Viewing the ransom note as a foreigner

Sylvia

** 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.

Which would make her innocent? Sorry, I don't get it. Sylvia, if she actually wrote the note there'd be no reason for her to use gloves. If her prints had been found on it, she could say they got on the note when she read it. The same for John. We only have to assume the writer wore gloves if that person were an intruder. Only an intruder would have had a reason to wear gloves to write the note.

** 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!

Page three of the note? Yes, there was some sort of smudge on the note, but it's apparently not useable. If it's from the writer, it tells us that person didn't use gloves. But it could be from Patsy or John, both of whom admitted handling it.

>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.

Yes, of course there was a risk factor. The whole thing was incredibly risky, no matter who did it.

**The other kids were on their way to celebrate Christmas and it would have been easy for them to alter their schedule to Boulder.

Not if they'd been told not to come. If worse came to worse, they could have been told "the truth," that JonBenet had been kidnapped and they were negotiating with her kidnappers for ransom. They could have been instructed to stay put and tell no one.

**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?

One day later, they could have claimed they dropped off the ransom but the kidnappers never returned JonBenet as promised. At that point they'd have had no recourse but to call the police. Sure, their story would have sounded suspicious, but once the note itself had been destroyed, and the window staging completed, there would have been NO evidence against them, nothing.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this, Sylvia. If they had been in on it together, they would clearly have had such a plan in mind when writing the note. And they most certainly would NOT have wanted to call the police before the body had been removed from the house, THAT makes no sense at all.

** 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.

Here you have a much stronger point, for sure. For my theory to be correct, Patsy would have to be lying when she says the phone call was John's idea. And she'd have to be lying about cleaning up the glass from the broken window. Why would she lie if she were innocent and was sure John was innocent too? If John asked her to lie, wouldn't that make her suspicious of him?

**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.

There is a real dilemma here, no question. No I don't think she'd protect John if she thought he murdered JonBenet or was in any way involved. But I also can't see the two of them involved together in a coverup -- for essentially the same reason. The bottom line here is that SOMETHING has got to give. Either we assume they'd be dumb enough to want to call the cops on themselves, thus spoiling their own staging after concocting their phoney ransom note -- OR we have to assume that John wrote the note on his own and that Patsy decided to call the police against his will -- AND that she is now lying about that. Given the choice between these two possibilities I choose the second. There is NO reason I can think of for Patsy wanting to call 911 after having written the note and knowing the body is still in the house. But there ARE reasons I can think of for her being manipulated into lying about the call along with some other "minor" matters.

 

I'm still puzzled Sylvia, over the importance you give to the fact that neither John's nor Patsy's prints were found on the note. You're saying they lied and never handled the note at all? Why would they want to lie about THAT? You're implying Patsy must have written the note wearing gloves? Please explain why she'd want to write the note with gloves on?

Please explain also why she'd want to write the note at all. If it's in her own hand, then why would she want to give it over to the police? So they can have it analyzed as her own printing? You're saying she wrote the note by hand because she WANTED the police to know she'd written it? She kills her daughter, writes a phoney note in her own hand, then calls the police on herself so she can be found out and arrested for both murder AND faking a kidnapping? How clever of her!

 

I'm still puzzled Sylvia, over the importance you give to the fact that neither John's nor Patsy's prints were found on the note. You're saying they lied and never handled the note at all?

**I actually do not believe they ever handled the note as the told LE and wrote in their book. I do not for one second believe they ran with it through the house. If they had done that then surely their fingerprints would have been on it. After all there was one single print on it from the lab examiner and those do use gloves, only by mistake one of partial print from this examiner was on it. So how would you explain his print to be on the note and not those of the Ramsey’s, who claimed to have handled excessively.

Why would they want to lie about THAT? You're implying Patsy must have written the note wearing gloves? Please explain why she'd want to write the note with gloves on?

**She might have worn gloves, in any case she made sure there were no prints on the note.

Please explain also why she'd want to write the note at all. If it's in her own hand, then why would she want to give it over to the police? So they can have it analyzed as her own printing? You're saying she wrote the note by hand because she WANTED the police to know she'd written it? She kills her daughter, writes a phoney note in her own hand, then calls the police on herself so she can be found out and arrested for both murder AND faking a kidnapping? How clever of her!

** To stage the kidnap story. And she obvious disguised her handwriting. Crimes never make sense, that is something I learned long ago. Or are you going to tell me serial murders, or any other violent crime makes sense? And I never said she killed her daughter, as said again and again, I think she mortally wounded her daughter by accident. And John finished it by garrotting her. Clever? Well do you see them in jail?

And that is just one theory of what could have happened, only I am totally convinced she has or taken part in the murder, or know who, why and how JB got murdered.