Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 242
  1. #61

    Default

    Cherokee, you wrote:
    Well, why not? Why ask questions about something of which you have first hand knowledge. You were there. You don't need a textbook or film at 11:00. I mean, YOU wrote the ransom note. You planned and executed the cover-up. That's all there is. Cut. Print and wrap. It's over, now let's just get on with our lives.
    Yep, and, but for us pesky GUTTAH SCUM, it was a done deal. But they enlisted jams to deal with us. Another bad move on their part, I might add. I can't tell you how many posts I have written because all those distortions and BS and spinspinspin and LIESLIESLIES inspired me to fight for the little girl whose ENTIRE family and community deserted her in her hour of most need.

    "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.

  2. #62

    Default

    You are amazing, Chero. You have answered most of my questions about the thought processes in the ransom note already. Brilliant.

    The writer is slowly building their case for why JonBenet must die. As the author knows, the Ramseys will callously ignore their careful instructions, and so JonBenet must suffer “immediate execution.”
    I long ago said that I thought one main purpose of the ransom note was to enable the Ramseys to get away from the house and out of town, into the arms of their lawyers, before LE could really get a chance to figure out which end was up. Once the body was found, which I think Patsy expected to happen pronto, with all the cops and friends looking everywhere, I figured the note was their "excuse" as "victims" to hightail it. Terrorists after them and all.... I still do.

    But I never could figure out what exactly all the details meant to the writer. I have always thought that somehow, the writer had a reason for every nuance, etc. People don't just throw stuff out there at random without any train of thought unless they're psychotic.

    Now I see how the note was planned out.
    Last edited by koldkase; October 1, 2005, 6:02 pm at Sat Oct 1 18:02:37 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. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you once again Cherokee for your wonderful analysis.
    I sincerely hope they are being read by LE everywhere.

    They claimed not to have read the autopsy report ... they claimed they didn't talk to Burke about JonBenet's death ... they claimed no interest in hearing about JonBenet's molestation ... et cetera et cetera et cetera.

    Apparently, the Ramseys didn't care to know what happened to JonBenet after they supposedly tucked her in for a good night's sleep.
    100% denial!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  4. #64

    Default

    Do we have any actual psychologists/psychiatrists coming to this forum? It has always seemed to me that the note and the staging dramatically reveals a sociopathic mind (Patsy's), but I'm just a dumb engineer. Cherokee's gotten to the heart of the note, where it actually tells us what was going on.

    Another thing I think about when I read the note (now I read it backwards!) - the timeline. How long did it take to write? Was it written at 5 am? 1 am? Did she write it and then touch up her makeup and then call the cops?

    I do think it's most logical that the note was writtten after the staging, because it refers to the staging. (By the way kidnappers don't write notes after they kill the captive.) I also think it was written after a couple of hours of panic and accusations died down. Probably they went through denial/anger/bargaining/depression/acceptance before they got it together to write the note. In the Ramseys' case, their natural shallowness helped them to go through these stages fast eough to cover themselves.

    I could do this all weekend, instead of cleaning up the yard!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat
    Do we have any actual psychologists/psychiatrists coming to this forum? It has always seemed to me that the note and the staging dramatically reveals a sociopathic mind (Patsy's), but I'm just a dumb engineer. Cherokee's gotten to the heart of the note, where it actually tells us what was going on.

    Another thing I think about when I read the note (now I read it backwards!) - the timeline. How long did it take to write? Was it written at 5 am? 1 am? Did she write it and then touch up her makeup and then call the cops?

    I do think it's most logical that the note was writtten after the staging, because it refers to the staging. (By the way kidnappers don't write notes after they kill the captive.) I also think it was written after a couple of hours of panic and accusations died down. Probably they went through denial/anger/bargaining/depression/acceptance before they got it together to write the note. In the Ramseys' case, their natural shallowness helped them to go through these stages fast eough to cover themselves.

    I could do this all weekend, instead of cleaning up the yard!
    I agree with everything you are saying here, Wombat. I remember sitting down four years ago, when I first got involved in this case, and copying the first page, just to see how long it would take me, and it took me 10 minutes, but this was me copying something that was already written in a printed style, but it gave me an approximate time, that Patsy may have sat there over an hour writing two pages and a half, planning what she was going to say, and pausing here and there; disguising her printing, this may have taken a bit longer. She couldn't just run through it.

    I'm thinking you're a smart engineer, not a dumb one when your mind is working like this, so there!

    You're right about Cherokee getting to the heart of this ransom note. She's done a fabulous job.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #66

    Default Use of the word 'bring'

    I think it's important to point this out, because I haven't seen anyone else mention it:

    Southernisms aside, the use of the word 'bring' would be absolutely correct if the writer of the note was going to be with John when he went to the bank (or of course, if they would be at the bank when he arrived).

    *goes back to lurking*

    Oh, Cherokee, fantastic analysis by the way!

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    I long ago said that I thought one main purpose of the ransom note was to enable the Ramseys to get away from the house and out of town, into the arms of their lawyers, before LE could really get a chance to figure out which end was up. Once the body was found, which I think Patsy expected to happen pronto, with all the cops and friends looking everywhere, I figured the note was their "excuse" as "victims" to hightail it. Terrorists after them and all.... I still do.
    Exactly. And I think the original plan was to get completely out of Boulder to Atlanta by private plane. When John's call to his pilot was overheard by LE, and he was told they couldn't fly out, the Ramseys did the next best thing. They left the house quickly to stay with friends, going straight into the loving bosom of their well-connected and well-heeled lawyers. At that point, they were so completely protected and out of reach to LE, they might as well have been in a "foreign" country.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    Thank you once again Cherokee for your wonderful analysis.
    I sincerely hope they are being read by LE everywhere.


    100% denial!
    Thanks, Elle. And yes, denial and rationalization are the two main psychological coping tools in the Ramsey arsenal. Without them, they'd have to face the reality of what they've done ... not only to JonBenet, but to everyone they've used and thrown under the bus in the past nine years.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat
    Do we have any actual psychologists/psychiatrists coming to this forum?
    The poster, "Barbara," is a psychologist. She even teaches classes on the subject. She and I used to post at WS about different aspects of the Ramsey case, and I know she lurks here ... coming out to post once in a while. I'd love to hear from her more often. I'm sure she'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

    Hey Barbara, I just volunteered you.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarifier
    I think it's important to point this out, because I haven't seen anyone else mention it:

    Southernisms aside, the use of the word 'bring' would be absolutely correct if the writer of the note was going to be with John when he went to the bank (or of course, if they would be at the bank when he arrived).

    *goes back to lurking*

    Oh, Cherokee, fantastic analysis by the way!
    Thank you, Scarifier.

    I tried to address your point in my analysis, but I obviously did not make it clear enough. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try again. First, here's what I said:

    "From the writer’s assumed point of reference, John would be at his house to go to the bank. Therefore, John would “take” not “bring” an attache to the bank, unless the “foreign faction” writer was already at the bank when composing the note. That is not likely."

    I mentioned the fact that "bring" would be correct if the writer would be at the bank when John arrived, but I didn't specifically talk about the possiblity of the writer accompanying John to the bank since there were no instructions for that to happen.

    Once again, it all comes back to point of reference, doesn't it?

    Where would the kidnapper (writer) be when John was going to the bank for the money? They wouldn't be at the bank, and they wouldn't be with John, so the verb "bring" was misused according to standard English grammar, but not according to standard regional use in some places in the US, specifically the South.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    I mentioned the fact that "bring" would be correct if the writer would be at the bank when John arrived, but I didn't specifically talk about the possiblity of the writer accompanying John to the bank since there were no instructions for that to happen.
    Oh no, you were perfectly clear - sorry, I think it's me who should have explained my point better!

    I suppose I was really expanding on your comment about point of reference, because if we assume that Patsy was the author of the note then in her mind 'bring' could have been correct from her own point of reference (although not from the assumed point of reference of the imaginary kidnappers). It struck me as I read your analysis so thought I should share. It's a very thought provoking piece of work! You've got me thinking about all sorts of things again.

  12. #72

    Default

    About how long it took to write the note...good question.

    I think one thing we don't really know is what was written on the missing pages of the notepad. All we know is that one had "Mr and Mrs R" on it. (What "intruder" is going to address a ransom note to BOTH the Ramseys, then change his mind? "Oops, I don't want Patsy to think I'm mad at her! Scratch that!") But the other 4 missing pages (I think) that were never found could have had much more on them. I guess my point is that this note could have gone through another draft before it ended up as the note we saw.

    Cherokee, in your analysis you wrote:

    The next sentence in lines 23 through 28 (which continues from page one to page two of the ransom note) further illustrates the truth of that fact when the author offers a helpful suggestion regarding the money. They write, “If we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier xxxxxxxx (the word “delivery” crossed out) pick-up of your daughter.”
    I have to tell you, Cherokee, that I have speculated about those lines where the words are repeated and scratched out, from one page to the next. It just struck me as possible that the writer might be COPYING the "final" note from an original first draft. If you look at how the words are so similar in phrasing, I did consider that maybe the writer was copying and got distracted and started copying the SAME PHRASE AGAIN, then realized it and improvised and crossed out one word and wrote "pickup" in its place, continuing on, rather than starting over. Maybe just a dumb idea. But in that section, as you have pointed out, it's so repetitive, just occurred to me something else might be going on there.

    Speaking of the missing notebook pages/ransom note practice pages, what kidnapper would take garbage with him when he leaves, as well? He's already written the note on Patsy's paper with her pen. Why not just throw the scraps in the garbage, or leave them in the notepad? But no, Mr. Anal Retentive TAKES his mistakes WITH HIM...?

    I don't think so. I think it's more along the lines of "How strange will it look to LE if they find PRACTICE PAGES of the note, as well?"

    I tell you one thing I can't figure, and it is strange enough to give me pause about John being in on this before he found JonBenet: why did he give Patsy's note pad to LE, just handed it over? If the cops couldn't find a child's body in the home, I'm not sure I'd be too worried about them identifying that the note came from paper in that one pad lying around in the house. Of course, maybe John was just so focused on the pad and note, if he knew about it or helped in the wording, he just jumped right on it. Or maybe he was busy downstairs while Patsy was writing upstairs and didn't realize she'd used other pages from the pad LE would find and/or be able to "read" from imprints. But then, what did they do with those pages?

    You know, I have gone back and forth about John in this murder, and I find myself wondering now if Patsy really did the deed by herself--until John realized she was in it up to her neck and hired the best lawyers he could find for both of them.

    Which is another thing: Patsy is the one who got her own lawyers...after a few days with the Haddon firm. That was the first inkling I had the Ramseys were guilty in this crime. Maybe the lawyers saw quickly what was going on and realized the conflict of interest was imminent: because of the molestation, John would be the primary suspect for that; but because of the ransom note, Patsy would certainly be nailed first as at least an accomplice.

    But here's the thing: all the evidence is Patsy Patsy Patsy: fibers in the garrote cord; her paintbrush and her paint tray beside which JonBenet was molested and strangled; her pad and pen; her writing and language all over the note; she's the one who takes six tries and two different examiners to pass a polygraph the Ramseys paid for themselves, STILL refusing to take one with LE; she's the one who can't give a decent answer to a simple question in LE interviews.

    The only thing they have linked to John is the fibers from his sweater in her genital area, which is stated by Kane in the Atlanta interview with John. But that is again in question because of Smit's allegations that the fibers came from the duvet, which he states CBI believes, but the FBI disagrees.

    I don't know. I bet you have thoughts on this, as well, Cherokee. And anyone else, please feel free to share ideas.

    "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.



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
  •