Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at), and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The Moving Finger

The Moving Finger writes;
and, having writ, Moves on:
nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

                                            Omar Khayyam

 There's a file I've had for some time without knowing quite what to do with it. It's a .gif file, titled "writing sample via Jameson." For the life of me I can't recall exactly where or when I got it, but it has to have been several years ago. Possibly it's something Jameson posted on her Webbsleuths forum, after much prodding from me, because she'd let it be known she had samples of John Ramsey's writing, but was refusing to share them. I was never sure what to do with it because of its slightly ragged appearance, probably the result of a poor quality xerox. If you right click on it and select "Open Link in New Tab," and then click on it again, you'll get a better look:
Finally, today, I decided it was just too good a piece of evidence to leave sitting around. And I realized I could compensate for the ragged look by smoothing it out a bit on my favorite Paint program (an old copy of Paint Shop Pro):

The text is from a statement John presented at the Ramsey's first press conference held in early May, 1997. Where Jameson could have gotten hold of it I have no idea. Copies might possibly have been released to the press during the conference. I'm not completely sure this is actually John's handwriting, as it's conceivable it could have been written by a secretary. It was not written by Patsy, I feel sure of that. Patsy tends to displace the dots on her i's well to the right, and there's no sign of that here. Looking closely at the smoothed out copy, I couldn't help but notice some striking similarities with the notorious ransom note. And I managed to put together the following comparison, presented here for whatever it may be worth:

Most of this speaks for itself, but a certain amount of commentary is warranted. The "John" in the press conference statement is strikingly similar to the three "John"s from the "ransom" note. That came as something of a shock, as I didn't expect to find anything that remarkably similar. There are other points of similarity worth noting. Note how the t's and h's are connected in the word "that." Note the strong similarities between the "d"s in "and," especially the little squiggles at the top. Note also the way both "John" and the note writer form the letter "f" when it appears at the beginning of a word.  In both cases we find both manuscript and block lettering, and there are strong resemblances between both types of initial "f" in both documents. I compared the "earlier" from the note with "John's" "early" mainly because of the striking similarity of the two letter "a"s, which look almost like "d"s.

It seems highly likely to me that this is a genuine example of John's writing and if so that would make it only the second example of John's writing that's ever been released to the public -- while a great many examples from Patsy have been widely disseminated, analyzed and discussed. [Turns out I was wrong. See here for details.] However, I must reiterate what I wrote when discussing John's court document: I'm not claiming these comparisons in themselves "prove" John wrote the note, which imo can never be proven through the analysis of handwriting alone; my purpose is to demonstrate how easy it is to find similarities of this sort when one goes looking for them. For all I know this could have been written by a secretary, but even if that's the case, the moral of the story remains the same. If you feel safe in assuming Patsy must have written the note simply on the basis of some similarities found by a few hand picked "experts," then take a look at what I was able to find in the document presented above -- and think again.

[Added 10-17-12: I wrote to Jameson regarding this document and received her response a few days ago:
That is NOT a sample of John's handwriting as far as I know. The sample I have was a note to me and is on large index cards.

I think this is a copy of a page from their book and is a handwriting sample done for me, witnessed by me, by someone hoping to prove they wrote the note. Can't swear this is it without searching through files I have in storage, but know for sure it isn't what I have for John's samples..
I wrote her again for clarification, as I'm not sure what she meant by "someone hoping to prove they wrote the note." I'd sure like to know who that "someone" is. And why Jameson wasn't impressed enough to follow up. Unless she did. So far, I've had no further response from her, but I'm hoping to learn more soon]


I heard again from Jameson, and this document was definitely not penned by John. For details see my latest blog post, here.


  1. Holy Moly, DocG - if this document is for real, and not some major prank attempt at making the fence-sitters finally fall off, then you have one of the most important pieces of incriminating evidence to support your theory. The handwriting in your document matches most of the lettering in the ransom note so clearly! IF it's a sample of JR's writing, and there is a way to get this to someone in LE who has the right combination of guts and brains, it could be a turning point in bringing this case to prosecution. For what it's worth, I doubt a good secretary would produce a press document like this. A typed copy would surely be presented. And if it's done by a secretary for recording purposes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't have been done in shorthand, or better yet, by a recording to be later transcribed into, then again, a typed copy. If it was printed out by someone other than JR, and JR knows who, that person should be interrogated and then interrogated again. And if you faked it, DocG - BOO, HISS !!!

  2. Thanks, MWMM. If this is in fact an authentic example of John's writing, it certainly does look very suspicious. And makes one wonder why he was "ruled out." I'm being conservative here because at present I have no way of verifying its authenticity. It could conceivably have been written by a secretary or an assistant, though that does seem doubtful because, as you say, such a person would almost certainly have typed it. It could also be a hoax, though again I doubt it, because anyone perpetrating such a hoax would have gone to some trouble to disseminate it, yet in all these years I've never seen any other copy anywhere.

    And no, I didn't fake it, it's for real. Hopefully I'll hear from a reader who knows for sure, one way or the other, exactly where this came from and who wrote it and is in a position to authenticate it. Surely the BPD and DA's office must know.

  3. I'm telling you. I'm convinced that John paid people off to get ruled out. Too many things fell into place for him afterwards and it is VERY suspicious.

    1. Kudos. Wouldn't it be grand if someone who could vouch for JR's handwriting to be suspicious enough to be "reconsidered" by some fresh eyes would come forth? I wonder if they realize what prominence they would gain if it ended up being a turning point in case evidence? But then, I guess that's why it would also make it so fearful to go against the RST!

  4. I find this document extremely interesting, but at the same time I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions until it can be verified from a reliable source.

    It's hard to see why John would have wanted to hand print this text rather than type it on a computer. It's not a personal letter, after all, but a statement prepared for a press conference. So there is always the possibility of it being a hoax. Even if that's the case, however, one can't help but wonder who produced it, and what their motive could have been. I've released it for what it's worth, and in the hope someone reading here may be in a position to either verify it or expose it as a fraud.

  5. I hope someone comes forward to verify that it is real. I find it interesting that no one said it was fake yet. But saying that it is real opens up a can of worms. I doubt that anyone will. Because it could bring this case wide open.

  6. From what I gather, Jameson (Susan Bennett) is a pro-Ramsey internet sleuth who has a long history since the start of the case, so I'd be surprised if she would tell you that the writing is John's. It sure looks like Patsy's writing to me even though I can see the letter is written as if John is writing it.

  7. Turns out it was written by someone called "Nancy," who claimed she was asked to write the ransom note. I'd forgotten about this "Nancy" person, but at one time her claims made a big splash and were thoroughly discussed on the forums. According to Jameson, "Nancy" wrote the above document in her presence as part of an effort to convince her that she (Nancy) was the one who penned that note (as dictated by someone else.

    The "Nancy" story is only one of many bizarre turns in this case, and as with all the others, it never led anywhere. "Nancy" was investigated pretty thoroughly and there appears to have been no basis for her claims.

    1. Yes but my point is that Jameson has an agenda. I know about the "Nancy" mystery, and never knew what to make of it, but Nancy (Nancy Krebs) was found to be a fraud. This letter starting with "I think one of the.." looks to me to be the same writing as the ransom note, e.g. Patsy's writing. It would be interesting to find out more about this note.

    2. Looks to me like "Nancy" spent some time learning to write in roughly the same style as the note, to make her hoax more convincing. The content is a statement made by John during a press conference. It's hard to see why Patsy would have wanted to write it out.

    3. Patsy was the family stenographer, John was the big honcho CEO. Just like the ransom note which was penned by Patsy as narrated by John, Patsy probably copied his press conference speech by video or audio tape, as it would be too difficult to do live. Who knows why she wanted it on paper. So here again we see Patsy in the role of stenographer, secretary to her husband. It's why the ransom note reeks of John's "isms" while also reeking of Patsy's penmanship. The only thing the ransom note is missing is John's signature with "prepared by Patsy Ramsey" below it.

    4. If Patsy wrote it, why doesn't it look remotely like any of her other handwriting? And how did Jameson get hold of it? She was my source. And her explanation rings true. If it had actually been written by Patsy I'm sure she'd never have shared it.

  8. I made an error in my comment above, there are two Nancy's. The handwriting Nancy is not Nancy Krebs, though both Nancy's are mentioned in the JonBenet case.

    For more info on this, see this page:

    1. Thanks for the link to this extremely interesting web page. ACandyRose is certainly a gold mine of information on this case.

      The "Nancy" story is truly bizarre, and very difficult to understand. While the sample she wrote for Jameson does have many points of similarity with the ransom note, there are also some significant differences. The note was clearly written with the intention to deceive, as is evident from a variety of strange quirks tossed into the mix to the point that the note has a very inconsistent and irregular look overall. The sample from Nancy is not at all irregular and contains none of these quirks. Yet Nancy never says anything about trying to disguise her hand. According to her story, there would have been no need to disguise it.

      It's also very difficult to understand how the notepad got smuggled into the house, or why anyone would want to go to the trouble of smuggling it. If the intention was to make it look like John or Patsy wrote it, then this person would have forged John or Patsy's hand, not asked Nancy to write the note in her own hand. It's also hard to understand why anyone intent on perpetrating the "perfect crime" would have allowed an "innocent" such as Nancy to pen a document so central to that crime, with no concern that she might spill the beans at some point.

      I have no idea what "Nancy's" motivation might have been, but I seriously doubt her story, it sounds like a fantasy carried to insane lengths in a desperate bid for attention. Not too different in that respect from John Mark Karr's story, which also sounds convincing -- until it doesn't.