Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 242
  1. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voyager
    to your postings Cherokee and to the interesting discussions that I know will follow....

    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
    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.

  2. #14

    Default

    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 by koldkase; September 22, 2005, 5:15 pm at Thu Sep 22 17:15:58 UTC 2005.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    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
    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  4. #16

    Default

    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....

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    I was editing my post, Elle, when you deleted. Had to stop and do some errands and then come back.

    No, you weren't off track. You were just responding like many of us do when we stop to really think about how cold and hard a mother is who can take the time to create such a fiction of writing while her child is lying in a basement, staged in a sexual murder scene and ready for Act 2.

    It is disgusting.
    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.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    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):
    Thanks, KK. I'm glad you took the time to post your thoughts on the analysis.

    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.

    Now, that's very interesting. I never heard that before, but it makes sense. [snip] 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.
    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.

    Cherokee: Why does the author feel it is important to say their faction “respects” John Ramsey’s business but not his “country”? 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."
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."

    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.

    Cherokee: The ransom note writer prefaces their statement with an adverbial clause “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.

    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.

    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.

    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."

    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.

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    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
    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.

  8. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    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.
    Elle, nothing you say could detract from my analysis or any discussion. Your comments and thoughts are always welcome. So bring it on! :-)

  9. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zotto
    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....
    Yeah, Chero has done an amazing job with those mark-ups and comparisons of Patsy's exemplars and the ransom note, and I believe she's just getting started. I can't wait to see the rest.

    It took a DA like Hunter to FUBAR a simple case like this one. That is: one corrupt enough to refuse to obtain simple warrants for things like PHONE RECORDS OF THE FAMILY IN WHOSE HOUSE THE CHILD WAS MURDERED AND HER BODY FOUND.

    Oh, good lord, don't get me started....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thanks, Cherokee, I did feel anger yesterday with the image of Patsy Ramsey sitting there writing this note, knowing her little girl was already dead. Sitting there, letting her journalistic skills kick in, just the same way she wrote another speech overnight for the talent contest in a Miss Virginia Beauty Pageant. She was thwarted by the copyright, of using her favourite speech from "The Pride of Miss Jean Brodie" she won the talent competition by speaking about "copyrights." She's a crafty one all right!

    She let her imagination run riot with the ransom note.

    I am spellbound by your analysis, Cherokee.I think this is exactly how Patsy Ramsey's mind worked. Patsy Ramsey knew exactly how to confuse the LE. First of all by the "War and Peace" ransom note, and secondly by her contamination party of friends. She knew what she was doing.

    I felt the bonus figure of $118,000 was purposely chosen
    to put some of the Access Graphics staff in jeopardy. If LE were chasing after them, they were leaving Patsy and John alone.

    The way we are all posting here and discussing this ransom note is exactly what Patsy Ramsey wanted the Law Enforcement to do. Sidetrack everyone, and give the Ramseys time to lawyer up and protect themselves. Throw reasonable doubt at the LE so this will keep them from being arrested. It worked!

    I look forward to the remaining part of your analysis, Cherokee.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Oh Go Ahead koldkase....

    The fact that John's cell phone records and the Ramsey's home phone records were not supenoed as evidence in this murder case is a real travesty.....

    This supression of evidence from the very beginning of this investigation, is a crime in itself and the person/persons responsible for the supression of this evidence should be prosecuted....Is there a statute of limitations for prosecuting a crime like suppression of evidence? Come on, where are our legal eagles?

    We have been asking about those phone records forever....don't know if there was discussion about them during the Grande Jury investigating the Ramsey case or not....But IF NOT then WHY NOT? Seems I remember some very lame excuse about why those phone records were not available....I lay most of the fault at the feet of Alex Hunter for not insisting that those records be secured and entered as evidence early on....

    Of course it makes one wonder who was putting the pressure on early on in this case....Can we say Haddon and associates? John's long-time personal legal council who was advising him in the early hours after the crime?(can't remember his name just now) I suspect so....Someone with a VERY BIG ERASER that is for sure....Wasn't that the song they were singing, that somehow those records were erased or lost?

    OK koldkase, now you have got me started....Your turn....I am just going to sit back with my popcorn and watch the rage......

    Those phone records could and would surely prove that the Ramsey's are the liars that we know them to be and that most likely, no one in that house got any sleep that night....They would be much more useful even than the partially digested pineapple in setting a time line for that night....It would put John and Patsy on the phone instead of asleep in bed until Patsy came down the stairs that morning and found the ransom note....Very incriminating indeed....

    One wonders if there is someone, somewhere who still has a copy of those phone records before they were officially erased and is just waiting to drop the bomb.....In my thinking, it will be some detail like this held by someone who knows something about the Ramsey's guilty knowledge who will finally break this case wide open....

    Can you think what would happen right now if someone showed up with those phone records at the new District Attorneys office? Just imagine for an instant that someone has had these records from the beginning and has only been waiting until they felt that an honest DA was finally in this office to come forth with this evidence damaging to JonBenet's parents.....Now would that be an emphasis to get the new DA and investigators cracking on this coldcase !


    Voyager

  12. #24

    Default In the meantime....

    Years ago I studied handwriting analysis. Although I never got through the most rudimentary of lessons, I did learn enough to be fascinated with the whole process. I come from a large family and I am very good at identifying the handwriting of each and every person to whom I had occasion to observe handwriting exemplars.

    I was taught by the Sisters Of Mercy, an order of Catholic nuns. They all seemed to write alike; beautiful penmanship with carefully constructed letters and even margins. One of my sisters writes just like them. My penmanship, on the other hand, is altogether the opposite. My sister, like the nuns who taught her, is conservative and operates within very strict boundaries. I, on the other hand, have developed much broader views of life.

    Years ago I read somewhere a most interesting article about handwriting. Some doctors have done research on mental patients and came up with extraordinary findings. Through their experiments with patients they found that the teaching (and ultimate practice) of old-fashioned hand- writing, could possibly formulate thinking patterns into a more orderly, rational mode.

    There is no doubt in my mind that handwriting is a huge reflection of one’s individual thinking mind. We are in the infancy of our knowledge and understanding of how to read and interrupt the millions of handwriting variations. One day science will perfect handwriting interruption to such an extent that it will be as good as DNA, insofar as identifying the writer.

    The Ramsey ransom note will probably be used in future textbooks on the subject, as our handwriting knowledge evolves into an undisputed science.

    In the meantime, I am very much interested in Cherokee's analysis. She is on the right track.

    Greenleaf



Similar Threads

  1. Handwriting analysis
    By rashomon in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: October 15, 2017, 3:08 pm, Sun Oct 15 15:08:05 UTC 2017
  2. Websleuths mentioned in Globe, next week KoldKase & Cherokee have work recognized
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: October 15, 2010, 5:41 pm, Fri Oct 15 17:41:41 UTC 2010
  3. Comments to the FOX Analysis
    By 1000 Sparks in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 7, 2005, 5:06 pm, Fri Jan 7 17:06:17 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •