Journalistic Ransom Note

[sissi]

Thanks Camper, I do admire your ability to address items/issues as they are thrown out (or in this case "at ya"). You are a "thinker", and again ,I admire this in a person!

The comments, yours , in red, could you apply them to the ransom note , as well? Would you see the same kind of "rambly" thing going on in the ransom note? This letter was written and signed by the Whites, both P&F, after months of contact, social contact, lunches, phone calls ,visits , with Steve Thomas. While F&P are accepting this content as theirs, hence the signature ...much of what is said seems to parrot ST. JMO, and a shakey one at that!


letter..

As witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, we are reluctant to express our views regarding the investigation. At this time, however, we feel compelled to address matters which we feel to be of great importance.

There is a widely held perception that the investigation has been plagued by intense news media coverage and the improper conduct of the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney.

There can be no question that the wide circulation of facts, evidence, and opinions has had a debilitating effect on the investigation. Equally damaging, however, have been public statements made by officials which, because of their nature and discontinuity, have created confusion and anxiety not only for the public but also for law enforcement personnel and witnesses. It must be clear at this point that the extraordinary circumstances of this crime and its investigation do not lend themselves to discussion or debate in a public forum. Doing so will only serve to jeopardize the civil rights of involved parties, reduce the willingness of witnesses to cooperate, and make the task of law enforcement agencies investigating the case more difficult.

Public officials who contemplate the release of information concerning the case or who desire to publicly express their opinions must be mindful of these risks. Such statements and the release of information should only serve the goals of furthering the investigation or protecting the public. There are simply no other valid reasons for making information regarding the investigation available to the public. It is likely that few, if any, statements of fact or opinion made by public officials concerning the Ramsey investigation have met this standard. For this case to proceed in a positive manner it will be necessary to do all that is practically possible to integrate the activities of a prosecutor and police investigators and shield their investigation from public view until such time when an arrest is made.

As witnesses, we have developed confidence and trust in Boulder Police Department investigators. While we recognize that errors have been made in the investigation, we feel strongly that these officers and their leadership are committed both personally and professionally to assembling a valid case which will lead to an arrest and conviction. Furthermore, we are greatly encouraged by their addition of competent legal counsel who are aiding their investigation.

We have not, on the other hand, developed such sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney. On the contrary, we feel that the Boulder County District Attorney has not acted in a manner consistent with an agency which must work with police investigators and witnesses in a positive and professional manner. Our sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney are based on our personal experiences which have been augmented by the following considerations:

There are various relationships between the Boulder County District Attorney and members of the Boulder and Denver legal communities which may have impaired the objectivity of the Boulder County District Attorney with respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department.

The Boulder County District Attorney under the leadership of District Attorney Alex Hunter has been criticized in the past for not being an aggressive prosecutor of homicide cases.

There appears to be an atmosphere of distrust and non-cooperation between the Boulder County District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department regarding the investigation. This relationship appears to be irreparably damaged with respect to the Ramsey case.

There is a strong impression that the Boulder County District Attorney has acted improperly by sharing evidence and other information with attorneys and other parties not officially involved in the investigation.

There is a strong impression that Alex Hunter and members of his staff have acted inappropriately by giving their opinions and information regarding the investigation to various news media organizations. This impression has been strengthened recently by the statements made by District Attorney Alex Hunter appearing in the Jan. 19, 1998, issue of New Yorker magazine. His comments regarding the police investigation are mean-spirited and entirely devoid of any constructive aspect. We feel that his decision to state publicly these opinions regarding an on-going homicide investigation clearly defines his poor judgment and wanton disregard for all parties involved in this investigation and for the criminal justice system. The fact that he made some of these statements five months ago, as has been recently suggested, does nothing to make them less inexcusable. What public service did Mr. Hunter envision when he made such statements and revealed details of the investigation over a period of five months to a noted journalist who has publicly announced his intention to write a book about the investigation?

These considerations cannot be ignored in an attempt to understand the present status of the investigation or in anticipating its future course. At a minimum, these considerations have created the strong appearance of impropriety, professional incompetence and a lack of objectivity. Additionally, the suit against Alex Hunter brought by Darnay Hoffman, regardless of its merit, has reinforced this appearance in the public consciousness. In this context, the following questions must be asked:

Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of inspiring the confidence and trust of police investigators and relevant witnesses in order that a case may be developed in such a manner as to maximize the likelihood of an arrest?

Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of objectively and professionally evaluating the merit of a case presented to it by the Boulder Police Department?

Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of aggressively and professionally coordinating and conducting a prosecution or other court proceedings in a manner most likely to result in an indictment and a successful prosecution?

On Dec. 18, 1997, we met with Gov. Roy Romer to urge that he intervene immediately to remove the Boulder County District Attorney from any involvement in the case and appoint an independent special prosecutor. On Jan. 7, 1998, we were notified by Governor Romer that he had decided not to intervene. In a Jan. 12, 1998, letter from Gov. Romer, we were formally notified of his decision. In this letter, he stated that he had "decided not to intervene in this matter at this time" and indicated that his decision was "based in part on the fact that the police investigation is not yet complete and the case has not been referred to the district attorney for prosecution." While he did not specify what other factors were considered in arriving at his decision, we can only hope that they derive from sound recommendations received from knowledgeable and unbiased officials involved in the investigation who are in possession of compelling facts which are not available to us.

If Gov. Romer is inclined to intervene but feels that such a decision would now be untimely, we would submit that the passage of time cannot be expected to reduce the obstacles facing the investigation and the prosecution. In their effort to follow evidence, construct a valid case, and to maintain the confidence of witnesses, the Boulder Police Department needs the immediate participation and guidance of a supportive and competent prosecutor.

The idea of waiting for the case to be "completed" and to be "referred" to the Boulder County District Attorney presupposes that the negative effect of the presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the investigation will somehow be mitigated in the future. It ignores the practical problem that the Boulder Police Department and relevant witnesses have no confidence in the ability of the Boulder County District Attorney to prudently handle evidence and to professionally and impartially consider a case presented to it.

Furthermore, it is unreasonable for Governor Romer or for any of us to rely on civic and law enforcement officials who offer assurances that they can somehow eliminate the differences between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney in an effort to move the case forward purposefully when they have so amply demonstrated their inability to do so. Nor should we or Gov. Romer rely on the Hoffman suit or similar actions that may follow. It appears that these will only result in meaningless debate over semantics and, at best, lead to protracted and contentious court proceedings and investigations. As for the concern that the removal of the Boulder County District Attorney from the Ramsey case will jeopardize the future relationship between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney on other cases, it is more likely that the continued presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the Ramsey case will only serve to lessen the prospects of a healthy future relationship.

We again respectfully request that Gov. Romer intervene in this matter and level the playing field in Boulder. The Boulder Police Department has but one goal in this matter which is to bring the person or persons who have committed crimes to justice. The police are handicapped by those who are acting to obfuscate and confuse the facts of this investigation. At this point there is little to be gained by speculating about who these people are and what reasons they may have for doing so. That can be left for another day. We request that Governor Romer immediately intervene and remove the Boulder County District Attorney and its offices from the investigation and appoint a competent and completely independent special prosecutor who is capable of establishing and maintaining the confidence and the trust of the Boulder Police Department, witnesses in the case, and the public whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion to this case. Regardless of the nature of his decision, we request that Governor Romer announce it publicly and that he make clear his reasoning. We ask the people of Colorado and especially the people of Boulder to join us in this respect.

The investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has profoundly hurt many innocent people. It has caused the Boulder community and many of its leaders and institutions to be degraded. It has engendered contempt for Boulder`s law enforcement agencies and criminal justice system. Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now.

 

[capps]

Camper,

I think you're missing the point of what Sissi was trying to convey. (Sissi,please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think it wasn't so much as WHAT White was saying in his letter,it was more the STRUCTURE of his sentences;and WORDS he used;that seem very similar to the ransom note.

Good eye Sissi.

 

[sissi]

Camper,

I think you're missing the point of what Sissi was trying to convey. (Sissi,please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think it wasn't so much as WHAT White was saying in his letter,it was more the STRUCTURE of his sentences;and WORDS he used;that seem very similar to the ransom note.

Good eye Sissi.

Thanks Capps,
I was seeing that, yes, it seemed IMO the letters were written similarly.
Phrasing? The way the thoughts flowed? I don't know??
The thoughts themselves, I see separately from the way they are "organized", the thoughts seem to point to ST using the Whites as his mouthpiece.

 

[tipper]

Thanks Capps,
I was seeing that, yes, it seemed IMO the letters were written similarly.
Phrasing? The way the thoughts flowed? I don't know??
The thoughts themselves, I see separately from the way they are "organized", the thoughts seem to point to ST using the Whites as his mouthpiece.

OT, but I wonder if, when they wrote this, they knew ST was Bardach's source for the Vanity Fair article.

 

[sissi]

Camper, pointed out the letter as being "rambly, not getting to the point", is not this the way everyone felt about the ransom note?
The thoughts however, are a separate issue, I do believe the Whites were using Steve. Steve had an audience in them, and certainly he was offering them " complete confidence that they should be cleared " which they demanded, he in turn was getting his validation for "knowing" a Ramsey killed Jonbenet, but they were getting much more. ..inside info? Again..jmo

A link to the second letter, scroll down...

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenetdocs.htm

 

[sissi]

OT, but I wonder if, when they wrote this, they knew ST was Bardach's source for the Vanity Fair article.

I don't know. I think little attention was paid anything that didn't revolve around "them".

 

[capps]

Sissi,

I have to admit it is "long-winded",like the ransom note.

I cannot rule out FW as being some what involved. He is on my list of "maybes",along with others.

 

[Camper]

I did not miss Sissi's focus and question, I just have not had time to read and study 'the' letter.

I will say though that the ransom note and both letters by Fleet were way to long and their focus was NOT clear.

A business letter, loses its focus when asking for action when it rambles and continues into oblivion. It should have been short and to the point, and perhaps followed by more frequent queries requesting action. IF it had been I in Fleets shoes, I would have cornered the local TV networks and gotten them into my corner in getting action from the Governors chair occupant.

It is quite possible that politics entered into the cozy mutual acquaintanceship amongst all of the politically correct folks involved in the 'investigation'. The DA certainly disappeared into the woodwork when his 'ordeal' time was done. I have little respect for him, actually none would be more like it.

Class distinction appeared to be the performance of the day. Who is to say that IF IF Thomas' requests of the DA had been permitted, we just might have someone sitting in the striped sun tan jail cell spa today, comvicted for the murder of JonBenet.

Some folks consider Thomas a lesser than, but I give him a Grade A for digging and trying to find 'the truth'. I can only wonder IF IF there was more behind the scenes in 'efforts to GET him', that we never knew about.



.

 

[Camper]

I am quoting from my beginning post on this thread. As follows:


Who did it - Foreign Faction
What happened - Kidnapping
Where - Ramsey home
When - Everyone is sleeping
Why - Foreign Faction does not like the Ramseys
How - Strangulation by garote

There are problems with the note:

Who - No one was familiar with a foreign faction!
What - Kidnapping - body was still in the house!
Where - Ramsey home - only people at home were the Ramseys.
When - Someone was NOT sleeping that night.
Why - No reason found why Ramseys would be disliked for any reason.
How - Head blow struck AFTER death had already occurred, overkill. You can only kill someone once.I pose another leftover thought here. The note has the Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Which in my short version of the problems with the note in blue, make no sense for a 'legitimate perp to have done this.

So WHY didn't the kidnapper/killer just say 'WE have your daughter' This would convey a 'very scary' scenario of UNKNOWN origin. IT would have given extreme fear to the parents, imop.

Why not ask for a greater amount of money? If you want to see your daughter again ALIVE, $500,000 CASH is required for that to happen.!!! 'WE' will be in touch soon, have the money ready, talk to no one or she is dead!!

SHORT and to the point did not happen did it - nope.



AS a matter of fact, KIDNAPPING WITH A RANSOM NOTE is not a standard crime in todays market, it is too tough to get the money. Bank robbing is a far more popular crime, with guns or bombs in a brown paper bag OR briefcase, OR hand in the pocket poking hand forward to LOOK like a gun, make it a FAST and more stress free way of ACUTALLY GETTING money. Drooling sexual perps just grab the child from the front yard, poor little Samantha Runnion being a case in point, as well as too many other beautiful little children. EVEN YOUNG Cops today know that KIDS are napped and taken away, without a demand for any type of money. Heck bet Linda Arndt knows this now. Did not mean to snow on Linda, she had a bum office staff on the day after Christmas.

Yep a journalism major, worrying about the comfort of the person getting the ransom money together, is my prime person for writing the COVER letter which IS this ransom 'note' ?, (notes are short and sweet to be redundant).

I would like to see a ransom letter that long, written by someone else/anyone else who is artistic and well known to be ambidextrous, and who would be trying to compose AND disguise their own handwriting. Hmmm. Painting a picture with a brush, an artist embellishes the work, same with the ransom note, too much information, more than we needed to PAINT a picture of the KIDNAPPING.



:boohoo:

 

[BlueCrab]

Camper,

The CBI experts say it's not likely Patsy wrote the ransom note. But even if she did, how did the foreign male DNA, mixed with saliva and her blood, get in the crotch of JonBenet's panties? Patsy didn't kill JonBenet. A male molested and killed her.

Since the Ramseys are trying to cover up, that male has to be a Ramsey. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for an intruder.

BlueCrab

 

[Camper]

Camper,

The CBI experts say it's not likely Patsy wrote the ransom note. But even if she did, how did the foreign male DNA, mixed with saliva and her blood, get in the crotch of JonBenet's panties? Patsy didn't kill JonBenet. A male molested and killed her.

Since the Ramseys are trying to cover up, that male has to be a Ramsey. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for an intruder.

BlueCrab

==============BlueCrab, I posted my humble answer to this two years ago, and again a couple of weeks ago, on one of the threads.

JonBenet was wearing leggings, it was winter. JonBenet, I am guessing, must have used the White's bathroom while there during the Christmas party of the 25th.

IF IF you have never taken a six year old to the bathroom, you must note that when they are sitting on the toilet, their feet do NOT touch the floor, they dangle. In the same operation, their panties or leggings are pulled down quickly and not all of the way typically, thus the seat of the leggings and panties wrap around the edge of the toilet seat, thereby getting assorted germy thingies into the seat of the panties.

Now then folks have been known to spit in the toilet bowl as well, this could in fact explain the saliva in the same location of the toilet seat. This is certainly ONE explanation.

WE also do not know HOW often the Whites toilet bowl was cleaned thoroughly or WHO would have cleaned it, OR how many other people as visitors had been in the White's bathroom, that JonBenet might have used on Christmas night. KEEP in mind as well, if the crime was STAGED, then the missing end of the paint brush could have been used to insult the vaginal area, to cover previous sexual abuse, you all know my prime suspect is not Burke.

Let us discuss cleaning for a second. There is cleaning and then there is deep and thorough cleaning. Just cleaning, could be merely wiping visible stuff away, but will leave substantial bacteria and 'stuff' on the toilet seat.

Deep cleaning would be to use disinfectant and 'thorough' cleaning, and killing of 'thingies' left on the toilet seat. NOW then IF IF JonBenets panties wound around the seat itself they would have been exposed to the 'underneath' side of the toilet seat, an area that is often NOT taken as thorough care as the visible sides of the toilet seat. Hmmm. This works well for me to believe that this is the source of the material found in tiny JonBenets panties.

This would explain the initial DNA and saliva in the panties. The strangulation and subsequent 'blood' in the panties came later in the evening when staging was done, comingling with the earlier 'stuff' from the White's toilet seat.

Where is the rest of the (EA ?) paint brush handle?

WE do not know how many bathrooms were in the White's home, OR which one JonBenet may have used Christmas night at the White's house, OR for that matter, which bathroom, JonBenet may have used in the Ramsey home Christmas Day. The Ramsey party was held on the 23rd, unlikely, imop, that ALL bathrooms had been re-cleaned AFTER the Ramsey party either. Bet the BPD did not check the dna of ALL the guests at the party of the 23rd, WHY would they?

You can be assured that after raising my own five girls and seeing those panties wrapped around the toilet seats, that my thoughts have validity about the HOW the dna got into JonBenets panties.


:boohoo:

 

[BlueCrab]

Camper,

The source of the male DNA in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear could be from a toilet seat, or the source could be from any of a thousand other places. But the laws of probability have to come into play here.

For instance, we know JonBenet was sexually molested by a male human, not a toilet seat. This person sexually entered JonBenet's private parts and, in doing so, likely left some of himself behind -- the DNA.

The laws of probability lean heavily in favor of the DNA being from the male who molested JonBenet, probably orally, and who then killed her.

BlueCrab

 

[Toltec]

Nobody knows where this "foreign" DNA came from. JonBenet's last bath was December 24th!

 

[Camper]

Camper,

The source of the male DNA in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear could be from a toilet seat, or the source could be from any of a thousand other places. But the laws of probability have to come into play here.

For instance, we know JonBenet was sexually molested by a male human, not a toilet seat. This person sexually entered JonBenet's private parts and, in doing so, likely left some of himself behind -- the DNA.

The laws of probability lean heavily in favor of the DNA being from the male who molested JonBenet, probably orally, and who then killed her.

BlueCrab

Welllllllll BlueCrab, I differ, you say 'your perp' probably orally molested her, then it would be JonBenets saliva found on her body, NOT the perps.

IF your thought is correct, perhaps she died from lack of oxygen from being orally molested and his entire body lying over her nose, this has happened to other tiny victims. IF that is so, then she perhaps was strangled after that with a rope or as Toltec thinks possible the game boy cord, then struck in the head.

I prefer my idea about the toilet seat, Christmas time lots of guests and friends in the home using the bathroom, tiny childs leggings and panties draped over the toilet seat, transference of dna to her panties in an innocent fashion.


.

 

[narlacat]

Nobody knows where this "foreign" DNA came from. JonBenet's last bath was December 24th!

So Patsy says...well didnt say...she said she couldnt remember if she had one on the 25th.Its christmas day, the Ramsey's are going to a friends christmas party. Surely Patsy would have got the kids bathed and dressed nicely before they went. Patsy can remember what clothes Jonbenet wore and remembers the disagreement they had about the clothes, but not whether Jonbenet had a bath.

 

[BlueCrab]

Welllllllll BlueCrab, I differ, you say 'your perp' probably orally molested her, then it would be JonBenets saliva found on her body, NOT the perps.
.

Camper,

According to the reports we know about, the male foreign DNA was from the perp's saliva mixed with JonBenet's blood from her vagina. It was in one of the two blood spots found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties. The perp's saliva in the crotch area was obviously the result of him "going down" on his victim during the sexual assault.

 

[capps]

Camper,

According to the reports we know about, the male foreign DNA was from the perp's saliva mixed with JonBenet's blood from her vagina. It was in one of the two blood spots found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties. The perp's saliva in the crotch area was obviously the result of him "going down" on his victim during the sexual assault.

I agree BC, that is what happened.
Any way you look at this,this male is an evil monster,that needs to be dealt with.

I am frustrated to no end,that this sick devious male is going on with his life like nothing happened, for eight years. I'm more than frustrated. I'm mad.

 

[capps]

Camper,

The source of the male DNA in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear could be from a toilet seat, or the source could be from any of a thousand other places. But the laws of probability have to come into play here.

For instance, we know JonBenet was sexually molested by a male human, not a toilet seat. This person sexually entered JonBenet's private parts and, in doing so, likely left some of himself behind -- the DNA.

The laws of probability lean heavily in favor of the DNA being from the male who molested JonBenet, probably orally, and who then killed her.

BlueCrab

I have to agree with you on this one BlueCrab.

Camper ... realistically,how often do people spit into other people's toilets? I'm not saying it doesn't occur,but IMO,not often enough to consider it in this case.

 

[Toltec]

So Patsy says...well didnt say...she said she couldnt remember if she had one on the 25th.Its christmas day, the Ramsey's are going to a friends christmas party. Surely Patsy would have got the kids bathed and dressed nicely before they went. Patsy can remember what clothes Jonbenet wore and remembers the disagreement they had about the clothes, but not whether Jonbenet had a bath.

Patsy told LE that she asked JonBenet to wash up...e.g. her hands. When LE asked Patsy whether JonBenet had indeed washed up, her answer was "I don't know." She further said that if JonBenet could get away without washing, she would.

No bath on the 25th...last bath, most likely the 24th, before church and dinner at Pasta Jays...the restaurant with the public toilets.

 

[duffy]

This is probably a dumb question but has john ramsey been ruled out as the donor of the saliva in JonBenet's panties?