Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 142
  1. #25

    Default

    Rushing in where angels fear to tread, I was thinking again about the alliteration in the ransom note. I'm not sure that this literary tic was below the level of the author's consciousness. It occurs to me that the author might have been well aware of this particular trait and loved it very much.

    "Adequate size attache" always struck me as awkward, to say the least. Then I realized that if you take out "size," that it's another, subtler, example of alliteration.

    What's an "adequate size attache"? Is that like a basic briefcase? Looking around the internet I found that some briefcase websites rate their wares on whether or not they have "adequate capacity." Perhaps the ransom note writer had been doing some attache shopping before the murder.

    Anyway, I'm not sure our ransom note writer was panicked by the time he or she got around to the 11th page of rewrites. Perhaps by then a kind of exhilaration had taken hold, to the extent that our ransom note writer realized that John was in the shower and it was almost too late.
    Last edited by fr brown; October 14, 2010, 12:27 pm at Thu Oct 14 12:27:15 UTC 2010.

  2. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Fleet White told Steve Thomas that he'd talked to a Ramsey investigator--or investigators. (Don't remember that detail.) When Thomas asked when, White looked at his notes and said that it was the afternoon of the 26th, the same afternoon that JonBenet's body was discovered.

    That's quick work. Somebody got these guys on the job in a big hurry. I've always assumed it was Mike Bynum.
    I believe you have assumed correctly. Mike Bynum and John Ramsey have been thick as thieves for years. And Bynum is STILL fixing things for John Ramsey.

    John has refused to take a regular job ever since he was let go from Access Graphics/Lockheed Martin because he felt it was beneath him to be anything but a CEO (or some other big dog) in a corporation. Because of this, John had to severely downsize his extravagant lifestyle and was having to sell off his expensive toys. Once again, Mike Bynum has come to John's rescue by getting him an executive post with a company Mike recently joined.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...sey#post184851

  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    This isn't about the purpose per se of the ransom note; it's about elements below the level of consciousness. I read about it on another website (which I can find again if anyone's interested). It may have been thoroughly covered here in the past, but I didn't find it when I looked.

    The author noted that the ransom note phrase "if you want her to see 1997" is an echo of two phrases in Patsy's 1996 Christmas letter: "we'll be seeing the orthodontist in 1997" and "look forward to seeing you in 1997."

    The author also noted that Patsy littered her letters with alliteration (sorry) viz. "flag football...basketball binge," "few fleeting." The ransom note, of course, contains "foreign faction," "adequate...attache" and "brown...bag."
    There have been many analyses of the ransom note, but it's always interesting to see another POV. So yes, I'd like to see that site, if you have it handy. Don't spend a lot of time on it, though, if you can't find it quick.

    Thanks for pointing this language out. Patsy was all over that ransom note. Every way it could be analyzed, from handwriting to linguistics, from inside knowledge of the family to motive, Patsy wrote the note. Anyone who won't even acknowledge the obvious associations with Patsy has another agenda than knowing who actually wrote it, IMO.

    "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.

  4. #28

    Default

    Well, I think I've caught up now.

    I do think that Patsy was coming up with a scenario that she beileved would quickly divert LE from the family and allow Burke, Patsy, and John time to get out of the house after the body was quickly found.

    I believe they were looking to get to Bynum as quickly as they could, so he could become their legal shield before LE had a chance to pick up that there was no kidnapping.

    In the meantime, I believe the many friends called over were for that purpose: a shield between the Ramseys and LE that morning. Like squirrels, the Ramseys were working to scatter "predatory" LE's attention by keeping them busy, IMO.

    I have said this before, but I'll repeat it for this discussion: I once saw one of those "former" FBI profilers talking about this ransom note on TV, and he said someone who writes a fake ransom note inherently includes "fear" that is relevent to him/her. So whoever wrote the note probably had entertained some kind of fear about his/her child being kidnapped.

    We know that Ransom was playing in Boulder, a movie which JAR mentioned to LE himself in an interview and said was a story about a family JUST LIKE THE RAMSEYS. It really is. I watched it recently and the story is astonishing when you consider that the ransom note writer so perfectly mimics what happened in that movie:

    • The ransom note threats and language are similar to the kidnappers' phone calls to to the parents in the movie: lots of high tech stuff used, etc.
    • The instructions of how TO DELIVER the money involves a lot of long, complicated directions to keep LE from following the father when he tries TO DELIVER the money.
    • The mother collapses at one point and almost vomits--John mentioned several times that Patsy was throwing up that morning...sort of.
    • The child in the movie had his hands restrained and cuffed to the bed and his mouth and eyes duct taped.
      • The kidnappers intended all along to kill the child.


    I also believe it's very possible, in fact probable, that Patsy knew all about the kidnapping of members of a rich family because of John's employer, Lockheed Martin. As I said above, John traveled for the company overseas and it would be a surprise if he never attended any Lockheed Martin training or had any info about safety protocol and security in a world where kidnapping is literally an industry in some countries.

    I've also written about this, but let me repeat it because it illustrates to me how improbable it is that John was never given any info on company policy and protocol regarding the safety of its executives:

    Here's the context:

    Years before the Ramsey kidnapping, the only thing I knew about Lockheed Martin was it had a large operation near Atlanta where they built planes and was a major defense contractor, and only knew that because it's such a large American corporation and manufactures part of our military defense equipment, who hadn't heard of it. But I had no special or even conscious interest in the company. Just knew it existed and loosely what I have said above.

    So I had a social friend whose music hobby intersected with mine in that we belonged to a local booster club of sorts. He was married, and me, too. I met his wife and she was a nice woman. He was a nice guy, as well, and we participated in various projects with that club that brought us to working together from time to time on them. I'll call him Bob--not his name, though.

    In that context, we became friends, as well, enough so that we talked about personal stuff at times, when we had time. Nothing too personal, but just the kind of conversation that you get into while waiting for this or that to happen or equipment or personnel to arrive, etc.

    So one evening, waiting for something or other, Bob started talking about his wife. I can't remember the lead in, but he surprised me by telling me her father was rich and had a large business, etc. I was surprised because Bob and his wife were in no way wealthy on the surface that you'd notice. They looked and seemed just like...us--had average jobs, education, etc.

    The story Bob told me was fascinating because I had no idea about this kind of international business operation and experience--I'm a sucker for a good story, too. And it was interesting:

    Bob said he once went as a guest to South America with his father-in-law during a business trip. Having never traveled with that kind of private jet, limo's, etc., Bob was having a good time. But he said that it was scary, as well, because they traveled with security guards and the limo's were bullet-proof, every hotel had security gates, big time armed protection. While Bob wouldn't even tell me what his father-in-law's business was, apparently it was a private business that did work for various gov'ts. And the security was because of the potential for kidnapping.

    Some time after the Ramsey murder, I think, I read a long article in Vanity Fair about kidnapping as an industry in many countries like those in South America. Even today, so-called rebel factions kidnap executives of rich companies to collect the ransom. It's literally a business deal, one in which the victim will always be returned if the ransom is paid, because if the kidnappers keep that faith, they will always get paid. In such companies, exec's who travel in those areas often actually have insurance in the event of being kidnapped. I am not making this up.

    Consider that back in the 70's, John Paul Getty's grandson was kidnapped in Italy, his ear sent to his grandfather when he first refused to pay, and then once paid, the grandson was released--can't say unharmed, either. This was a well publicized kidnapping, as well. There are entire neighborhoods in Italy known to have been built with the monies collected from kidnap victims. Insane, isn't it? But that's the reality of being rich, successful, and traveling in FOREIGN countries.

    So your premise about the writer of the ransom note trying to build a story about a kidnapping gone wrong is very plausible to me, learnin. I believe Patsy had access to such information and probably had seen Ransom. I think it came immediately to mind when she needed to divert LE in such a way as to be able to get the family out of the house without being arrested. She didn't do too badly.

    But I still believe that it only worked because the Ramseys had help working at some other level. I find it highly suspicious that even Boulder PD allowed what happened that day to transpire so carelessly. If they believed a child's safety was at issue, forget that her parents were rich and employed by LM, there is no reason on earth the FBI shouldn't have been called immediately and given jurisdiction.

    Why did the FBI not take over jurisdiction? There was no question they had it. Someone had to tell them to stand down, IMO.

    What LE agency would leave a single officer in the home alone with 8 or 9 civilians at a crime scene when kidnappers were supposed to be calling? I don't believe it for one minute.

    And once the body was found, who has a child's body found in the basement and walks away like the Ramseys did that day?

    So I think the ransom note was really propaganda and a PR missive, written with the expectation that the body would be found and the Ramseys would be out of there before many questions could be asked at all. Blame the foreign faction, absolve AG/LM, too. (Always something that I have thought is a telling detail--why would a foreign faction or kidnapper of any kind like John Ramsey and his business but kidnap and kill his child?) Stick to the script--Ransom--for family and friends and business associates and life would go on though the "handful" would be missed.

    Okay, too much writing, I know, but I can't help it, obviously. This is a complicated case and I use everything I know to figure out what I can. I may be totally off, I am aware of that. But this crime was not committed by someone who wasn't thinking hard, using elements from life to construct a getaway and cover up. It has logic to the person or people who committed the various deeds. Thinking through it backwards is hard, and it requires climbing over innumerable obstacles left by Team Ramsey, a professional group of WORLD-CLASS defense experts and shills who have kept us busy for 14 years with lies, evasions, red herrings, an unending supply of "intruder" suspects, fake clues, and legal threats and deterents, as well.

    Well, that's what I think, anyhow.

    "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.

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I have a crystal-clear idea in my mind as to why the note was written, and like Occam's Razor- it is the simplest one.
    There was a dead child in the house. There needed to be a reason for it. The truth was not an option. A kidnapping/ransom note provided the PERFECT way out. With the 911 call, (the other part of the equation) the Rs violated the first rule of ALL ransom notes- call police and the victim dies. There was the explanation for the dead child right there. You called the cops, so we killed her.
    What the Rs didn't think about was how odd it would be for the alleged kidnappers to leave body there. A body can still generate ransom money, and you don't really even have to tell the parents she is dead.
    I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her body outside somewhere.
    Also, the foreign faction members (or at least one of them) still had to have remained in the house as well, in order to "kill" JonBenet immediately after the police call). Aside from the absurdity of this, the stage of the body's rigor mortis contradicts such a scenario anyway. But still, it may well have played a role in the stager's panicked mind frantically trying to put a story together for LE to swallow.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her body outside somewhere.
    I believe it was more the fear of being seen which stopped them. Parents cruel enough to tie a cord around their child's neck and inflict the genital wound (even if they believed she was already dead, it still is a cruel act) are capable of anything imo.
    Imo the Ramseys intially wanted to dump the body outside without a ransom note, having a "child abducted from her bed, tortured and killed by a sexual predator" scenario in mind.
    But when removing the body from the home was regarded as too risky after all, they switched to a "political kidnapping for ransom" scene instead. This switch would explain why the body was wiped clean of blood and redressed in underwear, covering the previously staged sexual assault.
    Imo the blanket was used for the staged scene to suggest JonBenet had been quickly grabbed from her bed together with the blanket covering her.

  6. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I believe the Ramseys got away with it because they had help, and lots of it.

    The missing cell phone, the blank record for the month of Dec. 96, with lots of activity before that month, but no subpoena ever issued for the Ramsey phone records, obstructed by Hunter himself, never obtained by Lacy--to this day, no one has ever subpoened those phone records that we know of. Yes, it would be too late probably, as someone had to have the power to erase that cell phone record for Dec. 1996 when it was finally "cooperatively turned over" a year later, but the full records might have been sitting in the BPD evidence room all these years, obtained illegally by a private company for a tabloid, with the owners prosecuted and the evidence gathered. Thomas spoke to this in his book, saying those phone records were walked past the Ramsey case detectives who were told, you will never see them. Thomas could see the fix was in from the beginning.

    That's tantamount to obstruction of justice any way you slice it. But not Hunter, not Lacy, not the Ramseys, no one has ever answered for that critical decision in this murder investigation.

    Think about that: if LE had but gotten the Ramseys' complete phone records, the case could have been solved inside of a week.

    This is a sticking point in this murder investigation for me because is it so blaringly ignored by both sides of the investigation. Only Steve Thomas ever spoke about it, in his book, when he described how Hunter crippled the BPD with his repeated interference in the most simple of investigative protocol. The Ramseys' clothes were never subpoenaed, either, right? At least, they were never even requested until nearly a year after the murder.

    The Ramsey lawyers were given police report after lab test result after control of the very investigation through Hunter and Lacy. What private citizen gets that treatment? Especially the prime suspects? Why?

    I believe the Ramseys had big help, through connections with Lockheed Martin. I believe they called for help that very morning, long before they called 911. I believe they were coached and helped to figure out how to mislead LE, while LE was already being reached out to in the form of Hunter, through Bynum, possibly.

    I think mistakes were made, because there wasn't a lot of time to work this out. The plane would be ready, the big kids would be in Minnesota awaiting the parents, along with a fiance. The help in Charlevoix would be wondering where was the family. Friends and relatives would be calling as per usual. So the longer the staging took, the less likely it would be successful.

    I don't think it was an accident that Dr. Meyers showed up so many hours after the body was found, either. How much he knew, who knows, but in a county of maybe 100K, with many gone at Christmas, he claimed he had other "calls" he had to finish first. I don't think so. Even if he did, how likely is it he wouldn't have dropped everything, ordered to do so by someone higher up the food chain, to attend the body in the murder of a child in a wealthy home, in the sole murder that year in Boulder? One excuse is that the BPD was getting search warrants before Meyers could show up. BS. They knew that morning this was going to be a crime scene any way it turned out. They should have been working on those search warrants by 7 am at the latest, just for the house. A coroner does not have to have a subpoena to attend to the body of a murder victim, either. Time is critical, and Dr. Meyer wasted it rather spectacularly, even though LE had been in the home all day already, as well. He didn't do the autopsy until the next morning. Why would Dr. Meyer do that?

    It's flat out jaw-dropping how the Ramseys were not even searched when they left the home, not taken to the BPD for questioning immediately. Unbelievable. How did Arndt, who we now know was a weak detective, get left alone in the house for hours with 8 or 9 civilians, her calls for back up ignored when she finally realized she needed help? The detective became unglued, which resulted in one of the worst crime scene blunders in crime history. Her boss knew that either there were child kidnappers on the loose, maybe terrorists, or the child had met an even worse fate at the hands of her own family, yet left Arndt there without one other office. Why would they do that?

    John Ramsey had a lawyer inside of a few hours after the body was "found." His wife had one within days, before their child was even buried. The Ramseys began refusing to talk to LE by that evening, excuses in place, lawyers in place. They should have been arrested then, LOU SMIT SAID HIMSELF, and taken to the BPD. But they weren't.

    One of the D.A.'s prosecutors who apparently wasn't in on the cover up, at least that day, said he had to tell the BPD to get some crime scene techs in the house when they were ready to leave that evening, all done. While the BPD might not have been experienced homicide detectives, how fast do you think a police chief could have figured out the crime scene where a murdered child was discovered in a rich family's home needed the best response possible at the end of the 20th century? The FBI was there, in the background; Agent Walker said he told the BPD that morning by the second time Walker read the ransom note that they would find a body. There were people on hand who knew exactly what was going on and what to do--but for some lame reasons given, all obvious, common protocol was abandoned post haste. Those in charge of following the book and doing the same jobs they did every day as professional police officers in a highly educated and wealthy population suddenly became bumbling cops who didn't know which end was up. Why was that?

    Hadden and his firm of lawyers were the most powerful defense attorneys in the state, connected all the way to the White House. Lockheed Martin is one of the most powerful defense contractors in the world, working for governments world wide, including the U.S. Defense Dept. They're at the cutting edge of technology, power, and influence. John Ramsey was a CEO for Lockheed Martin. He traveled for the company overseas. He should have been trained in protocol when kidnapping is a worldwide problem for rich corporations and has been for many decades now. A Denver lawyer who worked for Lockheed Martin in security at the time of the kidnapping has said in interviews on TV and in articles that he questioned why he never heard a peep from anyone when the child of a CEO was supposed to have been kidnapped, cops on the scene, child missing, with a ransom note left by a "foreign faction" who specifically named John's company as the impetus for the crime. Other executives and their families could have been in danger, but no one was called at LM security, no one alerted, no practiced and specific response to just such a situation was ever set in motion. Shadow also spoke about this: it's very fishy.

    I know what I think. Even if it sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory" and too far fetched, at the very least, Hunter knew exactly what he was doing when he obstructed LE in the investigation. He'd done it for 27 years, his record shows.

    Does this help explain how they got away with it?

    kk,
    When I read your post here, I wanted to swing at someone, I really did. I don't think there's any question of a conspiracy, just a question of how many were covering and for whom?

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Good thread, learnin, and I'm not trying to derail the topic...really!

    I have had a long day, so I'm going to come back tomorrow and keep reading. I'm about half way through now. Your thoughts about the ransom note are at least close, I believe. Whatever specifically the writer/author meant for LE to believe happened, it's clear it involved kidnapping gone wrong. John Ramsey said that himself many times.

    I'll say that I believe John Ramsey was in on it, myself. What specific part he played, whether in the abuse and/or murder or just in the cover up, I can't say. But the story of him on the floor on his hands and knees in his underwear doesn't fly with me. Nor do I believe for one minute that John would tell Patsy to call 911 when they clearly could have called the very powerful defense company John worked for, considering his child was supposed to be kidnapped by a foreign faction who named the company as the impetus.

    Also I don't believe for half a second that John and Pasty would have answered the door all groomed and smiling--cordial, I think was the word used. No way they'd have invited over friends, and if Patsy had done something that dumb and John heard it, he'd have called them back pronto and said do not come over--if that wasn't part of a "plan" as you point out.

    No way would it never occur to John Ramsey that the kidnappers might still be in the house, with his child, and a threat to himself, his wife and son, as well. Never once have I ever heard either Ramsey mention it ever crossed their minds. Sheer instinct should have given them that thought first and foremost. When someone breaks into your sanctuary and does harm, every nerve in your body starts screaming. They have your child? Its fight or flight.

    But John and Patsy had a kidnap party instead.

    So your breakdown of the ransom note is very interesting, learnin, and might be very close to the truth of what the writer was planning. But I believe John was right there with her.

    I'll go back over your analysis tomorrow. I had some thoughts as I was reading it, but wanted to finish the thread and see what everyone else said before I said much. Now I'm just pooped.

    Thanks for starting this discussion. You are such a good addition to the FFJ family. I am so glad you joined.
    Thanks for the kind words, kk. When I began studying this case, this was one of the first forums I came to and am glad I did...such great case history and discussion.

    The ransom note author had a distinct motive for writing this letter and the motive, if established, goes a long way in apprehending the perp(s). For instance, I remember one poster or two, on another forum, state that the motive was to buy time for the perp to get out of the country, etc. I think they were way off base(if the perp was a stranger, it would have taken months for BPD to decipher this), but at least these posters knew the author had a motive.

    If the author's motive was to make LE think it was a kidnapping, and the kidnappers killed JBR when Ramseys contacted police and friends, then, it is clear a Ramsey(s) were the authors as they did exactly what the ransom note said would get their daughter killed.

  8. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    kk,
    When I read your post here, I wanted to swing at someone, I really did. I don't think there's any question of a conspiracy, just a question of how many were covering and for whom?

    I know. I'm kind of making myself sick. It's hard to learn the lesson the Ramseys have taught: our whole justice system is a two--faced fraud. If you're poor or working class, it'll grind you up like hamburger. If you're rich and a member of the elite 5% of the population, no worries if you break a few laws here and there.

    Hard lessons for an American who once drank the kool-aide with both hands.

    "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.

  9. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, I think I've caught up now.

    I do think that Patsy was coming up with a scenario that she beileved would quickly divert LE from the family and allow Burke, Patsy, and John time to get out of the house after the body was quickly found.

    I believe they were looking to get to Bynum as quickly as they could, so he could become their legal shield before LE had a chance to pick up that there was no kidnapping.

    In the meantime, I believe the many friends called over were for that purpose: a shield between the Ramseys and LE that morning. Like squirrels, the Ramseys were working to scatter "predatory" LE's attention by keeping them busy, IMO.

    I have said this before, but I'll repeat it for this discussion: I once saw one of those "former" FBI profilers talking about this ransom note on TV, and he said someone who writes a fake ransom note inherently includes "fear" that is relevent to him/her. So whoever wrote the note probably had entertained some kind of fear about his/her child being kidnapped.

    We know that Ransom was playing in Boulder, a movie which JAR mentioned to LE himself in an interview and said was a story about a family JUST LIKE THE RAMSEYS. It really is. I watched it recently and the story is astonishing when you consider that the ransom note writer so perfectly mimics what happened in that movie:

    • The ransom note threats and language are similar to the kidnappers' phone calls to to the parents in the movie: lots of high tech stuff used, etc.
    • The instructions of how TO DELIVER the money involves a lot of long, complicated directions to keep LE from following the father when he tries TO DELIVER the money.
    • The mother collapses at one point and almost vomits--John mentioned several times that Patsy was throwing up that morning...sort of.
    • The child in the movie had his hands restrained and cuffed to the bed and his mouth and eyes duct taped.
      • The kidnappers intended all along to kill the child.


    I also believe it's very possible, in fact probable, that Patsy knew all about the kidnapping of members of a rich family because of John's employer, Lockheed Martin. As I said above, John traveled for the company overseas and it would be a surprise if he never attended any Lockheed Martin training or had any info about safety protocol and security in a world where kidnapping is literally an industry in some countries.

    I've also written about this, but let me repeat it because it illustrates to me how improbable it is that John was never given any info on company policy and protocol regarding the safety of its executives:

    Here's the context:

    Years before the Ramsey kidnapping, the only thing I knew about Lockheed Martin was it had a large operation near Atlanta where they built planes and was a major defense contractor, and only knew that because it's such a large American corporation and manufactures part of our military defense equipment, who hadn't heard of it. But I had no special or even conscious interest in the company. Just knew it existed and loosely what I have said above.

    So I had a social friend whose music hobby intersected with mine in that we belonged to a local booster club of sorts. He was married, and me, too. I met his wife and she was a nice woman. He was a nice guy, as well, and we participated in various projects with that club that brought us to working together from time to time on them. I'll call him Bob--not his name, though.

    In that context, we became friends, as well, enough so that we talked about personal stuff at times, when we had time. Nothing too personal, but just the kind of conversation that you get into while waiting for this or that to happen or equipment or personnel to arrive, etc.

    So one evening, waiting for something or other, Bob started talking about his wife. I can't remember the lead in, but he surprised me by telling me her father was rich and had a large business, etc. I was surprised because Bob and his wife were in no way wealthy on the surface that you'd notice. They looked and seemed just like...us--had average jobs, education, etc.

    The story Bob told me was fascinating because I had no idea about this kind of international business operation and experience--I'm a sucker for a good story, too. And it was interesting:

    Bob said he once went as a guest to South America with his father-in-law during a business trip. Having never traveled with that kind of private jet, limo's, etc., Bob was having a good time. But he said that it was scary, as well, because they traveled with security guards and the limo's were bullet-proof, every hotel had security gates, big time armed protection. While Bob wouldn't even tell me what his father-in-law's business was, apparently it was a private business that did work for various gov'ts. And the security was because of the potential for kidnapping.

    Some time after the Ramsey murder, I think, I read a long article in Vanity Fair about kidnapping as an industry in many countries like those in South America. Even today, so-called rebel factions kidnap executives of rich companies to collect the ransom. It's literally a business deal, one in which the victim will always be returned if the ransom is paid, because if the kidnappers keep that faith, they will always get paid. In such companies, exec's who travel in those areas often actually have insurance in the event of being kidnapped. I am not making this up.

    Consider that back in the 70's, John Paul Getty's grandson was kidnapped in Italy, his ear sent to his grandfather when he first refused to pay, and then once paid, the grandson was released--can't say unharmed, either. This was a well publicized kidnapping, as well. There are entire neighborhoods in Italy known to have been built with the monies collected from kidnap victims. Insane, isn't it? But that's the reality of being rich, successful, and traveling in FOREIGN countries.

    So your premise about the writer of the ransom note trying to build a story about a kidnapping gone wrong is very plausible to me, learnin. I believe Patsy had access to such information and probably had seen Ransom. I think it came immediately to mind when she needed to divert LE in such a way as to be able to get the family out of the house without being arrested. She didn't do too badly.

    But I still believe that it only worked because the Ramseys had help working at some other level. I find it highly suspicious that even Boulder PD allowed what happened that day to transpire so carelessly. If they believed a child's safety was at issue, forget that her parents were rich and employed by LM, there is no reason on earth the FBI shouldn't have been called immediately and given jurisdiction.

    Why did the FBI not take over jurisdiction? There was no question they had it. Someone had to tell them to stand down, IMO.

    What LE agency would leave a single officer in the home alone with 8 or 9 civilians at a crime scene when kidnappers were supposed to be calling? I don't believe it for one minute.

    And once the body was found, who has a child's body found in the basement and walks away like the Ramseys did that day?

    So I think the ransom note was really propaganda and a PR missive, written with the expectation that the body would be found and the Ramseys would be out of there before many questions could be asked at all. Blame the foreign faction, absolve AG/LM, too. (Always something that I have thought is a telling detail--why would a foreign faction or kidnapper of any kind like John Ramsey and his business but kidnap and kill his child?) Stick to the script--Ransom--for family and friends and business associates and life would go on though the "handful" would be missed.

    Okay, too much writing, I know, but I can't help it, obviously. This is a complicated case and I use everything I know to figure out what I can. I may be totally off, I am aware of that. But this crime was not committed by someone who wasn't thinking hard, using elements from life to construct a getaway and cover up. It has logic to the person or people who committed the various deeds. Thinking through it backwards is hard, and it requires climbing over innumerable obstacles left by Team Ramsey, a professional group of WORLD-CLASS defense experts and shills who have kept us busy for 14 years with lies, evasions, red herrings, an unending supply of "intruder" suspects, fake clues, and legal threats and deterents, as well.

    Well, that's what I think, anyhow.
    Or of not seeing 1997?

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    There have been many analyses of the ransom note, but it's always interesting to see another POV. So yes, I'd like to see that site, if you have it handy. Don't spend a lot of time on it, though, if you can't find it quick.

    Thanks for pointing this language out. Patsy was all over that ransom note. Every way it could be analyzed, from handwriting to linguistics, from inside knowledge of the family to motive, Patsy wrote the note. Anyone who won't even acknowledge the obvious associations with Patsy has another agenda than knowing who actually wrote it, IMO.
    Here's the site: http://alinguistic.blogspot.com/2007...barbara-j.html

    ("Familiar" isn't actually spelled with an "e" in the note. It's just one of Patsy's funny "a's.")

    People say that the writer was someone who knew Patsy well enough to mimic her handwriting and phrasing, but it would have to be someone who was beyond intimate. It would have to be someone who could predict with confidence that she would write "C.B.I." after the murder. How could you predict that beforehand? It's not like it comes up. I have no idea if anybody in my family would put periods in that.

    Yet this same linguist genius friend of Patsy's thought, according to Lou Smit, that it would be a good idea to study Ruthless People for advice on how to conduct a successful kidnapping.
    Last edited by fr brown; October 15, 2010, 7:16 am at Fri Oct 15 7:16:19 UTC 2010.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    This excellent analysis was done by a brilliant linguist who used to go by the hat of "Twilight" at Websleuths many years ago. I don't know if she still posts at WS now or not. She and I agreed about the linguistic composition of the Ransom Note publicly (when I still posted at WS) and discussed linguistic theory behind the scenes.

  12. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    The phrase "adequate size attache" always made me suspicious. If this was a real kidnapping, the kidnappers wouldn't give a rat's patoot how the victim's family packed the money. Brown paper bag (this is the "movie version" usually seen), backpack, lunchbox, or Louis Vuitton. Doesn't matter. All they want is the money. And they sure as he** don't care if you are "well-rested".

    This note SCREAMS Patsy.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.



Similar Threads

  1. Risk vs. Benefit and the Ransom Note
    By Learnin in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 6, 2009, 5:41 pm, Tue Oct 6 17:41:14 UTC 2009
  2. A Real Ransom Note & Kidnapping
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 14, 2007, 8:11 am, Wed Mar 14 8:11:13 UTC 2007
  3. Ransom note fingerprints
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 6, 2004, 11:29 pm, Sun Jun 6 23:29:17 UTC 2004
  4. The trail of the ransom note
    By MJenn in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 16, 2002, 11:21 pm, Thu May 16 23:21:17 UTC 2002
  5. Ramsey Case Ransom Note
    By Dunvegan in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 14, 2001, 4:49 pm, Wed Nov 14 16:49:17 UTC 2001

Posting Permissions

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