The Ransom Note: a calling card?

[sissi]

first, why must we assume that missing pages meant other practice notes? don't we rip pages out of pads all the time? i thought that was what pads were for? of course, this question will in all likelihood never be answered...

second, and i may be wrong here, but i thought that the "practice" note which addressed both mr. and mrs. was not found per se, but discovered by a bit of detective work. the page(s) below in the pad had the indentations from what was written above them. excuse me, but i'm not as up on every minute detail of this case, so i may be way off base here. i wasn't aware that a hard copy of the "practice" note was actually found?

Patsy had to jot down a little personal message about each child on Monday for Santa to read, maybe the pages weren't missing, just used and discarded?
What was the note FROM santa,found in Jonbenet's trash can, written on?

 

[RedChief]

Patsy had to jot down a little personal message about each child on Monday for Santa to read, maybe the pages weren't missing, just used and discarded?
What was the note FROM santa,found in Jonbenet's trash can, written on?

A hard copy of the so-called practice note was found in the tablet (I assume still adhering to the pad). It was page no. 26. It "showed evidence of ink bleedthrough from the missing page 25." [from Thomas' book, pg 73]
Ibid--The first twelve pages were missing. Pages 13 thru 16 "contained doodles and lists and some miscellaneous writing." Pages 17 thru 25 were also missing (nine pages). According to Ubowski, the ransom note pages were 27, 28 and 29. Why was this "practice note" left in the pad? Maybe the perp didn't expect the pad to be examined?

Yes, doesn't mean the missing pages were used for rough drafts.

sissi,

What was Santa note written on? You're asking me?

What happened to all these missing pages? Had they been used and discarded long before the murder?

Actually, we have one page--page 26, which MAY have been a "practice note". Apparently the writing on the "practice note" matched that on the ransom note. If it didn't, then why assume it had any connection to the RN?

"There was no reason to leave a ransom note behind by anyone other than a stager given the body was cold in the basement. IMO the stage was not completely set. Then circumstances took over."

I know this is an unpopular concept, but in reference to the foregoing, and as I have already stated, the intruder might have hoped to collect a ransom despite killing the girl, by hiding the body in the wine cellar and leaving a ransom note. It was a long shot. If he hadn't left the ransom note, and the Ramseys had searched the house and found the body, there would be no reason for him to call nor any hope of collecting ransom. If the Ramseys had followed the instructions, and coughed up the $118,000 in desperation, he'd have been grinning like a skunk eating yellowjackets.

I have faith that y'all will figure all this out.

No savvy...

 

[Voice of Reason]

this case really makes me go back and forth all the time from ramseys to intruders, but my latest thought really has me thinking hard about the ramseys. in the ransom note, the author describes how he/she will call TOMORROW between 8 and 10am. He/she also describes the delivery as exhausting and advises Mr. Ramsey to be well-rested.

this implies that the ramseys would be reading this note before they went to bed. to me that was the subconscious of a ramsey working when he/she wrote the note after knowing JBR's fate. i really don't see any other way to look at that statement, except to interpret TOMORROW as 12/27. i know that police toyed with the idea of the call coming on the 27th, but i guess once the body was found, they no longer needed to concern themselves with that call. does anyone else find this as revealing as i did? or does anyone care to offer a different interpretation of those sentences?

 

[RedChief]

this case really makes me go back and forth all the time from ramseys to intruders, but my latest thought really has me thinking hard about the ramseys. in the ransom note, the author describes how he/she will call TOMORROW between 8 and 10am. He/she also describes the delivery as exhausting and advises Mr. Ramsey to be well-rested.

this implies that the ramseys would be reading this note before they went to bed. to me that was the subconscious of a ramsey working when he/she wrote the note after knowing JBR's fate. i really don't see any other way to look at that statement, except to interpret TOMORROW as 12/27. i know that police toyed with the idea of the call coming on the 27th, but i guess once the body was found, they no longer needed to concern themselves with that call. does anyone else find this as revealing as i did? or does anyone care to offer a different interpretation of those sentences?

Someone once pointed out to me that he thought the police had made a big mistake by not waiting until 10 AM, Dec. 27 to see if anyone would call, because he thought tomorrow had to mean Dec. 27. Isn't it strange that the writer didn't specify exactly the date of the call. An oversight?

Why do you suppose the writer offered to call earlier ("might") if they saw ("monitored") John getting the money earlier?

If the writer intended that "tomorrow" be Dec. 26, and he was prepared to call between 8 and 10 that morning, but might call earlier, then he must have meant he might call sooner than 8 AM, Dec. 26.

If he meant he might call earlier than 8 AM, Dec. 26, then he must have guessed that John might be getting the money sooner than 8 AM, Dec. 26. Further, in order for John to respond to the note, he must first read it; so, if he is to respond to it prior to 8 AM, Dec. 26--even earlier if he is to attempt to get the money earlier so as to get his daughter back earlier--then he must get up out of bed, do his morning thing, find the note, and read it prior to 8 AM, Dec. 26...or "earlier". How does the writer know when John will find the note? He might guess that he will find it within the course of 24 hours or so, but certainly he couldn't know that John would find it early on the morning of Dec. 26, unless he knew of John's travel plans.

How will John even be able to get money out of a bank sometime prior to 8 AM in the morning, and how will he be able to go to the bank, get the money, and return and wait for the call prior to 8 AM. It makes no sense, unless John can persuade a banker friend to open the vault pretty early in the morning; much earlier than banks usually open. As it turns out, John didn't have the $118,000 in a local bank anyway.

The question is--what does the writer mean by "early", both in terms of when John might be monitored getting the money and in terms of when they might call?

We have two terms--"tomorrow" and "early" that are ambiguous (not well-defined); further, we have a time frame--8 to 10 when the FF will call. Why can't he narrow it down? Also, it is implied that they will for sure call during that 2-hour time frame (that is their plan), but they might ARRANGE to call sooner depending on when John gets (or is monitored "getting") the money.

I can think of two ways to monitor someone "getting" money: (1.) I can see him get it or getting it (in the process of acquiring it) or (2.) I can monitor a phone call during which he arranges to get it (is getting it). So, it is not clear whether the FF will insist that they see John at the bank with his "adequate size attache", or whether they will be satisfied with seeing him return to the house and enter it with the attache (what if he parks in the garage, as is his custom, and they can't actually see him with the attache?). How are they going to know he is getting or has gotten the money? How do they know his attache isn't empty? They will be forced to assume he has gotten money by monitoring certain actions that he has taken, and they can't be sure that when they call, he will actually have gotten the money, or as much money as they specified, and John will not be obligated to tell the the truth one way or another, so they might give him the promised pickup and delivery instructions not knowing for sure whether he has gotten the money or not. Of course, they DID promise to kill the girl if he didn't follow the instructions, so I guess they have the upper hand in the matter.

Now, as to being rested, does it make any sense that the kidnapper would advise someone who has just had a good night's rest (presumably) to "be rested"? No. So, in order for that advice to be authentic, and in order for John to follow it for his and the girl's benifit, "tomorrow" must mean Dec. 27. Otherwise, the advice is phony; maybe along with all the rest of the stuff that's in the note. Maybe the note is phony through and through.

One assumes that the kidnappers wouldn't give John delivery instructions, etc., until he had gotten the money. One assumes, as in the Hollywood thrillers, they'd call him and tell him to hurry up and be somewhere within a very short period of time. He'd need to have the money before they called.

There are several dubious declarations in the note. One of the more dubious is the offer (tentative--"might") to speed up the process if John hustles. It interested me that they said they WOULD call between 8 and 10 but MIGHT call earlier to ARRANGE an earlier delivery, etc. One the one hand, they've expressed a definite plan to call, and on the other, they are willing to NEGOTIATE an accelerated process. Huh?

Other than the $118,000 (an odd amount), what seems even remotely authentic about the note? "At this time, we have your daughter." Like HE double toothpicks, you do!

My two cents...

 

[Voice of Reason]

you make very good points, redchief, but i think that in a roundabout way, you came to the same conclusion i did...the entire note is phony! if this isn't your opinion, please correct me, but it's certainly mine, regardless of who wrote it. i don't think there's so much as one ounce of truth to that ransom note. this is the same conclusion drawn by the FBI in Quantico, and the many experts that reviewed the content of the note as opposed to the handwriting.

while this doesn't necessarily say who killed JBR, i find it hard to imagine that anyone other than PR wrote that note. of all the evidence in this case, the ransom note is the one piece that, to me, seems least elusive. everything else appears to pull you back and forth from different theories. but the ransom note, IMO, as shown by numerous experts, points to PR, both on handwriting and content. i think it's worth reviewing all the expert analysis of the note over at acandyrose.com.

one other point from the note that i thought was interesting..."delivery" of your daughter was crossed out and changed to "pickup" of your daughter. this seems to suggest that the author forgot what side of the fence he/she was on while writing the note. a mother would want a delivery, but the perp might prefer a pickup? maybe i'm reaching, but i can't think of any reason the author would find delivery unsatisfactory and need to change it to pickup...

 

[RedChief]

you make very good points, redchief, but i think that in a roundabout way, you came to the same conclusion i did...the entire note is phony! if this isn't your opinion, please correct me, but it's certainly mine, regardless of who wrote it. i don't think there's so much as one ounce of truth to that ransom note. this is the same conclusion drawn by the FBI in Quantico, and the many experts that reviewed the content of the note as opposed to the handwriting.

while this doesn't necessarily say who killed JBR, i find it hard to imagine that anyone other than PR wrote that note. of all the evidence in this case, the ransom note is the one piece that, to me, seems least elusive. everything else appears to pull you back and forth from different theories. but the ransom note, IMO, as shown by numerous experts, points to PR, both on handwriting and content. i think it's worth reviewing all the expert analysis of the note over at acandyrose.com.

one other point from the note that i thought was interesting..."delivery" of your daughter was crossed out and changed to "pickup" of your daughter. this seems to suggest that the author forgot what side of the fence he/she was on while writing the note. a mother would want a delivery, but the perp might prefer a pickup? maybe i'm reaching, but i can't think of any reason the author would find delivery unsatisfactory and need to change it to pickup...

Yep, I think it's a phony note; just can't figure who wrote it, and why.

If the Ramseys had phoned in a missing child report, they'd have been just as justified, if not more so, in calling their friends, priest, hair-stylist etc., and there probably would have been just as much or more Pandemonium, until the body was found. Maybe the body would have been found sooner; maybe not. The parents could have told the coppers that they searched high and low. They could also have hidden the body more carefully. Lots of things they coulda' done, they didn't do.

Concerning pickup and delivery: Is this RN jargon? I don't think so. It sounds more like everyday, ordinary domestic jargon. I can imagine an ad for dry cleaning that says, "Free pickup and delivery." Of course, we know, nothing is truly free, but I digress.

I saw an analysis the other day that noted the same things I'd noted with regard to the phraseology of the "and hence" proposition. I think the writer was accustomed to using symmetry in phrases conjoined with "and hence", and by force of habit, wrote "delivery" in the trailing phrase without thinking, then realized the mistake and crossed it out, made the correction and went on. I thought it was pretty interesting that the message to friends in the christmas liturgy had BOTH the same symmetry and conjoining prepositions. I recall that Patsy said, in DOI, that friends helped with the wording in that message included in the liturgy ("made a few edits")--Susan Stine and Roxy Walker. Patsy was really all over the place in explaining the use of those "transition words". She also said that she and John each wrote his/her version and with both copies in hand, "John dictated and I typed.." I think it was Savage who suggested that something similar to this collaboration was evident in the ransom note. What were those myriad explanations: people everywhere use the phrase every day of the week; they'd read the ransom note so much they'd subconsciously incorporated it into their vocabularies; it was maybe edited in by Susan Stine or Roxy Walker; they both worked on the message so it might have been John, it might have been Patsy; I [Patsy] have no idea why we used that phrase; we were attempting to convey our personal feelings at the moment we were writing. You choose. heh heh In short, God only knows!

There's expert analysis of the note at ACandyRose? These are qualified experts or self-professed experts? How can anyone suspect Patsy of writing the note, if he/she isn't thorougly (perhaps even intimately) familiar with her style, personality and procilvities, etc.???? This, I don't understand. How can you "know" what Patsy would likely do, if you don't know Patsy? Even people who know me pretty well, have difficulty predicting what I'll do under any given circumstance. I would say that if an "expert" had long meetings with Patsy, or was a life-long friend of Patsy, he/she might be able to sort of predict what she'd do....sort of. The handwriting analysts were unable to identify Patsy as the author of the note, so we have to dismiss the handwriting. Now, which psycholinguists who are intimately familiar with Patsy are saying that she wrote the note? John can't write? John can't compose? How do we know John, who IS intimately familiar with Patsy, didn't write the note to suggest her involvement, knowing she wasn't involved, in order to divert attention from himself, and thinking that because she WASN'T involved, LE would be unable to convict her? Hence, Patsy is the wild goose and John is running for office.

My two cents...man, I'm getting rich!

 

[Voice of Reason]

There's expert analysis of the note at ACandyRose? These are qualified experts or self-professed experts? How can anyone suspect Patsy of writing the note, if he/she isn't thorougly (perhaps even intimately) familiar with her style, personality and procilvities, etc.???? This, I don't understand.

i guess that's really a question of opinion. we've all seen trials where both prosecutors and defense attorneys use expert witnesses, both equally qualified, and they come to entirely different conclusions. if you want to discredit the experts, that's your prerogative. since i don't know that PR was good friends with any "qualified" handwriting experts, i guess in your analysis, NOONE is capable of analyzing the handwriting. you just have to take it for what it's worth. the people analyzing the note are people that do this for a living. they are given as many samples of a person's handwriting as can be found, and they draw as scientific a conclusion as possible.

here are the experts to which i was referring...

Tom Miller - a member of the American School of Investigative Sciences, Inc. compared the RN to 7 examples of PR's writing. concluded that PR was the author, although limited his conclusion to "probable" rather than "highly probable" because he could not examine originals. had he examined originals, he could have commented on pressure of the writing as well.

Cina Wong - a "court qualified board certified document examiner." compared the RN to 7 examples of PR's writing. concluded in a sworn statement that the RN and the samples were "very probably written by the same person."

David Liebman - a "certified document examiner" found the probability that PR wrote the RN to be 90-95%. compared the RN to 8 documents written by PR. "there are far too many similarities and consistencies revealed in the handwriting...for it to be coincidence."

Delmar England - this is probably the "questionable" expert. i can't really find anything on this guy, so it's fair to say that his analysis should be taken with a grain of salt. he does not draw a firm conclusion, and only analyzes the psychological profile of the author. if his analysis is correct, it certainly seems to suggest a family member, if not PR directly.

From Steve Thomas' book - i'm sure there are people that will have issue on this source, but he draws conclusions from top experts.

 

[RedChief]

...if you want to discredit the experts, that's your prerogative. since i don't know that PR was good friends with any "qualified" handwriting experts, i guess in your analysis, NOONE is capable of analyzing the handwriting....

Why would I want to discredit the experts? I've told you how many times now, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just curious as to who done it. Simple as that. I don't know any of the players and will probably never meet any of them in my lifetime, and I'm not unhappy with that prospect either. I'm John Q. Public. I've never said this or that expert isn't credible or is biased. I'm not qualified to make a statement like that. I do have some reservations about England; he seems to come to us sans credentials.

I'll take another look at what the people whom you've listed have had to say, and I thank you for reminding me of their names. This is what puzzles me. If LE (thanks to expert analysis of the note) knows Patsy is the author, why don't they arrest her? Why wasn't she indicted? Why hasn't this case been resolved? She should be in stir for obstructing justice, at a minimum. It's my understanding that they aren't sure she's the author. She scored very low on the probability scale--4.5? with 5 being "no way". There were others who scored as high as she did, and LE apparently doesn't think they wrote the note. So, why this selective suspicion? As it stands, it isn't obvious that Patsy wrote the note. If it were, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

I didn't say that no one was capable of analyzing the handwriting. Many have analyzed it and it's contents and come to the conclusion that she may have written it, though maybe not. I'm sure if you shop around enough for a handwriting expert who'll declare that Patsy wrote the note, you'll find one. When you do, refer him to LE. They'll love you for it.

If experts come to entirely different conclusions, what justifies our believing one over the other???? Aren't we left to wonder whether Patsy wrote the note. I'm still amazed that with such a long note there is only a slight hint in the eyes of some analysts that she may be the author. I wonder if bias figures into any of these conclusions. Just wonderin'. Personally, the handwriting looks more like John's to me than Patsy's. I'm not alone in this perception.

Did you read the Thomas deposition? He didn't come out smelling like a rose.

 

[skybluepink]

Regarding "pickup" vs. "delivery": The writer may have been leaving an ironic clue that all John will have to do is pick her up, since she's lying in the basement.

 

[Voice of Reason]

She scored very low on the probability scale--4.5? with 5 being "no way". There were others who scored as high as she did, and LE apparently doesn't think they wrote the note. So, why this selective suspicion? As it stands, it isn't obvious that Patsy wrote the note. If it were, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

i'm not so sure i agree here. for starters, the material i've read seems to point convincingly at PR as the author. i know many will disagree, but for sake of argument, let's say we all think she's the author. you still aren't anywhere near getting an indictment. you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. as long as PR continues to deny the note, they can have every expert in the world agree that they are 99% certain she wrote the note, and you're still no further than we are today. in fact, i think that the note itself is one of the primary reasons this investigation has been hung up on convicting a ramsey since day one. without the note, the ramseys don't appear as guilty, IMO. just about every piece of evidence pointing to the ramseys is explainable, but the note just seems all too coincidental.

i'm not in the least bit surprised that fibers from every ramsey is all over that house. but the note...that is where things start to come together.

 

[Nehemiah]

A few years ago someone posted a copy of an income tax form that had something to do with the Ramseys. It may have been something about the defunct JBR Foundation, not sure. Anyway, it was handwritten, and I was taken aback at the visible similarities to that and the ransom note. The signature was blacked out, so I didn't know who signed it. Does anyone here now have that copy? If so, will you post it? If not, have you seen it and know where it is to be viewed? If you run across it, please inform. I promise, you'll be amazed. I always wondered if it were John's writing.

 

[Voice of Reason]

'97 Tax Return

not sure if this is what you're looking for? either way, there were plenty of samples of patsy's writing that the experts had to make comparisons to. see my earlier post in this thread.

 

[RedChief]

in fact, i think that the note itself is one of the primary reasons this investigation has been hung up on convicting a ramsey since day one. without the note, the ramseys don't appear as guilty, IMO.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning above. On the one hand you say the note keeps LE from convicting a Ramsey, and on the other you say that without it they don't appear as guilty. huh? Need clarification.


I think that if it were true that every expert in the world were 99% certain that Patsy wrote the note, she'd be arrested. What would be the point in having these experts (paying them handsomely) analyze the note, if the conclusion would be ignored???? I don't know what Colorado law is on this handwriting analysis stuff, but Hunter, himself, opined that the ransom note was THE most important piece of evidence in the case. What made him think that? As an investigator, you could use the handwriting analysis in the same way you use a polygraph--it looks like she wrote it, so let's keep pursuing her. You wouldn't need anywhere near 99% certainty for justification. How would LE react if every expert in the world were 99% certain she hadn't written the note? Would they step up their search for the intruder?

Let's assume that Patsy wrote the note: where do we go from here?

 

[bensmom98]

It looks to me based on the style of handwriting that the person who filled in the 1997 tax return was a woman.

 

[tipper]

Whoever filled in the tax return changed the way JonBenet's name is written. I would think that would lessen the likelihood either of her parents did the return. Also the 7s are in the european style. How do J & P make their 7s? Don't have time right now to look up other samples...

 

[Voice of Reason]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning above. On the one hand you say the note keeps LE from convicting a Ramsey, and on the other you say that without it they don't appear as guilty. huh? Need clarification.

you are correct...you certainly do not understand my reasoning. i am NOT saying that the note literally keeps LE from convicting a Ramsey. i AM saying that the existence of a note consistent with PR's handwriting is not enough to convict her on its own. they might be able to indict her (they can indict a ham sandwich, right?), but due to double jeopardy, there is no point in indicting, if you have no chance of convicting. (this also runs into ethical concerns, but that's another discussion.) until PR confesses to writing the note, or JR or BR say they saw her write it, a handwriting expert's testimony can only be used to bolster a theory, but it will not be enough to prove it.

hypothetically speaking, imagine the handwriting was analyzed by experts and found to be consistent with that of one of their neighbors. and let's say the neighbor's fingerprints were on the note. then, we don't need the neighbor to confess. but given that all of this took place INSIDE the ramseys home, makes conviction without confession very difficult. the RN steered LE towards the ramseys, and they pursued that lead. to some, they took it too far, but i think they knew what they were up against. all the forensics in the world are pretty useless when they own the house!

your response was to my post regarding reasonable doubt. just imagine that PR is indicted. what evidence would the prosecutor be working with? handwriting experts vs. staunch denials by PR; PR fibers on JBR, her daughter!! how about "she didn't seem sincere on 12/26, according to BPD...is that going to get you anywhere?

i've always been sort of back and forth on my own personal theories, but all this RN discussion is really starting to sway me towards a ramsey. but i don't know which one, and i doubt they'll ever be conviction, or for that matter, an indictment. not without a confession.

 

[RedChief]

Whoever filled in the tax return changed the way JonBenet's name is written. I would think that would lessen the likelihood either of her parents did the return. Also the 7s are in the european style. How do J & P make their 7s? Don't have time right now to look up other samples...

I think the return was filled out by a member of the small foreign faction, as evidenced by the euorpean style 7s that caught the eye of tipper.

Maybe this same person, a CPA, knew about John's bonus, and avoided being more precise ($118,117.50) because she knew the 7 would be a dead giveaway.

Seriously...

 

[Nehemiah]

'97 Tax Return

not sure if this is what you're looking for? either way, there were plenty of samples of patsy's writing that the experts had to make comparisons to. see my earlier post in this thread.

No, that's not the one. The one posted a few years ago looked a lot like a man's writing. It resembled the ransom note penmanship.

Thanks for your efforts, though.

 

[RedChief]

"in fact, i think that the note itself is one of the primary reasons this investigation has been hung up on convicting a ramsey since day one. without the note, the ramseys don't appear as guilty, IMO"

OK, Voice, thanks for the clarification. It was "hung up on" that threw me. IOW, if there had been no ransom note, LE might not have pursued the Ramseys. My sentiments exactly; so why did they opt for the ransom note? Pretty poor decision, wasn't it, in hindsight? Is LE still pursuing the Ramseys to this day? Or just sitting around, waiting for someone to confess?

Now, some are arguing that the Ramseys had originally intended to remove the body from the house, but were unable to do so for some reason, or chickened out or whatever. What's your thinking on that?

The idea was (according to some) to ditch the body a few blocks away and manufacture a ransom note to explain the whole situation. The ransom note would explain to the 911 operator, and to first responders, and eventually to investigators, why JonBenet was missing from the residence, and the dead body, found abandoned a few blocks away, in combination with the note, would lend credence to idea that she had been kidnapped. So far so good.

When the body was discovered by John, and the staging disrupted, to some extent, and the crime scene contaminated, the body wasn't properly trussed for kidnapping. Some thought the trussing (what little there was) was more evocative of "snuff sex". Even John thought this....he said. I've posed this question many times--what was there about the wine cellar scene that was suggestive of a kidnapping attempt? One thing and one thing only--the tape over the mouth; and, even the strength of that suggestion was diminished when it was discovered, according to Thomas (not John Meyer), that the tape had been applied over bloody mucous on the mouth. What stager in his right mind will fail to wipe away the blood from the mouth before applying the tape? Also, if the stager intended to dress the body in the Barbie gown, why didn't he? The explanation I keep getting, and find unsatisfactory, is that he didn't get around to it. What do you think? He failed to dress the body in the Barbie gown (as planned) and, instead, wrapped it papoose-like in a blanket. Makes no sense.

The note mentioned that she'd be beheaded; she wasn't. The note mentioned that she'd be executed; guess she was. The note mentioned that there were two gentlemen who didn't like John, so don't provoke them--the sexual injury? "You will also be denied her remains.." Nope.

If you (as perpetrator/stager) get the bright idea to write a ransom note and remove the body from the premises, but don't or can't remove it, and settle for second best, which is, you decide, to hide it in the wine cellar (not hidden according to some); aren't you pretty sure it will be found eventually, and won't you want it to look as though the girl had obviously been abducted and the threatened execution/beheading carried out? The parents could strangle her but didn't have the intestinal fortitude to cut her head off?

The "mixed staging" (equivocal) makes the ransom note mightly suspicious, doesn't it? So, if the aforementioned 'write note/ditch body' scenario is to hold water, the stager must have been one mighty unsophisticated (dumb, even) dude.

Thoughts?

 

[dottierainbow]

I believe there may have been at least 2 people involved with the ransom note. One writing and one composing. I don't believe Ramseys had anything to do with it.I believe they may had composed it while they were alone in the house for hours. Something to do while waiting for probably hours.I believe it was written before Jonbenet was killed.I also wonder if the note was placed or if maybe fell out of someones pocket as he or she was carrying JonBenet down the stairs. I also wonder if there were any dirty drinking glasses that may had been drunk from. Could of possibly gotten Dna from that? I bet the police didn't even think of this though since they only had their minds on getting the Ramseys.