The ransom note

[aussiesheila]

"No intruder is going to handwrite a note."


Nobody who lives in the same house are going to identify a kidnapping, sure to invite the FBI, and then leave 2 1/2 pages of handwriting samples for analysis.

It seems like you are one of the very few people who think that Patsy didn't write the note Holdontoyourhat, not that this necessarily makes you wrong of course.

WRT your statement "Nobody who lives in the same house are going to identify a kidnapping, sure to invite the FBI, and then leave 2 1/2 pages of handwriting samples for analysis." I disagree. I think Patsy would have been crazed enough, having just learnt of the death of her daughter, and having just been told that she had to write a ransom note, to have written just this very kind of note.

I don't think she was thinking of the implications, I think she just put in what she was told to in the first two paragraphs. Then being left to finish the note on her own with instructions to frighten John into not calling the police I think she let her imagination run riot on the fear thing.

I also think the note shows her getting angrier and angrier at John all the while for allowing this to happen. I think this was a case of absolving herself of responsibilty in the chain of events that led up to JonBenet's death and shifting it onto John.

I don't have any problem believing Patsy sat alone in the kitchen writing this entire note in the lonely hours of the early morning while John lay asleep upstairs blissfully unaware of the horror that awaited him.

 

[Goody]

Why the heck would an intruder leave a note when he/she was so careful as to not leave any DNA, hairs, fibers, etc...???

The ransom note was written to explain a dead child hidden in the basement... period.

Exactly. And to lead authorities away from the people who lived in the house.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It seems like you are one of the very few people who think that Patsy didn't write the note Holdontoyourhat, not that this necessarily makes you wrong of course.

WRT your statement "Nobody who lives in the same house are going to identify a kidnapping, sure to invite the FBI, and then leave 2 1/2 pages of handwriting samples for analysis." I disagree. I think Patsy would have been crazed enough, having just learnt of the death of her daughter, and having just been told that she had to write a ransom note, to have written just this very kind of note.

I don't think she was thinking of the implications, I think she just put in what she was told to in the first two paragraphs. Then being left to finish the note on her own with instructions to frighten John into not calling the police I think she let her imagination run riot on the fear thing.

I also think the note shows her getting angrier and angrier at John all the while for allowing this to happen. I think this was a case of absolving herself of responsibilty in the chain of events that led up to JonBenet's death and shifting it onto John.

I don't have any problem believing Patsy sat alone in the kitchen writing this entire note in the lonely hours of the early morning while John lay asleep upstairs blissfully unaware of the horror that awaited him.

Crazed people, who don't think of the implications, get caught. They get caught with overwhelming evidence against them.

Despite the tons of evidence left at the crime scene (murder weapon, handwritten ransom note, body, etc., etc.), LE didn't have any single item of evidence that overwhelmingly connected either parent to JBR's murder. They are probably not even involved.

I don't have any problem believing an English as 2nd language author of foreign nationality wrote the note. What you need is a 8x10" blowup of the letter 'f' in 'follow' in the first paragraph of the RN. It is not disguised, its ornate.

 

[UKGuy]

It seems like you are one of the very few people who think that Patsy didn't write the note Holdontoyourhat, not that this necessarily makes you wrong of course.

WRT your statement "Nobody who lives in the same house are going to identify a kidnapping, sure to invite the FBI, and then leave 2 1/2 pages of handwriting samples for analysis." I disagree. I think Patsy would have been crazed enough, having just learnt of the death of her daughter, and having just been told that she had to write a ransom note, to have written just this very kind of note.

I don't think she was thinking of the implications, I think she just put in what she was told to in the first two paragraphs. Then being left to finish the note on her own with instructions to frighten John into not calling the police I think she let her imagination run riot on the fear thing.

I also think the note shows her getting angrier and angrier at John all the while for allowing this to happen. I think this was a case of absolving herself of responsibilty in the chain of events that led up to JonBenet's death and shifting it onto John.

I don't have any problem believing Patsy sat alone in the kitchen writing this entire note in the lonely hours of the early morning while John lay asleep upstairs blissfully unaware of the horror that awaited him.

aussiesheila,
One of the very few who do not think Patsy authored the note is Gerald R. McMenamin an eminent Professor of Linguistics.

Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in
linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases
of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic
linguistics, including the book Forensic Stylistics

In his book:
Forensic Linguistics Advances in Forensic Stylistics he uses JonBenet as a case study.

Here is an excerpt from the introduction and concluding paragraphs ...

Case Study:
JonBenét Ramsey
GERALD R. McMENAMIN

10.1 Introduction
Six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey was found dead in her home on December
26, 1996. Before she was found, a three-page ransom letter (Figure 10.1) was discovered in the Ramsey home, precipitating the search for the missing child.
In early January, 1997, attorneys for John and Patricia Ramsey anticipated
the need to determine if each parent could be excluded as the writer of the
ransom letter. Therefore, they sought assistance on the Ramsey matter,
requesting a forensic stylistic analysis of the questioned ransom note vis-àvis
the known reference writings of each parent.

The district attorney, for reasons seemingly related to other available
evidence, focused less on John Ramsey and more on Patricia Ramsey as the
potential writer of the ransom letter. Linguistic findings regarding both the
ransom letter and the known Ramsey writings were first reported to their
attorneys in January 1997. This chapter reports elements of the linguistic
analysis principally related to Patricia Ramsey.

10.2 Method
Four tasks were undertaken in order to accomplish this assignment. First, I
established the range of variation present in the questioned ransom letter. I
then did the same for the known reference writings of John and Patricia
Ramsey, which consisted of three types of hand-printed texts for each of
them:
1. one requested writing in the form of a hand-printed repetition of
the ransom letter, produced as a result of dictation of the letter to each person on separate occasions,
2. two requested writings in the form of hand-printed repetitions of the ransom letter, produced as a result of each person copying their first dictated letter on separate occasions, and
3. a limited sample of nonrequest “natural” writings, produced before December 26, 1996, in the form of personal notes, calendar entries, and letters. Also, since Patricia Ramsey remained a suspect-writer after initial investigative efforts, she later produced from dictation another two hand-printed versions of the ransom note.

... concluding ...

10.5 Discussion
Exclusion of Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the questioned letter is indicated
because the stylistic profiles of her reference writings and the evidence writing are different. There are 18 to 20 variables (depending on how they are
counted) with contrasting variants in the two sets of writings. Further, the
questioned letter contains sufficient variability to estimate the probability at
zero that its stylistic profile could be randomly matched. In the most conservative of analyses, in examining just the three variables that occur in and also differ from Mrs. Ramsey’s precrime, nonrequest writing, the probability of these three variables randomly occurring in any one writer is estimated at 14 to 17%.

10.5.1 Strength of Findings
Authorship exclusion requires presence of significant differences; identification
requires absence of significant differences as well as presence of significant
similarities between questioned and known writings. In this case, the substance and strength of differences between the questioned ransom letter
and the known Ramsey writings are sufficient to exclude Mrs. Ramsey as the
writer of the ransom letter. The differences are substantial and strong insofar
as they show the broad range of individual difference in the language system
of each writer.
For example, note that the questioned writer’s hyphenation of the compound
word “pick-up,” contrasts with the Ramseys’ probably unconscious
habits of writing it as one word (John’s pickup), or as two words without
hyphen (Patricia’s pick up). The remaining respective habits of style used by
John and Patricia Ramsey all show, in varying degrees, underlying language
systems very different from each other, as well as from the writer of the
questioned letter.

 

[Parmenides]

The ransom note was written to explain a dead child hidden in the basement... period.

I would say the ransom note was written to explain a missing child.

At the time it was written, perhaps the intention was to dispose of the (beheaded?) body later, hoping that LE would find it and deduce that JB had been killed by the foreign faction because the Ramseys called the police,

 

[rashomon]

I don't have any problem believing an English as 2nd language author of foreign nationality wrote the note. What you need is a 8x10" blowup of the letter 'f' in 'follow' in the first paragraph of the RN. It is not disguised, its ornate.

I'm of foreign nationality too, and imo no way would a person of foreign nationality have known and used a term like 'fat cat' in that special meaning. Only a native would have known such an expression.
The same goes for "use that good southern common sense of yours". This reveals the writer as being from the south of the US. A Southerner speaking to another Southerner.
Although John originally was not from the South, he had lived there for so long that I think Patsy meanwhile considered him to be one of them.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Yet if it was written afterwards, why did the author not revise the ransom note to reflect a lust murder and garotting in the wine-cellar e.g. by removing the word behead?

PMPT pb, p. 307 about the CASKU experts' analysis of the crime scene and ransom note:
"The only reason to write the note and leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime. And to give credibility to the ransom note and a bogus kidnapping, the offender had to make the police believe that jonBenet had been restrained and silenced. This was called staging within staging."

And I believe that the sexual assault and garrote elements were then added in a last minute thought to give an additional dramatic touch - to show how horribly cruel the 'foreign faction' was that they even did this. In short, the stager wildly threw together anything which should point away from the parents as the perps.
And I believe at the time when the staging was being done, the RN writer, being in a panicked frenzy, had alreaday forgotten part of what she had written in the note.
I'm convinced that the ransom note was written after the killing, and that Patsy was the author.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm of foreign nationality too, and imo no way would a person of foreign nationality have known and used a term like 'fat cat' in that special meaning. Only a native would have known such an expression.
The same goes for "use that good southern common sense of yours". This reveals the writer as being from the south of the US. A Southerner speaking to another Southerner.
Although John originally was not from the South, he had lived there for so long that I think Patsy meanwhile considered him to be one of them.

PR doesn't think JR's a southerner. Fat cat expression is used around the world, including Europe and Russia.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

PR doesn't think JR's a southerner. Fat cat expression is used around the world, including Europe and Russia.

It's also used here in the US, especially by an older generation. I read somewhere that Patsy's mother Nedra teased Patsy by calling her and John fat cats.

I think Patsy wanted John to be considered a southerner. She was proud to call herself one, so ofcourse she wants her husband to be one as well. DOI is literally filled with mention of the Southern way of life and its values and how the Rs are so misunderstood for being such typical Southerners that others don't understand.

 

[rashomon]

Fat cat expression is used around the world, including Europe and Russia.

I doubt that it is used in non-English speaking countries. We don't have it in the German language for example in the meaning 'a very rich person'. These people are called "Geldsack" (= money sack) in German.

 

[UKGuy]

PMPT pb, p. 307 about the CASKU experts' analysis of the crime scene and ransom note:
"The only reason to write the note and leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime. And to give credibility to the ransom note and a bogus kidnapping, the offender had to make the police believe that jonBenet had been restrained and silenced. This was called staging within staging."

And I believe that the sexual assault and garrote elements were then added in a last minute thought to give an additional dramatic touch - to show how horribly cruel the 'foreign faction' was that they even did this. In short, the stager wildly threw together anything which should point away from the parents as the perps.
And I believe at the time when the staging was being done, the RN writer, being in a panicked frenzy, had alreaday forgotten part of what she had written in the note.
I'm convinced that the ransom note was written after the killing, and that it Patsy was the author.

rashomon,

The only reason to write the note and leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime.

This is the point! We know that was its intention the minute JonBenet's corpse was discovered in the wine-cellar.

At most it was a time saving device as per JR's attempt to fly out of Colorado that day!

The staging sequencing may actually be the reverse of what is suggested in PMPT!

I think its likely that the RN was to be the preferred plan to that of the one encompassing the sexual assault and garrote elements. And as we know it was never followed through.

Here is how I see the staging unfolding ...

1. Preliminary staging

2. Patsy's sexual assault and garrote elements staging.

3. Ransom Note with the addition of her Barbie Gown, attributed to John, and not completed.


The staging is difficult to sequence, mainly because we dont know where it was all done.

With the possible exception of 3. I do not think it was done in the wine-cellar, 1. may have taken place upstairs, and 2. elsewhere in the basement.



.

 

[aussiesheila]

aussiesheila,
One of the very few who do not think Patsy authored the note is Gerald R. McMenamin an eminent Professor of Linguistics.

Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in
linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases
of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic
linguistics, including the book Forensic Stylistics

In his book:
Forensic Linguistics Advances in Forensic Stylistics he uses JonBenet as a case study.

Here is an excerpt from the introduction and concluding paragraphs ...

Gerald R. McMenamin - why is he eminent? At which institution was he a professor and where did he get his PhD?

People who write books are not necessarily reliable experts. The analysis of his reproduced in your post is not at all convincing to me, given that Patsy would have made every effort to disguise her usual spelling, expression and handwriting in the ransom note and most probably even wrote the note with her left hand.

IMO the experts with the best credentials were those who were of the opinion that either she wrote the note or could not be eliminated as having written it.

 

[BBB167893]

So McMenamin has studied this case? Damn. I wanted to get him involved somehow. Although I don't know if double-blind is really possible in his line of work.

Remember, aussiesheila: McMenamin's not a handwriting expert, per se. His business is linguistics. Not how the letters are formed but how the brain translates to paper.

I don't know what his qualifications are. I doubt he had as much as the others.

"IMO the experts with the best credentials were those who were of the opinion that either she wrote the note or could not be eliminated as having written it."

That seems to be the case, far as I know.

Incidentally, I took a few criminal justice classes in college. This case came up a few times. We even had a mock trial. It was a hung jury. Seven wanted to convict Patsy, one John, one Burke, two said it was an intruder (one thought it was Santa Bill, another some random thrill killer) and one couldn't decide either way.

Funny the things you learn.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Incidentally, I took a few criminal justice classes in college. This case came up a few times. We even had a mock trial. It was a hung jury. Seven wanted to convict Patsy, one John, one Burke, two said it was an intruder (one thought it was Santa Bill, another some random thrill killer) and one couldn't decide either way.

Funny the things you learn.

Your jury was way off.

 

[BBB167893]

Does it really matter, HOTYH? It was just a mock trial for education purposes. Don't get so upset by it.

(Incidentally, I thought my closing argument was brilliant!)

 

[aussiesheila]

Does it really matter, HOTYH? It was just a mock trial for education purposes. Don't get so upset by it.

(Incidentally, I thought my closing argument was brilliant!)

OK SuperDave, let's hear it.

 

[BBB167893]

OK SuperDave, let's hear it.

Okay, but I MUST caution you: this was quite a while ago, and I didn't save the paper, so I'm going from memory!

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I could stand here and recite the pledge of allegiance, the part about justice for all. But I won't. Because the legal system has proven in this case that it's not true. There's two kinds of justice in this country: one for the rich; one for everyone else. You have a chance to prove that idea wrong, to show that the laws apply to everyone, the million-dollar CEOs and their beauty-pageant wives as well as the bums on Skid Row. You've heard from pathologists how this poor little angel was likely molested as punishment for her disobediance. What was her offense? She had a problem with bedwetting. Didn't any of you? Didn't you go to your parents for support? So did this one. And she was killed for it. It may have been an accident. It very well may have been. But that was not the end of it. Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter because, when she could have saved her, when she SHOULD have been thinking about her, she was only thinking about HERSELF! Her husband did everything to hinder the investigation. He used his considerable money and power to keep her out of prison. He hired his own investigators. You've heard how they were sabotaging witnesses. He hired his own forensic experts, which only someone with his finances could do. Would you or I have such an opportunity? No, because we have to live our lives on blue-collar salaries. Show him that the law is the law for everyone! Show him that money cannot buy justice. Restore some faith in the legal system. The Ramseys only thought of themselves. Now that's all they have left. Find them guilty, ladies and gentlemen. Think of JonBenet. That's more than they did."

I get the feeling I'll regret this!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This 'closing argument' relies heavily on this 'justice bought off' idea, instead of any actual evidence. It also uses 'circular reasoning', a faulted reasoning method:

"You've heard from pathologists how this poor little angel was likely molested as punishment for her disobediance. What was her offense? She had a problem with bedwetting."

This establishes a pattern of child abuse. Basically, this assigns a rather nasty and hideous personality to the R's. Its all based on very tenuous evidence of preexisting condition, not observed by either her pediatrician or the coroner. Also not agreed to by her pediatrician or coroner even after these tabloid "scandalous" claims were made.

Now that we've assigned this clearly hideous personality to the R's, its easier for some to 'conclude' they had the capacity, will, and motive to murder JBR.

It would look less like circular reasoning if the very premise for this argument (bad, nasty parents) had been established separately from the murder, and prior to the murder.

It seems like almost all RDI theories take the murder, then label the R's as suspicious (after all they were in the same house). Then, these 'personalities' are completely fabricated out of thin air, and used to create otherwise baseless scenarios.

 

[BBB167893]

"This 'closing argument' relies heavily on this 'justice bought off' idea, instead of any actual evidence."

In the first place, HOYTH, I had already presented all of the evidence that I knew of in the regular proceedings leading up to the closing argument. Hammered it damn hard, too! And in the second place, if you think that the prosecution wouldn't hammer that "bought justice" bit hard, you're fooling yourself. He/she absolutely would! Remember the Martha Stewart trial? See, that's the one thing the RST (not necessarily meaning you, HOTYH) forgets about a jury: the human heart. Juries are people, not computers. They take what they see and feel, not just what they're told. That's what I mean when I say that Patsy would have been eaten alive on the witness stand.

"This establishes a pattern of child abuse. Basically, this assigns a rather nasty and hideous personality to the R's."

They did that themselves!

"Its all based on very tenuous evidence of preexisting condition, not observed by either her pediatrician or the coroner."

First of all, HOTYH, the pediatrician was their personal friend and more than a little compromised. Secondly, that really doesn't matter because there had been several months between her death and his last examination. Plenty of time for something to go down. Incidentally, I was rereading an interview with Linda Arndt. She said that the coroner told her "not all of her injuries appeared to be recent," referring to the vaginal injuries.

"Also not agreed to by her pediatrician or coroner even after these tabloid "scandalous" claims were made."

Well, they weren't made in a tabloid. The experts who agreed were:

John McCann, David Jones, Robert Kirschner, Ronald Wright, Virginia Rau, James Monteleone and Richard Krugman, who developed the "punishment for bedwetting" theory.

Also, it might interest you to know that Dr. Andrew Sirotnack, present at the autopsy, co-authored a treatise on child abuse with Dr. Krugman, in which both agreed she had been abused.

"Now that we've assigned this clearly hideous personality to the R's, its easier for some to 'conclude' they had the capacity, will, and motive to murder JBR."

It certainly is! And don't think I didn't know it!

"It would look less like circular reasoning if the very premise for this argument (bad, nasty parents) had been established separately from the murder, and prior to the murder."

That's what I tried to do during the trial.

"It seems like almost all RDI theories take the murder, then label the R's as suspicious (after all they were in the same house). Then, these 'personalities' are completely fabricated out of thin air, and used to create otherwise baseless scenarios."

Now who's using circular reasoning? I stated quite clearly in my opening statement that I planned to destroy the Ramsey spin image of Ozzie and Harriet.

Maybe if you knew more about the trial, you'd be less eager to condemn, but I doubt it. It was completely fair, or as fair as it could be. Prosecution, defense, judge, jury, the lot. Opening statements, presentation (obviously, couldn't do any testimony), arguments, counterarguments, closing arguments from both sides.

What are you beefing about, anyway: I didn't even convince the whole jury.

I knew this would happen.

Anyone else want to critque me?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

First of all, HOTYH, the pediatrician was their personal friend and more than a little compromised.

Wow. The fact that the pediatrician was their 'personal friend' sortof adds to the Ozzie and Harriet argument, doesn't it? I mean, its not like their own pediatrician 'had doubts' or 'was concerned about' this or that preexisting injury.

What does 'more than a little compromised' mean? Compromised in what way? Does it mean he was unable to be objective because his professionalism was blinded by his preexisting frienship with the R's? C'mon. You're reaching.