The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Mama2JML]

That was certainly no coincidence. My question is: Did Mr. Ramsey actually say this on 12-26-96 or did he not say that and simply say he did when the disposition was taken?

John Ramsey was deposed in the CW suit on 12.12.01, nearly 5 years after JonBenet's murder.

Of course we have no record of what was actually said on 12-26, but either way to deny the way the RN was previously being started is ludicrous to me, just as trying to deny the substance found in JB's stomach was the pineapple from the refrigerator is ludicrous when it was matched "down to the rind". People who want to question the most basic of evidence reveal they have an ulterior motive and agenda, that being to not accept anything which goes against their own theory.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[Tawny]

However, it's not a fact. It's Thomas and Koler's opinion, that is was a so called practice note, right? May not have even been that. We don't know for sure, but we can speculate and speculate we will.

Why would they have a page in a notepad in their own home addressed to them?

 

[Hexe]

Why would they have a page in a notepad in their own home addressed to them?

Coincidentally by the same hand as the one who wrote the ransom letter. I rest my case... :truce:

 

[Anti-K]

What was intended to be "Mr. And Mrs. Ramsay". It's unfinished, not adressed to mysterious Mr. and Mrs I. :facepalm:

Yes, it may be unfinished but the fact is that it IS addressed to “Mr and Mrs l” At least according to what Thomas, Douglas and Kolar tell us.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

Why would they have a page in a notepad in their own home addressed to them?

IIRC, Tawny, the tablet page that began as:

Mr and Mrs l​

was explained by Patsy, with her usual vagueness, that it is possible and she could have, probably, you know, was beginning the wording for an invitation.

 

[Uberfairy]

BBM

1st BBM Why? What's the point of the note?

2nd BBM What??? If "they" left after the crime, sometime between midnight and 2 am 12/26/96, and drove 10 hrs, how in the world are they going to have Christmas dinner with their families? It was the day after Christmas! (Unless they were driving a time machine.) :facepalm:

The point of the note was to implicate one or both of the parents, by leaving a note that made no sense. (Rather like part of my post.)

Gads! What was I thinking?! You're right. For some dumb reason I got it into my head that she died Christmas Eve. Only if they had a Christmas brunch could they travel for hours, commit the crime, and not be missed. Not too likely. (I like the time machine... do you have one handy?)

 

[Uberfairy]

Uberfairy;10116599

So, it's a conspiracy. It isn't one intruder who left not a single trace of himself it was two. Here I thought the JFK assasination got most of the crazy theories. :floorlaugh:

The fantasies are just that, fantasies. A Ramsey killed that child. It probably wasn't planned, at least not in the sense that we tend to think of as planned, but it happened and then there was a cover up by at least one, probably two of the Ramsey's.

I left this thread last month because I could not get past the die hards that defend those horrid people because "loving parents just couldn't do this" in spite of all the cases where so called loving parents have done just such horrid things and in spite of all the evidence.Time to go again. Have fun with your fantasies.

If you believe every crime that involves two individuals working together is a conspiracy, then yes, you can call it that. Of course parents can kill their children and some do. Initially I was convinced that one of them did. But, it doesn't make sense.

It's not that I am die hard defending them. I'm trying to think of other possibilities.

 

[Uberfairy]

So we have here two killers, who prepare their action carefully, wiretapping the phones and hacking the computers of their victims. But, these two meticulous criminals do not bring their own rope, ransom note, duct tape or garrotte. They don't even bring a friggin' flashlight with them. And these two careful planners have no idea how to remove their victim from the house, making all their planning totally useless.

Sorry, but it does not hold the water.

Good point. However, if someone had already accessed the home, through invitation or break-in, was aware of what was available to them in the home, they wouldn't need to bring their own supplies. They would want to implicate the parents. What better way than to use what was inside the home?

If someone had access to master keys, couldn't they gain access easily, with no sign of break-in? Or, am I missing something? Was there some special lock immune to master keys?

Please enlighten me (I'm not being sarcastic)... how is it known they didn't bring flashlights? What about night-vision goggles?

If they never intended to kidnap her and, again, wanted to implicate the parents, what better way to do it? Leaving her in the house would have been part of the plan.

 

[Uberfairy]

Not to mention, it can be PROVEN if their computers were actually hacked and phones were tapped. We know these did not happen.

Exactly how is it that "we" know these did not happen. If the phones were tapped, the taps could have been removed as part of the staging. Do you know who did the forensics on the computers? Were the computers removed immediately or was it later, days or weeks later?

 

[Uberfairy]

My apologies that I strayed away from the topic of the note. Could someone tell me exactly where the notepad was located at the beginning of the evening? My understanding is that pages were torn out. Is that right? If not, and the pages with the note and practice note were still attached, were there any other pages written on that preceeded that evening?

 

[Anti-K]

My apologies that I strayed away from the topic of the note. Could someone tell me exactly where the notepad was located at the beginning of the evening? My understanding is that pages were torn out. Is that right? If not, and the pages with the note and practice note were still attached, were there any other pages written on that preceeded that evening?

As I understand it, Mr Ramsey picked up the notepad from the table shown here: http://www.acandyrose.com/057spiralstairs.jpg

The location of the table (and ransom note) is also shown here (scroll down to first floor; ctrl + scroll to enlarge): http://tinyurl.com/3r7u

Have a look at the blueprint linked to above and note the ransom note’s location on the stairs and the notepad’s location on the hall table. Killer sets one here and one there. Now, imagine the parents showing the police where they found the ransom note. Look at the blueprint and see the parents and the police all standing in that area.

A particularly alert and suspicious (hinky note!) police officer standing in that area, looking around, may have easily picked up on that notepad (same size as ransom note) without it ever being handed to him.

This area is one area that the killer, if he’d thought of it, would know that the parents and the police would all be together. Where did you find the note? Right here. Got anything with your handwriting on it (standard operating procedure)? Sure, right here.

The notepad:
pages 1 – 12: missing
pages 13 – 16: “doodles”
pages 17 - 25: missing
page 26: the so-called practice note - Mr and Mrs l – and bleed through from page 25
pages 27 – 29: the ransom note

So...
Pages 17 to 25 are missing.
Pages 26 (so-called practice note) is attached.
Pages 27, 28, and 29 (the ransom note) is removed.

Removing the pages before and after page 26 - the so-called practice note - creates a bookmark of sorts. This means that the notepad would “naturally” open to page 26, thus making this the first page most likely to be seen by someone looking through the notepad.
...

AK

 

[Venom]

<snip> Initially I was convinced that one of them did. But, it doesn't make sense.

<snip>

May I ask why you think that it doesn't make sense?

 

[Venom]

Good point. However, if someone had already accessed the home, through invitation or break-in, was aware of what was available to them in the home, they wouldn't need to bring their own supplies. They would want to implicate the parents. What better way than to use what was inside the home?

If someone had access to master keys, couldn't they gain access easily, with no sign of break-in? Or, am I missing something? Was there some special lock immune to master keys?

Please enlighten me (I'm not being sarcastic)... how is it known they didn't bring flashlights? What about night-vision goggles?

If they never intended to kidnap her and, again, wanted to implicate the parents, what better way to do it? Leaving her in the house would have been part of the plan.

Did they take the leftover duct tape and rope with them when they left? If they wanted to implicate the parents by using things from the home, why wouldn't they leave them there?

 

[Hexe]

Good point. However, if someone had already accessed the home, through invitation or break-in, was aware of what was available to them in the home, they wouldn't need to bring their own supplies. They would want to implicate the parents. What better way than to use what was inside the home?

But how would they be aware of what was available in the Ramsey household before they entered the house? How? And what exactly would be their intent? If they wanted to railroad Ramseys for some reason why just not murder the girl, do the fake staging and get out? Why even bother with the note?

On the other hand, if they wanted to kidnap JonBenet and failed for some reason, why to do any staging and redressing and why even bothering with that note again?

If someone had access to master keys, couldn't they gain access easily, with no sign of break-in? Or, am I missing something? Was there some special lock immune to master keys?

Okay, so we have here a villain, who hacks the computers, bugs the phones and obtains the master keys. He entries, manages to not get lost in this big house with a complicated layout and borrows himself the flaslight. Then he wakes up JonBenet, feeds her the pineapple in the breakfast room and helps himself with some tea, then they go back to the JB's bedroom, the villain whacks poor girl in the head (blood found in the bed), then he brings her to the basement and assaults her with the brush handle. He is a darrrrn neat villain, so he puts the remnants of the broken brush back into Patsy's paint tray, where it belongs. Then, despite wanting to implicate the parents into a brutal crime, he wipes JB's crotch clean, redresses her into some fresh panties (did he gained the knowledge about the package of the 12 Bloomies in the basement from the computers or from the bugged phones?) and longjohns, wipes the brush handle and finds himself some rope and duct tape. God only knows how did he knew where to find these items, and he had to knew, as there were no friggin' sign of searching in the house. And, ya know, even if he's a neat planner, he still gets the trhrill from being unsure if he will be able to find everything he needs in the Ramseys house. So the villain makes the garrotta, strangles JB (carpet fibers on JB and the urine stain on the basement carpet) and then merrily makes his way upstairs, where he sits comfortably in one of the rooms, writing the ransom note, a totally useless ransom note, with a borrowed pen, on a borrowed pad, considering in the process few different opeinngs for his letter. After he finishes, he puts neatly the pen back in its place, in the mug on the shelf, near the telephone, because he is some kind of a detective Monk of the criminal world, obviously, he is so obsessed with order and neatness. Then he rips the letter out of the pad and spreads on the steps of spiral staircase, and then he comes back to the basement and, for some reason, wraps JonBenet in the blanket (there was no urine on the blanket, AFAIK, so her longjohns had to be already dry at the moment) and draws the heart into her palm. Then hegoes back to kitchen, wipes the flaslight clean and he's gone. All of it without waking anyone at home up. Do you see how absurd this scenario is?

Please enlighten me (I'm not being sarcastic)... how is it known they didn't bring flashlights? What about night-vision goggles?

In the kitchen there was a flashlight, belonging to the Ramseys, wiped clean, inside and out, battery included. Either the intruder used it (but why would he be wiping the insides of it?) or someone went overboard with the staging.

If they never intended to kidnap her and, again, wanted to implicate the parents, what better way to do it? Leaving her in the house would have been part of the plan.

But who would want to implicate Ramseys and what for? As far as I know the LE never found anyone hating them that much.

 

[Tawny]

Yes, it may be unfinished but the fact is that it IS addressed to “Mr and Mrs l” At least according to what Thomas, Douglas and Kolar tell us.
...

AK

No, it is "Mr and Mrs *downstroke*" A downstroke is not automatically an I. A downstroke can be the start of many letters. B, D, E, F, to name the first few.

But considering the ransom note came from THE NEXT THREE PAGES, logic dictates what that little greeting really is.

Why do we ignore logic?

 

[Venom]

Hexe, that intruder must have been as quiet as a mouse.

 

[Venom]

No, it is "Mr and Mrs *downstroke*" A downstroke is not automatically an I. A downstroke can be the start of many letters. B, D, E, F, to name the first few.

But considering the ransom note came from THE NEXT THREE PAGES, logic dictates what that little greeting really is.

Why do we ignore logic?

To fit ones own theories?

 

[Darlene733510]

True kidnappers would leave a short note saying "We have your child. We will call you for further instructions".
Only a "Drama Queen" would write such a long note. while her imagination ran wild with
warning to a "Fat Cat", and words like attaché! Knowing that JB was deceased, and in the wine cellar, IMHO a scheming diabolical person wrote the RN to keep themselves from being arrested. The saddest thing about this whole mess is that there was no arrest, and we are
here still wanting justice for this precious child

 

[Mama2JML]

It's quite possible, maybe even likely, the "practice" note was a first attempt at a RN, that would have addressed "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". I'm not debating this point...

The point I'd like to convey is that John Ramsey's statement (re: "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey") came two weeks shy of the 5 year anniversary of JonBenet's murder. While the first news article, mentioning the practice note, came out less than two weeks after her death. Thus, Mr. Ramsey's knowledge of the "practice" note/salutation, at the time of his deposition in the CW suit, is in no way indicative of guilt.

 

[Anti-K]

No, it is "Mr and Mrs *downstroke*" A downstroke is not automatically an I. A downstroke can be the start of many letters. B, D, E, F, to name the first few.

But considering the ransom note came from THE NEXT THREE PAGES, logic dictates what that little greeting really is.

Why do we ignore logic?

Yes, it is a downstroke, I don’t mean the “l” to be an “I” or any other specific letter, it is just meant as a downstroke and it is how Thomas, Douglas and Kolar describe it: Mr. and Mrs. l

You can say that logic tells us what the greeting was going to be, we don’t need logic to tell us what the so-called practice note is, we can just read it: Mr. and Mrs. l

No one is denying that the “l,” the downstroke, is the beginning of Ramsey. That’s been stated a cpl times, now. Why are you writing as if we don’t all accept this?
…

AK