Cherokee's Thread/Analysis

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    This is the thread we will use to discuss Cherokee's fantastic work.

    To DocG or anyone else who wants to disrupt this thread I have some advice, DON'T. It will not be allowed.
     
  2. 1000 Sparks

    1000 Sparks Active Member

    excuse me, but

    Where can I read Cherokee's work? I might have missed it...well, no doubt I did miss it. Please advise.

    Thank you.
     
  3. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member


    Sparky, Cherokee has done a ton of work. She is an amazing analyst. She has done a lot on FFJ and WS. She is going to try and put it all together and post it here.

    Elle found some links with Cherokee's fine work.

    The FFJ system is good. Found some of your analysis:

    Handwriting Comparisons of John & Patsy Ramsey with Ransom Note Author
    #5354
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5354&highlight=analysis

    #5305
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5305&page=1&highlight=analysis
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2005
  4. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Does anyone think it's odd in that of all the handwriting examples John Ramsey could have provided for analysis, he provides one on which he is listed as "The Defendant"? Hmm.....

    -Tea
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    Cherokee, I remember going over your work when you first posted it. I'll speak for myself here. Not having expertise in analysis, I had to check for similarities in the handwriting, with a glance at the whole page.

    I have posted on the boards before, that I thought John Ramsey's sample was very similar to the ransom note, as well as Patsy's, but when I go over your analysis and see it broken down, it really does help me see the similarities definitely lean more towards Patsy's.

    I am enjoying going over this thread again, Cherokee, and
    thank you for all your hard work. I hope everyone out there will take their time to read your analysis, and realize who the true author of the ransom note is.

    I think it was LE (Boulder Detective, maybe (?)) who stated Creative people in the Arts were the most difficult people to check out when it came to handwriting, because they were always changing theirs. This is true. Like Patsy, I painted, and also took Calligraphy lessons, which really makes it very easy to change your style of handwriting , so I think Patsy falls into this slot, that she could easily change her handwriting at the drop of a hat. Patsy was a creative arty type person.
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    That's true, and she is also rumored to be somewhat ambidextrous which gives her another way to change her handwriting. Personally, I think she may have used her left hand to write the ransom note which helped in the altering of some of her handwriting. However, personality traits STILL come through no matter which hand you are using ... dominant or non-dominant.

    I'm not sure if I mentioned this before or not, but a forum friend (not Zotto) sent me scanned copies of the dominant and non-dominant writing of five different people. They were all mixed up and only numbered one through ten at the top for her identification of who had written which one.

    First, I had to determine which were the five dominant and five non-dominant samples. Then using graphology, I matched each dominant sample to a non-dominant sample for a complete set from each person. According to her records, I was 100% right on all of them.

    Our personalities DO come through in our handwriting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2005
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Pretty accurate, Cherokee! I guess this is where Delmar's part falls into play too, analyzing by content only. I know there are many of us who see Patsy Ramsey all over this ransom note. You're right about this being the most important piece of evidence as you mentioned in one of your posts. It is! So glad you took the trouble to provide us with your analysis.
    Too bad you weren't on the Grand Jury, Cherokee.
     
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I will begin posting the linguistic analysis tomorrow. I am going to present it in sections, much like Sylvia did with her excellent DOI analysis. The actual analysis and .jpg examples will be on a locked thread, but discussion of the analysis will be on this dedicated thread. Tricia thought that would be the best way to keep all of my analyses is one place.

    It will probably take weeks to edit and post all three different analyses. Tricia thought that by posting it in sections, we will have more time to digest and discuss the information than if I threw it all out there at once.

    I'm keeping my fingers crossed that River Rat and other Gulf Coast dwelling FFJers will be able to stay high and dry through the coming days.
     
  9. Elle

    Elle Member

    Best wishes with your analysis, Cherokee. I look forward to reading them.

    I too hope everyone will be safe from this latest hurricane "Rita."
     
  10. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Looking Forward....

    to your :imonline: postings Cherokee and to the interesting discussions that I know will follow....

    Of course we have known from the very beginning of this case, even before the ransom note was made public, that this would be one of the most identifying and important pieces of evidence in this murder case....Yet everything surrounding this note has mysteriously become so very controversial, to the point of the Ransom note becoming a useless object by prosecutors....

    I keep hoping that somehow, some identifying detail in the ransom note can be verified to the point of of certainty that would allow the writer to be, without any doubt, identified....And we know what that means don't we guys? John and Patsy have agreed from the beginning that the writer of the ransom note, is JonBenet's murderer....

    It will be great to start all over again with this amazing piece of evidence, our very own handwriting analyst, and so many sets of educated eyes (I would call most of us here at FFJ educated after eight years of going over and over this note with a fine toothed comb wouldn't you guys?)

    Thanks Cherokee for all of the work you are about to do in bringing your analysis and explantions concerning this note to us and for helping us to focus in on the RN one more time!

    Voyager
     
  11. Elle

    Elle Member

    Cherokee,

    I would say your analysis are incredibly accurate. You've actually put me in the chair Patsy Ramsey was sitting in when she wrote this ransom note. It's a bit frightening actually, the very thought of Patsy sitting there creating this scenario with JonBenét already dead. Made my skin crawl a bit, but your analysis took me right to the scene.

    I will try and be patient until the next section is posted.
     
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thank you, Elle, for the kind words. :)

    After I finish the linguistic analysis, I will go on to the handwriting analysis or graphology section. That's where things get REALLY interesting. Then we'll finish up with the exemplar comparisons and tie it all together.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2005
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Voyager, for the encouragment and support. :)

    You are right that FFJ is full of JBR case educated and intelligent people who are capable of fantastic analysis and discussion. I am honored to be here and look forward to the many insights I know will come from FFJ posters.
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Gosh, Chero, this is really some fine analysis. Thank you so much for sharing with us. I'm going to comment just a little on a few points, because you probably make the same points later on. But just to let you know I'm reading and with you (Chero's words in bold):

    Cherokee: ...the author wants to invent a shadowy, nefarious “foreign faction” as the kidnapper’s identity, BUT they want it to be “small” enough to be previously unknown. The PLO, the IRA, and other world terrorist factions (this was before group names like Al Qaida) were all too big and notorious to fit the ransom note author’s needs.

    Now, that's very interesting. I never heard that before, but it makes sense. I believe even the Ramseys finally conceded that there is no "foreign faction." Terrorists are heinous people, but they do have their own motivations and goals: what would they gain by kidnapping and murdering a child, and molesting her as well? Not even $118 thousand dollars would be worth the heat they'd actually bring on their own heads for this kind of crime. Also, known terrorist groups often claim credit for their crimes, since that's part of the reason they commit them--publicity. But why would any "faction" attack a child of John Ramsey's, an obscure, small company CEO? Yet by "creating" a faction which is too small to be "known," the writer attempts to create an excuse for the reason the "group" will never be found--it's unknown and small, therefore easy to hide. Brilliant, Chero, just stellar analysis.

    Cherokee: Why does the author feel it is important to say their faction “respects” John Ramsey’s business but not his “country”? Once again, the writer is trying to appear “foreign” by throwing a small dig at the United States, but what does the author gain by referencing John’s business? The answer is in the paragraph dealing with the ransom amount, which we will discuss later.

    I'm going to venture a guess here, hoping I don't steal your thunder: I have always believed the ransom note writer did not want to do actual DAMAGE to John's company image, but instead wanted to preserve his company's ability to operate successfully. John's company was close at hand for the much needed excuse--the "draw"--for the "faction" to choose JonBenet and the Ramseys for the somewhat "random" foiled "kidnapping." Since the body never left the home, no money was ever attempted to be collected, it's believed by most that "kidnapping" was NOT the motive behind anything that happened that night. So why write the note?

    Clearly, the writer is trying to lead LE away from the people in the inner circle of JonBenet's life as suspects, into a more impersonal "reason" for this awful murder. The GOAL OF THE NOTE is to distance from the crime those who would be obvious suspects when a child is found dead in her own basement, murdered in the night while the family are the only ones in the home. A "reason" JonBenet was "chosen" had to be created: the company was an easy excuse, but a financial liability, because ANYONE WHO HAS EVER WORKED IN MARKETING KNOWS IMAGE IS IMPORTANT TO A COMPANY, so the writer made it a point to "absolve" the company and John of any culpability in the "crimes" of the "faction." So the writer said s/he "respects" John's business and pointed the finger at "the country." Really absurd logic all the way around.

    Cherokee: Instead, the author begins with what is most important to them – that the reader BELIEVES they are someone they are not.

    Excellent. You're right. Absolutely. Uppermost in the writer's mind was not getting money for a kidnapping, not taking and returning a child "unharmed," but IDENTIFICATION OF THE KIDNAPPERS...WITHOUT REALLY IDENTIFYING THEM AT ALL. So the priority for the "ransom note" writer was not a kidnapping, but identification of the child murderer as someone "foreign."


    Cherokee: The ransom note writer prefaces their statement with an adverbial clause “at this time.” Again, we have extraneous information. Of course, the kidnappers have JonBenet “at this time.” Why is this phrase important to the writer? Because they desperately want the reader to believe JonBenet is in their hands at the moment of writing. Once more, the writer tries to point the reader in the opposite direction of the truth with unnecessary information.

    You got to the crystal truth of this part of the note. Never thought of it like this before. The ransom note writer KNOWS that JonBenet isn't going anywhere, that her body WILL BE FOUND in the home, in the very basement of the house where she lives. So the writer is occupied with EXCUSING what the writer knows is THE BURNING QUESTION: why didn't the "kidnappers" take JonBenet, like kidnappers do? That question has to be answered if the note is to be believed. So what is really going on in the writer's head comes out inadvertantly: JonBenet is dead WHILE STILL IN THE HOUSE, so why would the "faction" bother to write this ransom note at all? Problem, isn't it? Well, thinks the writer, what if they HAD HER when they wrote the note and she was safe and unharmed...and THEN something went wrong? THAT'S THE TICKET! And hence..."at this time...." Problem solved!

    But what is important here is that THE WRITER KNOWS JONBENET IS DEAD ALREADY, WHILE SHE IS WRITING THE NOTE. As you have deduced from the subtle language, Cherokee, the writer is ESTABLISHING A TIMELINE for the sequence of events, to explain why the kidnapping wasn't a kidnapping at all, IN SPITE OF THE ORIGINAL RUSE: FOREIGN FACTION WANTS RANSOM. At least, that was the writer's hope.

    I always have to stop myself from smirking when seeing that (first?) Tracey documentary where the voice over says "...blahblahblah the ransom note reads 'at this time' blahblahblah": then the next cut is Patsy saying "At this time blahblahblah." And she's NOT quoting the ransom note, either, but talking extemporaneously. If Tracey missed that in his own documentary, he's a stupid, careless journalist of monumental incompetence. Right.

    Well, just some responses to your excellent work, Cherokee. Looking forward to more. Thanks again for doing this. I know it's a lot of hard and time-consuming work, especially at this point in this cold case, when we've pretty much had to accept that a child murderer goes to sleep each night with a smile on his/her face, knowing he/she got away with it...in this life, anyhow.... JMO
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2005
  15. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    I just wanted to say that I remember Cherokee's original postings regarding this and in re-reading, I find it as compelling now as I did then.

    Lots of hard work and intelligent analysis.

    Kudos to you, as always Cherokee
     
  16. Zotto

    Zotto FFJ Senior Member

    I don't think I've ever seen markings on the letters the way Chero has done, which give us the distances between the margins and the indentations etc. It's so unbelievably clear when put together like that.

    I'm hanging out for the next installment....
     
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thanks KK this was exactly what I was saying, but didn't want to detract from Cherokee's analysis. Just the same deal you went through when you deleted yours recently. We get carried away with the tide. :)
     
  18. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, KK. I'm glad you took the time to post your thoughts on the analysis.

    EXACTLY! The ransom note writer was no dummy. They needed a "fall guy," and they needed one fast. If you're going to invent the perpetrator of a kidnapping that never happened, what kind of attributes should they have? Well, for one thing, they must exist outside normal LE radar. They have to be so shadowy, they seem to disappear into the ether; never to be heard from again.

    Go ahead and steal my thunder. :) You've hit the nail on the head, and you're right that the ransom note author did not want to damage John's company, but they DID want to use it as a possible kidnapping lure.


    Absolutely right. The ransom note is all about psychological distance. The author wanted to distance themselves from the dead body in the basement. The only way to do that was to come up with a scenario to try to explain why it was there in the first place ... because the truth wouldn't do.

    As I said in the analysis, the amount of the "ransom" is also tied to John's business and the need to distance the immediate Ramsey family from suspicion. But we'll get into that later.


    Giving the kidnappers an identity became the number one priority in the cover-up (and the ransom note) because, once again, it was all about distancing the Ramseys from the obvious. The ransom note author had to find a way to explain JonBenet's dead body in the basement. They knew it would be found and that they would be a immediately be a suspect.


    Yes, once the priority of the perpetrator's identity is established for who (a small foreign faction) is responsible for JonBenet's dead body, and the why (kidnapping scenario) is taken care of ... the next order of "bussiness" is to provide (invent a timeline) of when the crime happened.

    The ransom note author is following the steps taught to all communications/journalism majors on how to write a story ... who, why, when, what, and where.


    LOL ... I love it. Every person has individual linguistic traits, and we all have certain phrases that are ingrained in our speech patterns. My father-in-law often used the phrase, "At the end of the day ...." I have a friend who frequently says, "When it's all said and done ...." Another one prefaces thoughts with, "The thing about it is ...." Those are examples of "habit" phrases, but even more subtle speech patterns can be detected with the right linguistic analysis.
     
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, my friend. I remember you being there when we discussed a lot of this way back when at WS. I'm glad you're here and still posting.
     
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Elle, nothing you say could detract from my analysis or any discussion. Your comments and thoughts are always welcome. So bring it on! :)
     
  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