Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 242
  1. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarifier
    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.

    Don't go back to lurk, Scarifier. (Love that movie!) We need all the help we can get. I see what you mean about the writer "being with" John and using "bring." I'm Southern, and that is exactly the context we use "bring" in, as my examples earlier show--it's relative to the speaker being "with" the person spoken to or "at" the location where the object is being brought. If that makes sense.... :confused:

    "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. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    KK: 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?"
    According to Steve thomas, they did find practise pages KK and Patsy was still not arrested. Thanks to D.A. Alex Hunter(?)
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    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.
    I would like to hear more from Barabara too, Cherokee. I have posted with her before. Her posts are great. Maybe Barbara doesn't want to interfere here, because you are doing such a fine job on your own (?). Just a thought!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  4. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    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.
    That's a very good possibility, KK. As you said, the writer obviously lost their train of thought and began repeating themselves for some reason.

    The author did practice the beginning of the ransom note as evidenced by the salutation "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" on the page found by LE. It's not too much of a stretch to think they also wrote out a rough draft of the whole note in order to organize their thoughts and try a few ideas.

    Like I said before, the writer had the ending of the story, but had to work backwards to fill in the middle and beginning. It's the same method imployed by detectives and CSIs ... you have the crime scene and dead body, but then you have to work backwards from the clues and evidence to find the perp and the action that took place.

    Patsy may have tried several different scenarios before she finally hit on one she thought "explained" JonBenet's dead body in the home, and why she and John and Burke needed to leave town.

    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?
    That's a very good question, and one we talked about here at FFJ several months ago. Personally, I believe John gave LE the notepad because he was trying to PROVE an intruder had been in their home during the night ... "See? Here's the proof. They wrote on this pad. Someone was here besides us."

    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.
    I, too, have gone back and forth about the very same thing ... just WHEN did John know Patsy was involved?

    Here are the two things I know from the ransom note:

    1. Patsy wrote it
    2. Patsy was "holding something" over John's head at the end of the note

    (We'll talk more about that in the next section of analysis that I plan to post next week.)

    The very personal threats at the end of the ransom note directed at John by Patsy let him know that he'd better help her "pull off" the cover-up OR ELSE!

    I do not know what was behind that threat. Maybe Patsy told John they'd lose Burke if he didn't cooperate, maybe she knew who was molesting JonBenet, or maybe she had some other secret on John. Whatever it was, it was powerful enough to make John realize he'd better hold up his end of the bargain.

    The fact that neither of them went near each other while they "waited" for the kidnappers to call says volumes about the personal dynamics going on between them that morning. The agreement between John and Patsy to cover up what really happened to JonBenet was a pact made in hell that neither one could break. Since that day, their marriage has been based on mutual blackmail.
    Last edited by Cherokee; October 2, 2005, 1:26 pm at Sun Oct 2 13:26:22 UTC 2005.

  5. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    It's uncanny reading over KK's post and your reply, Cherokee, because all of these thoughts are the same ones which have gone through my head too. I can almost see every poster here nodding their heads and agreeing to what both of you are saying here, because it has gone through their heads too.

    At one point on CN2000 we discussed that JonBenét may have been placed in the freezer in the basement before she was moved to the windowless room, and we thought John Ramsey had moved her body when he left the group upstairs for quite a long time, and later admitted to having been in the basement.

    Her body being in the large freezer downstairs would have slowed down rigor mortis, and thrown off her true time of death, had they just left her where she originally died; maybe upstairs in the bathroom when Patsy lost it, and accidentally killed her. jmo

    I personally think John Ramsey had to be involved in the staging for whatever reason, or hold Patsy had over him.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarifier
    It struck me as I read your analysis so thought I should share.
    Like KK said, you SHOULD share what you're thinking, so don't go back to lurk mode if you can help it.

  7. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    I would like to hear more from Barabara too, Cherokee. I have posted with her before. Her posts are great. Maybe Barbara doesn't want to interfere here, because you are doing such a fine job on your own (?). Just a thought!
    Ha. I don't know about "fine job" on my own business.

    Barbara knows she wouldn't be interfering ... she and I go way back. We've been on the same page from Day One.

    I do know that, like me, Barbara finally realized the Ramseys would never be prosecuted, and we both thought posting on the forums had become a futile exercise in frustration. But as many times as I've tried to break away from this case, I've never quit reading and lurking, and something always pulls me back in.

    So Barbara, get on your Guttah Guccis and jump in ... you're being paged.

  8. #80

    Default Excellent analysis

    Great work Cherokee. Your analysis made me go back and read the 911 tape text and the linguistics are interesting there too. No mention of JB's name, "the" mother not "her" mother, not using the word help (or until off the phone then help is asked from Jesus). Reading it backwards gives a different perspective as you pointed out. Hope you do a thread on the 911 text someday. Your note analysis is superb - you are the very best.

  9. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cranberry
    Your analysis made me go back and read the 911 tape text and the linguistics are interesting there too. No mention of JB's name, "the" mother not "her" mother, not using the word help (or until off the phone then help is asked from Jesus). Reading it backwards gives a different perspective as you pointed out. Hope you do a thread on the 911 text someday.
    Cranberry, you are too kind. Thank you for those encouraging words.

    Yes, Patsy's 911 call linguistics ARE very interesting and revealing as well. I have done some analysis of it in various posts on WS, and a little bit here, but as with the ransom note, I've never put it all in one place in complete form. Maybe after we get done with the different analyses of the ransom note, we can look at the 911 text from a psycho-linguistic standpoint.

    It's great that you've already picked up three points from the call:

    1. There is no mention of JonBenet's name in AT ALL just as it was missing from the ransom note. Who makes a "missing persons/kidnapping" report without giving the person's name? Patsy could only get through the enacting of her script on December 26th through a type of denial about JonBenet's death. One of the ways she did this was by not using JonBenet's name.

    2. Patsy says "I am the mother" instead of "I am her mother" in yet another form of psychological distancing. In addition, by saying " I am the mother" it took the linguistic emphasis from JonBenet and put it on Patsy, THE mother. Thus, the psychological focus was shifted away from JonBenet. But then, the 911 call was never about JonBenet to begin with.

    3. Patsy does not ask for help. She tells the operator they "have a kidnapping," gives minimal information about JonBenet ("she is blond, six years old"), and hangs up. The only thing she asks for is the operator to "send somebody." Why? Because that's all there is left to do. The Ramseys needed LE to find JonBenet's body so they can get out of the house and into the arms of their lawyers.

    The 911 call was not a mother's cry for help, but more like a director's placement of actors before they shout "Places everyone ... and action!"

  10. #82

    Default

    Great thread, fellow scumers and scumettes!

    Elle, I think there were a few pages "missing" in that section of the pad, though one was found, as Cherokee mentioned. But the fact that the pages were from a sequence many pages into the pad not before used enabled LE to count those actually "missing" from the tears at the top. I forget the specific number.

    Cherokee, as you know, the molestation is what made John THE prime suspect for a time...right up until the ransom note revealed Patsy was all over the crime. But it sounds like your analysis on the rest of the note may reveal more. Looking forward to it.

    Good idea, Cranberry, to bring in the 911 call. It's as odd as the note. And there is one part that really stuck out for me when I heard it aired: about half way through, the dispatcher asks Patsy if the note "says who did it," and Patsy is halted for a millisecond in her tracks: "What?!" Patsy asks, INCREDULOUSLY. Something about Patsy's tone struck me as...if she were stunned by the question. So I listened again...and it hit me: Patsy, with all the guilty knowledge she had going on in her head, thought the dispatcher asked her if the note "said YOU did it?" She WAS shocked, IMO. After all her/their careful planning, the dispatcher ALREADY KNEW THE TRUTH! But the dispatcher repeats the questions and Patsy is relieved to answer...SBTC. She is very flustered by that point, which she claims in later LE interviews she never reached the end of the note before calling 911. And we KNOW she didn't ask John what it said, did she, who HAD THE NOTE ON THE FLOOR, according to them, when the call was made. We know because we would have HEARD HER ASK HIM. Didn't happen.

    Anyhow...good points, Cranberry, about JonBenet's name not being used in the 911 call, either. Distancing. "I'm THE mother...." "WE have a kidnapping...."

    Neither Patsy nor John even QUESTIONS if the note is a hoax, if the kids have been playing at something. Do they bother to search the house? Go to Burke's room to see if she's there and question him BEFORE panicking? Nope, they jump IMMEDIATELY to SHE'S BEEN KIDNAPPED mode, yet from their own retelling of the events they had NO FEAR of those kidnappers still being IN the home, NEVER thought that if they were, JonBenet might be saved, or that THEY MIGHT STILL BE IN DANGER...BURKE, AS WELL...just look in the bedroom, check on Burke, "asleep" (NOT), don't even ask him if he heard anything, leave him ALONE AGAIN in a house intruders have entered to take JonBenet, a house which twists and turns and has two stairways to his room.... Give me a break. I've had my house burgled. The FIRST THING YOU FEEL IS FEAR THAT DANGEROUS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN YOUR HOME...and you feel very, very vulnerable.

    "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.

  11. #83

    Default This stuff is just excellent...

    Real life has been keeping me way too busy and I've had no time to post, but have been trying to keep up with reading here.

    This stuff that is being posted is excellent. I stopped discussing the Ramsey case a couple of years ago because there were constantly RSTers always trying to disrupt the conversation and it seemed to just be arguing against insanity. Also, I felt that nothing new could ever be said that hadn't been said.

    I am so appreciating the peace and quiet here where Chero and KK and everyone else can actually have a good discussion about the note without disruption....thank you Tricia for that!

    I had never thought about the depth of linguistics involved in the note until Chero's analysis here. I hadn't thought about Patsy's "hold" over John as evidenced by her linguistics in the last part of the note.

    Like so many, I've hovered with wondering about the extent of John's involvement, and I keep thinking of John's demeanour that morning....the foot tapping etc. The fact that he gave LE the notepad spontaneously would seem to me to indicate that he wasn't involved in writing the note.

    As many others have said, I can't see John letting such a ridiculous ransom note "go through to the keeper". If he knew about it, surely he would have told Patsy to scrap it and write a conventional 3 liner, as most men would do.

    The rambling feminised note to me seems not something that a terse, business-like person would consider leaving for the police...it would be almost embarrassing I reckon.

    But, when he did figure out what had happened, there was a very strong reason that he made the silent pact with Patsy and he's never deviated from that.

    Chero and KK...you should write a book....seriously!!

  12. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Zotto wrote: As many others have said, I can't see John letting such a ridiculous ransom note "go through to the keeper". If he knew about it, surely he would have told Patsy to scrap it and write a conventional 3 liner, as most men would do.

    The rambling feminised note to me seems not something that a terse, business-like person would consider leaving for the police...it would be almost embarrassing I reckon.

    But, when he did figure out what had happened, there was a very strong reason that he made the silent pact with Patsy and he's never deviated from that.
    Zotto,

    I'm wondering at the time of the ransom note having been supposedly found first by Patsy, and then moved to the floor by John Ramsey ( so he says), that neither Patsy nor John mentioned to each other that it was written on their own notepad (?). I wonder why this wasn't talked about more.

    As many others have said, I can't see John letting such a ridiculous ransom note "go through to the keeper". If he knew about it, surely he would have told Patsy to scrap it and write a conventional 3 liner, as most men would do.
    I think John Ramsey must have known it was his wife
    at first glance of the ransom note, because he must have known just how dramatic Patsy could be, with her journalistic skills and acting ability. How could he miss it?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. Handwriting analysis
    By rashomon in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: February 22, 2018, 11:46 am, Thu Feb 22 11:46:22 UTC 2018
  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
  •