I apologize for the poor quality of the exemplar on the left, but that's the best I could do given the image posted at the Acandyrose website. Despite the blurring, the striking differences between the "R" on the left and the "R" on the right should be abundantly clear. The overhang on the "R" from the poster is an extension of the vertical line forming the leftmost part of the letter. It extends upward and then, in a curve, down to the left. The overhang on the "R" from the ransom note does not extend from the left vertical, but from the squiggly line to the right that forms the rightmost part of the letter. While both exhibit overhang, the manner in which the overhang is formed is completely different in the two examples. And when examined closely, many other differences are apparent. The two most certainly do not "closely match."
Next line: "The "D" in S1 has an extended stroke to the upper left in the word "Dear" which closely matches the "D" of "Don't" in line 62 of the QD." S1 is Patsy's letter to Miss Kit, written in longhand.
Talk about a stretch! Yes, both letter "d"s have an extended stroke to the left, but in every other respect are totally different. The fact that, for Wong, the two "closely match," tells us far more about her standards of comparison than anything else.
Many of the comparisons that follow are based on similarly dubious comparisons involving the cursive writing of the letter to Miss Kit or the stylized lettering of the "Ramsey Xmas" poster and the "Marilyn Monroe" badge, all radically different in style from either the note itself or from examples that could be drawn from more relevant materials of Patsy's, written in manuscript style like the note.
I don't have the time to continue with this degree of detail, but I believe my point has been made. Wong is clearly cherry picking whatever letter pairs she can find that seem to match in any respect at all, regardless of whether they actually look alike or were formed in a similar manner.
I've already commented, in an earlier post, on Wong's most egregious error:
*The left margin slowly pulls left ward towards the base of the page in Si and S2, which closely match the margins in the QDS1 is the letter to Miss Kit and S2 is a brief note, also written in longhand, to someone named "Bob." And yes, in both cases we see the left margin pull leftward as the document continues. Does this "closely match the margins of the QD"? Well, here's the first page -- see for yourself:
Sorry, but I don't see any margin drift on this page -- nor the other two either. I suspect Wong was working from a crooked xerox supplied to her and the others by Darnay Hoffman. Oh my!
Despite the serious issues raised above, making it clear that many if not most of Wong's comparisons are meaningless, these comparisons have been widely circulated on the Internet, convincing many that Patsy HAS to have been the one who wrote the ransom note -- no question. Why it's obvious, no? Well: NO! It's not obvious. What's obvious is her desire to please her client, Darnay Hoffman, who went to a considerable amount of trouble to convince the world that Patsy killed her daughter and wrote the phony ransom note.
I find it interesting that, in almost all cases, the "matches" found between Patsy's hand and the note are based on individual letters, which, of course, are especially easy to cherry pick. So let us at this point compare an entire document to a page of the note. Here is Patsy's version of the ransom note, penned at the request of the authorities, side by side with page one of the note itself:
Now let's compare John's writing with the same page of the note:
And by the way, with respect to the first comparison presented above, let's compare one of John's "Ramsey"s with the "Ramsey" from the ransom note:
What strikes one immediately is the strong match involving the last three letters of each. But look more closely at the initial "R"s. While the resemblance is less clear, the manner in which they are formed is the same: an isolated vertical line on the left, complemented by a single complex curve on the right, with the overhang extending from the right hand curve in both. Unlike the "R" Wong points to in the Ramsey poster, where the overhang extends from the left vertical.
In sum: To my eyes, Patsy's writing is completely different in style from that of the note. She writes clearly and consistently, while the note is rather messy, inconsistent and heavy handed by comparison. John's writing, on the other hand, looks much more like that of the note. Both tend to be messy and inconsistent and certain letters or words in both examples are crushed or distorted to the point of illegibility. This does not, in itself, tell us he wrote it. Any more than the differences with Patsy's hand tell us she could not have written it. But taken as a whole it seems clear that, contrary to popular opinion, the evidence points more strongly toward him than toward her. At the very least, the evidence makes the decision to rule him out highly questionable.
[Added at 4:10 PM:
One more point. From what we can see from the above comparisons, it becomes especially difficult for anyone to claim, as some have been claiming here recently, that Linda Hoffman Pugh wrote the note as part of an effort to frame Patsy for the murder of her daughter. As should be evident, there are too many differences between the exemplars attributed to Patsy and the ransom note, both in the details and the overall look, to see the note as an attempt to forge Patsy's hand. Linda would have had many opportunities to study Patsy's writing and, if she'd wanted to, she could have at least attempted to make the note resemble Patsy's style, but this is not the case. There is in fact no evidence whatever that Linda wrote it, or was involved in any way with JonBenet's murder. Interestingly, Linda claimed the note looked "just like" Patsy's writing, but there is in fact no real evidence to support her contention. And as we know, the unbiased document examiners enlisted by Boulder law enforcement considered it "unlikely" that she wrote it. For good reason.]
[I've been asked to compare the "Ramsey" from Patsy's pageant form with the "Ramsey" in the note. (Actually there are two in the form, but both are very similar, so I chose the first). Here they are:
Seems to me this is a better representation of how Patsy writes capital "R" than the exemplar found by Cina Wong, taken from a poster rather than a written text. In this case, the overhang on the R is an extension of the curves on the right, unlike the R in the poster. And by the way, my purpose in the comparisons above was not to compare representative examples of Patsy's hand so much as reveal the bias inherent in Wong's methodology. The two "R"s nevertheless still look very different, even though they were formed in a very roughly similar manner. The only similarity I see is with the "s"s, otherwise all the letters are clearly different.]
Docg ...can you take Patsy's "Ramsey" from the beauty pageant entry form and include it in your analysis above (for comparison purposes)?
ReplyDeleteHere's a link: http://blabbieville.tripod.com/
Thanks. Good suggestion. The comparison is now up.
DeleteOf course it was most likely Patsy who filled out the legal form above, for John (or to use as a template to then type out a filed court document from). Interesting also that Patsy was noted to have permanently changed her handwriting in letters to friends after her daughter's death. --Wyatt
DeleteNo, the writing on the legal form looks nothing remotely like anything Patsy ever wrote. And no, she did not change her handwriting. That's a myth perpetrated by Steve Thomas, based on his assumption that she stopped using manuscript "a" after the night of the murder. Yet there are several examples of manuscript "a" in samples she penned during the investigation. Thomas saw what he wanted to see and perpetrated a falsehood.
DeleteDocg, You say Patsy is neat and the note is messy ..not your exact words. It's obvious whoever wrote the note was trying to disguise their handwriting. Yes, John's normal handwriting looks sloppy and Patsy's is neat, I'll agree with that. I can't see (yet) where John's normal handwriting matches anything in the RN. On the other hand, I can see many similarities between the RN and PR's handwriting, such as the a's, u's, and in some of her exemplars I have seen her curve the tail on the y to the right (similar to the RN). Wish we had more of JR's handwriting to look at.
ReplyDeleteIs it not odd that Patsy wrote out the dollar figures when she was copying the RN for LE?
I've provided many more side by side comparisons in previous posts. See for example the post titled "Patsy's London Letter Revisited." http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-london-letter-revisited.html
DeleteIt's only when you systematically compare words to words, rather than individual letters, that your comparisons are meaningful. When comparing individual letters it's too easy to cherry pick. There are always going to be fortuitous resemblances on that level.
Patsy's writing out of those numbers tells me someone must have been dictating the note to her. If she'd been copying it from a text I see no reason why she wouldn't have used numerals.
It was my thought too that perhaps Patsy wrote out the dollar amount because the note was being dictated to her.
DeleteShe does use numerals when she writes "100 dollar bills", "20 dollar bills" and "I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow..."
Therefore, although she writes "one hundred eighteen thousand dollars" instead of "$118,000" she still does write the numbers 1,8 and 0 in her RN sample.
How can you say that JR's handwriting looks nothing like the note ? First off look at the mispelling of the double SS in both JR's sample and the RN. Coincidence ? I think not. Then look at the Mr and Mrs Ramsey, its identical. IMO if JR did indeed do this alone then he was initially trying to frame PR and that plan had to be aborted. I think he tried to copy PR's handwriting and possibly some of those missing pages out of the pad was PR's handwriting that he was tracing/copying. Him using/leaving PR's pad to write the note and not destroying it and then running and handing it over to LE would not be accidental, if he indeed wrote it.
ReplyDeleteKeiser I have a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say. First of all, I never said JR's handwriting looks nothing like the note. In my opinion it looks a lot like the note, especially as far as the overall style is concerned, but also certain details as well. What I said was that PR's style looks nothing like the note.
DeleteAnd where are you getting "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey"? I don't see that anywhere. Why do you think John was trying to frame PR? I don't see any evidence of that. And I don't see what he'd have had to gain by trying to frame Patsy.
Doc, I know that you did not say that, I was replying to anonymous above who said that he can not see anything in JR's normal handwriting that matches the note. Note the formations of Ws, Ms and the use of 2 different style Ys in both the RN and JR's sample writing.
DeleteDoc, I mispoke about Mr and Mrs Ramsey, I had the practice RN in my head. To me, the Mr Ramsey looks like completely different handwriting style than the rest of the note. As far as I can tell, if JR did do this alone then I believe, at the least, that he wanted LE to look at PR first before they looked at him. Possibly he traced some of her handwriting to make the RN ? He could have used some of PR's handwriting on those missing pages to trace and then disposed of them. There is no reason whatsoever that JR goes and grabs PR's pad that the RN was written on and hands it over to LE. It would be odd of him to use PR's pen and pad in the first place to write the note, with his sitting right there next to hers, unless he knew it would be traced back to PR and he had a plan in mind. If the same person who wrote it then hands it over to LE, then there is a reason for it. If JR had wrote it alone, he would have handed over every single handwriting example in that house first EXCEPT that pad, unless there was an alternative motive for doing so. Who knows, if JR did do it alone, possibly his motive was to frame PR and eliminate his wife and daughter. Due to circumstances, possibly himself being the main suspect early on, he may have had to change his plan and needed PR to get himself off the hook. It is not out of the realm of possibility and would not be the first time someone did this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYeah right, it looks very similar, some letters are exact and Ramsey looks exact. The mispelling glich of double SS in both the ransom note and JR's writing is a sure giveaway. What are the odds of that ? If someone told you that aliens killed JBR in detail, you would be here preaching it the next day. There was no intruder. Period. Common sense. If not common sense all you have to do is follow the Ramseys to this day, as they are still (NOT!) looking for the killer of their daughter. Turn on ID, cold case files and see how the parents of a killed child act polar opposite of the Ramseys.
DeleteInq, if you go to my post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence" you'll find a display in which exemplars from John's legal doc and the ransom note are intermixed. If you feel so sure his writing is totally unlike that in the note, you should be able to sort them out.
DeleteSorry Keiser, I assumed you were responding to my post. But no, I can't imagine that John wanted to make anything in the note look like Patsy wrote it. He was staging an intruder, period. I think he chose her notepad for one simple reason: it wasn't his. And I think he handed it over because at that point he really had no choice. He knew they'd be checking it over. Also he may not have realized the paper the note was written on could be traced to it.
DeleteAlso IMO there is a big difference in handwriting between the Mr and Mrs Ramsey and the rest of writing in the note,almost as if they forgot to forge the Mr and Mrs Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to the heading, which reads "Mr. Ramsey," you do have a point. Those letters do seem less distorted than those in the body of the note.
DeleteI don't want to be repetitive, but the only reason the author of the note is important for the JDI crowd is because it still allows them to continue to dismiss Patsy as having involvement. For me, the actual author of the note means little because there will never be proof that IF Patsy or IF John wrote the note that the other didn't help them write it. Not to mention the note seems to have similarities to both of them.
ReplyDelete-J
I don't think any handwriting analysis is ever going to determine who wrote that note. My point is that there is no basis for the commonly held claim that Patsy wrote it. And substantial basis for my claim that John should not have been ruled out. But I would never claim that on the basis of my own analysis of the handwriting I could prove either that Patsy could not have written it or that John did.
DeleteThe basis for my claim that John wrote the note is the logic of the case as a whole rather than anyone's attempt to analyze the writing, including my own.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHe bought the beer? Uh, what? You really are trying to create a narrative here aren't you?
DeleteHey, INQ! Welcome back.. Whew! Yes, it can be tiring..boring really..but, we must be strong..and be there for our brethren, if any that they have run off should return :)
Deletenope..not as far as I can see.. He had no examplers.. I know the DNA may not have any effect on him.. but it was poor investigating..Who knows what the future could bring
Please read my last addition to the above post. If someone were attempting to frame Patsy, the writing in the note would look much more like her style than it does. That should be clear from the evidence I've presented. And if Linda were not trying to forge Patsy's hand, then what would be the point of returning the pad to its original location?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the note was written on a pad from the house, then the only possible motive would have been to frame someone in the house. However, if that were the case, we'd see some effort on the part of the person who wrote it to make it resemble Patsy or John's writing, and in no uncertain terms. I think I've demonstrated that Patsy's style is very different, so I think we can rule out any effort by Linda to frame Patsy. John's style is closer for sure, but it's clear the note isn't a forgery and no one has ever even suggested it could be.
DeleteA note written in the hand of an intruder, even if it's disguised, becomes very hard to pin on a resident of the house. So I'm sorry but I see no evidence of a frameup.
There are many reason an intruder would have used the pad in the home..He didnt want anything that could be traced back to him.. Or, he didnt want to get caught with a RN in his pocket, or it was a crime of opportunity or he just rewrote the one he had.
DeleteWhy would he worry about being caught with a ransom note in his pocket, when he hadn't even yet committed a crime?
DeleteYou say there are "many reasons why he would have used a pad in their home", yet history tells us that ransom notes are *always* written in advance, well before entering their victim's home - for obvious reasons.
To say that he was afraid he would be caught with it "in his pocket" might be the single, most, ludicrous thing you've ever said.
If he "didn't want anything that could be traced back to him", why did he write a ransom note in the first place - leaving his handwriting as evidence - when he could have just as easily called the house and demanded the ransom money?
I don't have a problem with anyone subscribing to the IDI theory, but I've never heard such flimsy excuses from anyone else in the IDI camp. At the very least, can you apply some logic once in a while?
It's quite simple, Leigh.....a kidnapper doesn't leave the abductee in the house, and a pedophile doesn't leave a ransom note. That is true whether you agree or not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the point of entry issue. It's the motive for doing all that was done. NO intruder theory can account for all that was done. Period. And when we add John's obviously phony window breakin story, that settles it, as far as I'm concerned. No intruder theory is consistent with that.
DeleteInquisitive, have you been studying the same case that we have all this time ? You claiming that LE had tunnel vision and only focused on the Ramseys is a joke. Sure most of LE believed the Ramseys to be guilty but they kept all viable options and suspects open and did exactly what they were supposed to do just in case. Are you mistaking this case for a different one ? You need to go back and reread how many witnesses and possible suspects were interviewed, how much DNA was taken, how many trips were taken and how much money and time was spent with LE out on a wild goose chases. It set world records in many of these categories and yet you spread rubbish that no one was investigated. They were and it went nowhere, it went nowhere and goes nowhere to this day for the obvious reason.
DeleteYeah, they looked at other people but only haphazardly. Like LHP only writing 4 word exampler.. Not making a police sketch of the Ninja intruder... No DNA from Merve.. Blowing off Helgoth..
DeleteYour welcome :) I agree, I dont think he came in through the window.. It;s freaky, dont you think, on how many keys they handed out..I cant see myself ever doing that. Even ex employees still had keys..Well as they said, they had a false sense of security..Kind of a warning tho for us all.. dont take anyone's keys to their houses..
ReplyDeletebtw, if you get a rabbit ears for they TV, get one that plugs in.. they are more powerful and get much better reception..But that was a while ago so maybe new technology has improved them..
How does it fit John writing the ransom note when he(per Bonita papers)handed both note pads over to the cops and told them which one belonged to him and which one belonged to Patsy and told them they contained samples of their handwriting?
ReplyDeleteABC news running this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jonbenet-ramsey-mystery-documentary-puts-spotlight-patsy-ramsey/story?id=43298788
what I've been saying!
and CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/entertainment/who-killed-jonbenet-movie-review/index.html
GS
Well, well, well. Will wonders never cease. Now they are fingering Patsy, of all people. (Is there an emoticon for sarcasm?)
DeletePatsy dunnit is as old as the hills, and much of it centers on those alleged similarities between her writing and the note. Which is the focus of my last two posts, in case you haven't noticed. Cina Wong is probably the one person most responsible for that myth, and as I believe I've demonstrated many if not all of the "matches" she found are either huge stretches or obvious cherry picking. Patsy's writing does NOT resemble that in the note. other than the sort of similarities you'd expect to find between the writings of any two people using "manuscript" style. The only reason Patsy became the leading suspect, instead of John, was the fact that John was ruled out and she wasn't.
From the ABC article:
Delete“Patsy practiced a lot,” one of Ramsey’s friends, and defenders, Linda McLean, told Lifetime. “She worked on her characters and her vocalizations and her accents and all of the different things to create the characters.”
In the first instance, ABC maligns Linda McClean as a defender of Patsy by taking a statement she (Linda) made entirely out of context and using it against her (and Patsy). "Characters" and "accents" and "vocalizations" on stage have nothing to do with "characters" and "accents" and "vocalizations" found in ransome notes. ABC misleads by exploiting double meanings in at least two of these three terms. At the least, this is irresponsible journalism that needs to be called out no matter who you believe wrote the ransome note.
"Still, there's no confusion about why JonBenet Ramsey has made a comeback. And in this latest iteration, there's also nothing pretty about it." CNN
I find hard to believe that the only reason for the "comeback" is several separate members of the media (CNN, Lifetime, CBS, Dr. Phil, et.al.) recognizing and taking advantage of, seemingly all at the same time, 2016 marking the 20th anniversary of the murder. But I have no evidence to support any other reason for it. Does anyone else out there? Doc?
Sorry again...the comment above was mine.
DeleteMike G
The anniversary, yes, that's one reason. Another is the success of "Making a Murderer" and some other true crime shows. This too will pass. But for me the highlight of this whole period will be Lin Wood's lawsuit. I really hope that one goes to court. We'll be learning more about the case from that than all the TV specials put together.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe right-hand sample looks quite different from other samples I have seen of PR's writing.
ReplyDeleteHer other samples seem to slant to the right whereas this one is fairly vertical. Still, I think the differences could be attributed to writing the sample with a Sharpie rather than a pen.
I think my own writing gets more vertical with a thicker marker.
It's unusual the way PR breaks into capitalisations of words, like "BAG" and "TOMORROW", and parts of words, like "ATTACHe". If it was a quirk of her writing style I would expect to see it in other samples, but don't.
It seems an odd habit anyway for a journalism graduate. Capitals just slow your writing down. It makes me wonder if it was a deliberate technique in that particular sample rather than an unconscious habit.
The way PR writes "q" in "adequate" seems unusual. I couldn't work how it was formed until I looked at a couple of her other samples that contained "q"s. It bugs me that it is so similar to the "q" in the ransom note. I know, I know - cherry-picking by me at its finest!
Just a few little oddities that bother me; nothing that I could place much weight on if I was a juror. I agree that handwriting analysis seems fraught with problems and don't see how it could stand up in court.
AMD
It likely could not stand up in a US court. Handwriting analysis has, largely, been found not to pass something called the Frye Test for admissible scientific evidence, though there have been exceptions. In the Ramsey Case the "experts" for the prosecution would be contradicted by "experts" for the defense, the judge would find the whole business therefore has no probative value, and would likely throw it out altogether.
DeleteCC
Should have said: "In the Ramsey case, IF ALLOWED UNDER FRYE. . . "
DeleteSorry, shouldn't post before coffee.
CC
Yes, there are inconsistencies in Patsy's handwriting from one sample to the next. I don't see any deception in that, as it's hard to see how such inconsistencies would have helped her case. I've noticed that my handwriting changes also, depending on how rushed I am or how careful I need to be in making sure that what I've written is going to be legible or my level of anxiety.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi! My name is Mark. I'm Australian. Prior to this case I'd never in my life seen anyway write the letter "a" in the way that it's written in the note (I have read that this is called "manuscript style"?)... Question: Is this an American thing? Do other people write it this way? The fact that Patsy is known to have written "a" like this seems deeply troubling. But perhaps in the USA this is a common handwriting style? Please, enlighten this poor baffled Aussie! Thanks - Mark.
ReplyDeleteI'm Aussie too and it really stood out to me as well. I only know one person personally who writes like that but she's my elderly aunt who likes calligraphy - so not your typical writer. I thought it might be just a US thing too so I'll be interested in the replies.
DeleteAMD
Very interesting. I too am Australian, and I have written my "a"s in manuscript style since I was in my mid teens, when I stopped writing in cursive and began writing exclusively in print form. A teacher of mine wrote her "a"s like this, I liked the way it looked, so decided to do it myself, and have done ever since. Strangely enough, after coming across an old diary I kept at age 22, I realized I now do my "y"s, "g"s and "e"s entirely differently......I used to write my "e"s like the number "3" in reverse. I don't know when or why I changed my writing style.....
DeleteMany if not most of the a's in the note were originally written in cursive, with the little "hat" on the a added later. Patsy's writing mixes both forms. The sample we have from John uses only cursive.
DeleteSome of the letters look like computer font letters. If someone wanted to disguise handwriting then they might mimic computer fonts. The ransom note letters vary throughout though, so maybe the letters that don't fit computer font are closer to writer's true handwriting style. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courier_(typeface)
DeleteOk thanks - it's interesting that two Australian posters have seen "a" written this way. However would it be fair to say that in the USA, this is still a *very* unusual way for someone to hand-write their letter "a"? I know that AMD knows (a single) person who writes it like that, and Ms D writes it like that, but I sort of have to go back to my common sense and say that in my entire 48 years on this planet I have never seen it written that way (in handwriting) myself, outside the ransom note... and I suppose that anecdotal experience must count for something. So going back to my question - is the handwritten "manuscript" style "a" more common the USA? Is this a garden variety American writing style? Because otherwise I would think that it strongly implies that either Patsy wrote the note, or that someone who knew that Patsy wrote her "a"'s in "manuscript style" was trying to frame her. Yes I have heard the theory that the note is a trace of a computer printout, and that the hats on the "a" in the note were added later. On some examples in the letter it does appear that way. Perhaps the hats on the "a"'s were added to frame Patsy? In an internet search I saw that examples of John Mark Karr's handwriting also show use of "manuscript a" - and this was supposedly well before his interest in the JBR case and subsequent false confession. So - this style of "a" is common the USA? I never had any idea! Learn something knew every day. Thanks for your replies. - Mark.
DeletePurely for interest: John Mark Karr's handwriting prior to 1996 certainly looks remarkably like the ransom note! I had never seen this before! Check this out: http://leisussurra.cf/karrwriting.html (- Mark.)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt honestly does, I thought the same thing as soon as I came across it.
DeleteBut, as we know John Mark Karr wasn't even in Boulder at the time, which further proves that handwriting analysis doesn't really mean much.....
I see no resemblance whatsoever between Karr's hand and that of the note. I'm surprised that anyone would. Just goes to show how difficult it is to match handwriting styles.
DeleteAs for the possibility of the note writer imitating the Courier font, see my post titled "Courier New," at http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html
Off topic to DNA: I just read three DNA reports and here is the link for anyone interested.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.9news.com/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/decoding-the-dna-reports-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/347217323
I'm from the U.S. and have been in the business world for more than 30 years, and in my experience writing "a" in manuscript style is not common. It perplexes me too, that the RN and Patsy have this similarity. It appears, in the RN, the writer had some difficulty writing the manuscript "a", and in some cases added the left hook at the top as a separate stroke (to make a regular "a" look like a manuscript a). We know the writer was attempting to disguise his/her handwriting -- Patsy would have had no trouble writing the manuscript "a" (unless maybe with her opposite hand), and if John wrote the RN and was disguising his handwriting, would he not know that Patsy wrote that way? The other thing about John's handwriting, with the small sampling that we have, he used capital letters within words that should have been lowercase -- there at least 10 examples of this in his sample above. If an IDI then he/she would have had a pretty good sample of Patsy's handwriting since they used her pad to write the RN. If JDI, then maybe he used Patsy's handwriting on the pad to forge the RN, thinking there's no way they could say she wrote it since he wrote it. So many possibilities!
ReplyDeleteSorry I didn't see this reply below the original thread. Thanks for your observation! Yes the idea that the a's were written to imitate Patsy's handwriting seems plausible since it seems to me that her manner of writing "a" is the single most distinctive feature of her non-cursive handwriting - Mark.
DeleteIt's always bothered me also, that the "hats" were added on to the "a"s later. Of course, this is further evidence Patsy didn't write it, and - for a multitude or reasons - I don't believe anyone was trying to frame her either, so it is a problem for me.
DeleteJohn would have had no reason to frame Patsy. He was staging an intruder, pure and simple.
DeleteI've been trying to formulate my theory for awhile, mainly from hearing everyone's views on this blog and reading up on some of the evidence and scenario. I agree with Doc that we have to follow logic. I think BDI (with JR cover up) and JDI are equally plausible and logically conclusions, I am firmly in the BDI camp with JR having completed the staging to cover for BR. My logic is outlined below. Though Doc's theory about JDI is completely logical, one piece of evidence (see below, flashlight) has convinced me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Doc about the RN - it was written by JR and was meant to give him time (don't call the police) and means (reason to be going out of the house with an attache) to get rid of the body. I also agree that PR calling 911 was not in JR's plan and he likely did not have time at that point to stage a real intrusion (forced entry, unlocked door, sign of a struggle, etc.) since the whole point was to have the body/crime to be out of the house. PR calling 911 rules her out as being involved.
I do actually believe that JR had broken the window before to get in the house and tried to hang his hat on that being the intruder point since he had no time to create another option. I think he hoped no one would remember that it had been broken before so that it would be evidence of an intruder. However, he likely waffled about whether the window was broken before or not in case the housekeepers or anyone else remembered that it had been broken before.
If JR had completed the staging because BR had hit her over the head and rendered her almost dead (in order to protect him) logic says he would tell his wife. Wake her up after he finished and say PR, BR hit her and she died, we have to protect him, so I staged a crime and will have to get the body out of the house later.
He probably didn't do this because he didn't want his wife to have to see his daughter's dead body, particularly with the strangulation staging and most importantly, likely knew she wouldn't agree to allow him to dump her body in the woods. I think he planned to tell her everything, once the body was removed.
For those of you that wonder why the staging would be so brutal and over the top (garroting, strangulation, penetration with the paint brush) and how a parent could ever do that - that is exactly WHY JR made it so brutal. The more brutal, the less suspicion would be cast on anyone in the family. JBR was a beauty queen, so making it some sort of sex crime/kidnapping gone wrong would make pinning suspicion on an intruder all the more plausible. (cont'd below)
Jmo, but the murder of JBR was brutal and horrific because the adult murderer has a sick mind/fetish and is a sick person that had sexually abused JBR, a child in her short life. Everything was meant to cover up something more sinister that happened to the girl prior to her murder. If a parent was covering for a child, then further violation to the child makes no sense. There is no reason to do over the top staging unless the murderer was trying to deflect and hide something worse that happened to JonBenet while she was alive, child abuse. Maybe the murderer had a fetish with asphyxiation or rendered JBR unconscious because he/she could abuse her while unconscious. Why stage something to make it far worse than an innocent accident and draw more attention to it? To cover up something much worse that happened to JBR while she was alive.
DeleteI meant if a parent were covering for a child who accidentally killed another child, then further violation makes no sense. I also don't see parents cover/staging to hide "children playing doctor". But I do think an adult would stage over the top brutality to hide pedophilia.
DeleteWake her up after he finished and say:
Delete"PR, BR hit her and she died, we have to protect him, so I staged a crime and will have to get the body out of the house later."
Patsty: 'Fine, John, but's it two o'clock in the middle of the night. Can we discuss this in the morning? '
"I think JR didn't expect PR to wake up so early and see the RN (and thus call 911) without him being there. I think he hoped she would find it and bring it to him (or expect her to read all of it and be scared to call police) or even JR find it first so he could convince her not to call the police. I think many say, why would he take that chance? Well he likely thought, PR wouldn't risk JBR's life by calling given the threats in the note. He just didn't calculate that she wouldn't read it thru or ignore the warnings."
So just to be sure Patsy didn't read the ransome letter
"without him being there", he left it out in plain sight at the bottom of the set of stairs Patsy routinely descended every morning to start her day.
Hmmm....okay....so let's go with plan B.
5:00 A.M. Patsy wakes up, goes downstairs, makes coffee, pours herself a cup, and sits down at the kitchen table, and begins to think of things to do before she and the family leave for the airport that morning. Five minutes later, John makes his entrance.
Patsy: Good morning, John. What time does our plane leave?
John: Not so fast there Patsy. Burke killed your daughter last night and I staged a scene making it look like it was a kidnapper who wrote this ransome note. (Hands letter to Patsy. She reads it).
Patsy: Okay John, give me time to procees this while you take a shower.
John: Okay, but whatever you do, don't call the police! And don't go looking for JB; I made her look like her intruder was so depraved and sadistic, I've been throwing up all morning. No need for you to go through that. Let Burke sleep in....
Patsy: Okay Dear.(John goes upstairs to take his shower.
Patsy calls 911. Ten minutes later John reappears.)
Patsy: I called the police John and told them our daughter was missing and that it was a kidnapper.
John: Why did you do that?
Patsy: Because the police couldn't possibly believe people as educated and influential as we are would do something so stupid. I mean what kidnapper in their right mind would kill his hostage instead of kidnapping them, then leave behind a ransome note filled with details only someone close to us would know?
John: Someone like me for instance....?
Patsy: Oh John, don't be silly. I know you didn't this.
John: Okay, I just wanted to se sure. Okay. what's done is done. Here's what we do when the police get here....
Mike G.
Hi Mike, no need for the sarcasm. I was merely trying to outline my theory. I don't really think you understood what I was trying to get across and you made some big leaps in logic and assumptions based on my comments that I don't think is what happened. Happy to hear your theory, just don't think the sarcasm was necessary. Everyone wants to solve this. I took the time to write a well though out comment on my theory. Everyone on this blog needs to learn a bit about tact and respect when responding to people they don't agree with. Thanks, E
DeleteAnd - I specifically noted JR wouldn't tell her it was him covering for BR until after the body was out of the house - not that next morning. Once the body was dumped, he could fill her in that the RN was not an intruder but him covering for Burke.
DeleteSo if that was John's plan, you have to believe Burke made the garrot and strangled his sister to make sure she was dead. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of "staging" a body no one would ever see? Why not bury the panties along with the body instead of throwing them in the hamper? Such acute "contingency staging", if you persist in clinging to that theory, doesn't fit the profile of someone careless enough to allow Patsy to read AND react to a ransome note "without him being there". No doubt, as it turned out, John carelessly lost control of Patsy anyway, but not the "caring about Patsy seeing JB's dead body" John you describe.
DeleteAnon 9.28 PM - there's so many using the Anonymous moniker at present, maybe you can sign out at the bottom of your comment so we know who we're responding to? :)
Delete"Why go to the trouble of "staging" a body no one would ever see? Why not bury the panties along with the body instead of throwing them in the hamper?"
John orchestrated the staging *after* Patsy made the 911 call, probably in the ninety minutes he went AWOL. In his original plan, no one was going to see JonBenet's body - at least probably not until it had decomposed to some extent after being exposed to the elements, ideally. There was no need for any kind of staging (other than the note to fool Patsy) prior to that. I believe his plan was to bury her panties (and any other incriminating evidence) along with her body, but when Patsy foiled his plans, he had to improvise - and he had to do it fast - therefore the end result wasn't ideal but his options were limited by that point. (Though plan B. worked for him anyway. Not because his plan was foolproof, but rather due to the lax treatment of the crime scene by LE. John got lucky, pure and simple)
I think JR didn't expect PR to wake up so early and see the RN (and thus call 911) without him being there. I think he hoped she would find it and bring it to him (or expect her to read all of it and be scared to call police) or even JR find it first so he could convince her not to call the police. I think many say, why would he take that chance? Well he likely thought, PR wouldn't risk JBR's life by calling given the threats in the note. He just didn't calculate that she wouldn't read it thru or ignore the warnings.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason PR acts much more suspicious and all over the place in her interviews with the police than JR is because JR coached PR on what to say that occurred that night. JR, however, was slightly more comfortable, because it was actually his scenario and it was easier for him to follow and stick to.
As the youngest of three kids, I know very well that kids sometimes don't realize what they are doing when they are playing around or even upset. I've gotten hurt before because my brother was too rough with me while playing (rubber band flung into my eye), and in turn, I remember smacking my sister with a tennis racket because I was mad at her (whoops). BR hitting JR on the head with a huge maglite by mistake or because he was mad makes sense to me (see golf club incident). The maglite was available because we know he snuck downstairs to fix his toy and he probably used it to do exactly that, "sneak". The re-creation of the maglite fitting the head wound is enough for me to know that that was the object that caused the blunt trauma.
Maglite being wiped of prints is the linchpin for me for why BDI over JDI. If JR did it, he has no reason to wipe down an object that is in his house that would have been normal to have his prints on. He's the man in the house, no one would question why the dad has prints on a maglite in his house.
Finding a huge flashlight in the open the night after a 'nighttime' murder is committed would lead anyone to believe that perhaps that light was used that night to get around a dark house. That a dead body was also found with blunt trauma on the head, may also suggest that it was used as a weapon during the crime.
However, BR's prints on that flashlight would automatically throw suspicion on why a 9 year old was using the maglite. JR could have been worried that this would point to the fact that BR was up that night after everyone was asleep, near the time when the crime was committed. He could also have worried that the police could determine that the flashlight caused the head wound, which would automatically pin BR as the one who executed the head wound.
So for me, BR hit his sister by mistake on the head with the maglite, after sneaking downstairs to finish his toy/eat pineapple, whatever. JBR was either never in bed like they claimed or had come downstairs after waking up. They both could have decided to search for presents in the basement or play. Once he knocked her out and she didn't move, BR either went to his father for help or JR came down to check on him. JR sent him to bed, and thinking JBR was dead, began work on the staging. Thanks, E
The "a" in the ransom note looks like the top (manuscript style) was added as an afterthought, the same with the "t" lower swoosh. If you look at the "t" it varies throughout the note and also "W" and "g" look a bit forced/awkward. I can see some similarity between the ransom note and JR writing with the word "account" and letters sequence "not" like in the words "not" and notified, also the l's. However, the ransom note letters vary throughout note
ReplyDeleteEdit to add: also, the "f" starts to vary throughout the note and my guess is the first "f" is closer to person's handwriting and variance afterwards was an afterthought to distinguish. Some of the letters look exaggerated further into the note.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou're giving the Pughs too much credit. They certainly weren't criminal masterminds, and the Ramsey's lies, deception, and misdirection's wouldn't have transpired if they were innocent. Look at families of innocent families of homicide victims. The difference between the Ramsey's is like night and day.
DeleteNo, they weren't criminal masterminds. Neither were the Ramseys.
DeleteInquisitive, how is it that the Pughs never left one iota of physical evidence at the crime scene - not even so much as a hair?
DeleteDoc - for your enjoyment: "A 2000 analysis of reverse speech by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry explained it (hearing messages when a tape is played backwards) this way:
ReplyDeleteAfter such string of nonsense syllables were arranged, they were played for subjects at barely audible volume levels. After repeatedly listening to these sounds, subjects reported hearing the phonograph or the tape 'say' things. These sentences, or sentence fragments, did not actually exist, and, as such were considered to be utterances that were already strong in the subject's repertoire. Put another way, they were "projecting" their own thoughts onto the sounds they were hearing."
(Huffington Post, 5/9/2014).
But oh how excited I was to hear "turn me on dead man" on the last track Revolution Number 9, when played backwards! Not because I wanted to believe Paul was dead, but because I just wanted to know if I could hear it too! A parallel perhaps?
" I am the eggman, I am the eggman, I am the Walrus...kukoo kachew ka kukoo ka choo......kukoo ka choo ka kukoo ka choo...." (everybody smokes pot, smokes pot, smokes pot....everybody smokes pot, smokes pot, smokes pot)
DeleteMike G
The public schools had a style of handwriting that was taught that did not include making an "a" in manuscript style. I did know of one girl who made "a" that way, and the letter began with the hook, then came down to form a regular "a".
ReplyDeleteI agree, forming the a that way is unusual.
GS
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd so, we can't prove who wrote the RN by analyzing it. JR wrote it in such a way as to obfuscate his own handwriting. So, why would it match his own? Regardless, it matches Johns way more than Patsys. Even if it was the opposite, it doesn't matter imo.
ReplyDeleteThinking that Patsy is involved and proving that by trying to link the RN's creation to her seems desperate. Ruling her out in the same way is also desperate. But, I don't see anyone using the handwriting argument to rule Patsy out. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of JDI.
Help me, I'm confused. I can't tell when you're being sarcastic and when you're being serious. What is "the handwriting argument"? Whatever it is, are you saying it isn't being fairly and consistently applied? Or, by it not mattering "in the grand scheme of JDI" would you have JDIers take your word for it on go on believing that way?
DeleteI just added confusion to the confusion by leaving out a word of my own. The last sentence should read:
Delete"Or by it not mattering "in the grand scheme of JDI" would you have JDIers take your word for it and go on believing JDI?"
Mike G.
DocG:
ReplyDeleteSorry to change the subject, but when the handwriting topic runs it course, I throw this one out here as a suggestion for a future one. I'm inclined to believe that "telephone crosstalk" has already been considered and rejected as a viable explanation for the sounds heard after Pasty finished speaking with the 911 operator. If not, perhaps it should be. I got my defintion of crosstalk from the link below.
"Crosstalk is a type of interference. Interference can come from just about anywhere - e.g. RF interference from all sorts of things emitting radio waves (including, but not limited to, radio transmitters). Interference can also come from coupling from other devices. In the case of a phone system, this could be hearing humming from a power line or music from the local AM radio station on the phone line. Generally crosstalk refers to interference from an 'adjacent' signal - be it in a wire, radio channel, etc - leaking into the 'victim' signal. In the case of a phone system, this could be in the form of being able to hear your neighbor's phone calls on your line because the two lines are routed next to each other on the telephone pole."
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/141271/crosstalk-vs-interference
Mike G.
Doc:
ReplyDeleteSorry to change the subject, but maybe the handwriting issue has run its course. The sounds heard over the phone after the 911 call ended, could they have been telephone crossstalk?
"Crosstalk is a type of interference. Interference can come from just about anywhere - e.g. RF interference from all sorts of things emitting radio waves (including, but not limited to, radio transmitters). Interference can also come from coupling from other devices. In the case of a phone system, this could be hearing humming from a power line or music from the local AM radio station on the phone line. Generally crosstalk refers to interference from an 'adjacent' signal - be it in a wire, radio channel, etc - leaking into the 'victim' signal. In the case of a phone system, this could be in the form of being able to hear your neighbor's phone calls on your line because the two lines are routed next to each other on the telephone pole."
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/141271/crosstalk-vs-interference
Mike G.
Yes, Mike. I believe I drew on that same source myself a while back. What's heard after the 911 hangup could certainly be crosstalk.
DeleteSomeone mentioned above that JB's (I'm assuming original)panties were thrown in the hamper (Anon, 11/5, 9:28). This is the first I have heard of that. Does anyone have a source for that statement?
ReplyDeleteThere's no evidence of that. It's just a theory I floated to explain why she was changed into an oversize pair of panties.
DeleteForget Burke's voice being heard or not heard. What was important for me is that IF Patsy is heard speaking and its not in a hysterical tone, then hook, line and sinker.
ReplyDelete-J
"Help me Jesus" not hysterical enough for you?
DeleteI watched the Lifetime Movie last night, and the documentary on Patsy afterward. Thought I was pretty familiar with this case, so was shocked to hear that "JonBenet was sodomized with a foreign object"! Do not remember hearing or seeing that in print before. About dropped my teeth. How about a source for that?
ReplyDeleteGS
There were a few errors in the shows (at least based on the evidence that has been publicized). The Autopsy Report clearly states there was no disturbance to JB's rectal area. They also said (in the show) that Patsy's side of the bed was still made up, meaning she was up all night, but the pictures they showed were not the actual evidence photos. I thought the shows were NOT very well done, and I wouldn't give much credence to anything that was said in either of them. Just my opinion.
DeleteDanni
The statement is made by forensic pathologist Mark Taff, in the second program, at about 41:20. The movies are up at the Lifetime site this morning. You may be able to log in and view this through your service provider, if it is one listed, for free.
ReplyDeleteHe says based on the autopsy report, it appears that....
I can't believe that the producers allowed that in, since I have never heard any other commentator use the word "sodomize".
Possible, I suppose, if the perp was randomly stabbing with the paint brush handle.
Otherwise, I thought the main movie fairly well followed the timeline and events mentioned in The Bonita Papers.
My first thought was that if she was deliberately sodomized, that it might be related the so-called scatological problems observed in JonBenet's room.
GS
The word "sodomized" can mean different things. There's no evidence of any rectal disturbance, according to the autopsy. Nor is there any evidence she was assaulted with the paintbrush handle. "Birefringent material" from the handle was found in her vagina -- most likely transferred via her assaulter's finger.
DeleteFrom the photos I've seen it's not at all clear that Patsy's side of the bed was still made. If it were that obvious, it would have been trumpeted to the heavens by Steve Thomas. Yet I couldn't find a single reference to that in his book.
I've read too, on other sites, that Patsy's side of the bed was still made. I can't quite understand where anyone got this information though. In JR's 1997 interview, he says:
DeleteJR: The alarm is a clock radio which is on my side of the bed, which is the north side, left as you face the bed.
http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm
If you google an image of the Ramsey's bed, if anything, it appears that JR's side was still made. Although, I still wouldn't put much stock into this, as the picture doesn't show the bed closely enough, to determine that the left side of the bed was totally undisturbed. I'm also not sure what JR means by the "north side."
OK, technically it can mean different things, but it has come to mean pretty much one thing. He did say "foreign object".
ReplyDeleteBrainstorming, if not the bedwetting, maybe poop was what really pushed Patsy over the edge that night?
That note is directed at John. "Its all on you now, John" (you never have to deal with this stuff, do you?)
GS
"Yes, Mike. I believe I drew on that same source myself a while back. What's heard after the 911 hangup could certainly be crosstalk."
ReplyDelete---Doc
To the attorney's out there:
Regarding this "crosstalk" phenomenon, in the hands a sharp prosecutor, could it be used to convince a judge to rule inadmissible as evidence, the sounds heard after Patsy's call to 911? There's so many differences of opinion as to what's heard and what's not, if you add in the possibility of "crosstalk", couldn't it be used to prejudice a jury?
Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
"The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
Mike G.
Yeah, a competent judge would probably toss it.
DeleteOn the other hand, let's suppose Burke actually DID say "what did you find?". Seems to me that if he already knew what happened, according to the theory of the CBS investigation team, he would not have had any reason to ask such a question. So that could be considered evidence he was innocent, no?
DeleteTrue. But the BDIers here have been arguing Burke was put to bed unaware of how serious the injuries he inflicted on his sister were. Which raises another interesting question I've been meanig to ask you.
DeleteIf John went to trial, BDI might be a better alterative theory defense than an IDI theory. Yet by Wood representing both John and Burke, he strips himself of possibly his greatest weapon. Do you agree? If not, why? If you do agree, of the following possibilities, which one would you predict?
1) John's position with respect to Burke is "united we stand, united we fall". He insists Wood stay on as his attorney and deploy only an IDI defense.
2) Wood stays on with John, but drops Burke as a client. This leaves open the option which, if deployed, by all appearances effectively throws Burke under the bus.
3) Wood retains Burke as a client and tells John he will no longer represent him.
4) Wood drops both Burke and John as clients.
5) Some other possibility I'm missing?
Mike G.
Mike G., I *believe* that the complaint filed against Spitz was technically filed by attorney, John Lesko. Lin Wood's name is also listed on the complaint, however.
DeleteMaybe CC can explain the reason for this.
What I meant is that maybe Burke is technically represented by another attorney?
DeleteThere is no way John would attempt to implicate Burke. For one thing, it wouldn't be credible unless Burke confessed. For another, it would expose him as a liar, responsible for inflicting all sorts of harm on the many people who've been investigated as suspects and, of course, all the investigative resources that have been devoted to this case over the years.
DeleteJohn's only possible defense is the intruder theory, which he would stick to regardless of how absurd it is. And Lin Wood is not a criminal lawyer, so if he were indicted, Wood would most likely not be defending him in any case.
Was the suit filed in Michigan, where the cause of action arose? If so, Wood may not be admitted to the bar in that state and so have hired local counsel.
DeleteCC
CC,
DeleteYes the suit was filed in Michigan in the 3rd Circuit Court in Wayne County. You can read the full complaint here: https://www.scribd.com/document/326687568/Burke-Ramsey-vs-Werner-Spitz
Katie