The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Magdalyn]

Does anyone have the actual number (or closest approximation) of experts the Ramseys had reporting to them/sharing their professional opinion with them (lawyers plus private detectives they hired)?

And when did those experts begin their work on the case? (I believe it was the 26th, but I'm unsure about the hourly timeline.)

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

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

Actually, it is not, and I'm not sure that you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam as well as you should.

However, considering that handwriting analysis is not an exact science, it is certainly not enough to argue that Patsy did not write the note based solely upon the balance of expert opinion in the field of handwriting analysis.

The best argument as to why Patsy (or John) did not write the note is that it makes no sense whatsoever for them to write such a note and then leave the body in the basement.

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!

The ransom note is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, regardless of the fact (indeed, because of it) that there was a homicide and not a kidnapping.

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, it is not, and I'm not sure that you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam as well as you should.

However, considering that handwriting analysis is not an exact science, it is certainly not enough to argue that Patsy did not write the note based solely upon the balance of expert opinion in the field of handwriting analysis.

The best argument as to why Patsy (or John) did not write the note is because it makes no sense whatsoever for them to write such a note and then leave the body in the basement.




The ransom note is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, regardless of the fact (indeed, because of it) that there was a homicide and not a kidnapping.

Edmond.DantesIII,

Actually, it is not, and I'm not sure that you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam as well as you should.

Oh but it is, if you do not do your own maths and rely on the opinion of a second party and an alleged expert in the field, then that is argumentum ad verecundiam, which is what you have employed in an attempt to demonstrate something which cannot be established, i.e. Ransom Note authorship.

Also in not publishing any evidence of your own, on this matter, thereby losing all credibility, you then question my intellectual capacity to understand, a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem.

The ransom note is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, regardless of the fact (indeed, because of it) that there was a homicide and not a kidnapping.

mmm, so are you are now suggesting there is a causal link between the Ransom Note and the death of JonBenet, would you like to offer evidence to support this claim?

There is absolutley zero evidence of any intruder being in the Ramsey house.

.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

How can you say absolutely when there is the DNA evidence?

 

[UKGuy]

How can you say absolutely when there is the DNA evidence?

Smelly Squirrel,
What DNA evidence? Are you referring to the unidentified touch-dna found in JonBenet's underwear and clothing?

If so then that could have come from anywhere, there is no need for it to belong to an intruder.



.

 

[wengr]

How can you say absolutely when there is the DNA evidence?

There is quite possibly similiar "evidence" all over you and I at the present time.

 

[SunnieRN]

How can you say absolutely when there is the DNA evidence?

Hi Smelly Squirrel. I go to work, I shake hands with one of my patients family members or friends hands. They leave the hospital and go home to where their children are. Unfortunately, people do not always clean their own hands when leaving a hospital like they should.

They change their children into their pajamas, to get them ready for bed. An intruder breaks into the house that night. The child is missing. Their pajamas are left behind. When LE does touch DNA on the pajamas, hoping to find that of a kidnapper, they pull the parents DNA, the child's DNA and two unknown samples of touch DNA. One of these could possibly be mine. This would be unintentional, innocent transfer of touch DNA.

Luckily I have an alibi, as I was at work and I don't have DNA on file anywhere, as I have never been arrested, but you get my point I hope.

DNA is much different than tDNA.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I understand what transfer DNA is. I also understand that matching DNA was found at 3 sites, making the transfer DNA theory less likely. In any case, that there is this evidence, even if it's not definitive, refutes the claim of "absolutely zero evidence." There is also other evidence besides the DNA that is consistent with an intruder. If we used this logic of non-definitive evidence meaning zero, then there is also zero evidence for RDI. We have seen nothing conclusive for any theory. But I've been over these issues many times with others.<modsnip>

 

[Whaleshark]

Actually, it is not, and I'm not sure that you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam as well as you should.

However, considering that handwriting analysis is not an exact science, it is certainly not enough to argue that Patsy did not write the note based solely upon the balance of expert opinion in the field of handwriting analysis.

The best argument as to why Patsy (or John) did not write the note is that it makes no sense whatsoever for them to write such a note and then leave the body in the basement.




The ransom note is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, regardless of the fact (indeed, because of it) that there was a homicide and not a kidnapping.

So since it makes no sense whatsoever, and everyone else but the Ramseys believe the note to be bogus, the reason we should not find it peculiar that the Ramseys themselves still believed it to be a kidnapping, even with their murdered child found there, but not a burglary or a covered up molestation or other multiple forms of abuse, is simply because the Ramseys were just that clueless?

They were just so inept and clueless about these things, that they still believed it was a kidnapping, despite all obvious circumstances to the contrary? Everyone else had a clue... Just not them? I wonder why they wouldn't then believe FBI or law enforcement, or lawyer information to the contrary? Why should they insist that it must have been nothing more than a kidnapping for ransom, even when other, obviously more adept, experienced, investigators, FBI, and other experts said to the contrary?

 

[madeleine]

maybe they wrote a kidnapping note because they intended to get rid of the body (why the blanket was needed,transportation) but then got cold feet,decided to hide her body in the basement until the cops are gone?

 

[madeleine]

a fake kidnapping note "explains" why the person is missing....so yep,if I'd try to get rid of a body and mislead police I'd probably write such a note

 

[madeleine]

it's not like when dealing with adults...you can easily claim an adult just walked away and disappeared,he doesn't wanna be found,he left home,city,etc
not that easy to explain why a 6year old went missing....

 

[madeleine]

yep it makes perfect sense to me now....they wanted to get rid of the body but changed their minds/something happened,panic?(afraid of being seen maybe?)
the RN makes PERFECT sense if so....

 

[UKGuy]

maybe they wrote a kidnapping note because they intended to get rid of the body (why the blanket was needed,transportation) but then got cold feet,decided to hide her body in the basement until the cops are gone?

madeleine,
Not intending to be insensitive, if JonBenet is dead why a blanket? I think the police established that the blanket had never been on JonBenet's bed that night.

So I reckon its part of the staging.



.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
Not intending to be insensitive, if JonBenet is dead why a blanket? I think the police established that the blanket had never been on JonBenet's bed that night.

So I reckon its part of the staging.



.

easier to transport (to a car for ex)....something else....you would wanna have her wrapped in something if you decide to bury her,right?

 

[OpenMind4U]

I understand what transfer DNA is. I also understand that matching DNA was found at 3 sites, making the transfer DNA theory less likely. In any case, that there is this evidence, even if it's not definitive, refutes the claim of "absolutely zero evidence." There is also other evidence besides the DNA that is consistent with an intruder. If we used this logic of non-definitive evidence meaning zero, then there is also zero evidence for RDI. We have seen nothing conclusive for any theory. But I've been over these issues many times with others. I haven't posted in this forum for over a year. I think I'll take another break now. Bye.

Thank you! Good decision!......but please spend your 'break' time reading DNA and touch-DNA thread on FFJ. You'll find absolutely incredable evidences of what you was talking about. In addition, good education lesson...FREE.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

easier to transport (to a car for ex)....something else....you would wanna have her wrapped in something if you decide to bury her,right?

madeleine,
Some people just bury stuff as found. A blanket is an extra, some argue it indicates parental concern, or undoing, might be, or it could be a staging prop?


.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
Some people just bury stuff as found. A blanket is an extra, some argue it indicates parental concern, or undoing, might be, or it could be a staging prop?


.

people bury their pets in boxes,they don't just throw the dead animal in a hole and cover it with dirt (SORRY for being so graphic)
I guess same applies if you are forced by the circumstances (cover your own butt) to bury (get rid of) your dead child which you murdered.
it's the only thing that really makes sense re the presence of the blanket IMO
if you add the presence of the RN note(explains the missing child/body)....this is what it tells me....they wanted to get rid of the body

 

[BOESP]

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.

That is a ludicrous statement and takes away from the credibility of any other statements you have made or might make.

 

[madeleine]

maybe this is also the reason why her clothes have been changed....for her to be clean (maybe they didn't even think of covering up the molestation,if they intended to bury her they didn't give a damn about it,they thought she will never be found) ....you don't bury someone you love in dirty clothes or a nightgown....no matter what they did IMO they still were parents and maybe SOME of the things they did were misinterpreted?(like what I said above....)