The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[BBB167893]

It wont matter if you back it up. :crazy: lol

You're right about that!

 

[gypsychild]

Exactly. Like was the statement where the bonus was given still on the counter on top of the mail, stuff like that? I also recall that the book that was on the nightstand, (I don't remember the title now), was a thriller. A few pages before the dog ear was a scene invoving a ransom note to the effect of a "small faction", kidnapping, , and other key words that found their way into the RN.

And I think your observation is astute, that the writer was just glancing around for inspiration as well.

The don't grow a brain, John, and references to southern good sense or some such nonsense sounds like a woman's pov not a man's. The handwriting is a definite match. It tells me the throwing of the case was intentional.

There is only one person that would cause J and P to stick together on their story until her death.

From the very first time I read the RN, I thought "bitter angry female". The "don't try to grow a brain john" is a total stab at his intelligence and the "good southern common sense" is a little awkward and Scarlett-ish and a uniquely female sounding phrase... I think PR played the sweet dumb southern belle and was internally fuming.
I always thought PR for JBR's death, from the moment I saw her on TV in 1996. The RN cemented this for me, it just seethes passive-aggressiveness imo. For some reason she is very very angry at JR - was it molesting JBR or something else? She had to have something on him in order for this bizarre co-dependant cover up to happen.

 

[UKGuy]

From the very first time I read the RN, I thought "bitter angry female". The "don't try to grow a brain john" is a total stab at his intelligence and the "good southern common sense" is a little awkward and Scarlett-ish and a uniquely female sounding phrase... I think PR played the sweet dumb southern belle and was internally fuming.
I always thought PR for JBR's death, from the moment I saw her on TV in 1996. The RN cemented this for me, it just seethes passive-aggressiveness imo. For some reason she is very very angry at JR - was it molesting JBR or something else? She had to have something on him in order for this bizarre co-dependant cover up to happen.

gypsychild,
Criminals make staging errors and amateur sleuthers make amateur conclusions e.g. using staged evidence to arrive at certain facts?

How do you know it was not John who wrote the ransom note in the manner of Patsy, so to remove himself?

Oh, and one last question: is this a molestation case or an abduction case what does the ransom note suggest?


.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

gypsychild,
Criminals make staging errors and amateur sleuthers make amateur conclusions e.g. using staged evidence to arrive at certain facts?

How do you know it was not John who wrote the ransom note in the manner of Patsy, so to remove himself?

Oh, and one last question: is this a molestation case or an abduction case what does the ransom note suggest?


.

I think the reason Patsy has always been pointed at as the writer of the RN is because her handwriting was the closest match. If it had been John's handwriting, our theories about this case might be very different.

The RN suggests that this is an abduction case, but the outcome doesn't fit that, obviously. Someone who sexually assaults and murders a 6-year-old isn't going to write a RN.

Why did this "intruder" kill JonBenet in the basement? The common theory I've heard is he panicked, but many IDI's also believe that JBR was sexually assaulted and strangulated before the head bash----two things that would definitely not be in done in a panic.

 

[UKGuy]

I think the reason Patsy has always been pointed at as the writer of the RN is because her handwriting was the closest match. If it had been John's handwriting, our theories about this case might be very different.

The RN suggests that this is an abduction case, but the outcome doesn't fit that, obviously. Someone who sexually assaults and murders a 6-year-old isn't going to write a RN.

Why did this "intruder" kill JonBenet in the basement? The common theory I've heard is he panicked, but many IDI's also believe that JBR was sexually assaulted and strangulated before the head bash----two things that would definitely not be in done in a panic.

eileenhawkeye,

The RN suggests that this is an abduction case, but the outcome doesn't fit that, obviously. Someone who sexually assaults and murders a 6-year-old isn't going to write a RN.

So its not an abduction case QED.

Why did this "intruder" kill JonBenet in the basement? The common theory I've heard is he panicked, but many IDI's also believe that JBR was sexually assaulted and strangulated before the head bash----two things that would definitely not be in done in a panic.

Your intruder may have thought JonBenet was already dead and the application of the garrote unknowingly asphyxiated JonBenet. Alternatively with JonBenet comatose and unresponsive Your intruder may have decided to finish JonBenet off?

The important thing to consider is that JonBenet was sexually assaulted, since Coroner Meyer elected only to offer verbal remarks on this subject it is probable there has been evidence redacted otherwise it would be more detailed in the autopsy report.

The other thing that would not have been done in a panic is the redressing of JonBenet and the fabrication of a bogus crime-scene. No intruder is going to waste prescious getaway time on all of that!

So you have a staged crime-scene with the sexual assault hidden beneath layers of clothing. This is what makes the JonBenet case a sexually motivated homicide!

One aspect that is baffling is the size-12's. It appears reasonable to assume Patsy redressed JonBenet in them, but her testimony when interviewed seems to contradict this. Leading me to suspect that it was John who redressed JonBenet this is corroborated wih his shirt's fibers being discovered inside the size-12's.

The Wednesday feature may have been intended, not for external inspection, but in case of an internal viewing e.g. Patsy? Consistency was being maintained not for some unknown and potentially non-existant person who assisted JonBenet in the White's toilet, but in case Patsy pulled down JonBenet's longjohns.


.

 

[shotgunhomicide]

A thought that i'm having regarding PR being the author of the RN: If this is the case (which I think it's likely), why did PR include the passage about not involving LE and other people, if PR intended to indeed call LE and invite a slew of family friends over? Surely it would have been smarter to leave that part out to not incriminate herself as being the author when it would reflect negatively on them for deviating from the written warning.

Another question to WS members. Can anyone explain to me why i'm unable to start new threads? I'm new here and the FAQ didn't offer any insight to why I can't do so. Is there a certain amount of posts I have to make before that privilege is opened up to me? Thanks in advanced.

 

[smurf86]

Shotgunhomicide, I couldn't start new threads when I joined either but I can now PM tricia or one of the mods they should beable to clear it up for you.
ETA: welcome to WS

 

[vlpate]

A thought that i'm having regarding PR being the author of the RN: If this is the case (which I think it's likely), why did PR include the passage about not involving LE and other people, if PR intended to indeed call LE and invite a slew of family friends over? Surely it would have been smarter to leave that part out to not incriminate herself as being the author when it would reflect negatively on them for deviating from the written warning.

Another question to WS members. Can anyone explain to me why i'm unable to start new threads? I'm new here and the FAQ didn't offer any insight to why I can't do so. Is there a certain amount of posts I have to make before that privilege is opened up to me? Thanks in advanced.

I think she was writing what she remembered ransom notes in the movies saying. I don't think she knew how John was going to react and that's why she got so many people over right away.

As far as starting a thread, you might want to ask a mod - they can tell you how to see if the subject might already be in the archives.

Hope this helps and welcome :seeya:

 

[DeeDee249]

A thought that i'm having regarding PR being the author of the RN: If this is the case (which I think it's likely), why did PR include the passage about not involving LE and other people, if PR intended to indeed call LE and invite a slew of family friends over? Surely it would have been smarter to leave that part out to not incriminate herself as being the author when it would reflect negatively on them for deviating from the written warning.

.

A belated welcome to the boards from me.

The reason for the typical instructions not to call anyone is precisely because they KNEW they were going to call people. When the ransom note was written, JB was already dead. By putting in a warning that JB would be killed if the parents called anyone, it was a ready-made explanation for why she was dead: i.e. the "kidnappers" killed her because the parents called police. They had to make that 911 call - so they could say she had been killed because they did! What they didn't think about was this:
That 911 call was made around 6 am, BUT the condition of the body (rigor, livor mortis and pineapple identified in the small intestine) puts a time of death at around midnight - 1 AM - 6 hours before that call was made.

 

[shotgunhomicide]

You're right, DeeDee, and thanks. I hadn't thought about that. Clever. I guess they didn't think about the part where JB was already dead in the wine cellar, therefore, the killer(s) had already killed her and left before the Ramsey's deviated from the RN.

Kind of makes me dislike the R's a little more.

 

[Kimster]

A thought that i'm having regarding PR being the author of the RN: If this is the case (which I think it's likely), why did PR include the passage about not involving LE and other people, if PR intended to indeed call LE and invite a slew of family friends over? Surely it would have been smarter to leave that part out to not incriminate herself as being the author when it would reflect negatively on them for deviating from the written warning.

Another question to WS members. Can anyone explain to me why i'm unable to start new threads? I'm new here and the FAQ didn't offer any insight to why I can't do so. Is there a certain amount of posts I have to make before that privilege is opened up to me? Thanks in advanced.

Hi and welcome to Websleuths!

Only "established" members can open new threads. That means you've been a member for a certain amount of time and you've have a few posts. Keep posting and you'll be making new threads before you know it. :hug:

:welcome:

 

[azwriter]

A belated welcome to the boards from me.

The reason for the typical instructions not to call anyone is precisely because they KNEW they were going to call people. When the ransom note was written, JB was already dead. By putting in a warning that JB would be killed if the parents called anyone, it was a ready-made explanation for why she was dead: i.e. the "kidnappers" killed her because the parents called police. They had to make that 911 call - so they could say she had been killed because they did! What they didn't think about was this:
That 911 call was made around 6 am, BUT the condition of the body (rigor, livor mortis and pineapple identified in the small intestine) puts a time of death at around midnight - 1 AM - 6 hours before that call was made.

Wonderful point of how the time of death does not and will not correspond to the threat in the ransom (letter) note. Keep that thinking cap on DeeDee!

My own background and profession tells me the letter was written by someone familiar with journalism or writing for publication. It's a long list of examples I can point out. Somewhere in the achives of this case the proof I try to offer is tucked away.
When I first posted my examples, I was taken to task and called "crazy." Well, of course I am crazy...but regardless, after 20 plus years in the writing business and a degree in journalism, I can spot something written using the style journalists are trained and required to use. Just My O.

 

[txsvicki]

I know this is the ransom note thread, but several were mentioning the dna on the long john the last couple of pages, and wondering why it wasn't found on objects the killer may have touched in the home. I've watched several crime shows the last year or so, and the experts in those cases said that an object or clothing has to be tugged or pulled with some force to leave the touch dna. The longjohns being pulled up could have left what was found, but would it necessarily be found on the note, pen, or doorknobs even if the actual killer touched them barehanded? Those objects are smoother than clothing, too, and I believe texture was also mentioned by experts in the shows I watched.

 

[UKGuy]

I know this is the ransom note thread, but several were mentioning the dna on the long john the last couple of pages, and wondering why it wasn't found on objects the killer may have touched in the home. I've watched several crime shows the last year or so, and the experts in those cases said that an object or clothing has to be tugged or pulled with some force to leave the touch dna. The longjohns being pulled up could have left what was found, but would it necessarily be found on the note, pen, or doorknobs even if the actual killer touched them barehanded? Those objects are smoother than clothing, too, and I believe texture was also mentioned by experts in the shows I watched.

txsvicki,
You are correct. This is why I remind all IDI that there is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household.

You would expect something, say on the artifacts in the wine-cellar, but there is none, and of course any dna from the parents found on the long johns arrived when they changed JonBenet the night before!


.

 

[SoBeCzar]

Just finished reading Between Good and Evil by Roger Depue, former chief of Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI. He does not mention PR by name but makes it clear she fits the profile of the author of the ransom note. I have always felt she wrote that note.

First post. Hello to all.

 

[Kimster]

Just finished reading Between Good and Evil by Roger Depue, former chief of Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI. He does not mention PR by name but makes it clear she fits the profile of the author of the ransom note. I have always felt she wrote that note.

First post. Hello to all.

:welcome:

Thank you for joining us on Websleuths! :cheer:

 

[momof4ws]

Just finished reading Between Good and Evil by Roger Depue, former chief of Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI. He does not mention PR by name but makes it clear she fits the profile of the author of the ransom note. I have always felt she wrote that note.

First post. Hello to all.

Hi there...I'm kind of new here too! Patsy's journalism background and winning the "talent" competition in a pageant certainly makes it plausible!

 

[momof4ws]

Welcome...I'm fairly new too! Patsy's journalism background and having won the "talent" portion of a pageant makes her the likely RN author! Quite the actress!

 

[momof4ws]

ooooops!!!!! I didn't think my first post went through so I had a redo then saw that it did go through...mybad!

 

[UKGuy]

Just finished reading Between Good and Evil by Roger Depue, former chief of Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI. He does not mention PR by name but makes it clear she fits the profile of the author of the ransom note. I have always felt she wrote that note.

First post. Hello to all.

SoBeCzar,
Welcome. I read this book a while back. It was a good read, a little short on detail, I posted Depue's analysis of the RN on the board somewhere.

I've always liked Steve Thomas book, even if I think he does not tell the full story.



.