Understanding the Ramsey note

Catfish

Catfish, thanks so much for the positive remarks. I read your theory on the other thread and found it interesting. You are able to account for several details that are troublesome. But I find it impossible to accept that Patsy could have accidently killed JonBenet and then attempted to make it look like murder. By doing so she'd only be getting herself and John into deeper water. And the only way to make such staging work would be to stage a really convincing break-in AND get the body out of the house. Otherwise it's going to look like she and John deliberately murdered JonBenet with that garotte, something far worse than an accident. As I see it, if you've murdered someone you might want to make it look like an accident, NOT the other way round. This sort of theory has made the rounds many times in many variants and never seems to get anywhere. It would certainly be torn to shreds by a competent defense lawyer, which is why no one has ever been charged.

As you write: "You've illustrated that no matter how convincing of a case a prosecuter presents, an equally plausable counter argument can be made. That is so sad."

True. And I have to admit that my own theory would also not get very far in court. Just not enough evidence to nail it down.

 

amordei

We don't really know whether she really delayed and if so for how long. The person reporting that would also have been very upset, so a very brief delay might have seemed longer than it was. The trouble with that sort of observation is that if you think about it she can do no right: if she reacted immediately, then she'd be accused of over-reacting to make it look like she was more surprised than she really was; if she hesitated, then it's because she knew something. Patsy has been accused of BOTH being a great actress AND giving herself away by acting guilty. So no matter what she did or didn't do, if you're already convinced of her guilt, then she's acting guilty. As I see it, if she were guilty and covering up, then she'd be sure all her actions were in conformity with what was to be expected of an angst ridden mother. If she's innocent, then her actions would be hard to predict, just as the actions of any person confronted with such huge fears would be.

 

The note

OK, lets say John wrote the note. We are then assuming he murdered JBR. Everytime I convice myself that it must of been John or Patsy I come back to one thing. Its so hard to imagine that a family member could hit JBR that hard on the head. Accident? That would be some household accident. Even if you want to belive that John was molesting JBR (which is also a horrible act but still short of murder) I can't belive he could strike her that hard. Thats a violent act full of rage and hatred.

In mid August 2002 Jennifer Short was kidnapped from her home. Both her parents were murdered. A short time later they found Jennifer also murdered.
No note, no garotte, no flashlight, no parents to accuse, no endless speculation on internet websites and no real leads or news since Ocotober 2003. www1.roanoke.com/roatimes/jennifer/jennifer.html

So sometimes I wonder if maybe there was an intruder. I just hope someday we can find the answers.

 

zman

The blow to the head is very strange. Dr. Wecht feels sure she must have been either already dead or near death when that happened. Because of the lack of internal bleeding from such a devastating blow.

My theory centers on the note because there is at least one scenario which enables me to understand it completely. (The one I've just outlined.) I have no such scenario to offer for the murder itself.

My best GUESS is that she could have been gently strangled by hand possibly during a molestation episode. The strangler might not have realized what he was doing until it was too late. At that point he'd have had a dead child on his hands, a child with a broken hymen and bleeding vagina. No way THAT could be passed off as an accident. If he'd called 911 at that point he'd have been carted off to jail as soon as the autospy had revealed the evidence of molestation. So he might well have felt forced into concocting some sort of intruder staging. And kidnapping might well have seemed the most convincing possibility.

Manual strangulation is a useful hypothesis as it also goes a long way toward explaining that odd "garotte." The killer could have been afraid his prints might be lifted from her neck, so the purpose of the "garotte" might have been to obliterate those prints. Note that the ligature had been tightened, loosened and then tightened again in another place, which is consistent with an attempt to make sure all prints had been covered.

As far as the head blow is concerned that remains really puzzling, regardless of whether you see an intruder or a parent as the attacker. If the intruder strangled her then why would he need to club her over the head as well? And if the head blow came first, why would that intruder want to take the time to fashion those rather intricate knots?

My best guess on that score is that John might have become extremely upset and angry when it became clear he'd strangled JonBenet. The blow could have come after several frustrating attempts to revive her had failed. Maybe at that point he was blaming her for ruining his life and lashed out in a rage. It's also possible the blow was an initial attempt to point away from the strangulation, to make it look like a brutal psycho intruder. But then on second thought he might have realized the coroner would still be able to determine death by strangulation and the prints might show up, so he could have ultimately decided on the "garotte."

Unlike my thoughts on the note, this is all pure speculation. The actual scenario could have taken place as it did for all sorts of reasons we just can't imagine.

 

Is it hopeless?

There's a way to test my theory. And if I'm right, the case could be solved. The following steps should be taken as soon as possible:

On second thought I've decided to cut and paste what I wrote into a separate document which I will hang on to for now. I don't want to give away the strategy I have in mind. If anyone from law enforcement is interested, they can contact me via the owner of this web site.

 

zman

If you check out the archives on this forum you can find many sad examples of the horrid damage parents can afflict on children they claim to love. Nobody wants to believe a loving parent could do such a crime - either accidental or out of rage, but it does happen and cannot be ruled out simply because it is so horrible to believe.

 

DocG, Texan

Well thats a cliff hanger for me DocG.

Texan I know that people can do horrible things, even to children. I hate to generalize but there is almost always some history. Usually there seems to be some prior abuse, drinking, drugs, restraining orders, bad tempers and other close calls before the final act. Other times there is some great stress that causes some one to go off...divorce, cheating spouse, financial strains, loss of job and so on. Unless I've missed something in Johns past none of that seems to apply here.

I wonder if any one out there might know how hard or with how much force you would have to be hit to cause a 1 inch x 1.75 inch hole in your skull. I just don't belive it could of been an accident. Hammer? Baseball Bat? I don't think you could do it with a flashlight. Does anybody know the science on this?

Something really bad happend that night. I'm not defending the Ramseys, I'm just not that sure. I have always held the opinion someone in that house must know what happend to JBR.

 

The dimensions just point to the size of the business end of the implement. The depth has more to do with the actual force rendered. Also, since children have less calcification of the skull at age 6 (than an adult would) it would be logical to see the thinner, more elastic bone respond differently to trauma than that of an adult, maybe in the pattern of breakage...unless a LOT of pressure was exerted, I would expect there to be some confluence of the bone edges (between the fracture site and the adjacent bony regions). Some pathologists out there want to comment on that? :stupid1:

 

who says?

Maybe it wasn't John Ramsey. Who says there wasn't any stress that could have led to JonBenet's death? Have you done any reading concerning the stress PR must have been experiencing at that Christmas season? Was there damage to JBR's little private parts that show previous abuse? That is a debate for the experts in that field, but there are some that claim there is evidence of prior abuse. What if it was an accident and then staged?

I don't know who did what that horrible night but I know her parents can't be ruled out just because no one wants to believe they could have done such a thing. I can't believe an innocent parent would lie about Burke being asleep that morning, would lie about their child not having pineapple that night, would not go in to the police station and clear their names so the cops could move on, etc.

 

Back to the note

DocG says....
The note is too logical and purposeful to be a fantasy. It lays out a very explicit set of directions for the addressee (John) to follow and it contains very specific warnings. Hardly the stuff of fantasy. It's too logical and carefully crafted to be described as "senseless" and it certainly wasn't scrawled in a panic. Every single i is dotted, every t crossed, the margins are consistent, there is not even any margin drift (as erroneously claimed by more than one of Darnay Hoffman's "experts").


This is something I've wonderd about. I agree with what DocG stated above. I also have found the note to be full of what one might consider "inside insults" of sorts. Towards the end of the note the writer gets downright personal and insulting.(Towards John Ramsey)

There is one word in the note however that was crossed out and replaced with "Picked-up" the word crossed out looks like "delivered". 1. Do we agree that the word that is crossed out is "delivered"? 2. If we assume the note is "carefully crafted" then do you have an opinoion as to why the writer switched words?

I wonder if the note could have been written long before the night of the murder. It won't make me a popular poster around here I'm sure, but let's say the kidnapper/murderer was someone in the Ramsey circle. If not a close friend maybe a friend of a close firend. Even just someone who had been in the Ramsey home at some point. Long enough to remove the pad and pen from the house. Maybe on the 23rd? Bet they would not even notice the pad was gone. The note could of been written at any time and brought to the house that night.

Any thoughts?

 

Have you ever read Delmar England's analysis of the ransom note Zman? If not, I think you should.

http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

Delmar England wrote:

The respect for Mr. Ramsey seen at the beginning of the note has been displaced by contempt and attempted intimidation. Why this sudden shift? I don't know; probably something that happened *off stage* during a break from writing the note. The note does not tell me what and I prefer to not speculate. What is not speculation is that the note writer is emotionally unstable and given to random interjection of thoughts without awareness of the often incongruence of them

 

It wouldn't do us any harm for all of us to go back over Delmar England's analysis. Can I tease you a little bit by posting part of it ?


http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

... .... ... ... ... ...

read more ... http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

 

Delmar England

I have read that analysis of the note before. Just to make sure I just read it agian two times. There is no actual opinion as to why the before mentioned words may have been switched. It is thought provoking. With all do respect to minds greater than mine, I find the "conclusions" that are reached to be huge leaps. Lets just say its just another case of trying to make the evidence fit your opinion.

 

No harm done., Zman. Glad you read it! I zoned in on the point you made about the letter being insulting to John Ramsey, which Delmar discussed below.

About the switching of the word - the word crossed out is delivery ... and I think this is to make you think it's a member of the foreign faction that's writing it.

 

Zman

The only motive for anyone other than John or Patsy to have removed that pad, written the note on it and then replaced it, would have been to frame one or both of them. But there is nothing else about the murder that suggests such an attempt. There are certain similarities with both John and Patsy's hand, but clearly nothing definitive. Someone out to frame them would have done a better job of forgery it seems to me.

 

Delmar's analysis

Delmar's analysis is definitely the War and Peace of ransom note commentaries.

He dutifully points out everything odd about the note and then asks himself at great length why that's in there. But given the obvious fact that the note is a deliberate attempt to decieve (by either an intruder or insider), nothing much can be concluded from all this puzzlement. What is clearest about the note puzzles him the most: the fact that the call is to come "tomorrow." The possibility that the call actually IS to come tomorrow is the one thing that never seems to occur to him. He seems convinced the writer had to mean today. Which tells him the murder must have taken place prior to midnight. Which is odd, since the writer is clearly referring to tomorrow as the day after the note is read, NOT the day after the victim is murdered.

I see nothing new in his analysis. He manages to replicate, at inordinate length, what most of us have already observed and conjectured while going over this very troubling and apparently enigmatic document.

If he wanted to demonstrate the unlikelihood of its having been written by an intruder, all he needed to do was point out that in fact no kidnapping had ever taken place, that the body was found IN the house. Which already tells us that no kidnapper in his right OR wrong mind would have been stupid enough to leave such a note lying around when it served no purpose whatsoever.

 

War and Peace Posts by DocG

By the same token, Doc, your "War and Peace" posts are also noted. Touché.

John Ramsey went to great lengths to cover his hide with the "tomorrow" business when he realized he and Patsy had screwed themselves into a corner here by having chosen the word "tomorrow" in the ransom note; hence the reason for his explanation. . Yes, I use the word "hence" too, when I write. It's a word I have used frequently all my life, and I'm not from the South, I'm from Scotland, and much older than Patsy Ramsey.

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

From the ransom note:


Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you Between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money

and hence an earlier ('delivery' scratched out) pickup of your daughter.
</B>

2000 March 20 - ABCNEWS.com - In Their Own Words - John and Patsy Ramsey Chat

ABCNEWS.com's Buck Wolf: "Guest-SydneySkye429 says: "The ransom note stated that they would contact you by a certain time. It has been said that as that time frame passed, neither of you commented on or questioned why there was no contact. If that is true, then why did neither of you react to the fact there was no phone call?

John Ramsey: "The ransom note said: "I will call you tomorrow by 10 a.m." We did not know whether tomorrow was the 27th , which in fact was tomorrow by the time we were reading the note. I was afraid that I would have to wait until the 27th to hear from the kidnapper. The note also said "Your journey will be long, so get plenty of rest." So there was never any conclusive indication that we should expect a call by 10 a.m. on the 26th, and in fact we didn't expect that call for sure by then."

 

War & Peace?

MY posts clearly go WAY beyond War & Peace. Too bad Tolstoy is no longer with us or he might object.

As far as "tomorrow" is concerned, it's clear as day that tomorrow meant tomorrow. There are many mysteries regarding the note but that's not one of them. The writer went to great lengths to make it clear that he meant tomorrow and NOT today. I've often wondered where the police got the idea the "kidnapper's" call was to come the same day as the 911 call. My guess is that John himself must have put that into their heads.

A real kidnapper would NOT have given his victims a full day to worry over whether or not to inform the authorities. He'd have made his call that morning for sure. Get your money as soon as possible and get it all over with as soon as possible. A phoney kidnapper, on the other hand, someone staging a kidnapping, might have needed an extra day to give himself time to do all the things he needed to do: complete his partial staging of the window breakin, collect all the evidence, including the note itself, get the body and the evidence in the trunk of the car, wait till nightfall, and then dump it all in some remote spot under cover of darkness.

 

The only motive for anyone other than John or Patsy to have removed that pad, written the note on it and then replaced it, would have been to frame one or both of them. But there is nothing else about the murder that suggests such an attempt.

Nothing else? First there is no apparent forced entry into the home. 2- The pineapple and tea on the table suggesting JBR was snacking with someone she knew. 3- Items (paintbrush, flashlight) from the home left as connections. 4-The body is left in the basement. In fact, if it was an attempt to ruin the Ramseys, I'd say it worked out pretty well. Some people think because there was no kidnapping the note had to be a fake. Maybe the "intruder" had a two part plan. If John Ramsey follows the notes instructions the "kidnapper" may just collect the 118,000 and then just tell John to "check the basement." When the police are called the "kidnapper" calls it quits.

If John went to all the trouble to stage this crime why would he let Patsy call the police? He wouldn't. It would of been the most important part of the plan. Patsy does not seem like the type who can take control away from John.

 

When asked by Steve Thomas as to why John Ramsey never made the 911 call. John Ramsey's reply was ..."This is the way things are done around here!"