Here, once again, is a link to what is probably her best known display. Sorry, I can't duplicate it here, but you can check it out by clicking on the link. Let's begin by taking a closer look at that first comparison, a letter "d" supposedly penned by Patsy, followed by a "d" from the ransom note. Judging from Wong's display, the two letters do seem remarkably similar, based on what looks like a similar curvature on the right vertical line. But the display available on the internet is relatively small and somewhat pixellated. Lets take a closer look by examining a blowup of the words from which these letters were extracted. Patsy's "d" is taken from the photo caption on the left, supposedly written by Patsy, but possibly by Burke. It's the final "d" in the word "and." The exemplar on the right is the first letter of the word "daughter," from the ransom note. Please look carefully:
Do you see a resemblance? I don't. To me, the two letters, when blown up a bit and clearly reproduced, look nothing like one another at all. And yet, in Wong's display they apparently do, and from my experience discussing such comparisons online, the claim is that they are "identical." The "d" on the left is fluid and graceful, penned in two strokes, a rough oval and a curved vertical. The "d" on the right is rather clunky, drawn in three strokes, a "c" shape on the left, and two connected straight lines forming a kind of vertical wedge, on the right. Does Wong's comparison constitute a "match"? Maybe on a quick first impression, based on a poorly reproduced xerox copy. Yet, for her, this is a match, one of several she's claimed to have found between Patsy's hand and that of the note writer.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the next comparison on her display is based on the "Rainbow Fish Players" caption, which as I pointed out, looks very different in style from the remaining exemplars used in her analysis, and may well have been penned by Burke. So let's skip to the comparison under that one, based on the letters "ro." These two letters are taken from a pageant badge found at the Ramsey home, reading "Hello . . . I'm Marilyn Monroe." This too was supposedly crafted by Patsy, though that's never been confirmed, to my knowledge. Not that it matters much, because it doesn't make much sense to compare the stylized lettering on that badge with lettering from a written document. Or does it? Not to Cina Wong, who finds a helpful "match" with the same letters in the word "brown," from "brown paper bag" in the ransom note:
It's amusing to picture Wong desperately searching through all the many characters in the note (1583 in all) and all the characters she could find from her Patsy collection, until she found this "match." Yes, there is a certain similarity, but so what? The note contains eight different "ro" combinations, yet out of these she could find only one that matched anything she could associate with Patsy? This is the very definition of cherry picking.
Next on the list, the letter "n," from the word "when" in the same caption as above, compared with "n" in the first instance of the word "chance," from the ransom note. In the online gif these letters are small and quite difficult to make out, but let's take a closer look:
And here again, as with the first example, I just don't see the resemblance. Both are written in manuscript style, so they do show some similarity. But the rightmost vertical of "Patsy's" letter n goes all the way to the bottom while the corresponding vertical in the note stops short of that point and curves ever so slightly to the right. And here again, we can only wonder at Wong's diligence in searching carefully through the entire note for the "perfect" (actually not so perfect) match. Actually the letter "n" appears 102 times in that document. So what about the other 101?
Moving right along, we find a comparison between two letter "o"s, the first from the questionable "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar and the second from the word "out," from "out smart us."
Do you see the point? In her gif, Wong highlights the tiny little point at the tip of both letters. Otherwise they are not so similar, though "o" is such a simple letter it's hard to see how they could be very different regardless of who penned them. Very subtle indeed. Now if you get really ambitious, you can systematically go through all the many "o"s in the note and all the many "o" in the various other exemplars from Patsy to see how many have similar points at the top. But why waste your time? Since, as I've already mentioned, the "Rainbow Fish Players" scrawl is written in a totally different style from anything else Wong managed to find from Patsy and was probably written by someone else, very possibly a child.
To be continued . . . .
I wish there were more John exemplars available. Can't help but feel it's intentional.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that the "d" in the ransom note looks like it was originally a "c". We have your "child". Then was turned into a "d".
ReplyDeleteThe ransom note, to me when I first saw it, reminded me of my own - when I tried to disguise my handwriting on Christmas gift tags for my children when they were small.
Santa's writing should not look like mine. I got the idea from my grandmother, who used to do the same trick.
I think there are some rather lengthy comparisons of Patsy's writing to that of the ransom note "out there", that, if legitimate, are much more convincing, Doc!
And handwriting is only one component. It does not take into consideration the phrasing and structure of the note as a whole document.
GS
"I think there are some rather lengthy comparisons of Patsy's writing to that of the ransom note "out there", that, if legitimate, are much more convincing, Doc!"
DeleteI've already gone over several reports, mostly those of Darnay's "experts," and exposed the shoddy thinking and obvious confirmation bias in all of them. Look for a series of posts titled "The experts see Patsy."
And yes, handwriting is only one component. But I've never seen an analysis of the content or phrasing of the note that points to Patsy, while several terms and phrases point to John (see my pose "Johnisms"). The notion that a phrase such as "good southern common sense" would have been deliberately included by Patsy strikes me as ridiculous. Or that the bit about being "rested" reflects a feminine viewpoint. On the other hand, the many technical terms and quotes from movies that generally appeal to men, strikes me a the work of a male.
GS – Reading what you wrote about the “d” that it looks like a “c” originally and could have been the word “child” instead of daughter made me think. I wonder if there are other words in the note that might have been changed or were originally going to be another word? Similar to the crossed out “don’t” and “delivery”. Also, the “d” looks more like an “a” to me with the tail added to make it a “d”, although the “a”s in the note are written in a style like the font I am using with a tail over the ‘circle’ of the “a”. The entire note screams of deception with some words/letters written as if they were scratched into wood (the “l”s of You will withdraw..) and other words/letters flow more freely (“ng” of …we monitor you getting…, and “enforcement” of …familiar with Law enforcement… to name a couple of examples). Anyway, GS, thank you for making me ‘think’. I enjoy this blog because I usually come across things that cause me to ‘think’ and research on the side.
Delete-GEH
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat "telling similarities"? Where, exactly?
Delete"I think John got Patsy to concentrate on each letter and really disguise the writing."
DeleteOf course you do Zed. Just like there are those who still to this day believe Mark Furman planted the glove. Meanwhile, the verdict of History, established without "proof", is that he didn't.
I believe you know that results of physical forensics are subject to a degree of uncertainty that biological forencics are not, and that proof of the kind you desire--short of a confession---cannot be established in this case. I also believe your willingness to "admit" you would be "gobsmacked"(is that the same as a willingness to admit you were wrong?)is intellectual dishonesty intended to decieve others into believing you are open minded to alternative theories of the case.
Above to Zed by Mike G.
DeleteIt seems that 90% of our theories are based on our interpretation of the RN.. Some think its a fake.. some take it on face value.. Some base things on the handwriting...gender..Its difficult because it contradicts itself.. in so many ways.. It can certainly takes us all on a wild goose chase
ReplyDeleteMy question is this. The note said we will call you tomorrow. What was tomorrow? If the note was found in the morning,would tomorrow would be the next morning or that morning? The Ramseys should have been confused as when tomorrow actually was? If they authored the note there would be no confusion, this could be a clue that they wrote the note.
DeleteThe thing that strikes me most about the handwriting is that Patsy's is always equally space and level..The RN is all over the place..
ReplyDeleteDoc, Forget Patsy's lies. You do not find her answers and stories to LE to be anymore inconsistent and forgetfulness than anyone elses who has been questioned in LE ? We are not speaking about her trying to remember what clothes she wore back on a certain date but key pieces of evidence that any other person would clearly remember. Ill assume that you have studied other cases and read transcripts regarding other cases before. In fact even JR, who has inconsistencies in this case has nowhere near as many as PR. As far as the 911 call, I am not sure you have heard this piece that CBS left out of their show but I will post a link because clearly there are decipherable voices on it even if you can not make out the words. It is broken down here. I have heard the Aerospace version and it is much clearer, put some headphones on. You keep trying to promote this as being false and some kind of conspiracy when it clearly is not. When BR has to admit in front of a grand jury that it does indeed sound like his voice then what does common sense tell you ?
ReplyDeleteThis post is about the handwriting. As for the "lies" we've been all over that and my position should be clear by now. And if there were "key" pieces of evidence that "any other person would clearly remember," AND she was involved in the murder and coverup, then why wouldn't she have "remembered" them, according to plan? As I recall, the sort of things that bother you are relatively minor, such as when or for whom she purchased the oversize panties, or how the heart got on JonBenet's hand. And as I've made clear more than once, if she were "in on it" she'd have had her answers prepared in advance. No reason to dissemble.
DeleteAs for the 911 recording, I have no idea what was going through BR's mind but since he made it very clear he was not in the kitchen at that time, then obviously he was not testifying that he heard his own voice. I'd love to hear the original Aerospace version but I have to wonder why it hasn't been made public. What's the big secret? Not everyone who heard that, by the way, agreed as to what it was they heard. To the "experts" on the CBS show it was clear as a bell. But from what I've been reading, many others, including myself, heard nothing of the sort. I'm not saying your lying, by the way. What I'm saying is that, under the circumstances, it's very easy to hear what you expect to hear.
I never said PR did or didnt do anything. I asked you if you thought PR had more inconsistencies and loss of memory than what would be considered normal.
DeleteI never said PR did or didnt do anything. I asked you if you thought PR had more inconsistencies and loss of memory than what would be considered normal.
DeleteAnd my answer is no. Looks to me like she consistently responded as a normal person would. And yes, sometimes normal, innocent people get confused and make mistakes.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/izUi0zZFZ5M
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder. Of course I've already gone over that clip several times. And yes, with the words flashing before me on the screen, I can hear something like "what DID you find?" But there's no way I'd have heard anything like that without the prompt. I can also get a ticking clock to say just about anything I want it to say if I program myself to hear it that way. And by no stretch of the imagination does it sound like Burke. What they think they are hearing on that clip is an example of Pareidolia, hearing meaningful patterns from random input. For some details, see the following article: http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/hear-what-they-want-to-hear/
DeleteAre you telling me that you can not even decipher the voices as well ?
DeleteIt certainly is NOT Pareidolia
Delete2 people who had never heard it can not write the same thing down on their notes then exchange it and it be the same by chance. Did BR have pareidolia during the grand jury ?
I had to listen over and over again before I heard anything like what they heard. And thousands of people heard the same "secret message" in that Beatles song when it was played backward.
DeleteI have no idea what the circumstances were under which the two people you mention claim they heard the same thing. Maybe they did. I certainly did not. And I'm not the only one. And what does it mean for BR to say it sounded like him if he denied it was him?
Of course it's pareidolia. No one argues about exactly what Patsy said to the 911 operator on that recording because it's perfectly clear what she said. What happened after that is NOT perfectly clear, and the same sounds can be interpreted in many different ways.
On the CBS video, the investigators hear Patsy say "help me Jesus" or "save me Jesus," but the tech guy hears "what did you do?" And they all decide, yes, that must be it. Why? Because it suits their purpose better. Now I'm sorry but "help me Jesus" and "what did you do" are two totally different statements. These people are literally hearing things.
Does anyone know the latest with the lawsuit against CBS? Seems to have gone quiet. If John/Burke/Wood drop the case, that is screaming out that Burke is guilty. CBS have already said "bring on court". So this will either go to court or the Ramsey's are going to admit their guilt (without saying so) by dropping the case.
ReplyDeleteMy guess...Ramsey's will drop the case.
There will be no lawsuit Zed, bluff all they want, as I predicted long ago. No Ramsey is going to take the stand, surely not BR. Unfortunately, for the R's they can not bully CBS into a settlement which will mean NO lawsuit and no more profits off their dead daughter.
ReplyDeleteThe only lawsuit filed by Burke Ramsey to date is against Werner Spitz for remarks he made to CBS Detroit Radio. Wood has threatened to sue CBS for its docuseries, but has not yet done so.
ReplyDeleteCC
There will be no lawsuit Zed, bluff all they want, as I predicted long ago. No Ramsey is going to take the stand, surely not BR. Unfortunately, for the R's they can not bully CBS into a settlement which will mean NO lawsuit and no more profits off their dead daughter.
ReplyDeleteLin Wood wrote a letter asking CBS for a retraction, which they have thirty days to answer. That period should expire any day now, and Wood has three years in which to file a defamation suit. He has successfully sued seven media outlets for defamation in the past, and some of those suits included the Ramseys participation in the discovery process. I see no reason to assume he'll back down, particularly in a case involving such egregious slander.
ReplyDeleteCC
I was wrong about Wood having three years in which to sue CBS. The statute of limitations for defamation is only one year in California, where Wood sent his demand for a retraction and where he'd likely file suit.
DeleteCC
We will see CC....I can see Lin Wood folding like origami
ReplyDeleteWhy?
DeleteCC
I've been wondering about the same thing. If Lin backs down now it would look pretty bad for John and Burke for sure. Which tells me he won't back down. If it's a matter of 30 days, the suit could be announced any day now.
DeleteAnd by the way, if it does go to trial, then CBS will have the right to cross examine Burke and possibly John as well. And they wouldn't be able to take the 5th because it wouldn't be a criminal trial.
I really hope it comes to that, not because I think Burke did it (I obviously don't) but because I think it wouldn't be that difficult to expose the intruder theory as untenable. Lin would have to be fighting on two fronts: 1. defending Burke; 2. promoting the intruder theory. He could easily win on 1, but fail badly on 2. Which is why John might not be thrilled at this point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete". . .as other investigators failed to look at . . ." is untrue. Doc quoted a passage from PMPT stating that the Pughs were interviewed at least three times, their fingerprints and DNA samples taken. You continue to assert that the pens taken from the Pughs' home have some sinister meaning, but the fact is the FBI matched the pen used for the RN to one in the Ramsey home. You also seem to assume the cord and tape found at the P's was not compared to that used in the crime, when surely it was - all of which caused LE to not consider the Pughs suspects.
DeleteCC
YOu may not realize it Inq but once upon a time there was a whole cult of people focused on listening to all sorts of recordings backwards, and hearing the most amazing secret messages. And the fact is: you can do that. Just like you can get messages by listening to a ticking clock. It's how the mind works -- and yes it is definitely Pareidolia.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it absurd to assume the cord and tape were just thrown in an evidence locker, untested. The rest of your statement is equally absurd - the Whites, the Fernies, even the Stines' babysitter was investigated - small chance they would ignore the Pughs.
DeleteYou seem to be basing your assumptions on Steve Thomas and "Archuletta" (who in fact was John Ramsey's pilot), but in fact almost every member of the BPD was involved in the Ramsey case, and not all believed the Rs culpable.
CC
Leigh, this is the sort of post I'm tempted to delete. It really says nothing new and is based purely on assumptions, as you were clearly not privy to all the details of the investigation. Be warned.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo not assumptions.. I got it from a facts list ..Candyrose I think..And ST said that he never interviewed her.. I thought it was informative..2.5 lines... sigh. I dont know..
DeleteHere is the link..
Deletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm
Handwriting Analysis: The best analysis I have found is by Brenda Anderson. She doesn't say who wrote it, it is more of a breakdown of several aspects of the note in the hopes that someone may recognize the commonalities (http://www.experthandwritinganalysis.com/2013/07/19/unmasking-the-ramsey-ransom-note/).
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious the writer had issues writing the word "a" and changed the way it was written in several places within the note. It appears to me the letters the writer is trying to disguise (the most) are a, t, y, d.
I think we need more samples of JR's handwriting for comparison purposes, as I don't think we have enough to say he wrote it. I don't see it yet...sorry docG.
I'm wondering, based on how the note starts and how the writing gets better (more consistent) as it goes on, if the practice ransom note served as just that, and the writer then edited that practice note, modifying the letters by adding hooks, curves and lines here and there, and then used that as a guide in writing the new note.
I know it has been said that crumpled up practice note(s) were found in the wastebasket -- does anyone know anything more about that?
After 20 years it's amazing that no more handwriting samples for JR and BR have popped up over the internet.
An FBI agent that was in the home on the 26th said a crumpled up practice note was also found in the back bedroom,overlooking the driveway..The room was also where the bathroom looked like it had been ransacked and John Andrews room.. connecting it to the suitcase where his semen was found on the blanket inside.. So, intruder was most likely in that room..
DeleteI agree that Brenda Anderson's analysis is probably the best of the lot. It is also relatively free of bias. And her attempt to recreate the hand of the person who wrote that note by removing most of the distortions is certainly original - and interesting. However, I don't buy it. There are simply too many variables for an approach like that to be meaningful.
DeleteIf you check in the comments you'll see that I commended her on her excellent work, and directed her to this blog. I wonder if she ever commented here.
As for the crumpled up practice note, I've never seen any reference to that from any reliable source. As I understand it, the only practice note ever found was in the same notepad that the ransom note came from. There were also several torn out pages that were thought to have contained a practice note, or else preparatory sketches. But none of those sheets were ever found.
DOC- I saw him say that in an interview..in one of 100 videos I have watched.. So.. I will post a link if I see it again.. but he did say it.
DeletePeople have said all sorts of things about this case, which is why there is so much misinformation out there.
DeleteWell, I dont know why an FBI agent would make up a lie and then say it on camera.. I suspect that you all havent heard about this is because its exculpatory to the Ramsteys..and hasnt been made public because of that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain? This is the third time you've bid us farewell. Is three in fact the charm?
DeleteCC
Well, Inq, if you are right and Linda is our long lost perp, then you certainly aren't the one who solved it. You should credit the author of the book, "Little Girl Blu," which makes the best case I've ever seen for this theory.
DeleteShe said that she had solved it for HERSELF.. and that there is a lot that she doesnt know.. But, I suspect that she is just tired of the abuse.
DeleteI wonder if anyone has ever researched to see how JR, PR and BR write the dollar sign. Do they use one or two lines through the S? The RN writer used two.
ReplyDelete-GEH
I wonder if anyone has ever researched to see how JR, PR and BR write the dollar sign. Do they use one or two lines through the S? The RN writer used two.
ReplyDelete-GEH
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSeeing an enlarged and clearer version of the word "Rainbow" from the photo caption almost makes me wonder, if Patsy, or another adult, used little dots to form each letter, for one of the kids to trace. Maybe BR or JB wanted to help write the caption. I used to do this all the time for my son when we did his spelling homework in kindergarten.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, H! I can see the dots now that you point them out, and recall using the same device to enable my child to "sign" birthday cards.
DeleteCC
Yes. I can see them too. And if you check the entire sample, it looks as though the last three letters are just dots that haven't been connected. See http://www.acandyrose.com/millerexemplar7rainbow.jpg
DeleteI always assumed those effects were due to pixillation, but I think you're right, they look more like dots.
Thanks, CC and Doc. :)
DeleteIt perplexes me that a handwriting "expert" wouldn't confirm the source of each exemplar before beginning analysis. I would think that would be a crucial first step. It seems irresponsible not to do so.
It does indeed, and is probably one of the many reasons handwriting analysis "experts" usually appears in quotes.
DeleteIn any event, nicely done; thank you.
CC
Well aside from the handwriting, would John and/or Patsy be so stupid to use the $118k as the dollar amount, knowing it would be connected to Johns bonus and right back to them? And why make it so long. John reads suspense novels and would know that RN's arent that long. And, to me, the RN seems fluid.. extemporaneous, It has a beginning, middle and an end..It flows as if someone is writing what comes to mind...off the cuff.
ReplyDeleteAs has already been explained many times, the $118k was intended by JR to suggest involvement of a disgruntled AG employee, the timing intended to give him 24+ hours to stage the scene and dump the body, and the lurid death threats designed to terrify PR and further suggest a "foreign faction". It was well thought out, I believe as much as eight days in advance.
DeleteCC
There was only one disgruntled employee, the smoker.. So, he placed everything in that one guy, who likely, on Christmas day, would have an alibi.. And why would he need 24 hours to stage the scene?
DeleteAnd, if he planned it, 8 days out.. whats the motive..to murder his own daughter.
DeleteIt's my belief JR was abusing his daughter and was about to be discovered, though I freely acknowledge there is no evidence pointing conclusively to him. There is, as you well know, ample evidence of prior abuse. Please don't start again with your "experts disagree" litany - they do not. The three experts you claim disagreed were Doberson, Krueger and Gardner. The first said he had insufficient information upon which to base a conclusion; the second was confused as to the definition of child sexual abuse; and the third you incompletely quoted - Gardner said, in full, that he would have expected to see bruises on JBR'S thighs and other evidence she had been forced, which was not the case.
DeleteCC
He didn't necessarily need 24 hours, hence the "we may contact you sooner". If iirc two AG employees were named and LE investigated everyone at the company in any case.
DeleteCC
What abuse? Intact hymen..At most there was fondling..and they way she asked anyone and everyone to wipe her bum, hell, it could have been anyone.. And her regular doc visits with a doc who was educated on sex abuse.. history of vaginitis.. her incontinence.. You are really reaching here to say that John was sexually abusing her.. And she was Daddy's little girl..Told the gardener how much she missed her Daddy..
DeleteEmployees.. I think John would be smarter than that,, Such a limited amount of people..Why not open it up to everyone as suspect.
DeleteBeuf never performed an internal exam, without which it's impossible to diagnose sexual abuse. Vaginitis does not damage the hymen, and JBR'S was described as "shriveled and retracted ", not intact.
DeleteDaddy probably told her it was their special, secret love, and the poor child was mistakenly thrilled by the extra attention.
CC
Shriveled and retracted can also indicate prior infection..scar tissue.. Someone wiping her back to front instead of the other way.. (Do men know about that??) Urine sitting on her hymen for hours while she slept.. feces.. bath soap.. Im just saying that there are many reason for any damage done.. Sometimes you can even rupture it bike riding.. a fall etc.
DeleteFair enough about Daddys special girl..
and lets say, for the sake of argument.. that she was molested.. When..could have been 2 year ago..by John Andrew.. Well, there is another theory.. John was protecting his son.. But..anyway.. Theories are that, theories.. You dont have to prove them..
DeleteI like how this is a DNA case according to Melinda, yet if Merv's DNA didn't match the evidence in this case then it certainly isn't! Or how the "intruder" didn't bring any supplies with him but brought a copy of Mindhunter. The troll level on this forum is very annoying.
ReplyDeleteI would have agreed two days ago, Zach, but she seems to be trying to modify her remarks, be less fractious and insulting. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
ReplyDeleteCC
All right, that's fair.
DeleteThanks,, true..but who would know of obscure rues.. And.. lets be honest.. ya'll do beat up on the IDI's :)
Deleteedit> rules..
DeleteSo, anyway.. Looks like there could be a new theory here.. JA/JDI.. JA was molesting JB so John killed JB to protect him.. Hey, its as good as any other.. Anyone ever thought of this before? I am an IDI but, I will think this through..
ReplyDeleteL2, I thought of it. But I realized that if an older son of mine were abusing my little daughter, I'd be more inclined to wanna kill him. Just sayin'. I'd definitely do something to make him stop, but killing my little girl rather than getting her help and away from the bad kid? Seriously, why not just kick the bad kid out of your house and out of your life?
DeleteMaybe... And maybe JB got in bed with him instead of Burke one night..Their rooms were side by side..I always thought that was kind of odd.. and JA's room next to JB's..Melindas room next to Burkes and they would have shared a bathroom..as I recall the house layout..Jut a weird thing..
DeleteNot that weird to me, growing up in a house with lots of kids and only 2 bathrooms! We don't know which bathrooms those older kids actually used, but you can bet they locked the door when showering, etc. More concerning to you should be the fact that JA's friends said he was obsessed with JB and talked about her a lot. This is the reason I considered him, but then realized there was no way a "normal" JR would kill the little victim rather than go after the older perp.
DeleteOh dear..was he? I havent heard that.. but, then, I havent heard much about him at all...Oh, thats troubling..Yikes!
Delete