Thursday, September 20, 2012

Statement Analysis of Anonymous Writing

Statement Analysis, particularly in the SCAN technique (Scientific Content Analysis) is used to draw up a profile from an anonymous letter, often identifying gender, background, education level, and so on.  It is difficult work and those of 'politically correct' views of the world are unable to do such work, as identifying particular phrasing as "masculine" or "feminine" is missed due to avoidance of perceived insult.  Analysis of an anonymous letter must be done slowly, carefully, and with an open-minded imagination.  Those of us with lesser imaginations or creativity do well to work with those of far-reaching imaginations.  We have seen this talent in Analyst and investigator Kaaryn Gough's work.  Those with backgrounds in advertising, for example, may be at an advantage as they think in terms of what appeals to various demographics.  In other words, they can think like an 18 year old male when necessary, and can think like a 65 year old female when necessary.

Group analysis.

Group analysis, or a joint effort, is best for anonymous letters or anonymous statements.  It is helpful in analysis of known statements, but of great value for anonymous work because of the natural tendency of becoming 'locked' into a particular view or opinion.

For example, a writing may appear to come from a male, 18-22, but it may be that the analyst, having recognized it, becomes emotionally tied to the profile of male, 18-22, and may miss male, mid - 30's, who is immature, and more of a 'frat boy' than a mature adult.

As we begin to work anonymous letters in analysis, small steps are necessary, and here, we are able to take a 'baby step'.  I call this work "baby steps" because the statement has already been analyzed for deception, and deception has been indicated.

It is the Jonbenet Ramsey ransom note.

It has been analyzed here, and it has been analyzed by others, and the ransom note is a fraud; it is not a ransom note but a deliberate deception intended to mislead investigators.

We have been told that handwriting experts ruled out everyone but Patsy Ramsey as the author.  We have also read of various profilers who concluded that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

This exercise (in several parts) is this:

Will the SCAN technique, as applied to the ransom note, indicate Patsy Ramsey as the author?

1.  Many anonymous letters reveal the author's identity, even beyond a profile.  This is sometimes seen in the attempt to detract attention from the author.  This attempt, itself, 
2.  Anonymous letters have a purpose 
3.  Lies do not come from a vacuum.  The words are chosen from the subject's personal, internal subjective dictionary.  This means that the words used will be related to the author's personal life.  This will be our focus.  

This will not be a "raw" reading, but will seek to answer whether or not the writing (which is deceptive) can be linked, in any manner, to Patsy Ramsey.  Statement Analysis will be part of it, but not the main objective, since we know it to be fraudulent (see prior analysis).  

Questions before we begin?  thoughts?  comments?

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"


John Mc Gowan said...

Geeeezz, I wouldnt know were to start with this Peter.

Im looking forward to it though, it sounds fascinating..

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi John

Start at the beginning.
One line at a time.
Look at what is written, think how you yourself would write in an identical situation in this case, You are kidnapping a child for ransom, you don't know how long you have before you are found.
Think what points you want to get across immediately.
You are the one in charge giving orders.
Your task is to get in grab the child, leave a note and get the hell out.
Will you be blunt and to the point?
Will you be polite?
Will you threaten so as to terrify the parents into compliance?
Short and sweet or long winded?
Will you write an essay saying who you are and what to do?
Look at what you would do in the same situation and then compare it to the behavior of the parents/ family member/suspect. are they the same or do they differ?
If they are the same is it when you are imagining yourself as guilty or innocent, do they differ when you imagine yourself as innocent or guilty?

There lies the path to your conclusion.

Why take time to write a long letter when you will have a chance for further communication by letter or phone to make arrangements?

As with any case, what would you do in that situation if you were innocent?
What would you do if you were guilty?

People act a certain way when innocent, guilty people will act a different way.
Both types will follow common sense and instinctual rules for behavior.
Look for the unexpected where you would see the expected.

C5H11ONO said...

If I were to get into foreign faction speak, then I wouldn't have written:
I will call you

I would have used 0800 and 1000 hours. The 8 and 10 am doesn't appear to be foreign, but a US speaker.

They couldn't rule out Patsy Ramsey as having written the letter, but perhaps she and her husband concocted the letter together, and because she was the one with the pen, added a few of her favorite phrases into the mix, and that is why the peculiar phrases like "fat cat", and "good southern common sense", "don't try to grow a brain" (personally I think she had been dieing to say this to him through the years but never found the courage and this was her one opportunity) were used. They look like phrases a middle aged woman would use. I'm surprised she didn't throw in "gee willackers".

Sus said...

Two things cry out to me about this letter:

1. It sounds like James Bond language...written by a childish, angry person in a dream state or fantasy world.

2. The writer begins with "Mr. Ramsey" and says he/she respects him, but switches to "John" and relays the opposite of respect with snide and sarcastic (backhanded) remarks. I think this writer feels justified in what he/she did and blames John Ramsey.

John Mc Gowan said...


Its the working out the identity of the composer, Male/Female which i find is going to be the difficult part.

Given that i am familiar with the case it could be so easy for me to swing towards patsy in this case.

I know we have to go into every senario with the opinion that everyone is telling the truth until otherwise known.

I think it may be a good idea if when, we learn how to spot certain uses of words which direct us to either male or female,for another letter to be posted that we are not aware of the sex of the author.

Just a thought.

John Mc Gowan said...

One more thing Hobs,

Is it ok for me to print out your post for future REF: ?


Anonymous said...

I never knew much about this case. One thing that stands out to me, is that in the letter the person writing it says, 2 that makes 3 people...3 liars number....

SELLA35 said...

@John- I am sure Hobs would love it if you printed out her analysis. She is a very sweet and caring person and is always trying to help others to learn. I do not think anyone on this website would mind if you use their analysis...most everyone here just try to help others...a few others, than Hobs, SA people to look at are Vita, Lemons and Nanna...they are the 4 that really helped me to start learning. Maybe I just felt a kinship with them, but their words are wise and thoughtful for us learning.

Dee said...


This statement makes me feel like it's a woman writing it because they are telling him to bring an adequate size attache to the bank. Why would some foreign faction care what he brings to the bank as long as they get their money? It strikes me as they kind of comment a wife would make..."Now honey, make sure you have everything you need." "Do you have x, y and z?" "Make sure you bring a big enough briefcase."

Sus said...

Ok..I just noticed I put "this" letter and "this" writer. Wonder why I feel close to them? Whoops! I dropped a pronoun and didn't own that! Lol

Anonymous said...

The entire letter is fabricated BS... it is bits and pieces of some B-rated movie.... You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult............They do not say Killing your daughter, they just say killing, so did the husband and wife live in fear after they read this? What a honk of bologna.

Dee said...

It started out with the formal "Mr. Ramsey" .
Then it became the more familiar John - "Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
It is up to you now John!
If it was written by a "foreign faction" why not Mr & Mrs Ramsey? Why is it just addressed to him and then only his name used further into the letter? Using John shows familiarity.
I agree with C5H11ONO about the "grow a brain" comment in the letter.

Anonymous said...

1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully!

The grammar indicates the writer is not well-educated. The use of an exclamation mark is something that women are said to do more than men.

We are a group of individuals that represent

Over-stressing this. Either you are part of a group, or you are an individual. Something that indicates the writer may not be very intelligent or, alternatively may not have much facility with language.

3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness

Business is such a strange word to spell wrongly that I wondered if it was done on purpose, to mislead about the writer’s educational level, though it ties in with the poor grammar throughout the letter.

>>4. but not the country that it serves.

This entire sentence is so odd. Why would somebody who wants a ransom say this? Either to minimise their wish to hurt to Mr Ramsey – their only intention is pecuniary – or to minimise any guilt they might feel at their actions, perhaps?

>>At this time we have

At the time of writing only?

>>8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. >>

The adequate size attaché is so strange. It sounds like a stereotypical 1950s housewife’s rôle in looking after her husband. Is the writer is attempting to put across a personality that is far from the real one (though the rest of the note doesn’t really suggest subtlety if their strong point)? Does the writer know Mr Ramsey and expect him to be so absent-minded / hopeless that he wouldn’t think of this himself?

13. I advise you to be rested.

Change of pronoun.

17. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter

With the writer, this makes three. Deceptive? Also, is that an embedded statement about not particularly liking him? The whole note is passive aggressive in the way it addresses him; somebody who feels they can’t tell him what they really think of him in real life?

27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.

This is so unconvincing that I expected “and stuff” to be on the end of that statement!

>>31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. >>

There’s real animosity here. This is somebody who knows Mr Ramsey / John, and doesn’t like him. “Good southern common sense” – is this something of which he has proudly spoken? Also, killing of whom? Does the writer also know the daughter, hence the reluctance to specify?

Whoever wrote this note is not a professional kidnapper, imo. Or if they are, they are not a successful one. The repetition of the threats actually makes them less menacing than one stark warning would be. I can’t help but wonder if the person writing this is not used to asserting themselves, and cannot get out of my mind the stereotype of a 1950s housewife I mentioned earlier – perhaps not terribly bright, definitely not well-educated, and not used to asserting herself against men.

I think I've wandered away from theory into conjecture at points here, but am looking forward to the group work on this!


Anonymous said...

Hi, (sorry for being Anonymous. I will figure out how to get a proper profile).

I'm probably analysing it the wrong way, but
to me, the strongest indicator is in lines 8 to 11, and especially 10 to 11:

"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag."
1) "get home", not "return to your house"?
2) ...and put the paper back where? The money-related instructions are detailed up to this point, but the instructions stop here. It seems to be enough that the money is brought 'home' and so 'home' is the final destination.

Anonymous said...

The writer is "the holy ghost." The two other "gentlemen" are the "godhead" and the "son/sun."

Many fancy themselves invisible. Especially those still practicing 60sisms. I was reminded of that yesterday when leaving a local ice cream store where they usually reveal themselves.

Though parking behind it at one time seemed a great place to hide when trying to shove stolen goods down on others and using pschobabble to cover their tracks, they never went unnoticed. Even when leaving the area while making the rounds leaving air freshners, their presence never went unnoticed.(Perhaps one day they'll pass a law against robbery, but until then all we have are the extortion rings).

Leaving one's vehicle to "inspect" a local grocery store as a favor to another is revealing of the buddy system that is dragging American in the mud.Their presence never goes unnoticed. A man alone in a resturant never goes unnoticed, even if he beleives colors control people's minds.

Listen carefully! Ha! Just look around.

Forever Curious said...

All points to someone familiar with John, but not necessarily Patsy. The only two things I see pointing directly to Patsy are 1. the time factor. She was in the house and didn't have to sneak out. 2. The references to John and his daughter suggest she is not part of the equation like she wants to keep suspicion away from her. But that could also be genuine if the kidnapper had some business contact with him and didn't know her. In that case there might be a warning to keep your family quiet? and 3. She knew the dollar amount of his bonus.

Victory! struck me as very odd as it suggests joint-enterprise among people who would putatively be at odds.

John Mc Gowan said...

Excellant point about "get home" I've never noticed that befor

Lemon said...

What stood out to me was the contempt the writer showed toward "John", especially lines 31-34. I would then ask, who knows JR well enough to have contempt for him? It points to someone who knows him well, for an extended time. The specific details read like control.

Lines 31-34 read like a warning to JR from Patsy to continue the collusion between them.

Contempt, control, and collusion sound like Patsy to me.

Eliza said...

I am looking forward to this kind of analysis of the ransom note, as the Ramsey case is the one who brought me to this blog. This is a really interesting perspective -finding out if Patsy fits the profile of the writer.

Some female touches are apparent IMO. For instance, he writer advicing John to get some rest or the phrase "watching over".

I also had never thought of that before, but I agree with Dee about the big enough bag.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi John

Sure thing.
If anything i write is helpful, please feel free to save it, print it or whatever.

Anonymous said...

Oh, good catch Dee! I agree, it does sound like a mother or wife.

Anonymous said...

4-7 & 19-20

Where are the "two gentlemen watching over" JonBenet? Would that mean that she was

already taken to another location and someone stayed around or returned to write a

lengthy note?

It's odd that for someone who goes into such detail about everything else, the ransom

note seems to be an afterthought.

If this was written by a foreign faction, why isn't their political motivation made

clear? It is mentioned 2 of them don't particularly like John Ramsey. That sounds

personal to me. Why would a "foreign faction" have any personal feelings about John?

Anonymous said...

line 27 Law enforcement
Law is capitalized. Was there a popular tv crime show at that time, maybe L.A. Law that the author watched?

Anonymous said...

I just looked it up myself. Law and Order 1990 - 2010

Anonymous said...

A lot of men dole out unsolictated advice and do so frequently.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

My guess: the mom wrote the note as part of a family effort to cover up a brutal murder commited by her son. I read an interview with the nanny; she said the mom was upset in the days prior to the murder, she also said that a swiss army knife that she (the nanny) had taken away and hidden from the son, was found in the basement room with Jon B.

It sounds like she’s blaming her husband “your daughter”

5. YOUR DAUGHTER IN OUR POSESSION. She is safe and unharmed and



The husband and son may have been with the body while she wrote the note.

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

“She dies” 4 times

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.

Anonymous said...

Both law and police are capitalized. That should give a clue.

Anonymous said...

Why take the time to write a long letter? Lol!

Is this a joke?

Follow it to the letter.

Anonymous said...

He was a civilian contractor for the government whom the author doesn't like.

Florida said...

Without ruffling any feathers, I would greatly appreciate it if SOMEONE would
guide me through the steps, one by one, that concludes in making any sense
AT ALL as to WHY either John or Patsy would have killed little JonBenet,
left her precious body lying on the floor in a basement room and written
themselves a long drawn out ridiculous ransom letter?

Simply from a common sense standpoint; doesn't it make a lot more sense that
if either one (or both) of them had killed the child they had all night for
either one (or both) to bundle her little body up, dump her in some out of
the way location and the next morning report her missing with NO ransom letter?

What sense would there be in killing her; whether through a violent rape, for
bedwetting, accidentally, brutally or otherwise, and writing a stupid letter
pointing the blame at THEMSELVES just to forever be suspected as the perpetrators?

You see, neither the ransom letter OR the manner in which JonBenet was left in
the house makes any sense at all if either of them had killed her and this is why
I never believed that either one of them had any hand whatsoever in JonBenet's murder.
NOW, when you start to look at it from THAT perspective, you start to see it a little

But M A Y B E someone here can enlighten me with some common sense in the matter
and come up with some logic? This is NOT a slam against Statement Analysis. I
really DO want to know how common sense fits in here, pointing out WHY either
Ramsey would have done such an EVIL thing in THIS MANNER? What would be the motive
in NOT getting rid of her body and simply report her missing? Bring it please.
Thank you. Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

So would any hacker or anyone who wanted to take his job.

Anonymous said...

You are not the only

Taking down the elites is an ardous task, sigh, but someone has to do it.

Anonymous said...

They are skilled in surveilence and counter-surveilence....dumbazz!

Anonymous said...

At this time (planned ahead of time)

No one is perfect and make mistakes. He was bound to make one sooner or later, so you see SHE DIES four times.

Anonymous said...

Often men think women can only be equal if they are threatening and barking out orders like a man.

To sell worthless stories, many will latch on to an agenda-be it new or antiquated.

Of course, they are doing it for our health and welfare.

Anonymous said...

I've had the same questions. It doesn't make sense to me under any scenerio. Why would

the Ramsey's leave her there? Why would kidnappers who want a ransom kill her and

leave her there? Why would an intruder write a ransom note instead of just leaving?

Therefore, my conclusion is that if none of them make sense you have to go with the

most obvious. Considering the note with personal knowledge of John (118,000 bonus

amount, southern common sense), Patsy wearing clothes from the night before etc., it

makes me think something must have delayed any coverup. Maybe one or the other of the

Ramsey's didn't find out about the death until morning and that's why it is such a

hurried, poor attempt at redirecting suspicion. But I agree that something is wrong

with leaving JonBenet in the house.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps this may answer your question:
You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities.

Anonymous said...

I still don't understand what political statement they were making with a kidnapping and demand for money. Why target the Ramseys for such a small amount? Why not demand more money or choose another target that would make the crime more financially worthwhile or bring attention to their cause?

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

I agree, her note is full of mom-speak; " get home "


6. if you want her to see 1997, YOU MUST FOLLOW OUR INSTRUCTIONS to

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
17. Any deviation of MY INSTRUCTIONS will result in the immediate
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.,

Anonymous said...

True. You must know my boss :)

OldPsychNurse said...

Codependence is the answer on why JB died and why her body wasn't discarded outside.

JB exhibited passive aggressive behaviors designed to upset her very pretentious and controlling codependent mother. Codependent relationships are always filled repressed anger and this anger can reach an explosive point. Patsy exploded and cracked JB's skull after finding that JB had soiled her linens, pajamas, and likely the floor AGAIN. Patsy was so emotionally intertwined with JB that she couldn't bear to throw JB's body outside because that would be the same as tossing herself outside.

Lemon said...

In a word...evil.

Anonymous said...

Stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter?

Do as we say and there's a 100% chance you'll get her back.

Well, they did get her back. She wasn't denied a proper burial.

Perhaps the should have stated that he'd have a 1% chance of Victory.

Florida said...

Anon @ 2:52, I have a zillion of those same questions; not a single one of
them leading up to finding any common sense whatsoever in the manner in which
little JonBenet was killed and left lying there with only some stupid ransom
note that never materialized. It's ALL just a bunch of bally-hoo as far as I've
been able to see, and was CREATED for the purpose of pointing the suspicion, blame
and guilt onto the Ramseys while looking for the REAL perp went totally unnoticed.

BUT, I'm not going to go in defiance of statement analyis and stir up a dispute
with anyone about it since none of us were there and none of us have x-ray eyes
in the back of our head, regardless as to what we THINK. I simply want to see
and UNDERSTAND the LOGIC in pointing the finger of suspicion AND GUILT at the
Ramseys, with the exclusion of ALL OTHERS, as so far, ALSO USING COMMON SENSE,
I haven't been able to find any.

Anon @ 2:53, your response makes no sense. Can you explain further? As to being
under scrutiny, my son the photographer IS under constant scrutiny. Just this
afternoon he was body slammed down on the concrete by secret service agents as he came
out of the rear of a restaurant, walking on his way to photograph the Romney protests in
downtown Sarasota.

After searching every inch of his body, proving his credentials and tearing apart all
his camera equipment he was finally allowed to leave, walking on down to the protests.
After he got to the protests, mind you he had his cameras rolling and there AGAIN he was
slammed down by the PROTESTERS and then by local fuzz. It's a miracle he didn't
get his brains beat out, while some of the angry mob grabbed and shoved at him. In the
end, he had to pick up an Obama Campaign placard and hold it up just to protect himself.

I had WARNED him earlier today not to go there but he felt he would be able to sell
the photos to one of the newspapers he has contracts with, and since that's his job he
had every right to be there in a professional capacity. I just hope he releases ALL of
the photos he filmed today. THAT oughta show how mean and vicious people REALLY are,
including our public servants and their mobs.

It was only about six months ago that he was deliberately struck by an automobile and
had his foot ran over and crushed while filming graffiti on a public building, had to go
to the ER, and then for his own safety had to deny that he knew who did it. So don't
tell me about scrutiny please.

Cdonnm said...

@fla anon Here is my attempt at laying out some logic for the questions you have raised.

Regarding why they didn't dump the body somewhere if it had truly been a sexual murder, accidental, etc.

-Even if JonBenet met her demise at their hands in their home does not mean that her parents could also work up the nerve to remove her body and dispose of her out in the elements. They still may have had attachment to her remains even if they had violently caused her death. Im constantly disturbed in these cases by parents who are not only able to murder their offspring, but throw them away in rivers, woods, etc. I am not commending them for keeping her out of the elements, but maybe even they couldn't dispose of her in that manner.

-They were obviously extremely fixated with her looks throughout her short life, as shown by the frequent beauty pageants. Perhaps they couldn't bring themselves to let her body deteriorate in the elements before discovery/funeral.

-They would immediately lose all control of the discovery if they had dumped her elsewhere. Rather than John rushing to her body in the basement when he felt the time was right, it would be entirely up to chance who discovered her, and when.

Regarding the ransom note:

-The Ramseys were both educated, well off people, and maybe they over-thought how to cover up a murder. The type of CSI style murders people see on tv, in books, etc. are usually pretty formulaic and can be convincing even if they aren't entirely based in reality. If they had exposure to that, they could have thought ransom notes were the normal thing that occurred with the missing.

-By planting the note, they also controlled the first theories of her disappearance. They did not leave police to wander around blindly, they pointed them directly towards kidnapping by 'foreign faction' and hoped that would keep authorities from looking their way.

-They were probably aware the note would be highly publicized and were able to insert themselves into it in a positive light. The comments in the note allude to well to do people who could pull $118,000 from their accounts, and in John's case, owns a 'bussiness' and has 'good southern common sense'.

All things considered, I feel that the decision to leave the body in the home if they murdered her, and concocting a ransom note do seem strange when compared to other 'missing' child cases. I think this can be explained using a paradigm of not only getting away with it, but controlling the flow of the investigation as much as possible. They both showed throughout the initial investigation that they NEEDED to be in charge by hiring their own investigators, lawyers, and other personnel to ensure everything went the proper way.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

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
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate

something is wrong with leaving JonBenet in the house. Why? She is planning a call to arrange an early pickup and a proper burial.

Anonymous said...

How is that evil when you read what journalist write and blame the family members of missing and murdered children of each and everyday.

Anonymous said...

They did both:made more money than the written ransom and brought attention to their cause.

The Ramseys' were Christian so what was found in the basement is the killer's interpretation of the beleif.Naturally, every scum bearing journalist wanting dirt to dish out showed up.

IIRC, one of Florida's finest was there, too. Two bad he didn't survive the anthrax attacks after 9/11

Florida said...

Old Psych Nurse; With all due respect, Patsy Ramsey had housekeepers, nannies and maids. It was not her problem to worry about soiled linens and dirty clothes or ruined floors.

You are guessing at Patsy's mental condition. There are no records by any mental health clinics or psychiatrits that show Patsy ever had any mental condition or was ever prescribed any psychiatric drugs of any kind. Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

Old psychobabble.

Who came up with the protests at funerals? An old, worn out preacher of hate.

Who comes all undone if a body is disposed of improperly?
Why is proper burials important to most Americans?

Florida said...

cddonm, thank you for your well thought out and carefully worded response. You make some excellent points, some that have never been presented previously. I will certainly keep them in mind; not to say that I am not still looking for inborn common sense and plain old logic.

If there IS any, it's got to be there somewhere and not just sheer speculation based on what the media and others "think' happened or the appearance of what "might" have happened.

As to them hiring an attorney, that is exactly the first thing I would have done. Consider that they were treated as suspects right off the bat by this 23 yr old new-cop woman, new to the force, with not an ounce of experience and from there, her accusations and twisted logic grew and grew and grew, excluding all others. It was like she had spoken the gospel and all fell for it. All but me and a few others.

You BET I'd have called an atty! I'd have called an atty before I even opened my mouth. THAT is one thing I sharply disagree with, that calling an atty is to point the finger of guilt at yourself. You call an atty to TRY to protect yourself from being railroaded by inept and corrupt LE who know the ropes and you don't; and with no recourse.

You call an atty when you get a traffic violation, but don't call an atty when your child is lying dead on your floor? You betcha you do! The PR firm was hired AFTER the atty.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

We're just determing male or female? I say female. The person who wrote this letter is not a tough-guy kidnapper. She writes like a would be novelist whose whole mental picture of a tough-guy kidnapper was gathered from old films, films that Patsy Ramsey is old enough to have watched, I might add. Words and phrases like ‘fat cat’ and ‘attache’ and the whole ‘you talk to a stray dog, she dies’ are dated and odd. Who uses the word ‘attache’ anymore? Even odder is the grandiose language that is mixed in with those phrases. The writer of the ransom note likes to write. She can’t help it, she has to show off a bit how good of a writer she is rather than stick to the movie-cliches. Ransom note 101 should go something like this: “We have your daughter. You will pay us one hundred thousand dollars in unmarked bills or we will kill her. We will call you with instructions to deliver the money. Do not call the police, we will be watching you.” Like Hob-Nob said, your job as a would-be kidnapper is to snatch the child, leave the note and get out before you are discovered. A real tough-guy/kidnapper would not don’t sit there crafting a well-written letter and then re-write it (like neatness counts here?) But even so, being in love with your own writing is not inherently male or female. The lines that come next are what clinches it. The fussy mommy-ish admonitions: Be sure to be well rested and have a big enough ‘attache’ because you’re going to be carrying all that money and that’s a big job.
Were it not such an awful situation the lines that come next are almost comical. We have “two gentlemen” who “do not particularly like you” so don’t “provoke them.” This is definitely a woman talking. No man would say "I don't particularly like you" or say it about someone else's feelings. A real kidnapper/tough guy might say "I have two guys watching your daughter and they hate you" or "they would love to make you suffer" or even "they don't like you, so don't tick them off." The word 'particularly' has the same root word as 'particle' meaning a small bit. These men guarding JonBenet only don't like John a small bit. So are they indifferent more than they dislike him? I can see ladies at a party gossiping saying “I don’t particularly like her” not two thugs guarding a captive.
At the end of the letter we see that the kidnapper is being more familiar, using “John” three times. There’s less wordsmithing and more of a hurry up and finish feel to the last lines as well. The “don’t try and grow a brain” part sounds like an exasperated wife more than a warning or threat.
Lastly there's the tacked on "Victory" and the SBTC which sounds like a yogurt franchise. It's definitely a woman and most likely Patsy. It'd be easier to tell if I were more familiar with her writing style.

Anonymous said...

obviously! The local investigators were morons!The case was so senstaionized that there would be no way a killer could ever be caught.

Anonymous said...

I say it's a male writer interjecting his thoughts and opinions about the opposite sex. A male writer who wants others to hunt for that all illusive transexual who is in need of professional psychiatric help-as most these scenerios go.

Maggie said...

I have looked at this ransom note multiple times. I believe Patsy probably wrote it. One thing though, and I won't go into a big, long explanation--but I believe this ransom note was written before the crime. There are many reasons I believe this--one is the note was not written in a state of panic or rush for time. Rather, it appears to have been written in a calm state of "imagination". The writer even had time to contemplate whether John would be well-rested when getting the money. To describe the money in great detail. Etc. I absolutely don't believe it was written after the murder.

Florida said...

Periwinkle (like that name!); how can you conclude that this is a woman who wrote the ransom letter when so many ----rs talk, think and act like prissy women? Remember, it WAS a child molester, an 'effin' ----r, under whatever disguise, who raped and killed sweet little JonBenet.

You also cannot say that someone sat down in the house and spent all this time writting this ridiculous ransom letter when it could have been just as easily practiced and written somewhere else and likely WAS. The perp could have been in the house on other occasions and gathered all the info he needed, including copies of Patsy's handwriting and one of her pads and taken all the time he wanted to write the so-called ransom letter and NOT have spent time writing it while there. In fact, I believe he might have penned and reworded it many times just to get it exactly the way he wanted it; THAT being to solely incriminate the Ramseys. Just MOO. Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

I can see why you'd want to study the logic of guilt and common sense. Did it ever occur to you to teach your son not to stand in traffic unless he wanted to be ran over?

Zoom lens! Yeah, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Florida said...

I agree Maggie, this letter was NOT written after the murder. It's too detailed, time consumming and complicated for anyone to have sat there, practiced and written it AFTER the murder.

IMO, the sicko left it where he had already laid it and got the hell outta there, like he had already planned to do before killing JonBenet. I don't think he ever intended to kidnap or take JonBenet out of the house. He just wanted to lay all the suspicion on the Ramseys so no one would ever trace her death to him. If I'm right, he covered his tracks well. Fla Anon

Maggie said...

OK--reread the note again and some previous impressions I had are coming back.
Lines 19-20: "The two gentleman watching over your daughter do not particularly like you" points to a female writer. The "breaking it to him gently" that he is not "particularly" liked points to a female and one who is extremely concerned about image/social conventions--someone always putting on their best face when in public.
One of the strangest parts of the note, in my opinion, begins soon after in line 22"If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies." And then the repetition of "if you do ----, she dies" "if you do---blank, she dies". It is the most violent part of the letter, and comes as somewhat of a shock when reading the note as the writer previously is not coming off as brutal but rather as someone "sensitive" to such things as whether a person has had enough sleep. But, it is almost like the writer has a "formula" for trying to sound violent and threatening and that is "if you do (blank), she dies"--and the writer fills in the blank. This part of the writing comes off as very immature to me. It seems like something someone in their late teens or early twenties would write. It does seem to come from the voice of a female. It is very "formulaic" in the threats. The mention of the "stray dog" comes across as extremely immature to me. This is someone who is almost making a "pretense" of sounding threatening. Quite obviously, this person is a threatening person, but it comes off as the person making almost a silly effort to sound threatening. I hope this makes sense.
The part about "You stand a 99% chance..." also comes across as extremely immature. This is not something a typical adult would write I don't think as I just think the use of this percentage is very childish. I believe the write is female--probably Patsy (perhaps she is very emotionally immature and that would explain the immaturity in the writing) but ABSOLUTELY written BEFORE the crime NOT AFTER.

Anonymous said...

Do you think it was writeen prior to Christmas or Boxing Day?

Maggie said...

Florida--Just read your comment and I have thought that same thing before!
I haven't totally ruled out that possibility when I think about it that it was written by someone who intended to kill her to put blame on the Ramseys and to keep the search off him.
I do think that is possible.

Maggie said...

I think the letter appears to have been written days or weeks before the crime in a state of relaxed "imagination" like a writer sitting in a quiet den just writing in a relaxed setting--not written in close time proximity to the crime--meaning not immediately before.

Maggie said...

Florida--you raise some really good points that it could be a man who acts/talks like a woman!

Maggie said...

The word "attache"--Has Patsy ever used this word? Not many people use this word. I know I never have. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone use this word.
Was this word in Patsy's internal dictionary? If it was, she is the writer.

Forever Curious said...

Excellent catch! I missed that but now that you mention it, I totally agree with you. Who would be more familiar with having a man come home than his wife?

Maggie said...

The "don't try to grow a're not the only fat cat around" does sound like a wife but it also could be a man who knows John and doesn't like him.
The note was definitely written previous to the killing--because of this, it makes more sense to me that the note was actually written by an intruder. However, it could have been written by Patsy but then the crime would still have been premeditated.
The writer of the note spent a lot of time "fantasizing" about the money itself--what denominations of bills, unmarked, carried in "adequate size attache, etc." and about the actual withdrawal and delivery of the money. This is really the bulk of the letter is this imagining about the money itself and the withdrawal, delivery. The writer pictured John getting the money--was he well-rested? exhausted by the journey? carrying a big enough attache? The writer pictured the money itself in detail. I feel there is an envy of John's money found in the letter and the writer relishes picturing him getting this money to give to the kidnapper. This, in my opinion, leans away from Patsy being the writer. Since, what reason would she have to be envious of his money?

Forever Curious said...

If she had died in the house and they didn't get rid of the body right away, it wouldn't have done any good to take the body off somewhere. Cadaverine would have been detected. While what they did makes little sense either if you assume a familial killing, they were between a rock and a hard place. Removing a dead body they could be seen. It would leave evidence in the vehicle they used. Maybe they were planning to do something like that, and wrote the ransom note for that reason, then panicked when they realized the problems the plan presented?

Forever Curious said...

Old Psych Nurse, hmmm. I can see that.

Lis said...

This is way too wordy and chatty to be a man.

Anonymous said...

A great whodunit!

Had to take a refreshment break. Whilst doing so, a faint light flickered off a candy apple red car. Odd, I'd never seen a make that color before. No hubcaps, a spotlight on the drivers side next to the rear-view mirror. Nice shiney paint I thought to myself. However, I could see creases here and there-espeially near the real tail light. Someone's in it! Is it a police officer?

They bolt from the car into the store!

Someone needed to drop a nutter basket of chicken into the fryer. Guess it had to be her.

These whodunnits and anons are great problem solvers.

Anonymous said...

Here's an advertiser that wishes to cash in on the decade plus murder-taking snipe shots at a dead child:

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to do as Peter said and use my imagination.
If my motive was ransom money, I would take JonBenet with me, not kill her and leave her there to be found and lose the money.
I would have to choose either framing the Ramseys or money. I couldn't leave her there and expect both. People don't pay ransom money if their child is dead.
If I were a child molester/killer I wouldn't leave a note. I would get out fast and not care who took the blame as long as it wasn't me.
If I were trying to frame someone how would I go about making it look like the parents killed their own daughter?
I'd probably kill her in her own room and leave her there and let the parents try to explain. If I could sneak around the house quietly enough to locate and carry her off to another room, I could no douI wouldbt just kill her right there without being detected or,
I'd choose a room that didn't have a broken window that suggests an intruder did it or,
I'd move her to a location where I thought she would eventually be found because people might wonder why the Ramseys didn't try to hide her someplace other than their own basement. And I would plant evidence in or on one of their cars.
I'd try to anticicpate or manipulate Patsy into dressing in the same clothes she wore the day before to make it look like she had been up all night, but I don't see how I could control that.
I wouldn't leave a note at all which might have clues that could give me away? I'd just let the Ramseys try to explain what happened? Probably the best plan unless I was clever enough to:
Make a mental note of peculiarities of speech that would point to the Ramseys such as "and hence".
Have inside information on John's bonus amount. There could be a number of people who might know that figure.
Have studied Patsy's handwriting enough to feel confident that she couldn't be excluded as the author, as John was.
All very good and clever reasons to leave a ransom note that points to one or both parents.
I still think it was a panicked attempt to coverup and misdirect. The inconsistency in planning suggests to me that it wasn't planned in advance or the killer/killers would have to be so clever that they thought to include inconsistencies to make it look like panic. It's possible I suppose, but they probably wouldn't have wanted me on the jury if there had been a trial.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi Florida,

Do you believe it was a male writing the note?

Its just that you keep using the word HE when explaining who done what.

Or do you like me, most times use the male sex when explaining senarios?

Lis said...

So, you think it was a male writer who was trying to sound like a female writer who was trying to sound like a male writer and failing at it?


Anonymous said...

Would a person who's a member of a"foreign faction" use a term like "good Sounthern common sense"? How would a foreigner even be aware of the expression "good Southern common sense"and what that entails? Patsy was from the south. It could be an expression that she heard many times in her life and probably used it with pride to describe herself on occasion. And others in her social circle could have heard her use it.

Has anyone seen Patsy's interrogation tapes? I did see them and I think she says quote forcibly several times, "I did not kill my daughter." Now, one could look at that last statement as truth if the son killed JonBenet, let's say accidentally. Or her denial could mean that someone outside the family killed her.

In that same neighborhood, a house was invaded and a little girl almost taken by the intruder. The father came home unexpectedly from a business trip and saved the day, but the intruder got away.

Anybody recall the family who gave an account of this scary intruder?

brosnanfan said...

Three things stood out to me in reading this “ransom note”:

Don't try to grow a brain John.
Use that good southern common sense of yours.

When a person goes to another country, they don’t think of themselves as a “foreigner”. If I were to go to Great Britain, I would not describe myself to a native as a “foreigner”, but as an American. However, that person might think of me as a “foreigner”, since I am in their country and not mine. To yourself, you are not a foreigner, but a member of whatever country you are from, and you wouldn’t describe yourself as a foreigner; but others might see you as a foreigner in their country and describe you as such.

“Small foreign faction” sounds like something heard on the news or read in the paper or perhaps seen in a movie. A group like that might describe themselves by their name, or perhaps something like “a group of angry [insert country here]”, but not as a “small foreign faction”.

In that same vein, “Use that good southern common sense of yours” is not something a “foreigner” would say. A phrase like that is a geographical colloquialism, a saying specific to a certain region of this country. A “foreigner” is not likely to know that, as we are not likely to know their colloquialisms if we were to go to their country. In fact, even certain regions of the United States have slang and lingo that is specific to them; if you go to Arizona and order a Coke, you’ll get Coca-Cola, but go to Kentucky and order a Coke and the conversation will go like this:

“Whaddya wanna drink?”
“What kinda Coke?”
“Dr Pepper [or Mountain Dew or RC Cola or Ski or whatever].”

The likelihood of a “foreigner” knowing the phrase “good southern common sense” is so slim that I would say it is none.

In that same line, I couldn’t remember where John and Patsy had grown up so I did a quick search. Patsy was born, grew up, and went to college in West Virginia, which is considered to be a Southern state. John grew up in Nebraska and went to college in Michigan, both considered to be Midwestern states. John cannot be called upon to use his “good southern common sense”, because he presumably doesn’t have any, not being from the South. However, Patsy, who hails from a Southern state, might be presumed to have some.

“Don’t try to grow a brain John” is a derogatory comment, made when one wants to be insulting. It sounds to me like Patsy is blaming John for the death of JonBenet and the fact that there must now be a cover-up. Perhaps Patsy is thinking that John screwed up (the death of JonBenet), he now can’t be trusted to “fix” it since he has no “brain”, so she has to step in, and she is upset and mad about it so it is coming out in what she is writing. Likewise, perhaps Patsy, either consciously or subconsciously, is telling herself to use “good southern common sense” in the authoring of the “ransom note” and cover-up of JonBenet’s death. What she is feeling in her heart is coming out of her “mouth” (pen).

The use of John’s name, if this were in fact written by a foreigner, sounds clunky and awkward. When I have a conversation with someone, I normally don’t repeat their name back to them; however, when I am having a conversation with my husband, I will quite often use his name when speaking to him. It’s because I am close to him. Likewise, this so-called “ransom note” sounds like a letter written between two people who know one another well. It doesn’t have the feel or language used between people who don’t know one another.

This note has the feel of descriptive language, or story-telling; it sounds like narration from a novel (and not a very good novel at that). If someone with limited imagination skills were trying to write a suspense novel, this looks like what they would write. It’s rather corny.

Just going on the basis of this note alone, I believe Patsy was the author.

“For whatever is in your heart determines what you say. […] The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.” (Matthew 12: 34b, 37 NLT)

Anonymous said...


Hi again,
Thank you for your comments John, Please help find Ayla, and Forever curious.

I haven't set up a profile yet, but I'll be Ivanna-Anna Lyse, freelance ransom note editor. Today, my approach is to improve the note. I'll make comparisons to familiar situations.

Think about a frustrated hormonal teenager
who wants to sound threatening after being shoved by his annoying brother. Would he say?
“If you ever touch me again, you're dead!”
“If you ever touch me again, you die!”

Does the first option not sound more realistic and more threatening?

Now that I'm Ivanna-Anna Lyse, here is my first instruction to the note's writer:

'She dies' weakens the message.
22-23: "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies"
should be changed to
“If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she's dead.”

Or could it be that JonBenet was already dead (accidentally killed) when the letter was written?
Could it be that “she dies” was used to avoid repeating the sensitive phrase “she's dead”?

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi Brosnanfan.

Do you believe then that the alledged note was written before
or after the murder?

Anonymous said...

The note doesn't say they are a member of a small foreign faction, only that the author and others REPRESENTS ONE.

Anonymous said...

Interesting! This article makes claims of child pornography dating back to 1966:

Supposedly this has been a money maker for decades. Just getting people thinking about it probably arouses them. Reading about her killing not only sold many papers, books, movies, etc., but also made others want to do the same.

Not much is heard about the FBI agent charged with distributing child porn which happened not too long ago. Even when we read about child porn being on a computer disk of someone suspected in a disappearace of a 13 year-old in Texas, no charges are filed.

Recently, a children's Walt Disney program was interrupted to show 6 minutes of pornography to children under 10. The mother just happened to be in another room close enough to hear what was on TV.

What have all these agenda driven journalists been doing all these years?

Anonymous said...

(from Ivanna-Anna)

When your child's name is mentioned in an email sent by his teachers:
“Lately, we have been concerned with Peter's attitude towards homework”
you feel worse than when his name is not mentioned:
“Lately, we have been concerned with your son's attitude towards homework”
You know the email talks about your son, but it doesn't feel half as bad as the first one.

Why does the letter not mention JonBenet's name again and again? Could it be that keeping emotional distance is more important to the writer than writing a strong demand?

This is for situations when you want to manipulate a husband:
When you want to persuade a husband to do something, don't forget to mention the wife.
So when you want your friend's husband to buy some hand made jewelry, don't forget to mention the wife: “Jack, I know Pam would love this, and she would appreciate your gesture. You know, she has often mentioned how you...”

The same here:
If someone wanted to extract money from a husband, would they not mention his wife? The note was long so why didn't it include something like this: “Patsy relies on you, John. JonBenet relies on you. Don't do anything stupid, John. Follow the instructions...”
Why did the note not use the names and urge John to protect his family? There may well be several reasons, but I can't rule out that it wasn't written by the wife who didn't quite get into character.

And finally, like Lemon said earlier: contempt.
As a wife, I might well say something like “Use that good southern common sense of yours”.
In fact, during the worst kind of fights, I might even add some oomph: “inherited from your father's side of the family!”

S + K Mum said...

How does the writer know that John will have a brown paper bag at home? I don't live in the US and I don't keep brown paper bags at home so if it's a 'foreign faction' why would they say that??

Periwinkle Paisley said...

Anon 4:48 you're joking, right? Lis, you just made my head hurt ;) If the reason behind the writing of this letter weren't so horrible it'd be funny. I found myself laughing at things and then I'd remember JonBenet and it wasn't so funny. That poor girl.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

It's entirely possible that it was written before hand. I hadn't thought of that. I figured if it was Patsy and JonBenet was already dead she had all night to be scribbling and referencing spy movies from the 70s. That is only my guess though. There are a lot of prissy men, true, but even the most effeminate of them (that I know) don't fuss about things like bringing a big enough bag and being well rested. Now the handwriting I can't agree with you. It is darn near impossible to copy someone's exact style. Studies have shown that individual handwriting is like a fingerprint, it might look the same to the untrained eye but it's not. Copying someone else's turn of phrase is also difficult, your own way of speaking always leaks through. Like I said, if I were familiar with the way she writes it'd be easier to tell. People have certain things they ALWAYS say and their syntax is unique, you can't help it. It's not impossible though, well practiced authors can do it.

Ivanna-Anna said...

US vs. the rest of the world, and the use of English language

I spotted some good comments from brosnanfan, C5H11ONO, Dee and Anonymous. I'd like to add a few more:
$ (I'd use US$ to distinguish USD from other Dollar currencies)
bills (notes)
brown paper bag (most other countries use plastic bags. It takes time to add words to a personal vocabulary)
we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics (would a foreigner be familiar?)

I would love to get help with this:

31-32: “You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult.”

Does this sentence make sense? Are fat cats known to find killing easy?
Does it mean what it seems to mean: “John, I'm like you. I could kill, easy peasy”?

Periwinkle Paisley said...

Maggie, re: line 22 I will bet you a donut that that 'formula' came from the old movie Stripes with Bill Murray. There's that bit with the guy named Frances "You call me Frances, I kill you. You touch my stuff, I kill you. Any of you homos try and touch me or look at me in the shower, I kill you." You just substitute "I kill you" with "She dies" and stuff Frances is talking about with stuff a parent of a kidnapped child 'might' do, like talk to stray dogs? That part was definitely weird.

Anonymous said...

I read that he formed the Advanced Product Group in 1989- Telephone equipment. Perhaps he already had competition and didn't know it.

They run many scams in my state using phone equipment and even cover bank robberies under a business name of Advanced in the title. Often they are tied to Iranians and Texas trash, though others have been tracked back to a US Military base.

Anonymous said...

It makes sense now. After a recent tornado, I found that a little girl went missing in the area many years ago. Her mother, a phone operator, was killed. Two men in khakis picked her up and she was never heard from again.

Then a mysterious poem showed up in a Colorado newspaper describing the catastrophe. As years went by, this missing girl's case was used as an agenda by the media whenever disasters hit.

Typically, death threats are sent through the mail in the form of poems-laced with powdered something-and extortion rings operate off not only missing children, but also disaster victims.

Geneology must be popular as I noticed some of our local scammers chased a storm in that area this year. And, prior to Christmas one of their phone/ghost/extortion members was spotted near the home of a studied survivor who was also from the area that suffered a loss so great that poetry was written about it.

Perhaps they were checking their roots to see how much they'll pay if they can dig up dirt on them.

Anonymous said...

I take that to mean that if John doesn't follow instructions they will kill JonBenet and try kidnapping and ransom with another 'fat cat'.

Eliza said...

To Anonymous 2:11

Do you have a link of the nanny interview? I'd like to read it!

Eliza said...

Florida, I think that they were afraid to be seen if they carried Jonbenet's body in the car to leave it somewhere else. I am not familiar with the neighbourhood they lived in, but I think they thought it would be too dangerous to leave the house, because they would be seen. Even if they hid Jonbenet's body e.g. in the trunk while the car was still in the garage, some neighbour could have said that he saw the car leaving the house, or the Ramseys get out in the middle of the night, so that would raise suspicion.

Eliza said...

Where did you see the tapes? Are there any videos in youtube?

Eliza said...

I see some people believe that the note was written before the murder... Personally I think it was writter afterwards, as a coverup. That's my personal feeling, of course.
But don't forget that the Ramseys put on Jonbenet's gravestone the date 25th December as the date of death. Maybe they knew that she dies before midnight that night. If so, Patsy did have 5 whole hours to sit and write this note, as lengthy as it is. She would have enough time even to use her imagination.

Apple said...

I think the letter was written after the crime as it is too bizarre to have been the final draft of a well thought out faux ransom note.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the note was written by a woman, but not particularly Patsy Ramsey. Was there any other woman with familiarity with the household and family like a housekeeper, nanny, or even another beauty pageant participant's mother? Someone with a score to settle or intensely jealous?

The person knew the layout of the home, and was someone who Jon Benet was familiar and would not scream out in fear when approached.

Patsy would have had the most interaction with this person. John Ramsey was not from the South. A female, knowing that Patsy was from the South, may have assumed John was also, and may have heard Patsy say "use your good Southern common sense."

The ransom amount of $118,000 is a very strange amount of money to ask from a very wealthy family. It is also the exact amount of money John received as a Christmas bonus that year. Did an employee or acquaintance find something written with the bonus amount on it or was it overheard in conversation? Knowing about this amount of money, just received, and easily obtainable could be produced immediately. Patsy was awash in money, and being used to the best, why would she put such a paltry dollar amount down for the life of her daughter?

The writer of the letter was not intelligent and probably medicated or impaired by alcohol. It reads like a bad "B" movie script. Patsy was an educated woman of achievement.

This child was not just murdered, but tortured. It was done by someone with deep hatred and animosity toward the Ramseys. I don't believe that either one of the Ramseys murdered Jon Benet, but it was someone closed to the family.

Florida said...

My take: Some (many) of you make many excellent points about the possibility that Patsy wrote
the fake ransom letter. Also, that if she did, she wrote it AFTER JonBenet was murdered.
And IF she did, IMO, she was angrily attempting to cover up John's part in JonBenet's death;
particularly in the comment "don't try to grow a brain" making it appear that now she has
to try to resolve the problem HE stupidly created by killing her. I tell ya what, it can
really make one wonder.

Another thing that makes me wonder is the use of the word "attache" case. I have vast experience
in the business world, as many others do; and I can state right here and now that very few business
people use the word "attache" case, either male or female. We all refer to our briefcase as being a briefcase. I've heard a few (very few) banking officials and upper management use the term "attache" and only one attorney that I can recall, and I've worked with MANY over the years. I can only remember athe one attorney who used the term "attache" and he was a flaming prissy girlie homo who sat there trying to put the make on another attorney (of the opposing team, I might add).

Makes me wonder what did John and/or Patsy refer to John's briefcase as; his briefcase or his
"attache"? Would be interesting to know. Fla Anon

Sus said...

The entire nature of the note is to put all responsibility on John Ramsey. The writer addresses the note only to Mr. Ramsey. The writer speaks to John and advises him how to act, even criticising him. JonBenet is "your daughter". It is John's money and his responsibility to keep JonBenet alive.

The writer never calls JonBenet by name suggesting a disconnect. But the writer sees a connection between JonBenet and JR. Why didn't the writer mention a mother/daughter connection?

Florida said...

Anon @ 8:01, you make many of the same points that I've also thought of. Only, I have not believed the fake ransom letter was written by a woman. I have always believed that it was practiced and written by a pseudo-feminine pedophile homo long before he got to the Ramsey's that night, and who had no intentions of actually kidnapping little JonBenet.

There was known to be nineteen (19) people who had keys to that house and that doesn't include others who might have had access to the key and had one made for themselves, including work crews who had done remodeling work in the home. MANY people could have easily had access to the Ramseys.

However, now I'm leaning towards 'considering' that it might have been written by Patsy AFTER John killed JonBenet; IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED, and in that case, Patsy would have written it AFTER JonBenet was killed.

We must remember that little JonBenet was not only tortured, SHE WAS RAPED. Since that is a FACT, we must remember that she was either raped by John, which makes him a pedophile; OR she was raped by some outside pedophile who ALSO would have had prior access to the home and would have practiced and written the ridiculous ransom letter BEFORE JonBenet was brutally murdered since no actual kidnapping ever took place, which makes the entire ransom note moot other than for analytical purposes.

Fl Anon

Maggie said...

Periwinkle--I agree that those lines came from a movie--in fact, I believe almost every line of the note came from either a James Bond/cheesy who-done-it/or mobster movie (the "stray dog" line I could swear I heard in some mobster movie). The "small foreign faction"--that sounds like James Bond or similar movie. Now, whoever wrote the note must have been an avid watcher of these types of movies--watching them hundreds of times each I would bet.
Was Patsy a fan of these types of movies? This does not seem to have been her thing. She seems to have been into beauty pageants and religion. Also, reading some of her writings, she seems to have been quite intelligent. The writer of this note does note strike me as possessing her level of intelligence.
Also--just some thoughts: If the Ramseys had been out at a Christmas party that night, that seems to open up the possibility that some sicko went into their house and hid and waited till they were asleep to kill Jon Benet. The way in which she was killed--it is so hard to believe one of her parents did that to her--a sicko intruder it is easier to believe.
I also think that if Patsy had had a "few" drinks that night at the party, this could explain why she woke up in the same clothes she was wearing--alcohol will sometimes cause someone to go to sleep in the clothes they have on.
Fatigue and mind fog from the alcohol make is even less believable that Patsy had the energy, calm, and clarity to compose this note in the middle of the night as a cover-up. And also to "recall" these movie lines.
All of the beauty pageants that Patsy brought her daughter to be in presents a strong possibility that a pedophile saw Jon Benet and made the plan to kill her. Or, that it was a pedophile who knew the family. This would explain how the writer would have known about the amount of John's bonus--it is not unusual for friends and family to be told about someone's bonus and how much it is. Also, would Patsy not be smart enough to realize that by including that amount she would be pointing the finger at the family itself or those close to the family as the perpetrators? She was smart enough to know that I believe.
I think it is unusual for a woman to be a fan of James Bond and mobster movies.
I am thinking the writer had an unusual fixation on these types of movies.
I have changed my opinion away from thinking the writer is female because it seems everything is a line from a movie even "these gentleman do not particularly like you" I think I've heard that in a movie.
I don't think Patsy wrote the note.

Florida said...

Good question, Sus.

Fla Anon

Florida said...

Okay Maggie. I can't help but agree.

Now you make me swing right back to many of the things I've always believed in the first place. I have to come back to logic and common sense.

It makes no sense that either John OR Patsy killed little JonBenet, or that either one of them wrote the tell-tale ransom letter and left her little body lying there, when either or both of them could have easily disposed of her, reported her missing, and have written NO LETTER.

Unless.... unless.... unless...... Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

John Ramsey was not a pedophile and abusing his daughter, and he and Patsy did not kill their daughter. Most of Patsy's life evolved around JonBenet, she was re-living her own beauty pageant days through JonBenet, and she adored that little girl. The biggest crime the Ramsey's committed was the careless security of their home and exposing their daughter to deviants via the exposure with the beauty pageants.

Does anyone honestly believe that Patsy Ramsey would not do anything to protect her daughter if she believed her husband was sexually abusing her? I don't think she would bat an eyelash in notifying the authorities and a divorce would harm either her wealth or her position in society.

Think, people, think.

Anonymous said...


rob said...

If I am a pedo, and I either snuck into your home while you were out, or broke in while you were sleeping. Quietly took your daughter down 2 flights of stairs, to rape, torture, and murder her. Then leave her body in the home when I left, why on earth would I take to time to pre-write or find Patsy's notepad and pen, and write that long,drawn-out ransom letter, when I left the body in the house. If I wanted the $118,000, why didn't I carry her maybe 40 lb body with me when I left. Why even write the letter when there was no intention of collecting a ransom?
The letter makes no sense. This case took place before all of these parent killing, baby missing from bed, I don't know where I left my child, started being reported. They were making it up as they went along and probably thought they were being smart about it. And hence, I think someone in the family killed her, and both participated in the cover-up.

Maggie said...

Rob--I see your point, but the thing is you can flip it and ask the same questions about the parents. If they killed Jon Benet why would they not just dispose of her or, if they are going to keep her body at the house and make it look like it was an outsider, why would they then write a ransom note from a kidnapper when clearly she was not kidnapped! I googled this case and it seems some think that the crime scene itself was staged in terms of making it look like a sexual homicide, so again the question arises why would the parents kill Jon Benet and then both A) stage the crime scene to appear as a sexual homicide and B) write a kidnapping ransom note that makes no sense given their efforts to stage the crime scene as a sexual homicide? None of it makes sense. And for Patsy to have had the presence of mind to write the ransom note in this complicated cover-up in the middle of the night, why was it so lengthy? Why so full of detail? Why with such a stupid ending?
Point is--either way you look at it--whether the parents are the perpetrators or if it is a sicko intruder, the ransom note makes no sense.

Tania Cadogan said...

When i invaded canada and the States i still considered everyone i met to be foreigners.
I wasn't the one with the accent.
Why my friend and I went to Johnson Space Centre, as is my wont i was yacking away, talking to strangers and generally being a hobnob, in the lift going up to what was mission control,a Texan with his cute drawl said " You're not from around here are you?
Dang, how did he guess?
Another time a frind of my friends dad came round, hi was doing something on a computer and simply said hi.
He did a double take and said "Whoa, lil lady, you're not from round here".
he got that from hi LOL.

I don't know about those of you who have travelled to foreign climes, whereever i go everyone else has an accent and ipso facto are therefore foreign.

For a brit i don't have an accent, if anything it is home counties as i ennuciate ( unless i head to the westcountry ( . Devon my old stomping ground or hear cornish comedian Jethro) in which case i revert to yokel.
The UK has many accents such as scouse (liverpool) Brummie(birmingham) Geordie (newcastle) Cockney (London) Mockney ( Essex- think jaimie oliver), Westcountry (devon, somerset and cornwell) then you get glaswegian (hard scottish) and the highlands (soft scottish) wWelsh which is sing song and so on and variations in between as words and accents intermingle.

Where i live we have a high scottish population, almost as many irish and now a lot of east europeans. I am fluent in drunk glaswegian and we have our own accent ( a hodge podge of englsih with a scottish undertone. It feels strange going to the villages or the next town and hearing english when pretty much all you hear where i live is scottish/ irish and the local accent.
The east europeans learn pretty quick the local lingo especially the bus and taxi drivers, they get exposed to fluent drunkenese glaswegian and the nicknames for the main streets and clubs etc.

The worst accent i ever heard was when i was at senior school, i had a pakistani friend who spent half her life in Pakistan and half in Glasgow, Her accent was a mix of both and hard to understand, it was a running joke she would have a translator to translate her accent to the local or at least understandable glaswegian.
When i worked , there was a graduate from newcastle whose accen was so thick only his gorlfriend understood him, if he phoned or came round we would have to get her to come translate.

Those of you who have heard my dulcet tones know i don't have an accent :)

Tania Cadogan said...

FloridaSeptember 21, 2012 8:32 AM

Take a moment to think about what i have italicised in your statement.
Homo being the key word.

A homosexual by nature is not attracted to someone of the othr sex.
If, as you say, they were a 'paedophile homo' then logically their target would and should have been the son.

Why would they atack, sexually assault and then murder a child of the opposite gender to that which they are attracted to?
They would get no sexual satisfaction from assaulting Jonbenet, they wouldn't find her sexy, they wouldn't be turned on by her simply due to the fact they are homosexyal and thus attracted only to their own gender.
Homosexuals who are feminine are attracted to those who are masculine in behavior, the same as you get girly lesbians and butch lesbians who take on the male role even to wearing male attire, short hair and so on.

If as you say the killer was a pseudo-feminine homosexual why would he target a female child ( unless he got real upset over her looking amazing in her frocks and having better legs resulting in him having a hissy fit).

She was killed by a heterosexual paedophile, the evidence points to her father or possibly her brother.
Why she was killed i do not know, was it because perhaps she was going to tell?
Had she already told (patsy)?
Was it abuse gone too far?

It was someone in the house that night,Patsy knew and wrte the note to direct attention from herself and john.
When something goes wrong and someone is hurt or killed, panic hits, excuses are thought up even if they aren't logical.
Why would they write a ransom note, leave it on the stairs and then kill JonBenet leaving her in the house?
Think about it.
If it were a kidnap gone wrong, it would make sense to remove her body after leaving the note and hoping they will pay the ransom since they won't know she is dead, only that she is missing.
That would be the only logical reason to leave the note.
Unlike the mccanns who claimed maddie was abducted and that when the cadaver dogs reacted to the apartmnt, clothes, cuddlecat and the hire car they were wrong, there was no ransom note so why would they abduct a dead child.
They then have the problem of not only covering their tracks but also of disposing of a body.

Perhaps patsy thought JonBenet had been removed and wrote the note to mislead, especially since she did a practice run first.
When in a panic people don't think clearly, it made sense at the time so to speak.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

I have often wondered if both theories are true. That John Ramsey was molesting his child but some other pervert who liked to hang around these pagents saw her, was fixated and then killed her. The Ramseys covered up because they knew it would look like John had done it. And there is that DNA on her underwear that belongs to nobody in the house. Some people have said it could belong to the clothing inspector at the underwear factory, maybe if they were brand new, but if they weren't then no. Like I said before, unless I were very familiar with Patsy Ramsey's writing and way of speaking, I can't tell. I still think it's a woman though. I like James Bond and old mobster movies, Patsy liked glamor and fancied herself a part of high society and those are some dashing characters. Whoever wrote the note broke the cardinal rule of writing: Write about what you know. It's obvious they are only imagining being a foreign kidnapper.

Anonymous said...

Maybe to cast suspicion on the parents who owned the notepad, knew the bonus amt., and had time to write a long note so police wouldn't look for the real perpetrator. Like when people burn down a house to hide evidence of a murder.

Lis said...

The whole letter is ridiculous but that "get home" phrase didn't really hit me until you mentioned it. You are right- the writer is referring to John's residence as "home." This is someone who lives there. Great point! I learn so much from reading the comments. (Err, except some of them. Some of them lately make no sense to me whatever!)

Lis said...

Florida, we only analyze the words in the statements here. As to the motives of the crime, that is another subject. We look at the words and see what they are telling us. If we try to think about the background or motives or other subjects, it is going to influence how we see the words and we will not see them objectively.

brosnanfan said...

"I think it is unusual for a woman to be a fan of James Bond [...]."

Not so unusual as one might think. ;)

brosnanfan :)

brosnanfan said...

I am leaning towards the note being authored after JonBenet was murdered. I'm still unsure as to just how she was murdered, or who did it, or what the motive was. I am fairly sure it was an accident, but not 100% sure.

Lis said...

Seems like some people here are getting off track and trying to reason "why would they... (fill in the blank) ?" instead of doing statement analysis of the note.

Is this what you were talking about, Peter, when you said that the philosophical bent of some people makes them unable to do statement analysis?

Lis said...

From the wikipedia entry about JonBenet:
"there was no evidence of conventional rape, although sexual assault could not be ruled out. The official cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

Ivanna-Anna said...

Fat cat is clearly an indicator the note was written by a native speaker.

Eliza said...

Thank you, Anonymous!! :-)

Anonymous said...

The thing that sticks out the most to me is "you will be denied her remains for proper burial." I think PR was a delusional sociopath, sexualized the kid because she was living her sick fantasy thru her, transferring her delusions on to her, etc. Very Freudian of course but Freud was right about a lot of things.

John was prob obsessed with his beautiful trophy wife and I don't see how he would have not realized she wrote that note so he made the decision to cover.

I think P was corrupting both the kids because of being depraved. Pictures of the brother -- he doesn't look normal, but seriously, nine years old?

Narcissism: Put the depravity on some one else, daughter was for transference, projection. There is anger there in the note, towards the husband I think. Prob always suspecting the husband was cheating on her.

The kid looked just like her, and was her, in her sick mind, an extension of herself. Very narcissistic. Maybe JB crawled into bed with daddy, maybe perfectly innocent, various scenarios possible, but at six the child starts to assert herself and be her own person and the jig was up in more ways than one. Could have been as simple as "I'm going to tell."

I think she had been abusing her daughter and if Wecht is right there was no male-female rape? and I think it was just P molesting. Had to be planned. If no body, they could say they had time to get rid of it. Put new wounds on top of old which is common abuser method to disguise old injuries. It was, likely a murder made up to look like a sex crime gone wrong.

It would have made more sense to just say they found the body in the basement the ransom note was a big mistake and to deflect attention and cause confusion about the body being in the house.

There is a lot of indication P was like the abuser I knew -- (I was very lucky and nearly had a heart attack when I realized how her mind worked and what she would have gotten away with if not for an extraordinary chain of events, even that she had tried at least once to kill me)--very good at outcome-based reasoning but astounding lack of judgment that to the close family would never be what it was--always had to be something else.

Pineapple in the middle of the night and the dictionary is open to "incest." Warped mind she has created this but the kid is after her husband. Poss "You can do what you want elsewhere but he is off limits." Prob not stated exactly that way. The kid didn't understand, said the wrong thing, and got a trip to the basement. P had been giving her "chances" but no more. I know how that sort of mind works, believe me.

The word sacrifice is interesting to me to because the way it works out, very often a family will sacrifice one for the good of the many. Sacrifice susceptible to various interpretations, not always people standing around in robes killing someone! Look for horses before zebras.

The body language experts say J shows signs of deception and I agree but the thing is a delusional sociopath can convince herself that nothing is her fault and her body language means nothing. It's like flipping a switch.

One breath of incest will ruin the whole bunch and they had a lot to lose. I figure J at least helped with the cover-up and if I am right I hope he goes to jail.

And if the brother was crazy enough -- well, he would be crazy thinking he can keep him at home and keep a lid on it and I hope he's having fun. And realizing she wasn't worth covering for. Going through H and it will all come out in the end anyway. The mills of God grind slowly but they do grind with exactness.

Never underestimate the value of prayer. And I don't mean PR's "God is on my side" variety.

Anonymous said...

"Don't grow a brain, John." That's CONTEMPT.

Maybe I'd better stop.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

"Don't grow a brain, John"

Do you recognize the line?


Anonymous said...

Hi, Peter,

No, I didn't recognize the line. I don't watch a lot of movies. But taking stuff from a movie to use in some fantastical "script" is just like my mother would have done. So I read the contempt in there, and I don't think it's a stretch. PR was a clone of my mother. I never saw anything like it in my life. From the moment I saw that picture in the supermarket. I think actually that is what really lighted the fuse for the memory explosions which happened a few weeks later. Kids block things out. I didn't start really following the case until much later because of dealing with my own situation.

The headline read in huge letters. MOM DID IT. My mother was with me at the time and I couldn't understand there was guilt on her face as she watched me pick up that tabloid. (I probably bought about three tabloids in my entire life.)

I was buying her groceries and stuff and she had the women at the church thinking we were sponging off of her. When I realized.... The same stuff she pulled with my father.

If the father molested, you can bet she incited it. It was a script, and she wanted to watch. The eternal PR Show. Script selector, casting director, film editor, and star of the show. But not the producer, because someone else always pays. Yes, I know how that type of mind works. Depravity is the main feature. She is the one who sexualized the child. It always comes back to her.

JR may or may not be guilty as you-know-what, but if he isn't it may be fear because they always look at the man first. And usually that's as far as they go.

It is certainly not impossible that getting J was part of the motivation. Whatever, he fell right into it. But he is an adult and has to take responsibility.

She ENJOYED putting that line in there.

Getting two at once as I put it.

The funeral was the last pageant. I think she constantly suspected J (with reason or not didn't matter) of cheating on her.