The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Tawny]

You stated it as "fact" that it was addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. l". I was responding to what your actual post said.

 

[Anti-K]

You stated it as "fact" that it was addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. l". I was responding to what your actual post said.

According to Thomas, Douglas and Kolar it is a fact and I really don’t understand your confusion. The “l” is supposed to represent a downstroke, not a letter; I’m typing it as Thomas and Kolar depict it in their books: Mr. and Mrs. l

I suppose Douglas is the only one of the three who described it accurately: “Mr. and Mrs.,” along with a single downstroke that could have been the beginning of a capital R

Also, as an aside, the “l” I’m using is a lower case L, but as I said it is supposed to represent a downstroke and is not meant to be any specific letter.
...

AK

 

[cherisa]

According to Thomas, Douglas and Kolar it is a fact and I really don’t understand your confusion. The “l” is supposed to represent a downstroke, not a letter; I’m typing it as Thomas and Kolar depict it in their books: Mr. and Mrs. l

I suppose Douglas is the only one of the three who described it accurately: “Mr. and Mrs.,” along with a single downstroke that could have been the beginning of a capital R

Also, as an aside, the “l” I’m using is a lower case L, but as I said it is supposed to represent a downstroke and is not meant to be any specific letter.
...

AK

I don't understand This....
RDI say Thomas Koler, etc. say it said Mr. And Mrs Ramsey...IDI says...No they said Mr and Mrs l.....RDI Ramsey's Ramsey's Ramsey's it's a bit ridiculous? Maybe it was supposed to say Ramsey, but, it did not say that and that is the fact. Stop twisting things just to support your opinion.

 

[Uberfairy]

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

When I think of all the other parent-killing-child cases over decades, I can't think of any where a ransom note was found and the child was still in the house. Am I wrong? Can you think of any?

It seems to me that if a parent unintentionally killed a child in a fit of rage or to silence a child to prevent her from either screaming or telling, they would feign an accident. Or, they would take the child and surreptitiously slip from the house with their car and drop the body somewhere where she wouldn't be found for a while. Either would probably be more efficient and effective than making and using a garrotte, leaving the child where she is certain to be found along with evidence, writing a long note, then rewriting the note, and then leaving the notepad with pages torn out, but not removing a critical implicating page. That's why it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Uberfairy]

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?

This goes to show how little I know about the case. What duct tape and rope? What were they used for? I am presuming on the child.

The reason they would take something (duct tape and rope) is to deliberately confuse the case. I have a question... how soon after the girl was found did the police do a thorough search of the house? Were they specifically looking for the duct tape and rope at that time or only suspects?

 

[Uberfairy]

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 the person or persons had been inside the home previously, by either invite or break-in, they would know the layout of the house. The note is part of implicating the parents and confusing the case. They want the police to scratch their heads over this and not be able to explain the circumstances.

I don't believe kidnapping was ever a factor. It was a red-herring.

 

[Anti-K]

I don't understand This....
RDI say Thomas Koler, etc. say it said Mr. And Mrs Ramsey...IDI says...No they said Mr and Mrs l.....RDI Ramsey's Ramsey's Ramsey's it's a bit ridiculous? Maybe it was supposed to say Ramsey, but, it did not say that and that is the fact. Stop twisting things just to support your opinion.

This isn’t about what RDI or IDI say. It is about what Thomas, Douglas, and Kolar say. Thomas, Douglas and Kolar say this:

[Kithcart] flipped through the [notepad] bearing the word Patsy and, in the middle, noticed a page with a partial salutation written by a black felt-tip pen.

Mr. and Mrs. l

The single vertical line seemed as if it could be the downstroke that would start the capital letter R.
Thomas; p. 31
.

“Mr. and Mrs.,” along with a single downstroke that could have been the beginning of a capital R.
Olshaker/Douglas; p. 281
.

The words started out at the top of the page, as the addressing of a name would be written, “Mr. and Mrs. l”
Kolar; p. 93
...

AK

 

[Salem]

This thread is about Patsy and the ransom note. Stay on topic or your post will be removed.

Salem

 

[Uberfairy]

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

I agree with everything you said, except when you wrote "Only a "Drama Queen" would write such a long note." It made me wonder who else, other than a drama queen would write such a note. If a person was well-educated, stalked and spied on the family, they could familiarize themselves with the writing styles of both parents. If he chose to implicate PR, he would use phrases she used in speaking or writing. He could match her style, if he was well-versed in English. He would know that long and rambling would not be indicitive of a real ransom note. (At least, I don't think so.) The note would have been prewritten and brought with them to the house. The test or sample note was simply to cause confusion and implicate PR.
I totally agree that the saddest thing is no arrest and no justice for this little girl.

 

[Uberfairy]

Could someone please tell me the timeline of the note. What time did PR awaken and what time did she find the note? When she ran back upstairs, was her husband in the shower or still sleeping? What time was that?

 

[gramcracker]

you could read the books by Schiller/Thomas/Kolar or explore at acandyrose and have all of the details at your fingertips. that's the best way to catch up, IMO

 

[ZBob]

Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?

 

[Venom]

Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?

Yes it did strike me the same way.

 

[Anyhoo]

Could someone please tell me the timeline of the note. What time did PR awaken and what time did she find the note? When she ran back upstairs, was her husband in the shower or still sleeping? What time was that?

First off, something I have discovered is that you cannot accept as fact anything the Ramsey's have said about what took place unless it can be independently collaborated. Period. You state your questions in such a way as they are actually what happened when in reality we have no way of knowing what actually happened in this regard except for what the Ramsey's tell us what happened. I just wanted to state that before going on.

Here is the timeline according to the Ramseys:

PR awakens sometime before 6 AM.
PR goes downstairs and finds the three pages of the note spread out on the spiral staircase.
She runs back upstairs (some versions with the note, some version leaving it downstairs).
It is not clear when JR took a shower. Apparently he did but he was still in his underwear when he came downstairs to read the note (still on the spiral staircase).

As for what really happened, I suspect something far different from what the Ramsey's said, something like this:

PR slept little, if any, that night. She was awake very early in the morning. How could one sleep when your daughter's dead body is in the house and you need to deal with it?

PR did not find the note. PR created the note, with her husband's assistance. They placed the note on the staircase, to be found by LE.

JR was fully aware of and involved with the staging. He probably did sleep, dead daughter or not. He probably also showered, to be groomed and ready for all the LE that he knew were going to be in the house that morning.

 

[Hexe]

If the person or persons had been inside the home previously, by either invite or break-in, they would know the layout of the house.

When you're invited to someone, you usually get to know where the living room is. And the guest toilet. You won't learn the layout of all the floors in the house, basement included. And it seems that the mysterious intruder had to also pop into the master bedroom before he redressed and strangled JB, to borrow John's shirt (black fibers in the JB's crotch area) and Patsy's jacket (red fibers in the paint tray and on the duct tape).

You also would not learn that Patsy used the spiral staircase in the mornings. And the person who left the ransom note knew that.
So whoever it was, knew this house like his five fngers. And knew also the habits of the people living there. And he knew where they store different things. Yet he never left even a tiniest trace of his presence.

The note is part of implicating the parents and confusing the case. They want the police to scratch their heads over this and not be able to explain the circumstances.

I don't believe kidnapping was ever a factor. It was a red-herring.

So why staging a sexual assault on JonBenet? Why wiping and redressing her? Why bothering with ties? Why putting the body in the basement? He could implicate parents by just bludgeoning JonBenet to death and leaving her in her bed. Without staging, without lenghty ransom note. How would they explain that to LE?

I agree with everything you said, except when you wrote "Only a "Drama Queen" would write such a long note." It made me wonder who else, other than a drama queen would write such a note. If a person was well-educated, stalked and spied on the family, they could familiarize themselves with the writing styles of both parents. If he chose to implicate PR, he would use phrases she used in speaking or writing. He could match her style, if he was well-versed in English. He would know that long and rambling would not be indicitive of a real ransom note. (At least, I don't think so.) The note would have been prewritten and brought with them to the house. The test or sample note was simply to cause confusion and implicate PR.

There was no evidence found of any stalking or spying of the Ramseys. And to learn their habits, their speaknig and writing skills, he would have to observe them for months. And that could not be untraceable. And someone who would be so hellbent to destroy Ramseys to stalk them for months, well it's not probable that Ramseys would not know anything about the existence of the person that hated them so much. And nobody like this was ever found.

So for me the most probable explanation for the ransom note is that Patsy wrote it.

 

[Chelly]

Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?

Taking into account the evidence, what we know about PR's writing style, her verbiage and her personality, it is obvious to me that PR is the author of the RN, no doubt about it

 

[Anti-K]

Regarding the author of the RN. From everything I have read it seems to indicate that PR, through many different forms of analysis is the one person who is never excluded from potentially being the author. Including some pretty overwhelming evidence that she is, 24 of 26 letters as I recall. Since she was there, it was written on her pad and with her pen that seems to carry real weight. Given the amount of scrutiny of the note this seems compelling to me that she is most likely the author. Doesn't this strike others the same way?

I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.

When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just can’t beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?

One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.

Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend “The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts.” Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5

Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but I’ll leave you with this:

Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.

From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.

“No Evidence to Indicate” authorship and “Elimination” are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that…
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.

Remember, how it’s been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Here’s a five point scale:
1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination

There are other scales. A 9 point:
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

A 7 point:
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...
AK

 

[Cranberry]

I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.

When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just can’t beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?

One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.

Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend “The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts.” Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5

Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but I’ll leave you with this:

Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.

From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.

“No Evidence to Indicate” authorship and “Elimination” are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that…
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.

Remember, how it’s been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Here’s a five point scale:
1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination

There are other scales. A 9 point:
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

A 7 point:
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...
AK

The 5 point scale was something Alex Hunter got from the Ramsey's book IIRC

 

[Tawny]

I don't know how people can look at the comparisons and deny PR wrote the note. She may have done it left handed, or she may have been actively trying to change her writing (my theory) to disguise it, but I honestly can't understand the denial. It's obvious to me. All, JMHO.

 

[ZBob]

I think that this is one of those areas where we find a great divide between RDI and IDI. IDI, of course, do not think that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mrs (or Mr) Ramsey authored the ransom note. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this, but I think that the only opinions that should count are those of credible experts.

When it comes to the handwriting evidence and expert opinions you just can’t beat the Carnes Decision. There may be many reasons to questions many aspects of the Wolf lawsuit, but it really all came down to whether or not Mrs Ramsey could be identified as author. Can you say EPIC FAIL?

One thing to gain from Carnes is insight into who the credible experts are, why they are considered to be credible (while others are not), and the opinions of those credible experts.

Also, if you can get your hands on it check out Forensics Under Fire. Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? By Jim Fisher. Two chapters directly address the issue of handwriting and linguistic analysis as it pertains to the Ramsey case. I would also recommend “The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts.” Of special interest would be 3. PROBLEM AREAS: (p.9) and 3.1. DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP (p. 10). You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/kfuxjr5

Obviously, this is a rich and controversial area of discussion. I could go on for quite some time, but I’ll leave you with this:

Thomas always seemed careful to say that out of the 73 people whose handwriting had been compared, Mrs Ramseys was the only one KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE who could not be eliminated. In fact, the majority of people tested could not be eliminated.

From the Thomas depo emphasis added:
Q. And how many of the 73 were
8 eliminated as the author of the note based on
9 the handwriting examples or exemplars?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Not many, true?
12 A. I know that the majority fell into
13 the no evidence to indicate category.

“No Evidence to Indicate” authorship and “Elimination” are two separate categories From the Thomas deposition; under discussion is elimination of suspects through handwriting, Thomas responds emphasis added:
18 A. He may very well have fallen into
19 that majority of no evidence to indicate but
20 if you're telling me that he fell into the
21 elimination category, I won't dispute that…
No evidence to indicate (Mrs Ramsey and most others) and Elimination are two separate categories.

Remember, how it’s been said that Mrs Ramsey was a 4 or a 4.5 on a 5 point scale? Here’s a five point scale:
1) Identification
1.5) Highly probable did write
2) Probably did write
2.5) Indications did write
3) No conclusion
3.5) Indications did not write
4) Probably did not write
4.5) Highly probable did not write
5) Elimination

There are other scales. A 9 point:
1) Identification
2) Highly probable did write
3) Probably did write
4) Indications did write
5) No conclusion
6) Indications did not write
7) Probably did not write
8) Highly probable did not write
9) Elimination

A 7 point:
1) Identification
2) Probably did write
3) Indications did write
4) No conclusion
5) Indications did not write
6) Probably did not write
7) Elimination
...
AK

ZBob - Thanks, you sure have a more detailed grasp on this than I or most. I am not sure where and I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I thought there some (significant) conclusions or outcomes that had her as 'indications did write' which would be a 4 on the 9 point scale. I would have to go back to see if I can find where/why I recall that.