Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 142
  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Thanks. I'll check out her posts.

    I wonder if she says anything about "deviation of my instructions"? That strikes me as the oddest thing about the ransom note.
    Instead of the gramatically correct "deviation from my instructions"? I don't remember if Twilight discussed that or not.

    What I do remember is Twilight was an expert in linguistic theory, and by comparing the ransom note with Patsy's other known communications, Twilight showed through technical analysis how the unique linguistic patterns of Patsy Ramsey unmistakeably revealed her as the author of the Ransom Note.

    We all have linguistic patterns in our speaking and writing voices. The beauty of the Ransom Note was that it was long enough to capture the "voice" of its author. If it had only been a short, "We have your daughter and we want a million dollars. Wait for the call," the Ransom Note would have been much harder to analyze for authorship. The fact that Patsy went on and on for three pages makes the Ransom Note an absolute gold mine to those who are trained in handwriting analysis, linguistics, statement analysis, etc.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    [snip]We all have linguistic patterns in our speaking and writing voices. The beauty of the Ransom Note was that it was long enough to capture the "voice" of its author. If it had only been a short, "We have your daughter and we want a million dollars. Wait for the call," the Ransom Note would have been much harder to analyze for authorship. The fact that Patsy went on and on for three pages makes the Ransom Note an absolute gold mine to those who are trained in handwriting analysis, linguistics, statement analysis, etc.
    Too bad that didn't include any experts in Colorado....

    "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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Instead of the gramatically correct "deviation from my instructions"? I don't remember if Twilight discussed that or not.

    What I do remember is Twilight was an expert in linguistic theory, and by comparing the ransom note with Patsy's other known communications, Twilight showed through technical analysis how the unique linguistic patterns of Patsy Ramsey unmistakeably revealed her as the author of the Ransom Note.

    We all have linguistic patterns in our speaking and writing voices. The beauty of the Ransom Note was that it was long enough to capture the "voice" of its author. If it had only been a short, "We have your daughter and we want a million dollars. Wait for the call," the Ransom Note would have been much harder to analyze for authorship. The fact that Patsy went on and on for three pages makes the Ransom Note an absolute gold mine to those who are trained in handwriting analysis, linguistics, statement analysis, etc.
    Yeah. "Deviation of my instructions" always comes as a shock to me when I read it. It's jarring. I guess preposition substitution is pretty common, but I don't think I'm exposed to it very often. It's not like "have ran" and "have went" which are merely irritating.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Too bad that didn't include any experts in Colorado....
    At least not the ones hired by the Ramseys.

    Chet Ubowski, the Colorado Bureau of Investigations handwriting analyst, wrote in his report, "This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.'' He is said to have found 24 of 26 letters in the ransom note which matched exemplars from Patsy Ramsey.

    No experts in statement analysis or linguistics were employed in Colorado to examine the Ransom Note. And that is an unfortunate fact.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default mBm

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    I don't know if I'm following you or not, kk. Surely, Thomas, Eller, Trujillo, etc. was not in on a coverup. French, according to Thomas, was suspicioning the parents from the git go. Any coverup, in the BPD, would have been coming from Koby, Mason, no?

    I think leaving Arndt by herself was a mistake but I think, by 10 a.m., the FBI agent, and the few BPD detectives on duty, knew this was not a kidnapping and that a body would be found outside the home. French, the first officer on the scene, after being there only a few minutes before Sgt. Reichenbach arrived, knew something was screwy as hell. when Reichenbach arrived, French met him at the door and said it looks ike a kidnapping but, "something is not right". I WOULD SURE LOVE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT FRENCH OBSERVED THAT TOLD HIM THIS SCENE WAS A BUNCH OF BALONEY....

    Anyway, because of the screwy ransom note, and the behavior of the parents, I think LE ( with the prodding of the FBI agent) heavily suspicioned the parents were involved. Thus, a regrouping back at headquarters to go over the game plan, etc.

    But, I'm interested in who you think, in the BPD, would have given the order to abandon the crime scene to Arndt and the neighborhood?
    Since this is my first post on FFJ, I'd like to put in my two cents about the conspiracy theory, but first, I'd like to ask, wasn't it French who noticed Patsy peeping at him through splayed fingers? If so, perhaps that is one reason for his skepticism about the kidnapping.

    But, also, I believe since Hunter had a history of plea bargaining practically all of the cases his office was supposed to be prosecuting, he had to deal with all the Boulder attorneys on a daily basis. And, over the years, he probably developed a good "working" relationship with all of them. And, therefore, he also was in the habit of making deals with them. (He would have had to, in order to have plea bargained so many cases over the years.) Probably, IMO, many of the deals he made were questionable. So, I think we should know who was ultimately accountable for the cover-up. But, then...

    Hunter was out of town when the kidnapping occurred. But I believe he had established such a pattern that anyone (any attorney) wanting to start a cover-up process knew exactly how to proceed. And his right-hand man was there to help things along. So, I think Steve Thomas was trying to tell us a lot when he showed his feelings about Huffstrom and his meetings with the Ramsey lawyers. Thomas also pointed out how often the BPD couldn't get any cooperation from the DA when it came to getting search warrants, etc. So, it's pretty clear that the obstruction rendered by the DA's Office was the basis for the cover-up to succeed. And Mary Lacy was just an extension of Hunter's policies.

    As for who was responsible for abandoning the crime scene to Arndt, I think that could be due to the general attitude in the BPD about Arndt. They held no respect for her and would have loved seeing her brought down. This lack of respect was partly due to her being a female and partly due to a prevailing attitude of "ganging up" on someone who most officers in general wanted to see fail -- for various reasons. And they might have seen this as a perfect opportunity to demonstrate either that Arndt couldn't handle a crime scene or just a chance to make it as hard on her as they could. But, they would have had to think there was nothing much to the case or I seriously doubt they would have intentionally created a situation where the crime scene would be destroyed.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mBm View Post
    Since this is my first post on FFJ, I'd like to put in my two cents about the conspiracy theory, but first, I'd like to ask, wasn't it French who noticed Patsy peeping at him through splayed fingers? If so, perhaps that is one reason for his skepticism about the kidnapping.

    But, also, I believe since Hunter had a history of plea bargaining practically all of the cases his office was supposed to be prosecuting, he had to deal with all the Boulder attorneys on a daily basis. And, over the years, he probably developed a good "working" relationship with all of them. And, therefore, he also was in the habit of making deals with them. (He would have had to, in order to have plea bargained so many cases over the years.) Probably, IMO, many of the deals he made were questionable. So, I think we should know who was ultimately accountable for the cover-up. But, then...

    Hunter was out of town when the kidnapping occurred. But I believe he had established such a pattern that anyone (any attorney) wanting to start a cover-up process knew exactly how to proceed. And his right-hand man was there to help things along. So, I think Steve Thomas was trying to tell us a lot when he showed his feelings about Huffstrom and his meetings with the Ramsey lawyers. Thomas also pointed out how often the BPD couldn't get any cooperation from the DA when it came to getting search warrants, etc. So, it's pretty clear that the obstruction rendered by the DA's Office was the basis for the cover-up to succeed. And Mary Lacy was just an extension of Hunter's policies.

    As for who was responsible for abandoning the crime scene to Arndt, I think that could be due to the general attitude in the BPD about Arndt. They held no respect for her and would have loved seeing her brought down. This lack of respect was partly due to her being a female and partly due to a prevailing attitude of "ganging up" on someone who most officers in general wanted to see fail -- for various reasons. And they might have seen this as a perfect opportunity to demonstrate either that Arndt couldn't handle a crime scene or just a chance to make it as hard on her as they could. But, they would have had to think there was nothing much to the case or I seriously doubt they would have intentionally created a situation where the crime scene would be destroyed.
    I would agree with much of your post. You're right about French observing Patsy eyeing him. But, French thought something wrong well before this happened. According to ST, French arrived first. He was greeted by Patsy and John, taken back to where the ransom note was and then he read it. By this time, Reichenbach had arrived and French greeted him at the door. Before entering, he told the Sgt. that it, indeed, looked like a kidnapping but, "something is not right". Within minutes, of greeting the Ramseys, getting a short synopsis of what happened, and reading through the ransom note, French observed something was not right!

    I agree with you that there was probably some resentment, ill-feelings, toward Arndt but I don't think they were setting her up for failure. I don't think they'd mess up the investigation just to make her look bad. After all, the BPD caught no little grief for not clearing the house and leaving Arndt there to oversee the scene by herself. I simply believe, from all I've read, that investigators, by this time, thought the kidnapping scene was a cover for something else and were trying to figure out how to proceed. I mean, when you think about it, they simply couldn't go up to the Ramseys and say: "Alright, this is not a kidnapping....your daughter's probably dead and someone is covering their arse."

    I put myself into the detectives shoes. Here's what I would have been thinking by about 10-11 in the morning: "Something horrible happened, the girls body has been taken somewhere and someone is blaming it on a kidnapping." What to do? You probably wait a while, check the ransom note over for clues, and then bring the parents in for some tough questioning. I believe they wanted to get that ransom note checked out, compare some handwriting and present the evidence to the parents during questioning. But a body was found before the second step was taken....IMO....

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Yeah. "Deviation of my instructions" always comes as a shock to me when I read it. It's jarring. I guess preposition substitution is pretty common, but I don't think I'm exposed to it very often. It's not like "have ran" and "have went" which are merely irritating.
    I tend to think "Deviation of my instructions" isn't too noteworthy. I agree that it is "jarring"., but when you consider the author was involved in a highly emotional situation; it was probably early morning; and the author was probably writing with opposite hand, etc., it was probably a slip the author would not make most times.

    Sometimes, when I'm writing on the run, late at night on the forums, I re-read my post and catch some glaring mistake that I wouldn't normally make.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Could be, Learnin. But if that's the case, then the sexual assault by paintbrush indicates the perp preferred something other than physical contact with the victim. Was that how the prior vaginal injuries occurred, as well?

    The issue for me is that if the child was being molested in some other manner THAT NIGHT that led to the murder, then there would have been no need to insert the paintbrush. She would already be...oh god, how to put this dreadful sequence..."freshly" molested that night.

    What I wonder is if the person who inserted that paintbrush had any idea that the older vaginal injuries would show up in a post mortem examination of the body. If that person were a lay person, this would require some technical knowledge of forensics, wouldn't it? Or would that person have thought that this paintbrush would cause sufficient injury to cover up what had been done before? Maybe someone was called who could explain it, or what needed to be done? Just brainstorming here.

    Here's the logical sequence I come up with:

    The paintbrush was inserted, then broken to use in the garrote as a handle. It seems if it were broken first, that would be more damaging to the tissues in the vagina than indicated in the autopsy. It also seems counter-intuitive in some way, but that's an opinion based on speculation, that's all.

    Then the broken segment of paintbrush was tied onto the long end of the garrote cord. That cord could have been tied on the neck anywhere, but the location of the knot at the back of the neck indicates to me that the knot was tied from the back. Since she was on her stomach by the paint tray more than likely, indicated by the paint strip on her chin matching paint in the tray or possibly a dried strip dislodged from the paintbrush when it was broken there, as the slivers found near the paint tray indicate, it seems likely the cord was tied on her neck there, from behind. Also a carpet fiber from the basement was found stuck to her chin, if memory serves, more evidence her face was on the carpet.

    Since I don't believe all this was possible to do to a fighting, terrified child without obvious defensive injuries showing up on her body, and they didn't, I think she was unconscious during these actions.

    Also, the location of the blow to the head is at the very top of the skull, just a little to the right of center, from the picture of the skull cracks. If she were lying on the floor, on her stomach, with someone behind/above her, her body held down by at least one point of counter-resistence to keep it from being pulled up when the garrote was pulled from behind/above her, then how does one person do all that and deliver a blow to the top of the head at the same time?

    I can't figure out how that's possible. I really can't.

    It seems to me she had to be upright when the blow was struck, unless someone was standing over her while she was prone on a surface of some kind, on her stomach, and the swing came from high above. I don't know, though, just working through it in my mind, so it's all speculation on my part. But if she were in her bed, with the headboard near the top of her head, asleep, how would someone get a sufficient swing from that direction? They'd have to stand or kneel on the bed...but the angle still isn't right, is it? Unless she was lying with her head at the bottom of the bed, where her pillow was found, which seems possible, because her blood was found on the pillowcase, remember.

    Dr. Spitz's demonstration might be the best indication we have of how that happened. It has been said he tested the head injury on a child-sized cadaver, but I don't know if that was true or not.

    kk, can we be sure that the paintbrush was used to cause the vaginal injury? Didn't Wecht say that the bifringement (sp?) material, found within the vagina, might have come from talcum powder, etc.? I believe Wecht thought there was an obvious sexual assault which led to the assault.

    I'm open to any correction you can offer if it has proven the stick was actually used in the penetration. I'm not saying it wasn't, probably was, but, unless 100%, I hold on to the possibility there was a penetration with finger, etc., and then the head blow.

    I have to agree that Spitz' demonstration is surely one of the most valid demonstrations as to how the head wound occurred.

    That flashlight is probably in the evidence collection which LE still has. I wonder if they ever rinsed that light off to gather possible JBR DNA? I mean, if it was used to strike her head with so much force, wouldn't it contain some of the little girl's DNA?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mBm View Post
    Since this is my first post on FFJ, I'd like to put in my two cents about the conspiracy theory, but first, I'd like to ask, wasn't it French who noticed Patsy peeping at him through splayed fingers? If so, perhaps that is one reason for his skepticism about the kidnapping.

    But, also, I believe since Hunter had a history of plea bargaining practically all of the cases his office was supposed to be prosecuting, he had to deal with all the Boulder attorneys on a daily basis. And, over the years, he probably developed a good "working" relationship with all of them. And, therefore, he also was in the habit of making deals with them. (He would have had to, in order to have plea bargained so many cases over the years.) Probably, IMO, many of the deals he made were questionable. So, I think we should know who was ultimately accountable for the cover-up. But, then...

    Hunter was out of town when the kidnapping occurred. But I believe he had established such a pattern that anyone (any attorney) wanting to start a cover-up process knew exactly how to proceed. And his right-hand man was there to help things along. So, I think Steve Thomas was trying to tell us a lot when he showed his feelings about Huffstrom and his meetings with the Ramsey lawyers. Thomas also pointed out how often the BPD couldn't get any cooperation from the DA when it came to getting search warrants, etc. So, it's pretty clear that the obstruction rendered by the DA's Office was the basis for the cover-up to succeed. And Mary Lacy was just an extension of Hunter's policies.

    As for who was responsible for abandoning the crime scene to Arndt, I think that could be due to the general attitude in the BPD about Arndt. They held no respect for her and would have loved seeing her brought down. This lack of respect was partly due to her being a female and partly due to a prevailing attitude of "ganging up" on someone who most officers in general wanted to see fail -- for various reasons. And they might have seen this as a perfect opportunity to demonstrate either that Arndt couldn't handle a crime scene or just a chance to make it as hard on her as they could. But, they would have had to think there was nothing much to the case or I seriously doubt they would have intentionally created a situation where the crime scene would be destroyed.
    Like Learnin, I agree with a lot you're saying here mBm and enjoyed reading your post. Welcome to FFJ. I didn't fully realize the BPD held no respect for Linda Arndt, but now that you've brought this up, would this be the reason why Linda Arndt ended up in cahoots with Patsy Ramsey and receiving flowers from her?

    I did feel sorry for this poor girl being left with all of these people in the Ramsey home. This was absolutely unforgiveable! Shame on the Boulder Police for leaving this girl with such a big responsibility. I wonder how she is faring out today (?). I need to research and find out. Thank you for bringing her to mind.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default mBm

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Like Learnin, I agree with a lot you're saying here mBm and enjoyed reading your post. Welcome to FFJ. I didn't fully realize the BPD held no respect for Linda Arndt, but now that you've brought this up, would this be the reason why Linda Arndt ended up in cahoots with Patsy Ramsey and receiving flowers from her?

    I did feel sorry for this poor girl being left with all of these people in the Ramsey home. This was absolutely unforgiveable! Shame on the Boulder Police for leaving this girl with such a big responsibility. I wonder how she is faring out today (?). I need to research and find out. Thank you for bringing her to mind.
    Thanks, Elle. I do think they treated her poorly and I think it was mostly due to lack of respect for her on their part. And this lack of respect probably turned into animosity when she established a friendship with Patsy. However, leaving her alone at the crime scene could have been just a "happenstance" in that the last officer there with her left apparently without giving a second thought to the fact that she would be alone with all the civilians on the scene. Maybe it didn't occur to him that she would have a problem keeping them together in one place. In any event, I can just see her trying to give JR something to do to keep him occupied, never dreaming he would find JB's body. Sometimes, it's hard to visualize the various things that "could" happen in the event of such and such.

    Of course, IMO, all this could have been avoided if a supervisor had gone to the scene and remained there, taking charge. Wasn't it Mason who was supposed to be in charge? Eller was reluctant to leave his family to go in to work and I believe he had designated Mason to act as officer-in-charge. Whoever it was, though, apparently shirked his duty. Just as, IMO, Eller should have left his family (although they were visiting from out of town) to go and direct a kidnapping investigation.

    I think Linda Arndt has a lot of information about the crime that would be very interesting. At one time, she had planned to write a book; however, that seemed to have fallen by the wayside. I, too, wonder about her now.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    I tend to think "Deviation of my instructions" isn't too noteworthy. I agree that it is "jarring"., but when you consider the author was involved in a highly emotional situation; it was probably early morning; and the author was probably writing with opposite hand, etc., it was probably a slip the author would not make most times.

    Sometimes, when I'm writing on the run, late at night on the forums, I re-read my post and catch some glaring mistake that I wouldn't normally make.
    Do you use different prepositions from the ones you habitually use? Those aren't the kinds of mistakes I make.

    "Deviation from my instructions" is a phrase in common usage. The only instance of "deviation of my instructions" I've found is in the ransom note.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mBm View Post
    Thanks, Elle. I do think they treated her poorly and I think it was mostly due to lack of respect for her on their part. And this lack of respect probably turned into animosity when she established a friendship with Patsy. However, leaving her alone at the crime scene could have been just a "happenstance" in that the last officer there with her left apparently without giving a second thought to the fact that she would be alone with all the civilians on the scene. Maybe it didn't occur to him that she would have a problem keeping them together in one place. In any event, I can just see her trying to give JR something to do to keep him occupied, never dreaming he would find JB's body. Sometimes, it's hard to visualize the various things that "could" happen in the event of such and such.

    Of course, IMO, all this could have been avoided if a supervisor had gone to the scene and remained there, taking charge. Wasn't it Mason who was supposed to be in charge? Eller was reluctant to leave his family to go in to work and I believe he had designated Mason to act as officer-in-charge. Whoever it was, though, apparently shirked his duty. Just as, IMO, Eller should have left his family (although they were visiting from out of town) to go and direct a kidnapping investigation.

    I think Linda Arndt has a lot of information about the crime that would be very interesting. At one time, she had planned to write a book; however, that seemed to have fallen by the wayside. I, too, wonder about her now.
    Thanks mBm for joggng my memory on this part.

    Courtesy of Little

    Steve Thomas "JonBenét"

    26

    Detective Linda Arndt was now alone with seven adults-the Ramseys, the Whites, the Fernies, and the minister. There was no way only one officer could keep track of them all, and Arndt would realize she had lost John Ramsey.

    Patsy moved into the rear den and lay on the couch, attended by her friends. She said she was having second thoughts about the housekeeper being the author of the note.

    Around noon Arndt used a cell phone to page Sergeant Mason, now at police headquarters, for an update and to get more cops back at the house, but she received no response. Thirty minutes later she repeated the page, and it too went unanswered. The order for radio silence denied her the direct communication she needed. She had not carried a radio pack set with her.



    Detective Arndt could not account for John Ramsey until about noon. She found him reading some correspondence, and she incorrectly Assumed he had stepped out to get his mail. She was unaware that the house did not have an exterior mail box and that the mail came in through a front door slot. Ramsey had been out of contact for over an hour. In coming months, we realized that the time lapse would have allowed Ramsey plenty of time to roam his house.


    Arndt noted a marked change in Ramsey's attitude when she saw
    him again. Whereas he had been calm and collected earlier, he now sat alone in the dining room, preoccupied in thought, his leg bouncing nervously.


    27
    At one o'clock that afternoon, Arndt enlisted Fleet White to help
    keep Ramsey's mind occupied. Making a decision for which she would later be heavily criticized, she suggested they go through the house "from top to bottom" to see if they could find anything belonging to the missing girl. No police officer was available to escort them, which meant the two civilians would be roaming the house unsupervised.


    John Ramsey was on the move at once and headed immediately for the basement, starting at the bottom of the house instead of the top as the detective had suggested. Fleet White followed him down.
    *snip*


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



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
  •