JonBenet Ramson letter - written before or after + linguistics

[voynich]

Rapist assaulted Amy via oral sex, if JB was as well the saliva may show up as foreign male DNA. Legally speaking, any sexual contact with a minor constitutes rape. So JB was "raped" as was Amy.

In the Carnes decision reports " "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) Re: your handwriting expert, there was one that claimed RN matches John Karr's. Of course there are several who claim PR is not a match (and those who say it does match)

So according to BPD, 6 consulted handwriting experts did not identified PR (despite being forced to give both historical exemplars and her own copies of the RN). One forensic linguist states that PR can be excluded as the author. Two distinct lines of inquiry converge on the same conclusion on the RN.

If the R's did not write the RN, that leaves IDI.

I did not know R's never referred to JB by name -- what about pre-1996?

Profilers can be wrong in their assessment. If JR dictated to PR, wouldn't the letter sound "masculine". If your reply is not necessarily, then a male IDI could also make a letter sound feminine.

"It's a classic dissociation technique, a way to distance oneself from it. Except the ransom letter (LETTER) was most likely an attempt to undo the crime in the writer's mind (per CASKU). A person in such a predicament would probably not want to think about doing the same to BR."

I'd like to point out that several other RN also do NOT mention the abudctee's name, the Leopold and Loeb, Susan Degnan "Get $20,000 ready & waite (sic) for word. Do not notify FBI or police. Bills in $5's and $10's." On the backside was a warning: "Burn this for her safty" Lindbergh Baby ""Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes" Peter Weinberger 'Attention,' it said. 'I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter." etc

So the above RN authors either did not know the child's name, or wanted to distance themselves from it (for psychology or throw off the investigators).

"I don't know how you can say it's "obvious," considering. Moreover, I'm not so sure it WAS a mistake. I think the writer may have deliberately been hedging their bets in the hope of framing someone specific."

So based on the contents of the RN and subsequent investigation if RDI who did they intend to frame? It could just as well be an IDI forget that it's PR not JR that is from the south.

The personal content in the RN is just as consistent with Amy's rapist, who according to Amy stated several times he knew who she was during the attack. Additionally, Amy's rapist threatened to knock her out and we know of JB's severe head injury.

Amy's rapist, according to the father, did not steal anything nor leave anything behind, method of entry is unknown, and arrived before they did, and assaulted with her mother in another room and father was away. Curiously, this is nearly true for JB.

 

[Ames]

Rapist assaulted Amy via oral sex, if JB was as well the saliva may show up as foreign male DNA. Legally speaking, any sexual contact with a minor constitutes rape. So JB was "raped" as was Amy.

In the Carnes decision reports " "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) Re: your handwriting expert, there was one that claimed RN matches John Karr's. Of course there are several who claim PR is not a match (and those who say it does match)

So according to BPD, 6 consulted handwriting experts did not identified PR (despite being forced to give both historical exemplars and her own copies of the RN). One forensic linguist states that PR can be excluded as the author. Two distinct lines of inquiry converge on the same conclusion on the RN.

If the R's did not write the RN, that leaves IDI.

I did not know R's never referred to JB by name -- what about pre-1996?

Profilers can be wrong in their assessment. If JR dictated to PR, wouldn't the letter sound "masculine". If your reply is not necessarily, then a male IDI could also make a letter sound feminine.

"It's a classic dissociation technique, a way to distance oneself from it. Except the ransom letter (LETTER) was most likely an attempt to undo the crime in the writer's mind (per CASKU). A person in such a predicament would probably not want to think about doing the same to BR."

I'd like to point out that several other RN also do NOT mention the abudctee's name, the Leopold and Loeb, Susan Degnan "Get $20,000 ready & waite (sic) for word. Do not notify FBI or police. Bills in $5's and $10's." On the backside was a warning: "Burn this for her safty" Lindbergh Baby ""Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes" Peter Weinberger 'Attention,' it said. 'I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter." etc

So the above RN authors either did not know the child's name, or wanted to distance themselves from it (for psychology or throw off the investigators).

"I don't know how you can say it's "obvious," considering. Moreover, I'm not so sure it WAS a mistake. I think the writer may have deliberately been hedging their bets in the hope of framing someone specific."

So based on the contents of the RN and subsequent investigation if RDI who did they intend to frame? It could just as well be an IDI forget that it's PR not JR that is from the south.

The personal content in the RN is just as consistent with Amy's rapist, who according to Amy stated several times he knew who she was during the attack. Additionally, Amy's rapist threatened to knock her out and we know of JB's severe head injury.

Amy's rapist, according to the father, did not steal anything nor leave anything behind, method of entry is unknown, and arrived before they did, and assaulted with her mother in another room and father was away. Curiously, this is nearly true for JB.

Notice how all of the above mentioned RN's, were short and sweet....compare that to the Ramsey's THREE PAGE RN. Notice a difference there? Another thing...those people were actually kidnapped and taken away. JB was left behind...along with a RN. Instead of the perp leaving her in the basement, removing her underwear, wiping her down, putting a new pair of underwear on her, replacing her long johns, and wrapping her "papoose style", in a blanket...they could have taken her body with them...and could have still gotten the money. After they had the money...then they could have said..."We lied. She's dead." Why leave a RN, AND the body of the kidnapped victim, behind.

 

[voynich]

"Notice how all of the above mentioned RN's, were short and sweet....compare that to the Ramsey's THREE PAGE RN. Notice a difference there?"

I have, yes, it's the War and Peace of RN. Prior to this, the Leopold and Loeb was very long, and was typed, not sure how long it would be hand written, in terms of pages.

IF the RN intentionally quoted from Hollywood movies and other ransom notes, or as memes, that would account for much of its bulk text.

"Another thing...those people were actually kidnapped and taken away."

True, but in several instances including L&L, it was murder made to look like a kidnapping.

JB was left behind...along with a RN. Instead of the perp leaving her in the basement, removing her underwear, wiping her down, putting a new pair of underwear on her, replacing her long johns, and wrapping her "papoose style", in a blanket...they could have taken her body with them...and could have still gotten the money. After they had the money...then they could have said..."We lied. She's dead." Why leave a RN, AND the body of the kidnapped victim, behind."

I'm aware that forensic psychologists use "proprietary" interest in the victim to help resolve whether the killer knew the victim, and obviously the evidence you list suggests this.

Of course if RDI, why not take the time to hide the body, provide obvious point of entry, include items that would self-implicate, etc. Then there's the touch DNA problem -- (outside the scope of this thread -- I am curious as you whether touch DNA on other objects in contact w/perp also has the same DNA).

Of the IDI two scenarios come to mind, kidnapping gone bad or a premeditated murder made to look like a kidnapping, given the above facts the latter is more likely if IDI is true, for the reasons you state.

If we accept the exculpatory evidence including linguistic analysis, no definitive handwriting match, and touch DNA as "definitive" is there still a plausible scenario for RDI? Such "evidence" seems that the most plausible scenario would be IDI, although the exact motives are pure speculation -- who would have guessed L&L motivation to murder is to prove they are Nietzschean superman beyond good and evil, and with their super high 160-190 IQ child prodigies, wanted to prove they are smarter than the police?-- the remaining evidence would be an IDI who wanted to murder JB and then staged the crime scene to frame Ramsey's. It is speculation as to what Amy's attacker would have done had he not been interrupted by Amy's mother, but Amy reports she was assaulted via oral sex, so it's not hard to imagine if the same perp performed oral sex, he would know about his saliva containing DNA. I suppose within RDI John Ramsey might have done something similar, but given he has a wife and daughters from previous marriage (one died in car crash) is it more likely this or more likely a perp like Amy's?

Within IDI wiping JB genitals would be a way to remove saliva DNA (perhaps one spot though still was present) what would be a reason for a rage attack Patsy to do this? Did she wipe after JB wet her bed, or after she killed her?


The RN refers to knowing "police tactics and countermeasures" and seems to know true crime, crime scene detective work, and thriller genre of Hollywood movies like Dirty Harry, Speed, and Ransom. So such a criminal would know that detectives would look for "proprietary" interest in the victim, in order to better frame the Ramseys, and stage the crime scene accordingly.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hello,

Yes, the book I am referring to is found at that link.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFMW...um=1#PPA182,M1

Page 205 10.6 conclusion, states that "Patricia Ramsey is excluded as the writer of the ransom letter". IF independent hand writing analysis also excludes her then the conditional probability of two separate lines of research excluding Pat R is pretty strong. The official linguistic analysis you speak of -- is it Donald Foster? While I have no way of identifying which linguistic analysis is more likely to be valid, at least one linguistic analysis rules out PR as RN author.

Hi voynich. Not only Donald Foster critiques the available sample size as not entirely representive of the whole.

But the quote is from the link you have referenced
http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFMW...um=1#PPA182,M1

"a limited sample of non request "natural" writings, produced before Dec 26, 1996....." p333?

The RN author does write in the future tense "You will withdraw $118,000.00" "The delivery will be exhausting" "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."

vs

f we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies

Not "she will die". Not using "she will dies" destroys the parallelism that the earlier statements "will result, you will withdraw" so it sounds like the RN author is intentionally using the present tense since the author appears to be quoting various movies, and possibly earlier RN notes like Leopold and Loeb.

Yes. I understand what you're saying but what does the change in tense really reflect?, that lack of continuity, change from narative and descriptive to instructive tone? That it was rough drafted, and written in three stages? or that that change in tense reflects urgency or atmosphere. So many conclusions can be drawn.

Consequently, this line of reasoning would not support the conclusion the author is either female (since males are more likely to watch such movies) nor knows JonBenet is dead (indeed the RN fails to mention JB by name).

(since males are more likely to watch such movies) - vn

movies aren't always gender specific as you watch them with others.... but language and thought patterns can be.

I am aware that it is alleged that the "feminine" concerns in the RN like "be well rested" and "you will be denied a proper burial" implies a female writer, however this by itself is not conclusive since the Leopold and Loeb ransom note has

"Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him" " we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you" sounds feminine in the way the JB RN does.

interesting point ..... for sure one is reassuring, assuring sucess? and the other threateningly morbid ..... words have masculin and feminin roots ....

one often heard critique of female writing is that the language is flowerly? or romantic?

 

[Ames]

"Notice how all of the above mentioned RN's, were short and sweet....compare that to the Ramsey's THREE PAGE RN. Notice a difference there?"

I have, yes, it's the War and Peace of RN. Prior to this, the Leopold and Loeb was very long, and was typed, not sure how long it would be hand written, in terms of pages.

IF the RN intentionally quoted from Hollywood movies and other ransom notes, or as memes, that would account for much of its bulk text.

"Another thing...those people were actually kidnapped and taken away."

True, but in several instances including L&L, it was murder made to look like a kidnapping.

JB was left behind...along with a RN. Instead of the perp leaving her in the basement, removing her underwear, wiping her down, putting a new pair of underwear on her, replacing her long johns, and wrapping her "papoose style", in a blanket...they could have taken her body with them...and could have still gotten the money. After they had the money...then they could have said..."We lied. She's dead." Why leave a RN, AND the body of the kidnapped victim, behind."

I'm aware that forensic psychologists use "proprietary" interest in the victim to help resolve whether the killer knew the victim, and obviously the evidence you list suggests this.

Of course if RDI, why not take the time to hide the body, provide obvious point of entry, include items that would self-implicate, etc. Then there's the touch DNA problem -- (outside the scope of this thread -- I am curious as you whether touch DNA on other objects in contact w/perp also has the same DNA).

Of the IDI two scenarios come to mind, kidnapping gone bad or a premeditated murder made to look like a kidnapping, given the above facts the latter is more likely if IDI is true, for the reasons you state.

If we accept the exculpatory evidence including linguistic analysis, no definitive handwriting match, and touch DNA as "definitive" is there still a plausible scenario for RDI? Such "evidence" seems that the most plausible scenario would be IDI, although the exact motives are pure speculation -- who would have guessed L&L motivation to murder is to prove they are Nietzschean superman beyond good and evil, and with their super high 160-190 IQ child prodigies, wanted to prove they are smarter than the police?-- the remaining evidence would be an IDI who wanted to murder JB and then staged the crime scene to frame Ramsey's. It is speculation as to what Amy's attacker would have done had he not been interrupted by Amy's mother, but Amy reports she was assaulted via oral sex, so it's not hard to imagine if the same perp performed oral sex, he would know about his saliva containing DNA. I suppose within RDI John Ramsey might have done something similar, but given he has a wife and daughters from previous marriage (one died in car crash) is it more likely this or more likely a perp like Amy's?

Within IDI wiping JB genitals would be a way to remove saliva DNA (perhaps one spot though still was present) what would be a reason for a rage attack Patsy to do this? Did she wipe after JB wet her bed, or after she killed her?


The RN refers to knowing "police tactics and countermeasures" and seems to know true crime, crime scene detective work, and thriller genre of Hollywood movies like Dirty Harry, Speed, and Ransom. So such a criminal would know that detectives would look for "proprietary" interest in the victim, in order to better frame the Ramseys, and stage the crime scene accordingly.

Don't know how true it is, but it was reported that JR had John Douglas' book MIND HUNTER, on his night stand...a book about crime...and staging of crime scenes.

She was wiped down, because a paintbrush handle had been inserted...although experts all agree, that it was done carefully, and didn't do the damage that one that was inserted forcefully would have caused. She bled some, and that is the reason for the wipe down. JR's Israeli shirt fibers were found on her panties and in her crotch area...possibly being the cloth used to wipe her off with. Also, how do you account for Patsy's jacket fibers...instead of some intruder's... being on the sticky side of the tape that was over JB's mouth...entwined in the garotte, and inside of the paint tote? Keep in mind that Patsy herself stated that she NEVER had painted with that jacket on before.

 

[JMO8778]

John Karr offered his "explanation" for the unusual amount, $100k + $18k for 18 years of age. Leopold and Loeb asked for thousands and in a post-conviction interview just fabricated the number as sounding convincing, as they were from wealthy families. They did it for the intellectual challenge, not money. If JR and PR did write it, it's somewhat surprising to me they didn't pretend ask for millions of dollars knowing JB is dead. The figure could be just as consistent with an IDI trying to show how inside he is to JR, and that this affair is some kind of intellectual challenge. If JR and PR did do this together, there's the risk that they might accuse the other, as L&L did.

that's why they had separate attorneys,and JR even had lawyers for most of the members on HIS side of the family,even his ex wife.

 

[DeeDee249]

that's why they had separate attorneys,and JR even had lawyers for most of the members on HIS side of the family,even his ex wife.

Absolutely. And if LE had been allowed to separate them and question them right away, we wouldn't be here now. As it happened, by the time they agreed to talk to police, their lawyers prevented them from answering most questions that were most revealing to the case. PR's lawyer was well-known for refusing to allow her to answer questions. Remember, the job of a defense attorney is not to prove their client innocent. It is to keep them from being found guilty, which is very different.

 

[voynich]

Hello,

""a limited sample of non request "natural" writings, produced before Dec 26, 1996....." p333? "

My understanding is that the author wanted to write a scientific level discussion, and so a common practice is to admit possible experimental and observational limitations in the research paper.

"So many conclusions can be drawn."

My point was in response to the view that those comments reflect knowledge that JB is dead at this point, b/c the RN author does not state this in the future tense.

"interesting point ..... for sure one is reassuring, assuring sucess? and the other threateningly morbid ..... words have masculin and feminin roots ....
one often heard critique of female writing is that the language is flowerly? or romantic?"

Assigning a gender to the text (esp feminine hence PR) is too uncertain an enterprise.


"Don't know how true it is, but it was reported that JR had John Douglas' book MIND HUNTER, on his night stand...a book about crime...and staging of crime scenes."

So I've heard

"She bled some, and that is the reason for the wipe down." It can't be ruled out though that she was sexually assaulted orally, there was a transfer of saliva (which DNA tests picked up) and the wipe down was to remove this as well.

"Also, how do you account for Patsy's jacket fibers...instead of some intruder's... being on the sticky side of the tape that was over JB's mouth...entwined in the garotte, and inside of the paint tote?"

The tape itself appears to be unsourced to the Ramseys. JR states he removed the tape from JB first, and then took her upstairs, which is how it could be contaminated . Once the tape is exposed, its sticky surface could stick any floating fibers. Even Henry Lee acknowledges that the fibers could be present as the result of transfer as innocent as hugging. When were the fibers deposited, were the fibers were already on JB person and body, and then transferred to the tape and garotte?

If you regard this as implausible, "transfer" is how touch DNA has been explained away by RDI.

Some hair and fiber, (beaver hair?) that was present and found but unsourced to anything in the Ramseys. Some items such as the other half of the broken paint stick, were never found.

One question I have: what if Amy's attacker was not interrupted by her mother, and he threatened to knock her out, and did, by a powerful blow to her head, cracking her skull. He of course wipes down her genitals (due to transfer of saliva). Perhaps redresses her.

Then he left the premises (although in this scenario does NOT write a RN).
Obviously the police would suspect the mother. (no sign of forced entry/exit, no obvious clues, mother's fibers all over her daughter, burglar alarm was on)

If this happened, what would be the background probability then (with all other facts being the same) that JB was also an IDI?

 

[JMO8778]

I agree that it is significant JB was not mentioned by name. PR is also not mentioned by name. I actually think if PR or JR wrote it, they *would* mention JB. Since JB is not mentioned the perp may not have known her name, or is following the example set by L&L RN note, which also omits mentioning name. I would imagine that at the least, they would write Jonbenet, cross it out, and write in your daughter.

not mentioning her name was the R's way of distancing themselves from what they had just done.

"all of the familial references in there" I'm not sure JR is a "southerner" PR was a Southerner, and obviously this is not a mistake JR or PR would make, but an IDI would.

that's not the first time the R's have played dumb.

The silence on Burke and PR could be consistent with either IDI or RDI. I would imagine if RDI, they would also threaten Burke as next to make it sound more convincing, and his wife, however, I'd think IDI would as well, unless the IDI was unaware R had a son.

well, I would say that had there been an actual intruder,along with all the rest of the knowledge of the family,then heck yes,an intruder surely would have known about BR!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Within IDI wiping JB genitals would be a way to remove saliva DNA (perhaps one spot though still was present) what would be a reason for a rage attack Patsy to do this? Did she wipe after JB wet her bed, or after she killed her?

The rage attacking mother of JBR who 'lost it' suddenly. The impromptu writing of the RN to 'explain why JBR is dead'. None of this adequately explains the injuries or the actions that are implied to have been taken by her killer.

Why would PR 'wipe down' JBR in a rage attack scenario? It truly makes no sense. What does make sense is a different motive, that is, a sexual assault on a child makes sense given the evidence. JBR was sexually assaulted, and then murdered so she could not identify her attacker. The RN was probably intended to present a 'cleaner' motive of kidnapping for ransom instead of the base, pedophile crime that the evidence suggests it was.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey also ... http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

ever notice, visually, (sometimes, I squint to read) aside from the perfect margin, within the tally of words repeated ... my count may be off .....

there are a heck of a lot of
'if's 'I's 'you's 'will's within the rn?

4 she dies
1 immediate execution
1 beheaded
1 killing will
1 denied remains for proper burial
1 un(harmed)

1 safe

2 mentions of percentages
2 don't 's
3 Johns

many words of french origin: just off hand,

(wonder what the 'average' distribution within written english is)

"group individuals that represent", group, individual, represent, faction, respect, serves, posession, instructions, letter,
account, adequate, attache, bank, brown, paper, instruct, delivery, delivery, advise, rested,
arrange, delivery,
deviation, instructions, proper, result, immediate, particularly, execution, advise, provoke, situation, Police, result, alert, bank, authorities, electronic, deceive, familiar, countermeasures, tactics, chance, instructions, constant, authorities, difficult. underestimate, sense
(49 ttl)




plus the religious overtones .....

plus movie references




1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99%
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!

35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

While an IDI could have written it before or after JonBenet's death, it most likely was written before.

IDI usually places the RN being written while the R's were at the W's. Myself, I think the RN was written during those 'hours,' and it was written mostly for the purpose of placing on the stairs as a tripwire, in case the parents wandered downstairs looking for their daughter in the middle of the night.

If IDI, then the murder happened in the house while the parent slept. Intruder would have to be alert for the If the parents were to get up and find JBR not in her bed, they would then search.

They would find the note before they found JBR, correct?

 

[Tadpole12]

Hello,

""a limited sample of non request "natural" writings, produced before Dec 26, 1996....." p333? "

My understanding is that the author wanted to write a scientific level discussion, and so a common practice is to admit possible experimental and observational limitations in the research paper.

limitations of note


"So many conclusions can be drawn."- tad

I guess I'm just saying 'good observation' on your part, but I can't conribute much more than your astute observations.

My point was in response to the view that those comments reflect knowledge that JB is dead at this point, b/c the RN author does not state this in the future tense.?

may be?
1 safe reference

"interesting point ..... for sure one is reassuring, assuring sucess? and the other threateningly morbid ..... words have masculin and feminin roots ....
one often heard critique of female writing is that the language is flowerly? or romantic?" - tad

Assigning a gender to the text (esp feminine hence PR) is too uncertain an enterprise.

hmmm ..... well, I beg to differ, but that's just my experience. I'll read a little on gender and language, see what I come up with ... get back to you. Ask an English prof?


"Don't know how true it is, but it was reported that JR had John Douglas' book MIND HUNTER, on his night stand...a book about crime...and staging of crime scenes." - Ames

So I've heard - vn

me too, night stand, yep.
That whole LA mindf____ angle,
TTD read Mind Hunter

 

[Tadpole12]

IDI usually places the RN being written while the R's were at the W's. Myself, I think the RN was written during those 'hours,' and it was written mostly for the purpose of placing on the stairs as a tripwire, in case the parents wandered downstairs looking for their daughter in the middle of the night.

If IDI, then the murder happened in the house while the parent slept. Intruder would have to be alert for the If the parents were to get up and find JBR not in her bed, they would then search.

They would find the note before they found JBR, correct?

Hi Hotyh.

"and it was written mostly for the purpose of placing on the stairs as a tripwire, in case the parents wandered downstairs looking for their daughter in the middle of the night." - Hotyh

Hugh! IDI: That's a brilliant supposition, Hotyh.

 

[Tadpole12]

rn: distribution of pronouns and expressions per paragraph


I 0 + 2 + 1 = 3

my 0 + 0 + 1 = 1

my instructions 0 + 0 + 1 = 1



you 2 + 9 + 12 = 23
your(s) 1 + 2 + 7 = 10
your daughter 1 + 1 + 4 = 6
your family 0 + 0 + 1 = 1

your account 0 + 1 + 0 = 1
your bussiness 1 + 0 + 0 = 1
your situation 0 + 0 + 1 = 1
killing your daughter 0 + 0 + 1 = 1

Mr. Ramsey 1 + 0 + 0 = 1
john 0 + 0 + 3 = 3




our 2 + 0 + 1 = 3

our instructions 1 + 0 + 1 = 2

our posession 1 + 0 + 0 = 1

us 0 + 0 + 3 = 3

we 3 + 2 + 2 = 7



if 1 + 1 + 5 = 7



pronouns http://www.esldesk.com/vocabulary/pronouns.htm
rn: source:http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99%
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!

35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."

 

[Tadpole12]

"wonder what the 'average' distribution within written english is" - Tad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin

A great number of words of French origin have entered the English language to the extent that around 30% of its vocabulary is of French origin.

 

[Tadpole12]

CK's fab 'analysis of linguiistics':
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404

re: topic of gender, post #5, 'the gender genie'

 

[BBB167893]

Rapist assaulted Amy via oral sex, if JB was as well the saliva may show up as foreign male DNA. Legally speaking, any sexual contact with a minor constitutes rape. So JB was "raped" as was Amy.

If you want to talk about the injuries to JB's vaginal area, you've certainly got the right man.

In the Carnes decision reports " "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) Re: your handwriting expert, there was one that claimed RN matches John Karr's. Of course there are several who claim PR is not a match (and those who say it does match)

So according to BPD, 6 consulted handwriting experts did not identified PR (despite being forced to give both historical exemplars and her own copies of the RN).

Actually, that's what the participants in a CIVIL case CLAIM. When Lin Wood was asked to prove it, he said he would, but he'd have to get the reports from Hal Haddon first. To THIS DAY, Haddon has refused to turn over those reports. Funny, isn't it?

One forensic linguist states that PR can be excluded as the author. Two distinct lines of inquiry converge on the same conclusion on the RN.

That's par for the course, though. Many people don't realize it, but there's a LOT (and I mean a lot) of politicking that goes on in these areas. Each one wants to be top-dog. That way they get all of the high-paying contracts.

I did not know R's never referred to JB by name -- what about pre-1996?

I'm not sure. I know of some anecdotal incidents. Just what difference does it make, anyway?

Profilers can be wrong in their assessment. If JR dictated to PR, wouldn't the letter sound "masculine". If your reply is not necessarily, then a male IDI could also make a letter sound feminine.

Maybe so. But then, I don't really know what to think in that regard.

"It's a classic dissociation technique, a way to distance oneself from it. Except the ransom letter (LETTER) was most likely an attempt to undo the crime in the writer's mind (per CASKU). A person in such a predicament would probably not want to think about doing the same to BR."

I'd like to point out that several other RN also do NOT mention the abudctee's name, the Leopold and Loeb, Susan Degnan "Get $20,000 ready & waite (sic) for word. Do not notify FBI or police. Bills in $5's and $10's." On the backside was a warning: "Burn this for her safty" Lindbergh Baby ""Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes" Peter Weinberger 'Attention,' it said. 'I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter." etc

Yeah, all short and to the point, not the "kidnapper's manifesto" in this case.

So the above RN authors either did not know the child's name, or wanted to distance themselves from it (for psychology or throw off the investigators).

Those would be the choices.

"I don't know how you can say it's "obvious," considering. Moreover, I'm not so sure it WAS a mistake. I think the writer may have deliberately been hedging their bets in the hope of framing someone specific."

So based on the contents of the RN and subsequent investigation if RDI who did they intend to frame?

Glad you asked. (I'm also glad you phrased it that way.) If that truly was the aim (and I believe their bets were hedged again), I'd say their intended target was the housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh.

 

[voynich]

Hi,

"I guess I'm just saying 'good observation' on your part, but I can't conribute much more than your astute observations."

Thanks I'm flattered.

If you want to see Gerald R. McMenamin in a video discussing foresnic linguistic analysis with the Zodiac and Arthur Allen, click
http://www.zodiacmovie.com/ "enter the site" "linguistic analysis"

the statement analysis Mark McClish states "Four times the writer uses the phrase "she dies." (Lines #23 - #26) The problem is the writer should be speaking in the future tense; "she will die." This is a strong indication the writer knew JonBenet was dead when the ransom note was written."

Unless the author was quoting or referencing Dirty Harry, one sentence and one she dies alone maybe, but given that they are strung together in sequence, it becomes more likely.

"Why would PR 'wipe down' JBR in a rage attack scenario?"

Given PR's active involvement in JB's dancing and beauty pageants, it's sort out of the ordinary that she would first injure her vagina causing bleeding, staging it as a sexual assault, then wipe her down to unstage it, then insert the other portion of the paint stick to stage it again.

"They would find the note before they found JBR, correct?" Possibly, your tripwire is new and interesting. I wonder though whether placing it in the bedroom, desk, pillow might be better for this purpose.

"hmmm ..... well, I beg to differ, but that's just my experience. I'll read a little on gender and language, see what I come up with ... get back to you. Ask an English prof?"

" CK's fab 'analysis of linguiistics':
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=6404

re: topic of gender, post #5, 'the gender genie'
Reply With Quote"

What gender would you assign this text? "Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him. we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you."

"The author continues using the first person singular pronoun, but the most important factor in this sentence is the concern expressed for John’s welfare. No hardened criminal, vagrant or “foreign faction” would care if John was “rested” or not. The concern is a subconscious revelation of the author’s personality, which is nurturing, and therefore, according to probability, female."

In Mel Gibson's movie Ransom (1996) the ransom note cautions that the deliver will be exhausting, and advises the father to be well rested. An alternative explanation is the author of the RN had seen Ransom and it gave him ideas about what sort of content he wanted to include in the letter. This is strengthened by other apparent movie references.


If the DNA, handwriting 1/5, and linguistic analysis were a match, I wouldn't be having this discussion. I would be in the RDI camp as a rational evidence based human. The reverse is true. So I look at it as a scientist presented with two theories of RDI and IDI and which is better supported. So as to not lose myself in too wide a field, if forensic linguistics can definitely exclude PR and JR as authors of RN, and some of Gerald R. McMenamin is peer reviewed journals, that doesn't leave much for RDI since whoever wrote RN killed or associate of the JB killer. In such a framework, difficult to explain trace evidence like fibers could be explained as transfer and contamination. (Of course if DNA, handwriting and linguistic analysis were a match to PR, along with fiber and trace evidence, case closed).

In the RDI, what would Burke know about the murder, esp the rage-attack?

I understand the psychological theory that PR wrote the note, in some theories with JR dictating. JB is not mentioned due to a psychological "distancing". Ok fine.

""It's a classic dissociation technique, a way to distance oneself from it. Except the ransom letter (LETTER) was most likely an attempt to undo the crime in the writer's mind (per CASKU). A person in such a predicament would probably not want to think about doing the same to BR.""

But if they wanted to psychologically distace themselves from what they did and what happened, and they kept her body b/c they wanted a proper burial and they had "proprietary interest" in the victim, why make statements like "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.will result in your daughter being beheaded. she dies 4x. so don't think that killing will be difficult" doesn't sound like undoing the crime, sounds like *doing* the crime.

If RDI to stage crime scene wrote the RN, why not short and simple "We have your daughter. We want $1 million. Will call tomorrow at 10am for instructions. Do not call police or FBI" -- if they were going to stage it, why self-incriminate with their own writing material and paper (as opposed to disposing of them) and with longer writing (so there can be better odds for handwriting/linguistic match)?

Two other facts -- several pages were torn from the notepad and never recovered. If RDI the RN, why not tear those pages off, toss them in a dump and burn them, and start over with something much shorter?

It's potentially significant that it appeared there was a false start that starts "Mr and Mrs I"

If IDI wrote it, it would appear one purpose of RN is to send a message and stick it to John, to show he knows John, and took sadistic joy in killing her and torturing them.

 

[BBB167893]

JB was left behind...along with a RN. Instead of the perp leaving her in the basement, removing her underwear, wiping her down, putting a new pair of underwear on her, replacing her long johns, and wrapping her "papoose style", in a blanket...they could have taken her body with them...and could have still gotten the money. After they had the money...then they could have said..."We lied. She's dead." Why leave a RN, AND the body of the kidnapped victim, behind."

I'm aware that forensic psychologists use "proprietary" interest in the victim to help resolve whether the killer knew the victim, and obviously the evidence you list suggests this.

That it does.

Of course if RDI, why not take the time to hide the body,

How do you mean?

provide obvious point of entry,

Who says they didn't? That broken window was awfully handy, wasn't it? But let's say you're right and they didn't. As I've often said, the ransom letter was key to the scene. The whole point was to find the note first without anything looking out of place up to that moment. It just wouldn't work if they got up and said, "come on, sweetheart, time to get up. God, it's awfully cold in here."

If we accept the exculpatory evidence including linguistic analysis, no definitive handwriting match, and touch DNA as "definitive"

That's an awfully big "if."

is there still a plausible scenario for RDI?

I think so.

the remaining evidence would be an IDI who wanted to murder JB and then staged the crime scene to frame Ramsey's.

There's just one little problem with that. If that were the case, the intruder would not have staged the scene to LOOK like an intruder.

I suppose within RDI John Ramsey might have done something similar, but given he has a wife and daughters from previous marriage (one died in car crash) is it more likely this or more likely a perp like Amy's?

I happen to think him losing Beth makes it MORE likely to be him. Not only that, but like so many, you are confusing a pedophile with a situational molester.

Within IDI wiping JB genitals would be a way to remove saliva DNA (perhaps one spot though still was present) what would be a reason for a rage attack Patsy to do this?

Depends on whether or not she was still enraged. If she was, then as Richard Krugman said, it was a way to attack the cause of her anger. If not, then it most likely was to clear the blood off because she couldn't stand to look at it.

Did she wipe after JB wet her bed, or after she killed her?

Personally, I think it was BOTH.

The RN refers to knowing "police tactics and countermeasures" and seems to know true crime, crime scene detective work, and thriller genre of Hollywood movies like Dirty Harry, Speed, and Ransom. So such a criminal would know that detectives would look for "proprietary" interest in the victim, in order to better frame the Ramseys, and stage the crime scene accordingly.

That's asking us to believe a lot.