Clues in the note

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Zan, Jan 13, 2002.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Zan

    Zan FFJ Senior Member

    the attack

    CMS>>>The "kill twice" nature of the head blow and strangulation, along with the weak vaginal abuse<<<

    From Chapter 9 of D-O-Lie...What I call PR's veiled confession..

    One the attack?....head blow?

    “His recomendation, based on first hand experience, was that the best way to overcome cancer was to hit it hard on the first attackâ€(PR)

    Strangulation?...

    “…putting the weight on my neck to stretch it and release the presureâ€(PR)

    Vaginal assult?

    “During the humiliating process, in which a wand was inserted into my vagina. I tried to keep calm, but it was almost impossibleâ€â€¦â€I squirmed uncomfortablyâ€(PR)


    On why two killing methods?

    “...they called .â€it two for good measure.."(PR)


    To me..I see PR discussing the crime and also the investigation in this chapter(as she does throughout the book)...and not what she pretends to be discussing....JMO
     
    Zan, Jan 16, 2002
    #21
  2. Zan

    Zan FFJ Senior Member

    Your Welcome Angle

    There are some more I noted on the "heart" thread....

    >>>my sister has a copy, and she has annotated certain paragraphs, <<<

    I'd love to see what your sister compiled...
     
    Zan, Jan 16, 2002
    #22
  3. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Hey Zan!...

    great post... I too wondered about the wand inserted and squirming from Patsy. When you post the treatment Patsy talks about.... well, it does set off the hinky meter.

    Hi Angel!
     
    Show Me, Jan 16, 2002
    #23
  4. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    What Hodges says

    <html>
    <body text="#000099" bgcolor="#CCFFFF" link="#00CC00" vlink="#FF0000" alink="#993366">
    <u>Who Will Speak For JonBen&eacute;t?</u>&nbsp; by Andrew G. Hodges M.D.
    <p>Everyone has been puzzled as to the meaning of $118,000 in the ransom note: why the killer selected such and odd number and what it tells us...All numbers are derivatives of the digits 1 through 10, a crucial principle in understanding the cryptology of numbers, which necessitates ignoring zeroes. Thus the writer clearly was preoccupied with the numbers 8 and 10 - repeating both numbers three times in various forms, with the 8 usually mentioned first as in the $118,000 amount before the $100,000 (or 8 before 10 reduced when derivatives above 10 are ignored). Along the same line, it will help to keep in mind specifically that 18,000:8,000+10,000 (8+10); and 118,000:18,000+100,000 (8+10) are the same basic numbers. (P249;pp3)
    <p>The key to understanding any encoded message, including numbers, is the context that the writer herself defines. In this case, it is the crucial idea of the life-threatening, narrow time frame "between 8 and 10." The writer gives us the code for 8 and 10 - it means time is short or limited with life hanging in the balance, and is specifically limited to the exact amount of 2, another crucial number. (Earlier in dividing $18,000 into $20 bills, the writer underscores in another way the importance of the number 2 and it's connection to the number 8. (P250;pp1)
    <p>...With her stage IV ovarian cancer, Patsy Ramsey had between an 8 and 10 chance of dying, which translates into only a 20 percent survival rate. This would explain her preoccupation with the numbers 8 and 10. (P250;pp2)
    <br>&nbsp;
    <p>Sorry - will have to search for the reference to the attach&eacute;.
    </body>
    </html>
     
    JR, Jan 18, 2002
    #24
  5. fly

    fly Member

    what a crock

    I didn't think my opinion of Hodges could get any worse, but after reading that bit about $118,000, it has. What a crock! IMO, of course.
     
    fly, Jan 18, 2002
    #25
  6. Zan

    Zan FFJ Senior Member

    Fly>>7and 11

    I think Hodges did a pretty good job.....but I think he did miss something here...

    When I first read the rn...I thought the same thing..that the writer got stuck on 8's and 10's....100,000...80,000...118....I'll call between 8 and 10....

    But once I knew a little more about the case...I realized that the time period was right between two major events that were to take place that morning....and so was arranged to cancel these events OUT...events that were not really going to take place anyway...even though the writer planned them...

    These events were....the Rs were to be at the airport around 7am...and the R's were to meet the older kids in Minn. at 11:00 or 11:30am...

    Those events were mainly planned for two reasons....1. To cause confusion for the older kids....the perp arranged the Michigan trip late...around the 22nd and 23rd...In order to keep the older kids from coming to Boulder on Christmas and seeing their father(rule #1>>no additional witnesses) ..In return the perp offered a special celebration in Michigan...which the perp knew was not going to take place...but the older kids didn't know...and the arrangements which were made in haste left them no time to disagree...the decision was already made for them by the manipulative perp....JMO

    2. The perp needed to show a future event for the victim...so the murder wouldn't look intended...JMO
     
    Zan, Jan 18, 2002
    #26
  7. fly

    fly Member

    because

    Angel - I don't think Hodges is insane. I don't think he is necessarily wrong about PR being the killer. I don't even have any serious problem with the idea that motives of which we are not consciously aware may sometimes drive our behavior and be reflected in it.

    What I do have problems with is his tortured analysis that stretches any symbols way past the breaking point, and the lack of any credible proof that his methods have any validity whatsoever.

    It's all post hoc and built upon the initial assumption that PR is guilty - but then used to <i>prove</i> PR is guilty.
     
    fly, Jan 18, 2002
    #27
  8. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    Fly

    I guess my question would be:

    If we believe in body language why not Hodges theory of thought patterns?

    Note on the daily that my mom is not doing well at all. She doesn't seem to know my name but is able to call me "2" (or Two.) I am the second of three daughters (she had no boys.) Belle has very little brain function left between all of her strokes and the severe dementia caused by a lack of oxygen to her brain since her car accident in Oct. 1996. Granted, that isn't solid proof Hodges if 100% correct but it helps me validate a theory I already supported based on my Behavioral Science studies.

    I agree, that Hodges may push some points a bit far, however, he also states John was involved and doesn't completely pin the murder on Patsy. I also believe in the innocent until proven guilty rights we have though struggle with them in this case because of the Ramsey's behavior.
     
    JR, Jan 18, 2002
    #28
  9. fly

    fly Member

    JR

    JR - I'm sorry your mother's not doing better. Your interpretation of her behavior might be correct. Hard to tell for sure, but it isn't out of the question because similar sorts of compensation are pretty common.

    The fact that a popular theory based on other information reaches the same conclusion that Hodges does (PR wrote the note) has nothing really to do with whether Hodge's analysis has any merit. For example, I could make up some mumbojumbo based on the characteristics of the handwriting "proving" PR wrote the note (e.g., the w's being a symbol of feminity - breasts - and the fact that one was smaller indicating PR's fear that JR perceived her as less a woman after having her gonads yanked and reaching 40, or some such nonsense). This might very nicely correspond to your theory, but my analysis would still be what it was without any consideration of your theory -- bull ****.

    A big difference in body language and Hodges' stuff is that there is some reasonably objective data supporting the validity of at least certain body language signals. The support for Hodges' approach is limited to anecdotal reports, and that doesn't mean squat.

    As I said, though, I'm not trying to dismiss entirely the idea that people's behavior can be influenced by unconscious factors. I'm just saying that there's no evidence that what Hodges is doing has any validity. To go back to my handwriting example...it might be very true that handwriting reveals something about a person's personality or psyche, but my approach to interpreting handwriting might have no value whatsoever.
     
    fly, Jan 18, 2002
    #29
  10. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    Fly

    Just kind of curious here, have you read Hodges book or are you just aware of his theory? I do agree it needs a lot of validation, which will require a lot more research and documented cases but he does present some good arguement.
     
    JR, Jan 18, 2002
    #30
  11. fly

    fly Member

    JR

    JR - I have seen numerous sections of Hodges' book posted on the various forums. That's plenty to be able to understand the basis of his approach and to get a pretty clear idea of what he's doing. He believes that a person's behavior - what they say, etc. - is influenced by one's psyche in symbolic, subtle ways. It's the same basic idea behind the even more idiotic reverse speech theory, but with symbol and metaphor substituted for the reverse aspect. He believes that by analyzing word choice, etc., the person's true feelings and history may be revealed. Is just another knock off on Freudian analysis.

    When Hodges first hit the news, I did quite a bit of research trying to find out more about Hodges' credentials and whether any real evidence for his technique exists. What I found was not confidence-building in the least.
     
    fly, Jan 19, 2002
    #31
  12. fly

    fly Member

    Angel

    I've considered all views. I just flush those that I become convinced are full of crap. Hodges falls into that category, IMO.
     
    fly, Jan 19, 2002
    #32
  13. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Hey

    Fly I know what you mean about Hodges.

    Angel, JR I have a hard time with Hodges. It seems like if Patsy said, "I like sugar in my tea" Hodges would somehow say Patsy was thinking of water which means the sea of course then that leads to those nautical knots which leads to the knot and the garrot and Patsy was really trying to confess when she talks about tea.

    Hodges streeeechhhess things so far. Although a few times when I was reading his books I did think some things made sense. I understand what he is trying to do and in theory he may have some points about Patsy.

    I will always have an open mind and perhaps sometime in the future Hodges work will be more accepted and easier to understand. Right now a lot of what he says seems to defy logic.

    You know this is JMHO of course

    Tricia
     
    Tricia, Jan 19, 2002
    #33
Page 2 of 2
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice