Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Jonbenet Ramsey Note Part One

Having raised the issue of the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey, I referenced the ransom note.  
I recognize 
that not all readers are familiar with the case, or the note.  

Statement Analysis of the note shows that it was not a genuine ransom note, but a deception intended to cause investigators to believe that kidnapping was the motive.  

Over the years, much analysis has been done on it, with Patsy Ramsey as the author.  I include it here, now, not for analysis, but for discussion.  

1.  In the note, what do you see that links it to Patsy Ramsey?
2.  Regarding profiling, what can you tell us about the author?
3.  Is there language that is specifically female?
4.  What do you find about the education level of the author?
5.  Any particular phrases jump out at you?
6.  What do you make of the length?  What does length indicate in analysis?
7.  Do "Foreigners" refer to themselves as "foreigners"?
8.  I have highlighted a few phrases as noteworthy.  Please touch on some of them for 

Please limit your comments to the ransom note.  Next will be what you think happened to 
Jonbenet, and why.  Stay within principle and reason.  There was one silly book published that was void of principle, and was not Statement Analysis.  It simply was a book that said, "this
means that" without principle to apply to anything.  Without a foundation, there can be no 
scientific process; that is, one that can be applied repeatedly, with similar results. 

Having said that, it is true that language does come from somewhere; not a void.  Even lies are 
of great value, as words chosen, even during deception, have an origin.  What does not come
from experiential memory may come from memory:  memory of a movie, memory of a book,
story told, and so on.  This is why it is so difficult to make up a complete lie, and why, even 
in training investigators, it is so challenging that I end up giving the "liar" a script to follow,
lest the exercise be tainted as the subject will begin to work from childhood memories. 

We will look at the note's language, and then discuss the case in more depth.  

The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey taught the nation just how a "missing" child case can be
left unadjudicated when high priced defense attorneys are summoned to halt the march to 

Once, a defense attorney sought to protect his client from malicious prosecution, while seeking
to learn the truth. 
Today,  it is win at all costs and those with guilt who have money, can hire attorneys that will
frighten off prosecutors.  Today's cases echo this weakness. 

                            Ramsey Ranson Note 

1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure 
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The 
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we 
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier 
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate 
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter 
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. 
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you 
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% 
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. 
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the 
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. 
34. It is up to you now John!
35.      Victory!
36.      S.B.T.C"


Anonymous said...

My comments:

1. The note was written by a native speaker.
As an non-native English speaker myself, I am pretty positive that this note was written by a native speaker. There are expressions in the letter that would be very difficult to come up with for someone who just learned English in school.

Words and terms as "in our possession", "unharmed", "remaining", "delivery", "exhausting", "hence", "deviation", "beheaded", "tampered", "scrutiny" are not be words that a non-native speaker will normally write, as there are 'easier' alternatives: like "we have your daughter", " not harmed", " the rest of the money", "how to bring the money", "you will get very tired", "if you don't follow my instructions" etc.

There are also some rare expressions that a non-native speaker would not normally use, like 'don't try to grow a brain', 'fat cat' and 'good southern common sense'.

Even so, misspelled words as: "posession", "bussiness" and "out smart" stand out as errors, even for a non-native speaker.

2. The note was not written by a foreign faction.
If this were really a ransom note from a foreign faction, they would hardly call themselves 'small' if they wanted to be taken seriously. Let alone call themselves ' foreign'. Also 'foreign faction' would suppose that there is some sort of idealistic, activist or terrorist motive. "We respect your business, but not the country that it serves' makes no sense whatsoever for an activist group. Real activists would also talk more extensively about their goals and ideals, even in a ransom letter like this.

3. The note was not written by serious kidnappers. The cost-benefit of this operation is simply too small. There's only 118.000 dollars to be gained (to be divided by at least three persons), while this sort of crime (kidnapping and/or killing) has a lot of risk for the criminals. They could get killed or arrested and serve long jail-sentences. Plus it's an extensive operation: Preparations (assembling a team, targeting and staking out a family), the kidnapping itself without being caught, two people watching over the daughter for a period of time, the monitoring of the delivery process, the constant scrutiny of the family and authorities: these costs alone would soon run over 100.000 dollars.

4. The note was written by someone born, raised or living in the South part of the United States.
Who else would use the expression "good southern common sense'?

5. The note was written by someone who knows Mr. Ramsey's first name is John, knows that Mr. Ramsey was born, raised or living in the South part of the United States, has a fairly detailed knowledge of the financial situation of Mr. Ramsey, knows Mr. Ramsey's business and assumes Mr. Ramsey has a attache suitcase and a brown paper bag at home.

Other words that stand out:
'safe': the situation of the daughter can hardly be called 'safe' in relation to the threats issued in the third paragraph.
'gentlemen' : who would call criminals ready to kill a six-year-old child 'gentlemen'?

Anonymous said...

The note hints at having a beef with the U.S. but doesn't say what it is. If they don't want to make a statement about their cause, why mention it at all?

The amount is an odd amount to request. Why not shoot for $250K?

Grammar changes back and forth from "we" to "I" -- Why?

The direct personal attacks at the end are weird.

Why is the letter addressed to the father only?

Who says "attache"?

Why give such leaway in the time for going to the bank? It's sounds like the way people plan for shopping for seeing a movie.

Anonymous said...

Shopping or seeing a movie...

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sidewalk super said...

Patsy is a bit of a control freak, isn't she?

Anonymous said...

The only hitch is that officials came out and said DNA "cleared" the family back in 2008.

Jane said...

The writer is familiar with wordy bureaucratic language: "At this time we have your daughter in our posession" rather than simply "We have your daughter."

Here's some language from a villain in a James Bond movie: "The two gentleman watching over your daughter do not particularly like you." I doubt a real kidnapper would be so wordy; the threat would be evident without the extra verbiage.

The last few sentences switch from threats/instructions/posturing to a few personal digs at John. These seem out of place in the context of a ransom note containing a threat to behead his daughter. The phrase "fat cat" is not a common one and might date the writer.

Anonymous said...

1)Links to Mrs. Ramsey would be the mimicking of the letter writer's voice-do, whoops,xx and hence as this person had read something she'd written before. Expressions such as 'fat cat' is a historical reference to war machines and the profiteers, and 'Victory' could be a chant used by a cheerleader, typically a female.

2)The author is a con person, self-assured,and knows the ending of the story before typing:In the beginning....Wants John to know the statistics of what he'll be able to do right. Fact is, 99% of the time he is wrong.

3)It's up to you now, John. Victory! sounds feminine.

4)Education level-English or liberal arts. Has more experience in telecommuniations because this is when and where the author switches pronouns.

5)Listen carefully!(as if the author had him on the phone or something) ...'two gentlemen watching over your daughter...' why only two? So, there is three of them?

6)The length of the note is meant to be a prize winning novella. And, in reality, it is since the mystery keeps giving and giving.

7)They never state they are a foreigner(s)but ratherthey represent a small foreign faction.

8)'good common sense' will never figure out what the author is up to. Talking to a 'stray dog' could mean a recording device was planted on an animal and they know animals may be used while they are imagining him jogging hap-heartedly across the dale with a brown paper bag in tow instead of sitting by the fireplace sipping rum cider.

My thoughts: her demise was planned well in advance. Christmas Day was chosen to shock and horrify others during the holidays. They had three homes, IIRC, and the one in Boulder was chosen. Why? In their absence surveillence equipment could have been installed.

As if the staging was done by a mystery writer-the butler entrance door ajar, the mysterious stuffed animal, and if what I've read is true, books they never had placed about. The suitcase in the basement with a book inside, and something in the stomach for the date/time stamp to be revealed.

The cops bungled it from the get-go, as the author predicted. One of the first things they did was call in 'volunteers' or another 'charitable organization' to cater to their needs by bringing in coffee and bagels as if this home was void of munchable food right after Christmas. More people in the home contaminating the crime scene.

They couldn't prosecute because the lead detective whooped out a narrative that only a psychobabblin' FBI agent would love. They actually needed evidence, but bullchit.

Anonymous said...

Herein lies the answer to the kidnapping note: IF the Ramseys really thought JonBenet had been kidnapped, and the note so clearly threatens that JonBenet would be beheaded.... IF IF IF,

then why did they call 911? Wouldn't you think they would have been afraid NOT to follow the instructions in the note, and would NOT have called 911 until AFTER the conditions of the ransom note had been carried out?

But the first thing they did was call 911 upon finding the note, clearly ignoring the threatening instructions in the note as if they had no fear for JonBenet'safety?

Does that answer the question once and for all?

Anonymous said...

awhat is "hap-heartedly"?
Half-hearted, means your heart is not in it. Lackluster.
Hap-hazard, is random, all over the place. Happenstance is your guide.

Malapropisms bother me for no pacific reason.

Anonymous said...

Dang. It appears to have been an error. Why make a big deal out of it?

Anonymous said...

just funny

Anonymous said...

John did it

Jen said...

Hi Anon 9:01

I believe the answer to the entire riddle lies with this ransom note, as it's mere existence reveals the only possible author. Individuals who represent a foreign faction have NO REASON to leave a ransom note (much less a lengthy, rambling note requesting a relatively small amount of money) threatening to kill a child who is already lying DEAD within the same location as the note! Every line of the note from beginning to end suggests it was written by one of the parents to serve as a diversion as a real 'kidnapper' would obviously have no leverage after leaving the bounty dead in the home. It's would be comical if we weren't talking about a murdered child.

The note was written with the full knowledge that the 'ransom drop' was never going to take place as it dedicates zero words to actual instructions for where to leave the money, which would be an extortionists only concern..to obtain the targets money. Instead it only contains long winded instructions on what bills should be collected from the bank and how they are being watched/monitored, yet the first/only action taken is in direct defiance of the notes instructions. I agree with the poster who said a real kidnapping of this magnitude would run a price tag much higher than the writer has obviously considered, showing the ridiculous and poorly thought out nature of the writers plan.

The RN overall shows deception in it's length, form and content. Overly detailed instructions suggest a need to convince and the switch from we/our when introducing the group, to I/my in regard to the instructions shows the writer is not representative of others. I find the reference to 'proper burial' the most interesting as I believe it is the true reason behind the notes existence, meaning Patsy/John could not stand the idea of dumping or discarding their daughters body, (denying her a proper burial) and the only way they could suggest an intruder killed their daughter within their own home was to write it out in a ransom note. As I said before, almost comical but it makes more sense than a 'real kidnapper' leaving the note.

The last paragraph changes tone to more belligerent and insulting barbs toward John after the first part of the letter is almost complimentary saying that they respect his business. Also after reading several times I notice that after the first paragraph stating that she is safe and unharmed, the focus of the letter turns to JonBenet's demise and even when suggesting that they stand a 100% chance of 'getting her back' if instructions are followed it doesn't say she will be alive. Each time I read the note something else jumps out at me, I love these exercises, esp. a case like this which has been talked about & studied for so long, yet always offers knew insight when reviewed!

Anonymous said...

Did he? Are you SURE? I've always had a problem believing either John or Patsy "did it" because it makes no sense that either he or she would rape/kill little JonBenet and leave her body lying dead on the basement floor; when either of them could have more easily taken her body out of the house and dumped her elsewhere, making it appear to be a bona-fide kidnapping, rather than creating all this suspicion upon themselves with a hoaxed up ransom note while her body lies dead on the basement floor. THAT is the thing that makes no sense.

Even a dumb hayseed would have known better than to do such a stupid thing! Using the same kidnapping note, or not, that's the one thing that doesn't make sense if she had been killed by either of them.

On the other hand, whether her handwriting matches by top-notch experts or not; it DOES appear that Patsy wrote the note, intended to bully John as it does bear overtones of an angry wife expressing hatred/disgust towards her husband, particularly with the use of the $118,000 exact dollar amount of his bonus that year, which she would have known, however just peanuts to a real kidnapper; but for some reason she was PO'ed about that bonus. How many others would have known the amount of John's bonus, certainly not many.

Bottom line, the note if written by Patsy, obviously makes her a participant and coconspirator in JonBenet's rape/murder, and while angry with John and holding his bonus over his head, is not just a wife simply covering up for her husband for no good reason.

Further, the fact that they called 911 and brought LE into the matter immediately, without following the instructions of the non-existant "kidnapper" to the letter, just proves they had no fear for JonBenet's safety, knowing she was already lying dead down on the basement floor.

How stupid, when John could have easily disposed of her body overnight, gotten the money from the bank the next morning, pretended to hand it over, THEN called 911, leaving themselves in the clear. Everything points to their guilt other than the fact that the way they handled JonBenet's murder by leaving her body in the house then presenting a fake kidnapping ransom note makes no sense whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Jen, I was typing my post just as you were posting yours, then I went away to get coffee, so I missed your post until after I had already posted my own.

I will say, you make many excellent and intereting points and some I had not really considered in much detail; that being because I have only read the fake ransom note once. That being, because when I come upon something that is known to be fake I do not waste much much time on it. My feeling is, why waste time on something that you know not to be authentic, is fake and full of deceit; just to come back to the same conclusion: it is fake?

I can see it's value however, from the perspective of statement analysis; otherwise, it is STILL fake and from there my conclusion goes to the matter of its' deceit and what is most logical and makes sense and what isn't and doesn't.

To ME, it doesn't make one iota of sense, nor is it logical thinking, that either one or both of them killed JonBenet and left her body lying in the house dead, then pretended a fake kidnapping with a hoaxed up ransom note that clearly points the finger on themselves; not if they ever expected to get away with it, and when it was plain stupid to think they could.

You DO however, present one thing I had not thought of, that being they would not want her little body lying out in the elements indefinitely, and WOULD want to give her a decent and proper burial. Maybe this is the reason they handled her rape/murder the way they did?

Another thought occurred to me: They were intent on leaving for their trip that morning and could have gone on and taken their trip anyway, but they would have had to take her little body with them and claim she was kidnapped or murdered in Michigan, but then there would have been no way to keep JonBenet's disappearance hidden from Burke, or to hide her body without raising suspicion, also no way to prevent decomp from setting in, so they were stuck with "what to do? Either way, they would have been curtailed on their activities whether in Bolder or Mich.

Still, it makes no sense that they did it the way they did, left her there and hoaxed up a fake ransom note. NOne at all. Did they not stop to think that they would still be hindered from taking their trip once LE were called to the scene whether they dumped her or left her lying dead in the basement, or not? Either way, their trip was doomed, so their best bet would have been to hide her body elsewhere rather than fight their endless and costly legal battle forever. Again, makes no sense.

That's not to say they didn't do it, as the longer this goes unsolved, the more I'm starting to think they did do exactly that; and that has no bearing on local inept LE authorities other than it is a fact that there were other similar attempted kidnappings right in the immediate neighborhood that had ocurred both just before and after JonBenet's murder that the local LE kept quiet about and which the Ramsey's knew nothing about;

Also not only more recent DNA evidence that showed there was other DNA found on JonBenet's body, but also other handwriting experts whose reports stipulate that this was neither John's nor Patsy's handwriting on the fake kidnapping note; but also the report of a well known and expert private detective's vast and lengthy investigation much later (NOT paid by the Ramseys) whose report details evidence that there WAS an intruder in the home and further shows how John & Patsy couild NOT have been involved.

Still, it does appear that they WERE involved. Will we ever know? For sure?

Anonymous said...

One would think that Patsy, if guilty, would have confessed on her death bed, knowing she was soon going to have to meet her maker and face the judgement for her part in killing and concealing her daughter's death. But she didn't. Why would a murderer and/or a conspirator; one who believes in God, IF they truly do, not confess and repent before having to face judgement, knowing there is an eternal hell waiting for them?

Did she not realize, or believe, that repenting also includes confession, and this far outweighs protecting someone else, even her own sons' future; which is most important, or did she not believe it so determined to keep quiet to the end?

I cannot think for Patsy. OR John. And I cannot judge their guilt or innocence, either for John or Patsy. I can only state that they certainly do appear to be guilty regardless as to who says they aren't. It is very easy to be decieved, even by the best. We can only speculate and 'think' we know but God himself will sort it all out in the end.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Patsy may have confessed on her deathbed but it was not made public...

perhaps she simply did not confess to law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

That's an interesting thought, Peter. Maybe she did. But if so, to whom? It probably wouldn't have been to a priest as Patsy wasn't catholic. He's just a human man subject to the same frailties as the rest of us and wouldn't be able to "forgive" her sins anyway and Patsy would know that.

To another type minister or to a physican? Someone bound by more confidentiality laws? Ditto. Neither would they be able to forgive her sins so that wouldn't absolve her guilt or seek justice for JonBenet either.

Otherwise, why hasn't John been arrested and prosecuted like he should have been if Patsy openly repented and confessed, whether to LE officials or to someone else? I don't see how some 'private' secretive confession could absolve her guilt, but that's just me and the way I see it.

But again, you may be right, maybe she did repent and make some sort of private confession thinking that's all she needed to do. Guess we'll never know since no action has been taken and apparently isn't going to be; once again leaving the guilty to go free and no justice for JonBenet; IF in fact, Patsy and John are guilty. So in the end, what good would her private confession do? Just my thoughts....

Mouse74 said...

Anon - The WHY never makes sense to those of us that are searching for answers, hence the search. SA is looking for the unexpected. The fact that it doesn't make sense is what points a finger at both Jon and Patsy, not indicate innocence. You're gut is telling you that something is off, and that is where you start.

You are on the money, even though you don't want to believe it. It never makes sense to me why parents would ever hurt or kill their children, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. :(

Even finding out the motive, or the WHY, only brings up more unanswered questions. How could they bring themselves to do such a thing in the first place? Even learning the why does not make sense to me. There are 'monsters' out there. Even in the form of The Ramsey's.

The fact the John Ramsey, later in life, spent time courting Beth Holloway disgusts me. Poor Beth, believing he understood her pain of losing a daughter to murder. Monsters are out there in every shape and form.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mouse74. Patiently and sensibly you explain. I appreciate that.

It's never been that I didn't "want" to believe it; I can believe anything about anybody, because I neither believe or trust most people, ever, regardless as to what they do or say. It has always been that it never made any sense whatsoever and actually it still doesn't.

But you are right, none of them ever make sense. Even so, I can more understand a drunken or stoned out dope addict going off the deep end and killing his/her child quicker (however, even THEY have sense enough to dispose of the child) FIRST; than one who presents themselves as classy, successful business people, sauve, socially elete, educated, legally aware of consequences, and leaning on their christianity to pull them thru;

THEN to do something like this which makes absolutely no sense in the manner in which it was handled by them, and when there are dumb people, I mean REALLY dumb and stupid, who would have done a better job than they did at pulling this off.

Being THIS deranged and STUPID for people of their high esteem and intelligence, I guess is what really makes it all the more difficult to point the finger at them. You and others certainly DO make excellent points and one cannot help but suspect that you are right in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Reference John's (few) dates with Beth Holloway, obviously she believed in his innocence. I wonder if she still does? She is well educated and is a psychologist/therapist; one would think she would have been highly suspicious of John.

He's the perfect gentleman, you know; I wonder if she became suspicious after a few dates? He would have proved his stupidy AGAIN by going out with Beth the first time. Sure would like to know what she thinks now.

Beth was/is a beautiful and intelligent person. The strain of losing Natalee probably led to her divorce from Jug Twitty, another painful thing for her to endure.

Poor Beth, such a horrible way in which she lost her beautiful daughter, only for the monster never to be prosecuted or her daughter's body found. Why can't Joran van der Sloot just tell her NOW what he did with Natalee's body, when now he has nothing left to lose, or does he? Sick sick sick bastard. I don't really think these monsters are sick, just evil no matter what kind of cacoon they come wraped in.

Anonymous said...

stupidy = "stupidity"... Duh.

Skeptical said...

This case has always been a conundrum for me. The physical evidence points away from the Ramseys and Statement Analysis seems to point to their involvement. The only logical conclusion I have ever come to is that they are both right. I think an intruder murdered JonBenet and the Ramseys covered up the crime for whatever dark reasons and circumstances that only they know.

Ivy said...

I'm not sure, but I thought I saw on a website that the practice note was not very long -- it was just like "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" or something and then picked up on the next page. The whole thing makes no sense. To buy this as a kidnapping gone wrong, you have to assume that the intruder/s came in, took JonBenet with the intention of seeking the big ole specific ransom of $118k for her safe return, wrote out this crazy long note while still in the house, but on the way out killed her in this wacko way. Nonsense. People are always so hung up on motive. It's important, but I do think the parents who stage this kind of thing really rely on the public's presumptions about what parents would never do to their own children. I think it usually comes down to rage/fear of which all people can be possessed in varying degrees.

As for the note, I don't have anything new to add that I haven't said here before. The last few lines, calling John Ramsey a "fat cat" and others seem flattering to me, like John Ramsey was targeted for this whacked out kidnapping because he was such a big shot, when in the scheme of things no one would really think $118k is anything to commit murder for. I am surely breaking several rules of statement analysis in saying so, but to me it just seems so much like an explanation conjured up after the fact, by someone with a really high opinion of himself/herself. "I know, they targeted you for all your money! Your $118k bonus makes you such a fat cat, an obvious target for this kind of scheme! I'll have them tell you to bring an attache case! Like real professionals! And say that if you talk to a stray dog, she dies! Perfect!" Utter nonsense.

I'll add that for all their supposed stupidity they do have their supporters and have been "cleared" by at least one detective. I don't understand this exculpatory power of stranger touch dna. It's not irrelevant, but it's not exculpatory. I think they didn't want to go bury her somewhere because they didn't want to risk being seen. They came up with this, and it was successful in part because it makes no sense -- it had the desired outcome, but for different reasons than planned -- no one really thinks this was done by a slick foreign faction, for instance.

Trigger said...

"Don't try to grow a brain, John."

This sounds like a movie line that an actor would say.

Anonymous said...

To me, "Don't try to grow a brain, John" sounds like an angry bitter wife who has questioned her husbands' bad judgement at other times, has told him at other times that he is stupid, and this time is being very insulting about his stupidity. This is one of the comments in the fake ransom note that leads me to suspect Patsy wrote the note.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Skeptical. I'm glad to see someone else admit that they don't know as I don't either and readily admit I don't. I know that frequently things are not as they appear to be or as they are made out to be, and many circumstances do not turn out to be what we had thought they were.

On several occasions while watching Patsy on interviews, I would have bet a $hundred dollar bill that she had no part in JonBenets' death or in writing the ransom note or any knowledge of it; that she had nothing at all to do with it although many factors (as we were led to believe) appeared as if she did.

I watched Johns' last interview after his remarriage and I would have bet a $thousand dollar bill that he had nothing to do with it and believed him when he said Patsy didn't either.

However, regardless as to the opinions and beliefs of statement analysis, pro or con; there really are a few suspicious issues that make you wonder about their innocence.

There are issues that don't make sense if the Ramseys are guilty and other issues that don't make sense if they are innocent.

VLW said...

I'm another one who isn't sure what to believe regarding this bizarre and troubling case. But one thing that has never made sense to me is, why did it take so long to find JonBenet's body when it was right there in the house? It's a big house, but it's not exactly a palace. Why didn't the parents tear the house apart looking right away? Why didn't the police? I would have thought a thorough search would have been the first order of business.

Maggie said...

I haven't read through the comments yet, but the only thing I wanted to say is that I do think Patsy wrote the note, but I do not believe that it was written after the murder.
In my opinion, the note appears to have been written in a somewhat relaxed state of mind.
I absolutely do believe Patsy wrote the note, perhaps with help from John, but I do NOT believe it was written after the murder. There is no way anyone could include all of the imaginative ramblings in an anxious, panicky state of mind. The length I do not believe is a result of anxiety or even an attempt to convince--more Patsy showing off her writing skills which she probably believed were good.

Maggie said...

Also, I do believe that the writer of the note was fantasizing about money and took a lot of time detailing the way the money should be, should be delivered etc. I don't know how that fits into the case, because I do believe the writer was Patsy.

Marz said...

"Don't attempt to grow a brain" is the line from Speed in 1994. It does sound like a cheesy on-liner in that ransom note, and the whole thing reeks of flattery with the whole "we respect you" bit. As though kidnapping and possibly killing a person's daughter is totally a professional thing to do, not personal. It is wordy for no reason; all a supposed kidnapper would have to say is "we have your kid. Wait for our instructions" or something in that vein. But instead, we are treated to a nameless faction who apparently has no goals and wants to kidnap children who have successful, respectful parents... WTF?
Knowing soon after her murder cops specifically requested reports for her older sister's death really raises a red flag imo. Elizabeth Ramsey died at age 22 (1992) in a car crash with her boyfriend. I'm wondering if investigators ever found a link between the two

Anonymous said...

Marz, I wouldn't give a minute of my time to wondering what Boulder LE investigators did and didn't do. They were totally inept.

First, they placed a new recruit in charge of the case; a young inexperienced woman, IIRC, approx 22 yrs old who had never worked a case before in her life.

Secondly, they did not perform a thorough search of the house for more than ten long hours, although they later claimed they did; but if they had they would have found JonBenets' body lying dead on the floor behind a closed door leading to another room in the basement.

It was after this long period of time that John and his former friend Fleet White decided to make a search of the basement themselves, and according to Fleet White, John went straight to that closed door, opened it and found JonBenet, picked her up and carried her upstairs, appearing to Fleet White "as if John knew she was there all along", his words.

Thirdly, Boulder LE failed to tell John & Patsy that there had been another (and IIRC, two more) similar break-ins within the past month PRIOR to JonBenet' murder, in THEIR neighborhood who had been discovered by parents during the night, one in the little girls' room and another in the house (these parents also had a little girl); both girls near JonBenets' age, yet LE withheld this info from the Ramseys.

It was later revealed that LE never tried to make a connection between these three break-ins; THEN lo and behold there was yet another break-in where a little girl lived, again, in their neighborhood within weeks after JonBenet's murder, and this one too was withheld from the Ramseys and again, no investigation made to try to connect it to JonBenet.

Fourthly, IIRC, it was only after a well-known retired PI investigated the Ramsey case that he discovered the files on these cases in the Boulder SO files that were apparently never investigated nor were any attempts made to tie them in with JonBenets' murder.

This PI had been quietly following John, watching his house, and investigating the Ramsey case for a long time before John even found out he was looking into the case privately and there was no converation or connection between them until much later. All during this time, this PI never found anyone in the SO investigating JonBenet's case.

In light of all the above, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that LE also did not do a thorough search of the premises to determine if there was evidence of a break-in, like they claimed they did, when this same PI (not paid by the Ramseys), immediately found evidence of a break-in in the basement window from photos and untouched evidence that had been taken years earlier.

Anonymous said...

2. profiling
Educated, female, wealthy (you're not the only fat cat around) , might be from the south (good southern common sense – compliment to the south) , and she personally knows John

3. Female language, female thinking
Using emotions, feelings in the note.
„The delivery will be EXHAUSTING so I advise you to BE RESTED.
A female (in charge) wrote it and someone might have assisted her „ Make sure that you BRING an adequate size attache to the bank. „ For example this seems to be from another person. I and WE changes throught the whole letter.

4. Education level
Educated, using complex phrases, sophisticated words.

5. strange phrases
we RESPECT your business
AT THIS TIME we have your daughter…
„When you GET HOME you will put the money in a BROWN PAPER bag” „adequate size attache „ Going into such details is strange.
„IF we MONITOR you getting the money early, we MIGHT CALL YOU EARLY to arrange an earlier delivery.” - not sure about the plan in place, kidnapper allowing changes in the plan, giving up control over the events does not seem real
Leaving arrangements for next day also seems not real.

6. length
Very long note. The goal seem to be to give information, to create a story and not getting the money. The note indicates that JonBenet was already dead when it was written, and she probably died fast. Exectution, BEHEADED, dies, dies, dies. PROPER burial - was it considered to hide her body?
„Don't try to grow a brain John” – she knows John personally, sarcastic comment

I was reading about the case, and came across a Ramsey family friend’s testimony (John F.)
"I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of their house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in." „ I didn’t pick it up, it was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door.
-You actually could read some of the language of the note?
There are dropped pronouns, sentences starting with and, the man reading the note through a glass door, etc.

Eliza said...

Although we are not supposed to discuss the case in this post, I'm going to mention something that seems really important to me.

IF the Ramseys were not involved and if they really thought that this was a kidnapping, why didn't they wait anxiously by the phone that morning? The time the "kidnappers" said they would call came and passed, and neither John nor Patsy seemed nervous or desperate waiting for the call. Why? They weren't expecting anyone to call them. To me, that speaks volumes.

About the note: I think it's obvious from the handwriting that Patsy wrote it. Many experte have said so. What I would like to add about the southern common sense, is that John is not from the South, so maybe that was an inside joke.
I think many lines are from movies, o resemble movie quotes: "Listen carefully", the repetition "she dies" the elaborate directions on how to deliver the money.
No real kidnapper mixes "delivery" with "pick-up". No real kidnappers writes a 2 page note in the house, with a pen from the house, making a practice note first.
Poor Jonbenet, I hate it that justice was never found in her case.

Maggie said...

I have read before that Patsy had a couple of drinks at a Christmas party the night before--what are the odds that the note was written after Jon Benet was killed if Patsy is the writer (which I believe she is) and at that point her brain would have been sluggish from alcohol intake and very tired (middle of the night)?

Anonymous said...

Eliza, how do you know the Ramseys didn't sit anxiously by the phone that morning waiting for a call from the kidnappers? Because LE said so? Duh. You weren't there so you can't say. Neither can I.

I will say however, that I wonder why the Ramseys called 911 at all that morning until AFTER John met the demands of getting the money from the bank and waited by the phone since the note clearly said JonBenet would die if LE was called; so if they actually believed JonBenet had been kidnapped, why did they call 911 as soon as they found the note ande not follow its' instructions?

You also state "no real kidnapper mixes "delivery with pickup", and "no real kidnappers write a 2 page note in the house, with a pen from the house, making a practice note first." How do you know they don't? Have you read "ALL" kidnappers notes? I'm sure you haven't. You haven't read them all so you can't. Neither have I.

Maggie said...

Reading through the note again, it is odd that the writer capitalizes the "p" in Police and the "l" in Law enforcement. I actually differ in opinion with many who feel the writer is highly educated. I see certain errors which, in my opinion, suggest no college education or limited college education.
The "stray dog" line has always seemed VERY bizarre to me. This is either a line from a movie or actually seems like something an elderly person would say--like something from the Depression Era when stray dogs would have been more the norm. Certainly, in Patsy's very wealthy neighborhood, there would be no stray dogs. So, it is odd that she uses this phrase even if she has heard this line somewhere in a movie.
The part where the writer uses percentages--"99 percent chance....100 percent chance" of getting her back seems very immature to me. This seems like someone who is showing off that the "get" percentages. Very immature.

Maggie said...

The writer writes "Any deviation of" instead of any deviation FROM". THIS does not suggest the writer is highly educated!

Maggie said...

The ending of the note does suggest that John was not involved in writing the letter. The line "You are not the only fat cat around...." suggests the writer is jealous of John's status and money and wants John to think that the writer of the note is also a "fat cat". Or, at least, the writer wants to bring John down a few notches by telling him he is not that special--there are other "fat cats around". The writer is very jealous of John's social status and wealth.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, Maggie, that the number of grammatical errors is indicative of a fairly low level of education. The tortuous phrasing - somebody above referred to it as bureaucratic - is interesting; perhaps this has been picked up from procedural cop shows and deemed to be how criminals communicate. Or perhaps the writer(s) thought that this is how people who are important / have something important to say communicate. J.

Eliza said...

To Anonymous 1:52.

I don't have any reason not to believe what police said about Ramseys' bahavior that morning. Not one witness says that they were worried when time passed and no call was made. Police said they found it strange. Do you think LE lied about that?

About the note, OK I admit sounding very dogmatic and I should rephrase: IMO a 2 page real ransom note is highly unlikely to exist. And I suppose that most kidnappers know beforehand the "procedure" of the kidnapping and have it all planned, so they know how they're going to return the kidnapped person to their families.

Anonymous said...

"her remains"

That is really a word that stands out in this ransom note. It is not usually used for someone that is still alive. Even if it is part of a threat.

This strongly indicates that the writer of this note already knows the girl is dead.

Maggie said...

Anon, I agree that the bureaucratic phrasing is inteteresting. Also, the writer going on and on with "if you do----, she dies".
I've read this note many times, and the more I read it, the more it occurs to me that much of the language reminds me of how an elderly person would talk. The expression "fat cat". The mentioning of "stray dog"--truly, stray animals, particularly stray were much more common before modern times, The word "attache" was probably used much more commonly when people dressed more formally--the 1920's-1950's. Even some of the things that people are attributing to being "feminine" like telling John to"be well rested"...."the delivery will be exhausting" actually reminds me of more socially formal times from the past. The word "gentleman" was also used much more commonly in the past.
Even the expressions "Don't try to grow a brain" and "use that good Southern common sense of yours" are expressions used much more commonly in the 1st half of the 20th century. Just food for thought.
The handwriting itself points to Patsy being the writer. But reading the note over many times it occurs to me how "old-fashioned" a lot of the language is.

Ivy said...

I agree with this about this being how someone thought these kind of people would communicate -- both the wordy bureaucratic language and the hokey "stray dog" "don't try to grow a brain" "attaché" "good southern common sense" "she dies" over and over, the two men don't "particularly like you" "respect your business" all thrown in for melodrama. Doesn't it sound do much like someone I'd thinking "this is how these tough guys talk! Man to man!"

Eliza said...

I agree with you, Ivy. It seems like the author of the note tried to speak like the way he/she thought criminals talk. It came out strange.

Shelley said...

A lot of the comments I had about specific words etc have been stated so I don’t want to be too repetitive. I believe that the note was “written” by Pasty but that it was a “group effort” in the wording and format etc. And not just Patsy and John. But several.
Let me explain…. Now, I know you were not ready for “theories” yet but it’s part of my thoughts on the ransom note so that is why I am including it.

I feel like the Ramsey’s may have been involved in something sick. Possibly a group child porn ring. Something along those lines. The “group” may have possibly killed the child by accident. I don’t think it was the first time this poor little girl suffered because of her parents sick evil ways, and it may have been a regular thing and this time went too far and she was killed. I believe there was a level of panic and possibly arguing about what to do and how to do it. And while I do not think the parents were personally responsible for the actual death (meaning they physically killed her with their own hands), I believe that the fact that they were part of this sick ring to begin with, and allowed this, makes them guilty regardless.

So then back to my thoughts on the ransom note.
I think a group effort then took place to cover up the murder, add in “props/staging” if you will to make it look like it occurred in a different way that it did. I then think that the group collectively wrote the note and each added in suggestions, comments. But I believe that Pasty was the actual physical writer. And of course had some input. Especially with the term “and hence” that is a very rare phrase and since we know she’s said it in the past, I honestly believe that was her input.

The wording and phrasing to me is so inconsistent that it is clear this is not one person’s words. It is many.
I even think possibly that the family attorney could have been part of this ring. Who knows who else? Possibly even law enforcement. It would not be the first time that those that should protect are those we need protecting from. How many cases do we hear about where even priests are molesting children?
And as out there as my theory may be to some, the sad fact is, this happens every day. There are really people this sick out there that find each other and become a group.
Then, my next thought about a comment posted above asking why Patsy didn’t confess on her death bed. We have millions of unsolved cases and how often does anyone confess on their death bed. And religious or not, like I stated above, priest’s molest kids all the time. Religion means nothing. And from what most religious people I know believe, you only have to say you are sorry to be forgiven. So if she said sorry, she may have believed her sin was cleared. She didn’t have to say it to anyone but “god” which she may have done alone in her room.
So to sum it up, I think this group killed the child by accident and since it was something illegal that was going on when this occurred, regardless, calling 911 was not an option. I think they were likely up all night working on the note and the body placement, props etc. Where to leave her, how etc. And while it was clearly not the smartest way to handle it by any means, when you have too many people involved and there is a panic, there will be mistakes. Many mistakes…..
I think that happened here. Add in the fact that the family was wealthy and had powerful friends in high places that were likely also involved…. They probably had limited concern they would ever be held responsible. And they were right.
Just my theory.

Anonymous said...

My thoughts exactly! If she confessed to clergy they are bound to silence.... Here is a snipit of the oath taken re a seal of confession!

The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the penitent. This secrecy is called "the sacramental seal," "the seal of the confessional," or "the seal of confession."
The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity.

Blaze said...

I think it is very important to see the original letter to understand it..because the cross-outs and other ways the letter was written make a difference. For instance... "She is safe and unharmed"..when I read it ..I read .."she is safe and um harmed". Also...when considering Patsy..it is important to read her Christmas letters to friends and family from that year and prior years...reading those will help you understand that this letter was written by Patsy...so will her book. JMO. IMO one of the chapters in her book was a confession.

Blaze said...

The Ramsey "ransom note" and movie quotes:


Eliza said...

That's an interesting link, Blaze.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Part 1 of 2
In re-reading the "ransom" note yet again, I just realized why lines 13-14 bothered me....the inclusion of the word "early".

Lines 8-11 specify denomination and method of transporting the money. Line 12 relays the expected time for the call. Line 13 begins sounding like an ominous warning, yet ends giving hope for an earlier release of JonBenet (an empty threat).

The second issue is the word early. How "early" is early? Early to you would not necessarily be early to me, if you were a morning person and I were a night owl. Early is a relative and subjective term, indicating the author had knowledge of John's personal habits (rising, morning schedule, etc.).

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Part 2 of 2

Finally, a timeline of events clearly shows the note is bogus.

Wednesday, Dec. 25-banks closed for Christmas, Ramseys attend Christmas Party

Thursday, Dec. 26- Ramseys find "Ransom" note, instructed to go to the banks and get $118,000 ransom money. Line 12 instructs parents to wait for phone call "tomorrow between 8 and 10..."

Friday, Dec. 27- Parents supposed to be waiting for phone call between 8 and 10 for instructions on when and where to deliver money.

So, how could they get the money earlier than Thursday morning, if they didn't know their child was kidnapped until Thursday morning? The whole getting-the-money-early bit screams of a dramatic novel or a scene from an action-adventure movie. Clearly, it's a fabrication, an obvious attempt to convince someone there has been a kidnapping. Interestingly, it's not only illogical, but it also reveals that the author knew John is usually home between 8 and 10. Wonder what time he normally went to work or started work (if he worked from home)? The phrase "between 8 and 10" didn't come from a vacuum.

The wording of Lines 8-16 simply don't fit the "kidnapping" timeframe. They do, however, reveal that the "ransom" note was created after the kidnapping. Any kidnapper worth their salt (especially a group representing a foreign faction *wink), would: have the note prepared in advance; used their own materials to craft the note; would have expounded on their grudge against John's company in relation to the U.S. government; would have triple checked the details; and would not have lost track of the timeframe of the kidnapping and ransom payoff. BOGUS

Ney said...

Maggie, I think some of the words were misspelled on purpose, not by mistake: trying to sound like a "foreign faction".

Anonymous said...

What strikes me about the note is that Mr Ramsey's wife is not mentioned in the note.

The note is addressed to Mr Ramsey alone. He is specifically instructed not to talk to anyone. Not to police, FBI, bank authorities, stray dogs etc.

What is odd is that Mr Ramsey receives no clear instructions whether or not he should tell his wife. While the family is under constant scrutiny, so the kidnappers should know he has a wife.

Not specifically instructing what to tell his wife leaves room for interpretation for Mr Ramsey. This might put the entire kidnapping operation in jeopardy.

It almost seems as if the kidnappers already know whether or not Mr Ramsey normally would inform his wife of such matters and consider it as a given.

Maggie said...

Ney--there are some other grammatical errors--not just the misspellings. I realize that it is commonly accepted that the misspellings were intentional, and that the writer spelling such words as attache correctly "prove" that the writer intentionally misspelled the other words such as "possession". I am not sure I agree with that though. The 2 words misspelled by the writer, actually 3 if one includes "out smart" are commonly misspelled by adults. The lower the education level the more likely an individual will be to misspell those words. I do agree that those words COULD have been intentionally misspelled, however the reasoning used, in my opinion, is not sound.

Anonymous said...

The wording in the ransom note also mimics a line from the movie "Escape from New York":

You touch me... he dies. If you're not in the air in thirty seconds...
he dies. You come back in... he dies.

Anonymous said...

Facts: The note was hand-written on the Ramsey's stationery with a pen found in the Ramsey's house... This shows improvisation... Three pages long... verbiage akin to that of B-movies or Soap Operas... This shows a desperate need to convince the reader that nothing other than kidnapping was intended... "and hence", a distraction... JonBenet's mother was still wearing the same clothes and make up she wore the night before, which she never had done before... This shows she must have been awake throughout that particular evening

Anonymous said...

Had it been an attemted kidnapping, the note would have been already drafted... Jonbenet was not raped... if that had been the intruder's intent but had killed her while trying to abduct her, he would have just dumped her and left the scene...

Anonymous said...


semantics of the fake note show it was rushed and done by a wanna be tom clancy writer; hence the cliches!

Look at the terminology. Words like 99%, 100%. Seriously only nerdy people use percentages when they talk about matters that are not related to math. So we kwow this person is educated and frequently deals with numbers on a daily basis.
Look at attache..HA... that term is used by guys who seriously shopped for a briefcase.. So we know this person is obviously in a field that requires a breifcase...Side note this term is oldschool....most likely meaning an older man born before 70's used this term...

The ransom note is indented for paragraphs....ha..this points to some one who has some college education and who cannot disguise habits they learned in their english 1 course. Ransom almost has a nice rythmn to it like someone who has written essays before.

Ransom is a fake cause the girl was found dead in the house...Guess the kidnappers forgot the body..No good for ransom if u left the body in the house to be discovered....INSIDE JOB!!!

Anonymous said...

my guess is person A wrote the ransom with person B dictating.

Anonymous said...

Besides the obvious daming evidence of guilt with the "hence" & odd bonus amount. There are a few things that stand out. First the note appears to be from a woman. That is clear by the style. Second the writer of the note makes four references that can be interpreted as the writer being aware that death has occured, those are"remains", "burial" "watching over" "pick up your daughter". They style also appears to be written by a single educated individual & there is a lot of rage shown in some of the phrases. With this info we can draw the following conclusions. As far as the young inexperienced perverted neighborhood kid intruder theory, no youngster or even a younger adult would use some of the phrases and words. "Deviation" strikes me the most, this indicates a more mature educated person, what type of youngster or younger person is going to use that type of word in that type of sentence, this signifies an older mature person. This theory is bogus. Since the style also indicates a single writer and the awarness and references to death occuring, we can make the assumption the writer was the main actor in the storyline and perpatrator of the crime. Its the land of make believe if we think that the woman fakes the note while the husband stages the scene,that requires a lot of planning, this would be very unlikely if a fit of rage occured causing the death, and having both parties remaining calm & collective. It is more likely that the perpatrator staged the scene and wrote the note, but it is very possible a second party comes into the scene at a later time, realizes the author and chooses to become a conspirator. The rage is also apparant in the note, "execution" "beheaded" & "she dies" This is rage, a rage even occuring as the person writing the note is aware of the murder, perhaps the rage is there becuase the writer is still livid over the fact they are in the situation, mad still at the victim for causing the whole mess. The theory that the note couldnt be writen right after the murder also is flawed. Btk, Ted Bundy & even Casey went about their normal business after committing heinous crimes, the list goes on and on and on. Final conclusion is the note is written by a single individual, most likely the perpatrator of the crime, most likely female, educated and mature, person containing a lot of rage towared the victim even while penning the note. Also if you re-read several times the note begins to feel almost like a confession and justification in their own mind of the crime.

Dani Kekoa said...

DNA evidence from a foreign white male intruder cleared the Ramseys, so the killer is still out there waiting for the FBI -> The JonBenet Ramsey Murderer has returned...Call this twice convicted child-abuser in CO: "Pastor" BOB ENYART LIES & ask him why he kidnaps & KILLS kids: 1-800-8-ENYART



*Listen to hours of PROOF the FBI & Police in Colorado know about the Serial Child-Killers who organized the kidnappings and murders of JonBenet Ramsey, Jessica Ridgeway & Dylan Redwine -- Listen & Judge for Yourself! ShadowGov founder Bob Enyart left his "Small Foreign Faction" DNA on JonBenet. There's a DIRTY Deputy from Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office too! "Law Enforcement Countermeasures & Tactics" = Gordon Carroll K-9 officer = GUILTY of CONSPIRACY!


Anonymous said...

The note was written in advance of the killing. I cannot imagine any individual, whether family member or "outsider," sitting down to write a draft of the note, and then a final version, while his/her victim is lying dead in the basement. Too much time would have been needed, to say nothing of being in an emotional state, having just killed a child with two different weapons. The $118K ransom is a also very odd number to choose. Also, why prepare a handwritten note, when it could have been typed or prepared in some other way (again assuming advance preparation were it a genuine kidnapping)? There are other oddities in this case that don't square with common experience, but this page is only seeking analysis of the note.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever considered an ex-wife/girlfriend of John's?

1. Whomever wrote the note never mentioned Patsy, the entire note was directed at John.

2. Everyone who has analysed the note thinks it was written by a woman.

3. A woman is more likely to be jealous of John's beautiful daughter esp if her own daughter has recently died. (1st daughter killed couple of years before JonBenet)

4. Absolutely had to know that house, location of bedrooms, and that obscure room where body was found.

5. Knew exactly how much his bonus was. Jealous that she wasn't receiving any of it?

6. Faking respect initially then ridiculing John, growing angrier as the note progressed.

7. JonBenet had to have known this person. How would you rouse from sleep a very tired 6 yr old and get them to go downstairs & feed them pineapple?

8. Overkill. JonBenet wasn't just murdered she was tortured and savaged. A mother such a Patsy Ramsay could not have done this. But a woman who hated John & was jealous of his wife, daughter & lifestyle could have.

9. Completely, totally & absolutely botched by the BPD. However I believe it can still be solved. They key is in this note.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to say, Patsy had just recently returned to John's bed, having been using the bedroom next to JonBenet while she was undergoing chemo for cancer. It is plausible that John was having an extra-martial affair while Patsy was sick. He seems to be a man who needs a woman as no sooner had Patsy died than he starts to date again AND has since remarried. Is this his 3 or 4th marriage? After losing 2 daughters so tragically & then his wife you'd think he wouldn't be so interesting in marrying again.

Anonymous said...

I see an element of jealousy and envy in the note. The writer is angry that John got the $118k bonus. I picture the writer (intruder) having this knowledge for a period of time and that he brooded on it. "Fat cat" is another stab in the same direction. He wanted what John had. He was angry with/at John's success and the writer felt entitled; to the bonus money, John's life, his home and his beautiful, talented daughter.

This person had had access to the Ramsey's home. Perhaps he had been hired to work there. Perhaps he was someone peripheral to the Ramsey's life. He was close enough to have heard family members interacting and that is why someof his comments sound like they come from within the family. Beyond that, never forget the extent the Ramseys exposed themselves to the public. Could the intruder have slipped away from one of the house tours to get better acquainted with the house, for example?

I have a feeling the intruder entered the home when the family left for the evening. I think he began the letter to pass time until he could strike. He may have fantasized about kidnapping JBR. I see the writer as a person who lives in a partial fantasy world. Maybe he had a plan to actually kidnap and keep JBR. Maybe he even fantasized that she "loved" him and "wanted" him. It's not that uncommon for pedophile creeps to think like that, even use that sort of thing as a defense in court. JBR fought back and was killed. Then I think the writer may have finished the note, the part about "she dies".

The writer feels inferior in the beginning. "Mr. Ramsey", etc. After JBR was dead the writer held the power. He had the answers and he had the control. If I am right, this intruder has the power until this day and if he yet lives he must feel very smart, powerful, in control. He has beaten the police, FBI, public opinion. He is smarter and more successful than anyone else in the world.

voici_je said...

the ransom note started with a greating to John...
the writer (patsy) said we are small foreign faction..(family)..we appreciate your business (good money)

the author (patsy) ask 118.000$ for the safe return of-- a possession (witch is the daughter)..
- John possession was his 118,000$ annual bonus (pride)-Patsy's possession(pride) was Jonbénet

the proper burial(a mother wishes)

** don't grow a brain john you're not the only fat cat around. *-(Patsy is saying)
..don't try to outsmart me John...you did wrong too...

-** the ending about-- southern common sens of yours..

-- (of your's). --

-**if John is not from the South..

- .that means.--

------------(Patsy to John)--------

-----------*.LISTEN TO what I AM saying.----------

(they had an argument about what to do and how to
do) _ to get away with it

-----------.. PATSY is HIS SOUTHERN COMMON SENS ...--------

most of this ransom note is to cover the family dynamic.....she Patsy was talking to John through this letter...saying..you and i are both concern..--small foreign faction--..(foreign) because the most part of this family is living in another state..

i sure would have explain in more detail ..but english is not my mother tongue so i cant fully express my thinking...hope some of it seems to be coherent...