Ransom note analysis
- Thread starter Omega
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX Brenna Swindell. 29, Austin, vehicle last seen in Colorado
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
I know this is off topic but I chose to post this in my most active forums instead of the missing forums because I don't think people interested in missing persons need this urging..
I want to urge everyone to take the time to review the missing persons cases in your area. You never know what you know until you know what you don't know
All kidding aside, my brother-in-law disappeared 6 years ago. It has weighed on everyone in the family. Like most families in this awful purgatory, I think we can accept he's most likely dead. However, not knowing what happened and why is very hard, especially for his children. If you can take a little time please help families like mine.
Thank you.
I want to urge everyone to take the time to review the missing persons cases in your area. You never know what you know until you know what you don't know
All kidding aside, my brother-in-law disappeared 6 years ago. It has weighed on everyone in the family. Like most families in this awful purgatory, I think we can accept he's most likely dead. However, not knowing what happened and why is very hard, especially for his children. If you can take a little time please help families like mine.
Thank you.
Folks, at the risk of opening old wounds, I have a few things to get off my chest.
RDI, IDI and FS alike, we've all argued over what the various experts said and which ones should be believed and which ones shouldn't or can't. I'm not out to rehash that whole thing, but rather to try and put all the pieces together.
Now, we've been told ad infinitum about the supposed "4.5 out of 5" Patsy was said to have gotten. Well, it's clear that the police didn't think she was an unlikely writer. But leaving that aside for a moment, let's say that it is true. What does that prove? I mean, no handwriting analyst is God. It's not a true science like DNA or toxicology. As far as I know, there's no computer program that can do it within 99.99 percent accuracy. It's still all subjective. Read my thread here for the other problems with the profession: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226144-An-quot-Expert-quot-Reassessment
So, taking all of that into account, this particular case had a lot of things working against an analysis. For one thing, it was printed, which is more generic than true writing. Block printed at that. Also, it was written with a felt-pen, which notoriously distorts writing. And it was a bleeding pen on top of that. Moreover, as my friend Ames pointed out (AMES! I MISS YOU!), when Patsy gave her samples, she didn't use the same pen that was used to write the RN. The sharpie from the house was used, so it had probably flattened out, which would distort it even more. But the pen in the police station or wherever was likely new, or at least used in a different way. OF COURSE it's going to look at least somewhat different!
Now, add in the things Patsy might have done, consciously or unconsciously, to change her writing. If she'd been wearing gloves at the time, that would have distorted her writing even more. I'm pretty sure she never gave any samples while wearing gloves. I know Darnay Hoffman tried to get her to do exactly that, but it didn't happen. And perhaps most importantly, there's the possibility bordering on likelihood that she could change her writing, which was not known then to the extent it is now. For one, she could write with her left hand, better than she let on. Her exemplars were probably screwed-up, dumbed-down and inside-out six ways to Sunday? But how could anyone prove that, aside from seeing her do it? We know for a fact she did change her writing after the killing: she never used a typescript "a" again.
Look, I can't tell the difference between her examples and the note letters, but that's just me. But even then, it's a question of far more than just the writing itself; it's all the different elements. Whoever wrote it also used her multiple exclamation points, her use of periods between letters in acrostics, her little sayings, her use of motherly terms, her fondness for French-sounding expressions, her style of using typescript "a"s, and on and on. I can see MAYBE one or two of those just by chance, but not all of them. No way.
Just as a PS, I'd like to clear up something else. In the past, I've been accused of making contradictory arguments on this subject. Looking back on it with a calmer head, I guess it can seem that way, so I'd like to set the record straight. It's true, I don't have much faith in the profession of handwriting analysis, and until a mechanized or computerized method is developed that can take human error out of the equation, that's not likely to change. But I'm not looking to destroy the system. I'm looking to reform it. So, until the kind of method I've mentioned is available, I think it would be wise to compromise and do what the judge in Timothy McVeigh's trial did: make it so that all of the analysts can only point out specific similarities and differences, but cannot offer an opinion one way or another.
PPS: 2 percent, I'm pulling for you as hard as I know how.
RDI, IDI and FS alike, we've all argued over what the various experts said and which ones should be believed and which ones shouldn't or can't. I'm not out to rehash that whole thing, but rather to try and put all the pieces together.
Now, we've been told ad infinitum about the supposed "4.5 out of 5" Patsy was said to have gotten. Well, it's clear that the police didn't think she was an unlikely writer. But leaving that aside for a moment, let's say that it is true. What does that prove? I mean, no handwriting analyst is God. It's not a true science like DNA or toxicology. As far as I know, there's no computer program that can do it within 99.99 percent accuracy. It's still all subjective. Read my thread here for the other problems with the profession: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226144-An-quot-Expert-quot-Reassessment
So, taking all of that into account, this particular case had a lot of things working against an analysis. For one thing, it was printed, which is more generic than true writing. Block printed at that. Also, it was written with a felt-pen, which notoriously distorts writing. And it was a bleeding pen on top of that. Moreover, as my friend Ames pointed out (AMES! I MISS YOU!), when Patsy gave her samples, she didn't use the same pen that was used to write the RN. The sharpie from the house was used, so it had probably flattened out, which would distort it even more. But the pen in the police station or wherever was likely new, or at least used in a different way. OF COURSE it's going to look at least somewhat different!
Now, add in the things Patsy might have done, consciously or unconsciously, to change her writing. If she'd been wearing gloves at the time, that would have distorted her writing even more. I'm pretty sure she never gave any samples while wearing gloves. I know Darnay Hoffman tried to get her to do exactly that, but it didn't happen. And perhaps most importantly, there's the possibility bordering on likelihood that she could change her writing, which was not known then to the extent it is now. For one, she could write with her left hand, better than she let on. Her exemplars were probably screwed-up, dumbed-down and inside-out six ways to Sunday? But how could anyone prove that, aside from seeing her do it? We know for a fact she did change her writing after the killing: she never used a typescript "a" again.
Look, I can't tell the difference between her examples and the note letters, but that's just me. But even then, it's a question of far more than just the writing itself; it's all the different elements. Whoever wrote it also used her multiple exclamation points, her use of periods between letters in acrostics, her little sayings, her use of motherly terms, her fondness for French-sounding expressions, her style of using typescript "a"s, and on and on. I can see MAYBE one or two of those just by chance, but not all of them. No way.
Just as a PS, I'd like to clear up something else. In the past, I've been accused of making contradictory arguments on this subject. Looking back on it with a calmer head, I guess it can seem that way, so I'd like to set the record straight. It's true, I don't have much faith in the profession of handwriting analysis, and until a mechanized or computerized method is developed that can take human error out of the equation, that's not likely to change. But I'm not looking to destroy the system. I'm looking to reform it. So, until the kind of method I've mentioned is available, I think it would be wise to compromise and do what the judge in Timothy McVeigh's trial did: make it so that all of the analysts can only point out specific similarities and differences, but cannot offer an opinion one way or another.
PPS: 2 percent, I'm pulling for you as hard as I know how.
BoldBear
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 181
There were 3 exclamation points. They were used in the wrong locations: the opening sentence, the closing sentence and the word "Victory!" Is 3 an overuse? It's almost like the exclamation points were used like quotation marks to open and close the note. Victory is like a salutation. It deserves the exclamation point.
You'd think they'd be used when "she dies", but no. That's odd.
Yes, Patsy is all over the RN. Of course, there's always DocG and so...John. Admittedly, DocG's argument has a hole the size of Texas, but he does a great job at explaining his theory and the quirky details of the case. His mechanics are fairly solid. It was a great starting point for me when I got into this thing.
I'm thinking of becoming the Luna Lovegood of Websleuths. I might be seeing things that really aren't there.
You'd think they'd be used when "she dies", but no. That's odd.
Yes, Patsy is all over the RN. Of course, there's always DocG and so...John. Admittedly, DocG's argument has a hole the size of Texas, but he does a great job at explaining his theory and the quirky details of the case. His mechanics are fairly solid. It was a great starting point for me when I got into this thing.
I'm thinking of becoming the Luna Lovegood of Websleuths. I might be seeing things that really aren't there.
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 14,555
- Reaction score
- 138,864
Patsy Ramsey grew up in West Virginia, and graduated with a B.A. in Journalism. When you look at the note, "factions", it is written by someone who has a flair for writing, and a college degree.
There are probably idiosyncrasies in word usage, sentence structure for people who grew up in Western Virginia.
There are probably idiosyncrasies in word usage, sentence structure for people who grew up in Western Virginia.
StarrChance
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 3,756
I know this is off topic but I chose to post this in my most active forums instead of the missing forums because I don't think people interested in missing persons need this urging..
I want to urge everyone to take the time to review the missing persons cases in your area. You never know what you know until you know what you don't know
All kidding aside, my brother-in-law disappeared 6 years ago. It has weighed on everyone in the family. Like most families in this awful purgatory, I think we can accept he's most likely dead. However, not knowing what happened and why is very hard, especially for his children. If you can take a little time please help families like mine.
Thank you.
2 percent, do you have a thread on your missing brother in law?
singularity
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2015
- Messages
- 727
- Reaction score
- 49
DocG's theory has a hole the size of the Andromeda galaxy. Great job explaining the theory and quirky details? It all falls apart immediately by saying Patsy cant be involved because she dialed 911, everything else gets explained away by John having to "gaslight" Patsy, and if you happen to disagree with his theory, he says you're wrong and you are just focusing on the "morass" of the case.
As far as the ransom note, I agree that its simply too personal for any intruder to have written it....whether it can or cannot be matched to Patsy's writing.
Good observation but it could also be the fact that they were so exhausted at the time they were writing the note that getting rest was on their mind even though they knew they wouldn't be getting any rest any time soon.
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 171
The advise to be "well rested" bit stands out for me because an intruder would assume the letter would be read in the morning. It's also something that adds to "tomorrow" being somewhat vague. Maybe John was sleeping and Patsy was thinking about how he will look rested and she will not? OK, we are following instructions, John is well rested.
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,092
This is so true!
The RN demands the Rs will receive a phone call tomorrow. The reason could be b/c JonBenet was injured earlier than we believe. Hence, the RN includes the word tomorrow b/c it was written before or close to midnight. John took a melatonin and went to sleep. The Coroner did not take a core body temp reading at the CS. It is one reason why we don't know a more precise time of death.
The tomorrow wording also falls in line with her death date on the tombstone marker in GA being Dec. 25, 1996.
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 14,555
- Reaction score
- 138,864
I wonder what types of medication PR was taking. The note demonstrates a type of "over thinking" in reaction to a situation that was unplanned. Along with the bizarre staging of JB.
I agree. A highly agitated person with no criminal knowledge and a theatrical personality trying to fit everything into a scenario.
BoldBear
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 181
I disagree. The "gaslight" is used to explain things away when his theory dead-ends. I actually like his theory that if Patsy wrote the note, she couldn't call the police. It's a simple black or white. But his argument seems to end on that and he doesn't take it any further. I also like that he's so damn entrenched. When someone comes back at him with objections, he goes out of his way to make the pieces fit.
I said he does a great job at explaining the quirky details, but you only want to focus on his theory and how wrong you think he is. My statement that he explains the details is correct. I didn't say that his conclusions were correct. I also said his theory has a hole the size of Texas and somehow that was wrong--it had to be the size of Andromeda. Okay. I only used DocG as an example because he believes John wrote the note. For me it's either John or Patsy and I can see both theories. I'm not 100% on either one. If you are, great. Just don't expect me to agree with you on that. John could have penned the note.
BoldBear
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 181
The bible also uses the word "factions". The word didn't need to come from her studies.
SKresearch
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
In regard to the note, it is very obvious to me that:
It is not a case of:
The person wrote a ransom note
(then everyone 'noticed', it was a FAKE one.)
Why would Patsy or John
put the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus,
(if trying to "divert" attention AWAY from themself.)
The info. "tidbits" stated in that note,
did the OPPOSITE.
(It made the police and some in the public, wonder if that "fake" ransom note, was written by one of them.)
````````
* It is obvious to me that the person who wrote that note,
INTENTIONALLY tried to write: "a FAKE one"
>The person WANTED it to be known that it was "a FAKE one".<
````````````
- That was the person's "intention":
To write "a fake note that DOES look fake".
[* The person WANTED them to say it was "fake".]
(which they did)
- Another thing that this person "intentionally" WANTED:
The person WANTED it to look like, that this case was "staged".
[* The person WANTED them to say, it was "staged".]
(which they did)
```````````
(and it seems that, the person possibly also wanted:
the finger to be pointed at John and Patsy Ramsey.)
(or, at one of them)
(which, also happened)
```````
(and, if this was a "set-up",
you can be assured that:
the body of JonBenet Ramsey,
> will be found,
INSIDE that home, 'somewhere'. <)
```````
(If John was not involved in this and Patsy was not involved in this, then, you have this
- which should be paid attention to):
Who
(that knew about,
John Ramsey getting that Christmas bonus from his work and the amount of it),
did this case.
```````
The only conclusion I can see is:It was someone who knew them
(or at least, knew one of them, John or Patsy)
and had more than likely been inside their home before.
It is not a case of:
The person wrote a ransom note
(then everyone 'noticed', it was a FAKE one.)
Why would Patsy or John
put the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus,
(if trying to "divert" attention AWAY from themself.)
The info. "tidbits" stated in that note,
did the OPPOSITE.
(It made the police and some in the public, wonder if that "fake" ransom note, was written by one of them.)
````````
* It is obvious to me that the person who wrote that note,
INTENTIONALLY tried to write: "a FAKE one"
>The person WANTED it to be known that it was "a FAKE one".<
````````````
- That was the person's "intention":
To write "a fake note that DOES look fake".
[* The person WANTED them to say it was "fake".]
(which they did)
- Another thing that this person "intentionally" WANTED:
The person WANTED it to look like, that this case was "staged".
[* The person WANTED them to say, it was "staged".]
(which they did)
```````````
(and it seems that, the person possibly also wanted:
the finger to be pointed at John and Patsy Ramsey.)
(or, at one of them)
(which, also happened)
```````
(and, if this was a "set-up",
you can be assured that:
the body of JonBenet Ramsey,
> will be found,
INSIDE that home, 'somewhere'. <)
```````
(If John was not involved in this and Patsy was not involved in this, then, you have this
- which should be paid attention to):
Who
(that knew about,
John Ramsey getting that Christmas bonus from his work and the amount of it),
did this case.
```````
The only conclusion I can see is:It was someone who knew them
(or at least, knew one of them, John or Patsy)
and had more than likely been inside their home before.
Madge_Ick_Dike
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2016
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 5
That is so far fetched. Patsy wrote the note.
SKresearch
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
added info. (but waited too late to 'edit' it into the last of, my last posting):
(As a note):
To put things into perspective
(or rather, inform you, of a little bit about me):
When I research cases
(and that includes, this one as well) (which I look at as, 'just another case')
I am:
- impartial; unbiased
(as a, rock)
- NOT,
"driven by" (or controlled by) any, personal feelings
- and in regard to all cases that I have researched (there have been many),
have never been "obsessed" with any of them.
[I have seen 'statements' made by some (in regard to the above),
in regard to some others, who have looked at this case,
so...I thought I would just go ahead and "clear that up",
before, if/when, someone tries to pull that 'rabbit-out-of-a-hat'. (in regard to me and what I noticed, in that note (itself).]
`````
- Also,
I do not care/couldn't care less,
who a perp turns out to be - in any case.
(That includes, this one as well.)
I just like for cases to be 'factually', Solved.
(I don't care who it turns out to be, that the perp 'factually' was/is.)
``````
Now, back to:
What I noticed, in regard to that note - itself.
I stand behind that, "100%"
(because it "really" was noticed and does exist)
`````````````````
(no matter, who wrote it)
(i.e.: Who wrote it,
does not/would not "change" anything,
in regard to what was noticed, about the note - itself.)
Title of the thread being: "ransom note analysis"
````````
Have a great day. : )
(As a note):
To put things into perspective
(or rather, inform you, of a little bit about me):
When I research cases
(and that includes, this one as well) (which I look at as, 'just another case')
I am:
- impartial; unbiased
(as a, rock)
- NOT,
"driven by" (or controlled by) any, personal feelings
- and in regard to all cases that I have researched (there have been many),
have never been "obsessed" with any of them.
[I have seen 'statements' made by some (in regard to the above),
in regard to some others, who have looked at this case,
so...I thought I would just go ahead and "clear that up",
before, if/when, someone tries to pull that 'rabbit-out-of-a-hat'. (in regard to me and what I noticed, in that note (itself).]
`````
- Also,
I do not care/couldn't care less,
who a perp turns out to be - in any case.
(That includes, this one as well.)
I just like for cases to be 'factually', Solved.
(I don't care who it turns out to be, that the perp 'factually' was/is.)
``````
Now, back to:
What I noticed, in regard to that note - itself.
I stand behind that, "100%"
(because it "really" was noticed and does exist)
`````````````````
(no matter, who wrote it)
(i.e.: Who wrote it,
does not/would not "change" anything,
in regard to what was noticed, about the note - itself.)
Title of the thread being: "ransom note analysis"
````````
Have a great day. : )
SKresearch
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
(Whoever wrote the "note")
Why did the person make the "note"
look like
one of a 'ransom' nature?
* Isn't that usually the only time that you DO see, a "note".
(is, in cases in which it was: "a [ransom] note")
Why did the person make the "note"
look like
one of a 'ransom' nature?
* Isn't that usually the only time that you DO see, a "note".
(is, in cases in which it was: "a [ransom] note")
I just want to throw out there, I liked how the CBS documentary pointed out "small" foreign faction was a poor word choice if a foreign faction was actually involved. This shows a panicked person/s who thought that they'd pull one over on LE. They said "small" as in "you've probably never heard of us, so you totally won't recognize this random series of letters we'll say is our acronym.... not because we don't exist or anything but just cause we're kind of new, just a terrorism start-up, if you will!"
This just shows further attempts at pointing the finger elsewhere. That note was meant to tell a story, and the person/s who wrote it were in the height of panic. They did not have time to meticulously plan it out, and just managed it to the best of their ability to deflect blame. They failed. That note looks staged, because it's staged. An intruder doesn't need to point the finger at another intruder. That's garbage, and will always be garbage. There's not some devious mastermind who spent countless hours on his revenge plot. What the IDI are seeing is just two parents who suck at being criminals, because they're not criminals, and are failing to do a believable impression of them. They're seeing two parents who were making poor decisions in the height of panic. Has anyone here ever had a panic attack? I have, and let me tell you, you do not make rational choices.
This just shows further attempts at pointing the finger elsewhere. That note was meant to tell a story, and the person/s who wrote it were in the height of panic. They did not have time to meticulously plan it out, and just managed it to the best of their ability to deflect blame. They failed. That note looks staged, because it's staged. An intruder doesn't need to point the finger at another intruder. That's garbage, and will always be garbage. There's not some devious mastermind who spent countless hours on his revenge plot. What the IDI are seeing is just two parents who suck at being criminals, because they're not criminals, and are failing to do a believable impression of them. They're seeing two parents who were making poor decisions in the height of panic. Has anyone here ever had a panic attack? I have, and let me tell you, you do not make rational choices.