IDIs On This Forum?

[DeeDee249]

The handwriting COULD POSSIBLY belong to the house, as PR had never been excluded as a possible author of the note, and she was the only one of all the samples taken who was not excluded.
The tape and cord also COULD belong to the house. The Rs were allowed to leave the house that night, both wearing overcoats, PR carrying her purse. A roll of tape and some thin cord could easily have been concealed. They were allowed to leave unsearched. Aunt Pam also was given unfettered access to the home for "retrieval" of items. One of the items JR asked for was his golf clubs which are in a case certainly large enough to hold tape and cord and is clearly visible in the basement just outside the wineceller. There is no way to say definitely that the tape and cord came from an outside source. We're not talking about huge items here.
The fibers were sourced to a shirt owned by JR and some of the navy fibers were shown to be cotton (as in JR's navy bathrobe, which was found on the first floor of the house, NOT in his bed/bath/dressing area, where you'd expect to see it.
The DNA has not been sourced to ANYONE as yet. It has excluded male Ramseys. The DNA under her fingers could have been left there by the use of the same dirty nail clippers for all her fingers when they were clipped at autopsy. It could also have been there for days, as PR says her daughter had no bath Christmas day and she didn't remember if she'd had one Chrismas Eve either. The fact that it is degraded when JBR's is fresh indicated they were left at different times.
So actually all of these things COULD have come from the house- it has not been proved one way or the other. The only clue comes from the register tape from the hardware store, and that does not show the items listed specifically.
The sad thing is that with today's better diagnostic tools, we have no way to get back certain DNA. JBR is long gone after 10 years. JR's bathrobe- long gone. The contaminated nail clippers? Gone or useless after 10 years. The register tape will never be anything more that it was...a POSSIBLE match to the items in question.
No matter which side of this fence you sit on, we ALL want closure here, and we aren't any closer to getting it than we were 10 years ago.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, the handwriting doesn't belong to the house. Neither the tape or cord belong to the house. The DNA doesn't belong to the house. The unidentified dark fibers don't belong to the house. Wasn't there a stuffed Santa bear that didn't belong to the house?

The idea PR wrote the note as staging, the idea that PR bought the cord and tape, and that there is proof, and that the unidentified dark fibers belong to JR's shirt are only a matter of opinion at this point.

The cord, tape, handwriting, and yes, even the fibers and DNA are all forensic evidence that someday could all be matched to the same intruder.

Zero evidence of an intruder is how some have chosen to interpret the evidence. It appears to me that an intruder left handwriting, cord, tape, some fibers, and some DNA. The intruder took with him, at the very least, a piece of paintbrush, cord roll, tape roll, and whatever he used to club JBR with.

Holdontoyourhat,

the handwriting doesn't belong to the house.

The ink used to render it was though.

I have never rated the ransom note since it is fake and bogus, the status of JonBenet's corpse tells you this.

The unidentified dark fibers don't belong to the house.

What fibers, we are not concerned with what we do not know, but with what we can link to any of the suspects, can you cite any forensic evidence that was deposited by the intruder as he roamed about the house?

The DNA doesn't belong to the house.

This is an example of just making it up as you go along. Since you simply do not know, the dna in terms of probability belongs to the house since it was discovered on underwear that belongs there, once you link it to a known individual or show similar dna traces elsewhere in the house, then the likelyhood it may be linked to an intruder increases.

There is currently ZERO forensic evidence that was deposited by an intruder.

Its that simple, no amount of truth shaving, rhetoric, or delusional thinking will change that.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,


The ink used to render it was though.

I have never rated the ransom note since it is fake and bogus, the status of JonBenet's corpse tells you this.


What fibers, we are not concerned with what we do not know, but with what we can link to any of the suspects, can you cite any forensic evidence that was deposited by the intruder as he roamed about the house?


This is an example of just making it up as you go along. Since you simply do not know, the dna in terms of probability belongs to the house since it was discovered on underwear that belongs there, once you link it to a known individual or show similar dna traces elsewhere in the house, then the likelyhood it may be linked to an intruder increases.

There is currently ZERO forensic evidence that was deposited by an intruder.

Its that simple, no amount of truth shaving, rhetoric, or delusional thinking will change that.

.

Well, don't throw away that RN or the DNA, or the fiber, or the cord, or tape just yet. This forensic evidence may be needed to establish a link between the crime scene and a suspect. None of these items have been positively linked to an R, and that should've been easy to do.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, don't throw away that RN or the DNA, or the fiber, or the cord, or tape just yet. This forensic evidence may be needed to establish a link between the crime scene and a suspect. None of these items have been positively linked to an R, and that should've been easy to do.

Holdontoyourhat,

I agree, hang onto the evidence, just in case another J Karr pops up.


.

 

[Ames]

The handwriting COULD POSSIBLY belong to the house, as PR had never been excluded as a possible author of the note, and she was the only one of all the samples taken who was not excluded.
The tape and cord also COULD belong to the house. The Rs were allowed to leave the house that night, both wearing overcoats, PR carrying her purse. A roll of tape and some thin cord could easily have been concealed. They were allowed to leave unsearched. Aunt Pam also was given unfettered access to the home for "retrieval" of items. One of the items JR asked for was his golf clubs which are in a case certainly large enough to hold tape and cord and is clearly visible in the basement just outside the wineceller. There is no way to say definitely that the tape and cord came from an outside source. We're not talking about huge items here.
The fibers were sourced to a shirt owned by JR and some of the navy fibers were shown to be cotton (as in JR's navy bathrobe, which was found on the first floor of the house, NOT in his bed/bath/dressing area, where you'd expect to see it.
The DNA has not been sourced to ANYONE as yet. It has excluded male Ramseys. The DNA under her fingers could have been left there by the use of the same dirty nail clippers for all her fingers when they were clipped at autopsy. It could also have been there for days, as PR says her daughter had no bath Christmas day and she didn't remember if she'd had one Chrismas Eve either. The fact that it is degraded when JBR's is fresh indicated they were left at different times.
So actually all of these things COULD have come from the house- it has not been proved one way or the other. The only clue comes from the register tape from the hardware store, and that does not show the items listed specifically.
The sad thing is that with today's better diagnostic tools, we have no way to get back certain DNA. JBR is long gone after 10 years. JR's bathrobe- long gone. The contaminated nail clippers? Gone or useless after 10 years. The register tape will never be anything more that it was...a POSSIBLE match to the items in question.
No matter which side of this fence you sit on, we ALL want closure here, and we aren't any closer to getting it than we were 10 years ago.

Tell it like it is...sista!!

Another thing...what is so strange about JR wanting his golf clubs....Patsy in her interview...said that John was not an avid golfer...that he didn't golf much, and that she could not even REMEMBER the last time he golfed. So, why then...was that golf bag SOOOOOO important. That would also seem like a very strange thing to even be thinking about, at the time of your daughter's murder. It would be like this....John: " Oh my gosh....I am just so distraught over JonBenét's death, I am simply beside myself....she was my baby. Oh...and by the way Pam, when you go and retrieve our "funeral clothes"...could you please grab my golf clubs and bag, while you're at it, I was thinking that I might do some golfing to clear my mind...and maybe search for the intruder while I am on the gold course. Maybe, I can even get OJ Simpson to help me". This is my opinion....Pam even retrieved their passports...and the kid's baby teeth! Passports? Now were they planning on ever coming back inside that house again? Apparently not...so, hmmmm...just where did they intend on going....with passports, and golf clubs? To the Bahamas, perhaps? Apparently they had a VERY long trip planned, to get out of the country...and John was either trying to get that golf bag out of the house, because it contained evidence...or he had planned on going far, far away...for a very long time...to a place out of the country, where they have golf courses. Either way...it looks extremely suspicious to me.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not sure the LaBerge guy is a 'hired goon'. He's Denver PD, right?

Was he connected to Augustin and Gray, though?

Again, RDI has to write off the DNA as background DNA, even though it belongs to an unidentified male, and shows up in two criminally conspicuous areas. Under her fingernails and mixed with her blood in her underwear is pretty damning forensic evidence, BTW. That is, if any suspect so far had matched the DNA, then it wouldn't be background DNA anymore.

That's a very interesting assertion, Holdon, especially since the DA is as IDI as you can get and agrees with us!

The only reason I can come to for IDI theorists is that they just can't believe that parents LIKE the Ramseys (meaning educated, money) would do this. They are excellent in their interviews.

I can relate. I was like that once.

The RN and the MO leads us to believe it was an intruder

That's a joke, right? There was no MO. This person just made it up as they went along, and you don't have to take my word for it. Ask CASKU, if you don't believe me.

And SB, you reply was spot on.

Ah, SB. My favorite Hong Kong action studio! (Shaw Brothers). But I know what you meant.

Most RDI are claiming that 'no forensic evidence exists' because the DNA just doesn't fit the RDI scenario, does it.

Oh, I don't know. Let's see: Henry Lee, Barry Scheck, Michael Kane are all on the RDI side. Need I go on?

"Forensic evidence" would be defined as evidence of such quality as to be admissible in a court of law. The depo implies Mr. Levin has access to that type knowledge. I seriously doubt it could be classed as forensic evidence if it was not based on expert opinion.

He'd have been brought up on ethics charges if he weren't telling the truth.

If they had enough forensic evidence, and maybe a motive, they would've prosecuted.

As I've often explained to you, Holdon, the lack of prosecution was not due to lack of evidence. In fact, I'll give you the full run-down right NOW!

Here you are:
The short answer is that, in a court of law, you have to decide who has done what specific crime. You can't let the jury figure it out for themselves. You HAVE to decide who did what. They never could do it.
The long answer is:
1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! (Midyette Case again) This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.
Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?
When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?
COME ON, HOW MANY!?
That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.

The question, Holdon, is not the forensic evidence. It's matched what with who. I elaborate:

3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.
WHEW!

Fact is there was no direct evidence linking any family member to JBR's murder.

I can give you a list of that, too!

The ransom note is by far the best forensic evidence of an intruder, as it has not been matched to handwriting of any household member. Claiming simply that PR wrote the note as part of staging is one way of simply denying that this evidence exists.

Oh yeah!? Maybe you'll believe your own eyes:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

In fact, would you camp out in a stranger's home, all but impossible to navigate in the dark, capable of being spotted at any time, feed your victim pineapple, wait two more hours for it to digest, lead them to the basement, tie up their hands in a way that wouldn't restrain an infant, molest her so it only scratches the interior of the vagina, which you would need three arms to do because you have to pull the cord with one hand and hold her down with the other, using a cord with the wrong knot for your purposes, put tape on her mouth AFTER she's dead when that makes no sense (if you were worried about her screaming, you'd gag her first), sneak into the parents' room, steal their clothing, drip fibers in five areas (not even on the body), go back up, put the clothes back exactly the way you found them, redress the body (when leaving her naked under the tree would be so much better), put her favorite nightgown in the blanket with her, then write a ransom note that really says nothing, knowing you won't get any money, then leave bold as brass, only leaving a speck of DNA that couldn't have been left that night because it was so much older than JB's DNA...
WHEN it would be so much simpler to grab her when she's alone (playing in the yard, coming home from school, etc.,) take her to a place where you feel safe where there's no rush and you have her at leisure (like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Dennis Dechaine et al have done)?

Oh, I'm on fire today!

 

[Ames]

Was he connected to Augustin and Gray, though?



That's a very interesting assertion, Holdon, especially since the DA is as IDI as you can get and agrees with us!



I can relate. I was like that once.



That's a joke, right? There was no MO. This person just made it up as they went along, and you don't have to take my word for it. Ask CASKU, if you don't believe me.



Ah, SB. My favorite Hong Kong action studio! (Shaw Brothers). But I know what you meant.



Oh, I don't know. Let's see: Henry Lee, Barry Scheck, Michael Kane are all on the RDI side. Need I go on?



He'd have been brought up on ethics charges if he weren't telling the truth.



As I've often explained to you, Holdon, the lack of prosecution was not due to lack of evidence. In fact, I'll give you the full run-down right NOW!

Here you are:
The short answer is that, in a court of law, you have to decide who has done what specific crime. You can't let the jury figure it out for themselves. You HAVE to decide who did what. They never could do it.
The long answer is:
1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! (Midyette Case again) This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.
Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?
When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?
COME ON, HOW MANY!?
That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.

The question, Holdon, is not the forensic evidence. It's matched what with who. I elaborate:

3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.
WHEW!



I can give you a list of that, too!



Oh yeah!? Maybe you'll believe your own eyes:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

In fact, would you camp out in a stranger's home, all but impossible to navigate in the dark, capable of being spotted at any time, feed your victim pineapple, wait two more hours for it to digest, lead them to the basement, tie up their hands in a way that wouldn't restrain an infant, molest her so it only scratches the interior of the vagina, which you would need three arms to do because you have to pull the cord with one hand and hold her down with the other, using a cord with the wrong knot for your purposes, put tape on her mouth AFTER she's dead when that makes no sense (if you were worried about her screaming, you'd gag her first), sneak into the parents' room, steal their clothing, drip fibers in five areas (not even on the body), go back up, put the clothes back exactly the way you found them, redress the body (when leaving her naked under the tree would be so much better), put her favorite nightgown in the blanket with her, then write a ransom note that really says nothing, knowing you won't get any money, then leave bold as brass, only leaving a speck of DNA that couldn't have been left that night because it was so much older than JB's DNA...
WHEN it would be so much simpler to grab her when she's alone (playing in the yard, coming home from school, etc.,) take her to a place where you feel safe where there's no rush and you have her at leisure (like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Dennis Dechaine et al have done)?

Oh, I'm on fire today!

:dance: Yes you ARE!!! Tell it like it is!!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

I also want to reiterate that the DNA in her panties DOES NOT match the DNA under her fingernails. They come from 2 different sources.

 

[BOESP]

...
Oh, I'm on fire today!

At the risk of causing you to burn out, I noticed several pasta.doc files listed on one of the January 1997 search warrants. I take it these are not recipe files. Are they business files or something else? TIA

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's a very interesting assertion, Holdon, especially since the DA is as IDI as you can get and agrees with us!

I suppose thats why they tested JK? Because they think its background DNA?

Oh yeah!? Maybe you'll believe your own eyes:

I'm sorry but going by your link, PR's handwriting is much neater, spaced differently, and has way more differing shapes than similar shapes. What handwriting experts are endorsing this comparison? 1, 2, 3 or 0?

 

[BOESP]

Is it just me or does the ransom note look like it was written either by two people or by one person switching between hands every few lines? The slant changes, randomly, as does the shakiness of the writing.

Is there any proof Patsy was ambidextrous?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is it just me or does the ransom note look like it was written either by two people or by one person switching between hands every few lines? The slant changes, randomly, as does the shakiness of the writing.

Is there any proof Patsy was ambidextrous?

That has never been mentioned that I am aware of, but it HAS been suggested that the note could have been written by a right-handed person using their left hand.

 

[BOESP]

...
I'm sorry but going by your link, PR's handwriting is much neater, spaced differently, and has way more differing shapes than similar shapes. What handwriting experts are endorsing this comparison? 1, 2, 3 or 0?

Holdon, I just checked the handwriting link offered by SuperDave. I am by no means a forensic document examiner but I am ambidextrous. In my opinion, the similarities between the ransom note and the exemplars given in the .pdf document are amazingly similar even to my untrained eye, especially considering they were done with a Sharpie pen on low-quality paper. If I were sitting on a jury and that exhibit was presented, bells and whistles would go off for me.

I'm not saying it proves Patsy killed JonBenet, but Patsy did tell Steve Thomas on national television that she agreed with him: whoever wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, I just checked the handwriting link offered by SuperDave. I am by no means a forensic document examiner but I am ambidextrous. In my opinion, the similarities between the ransom note and the exemplars given in the .pdf document are amazingly similar even to my untrained eye, especially considering they were done with a Sharpie pen on low-quality paper. If I were sitting on a jury and that exhibit was presented, bells and whistles would go off for me.

I'm not saying it proves Patsy killed JonBenet, but Patsy did tell Steve Thomas on national television that she agreed with him: whoever wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet.

Yeah well where is the forensic document examiner signing on to this comparison??

All I see are two columns of handwriting that have some similarities, but the shapes are mostly dissimilar. No bells, no whistles. Not without the expert opinion.

 

[Ames]

Is it just me or does the ransom note look like it was written either by two people or by one person switching between hands every few lines? The slant changes, randomly, as does the shakiness of the writing.

Is there any proof Patsy was ambidextrous?

The shakiness is obviously from her being hyped up on adrenalin....that and being scared that her butt was going to be thrown in jail. I believe this is why a Sharpie Pen was used....to disquise the handwriting. There were ALOT of similarities between PR handwriting and the RN...but, one of the ones that I keep thinking about is....the letter a (with a hood on it...like the one that I just typed)....not EVERYBODY writes their lower case a's like that, I was taught in school, to write it with a circle and then a line. What are the chances that the "intruder" and Patsy...wrote the same type of a's?? It was also noticed that when Patsy was asked to give a handwriting sample, that to start off with, she wrote the letter a (like its typed here, with a hood)...and then she changed to writing it another way (the way that it is taught in schools). Why would she change it, midstream.

 

[BOESP]

Yeah well where is the forensic document examiner signing on to this comparison??

All I see are two columns of handwriting that have some similarities, but the shapes are mostly dissimilar. No bells, no whistles. Not without the expert opinion.

I guess we're different in that respect. Being ambidextrous may have helped me come to my conclusion. Regardless, I've read several of the various expert document examiner opinions and it seems the opinion is mostly in favor of "consistent with" or "can't be ruled out." Knowing that and seeing for myself, I think I could make a decision.

 

[BOESP]

Yeah well where is the forensic document examiner signing on to this comparison??

All I see are two columns of handwriting that have some similarities, but the shapes are mostly dissimilar. No bells, no whistles. Not without the expert opinion.

I guess we're different in that respect. Being ambidextrous may have helped me come to my conclusion. Regardless, I've read several of the various expert document examiner-opinions and it seems the opinion is mostly in favor of "consistent with" or "can't be ruled out." Knowing that and seeing for myself, I think I could make a decision.

EDIT NOTE: I have no idea why this posted twice because I was only making an editorial change (I added a dash between examiner and opinions).

 

[BOESP]

The shakiness is obviously from her being hyped up on adrenalin....that and being scared that her butt was going to be thrown in jail. I believe this is why a Sharpie Pen was used....to disquise the handwriting. There were ALOT of similarities between PR handwriting and the RN...but, one of the ones that I keep thinking about is....the letter a (with a hood on it...like the one that I just typed)....not EVERYBODY writes their lower case a's like that, I was taught in school, to write it with a circle and then a line. What are the chances that the "intruder" and Patsy...wrote the same type of a's?? It was also noticed that when Patsy was asked to give a handwriting sample, that to start off with, she wrote the letter a (like its typed here, with a hood)...and then she changed to writing it another way (the way that it is taught in schools). Why would she change it, midstream.

I hate to say this Ames but I make my a's just as those shown in the ransom note. :blushing: I didn't attend school in West Virginia though.

 

[Ames]

Holdon, I just checked the handwriting link offered by SuperDave. I am by no means a forensic document examiner but I am ambidextrous. In my opinion, the similarities between the ransom note and the exemplars given in the .pdf document are amazingly similar even to my untrained eye, especially considering they were done with a Sharpie pen on low-quality paper. If I were sitting on a jury and that exhibit was presented, bells and whistles would go off for me.

I'm not saying it proves Patsy killed JonBenet, but Patsy did tell Steve Thomas on national television that she agreed with him: whoever wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet.

And JOHN said in one of his interviews....I have posted it over at FFJ...that he "wondered if a woman wrote it".

 

[Ames]

I hate to say this Ames but I make my a's just as those shown in the ransom note. :blushing: I didn't attend school in West Virginia though.

LOL...did the school that you went to, teach you to write them that way?? I know that some of the population, DO write them that way. My question is...what are the odds that Patsy would write them the same as the intruder, when its not taught that way in school?