The first letters of Psalm 35 are CTBS (technically). Why would she reverse the letters?
Agree, and it seems like, if you wanted to use an acronym (based off of an acrostic poem), a better stanza would have been 35:7 to 35:10 -- especially if one is of the belief that PR was trying to point the finger at JR. And there'd be no reason to reverse the letters, in either case.
I always thoupught that PR wasn't particularly smart enough to do such a thing; and JR wasn't smart enough to "decode" any message she would have been sending him, particularly if she was using some random bible passage and reversing an already hard acronym to decode. I feel like sometimes, we (the royal "we") give too much credit to both of them.
I always felt like it was somehow based alphabetically, numerically, and/or schematically. S and T are next to each other in the alphabet, as are B and C. S is the 19th letter, B is the 2nd, T is the 20th, C is the 3rd. 19/2/20/3. Could these be dates (2/19, 3/20)? I haven't dwelled on this intently, but it was an idea I've always had.
Also: 2/19 to 3/20 is the zodiac sign for Pisces.
John had an engineering degree from a good engineering school. The engineers I've known have been rather smart. Patsy was no intellectual slouch.
I'm not sure why you think anything needed to be "decoded." This has nothing to do with Bible codes which look for hidden words in the Bible. I'm not sure why you think Patsy was sending John a message. We do know that she dropped him in the soup with the police when that Bible was mentioned in an interview. She could have said that the Bible might have been left open. Problem solved.
My question is: why did she mention Psalm 57 in Death of Innocence? (In the version in that book, she's alone when she stabs her finger at random into a Gideon Bible and lands on the verse about being safe in the shadow of God's wings.) Since Death of Innocence was published before Steve Thomas's JonBenet, she might not have been aware of Foster's discovery of "SBTC." According to Thomas, the DA's and Smit were dismissive of Foster so they might not have relayed the information about Psalm 35 to the Ramseys or their lawyers. But you can gauge the dismay of the Ramsey side when they found out because, even though they love taking the mickey out of Foster, they never, ever mention it.
Agree, and it seems like, if you wanted to use an acronym (based off of an acrostic poem), a better stanza would have been 35:7 to 35:10 -- especially if one is of the belief that PR was trying to point the finger at JR. And there'd be no reason to reverse the letters, in either case....
To be clear, it isn't "SBTC" or any verses in Psalm 35 that point to John. It's this exchange from '98:
"TOM HANEY: Now we are up to 326, it is just one photo on that page.
PATSY RAMSEY: This is on John's desk, a picture of Linda and John -- looks like his bible.
TOM HANEY: Do you have any -- do you have different bibles.
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, we have a lot of bibles.
TOM HANEY: Okay.
PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know if they are different.
TOM HANEY: You said it is his as opposed to being ours or yours.
PATSY RAMSEY: I see what you mean. Well, yeah. I think it was his on his desk.
TOM HANEY: Kept on his desk?
PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
TOM HANEY: Is that where he normally had it or where it was normally kept.
PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. He would read it there."
Linda Wilcox (I think) said that she could tell that that particular Bible was always being read because it moved around the bedroom and it never needed dusting. Patsy here is telling us that it was only John who read it. The police never mention Psalm 35 and since they didn't have the Bible in their possession, Patsy might not have twigged that they had discovered "SBTC" in Psalm 35. But if they have, they're going to connect it to John because she's forging that link before our eyes.
Part of the beauty of "SBTC" is that it really stands out on the page. "SmT" not so much.
You might not subscribe to this notion, but many believe that PR was trying to "point the finger" at JR with the ransom note. The movie references, the "SBTC," were all designed to send him a message and/or to pin the crime on him. So, that is what would need to be decoded (by JR). For the record, I've never subscribed to this theory. But, if SBTC does stand for something (in general; and regardless of who it was intended for), it would serve to be decoded, would it not?
JR was an engineer -- which takes intellect, granted -- but that's a different type of intellect. PR was an English major (if I remember correctly) -- which again, takes intellect -- but that's also a different type of intellect.
It just seems like she would have been going way too much out of her way to use "SBTC" if she simply wanted to connect the bible to JR. From what I gather, the only reason she reversed the order was because it looked better on the page, which I don't necessarily believe in that, "CTBS" would have sufficed just as well on the page (but perhaps that's just me) and would have connected JR more easily to the bible.
Yeah, that takes a lot of work, reversing those letters. LOL
I think he probably did recognize some phrases from the ransom note. Arndt said that he was quiet while his group of friends were having a lively discussion of the note.
I don't see why "SBTC" has to stand for anything. Maybe those letters meant signified something to her; maybe they didn't.
John doesn't give any indication that he's aware of where "SBTC" comes from. But unlike Patsy he admits to searching through the Bible looking for clues to its origin. We know he eventually clued in because in The Other Side of Suffering he tells us that he read the psalm on the same page as "SBTC," Psalm 34, to Patsy on her deathbed. If you wanted to live a long life, you shouldn't have told so many lies? Thanks, honey.
Awesome theories on your part with legitimate explanations. The only thing that had me were the pair of Tec boots and the SBTC engraved gun which seems a bit too coincidental.
I think he probably did recognize some phrases from the ransom note. Arndt said that he was quiet while his group of friends were having a lively discussion of the note.
I don't see why "SBTC" has to stand for anything. Maybe those letters meant signified something to her; maybe they didn't.
John doesn't give any indication that he's aware of where "SBTC" comes from. But unlike Patsy he admits to searching through the Bible looking for clues to its origin. We know he eventually clued in because in The Other Side of Suffering he tells us that he read the psalm on the same page as "SBTC," Psalm 34, to Patsy on her deathbed. If you wanted to live a long life, you shouldn't have told so many lies? Thanks, honey.
It has to stand for something, its not padding as in an essay, the author only gets one shot at communicating, so "SBTC" must mean something to either the reader or the author?I don't see why "SBTC" has to stand for anything. Maybe those letters meant signified something to her; maybe they didn't.
It's up to you now John! Victory! S.B.T.C.
So if you know enough about the case and John has a tale to tell then maybe its all just Smoke and Mirrors.John doesn't give any indication that he's aware of where "SBTC" comes from. But unlike Patsy he admits to searching through the Bible looking for clues to its origin. We know he eventually clued in because in The Other Side of Suffering he tells us that he read the psalm on the same page as "SBTC," Psalm 34, to Patsy on her deathbed. If you wanted to live a long life, you shouldn't have told so many lies? Thanks, honey.
Yeesh. I think I agree with Lin Wood about people who post about the JonBenet case.
"SBTC" must mean something to either the reader or the author?"
The reader AND the author. They are the same person. Alters at play.