Known rope in the house

[midwest mama]

If you can enlarge the RN as Whaleshark suggests - look especially at the 'a's'. Most appear to have additions. Some do not.

Then, look at the 'd's' - as most are written, they would have to start out in the cursive style, and instead of coming down with the finishing loop, they end at the top of the d. Patsy's exemplars show a true lower case style d - starting with a downward stroke.

Very obvious are the 'n's' and 'm's' - the starting downstroke is shorter than the rise of the 'humps'. And in many of them, the approach to the 'hump' is a slanted straight line upward, not straight line back up upward to create a nice hump. Patsy made her n's and m's using a starting downstroke that was equal to or higher than the humps, and the humps were usually rounded - without angular, straight strokes.

One last letter - the 'p's'. Some in the RN appear to be written cursive style with a tight closed loop at the bottom. JR did this in his exemplar. Patsy did not.

Also, JR's spelling of the word 'occasions' in his exemplar is: "occassions". Looks to me like he might have had a problem determining when to use a single as opposed to double 's' in a word.

You'll need to spend some time going back and forth between webpages of exemplars, but after a while it gets very easy to spot.

 

[midwest mama]

Precisely. It's what an attorney sometimes does in a courtroom. He'll lead a witness into the conclusion that the attorney wants.

John leads FW to the window, scratches his head and looks around at various items while he waits for FW to point out the obvious. When FW points out the obvious, John leads him a little further: "Damn it, I had to break the window when I locked myself out last summer." While FW is supposed to be thinking: "Well, there you go, broken window and John used this very window to gain access to a locked house, why not the kidnapper."

After this scenario is firmly in place, John leads FW to the body and the final conclusion. Kidnapper got skittish, killed JBR and made an exit out the window.

Sadly for FW, I think he must have been a 'yes' man for JR. That's the best type of friend JR could have had. Doubt he really had much respect for him since he decided Fleet could be added to his possible 'hit' list of perpetrators.

He also might have thought that once he closed the window, and it closed off some of the outward signs that he thought poor old Fleet might not have even noticed before, he'd have an easier time bamboozling his pal into believing his incredulous summer breakage story, and helping Fleet to think an intruder could have used to window.

But, if he wanted FW to see the window as used by an intruder, why did he say "it has to be an inside job" when he laid JB down upstairs?

How does is flow from: Here's the window I broke, Fleet, (kill some time and make Fleet think an intruder came in/out) and then "oh God, that's my daughter" (statement made as Fleet observes JR in the dark of the wine cellar, before JR reaches to flip on the light) to the statement about the inside job?

It's a good thing Fleet was taking those notes! Once he got home and could refresh himself, his light bulb came on, and hence, he cooked JR's rice!

He was the only one who was privvy to all of those statements on Dec 26th, and he had figured it out. :moo:

 

[UKGuy]

Sadly for FW, I think he must have been a 'yes' man for JR. That's the best type of friend JR could have had. Doubt he really had much respect for him since he decided Fleet could be added to his possible 'hit' list of perpetrators.

He also might have thought that once he closed the window, and it closed off some of the outward signs that he thought poor old Fleet might not have even noticed before, he'd have an easier time bamboozling his pal into believing his incredulous summer breakage story, and helping Fleet to think an intruder could have used to window.

But, if he wanted FW to see the window as used by an intruder, why did he say "it has to be an inside job" when he laid JB down upstairs?

How does is flow from: Here's the window I broke, Fleet, (kill some time and make Fleet think an intruder came in/out) and then "oh God, that's my daughter" (statement made as Fleet observes JR in the dark of the wine cellar, before JR reaches to flip on the light) to the statement about the inside job?

It's a good thing Fleet was taking those notes! Once he got home and could refresh himself, his light bulb came on, and hence, he cooked JR's rice!

He was the only one who was privvy to all of those statements on Dec 26th, and he had figured it out. :moo:

midwest mama,

He was the only one who was privvy to all of those statements on Dec 26th, and he had figured it out. :moo:

Exactly, plus he saw inside the wine-cellar three times, thats more than some police officers!

But, if he wanted FW to see the window as used by an intruder, why did he say "it has to be an inside job" when he laid JB down upstairs?

Its possibly obfuscation or re-directing the blame towards say the housekeeper. JR may have thought he was simply stating the obvious, but hoped his staging would point to an intruder?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Midwest Mama,

I can see every one of his letters at the 150-200% size.

I can see where his letters are written over, and/or altered, extended - without a doubt.

I need a way to demonstrate this with his original letters in one color and the added letters, writeover, and additional marks in another.
Computer program would be great, but may have to do it manually or something....

The original handwriting is John's.

Whether or not he, or Patsy wrote on top of it --

The original letters are John's.


Better yet -- amplify it to 400 %.

I feel like screaming it from the rooftops.

I'm interested in how you had this insight. What made you think of this?

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,

Exactly, plus he saw inside the wine-cellar three times, thats more than some police officers!


Its possibly obfuscation or re-directing the blame towards say the housekeeper. JR may have thought he was simply stating the obvious, but hoped his staging would point to an intruder?


.

I think JR got pretty squirreled up by Patsy making the 911 call so early, and he just made every comment he could to point in any direction he could - as long as it was away from himself! If they wouldn't believe it was an intruder, then, yes, I think the R's had already decided to make the Housekeeper their first target. After that they could go after Patsy or one of their other key-holding friends.

I think he'd have even 'confessed' that Burke did it, as he told Patsy, if the cops would have pressed him. He'd have figured that LE would understand why they tried to make it look like an intruder had broken in, etc. etc. etc. All the sympathy props were in place - her favorite blanket, toys and jewelry. As much as Patsy would have suffered from that, he would have played the game well, but been oh so relieved his bu** wasn't headed for prison. :moo:

The final stumbling block for this whole theory is: how did JR manage to masque/contaminate the matching DNA in JB's panties and on the longjohns, and have it end up giving a result of belonging to someone other than him?

 

[learnin]

Very unlikely. If it had been broken for some time wouldn't LHP have known? She denies it was broken earlier. She was down the basement doing laundry regularly. I could see it being broken for a few days w/o her knowing, but weeks, months? Really?

Patsy states, in an interview, that LHP helped her clean up the glass. I think it would be awful stupid to make such a claim, if it hadn't happened, especially since you're under a great deal of suspicion. LHP says she doesn't recall it being broken. Did she make this statement after learning Patsy threw her under the bus or before? I think LHP, and her husband, are one of the insiders that John and Patsy wanted to cast suspicion on.
I think this is why Patsy said LHP helped her clean up the broken glass...LHP knew it was broken and LHP needed money. I, also, believe it's probably why LHP denied knowing it was broken...she knew she was being thrown under the bus.

When do you figure the window was broken? How? And on what basis do you believe it was broken before that night?

On the basis of the crime scene video, taken after the body was found, showing a cobweb strung between remaining pieces of glass in the window pane.

You figure they lived with the bugs and mice, and the security issue, and the rain/snow, and the cold air?

Like you, I always pressed the opinion that the window would not have been left unrepaired because of mice infestation and cold air entering the house. But, after viewing the crime scene video, and after seeing a spider web attached between shards of glass remaining in the window pane, I was forced
to reconsider my position.[/QUOTE]

You believe that after the window was broken the glass was cleaned up, but not completely?

I would say it's quite feasible that they didn't get all the glass up on the window well and some of this was used by the stager and placed on the suitcase, etc.

They just left bits of glass laying there for "some time" despite it being a play area?

I think they cleaned the glass up from the floor and left some pieces in the well or on the ledge, closed the window and forgot about those shards and kernels. I, now, believe this because of the video tape evidence of the window which looks like the window had been broken for sometime.

Also, if the window was broken by the stager, that very night, then, the stager, without a doubt, was marking this as the entry and exit point. If the stager broke it that very night, there could be no witnesses to come forth and say, "I saw that window broken two weeks ago." What is more, if the window was broken that very night by the stager, he would surely have left the glass strewn all over the carpet as evidence that the window had been broken by the intruder.

This is a classic case of a broken window providing a stager with the opportunity for an entry and exit. I believe this is the reason why John told police that HE HAD CHECKED ALL THE DOORS BEFORE GOING TO BED. He had a point of entry ready made.

So FW simultaneously has seen the window close enough to have concerns about the dimensions being large enough for a man to get through, yet not well enough (grate, dirt on sill) to know that no one actually did come in that way?

It doesn't matter how closely,or not, FW had surveyed that window at that particular point.
What matters, to John, is that FW sees the broken window and that he knows John broke the window to gain access to his house that he was locked out of. Understand.

1. John was locked out of his house without key. He gains entrance to the house through that window.

2. Intruder is locked out of the house, without key, and he gains entrance to the house through that window.

He's looked up and seen the grate in place and asks himself if that hole is big enough for an intruder, but doesn't ask himself why the grate is still in place?

Same with the window well and sill? He wonders if a man can get into the window well but doesn't ask himself why the dirt on the sill is very little disturbed?

It doesn't matter. We can speculate all we want. What matters is what we know happened on that afternoon. We know that John took FW to the basement window. We know that FW pointed out the broken window so this tells us that FW was pointing this out as a possible entrance. We know that John said he broke it and cussed that he should have fixed it. And we know that both men were looking around on the floor for glass as if to see if the intruder might have knocked some down there. Whether or not
FW was scouring the area for cobwebs and thinking about the grate, we can only speculate. It would be nice to know FW's thoughts. As for me, I imagine ole Fleet was more than a little suspicious especially when John found the body.

It's obvious that what JR is worried about is the fact that everyone who looks at the window knows no one came through there the night before.

I disagree. If John is worried that everyone will know no one came through the window, then, he should not have made a fuss about not having repaired the window. As I've
said, several times before, was John cussing himself for not fixing the window because the heating bill was high or because a kidnapper might've gained entrance there in the
exact same way he had earlier?

You're claiming that John is backdating the window breakage because everyone is going to know the intruder didn't come in that way. Why wasn't he worried about the
ransom note? Everyone knew it wasn't a kidnapping ransom note.

 

[UKGuy]

I think JR got pretty squirreled up by Patsy making the 911 call so early, and he just made every comment he could to point in any direction he could - as long as it was away from himself! If they wouldn't believe it was an intruder, then, yes, I think the R's had already decided to make the Housekeeper their first target. After that they could go after Patsy or one of their other key-holding friends.

I think he'd have even 'confessed' that Burke did it, as he told Patsy, if the cops would have pressed him. He'd have figured that LE would understand why they tried to make it look like an intruder had broken in, etc. etc. etc. All the sympathy props were in place - her favorite blanket, toys and jewelry. As much as Patsy would have suffered from that, he would have played the game well, but been oh so relieved his bu** wasn't headed for prison. :moo:

The final stumbling block for this whole theory is: how did JR manage to masque/contaminate the matching DNA in JB's panties and on the longjohns, and have it end up giving a result of belonging to someone other than him?

midwest mama,
I do not think he did this deliberately. The forensic evidence is touch-dna, its not a semen, blood, sweat, follicle sample etc.

So if JR was wearing gloves then it could have originated there, or from the paintbrush-handle, or the paint-tote etc. Really just about anywhere. What is more interesting is that we have not been told about any Ramsey DNA found on JonBenet, and to who it belonged, e.g. BR?


.

 

[UKGuy]

A window pane broken and glass still laying around and no one has picked up on the staging? Seriously? The problem is they have picked up on it - and it's incomplete. He needs desperately to explain the broken glass in conjunction with the grate in place, the web intact, and the dirt undisturbed.

He doesn't mention closing the window until the April '97 interview. By that time he's got LS working in his best interests. If he was concerned that no one picked up on his staging he certainly wouldn't close a window.

Chrishope,
You make my point. JR is engaged in, after the fact, staging, he is fabricating a version of events to suit his story.

JR still wants you to know that he closed the window that morning.

Whether its true or false, or when the window was broken, who broke it etc, is irrelevant. Debate over this is pedantry, mere logic chopping.

JR's position is that a human being can climb through that window, because he did, he found the window open, so a plausible inference is that this is an intruder point of entry, particularly since it is so close to JonBenet's location.

simples.




.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
You make my point. JR is engaged in, after the fact, staging, he is fabricating a version of events to suit his story.

JR still wants you to know that he closed the window that morning.

Whether its true or false, or when the window was broken, who broke it etc, is irrelevant. Debate over this is pedantry, mere logic chopping.

JR's position is that a human being can climb through that window, because he did, he found the window open, so a plausible inference is that this is an intruder point of entry, particularly since it is so close to JonBenet's location.

simples.




.

That's JR's position after LS joins the team. That's not his position on the 26th. What we are talking about is why he told FW that he'd broken the window during the summer. His comment to the police, during the April interview, that he closed the window is irrelevant to why he told FW he'd broken the window earlier.

On the 26th, he makes sure to tell the police all the doors are locked. Then we tells FW, and possibly the police, that he broke the glass, back in August. He doesn't tell the police, that morning, that he closed the window. Then when he finds the body he says it's an inside job.

Obviously he's not trying very hard to push the forcible entry angle that morning.

That all changes by April of '97.

 

[Chrishope]

Patsy states, in an interview, that LHP helped her clean up the glass. I think it would be awful stupid to make such a claim, if it hadn't happened, especially since you're under a great deal of suspicion.

It would just be one person's word against the other's.

LHP says she doesn't recall it being broken. Did she make this statement after learning Patsy threw her under the bus or before? I think LHP, and her husband, are one of the insiders that John and Patsy wanted to cast suspicion on.
I think this is why Patsy said LHP helped her clean up the broken glass...LHP knew it was broken and LHP needed money. I, also, believe it's probably why LHP denied knowing it was broken...she knew she was being thrown under the bus.

So you figure Patsy was going to give LHP some money in exchange for her cooperation on the window story, (or expected cooperation because she'd already given money) but LHP denied it because she was angry? OK.

On the basis of the crime scene video, taken after the body was found, showing a cobweb strung between remaining pieces of glass in the window pane.

It was the cobweb that had been across the window before it broke. See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html

Like you, I always pressed the opinion that the window would not have been left unrepaired because of mice infestation and cold air entering the house. But, after viewing the crime scene video, and after seeing a spider web attached between shards of glass remaining in the window pane, I was forced
to reconsider my position.



I would say it's quite feasible that they didn't get all the glass up on the window well and some of this was used by the stager and placed on the suitcase, etc.



I think they cleaned the glass up from the floor and left some pieces in the well or on the ledge, closed the window and forgot about those shards and kernels. I, now, believe this because of the video tape evidence of the window which looks like the window had been broken for sometime.

Well here are my reasons for thinking it's a fresh break.
1. We'd see a fully formed spider web across the break, not strands of a broken web.
2. Mice/bugs/security/cold air, problems associated with living with a broken window for several months.
3. LHP denies knowing about the broken window (but as you suggest, she may be lying)
4. Nobody else has come forward to verify the Rs story of the glass being broken earlier. With all the people in the house -and the cops interviewed literally hundreds of people- you'd think one might remember the window.
5. I don't for a minute believe the Rs lived, for months, with shards of broken glass laying around in an area where the children played. If the break were old, the glass would have been cleaned up thoroughly.
6. They didn't even try to make a temporary repair by placing some cardboard, or plastic sheeting, or something, over the hole in the window.

Also, if the window was broken by the stager, that very night, then, the stager, without a doubt, was marking this as the entry and exit point.

No doubt about it. I agree completely. I think JR broke the window the night of the 25th in an attempt to stage an intruder scenario.

If the stager broke it that very night, there could be no witnesses to come forth and say, "I saw that window broken two weeks ago." What is more, if the window was broken that very night by the stager, he would surely have left the glass strewn all over the carpet as evidence that the window had been broken by the intruder.

He certainly would have left the glass all over the place had he finished his staging. If the grate were popped out of it's place (thus destroying the spider web on the grate) and the dirt on the sill were all messed up, so that the window appeared to actually be a point of entry, then yes.

But, as we know, the sill wasn't messed up much. It did not appear that someone slid across the sill. The grate was in place and the spider web attached to the grate was intact, so we know no one came in that way. The police knew it too, as they had inspected it shortly after arriving on scene. I can't be completely sure how closely FW inspected it.

So, what we have is a window with broken glass, but which was obviously not used as an entry point. The scene is internally inconsistent. IOWs, the broken glass doesn't go with the undisturbed sill and the grate being in place, and the spider web being attached to the grate. This looks quite suspicious.

Hence the need for the backdating. JR cleaned up the glass, but in his haste overlooked a few pieces. He then concocted the story about breaking in on a previous occasion to explain the broken window.

This is a classic case of a broken window providing a stager with the opportunity for an entry and exit. I believe this is the reason why John told police that HE HAD CHECKED ALL THE DOORS BEFORE GOING TO BED. He had a point of entry ready made.

That makes a lot of sense. By itself, I'd agree. But if we consider other factors we see that there is something wrong. If JR wants the police to see the window and figure it's a POE, why is the grate in place? Why isn't the sill sufficiently disturbed? Obviously his POE wasn't complete. Even if the glass had been broken months prior, there was still other window staging that needed to be done (removing the grate, messing up the sill) . Why would JR not do this?

It doesn't matter how closely,or not, FW had surveyed that window at that particular point.
What matters, to John, is that FW sees the broken window and that he knows John broke the window to gain access to his house that he was locked out of. Understand.


1. John was locked out of his house without key. He gains entrance to the house through that window.

2. Intruder is locked out of the house, without key, and he gains entrance to the house through that window.

I understand your point, but what you are neglecting is that it does matter how closely FW inspected. If he's noticed the grate, and the undisturbed sill, then he's knows that no one came through the window.

So then he would ask himself why JR is telling him about a prior break. Is JR suggesting the intruder came in that way last night? Why is he suggesting this when it's obvious no one came in that way?

But, if FW hasn't inspected very closely, then why is he having any doubts about the window being big enough for an intruder to come through? If he knows the size of the window well and grate, then he's looked, and therefore knows no one came in that way.

I don't know why you're assuming that there was any question in FW's mind about the window being a possible entry point -in a theoretical way. Did FW say something to JR?

It doesn't matter. We can speculate all we want. What matters is what we know happened on that afternoon. We know that John took FW to the basement window. We know that FW pointed out the broken window so this tells us that FW was pointing this out as a possible entrance.

Well, I don't think FW was having any trouble viewing the window as a possible entrance, on the basis of size. So I don't think the purpose of JR's story is to put that idea in FW's head.

We know that John said he broke it and cussed that he should have fixed it. And we know that both men were looking around on the floor for glass as if to see if the intruder might have knocked some down there. Whether or not
FW was scouring the area for cobwebs and thinking about the grate, we can only speculate. It would be nice to know FW's thoughts. As for me, I imagine ole Fleet was more than a little suspicious especially when John found the body.

I think FW was highly suspicious.

I disagree. If John is worried that everyone will know no one came through the window, then, he should not have made a fuss about not having repaired the window. As I've
said, several times before, was John cussing himself for not fixing the window because the heating bill was high or because a kidnapper might've gained entrance there in the
exact same way he had earlier?

It's not much of a fuss he made. He slapped his forehead and said he should have had it repaired. It's a normal thing to do. But it is consistent with your version of events, I agree.

You're claiming that John is backdating the window breakage because everyone is going to know the intruder didn't come in that way. Why wasn't he worried about the
ransom note? Everyone knew it wasn't a kidnapping ransom note.

The RN was for PR to see, not for the purposes of fooling the police.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/case-solved.html

 

[UKGuy]

That's JR's position after LS joins the team. That's not his position on the 26th. What we are talking about is why he told FW that he'd broken the window during the summer. His comment to the police, during the April interview, that he closed the window is irrelevant to why he told FW he'd broken the window earlier.

On the 26th, he makes sure to tell the police all the doors are locked. Then we tells FW, and possibly the police, that he broke the glass, back in August. He doesn't tell the police, that morning, that he closed the window. Then when he finds the body he says it's an inside job.

Obviously he's not trying very hard to push the forcible entry angle that morning.

That all changes by April of '97.

Chrishope,

Obviously he's not trying very hard to push the forcible entry angle that morning.

This is because there is not one available.

JR wants anyone who will listen to know that he climbed through that window in the recent past.

It follows an intruder could have done so too.

This is the thought he hoped to translate to FW, whether he was successful I do not know.

JR was engaged in creating a false version of events, both before the discovery of JonBenet and after.


.

 

[Whaleshark]

I'm interested in how you had this insight. What made you think of this?

Where to begin?
The importance of this ransom note cannot be understated. It is the one piece of crime evidence we have that the Ramseys' have offered as proof of an intruder. The one thing. It should not be ignored or forgotten.

Where some people are 100% sure the handwriting is definitely Patsy's and don't take a second look, I am always reviewing the ransom note. Not only is the note in actual handwriting, it's a cornerstone for certain theories, and makes a difference as to what happened, who knew what, etc. To me, it makes all the difference.

And, it is the backbone of DocG's theory (along with the window issue)….And where I agree that I see John's handwriting in the note, the problem I have with DocG eliminating Patsy's knowledge completely then, is that he states that she simply wouldn't recognize John's handwriting because she didn't want to. This gives me great pause.

And yet we have, not only regular people, but handwriting 'experts' who claim with 100% certainty that it is Patsy's handwriting. Ah, but we have other experts who can pinpoint John's handwriting.

But something doesn’t quite seem right – because the handwriting is definitely disguised. But there are distinct letters noted from each of their styles… handwriting and verbiage. Why is this? Why, indeed.

And here's the thing: I just cannot get past that if John wrote it all himself, Patsy would not have recognized the writing, or just wouldn’t have wanted to. Really? And if not the handwriting, the wording, the comments about ‘fat cats’, and the inside joke regarding good ol’ southern common sense either? I feel like Docg glosses over this, and I go back and read his answers, and he says mostly, she just wouldn’t have done this, or she just wouldn’t have noticed because she didn’t want to, but mainly that John was the ‘most likely’ perpetrator.
Ok, but Doc, you had me till you started sounding like someone who made a theory to fit what you thought ‘most likely’.
Unlike DocG, I can’t discount Patsy, simply because John is ‘most likely’.
And with most theories, I feel like some pieces of his theory are correct, and some are not.

So then, I break it down -- we know, based on John's lies, that he was involved for sure. But we know she lied and was inconsistent too.
DocG says Patsy’s lying is also hard to explain, if she is really oblivious, but again, that perhaps she just went along because she was standing by him, and was probably manipulated and intimidated by something he said to her.

But it’s just not that neat to me. There’s too much corroboration; too much to hinge on ‘most likely’, and too much cover up and collaboration to fit this into that scenario – especially since so much of Patsy is seen in the note.

So, I go back to the note. Again and again. What are people missing? Why are some so insistent that it’s her writing, not his? Why is it so obvious that he’s involved, but she is too, especially with her lies? Oh, for sure it’s her wording – gentlemen, hence, attaché … but it’s his wording – beheaded, 99%, SBTC…? Hmm….

And then I remember that everything they wrote – they wrote TOGETHER: campaign letters, holiday newsletters, the Death of Innocence: each chapter alternated by each of them.

Let’s think about that one for a minute – each chapter in Death of Innocence was alternately written by each of them.
And linguistics analysis shows that their writing style is indicative of the writing style in the note. Yes, ‘their’, because even if Patsy physically wrote most of the items from them that went out publicly, she did not solely author them.

Why more people do not pick up on this, I don’t know.

So, we know the handwriting is disguised. We know they are both considered. We know there is adamant disagreement on who really wrote it. Probably because both sides are correct. Probably because they not only both authored it, but literally both wrote it.

So, how did I think of re-examining the note to see if I could see if that, in fact, was the case? All the above.

 

[learnin]

Thank you, Chris, for your very clear and logical responses to the various theories regarding the basement window scene. It's admittedly a confusing situation because so many things were happening so quickly that morning and the sequence of events is not at all clear.

While it makes some sense to assume John might have wanted to convince Fleet that someone could have wriggled through the window because he himself had done that earlier, it's hard to see why he'd have risked telling such a huge whopper just for that purpose alone.

What makes it a big whopper is the part about John climbing through that window well. This scenario is totally unnecessary and just adds to John's whopper. See discussion below.

As I see it, his predating of the window break is a lot more than that -- it is in fact an alibi. As Chris has explained, if he'd simply pointed to that break as evidence of an intruder breakin, the police would have immediately seen it as the staging it was, because Patsy's unexpected 911 call made it impossible for him to complete the staging as originally planned. So he lied about breaking it earlier as an act of desperation -- he really had no choice.

If John was merely covering up for the fact that he broke the window that morning and didn't have time to complete his staging, then, why embellish his alibi with him breaking into the house? Why not just say: "Damn, I broke that window a while back." The more detail John gives, the more of a "whopper" he weaves and the more chance he gets caught in his whopper. In your scenario, John had no need to embellish the "whopper" with the story of him squeezing himself into that window well. It was this "whopper" that got him into trouble as he stumbled all over himself trying to explain to ST and TT how he got in there. If John was lying, then, the bit, about him breaking into the house, had a specific purpose. If not, he would've just said he broke the window a while back.

Fortunately for him, he was able to convince Patsy to go along with the story, because they were "in it together" and she depended on him and his lawyers to defend her. Don't forget, John had been "ruled out," which made HER the prime suspect.

John convinced Patsy to go along with him so well that she concocted the story about LHP helping her to clean up the glass??? Again, why add to the lie? Why make it so much easier for someone to call your bluff?

 

[Whaleshark]

You've made some interesting observations, Whaleshark, but on the whole I think you are being overly analytical. Why would you expect Patsy to recognize John's writing when 6 forensic documentation "experts" ruled him out? Yes, both of us have found similarities, but there are obviously also some very big differences. And if the experts ruled John out she'd have had no reason to doubt his innocence.

Where to start? The one piece of supposed direct outside evidence of an intruder who murdered their daughter- overly analytical? Contrarily, I don't think any amount of analysis about it is too much! And yet, you want to say in your theory that not only was the ransom note very deliberate but offer that John was to use it as basis for his whole plan. How can you call my point overly analytical, when you say that it was so detailed because John planned to use it as his alibi and follow along the instructions in the note to get rid of the body?

Handwriting -- ok, your logic, again, is that Patsy didn't recognize her own husband easily, especially since six handwriting experts didn't either. Oh, ok, but just YOU recognize his handwriting, though? So, you're correct in recognizing his handwriting for sure, but John's wife, as well as experts, didn't recognize his handwriting, so of course, why should she? If we are to believe she didn't recognize it, and they didn't either, then why do you think you can recognize it then? You have an uncanny ability unlike anyone else?

As far as similarities with Patsy's hand, I'm sorry but I just can't buy all the "Patsy wrote it" nonsense from all the self-styled "experts." As far as I can see, her writing is totally UNlike the note, but that's neither here nor there, because the bottom line is that forensic doc. analysis is NOT a science and there is NO way to tell who wrote that note simply from examining the writing. I've written extensively about this situation on my blog and if you have a problem with anything I've written I invite you to comment either here or there.

Well, I am commenting already, aren't I?...

I just can't accept your observations regarding aspects of the note that are John's and aspects that are Patsy's, that's a HUGE assumption based on YOUR idea of what's typical about the writing style and prose style of each of them. It's NOT science, it's just speculation bordering on wishful thinking, sorry.

Not bordering on wishful thinking. But it's all speculation, regardless. As is much of your theory as well, which you readily admit. But even to say who is 'most likely' and eliminate one automatically due to that, is more than wishful thinking, it's close-minded.

I don't pretend to be a handwriting expert or an expert on content, but I DO claim to have a clear handle on the facts of this case and the logic behind those facts. And it's the combination of facts and logical inference that tell us Patsy could not have been involved. NOT someone's opinion but the FACTS.

I don't know if the point of this comment was to insinuate that I myself don't have a handle on the case, am not using logic, and am only going on opinion, or something, but that's not the case. Just because you find it absurd that I don't necessarily accept your whole theory, does not mean I am clueless.

And I am not saying I am a handwriting expert either... But then how are you better than me, or the experts, at deciding who wrote the note? Except to assume my observations are based on wishful thinking and opinion, and not logic, etc.... But I'm not the one eliminating someone based on who is 'most likely' or what I can and cannot accept....

I think most reading and writing here can agree that John lied about breaking the window earlier. This tells us HE was involved, as an innocent person would have had no reason to lie. The 911 call would not have been made if both John and Patsy were involved, because that call nullified the staging implicit in the note, so if they collaborated on that note, they would not have been stupid enough to call the police with the body still in the house. I think most of us agree there was no intruder. Thus, the only explanation for the 911 call is that Patsy made it against John's wishes, because she was innocent. It's really that simple. And I don't see any way around it. You can argue till your blue in the face about all the other "evidence" pointing this way or that, and you can insist you see Patsy's hand or Patsy's style in that note. But if you consider the FACTS and the basic LOGIC of the case, it should be clear that John and John alone killed his daughter and staged a phoney kidnapping to cover his OWN behind.

...Except that's your logic - and the rest of your logic requires a lot of speculation about what John was to do with the note, how he would have covered his tracks, why Patsy lied for him if she was totally innocent, and believing that she did not recognize his handwriting or the words used in the note as his. That's a lot of assumptions to fill in the blanks for, and convince yourself of one particular scenario above all others.

And if it was so cut and dried, then every book would come to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm no expert on anything, but I certainly do believe that experts can tell who wrote something by examining the handwriting and linguistics. Science or not, these experts can and do present their findings in court.
I look at the note and Patsy's exemplars and they are identical to me.

 

[Whaleshark]

Right.

And once again here we have the great conundrum.

DocG looks at the note and believes he sees John's handwriting for sure.
DeeDee looks at the note and believes she sees Patsy's handwriting for sure.

Several experts see John.
Several experts see Patsy.

Is everyone wrong? I say not exactly.
Is everyone correct? I say not exactly.

Enlarge. The. Note.

 

[Chrishope]

Where to begin?
The importance of this ransom note cannot be understated. It is the one piece of crime evidence we have that the Ramseys' have offered as proof of an intruder. The one thing. It should not be ignored or forgotten.

Where some people are 100% sure the handwriting is definitely Patsy's and don't take a second look, I am always reviewing the ransom note. Not only is the note in actual handwriting, it's a cornerstone for certain theories, and makes a difference as to what happened, who knew what, etc. To me, it makes all the difference.

And, it is the backbone of DocG's theory (along with the window issue)….And where I agree that I see John's handwriting in the note, the problem I have with DocG eliminating Patsy's knowledge completely then, is that he states that she simply wouldn't recognize John's handwriting because she didn't want to. This gives me great pause.

And yet we have, not only regular people, but handwriting 'experts' who claim with 100% certainty that it is Patsy's handwriting. Ah, but we have other experts who can pinpoint John's handwriting.

But something doesn’t quite seem right – because the handwriting is definitely disguised. But there are distinct letters noted from each of their styles… handwriting and verbiage. Why is this? Why, indeed.

And here's the thing: I just cannot get past that if John wrote it all himself, Patsy would not have recognized the writing, or just wouldn’t have wanted to. Really? And if not the handwriting, the wording, the comments about ‘fat cats’, and the inside joke regarding good ol’ southern common sense either? I feel like Docg glosses over this, and I go back and read his answers, and he says mostly, she just wouldn’t have done this, or she just wouldn’t have noticed because she didn’t want to, but mainly that John was the ‘most likely’ perpetrator.
Ok, but Doc, you had me till you started sounding like someone who made a theory to fit what you thought ‘most likely’.
Unlike DocG, I can’t discount Patsy, simply because John is ‘most likely’.
And with most theories, I feel like some pieces of his theory are correct, and some are not.

So then, I break it down -- we know, based on John's lies, that he was involved for sure. But we know she lied and was inconsistent too.
DocG says Patsy’s lying is also hard to explain, if she is really oblivious, but again, that perhaps she just went along because she was standing by him, and was probably manipulated and intimidated by something he said to her.

But it’s just not that neat to me. There’s too much corroboration; too much to hinge on ‘most likely’, and too much cover up and collaboration to fit this into that scenario – especially since so much of Patsy is seen in the note.

So, I go back to the note. Again and again. What are people missing? Why are some so insistent that it’s her writing, not his? Why is it so obvious that he’s involved, but she is too, especially with her lies? Oh, for sure it’s her wording – gentlemen, hence, attaché … but it’s his wording – beheaded, 99%, SBTC…? Hmm….

And then I remember that everything they wrote – they wrote TOGETHER: campaign letters, holiday newsletters, the Death of Innocence: each chapter alternated by each of them.

Let’s think about that one for a minute – each chapter in Death of Innocence was alternately written by each of them.
And linguistics analysis shows that their writing style is indicative of the writing style in the note. Yes, ‘their’, because even if Patsy physically wrote most of the items from them that went out publicly, she did not solely author them.

Why more people do not pick up on this, I don’t know.

So, we know the handwriting is disguised. We know they are both considered. We know there is adamant disagreement on who really wrote it. Probably because both sides are correct. Probably because they not only both authored it, but literally both wrote it.

So, how did I think of re-examining the note to see if I could see if that, in fact, was the case? All the above.

Hmmm. Well.

I think it was a brilliant idea to enlarge the note. I think you're right that lines and squiggles have been added to alter the handwriting.

I don't really think we can say who added the extra marks to disguise the writing. It strikes me as more natural to add them as one goes along, but there isn't any reason why the note couldn't have been handed over to the other R to be disguised.

I don't go much for "linguistic analysis". Finding that phrases are Patsy's or John's, or "motherly" or that of a "computer geek" are imo, just a matter of reading into the note what one wants to see. That's what's refreshing about the enlargement - the lines and squiggles were added, we know that now. Who added them? That we don't know.

 

[Chrishope]

I'm no expert on anything, but I certainly do believe that experts can tell who wrote something by examining the handwriting and linguistics. Science or not, these experts can and do present their findings in court.
I look at the note and Patsy's exemplars and they are identical to me.

The "experts" examined the handwriting and linguistics and decided JMK wrote the note. Of course, that's when JMK was in the news. Had they been given (for some strange reason) JMK's exemplars, but not told who JMK was, or that he was in any way considered a suspect, would they have reached the same opinion?

Your 5th grade teacher id'd your paper when you forgot to put your name on it. For my money a panel of 5th grade teachers would be preferable to "forensic document examiners". 5th grade teachers will ID more handwriting in a school year than forensic document examiners will in a lifetime.

It's not science. It's barely even pseudoscience. If there were anything to it there should not be so many different opinions. PR wrote it. JR wrote it. JR/PR wrote it. JMK wrote it. An unidentified intruder wrote it. There isn't anything to it. Any websleuth's opinion on who wrote the note is as good, or as bad, as that of the experts.

 

[OpenMind4U]

The "experts" examined the handwriting and linguistics and decided JMK wrote the note. Of course, that's when JMK was in the news. Had they been given (for some strange reason) JMK's exemplars, but not told who JMK was, or that he was in any way considered a suspect, would they have reached the same opinion?

Your 5th grade teacher id'd your paper when you forgot to put your name on it. For my money a panel of 5th grade teachers would be preferable to "forensic document examiners". 5th grade teachers will ID more handwriting in a school year than forensic document examiners will in a lifetime.

It's not science. It's barely even pseudoscience. If there were anything to it there should not be so many different opinions. PR wrote it. JR wrote it. JR/PR wrote it. JMK wrote it. An unidentified intruder wrote it. There isn't anything to it. Any websleuth's opinion on who wrote the note is as good, or as bad, as that of the experts.

...don't think so...The reason why teacher can recognize children's handwriting because it's written WITHOUT conceal and pretend in mind!...So, it would be wrong to compare the teachers ability to recognize 'as is' writing with the knowledge of 'forensic document examiners'.


In regards of RN, IMO, this evidence is one of the BEST evidences left for LE to solve this crime!

JMO

 

[Whaleshark]

It's obvious, isn't it, that the note was written for a reason. And it's also obvious the reason was to stage a phoney kidnapping. But what's the point of staging a phoney kidnapping if you're planning on calling 911 first thing in the morning, while the "kidnap" victim's body is hidden in the house?

I don't think this is being overly analytical, it's elementary logic of the simplest sort. The person who wrote that note obviously would not have wanted the police called until he (or she) had had a chance to get the body OUT of the house.

Perhaps, but we really don't know for sure. (It would seem the 'most likely' wouldn't it?) I agree it would fit better with a ransom note, absolutely. But even if it's elementary logic of the simplest sort, that doesn't mean the only solution is that it had to happen the way you said. There's a lot of nonsensical aspects to the case. This case is complicated and there are layers. When people offer other scenarios as to why they still both could have been collaborating, and yet still called 911 with a ransom note and a body in the house, you say it is not possible - even if Patsy would have insisted on her not being out in the elements or any other scenario -- because it just 'doesn't hold water'. So there's no convincing you... but I like to be open-minded about the possibilities, and am not going to assume there is only one scenario because it's the most logical.

People do an awful lot of illogical things.

As for the specifics of the plan I've read into the note, yes, I'll admit, it's speculative, because we have no way of knowing exactly what the writer had in mind. But the basic logic that tells us the writer would not have wanted the police called at that time is NOT speculative. It's as clear as day. And that's the basis for my conclusion that John and only John wrote the note. You can study the handwriting till your blue in the face and that won't change either the facts or the logic of the case, sorry.

Right, but that's according to you.

No, I'm not making that claim. My purpose in preparing those comparisons was to demonstrate 1. how easy it is to find similarities of the sort used to "demonstrate" that Patsy wrote it; and 2. to make the point that ruling John out was a mistake. I've stated many times that you can't identify the writer of such a document purely on the basis of handwriting (or content) alone. My reasons for suspecting John stem from the logic I've outlined above, NOT from my analysis of the handwriting. While it's true that on first viewing that document struck me as suspiciously similar to the note, there's no reason to assume Patsy would have had the same reaction. As you yourself have demonstrated, the writer went to considerable trouble to disguise his hand.

Ok, but I'm not ruling anything out. And you are, in order to arrive at your theory. I don't have a set theory, so I'm not arguing mine against yours. I'm not trying to offend or scoff at you either, which I feel like you sometimes think that I am. I'm merely participating in the debate from my differing perspectives. And I can see where it is entirely frustrating for someone who has what they have decided is the for sure solution to the case, and see no other reason to believe anything else. But that affords me to see things differently. Sorry if you don't approve.

No, it is NOT all speculation. My conclusion that John and only John is guilty is based on facts and very simple and clear logical inferences based on those facts. When attempting to fill in some of the blanks, it is of course necessary to speculate, and I've done that as well. I've speculated on what I think John was planning to do if Patsy hadn't called 911, yes, and we have no way of verifying that, true. But the conclusion that he and only he was responsible for the note itself is NOT speculation, but simple logic based on the facts of the case.

Right, but for you -- so it has to be the only logical solution for the answers in the case.

But not necessarily for others, even some investigators in the case.
I know, I know -- you say because they believe Patsy wrote the note. But that's not the only reason that investigators or others have come to their differing conclusions.

You are not clueless, no. But like so many others you have bought into the fixed idea that Patsy either wrote the note or was involved one way or another with its creation. And that simply cannot be true. If that were the case, she would not have made the 911 call. That's not "docG's theory." It's a logical conclusion based on the facts of the case..

I've not 'bought into any fixed idea'. I have gone back and forth myself. I am analyzing and speculating on my own... trying to find answers from what I have learned, observe, know, and deduce based on the facts as well.

What makes me "better" is that I've never pretended to be an expert on any aspect of the case, but have simply noted the most obvious facts and seen the logic behind them. What makes me "better" is that I have the humility to realize that I'll never be able to tell who wrote that note simply by studying the handwriting or the content, which has freed me to focus on the logic of the case as a whole.

Well, I'm not pretending to be an expert on any aspect of the case either, but to say that I don't have any humility because I made an educated decision based on a detailed observation I made about what I see in the note content, and all other facts I know about the case, is harsh. Then to insist that your logic is the only logic, and everyone else just can't figure it out, is not much humility, either. I focus on the case as a whole, as well, and have for years, just like you, and I give you a lot of credit for bringing up the unpopular idea of John's handwriting in the note. I feel like you can't take any criticism otherwise, though, and consider me just blatantly ignorant, like everyone else, for not seeing anything different than you.

There is only one logic and it's neither mine nor yours.

Ah, right. I wonder why everyone else doesn't see it all exactly the same way then?

That logic tells us who wrote the note and why. Once we understand who wrote it and why, then we have no choice but to speculate along certain lines regarding all the other very strange details of this case. We are constrained in our speculations by the FACT that John wrote the note himself to cover his OWN behind. There is no getting past that. If Patsy were involved as well, then the call would not have been made when it was.

Yes, but this of course has to assume that there is only one logic, as you know..

Once we understand this basic fact of the case, then we have no choice but to assume Patsy lied about certain things because she was being manipulated by John, NOT because she was involved in either the murder or the coverup. That's not simply speculation, it's required by the logic outlined above.

Well, yes it is required by the 'logic outlined above', in order for it to fit with the theory that is your only logical theory.

If you can think of some reason why the two of them would have wanted to make that 911 call if they had written the note together, as a team, then by all means see if you can come up with one. I've already discussed some of the most popular "explanations" on my blog (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-911-call-part-2.html) and clearly none of them hold water. But maybe you can do better.

I've read your blog a lot, and I have seen where you answer some of the most popular 'explanations'. Again, I don't think it is fair to absolutely say 'none of them hold water'. A lot of people have put a lot of thought into theories and scenarios based on their understanding of the facts of the case.
People might say your theory does not hold water because there is so much speculation that goes into the detailed plan John had, that it seems unbelievable that he would have not made sure that Patsy didn't make the 911 call if that changed everything for him. We could speculate all day.

The case went off the rails when the 4 outside handwriting "experts" decided, for reasons unknown, to accept the verdict of John's hired "experts" and rule him out. Every book ever written on the case has accepted this verdict as gospel -- so there is your answer, in a nutshell. If John is "ruled out" and there was no intruder, then "logically" only Patsy could have written the note. This is the source of what has become the controlling myth of the case. Based on opinion, NOT fact.

Well, there are some who don't accept it as gospel regardless -- like me... that's why we are here. I haven't "ruled out" John myself.... but you don't give me credit if I don't accept your total theory as the only logical answer.
And I guess that's the way it will have to be.