Linguistics

[MurriFlower]

Nothing of importance, apparently, if you've read my posts on this thread and see no value.

Seems what some want is hard conclusions, regardless of whether there's enough evidence to support them.

That is what I see no value in--that level of bias. It's a suspension of reason. And there's no point in seeking input: why ask anything if you'll only accept what you already believe?

I have read your posts, but then they went off on a tangent discussing other's ideas, as always happens on this forum, so I lost track of what you deduced from the RN.

So to recap. In your opinion..............

 

[DeeDee249]

How could you differentiate the words of someone who was a genuine kidnapper from someone who was trying to give the impression of being a genuine kidnapper?


?

A real kidnapper would not write a note that "personal" (using first names) nor that long. A real kidnapper would not advise (sic) someone to be well-rested for delivery of the money. And a real kidnapper wouldn't write a note three pages long. A real RN would be about three sentences. "We got your kid. Tell anyone and she dies. We'll call you".
This note is an "imitation" RN. It pretends to be one, but really isn't. It is written by an educated person who thinks this is what a RN should be like, and also attempts to widen the circle of suspects by inferring a SFF, someone who knows the family "don't try to grow a brain, John" and someone who is a disgruntled employee.

 

[MurriFlower]

A real kidnapper would not write a note that "personal" (using first names) nor that long. A real kidnapper would not advise (sic) someone to be well-rested for delivery of the money. And a real kidnapper wouldn't write a note three pages long. A real RN would be about three sentences. "We got your kid. Tell anyone and she dies. We'll call you".
This note is an "imitation" RN. It pretends to be one, but really isn't. It is written by an educated person who thinks this is what a RN should be like, and also attempts to widen the circle of suspects by inferring a SFF, someone who knows the family "don't try to grow a brain, John" and someone who is a disgruntled employee.

This 'educated person' would accidentally use the first name of the victim's father, but not the first name of the victim?

This 'educated person' would not be smart enough to know that so much detail in a RN is unnecessary?

This 'educated person' would not realise we would see through the attempt to deflect suspicion?

This 'educated person' would not realise the RN sounds phoney?

This 'educated person' is not as smart as us?

This 'educated person' (who is in your opinion so stupid) is still at large.

 

[DeeDee249]

This 'educated person' would accidentally use the first name of the victim's father, but not the first name of the victim?

This 'educated person' would not be smart enough to know that so much detail in a RN is unnecessary?

This 'educated person' would not realise we would see through the attempt to deflect suspicion?

This 'educated person' would not realise the RN sounds phoney?

This 'educated person' is not as smart as us?

This 'educated person' (who is in your opinion so stupid) is still at large.

Never said the "educated person" was stupid. But as far as the rest of the comments, the answer is yes, because the "educated person" who wrote that note never wrote an RN before, nor were they someone who had even committed a crime before.

 

[tapu]

I have read your posts, but then they went off on a tangent discussing other's ideas, as always happens on this forum, so I lost track of what you deduced from the RN.

So to recap. In your opinion..............

In my opinion... a few people in here need to get some more air.

 

[MurriFlower]

In my opinion... a few people in here need to get some more air.

Thanks, you've been a great help LOL.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nothing of importance, apparently, if you've read my posts on this thread and see no value.

apparently.

 

[BBB167893]

This 'educated person' would accidentally use the first name of the victim's father, but not the first name of the victim?

1) Who says it was accidental? DD seems to be suggesting that the writer was trying to give the impression of a person nearby, sort of a "it could be anyone around you" deal.

2) Not using the victim's name fits with a person trying to distance themself from the crime. The FBI said that the RN was a way to "undo" the crime in the person's mind. "I didn't do it. This BAD person did it."

This 'educated person' would not be smart enough to know that so much detail in a RN is unnecessary?

As I often say, it's important to respect the difference between knowledge and wisdom. IOWs, if this person had no experience writing ransom notes and had no real knowledge of how a real RN would go, then that, combined with the "throw s**t at the wall and see what sticks" approach would produce something like this.

Add in the possibility that the person couldn't help themselves.

This 'educated person' would not realise we would see through the attempt to deflect suspicion?

Assume for a moment that they DID realize it. PT Barnum famously said, "there's a sucker born every minute." If there's one thing we know unequivocally about crime, it's that someone (sometimes very influential people) will believe your story, no matter how ridiculous it is.

This 'educated person' would not realise the RN sounds phony?

If they had no real experience, then I'd say no, they might well not realize it.

This 'educated person' is not as smart as us?

That's not a fair comparison. It would be more accurate to say that they didn't have the benefits of research that we have.

This 'educated person' (who is in your opinion so stupid) is still at large.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But let me say this (I don't know why--I've only said it a hundred times and it's never made a dent up to now, but I keep hoping): it's no good to try and define this as a difference between "smart" and "stupid." It's a difference between knowledge and wisdom, i.e., "intelligent" does not necessarily equal "knowing what you're doing."

 

[MurriFlower]

Nothing of importance, apparently, if you've read my posts on this thread and see no value.

Seems what some want is hard conclusions, regardless of whether there's enough evidence to support them.

That is what I see no value in--that level of bias. It's a suspension of reason. And there's no point in seeking input: why ask anything if you'll only accept what you already believe?

Ok, well you came onto the forum offering yourself (as a person who was qualified as a linguist) to look at the evidence. What I have asked is what conclusions you reached? You stated there is not enough evidence for you to form a conclusion. You then criticise those who have formed an opinion of bias, but as far as I can tell, you haven't been able to form an opinion yourself, due to not enough evidence. I asked questions that I thought a lunguist might be able to answer, but you seem unwilling to do so because you are in a snit that, apparently, because we didn't listen to the conclusions you were unable to make due to lack of evidence!!

 

[akashana]

To me, and I am not a linguist, although I studied linguistics in college as part of a BA in English curriculum, I think the note was written by a woman who was either reared or educated in the South. I do not see earmarks of a male writer in the note, but I also believe John colluded with Patsy with the note. I have never been able to parse who actually killed JB, and am open to various scenarios, including IDI, but my mind is pretty much set that Patsy wrote that note. Which would preclude IDI and is what always brings me back to RDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

To me, and I am not a linguist, although I studied linguistics in college as part of a BA in English curriculum, I think the note was written by a woman who was either reared or educated in the South. I do not see earmarks of a male writer in the note, but I also believe John colluded with Patsy with the note. I have never been able to parse who actually killed JB, and am open to various scenarios, including IDI, but my mind is pretty much set that Patsy wrote that note. Which would preclude IDI and is what always brings me back to RDI.

I believe it was written by a middle-aged male ESL of Asian descent.

There's another linguistics thread on this forum with links to a study of JBR ransom note by a professor of linguistics.

He concluded that PR could not write the note.

The US Secret Service concluded PR didn't write the note.

Neither of these studies were performed by anyone with an RDI ax to grind.

BPD definitely had a RDI ax to grind, and despite that they couldn't put together a consensus among their consulted experts that PR wrote the note.

But your mind is set, apparently more so than a few top experts.

 

[akashana]

I believe I clearly qualified that statement with "pretty much." That appears to be a common problem amongst the IDI group - only reading and acknowledging what one wishes to be true.

 

[akashana]

Below are quotes from others who investigated and/or analyzed the RN and their conclusions re PR as the author of the note:

"Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting expert Chet Ubowski expressed concerns that 'the handwriting samples obtained from Patsy Ramsey do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'" http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/The-Ransom-Note#WhatHandwritingExpertsSayAbouttheJBRRansomNote

"Carol McKinley stated in the Fox News story that Ramseys sued Fox over: 'Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found ONLY ONE person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News that the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey.'" http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Patsy+Ramsey+as+RN+Author

(Ubowski is a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the only professional certifying organization in the profession. He served as the CBI laboratory agent in charge of the JBR investigation) http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Patsy+Ramsey+as+RN+Author

Leonard Speckin
•Speckin Findings.
1.Unable to Eliminate. "Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6).
2.Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy. However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs." (Thomas 2000age number not provided; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher).

•Speckin Qualifications.
1."Leonard Speckin is a forensic document analyst, retired from the Michigan State Police. He has given expert witness testimony in this area over 500 times, for many courts, state committee hearings, and federal grand juries. He is certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners"
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Patsy+Ramsey+as+RN+Author

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe I clearly qualified that statement with "pretty much." That appears to be a common problem amongst the IDI group - only reading and acknowledging what one wishes to be true.

Arguing semantics I find to be trite and boring.

The only question I have now is why do you want to discuss sexual abuse so much? It seems to me to be just one thing on a long list of what RDI wishes to be true:

1. JBR was previously abused by a family member.
2. PR wrote the note.
3. PR bought cord at the hardware store a few weeks before.
4. PR was drugged.
5. PR was at wits end.
6. The DNA came from an underwear factory.
7. PR, while drugged, deliberately altered her writing/spelling.
8. The GJ indicted PR/JR
9. The BPD arrested PR/JR
10. Family member DNA is found instead of unknown male DNA.
11. People believed fibers from JBR's own parent's clothing was significant.
12. People believed every tabloid story and talking head.

But the reality now is that the courts, juries, evidence, investigation, and media favors IDI.

 

[tapu]

Ok, well you came onto the forum offering yourself (as a person who was qualified as a linguist) to look at the evidence. What I have asked is what conclusions you reached? You stated there is not enough evidence for you to form a conclusion. You then criticise those who have formed an opinion of bias, but as far as I can tell, you haven't been able to form an opinion yourself, due to not enough evidence. I asked questions that I thought a lunguist might be able to answer, but you seem unwilling to do so because you are in a snit that, apparently, because we didn't listen to the conclusions you were unable to make due to lack of evidence!!

As a linguist, I conclude, based on considerable evidence, that you post pure gibberish. Had you intended that to say something meaningful?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Arguing semantics I find to be trite and boring.

The only question I have now is why do you want to discuss sexual abuse so much? It seems to me to be just one thing on a long list of what RDI wishes to be true, I know that:

1. JBR was previously abused by a family member.
2. PR wrote the note.
3. PR bought cord at the hardware store a few weeks before.
4. PR was drugged.
5. PR was at wits end.
6. The DNA came from an underwear factory.
7. PR deliberately altered her writing/spelling.
8. The GJ indicted PR/JR
9. The BPD arrested PR/JR
10. Family member DNA is found instead of unknown male DNA.
11. People believed fibers from JBR's own parent's clothing was significant.
12. People believed every tabloid story and talking head.

But the reality now is that the courts, juries, evidence, investigation, and media favors IDI.

I am offended.

I can only speak for myself, but I can certainly say I DO NOT wish any of those things are true.

1. no one knows for sure, but it's my opinion that statistically the likihood she was molested by a family member is far more likely.

2. I believe the note to be BOGUS. I belive a Ramsey wrote it and my money is still on Patsy.

3. don't know
4. don't care
5 doesn't matter

6 it was a proven possible theroy

7 I think so

8. 9. and 10. Who says?

11. It is when a fiber from the sweater her father was wearing is found in the brand spanking new underware she was REdressed in. AND Fibers from the very same sweater her mother was wearing is found tied into the knot tightened around her throat and in the paint tray that housed the paintbrush used to make the garrott.!

Amazing isn't it???

The "intruder" who sat around writing a 3 page ransom note on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen, undressed and redressed her, carried her through out the house, fed her pineapple, did her hair, molested her, wiped her down, bound ( yeah right) and duct taped her, wrapped her in her favorite blanket taken from the dryer and only a few fragments of a few skin cells managed to be transferred. I am NOT buying it and I never will. It defys logic.

 

[akashana]

As a linguist, I conclude, based on considerable evidence, that you post pure gibberish. Had you intended that to say something meaningful?

MY BOLD

Awesome.

 

[Frigga]

MurriFlower,

I am interested to know what conclusions you have come to, the evidence that lead you to your conclusion and if you have a theory in regards to the perpetrator? TIA

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am offended.

Sorry, not my intention. I was using the context from a previous post. I understand your point and I apologize.

It defys logic.

There's no such word as 'defys'.

 

[akashana]

Arguing semantics I find to be trite and boring.

The only question I have now is why do you want to discuss sexual abuse so much? It seems to me to be just one thing on a long list of what RDI wishes to be true:

1. JBR was previously abused by a family member.
2. PR wrote the note.
3. PR bought cord at the hardware store a few weeks before.
4. PR was drugged.
5. PR was at wits end.
6. The DNA came from an underwear factory.
7. PR, while drugged, deliberately altered her writing/spelling.
8. The GJ indicted PR/JR
9. The BPD arrested PR/JR
10. Family member DNA is found instead of unknown male DNA.
11. People believed fibers from JBR's own parent's clothing was significant.
12. People believed every tabloid story and talking head.

But the reality now is that the courts, juries, evidence, investigation, and media favors IDI.

MY BOLD

Really? You still can't see it? When it's that obvious? OK, let me break it down:

JB was sexually assaulted and murdered in her own home. If she was assaulted before, by anyone, even once, "a little bit molested" (cue Nedra), the possibility exists and is even likely that her molester was up to more of the same on the night of her murder. Ergo, prior sexual abuse is certainly relevant if one is truly seeking her killer and not just in denial.