Michael Tracey. Hypocrisy Doesn't Begin to Describe this Arrogant A$$

zman

I commend your skepticism. Don't let EasyWriter bully you. He has proven nothing.

And yes, there is no real evidence for OR against Patsy or John or both as the killer(s) or cover upper(s). BUT there ARE some VERY good reasons to doubt any intruder theory. ALL the so-called intruder evidence is inconclusive. The window "break-in" is extremely suspicious. There is evidence of a disturbance at the window well and certainly someone placed that suitcase under the window, it didn't stroll over there by itself. And there was detritus from the window well on the floor beneath the window. On the other hand, the spider web on the grate was undisturbed, there were no prints either in the snow or the grass or anywhere else near that grate, nor any sign it had been moved, nor was there any disturbance of the considerable buildup of dirt, dust, peeling paint, etc. in the window frame and sill. What all this evidence suggests is NOT a breakin or breakout by an intruder, but the staging of such a breakin by an insider. When treated piecemeal and selectively filtered, ala Lou Smit's theory, one could make a case for an intruder breakin. When ALL this evidence is considered, however, in toto, there is a compelling case for insider staging.

And as I already argued above, the note makes sense only if we assume it was written by an insider as part of a failed staging attempt.

Put these together and, yes, there IS a very strong case to be made for an inside job.

What made this case so difficult for the DA is the fact that none of the evidence seems to point specifically to either John or Patsy or both together. However, if only one of them had been home alone with JonBenet that night, there most certainly WOULD have been a very strong case against that person and he or she would very likely have been immediately arrested and indicted. Not because of specific evidence pointing to that person, BUT because of the very compelling case to be made against the presence of an intruder.

 

evidence

If there were fibers from Patsy's jacket entwined in the rope then I would say there was evidence to prove her involvement in some way. I know that perhaps fibers from her jacket could be found on JBR simply due to contact between mother and daughter, but quite a stretch to believe those tiny fibers would work their way innocently into a knot formed in the rope. ( I don't even include the fibers found on the tape because it could be argued that the fibers could have been on JBR's face from her mom hugging her or carrying her and then transferred to the tape.)

 

Wasn't this enough evidence for the Boulder Police, to have charged Patsy Ramsey with the death of JonBenét?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how all eyes are continually averted from John Ramsey. Fibers from his shirt were found INSIDE JonBenet's panties. Yet all we hear about are the fibers from Patsy's sweater.

To respond to Texan and Elle, there are simply too many innocent explanations for Patsy's fibers to have been found in and around the crime scene. She was clearly in intimate contact with her daughter, so the fibers could easily have been transmitted to JonBenet via such contact. And some of those fibers could have been transmitted to her attacker via JonBenet herself. Those could be the fibers found in the paint tote and intertwined with the rope. That's why the fiber evidence couldn't be used as the basis for an indictment. If the fibers had been from some suspect outside the home, that would have been a very different story.

 

It wasn't John Ramsey's fibers which worked their way into the ligature knot, it was Patsy's. I believe this was Texan's point Doc.

 

Elle, if you read my previous post carefully you'll see that there is an innocent explanation for Patsy's fibers being entwined in the rope. They could have been transferred to her attacker via JonBenet herself. The same could be true for John's fibers as well. Fiber evidence can't usually be used to implicate someone living at a crime scene. There are simply too many ways for those fibers to be found anywhere in the house AND to be transferred to an intruder. It is SO easy to jump to conclusions, especially when one is already convinced beforehand that a particular person MUST be guilty.

I'm editing this to add that this is clearly NOT the sort of case that will ever be solved on the basis of evidence alone. ALL the evidence is inconclusive, every last bit of it. It's been gone over time and again and never adds up. The case can be solved only through careful contemplation of BOTH evidence AND logic (i.e. common sense). The evidence is inconclusive. But the logic is not. Logically, IMO, there is only one person who could have committed this crime. And that person is NOT Patsy Ramsey.

 

Delmar England Ransome Note Analysis Analysis

From the DERA
The analysis to follow proposes a detailed examination of the ransom note in isolation from circumstance

From the start we are promised a "detailed examination of the ransom note" but I'm not sure thats what we end up with.

Lets examin some conclusions form the DERA:

This mess and mass of words has not one iota of credibility as a ransom note. There wasn't any kidnapping, any attempt to kidnap, or plan to kidnap.

As it turned out there was no kidnapping, but what leads to the conclusion that there was no attempt to kidnap or plan to kidnap? Is it because JBR was found in the home? Let's rid ourselfs of this notion first.
Go back to the morning of the 26th and replay all the events of the day exactly the same except for two. At some point during the night JR and PR make the decision to try and remove the body of JBR from the house. John takes the chance on driving JBR to some park or field 10 miles or so from home. He manages to return undetected. The rest of the day unfolds the same way except that instead of JR finding JBR in the basement a jogger or someone finds JBR in a field. Does the note now become a real ransome note? It's still the same note. Still has the same words. Still has the same handwritting. If you believed PR or JR and PR worte the note before don't you still belive it now? Where JBR's body was found has nothing to do with whether the ransome note is real or not. (Of course I also believe this means because JBR was found inside her home the note does not have to be a fake.)

The note is clearly a panic-driven clumsy concoctions of mental reflexes throw together as words in an attempt to divert focus away from the reality of the situation.

I must disagree. The note is carefully constructed. Each word is precisely choosen and not only that there is a strong possibility the note was written days before the attack. The ransome note was obvioulsy not written by an experienced kidnapper. More likely it was written by an amateur. Although still a quite serious and detailed one.

The best clue that leads to my theory that the note is carefully constructed is the cross out of the word delivered and it's correction with the word pick-up. If the writer of this note was 'panic driven or clumsy" why would he/she stop to correct a meaningless word on a fake ransome note. It clearly shows the writer of the note was well aware of what he/she was writing and how it would be perceived. It shows the writer attempting to be crystal clear with what he/she expects to happen.

The writer is ridiculously detailed about every aspect of the instructions.
1. 118,000 dollars broken up in a very precise way.
2. The delivery instructions are already started (before phone call). When you get home put the money in a brown paper bag. Telling JR such things like "bring an adequate size attache to the bank" and "be well rested the delivery will be exhausting" may be examples of the writer over thinking but are certainly not examples of someone in a rush.
3. Again the writer is extremly clear about what time he/she will call. "I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow.." Why would someone in a hurry to write a fake ransome note even bother creating a false time for the call. You more than likely would just write "Stay by the phone, I will call you with furthur instructions."

The writer was much concerned and undecided about the right time to make a particular phone call.

There is no indecision here. The writer is very clear about what time the call will come and what the call will be about. The writer then takes the time to tell JR that if he gets the money early they may call him early.......Is this the sign of a writer in a panic or rush?

"This assumes that the kidnappers know that Mr. Ramsey will read the note on the day *before* the anticipated money delivery. How do they know this? Was the note delivered to Mr. Ramsey in a way that the kidnappers could and would know with certainty that Mr. Ramsey was aware of the note the day before the money delivery was to take place?


There is some controversy regarding the meaning of "tomorrow" as we all know. However there is another thing I find interesting about the use of the word "tomorrow". It is the only vague detail in the ransome note. Put yourself in the situation .You are writing a "fake" ransome note after killing someone. You are "panic driven" and using "clumsy concoctions of mental reflexes". You take the time to make up a phoney calling time of 8 to 10 am but then write "tomorrow." Why be so specific about the time and not the date. You know what time it is. You know what date it is. Why not write "I will call you between 8 and 10 am on the 27th or the 26th or the 28th?

This is the clue that tells me this note was written days in advance of the planned attack. Maybe even written over a couple of days. The plan was set. JBR would be kidnapped at night from her home. The note is carried around waiting for just the right time. The 23rd? Too many people around? The 24th? Christmas Eve maybe the kidnapper had obligations to attend to or maybe just lost the nerve. The 25th? Has to be tonight becuase the Ramseys will be gone tomorrow and when they come back its right to the Big Red Boat. It's now or never. But thats getting away from the ransome note.

3. The vacillations of the note from respect to contempt also indicate a love-hate relationship that swings drastically. Again, there is implied a personal relationship between Mr. Ramsey and the note writer.

There is an implied personal knowledge of JR but not a personal relationship. I can find no hint of love for JR in this ransome note. Only a slight respect for his business.

6. The writer was much concerned about a proper burial of the daughter

The rest of the letter starting with "Any deviation from..." almost seems to be written or at least dictated by someone else. As if they thought the note seemed to "friendly" and had to be much more threatening.

I don't think the writer is "concerned about a proper burial of the daughter" In the flood of threats that follow this is possibly the worst scenario offered by the note writer. As we all know most familys with missing loved ones would first like them back alive. If not alive then they at least would like to have the remains to bury and know the loved one is at rest. The worst must be not knowing what happend to them. Are they being tortured? Have they been sold into the porn world? Are they being drugged and used as prostitutes?

Notice that the writer had no problem spelling attache and exhaustive, but stumbled on the word, business, with an extras s. Notice the frequent out of place capitalization of the letter f. Most of the note identifies a person well acquainted with the rules of punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. Yet, errors are made within the most simplistic situations. What this adds up to is that the *errors* were conscious decision and inserted deliberately. Why?



First the ransome note is a "clearly a panic-driven clumsy concoctions of mental reflexes throw(n) together" but now the writer is taking the time to locate strategic grammer errors to confuse us.

As some may notice I seldom use commas as a matter of fact other then this forum I seldom use any punctuation in emails or instant messages. Mostly for the sake of typing speed. Again the use of all but basic punctuation indicates to me that the writer is in no rush or panic. Another sign that the note was not written under any pressure and more than likely before the events of that tragic night.

 

oh yes

Fibers could transfer from Patsy to JBR and possibly brush off on an intruder but when you consider how many fibers would transfer to JBR, then even less to an intruder - what are the odds of any of those fibers being entwined in a knot? Now, if Patsy had tied the knot, I could see a few fibers making their way into the knot.
I know I have read that the fibers found in the knot are from Patsy's jacket but I didn't know it had been confirmed that Fiber's from JR's clothing were found on JBR's private place.

 

Michael Tracey sucks.

 

Zman, you wrote:

"This is the clue that tells me this note was written days in advance of the planned attack. Maybe even written over a couple of days. The plan was set. JBR would be kidnapped at night from her home. The note is carried around waiting for just the right time. The 23rd? Too many people around? The 24th? Christmas Eve maybe the kidnapper had obligations to attend to or maybe just lost the nerve. The 25th? Has to be tonight becuase the Ramseys will be gone tomorrow and when they come back its right to the Big Red Boat. It's now or never. But thats getting away from the ransome note."

The note was not carried around because there were no creases on the note. In other words, the note sure wasn't put in someone's pocket and left in the house later on. It appears to me, the note was written inside the house, not brought in from the outside.

 

Quick observation, Thor, and this takes care of this part!

 

It would certainly help if we knew just how many of those fibers were found intertwined with the knot. And don't forget, JonBenet's hair was also intertwined with the knot. So any fibers from Patsy that found their way into JonBenet's hair could have been transferred directly from hair to knot.

The fiber evidence is inconclusive. And for good reason. If it wasn't, believe me, they'd have arrested Patsy in a New York minute.

 

zman

Good thinking, zman. The note is most definitely carefully thought out, in some detail. And you are absolutely right. If the body had been found OUTside the house, then it would have been completely credible as a legitimate ransom note. Just because there are things in the note which can be questioned (such as the foreign faction, the respect for John's "bussiness" and the misspellings) that doesn't mean it's not a real ransom note. It could just mean the kidnapper was trying to mislead. IMO LE's analysis of the note is superficial and naive. He did a much better job with the "garotte" IMO.

However: Tomorrow is tomorrow is tomorrow. While there has been some controversy on that score, there can in fact be no question at all that "tomorrow" meant the 27th and NOT the 26th. John could never have done all he was asked to do by 8AM on the 26th. So the note writer was being crystal clear and there was no need to spell out tomorrow as the 27th. And Thor's point is well taken. The note wasn't folded, no folds no creases. Hard to imagine it having been written in advance and kept in such pristine condition prior to entering the house, especially when there'd be no particular reason to preserve it in that state.

 

Thor

Thor:
The note was not carried around because there were no creases on the note. In other words, the note sure wasn't put in someone's pocket and left in the house later on. It appears to me, the note was written inside the house, not brought in from the outside.

Perhaps the word "carried" was a poor choice on my part. I welcome any and all critiques on my theory about the note, but I can't belive you would dismiss it on the basis of the note not being creased.

Let's exapand a bit.

Maybe the note writer had a car. I am sure you could find room to lay a note pad down in a car. Then you could pull the pages out just before you need them.

Maybe the note writer had a attache case. This person could have put the note pad in the case. Hey maybe there was room for some tape, rope and a stun gun to. Maybe his attache case was "small" and this is why he is concerned about the size of JR's.

Lets even go further.

Maybe the note was written inside the home. The note pad could of been kept in a locked desk or bottom of a seldom used drawer. Maybe JR or PR even wrote the note. See my theroy has nothing to do with who or where the note was written. Just when.

I still say this note was not written in a panic or rush in order to fake a kidnapping. It was written methodically, to be used in a premeditated plan involving Mr. Ramseys daughter.

And for all those who still insist that because JBR was found in the home the there was no attempt to kidnap her. The same argument can be used to say Because JBR was found in the home there was no attempt to fake a kidnapping. The one thing a kidnapping and a fake kidnapping should have in common is the person being kidnapped should not be there.

 

Zman

You said:

"Maybe the note writer had a car. I am sure you could find room to lay a note pad down in a car. Then you could pull the pages out just before you need them.

Maybe the note writer had a attache case. This person could have put the note pad in the case. Hey maybe there was room for some tape, rope and a stun gun to. Maybe his attache case was "small" and this is why he is concerned about the size of JR's."

The problem with this situation is that the notepad that the note was torn from was Patsy's notepad. The exact pad. Thomas' book explained in further detail the exact pages taken out of the notepad. So, going by what you have noted here, the note had to have been written on a pad by the intruder. How did Patsy's notepad get into the writer's car or attache case? Unless is was Patsy herself? This is the whole point. The ransom note was written on Patsy's notepad. There were no fold or crease marks in the note itself. The note had to have been written in the house for these reasons, in my opinion. If it could not be determined what notepad the note was from, that would be a different story. Have you read Steve Thomas' book? This will explain the whole thing involving the notepad. It was written on her pad and the writer used her sharpie pen to write it with. An intruder, in my opinion, would not have stayed in the house to write such a long winded note. And they would not have left the body there, along with said note. This is absurd.

 

Patsy's Notepad

I agree with you 100% Thor. It was Patsy's notepad, and the intruder would have had to steal her notepad first. Strange it was John Ramsey who actually handed Patsy's notepad over to the police (?). Not only did the ransom note match her notepad, there were a few other practise notes discovered in this notepad of Patsy's.

The ink from the pen taken from the hall table from the Ramsey home also matched the ransom note

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm


04-18-2000 Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,"

Page 54:

"We were then brought up to date on a new discovery. Crime scene techs at the house had recoverd three Sharpie felt-tip pens from on orange metal container on the kitchen counter beneath the telephone from which Patsy had made her 911 call, not far from where the ransom note tablet was found."

"U.S. Secret Service eventually determined that one of those pens, a pre-November 1992 water-based ink Sharpie, was used to write both the practice and actual ransom notes. The Secret Service, which maintains a hugh database on inks because of its federally mandated assignment ot chase forgers, told us, "the ink 'on the note' is unique in the collection of approximately 7,000 standards from the Ink Library."

"That meant that whoever wrote the notes used the exact pen from that cup. They not only left the pad behind but, when they finished, neatly put the felt-tip pen in its container."

 

Can I play too Thor??? I can see you are having such a good time here. (Of course your explanation follows the known evidence, makes sense, and is sourced by someone who was there, but where's the fun in that??)

Ok Zman, here's a lot of maybes - this can be interesting, boring, but interesting none-the-less when there are no boundaries and one is not bound by the evidence. The sky's the limit, right? :beammeup:
Maybe the note writer had a hook for a hand...or maybe even both hands!! Yep, and that's maybe why there were no fingerprints on the note or anywhere else. Maybe that's why the writing seems a little shaky cuz maybe they had trouble grasping the Sharpie pen and maybe that explains the marks on JonBenet. Then maybe the man with the hook for hands also had no hair because he had all of it removed because maybe he kept hurting himself with the hooks when he shaved or combed his hair. What do you think?

I didn't get into the woulda coulda mighta aspect- I just tried to stick with the maybe theme.

Little

 

ROTF :rolling: Now there's a good reason for no prints!

 

Yeah, and I know why they never found a roll of tape. While JonBenet was having pineapple, the intruder called and had a pizza delivered. He paid the delivery person an extra five to take away the evidence.