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) live.com, 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.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Right Hand vs. Left Hand

An anonymous commenter has called my attention to a very interesting interview regarding 1. the possibility that the Ramsey ransom note could have been written by someone who is ambidextrous and 2. certain evidence suggesting that Patsy was in fact ambidextrous. According to the commenter, not only was Patsy ambidextrous, she wanted to hide that fact. Which would explain why the left-hand sample she provided to the authorities was so messy looking.


But before I continue, please forgive me but I feel the need to hold forth a bit on a topic that is very dear to me -- the vital difference between taking evidence at face value, and analyzing evidence critically, from the standpoint of both logic and common sense. In the Ramsey case especially we see many examples of people reacting almost viscerally to certain pieces of evidence as though they were self-explanatory and required no further analysis. And since Patsy Ramsey has become the focus of the case for so many, much of this evidence has often been cited as "proof-positive" of her guilt. The note was written on "her pad," using "her pen" -- wow, what does THAT tell you? The "garotte" was constructed from her paintbrush. Her fingerprints were found on the bowl of pineapple -- telling us she must have lied when she denied any knowledge of that. She wore the same outfit the next day, meaning she must have been up all night. Etc. , etc., endlessly.

If it were that simple she'd have been tried and convicted years ago. Anyone in the house that night could have used that notepad, that pen and that paintbrush. Why would Patsy go out of her way to use her own things to point away from her involvement in the murder of her daughter? And for that matter, if she'd been up all night why would Patsy not want to change her clothes before greeting the police that morning? Why would Patsy's fingerprints not be on a bowl from her own kitchen, an item she'd probably washed, dried and put away prior to the night of the crime? And so on. We can't just look superficially at evidence, we need to understand why that evidence is there and think logically about what it might mean.

Now, on to the question at hand. According to the first interviewee, Mr. Walker, senior editor of the National Enquirer,
Well, for a long time investigators have known that the note was probably written by somebody who's ambidextrous. 
Sounds reasonable. Some words or letters in the note are back slanted and others right slanted, so I've often thought that the writer sometimes used his right hand and sometimes his left, as part of an effort to disguise his hand.
But police have never been able to absolutely independently confirm that Patsy Ramsey was ambidextrous, so we decided because this case is so old and we're trying constantly to uncover new evidence, we went to witnesses everywhere, in Boulder, in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and we talked to... people from her school days, teachers, etc, and we found a witness, a high school teacher who taught Patsy in the 1970's, who said very simply and matter-of-factly she is ambidextrous. She was as a child. She is now. We went to Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the housekeeper, and when we asked her this she said, oh yeah, she said, Patsy told me she was ambidextrous. I've seen her brush her hair with her left hand. I've seen her paint with her left hand. I once saw her work on a science project with Burke, JonBenet's brother, where she wrote numbers and letters with her left hand. She is absolutely ambidextrous. 

N.B. The question of whether John Ramsey might be ambidextrous never arises. I'll have more to say on that presently.

Next we hear from the other intervieweee, handwriting "expert" Ted Widmer:
Handwriting actually is a misnomer because if you lose a hand, for example, and have to write with the pen, for example, held in your mouth or between your cheek and your shoulder, your handwriting basically stays the same. You really should call this brain-writing rather than handwriting. There have been many occasions where people have lost a hand, like say their dominant hand was their right hand and they then had to learn how to write with their left hand, and basically the handwriting looks virtually the same. 
Now, according to the anonymous commenter I referred to above, Mr. Walker's report constitutes proof positive that Patsy was indeed ambidextrous. On the other hand, when we examine the left-hand sample Patsy provided to law enforcement,


it looks as though she is really struggling to write with her "off" hand, and the result is very messy -- which is one reason the Enquirer saw it as an "exact match," since the ransom note is also messy. (For my take on this comparison, see my blog post entitled Patsy's Left-Hand Sample Revisited. As I've been able to demonstrate, her left hand sample is actually very different from the note, though on first glance it can look quite similar.)

So we are left with a vexing question. If Patsy was in fact ambidextrous and therefore capable, as Mr. Widmer opined, of writing as clearly with her left hand as with her right, why would the sample she provided to law enforcement look so messy? According to the anonymous commenter, it looks that way because she was trying to disguise the fact that she was ambidextrous. But why would she want to disguise that fact by deliberately writing a note so messy that some (including the editors of the Enquirer) see it as "an exact match" to the ransom note???? Was she really that dense? Moreover, if she were truly ambidextrous how could she possibly have hoped to disguise that fact? Wouldn't she have been concerned that examples of her left-hand writing would turn up either in her historic exemplars or in something offered to the police by a friend?

I'm sorry, but it simply defies both logic and simple common sense to assume that Patsy would have wanted to disguise the fact that she was ambidextrous, at least in the sense implied by Widmer. If in fact her "brain-writing," as Widmer calls it, made it possible for her to write more or less the same with either hand, why wouldn't she have used that capability to demonstrate that her left hand script was just as different from the ransom note as her right hand script?

Something is definitely wrong with the picture painted by the National Enquirer editor. And given the track record of the National Enquirer, that's not surprising. An old teacher could have gotten Patsy confused with some other ex-student. Maybe the NE reporter wasn't worried about that possibility, but simply reported what his editor wanted to hear. Would not have been the first time a tabloid got things wrong. As for what Linda reported, there is a big difference between brushing your hair with your left hand, or even painting with your left hand and using that hand to write fluently. As for writing some numbers, well even I can write numbers with my left hand, and I'm certainly not ambidextrous. I'm not saying there is no way Patsy could be ambidextrous. I'm just saying I see no incontrovertible evidence of it. If she had that ability I see no reason why she would have wanted to hide it -- or take the huge risk of being found out if she had tried to hide it.

But I'm not yet done with this right-handed, left-handed issue. Because we have not yet considered John Ramsey, the teflon suspect, who always seems to pass unnoticed whenever evidence of guilt is being considered. What I find so very interesting in the interview from which I've been quoting is the total absence of any consideration of the exemplars John provided and what they might look like. We don't even know whether or not John provided a left-handed sample, do we? Has anyone ever expressed an interest in that?  And if he did, what might THAT have looked like? And why have ALL the exemplars John provided been so carefully hidden from the public for all these many years?

Here once again is the one example of John's printing that's been made public, a document that was probably never submitted at all to the authorities:


And lo and behold! We see a distinct back-slant. Now back-slant does not always mean left hand. But very often it does. And here's John's signature:


Very clearly back-slanted. Now John has always claimed he was right-handed -- and has denied he was ambidextrous. Which might be the case. But he certainly has a tendency to write with a back slant. And it's the presence of certain letters and words in the ransom note written with back slant that convinced the authorities the writer must be ambidextrous. So, gee. It would be very interesting to take a peek at the exemplars he provided. Maybe someone at the National Enquirer would be willing to track them down for us???? I wonder . . .



73 comments:

  1. I am lost on your point here. What do you mean was she that dense ? You claim she was as dense as anyone in the world on many topics but that is besides the point here. After LE found out she could write with her left hand and had to do a left hand exemplar for LE she had no choice but to make it extra sloppy, if she did not then it would look just like the RN. I am not understanding your logic here ? I couldnt disagree more about your analysis, the overall writing may not look exact but after closer examination some odd and very rare letter formations are exact. Take a hard look at the F in faction and it is an extremely odd and rare way to form a small f and it is an exact match. The bottom exemplar is not even the closest f match either, some of her other fs are even more precise than the 1 presented here .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "if she did not then it would look just like the RN."

      And you know that how? To many people it already looks just like the RN. Don't you see the problem. Everyone sees what they want to see. Why are you the exception?

      Delete
    2. I think your ability to be objective in your analysis is beginning to falter. You have blinders on to anyone but John. You see what you want to see. You deflect everything with which you disagree without offering a substantive argument as to why it is fallacious. You stated above that perhaps Patsy's teacher was confused, the brushing of hair and painting with the left hand are not proof she is ambidextrous, and then you question the veracity of the source.

      In my opinion, the fact that she was able to write the note with her left hand is proof that she is ambidextrous. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't make it through the first couple of lines. I'd be at it all day with nothing to show for it. I'm pretty coordinated with my left hand due to playing music but it still does not help with writing.

      I do not advocate with any certainty what went on in The Ramsey's home that night, or who the killer actually is, just that it could not have been an intruder. However, I will not ignore evidence simply because it does not conform to my beliefs. It you want to be taken seriously, you should do the same. Otherwise, you are no better than anyone else who staunchly advocates emotion instead of reason.

      Delete
    3. What evidence is it that you think I'm ignoring? If Patsy's right hand exemplars matched the writing of the note, there would have been no need to request a left-hand sample. And as I've demonstrated, her left-hand sample is very different from the writing on the note, when examined in detail. And if I'm wrong on that score and it's as "obviously" the same as attested by the National Enquirer and many others, then she would have been indicted, no? So please tell me what I'm ignoring.

      Anonymous is insisting she was ambidextrous and trying to hide that fact with her messy left-hand sample. You are insisting that the left hand sample proves she was ambidextrous after all. Well, if that's the case then how can she be accused of hiding that? You can't have it both ways. Either her left-handed sample is evidence that she was not ambidextrous or it's evidence that she was. I have no idea and I don't think it matters. According to Widmer an ambidextrous person will tend to write in a very similar manner with both hands. If that was the case with Patsy, then she would have had no reason to alter her writing, because her left-hand script would be as different from the note as her right-hand script, NOT similarly messy.

      Anonymous insists that she altered her left hand writing because if she didn't it would have looked identical to the ransom note. Wow, that's quite an assumption -- with nothing whatsoever to back it up. There is no reason to believe that whatsoever. It's purely an assumption, and a very lame one at that.

      So again. What is it that I'm ignoring? Patsy's right hand looks very different from the note. Her left hand looks very different from the note. Aside from certain dubious "matches" ferreted out by Cina Wong, that could easily be due to cherry picking, there is NO reason to believe Patsy wrote that note.

      What's behind all this fuss is the fact that John was ruled out and Patsy wasn't. And the naive reluctance to question that verdict has led a great many to focus on Patsy, and bend their brains into a pretzel trying to prove she HAD to have written it. Once we find ourselves in that situation then the doors and windows are wide open to the form of self-deception known as confirmation bias. Anything and everything that might look just a bit suspicious is seen as proof positive of guilt. And all the many reasons to doubt that verdict are shunted aside as irrelevant.

      Delete
    4. She was indited Doc. The DA's were crooked and friends with the R's lawyers. The other reason is a flaw in the legal system where because more than 1 person was involved they had problems knowing who did what and charging who with what so they get off. You know all of this already though

      Delete
    5. We don't know what was said during the Grand Jury investigation. But you do have a point, yes. The handwriting evidence might have played a role in their verdict. We just don't know.

      However, we do have a relatively complete record of the Chris Wolf lawsuit, and thanks to Darnay the handwriting evidence played a huge role in that one. If you read Lin Wood's interview with Darnay you'll see how easy it was for Wood to shred this guy. And of course the judge in the case very wisely weighed the opinions of the unbiased examiners for LE against those of Darnay's people and ruled that there was no basis for concluding that Patsy wrote the note. If the matches were as "obvious" as you claim, they would have been obvious to her as well.

      Delete
    6. There is ample evidence in support of an ambidextrous Patsy. Admittedly, some is hearsay, but she did write the note left handed when requested.

      None of this proves that she was culpable for murder or wrote the actual ransom note. I do not argue that it does.

      We do not have enough exemplars from John for comparison. We should not attempt to draw conclusions about John's handwriting regardless of the other abundant evidence against him.

      Delete
  2. You are off on this and PR later om admitted to beong ambidextrous and her words about writing were that she had not written in her left hand in many years but if push came to shove then she could do it. Secondly if you want to compare PR's As then lets not compare manuscript to cursive but lets compare apples to apples. All of PR's As compared to that in the RN and now see how exact these are. https://www.google.com/search?q=patsy+ramsey+ransom+note&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&source=lnms&prmd=ivn&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ3Mzkrb_OAhUB0WMKHf_ODMEQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=536&dpr=4#tbm=isch&q=patsy+ramsey+handwriting+exemplars&imgrc=ZbaOOeZKGWAVpM%3A

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I already linked you to the comparisons I did with John's exemplars. Here they are again: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

      And yes, this too is cherry picking. If you look hard enough you can find such "matches" easily, between all sorts of people's writing.

      Delete
  3. I have seen all of your exemplars and read every comment on this blog Doc. I respect and appreciate your work on this case GREATLY. I am well versed and educated on this case as well though and I just disagree with you. I think that your bias has taken over completely at this point. If it doesnt fit than it is not evidence or not true. As far as cherry picking I do not believe that is true either. Chet Ubowski was given 73 writing examplars with no names on any of them and he was able to eliminate 72 of the exemplars. The only 1 he could not eliminate was PR's who he said wrote the note. So either he is psychic or PR most likely wrote that note. It doesnt matter if a nonexpert did this or a Disneyland worker it holds validity. What I think you are not understanding or able to see is that there is a huge difference between cherry picking letters between mine and your handwriting or mine and anyone elses handwriting and saying they are similar and exact* matches of what I am going to call "personalized" letters such as the As of PRs that I posted above and the E on Cina Wong's analysis I pointed out to you. Sure I agree a few of JR's letters are similar, most notably his Ws. However when I show you a letter like the 5th E in Cina Wong's analysis and no one else in the world makes an E like that and the exact same style E is in the RN then we are onto more of an positive match of the person who wrote the RN than a "similarity". Your comparison of PR's manuscript A to that of her cursive A and calling it not a match is not a valid comparison. I know that if someone wrote a RN and was going up for 1st degree murder they would of course want to hide their hand and would be deceptive to do so. Also I would like to point out that Priscilla White as well as Steve Thomas pointed out that PR changed her handwriting post murder. Burke's teacher also told LE that premurder all of PR's letters to her were handwritten but post murder PR typed out all letters to her. Either way I enjoy the debate and I have more exact matches of PR's writing that I will post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very much agree that personal bias can color one's perceptions. Yours as well as mine. Which is why I don't base my analysis of this case, or any other, on my perceptions. If you've researched this case you'll be well aware that there are many theories held by many different people and each one sees the case in his or her own way. That's true of me as well -- but also of you.

      There are people convinced that Helgoth did it. There are people convinced that Oliva did it. There are people convinced that Fleet White did it. There are people convinced that "Santa" did it. Or Linda. Or Chris Wolf. Or John Mark Karr. Or Bob Enyart. The list goes on endlessly and if you do the research you'll see that every one of us self-appointed sleuths has picked up on certain aspects of the case that make them feel sure they are right. Well, obviously we can't all be right, can we?

      While I have to admit that I too could be wrong, my strategy to avoid personal bias has been to concentrate on 1. undisputed facts and 2. clear logical inferences based on those facts. I think that's the best way to proceed --- and when I analyse the case on that basis there is only one perpetrator who makes sense and that is John Ramsey. Patsy's involvement makes no sense.

      And no, John was not the person I originally suspected and my thinking is not based on some need to support some preconceived theory, because in my case there never was one. It's based on my need to find a logical solution, a solution that makes sense.

      I admit that I too could be wrong, but at least I've made an effort to be objective, which I don't think you have.

      Delete
    2. I'll add that, with respect to the forensics of handwriting, there is a good reason why the so-called "experts" in this field are so often not permitted to voice an opinion in a court of law. Because this field is an art, not a science. And when it comes to identifying the writer of a note like the Ramsey note, a document deliberately intended to deceive, then I know of no method capable of either ruling out or ruing in any suspect simply by looking for similarities and differences -- because one has no way of knowing whether any of these characteristics were placed there by the writer due to some unconscious quirk, or deliberately, as part of an effort to deceive.

      Yes, Chet Ubowski strongly suspected Patsy, but not to the extent that he'd be willing to so testify in court. And the person with the most clout, brought in from the Secret Service, saw no evidence that Patsy wrote the note. Neither did most of the other unbiased "experts" who examined it. Neither do I. Which doesn't mean she didn't write it. It just means that there is no way to tell for sure, based solely on the handwriting evidence. Based on every other aspect of the case, I believe it's clear she could not have written it.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for your objectiveness. I have no bias and I can say with all honesty I think JR was involved as well but some aspects just do not make sense with only JR involved just as some aspects do not make sense with only PR involved. I am not saying I think BR did it and I agree with you as you have stated before that there is 0 evidence against BR, however, in the logical sense it seems to make the most sense that both PR and JR covered for Burke. It would answer every question we have had as far as I can see. As far as the handwriting goes I agree with you that it definitely is an art which is why I posted PR's As all in comparison next to each other because I find them to be dead ringers for each other. I have studied so many handwriting exemplars from this case that rather than look at the writing as a whole I find myself looking at the strokes and angles of the letter formations and identifying marks in the letters when comparing. I admit I could be wrong as well. If I am not mistaken the first examiners of PR's handwriting only had her right handed samples for comparison. I believe it was not until later on that her 1 and only left handed exemplar was made for police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your honest and open-minded response.

      ". . . it seems to make the most sense that both PR and JR covered for Burke. It would answer every question we have had as far as I can see."

      I think this is the main reason so many, including Mr. Kolar, suspect Burke. If you are convinced that John and Patsy collaborated to stage a fake kidnapping, then the desire to cover for their child is a believable motive, yes. On the other hand, if one of the parents is responsible for her death, then it's hard to see why the other would want to help that person cover it up.

      So fine. Up to that point, what you say makes sense.

      However. As I've stressed time and again on this blog: if both Ramseys were collaborating to stage a kidnapping, the 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house. While this might seem like just one more argument along with all the others, as I see it, this incontrovertible FACT is one of the crucial keys to understanding this case. While it might seem as though it's a simple matter to get around it, that is not the case, believe me, because I've spent years trying to do just that and neither I nor anyone I've ever encountered either here on this blog or any of the forums has been able to get around it.

      If both Ramseys had been brought to trial, all their lawyers would need to do would be to raise that very issue: "If my clients had been staging a kidnapping, then why would they have called 911 knowing JonBenet's body was still in the house?" That in itself would have been more than enough to sway any jury. At the very least it would have been more than enough reason to support a reasonable doubt defense.

      The only way to account for that call, aside from insisting on the intruder theory, is to conclude that one of them is guilty and the other is NOT. Which would rule out a united effort on the part of "the Ramseys" to cover for Burke. The person who wrote that note was covering for himself.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the slip-up but the incontrovertible FACT referred to above is the phone call, not the inference based on it. That's not a fact, admittedly, but as I see it, a very clear logical inference that's all but impossible to refute -- though many have tried.

      Delete
    3. After coming across this interesting blog I would like to add my two cents. Donald Foster was the 1 to point out through analysis that Patsy Ramsey had changed her handwriting post murder not Steve Thomas as some have said on here. Donald Foster nor anyone else was out to get Patsy Ramsey either. Some of comparisons if not all of handwriting analysis comparisons were done without any names on the exemplars. Meaning that Patsy Ramsey's exemplars were pulled out of however many exemplars each handwriting expert had, thus elimimating any bias against Patsy Ramsey. After this is known the statistical odds of Patsy Ramsey writing the note are almost astronomical. Justice for J.B.

      Delete
  5. No footprints in the snow. The Boulder police came up with this idea using their imagination. Yes, it was true at the time the first officers got to the home, there was no fresh foot impressions in the old snow or any footsteps on the frosted grass. So how could this lead the police to think that this was an inside job? Again, they used their imagination.

    The killer was in the basement with JonBenet at the time the police arrived at the Ramsey's home. The family got up much earlier than he had expected when preplanning his crime. He could not hear that the family was up and getting ready for an early trip to Michigan that was three floors above him from the basement.
    The killer knows that he printed many times that "She DIES" if they call for help, so he was surprised when they did call for help.

    The family does call for help and the police arrives to the house very quickly. So fast that the killer needs a new plan. He takes JonBenet to the wine cellar and permanently silences her forever. He takes a wire and ties it into a knot and ties the wine cellar door closed with him and JonBenet inside.

    The police enter the basement and walk up to the wine cellar door. This white door is in plain sight. The officer pulled hard on the door handle and cannot get the door open. He made a note that the door must be painted shut. This was his imagination that the door was painted shut. He then walked away and goes back upstairs. The officer never looked inside the wine cellar that had the killer and JonBenet just inside. The police did find a wire tied into a knot inside the wine cellar hours later. This is so important that it is logged into evidence.

    After the police left the basement, the killer walks over to the train room door, he moves a small chair and enters the room, he unlocks the basement window that John found unlocked and open. He decides this would not be the best way to escape the basement with all of the activities outside. The main door to the driveway is next to this window.

    He leaves the train room and replaces the small chair back in front of the train room door. The killer has shown this action through the crime scene.

    The killer walks up the basement steps and when the timing is right, he travels to the butler kitchen and opens the locked door and exits the house leaving the ball bat on the rock wall near by. A neighbor saw a tall, slim, brown hair, white male run very fast from the side of the house where the ball bat was found. This was some time after the police had arrived. The police checked for footprints in the snow at the time they first arived, after that, many of the Ramsey friends arrived at the home, walking everywhere.

    The killer ran quickly from the side yard after all of this had taken place. There would not have been footprints in the snow when the police first arrived, because the killer was still hidden in the basement with JonBenet. The killer had not left the house at that time so his footprints would not be there early in the morning. Remember, JonBenet was also hidden in the basement after the police officers went back upstairs.

    The police find the butler kitchen door open and unlocked that morning. This is the same door that the killer used to exit the home that early, dark morning. This neighborhood did not have street lights. No footprints in the snow at the time the police made note of that, very true, because the killer did not exit the home at that time. He was still in the basement. John Ramsey also made note that the killer may have been in the house after the police had arrived.

    Remember, the police could not open the wine cellar door, two times after that a neighbor easily opens the wine cellar door and looks inside. The room was dark and he did not see anything. Then John and a neighbor also open the wine cellar door very easily and found JonBenet on the floor, the door was not painted shut as described by the Boulder police.

    Team JBI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That ^^^^ is funny :))) Where do you people come up with this garbage ???? There was no intruder and there was no story about someone running from the house. Feel free to post your sources, I am sure they will resemble a fictional csi story. Until then lay off the magical dust bud !

      Delete
  6. Anonymous insists that she altered her left hand writing because if she didn't it would have looked identical to the ransom note. Wow, that's quite an assumption -- with nothing whatsoever to back it up. There is no reason to believe that whatsoever. It's purely an assumption, and a very lame one at that. I again am missing your point. I think it is a guarantee that whoever wrote the note was being deceptive in the first place correct ? So you are saying that if they had to go in and make an exemplar that it is a lame excuse that they would try and hide that they had written the note ? I find this to be common sense. Whoever wrote the note and with whatever hand they did it were clearly trying to hide their hand, with any of their exemplars. Period. Just because it does not make sense to you that someone called 911 and the other Ramsey knew about and possibly helped with the staging etc ,does not make it fact that it didnt happen. Every detective and LE agent that I know of who was on this case has thought otherwise so. Some were there and some are privy to knowledge and evidence that YOU and I are not. It is not logical for a parent to kill and do what was done to JB, yet it happened. So unfortunately everything in this case may not be figured out by just using plain logical commom sense. The sooner that you take off the blinders and understand that it is not an incotrovertible fact because 1 called 911 the other didnt know then the sooner your objectiveness and ability to see clearly will return.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This sounds like deja vu all over again. I've stated my position and see no point in continuing to go round and round with you endlessly on the same set of issues. You are free to believe anything you like.

      Delete
    2. I agree in not going round and round. Just not understanding your point. The only other option and what you seem to be inferring is that whoever wrote were trying to have their exemplar look like the ransom note because either A) they were trying to be caught or B) just did not care if they were, that is lame.

      Delete
    3. If that's what you think then I've totally been wasting my time. You've understood nothing.

      Delete
  7. "That ^^^^ is funny :))) Where do you people come up with this garbage ???? There was no intruder and there was no story about someone running from the house. Feel free to post your sources, I am sure they will resemble a fictional csi story. Until then lay off the magical dust bud !"

    I'm sorry. Do you have any special insight to this case? Why could there not have been an intruder? Do you know that as a fact? Someone did call the Peter Boyles Show and claimed to have seen a man running from the house that morning. Could this caller be lying? Sure. Even if that story is a lie doesn't mean it didn't happen. But this story would coincide with the facts. It is not a fact that there was NO intruder.

    Team JBI

    ReplyDelete
  8. No its not a fact, but it is a fact that LE were lied to by both JR and PR. No intruder would come in and randomly write a RN from a pen and pad from the home they broke into.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is not a fact. That's your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So you believe that a deranged sexual killer broke into the house, woke up a 6 yr old, fed her pineapple,sexually assaulted and killed her,hung out for for awhile for the fun of it, decided to write a 2 and a half page ransom note complete with homeowner's bonus amount in it, then procceeded to dressed his victim and wrap her in her favorite blanket(how did he know that?), cleaned the body and house of every bit of evidence that he was there and in his spare time there planted a few clues. Oh yeah he cooked a 4 course meal and watched a couple movies too. No your right it is not a fact it is just common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as that call goes it was most likely 1 of the Ramsey team. Had anyone actually saw a man running from the house they would have let LE know. That is unless you are a Ramsey, then a talk show is perfect to report that too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some semi random thoughts on handwriting.

    First it's unlikely the teacher confused Patsy with some other student. Being able to write well with either hand is a rare skill and quite memorable. Add to that memory LHP's observations and there is no doubt Patsy was ambidextrous.

    Patsy writes much better left handed than I could ever do with my left. She is to a high degree ambidextrous. That should be obvious by her exemplar.

    Since the author most likely disguised his/her writing it would not be possible to match the RN with exemplars, right or left handed.
    There's no way to tell if the exemplars made for the police are accurate examples of his/her handwriting or not. e.g. the exemplars for the police could be disguised as well as the RN. IOWs the RN was disguised (probably) and the exemplars could have been disguised so they didn't match the disguised RN. OTOH the exemplars could be accurate examples of her writing, and still wouldn't match the disguised RN.
    Comparison is largely useless.

    The whole business about her being "dense" and writing sloppy so that it would "match" according to the editor of the Enquirer is goofy. Who cares, or would even foresee that the editor would find a "match"? As you've ably demonstrated, it doesn't match.

    It makes sense that Patsy might write less well on the LH exemplar than she is actually capable of, since convincing police she can't write well enough with her left to be the author puts her in a better position than "faking" her LH exemplar. But in any case, it's impossible to tell from the police exemplar whether she could have done better or not.

    It's clear that Patsy has some fairly high degree of ambidextrous capability. If the police think the note might have been written by someone using their left, Patsy must logically be a possibility.

    But, again, the exemplar and RN do not match.

    Other than admitting that the author could have been John, which is not to say it was John, there is no value in analyzing the handwriting. Just none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I more or less agree. I'm not sure if I could do as good a job as she did with her left hand, so it's possible she was ambidextrous, to some extent at least. But to me that's irrelevant. If in fact she were ambidextrous and tried to hide that fact when she penned her left-hand sample, it's very hard to see how she could have gotten away with that, because someone somewhere would have had a copy of her left hand writing and might well have provided it to the authorities. Even if that never happened, Patsy could not have been sure whether or not the authorities could get hold of some of her left-handed writing from someone. If so, and if it didn't match the sample she provided to the police, she'd have been in deep trouble. So regardless of whether she was ambidextrous or not, I just don't see that as an issue.

      What stands out for me is that the authorities felt the need to ask her for a left-hand sample, which tells us that her right-hand samples did NOT match the note. If they did, there'd be no reason to suspect she could have written it with her left hand. And clearly, as you've noticed, the left-hand sample doesn't match either.

      So when someone tries to make a case based on some convoluted theory regarding how she deliberately faked her left-hand writing because if she didn't it would look exactly like the note, I'm sorry but that sounds like pure desperation on the part of someone who just can't accept that there is no convincing evidence linking her to the note.

      Delete
    2. It is just straight up common sense that whoever wrote the note wouldnt want their exemplar not to match the writing on the note and it doesnt matter what hand it is in. Docs convulated explanation I am not even going to bother rebuking. Second I have posted exemplars above for all to see, when someone makes 3 different types of A in their own writing and all of the A are exact matches to the 3 types of A used in the ransom note then it does not take a genius to figure out who wrote the note. Doc can go ahead and come up with how it is totally common and how everyone uses and switches the type of A they use in their writing from word to word. I have never seen anyone who switches from manuscript A to cursive A to a print style A in the same paragraph other than PR and the writer of the RN.

      Delete
    3. "It is just straight up common sense that whoever wrote the note wouldnt want their exemplar not to match the writing on the note and it doesnt matter what hand it is in."

      Do you actually understand the meaning of what you have written? Because I don't.

      "I have never seen anyone who switches from manuscript A to cursive A to a print style A in the same paragraph other than PR and the writer of the RN."

      Then why are you wasting your time posting on this blog, when you should be sharing your infallible analysis of Patsy's writing with the Boulder DA?

      Delete
    4. Wouldnt want their exemplar TO match. Typo by me

      Delete
    5. Thanks for that correction, because I thought we'd moved into the bizarro world. But why on earth do you think I'd claim otherwise? As I see it, Patsy's left-hand sample was the best she could do with her left hand. I never said she wrote it deliberately to match the note. And as I've demonstrated, it does not. I have a feeling English is not your native language and you sometimes have difficulty understanding what's been said.

      Delete
  13. To be honest, none of this matters. Listen to the 911 call....that is NOT the voice of somebody acting. PR sounds absolutely terrified and scared. The only scenario that I believe she could have been involved was if it was a cover up for something that BR did, but that's a whole different discussion.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listening to a 911 call and trying to decide if it is or is not genuine is nothing more than chance and opinion. It is the same as someone saying well a parent would not do that to their child when obviously they do. Many many people have made the same call to 911 when guilty. Any type of further investigation into the 911 call will clearly show that PR was alibi setting and distancing herself all throughout the call which = deception.

      Delete
    2. Well, its also an opinion as to weather or not OJ committed the murders, but one can come to the conclusion that OJ did it based on evidence. In the case of the 911 call, it simply does not sound like a person setting up an alibi or acting imo. She seems like a distraught and terrified mother. This would all make sense if JR is the sole killer of JBR which he most likely is.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Not sure how you think "chance" enters into it, but it is definitely a matter of opinion, as is the writing on the ransom note. No one here believes it impossible for a mother to kill her child - not the point. I don't believe it's lost on any of us that some perps call 911 with a body in the house - again, not the point. An alibi, by definition, is a claim by the accused that they were elsewhere when the crime was committed. I do not see "alibi setting" in the transcript of Patsy's call, nor do I see any attempt to distance herself from the emergency she is describing.

      You have failed again, as always, to make a coherent point, and continually harping on your analysis of the handwriting, your interpretation of the 911 call, your take on the plausibility of Patsy's collusion is not persuasive.

      Got any evidence? Real, legally admissible evidence? Got a theory? Got anything other than your opinion? Show me something, anything, or stop already. Please.

      Patsy had no reason to murder her child and no reason to participate in a cover up. And that's the bottom line.
      CC

      Delete
    4. CC, were you talking to me? I dont think so, but wanted to clarify.

      Also, I just re-read BlueCrab on WebSleuths interpretation of the window along with Docs theory on it, SO anybody who thinks anybody other than JR is the killer, needs to explain why an innocent man would lie multiple times about a window being open along with lying about a chair in front of a door. His daughter was murdered...he sees an open window in the basement where her body is later found and he doesnt tell anybody for 4 months??????

      -J

      Delete
    5. Wow, so many assumptions.

      First, there is no way to tell if Patsy is "genuine" on the phone or doing a good job of acting. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the matter, and their opinion, either way, is completely worthless. We simply can't tell by listening because that's the way a frightened mother would sound but it's also the way a murderer/accomplice would sound if acting.

      We don't know whether or not Patsy had a reason to kill Jonbenet. The "reason" may not make sense to anyone but Patsy. We don't know whether or not she had a reason to participate in a coverup.

      Delete
    6. "She initially says she recognized the writing on the ransom note as Patsy's hand. But later she refers only to the letter "R" in that respect. This is typical of the sort of cherry picking we find in so many such cases, where people see what they want to see and ignore everything else."

      The latter focus on the letter R can be called cherry picking, but not the prior claim that she recognized Patsy's "hand". That suggests the RN looks, to LHP, like PR's writing, on the whole.

      Delete
  14. Hi, I just want to say that I love reading this blog. You are all so knowledgable of this case. I ran across this hard to find interview with Linda Hoffman Pugh from 2000 that I thought you all might like to read so I will put in my contribution to this blog. http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/06092000peterboylesshow-pb.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. That's very interesting. As mentioned in the interview, Linda initially supported the Ramseys, and especially Patsy -- wholeheartedly and without reservations. It was only after she'd been named as a likely suspect that she turned against her. Then Darnay Hoffman encouraged her to write a book on the case, which apparently she did (at least in part), but to my knowledge it was never published.

      Some interesting points to note:

      She initially says she recognized the writing on the ransom note as Patsy's hand. But later she refers only to the letter "R" in that respect. This is typical of the sort of cherry picking we find in so many such cases, where people see what they want to see and ignore everything else.

      Darnay chimes in with a helpful observation that "many people" think Patsy broke the window. Of course, as in so many instances, the possibility that John might have broken it is never even considered. In fact, as should be evident from this interview, he is totally out of the picture.

      Linda has insinuated that Patsy abused JonBenet, but it's clear from this interview that she never observed anything like that. She just assumed abuse was going on behind the closed doors of the bathroom. Note that she says nothing about hearing any cries or screams from behind that door. Obviously Linda had a bone to pick with Patsy and, with the encouragement of Darnay Hoffman, makes all sorts of unfounded accusations. Once Hoffman gets into the picture, then as far as I'm concerned nothing Linda has to say can be taken seriously.

      And by the way, her comments about knowing nothing about any broken window are reported in PMPT, at a time when she was enthusiastically defending Patsy.

      As far as Patsy being in full makeup and wearing the same outfit, we've been over that many times. It's a perfect example of taking evidence at face value and failing to analyze it logically, which we find over and over again when amateurs (and even professionals) discuss this case.

      Why on earth would someone who'd been up all night, doing all the things Patsy's accused of doing, fail to shower and change the next morning? The note would have given her an excuse to not call the police right away, so there was plenty of time to shower and change. The fact that she wore the same outfit the next day is just one of many pieces of evidence that support her innocence, not her guilt.

      But if you are bound and determined to "prove" that "Patsy did it," then of course logic and common sense go by the boards and anything that might possibly look suspicious becomes sure fire evidence of her guilt.

      Delete
  15. Just came upon this site. Doc needs to understand statement analysis. A lot of your facts/theories will melt when analyzed through this full-proof method.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Statement analysis, better known as SCAN (scientific content analysis) is not foolproof; in fact, it is junk science, not accepted by courts, considered highly prejudicial in an investigative environment. It has not been subjected to objective analysis or held to a scientific standard. It is dependent upon the subjective interpretation of the individual examiner, making it no better or worse than Doc's or anyone else's opinion.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thanks CC. We've been to that site before and discussed it fairly thoroughly. I agree it's pseudo-science. You run across a lot of that when following this case. If you are wondering what was said, do a blog search on "content analysis."

      Delete
  17. Burke is going to be on the dr. Phil Show September 12th can't wait

    ReplyDelete
  18. Doc, check out this trailer for the new Jonbenet special coming out next month. It looks surprisingly great and features a recreation of the house for investigation purposes, Burke's interview as a kid, and returning players from the original investigation. It's got me incredibly excited. Especially since it doesn't seem like it's promoting the intruder theory.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/entertainment/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-trailer/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. Hi Doc!

    Thanks so much for writing your blog. I thought the case was unsolvable, but your blog put it so logically that I find no other theory necessary. I was wondering what you think about a few things:

    -the Reddit AMA with Mark Beckner—you have to look at the archived post of it (Google his name, AMA< and denverpost--it's not letting me link) Interesting, but disappointing, he says the case would only be solved by a deathbed confession, then he says the case will never be solved…and only Patsy has died so far…and he says the signs of sexual abuse aren’t important to him, again sounding like he thinks it's Patsy.

    -When I read this funny article about the conspiracy theories of fans of a YouTubers account, it reminded me of a lot of the comments about JBR, especially on Reddit—those people come up with the wackiest evidence, and they spend a lot of time basing theories around inaccuracies and imagined “evidence”, such as when Christmas parties and open houses occurred. Google Marina Joyce, BuzzFeed--it's "The Internet Lost Its Mind" article

    -The CBS documentary coming out as linked above by Zack F. They actually show the oft-referenced enhanced audio with “We aren’t speaking to you”—which, isn’t the most logical explanation that it’s Jon pretending he’s going with the “kidnappers’” orders to not call police? He didn’t want Patsy to call, which he could say was because the note said not to, and then when she ended up calling, he could keep up the charade easily. I’m worried they’re landing on Burke, though, and possibly treating the Ramseys as a single entity, which, as you often point out, is a wrong-footed premise. I don’t know why people think Burke is going to say anything. He’s been gaslit with his Mom, I’m sure, and fed the party line by John and lawyers (including being able to point to his parents being “cleared” by DNA “evidence”).

    -What will it take to get people to leave behind their obsession with the RN handwriting analysis initial verdict? Even though that was misunderstood (Patsy could only just barely not be ruled out—there was no “it’s her handwriting!” type of agreement), it’s crazy to me that this one occurrence practically absolved John forever. He must laugh himself to sleep every night. Oh, and regarding a poster above, I in fact switch between three different kinds of “a” in my handwriting—cursive and the fancy and non-fancy printed kind. Perhaps it's best to put the handwriting analysis to rest. Your description of how the content points to John and John only as the writer is Poirot-esque.

    -All the other theories have to wrap themselves in pretzels to explain other evidence. But with John, almost everything can be explained by the same sentence: he didn’t get the chance to execute his plan as he wanted. He didn’t have time to stage the window, he didn’t get to throw away the RN draft (and the RN note), he didn’t have time to move whatever else in the house, and of course he didn’t have time to remove JBR. Because Patsy called 911. And yet his luck and police foibles--and dare we say, his evil ingenious pulling of strings and forcing events (such as getting JBR from the basement himself, initiating the handwriting analysis, choosing to sedate Patsy, etc) all let him get away with it anyway.

    Not trying to post as Anonymous, as Purple Z, won't let me?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just watched the Trailer.....looks amazing! It really looks like JR and/or BR could have a bad few nights coming.

    Really curious what the 911 operator wants to share

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the trailer implies that there might be something new offered, but I'm skeptical. What's needed to solve this case is not more evidence and certainly not more "experts," but more logic, common sense and: imagination.

      What excites me most is the possibility we might finally have a chance to hear the notorious "enhanced" version of the 911 tape. THAT interests me greatly.

      Delete
  21. Are they sure she was only hit once on the head and not multiple times ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the autopsy there was only one head wound, a horrific blow that split her skull from end to end. Apparently that was it.

      Delete
    2. I know, cant wait to watch it! If the trailer is accurate and these investigators are dismissing the intruder theory then they MUST believe its one of 3 people which is a start.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure the coroner would be able to tell if she'd been hit once less severely then hit again to finish her off. I'm not advocating this notion, I'm just saying I don't think we really know.

      Delete
    4. For the sake of argument suppose PDI for a moment. Patsy couldn't be sure that JR wouldn't want to call 911, so the notion that the RN allows her time doesn't really hold up. So it's at least theoretically possible that she ran out of time to change clothes (just as you have JR running out of time to do things). The time to act is limited by when the partner gets up, for either PDI or JDI. Once the partner is awake there is really no certainty as to what will happen or whether there will be time to do anything. All the guilty lone actor can do is hope that the spouse falls for the threats in the RN. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

      Delete
    5. Let's put it this way. If the two were in it together, then they'd have had plenty of time, right? And if Patsy were guilty and John innocent, then he'd certainly be suspicious if he noticed that she was in bed with her clothes on, no? So she'd have been an idiot not to change into her nightclothes before John woke up.

      Delete
    6. There are many obvious giveaways in this case that would alert PR of JR's guilt as well. Yet excuses have to made to bypass such obviousness. The truth of the matter is that this case makes no sense whatsoever with the evidence that we have that either Ramsey could not know about the other Ramseys involvement. Which is 1 of the main reasons this case remains unsolved to this point.

      Delete
    7. No, if this were the case PR and JR would not have had plenty of time at all Doc. They would have needed their staging and plan completed before BR woke up. I think that would be obvious. This would also make light as to why both PR and JR wanted BR in his room by himself with a deranged kidnapper possibly still present in their house. As a parent of 3 children I can assure you that no parent would leave their other remaining children alone in that situation. If 1 Ramsey were involved and the other Ramsey were not involved than the non guilty party's very first thought would have been to have their other remaining children right next to them and not let them out of their site. The Ramseys trying to say that they let BR sleep and sent him off to the White's house because they were trying to "protect him" is nothing more than a futile lie by both of them. The only people they were trying to protect were themselves.

      Delete
    8. I don't see why waking Burke would have been a problem. The body was stashed in the basement where he'd be unlikely to find it. They could have told him JonBenet had been kidnapped and they were trying to decide what to do. That would have given Patsy plenty of time to change, no?

      Delete
    9. If both were involved, and that is a big if, I would say that their staging and plan was to be finished before BR awakened. That being said that of course anyone in the position they were in is probably going to make mistakes, that is unless they were a professional. They got ultra lucky that while police were bumbling around for hours more time was given to clean it up. Lets just say JR alone is the guilty party. Do you not think when it becomes public knowledge and PR finds out her daughter is molested, then finds out that JR disappeared in the basement for about an hour and never says anything about the broken window until later, that PR would have no option but to know of JR's guilt ? There are many indicators for her as well but these are 2 of big ones. I was in compliance with your theory but I just cant get past a handful of things like this because they make no sense.

      Delete
    10. To change, yes, but in the scheme of everything that had to be done that night, just that we know of, that is a small detail possibly overlooked or a mistake made. Most of the time when crimes are committed, the perpetrators feel that they are smarter than LE, and wont be caught. It is also possible that PR never considered how big and how deep this investigation would go, thinking that it would not matter or not thinking about it at all. You may be right but we should also keep in mind that it was reported by PR's close froends that she was always done up to perfection and never ever wore the same clothes twice. So why would she choose this morning to do so ? Coincidentally, it is the same sweater and she is the only person whose fibers were all over that crime scene. Transference in that many places from someone who claims that they had never entered the crime is highly unlikely.

      Delete
  22. Has anyone seen this week's PEOPLE magazine? JonBenet is on the cover and the story is surprisingly fair and balanced.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I saw a list made by the police of evidence found on the crime scene, and to me whoever wrote that list wrote "Ramsey" the same way as the ransom note, even though the rest of the list is written in another way. Just found that odd.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This show is coming on discovery in September. It looks like it is going to have the video of Burkes interview on it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/08/16/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-new-tv-shows/88768310/

    ReplyDelete
  25. DocG, ref to your Aug 14/7:10am post
    "On the other hand, if one of the parents is responsible for her death, then it's hard to see why the other would want to help that person cover it up.
    So fine. Up to that point, what you say makes sense.
    However. As I've stressed time and again on this blog: if both Ramseys were collaborating to stage a kidnapping, the 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house..."
    Not necessarily true, if they disagreed on this specific point and it happens to become the deal breaker then what else to do??? Desperate people do desperate things, that 911 call had to happen for the person that refused to go along with possible original plan to have it their way, otherwise they'd be forced to default, no? I think the note reads like direct conflict precisely on this point and why in the world would it even be referred to in the first place...?! Actual "kidnappers" couldn't care less.
    Maybe the letter writer had second thoughts as the note was being penned b/c in that moment reality crashed through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If someone had second thoughts about staging a kidnapping, then the note would have been destroyed and they'd have reported a break-in. Contrary to what you seem to think, that note did nothing for them aside from making them look even more suspicious. And it supplied the authorities with evidence that could be and still can be used to identify the writer. So what would be the point of handing it over to the cops, knowing that sooner or later they would discover that there'd been no kidnapping and the note was fake?

      Delete
    2. True, but I think they invested all their time & energy with this being the best way to go (with JR instigating), they had to know reporting a break-in w/o a note would be much more suspicious as such requiring immediate endless energy inquiring and explaining til she was found. For this reason alone this idea would've be quickly abandoned by both as any option, so John might have thought he had her pretty locked in, he inevitably had to shower. I just think PR couldn't bring herself to participate in the body dumping. They both are alpha's and expect get their own way and push come to shove maybe she just spontaneously acted out in the heat of the moment wanting it both ways. She was scared sh*tless making that 911 call, especially blowing up John's plan. Who knows I bet she felt plenty bullied around by JR, had her fill and it was her way of f***ing him over. I know! I know! It's completely irrational behavior, but maybe not so much for her feeling she was a victim of a terrible disease during the best years of her life claiming not only her health, beauty, and the early years with her young children, having a lying, cheating, cold hearted husband with more money than she'll ever live long enough to spend. Yeah I can see her impulsively pulling the plug on something she ultimately could never carry through.

      Delete
    3. It seems to me as though you're the one being irrational. Why is it so important to you that Patsy did it? Why is it so hard for you to seriously consider the possibility she could be innocent?

      Delete
  26. DocG,
    Good possibility PR might have changed into night pj's, but not removed her makeup b/f going to bed (If she ever did) that night with an early am wake-up, short night, quick up & out next a.m.
    Really, really odd neither parent throughout all of time ever speaks to their son for any input that might actually help "solve" the case (i.e. Elizabeth Smart). I'm curious what BR will have to say, abet after editing (to desired outcome), wonder if he shares the same obtuseness regarding this subject as his parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. What is even more odd is that not only does neither parent worry about BR while he sleeps and a foreign faction kidnapper could still be in the house. Neither Ramsey searches the house to check for this "kidnapper." They then leave BR by himself, to sleep which no parent would ever do then ship him over to a friend's house with no worries about him at all. PR is just as guilty as JR or vise versa.

      Delete
    2. I think our perception of PR as a loving, doting mother is completely incorrect. My characterization of PR is as a self centered, narcissistic mother whose only care in the world was to live vicariously through her daughter. What kind of mother or person for that matter takes the time to go upstairs and put on make-up 2 mins after making a call to police to report her kidnapped daughter rather than look for her daughter ? Instead of looking for her daughter she goes and puts on make-up so she looks good when police and friends arrive. The same woman who was just hysterical 30 secs before ? I smell bullshit. What a joke and sham this whole murder was and that these people got away with it. Then had the nerve to go around pointing at everyone they could. As if that were not enough they then had the audacity to sue anyone they could who thought them guilty under their sons name. They made the biggest mockery of our justice system that has ever occured.

      Delete
    3. She put on makeup before finding the note.

      Delete