Comparison of 'u', 'R' & 'o' in Ramsey campaign signs with Ransom Note

The U is a clue?

The “U†in the ransom note and the “U†in Patsy’s sample handwriting look like horseshoes.
So, hold the phone, you’re not alone, in thinking they are a match. A horseshoe “U†from out of the blue is a very big clue. But, oh, what to do?
And, what do you say, about that little “a?†It too, is sort of a clue. But, what to do?
The U and the a speaks volumes, I say.
Good day.
GL

 

LOL, Greenleaf ... your ditty reminds me of the good Dr. Suess.



Would you say it's intruder, not Ram?

I would not, I could not.

Not on a train
Not in the rain
Not on a fox
Not in a box.
Not on your life
It was "the wife."
I don't give a ratsy
I know it was Patsy.



IMO

 

"My statement was ... it is quite unusual for a person to write the letter 'u' without a tail, yet both the ransom note, and Patsy's handwriting, have examples of the letter 'u' without a tail. That was the point the case observer noticed about the Ramsey campaign sign ... it ALSO had a 'u' without a tail."

The only example of Patsy's writing I've seen where the "u" without a tail appears is in that one "right-hand sample" from the Enquirer. As you can see from the individual words sampling you posted, all those words do have tails on the "u". As do all the other samples of her printing. This doesn't puzzle you?


"Handwriting analysts know there are people who make 'u's without tails, BUT IT IS NOT COMMON TO DO SO. So it stands out as an identifying factor ... especially when the mother of the dead child WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME makes the same 'u' as the author of the ransom note."

I'd be interested in learning your source for that observation. I happen to print my "u"s without tails and see no reason why lots of others wouldn't as well. What bothers ME is not the "u"s without tails but the fact that that particular sample is so different in so many ways from any other sample of her writing or printing I've ever seen.

"I have not "accused" Patsy of anything. I merely stated a fact."

Sorry, but you most certainly did accuse her: "Patsy's "ransom note" done for investigators after JonBenet's death used both copybook AND typographical lowercase 'a's. She was making a conscious effort to use the copybook 'a', but the typographical (hooded) also appeared in her "ransom note." Sometimes, Patsy tried to minimise the hood by making the half circle come up to meet it after the hood was already formed, but several times Patsy forgot, and the hood is very apparent."

When you conclude she was making a "conscious effort" or "tried to minimize" something, that is an accusation, NOT a fact. There is nothing in the sample itself that tells us anything about any "conscious effort" to make the letters look any different than they'd ordinarily look. That is your conclusion and it is certainly an accusation. I see no evidence of any conscious effort to do anything out of the ordinary. I simply see two different forms of the letter "a."

"Yes, in sentence written samples, Patsy used the two different 'a's interchangeably, but in several instances, there was a conscious effort to change the hooded 'a' to the copybook 'a' by making the half circle come up to, and obscure, the hood. This is ALSO what Steve Thomas is referring to."

Here again I see no evidnce of "conscious effort." We can see that Patsy used one type of "a" in certain samples and in other samples mixed two different types. Clearly she is in the habit of using both. And the note also contains both types. THAT is a fact -- and that fact is possibly meaningful. But Thomas has accused her of consciously avoiding the hooded "a" after the murder because she was aware that that type of "a" was used in the note. That is simply false. If she'd been making such an effort then clearly we wouldn't be seeing hooded "a"s in the sample she provided to investigators. Thomas was WAY off base in making that accusation and I'm wondering why you can't see that. The evidence is there in the samples you've just posted.


"When asked to give specific word samples, and in MOST of Patsy's post Christmas 1996 handwriting (I did not say ALL), she has avoided making the "hooded" 'a' and the tail-less 'u' because they were pointed out as identifying characteristics of the Ransom Note author."

Again, an accusation. And clearly a false one. There is no evidence whatsoever that she avoided using hooded "a". It's right there in the samples she provided. You yourself pointed them out. There are SEVERAL. Same with he tail-less "u"s. They are all over the place in the "right-hand sample" she (apparently) provided the investigators. If she wanted to avoid them then why did she use them?

"I will post Patsy's individual word samples below so you can see how she used the copybook 'a' through all of them."

I very much appreciate your posting of these samples, they are very interesting. I've seen most of them before, of course, but it's helpful to have them all collected in one place like this. I do see that she uses copybook "a" here yes. And if that were a consistent part of her printing in all the samples she provided the police then I'd have to agree that this would look suspicious. But it isn't. In other samples, she uses many hooded "a"s. Where is the evidence of deception?

"Finally, the document labeled 'Patsy's Right Hand' sample IS Patsy's right-hand sample as taken from the same source ... the December 3, 2002 National Enquirer. The samples were sold to the Enquirer by Susan Bennett along with transcripts that were eventually published as a book by the Enquirer."

I repeat: that sample looks totally different to me than the others. As you yourself point out this one has many tail-less "u"s. But all the others DO use tails. There are many other differences as well. I have no explanation for these differences. But they are certainly there. And that puzzles me.

"You said, "What gives here?"

What gives with your attitude? I am not trying to pull a scam on anyone, nor post the wrong samples, nor try to compare apples and oranges from some shady source."

Sorry if you misread me. I was certainly not accusing you of anything. I was just puzzled by the many differences between that one sample and all the others. The National Enquirer is not exactly the most reliable source. Nor is Jameson, as I think you might agree. The NE at one time printed a totally bogus photocopy purporting to be the note but in fact a crude imitation of the original, handprinted by God knows who. I checked the book and that particular sample isn't in it.

I really have no idea what to make of that, what it might mean, if anything. But I am certainly not accusing YOU of misleading us with that sample, that was NOT my intention.

"DocG, I have purposefully avoided tangling with you here at FFJ as I remember the "baptism by fire" you gave me after my first post at WS. I have not wanted to start the war all over again. I know you are a passionate JDI, and believe Patsy can do no wrong ... and that is your right.

But I will NOT be accused of posting false information for the nefarious purpose of slandering Patsy Ramsey. I have merely posted HER handwriting for all to see and compare. I have kept my comments, and analysis, to a minimum, believing the handwriting speaks for itself."

Nor will I be intimidated, Cherokee, into not questioning questionable conclusions and questionable documents, regardless of the source. The handwriting does NOT speak for itself. Before you can accuse someone of such a horrible crime, the evidence has to be interpreted in a meaningful and logical manner. What DOES speak for itself is the FACT that Patsy used both the unhooded and hooded "a" both before AND after the murder. Your accusations and those of Steve Thomas are clearly false.

 

Cherokee, I have to agree with you here. The ransom note leads directly towards Patsy Ramsey, there are so many signs and too many inconsistencies in her statements. I believe she wrote the note and think she did more! I also believe John was involved in everything. Only in no way I see her as an innocent bystander. Handwriting experts, psychologis, profilers all say the same. I will not ignore any experts opinion, and by that I mean real experts. Not the ones that can be bought.

And no I will never believe an intruder was ever present in that house. There is no evidence whatsoever of an intruder. And to end with J. Ramsey own words "It has to be an inside job!"

 

Oh, bullrod, Doc. I see Patsy Ramsey all over that ramsom note, even without comparing the printing against her known samples. Throw in the comparisons, and I am at a loss to explain how you CANNOT see it. Maybe it's a woman thing, ya think? Maybe I'm just good at recognizing a person's handwriting, even when it's disguised. Maybe it's because I'm not fooled by Patsy's public demeanor, because I'm a female, and I can spot a phoney female a mile away.

Cherokee was presenting her points the same way you do, Doc. Sheesh, lighten up, would you already?

 

Nor will I be intimidated, DocG, by your defamation of my good name, and your scurrilous accusations.

I said NOTHING in my previous post that could be construed as intimidation. No one has tried to bully you into believing anything about Patsy's handwriting. You are free to scroll on by.

The handwriting DOES speak for itself, as other posters here agree. You are the only one who does not see it, because you do not want to see it. That's your right ... but do not presume to tell me ANYTHING about handwriting analysis or graphology.

Other posters on this board have accused Patsy of everything under the sun, but for some reason you love to attack me. You did the same thing on the WS board. Posters could berate Patsy all day long, but whenever I posted, you came out with claws sharpened. I posted this analysis as a favor to Tricia. Why am I singled out for you vitriol?

Patsy used the typographical 'a' and the tail-less 'u' before, and after, Jon-Benet's death. Later, Patsy abandoned those traits. However, one or two traits does not mean anything as I have said over and over. But you do not listen. I have said it is the TOTALITY of the traits. It is the SUM of Patsy's handwriting and linguistics, both before, and after, Jon-Benet's death that is important.

And leave Steve Thomas out of it. He has nothing to do with my analysis. I did all three components of my analysis before Steve Thomas ever wrote his book. I do not base my conclusions regarding this case on anything Steve Thomas has ever said. I resent the implication that I cannot think for myself. Believe it or not, there are those of us who think Patsy is guilty FROM THE EVIDENCE, and we don't care one whit what Steve Thomas thinks.

Finally, how dare you call me a liar by saying my posts are "clearly false."

I may not agree with one thing you have written in any post you've made, but I have never stooped so low as to call you a liar.

Like I said before ... you stay in your corner, and I'll stay in mine. I don't know why you love to attack me, but I became tired of it long ago.


IMO

 

I agree, Sylvia, that Patsy did more than write the Ransom Note, and that John is also involved. They are both in this up to their eyeballs.



IMO

 

I've been every bit as unpopular on Jameson's forum as this one. And I don't expect any more sympathy here than there. But I will say this. Whenever I argue against the intruder theory on this forum, everyone tells me how brilliant I am. And when I defend Patsy on that other forum, I am percieved as equally brilliant. It's only when I tell people what they DON'T want to hear that I become insufferable, stubborn, blind, intimidating, rude, etc.

Both camps see the case as more or less open and shut. And both are all too happy to ignore some HUGE holes in their thinking. Neither group is willing or able to address the contradictions I regularly find in their arguments -- but both are all too eager to attack me for not seeing "the obvious." Nothing about this case is obvious, sorry.

I'm sorry, Cherokee, if you're offended when I tell you that you HAVE in fact accused Patsy. And I'm sorry if you're offended when I demonstrate that you are very clearly wrong. Instead of addressing what I have to say by responding with counter-arguments you simply toss out more accusations, this time addressed at me. I never accused you of faking the documents you presented, that was all in your mind. I simply expressed a degree of puzzlement regarding them. But that was enough for you to fantasize a personal attack. Just as you've extrapolated from the handwriting evidence your certainty that Patsy was making a "conscious effort" to decieve.

I've been harder on you than some others because you very arrogantly expect everyone here to bow down before your graphology skills, skills that are certainly NOT evident in anything you've ever posted that I've seen. To accuse someone of deliberately changing their writing habits to decieve and then actually posting samples that demonstrate that this person's writing habits in fact did NOT change, now that's really scientific, isn't it? Not that it matters when you're posting here. As long as you're intent on bashing Patsy you're safe on this forum, they'll buy any garbage you care to hand out.

As for you WY, we've been pals for a long time so your tone really disappoints me. I will not be bullied by you or anyone else. If you want to discuss any specifics of anything I've posted I'm happy to discuss it with you. If you simply want to assert your superiority based on some sort of feminine mystique I'm not interested.

 

I did not fantasize a personal attack. You started it with your attitude of "So what gives here?" "How reliable is the source of that? "Are you sure you have the right sample?" "So what's the point?" when I'd already given the point. Then you further escalated it by saying you would not be intimidated by me when I'd said nothing remotely intimidating. You started the whole thing, and then you sit back and plead victim.

Other people have disagreed with me, and they do so in a way that is not condescending or demeaning, and I welcome their comments.

You admit you have been "harder on me" than others. Is that not admitting personal attack? In fact, the entire previous sentence is a personal attack, and not a fantasy.

I do NOT arrogantly expect everyone here to "bow down" before my graphology skills. I don't care if posters agree, or disagree. I am simply putting the information out there for comparison.

I don't care whether my graphology skills are evident to you. Your petty insults don't affect my life, or my analysis, one way or another.

As I said before, I have purposefully avoided posting to you since you have made your animosity towards me quite clear from the beginning of my posts at WS. I knew it was only a matter of time before you attacked me here at FFJ.

Oh, like that's some big accusation. Well, excuse me. Go ahead and crucify me. I demonstrated Patsy has changed some of her letter formations. If you don't want to see it, that's fine by me. I stated at the beginning of the thread why I was posting the information, and I did not start the thread "intent on bashing Patsy." YOU are the one who made the giant leap between comparisons of letter traits to "bashing Patsy."

This is so reminiscent of the way you attacked me after my first posts at WS. I wrote about Patsy's concern for image, and her psychological need for approval. You'd have thought I accused her of being Hitler the way you went off on me then. And I see nothing has changed.

You know ... here's the deal. Patsy could have all those things, AND have changed her letter formations ... and it still wouldn't mean she killed JonBenet. But you are so defensive for her ... anything even said in Patsy's direction becomes "Patsy bashing" to you. I'm sorry I always get too close to your sacred cow.

I have said this before, and I will say it again ... I do not know what happened that night, nor who inflicted JonBenet's fatal injury ... but this I do know. Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note, and John Ramsey is in on the cover-up.



IMO

 

Cherokee,

I really found this thread to be quite interesting, infact, I've been meaning to post this since I first read this thread this afternoon but I've been packing and kept getting corraled back to work by the boss. :rage:

I see the similarities and wanted to point out that like the ransom note author, the sign painter used the same big lettering technique, as if their only real intention was for it to be legible; the sign wasn't at all appealing, it only says "Support Ramsey" That Y was amazingly similar to the sample that Judith id'd as Patsys writing.

I've been trying a number of things with the ransom note and have found some really interesting stuff, most recently I've been superimposing the ransom note letters onto Patsy's other samples.

I'd post the results but the insert image button only allows images already on the net to be attached. Anyway, they're done with the generic Paint program every computer has, using the "Draw Opaque" option I was able to basically drag and drop ransom note letters onto Patsy's samples, even if they were in cursive, the sizes (height and width) were always very close,

I agree with you completely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, some experts think it was done with her left hand, but I think she did it with her right hand and was so emotionally shot that it's the best she could've done for the state she was in.

Thanks for the comparison, it's going into the file.

 

I think a male did this, just not sure which one. I always have. But then, I know the BPD has more crime info than me so what the hell do I know? Anyway, I will say I have no doubt Patsy wrote at least some of that note. But I will say also that I have seen Lizard Tongue's samples on the internet and I can also see similarities in his writing as well. I wouldn't doubt that they both had a hand in writing the note. I don't know who did what, but I have no doubt John Ramsey was involved in at least the coverup. But this is just my observation.

 

When we first met on CN2000 three years ago, Thor, you thought a Ramsey male was the perpetrator, and you haven't changed this theory in all that time. I'm glad this didn't make any difference to our friendship over the years. We have had some great discussions.

John Ramsey's examples were similar. This is why I value Delmar's analysis of the ransom note by "content" only. It saves me all the hard work Cherokee is doing. I did see the similarities she pointed out.

Greenleaf and Cherokee: Loved your poetry!

 

Bullied, Doc? I don't see where I tried to bully you at all. I just think you are wrong. Am I not entitled to my opinions? I think you are a mite touchy, and I don't know why.

Whatev. We're still buddies. I don't expect you to cow. Don't expect me to, either, because you know I won't. It's not that important to me. You go on believing JR wrote that note. I've told you before I can see some similarities between some of JR's letter formations and the ransom note, but I was telling you the truth when I said I see Patsy all over that note. The note IS Patsy. I just don't know why you can't see it.

 

You're welcome, JC.

I'd love to see the comparisons you've done. I'm sure we can work out a way to post your comparisons here so everyone can see them.

Good luck with the packing. You have my sympathy. It's not a job I enjoy. :yuck:

 

I'm going to give Cherokee a break this time, I have no interest in flame warfare, so won't respond to her last post. I WILL restate my gratitude for her efforts in posting all these samples Patsy provided to the investigators. I've seen them before but this thread has prompted me to examine them more carefully, especially in the light of Cherokee's own observations. Three things have especially caught my attention:

1. The difference between "Patsy's right-hand sample" and all the other samples of Patsy's printing or writing that I've ever seen. I have to admit that throws me for a loop. Patsy's hand is usually fluid, evenly spaced, clear and flowing, totally different from the uneven, cramped and sometimes sloppy penmanship of the note. But her "right-hand sample" is in fact uneven, cramped and sometimes sloppy, as is the note. Leaving that aside for a moment, there is also something very strange about Patsy changing her style so dramatically when printing that particular message, that's also very odd and hard to understand -- and suspicious. I'm wondering whether that really is what she herself wrote. As I said before, the NE HAS published at least one version of the note itself that is clearly inauthentic. So their methods are not exactly above reproach. On the other hand, if this IS truly a sample provided by Patsy, then I must say it DOES seem suspicious. But why would she deliberately want to alter her usual printing style to make it look MORE like the note? Sometimes the details of this investigation prove to be as bizarre as the crime itself, I must say.

2. What Cherokee has posted demonstrates that the accusations thrown out by Steve Thomas regarding Patsy's use of so-called "manuscript a" are clearly false. In this case, to quote Cherokee, it IS true that "the facts speak for themselves." It's already been demonstrated that Patsy sometimes used manuscript "a" prior to the murder. Thomas accused her of deliberately altering her writing style by avoiding use of manuscript "a" after the murder. That one puzzled me for some time, but now as these examples make clear, she DID use manuscript "a" after the murder and in fact used it in the very exemplars she was providing to the police as part of the investigation. Not just once or twice but several times. The ransom note uses both forms of the letter "a" and so does Patsy. Both before AND after the murder. So what was Thomas's point? It looks to me as though he was seeing what he wanted to see and ignoring what didn't fit his theory. Instead of attacking me for being "in love with" my own theory or simply asserting ones own certainty that Patsy "must have" written the note, I'd love to see someone on this forum actually defend Thomas on this point in the light of the evidence we see so clearly on these samples.

3. One thing I keep noticing over and over with amazement is the fact that no one but me seems to be bothered by the lack of exemplars from John. You know, he TOO was in the house that night. He too could have been involved in the crime. And he COULD have penned that note. In the polygraph arranged by HIM he wasn't asked about the note at all. (My guess was that he probably WAS questioned about the note and was found to be untruthful -- so that question may have been conveniently dropped.) But even if you don't see John as writer of the note don't you have the least bit of curiousity about the exemplars HE provided? Or his historic exemplars? We've seen tons of Patsy's, they're all over the place. But so little from John. What gives with that? Who is protecting this guy, and why?

That's all for now. I'd just like to urge everyone who has a problem with my posts to address specifics of what I've written and provide counter-arguments rather than simple assertions of one own "faith" in Patsy. And disdain at my stubborness in not seeing how "obvious" it is that she wrote the note. Let's keep to specifics please. I already know where most of you stand on Patsy -- and on me generally -- so there's no need to keep repeating yourselves.

 

DocG,

I remember reading at the time of Patsy writing all her samples, that it was a very difficult task checking someone's handwriting who is artistic, because they do keep changing their writing all the time. This is true Doc, because
I took a Calligraphy course because I'm an artist too, and after the course, I had the tendency to change some of the letters in my normal handwriting.
It comes automatically. When you have learned to change your capital letters with such a flourish, you can't resist changing your normal handwriting. even if it is just a letter here and there. Even my printing in small case changed.

I'm assuming that Patsy may have taken a Calligraphy course, of course! btw like Thor above, I did see John Ramsey's writing resemble the ransom note too.

Edited to add - I see Patsy Ramsey all over this ransom note too!

 

I change my handwriting, too, Elle. In fact, my printing looks like handwriting, and I am forever changing the way I make my capitals at the beginning of a sentence, even in my name when I write it. Sometimes I have loops, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I will bring a loop up from the last letter in a word to cross a "t," sometimes I don't. I'm not an artist by any stretch of the imagination, except in my handwriting.

 

What, Thor? You're not "bowing down" to my handwriting analysis? You know, this is going to hurt me more than it is you. :fishslap:

I understand what you are saying. I can see some similar traits in John's handwriting as well. We all have similar traits. I've seen RST posters who go on, and on, about how they have a "hooded" 'a' or that their writing is similar to the writing in the ransom note.

But similar traits is not the only factor. As I said before, there are many other variables that are considered such as slant, zones, pressure, connecting strokes, rhythm, and pastosity, just to name a few.

There are phrases in the beginning of the ransom note that are linguistically similar to the way John would speak, but after the first few paragraphs, and as the note goes on (and on), it begins to sound more like Patsy. I am open to the idea that Patsy and John may have collaborated on the idea of what to say in the first part of the note (inclusion of the reference to his "bussiness" as motive for example) ... and then Patsy took off from there.

There are three components to my analysis of the ransom note.

1. straight handwriting comparison
2. linguistic comparison (such as the analysis done by Delmar)
3. graphological comparison

The first one is what I have been posting on this thread. It's a visual comparison.

The second one uses linguistic method to analyze syntax, vocabulary, etc.

The third one is the analyzation of handwriting as a psychological tool for the purpose of determining the personality behind the writing.

It is these three methods combined that led me to the conclusion Patsy wrote the ransom note, and it is primarily the third one that convinced me. The personality of the ransom note writer as revealed in their handwriting matches what we know of Patsy as a person.

People can have common handwriting traits and personality traits, but there will be individual differences, and it is those differences (distinctive to Patsy's personality) that are apparent in the ransom note.

As I said before, I do not KNOW who caused JonBenet's fatal injury ... and you may be right that it was a Ramsey male. But whoever it was, I believe Patsy wrote the ransom note to try to cover for them.


IMO

 

Thanks, Elle. You're sweet. And if you loved the poetry, I'm worried about you. LOL

By the way, were YOU an English teacher? I can tell you're very much into words and language.

 

I'd love to send them to you, heck, I'd love to post em, Just in case (lol) I went back lastnight and did a few more 'tests', this time I took the "Love Mommy" from the end of Patsys handwriting sample (she refers to "two gentlemen") Then I took the ransom note letters and dragged and dropped them onto "Love Mommy" they fit amazingly well!

Anywho, if Tricia or WY, or someone with my info is available, I give my full permission to them to give you my email addy (and anybody else who'd like to see the comparisons) I'll get the samples all into one or two bitmap files this afternoon.

I hate packing!! Everything we don't use is packed away, I had to get out all my books because I constantly need them for reference.

Still waiting for Dr. Lee's book to arrive....