The Best Untainted Evidence-The Ransom Letter

[coloradokares]

Let me try to articulate, a bit better, what I'm thinking as regards the rage theory.

First, look at the sequence. Rage (understandable for anyone who has kids) leads to unintended injury. Injury is followed by killing, and elaborate though inconsistent staging. So, Rage-injury-killing-staging.

I think we have to ask two questions right after the injury. Did she have vital signs? Were they checked? If the answer is no, she didn't have any vital signs, then the scenario could proceed as you've described it. They could have figured that she's dead, nothing can be done about that, so now go to damage control. We are still left with the problem that the staging is inconsistent.

If her vitals were present and checked, then they might have proceeded to steps 3 and 4, killing-staging, but, it seems to me this requires a change in psychology. (I'm the first to admit I know nothing of psychology and there is no "normal" reaction - but I think there are common reactions)

If the Rs reacted as many many parents do, then after the injury they'd have checked vitals, and if they were present, they'd have called an ambulance. Perhaps they'd lie to the EMTs and say JBR fell down the stairs. They know their story won't fly, but their primary concern is for their child. They'll take their lumps, the way many parents do. Finishing her off (killing her) and then staging the elaborate cover up seems inconsistent with "normal" parental psychology.

IOW, rage-injury could happen to the best of parents. Killing-staging wouldn't normally follow, assuming her vital signs were present. Of course the vitals may never have been checked, which suggests there was no accident in the first place.

This will all have to remain conjecture.

I hope that made some sort of sense.

If the blow to her heard came first as many believe, that blow was so sever she very well could have been so cose to death that respiration etc was so shallow as to not be detectable. Then what followed may have been all staging that in fact took the last signs of life as it was ebbing out of JonBenet. Just something to think about.

 

[Chrishope]

If the blow to her heard came first as many believe, that blow was so sever she very well could have been so cose to death that respiration etc was so shallow as to not be detectable. Then what followed may have been all staging that in fact took the last signs of life as it was ebbing out of JonBenet. Just something to think about.

I agree. Problem is, we can never really know.

 

[azwriter]

It's possible they thought the fresh injuries would obscure evidence of prior assualt?

I agree, the staging is still inconsistent.

Chrishope, you are 100 percent correct the staging is inconsistent. But, remember we are not dealing with a real group of professional killers. The Ramseys did a pretty good job of getting away with murder, with the help of an inadequate Boulder law enforcement. But they were in no way mastermind criminals when it came to this case.
It's as if they did everything they believed would confuse the issue of who done it.
JMO

 

[Eulalie]

Thanks again, everyone, for the great welcome!

I agree that the toughest nut to crack re: the Patsy did it in a rage theory is why she/they wouldn't have just called the hospital after the choke and/or headbash. My guess is that the answer is a combination of: a) JBR was in such bad shape that they thought she was dead or would be dead soon; and b) they were not the kind of parents who would risk having their prior physical and/or sexual abuse found out, on the slim chance that JBR would recover from her terrible injuries.

I guess my thought is that a parent who is capable of turning typical parental frustration into an actual life-threatening physical assualt is by definition not a normal parent. I personally believe Patsy, at least, was a narcissist. Here's a description of a narcissistic parent -- to me, it rings very true of Patsy and her relationship with JBR (if I've erred by posting this verbetim, please let me know!):

Question:
What is the effect that a Narcissist parent has on his off spring?

Answer:
At the risk of over-simplification: Narcissism tends to breed Narcissism. The Narcissistic parent regards his or her child as a multi-faceted source of Narcissistic supply. The child is considered and treated as an extension of the Narcissist's personality. It is through the child that the Narcissist seeks to settle "open accounts" with the world. The child is supposed to materialize the unfulfilled Narcissistic dreams and fantasies of the Narcissistic parent. This "Life by Proxy" can develop in two possible ways: the Narcissist can either merge with his child or be ambivalent towards him. The ambivalence is the result of a conflict between the attainment of Narcissistic goals and pathological (destructive) envy.

To ameliorate the unease bred by emotional ambivalence, the Narcissist resorts to a myriad of control mechanisms. The latter can be grouped into: guilt-driven ("I sacrificed my life for you…"), dependence-driven ("I need you, I cannot cope without you…"), goal-driven ("We have a common goal which we must achieve") and explicit ("If you do not adhere to my principles, beliefs, ideology, religion or any other set of values – sanctions will be imposed").

The exercise of control helps to sustain the illusion that the child is a part of the Narcissist. Such sustenance calls for extraordinary levels of control (on the part of the parent) and obedience (on the part of the child). The relationship is typically symbiotic and emotionally vicissitudinal and turbulent.

The child fulfils another important Narcissistic function – that of Narcissistic supply. There is no denying the implied (though imaginary) immortality in having a child. The early (natural) dependence of the child serves to assuage the fear of abandonment, which is THE driving force in the Narcissist's life. The Narcissist tries to perpetuate this dependence, using the aforementioned control mechanisms. The child is the penultimate Secondary Narcissistic Source of Supply. He is present, he admires, he accumulates and remembers, owing to his wish to be loved he can be extorted into forever giving. For the Narcissist, a child is a dream come true, but only in the most egotistical sense. When the child is perceived as "reneging" on his chief duty (to provide his Narcissistic parent with constant supply of adoration) – the emotional reaction is harsh and revealing.

It is when the Narcissistic parent is disenchanted with his child that we see the true nature of this pathological relationship. The child is totally objectified. The Narcissist reacts to a breach in the unwritten contract with wells of aggression and aggressive transformations: contempt, rage, emotional and psychological abuse, and even physical violence. He tries to annihilate the real child (brought to the Narcissist's awareness through the child's refusal to act as before) and substitute it with the subservient, edifying, former version.

The Narcissistic parent tends to produce another Narcissist in his child.

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=80

The above is just my opinion!

 

[DeeDee249]

And that pretty much sums up PR and her relationship with her daughter...

 

[coloradokares]

And that pretty much sums up PR and her relationship with her daughter...

And that is all there is to say about that, and we know it was Nedra before Patsy before ......

 

[TinaD]

Chrishope, you are 100 percent correct the staging is inconsistent. But, remember we are not dealing with a real group of professional killers. The Ramseys did a pretty good job of getting away with murder, with the help of an inadequate Boulder law enforcement. But they were in no way mastermind criminals when it came to this case.
It's as if they did everything they believed would confuse the issue of who done it.
JMO

I have wondered if the original staging plan, carried out by John, was to leave her undressed and the sexual assault obvious. Then, when John went to have a shower, Patsy went down for a last look before she went "on stage" with the 911 call, and decided she couldn't leave JB like that and redressed her and wrapped her in the blanket, with John unaware of this.

However, the fibres from John's shirt tend to contradict that...............

 

[coloradokares]

I agree. Problem is, we can never really know.

That may be true. But what we do know is we have not found that darn SFF yet. So whoever inflicted the fatal blow is at least as guilty as the one who believed her alreay dead and they could be one and the same. It is that dwelling on the reasonable doubt that Hunter used as the excuse not to prosecute as you could not know who did what and if they would not testify against each other........ home free! I really wish they would have seperated them right then there and interogated them for hours on end till they had the signed confessions.

 

[Squishified]

I really wish they would have seperated them right then there and interogated them for hours on end till they had the signed confessions.

Me too. I also wish they would have quit interrupting the Ramseys when the investigators were talking to them. Patsy, especially, would start saying something interesting, only to be interrupted by the questioner. GRRRR!!

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks again, everyone, for the great welcome!

I agree that the toughest nut to crack re: the Patsy did it in a rage theory is why she/they wouldn't have just called the hospital after the choke and/or headbash. My guess is that the answer is a combination of: a) JBR was in such bad shape that they thought she was dead or would be dead soon; and b) they were not the kind of parents who would risk having their prior physical and/or sexual abuse found out, on the slim chance that JBR would recover from her terrible injuries.

And fighting with each other, wasting precious time.

I guess my thought is that a parent who is capable of turning typical parental frustration into an actual life-threatening physical assualt is by definition not a normal parent. I personally believe Patsy, at least, was a narcissist. Here's a description of a narcissistic parent -- to me, it rings very true of Patsy and her relationship with JBR (if I've erred by posting this verbetim, please let me know!):

Question:
What is the effect that a Narcissist parent has on his off spring?

Answer:
At the risk of over-simplification: Narcissism tends to breed Narcissism. The Narcissistic parent regards his or her child as a multi-faceted source of Narcissistic supply. The child is considered and treated as an extension of the Narcissist's personality. It is through the child that the Narcissist seeks to settle "open accounts" with the world. The child is supposed to materialize the unfulfilled Narcissistic dreams and fantasies of the Narcissistic parent. This "Life by Proxy" can develop in two possible ways: the Narcissist can either merge with his child or be ambivalent towards him. The ambivalence is the result of a conflict between the attainment of Narcissistic goals and pathological (destructive) envy.

To ameliorate the unease bred by emotional ambivalence, the Narcissist resorts to a myriad of control mechanisms. The latter can be grouped into: guilt-driven ("I sacrificed my life for you…"), dependence-driven ("I need you, I cannot cope without you…"), goal-driven ("We have a common goal which we must achieve") and explicit ("If you do not adhere to my principles, beliefs, ideology, religion or any other set of values – sanctions will be imposed").

The exercise of control helps to sustain the illusion that the child is a part of the Narcissist. Such sustenance calls for extraordinary levels of control (on the part of the parent) and obedience (on the part of the child). The relationship is typically symbiotic and emotionally vicissitudinal and turbulent.

The child fulfils another important Narcissistic function – that of Narcissistic supply. There is no denying the implied (though imaginary) immortality in having a child. The early (natural) dependence of the child serves to assuage the fear of abandonment, which is THE driving force in the Narcissist's life. The Narcissist tries to perpetuate this dependence, using the aforementioned control mechanisms. The child is the penultimate Secondary Narcissistic Source of Supply. He is present, he admires, he accumulates and remembers, owing to his wish to be loved he can be extorted into forever giving. For the Narcissist, a child is a dream come true, but only in the most egotistical sense. When the child is perceived as "reneging" on his chief duty (to provide his Narcissistic parent with constant supply of adoration) – the emotional reaction is harsh and revealing.

It is when the Narcissistic parent is disenchanted with his child that we see the true nature of this pathological relationship. The child is totally objectified. The Narcissist reacts to a breach in the unwritten contract with wells of aggression and aggressive transformations: contempt, rage, emotional and psychological abuse, and even physical violence. He tries to annihilate the real child (brought to the Narcissist's awareness through the child's refusal to act as before) and substitute it with the subservient, edifying, former version.

The Narcissistic parent tends to produce another Narcissist in his child.

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=80

The above is just my opinion!

You don't need anything else from me.

 

[Buckethead]

In fact, the FBI stated that there was actually 'staging within staging' at this crime scene

The only reason they said that is because even their "brightest minds" don't know what happened that night.

The first (of many) red flags for me is the sheer length of it. So totally unnecessary

Why? You have personal experience writing ransom notes at crime scenes? How do you know what is and what isn't necessary under such horrific circumstances?

It was as if the writer (Patsy)

Why are you(and others) assuming that?? I thought this thread was supposed to be a "fresh look" at the ransom note? Looks like the same old stale theories to me.

You make the same mistakes LE made. You're tainting your own opinion, judgment,etc. by yelling "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy" from the highest mountaintop.

"Please, please believe me!" The letter nearly shouts.

Only in your mind does it "nearly shout" that.

Of course being in a shocked and panicked state she was not thinking clearly and coherently enough to prevent her real self from coming through loud and clear in her script.

If her "real self" came through "loud and clear" in this "script"(its a script now?), we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The case would already be solved.

She slips and uses phrases she commonly, but not so much others, used.
"And hence." Shows up a few months later in the Christmas letter she wrote.

Patsy isn't the only person to use the word hence.

"Gentlemen" Since when does a foreign terrorist kidnapper who threatens to behead a small child use a term such as "gentlemen?" It's nearly laughable.

I don't know. How many foreign terrorists who kidnap small children and behead them do you know? We'll compare those to this case.

The slip up of veering from the use of "We" to the (more truthful) use of "I."

You're actually on to something with this sentence. It shows one person did this. Or the mess up was intentional.

Again, the truth is revealed haphazardly throughout the letter as she was in
no frame of mind in her shocked and terrrified state to think these things through.

The "truth" is nowhere in this ransom letter. One minute you say the note(or script) is laughable, then its the "truth". Which is it?

One of the most obvious red flags regarding this fake ransom letter is something that didn't occur after the crime.
And that is the demand for the ransom money.
Afterall - the writer of the note tried desparately hard to get you to believe that THIS (money $$$) was THE motivation for the crime and was the reason why JonBenet was "missing."

How many times do you want the ransom to be demanded? Its in the letter. Was a telegram supposed to be sent as well? You've watched too many movies.

The writer probably figured that the police would come, read the note and go set up a command post somewhere else.
That would simply prolong the inevitable nightmare of "finding the body" downstairs.
But she was desparate.

You really think kidnapper(s) are going to assume such things??

Now that's a laugh.

And finally, the very critical fact that the perp did NOT travel to that home, supposedly intent on kidnapping for ransom, with his RANSOM NOTE prepared but sat around composing one in the home after scrounging around for paper and pen - in and of itself makes you want to laugh at those who suggest an intruder committed this crime!

Quite the opposite. Posts like that make the "patsy did it" theories laughable. You don't know how, where, when, or the whys of the "perp" traveling,

Yes, the ransom letter is by far the most damning evidence against the Ramseys.

No, its not. You bounce around from calling it fake, a script, it holds all the clues,etc. That isn't "damning evidence".

I didn't even touch on the fact that the handwriting was disguised

Good, because there's no such proof.

some handwriting experts said that she is indeed the author.

Yeah, and just as many said she wasn't.

Closest thing to a smoking gun is that ransom letter.

Really?? Look at all the "ifs, maybes. and probablys in your post.

Not even close to a smoking gun.

thats what happens when you write a ramsom note with a BLACK MAGIC MARKER in the DARK using only a flashlight...

got ya PATSY

You didn't "get" anybody. No one knows who wrote it, so how does anyone know the lighting conditions it was written under?

 

[BBB167893]

The only reason they said that is because even their "brightest minds" don't know what happened that night.

Considering that they work with this kind of thing every day, I'd say their opinion deserves some consideration.

Why? You have personal experience writing ransom notes at crime scenes? How do you know what is and what isn't necessary under such horrific circumstances?

Hey, the only person who could tell us is dead.

Why are you(and others) assuming that??

How much time you got?

I thought this thread was supposed to be a "fresh look" at the ransom note? Looks like the same old stale theories to me.

Hey, every now and then it helps to go back to the beginning.

You make the same mistakes LE made. You're tainting your own opinion, judgment,etc. by yelling "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy" from the highest mountaintop.

Oh, so we can believe something, just not talk about it?

Only in your mind does it "nearly shout" that.

Not ONLY in her mind.

If her "real self" came through "loud and clear" in this "script"(its a script now?),

Yeah, and the cops wouldn't stick to it.

we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The case would already be solved.

If Boulder had a DA worth a darn, you'd be right. There was someone who agreed with K777Angel, and the DA undercut him over it. And he was the DA's own witness!

Patsy isn't the only person to use the word hence.

True. But how many do you know also use "good Southern common sense," "fat cat," and other family in-jokes?

I don't know. How many foreign terrorists who kidnap small children and behead them do you know? We'll compare those to this case.

Those guys seem to be more action than talk-oriented. 9/11 kind of proved that.

You're actually on to something with this sentence. It shows one person did this. Or the mess up was intentional.

It shows one person wrote it, or part of it.

The "truth" is nowhere in this ransom letter. One minute you say the note(or script) is laughable, then its the "truth". Which is it?

The truth, just under the surface.

How many times do you want the ransom to be demanded? Its in the letter. Was a telegram supposed to be sent as well? You've watched too many movies.

The letter gave detailed instructions, not any real demands.

You really think kidnapper(s) are going to assume such things??

Now that's a laugh.

You don't get what we mean. Kidnappers wouldn't assume that, but what does someone trying to think like a kidnapper know?

Quite the opposite. Posts like that make the "patsy did it" theories laughable.

Tell it to the Feds.

No, its not. You bounce around from calling it fake, a script, it holds all the clues,etc. That isn't "damning evidence".

Take a holistic view of the case and it is.

Good, because there's no such proof.

Oh, isn't there? It was block printed, which is a classic method of disguise.

Yeah, and just as many said she wasn't.

Not even close, Buckethead. No one ever said she didn't, not even the "experts" she hired to do just that.

Really?? Look at all the "ifs, maybes. and probablys in your post.

Not even close to a smoking gun.

Once you work it out from start to finish, it kind of is.

You didn't "get" anybody. No one knows who wrote it, so how does anyone know the lighting conditions it was written under?

One person knows who wrote it. Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Eulalie]

And fighting with each other, wasting precious time.

Interesting, SD -- are you saying that by the time PR and JR stopped fighting about what to do, it was clear that JBR wasn't going to make it? That makes a lot of sense -- I can easily envision that happening.

Out of curiosity, and if you have a chance, would you mind sharing your theory about how the first party brought the second party into the mess he/she had created? For example, I think Patsy did it...but I have a hard time imagining how/when she told John (e.g., did she run in immediately, did she wait until after she had written the ransom note, etc.?)

Disclaimer: all of this is just my personal opinion....

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting, SD -- are you saying that by the time PR and JR stopped fighting about what to do, it was clear that JBR wasn't going to make it? That makes a lot of sense -- I can easily envision that happening.

Yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. If you read what I have to say on the "My Theories" page, provided you have a strong constitution, you'll see what I mean.

Out of curiosity, and if you have a chance, would you mind sharing your theory about how the first party brought the second party into the mess he/she had created? For example, I think Patsy did it...but I have a hard time imagining how/when she told John (e.g., did she run in immediately, did she wait until after she had written the ransom note, etc.?)

Disclaimer: all of this is just my personal opinion....

Like I said, read on the "My Theories" page. Or, I could repost it right here. Your choice.

 

[Eulalie]

I'm still finding my way around...would you mind pointing me to "my theories?" I'd like to read everything -- I don't want to make you repost it all...thank you!

ETA: never mind -- I found it. That seems completely plausible to me.

All IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm still finding my way around...would you mind pointing me to "my theories?" I'd like to read everything -- I don't want to make you repost it all...thank you!

ETA: never mind -- I found it. That seems completely plausible to me.

All IMO.

It was hard for me to write that, Eulalie. But I tend to give what is asked of me.

 

[Buckethead]

One person knows who wrote it. Dead men tell no tales.

Have you(or anyone) here ever considered the real possibility that this was a kidnapping attempt gone horribly wrong? I realize the parents(and the rest of the family for that matter) are not saints, and reading the various books years ago paints a really creepy and macabre picture of them, but all these years later everyone continues harping on Patsy and all other possibilities are brushed aside.

Considering the fact that every question leads to another question regarding Patsy, anyone thought to ask different questions for once? Or does everyone like riding the merry go round too much to think outside the box?

 

[BBB167893]

Have you(or anyone) here ever considered the real possibility that this was a kidnapping attempt gone horribly wrong?

Are you kidding? I guess my reputation deson't precede me as much as I thought. You're talking to someone who believed that for a long time.

I realize the parents(and the rest of the family for that matter) are not saints, and reading the various books years ago paints a really creepy and macabre picture of them,

No argument.

but all these years later everyone continues harping on Patsy and all other possibilities are brushed aside.

Well, I won't speak for any other people, but no one could ever accuse me of brushing them aside. It took me a long time to get from point A to point B.

Considering the fact that every question leads to another question regarding Patsy, anyone thought to ask different questions for once? Or does everyone like riding the merry go round too much to think outside the box?

Merry-go-round. Boy, if that doesn't sum it up perfectly. Sure feels like it. Like I said, I won't speak for other people, but I was not always as I am now.

To reuse a phrase a lot of people around here seem to like, I always keep an open mind, just not so open that my brain falls out.

 

[Buckethead]

Merry-go-round. Boy, if that doesn't sum it up perfectly. Sure feels like it. Like I said, I won't speak for other people, but I was not always as I am now.

To reuse a phrase a lot of people around here seem to like, I always keep an open mind, just not so open that my brain falls out.

Well, I don't post here much(obviously), so your reputation on my end is unknown. Just find it a bit strange that everyone harps on Patsy when there are other scenarios that are just as likely.

I should have joined this site years ago when my memory wasn't as foggy. I used to follow this case pretty closely back then, and read just about every book, article,etc.

I just never bought the "Patsy did it" theory completely. It has its "moments", but I never fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Too many odd clues to just so easily crucify her.

I always thought the trip the family was about to take held the most vital clues, and if anyone could figure out everything regarding that, the case would be solved. Someone didn't want them going on that trip. You think its a coincidence that she was killed right before that?

Highly unlikely.

There's also the possibility that someone was either in a "relationship" with Jonbenet or she had a stalker. However, this discounts Patsy so no one ever bothers looking in that direction, including LE.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I don't post here much(obviously), so your reputation on my end is unknown.

No harm done, I hope.

Just find it a bit strange that everyone harps on Patsy when there are other scenarios that are just as likely.

Well, you might get some argument there. But that's what we're here for.

I should have joined this site years ago when my memory wasn't as foggy. I used to follow this case pretty closely back then, and read just about every book, article,etc.

I sympathize.

I just never bought the "Patsy did it" theory completely. It has its "moments", but I never fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Too many odd clues to just so easily crucify her.

Well, I wouldn't call it crucifying. That's her word, and she loved to play martyr. I myself was devastated when she died. Didn't get out of bed for two days. Mum thought I'd cry myself to death. But I sympathize with you, I really do. I have a somewhat unique perspective.

I always thought the trip the family was about to take held the most vital clues, and if anyone could figure out everything regarding that, the case would be solved. Someone didn't want them going on that trip. You think its a coincidence that she was killed right before that?

I don't believe in coincidences. But to me, it never factored in, one way or another.

Highly unlikely.

There's also the possibility that someone was either in a "relationship" with Jonbenet or she had a stalker.However, this discounts Patsy so no one ever bothers looking in that direction, including LE.

I have a brother you'd get along with. He thinks the same thing. I would disagree with the "no one bothers," crack, though.