Strange situation, no? Almost everyone in law enforcement who's studied the case, plus, I would imagine, the great majority of the public following the case via the many books and, of course, the Internet, doesn't take the intruder theory seriously. And well they shouldn't. Not only was there no sign of a forced breakin, no footprints seen in the thin layer of frost crusting the lawn, no sign of tracked in moisture or mud seen in the basement, no unsourced fingerprints, nothing missing from the house -- but also no reason for any kidnapper to wait to write his ransom note until after he'd entered the house, no reason for him to make it so long and detailed, no reason for him to leave that note without actually taking his victim, no reason for him to redress the body in fresh underpants, no reason for him to hide it in the most remote place in the house, no reason to wrap it in a blanket "like a papoose" (John's description of how he found it). And as for the DNA "evidence," an intruder not wearing gloves would have left his DNA all over the place, while an intruder with gloves would not have left any "touch" DNA anywhere. The DNA is almost certainly an artifact, the result of indirect transfer from some innocent source.
Which tells us . . . what? Why it's as simple as adding two plus two: the note could only have been written by Patsy Ramsey. No-brainer, right?
Well, actually: wrong. Because, as I've demonstrated over and over on this blog, Patsy's involvement in either the murder or the coverup makes no sense. The most obvious example of that is the fact that she is the one who called the police first thing in the morning. If she is the one who wrote the note, then: knowing the body of the victim is still in the house, meaning there was no kidnapping; knowing that her handwriting will eventually be examined by experts; knowing that the investigators will eventually realize that the note was written on a writing pad from her own house; why oh why would she be so stupid as to place a noose over her own neck by inviting the police over before getting the body -- AND the note -- out of the house? Why, in fact, leave a patently phoney "ransom" note at all?
Of course, the illogic of the intruder theory has had no affect at all on those defending "the Ramseys," just as the illogic of Patsy's involvement has had no effect on those insisting on "Ramsey guilt." You are either on one side or the other. Which means that attempting to defend Patsy has, for so many years, been tantamount to embracing the intruder theory. Thus it was that experienced law enforcement veterans, such as Steve Thomas and, more recently, James Kolar, have written books based on the proposition that Patsy and only Patsy could have written the note. As both make clear, there could not have been an intruder, "and hence" the only logical alternative for writer of the note is Patsy. New York lawyer, Darnay Hoffman felt confident she must have written it, and hired a group of dubious "experts" to prove him right. Which they did, of course. Why not, since the note could only have been written by her, there was no other possibility.
And as far as the public was concerned, as various examples of Patsy's writing were released, via the tabloids, it became evident to many that the resemblances with the "ransom" note were obvious. You didn't need "experts," you could see it with your own eyes.
Meanwhile, the one person in the house that night most likely to have inflicted the vaginal wounds, both acute and chronic; the one person with a conceivable motive for murder (the need to silence a victim of incestuous abuse); the individual known to have withheld significant evidence regarding the open basement window; the individual who obviously lied about breaking that window earlier to deflect from the clear evidence of staging; the individual who shamelessly hired his own team to "investigate" the murder, including his own set of handwriting "experts" whose mandate was clearly to exonerate him; the individual whose legal team stonewalled the investigators for months, refusing to permit a police interview . . . The one person most likely to have committed this crime and who was, in fact, the leading suspect at the outset, this person was, amazingly, off the charts. Untouchable. Handed a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Steve Thomas went so far as to give him "a pass." How generous!
All because a group of "experts" ruled him out. I've challenged that ruling on this blog, here and also here. Thanks to that ruling, by the way, not one single example of any of the the handwriting samples provided to the officials by John has ever been made public. The tabloids had a field day with Patsy's samples, but thanks to the all abiding faith in those "experts" no one seems to have been interested in anything written by John Ramsey. The one exception, the one sample we have from John is from a different source entirely. It's a legal document, provided to one of the tabloids by, no doubt, the individual at the other end of the lawsuit in question.
Thanks to this lawsuit, it's been possible to compare John's writing to that of the ransom note, and, lo and behold, the similarities are remarkable. I won't post them here, but if you're curious, you can find two sets of rather striking comparisons on this post. So why was John ruled out????
As far as Patsy is concerned, I've already examined with some care the laughably incompetent reports offered by Darnay Hoffman's "experts." To learn just how hard they worked to base their case on little more than cherry picking, see the series of posts titled "The Experts See Patsy" (you can do a search on this title using the search mechanism at the upper right). I've also posted direct comparisons between the note and Patsy's left-hand sample, and also her London letter.
After close examination of all available samples by Patsy, I felt I had no choice but to declare, to the consternation of those many Patsy "fans" out there, that there is no resemblance whatsoever between her writing and that of the ransom note. I believe I've demonstrated that quite clearly, but for some strange reason there are still some doubters out there, those who claim they can "see with their own eyes" that Patsy wrote the note. So I decided to put together one more display, this time comparing chunks of Patsy's writing with a paragraph from the note, plus the one sample we have of John's writing, plus one additional sample of some anonymous hand, for comparison sake (to get a closer look, right-click and select "Open Link in New Tab"):
An excerpt from Patsy's right-handed rendition of the note is on the upper left, with her left-handed sample just below it, and a sample of her writing provided to the investigators just below that (note by the way that she was so flustered she got the date wrong). On the upper right we see the first paragraph of the ransom note, with John's sample just below it. To the left of the ransom note excerpt I've added a sample from an anonymous source I found on the internet. This one interests me especially because, of its resemblance to Patsy's hand, as seen in her right hand version of the note, the other right hand sample at the bottom left, and also her London letter. None of Patsy's samples bear much resemblance at all to the ransom note, as far as I can see. But you are all free to judge for yourselves. To my eyes, John's sample looks far more like the note than does Patsy's, which makes you wonder why he was ruled out. But again, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion -- especially when that opinion is based on an actual examination of the facts at hand, rather than an inner conviction of what has to be the case based on a false dichotomy.
As I see it, there is no either/or as far as the Ramsey case is concerned. There is a third possibility that must be considered. The one who was "ruled out" must be ruled back IN.
Boom. John Ramsey needs to be put before a jury. Shame on Boulder for allowing this fallacy to happen. What other citizen of American can get themselves ruled out of suspicion for a crime they might have committed based on a handwriting analysis of any sort? It is not allowable in court; also, judges understand that an attempt at disguising one's handwriting is not the same thing as forgery and thus these analyses cannot be convicting, and finally, who the hell is this man Darnay Hoffman that he and his hired hands can circumvent justice in the death of a child? Shame on Darnay -- I wonder how much he and Linda Hoffman-Pugh were paid for their role in this farce. Doc, you did it again, laid it out for anyone who is engaged in logical thought about this case. -KH
ReplyDeleteThanks, KH. It amazes me that Darnay was so willing to challenge the "experts" conclusions on Patsy, yet had no problem with their exoneration of John. These same "experts" found it "unlikely" that Patsy had written the note, but had failed to rule her out. That fine distinction, never questioned, was enough to throw the entire case into a tailspin. And now, so many years later, it is still spinning around aimlessly, back and forth, between Patsy (also Burke) and the "intruder," despite the fact that neither possibility makes sense.
DeleteLinda Hoffman-Pugh was recruited by Darnay as part of his continuing effort to pin the crime on Patsy. Linda was justifiably upset by team Ramsey's attempts to implicate her and also tempted by the possibility of a book deal, negotiated, naturally, by her new lawyer, Darnay Hoffman. Her story did get picked up by the Globe, so she did make some money, but I feel sure her principal motive was anger at Patsy for tossing her under that bus. Linda said some really nasty things about Patsy (after having initially defended her), but as she never witnessed the murder, she had no more clue than anyone else as to who did it.
You've done great work on the RB.How it was first drafted on a computer(something new you've discovered) points even more so towards JR cause he was an "office guy". Also it's a smart plan under stressfull time constraints. My read on Patsy is not that she was dumb but definately not methodical in thinking. Patsy was the artist type, able to write a poem or host a spectacular party on a moments notice but she was a slob, unorganised,baddled with weight issues(bad impulse control). JR was the opposite. Quite,neat,professional,bland. Only a cool head could write that note after killing their daughter. The only thing I'm stuck on is if it's JR why did the semen found everywhere not match him? alexandra
DeleteSemen was not found everywhere. Or anywhere, really. They found a blanket with JAR's semen on it, enclosed in a suitcase, I believe. That's it. She was very thoroughly wiped down and I suspect that any semen that might have been spilled on her body was pretty thoroughly wiped away. Also the fact that she was redressed in fresh panties suggests that some semen had spilled on her original panties.
DeleteI was reviewing the JR 1998 interview and Mike Kane asks JR if the RN was written as to frame him. JR responds with if he wrote the RN he would of typed it instead of handwriting it. Sick. He probably typed it out first and realized it could be tracked back to his computer or whatever so he had to resort to copying it by hand. alexandra
DeleteA computer printout would have been easy to trace back to his printer, because, as you imply, the printheads on every such device have unique signs of wear that would show up on microscopic examination of the printout. Of course, if he were planning on destroying the note, and claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned, that really wouldn't have mattered. A more likely reason for not printing it would have been the noise of the printer, which could have awakened Patsy or Burke. Or, if he'd planned this in advance, and wrote it while at the airport, he may not have had access to a printer and been forced to write by hand. He could have written it initially on his laptop and used the computer font as a guide when printing by hand, or might even have traced at least part of it. See my analysis of the note here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html
DeleteHis response isn't very convincing because, of course, an intruder would also have wanted to type such a note, and would also have brought a pre-prepared note with him, rather than hand print it while in the house.
You've done a lot of good work on the handwriting. I't s too bad people new to the case tend first to go to the forums (places where common sense goes to die) and get inundated with "It's PR's handwriting". If they could see your blog first, before spending years convincing themselves they "see" PR's hand, there might be a chance they could figure out who did it.
ReplyDeleteI have been following the Ramsey's case for a long time and I was convinced Patsy did it until I came across your blog. Very interesting and thank you!
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you that has been puzzling me. If John was awake all night to cover up the murder and write the ransom note, wouldn't he worry about Patsy waking up and not finding him in bed? Didn't she hear anything or saw her husband not by her side all night? I mean if it was me I probably would wake up by him sneaking in the bed or perhaps a noise? Interested to know what you think.
Excellent question. If the crime was premeditated, and the note prepared ahead of time (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/07/premeditated.html for a discussion of this possibility), then he might have managed to drug Patsy and Burke, so they'd both sleep soundly. Or, if the decision to kill his daughter was made during the night, then Patsy awakening to find him absent from the bed would have been a very real risk. However, it's not at all unusual for men of his age to need to urinate in the middle of the night, so if she had awakened and noticed he wasn't there, she'd probably have assumed he was in the bathroom and just turned over and went back to sleep, and then completely forgotten about it in the morning. According to her testimony, she was in fact awakened by John the next morning, when he was taking a shower. My guess is that he never returned to the bed at all that night. I find it interesting that she never testified that she actually saw him in bed next to her at any time, but simply slept soundly all night.
DeleteIf she HAD noticed that he wasn't in bed, and had gotten up to investigate, then she too may have been murdered that night -- by the same "intruder" no doubt.
they had been at a party -- isn't it possible that she was super drunk and just passed out? which also explains why she was wearing the same clothes from the night before.
DeleteInteresting thought. But if she'd spent the night in the same outfit, it would have been a wrinkled mess in the morning. And she would no doubt have changed.
DeleteThank you for the reply. I think the reason this case is so puzzling and fraustrating for most people and including myself is the brutality of it. The face that in our hearts we do not want to believe a parent or parents are capable of such horrible things. But, things like this has happened before and still happens. If we put our emotions aside and focus on facts it is clear to see how strangly John Ramsey acted the whole time.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing it's unbelievable that he disappears time and time from the kitchen and living room area instead of waiting for the kidnappers to call!
According to the officer at the scene he was nowhere to be found for a long period of time. If it was me I would be sitting by that damn phone and so nervous I couldn't focus on anything else. But not John! He was able to make all sort of arrengments.
I like to know your thoughts on John's activity between morning hours and noon.
I feel the same way as you regarding the difficulty of accepting that a parent would do such a thing to his child. I would honestly love to be proven wrong about John, because he comes across as a decent guy. But when you dig into the facts of this case, time and again you find him dissembling, prevaricating, not recalling, tossing out red herrings and at times blatantly lying. As I've written elsewhere, my goal is not to place John in the electric chair, but give him his day in court. If he is willing to answer the tough questions, and his answers are straightforward and convincing, I'll be happy to back off. However, my guess is that he'd refuse to testify if put on trial and leave it to his lawyers to argue his case, taking advantage of all the confusion and complexities to muddy the waters and go for reasonable doubt.
DeleteAs I recall, John did pay attention to the phone between the hours of 8 and 10. However, he disappeared from officer Arndt's sight shortly after that. He claimed he was checking his mail, but that doesn't account for the approximately 45 (or more) minutes he was off the radar. That gave him plenty of time to get out of the house and dispose of evidence, and also to head down to the basement to clean things up a bit there as well, if needed. Note, by the way, that Patsy was always present and accounted for during that entire time. I think Arndt's instincts were good. John is clearly the one she suspected from the start, while she later attempted to bond with Patsy.
well i have read several times in posts here by various posters that --- "with the dead body in the house the note made no sense, why not destroy the note and say there was a home invasion and JB was killed." Make no mistake---with a 6 year old dead daughter, and the sexual trauma in the vagina showing both current and previous wounds, and no kidnapping note present would have resulted in the immediate arrest and most likely 1st degree murder conviction of John B Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteso even tho PR may have foiled his plan and called 911 leaving him no time to stage the window and get rid of the body---that note ending up saving his azz any way you dice it up. it bought time at the very least. time to get lawyered up and ruled out and get PR on board with his scheme.
yes indeed, so far, that note has saved the life of JR. ironic isnt it?
DeleteThat's true only because investigative blunders soon turned the case into a comedy of errors. The note would have been no help to John at all if he hadn't been "ruled out" as writer. And don't forget, the same team of "experts" found it unlikely that Patsy wrote it.
Other than that the note definitely made them look more suspicious than if there had been no note. Of course, to make a pedophile intruder likely, it would have been necessary for John to complete his window staging, and the note would have given him time to do that if Patsy hadn't called 911.
The ironies do tend to abound in this case, I defintely agree with you on that point. If all had gone according to the original plan, John might easily have slipped up and gotten caught. What actually happened worked well for him because the BPD and DA could never sort out plan A from plan B and got hopelessly confused.
Did the note save him, or was it police incompetence? If he'd staged an intruder/sex murder - e.g. a home invasion, dead daughter, and sexual trauma- and that were sufficient probable cause for arrest, then why isn't the same situation, with the addition of an obviously hokey RN probable cause for arrest?
DeleteThe note, ironically enough, saved him. But only because the "experts" decided he could not have written it. The police were incompetent in the sense that they accepted the "expert's" verdict and never thought to question it.
Delete