Viewing the ransom note as a foreigner

Ward Churchill and the word "hence."

http://orlandodirectaction.us/churchill.html
Here is the infamous essay by Churchill.
He uses the word "hence" twice.

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/churchill.html
Ward Churchill uses the word "hence" twice in this article, too.

Some experts said that Patsy Ramsey used thw word "hence."

Well, so did Ward Churchill, and he also write long nasty attacks on the victims of terrorism and our law enforcement.

 

IS Boulder an Incest Capital or a Terrorist haven?

AIM’s Tinfoil Conspiracy Theory: Boulder is the “Incest Capital of the World†and the Authorities Are Protecting the Criminals

Contents: notes, observations and links
Documenting articles

This document provides documentation from media sources that suggests that AIM activists promoted a conspiracy theory that the Boulder authorities were protecting a ring of pedophiles.

The main actor in this document is a young activist with political ambitions, Evan “from Heaven†Ravitz. Evan has that sobriquet because he sometimes walks a tight rope in downtown Boulder.

Evan was pretty clearly encouraged to manipulate the Ramsey grand jury by Lee Hill, and Ravitz told a newspaper Lee Hill was his lawyer: "I sought legal counsel from (Boulder lawyer and AIM activist) Lee Hill, and he said it was his understanding that people could contact a grand jury member," said Ravitz. "We were obviously unaware of these court orders."

Later, Ravitz was represented by attorney David Lane, who is described in the media as a human rights lawyer. The human rights lawyer also is Ward Churchill's attorney.

Google ward+churchill+david+lane

This writer Anne Wilson Schaef writes on Indian issues in a manner that venerates Indian culture but demeans "trapped white minds."

I guess those are the kind of minds that were trapped in the WTC on 9-11, in the Pentagon, and in four airplanes.

Ravitz does not just think JBR was killed by a pedophile--which is a reasonable theory--but that there is a powerful group of highly-placed pedophiles in Boulder who have political/police protection. [This is the AIM conspiracy.]

Since Ravitz is also a political activist with a website called www.vote.org/ramsey/

He thinks JBR's murder is not solved because the government is protecting the pedophiles.

On his link, http://www.vote.org/ramsey/

Ravitz quoted a writer named Schaef (who also writes on Indian issues in a manner that venerates Indian culture but demeans "trapped white minds" http://www.livinginprocess.com/schaef/).

Schaef claims that "Boulder is the Incest Capital of the World." http://www.vote.org/ramsey/

If she has information like this, why doesn't she share it with the authorities. Oh, I guess it is because they are all protecting the pedophiles. So she makes all these accusations without naming names to the police or FBI.

This reminds me of what AIM did. They went around on the reservations claiming that Indian deaths had not been investigated. However, for a long time they didn't give names of people whose deaths had allegedly not been investigated. When the FBI finally got some people to give names of people who had supposedly been mysteriously murdered, it turned out the deaths had been investigated and the killers were in jail if it was a murder.

Attorney Lee Hill (who also represented Leonard Peltier, the killer of the two FBI agents) represented Nancy Krebs who claimed she was victimized by a group of powerful pedophiles in California. She came forward with her therapist Mary Bienkowski. Lee Hill, who once worked in California, says he did not know the therapist when he lived in California.

The therapist Mary Bienkowski works in Santa Clara.

She advocates for victims of abuse who have dissociative disorder/multiple personality as a result of abuse).

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0709ramse.shtml

Pair contacted Ramsey jurors
Boulder men face charges after sending parts of book suggesting JonBenet, child pornography link
By Charlie Brennan
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
BOULDER -- Two Boulder men mailed portions of a new book about the JonBenet Ramsey murder to grand jurors investigating her murder.
Evan Ravitz and Dr. Bob MacFarland face a hearing on a contempt of court charge for their mailing.
Ravitz, 47, said he and MacFarland, a retired physician, sent two chapters of Presumed Guilty by Stephen Singular to eight grand jurors -- including jury foreman James Plese of Boulder. They didn't have addresses for the other four, Ravitz said.
The two have been been subpoenaed to appear before Boulder Chief District Judge Roxanne Bailin July 23.
Penalties, if they are found in contempt of court, could include a fine and up to six months in jail.
The Boulder District Attorney's office declined comment on the latest wrinkle in the 21/2-year-old murder investigation.
The Singular book, published July 1 by New Millennium Press, theorizes that JonBenet, 6, might have been killed by someone involved in child pornography.
The Boulder County grand jury has been investigating the child beauty queen's slaying since Sept. 15.
Ravitz, a self-styled community activist known to Pearl Street Mall patrons as "Evan from Heaven" for his tightrope act, said jurors need to know what's in Singular's book.
"It's an important line of investigation that we hear (Boulder District Attorney Alex) Hunter has stayed away from," said Ravitz.
"Today, for example, in the (Boulder) Daily Camera, there were stories about two child pornographers who are being sentenced," Ravitz said. "One of them had pictures of JonBenet. That is not the first such offender who had pictures."
Ravitz said he and MacFarland initially mailed the jury foreman a packet at the county's criminal justice center. When it wasn't delivered, they sent a copy to Hunter, asking that he pass it along to grand jurors.
Ravitz said he called jury chairman Plese on June 27, and Plese said he had not received the copy.
The same day, Ravitz said, he tried to hand-deliver a copy of Chapters 10 and 20 to jury member Susan LeFever.
"She refused it, and said, 'Anything you want us to see has to go through the DA."'
That, said Ravitz, is when he and MacFarland decided to mail the two chapters to jurors whose addresses they could obtain.
A Boulder police officer called Ravitz on June 29, instructing him to "cease and desist" contacting jurors or face a contempt charge.
"So, I did," Ravitz said.
Two separate judicial orders have been issued in the Ramsey case setting limits on outside influences on the grand jury.
"We tried to do everything by the book," said Ravitz.
"I sought legal counsel from (Boulder lawyer) Lee Hill, and he said it was his understanding that people could contact a grand jury member," said Ravitz. "We were obviously unaware of these court orders."
Singular, a Denver-based true crime writer, said Ravitz and MacFarland acted without his knowledge. But he believes they thought their actions to be legal.
Singular's book raises questions about whether the murder was connected to a child pornography ring.
"People have always said there are two choices in this case, that the parents did it or an intruder did it," he said. "I'm raising more choices and more complexity than that.
"As a beauty pageant contestant and queen, her mother led her into a subculture, and if you go beneath the surface of the subculture far enough, the potential for violence exists."
John and Patsy Ramsey, Singular said, "may have very well exposed their daughter to something for innocent reasons that didn't turn out good."
The Ramseys have denied any involvement in their child's death.
July 9, 1999

http://www.vote.org/ramsey/
Dr. Robert McFarland's and my experience with the JonBenet Ramsey murder case and District Attorney Alex Hunter's "grand secrecy"
by Evan Ravitz , evan@vote.org
Note the year 2000 developments below. We tried to tell the Grand Jury about these things!
"Boulder is the incest capital of the world."
- Anne Wilson Schaef , in response to a question at her 1989 "Process" workshop in Boulder
1. October 15, 1999: My letter to Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, with time line summary of events.
2. September 7, 1999: Dr. McFarland's request to testify to the grand jury
3. September 20, 1999: My request to testify to the grand jury, to prosecuting attorney Michael Kane.
4. September 20, 1999: Mr. Kane and Alex Hunter's denial of my request.
5. September 27, 1999: My appeal of the denial to Judge Roxanne Bailin
6. September 27, 1999: My motion to vacate Judge Daniel Hale's no-contact (with the grand jury) order, with the support of the Colorado ACLU
7. October 7, 1999: Judge Bailin's denial of my appeal.

8. Spring, 1999: Chapters 10 & 20 of Stephen Singular's book Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography, available from Amazon.com These were the chapters that we sent to the grand jurors at their homes after the grand jury foreman told us he never received the book we sent him in care of the District Attorney. For this we were threatened with contempt of court, in spite of Colorado law. We were the main sources for the chapters.
9. February 2, 1999: Transcript of Dr. McFarland's radio interview with Donald Freed, author of Killing Time, (about the OJ Simpson case) and screenwriter for the movie "Executive Action" about the JFK assassination.
10. Spring, 1994: Dr. McFarland's article on The Children of God cult, published in The Journal of Psychohistory. A former trainer for the cult recently returned his "Parent of the Year" award when his association was disclosed.
11. The case of Lauriane, "the JonBenet of France"

12. FEBRUARY 25, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "DA pursues new Ramsey lead: Hunter asks police to investigate woman's story of sex abuse"
13. FEBRUARY 26, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "Therapist backs sex-ring claim; Bienkowski: Client gave Boulder police names of people who are witnesses in JonBenet's death."
14. MARCH 5, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "Ramsey Detectives off to California" (to interview the therapist of the woman claiming knowledge of the Ramsey case due to her family's closeness with Ramsey ex-friend Fleet White)
15. MARCH 9, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera "Boulder police interview therapist"
16. April 29, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera guest editorial by Evan Ravitz: "'Nothing what it seems' in Ramsey case." Here's the paragraph the Camera DIDN'T publish (it was to be 3rd to last):
"Det. Tom Wickman made another curious comment to Dr. McFarland and I, and independently to Stephen Singular, author of "Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography" (on page 217). Tom said that once he was "getting close" to arresting a Boulder City Council member, but had been told to "back off." Since Tom was legally prohibited from giving us any clues about the Ramsey investigation, I feel he was repeatedly drawing an analogy, by way of saying that he'd heard the pedophile-coverup story before and had been told to back off from investigating that."
We suggest letters to US Attorney General Janet Reno. Ask her to investigate why the FBI never took charge of the Ramsey case -an apparent kidnapping case- as required by the "Lindbergh law." Ask her to review this web site (vote.org) Her address:
Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20530-0001
email: web@usdoj.gov You can call her at 202-616-2777 or fax: 202-514-5331
You can also email Colorado Governor Owens, Attorney General Salazar, and their advisors.
Grand Juries in Colorado, both State and Federal, are being manipulated in various ways. The Ramsey Grand Jury was kept in the dark about many people's evidence. Read the leaked 1993 Rocky Flats Grand Jury Uncensored Report. Rocky Flats, between Denver and Boulder, made the A-bomb "triggers" for US H-bombs from 1954 till closed by the FBI in 1989. The Grand Jurors wanted to indict Department of Energy officials and private contractors for continuing crimes, but the prosecutor struck a deal, and silenced the jurors.
For an alternative to such secrecy and impunity in government, please see our Direct Democracy Initiative web site.

 

Thanks!
No it was in no way written by any so-called foreign faction. It just shows it was written by someone who does not really know how terrorist act. It was a farce! The Ramsey’s or a conspirator wrote that note.

 

Okay I give in fluffy Bob, I'll be Scandanavian for you, as I know you love that. For the rest I will just be Dutch.

 

Colorado AIM does not always show its hand. They prefer to make their terrorism look like a crime and then blame the FBI and police for "covering up" or "protecting" criminals.

The real target of AIM is law enforcement--especially the FBI.

But whoever wrote that note had to leave the "signature" of the killer.

Ward Churchill and AIM activists accused the FBI of protecting serial killers at Pine Ridge. They accused the authorities of protecting a ring of powerful pedophiles in Boulder. This is right in the papers and on the Internet.

 

The less said about Mr. Churchill, the better.

Thor! It's me! SD!

 

Sylvia, love, it's so good to see you posting again. Welcome back.

 

Hey SD, great to see you!!! It took most of the afternoon to figure out who you were, now I know (duh). I really miss your posts. Glad you found us here. I don't post or read at CN anymore at all.

 

Thanks for the welcome back WY!

 

Hope I can live up to me!

Yeah, but it's home to me! Pretty quiet over there right now, when I'm not yelling, that is.

I figured I should play it cagey until now. But the secret's out. But here I'm the Punisher, and those who do evil will come to know me well.

Sylvia, it's a pleasure to meet you.

 

Sylvia

>What is wrong with it? A lot. We, here in the Netherlands, have had our share of terrorist actions, and the ransom sure doesn't look like a foreign faction at work. First, it is too long; way too long. No foreign faction would leave such a long note., They like to spread fear and the less you know, the better the fear effect.

No, it wasn't a foreign faction. But that doesn't make it fake. A real kidnapper could have written that too.

>And just for a moment imagine yourself being the kidnapper. To be more precise, imagine yourself as a member of the foreign faction, engaged in the kidnapping, as stated in the ransom note (letter). Would you leave the ransom note on the back staircase? Would you take that risk? A foreign kidnapper would not be privy to the routines in that household. Wouldn't it be more logical to leave the note on the child's bed?

Only John knew Patsy's habits well enough to leave the note on the back staircase, where she'd be sure to find it.

>The beginning of the ransom note sets the mode for the entire fiasco. Just imagine writing a ransom note, which begins with "Mr. Ramsey."

If the idea is to point away from the actual author, then addressing it to "Mr. Ramsey" points it a full 180 degrees away from: Mr. Ramsey.

>Now let's go on to the next stupid remark, "Listen carefully". Listen, to what? Hello, it's a note.

Yeah, but so what? Even kidnappers make dumb mistakes like that.

>So here we are, only a few words into the note and it already makes no sense at all.

The note makes a LOT of sense as a ransom note. If the writer had actually been able to get his victim's body out of the house before the police were called, it would have been entirely believable.

>"We are a group of individuals who represent a small foreign faction". Wrong! Why? I'll give you four reasons why:

You're assuming a kidnapper is going to write a totally believable, rational note? C'mon.

>So this whole sentence is pure nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

I agree, but this tells us nothing useful about the case.

>"We do respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country it serves." Don't make me laugh.

That phrase IS a bit suspicious, yes. Sounds like something an amateur would think to write, NOT a serious kidnapper.

>"At this time we have your daughter in our posession [sic]." I believe that "in our posession" is redundant. Terrorists are succinct.

Kidnappers can be either redundant or succinct. We're not here to correct their literary style, Sylvia.

>Here is another funny one "She is safe and unharmed." Consider this: A terrorist has kidnapped your daughter and they feel the need to tell you that she is "safe and unharmed?" Terrorists are intent upon instilling fear. They want you to know that they have established absolute control. The more fear they can instill, the more likely you are to meet their demands.

No, that's there because it's standard kidnapping note fare, it's in all the movies. The kidnapper needs to reassure the family that his victim is still alive.

>"And if you want her to see 1997.." Looks like that is more likely to have come from the pages of a novel, rather than the minds of terrorists.

I find it interesting that the writer felt the need to be precise about the year.

>"You must follow our instructions to the letter." Do you honestly think they are going to give you instructions in the note. Terrorists usually give instructions later. They rely upon your fear to compel you into meeting their demands.

Actually there was no need for a note at all, since the whole message could have been conveyed by phone with far less risk. By leaving a note they are inviting the Ramseys to call the cops so the line will be tapped when they call "tomorrow." If the call had come at, say, 5 AM that morning, the police wouldn't have had a chance to set up a tap.

>"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag". Another silly request. "Brown paper bag" is right out of the pages of a not so creative mystery novel. It seems to me that if demands are made, as to the money container, a more sturdy vessel would be requested, to cart off all that cash.

I do think it sounds like an amateur for sure, but some kidnappers are amateurs, so . . .

>"We will call you between 8 and 10 tomorrow am to instruct you on delivery" No, they will not give you time or date, early on. Remember the fear effect! They want to keep you under pressure, waiting by the phone. Going out of your mind every time the phone rings, not knowing whether it will be them.

And they wouldn't want to give you 24 hours to call the cops and have the cops be so fully prepared for that next morning at 8.

>"The delivery will be exhausting, so I advice you to be rested" Just think for a moment. Do you honestly thing the expect you can rest, while your child is in serious danger? Do you think they even care? Do you think they want you to be rested? No, they don't, they even prefer you be exhausted, the more tired you are, the less you will be able to play any tricks on them.

The reason for this statement is to make sure you understand the call is to come tomorrow and NOT today. Because the real writer (NOT a kidnapper) will need 24 hours to get rid of the body and all the evidence.

>"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, FBI, etc. will result in your daughter being beheaded." Now again, do you think terrorists are some kind of morons?

You've still got terrorists on the brain? Forget about terrorists, we're talking about kidnappers, NOT terrorists. And we're not talking about someone with a degree in logic from Harvard.

>"If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies." Nice sentence for in a movie, but hardly reality. Again they will not watch you. That would be too risky!! Stray dog? Also a phrase a foreign terrorist would never use. So this sentence useless and total nonsense.

It's just standard ransom note fare. Tells us nothing about who really wrote it or why.

>"If you alert bank authorities, she dies". Now how the hell do you think you can obtain such a large amount of money, without alerting the bank authorities. Remember, they will only give you a very short time to raise the money!

No, for someone like John who travels abroad frequently the bank wouldn't be likely to flinch. They'd probably figure he'd need the cash to bribe some foreign bigwig.

>"If the money is marked in any way marked or tampered with, she dies." First part of the note that makes a little sense; however as I mentioned earlier, you will not be given a change to mark the bills or tamper with them.

NOW you're cooking Sylvia for sure. By having that call come "tomorrow" the kidnappers are making a HUGE blunder because the cops will have time to set up a tap AND mark the bills. But the real note writer NEEDED that time to do what HE needed to do. THAT's why it says tomorrow.

 

"And hence"

It's not the word "hence" that causes people to go PATSY. It's the incorrect usage -- "and hence" -- that make people's hinky meter go off the charts because it's an error that Patsy was known to make in her correspondence.

If you feel so strongly about your theory, create a new thread for it.

Ayeka

 

I know who you are too TP :toast: I have friends.

 

Ayeka

No, John's the one who's used "and hence," trust me. I've never found either "hence" OR "and hence" in anything Patsy is known to have written. You mean the Christmas message? Interesting how everyone assumes that "and hence" was Patsy and NOT John. If you look carefully you'll see the Johnisms in that. "And hence" is John's style, NOT Patsy's. Her writing is completely informal, John's the one who writes pompous, NOT Patsy.

 

>What is wrong with it? A lot. We, here in the Netherlands, have had our share of terrorist actions, and the ransom sure doesn't look like a foreign faction at work. First, it is too long; way too long. No foreign faction would leave such a long note., They like to spread fear and the less you know, the better the fear effect.

No, it wasn't a foreign faction. But that doesn't make it fake. A real kidnapper could have written that too.

**That is exactly what makes it a fake. No real kidnapper would use such a dumb statement as “we are a group of individuals that represent a foreign faction,†there would be no use for it. If a terrorist wrote it they would make sure to name the faction they belong to.

>And just for a moment imagine yourself being the kidnapper. To be more precise, imagine yourself as a member of the foreign faction, engaged in the kidnapping, as stated in the ransom note (letter). Would you leave the ransom note on the back staircase? Would you take that risk? A foreign kidnapper would not be privy to the routines in that household. Wouldn't it be more logical to leave the note on the child's bed?

Only John knew Patsy's habits well enough to leave the note on the back staircase, where she'd be sure to find it.

**Patsy knew Patsy’s habits even better, and beside who’s word do we have for the fact that the note was placed on the stair. Right Patsy’s and no one else, no one saw that note on that staircase. Beside that, it is also a known fact that she ran through the house with that so-called ransom note, yet her fingerprints aren’t on the note. The only latent fingerprint found on the note is that of a lab worker. I refuse to rule her out.

>The beginning of the ransom note sets the mode for the entire fiasco. Just imagine writing a ransom note, which begins with "Mr. Ramsey."

If the idea is to point away from the actual author, then addressing it to "Mr. Ramsey" points it a full 180 degrees away from: Mr. Ramsey.

**With starting the note with Mr. Ramsey, it did exactly point towards the Ramsey’s. If you kidnap someone’s child you do not need to address them by name. Kidnappers don’t have the habit of being polite. Or do you think the kidnapper leaves a note in your house that is meant for other parents who’s child is kidnapped?

>Now let's go on to the next stupid remark, "Listen carefully". Listen, to what? Hello, it's a note.

Yeah, but so what? Even kidnappers make dumb mistakes like that.

**Kidnappers are not likely to make such a dumb mistake, but those who are in a panic state because they just murdered their own child do

>So here we are, only a few words into the note and it already makes no sense at all.

The note makes a LOT of sense as a ransom note. If the writer had actually been able to get his victim's body out of the house before the police were called, it would have been entirely believable.

** Even if the writer had actually been able to get the victims body out of the house, the note would still be ridiculous. But again fact the body was in the house. No kidnapper would be that stupid to leave the body in the house. Whether dead or alive, the body means money.

>"We are a group of individuals who represent a small foreign faction". Wrong! Why? I'll give you four reasons why:

You're assuming a kidnapper is going to write a totally believable, rational note? C'mon.

** Serious kidnappers, yes, they write short rational notes, with just enough information to let you know they got your child and which is designed to instill fear, not some ridiculous ransom letter. Also a kidnapper doesn’t forget to bring a ransom note with him.

>So this whole sentence is pure nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

I agree, but this tells us nothing useful about the case.

** Everything about the Ramsey "ransom" note cries "phony!"


>"We do respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country it serves." Don't make me laugh.

That phrase IS a bit suspicious, yes. Sounds like something an amateur would think to write, NOT a serious kidnapper.

** No this is not a serious kidnapper, but a murderer trying to mislead LE in a very pathetic way.

>"At this time we have your daughter in our posession [sic]." I believe that "in our posession" is redundant. Terrorists are succinct.

Kidnappers can be either redundant or succinct. We're not here to correct their literary style, Sylvia.

** There is absolutely no need to such a statement. If your child is kidnapped, who do you think has possession over your child, the postman? Again fact is it is a unnecessary sentence.

>Here is another funny one "She is safe and unharmed." Consider this: A terrorist has kidnapped your daughter and they feel the need to tell you that she is "safe and unharmed?" Terrorists are intent upon instilling fear. They want you to know that they have established absolute control. The more fear they can instill, the more likely you are to meet their demands.

No, that's there because it's standard kidnapping note fare, it's in all the movies. The kidnapper needs to reassure the family that his victim is still alive.

** No kidnapper is giving you any information about the condition of the kidnapped, kidnappers do not want to reassure anyone. Terrorist nor kidnappers give guarantees. As said before all they want is instill fear. Maybe in Hollywood kidnapping notes this is standard, but not in the real world.

>"And if you want her to see 1997.." Looks like that is more likely to have come from the pages of a novel, rather than the minds of terrorists.

I find it interesting that the writer felt the need to be precise about the year.

** Again a total useless sentence! It has no meaning at all, specially since the writer of the note knew the child was already dead.

>"You must follow our instructions to the letter." Do you honestly think they are going to give you instructions in the note. Terrorists usually give instructions later. They rely upon your fear to compel you into meeting their demands.

Actually there was no need for a note at all, since the whole message could have been conveyed by phone with far less risk. By leaving a note they are inviting the Ramseys to call the cops so the line will be tapped when they call "tomorrow." If the call had come at, say, 5 AM that morning, the police wouldn't have had a chance to set up a tap.

**If, if, fact is they didn’t call that morning. Again a sign the note was a fake to cover up a crime. I think you do underestimate kidnappers, taps or no taps, many get away with collecting the ransom and you know what, in most cases the kidnapped person is no longer alive.

>"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag". Another silly request. "Brown paper bag" is right out of the pages of a not so creative mystery novel. It seems to me that if demands are made, as to the money container, a more sturdy vessel would be requested, to cart off all that cash.

I do think it sounds like an amateur for sure, but some kidnappers are amateurs, so . . .

** Specially kidnapper who forget to take the kidnapped person with them (dead or alive) and who forget to bring the ransom note with them. Even amateur kidnappers aren’t that dumb.

>"We will call you between 8 and 10 tomorrow am to instruct you on delivery" No, they will not give you time or date, early on. Remember the fear effect! They want to keep you under pressure, waiting by the phone. Going out of your mind every time the phone rings, not knowing whether it will be them.

And they wouldn't want to give you 24 hours to call the cops and have the cops be so fully prepared for that next morning at 8.

** As said again and again, kidnappers instill fear. They make you wait, they are in charge and they sure are going to let you know that. Cops are no real treat to them, because despite of what you think, kidnapper are extremely clever.

>"The delivery will be exhausting, so I advice you to be rested" Just think for a moment. Do you honestly thing the expect you can rest, while your child is in serious danger? Do you think they even care? Do you think they want you to be rested? No, they don't, they even prefer you be exhausted, the more tired you are, the less you will be able to play any tricks on them.

The reason for this statement is to make sure you understand the call is to come tomorrow and NOT today. Because the real writer (NOT a kidnapper) will need 24 hours to get rid of the body and all the evidence.

** That is the biggest nonsense, because the real writer already knew where the body was. Besides there was no time for the Ramsey’s to get rid of the body. They had a flight scheduled the next morning.


>"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, FBI, etc. will result in your daughter being beheaded." Now again, do you think terrorists are some kind of morons?

You've still got terrorists on the brain? Forget about terrorists, we're talking about kidnappers, NOT terrorists. And we're not talking about someone with a degree in logic from Harvard.

** “We are a group of individuals that represent a foreign faction.†What do you think that means, a bowling club? It refers to terrorists, not simply to kidnappers. Do you actually believe terrorist or kidnappers are dumb? I hate to disappoint you in this, but since they almost always get away with it shows exactly how clever they are. But then again we know this sentence was just a farce, as the ransom note was written by the Ramsey’s themselves. And since Patsy’s handwriting came closed and it was written on her notebook, most believe she wrote the note. Also since the note (letter) was written with a felt-tip pen, it is harder to get a conclusive comparison with a felt-tip pen. So that makes her score even higher.

>"If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies." Nice sentence for in a movie, but hardly reality. Again they will not watch you. That would be too risky!! Stray dog? Also a phrase a foreign terrorist would never use. So this sentence useless and total nonsense.

It's just standard ransom note fare. Tells us nothing about who really wrote it or why.

**No, not a standard ransom not fare. Just a don’t call or inform the police would be sufficient. Stray dog, yeah sure that is standard Hollywood again.

>"If you alert bank authorities, she dies". Now how the hell do you think you can obtain such a large amount of money, without alerting the bank authorities. Remember, they will only give you a very short time to raise the money!

No, for someone like John who travels abroad frequently the bank wouldn't be likely to flinch. They'd probably figure he'd need the cash to bribe some foreign bigwig.

**Bribing is illegal, so that would be a crime as well. Plus the fact that banks have to report amounts $5000 taken from personal accounts. See the Blake case!

>"If the money is marked in any way marked or tampered with, she dies." First part of the note that makes a little sense; however as I mentioned earlier, you will not be given a change to mark the bills or tamper with them.

NOW you're cooking Sylvia for sure. By having that call come "tomorrow" the kidnappers are making a HUGE blunder because the cops will have time to set up a tap AND mark the bills. But the real note writer NEEDED that time to do what HE needed to do. THAT's why it says tomorrow.

** There were no kidnappers, kidnappers do not leave their murdered victim in the house from which they suppose to kidnap a person. To kidnappers, even if dead, the victim still means money. They do not go through a maze basement and hide the body there.

The FBI indeed laughed when they read the note!

Gregg McCrary on the ransom letter:
“They don't leave phony sounding ransom notes. But those elements of a crime often show up when someone in a family, or close to the family, commits a murder and tries to cover it up†and “Would a ransom note have been written after JonBenét was killed? Would an incompetent kidnapper have taken time to find a pad of paper and a pen, and carefully have written a ransom note in block letters? If murder was intended, would a murderer have taken time to write a three page bogus note?

Clinton van Zandt on the ransom letter:
Watched the case carefully said the tone of the letter suggested to him it had been written by a woman or a genteel man. The writer was educated, at least forty, and had exerted authority over others, and was living a lie.

Robert Ressler:
"When there's a note at the Ramsey residence, there shouldn't been a dead child. When there's a dead child at the residence, you shouldn't find a note. It's totally stupid." And “the note is completely false and designed to divert attention away from what happened to this child. JonBenét knew her killer.â€

Yet for some to me mysterious reason, you are giving Patsy Ramsey a pass. So no matter what anyone says, you will never except the fact that she might be involved too. And I am in no way going to change my opinion and give Patsy Ramsey a free pass.

 

Pleasure to meet you too, Punisher.

 

Sylvia

I'm on your side, Sylvia. I agree, the note is a fake, written by an insider as staging. But it doesn't help to sift through it for every single little thing that sounds fishy. There is no typical kidnapper, some are logical, succinct and efficient, others are illogical, deceptive, redundant -- and stupid. Sure there was no foreign faction, that's obvious. But a real kidnapper could have thrown that in there too, just to muddy the waters. The real reason we know the note is fake is because there wasn't any kidnapping. That's really all you need to say. Why would a kidnapper leave a long ransom note and not bother to kidnap his victim, alive OR dead?

But you're also ignoring the other question that has to be asked: why would John and/or Patsy want to stage a phoney kidnapping if they had no way of getting the body out of the house? It's necessary to see BOTH sides in order to understand how difficult and subtle this case is. If you say it's dumb to assume a real kidnapper would have written the note, then team RAmsey is going to come back and say it's dumb to assume one of the Ramseys would have written it -- and then called the cops with the body still in the house. You can't just present the evidence for one side and ignore the other side.


>Only John knew Patsy's habits well enough to leave the note on the back staircase, where she'd be sure to find it.

**Patsy knew Patsy’s habits even better, and beside who’s word do we have for the fact that the note was placed on the stair. Right Patsy’s and no one else, no one saw that note on that staircase. Beside that, it is also a known fact that she ran through the house with that so-called ransom note, yet her fingerprints aren’t on the note. The only latent fingerprint found on the note is that of a lab worker. I refuse to rule her out.

Sylvia, if her prints WERE on the note you'd say THAT was proof she wrote it. So she can't win, can she? All sorts of people handled the note that day but no ones prints were on it. Which is not unusual -- prints aren't that easy to find.

** Even if the writer had actually been able to get the victims body out of the house, the note would still be ridiculous. But again fact the body was in the house. No kidnapper would be that stupid to leave the body in the house. Whether dead or alive, the body means money.

I agree. But the Ramseys wouldn't want to call the police with the body in the house either, that too makes no sense.

>The reason for this statement is to make sure you understand the call is to come tomorrow and NOT today. Because the real writer (NOT a kidnapper) will need 24 hours to get rid of the body and all the evidence.

** That is the biggest nonsense, because the real writer already knew where the body was. Besides there was no time for the Ramsey’s to get rid of the body. They had a flight scheduled the next morning.

They could have canceled the flight, told everyone JonBenet got sick so they couldn't make it. No big deal. It's only logical to assume that if the note writer is John or Patsy that person would have used the note as an excuse NOT to call the police, to allow time for the body to be dumped. I've never heard any other explanation of the note that made sense.

>Yet for some to me mysterious reason, you are giving Patsy Ramsey a pass. So no matter what anyone says, you will never except the fact that she might be involved too. And I am in no way going to change my opinion and give Patsy Ramsey a free pass.

The note was clearly written with the intention that the police NOT be called. Patsy called the police. So I have no choice but to give her a pass. If she were the writer of the note or involved in any way at that time she would NOT have called 911, it's that simple.

 

And again this is all part of the puzzle. It doesn't even bother you that her fingerprints weren't on the ransom note, even though she claimed to have run through the house with that ransom note?

Her calling 911 doesn't mean on thing. They had no choice and let’s face it she is the drama queen fit to make such a call.

Sorry I am in no way giving her a free pass.

 

Sylvia

>And again this is all part of the puzzle. It doesn't even bother you that her fingerprints weren't on the ransom note, even though she claimed to have run through the house with that ransom note?

Why is that important? You're saying that if her prints WERE on the note that would be LESS suspicious? Why?

It's a fact, Sylvia, that in most cases the police are unable to find prints, even when something HAD been handled. Other people besides Patsy handled that note and their prints weren't on it either.

>Her calling 911 doesn't mean on thing. They had no choice and let’s face it she is the drama queen fit to make such a call.

Explain how they had no choice. If they were in on it together, the note would have given them the perfect excuse not to call. They could have cancelled their travel plans by making up a story that JonBenet was sick. No one would have known the truth but them. They could then have gotten rid of the body the following night. If their car had been spotted in some remote place they could have claimed they were delivering the ransom. After dumping the body, they could THEN have called the police, explaining that they had been afraid to call the previous day for fear JonBenet was going to be "beheaded." That's very clearly the plan outlined in the note, it just takes a bit of imagination and logic to see it. But it's a plan that also very clearly did NOT include Patsy -- if she were a part of it she would NOT have called the police when she did.

>Sorry I am in no way giving her a free pass.

I'm not giving her a pass either. Clearly she has lied to the police. But all her lies are in support of John's version of what happened. I think she was manipulated into lying so John wouldn't look bad and because their lawyers realized it would be fatal to their defense for the two of them to present different versions of what happened. Since John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, Patsy would have had no reason to suspect that he was involved, so she could easily have been manipulated by him and his lawyers into helping them present a united front against "the lynch mob."

 

>And again this is all part of the puzzle. It doesn't even bother you that her fingerprints weren't on the ransom note, even though she claimed to have run through the house with that ransom note?

Why is that important? You're saying that if her prints WERE on the note that would be LESS suspicious? Why?

** Yes I would have been less suspicious if her prints were on the note, it would have shown she indeed handled it without gloves on.

It's a fact, Sylvia, that in most cases the police are unable to find prints, even when something HAD been handled. Other people besides Patsy handled that note and their prints weren't on it either.

** Fact no prints are found on notes if the perpetrator uses gloves. And yes, LE handled the note, however they DO use gloves to preserve evidence. Furthermore yes there was a print on the Ramsey note, but apparently you only read in posts what you want and can use, see page three!

>Her calling 911 doesn't mean on thing. They had no choice and let’s face it she is the drama queen fit to make such a call.

Explain how they had no choice. If they were in on it together, the note would have given them the perfect excuse not to call. They could have cancelled their travel plans by making up a story that JonBenet was sick. No one would have known the truth but them. They could then have gotten rid of the body the following night. If their car had been spotted in some remote place they could have claimed they were delivering the ransom. After dumping the body, they could THEN have called the police, explaining that they had been afraid to call the previous day for fear JonBenet was going to be "beheaded." That's very clearly the plan outlined in the note, it just takes a bit of imagination and logic to see it. But it's a plan that also very clearly did NOT include Patsy -- if she were a part of it she would NOT have called the police when she did.

** And of course no one was to come in, after all JB was only sick I am afraid there was a risk factor. The other kids were on their way to celebrate Christmas and it would have been easy for them to alter their schedule to Boulder. And it would sure have made sense that one day later they were no longer afraid of her going to be “beheaded†Plus has it ever occurred to you that when you murder your child you do not think so clearly?

>Sorry I am in no way giving her a free pass.

I'm not giving her a pass either. Clearly she has lied to the police. But all her lies are in support of John's version of what happened. I think she was manipulated into lying so John wouldn't look bad and because their lawyers realized it would be fatal to their defense for the two of them to present different versions of what happened. Since John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, Patsy would have had no reason to suspect that he was involved, so she could easily have been manipulated by him and his lawyers into helping them present a united front against "the lynch mob."

** Why lie? After all, according to you Patsy doesn’t think John did it. So why lie? Why lie if neither of then did it. There wouldn't be different versions of what happened if neither did it. So Patsy wouldn’t have a reason to united against us, the lynch mob.
Or is she protecting the murderer of her child? That would make her even more lower to my opinion, as at this moment I was inclined to believe it was an accident. They are both in it one way or another.