Understanding the Ramsey note

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by DocG, Sep 12, 2004.

  1. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Many are convinced Patsy wrote it and have liberally shared their opinions in the tabs, the legimate media and the internet. Others are sure it MUST have been written by an intruder and these too have had lots to say regarding all that (essentially inconclusive) intruder "evidence". And the handwriting "experts" are all over the place. The one thing we rarely see, however, is any attempt at all to actually understand the note, to puzzle out some reasons both WHY it was written and why it was written in that particular way. Some say it was just a fantasy by a wacked out intruder, but they don't elaborate -- probably because they can't. Some say it was a desperate, senseless act on the part of a panicked insider. Others claim it was a "message" from Patsy to John.

    But there is something very wrong with all these explanations. The note is too logical and purposeful to be a fantasy. It lays out a very explicit set of directions for the addressee (John) to follow and it contains very specific warnings. Hardly the stuff of fantasy. It's too logical and carefully crafted to be described as "senseless" and it certainly wasn't scrawled in a panic. Every single i is dotted, every t crossed, the margins are consistent, there is not even any margin drift (as erroneously claimed by more than one of Darnay Hoffman's "experts"). And if Patsy wanted to send a "message" to John, a patently phoney ransom note certainly seems like an odd medium. The two of them were there in the house together before the police arrived. She'd have had plenty of opportunity to convey her message verbally, if not physically (via a right to the jaw, for example).

    The note has been described as patently phoney but in fact it's a perfectly credible ransom note. Sure there never was any "foreign faction" and its unlikely the writer of the note actually "respected" John's "bussiness but not the country it serves." But why would we expect a kidnapper to be totally up front and honest with us in his ransom note? Ransom notes have always contained misdirections, misleading assertions and outright falsehoods. That doesn't make them any the less real. What makes the note phoney is NOT its content but the circumstances of the case as a whole. Once the victim's body had been found IN THE HOUSE it was clear the note was a fake. A real kidnapper would have taken the victim, dead or alive. (Kidnapping a dead victim would have been far easier then kidnapping a living one, so all the talk of a "kidnapping gone wrong" seems rather silly.) And if something HAD gone wrong and for one reason or another the body couldn't be removed, then there'd have been no reason to leave a note behind. The existence of the note itself is therefore the strongest evidence against the existence of an intruder.

    To be continued
     
  2. messiecake

    messiecake Member

    Thanks for posting that!


    I think the ransom note is the biggest,most overlooked clue to this whole case (everyone seems to squabble over dna when this isnt a dna case !)

    I look forward to reading more!!
     
  3. tempester

    tempester Member

    People have discussed the idea that the note writer was trying to lay blame with a disgruntled employee re: the ransom figure. But I think that the reference to a foreign faction, that they "respected" John's "bussiness but not the country it serves" , the references to beheading and the figure of the ransom. When these are put together I think the writer had a vague idea of blaming a foreign group with a grudge against lockheed martin which is a defence contractor.
     
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    I strongly disagree with you DocG!

    I strongly disagree with you. A credible ransom note usually demands a large sum of money, and is usually followed by a phone call stating the place and the time to drop off the money. That's what a credible ransom note is all about, not a "war and Peace" drama written by Patsy Ramsey. Absolutely ridiculous!

    No phone call! Staged ransom note. jmo :)
     
  5. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Two

    Thanks for the encouragement, Messie. Tempester, you certainly have a point, and I tend to agree, but I don't think speculation regarding details of either handwriting or content is going to help. There's already been a great deal of that and it's led us in circles. We need to understand the purpose behind the note as a whole. And that's something that's rarely been discussed.

    I think it clear the note HAD a purpose. It's clearly not the work of either a wigged out drug "fiend" OR a panicked parent, not thinking straight. It's logical, the instructions are very precise and clear and, as I said, those margins are neat, the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. It's unusually long for a ransom note, true. But there are two things we must never forget: 1. It's credible enough to have been taken for a real ransom note by a real kidnapper -- provided the victim had been removed, dead or alive, from the house; 2. the victim was NOT removed, which tells us that it is in fact fake; 3. putting 1 and 2 together we can see it as part of a plan, a plan which could ONLY have involved a faked, i.e., staged, kidnapping. So what we have is NOT a kidnapping gone wrong, but a STAGING that went wrong.

    The note must have been part of a plan. We need to reconstruct that plan. Something must have gone wrong with the plan. We need to figure out what went wrong -- and why.

    In my opinion it's not at all difficult to reconstruct the plan behind the note. Once we accept that it's extremely unlikely an intruder wrote it and thus see it as more than likely staging on the part of an INsider, there is only one plan that makes any sense. The note writer (in all likelihood the killer himself) could only have written the note as part of a plan that involved removing the body from the house. No other interpretation is possible. Once the body is found IN the house, the effect of the note is nullified. The strongest evidence of an inside job is the patently phoney note itself. And what made it patently phoney was the discovery of the body. If the writer was an insider, as seems likely, getting the body OUT of the house would have been his top priority.

    But HOW to get it out? Could he have disposed of it the same night as the murder? Placed the body in the trunk and driven the car to some remote spot, dumping it there? That would have been extremely risky. What if someone in the house had awakened and noticed he wasn't there? What if his car had been spotted by a neighbor, or someone had seen it in the vicinity of the spot where the body would ultimately be found?

    to be continued . . .
     
  6. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Elle

    The note by itself is credible and would certainly have been treated as such if the body had been found OUTside the house. That doesn't mean the police wouldn't have suspected an inside job. I'm sure that would have been on their minds. But there is nothing in the note itself that would tell anyone it's fake. The ransom amount is smaller than what one might expect, and that's certainly cause for suspicion, but that doesn't tell us it's fake. As far as the call is concerned, that was supposed to come "tomorrow" -- and by the time tomorrow arrived it was already clear the note was fake. Not because of its content but because the body was found IN house. It's THAT which gives the note away as fake.

    As far as Patsy having written it, you'll just have to read on and decide for yourself what makes sense.
     
  7. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Three

    To get the body safely out of the house the killer needed 1. more time; 2. an excuse in case his car was seen in the area where the body was dumped. The note provides both. First it goes to a great deal of trouble to warn "Mr. Ramsey" NOT to call the police. That's one of the reasons it's so long. Because of the need to make the threats as credible as possible. Second, it sets up a scenario where "Mr. Ramsey" is going to be delivering the ransom money to the kidnappers. If his car is spotted anywhere along the route he's taken to dump the body, he'll be able to claim he was delivering the ransom.

    So that, in essence, is the plan. It's a good plan and, though quite risky, could have worked. But it never happened that way. Something went wrong.
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    DocG,
    I think the one and only reason the Ramseys didn't take the body outside on Christmas night, or early the next morning, was because they couldn't leave JonBenét's body out in the cold; therefore Patsy Ramsey had to let her imagination kick in, and this was easy for her, graduating in journalism Magna Cum Laude, the ransom note was written.
     
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Elle

    One argument that the RST have used is that if the Ramseys were guilty, then they would have made a better job of hiding the body.

    There was one problem though - it was snowing outside. If the Ramseys had taken the car out, there would have been tell-tale tyre tracks leading from and to the garage.

    There is some suggestion that JonBenet's kiler contemplated removing her body from the house - the fibres in the suitcase suggest that an attempt may have been made to place her in there. What made the killer change his mind about removing the body? Some have suggested that it was because the suitcase wouldn't fit through the basement window but this is not very likely because there were plenty of other exit points.
     
  10. tempester

    tempester Member

    With regards to the suitcase, if it was the parents, they were going on holiday so they could have walked out of the front door with it and the neighbours would not find it strange but they had a son to consider and convince. If he were not there, i am sure there would have been a number of other options for explaining or covering the death. I think his presence could be a potential cause for a plan failing.

    This is not my theory but potentially, the killer could have removed the body blamed a foreign group of some sort for a kidnap, if the body was never found and the kidnappers never called to claim the ransom, it could be later blamed on the visibility of the police and all the friends arriving at the house. The low ransom figure and references to the fathers company perhaps designed to indicate that the kidnappers were not really after the money but instead revenge and therefore explain why the child was never found.
     
  11. Elle

    Elle Member

    This was Lou Smit's theory too, but it could also be classified as part of the staging, Jayelles, to make you think this was the intruder's plan (?).
     
  12. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Responses

    Elle, if the killer(s) couldn't bear leaving the body out in the cold, then why bother writing a ransom note in the first place? Assuming the note was written by an insider and not an intruder, then it would have to have been part of a plan which involved removing the body from the house. No other possibility makes sense. If the killer(s) decided to leave the body in the house, then a different note could have been written, a taunting note by someone "out to get" John and taking revenge. But there'd be no point in writing a ransom note. Once the body is discovered in the house, then the ransom note would be revealed as staging and actually backfire on the writer.
    Which is exactly what happened and why the Ramseys will forever be under that "umbrella of suspicion."

    Jayelles, you could be right about the tire tracks in the snow, that's a good point. But even with no snow at that early hour, it would still have been too risky because the car could have been spotted. HOWEVER -- the note would have given the killer(s) an alibi for driving out to some remote spot where the body would eventually be found, tire tracks or not. He could say he was delivering the ransom. As far as the suitcase is concerned, I find it hard to accept Smit's theory because this is a Samsonite suitcase -- made of very hard plastic. It might have been possible to squeeze the body into a soft suitcase but not Samsonite, I can't see how it would fit. In any case, if we're talking insider and not intruder, the suitcase wouldn't have been needed, the body could easily have been hidden in the car trunk.

    Good points, Tempester. The low ransom amount and the sarcasm in the note would point to someone "out to get" John. As far as Burke is concerned, however, they could have shown him the note and explained that JonBenet had been kidnapped and they needed his cooperation in getting her back.
     
  13. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Four

    Assuming the killer was an insider, not an intruder, then clearly the plan was to stage a kidnapping by writing a phoney ransom note and using its contents as an excuse to delay calling the police until the body could be dumped in some remote place under the pretext of delivering the ransom. That's the ONLY reason the killer could have had for writing it and the plan is evident in almost every single detail of the note. If you doubt me, read it again.

    But something went wrong. The police WERE called, despite the many dire warnings in the note. We need to ask why this happened. And what the consequences were.

    Would the killer(s) have wanted to call 911 so soon, with the body still in the basement? Clearly, no. We must remember that the ransom note makes sense ONLY as part of a larger plan. And removing the body from the house had to have been an essential part of that plan. Otherwise the note would be pointless and in fact counterproductive. You don't stage a phoney kidnapping and leave the victim inside the house. That just ain't how it's done folks, sorry.

    So, if we assume that both John and Patsy are in on this together, then the 911 call makes absolutely no sense at all. If in fact everything happened according to the way they tell it in their book, with John instructing Patsy to call 911, then we'd have to conclude they must both be innocent. But that doesn't make sense either. Because no intruder could have written that patently phoney note. A kidnapper would have taken the victim with him; a pedophile would have done his thing and left -- no reason to write a three page phoney note containing evidence against him in the form of his own printing. And if the kidnapping had gone wrong for some reason, the kidnapper would have retrieved his note rather than leaving it there for the authorities to find and ultimately use as evidence against him.
     
  14. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Five

    If you've followed my argument so far, then you have two options: 1. find the flaw in my logic; 2. conclude that EITHER John or Patsy must be guilty but not both. Because there is no way the two of them plotting together would have decided to destroy their plan by calling 911 with the body still in-house. And if they'd gotten cold feet at the last minute then certainly they'd have destroyed the note because it would no longer serve any purpose other than evidence against whomever wrote it.

    Now let's examine the only two remaining possibilities:

    1. Assume Patsy is both the killer and the writer of the note, with John as essentially innocent. This remains a possibility, but is in fact highly unlikely. First it is Patsy, not John, who actually makes the call. If she's our guilty party, why would she have done that? It's possible, of course, that John simply insisted and she felt she had no choice. But one would assume that if John wanted the call made so badly and Patsy was resisting, he'd have made it himself. And in fact there are many reasons to assume he'd have made the call himself if that's what he really wanted done. Patsy was hysterical and in no condition to explain the threats in the note to the police. Second, the note is addressed to John, NOT Patsy. It confers on John the power to deal with the kidnappers and elects HIM, NOT her, to be the one to deliver the ransom. So if she's the one who wrote it, what could her plan have been? Frighten John into not calling the police and then get him out of the house raising the ransom while she dumps the body?
    Possibly. But it's not a very good plan. The banks wouldn't open till after sunrise, so she'd have had to drive out with the body in the trunk in broad daylight. The car might easily have been spotted near where the body would eventually be found. And she'd have to run the risk of getting it out of the trunk by the light of day, where anyone might observe what she was doing. The fact that Patsy made the call, NOT John, PLUS the fact that the plan outlined in the note would have worked much better for him than for her makes it extremely unlikely that Patsy is our perp.
     
  15. tempester

    tempester Member

    can someone tell me,I am from the UK and I was confused about banks being open the day after christmass. Are they normally open on this day?
     
  16. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Six

    2. Assume John is both the killer and the writer of the note, with Patsy essentially an innocent dupe. He's killed his daughter, possibly during an episode of molestation that got out of hand, possibly to keep her quiet. He's alone in a room with his victim and, after a period of sheer horror and regret is forced to contemplate the consequences of his act. He can't pass this off as an accident. The evidence of sexual molestation is clear and irreversible. His only viable option is to stage some sort of intruder scenario, but what would be the most effective? He decides on a kidnapping, by someone connected with his business, someone out to get him. He can't print out a ransom note on his computer -- the printer is too loud, it might awaken Patsy or Burke. He's forced to print it by hand. But that's OK. He's been in the computer graphics business for some time and had the opportunity to work with people involved in optical character recognition, i.e. handwriting experts. He's learned all sorts of tricks from them about altering ones handwriting so it won't be recognized.
     
  17. messiecake

    messiecake Member

    Doc,
    I appreciate your arguement but I think you're making it more complicated than it is.



    The rambling,convoluted ransom note was/is a red herring ,imo, and it has succeded 100% at doing it's intended purpose........throwing everyone off the trail of what really happened.
    The amaturish,hackneyed note shouldnt have succeded (esp. as theres scant little other evidence) but it's turned into the "little note that could".


    Without theorizing on WHAT led up to the murder (or WHO committed it) I'll go into what happened AFTER.

    There's one murdered,sexually abused little girl .A little girl from a supposedly 'prominent'(although mostly in their minds/world) family who would be missed/noticed if she just went "missing" SO what to do with the pesky dead body?
    Stop the panic.Stay calm.Your good name must be first and foremost.
    You cannot call the police.All your secrets would come out so you must erase any and all signs of what REALLY happened (including redressing her/wiping her body down and moving her from upstairs) and stage a crime scene.
    Make it look like the work of a deranged criminal with a hatred of the family.
    Pose the body,fashion a garrote -get creative! You may be a "good Christian" but drawing on movies and books you can deflect attention away from your family and send law enforcement scambling in different directions(in doing this youll still be able to go on your holiday vacation!)WRITE A VERY DETAILED RANSOM NOTE.........it was a kidnapping! yes! A KIDNAPPING! they asked for a ransom so it couldnt possibly have been family because why would they ask for money?
    Some sicko (who happens to belong to a shadowy ,foreign terrorist org.) broke in and kidnapped the girl! PERFECT!!!!!!!


    Only problem? You spent so much time on the note you forgot that there were no signs of forced entry,you forgot to clean up the pineapple and you left the dead body in the house! OOPSY!!!!!!! How will all that be explained away????? Oh just avoid the police and lie if pressed.
    See? IT WORKED!!!!!!!!



    John & Patsy knew they didnt have alot of time and had to do SOMETHING so they put all their money on the ransom note and let it ride thinking everyone would be so busy scambling around with a 'kidnapping for ransom' that itd buy them time to figure out what to do next.........sloppy planning just like their cover-up BUT it worked to some degree I suppose.
     
  18. DocG

    DocG Banned

    messie

    Thanks for your response. You make some interesting points but there are two very serious flaws in your scenario.

    For one thing, you begin with a sexual abuse-murder scenario similar to the one I've proposed. Fine. But then out of the blue you're talking "John and Patsy." WHERE does Patsy come in here? If John was abusing JonBenet and then murdered her, either by "accident" or to keep her quiet, why assume Patsy has to 1. know what was going on and 2. be willing to collaborate with the abuser-killer of her daughter. This is a scenario only a tabloid editor could love. And somehow, because the tabs fell in love, so have almost all of "us" internet sleuths. There is simply NO reason to assume John would call on Patsy for assistance if he were the one responsible for his daughter's death. And also no reason to assume that, in the event each could have some share of responsibility, that they'd be even talking to each other one year, two years, five years, etc. after that nightmarish event.

    For another thing, you're assuming it was the ransom note that's responsible for them having gotten off without an indictment. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's the patently phoney note that put them under the umbrella of suspicion in the first place. It's largely because of that note that they will never be free of suspicion and are living their lives under a cloud. John still can't get meaningful work, which is why he decided to run for office. Mainly because of the note. It's clear there was no kidnapping. No one can imagine any intruder being motivated to write such a note. It could only have been written by an insider as part of some sort of staging effort. So how has it helped them? If there'd never been such a note at all they'd be in FAR better shape than they are now. The note is evidence AGAINST them, in no way has it helped them. IMO it was written as part of a plan that never came off. If the plan HAD come off THEN it would have been credible as a real ransom note and could then have done the killer some good.
     
  19. messiecake

    messiecake Member

    Doc,
    I belive Patsy was fully involved but as to if it was John who was behind the abuse........I honestly have no idea-I waiver(its the one thing my "gut" is unsure of).
    I belive JBR was molested prior to her murder and if Patsy didnt know before she certainly found out and obviously felt it her'duty' to cover that up.
    I also don't belive John was the murderer.
    I think the murder was an accident and involved the other family members in the house.
    John was only involved after the fact .


    I don't belive the note got them off w/ LE as the note is ,imo,the closest thing to a confession from The Ramseys.
    As clever as they thought they were their "signature' is clearly all over it in terms of wording/phrasing(even if you dont belive Patsy wrote it,I do ,you'd have to admit its quite a coinly dink that so much of The Ramseys' vernacular is littered throughout).

    I think you misunderstand me as I do belive its the note which is key to their guilt and the #1 reason they'll never get out from under the umbrella.
    THEY thought it would be their "get out of jail free card" and I'm sorry if it came out differently.


    The only part of The Ramsey's plan that has somewhat worked was evading LE and lying .
     
  20. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Part Seven

    The John-did-it scenario continued.

    I think the most likely suspect by far for having written the note was John. The logic of my entire argument, as presented above, leads us there and the process is as natural -- and simple -- as can be. IF JonBenet's killing was incest related -- by far the most likely motive once we rule out an intruder -- then the most likely suspect is John AND there is no reason whatsoever to assume he'd want Patsy involved, just as there's no reason to assume she'd want to do anything but kill the guy once she learned the truth. If John is our most likely perp then he's certainly the most likely writer of the note. His plan would have been to scare Patsy into not calling the police and then dump the body under cover of a ransom delivery. There ARE reasons why so many assume Patsy to be involved, but I'll deal with those later.

    Patsy made the 911 call. In my opinion this MUST have been against John's will. If they were in on it together, they never would have spoiled their plan by calling in the police too soon. This contradicts their own version of what happened. But there is more than one version. John claimed he told her to make the call. But in the Tracey documentary, Patsy provides a very different version, in which she tells him that she's going to make it and he agrees. IMO neither version can be true. But the fact that they're not telling the whole truth here, and the fact that they both finally presented a totally unified front in their book, does NOT mean they are both guilty of either the crime or the coverup. It's because they are operating so completely as a team that it's so easy to assume they're "in on it" together. But if you follow the logic of my argument you'll see that this isn't possible. They couldn't be in on it together. If they were the 911 call would never have been made. So we are forced to the conclusion that Patsy must be BOTH innocent of any serious crime AND guilty of witholding some of the truth about what happened prior to the phone call. How is that possible? Because John (and possibly the lawyers as well) could be manipulating her into going along with some white lies in the interest of their mutual defense strategy. Put yourself in her place. She needs John, he is her chief defender. What good would it do her to accuse him of lying about that phone call? She "knows" he's innocent. How? Because John was conveniently "ruled out" as writer of the note, in one of the most bizarre and IMO really stupid decisions in the history of law enforcement.

    More later . . . .
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice