Peculiar letters from the RN

[madeleine]

Even an intruder could have constructed the garrote in order to use it as a sexual device and not as a murder weapon,like it happened with the other part of the paintbrush Jb was assaulted with.

 

[Sophie]

In any event, the fact that the RN was written in the Ramseys' home tends to point away from any long-held malice aforethought....


The writer was demonstrably trying to disguise his or her handwriting - they didn't use normal grown-up cursive which is very easily identified.

 

[Sophie]

In regard to the thread topic, disguised handwriting makes no sense.

There wasn't anything that important imparted to the reader to make it worth 2 1/2 pages of handwriting.

"Use that good southern common sense of yours," "If you talk to a stray dog," and "Its up to you now, John" are almost filler. Many statements are superfluous to kidnap for ransom, as if the writer was deliberately adding filler.

Masking handwriting style and adding filler are mutually opposed concepts. Therefore, whoever handwrote that note could probably care less about masking their handwriting.

Thing about adding filler is that it's normally something we do when bored or trying to pad out an inadequate exam essay - it's not something you would do if you were an intruder who might be happened upon by the householder at any second. Suggests a remarkable degree of comfort in the house. As does printing instead of using cursive - the former takes longer than the latter.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So no,you can't say whether we're dealing with intent or not.You don't know what was going on in the killer's head,first of all because you don't know WHO the killer was and whether he premeditated all this(intent=mental DESIRE>>>fantasy) or just lost control.

The evidence DOES indicate intent. Thats not my opinion, and we don't have to have ESP to figure out the mental state of the perp.

The ligature did not tie itself around the stick accidentally. It was done intentionally. Your shoes don't tie themselves automatically, you have to do it intentionally. Just like the ligature did not get tied around JBR's neck accidentally, it was done intentionally. Is there anything wrong with these remarks, and have you noticed things happening intentionally yet?

The coroner stated JBR died by asphyxiation, and the ligature WAS DELIBERATELY TIED AND LEFT IN A POSITION THAT WOULD CAUSE ASPHYXIATION. This most obviously indicates intent to kill. This may indicate sex game or staging but that is not the most obvious.

Headblow corroborates use of deadly force on JBR, while there is no corroboration for sex game. Thats just something somebody thought up.

Intentional use of deadly force vs. sex game? Intentional deadly force has a lot more support in evidence. Its the most obvious answer.

I don't think intent has to do with premeditation. The question is whether or not JBR was murdered or died accidentally. The accidental death is not the most obvious conclusion. It requires directly related evidence, the petechial hemorrhages and the state of the ligature, tight around JBR's neck, to be disregarded or explained in a more obscure way.

Sex game does not explain the tightness of the ligature around her neck, and staging does not explain the petechial hemorrhages. These ideas are actually contradicted by the core evidence, they may not even be possible.

 

[madeleine]

The evidence DOES indicate intent. Thats not my opinion, and we don't have to have ESP to figure out the mental state of the perp.

The ligature did not tie itself around the stick accidentally. It was done intentionally. Your shoes don't tie themselves automatically, you have to do it intentionally. Just like the ligature did not get tied around JBR's neck accidentally, it was done intentionally. Is there anything wrong with these remarks, and have you noticed things happening intentionally yet?

The coroner stated JBR died by asphyxiation, and the ligature WAS DELIBERATELY TIED AND LEFT IN A POSITION THAT WOULD CAUSE ASPHYXIATION. This most obviously indicates intent to kill. This may indicate sex game or staging but that is not the most obvious.

Headblow corroborates use of deadly force on JBR, while there is no corroboration for sex game. Thats just something somebody thought up.

Intentional use of deadly force vs. sex game? Intentional deadly force has a lot more support in evidence. Its the most obvious answer.

I don't think intent has to do with premeditation. The question is whether or not JBR was murdered or died accidentally. The accidental death is not the most obvious conclusion. It requires directly related evidence, the petechial hemorrhages and the state of the ligature, tight around JBR's neck, to be disregarded or explained in a more obscure way.

Sex game does not explain the tightness of the ligature around her neck, and staging does not explain the petechial hemorrhages. These ideas are actually contradicted by the core evidence, they may not even be possible.

You gotta admire SD's patience.I don't think I have what it takes to play this game with you especially since we understand terms like evidence,intent and FACTS totally different.:silenced:

 

[Mysteeri]

Just a side comment here. I`ve looked at Patsys handwriting samples and compared them to the RN, and just imo, they are similar in style. Some letters, like I and J, look exactly the same. I`m absolutely not an expert though, this is just my impression. I don`t know how common/unique Patsys handwriting is.

 

[Theonly1]

I've always thought Patsy was the author of the ransom note even after reading opinions and examples from both sides (RDI and IDI).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You gotta admire SD's patience.I don't think I have what it takes to play this game with you especially since we understand terms like evidence,intent and FACTS totally different.:silenced:

Your facts are probably that JBR had prior abuse, PR and JR are violent people, and the DNA found in two different forms in three different places on JBR's body got there innocently.If so, then please tell me you're not in LE.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=995

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

The garrote fabricated and then tied tightly around JBR's neck, combined with coroners statement that JBR asphyxiated, adequately establish intent to kill, but only to rational people capable of intelligent argument. JBR was murdered. Thats why they call it an unsolved murder, not an unsolved accident (LOL). Of course you can type almost anything else you want.

 

[DeeDee249]

Your facts are probably that JBR had prior abuse, PR and JR are violent people, and the DNA found in two different forms in three different places on JBR's body got there innocently.If so, then please tell me you're not in LE.

JB DID have prior abuse- the coroner on the case said it himself. CHRONIC means prior.

No, The R were NOT violent people. But anyone is capable of acting violently in certain circumstances.

And the DNA could have gotten there innocently. It's been explained how so many times we are all tired of it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JB DID have prior abuse- the coroner on the case said it himself.

The coroner on the case NEVER said JB had prior ABUSE. Where do you get this stuff?

"Anyone is capable of violence". OK. Anyone is capable of avoiding violence too. Talking things out before letting it get out of hand. Using 'cooling off' techniques. I've found that violence is inversely proportional to intelligence, and I believe there is more evidence of the R's being intelligent than them being violent. Was there something I missed? Was there something that happened in the R's past that would indicate to you that they are violent?

We can't really use the murder as a premise for the R's being violent people, as that would be circular reasoning, a flawed logic I've seen here way too much.

The DNA can't get there innocently if there are two types of DNA found on two separate articles of clothing. Thats the whole point behind the exhoneration part. You know, the EXHONERATION PART??

 

[claudicici]

...i think it's flawed logic that intelligence and violence can be in anyway related to one another...where did you 'find' that violence is inversely proportional to intelligence....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...i think it's flawed logic that intelligence and violence can be in anyway related to one another...where did you 'find' that violence is inversely proportional to intelligence....

That didn't take long.

Herrnstein and Murray argued that the effect of IQ on crime, as well as other social problems, is so strong that "much of the attention now given to problems of poverty and unemployment should be shifted to . . . coping with cognitive disadvantage"

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1364/Intelligence-Crime-R-20-meaningful-correlation-size.html#ixzz0LfmzeSPX

Or,

Very interesting, starting at the bottom of page 72. TY.

...[the conventional criminal's] arguments bristling with sophistry and half truths, and aimed chiefly against the rich...



http://books.google.com/books?id=UU...Pr1_Fm&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

 

[claudicici]

...first of all this says that these guys argued a point,which doesn't make it true and second they argued that iq has an effect on crime,it doesn't state what type of crime and crime does not equal violence

 

[BBB167893]

Evidence indicates somebody had intent to kill JBR. Plain and simple, no sidestepping required. That's not 'what I think' its what the evidence indicates.

I give up.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...first of all this says that these guys argued a point,which doesn't make it true and second they argued that iq has an effect on crime,it doesn't state what type of crime and crime does not equal violence

What I posted was 'I've found'. That doesn't mean "I conducted a scientific study and these were the findings."

I've found that people of lesser intelligence solve their problems thru violence, while people of greater intelligence prevent losses by finding other solutions. Take it or leave it.

 

[claudicici]

...oh and even if the intelligence,violence link was true,i don't think patsy's iq was ever published.sure she was educated but she doesn't seem to have above average intelligence to me.

 

[claudicici]

Likewise, a task force of the American Psychological Association figured that since a correlation of r = -.20 produces an explained variance of only 4 percent (r2 =.04), the IQ-crime correlation is "very low" (Siegel, p. 174).

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1364/Int...eaningful-correlation-size.html#ixzz0LftInSU1

oh and this quote is from the very same article you've linked to....

 

[BBB167893]

You gotta admire SD's patience.I don't think I have what it takes to play this game with you especially since we understand terms like evidence,intent and FACTS totally different.:silenced:

Even MY tolerance has its limits, madeleine! And given some of the comments you've had to put up with (which I'd be only too happy to take a bite at myself), I imagine your tolerance isn't doing too hot, either!

Still, there was something HOTYH brought up that bears examination:

I don't think intent has to do with premeditation

I'll hand him that one. Motive and intent are NOT the same.

 

[BBB167893]

Just a side comment here. I`ve looked at Patsys handwriting samples and compared them to the RN, and just imo, they are similar in style. Some letters, like I and J, look exactly the same. I`m absolutely not an expert though, this is just my impression.

:clap:

I don`t know how common/unique Patsys handwriting is.

I read somewhere that only about 5% of adults write "a"s in a typescript fashion, whatever that does for you. I would imagine that the percentage which writes "q"s as "8"s is even less. RiverRat can help you with that.