I wish I could help, but sorry? Tricia maybe?
The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 138
Great post, Freesafety36. . . but let me add something to your thoughtful explanation on the confusing pieces of the cover up. Hasnt anyone ever experienced a partner not listening, or deciding to do something their way? Because I have and I can tell you that it happens! Imo, this death was not planned by the perp(s), and the cover-up seems to have been decided by 2 people who had different ideas of the best course of disguising what had transpired. The coldness between the 2 adult Rs the morning of the police visit informed me that there had been some pretty heavy discussion between them during the early morning hours after the homicide. Moo
Since this thread is about the ransom note, anyone remember PP talking to the press (or media LKL?) about the intruder being a truly sophisticated criminal who took months to practice PRs style of handwriting so he could match it perfectly? How could anyone not want a sister who could think of such things.
jmho
FreeSafety36
Another Brick in The Wall
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 7
We don't know that the body hadn't been in the car. That may have been what caused PR to be out of breath on the phone call. Afer JR gets in the shower, she goes and gets her out of the car, takes her down to the basement, runs back upstairs and calls 911 before JR gets back downstairs.
In an RDI scenario, it's very possible PR took something in the wee hours to calm her down so that she wasn't a basket case. Whatever that something was (alcohol or other chemical) would certainly cloud her judgement, or could have been wearing off and sending her into a panic.
Maybe she did try to convince JR they needed a different story, and he wouldn't agree to change it. We don't know either way...we do know that once she made that call to 911, that was the story and it couldn't be changed. In a scenario where JR was calling all the shots, making the call when she did gives PR an opportunity to have the final say.
I agree with questfortrue's post that the scene looks like more than one person was involved, and each had different ideas as to exactly how they were going to do it. Granted, an IDI scenario doesn't have to be just one person either, but the more people you have in the home moving around in the dark, the less the chance they can get in, do their deed and get out undetected.
There's one main difference one has to consider when theorizing RDI and IDI. If IDI, then we know the intruder got out of the home prior to 6 AM. In RDI, the Rs could not take the risk of leaving the home before 6 AM, because there's a chance that one neighbor or even a passerby who might recognize them or their car may be awake and see them leaving and destroy their alibi that they were asleep all night. That explains why the body was still in the home in an RDI scenario; but if we accept an IDI scenario, then we have to agree that the intruder did indeed get out of the home, but decided to inexplicably leave the body and the note inside. In other words, if we accept RDI theory, we can say the body still being in the house was because PR deviated from the plan and called too early. In an IDI scenario, because the intruder was gone, we have to summarize that leaving the body and note was the plan, at least the final plan that the intruder decided to go with...and it's a plan that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not sure if she was ever in the car on account of the lividity. It shows she was on her back, she could have been dragged along. Wouldn't getting her out of the car and downstairs have messed up the lividity pattern?
FreeSafety36
Another Brick in The Wall
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 7
Read your link. My thoughts on each scenario follow.
1. The plan was to kill her and leave her in the house all along and collect the money before anyone found out- you said the intruder could have planned it this way all along, assuming they wouldn't call or look for her body. You then ask the question "why would they?" regarding looking in the home for her body. I submit they would search the home for evidence to try to find out who took their little girl. I know I would, even if I didn't call cops. Also, why molest her? It would be quite the stretch for any intruder to assume they don't use any certain part of the home on a daily basis. PR even said that was where they kept their christmas decorations. Christmas was over, decorations migt be coming down and being put away that same day, even. Aside from being in the wine cellar, the body wasn't hidden well at all. Plus, even someone of average intelligence would realize that inside the warm house, it wouldn't take long before a dead body began to stink, and the residents would most certainly search for the source. You theorize that the intruder may have planned to leave the body in the home so they wouldn't have to risk handling, transporting and disposing of the body; yet they already risked breaking into the home, sexually assaulting and killing her and leaving her body where it would absolutely be found at some point. That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the most glaring hole in this theory is that no call ever came in from a kidnapper.
2. A molester may have done it to hide his true perverse intention. So a molester assumed her body wouldn't be examined once it was located? I can get the idea that the ransom note may have been to hide the true purpose, but that doesn't explain why the body wasn't removed from the house. It actually contradicts it. By leaving the body in the house, a molester is allowing his true reason to be easily discovered.
3. The killer wished to implicate the residents of the house. In that scenario, why the ransom note? Why hide the body at all? Kill her in her bed or in the middle of the living room floor, leave nothing that lends itself to anyone else having been inside the home at all. Why molest her in this scenario? Why give them any "out" at all to say "look, someone else was here!" Doesn't make any sense.
4. A killer wishing to create an enduring mystery. Taking the body out of the home, immediately upon snatching her without leaving any note would create much more of a mystery than the way it was actually done.
5. A killer hoping to create false hope for parents mingled with angst and pain reaching it's peak when the body is found. This still doesn't explain leaving the body inside the home. Such a killer would get longer 'enjoyment' by removing the body and dumping it somewhere, where it would take longer to find.
6. You stated here that any reason one could come up with for RDI works just as well for IDI. No, it doesn't, because, as I stated earlier, in IDI we know the intruder got out of the home, leaving the body and note behind. In RDI, we know why the Rs couldn't leave the home earlier, as doing so would destroy their alibi that they were sleeping all night. Because of this, pretty much no RDI theory works for IDI, and no IDI scenario works for RDI. In RDI, the scene wasn't finished being set. Because no intruder was found inside the home, in IDI, we must accept that the scene we have is the final one the intruder decided was the one they wanted to leave for whatever reason.
Arnie M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 1,952
On that same subject here is what always caught my attention ....
Patsy said she quickly read the letter ... dropped it on the floor beside the stairs .... then rushed upstairs to JB's bedroom to check ... saw she was gone .... screamed for her husband ..... then rushed back downstairs and dialed 911 .....
When we listen to the 911 tape ... we can hear PR hyperventilating .... acting panicky ... sounding confused .... UNTIL the 911 operator asks who the kidnappers were ...
.... clearly and precisely Patsy said .... S.B.T.C. - VICTORY
I am sure she did not have the 3rd page of the note in front of her ..... and I am sure she did not have perfect total recall after quickly scanning the note .....
... SHE KNEW the signature on the ransom note by heart because SHE WROTE IT.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 199
Uhhhh.... I think the help this poster needs will not be found here.
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
I think that we can safely reject the notion that Mrs Ramsey moved the body from car to basement while Mr Ramsey showered (did he shower?) as the evidence strongly suggests that the victims body had not been moved. At least, there is no evidence to suggest that it had been.
So, this leaves the question, if the Ramseys had planned to dispose of the body as the creation of a fake kidnapping necessitates, than why is the body in the basement?
Of course, I understand that disposing of the body would have been a risky affair, but they must have been willing to take that risk otherwise they wouldnt have faked a kidnapping; right?
If RDI, we must accept that there was a bizarre and inexplicable deviation from the original plan. If IDI, we can accept a different, but equally bizarre and inexplicable deviation from an original plan, or we can accept that everything happened as planned.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
I appreciate your comments regarding my various possible intruder scenarios. I also appreciate your objections, although I found some of them less than persuasive; however, I dont have much interest in arguing over them. The point being made is simply that various intruder scenarios that make sense of note and body in the house do exist. All of the ones I suggest could be wrong, but a twist here and a tweak there, and, who knows?
It is interesting to me that if RDI, we must assume that Mrs Ramsey either was unaware of the body being in the house, or that she deviated from the plan without Mr Ramseys knowledge and without actually changing anything! If IDI, we can simply say that an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason. Perhaps, he too, as you hypothesize about Mrs Ramsey, was under the influence of something...
...
AK
I think this is a great point; if she read the note quickly and did have it in front her, I am not sure she would have been able to rattle S.B.T.C off so quickly.
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
It has been claimed that Mrs Ramsey did not read the note in its entirety before calling 911. When asked by the 911 operator, “Does [the note] say who took her?”Mrs Ramsey answers, “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”
Now, supposedly Mrs Ramsey looks to the end of the note, ostensibly to see who it is from; the 911 operator says, “It’s a ransom note?” Mrs Ramsey, still answering the first question – does the note say who took her – and reading from the bottom up, answers, “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”
...
AK
Now, supposedly Mrs Ramsey looks to the end of the note, ostensibly to see who it is from; the 911 operator says, “It’s a ransom note?” Mrs Ramsey, still answering the first question – does the note say who took her – and reading from the bottom up, answers, “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”
...
AK
You are correct about the livor mortis patterns- they indicate she was placed on her back in the position she was found shortly after her death. When a body is moved during the early blanching phase of livor (also known as non-fixed) multiple patterns will form over each other when a body is moved. But as livor becomes fixed (aka non-blanching) a body can be moved without another pattern forming. HOWEVER- by this time, rigor mortis is setting in. Had her body been manipulated or handled at that point in a manner necessary to move her in and out of a car (or anything else) and place her where she was found- this would have "broken rigor) at least in some joints. Once broken, it will NOT re-form. JB was in full UNBROKEN rigor when she was brought up and also when first seem by the coroner. Rigor did not begin to subside until the morning of the autopsy, on the 27th. By then, milder degrees were noted in the autopsy.
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
After some reflection Ive decided to comment on these objections to the IDI scenarios I presented. I originally listed six (here: http://tinyurl.com/kv973we), but I am only addressing objections to the first five. Im not trying to convince anyone of anything. I know Im not going to change anyones mind. If it doesnt make sense to you, it doesnt make sense to you.
This idea of sense is all that Im trying to convey. I dont think this crime was financially motivated, but we can make sense of the note and the body in the house through such a scenario. Of course, there might be (and are!) OTHER reasons to reject such a theory.
Following is the first of my five, then a quoted objection, then my comments. Ill address the next four in subsequent posts.
1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before the parents discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
The objection:
The most glaring hole in this theory is easily dismissed: the kidnapper had the home under scrutiny, he saw the police and others arrive and realized that the body was probably going to be found. So no call.
Why leave the body in the house? This is a common objection, but it is most easily answered if we consider that an intruder may not have had anywhere to take her. Plus, as previously stated, it relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
Yes, an intruder would have already been taking (possibly enjoying) incredible risk while committing the crime, but this would have been essentially necessary risk.
Discovery of the body would only have to be delayed until the ransom was collected. The ransom note told the parents that their daughter was not in the house so although they may look around a bit, the body was hidden well enough to prevent its discovery. At least, until the police arrived.
I dont think this is what happened. I can think of reasons to reject this scenario, but it does provide a reason for both note and body being in the house.
...
AK
This idea of sense is all that Im trying to convey. I dont think this crime was financially motivated, but we can make sense of the note and the body in the house through such a scenario. Of course, there might be (and are!) OTHER reasons to reject such a theory.
Following is the first of my five, then a quoted objection, then my comments. Ill address the next four in subsequent posts.
1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before the parents discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
The objection:
The most glaring hole in this theory is easily dismissed: the kidnapper had the home under scrutiny, he saw the police and others arrive and realized that the body was probably going to be found. So no call.
Why leave the body in the house? This is a common objection, but it is most easily answered if we consider that an intruder may not have had anywhere to take her. Plus, as previously stated, it relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
Yes, an intruder would have already been taking (possibly enjoying) incredible risk while committing the crime, but this would have been essentially necessary risk.
Discovery of the body would only have to be delayed until the ransom was collected. The ransom note told the parents that their daughter was not in the house so although they may look around a bit, the body was hidden well enough to prevent its discovery. At least, until the police arrived.
I dont think this is what happened. I can think of reasons to reject this scenario, but it does provide a reason for both note and body being in the house.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect.
<quote> We know that offenders are more reluctant to admit sexual motives than other types of motives (e.g., profit, revenge, anger, power). Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender <unquote> <1>
<1> Child Molesters Who Abduct: Summary of the Case in Point Series Edited by Kenneth V. Lanning and Ann Wolbert Burgess http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
The objection:
In a scenario of this type we could say, as stated in the above post, that the killer did not want to risk being seen transporting or disposing of the body, or he simply had nowhere to take her. Much easier to leave it behind.
Im not sure how leaving the body behind reveals the true motive, but in such a scenario we could be talking about someone who was mainly trying to fool themselves. In the beginning he convinces himself that he is only going to kidnap the child and make a little money, but once in the house he cant help himself and the next thing you know oops; shes dead. And, he wasnt really going to kidnap her anyway, so he runs away embarrassed and ashamed.
This isnt my favorite, either; but, it does give us another reason why an intruder might leave the note and the body in the house.
...
AK
<quote> We know that offenders are more reluctant to admit sexual motives than other types of motives (e.g., profit, revenge, anger, power). Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender <unquote> <1>
<1> Child Molesters Who Abduct: Summary of the Case in Point Series Edited by Kenneth V. Lanning and Ann Wolbert Burgess http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
The objection:
In a scenario of this type we could say, as stated in the above post, that the killer did not want to risk being seen transporting or disposing of the body, or he simply had nowhere to take her. Much easier to leave it behind.
Im not sure how leaving the body behind reveals the true motive, but in such a scenario we could be talking about someone who was mainly trying to fool themselves. In the beginning he convinces himself that he is only going to kidnap the child and make a little money, but once in the house he cant help himself and the next thing you know oops; shes dead. And, he wasnt really going to kidnap her anyway, so he runs away embarrassed and ashamed.
This isnt my favorite, either; but, it does give us another reason why an intruder might leave the note and the body in the house.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from himself)
The objection:
The ransom note implicates the parents because 1) there was no kidnapping (body in house), 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). Some might include as 5) linguistics, etc... so, thats why the ransom note.
Why give them an out? I dont see how it would have been avoidable. I used to call this the They Could Have Done More Objection. However, more would have been mitigated by who he was (relationship to and knowledge of victims) and the means and opportunity available to him (access to victims, resources, history, experience, etc ). It would also be dependent upon what an intruder with this motivation might have hoped to achieve: 1) an indictment, an arrest, a trial, or, 2) trial by media, a casting of blame, or, 3) to manipulate and/or influence investigators, or, 4) any combination of the previous or 5) something unknown.
Regardless, the note and the body in the house did cast suspicion onto the Ramseys, so we have yet another reason why an intruder might have wanted to commit both these acts. Considering Thomas, Kolar and most RDI, we could say that if this scenario was true, then this intruder was extremely successful!
...
AK
The objection:
The ransom note implicates the parents because 1) there was no kidnapping (body in house), 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). Some might include as 5) linguistics, etc... so, thats why the ransom note.
Why give them an out? I dont see how it would have been avoidable. I used to call this the They Could Have Done More Objection. However, more would have been mitigated by who he was (relationship to and knowledge of victims) and the means and opportunity available to him (access to victims, resources, history, experience, etc ). It would also be dependent upon what an intruder with this motivation might have hoped to achieve: 1) an indictment, an arrest, a trial, or, 2) trial by media, a casting of blame, or, 3) to manipulate and/or influence investigators, or, 4) any combination of the previous or 5) something unknown.
Regardless, the note and the body in the house did cast suspicion onto the Ramseys, so we have yet another reason why an intruder might have wanted to commit both these acts. Considering Thomas, Kolar and most RDI, we could say that if this scenario was true, then this intruder was extremely successful!
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery
The objection:
Would snatching her without leaving a note create more of a mystery? I dont know. It wouldnt give us as much to chew on and theorize and argue over, thats for sure! The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey often appears on various top ten murder mysteries of all time lists. Do you think that would happen if she was just a child who disappeared from her home one night? No, its the ransom note and the body in the house that qualify this case.
And, does doing something that would result in more of a mystery actually count as a serious objection? I dont think so. Of course not.
...
AK
The objection:
This is another scenario in which we could say that the killer was very successful.
Would snatching her without leaving a note create more of a mystery? I dont know. It wouldnt give us as much to chew on and theorize and argue over, thats for sure! The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey often appears on various top ten murder mysteries of all time lists. Do you think that would happen if she was just a child who disappeared from her home one night? No, its the ransom note and the body in the house that qualify this case.
And, does doing something that would result in more of a mystery actually count as a serious objection? I dont think so. Of course not.
...
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered
The objection:
The killer did not want to risk being seen transporting or disposing of the body. Much easier to leave it behind. Maybe he had nowhere to take it. Also, some killers might get more enjoyment by removing the body and dumping it, but some might get more enjoyment knowing that the body was beneath the parents feet the whole time. Who knows?
As an aside, my own objection to this theory is that such a person would want to witness the angst and pain brought on by the ransom note. He would have to be present, in the home, between the time of the notes discovery and the time of the bodys discovery he was not.
Still, who knows? It is a reason why an intruder might leave both note and body.
...
Five scenarios. If we set aside the question of variations and consider only all the possible combinations we end up with 31 scenarios; add in variations and... ! So, reject IDI all you (anyone) want, but to argue that there is no reason for an intruder to leave both note and body is to commit the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity. IDI may still be false, but not for this reason!
...
AK
The objection:
The killer did not want to risk being seen transporting or disposing of the body. Much easier to leave it behind. Maybe he had nowhere to take it. Also, some killers might get more enjoyment by removing the body and dumping it, but some might get more enjoyment knowing that the body was beneath the parents feet the whole time. Who knows?
As an aside, my own objection to this theory is that such a person would want to witness the angst and pain brought on by the ransom note. He would have to be present, in the home, between the time of the notes discovery and the time of the bodys discovery he was not.
Still, who knows? It is a reason why an intruder might leave both note and body.
...
Five scenarios. If we set aside the question of variations and consider only all the possible combinations we end up with 31 scenarios; add in variations and... ! So, reject IDI all you (anyone) want, but to argue that there is no reason for an intruder to leave both note and body is to commit the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity. IDI may still be false, but not for this reason!
...
AK
I agree with you on many counts. I think you nailed a lot of the issues.
I am not an expert, but I was shocked when I compared the letters. To me, the one left at the scene and the sample one PR wrote are very different. It appears to me that someone expert in mimicing handwriting may have produced the RN. The fact that phrases, words, and whatever other terms were in both the letter and things PR said or wrote indicates to me that someone had been stalking and listening to the family.
The differences I see are:
the overall form of the letters are far more angular in PR note than in the RN, by just looking at it (not reading it) from any distance. The letters themselves are different.
a... different form completely
h... RN has a space between the downstroke and the hump; PR mostly has closed h's, where the hump comes directly off the downstroke.
u... RN has no downstroke at the end of the letter. The letter is written down, across, and up. PR writes her letter u with a downstroke at the end. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to see on PR writing, but the downstroke is there.
The differences are substantial. Differences are notable in many of the individual letters and words I compared. If I was on a jury, I would not be convinced that the two notes were written by PR, because I have eyeballs.
I actually know few details of this case. Is it possible that someone could have taken the notepad previously?
Is it possible there were two perps, one who committed the crime and the other who wrote the note?
Arnie M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 1,952
If I was a kidnapper and my plans went wrong and the kidnappee was killed , I would never leave a long rambling note of any kind to bring attention to myself .... and if I was to leave the body behind I would hope the focus was on everybody except me (make it look like an inside job)
If I left the body there and still wanted to collect a ransom I would have hidden the body behind the junk in the cellar room .... not lay her out on a nice blanket visible from the doorway
Only if it was an "inside job" would it make any sense to try to divert attention toward a "pretend kidnapper" .... and that was the purpose of the ransom note , period.
If I left the body there and still wanted to collect a ransom I would have hidden the body behind the junk in the cellar room .... not lay her out on a nice blanket visible from the doorway
Only if it was an "inside job" would it make any sense to try to divert attention toward a "pretend kidnapper" .... and that was the purpose of the ransom note , period.
From the same departments of the cord and tape.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 51
- Guests online
- 1,954
- Total visitors
- 2,005