The ransom note - Patsy or intruder? It's all in the detail.

[icedtea4me]

It looks more like factim, to me, than faction.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif


-Tea

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

How would you know who was investigated?

If you will give us the name of some SFF groups you have in mind perhaps someone can answer your question. The way you've worded it makes it impossible to answer.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/index.html

 

[icedtea4me]

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/index.html

Ah, yes. The Muttahaddi Jihad Council was very well known for telling people they did not particularly like them and advising them to be rested.


-Tea

 

[JMO8778]

But not one 'individual' who is part of a 'group representing a SFF' was investigated. Not even one. Explain that.

Are you kidding???!!! They investigated poor Jeff Merrick to death...to the point where ST finally asked "why does JR keep bringing up your name?".
Finally JM said he'd take a polygraph...right in line behind JR.who can blame him??
So yes,I'd say they DID investigate one member of the supposed 'SFF'..the one JR was trying to set up in that note !

 

[BOESP]

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/index.html

Holdon, an Internet list nearly eleven years after the fact is not helpful. Your statements come across as purposely adversarial without foundation in the facts of the case. I'm also waiting for you to "explain" how you know who was or was not investigated.

 

[JMO8778]

The so-called staging probably never happened. IMO there is a lot of denial going on that JBR suffered at the hands of her killer and the garrote, and so the garrote is candy coated as a mere prop. Most RDI scenarios minimize or outright deny most of the violence that obviously took place.

yes,so much so that the killer created the garrotte to point away from the real cause of death..that 8 1/2 in. skull fracture !
not to mention,even her hair was rearranged to cover it !
the garrotte was applied and no resistance was noted.she was out cold from the head injury,and not by a stun gun (@@) when it was done.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, an Internet list nearly eleven years after the fact is not helpful. Your statements come across as purposely adversarial without foundation in the facts of the case. I'm also waiting for you to "explain" how you know who was or was not investigated.

Without foundation in the facts?? What about all those acronyms on that list?? Didn't you notice that practically every SFF on that list has an acronym to go along with it? SBTC, hello? There was an ACRONYM in the RN.

Please refrain from claims that my statements are without foundation in the facts, when they are clearly based on the facts.

 

[Ames]

the staging was sloppily done.even JR himself said he could have done a better job of it.it wasn't done by someone w/ experience.

ya do if you want the crime to point away from you..the garrotte didn't even function as such..it was all for staging purposes only.while either PR or JR would have likely known how to tie that knot,I suspect JR may have done it,as the ligatures suggest a sexual bondage type scenario,and I think JR was the one more likely to have done that.I think she was restaged,and that's why JR lied about the ligatures and said they were tight when they weren't.

He also said that her wrist were tied closely together, and in reality, there was more than 15 inches..or was it 17 inches....of cord between them. Either way, thats not CLOSE in MY book. Its MORE than a foot!!!!

 

[Ames]

Ah, yes. The Muttahaddi Jihad Council was very well known for telling people they did not particularly like them and advising them to be rested.


-Tea

:laugh: LOL!!!!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ah, yes. The Muttahaddi Jihad Council was very well known for telling people they did not particularly like them and advising them to be rested.


-Tea

Making JBR's killers appear polite or caring is a false characterization. This causes you to almost forget JBR's neck was tied off and her skull was fractured by someone who also threatened to cut her head off. How are you able to figure the author was sincere about advising JR to be rested, but kidding about beheading JBR? You're just reading what you want to?

Beheading is pretty hard core, way out there stuff that some of these groups actually do, if you read the paper.

 

[BOESP]

Without foundation in the facts?? What about all those acronyms on that list?? Didn't you notice that practically every SFF on that list has an acronym to go along with it? SBTC, hello? There was an ACRONYM in the RN.

Please refrain from claims that my statements are without foundation in the facts, when they are clearly based on the facts.

Holdon, what facts are you using to make your claim? You state an opinion that the ransom note is valid when it speaks of a small foreign faction yet that statement ignores the analysis of several professional document examiners who believe the note is a fake. You claim that no one connected to a foreign faction was investigated but don't tell us how you know who was or was not investigated. What is it you believe is proved because an acronym was used in the note? Acronyms are not exclusive to small foreign factions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, what facts are you using to make your claim? You state an opinion that the ransom note is valid when it speaks of a small foreign faction yet that statement ignores the analysis of several professional document examiners who believe the note is a fake. You claim that no one connected to a foreign faction was investigated but don't tell us how you know who was or was not investigated. What is it you believe is proved because an acronym was used in the note? Acronyms are not exclusive to small foreign factions.

Facts:

1. RN author expressed disrepect for US
2. RN author identified himself as representing SSF
3. RN author used an acronym SBTC at the end of the letter. SSF frequently use acronyms.
4. Many SSF kidnap, kill, and use extortion. The RN is an apparent kidnap/extortion attempt. JBR was killed.

Possible conclusions, based on these facts:

1. Author attempted to mislead investigators with bogus SSF story.
2. Author represents SSF.

 

[icedtea4me]

Acronyms are not exclusive to small foreign factions.

ITA!

-Tea

 

[BOESP]

Facts:

1. RN author expressed disrepect for US
2. RN author identified himself as belonging to SSF.
3. RN author used an acronym SBTC at the end of the letter.
4. RN author used a closing salutation 'Victory!'.
5. SSF frequently use acronyms.
6. Many SSF kidnap, kill, and use extortion.

Possible conclusions, based on these facts:

1. Author attempted to mislead investigators with bogus SSF story.
2. Author is member of SSF.

Holdon, thank you. I appreciate the response to my questions, except you still haven't stated how you know someone was or was not investigated. I am going to assume you can't support that statement since you fail to answer how you know something that we can't verify.

Items 1-6 could be said for a lot of people and "Victory," in my experience, is more often used by church-going people in the South than a foreign faction, small or not. S.B.T.C. is also used in in many church groups for "Saved By The Cross." Items 1-6 use a circular argument and some are ad-hoc post hominem fallacies. You use the ransom note to prove something is true or untrue about the ransom note. There is no corroborating evidence that supports the theory a member of small foreign faction killed JonBenet.

I will agree with your items 1 and 2 in the second paragraph. The totality of the evidence, as known to the public, suggests item 1 is more likely to be true.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, thank you. I appreciate the response to my questions, except you still haven't stated how you know someone was or was not investigated. I am going to assume you can't support that statement since you fail to answer how you know something that we can't verify.

Items 1-6 could be said for a lot of people and "Victory," in my experience, is more often used by church-going people in the South than a foreign faction, small or not. Your items 1-6 are circular reasoning, which you stated you avoided. You are using the ransom note to prove something is true or untrue about the ransom note. There is no corroborating evidence that supports the theory a member of small foreign faction killed JonBenet.

I will agree with your items 1 and 2 in the second paragraph. The totality of the evidence, as known to the public, suggests item 1 is more likely to be true.

'My items 1-6' aren't my items at all. They are each facts of the case. Where you get circular reasoning from a simple list of case facts is beyond me. My entire post was not an attempt to prove anything. What is it you think I'm trying to prove? I clearly pointed out that there are two possible conclusions.

BTW, since there has been no investigation of any member of SSF reported, I'll assume there hasn't been any. We only have what has been reported to work with here.

 

[icedtea4me]

Facts:

1. RN author expressed disrepect for US
2. RN author identified himself as belonging to SSF.
3. RN author used an acronym SBTC at the end of the letter. SSF frequently use acronyms.
4. Many SSF kidnap, kill, and use extortion. The RN is an apparent kidnap/extortion attempt. JBR was killed.

Possible conclusions, based on these facts:

1. Author attempted to mislead investigators with bogus SSF story.
2. Author is member of SSF.

The author did not identify himself as belonging to a SFF. The author stated "We are a group of individuals that REPRESENT a small foreign factim". (Speaking of which, would you say that represent also means speak for?)

-Tea

 

[BOESP]

'My items 1-6' aren't my items at all. They are each facts of the case. Where you get circular reasoning from a simple list of case facts is beyond me. My entire post was not an attempt to prove anything. What is it you think I'm trying to prove? I clearly pointed out that there are two possible conclusions.

BTW, since there has been no investigation of any member of SSF reported, I'll assume there hasn't been any. We only have what has been reported to work with here.

Didn't you state you believed that no small foreign faction was investigated and that members of such a faction should be investigated? That implies to me you believe it possible a member or members of such a group should be suspect in this case. You also used statements from the ransom note to prove that a small foreign faction probably killed JonBenet even though professional document examiners clearly state the ransom note is bogus.

Maybe I wasn't clear in how I interpreted your original statements, but it sounded to me like you were claiming small foreign factions should be investigated and that none where investigated. I countered that by saying there is no evidence to support the idea a small foreign faction was responsible for JonBenet's death.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say who was or was not investigated if I didn't have access to that information.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Didn't you state you believed that no small foreign faction was investigated and that members of such a faction should be investigated? That implies to me you believe it possible a member or members of such a group should be suspect in this case. You also used statements from the ransom note to prove that a small foreign faction probably killed JonBenet even though professional document examiners clearly state the ransom note is bogus.

Maybe I wasn't clear in how I interpreted your original statements, but it sounded to me like you were claiming small foreign factions should be investigated and that none where investigated. I countered that by saying there is no evidence to support the idea a small foreign faction was responsible for JonBenet's death.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say who was or was not investigated if I didn't have access to that information.

If I was successful at proving a SSF probably killed JBR, that would really be something, wouldn't it? I don't expect to PROVE anything. Please read the bottom of my posts, the part that says 'my opinion only'. I'm still entitled to my opinion, aren't I, or do I have to subscribe to the bogus RN idea just because experts said to? They have no proof the RN is anything other than what it says.

BTW, my opinion is that the RN author (not an R) may have misled investigators with a bogus SSF story. What about that?

 

[BOESP]

If I was successful at proving a SSF probably killed JBR, that would really be something, wouldn't it? I don't expect to PROVE anything. Please read the bottom of my posts, the part that says 'my opinion only'. I'm still entitled to my opinion, aren't I, or do I have to subscribe to the bogus RN idea just because experts said to? They have no proof the RN is anything other than what it says.

BTW, my opinion is that the RN author (not an R) may have misled investigators with a bogus SSF story. What about that?

Why of course you're entitled to your opinion and I don't believe I said you weren't. In my view, it's better to carefully word what we say than to tag a comment with "IMO." What we say can be plain as day to us as the writer and clear as mud to those reading it. Adding "IMO" doesn't help clear up any mud.

I do disagree with your opinion of FBI experts. They are trained to make such decisions. I give their opinion more weight than a lay opinion.

As to your last sentence above, yep, I agree except to say Patsy seems to have done just that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I do disagree with your opinion of FBI experts. They are trained to make such decisions. I give their opinion more weight than a lay opinion.

There was no 'decision' made by the FBI that the RN was bogus. Do you have a source for this 'decision'?