Patsy & the Ransom Note..A Hidden Truth?

Wombat

Please feel free to start the thread, there is no seniority system around here for getting the conversation going. Senior moments - yes - which would explain why we do not already have a thread started!

BTW - Luv your hat!

RR

 

This is one JBR book I haven't read. I just ordered it from Amazon.com. I bought it used (there are many used books there) for $4.99 including shipping.

 

I've just been through all 39 pages of this forum and the only mentions I've seen of Hodges' work are in the threads "Analyzing the ransom note" pg 38, "Why the Ramseys Don't Sue Hodges" pg 37, and "Clues in the note" pg 37. Therefore, it doesn't look like any specific thread has been started to discuss this, wombat, so if you wish to initiate one, please feel free to do so, as RiverRat suggested.

If I recall correctly it was ShowMe who first mentioned Hodges' second book on the case, Niner, in one of the threads I had just mentioned. I was unaware that he had written another book on the case until Oct 2000 when I received a letter from him in reply to one I sent him a few months earlier. We corresponded a few times via snail mail, the last time being in late 2002.

 

Please give me until the weekend - I've got work issues til then, plus I have to go over a few things in A Mother Gone Bad. I'll do it - it's actually exciting to me!

Thanks, everyone.

 

You are probably correct! Cause I do remember 'someone' mentioning this subject before... if any of that stuff on the pages you mentioned is worth it - wombat can start the thread and move some of the related material there!! :cheerful: just a suggestion!

 

http://www.nationnews.com/StoryView... 00:00:00

Thanks, Little, for posting this story. I was out of town last week, and would have missed it. Liebman confirms everything I've said for years regarding handwriting analysis. It IS a window to an individual's personality, including their mental and emotional health.

That Patsy wrote the "ransom note" is the only thing I've been sure of in this case since I first saw a copy of it several years ago. It confirmed my previous suspicion that something was not right with the Ramsey's post-Christmas 1996 behavior, or their story of what happened that night. They did not act like innocent grieving parents, but instead, seemed to be hiding something.

Patsy's handwriting in the RN was proof to me the Ramseys had lied about their involvement in JonBenet's death. It opened the question that has never been, and may NEVER be, answered ... what really happened that night? What is the truth of JonBenet's death? Which of the three Ramseys was involved in the fatal blow to JonBenet's head? What event precipitated that blow? How was the cover-up constructed and who participated (besides Patsy)?

As I've said before, I've given up the idea the Ramseys will ever be prosecuted for JonBenet's death and/or subsequent cover-up. I do believe whatever happened was some kind of horrific accident ... that there was no premeditation involved in JonBenet's original injury. The crime of Christmas night was in the cover-up, and continual naming of other suspects whom the Ramseys knew had nothing to do with JonBenet's death. Even then, I do not believe the Ramseys will ever be held accountable for that in a court of law.

All I want is the truth. There is a dissonance to JonBenet's death. The parts we know do not add up to the whole. There is no closure, only questions. It's difficult to think we may never know the answers.

 

I agree Cherokee, for me it was the post death actions that I just could not square with people trying to sincerely find a murderer. The words and the actions were not in sync. I don't find it hard to believe though that someone would be so panicked at the mere thought that they had caused the death of their child that they would try to cover up their involvement. In that scenario the actions of the parents after the death of JonBenet begin to make sense. I'm not saying the actions were justified, just that they make sense if one is covering up their involvement.

Little

 

I agree too.

 

I agree

that the original damage was an accident but unfortunately it was the cover up (the strangulation) that really killed her. She was still alive when someone faked that garrotte. The petechial hemmorhages prove that. !ouch:

 

That's true, Texan. I believe that as well. I realize I didn't make it clear in my previous post that I think the initial injury was an accident, but everything AFTER THAT was premeditated as part of the cover-up.

 

This is what I have always believed too. It was not a premeditated murder, but created to look like one done by an outsider. The Ramseys failed with their staging, in spite of the fact they were not arrested for it. The biggest puzzlement of all, to me, is the Ramseys getting away with so many inconsistencies.

All their answers to the detectives during all interviews were rehearsed.

We are still waiting to hear from Investigator Tom Bennett. Will he be the one to announce that the Ramseys were involved in this coverup?

 

Means, motive, opportunity.

The means are clear, so's the opportunity. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. What motive would two seemingly good parents without any known history of violent or abusive conduct have for intentionally staging what turned out to be a lethal cover-up of an accident that could instead have been treated medically with a good survival prognosis?

 

survival?

I wouldn't say her prognosis for survival was good. Well, maybe she would survive, but what would her life be like after an injury like that? Whoever hit her on the head knew how hard she was hit, they probably heard her skull crack, they may have believed she would be a vegetable if she survived at all.

There is a thread on this forum with other cases which demonstrate that seemingly good parents have lost it and severely damaged or killed their kids. Parents are only human - just because no one has witnessed a loss of temper doesn't mean it has never happened. You could attempt to say the same about husbands that kill their wives - like scott peterson - he seemed to be a good husband as far as their family and friends could tell.

I know there are many who believe there would have to be some sign that one of the parents had abused her before in order for them to believe they would have accidently killed her. I don't see things that way and know that people can and sometimes do lose their temper under alot of stress.

 

Texan wrote:

I agree Texan. Patsy had to be exhausted by the time Christmas night rolled around, and it wasn't going to end there. She still had to do the packing for two trips and finish wrapping presents.

All of this after the preparations for Christmas and the parties that were hosted and attended. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

Little

 

Yep, me too Little! I can understand her being stressed, no doubt.

 

Good question, Deja. What motive indeed?

 

I just bought the hodges book, and am only on chapter six or so.

What has already creeped me out about this book is the photo of patsy in her las vegas showgirl get up, and then the photo of jonbenet in HER exact same get up, even down to the dove on her little wrist.

The other thing that stands out so far is the family photo at the end of the book, patsy is clearly the center of attention in the photo.

I wish I had links to them!

 

Ok, now let me pose two possible motives for a lethal cover up.

Image/ambition and discovery.

What if the Ramseys had been considering a political career for John all along? If he or Patsy committed some assaultive act on their daughter that night that could have been discovered and therefore prosecuted, wouldn't that just ruin any political ambitions they may have had?

 

It's possible, Deja, with the latest attempt into Michigan Politics. They put the public to the test and failed in the attempt.

 

I finished reading Hodges' book a few days ago. I have mixed feelings about the book and the method he uses to come to his conclusion that Patsy probably caused the head blow to JB while JR strangled the rest of the life out of her. I sort of agree with the reason Hodges gives for why Patsy may have hit JB, although I'm not so sure she didn't strike JB by accident while trying to hit John.

This book essentially introduces a newer way of analyzing the words in the ransom note - by analyzing the subliminal mind's role in the words. Hodges claims that the ransom note and even the words the Ramseys spoke and wrote publicly after JB's death were actually confessions from their deeper minds. Maybe he's right, or maybe those words meant just what they said, I don't know. I thought much of the psycho-analysis on the ransom note was a stretch, but maybe that is only because I don't fully understand it. I know the subconscious mind has a powerful influence our actions and words, but I'm not so sure Hodges' interpretations are the correct ones.

Psycholinguistics is the method used by Hodges to analyse hidden messages in a person's writing or speech. Hodges give an indepth analysis on the ransom note and explains what the hidden message from the subliminal mind of the writer really is.

I am not accepting Hodges' interpretations of the writer's subliminal mind without question, because it's just that - his interpretation. Granted, he's the expert, but trying to assign meanings to someone's words other than the obvious meanings is, to me, a lot of guesswork.

Nonetheless, I did read through all of it. Later on in the book he gets into the reasons why and the dark sides of John and Patsy that are seldom, if ever, shown to the public. I was very interested in these analyses and for the most part agree with Hodges in his indepth look at all the Ramseys, including Patsy's mother.

Hodges gets some of his facts wrong, but so have a lot of other writers in a lot of books. I was interested in looking at the Ramseys' book, DOI, again in light of some of Hodges' theories. I started this morning, as a matter of fact, and the first thing that hit me when I first started reading the books was, Patsy wrote most of that book. Their book is written with the narrative switching back and forth between John and Patsy. When I read it the first time, I was struck at how similar John and Patsy's writing was, and I thought then that Patsy probably edited John's writing and added the flourishes so common to her writing. Now it's obvious to me that Patsy actually wrote a lot, if not all, of John's narratives in the book. Either that, or John is even more effeminate than I had thought - the writing is very feminine.

There is a flow to writing, and perhaps Hodges is correct in that my subliminal mind is responding to the subliminal messages in the ransom note and the book. Our subliminal minds cannot lie - that's why Hodges says the truth comes out in our words, even when we don't want it to, if one knows what to look for.

Perhaps my subliminal mind has recognized the same writer who wrote those flowery, exclamation pointed, attention seeking, over-written Christmas letters also wrote the exclamation pointed, attention seeking, over-written ransom note. Conscious or subconsious - I know she wrote it.