Why Patsy did not kill JonBenet

[close_enough]

The six examiners used by the CBI are Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford, Jr., Lloyd Cunningham, Richard Dusak, and Howard Rile.

The six handwriting examiners all had the the original ransom note to study before the note was destroyed by the lab for further scientific analyses. Having the original note is an important factor in handwriting analysis. All other examiners had to use copies. The six also had all of Patsy's exemplars, both current and historic.

Their conclusions varied of course, but the concensus among the six was that Patsy did not likely write the note, but neither could she be excluded as the possible author. However, it should also be noted that MOST of the 72 suspects who took the CBI's exam could not likely be eliminated as the possible author, including Burke Ramsey. But, with her 4.5 score, Patsy came very close to being excluded as the writer.

The six are:

Chet Ubowski, Colorado Bureau of Investigation: The evidence exists that Patsy may have written the note, but it falls short to conclude that she wrote it.

Leonard Speckin, private examiner: Cannot identify Patsy as the author with any degree of certainty, but is unable to eliminate her as the author.

Edwin Alford, Jr., private examiner: Examination has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy as the writer.

Lloyd Cunningham, private examiner: There were no significant individual comparison characteristics, but many significant differences between Patsy's writing and the ransom note.

Richard Dusak, U.S. Secret Service examiner: There was no evidence that Patsy wrote the note.

Howard Rile, private examiner: Concluded that Patsy is rated between "probably not" and "eliminated" as the author of the ransom note.

JMO

from Thomas' book....none of the expert document examiners, not even those hired by the defense, could elimate Patsy Ramsey as the author....the CBI examiner explained that of the 73 persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship & had been in the home the night of the killing & could not be eliminated by no less than 6 document examiners - Patsy Ramsey

also from the book....in the decade prior to the homicide, Patsy freely interchanged the manuscript "a" & the cursive "a".....in the months prior to december 1996, she exhibited a marked preference for the manuscript "a"....the ransom note contained such a manuscript "a" 109 times, & the cursive version only 5 times...not only did certain letters change, but her entire writing style seemed to have been transformed after the homicide...there were new ways of indenting, spelling, & writing out long numbers that contrasted w/her earlier examples, & she was the only suspect who altered her usual preferences when supplying writing samples to the police...

imo, there's no way that a child (Burke) wrote that ransom note...it was Patsy trying to disguise her handwriting....

 

[RedChief]

Regarding the Gelb polygraph examination: does anyone find it curious that John was not asked whether he had written the ransom note? Some feel the handwriting more closely resembles John's than Patsy's.

 

[Eagle1]

I think all 3 of your theories leaves out the GLARING fact that the batteries had been wiped clean of all fingerprints, an INTENTIONAL act, so it was apparently not left there by mistake but to add to the frustration of it all. To show that it was all very cunningly premeditated.

JonBenet had even been promised an extra Santa visit after Christmas. Extra sadistic, exploiting one of our holidays. And if he were an expert forger, this malicious against a family, he'd have studied Patsy's writing habits, as much as detectives have, knew about the "a's" and all, her usual habits.

Probably the perp is on a high, thinking he's a genius.

Somehow I have hope, he'll be caught, simply because I'm involved in a forum about tech-age prophecy, where a covert traitor will be caught who's been running a long terror seige, has been destroying his own nation, famous chapter of Isaiah 14 (Lucifer in sheeps' clothing) though the consecutive terms of 7 heads (of state). Maybe I'll be proved wrong by the end of this year, or early next year, but I found we've had exactly that many heads of state since Dallas, and this November will be 42 yrs since that happened. Some of the ancient prophets mention a 42 "months". Which could be code. One commentator said they had no exact words for time periods when the original texts were written, don't know if he's right or wrong. Just watch. I'm frankly afraid he's got something to do with the current euthanasia case in Fla., is to be known for "changes", Daniel 7.

I get news bulletins from Topix.net, and this morning it says the husband, who probably beat her up, may succeed by Feb. 22. There are 100,000 to 300,000 other brain-damaged patients too, who will probably be killed if he does, w/out even using the new MRI that shows some are cognitive but just can't respond. Be careful about signing any right-to-die papers. I know someone who was taken off her diabetes meds, claiming she'd been so good about control she no longer needed them, and she had a stroke and died. Also a man with emphysema was taken off his prednizone, which most everyone knows you can't stop suddenly, and died. Could this be Hillary's "vast conspiracy", the arrogant planning to inherit the earth, killing the "useless" eaters? Fla. seems to be refusing to respect even the Pope, and all the other religious groups. Isaiah 14 says that villain thinks to elevate his kingdom above God's, more powerful than religion, I guess. If they kill her, slow and painful starvation and dehydration, will it prove all of my theory? Is Pres. Bush afraid to say anything for fear they might assassinate? They showed great disdain for their Gov. Jeb Bush, and their guardianship statutes forbidding the husband's open adultery, fathering 2 children with another woman. I wonder if he had Terri accused of something behind her back, reason she was beat up? Her girlfriend urged her not to go home last night, and I wonder if she's in danger by knowing too much, what the probably-manipulated marital fight was about.

 

[cappuccina]

1. Using the "Occam's Razor" principle, you can only conclude that mama did it, but may have had some help from papa with the staging, imo..., and

2. This crime meets almost all of the elements LE looks for in a staged domestic homicide, including, but not limited to:

Red Flags Indicating Staging

"Crime Classification Manual

Inappropriate items taken from the crime scene if burglary appeared to be the motive. The crime scene was staged to appear as though burglary was a motive (drawers pulled out, contents dumped, etc.) but nothing of value was taken from the scene.

Did the point of entry make sense? (Or, no point of entry was determined.)

Did the perpetration of this crime pose a high risk to the offender? If an intruder perpetrated this crime, he did so at high risk for detection. If one believes that the intent was to sexually assault the victim, the intruder would have been attempting to do so with both the victim’s parents and brother in close proximity. This high-risk approach is very uncommon for rapists, who are usually cowardly by nature. If an alleged intruder was in the house to burglarize or rape, he was doing so at great risk for detection.

Excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (Overkill)

The offender will often manipulate the victim’s discovery by a neighbor or family member. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources for this information, include, but are not limited to:

John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K. Ressler Crime Classification Manual (New York. Lexington Books 1992)
[ii] Vernon J. Geberth, Practical Homicide Investigation (New York CRC Press, 1996). Pg. 359
[iii] John E. Douglas, et al, Crime Classification Manual (New York. Lexington Books 1992) Pg. 252-253
[iv] Ibid Pg. 254-255

IMO, the Ramseys were not prosecuted for two sim[ple reasons:

1. LE -ups deemed too significant, i.e. Hunter thought they would impact the trial's outcome; and

2. They may have also "bought people off"..

All of this is just my l'il ol' opinion...

 

[close_enough]

Eagle, these were not my theories....they are the theories of LE, per Steve Thomas...

 

[cappuccina]

...they are perpetrated by a family member is the absence of fingerprints where they would normally be, for example, the flashlight...

Eagle, sorry to say this, hon, but it makes a lot more logical sense that mama r. bashed her daughter's head in with a flashlight in a fit of rage, and then staged an elaborate/"dramatic" cover-up than any of the other more complicated theories that abound...

While I do not think Burke was involved, he may have heard bits and pieces of what was going on,,,

All of this is, of course my humble opinion...

 

[close_enough]

...they are perpetrated by a family member is the absence of fingerprints where they would normally be, for example, the flashlight...

Eagle, sorry to say this, hon, but it makes a lot more logical sense that mama r. bashed her daughter's head in with a flashlight in a fit of rage, and then staged an elaborate/"dramatic" cover-up than any of the other more complicated theories that abound...

While I do not think Burke was involved, he may have heard bits and pieces of what was going on,,,

All of this is, of course my humble opinion...

exactly...the way i understood it, Steve Thomas believes this theory, more than the other 2.....the Ramsey's flashlight was never accounted for....same color, make & model as the one found at the house....they had time to cover up/stage this entire thing....with a pair of gloves, & a cloth, it wouldn't take much time to wipe down a flashlight, including the batteries, if you want to stage an intruder/kidnapping....it also wouldn't take an Einstein to come up w/this part of the staging....

 

[trixie]

Regarding the Gelb polygraph examination: does anyone find it curious that John was not asked whether he had written the ransom note? Some feel the handwriting more closely resembles John's than Patsy's.

This has always intrigued me. It would be interesting to look at this whole case from the angle that JOHN wrote the note. Hmmmm, how would that change anything, and what would that effect?

 

[RedChief]

trixie,

There once was a poster by the name of XXXX (not sure of spelling); maybe you're familiar with this poster.

This poster theorized that John wrote the note. XXXX said that John's writing hadn't been closely scrutinized for one reason or another and that John hired renowned experts right away who proclaimed that he didn't write it, but Patsy might have, and LE bought that. Don't know if there's any truth to this claim.

XXXX further stated that the writing in the note was pedantic and pretentious, which would be more characteristic of John, whereas Patsy was/is a chatty person whose writing would be more apt to be casual. Actually it looks more like John's writing to me than it does Patsy's, and the tone is very business-like, but I'm not a trained professional in this area. Writing the note with the sharpie pen, whether calculated or not, makes analyzing the writing pretty difficult. Additionally the writer may have, and probably did, wear gloves. That would increase the challenge for the analyst.

XXXX further, in noticing the misspellings and grammatical errors, identified these as John's idiosyncracies and not Patsy's. Also, the percentages would be more characteristic of John, XXXX said. I've noticed that John does use percentages quite a lot, as do most engineers. He seems especially fond of saying 100 percent, instead of, say, absolutely - I notice that a lot of women prefer the latter. Also XXXX observed that John was deficient in the grammar area (there were several grammatical mistakes in the note), whereas Patsy was a study in journalistic perfection. And so on, and so on.

Who better to know about the $118,000 than John, and the "good Southern common sense"? And, this was a bonus, a windfall, so to speak, that might be easily parted with. XXXX theorized that John intended to go by the note (by the book) but Patsy screwed up his plan when she dialed 911. XXXX theorized that John hadn't intended to show the note to the authorities; just to his friends and destroy it afterward. In going by the book (the note) John would go to the bank as instructed, etc., and call himself (this can be done), and go to a phony drop-off place and drop the ransom money, fully intending to treat it as a debit (that is, bye bye money). XXXX explained that John would sneak the body out, after sending Patsy and Burke to a friend's house, and secret it where only God could find it if He looked real hard.

I have always thought it odd that they didn't comply with the demands in the note, assuming they were the perps, because if they had done so successfully, they would have been viewed as unfortunate parents rather than murder suspects and afforded due sympathy.

Still anxiously waiting to hear more about John.....

 

[Nehemiah]

Who better to know about the $118,000 than John, and the "good Southern common sense"? And, this was a bonus, a windfall, so to speak, that might be easily parted with. XXXX theorized that John intended to go by the note (by the book) but Patsy screwed up his plan when she dialed 911. XXXX theorized that John hadn't intended to show the note to the authorities; just to his friends and destroy it afterward. In going by the book (the note) John would go to the bank as instructed, etc., and call himself (this can be done), and go to a phony drop-off place and drop the ransom money, fully intending to treat it as a debit (that is, bye bye money). XXXX explained that John would sneak the body out, after sending Patsy and Burke to a friend's house, and secret it where only God could find it if He looked real hard.
Still anxiously waiting to hear more about John.....

Red Chief, I well remember the poster to whom you refer here. I thought his theory made a lot of sense. In this scenario, who had actually killed JB?

At one time there was a copy of the R's JBR Foundation income tax return. Whoever completed that return had handwriting that looked so very much like the ransom note. It was rumored that John had completed the form, but I don't think that was ever proven.

I think John makes an interesting study. I wish that the investigation had publicly focused more on him, and somewhat less on Patsy.

 

[KatherineQ]

Am I wrong? Don't they have male DNA from her panties?

How hard can this be to exclude Burke and John?

 

[blueclouds]

1. That is not exculpatory evidence for Patsy. The DNA was not fresh, nor complete, and therefore could have been cross-contamination or secondary transfer.


Haven't finished reading this entire thread but FIRST OFF - IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE "FRESHNESS" of DNA whatsoever. AND it was complete enough to render that under JB's finger nails MATCHED traces found in her underwear. THAT MUCH HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY authorities.

I'm so sick and tired of reading falsehoods or misstated statements. uggg :doh:

 

[BlueCrab]

The killer's DNA is in JonBenet's panties.

There was no intruder, because the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, and dragging their feet with respect to the investigation, and carrying out an obvious coverup, to protect the identity of an intruder. They would do this only to protect a family member.

John didn't write the RN because the CBI's handwriting experts eliminated him as the writer. He also had DNA and polygraph evidence in his favor.

Patsy didn't likely write the RN because the CBI's handwriting experts came very close to eliminating her as the writer. She also had DNA and polygraph evidence in her favor.

Burke probably wrote the RN because the CBI's handwriting experts couldn't eliminate him as the writer. But he had DNA evidence in his favor.

Therefore, there had to have been a fifth person who had been invited into the house that night by Burke. That person's DNA is in JonBenet's panties and he is likely the killer.

BlueCrab

 

[blueclouds]

The killer's DNA is in JonBenet's panties.

Burke probably wrote the RN because the CBI's handwriting experts couldn't eliminate him as the writer. But he had DNA evidence in his favor.

Therefore, there had to have been a fifth person who had been invited into the house that night by Burke. That person's DNA is in JonBenet's panties and he is likely the killer.

BlueCrab

BLUECRAB: DO YOU KNOW?

Has Burke ever been tested for the ransom note? AND did he ever see the movies that were supposedly quoted within the RN? DId he have some "older" friends? Because I still believe Burke to be slightly young for a sexual fantasy.......

 

[LinasK]

I think John killed her and that's why he carried her up the steps, to "muddy" his dna, or whatever fiber evidence was on her. He knew exactly where to find her, it was just a question of how long to wait to bring her up, IMO.I also believe the wording of the note sounds like Patsy.:twocents:

 

[Woodsman]

Blue Crab,

Burke probably wrote the RN because the CBI's handwriting experts couldn't eliminate him as the writer. But he had DNA evidence in his favor.

Your theory that a 9yo boy wrote that convoluted ransom note is just plain ridiculous.

Even though amateurish the note was so obviously written by an adult.

 

[BlueCrab]

Blue Crab,


Your theory that a 9yo boy wrote that convoluted ransom note is just plain ridiculous.

Even though amateurish the note was so obviously written by an adult.

Woodsman,

Your comment is typical, and one of the reasons the case hasn't been solved. You say that, even though the CBI's QDE's couldn't eliminate Burke as the writer.

The fact that it's convoluted is one of the many reasons the note was probably written by a juvenile male. Add the length of the note, the silly movie stuff, and all of the unnecessary tough-guy threats, and the note has young male written all over it.

Please don't forget that in my theory Burke had an older accomplice who had been invited in by him. Burke's teen friend would have helped with the text and probably hovered over the table in front of Burke editing the note as it was being written -- which would account for the backward comma in $18,000 on the first page.

BlueCrab

 

[IrishMist]

I agree about the young male thing... to me, this note strikes me as written by a teen-age boy. But I lean more toward a friend of John Andrew.

I should probably go into a big theory at this point, but I can't--
My opinion as to the person/people responsible changes by the day.

Sometimes by the hour.

Hell, sometimes in mid-thought.

 

[UKGuy]

Well BlueCrab's BDI is fairly consistent and there is nothing better out there except maybe PDI, but I've not seen one yet that explains all of the evidence.

Whilst I have doubts about Burke's capacity to plan forward in such a machivellian manner, i.e. 9-year boy dupes millions, there is nothing to stop him penning it under the direction of someone else.

So he may have written it, for all we know it may be have been a family effort !

 

[IrishMist]

Well BlueCrab's BDI is fairly consistent and there is nothing better out there except maybe PDI, but I've not seen one yet that explains all of the evidence.

Whilst I have doubts about Burke's capacity to plan forward in such a machivellian manner, i.e. 9-year boy dupes millions, there is nothing to stop him penning it under the direction of someone else.

So he may have written it, for all we know it may be have been a family effort !

Well, my first instinct when all of this happened was that Burke or John Andrew did it. They are the only people (besides Grandpa Paugh) that the parents would cover up for.
At any rate, I can see alot of Patsy in the note, so I could see Burke doing it, and Patsy writing the note. Can't decide if John was involved in the cover up or not...

What throws me here is them letting him out of their sight the morning of the 26th. Also, how on Earth could a nine year old boy keep that secret all of these years? That is a heavy-duty secret.


As an aside, can someone tell me how "Paugh" is pronounced?
Is it "Paw?" or "Pew?"