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

I've never heard this before, Doc. I didn't think anyone outside the Ramseys, their lawyer, and the polygrapher knew what questions were on that polygraph. Do you have a source for this? This is interesting news.

There are more senses than just the five senses, Doc. It's not all that different from someone meeting a person and having warning signals go off in their brain, telling them not to trust this person. Scientists know there are other senses, and anyone who discounts those feelings could be asking for a heartache. It may not pass muster in court, but I know what I know. You and I will have to continue to disagree on this one. It doesn't mean I know Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter; it means I strongly believe she wrote the note, with input from JR.

 

BobC

Thanks so much for sharing that very interesting information. I've felt for some time that Patsy was sedated because John kept her that way. The initial sedation is easy to understand, guilty or innocent, she would have been in shock. Once someone is heavily sedated that person is confused and pretty easy to control. So it would not have been difficult for John to make sure she was regularly taking her pills. Except of course on the day he needed her to "be strong" and appear on national television.

If both of them were covering and staging in tandem, I'd think they'd both want to remain as alert and guarded as possible, NOT sedated. They'd have gotten their story together very early on and then "fully cooperated" with the police. That's not what happened. John is fine, Patsy is not. She's "too upset" to be questioned, not just the first day or the first week, but for several weeks if not months. John, by the way, DID initially offer to fully cooperate on his own, but NOT with Patsy, who was "too upset."

What that tells me is NOT that the two of them are in it together, but that John, who is clearly calling the shots, doesn't want Patsy talking to the police. Very possibly because she might spill some beans he doesn't want spilled. Not until he's had a chance to work on her and convince her it's in the best interests of both of them to function as a team. Which is what they ultimately did.

 

Wy

The questions on the polygraph WERE made public, WY. Patsy was asked, among other things, if she knew who wrote the note. But John was NOT asked that question. Which seems VERY odd. The reason given was that he'd been "ruled out" as writer of the note, so the question would have been redundant. That to me is garbage. Even if he didn't write it he might have known who did, so clearly he too should have been asked that question. BUT John is someone from whom all eyes have been averted since he was declared to be "ruled out", so neither LE nor the media ever picked up on that HUGE clue. I find it hard to believe that an experienced polygrapher would not have wanted to ask them both exactly the same questions. So it looks to me as though either John made sure he wasn't asked about the note OR he WAS asked and answered untruthfully. In which case he could have prevailed upon the polygrapher, who after all was working for HIM, to do it all over again without that question being included. I could be wrong but in any case there is something very suspicious about John not being asked about the note.

As far as intuition is concerned, WY, that's a very powerful feeling granted. And if you have it I respect that. But from where I sit, it means nothing, as I'm sure you can understand. I've spent lots of time on that other forum and I can assure you that many there have equally powerful feelings of certaintly that neither John nor Patsy had anything at all to do with the crime.

 

FWIW, I have not ruled John Ramsey out. I also did not make my observations on the note based on intuition. I just wanted to point out that one should not diminish the importance of that sense.

My observations on the note stem from seeing similarities, not only in letter formations, but also in Patsy's mannerisms and her theatrics, which, to me, are highly evident in the note. Certain words and phrases are just so Patsy. I have also said I think some of the letter formations are similar to John's writing. It's the overall look of the letter that reminds me so much of Patsy's writing. It's a hard thing to explain, but it has little to do with intuition. It's more recognition than intution.

 

I'm with WY on that. I can see Patsy all in that note in the way/tone.
But that's not evidence.
I really appreciate seeing the actual comparing of the letters that Cherokee has done. She's put alot of effort and skill into this. Thanks.

 

Me too.

But I think at that point John was trying to point suspicion at an employee of Access Graphics with the comment "an inside job." I believe that's also the reason for the $118,000 amount being inserted in the ransom note. They were hoping LE would go off on a wild goose chase after some nefarious "foreign faction" who had a "mole" or contact inside Access Graphics.

It's obvious from the crime scene staging, the Ramseys wanted LE to believe (more than anything else) the "kidnapper" had been inside their house as it was the only thing that explained JonBenet's dead body. They had to create the illusion SOMEONE ELSE other than themselves had been on the premises ... had invaded the "sanctity" of their home.

John giving the pad of paper to LE was just one more addition to that illusion. Look, here's the pad they wrote the note on. They were here, in this house. The kidnapper exists. It couldn't have been us.

John and Patsy were so focused on creating an intruder, they didn't think it would look more suspicious for the kidnapper to write the note in their home, than somewhere else. Basically, they were making it up as they went along ... hoping LE would buy it, and that would buy them some time. They had a general plan. Have LE find JonBenet's body, leave the house (and Boulder), "lawyer up" (the process had already been started), and hope the whole thing went away in the fog of an illusive intruder who was never caught.


IMO

 

You're welcome, Freebird. Thanks for letting me know.

 

So my question is this: what would have precluded the BOTH of them from writing the note, with Patsy taking dictation from John, and maybe adding a bit of her own stuff to it, as she felt the need?

I also maintain that in order to have delivered such a profound head blow, it would have taken quite a bit of force, and I vote the male for this.

 

Just Chillin, I have always thought that both of them had input into that note, but I think Patsy did the writing.

 

I personally don't think ANYTHING precludes that scenario. That's exactly the possibility I mentioned a few posts back ... that John started Patsy off with what to say, Patsy wrote it down and then starting adding her own dramatic flourishes.

Linguistically, the note obviously changes tone from formal to informal, plural (we) to singular (I), and distant to personal.

When I say "Patsy wrote the ransom note," I mean it literally, as in, Patsy did the actually writing, but I also believe John had input into as to the initial message of the note ... specifically trying to make the motive for JonBenet's kidnapping, and death, be some sort of connection between Access Graphics, the government, and a shadowy "foreign faction."


IMO

 

Justchillin I think you're right. I personally think Patsy wrote it with help from John probably. And Cherokee maybe you're right about JR trying to point investigators towards an Access employee--Henry called this a "big mistake." Not that it mattered in the long run, obviously

 

Obviously is right.

You know, Patsy and John had a problem. Who could they pin JonBenet's dead body on? They had to explain it somehow. Because of the circumstances of her injuries, they felt they couldn't take her to the hospital, call 911 or the police. She died, and at the hands of a family member. Someone could go to jail, Burke might go to foster care, their entire "perfect" world would come crashing down.

Patsy and John didn't have much time to think things through. Who could they blame for JonBenet's death? They had to find a perp.

"It has to be an intruder of some sort."

"But what was his motive? Think. Think."

"We don't want it to be anything to do with the family ... point AWAY from the family."

"I know ... if not family, how about business?"

"Yeah, that's good. We could point to someone with Access Graphics. A conspiracy of some sort. Something to do with the government ... keep it AWAY from the family."

"Okay, make the intruder a kidnapper, wanting money for their "foreign faction" that hates the government. Put in the bonus amount of $118,000 as a clue the whole thing is business related."

"Yeah, a kidnapper, we'll put a rope around her hands like she's been tied up ... oh no, rigor mortis has already set in ... well, just tie around her wrists anyway."

"I'll get started on the ransom note."




IMO

 

Cherokee, you're playing a recording of my thoughts above ...right down to Access Graphics being included in the scenario with the $118,000 being thrown in. I go along with Delmar's thinking "this figure was already in Patsy's head." We're on the same track my young friend.

 

I have to guiltily confess that until Henry Lee said it, it never occured to me that this sum was intentional to put the blame on somebody from Access Graphics. I just assumed it was a stupid mistake by Patsy. :moron:

I was hired for my looks not my brains

 

And you were worth every penny, Bob.


I never considered the $118,000 could've been to point toward an employee either. Very good thinking!

These latest rounds of threads have opened up some new avenues of thought. Kudos for posting them.

 

Henry Lee's book is like a cold slap in the face in this Post libel lawsuit era.

 

Patsy Confidential

In preparation for a few posts on handwriting comparision and analysis, I thought it would be prudent to give a visual provenance of the exemplars used for Patsy Ramsey. The question was raised on this forum as to whether a sample of the ransom note printed by Patsy (with her right hand) was actually Patsy's handwriting.

The sample in question came from a series of documents sold to the National Enquirer by Susan Bennett. The samples of Patsys's handwriting were subsequently published by the NE in December 2002. Scanned copies of those pages are available at www.acandyrose.com The .jpgs used for comparison on this forum were made from those scanned pages.

I have gone through the pages containing Patsy's handwriting, and noted they are all stamped with a reference number and the word CONFIDENTIAL. The reference number consists of a capital R and four digits. The stamped numbers are identical in font to each other, as is the word CONFIDENTIAL. It is obvious the same two stamps (one for the number, one for the word) were used on all five samples.

The pages are numbered at follows:

R0028 - Patsy's right hand sample of the ransom note
R0040 - Patsy's sample of the alphabet
R0060 - Patsy's left hand sample of the ransom note
R0080 - Patsy's sample of individual words
R???? - Patsy's London letter (the number stamp is obscured)
R0101 - Patsy's sample of a spontaneous letter

If the NE applied the stamps after receiving the documents, why would they do so where part of their headline banner would obscure the number completely? Why not make sure the number was visible in all samples to show their authenticity? The variation of stamp ink on the pages is consistant with the use of a hand stamp, not the addition of typeface over image.

In addition, Susan Bennett has never questioned the use of document R0028 as Patsy's RH sample of the ransom note. If that document was forged, and presented, as part of the samples bought from Susan, it is reasonable to assume (given her nature) she would have made a point of noting the "fake" sample at her forum. No one from the Ramsey camp has questioned any of the samples published by the NE.

Furthermore, the writing itself testifies to the fact it is Patsy's handwriting as certain intrinsic personality traits common to both her printing style, and cursive style, are present in document R0028 .

Following are .jpg images of the stamped numbers and word CONFIDENTIAL.

 

Hello

Hi, Cherokee, and everybody.

In years to come, perhaps not too far down the road, a system will be devised to scientifically scan and determine the source of any given handwriting sample. Until then, we can speculate all we like, but no definitive conclusion can be reached. However, to the necked eye, of the most amateur sleuth, the ransom note certainly SEEMS to have been written by Patsy.

Currently, even the nuances seem to have a commonality with Patsy’s handwriting. The subjective nature of handwriting analysis is in its infancy. Nevertheless, I believe there are some brilliant people, devoted to unraveling the relevant clues that will positively identify the hand from which the ransom note words were penned. Already there have been those who have ventured to conclude that Patsy is the author. Because this is such a highly visible case, some of these experts, who have concluded that Patsy wrote the note, are reluctant to come forward, for the fear of lawsuits. (Just my opinion, of course)

GL

 

Cherokee,

Was this the famous Hofstrom kitchen table sample? Or a later one? I know in my heart she wrote the note, I don't understand why people still want to argue, it's as plain as the nose on anyone's face (Well, maybe not Michael Jackson's face, but that would be the exception)!

:highfive: :bowdown: Thanks for scanning these, it helps my memory.

 

The numbers are bothering me now, why 28, 40, 60, 80, 101??

--12, 20, 20,21-- These are the amounts in between.

Is this just some strange way to number stuff or are there THAT many samples?

Did hir recieve THAT many and only sell a few of them??

BTW: I can't wait to see your analysis and comparison!