InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 174
If they feel they have to deny her own writing, then there is no doubt that she wrote the ransom letter. That, to me, says so much more than handwriting analysis.
RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!
- Thread starter Chrishope
- Start date
If they feel they have to deny her own writing, then there is no doubt that she wrote the ransom letter. That, to me, says so much more than handwriting analysis.
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 174
Sounds like it could be "wrote" to me. But I do notice she shakes her head no/yes conflicting with what she is saying a lot.
I agree with you IP. For me the thing that makes me believe that the Ramseys are responsible for this is their behaviour after the crime. It just isn't normal, or what you'd expect from innocent people. I that film you see John suggest LHP was showing "strange behaviour", and this was obviously after she had been cleared as a suspect. Why? And what is strange behaviour, asking for a loan? These people threw anybody under the bus that they could, they continually lied and smirked while they did it. Seeing Patsy sit there and say that she couldn't see any similarities in those identical letters made me sick. Hoffman must have just wanted to punch her in the face.
You are right, I was listening to it on crap earphones and it sounded completely different. My bad.
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 557
They knew. They just didn't want to admit it.
Isn't that what being under oath means?
Yeah, you guessed it!
CorallaroC
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 2
well FWIW, in the depo I did rewind and listened a few times and thought she said "whoever read the note"
it gave me a jolt, to be honest.... but thats JMO. anyone can scroll up to the video, listen and formulate their own opinion.
OliviaG1996
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 8
Another thing that strikes me odd about the Ramseys' statements in the video posted by eileenhawkeye: Around 19:40, JR says the handwriting in the family photo album does not resemble PR's handwriting because it (the handwriting in the album) is sloppy. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the handwriting in the family photo album is far from sloppy. In my opinion, it is actually rather neat. So not only is JR denying his wife's obvious handwriting (in my opinion, it is obvious), he is denying that it's neat? I'd like to know what's "sloppy" about it, because I was able to read it perfectly.
Hello I am new to this post. Please excuse any errors but explain alternative and accepted methods of the way the community rolls here. I've been following the case for years now, like so many others. I have read many books about the case. I have a few comments and questions. First as a new member I'm not sure why it indicates that I cannot post a new thread? Second, I have read a number of forums and out of curiosity I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on two prolific names and who they are (objectively speaking.) I keep seeing somebody using a screen name like "candy apple rose" - something like that. The other one I am curious about - especially since I find his analysis most clear and logical is "Docg." Who are these people? It appears that for some reason Docg want to remain anonymous which sort of annoys me - especially since he has published an e-book.
Finally, my own conclusions based on everything I have read up until this point: I don't believe in an intruder. I think that there is enough logic and circumstantial evidence to conclude (imo) that the note was written inside the home and that fact alone compels me to conclude with reasonable certainty that the persons responsible for the death were the Ramseys.
I am still unclear if the brother can most likely be eliminated as a suspect but if I were to lean towards a likely scenario it would be 1) that he bashed his sister over the head and the parents both tried to cover for him - or - 2) that the father or the mother (either are plausible subjects imo) bashed their daughter over the head and tried to cover it up. I cannot be any more specific on who did it other than to state that whoever wrote the note more than likely was responsible for either covering up the crime and possibly committing the crime. I think the mainstream thought from my view is that Patty wrote the note. In the end, I credit "Docg" for providing the most common sense analysis of why the note being written inside the home on the paper from inside the home leads to the logical conclusion that it was written by the Ramseys. I think that is bolstered by the majority (not all) of handwriting and linguistic experts with solid credentials concluding that Patty most likely wrote the note. Furthermore, although I agree that "lawyering up" and acting guilty doesn't prove murder, I strongly believe that guilty behavior and statements should be given due consideration when looked at in it's totality. It should not be disregarded as meaningless. In fact, the mountain of guilty behavior that was exhibited in this case (much like the Scott Peterson and OJ Simpson case) adds up to enough probable cause for the arrest (at least) of the suspects, based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence alone.
I've read many theories where people try to explain why the note was written by an intruder "after" they gained entry into the home. None of the theories that I have read (the most often being that an outside intruder was trying to confuse everyone - and succeeded.)
No, I don't believe that. Based on the time it took to put pen to paper after or before killing the child, rules out an intruder in my opinion. From my experience, (although I realize there are odd exceptions) most criminals who commit these types of crimes are either on drugs, are in a "panic" mode due to fear of discovery and as such they would not normally have the presence of mind to think clearly enough to perform acts that were obviously careful and deliberate. I would use the analogy of the policeman (a trained professional) who becomes involved in a shooting or other horrific incident who (on television) simply continues his tour of duty and goes on to handle the next radio call. On television that's possible, and in theory it is possible. I can say that in real life - its simply reasonable to believe. Cold-hearted criminals with nerves of steel as portrayed in the movies like Hannable Lecter are rare. The reality is that most criminals committing acts like these are in some sort of altered state of mind - or are scared out of their minds. Again, I'm not saying its not possible that some assassin or Hannable Lecter type committed the crime. I am saying its highly improbable and just not reasonable base on the totality of the circumstances. If anyone can provided a reasonable scenario of how or why a criminal would have written the note once inside the house (either before or after committing the murder) I'm all ears.
Finally, my own conclusions based on everything I have read up until this point: I don't believe in an intruder. I think that there is enough logic and circumstantial evidence to conclude (imo) that the note was written inside the home and that fact alone compels me to conclude with reasonable certainty that the persons responsible for the death were the Ramseys.
I am still unclear if the brother can most likely be eliminated as a suspect but if I were to lean towards a likely scenario it would be 1) that he bashed his sister over the head and the parents both tried to cover for him - or - 2) that the father or the mother (either are plausible subjects imo) bashed their daughter over the head and tried to cover it up. I cannot be any more specific on who did it other than to state that whoever wrote the note more than likely was responsible for either covering up the crime and possibly committing the crime. I think the mainstream thought from my view is that Patty wrote the note. In the end, I credit "Docg" for providing the most common sense analysis of why the note being written inside the home on the paper from inside the home leads to the logical conclusion that it was written by the Ramseys. I think that is bolstered by the majority (not all) of handwriting and linguistic experts with solid credentials concluding that Patty most likely wrote the note. Furthermore, although I agree that "lawyering up" and acting guilty doesn't prove murder, I strongly believe that guilty behavior and statements should be given due consideration when looked at in it's totality. It should not be disregarded as meaningless. In fact, the mountain of guilty behavior that was exhibited in this case (much like the Scott Peterson and OJ Simpson case) adds up to enough probable cause for the arrest (at least) of the suspects, based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence alone.
I've read many theories where people try to explain why the note was written by an intruder "after" they gained entry into the home. None of the theories that I have read (the most often being that an outside intruder was trying to confuse everyone - and succeeded.)
No, I don't believe that. Based on the time it took to put pen to paper after or before killing the child, rules out an intruder in my opinion. From my experience, (although I realize there are odd exceptions) most criminals who commit these types of crimes are either on drugs, are in a "panic" mode due to fear of discovery and as such they would not normally have the presence of mind to think clearly enough to perform acts that were obviously careful and deliberate. I would use the analogy of the policeman (a trained professional) who becomes involved in a shooting or other horrific incident who (on television) simply continues his tour of duty and goes on to handle the next radio call. On television that's possible, and in theory it is possible. I can say that in real life - its simply reasonable to believe. Cold-hearted criminals with nerves of steel as portrayed in the movies like Hannable Lecter are rare. The reality is that most criminals committing acts like these are in some sort of altered state of mind - or are scared out of their minds. Again, I'm not saying its not possible that some assassin or Hannable Lecter type committed the crime. I am saying its highly improbable and just not reasonable base on the totality of the circumstances. If anyone can provided a reasonable scenario of how or why a criminal would have written the note once inside the house (either before or after committing the murder) I'm all ears.
"I agree that someone in that house killed JBR. But if you claim both Ramseys were involved in the crime and cover up from the beginning, it's very hard to explain why PR called the police."
Good point. I'm trying to remember which book it was that I read that gave a very reasonable explanation. I think it was something to the effect that Patty did not originally know what happened but later was informed by John. So then this would explain that her phone call was genuine.
Then though, it would leave out the theory that she was the one who bashed the child. I guess it makes more the theory more credible that John did it or Burke did it. The chronology to that theory would be John or Burke did it, then the note was written and John penned the note (possibly intending to get rid of the body and leave the note to explain JB's disappearance). I can't quite make this fit though. Perhaps someone could help. Because the two parents would have to work in tandem to stage everything after Patty called the police - highly unlikely they would have time to do it. It begs the question; How long would it take to stage everything, including the note?
The only thing I am most convinced of is that the murder was committed by the family members. Which one of the three did it is still sketchy for me.
Good point. I'm trying to remember which book it was that I read that gave a very reasonable explanation. I think it was something to the effect that Patty did not originally know what happened but later was informed by John. So then this would explain that her phone call was genuine.
Then though, it would leave out the theory that she was the one who bashed the child. I guess it makes more the theory more credible that John did it or Burke did it. The chronology to that theory would be John or Burke did it, then the note was written and John penned the note (possibly intending to get rid of the body and leave the note to explain JB's disappearance). I can't quite make this fit though. Perhaps someone could help. Because the two parents would have to work in tandem to stage everything after Patty called the police - highly unlikely they would have time to do it. It begs the question; How long would it take to stage everything, including the note?
The only thing I am most convinced of is that the murder was committed by the family members. Which one of the three did it is still sketchy for me.
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
Welcome, TopCop.
There are a lot of moving parts to this homicide. While we dont all agree on who did what, we obviously (on this RDI thread) believe there was no intruder. You mentioned guilty behavior. From what I understand, consciousness of guilt can be introduced into a trial for consideration by a jury. A possible example of "consciousness of guilt" is JR trying to arrange a flight out to Atlanta after JonBenets body had been 'found.'
This is what gets me. I know people are sworn to be under oath in court, but it's obvious so, so many people lie. "Under oath" is merely empty words when your life is on the line....if anything, this case has taught us it's okay to lie under oath, because you'll get away with it. Feign "I don't know" when in doubt. :notgood:
On another note, I watched that video, and this is the first time it has hit me how similar the handwriting is. Of course I've seen the comparison charts, and in addition I always believed Patsy wrote the note; but seeing the context in a different view really hit me with reality. People have their own distinctive style and watching the two deny it... argh! I could jump through the screen and shake them! I can't believe there is even a shadow of doubt of Patsy authoring the damn note. It's frustrating.
OliviaG1996
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 8
BBM: This reminds me of the trial of Casey Anthony, when Cindy Anthony (Casey's mother) was proven to have lied about looking up the word "chloroform" while under oath, which was a very damning piece of evidence proving the likely person making the searches (Casey) was premeditating the death of Caylee. To my knowledge, no charges were filed against Cindy even though she was proven to be at work during the time the searches were made on the home's computer. Ultimately, the verdict was injustice in its purest form. But that case is a whole 'nother cup of tea, and it gets me mad just writing about it.
Yes, I understand your point regarding “consciousness of guilt” which I referred to in my post as guilty behavior. I'm from the law enforcement field. If you have ever watched shoplifters on a video before they commit the act, they almost always exhibit guilty behavior; a quick look around, strange body language, etc. That kind of thing proves nothing but means a lot in my view. For me, there's much too much “consciousness of guilt” exhibited by the Ramseys in this case to excuse as coincidence.
Found some interesting links using the Internet Wayback machine. It was a good refresher course for me and several interesting articles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021215224220/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey2.shtml
https://web.archive.org/web/20021215224220/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey2.shtml
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 174
I have a couple of ideas about Patsy calling the police.
I am 100% convinced she wrote the note. So any of my theories have to work around that.
I have read theories that she did all the staging and John figured out what had happened during the morning after the cops were called. If that's true, then Patsy was possibly hoping John would listen to the letter, not contact anyone, and go to the bank for the money. She might have a story about JB being returned when he got back? Anyway, if he came down that morning and read the note she may have sensed he could tell she wrote it and was on the verge of accusing her so when he told her to call police (as they always said he did- was he calling her bluff?) she was too scared to protest.
If John was involved in staging, then I believe they were at odds about what to do.
Patsy may have called 911 to prevent JBs body from being removed (not realizing this is the obvious direction they were headed while writing the RN). There are other ways you can look at a scenario where J&P simply were not agreeing.
InstantProof,
Remember JR has a version of events that outlines he and BR were playing, constructing some game or other in the basement.
Thats the BR alibi!
JR and PR had to agree on their version of events, even if it meant lying!
.
LadyTudorRose
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 76
Hi! I've been looking a little at this thread. I'm new to this case as I was very young when it happened but when I started reading about it it was just absolutely fascinated.
Most of the media I've seen on it is very much IDI, and my mom felt strongly (and still feels strongly) it had to have been IDI because of the general lack of motive and the old issue about whether a mother could do something like this (or conspire with others to cover up something like this having been done) to her child. The main scenario I always heard in the media that was RDI was that PR attacked JB for wetting the bed, which is what my mom found absolutely ridiculous, and I completely agree with her on that.
I, for the life of me, can't imagine a parent killing a child over bedwetting, but seeing all the other RDI theories and the amount of evidence supporting their involvement, has made me rethink their possible role. I still think IDI is certainly possible, but at the very least I feel like the Ramsays were hiding something. The main thing that really got my interest was the Reddit AMA with Mark Beckner.
A couple of things I am curious if long-time RDI people would like to weigh in on.
Beckner said of JB's death:
I'm wondering if this is generally taken as fact or if there are alternate possible causes of death? The reason I ask is so many theories seem to regard this not as a planned murder but as physical or sexual abuse taken too far or fighting between siblings taken too far. I guess I just have a hard time imagining that being the case with a strong blow to the head like that and strangulation occurring independently of each other. Like I just feel like the intention had to have been to either kill or or harm her in a sadistic way. It's honestly so sick and disturbing I can't bear to think about it, and goes to a much darker place than any other case I've ever read about.
Another thing that really sickens me is the sexual abuse JB seems to have suffered. I feel like the evidence seems to point really strongly to sexual abuse having occurred prior to the murder, both in regards to the evidence found during the autopsy, the serious bedwetting problem, the medical issues JB seems to have had with that general area, and the lack of clean underwear in the house. I am really surprised that no effort was made to investigate that and prosecute someone on that alone. Even if her murderer was someone outside the family and their identity is never uncovered, the molester could have been someone different and that person should have been punished. I've read pedophiles are more likely to reoffend than murderers and it frightens me that that person, whoever it was, may still be out there. Am I wrong about either the evidence I've read about or my interpretation of it? Is her being molested in dispute? Because it really shocks me that this wasn't taken more seriously and I'm curious what people think about it.
I wouldn't even say this if I didn't know the accusation had been made a thousand times before (because it is a terrible thing to accuse someone of on the off chance they're innocent) but I feel like the issue of sexual abuse strongly implicates JR. I suppose there are women who sexually abuse children, but it's not very common and most kids are molested by an older male relative. If BR was capable of something like that (is that even possible?) it still in my mind goes back to JR because psychologists say that children who molest other children have usually been molested themselves, so if BR abused JB than JR perhaps abused BR or even BR AND JB.
Also, this is pretty disturbing to even talk about, but I feel like if the scene was staged the paintbrush actually does point to prior sexual abuse. If we assume the kidnapping was staged to cover up a murder by a member of the family, the ransom note points strongly in the direction of a ransom kidnapping by someone with connections to and a grudge against JR, not a pedophile. The paintbrush is unnecessary if that's the angle you're going with, and for a parent who is not a pedophile it would be insanely disturbing and sickening to have to stage that aspect of the crime. I don't think anyone in the family would have had a lot of insight into what the ME would look for when examining the body, but it might occur to them that she would be checked to see if her hymen was intact and if they knew it wasn't, they might feel the need to stage a sexual assault to explain that.
I'm also a little disturbed by PR's completely dismissive attitude to this evidence when it was brought up in her interview with LE. (x) Perhaps 1996 was a more innocent time, but nowadays parents are aware of the threats pedophiles pose and are very aware as to which adult males are alone with their kids. She says she's shocked when it's first mentioned, which suggests she believes it, but makes to effort to suggest someone outside the family (teacher, coach, doctor, etc.) or to ask LE who they think was responsible. Later she completely brushes it off as though i's impossible. If any child in my family was molested I would want to know who was responsible and if LE wasn't making the effort to find out I would try and find out myself. I understand reluctance to be cooperative if you think the police are accusing you of something you didn't do, but this question is one that doesn't seem to implicate or accuse PR and if they really believed their little girl was killed by an intruder, finding out who molested her would likely be the key to bringing her killer to justice and clearing the family.
And then there's the whole ransom note situation. I've looked at the evidence for PR and I can see how a lot points to her, but I'm not completely convinced. First of all I think she would have tried harder to conceal her handwriting and second the letter is so much about JR and not at all about her. And JR is the sort of man who named two different children after himself, he's exactly the sort of person to make the note all about himself. The person who wrote it seems like it could almost be the president of the JR fan club. Maybe PR worshipped her husband to that extent but I doubt it. The fact that the paper and pen used came from the home strongly implicates the family but weirdly enough I've thought some of the contents could implicate an intruder. Like, for instance, if JR was involved with the mob or something and the purpose of the letter was to covertly let him know who did this and why, knowing full well he couldn't expose the perpetrator without exposing his own sins. Obviously that means nothing in an RDI scenario but I'm still really unclear about what the killer was trying to accomplish with this note. If it was to cast blame away from the parents, it failed miserably because IMHO it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for their involvement.
Most of the media I've seen on it is very much IDI, and my mom felt strongly (and still feels strongly) it had to have been IDI because of the general lack of motive and the old issue about whether a mother could do something like this (or conspire with others to cover up something like this having been done) to her child. The main scenario I always heard in the media that was RDI was that PR attacked JB for wetting the bed, which is what my mom found absolutely ridiculous, and I completely agree with her on that.
I, for the life of me, can't imagine a parent killing a child over bedwetting, but seeing all the other RDI theories and the amount of evidence supporting their involvement, has made me rethink their possible role. I still think IDI is certainly possible, but at the very least I feel like the Ramsays were hiding something. The main thing that really got my interest was the Reddit AMA with Mark Beckner.
A couple of things I am curious if long-time RDI people would like to weigh in on.
Beckner said of JB's death:
I'm wondering if this is generally taken as fact or if there are alternate possible causes of death? The reason I ask is so many theories seem to regard this not as a planned murder but as physical or sexual abuse taken too far or fighting between siblings taken too far. I guess I just have a hard time imagining that being the case with a strong blow to the head like that and strangulation occurring independently of each other. Like I just feel like the intention had to have been to either kill or or harm her in a sadistic way. It's honestly so sick and disturbing I can't bear to think about it, and goes to a much darker place than any other case I've ever read about.
Another thing that really sickens me is the sexual abuse JB seems to have suffered. I feel like the evidence seems to point really strongly to sexual abuse having occurred prior to the murder, both in regards to the evidence found during the autopsy, the serious bedwetting problem, the medical issues JB seems to have had with that general area, and the lack of clean underwear in the house. I am really surprised that no effort was made to investigate that and prosecute someone on that alone. Even if her murderer was someone outside the family and their identity is never uncovered, the molester could have been someone different and that person should have been punished. I've read pedophiles are more likely to reoffend than murderers and it frightens me that that person, whoever it was, may still be out there. Am I wrong about either the evidence I've read about or my interpretation of it? Is her being molested in dispute? Because it really shocks me that this wasn't taken more seriously and I'm curious what people think about it.
I wouldn't even say this if I didn't know the accusation had been made a thousand times before (because it is a terrible thing to accuse someone of on the off chance they're innocent) but I feel like the issue of sexual abuse strongly implicates JR. I suppose there are women who sexually abuse children, but it's not very common and most kids are molested by an older male relative. If BR was capable of something like that (is that even possible?) it still in my mind goes back to JR because psychologists say that children who molest other children have usually been molested themselves, so if BR abused JB than JR perhaps abused BR or even BR AND JB.
Also, this is pretty disturbing to even talk about, but I feel like if the scene was staged the paintbrush actually does point to prior sexual abuse. If we assume the kidnapping was staged to cover up a murder by a member of the family, the ransom note points strongly in the direction of a ransom kidnapping by someone with connections to and a grudge against JR, not a pedophile. The paintbrush is unnecessary if that's the angle you're going with, and for a parent who is not a pedophile it would be insanely disturbing and sickening to have to stage that aspect of the crime. I don't think anyone in the family would have had a lot of insight into what the ME would look for when examining the body, but it might occur to them that she would be checked to see if her hymen was intact and if they knew it wasn't, they might feel the need to stage a sexual assault to explain that.
I'm also a little disturbed by PR's completely dismissive attitude to this evidence when it was brought up in her interview with LE. (x) Perhaps 1996 was a more innocent time, but nowadays parents are aware of the threats pedophiles pose and are very aware as to which adult males are alone with their kids. She says she's shocked when it's first mentioned, which suggests she believes it, but makes to effort to suggest someone outside the family (teacher, coach, doctor, etc.) or to ask LE who they think was responsible. Later she completely brushes it off as though i's impossible. If any child in my family was molested I would want to know who was responsible and if LE wasn't making the effort to find out I would try and find out myself. I understand reluctance to be cooperative if you think the police are accusing you of something you didn't do, but this question is one that doesn't seem to implicate or accuse PR and if they really believed their little girl was killed by an intruder, finding out who molested her would likely be the key to bringing her killer to justice and clearing the family.
And then there's the whole ransom note situation. I've looked at the evidence for PR and I can see how a lot points to her, but I'm not completely convinced. First of all I think she would have tried harder to conceal her handwriting and second the letter is so much about JR and not at all about her. And JR is the sort of man who named two different children after himself, he's exactly the sort of person to make the note all about himself. The person who wrote it seems like it could almost be the president of the JR fan club. Maybe PR worshipped her husband to that extent but I doubt it. The fact that the paper and pen used came from the home strongly implicates the family but weirdly enough I've thought some of the contents could implicate an intruder. Like, for instance, if JR was involved with the mob or something and the purpose of the letter was to covertly let him know who did this and why, knowing full well he couldn't expose the perpetrator without exposing his own sins. Obviously that means nothing in an RDI scenario but I'm still really unclear about what the killer was trying to accomplish with this note. If it was to cast blame away from the parents, it failed miserably because IMHO it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for their involvement.
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 174
I think the RN directed strictly at John is an important clue. A practice note had been started "Mr and Mrs" so the writer started over to exclude Patsy. I think Patsy, writing it, wanted to distance herself.