The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[pukasonqo2]

openmind4u, thank you for the welcome!
this case has intrigued me but i have not the amount of knowledge most of the posters here have.
personally, when i have read the ransom note transcripts it always brings me back to the patty hearst kidnapping and the SLA.
the note, to me (and as i said english is my second language) the note sounds rehearsed and contrived(i have NO experience writing or receiving ransom notes, thank god!), no sense of urgency.
plus, why not take the child and leave a note, or secure the child somewhere and then contact the family?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Just one example from the note. Do you know anyone who makes their Q's look like the number 8?

Snipped for focus.

This is what seals it for me. I have never seen anyone in my entire life make q's that look like that.

The second thing is the "and hence."

"Hence" is simply not in most modern Americans' vocabularies, much less people belonging to small foreign factions. Unless perhaps one is willing to believe British or Australian terrorists were responsible for the crime.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

The problem is all the experts I know who have said Patsy wrote the note are experts you will choose not to believe.

I have no stake in this case, one way or another. I am simply going by the publicly available evidence. I am certain that there are individual experts willing to tell you anything you want to hear. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the weight of expert opinion on the subject favors the note having been written by someone other than a Ramsey; and it is the fact of this critically important probability that should guide you in the investigation of this case: If the note was not written by a Ramsey, then it had to have been written by an intruder.

No one will ever say that they are 100 percent certain Patsy wrote the note.

It doesn't matter. 100% certainty is not required to guide you. We are working with probabilities. The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.

What do you think of the letter "q" I posted?

Handwriting analysis is not my field of expertise, anymore than DNA analysis is my field of expertise. Therefore, I rely on the analyses of those who are expert. The weight of expert opinion suggests that Patsy is not the author.

What is more, if there were any samples of Patsy's writing readily available at the time the note was written, one cannot rule out the possibility that the note writer did not cleverly adopt a peculiar mannerism in Patsy's writing with the deliberate intention of pointing suspicion towards her. Does the writer not crow about being "familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics" in the note itself?

Further still, while I am no expert, I verily doubt that a peccadillo regarding one particular letter amounts to convincing proof that Patsy wrote the note.

Here is an interesting article about Cina Wong and the Ransom Note

http://www.cinawongforgeryexpert.com/mediaroom_vapilot.asp

Cina Wong was a hired gun for the plaintiff in the case of Wolf v. Ramsey, was she not?

 

[UKGuy]

I have no stake in this case, one way or another. I am simply going by the publicly available evidence. I am certain that there are individual experts willing to tell you anything you want to hear. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the weight of expert opinion on the subject favors the note having been written by someone other than a Ramsey; and it is the fact of this critically important probability that should guide you in the investigation of this case: If the note was not written by a Ramsey, then it had to have been written by an intruder.



It doesn't matter. 100% certainty is not required to guide you. We are working with probabilities. The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.



Handwriting analysis is not my field of expertise, anymore than DNA analysis is my field of expertise. Therefore, I rely on the analyses of those who are expert. The weight of expert opinion suggests that Patsy is not the author.

What is more, if there were any samples of Patsy's writing readily available at the time the note was written, one cannot rule out the possibility that the note writer did not cleverly adopt a peculiar mannerism in Patsy's writing with the deliberate intention of pointing suspicion towards her. Does the writer not crow about being "familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics" in the note itself?

Further still, while I am no expert, I verily doubt that a peccadillo regarding one particular letter amounts to convincing proof that Patsy wrote the note.



Cina Wong was a hired gun for the plaintiff in the case of Wolf v. Ramsey, was she not?

Edmond.DantesIII,

It doesn't matter. 100% certainty is not required to guide you. We are working with probabilities. The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.

What probabilities? Where are they, show us your population of handwriting and your sample(s). Tell us what your confidence level is, and what type of distribution you have assumed?

Give us the maths, show us the evidence, what are these numerical probabilities you speak of, publish to WS, your arithmetic so we can see how you arrive at a statement such as:
The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.


.

 

[otg]

A point should needs to be made here about document examiners and the certainty with which they are able to say whether someone is the author of a document. First of all, I will state that I am in no way an expert (not that I’ve ever claimed to be an expert at anything). But Certified Document Examiners serve to verify with probability the authorship of different kinds of evidence.

As an example of one type, take Howard Hughes’ handwritten will. If it appears to be his handwriting, a CDE will compare it to known exemplars of his to verify its authenticity. It could have been faked and written by someone attempting to make it look like his handwriting. It could, OTOH, be genuinely written by him. The CDE would be looking to determine which is most likely on a scale of probability in order determine its authenticity.

Another type of document would be something written by an individual who is trying to disguise their handwriting to hide their authorship in case it is discovered. An example of this might be the note I wrote about my teacher in 9th grade English. Believe me, had she gotten her hands on it, I wouldn’t have wanted her to know I wrote it. But if it were to have gone so far as to be examined for authorship, a CDE might very well have been able to determine I most likely wrote it on a scale of probability based on similarities between it and my other writings. But that’s it -- no absolute determination because I attempted to disguise it.

The problem here is that the same scale of probability is used for both types of documents. So we really can’t use it to say that the RRN was definitely written by any one individual because the handwriting was obviously disguised. (And I can say “obviously disguised” because it is not consistent throughout -- e.g., “a” vs “ a”.) That is why when examining possibly faked handwriting, the CDE will say whether or not they can eliminate someone as the author. They look for similarities that won’t be disguised by different possible authors.

Of those who were looked at, Patsy Ramsey was the only one who could not be eliminated as the author by most of the experts consulted. But that’s it -- no absolute determination because someone attempted to disguise it.

And hence :lol:, we have the opening for this eternal debate which some will say she did, and others will say she didn’t. But I won’t attempt to debate it. I rely on others who are experts. I encourage anyone, if they haven’t, to read the [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404"]analysis by Cherokee at FFJ[/ame]. She is an expert, she was a poster here at WS, but she will probably never be back here because of the crap she had to answer when she tried to help out here. That’s probably one of the reasons membership there is somewhat exclusive.

 

[Whaleshark]

Ed, you mention that you are certain there are 'individual experts willing to tell you anything you want to hear'....

Then you state that you are not an expert on handwriting analysis or DNA, therefore you rely on the experts analyses of such.

So if the experts you are relying on for your accurate information are, in your words, willing to tell you anything you want to hear, then how can what you deduce from them be anything of accurate value at all?

Or is it just that you are the only one who is allowed to have his cake and eat it too, just like with special pleading?

 

[midwest mama]

Yes, he did.... And he also said he did NOT believe they were being set up by the ransom note writer to make it look purposely like Patsy wrote it either... As noted in the testimony answers to Prosecutor Michael Cane.

His technique was applaud-able. Not only did he verbally affirm to listening ears that the handwriting looked like Patsy's, he then went on to try to deflect away from the consideration that anyone made a purposeful attempt to forge her writing.

Clever, especially coming from someone who might have done just that.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Edmond.DantesIII,


What probabilities? Where are they, show us your population of handwriting and your sample(s). Tell us what your confidence level is, and what type of distribution you have assumed?

Give us the maths, show us the evidence, what are these numerical probabilities you speak of, publish to WS, your arithmetic so we can see how you arrive at a statement such as:
The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.

Well, according to this source:


"Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF 197; PSMF , 197.) Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF 198; PSMF 198.) Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF 197; PSMF 197.) Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the [R]ansom [N]ote." (SMF 200; PSMF 200.)

During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF 1 191; PSMF 1 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF 205; PSMF , 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF , 191; PSMF , 191.) All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF 194; PSMF 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF , 196; PSMF 196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF . 204; PSMF 1 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF 254.)"

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes21-30.htm

With a score of 4.0 to 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 equating to elimination, there appears to be an 80 to 90% chance that Patsy did NOT right the note.

Ergo, the weight of expert opinion suggests that Patsy did not write the note, and since she is the only member of the Ramsey household that was not ruled out entirely, it appears very likely that no member of the Ramsey household wrote the note and that the note was therefore written by an intruder.

I realize that there have been other analyses which concluded that Patsy is the author, but they are highly suspect as they appear to have been performed at the behest of parties with a vested pecuniary interest in the final conclusions of the analyses, such as winning a libel suit or selling a book.

 

[midwest mama]

Snipped for focus.

This is what seals it for me. I have never seen anyone in my entire life make q's that look like that.

The second thing is the "and hence."

"Hence" is simply not in most modern Americans' vocabularies, much less people belonging to small foreign factions. Unless perhaps one is willing to believe British or Australian terrorists were responsible for the crime.

Just for consideration, here is a quote from an interview JOHN gave:

Newseum interview, Oct. 12, 2000 (http://64.225.95.82/dcf/Publicdiscussion/433.html)
The police as a gov-, …you know, the justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism, and, uh…and, uh…suspicion.

Patsy's "q" was so distinct that if someone was trying to shift guilt on to her, they would HAVE to make sure to do the "q" right! There might have been room for question in the other letters, but not that "q".

 

[otg]

The weight of expert opinion favors the RN having been written by someone other than John or Patsy or Burke Ramsey.

"No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]"

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author

This is a FACT.

If you disagree, fine. Where is your evidence?

What you’ve done here (in case no one else noticed) is quote from a site which tries to objectively show both sides of such issues as the RRN. But you quoted only the one side favorable to your argument and then present this as your “FACT” that “The weight of expert opinion favors the RN having been written by someone other than John or Patsy or Burke Ramsey.” The quote you chose from pbworks is under the heading:

Evidence Patsy Ramsey is Not the RN Writer
Summary Findings Favorable to Patsy Ramsey​

But you chose to ignore the same summary information under the counter heading:

Evidence Patsy Ramsey is the RN Writer
Summary Findings Unfavorable to Patsy Ramsey​

...where it says, “At Least 10 Professionals Concluded Patsy Was Author. All told, 10 professional experts of varying qualifications hired by various parties in this case and 6 authors/Internet posters (also of varying qualifications) have formally analyzed the RN and concluded Patsy is the author.”

It doesn't matter. 100% certainty is not required to guide you. We are working with probabilities. The probabilities suggest that Patsy did NOT write the ransom note.

Probability? I’m not a statistician, but the owner of this site calculated the probability to be one in 55,000,000. Where are the probabilities you refer to?

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

What you’ve done here (in case no one else noticed) is quote from a site which tries to objectively show both sides of such issues as the RRN. But you quoted only the one side favorable to your argument and then present this as your “FACT” that “The weight of expert opinion favors the RN having been written by someone other than John or Patsy or Burke Ramsey.” The quote you chose from pbworks is under the heading:

Evidence Patsy Ramsey is Not the RN Writer
Summary Findings Favorable to Patsy Ramsey​

But you chose to ignore the same summary information under the counter heading:

Evidence Patsy Ramsey is the RN Writer
Summary Findings Unfavorable to Patsy Ramsey​

...where it says, “At Least 10 Professionals Concluded Patsy Was Author. All told, 10 professional experts of varying qualifications hired by various parties in this case and 6 authors/Internet posters (also of varying qualifications) have formally analyzed the RN and concluded Patsy is the author.”

Yes, and who are these "10 professionals"? How many of them were the hired guns of Darney Hoffman in the Wolf v. Ramsey case? How much weight should any objective person allot to their "expert opinion" when they were paid to render an opinion favorable to their client, or were trying to sell a book?

Let's face it, when the BPD's own experts could not identify PR as the author of the note, the most logical conclusion to be drawn is that PR is probably not the author of the note, and that the note was probably written by an intruder.

Of course, now that PR has passed away, you can expect to see a never ending stream of supposed "experts" claiming that she was most definitely the author of the note. My advice to you is to take them all with a grain of salt. You cannot libel the dead, and handwriting analysis is a subjective science.

Probability? I’m not a statistician, but the owner of this site calculated the probability to be one in 55,000,000. Where are the probabilities you refer to?

I don't know that the owner of this site is an expert statistician, nor where in the world they might have obtained such outrageous probability.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Validity of a probability depends on the validity of the inputs. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[redheadedgal]

Except that this was not a real ransom note. A real ransom note is written beforehand.

really? heard of charles linbergh? george weyerhaeuser? bobby greenlease? patty hearst? robert authur wiles? i can go on...

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Patsy's "q" was so distinct that if someone was trying to shift guilt on to her, they would HAVE to make sure to do the "q" right! There might have been room for question in the other letters, but not that "q".

I do not see anything particularly unique about Patsy's "q" nor any reason to believe that it necessarily matches the "q" in the ransom note.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

really? heard of charles linbergh? george weyerhaeuser? bobby greenlease? patty hearst? robert authur wiles? i can go on...

Okay, it is written before or after the kidnapping. It is not usually written during the kidnapping.

 

[wonderllama]

You're talking about a genuine ransom note...keep that in mind.

A fake ransom note can be written at any time at all.

And the RDI way of thinking is that it WAS written after the kidnapping, not during.

 

[Whaleshark]

Ed, I wonder why John or Patsy Ramsey never doubted the validity of the ransom note...

After all, even after no call came in, and their murdered child was brought up from the wine cellar by John.... Not a question.

In testimony, Patsy said it still seemed like a kidnapping to her.

One would reasonably think at this point, just as the lawyer questioned them as such, and we all purport to see, that the ransom note was not really a ransom note.

Yet the Ramseys insisted that it still looked like a kidnapping for ransom, with a legitimate note.

If we are to believe the Ramseys to be innocent victims in this crime, why not believe what they say they believe - that the ransom note was real?

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

You're talking about a genuine ransom note...keep that in mind.

A fake ransom note can be written at any time at all.

And the RDI way of thinking is that it WAS written after the kidnapping, not during.

Considering that the ransom note was apparently written on the fly, and that a murder instead of a kidnapping ultimately took place, it is safe to say that kidnapping was never the initial motive of the intruders.

My way of thinking is that while the female intruder was busy writing a makeshift ransom note, her male accomplice was busy murdering JonBenet, unbeknownst to her.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Ed, I wonder why John or Patsy Ramsey never doubted the validity of the ransom note...

After all, even after no call came in, and their murdered child was brought up from the wine cellar by John.... Not a question.

In testimony, Patsy said it still seemed like a kidnapping to her.

One would reasonably think at this point, just as the lawyer questioned them as such, and we all purport to see, that the ransom note was not really a ransom note.

Yet the Ramseys insisted that it still looked like a kidnapping for ransom, with a legitimate note.

If we are to believe the Ramseys to be innocent victims in this crime, why not believe what they say they believe - that the ransom note was real?

Obviously, neither of the Ramseys are detectives or particularly adept at crime solving. What is more, they should not be expected to be anymore talented at criminal investigation than the actual detectives working the case, who were obviously quite inept.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, according to this source:


"Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF 197; PSMF , 197.) Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF 198; PSMF 198.) Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF 197; PSMF 197.) Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the [R]ansom [N]ote." (SMF 200; PSMF 200.)

During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF 1 191; PSMF 1 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF 205; PSMF , 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF , 191; PSMF , 191.) All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF 194; PSMF 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF 195; PSMF 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF , 196; PSMF 196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF . 204; PSMF 1 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF 254.)"

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes21-30.htm

With a score of 4.0 to 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 equating to elimination, there appears to be an 80 to 90% chance that Patsy did NOT right the note.

Ergo, the weight of expert opinion suggests that Patsy did not write the note, and since she is the only member of the Ramsey household that was not ruled out entirely, it appears very likely that no member of the Ramsey household wrote the note and that the note was therefore written by an intruder.

I realize that there have been other analyses which concluded that Patsy is the author, but they are highly suspect as they appear to have been performed at the behest of parties with a vested pecuniary interest in the final conclusions of the analyses, such as winning a libel suit or selling a book.

Edmond.DantesIII,
otg's summary regarding handwriting authorship is quite enlightening.

Your reliance on Expert Opinion is simply a form of argument from authority.

People who rent Expert Opinion normally get what they wish.

I place no particular value on the Ransom Note, specifically because we cannot attribute authorship, and we know its staged forensic evidence, even if there was an intruder, because there was no kidnapping, but there was a homicide!



.