And here's a sample from the ransom note that Castor has snipped for comparison purposes:
I've already analyzed Patsy's left hand sample in some detail here. None of the samples John had provided to the authorities had ever been made public until Paula Woodward's book came out. The sample Castor has provided looks as though it's a reproduction from that book. I noticed that when I reviewed her book some time ago, but couldn't make much of it so never posted anything on it. One thing it tells us is that John is a lot better at writing with his left hand than Patsy is, though both samples are pretty messy. Oddly, while Patsy was apparently given a Sharpie pen to write with, the pen John was using seems to have a thinner point. Wonder how that happened.
Anyhow, this is everyone's chance to chime in with their own analyses of these documents. As I see it, the note was NOT written with the opposite hand and for this reason I'm still waiting to see more of John's right handed exemplars. Though oddly, the document we've all seen uses a backhand style more consistent with what we'd expect from a lefty.
Plaintiffs' attorneys gain nothing by acknowledging one parent's exemplars resemble the handwriting in the ransom note more than the other's. By introducing degrees of similiarity, however small, a door is opened permitting degrees of doubt to creep in. Lin Wood needs the jury unanimously "believing" an intruder "wrote" the ransom note, not "agreeing" one parent more than the other "may" have written it. (Though in Michigan, five jurors in agreement, out of a total jury of six, may be all that's required to render a verdict in this case.)
ReplyDeleteMike G
Doc: The purpose of the ransom note is vital to your theory. Playing the devils advocate here, how would you convince a judge ahead of time not to preclude as "speculative" any witness statements on this topic?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, any handwriting analysis in cases of deliberate deception (as opposed to, say, forgery) is bound to be speculative. My own analysis of John's legal document is not an attempt to prove that John wrote the note, but to demonstrate that he should not have been ruled out -- a very different matter.
DeleteSimilarly, my analyses of Patsy's writing is not intended to prove she could not have written the note, but to demonstrate the many weakness in the various attempts to prove she wrote it.
My conclusion that John wrote the note is based on the overall logic of the case rather than my own, or anyone else's, handwriting analysis.
The author of the note, who I believe to be Patsy, obviously tried to disguise her handwriting. For the most part, she succeeded. Upon detailed examination, however, there were many instances where Patsy failed to disguise her writing partly because the note was so long and the other reason being she could not have possibly noticed all of her handwriting nuances. It is virtually impossible to hide everything. For so many experts to agree that the probability was high that only Patsy could have written the note should be enough to rule everyone else out.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Except, as has been pointed out many times: Handwriting analysis is not science, does not pass Daubert, has no educational standards, no one method of study or certification, and is inadmissible in most courts. It's entirely subjective, and it's junk.
DeleteWhether or not it is a science is debatable, depending on your perception, but there is a forensic methodolgy applied called Questioned Document Examination that utilizes scientific processes. Regardless, if you apply the law of “common sense” it is not difficult to see the logic behind any handwriting analysis that states Patsy was the author of the note.
DeleteHercule
Wrong, as usual. Google Daubert Standard, Frye Standard, or if you prefer California, try Kelly-Frye.
DeleteHercule, surely you are intelligent enough to recognize:
Delete1. that a woman whose much doted-upon daughter had just been killed unintentionally would hardly be capable of pulling herself together in the wake of that event to compose a fully coherent and reasonably convincing two and a half page "ransom note," with all i's dotted, all t's crossed, margins strictly adhered to, text firmly grounded on the notepad guidelines, with consistent spacing between words throughout. Unless you prefer to argue that the killing was intentional, and the note prepared in advance, in which case one must ask what motive a loving mother would have had to intentionally murder a child who was obviously the apple of her eye.
2. that someone intending to call the police the following morning would have included all those dire threats warning the reader very specifically NOT to call the police.
3. that someone staging a kidnapping would have decided to call the police knowing full well that the victim's body was still in the house, meaning that sooner or later it would be obvious that no kidnapping had taken place and the note was a ruse.
4. that someone who had printed that note by hand would have deliberately planned on handing it over to the police, thus providing them with evidence that could be traced to HER.
I was just reading about the famous Hitler diaries hoax which involved a large number of handwriting experts declaring the diaries to be authentic. This was in spite of the earlier Mussolini diaries hoax which also had handwriting experts completely filled. So I think the opinion of handwriting experts is the least credible indication of guilt or innocence. Unfortunately this is primary evidence which has "cleared" John Ramsey
ReplyDeleteI do not solely depend on the handwriting analysis to conclude that Patsy is the killer. There is plenty of other evidence that supports Patsy’s guilt.
DeleteHercule
There isn't a scrap of real evidence. Herc has, and always has had, nothing but his own unfounded psychobabble - no contemporaneous diagnoses, no anecdotal information from family or friends. Nothing but his unsupported assumptions.
DeleteHe never claimed you did Hercules. He wasn't speaking just to you, nor did what he say pertain to Patsy; it pertained to John, whereas Doc's statement WAS about Patsy, SOLEY directed at you, and completely ignored by you.
DeleteJesse James, after losing in the South, headed West to assault Northerners riding passenger trains. What war are you fighting?
Mike G
** "fooled" not "filled". Damn autocorrection.
ReplyDeleteHercule, considering you believe PDI, would you answer these questions, please?
ReplyDelete1.) What was missing from the crime scene that should have been there?
2.) What did Patsy do "right" in her staging of the scene?
Thanks.
Disturbing...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.djournal.com/monroe/news/former-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-suspect-attempts-to-hit-reset-button/article_8d209e9f-2843-538f-88f8-d30464e03cb2.html
Minnesota Linda
Thanks for the link. I have no sympathy whatever for Karr, or whatever he wants to call himself. He inserted himself into the case via emails with gullible journalist Michael Tracy, in which he not only confessed to killing JonBenet (by "accident"), but confessed to many instances of child abuse with others.
DeleteHis claims regarding JonBenet turned out to be a fantasy, though ironically it was the totally irrelevant lack of a DNA match that forced the DA to let him off, because she had managed to convince herself that this DNA must be that of JonBenet's attacker. His description of what happened did not match the crime scene and to my knowledge he never adequately explained the ransom note, which, along with the "garotte," didn't fit the romantic scenario he chose to weave.
This vicious, lying monster should have been prosecuted for all the other crimes he freely admitted, which were far more likely to be real, but Lacy was to embarrassed to pursue such charges and he got off scot free.
It was less embarrassment and more a question of jurisdiction, Doc. Much as it pains me to defend Lacy, she could only charge for crimes committed in Boulder County.
DeleteIirc, Karr was never known to have lived there. Certainly he was never licensed to teach there, as he had been in California and Alabama.
Lacy should have contacted authorities in the places where Karr had bragged about his abuse of very young children and offered to turn him over to them for prosecution.
DeleteLacy wanted the glory, Doc, of having got her man. What's interesting is all of the news network channels were a-buzz about finding who killed JonBenet and John remained silent about it, and laid low.
DeleteHe offered no specifics, named no names. Absent a victim coming forward, there's nothing Lacy or any prosecutor can do.
DeleteWhat Lacy really wanted was a perp who exonerated the Ramseys. She was adamantly IDI, pro-Ramsey, and even went so far as to attend JBR's funeral in Atlanta, on her own hook.
DeleteWhat's the State and Federal Statute of Limitations for Colorado DA's and the State of Colorado obstructing justice, respectively, in murder cases, CC?
DeleteMike
Does anyone know why PR's exemplar is different from the original RN? I thought they were both asked to copy the original RN. PR's obviously is not the same. Why?
ReplyDeleteEG
Patsy gave, at minimum, five handwriting samples - one, infamously, at an ADA's kitchen table. Some were likely dictated, E, especially early on, when there was a presumption (likely false) that the Rs did not have a copy of the RN.
DeleteAhh thanks CC, now that makes sense, that it was dictated. Amazing how well they both wrote with their left hands. Had I been forced to write with my left hand, no one would've understood a word of it.
DeleteEG
I don't know EG, Patsy's left hand exemplar looks pretty bad
DeleteThis Frye Standard is interesting CC. Apparently polygraph tests don't meet the Frye Test either. Do you ever see a situation where either text analysis or polygraph test results will make it into court and allowed to be presented in front of a jury?
ReplyDeleteNever.
DeleteDaubert is more recent, is the Federal standard, and has replaced Frye (1923, iirc) in many states.
The most famous example is the Oklahoma City Bomber, in which handwriting analysis was disallowed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat? I never said that I thought Hercule was Dr. Steven Pitts. I have someone else in mind, but I will try to respect Hercule’s anonymity.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe, P.I.
Too little, too late.
DeleteWe're done. Cast it any way you choose, but you have no credibility here, imo.
DeleteI’m sorry you feel that way. I understand and accept your opinion of me. It was my own fault. But I’ll continue to try to solve this case. If that means tracking down someone who can guide me to the truth then that’s what I’ll do.
DeleteGumshoe, P.I.
You believe the person who can "guide you to the truth" is Hercule?!
DeleteIf I’m right about who he is then I would seriously question the JDI theory. I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to confirm that in the next couple of weeks.
DeleteGumshoe, P.I.
Gumshoe, you impersonated Hercule, now you're endorsing his wild theories. More than that, you're assigning him with the very same importance he gives himself in regards to the Ramsey case...I smell a rat. I believe it's entirely possible you're both one and the same person. I found it awfully odd that he wasn't irate with you when you confessed to pretending to be him...this would certainly explain why.
DeleteMuch as I sympathize with your annoyance, Ms D, Hercule's theory is in fact THE most generally accepted theory of the case -- at least prior to the CBS BDI special. He actually has no theory of his own, but is following the theory presented in Steve Thomas's book, which in turn echoes most of the thinking presented in the various Ramsey forums at the time. In that sense it is not at all "wild," but in fact mainstream. Of course, once we actually take it apart, piece by piece, we see the many weaknesses and in that sense I'd say, yes, it is in fact totally wild, if not bizarre. Yet most following the case feel absolutely sure Patsy HAS to have been involved.
DeleteYep, there's nothing new here. No need to wait a few weeks for the unveiling of the Wizard of Oz. There's nothing to see.
DeleteGumshoe, I told you before that I'm fairly certain I know who you think Herc is. If you were able to determine, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is this person, would that be enough to change your entire view on this case?
DeleteDon't get me wrong, if Hercule did prove to be this person, I would be impressed. I know there are mixed opinions here on criminal profiling and forensic psychology, but there is no denying that the work this man has done has helped solve cold cases--bringing killers to justice and closure to victims' loved ones.
That said, I personally, would still need some very compelling insider information--something that would convince me PR is the most viable suspect--before I could be swayed into believing PDI.
Herc isn't Steven Pitts and he isn't Richard Walter (with thanks to Canuck).
DeleteWhat's gotten into you, Gumshoe? You've been around long enough to remember when Herc began posting here in the spring/summer of 2015. Suddenly you don't remember his confusion between psychotic and sociopathic? His failure to recognize what the DSM-5 is? His mis-diagnosis of Patsy as having a form of PTSD only reported in veterans? His absolute lack of empathy or anything approaching a bedside manner?
You lost credibility with me after your senseless impersonation of Herc (which served no purpose but threw fuel on a fire that needed no stoking, as you surely knew), but this is over the top.
Now you have no credibility at all.
Thanks for the clarification, CC. Walter was who I thought Gumshoe suspected Hercule might be.
DeleteI was clueless, H. Canuck kindly filled me in.
DeleteHow funny! Someone calling themself "Gumshoe" defending the anonymity of someone calling themself "Hercules". Kind of like Inspector Clouseau offering to fill in for Atlas while he takes a break from holding up the world!
DeleteMike
What if Doc is really Burke, pinning the whole thing on his Dad and turning attention away from him.
DeleteNOW THAT WOULD BE AMAZING
-J
Here's another clue for you all. The Walrus is Paul.
DeleteReally, it doesn't matter I guess if people want to change identities, add personas, create characters etc.. If Hercule has created another persona, one that is "investigating him" and thinks he's some high up muckity muck in the case then it's a pretty good scam. Hats off to you Hercule. But he has been going on about having information he can't reveal and I just don't think it's true. We're almost 21 years out now and nothing has been put forth that isn't already out there. There is no "Her Clue." But prove me wrong, I'd love it.
As I understand it, questioned document examiners are permitted to comment on handwriting evidence, but not offer an opinion.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying "single factor analytics" identifying handwriters of ransom notes is permitted, whereas "multi-factorial logical deduction" identifying them is not? When did the law start confusing Sherlock Holmes for Sigmund Freud?
DeleteMike
“1.) What was missing from the crime scene that should have been there?”
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should ask her sister, Pam. I don’t think anything was missing on the day JonBenet’s body was found, but was instead hidden. Like the dutiful sister that she was, Pam was ALLOWED to retrieve those incriminating items from the Ramsey home on December 28. Of course, this was all by design. It was amazing the extent to what Morgan, Haddon, and Foreman were capable.
“2.) What did Patsy do ‘right’ in her staging of the scene?”
This is a vague question, but I will attempt to answer it. The simple answer is:
Everything Patsy did to stage the scene obviously worked out for her. Of course, without John’s help (after the body was found) and acquisition of a powerful law firm, Patsy would have eventually been arrested.
The length of the ransom note, I believe, actually was a benefit to her defense. More words equaled more confusion. The paintbrush was not exactly a logical choice to stage a rape, but I doubt very seriously there was much logic being utilized in Patsy’s brain at the time. In order to complete her mission, she needed to detach herself from reality. I feel certain that she was able to convince herself that she had nothing to do with the murder. That was her only option if she was going to move ahead in life. I have spoken with several mothers who committed filicide. Many of them deny responsibility not to deceive, but because they have erased the memory. The truth was too painful so a “new truth” if you will, had to be created.
Hercule
Thanks for the answers, Hercule. Quick follow up, though: Would you characterize what these murderous mothers experienced as a psychotic break? And, if so, did that psychotic break occur before the murder or as a result of it? I've read that post-crime amnesia is exceedingly rare.
ReplyDeleteHercule,
ReplyDeleteSo basically, if PR had been found guilty, she would've gotten off by reason of temporary insanity, followed by amnesia, had they used the testimony of someone like you as part of their defense?
Is it possible to experience that once and then never again. In the case of Andrea Yates, she'd been having hallucinations and a history of psychotic episodes and had been medicated. With PR, there was nothing prior.
EG
Hercule when did the disassociative behavior begin - after the headblow, during the garroting, or when the note writing began? The crime is a sequence of calculated events that would have required full presence of mind all the way up to the finding of the body and bringing her upstairs. Four months later she was able to sit for police interrogations, and although you are suggesting she was able to block all of it out she has the presence of mind to lie about certain quarrels over clothing leading up to the event, getting her ready for bed, etc. You said there was not much logic utilized at the time but there was. Each scenario took thought to put it off on a kidnapper/intruder, who didn't kidnap. There couldn't have been a complete psychotic break that night either, there are usually symptoms that can be observed by others leading up to a single event. I think you have stated in here before it was an accident with a coverup. The coverup took thought, and really with the Ramsey money and clout an accident could have been explained in any number of ways but a strangulation and a note could not. As a psychologist you must know you cannot generalize one mother who commits murder of their child to the next. For instance Susan Smith lied for a few days, then told the truth, Andrea Yates told the truth immediately, and Casey Anthony let her attorney come up with a scenario and never told the truth. Patsy didn't get on with her life, she went through the motions, then succumbed to cancer. If she exhibited signs of "detaching from reality" that would have been an observable behavior as well, and one that would have alerted others that she needed treatment, prior to the event and after, for something other than depression or grief.
ReplyDeleteDear Human Being Identifier:
ReplyDeleteI am NOT "your" Robot, and trucks are NOT cars! Got it?
Mike G
The "S" by Patsy does it for me. They all seem to slant backwards to the left and look unfinished at the top. Obviously I am no expert, but looks more like Patsy.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if you believe both parents are involved like I do, then the actual writer of the note doesn't matter much
-J
J:
DeleteIf you believe both parents were involved, then the ransom note doesn't matter at all. That's exactly why the case hasn't been prosecuted. The ransom note, the calling of the police while the body was still in the house, no evidence of a break-in---the foundation of all inside-job conspiracy theories rests on two or more Ramsey "conspirators" deliberately incriminating themselves fully expecting police deploying reverse psychology to rule them out. But then why after the autopsy didn't we hear the Ramseys accuse a pedophile staging a failed kidnapping of framing them for murder? Should they have made the abuse more obvious, say by leaving part of the paintbrush handle in JonBenet's vagina, or might that have been too over the top, leading police to believe the Ramseys were relying on reverse psychology to frame an intruder turned murderer/kidnapper?
Mike
The writer of the note either wrote it prior to the crime or was cool headed enough to compose and write it after JB was dead. I've always been unable to see Patsy in either of those scenarios. I certainly don't believe she planned the death of her own daughter, and if it was an accident I think she would have been too devastated to write that note.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe Patsy had phrases like "counter measures and tactics" and "scanned for electronic devices" floating around in her head.
The note was written by a cold calculating person in my opinion. If you eliminate an intruder(which most of us do), that leaves John.
K
To the blog,
ReplyDeleteDo you think there is a strong enough case to make against John, Burke or Patsy to charge them with JB's death? The idea would be to try and flip one of them to speak and rat out the person who did it. Regardless of who the killer is, I fully believe John, Patsy and Burke all know who it is.
-J
Patsy can't be charged, J-man, being...well, dead and all. And Burke can't be charged as he was only nine at the time. John won't be charged absent better evidence than they've had the last 21 years.
DeleteThe time for the ploy you suggest was when the GJ handed down two true bills against each parent - and Hunter squandered the opportunity.
J, if you were given a budget and allowed to investigate the case starting from scratch, how would you proceed?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great question Castor. I am into true crime but have no clue about actual investigating. I don't want to dodge the question, but where would you start?
Delete-J
I think your ideas about where to start will be welcomed.
DeleteAs for me I would hire 3 students (to stretch my budget). I would let Mr. Ramsey know that I was committed to finding his daughter's killer and would appreciate another list of suspects now that he's had 21 years to think about it. I would not tip him off in the least that I am also going to be thoroughly investigating him. I would see if I could get Patsy's medical and psychological records, now that she is deceased, although don't know if that's possible. I would re-question everyone who knew the family, all of the Stine's, the White's, and anyone else still living. Anyway that's for starters.
Both Patsy and Burke's psychiatrists are still practicing in Atlanta. I'm curious as to how John got his anti-depressants - he said he got them from Patsy's doctor, but I am assuming he would need to be seen to get a prescription, and if he was seen I wonder how many times? This may account for his rather cold cool unaffected responses to questions. He was medicated.
DeleteMedical and psychiatric records are protected by HIPAA, and their privacy survives death.
DeleteSorry, but JR wouldn't be swayed by your level of commitment or your thrifty use of students. He's been investigated by the BPD, the BCSD, the CBI, and the FBI, and has his lines down pat. He'd hand you the same list he gave Steve Thomas, Lou Smit, Mike Kane, and a cast of thousands in print and televised interviews. The Stines have been hyper-protective of the Rs for decades, Fleet and Priscilla refuse to discuss the case outside LE, and Burke doesn't give interviews.
The only hope I see is accessing whatever discovery documents and transcripts (if any) are filed with the Michigan court in the pending lawsuits. Once filed, they're public record.
Yes, your idea is a good one, probably better. But I'm ever hopeful this case can be solved at the least, and someone brought to justice at the most.
DeleteWe know the Grand Jury chose to indict them the first time, so we can assume they saw enough evidence to move forward. I would be very curious if there was any way to charge Patsy Ramsey with the murder. I dont believe she did it, but by charging Patsy (not here to defend herself) I wonder if it could provoke Burke to start talking and save his Moms legacy.
DeleteThe only way the killer will ever be charged is by somebody talking. Obviously the Ramsey's know something
-J
THE DEAD CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, J. It's unconstitutional. Sixth Amendment.
DeleteWelp.....I got nothin then :-)
Delete-J
This lawsuit against Dr. Spitz and CBS can't be very comfortable for Burke, J. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. I still have to wonder why John jumped in at this particular time, statue of limitations aside. I'm wondering if it is more of a key strategic move to bolster Burke's case, but then I'm not a strategic attorney so it's only speculation.
Deletestatute.
DeleteI recently watched the Elizabeth Smart biography and couldn't help but notice the glaring differences in both cases. First off, the Smarts did call their family who came racing over, and organized a search, pretty much immediately.
ReplyDeleteThe house was the crime scene which was also compromised by the amount of people coming in and out and the police emptied out the home, and took all family members down to the police station in separate vehicles, to be questioned individually. The mother and father were questioned separately, as were her two brothers and her sister. The parents were eager to be questioned, so that the police could clear them and begin the search for the kidnapper.
What a difference, huh? Fortunately as we all know, it ended well with Elizabeth being found and reunited with her family.
Has anyone else watched it?
EG
I remember that case. Turned out Mr. Smart, and his philosophy of helping out wayward, in this case mentally disturbed, people by hiring them to do work around his house unwittingly exposed his children to a criminal who kidnapped and harmed his daughter.
DeleteI watched the biography too and noticed the similarities and differences between that case and the JBR case. Although they both invited people to the house and the crime scene was contaminated, the Smarts were taken to the station, separated and questioned.
DeleteWhy was not the same done with the Ramseys? Especially when the body was discovered in the house.
FY
The first of an at least three part documentary suggesting the Zodiak Killer has been revealed aired on November 14th for those who may be interested. The second part aired tonight, which I recorded but haven't watched yet. It appears the History Channel and is called, simply enough, The Hunt for the Zodiak Killer. My appologies if this has been aired before, but I believe it hasn't.
ReplyDeleteI think it's Zed who's are local expert on this case, and Zed---if you're reading this---I believe you're the one who believe Ross Sullivan (who died in 1977) was the killer, in which case, YOU will be very interested in watching this mini-series to its conclusion. Based on having seen Part One, Ross Sullivan appears to be the guy. Now if we can only convert you to JDI, your powers of perspicacity may bring JonBenet's killer to justice before HE dies!
Mike G
Sorry for the errors in grammar. I'm off to bed.
DeleteMike
Correction. Part 2 airs Nov 21, Part 3 Nov 28.
DeleteMike
Hey Mike G
ReplyDeleteYep, I've followed the zodiac case for over 10 years now! There is so many suspects in the case but there's an extremely good chance the actual zodiac is none of the suspects ever mentioned.
Of course, ALA is the main suspect and although he was a very interesting character, I firmly believe he had nothing to do with it. That, I am extremely confident in.
However, I am truly gobsmacked the new documentary puts evidence forward of Ross Sullivan being the potential suspect!! Did they actually name him?
Did they mention the poem on the table at the library? There is lots I like about Ross as the potential Zodiac. In fact, and I believe I have mentioned this here before, he is my favourite suspect. The reason I am gobsmacked is because he is one of the lesser known suspects out there.
What is the documentary called exactly? I wonder if I can watch from Australia somehow?
It's truly a fascinating case.
Here is one theory I posted on a Zodiac forum, for anyone who may be interested:
ReplyDeletehttp://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=3265
Why the inclusion of "between 8 and 10am" in the ransom note's sentence "I will call you between 8 and 10am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery."
ReplyDeleteWhy not just "by 10am?" Why not just "tomorrow" with no time frame? Even John didn't put the cable guy on the vast list of suspects.
The hidden purpose of that sentence holds a crucial key to Patsy's innocence if she indeed made the decision to call 911 early that morning when the call was made.
By 10am following the NON-forthcoming ransom call, either parent could conceivably have called 911 and allowed police to discover the body in the house and still have made the intruder argument. A doting mother could have been in on such a ransom note.
By 10am, various possibilities of an intruder's escape point were in play (other than the basement window, ironically, as the snow around the basement window grate was too thick to melt off by then), even allowing John's being able to have hemmed and hawed about the ground floor's doors being locked, which he couldn't do at 6am.
He had to be forthright about that as he knew the frost around all exit points was patently obvious, the undisturbed frost being strong if not conclusive evidence of the absence of an intruder's break-in on the ground floor.
So the note could have served the purpose of avoiding blame for the killing yet not having gone so far as requiring the actual removal of the body from the house, particularly if the mother was in on the note, so long as the call did not come until the frost had burned off.
For both parents to have staged an intruder murder (an interrupted kidnapping, despite its faults, but remember they were in a tight spot), the parents needed only two things:
One, a plausible inability to have found the body themselves (using the remote basement storage hiding place to hide the body "from themselves"), combined with Two, an EXCUSE for not calling 911 until the frost surrounding all EXIT points was burned off by the mid-morning sun.
They had to have a mythical intruder scare them from calling the police until at least mid-morning when the call didn't come thereby freeing them up to panic and make the 911 call, thus the Dirty Harry rubric in the note.
However, John's use of the one word "tomorrow" in the sentence "I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery," destroyed his plan of being able to convince Patsy, in two stages, to at least wait until mid-morning before calling for help.
In the discussion before the 911 call John likely oversold the need to hold off calling by verbalizing "his" interpretation of the word "tomorrow" for Patsy and it backfired on him.
8am was the conceivable first stage, in his mind, to holding a panic-stricken mother back from calling the police, then if he could convince her to make it that far he'd be able to ease her on past the 10am mark.
There was no hope of leaving any speculation about an open door or window on the first floor at 6am.
BUT, the 8 and 10am notches were worthless if they weren't meant for the morning of the 26th. John had shot himself in the foot with the word "tomorrow."
The reason Patsy is innocent is because she wouldn't have called 911 that early in the morning if she had been in on the ransom note. Case further solved.
Black Sheep
Old news.
DeleteJohn needed solitude and lattitude where space and time were concerned so as to limit interuptions and facilitate his plan. Think about it; had he said " at eight o'clock sharp", Patsy may have insisted on staying home until after the call came through. Had he said "at ten o'clock sharp", she may have insisted he stay with her and Burke (wherever he dropped them off), until closer to the time he HAD to be home, perhaps accompanied by a friend demanding they be present to provide moral support. "Between eight and ten" gave John the opportunity to drop his wife and son off quickly, then hurry back to the house to be alone for at least two hours, to plan, prepare, and stage. What he accomplished in those two hours would dictate what he would tell Patsy the kidnappers' next instructions were, when 'they called right at ten', or what his next instructions were, when 'they didn't call at all'. It was a brilliant tactic, albeit one which, thanks to Patsy dialing 911, never had to be tested.
DeleteMike G
Black Sheep and Mike: you are both over interpreting.
DeleteAssuming (as I do) that John wrote the note, he clearly intended for "tomorrow" to mean tomorrow, NOT the morning the note was discovered, but the following morning. We know that from the demand that the ransom be collected prior to receiving the call AND the advice to be "rested." There is no way John could have gone to the bank earlier than 8AM, as no bank opens that early. And a call that came so early would not have given him time to rest.
While it's true that the Keystone Kops totally misread the note and assumed the call was to come that morning, John could easily have explained to Patsy that the call was going to come the next morning, not the morning of the 26th.
His reason should be obvious: if the call was to come that morning, Patsy would have wanted to wait for the call and when no call transpired, she would certainly have wanted to call the police. Of course, she called them anyhow, but that was obviously not part of the plan.
Black Sheep, I'm surprised when you say that the inclusion of the word "tomorrow" spoiled John's plan, as the timing so clearly implied in the note was a vital part of that plan. The idea was to get Patsy and Burke out of the house at some point on the 26th, leaving John home alone to stage to his heart's content.
Note also that the note says they might call early if they monitored him getting the ransom early. This gave John considerable flexibility to arrange for the call to come at any time on the 26th OR the 27th, whenever most convenient for HIM -- but certainly after Patsy and Burke had left.
As I've suggested, it would have been easy for John to fake that call by phoning his empty home from a phone booth and letting the machine "answer" it, thus placing a record of the call in the phone company logs.
If we read the note carefully several clues to John's plan become evident. The plan is practically spelled out in the note.
DocG please understand that I don't disagree with your interpretation of "tomorrow" in that sentence nor your logical inference that forms the nucleus of your theory which is if Patsy had written or been in on the note, whose purpose was to stage a phony kidnapping, then she wouldn't have made the 911 call with the body still in the house.
DeleteThe fact that no decent woman could stomach the endgame of removing and disposing her daughter's body in the wild only bolsters your case.
Your logic is irrefutable. So why can't people just accept it?
I also agree with you as to the transparency of the ransom note and everything in it, and who therefore must have written it, without the need for further unnecessary analysis.
But for years, many continue to disagree and believe that Patsy was involved in writing the ransom note.
Yet, again, why?
The crucial sentence on the time of the supposed ransom call contained, to me anyway, a possible back-up plan as a first step to forestall the 911 call until at least 8AM, to give time to calm things down and perhaps make it to 10AM.
John had to know that Patsy would be out of her mind. He projected onto himself in interviews that very immediate reaction, verbatim, naturally.
The irony of the word "tomorrow" could have been Patsy's arguing to John that she couldn't wait on the police call because she read the word the way we do, correctly.
She'd have said to him "Can't you see they are wanting to keep our daughter for 24 hours? I will not wait that long!" Those specific beginning and ending times for the ransom call would then have been rendered pointless, which made me wonder why they were even in there.
Thus my post, which led to my naive hope of closing a final irritating gap for the RDI and PDI crowd.
Everything in that note had a meaning as we know. That vital sentence was well thought out and chilling, particularly in its brevity yet breadth of designed alternatives.
I think the intelligence and cunning of this man when under unthinkable pressure has been vastly underestimated, and he would do the world a great service in confessing and explaining all he did, including every jot and tittle in the note.
It would be riveting and sobering to listen to, and very educational in the field of criminology. That is a fantasy of course.
My post was aimed at foreclosing out a final doubt for those who still could think that Patsy was in on the note for the purpose of staging a phony "botched", "interrupted", or "changed mind" kidnapping, whose numbers appear to be legion.
Again, in the phony failed kidnapping scenario the ransom note would have been to create a plausible reason to not call before waiting until at least 10AM per the note's carefully scheduled ransom call, which would of course never come (while not ever intending to remove and dispose of the body), yet she called 911 first thing anyway.
If you know your daughter is still in the house when you call before 6AM then it is not only illogical when staging a phony kidnapping, it is suicidal if you're only staging a kidnapper's note to give yourself an excuse to wait until mid-morning to call yet you call anyway before sun-up.
If you call 911 when Patsy did while yet knowing your daughter's body is in the house, then you might as well write one more note---your confession.
Black Sheep
I see John as The Puppet Master. He was able, probably all of his life, to project a persona of the quiet man, the rational man, and yet look at his first marriage. He also suffered a tragedy with the death of Beth, which he was carrying around with him. I doubt anyone really knew this guy. I suspect he had a backup plan IF Patsy were to call the police before he was ready for them. He couldn't have just left it all to chance, with a murder riding on it. If we were to really look hard into his childhood, his military career, his business practices, we might find other instances of unethical behavior that have been cleverly disguised such that he could keep up the facade and never fully be held accountable. I think with more time Mike Kane would have figured him out, but Kane had superiors to answer to and wasn't the only one on the team. I ruled out Burke a year or so ago as Burke could not maintain an aura of innocence for 21 years knowing he struck the fatal blow, nor would a brutal strangulation have taken place in order to cover for a careless mindless act of violence. And other reasons. But everyone has to come to that realization on their own.
DeleteWe have the History Channel in Australia but "The Hunt for the Zodiac Killer" isn't there :(
ReplyDeleteHopefully it's made available in Australia soon.
Try www.history.com, if you have cable television you will then have to sign in, then you can watch it.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to recommend two shows on Netflix.
ReplyDelete"Manhunt: Unabomber" (with Sam Worthington, one of Australia's finest) and
"Mindhunter" based on the book of our friend, John Douglas. Mindhunter Season 1 was excellent, Season 2 in the works for 2018.
I have a question for CC, since I believe you have somewhat of a photographic memory for details. Was John Douglas hired by the Ramsey attorneys as some kind of preemptive strike when it was thought the FBI might get involved in the case? Also was it Alex Hunter's call to dismiss the FBI and why. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI can answer the second question. No, it was not Alex Hunter. it was the Boulder Police after the body was found and clear to everybody no intruder was involved. THAT, and not allowing John to search the house at 1:00 PM by himself, was LE's biggest mistake.
DeleteMike
It was Commander Eller of the BPD. The FBI has no jurisdiction unless it's a Federal crime, and must be invited in by local LE.
DeleteJohn Douglas was hired by the R's law firm, less as a preemptive strike against the FBI and more as a way to get and keep him on Team Ramsey, as he wrote the book from which I believe John took inspiration.
Thank you very much. Now I'll have to ponder why Eller did that, thinking their little police department wouldn't need the help. Especially with all of the in fighting.
ReplyDeleteHappy Thanksgiving to all, with special thanks to Doc for providing this forum.
ReplyDeleteHappy Thanksgiving everyone
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe it was john and possibly some involvement from patsy but who is William Ramsey?? He was apparently the 3rd santa to see JB and changed his name twice
ReplyDeleteAnybody hear about a judges death bed confession about a pedophile ring including john and 6 other men that night?
ReplyDeleteThe notion of a pedophile ring was the subject of at least one book on the case. As with so many other such scenarios, they make sense only when certain facts are completely ignored. For example, a pedophile ring can't explain why the note was written on a pad from the Ramsey home -- or why the body needed to be hidden in the basement rather than simply removed from the premises.
DeleteA. If there were six other men present that night, they would certainly have left traces of their DNA behind on JonBenet's body.
DeleteB. Using materials that could very easily be sourced to the home of John Ramsey - one of the ring's members - to commit the crime and pen the note is a really, really stupid idea if they don't want their ring to be exposed - if John goes down, they'd surely go down with him.
C. What compelling reason would Patsy have to allow her husband to invite six men into her home to sexually abuse her own child?
D. If JB had been killed accidentally during some kind of pedophile orgy, why in the heck would her abusers invite the police over to find her defiled body, along with all the incriminating evidence it contains? If the members of this pedophile ring are this stupid, I can't imagine they'd have avoided detection for so long to begin with.
D. What purpose does the note serve in such a scenario? Inarguably, the ransom note is the single most important element of this crime, so any credible theory has to reasonably account for it's justification.
E. How likely is it that six, presumably powerful men, will not be missed by their families on Christmas night (of all nights, this seems the least likely to host or attend a pedophile orgy. Not withstanding the fact that JB would be traveling to meet with the family the next day, and would surely display very obvious signs that something was wrong if John had allowed six, grown, men to have their way with his daughter the previous night.)
As far as William Ramsey is concerned, he is allegedly John's illegitimate son who was apparently receiving hush money from his father, and killed his half sister as retribution when the money stopped rolling in, but there is absolutely not a skerrick of proof that any of this is true. Note that the woman who has made these outrageous claims has gotten many details of the crime wrong, therefore she loses any credibility she might have had.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFinally got around to watching the first two episodes of The Hunt for the Zodiac Killer.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite a thrilling and entertaining show, yet it has not identified an iota of new evidence. So it's disappointing from that point of view.
Here's hoping the next three episodes reveal some breaking evidence on the case...although I am very sceptical...
Hi zed, I've just watched the first episode of The zodiac case solved. I must say Ross sullivan is looking like the zodiac, so much evidence pointing to him. Have you watched this?
ReplyDeleteIs The Hunt for the Zodiac Killer available on Xfinity On Demand? Is the History Channel re-running the first two episodes in the middle of the day, or night?
ReplyDeleteI don't know CC. What I have just watched is new over here, also on history channel. Sorry it's called The Zodiac Killer case closed. Don't know if it's a re-run of something already shown in the US
ReplyDeleteHi evej
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's the same show with a different name? I am not sure. I believe the Hunt for the Zodiac Killer (5 part series) is the first show to ever name Ross Sullivan.
CC - It can be watched here (only first two episodes available so far):
http://www.tagtele.com/videos/recherche/The+hunt+for+the+zodiac/
HI Zed, hubby has just put it on kodi for me to check. They are the same documentary just under a different title here. I've recorded the second episode tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this Zed, or maybe I have to say it. The second episode was uploaded onto youtube and I think you are right, it's not really....informational. In fact, those guys sitting around the computer Carmel looking for clues remind me of the 1950's commercials for secret decoder rings , Captain Midnight, and the Secret Squadron.
ReplyDeleteHaha very true. In episode 1 they identifed identical symbols at right angles with their "supercomputer". That was found by A LOT of people with their naked eye haha and has been known for 30+ years. Made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteGood, I'm glad you appreciate the humor of it. I wasn't sure :).There are several interesting things though (and I really didn't follow this case). The woman and child the Zodiac picked up in his car (after disabling her car) picked him out of a lineup. A different person from who this team thought was the Zodiac. Wouldn't that evidence be more pertinent than someone they think was in the military because he wore military-style boots? Or wrote in code? And did you see the look on the one guy's face when his theory it was Ross Sullivan suddenly took a different turn? Downright disappointed. When investigating a case you are supposed to be objective, and allow the evidence to guide you to a theory, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why there is a need to hunt for the Zodiac killer. The evidence clearly leads to Arthur Leigh Allen. When there is money to be made, however, mysterious theories will be born. This case reminds me of the Dan Cooper hijacking. Why that case was ever a mystery is beyond comprehension. “Dan Cooper” or “D.B. Cooper” (if you prefer the erroneous alias) was clearly the work of Richard McCoy, but like the Zodiac case, the American public would rather believe in fiction.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hercule, besides ALA wearing a Zodiac watch, there is zero evidence against him. And Don Cheney is not a credible witness.
DeleteIt was not ALA.
Castor, the woman you are referring to is Kathleen Johns. The person who tinkered with the lugs on her car and gave her a lift is not 100% the Zodiac. Yes, the Zodiac claimed it was him, but this was after it had appeared in newspapers....so who really knows.
DeleteAnd yes, if Lawrence Kane is the Zodiac (which is a possibility), then Kathleen Johns picking him out of a lineup (which she did) is some pretty pertinent evidence.
I know for a fact that the show has engaged people on Zodiac forums for information. There is a person on a Zodiac forum who believes Lawrence Kane could well be the Zodiac....this person has outlined a very credible theory. The History channel contacted this person and went over all the facts with him. So it’s not like the show is identifying this evidence through investigation, they are just building a show around information they stole from people on the web haha.
Saying that, I have found it entertaining and I am looking forward to the next three episodes. I also liked seeing some evidence from the Cheri Jo Bates murder (her jeans etc.) Although the show is basing their case entirely on the face that Zodiac committed that murder. That is not proven at all. In fact, Riverside Police say Zodiac was NOT responsible for that...although they won’t say why. Not sure why Riverside are being so tight-lipped half a century later. Riverside had someone they believed committed this crime so badly, they didn’t really look elsewhere. DNA ended up clearing this person although I believe there could have been two people involved.
My personal opinion is that Zodiac (Ross Sullivan) was either responsible for Cheri’s murder, or, got a kick out of it as he was very close to the area (i.e. he worked in the library, went to Riverside etc.)..and he wrote notes claiming he did it (when he may not have). My biggest problem with Ross Sullivan is that there is so little we know about him, he may have been “too big” to be Zodiac and apparently he never owned a car. My three top suspects would be:
1. Ross Sullivan
2. Lawrence Kane
3. Richard Gaikowski
But the Zodiac could well be someone no one has ever mentioned. I am just glad that Arthur Leigh Allen isn’t being mentioned as much anymore....because him being Zodiac was a very poor theory, embellished by a cartoonist (Robert Graysmith played by Jake Gyllenhaal in the movie Zodiac).
Yes, Lawrence Kane. One other question. Didn't the Zodiac's handwriting change over time? Did they think there was a copycat? I liked his little greeting cards and drawings, very mischievous of him.
DeleteIn the late 70s there were fake letters sent to the SF Chronicle. When I say fake, I mean Zodiac copycats. But the letters during Zodiac's "peak" period were identified as the same writer and the handwriting did not change.
DeleteAt riverside library, there was a dark poem written on the underside of a desk which matched the Zodiac's writing completely. Sherwood Morrill, the lead documents examiner on the case, even said zodiac wrote it. The poem was signed rh (although looking sideways the h kinda looks like an s). Ross Sullivan perhaps?
But yes he was very mischievous with a sense of humour...well as much of a sense of humour you can have as a serial killer!!
https://goo.gl/images/Pd5kb9
DeleteWas rh the first time Zodiac had signed a note with initials? There are other meanings for rh. He's talking about spurting blood, Rh could refer to Rhesus Rh factor in blood typing, or the chemical symbol for Rhodium, or, and this may be more consistent with the Zodiac MO, "range hold" which is a term used in hunting with high powered rifles. The Zodiac may not have been former military, he may have been an avid hunter. The symbol he used for himself is what one might see looking through a rifle scope, the circle with the cross (for cross hairs). But you know quite a lot about the case, I don't.
ReplyDeleteZed, if you are willing to except Allen’s Zodiac wristwatch as evidence, then I am sure you will not have any issues with the abundance of other evidence you mystifyingly ignored:
ReplyDeleteVallejo Police determined that Allen was in Riverside at the time of Cheri Jo Bates’s murder. Allen himself later claimed to have been in the area, then told people he was in nearby Pomona, about 25 miles away. In November 1966, two anonymous, typewritten confession letters were mailed to the local police and newspaper. The typewriter was identified as being a Royal model, with either Elite or Pica type. The Vallejo Police Department seized a Royal typewriter with Elite type from Allen’s home during a 1991 search. The VPD never attempted to match that typewriter with the anonymous confessions.
In March of 1968, Allen was fired from his job as an elementary-school teacher for molesting a student and moved back home with his mother and father in Vallejo. Allen lived only seven minutes from the Lake Herman Road crime scene. The Lake Herman Road murders occurred between two stressful dates in Allen’s life: his birthday (December 18) and Christmas (December 25). In a 1991 search, Vallejo PD discovered that Allen owned the same type of ammunition used in Zodiac’s Lake Herman Road murders.
On July 5, 1969, Mike Mageau was attacked and Darlene Ferrin murdered at Blue Rock Springs, seven months after the Lake Herman murders. This attack took place only four minutes from Allen’s home. In 1966-67, Blue Rock Springs victim Darlene Ferrin worked as a waitress at the International House of Pancakes in Vallejo, less than 1/ 10 of a mile from Allen’s home. According to a police report, an unidentified male named “Lee” was known to associate occasionally with Darlene – the same spelling that Allen himself used. This “Lee” has never been positively identified. In mid-1992, surviving Blue Rock Springs victim Mike Mageau definitively picked Allen’s picture out of a Vallejo PD police photo lineup.
On September 27, 1969, the Zodiac attacked a young couple at Lake Berryessa, just north of Vallejo, using a foot-long knife with a sheath and rivets. Zodiac left size 10 ½ footprints at the crime scene. Lee Allen was an outdoorsman who frequented recreational areas such as Berryessa, trapping game, scuba-diving, and camping. In an October 6, 1969 interview, Allen told Sgt. Lynch of Vallejo PD that the day of the attack he “was going to go to Berryessa, but went up the coast instead.” Allen referenced a mysterious couple from Treasure Island as an alibi, but could never produce their names or phone numbers. Allen later tried to use “William White,” an elderly neighbor, as an alibi, claiming he had a conversation with White on the afternoon of the Berryessa attack. Unfortunately, White died within weeks of this alleged encounter and could never be questioned. Coincidentally, a ranger from Napa County was all over the news as a spokesman on the Berryessa attack. His name: William White. During a 1971 police interrogation, Allen admitted to possessing bloody knives the day of the Berryessa attack, claiming he used the knives to “kill a chicken.”
Surviving Berryessa victim Bryan Hartnell was taken to see Allen at his place of employment in the mid-1970s by a Department of Justice representative. According to Hartnell, Allen had the same physical appearance and voice as Zodiac did during the attack. In the 1991 search, Vallejo PD discovered that Allen owned a foot-long knife with a sheath and rivets. No attempt was ever made to match Allen’s knife to the wounds of the Berryessa victims. According to a police report, Allen wore shoe size 10 ½.
Hercule
To be Cont...
...Cont:
ReplyDeleteCab driver Paul Stine was killed by the Zodiac in San Francisco on October 11, 1969. Two days later, Zodiac mailed a letter that included a piece of Stine’s shirt and threatened to shoot out the tire of a school bus and “pick off the kiddies” as they emerged. On November 9, 1969, Zodiac sent a seven-page letter to The San Francisco Chronicle that contained a recipe for making a bomb, complete with a detailed diagram. Ingredients for the bomb included ammonium nitrate, fertilizer, and gravel. Zodiac claimed in the letter that the bomb was being stored in his basement and that his “killing tools” were acquired through “mail order outfits.” Bus bomb letter, page 4 During the 1991 Vallejo PD search, the police found handwritten diagrams for bombs comprised of ammonium nitrate, fertilizer, and gravel in Lee Allen’s basement. They also discovered mail-order catalogs for bombs, guns, and booby traps.
Zodiac mailed the 408 cipher to the newspapers on July 31, 1969. The solution included the statement that killing man was “… more fun than killing wild game in the forrest [sic] because man is the most dangerous anamal [sic] of all to kill.” These quotes were a reference to a book entitled THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. During a 1971 police interrogation, Allen volunteered that he had read The Most Dangerous Game when he was a youth and that it had made a lasting impression on him.
According to family and friends, Allen had possession of codes featuring identical symbols prior to the publication of Zodiac’s ciphers.
Zodiac frequently used intentionally incorrect spelling and abbreviations, both in correspondence and in his cipher codes. Allen was known to use the same unusual spelling and phrasing that Zodiac later used, such as “Mery Xmass” instead of “Merry Xmas” or “trigger mech” instead of trigger mechanism, as in his December 20, 1969 letter to attorney Melvin Belli. Allen appeared to sometimes misspell words to be funny, like “yer” and “till.” He did this in normal correspondence, even in recipes he wrote (which had very odd recipe titles like “Turkey Cockroach a la Milan” and “Sour Puss Dead Chicken”).
The last attack the Zodiac took credit for occurred March 22, 1970. Though he would continue to write letters, no other murders took place and no other attacks were referenced. In 1970, Lee Allen attended Sonoma State College, majoring in biological sciences with a minor in chemistry. During his time at Sonoma State, the Zodiac murders ceased. However, the Sonoma coed killings (also called the Santa Rosa Hitchhiker Murders) began. Seven coed students were found dead in rural areas of Santa Rosa near steep embankments or close to the road in creek beds. When mapping out the locations where the students’ bodies were found, Allen’s trailer is revealed to be in a location central to the attacks.
Between March 13, 1971 and January 29, 1974, the Zodiac went silent; no correspondence was received that he took credit for or that appeared to be from him. During this time, Arthur Leigh Allen had become the number one Zodiac suspect. The last authenticated letter presumed to be from the Zodiac was the “Red Phantom” letter sent to The San Francisco Chronicle on July 8, 1974. While other purported Zodiac letters were received in April, May, and July 1978, these were considered to be fakes. On September 27, 1974, Lee Allen was arrested by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department on a charge of child molestation. Allen plead guilty. In 1975, he began serving a two year sentence at Atascadero State Hospital. He was released in 1977. No authenticated Zodiac letter was ever received again after Allen’s arrest.
There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac killer. No other suspect comes close.
Hercule
So you also say about Patsy Ramsey and, most recently, Richard McCoy...yet members of local LE and the Feds are all over the map - and unlike you, they've seen real evidence and performed real investigations.
DeleteYou just pick a theory (often the most touted) and pontificate, with no real evidence or information - just your vehemence based on frequently unsubstantiated allegations.
I sense a pattern.
I could pick apart that post like you wouldn't believe! I'll stand by my post...there is zero evidence that ALA is Zodiac. Zero. They wanted it to be Allen so badly but there was nothing, nadda, zilch, zero. Allen did enjoy being on the news though.
DeleteI probably gave your PDI more respect than most others on this blog, but after reading the above...hmmm, my opinion is starting to change.
A partial Dna was tested in 2002 against Allen with no match found. That is if it was his Dna on the envelopes. I'm sceptical the zodiac would have had thought to cover Dna through saliva back then.
DeleteHere is a link to an organized study of all things Ross M. Sullivan - including yearbook pictures and family history.
ReplyDeletezodiackillerciphers.com/wiki/index.php?titles=Ross_Sullivan
Zed:
ReplyDeletePart 3 was last night here in the states. Did you see it? Now they're focused on a guy named Lawrence Kane. They think he killed a Donna Lass, whose body has never been found, in the Lake Tahoe area of California. Compelling evidence, but then so was the circustantial evidence surrounding Ross Sullivan. I wish they'd just get on with naming who they think did it...no need for all these dead end side trips.
Mike
Hi Mike
ReplyDeleteYes, I watched it. Lawrence Kane was first mentioned in episode 2.
The problem with Donna Lass is that she is not a confirmed zodiac killing. This particular crime did not fit the zodiac motif.
I am not saying it wasn't the Zodiac, but the show is focusing all their energy on Tahoe/Lass when there is a good chance it has nothing to do with the Zodiac. Each episode they claim there will be a big find...in episode 2 it was supposed to be a bomb they found. Yeah right....as I suspected, that never happened and the supposed hole they found was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
In the next two episodes they are hinting they find Donna's body and crack the 340 cipher. Again, I am pretty doubtful on both.
They are following directions on a code that was broken by an internet sleuth. A code that was most likely not written by Zodiac. It's preposterous.
I'll cross my fingers that the next two episodes reveal something. The show has revealed two good suspects, but zero new evidence and they are just stealing information of zodiac forums and claiming they have found this for the first time. It actually makes me laugh.
Oh, and this is how bad it is....the blurred picture of lawrence kane at the ihop is not lawrence kane. Its dean ferrin (husband at the time of zodiac victim Darlene ferrin).
Hmmm...sounds eerily reminiscent of the BDI CBS "documentary" with big reveals from the Whites and experts who weren't about "new evidence". True crime has become entertainment, not a Woodward and Bernstein fact-finding (and reporting) mission.
Deletehttps://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiackillerfr/episode-3-of-5-the-hunt-for-the-zodiac-killer-disc-t7847-s20.html?sid=1a22338530ae7b76572655b90d21cfd5
ReplyDelete“You just pick a theory (often the most touted) and pontificate, with no real evidence or information - just your vehemence based on frequently unsubstantiated allegations.”
ReplyDeleteCC, the truth is all that interests me. It may not concern the most entertaining subject matter or the most interesting suspect. My conclusions might often agree with law enforcement but on rare occasions that may not be the case. The truth is, law enforcement often does have the best theory. They have put in the grunt work. They have all the details and damnit they worked their asses off to get it. I get so disgusted with outlandish theories about cases simply because the truth was either too hard to swallow or it was not sexy enough. I do agree with you about true crime being more about entertainment. The Zodiac killer documentaries have always been a proven money maker and will continue to be. People like Zed are so easily influenced by the mysterious pageantry of contrived theories based on people who have only a couple of similar traits with the killer. The public always seeks a new theory more outrageous than last to satisfy their boredom. If any of you really care to know who the Zodiac killer was then you have already accepted the obvious truth - Arthur Leigh Allen. Case closed.
Hercule
Not.
DeleteAgain, always, it is merely because you say so. Never has been, still is not, good enough. Zed's knowledge about this case is as encyclopedic as is mine about JBR, while yours is superficial and derivative - again, as always.
I submit that YOUR truth is all that interests you.
DeleteHercule, we do have something in common...the truth to be found. And you know what? I would love for the zodiac to be ALA...then I could put this case aside. But there is simply zero evidence against Allen. It's a theory that was polarised by a cartoonist (yes, cartoonist) who wrote a book about ALA being the Zodiac. Then they based the Zodiac book off that very movie and people like you believe the case is closed.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, ALA did not fit the physical description of Zodiac. He looks nothing like him. ALA's DNA did not match. His handwriting wasn't a match. The only reason ALA even came into fruition was because of Don Cheney's statements. With a bit of research you will quickly learn what a load of crap Don's words were.
As for your so called evidence against ALA in your above posts, I encourage you to read through each of your dot points which an open mind. There is no evidence there. Nothing which links him to any murder. LE looked at Allen more than anyone else, and despite all of their attention they found nothing. They even searched his trailer and found zilch. After he passed, they were sure they would find something in his basement. They found nothing of interest. He even left police a video tape with a "Z" on it. It ended up being him proclaiming his innocence and then pulling his pants down and mooning the camera!
He was an interesting character no doubt. He was a child molester. And he enjoyed being a Zodiac suspect. But he enjoyed it because he knew he would never be captured for it...as it wasn't him.
I would bet my last dollar on ALA not being the Zodiac.
The Zodiac was oh so close to being caught after the Stine murder. The police looked at him and he turned his head away. Fourkes got a good look at him but he was a white male so kept driving (the radio broadcast incorrectly stated it was a negro male they were looking for...that mistake still makes me shudder). This person did walk with a shuffle/limp and that does make me look at Lawrence Kane more seriously. But it wasn't ALA. Zodiac should have been caught that night but he got extremely lucky. To me, the Stine murder is the most interesting. It's a confirmed Zodiac killing, yet it was different to his other kills. I still think there was a reason behind that particular murder that no one understands.
Sorry, should read: zodiac movie based off that book. Wish you could edit posts on here :(
DeleteSorry last post. The Zodiac show seems to have gathered a bit of evidence on this blog. The history channel got everything "lawrence kane" related from an internet user called Welsh Chappie. For those who are interested in Kane as a suspect, here is a good blog for you to read:
Deletehttps://welshchappie.wordpress.com
And for those who want to do some light reading on Ross Sullivan (217 pages long):
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=1441
And lastly, here are some random chaps discussing a theory I posted online a while back:
http://zodiackiller.forumotion.com/t754-did-ross-sullivan-and-bob-barnett-team-up
You can, Zedley, kinda sorta, if you post under a google account name as you and I do. There's a "delete" choice/ button under your most recent post. You can press "delete" and re-post. If you're fast enough, no one catches the faux pas.
DeleteZed, back to the poem written on the underside of a desk at the Riverside library. How was it discovered? Wouldn't he have to have turned that desk over to write on it and wouldn't someone have seen him doing something as peculiar as that?
ReplyDeleteHey Castor, just saw your above post on "rh". Sorry, I missed that before. You make some interesting points on what rh could mean. If that was written by the zodiac (which is very much up for debate), then I believe it was written well and truly before the moniker of "the zodiac" existed.
DeleteThe desk was a foldable desk. I'm unsure on the best way to access that part of the desk for writing. I am pretty sure that a librarian found it and then called LE...but don't hold me to that. Ross Sullivan would have worked in that library when it would have been extremely quiet. He would have had ample opportunity to write something like that without anyone seeing.
Although the cheri jo bates killing could very well be relevant to zodiac case, I think it needs to be solved with one of the confirmed zodiac killings. Ironically, the zodiac show hasn't even gone to san fran or Vallejo yet haha. But they hire helicopters looking for god knows what.
Thank you, Zed. Now I'll have to see if youtube has episode 3. Funny when they tried to get the Navy personnel records and got a big fat "Denied." As if the Navy would turn them over to a filming crew for a television show. And I did laugh when they went up to Mt. Diablo and came up with nothing. Meanwhile back to the lab to see if Carmel has solved the case...
DeleteYep it was pretty bad. Episode 3 is even worse.
DeleteIt can be viewed here:
http://www.tagtele.com/videos/recherche/The+hunt+for+the+zodiac/
PS. The images/music they play when Carmel is "thinking" is hilarious. In episode 3, Carmel is generating data for 8 hours. All of a sudden she finishes and the Motley Crew say calmly "oh here come the results" as if they have been sitting around patiently for 8 hours.
And that is probably where they left it - the "cliffhanger"
DeleteI'm still waiting for the DNA swab results from Cheri's pants. I'm still waiting for the DNA results from JonBenet's pants.
At the very last minute of the last episode Carmel the computer will say in a computer-like robotic voice "Hercule was right. He was right about everything."
Zed, I'd like to take advantage of your link but I always have a problem with Adobe Flashplayer. And I think I have it blocked now. So I'll have to rely on someone putting it on youtube. It's great comic relief so I'd like to keep watching. But you, my friend, are a Zodiac genius, so keep us informed.
DeleteThanks CC. Never noticed that before. I'll consider that next time :)
ReplyDeleteZed, I am sure we would all love to know the specifics of who you think the Zodiac killer is/was and why we should consider him to be a better suspect than Allen.
ReplyDeleteOut of morbid curiosity I viewed the first episode of “The Hunt For The Zodiac Killer”. I was surprised to see Ken Mains as one of the investigators. I met him a few years ago when he was on the brink of forming his cold case society (which now includes Clemente, Spitz, and Lee). I found him to be an exceptionally genuine and passionate fellow. Nevertheless, I found the program to be egregiously weak, particularly in regards to any new information that could possibly help investigators solve this case.
Hercule
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThere is zero new information on the show. It's a steaming pile of turd.
ReplyDeleteSullivan, Kane and Gaikowski are all MUCH better suspects than Allen. I don't even consider Allen a suspect anymore.
The show even blatantly lied ON PURPOSE. If Ken Mains is as genuine as you say he is, he never would have agreed to be a part of that. They even cropped something out of that picture to make it support what they were saying. That is pretty disgusting.
DeleteThat is no surprise to me. I do not know Mains well enough to defend him nor am I aware of his motivations. Perhaps they need the money to pay for all of the lawsuit legal fees generated by John and Burke.
DeleteHercule
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMy advice to CC and Hercule: GET A ROOM!
DeleteMy advice to you, Doc, is to reconsider the red pen. As was amply displayed by two uninvolved posters, the conversation between Herc and I was lighthearted and entertaining...at least on my part
DeletePass the popcorn, wouldya' please?
Man, I always miss the good stuff!
DeleteSo do I. :(
DeleteLove ya' both. All you missed was a display of wit on one side and witlessness on the other.
DeleteOkay, so I don't miss ALL the good stuff. Love ya, too, CC! -xox
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou two are like an old married couple :)
ReplyDeleteHerc, as I have stated previously, I have no problems with you believing in your PDI theory. I don't agree with it, but at the end of the day you obviously feel very strongly about it.
However, since reading your Arthur Leigh Allen post, your PDI has lost a bit of credibility I must say (and I don't mean that as an insult, just a personal opinion). You stood tall and puffed your chest and stated the Zodiac IS ALA and the case is solved. I am hoping it's your lack of knowledge on that case which lead to that belief. And you're not alone....due to Robert Graysmith's book (and the movie which came from it), a lot of uneducated people think it was ALA. That cartoonist has really pulled wool over a lot of people's eyes. There's lots we don't know about the Zodiac, including who he is, but we do know that it was NOT ALA. There is as much evidence against me as there is against ALA...and I live in Australia and wasn't alive in the 60/70s!!
So when I see you so brazenly state that it was ALA, your PDI theory then lacks integrity alongside it. Just the way I see it.
As for the to and fro's between you and CC...I enjoy it. A bit of banter is healthy for the mind. Isn't that right CC? :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteRight as rain, Zedley. XOXO
DeleteThat moment you log in after being away for a while and realize 80% of the posts have been deleted by the blog administrator.....
ReplyDeleteNo great loss. Just lots and lots of very personal insults hurled back and forth. One or two can be amusing. After that it just gets embarrassing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy only embarassment is for you, Doc.
DeleteMy exchange with Herc was one of the very few animated, intelligent, and entertaining conversations here in recent memory...and you censored it, needlessly.
You're a gorgeous, smart as paint Aussie lady, and a great favorite. Missed ya' lately. Much as I love Doc, his censorship pains me, as I know it does you, having suffered from it as well. Shine on, girlfriend.
DeleteI went to bed at midnight and missed it all lol
DeleteHey, evie. You know how it goes between Herc and me. How was Amsterdam in October? All the best, always.
DeleteAhhh, thank you my dear friend.....it is certainly a pain in the ass. Doc has removed some of my best work!
DeleteThere needs to be a rule that the blog administrator should never remove any comments made between CC and Hercule. Not fair Doc. LOL.
ReplyDeleteBack to JonBenet, if possible. Some of us cling to theories even if refuted, although not completely. Ms D, and the scarf. And with me it's the mystery of the Stines. Even though they are most probably a non-factor. I'm also in hopes of hearing from EG again so EG, what do you think. I looked back over several lawsuits in which John was the defendant. One was Stephen Miles v. John Ramsey, National Enquirer, et al. In a deposition dated Oct. 20, 1998 was able to get a pretty good bio on John, what most of you already know. His educational background, service record and record of taking Prozac. But the interesting thing, other than John's rather blase tone, was when questioned who Patsy's close friends were he says they would be Pinky Barber, Barbara Fernie, Priscilla White, Roxy Walker - a resounding NO to Judith Phillips, but does not mention Susan Stine.
ReplyDeleteLater he says the Stines were not close friends. Then adds "believe it or not."
John also does not remember if the Stines were at his own Christmas party Dec. 23rd. How could that be? Was he up in the attic or down in the basement when the 911 call was made and did not know Susan Stine played a pivotal role in not allowing the police in? And that the party broke up soon after? In 1997 the Ramsey's lived with the Stines when they had a fully furnished condo in town they could have stayed in. And of course there's the incident of John not remembering whether or not he and JB went into the Stine house, last stop before home Dec. 25. He says Burke would have gone inside as he and Doug were close, but the Stines weren't friends of theirs, "believe it or not"? I don't believe it.
Again with the Stines? "Even though they are most probably a non-factor"?
DeleteI second Anon's and Zed's above motions, and propose Doc instead censor the boring.
I thought you were teaching a class today? Not so much?
ReplyDeleteI am. Multi tasking is not a problem. You bore me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI feel very sorry for you. You have managed to alienate most of the population in here, Hercule is just the latest target of your venom, maybe Zed just doesn't remember that it wasn't that long ago you were targeting him. No one has any freedom to express an opinion in here if it's contrary to your own, and simply deleting her comments Doc will not stop her harassing ways. Now she's making up a story that you would not have any credibility if it weren't for her. Pity, I have pity for you.
ReplyDeleteContribute an original thought. Say something meaningful. Deb does, Heather does, down under D does, as have I.
Delete“So when I see you so brazenly state that it was ALA, your PDI theory then lacks integrity alongside it. Just the way I see it.”
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts about ALA has nothing to do with my opinion of Patsy. Two separate, unique cases. I do have the advantage of knowing certain aspects of the Ramsey case. I have not, however, had that same luxury with the Zodiac case, but I do have common sense. If I felt there was a need to continue investigating that case, I am confident that I could garner plenty of support to review any of the documented evidence and case materials.
Zed, you cannot prove that Allen was NOT the Zodiac any more than you can prove that Burke WAS responsible for JonBenet’s death. By the same token, I could say that your “integrity” in regards to your Zodiac theories loses a lot of staunch due to your illogical views about the Ramsey case. That is JUST THE WAY I SEE IT.
Hercule
Drink the rest of the Chardonnay, Herky, and tell us all about your special triple secret information about JBR
Delete"I do have the advantage of knowing certain aspects of the Ramsey case."
DeleteSo you keep telling us, but, strangely enough, refuse to ever elaborate on when questioned. In fact, for someone with "inside information" on the case, you've never contributed anything to the discussion we've never heard before.....it's almost as though you only know as much as we do!
"Zed, you cannot prove that Allen was NOT the Zodiac any more than you can prove that Burke WAS responsible for JonBenet’s death. By the same token, I could say that your “integrity” in regards to your Zodiac theories loses a lot of staunch due to your illogical views about the Ramsey case."
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one, Hercule, and was chuckling at the irony of Zed's comment.
Huh? I can prove it wasn't Allen. 100%. DNA doesn't match. He looks nothing like the composites. He was way too big. And there is zero evidence against him. If that can't rule someone out then I don't know what does.
DeleteDoc, I thought that you and everyone else here might be interested in these findings. I compiled a list of words used in the ransom note and tallied the number of times John Ramsey used them in his book, “The Other Side of Suffering”.
ReplyDeleteFollow/Followed/Following - 26
Sense - 21
Authority/Authorities - 16
Percentages - 14
Serve/Served - 10
Harm - 8 times
Particular/Particularly - 7
Instruct/Instructed/Instructions - 7
Represent/Represented/Representatives - 6
Common - 5
Possessed/Possessions - 4
Advise/Advised - 4
Proper/Properly - 4
Arrange/Arrangement - 3
Individual/Individuals - 3
Deny - 3
Constant - 2
Scrutiny - 2
Adequate/Adequately - 2
Gumshoe, P.I.
Here are the same words plus a few additional words from “The Death of Innocence”:
ReplyDeleteFollow/Followed/Following - 102
Sense - 40
Authority/Authorities - 27
Percentages - 6
Serve/Served - 15
Harm - 4
Particular/Particularly - 37
Instruct/Instructed/Instructions - 7
Represent/Represented/Representatives - 33
Common - 10
Possessed/Possessions - 10
Advise/Advised - 8
Proper/Properly - 16
Arrange/Arrangement - 30
Individual/Individuals - 9
Deny - 1
Constant - 13
Scrutiny - 3
Adequate/Adequately - 3
Carefully - 20
Deviate - 1
Tampering - 1
Tactics - 2
Exhaust/Exhausted/Exhausting/Exhaustion - 8
Gumshoe, P.I.
Aside from the words "scrutiny", "deviate", "tampering" and "tactics", I imagine it would be difficult to write an entire book without using the other, more common, words listed. Were those four words used only when detailing the contents of the note? Did the Ramseys actually write the books credited to them, or were they really penned by ghost writers (which is usually the case)? You know I believe John Ramsey is guilty as hell, but I'm not sure this list means much.....most of these are very common words and the few that stand out may have only been used when quoting the words in the RN - context is everything.
DeleteActually no, I’m sorry I should have been more clear. Those numbers don’t include what was mentioned in the ransom note.
DeleteGumshoe, P.I.
The word that really jumps out is the variations of the word “proper”. That was not only a very unusual amount of uses, but the way it was used is highly suspicious. In a different book written by Paula Woodward, she quoted this sentence from John’s journal:
ReplyDelete“We stated during the interview that now that we had properly laid JonBenét to rest, we wanted to return to Boulder to help with the investigation.“
That isn’t the first time that John has used a variation of the word “proper”. As Doc has already pointed out, John stated in a televised interview: “...proper burial” when he was referring to the BPD denying JonBenet’s remains until the Ramseys agreed to be interviewed.
Other examples in “The Death of Innocence”:
“...repay you properly”
“...proper burial”
“...dressed properly for the funeral”
“...properly laid to rest”
“...proper relationship”
“...properly zoned”
“...properly pursued”
“...proper procedures”
“...hung up properly”
“...investigate the case properly”
“...that to do this properly”
“...it was the proper thing to do”
“...Pam dutifully and properly responded”
“...captured and properly punished”
“...improper and unethical”
“...improperly opened the box”
Gumshoe, P. I.
Yes, Gumshoe, I do think you are on to something. Thanks.
Delete