they based this on was what the read in crime novels or saw in movies.

 

[Annapurna]

Why would the bad guy put so much incriminating evidence in that note if they were trying to get away with the crime?! SBTC relating to a real place doesn't make sense to me (much less a church). Why would these church goers kill JB in such a way?

I agree that the R's didn't know what a real RN would look like. PR made one that she thought sounded real scary and convincing. It also "explains" why she is dead, they didn't follow the rules.

After all, in spite of the completely ridiculous note, it did work. It successfully threw off the investigation enough to give them wiggle room & get away with it.

 

[TheCuriousFrog]

Why would these church goers kill JB in such a way?

it.

Like I said, whoever did it, John made them angry. The worst thing you can do to a person is to harm their child. I'm not 100% it was the church , it could have been a colleague, but evidence leans more toward the church.

The evidence does not show that the killer was enraged at Jonbenet, as a matter of fact they probably knocked her out with the flashlight beforehand so she wouldn't have to suffer.

Obviously it wasn't incriminating enough.

 

[InstantProof]

My take on this is very different from many members here who still cling to the Ramsey theory being that I believe it could have been a member of their church who possibly had a conflict with John. The note is what backs up my beliefs the most.

-"Small foreign faction": A diocese faction. The Episcopal church uses that term.

-Money: The exact amount of John's bonus-a little too obvious if it were Patsy.

-"The men watching over your daughter do not particularly like you": A dead giveaway, but somehow it was completely ignored.

-"Fat cat": A term used in business. Patsy would not think to say that.

-"Good old southern common sense": Something the Ramsey's said often. Why would Patsy use it in pretending to be someone else?

-"Victory!"-Sounds like a religious thing.

-"SBTC" - Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, which was related to the Episcopal church.


Its sad how people have ignored the evidence right in front of them.

Well one theory has Patsy acting alone with John not having any idea what is going on- she may have put clues for him to know it is her and to go along with it, such as his bonus and terms they used. The ending tells him to use common sense and that it's up to him now. A lot of terms in the letter do not sound angry at all; "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attaché"... "I advise you to be rested" etc sounds almost motherly outside of the ransom movie dialogue (and an angry person wouldn't have to think about scenes from movies).

 

[icedtea4me]

My take on this is very different from many members here who still cling to the Ramsey theory being that I believe it could have been a member of their church who possibly had a conflict with John. The note is what backs up my beliefs the most.

-"Small foreign faction": A diocese faction. The Episcopal church uses that term.

-Money: The exact amount of John's bonus-a little too obvious if it were Patsy.

-"The men watching over your daughter do not particularly like you": A dead giveaway, but somehow it was completely ignored.

-"Fat cat": A term used in business. Patsy would not think to say that.

-"Good old southern common sense": Something the Ramsey's said often. Why would Patsy use it in pretending to be someone else?

-"Victory!"-Sounds like a religious thing.

-"SBTC" - Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, which was related to the Episcopal church.


Its sad how people have ignored the evidence right in front of them.

1. John's exact bonus was $118,117.50, not $118,000 (DOI, pg 120). The only place in the Ramsey home where the 118,000 appears is in a business ledger where it states that John has liabilities totaling $1,118,000.

2. It was originally written as "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do particularly like you..." and the not was inserted later.

 

[Ringfinger]

John has liabilities totaling $1,118,000.

$1,118,000 in liabilities?!

 

[Ringfinger]

I don't know if people have gone over this (sorry, there is really an overwhelming amount of information and opinions collected over the years here) , but I think the "We respect your business but not the country that it serves" part of the RN is incredibly telling. When killing or kidnapping, why does someone take the time to clarify that the business is OK with them, and no one should let this reflect on the business. "America is awful, we hate the U.S. , but we respect Access Graphics. We just want to be clear about this. We kidnapped your daughter and hence give us money. We win! - Foreigners"

 

[icedtea4me]

$1,118,000 in liabilities?!

Yes. The figure was noted in Thomas's book.

 

[icedtea4me]

I don't know if people have gone over this (sorry, there is really an overwhelming amount of information and opinions collected over the years here) , but I think the "We respect your business but not the country that it serves" part of the RN is incredibly telling. When killing or kidnapping, why does someone take the time to clarify that the business is OK with them, and no one should let this reflect on the business. "America is awful, we hate the U.S. , but we respect Access Graphics. We just want to be clear about this. We kidnapped your daughter and hence give us money. We win! - Foreigners"

It's bussiness, not business. IMO, the note should be left "as is" with no corrections.

 

[Sherwood Park]

Well one theory has Patsy acting alone with John not having any idea what is going on- she may have put clues for him to know it is her and to go along with it, such as his bonus and terms they used. The ending tells him to use common sense and that it's up to him now. A lot of terms in the letter do not sound angry at all; "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attaché"... "I advise you to be rested" etc sounds almost motherly outside of the ransom movie dialogue (and an angry person wouldn't have to think about scenes from movies).

After all this time I still think Patsy wrote the "Ransom Note" all by herself. Every theory has already been posted on here and none has convinced me it is anyone other than her. The note is so over the top I can't imagine an actual kidnapper writing it and I also can't imagine her husband having anything to do with such a ridiculous letter.