Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

[Cataholic]

Yes a note was found in the bin, it was to Mr. & Mrs.
Pages 73-74 of Steve Thomas' book says this:





The perpetrator(s) would have to feel very comfortable spending a significant amount of time in the house writting the note(s).
I have a theory that the author wrote the notes previously inside the house but the ransom note was written elsewhere like the perps home (more comfortable), after failed attempts in the Ramseys residence due to nerves & unclear thoughts as to what to write. Could they have stole some of Patsy’s hand writing & had been able to study & practice copying it over time? Did they learn of her linguistics so as to use certain phrases to cast suspicion?

The missing pages, 20 deep & not enough that Patsy would notice them missing?
The use of a sharpie is clever as to not leave pressure imprint but only some bleed through. Basically untraceable.

So the killer breaks into the home and takes the pad and letters or documents handwritten by Patsy, then

the killer goes home and takes the time to practice forging Patsy's handwriting to write the ransom note, and

somehow finds the time and means to also learn Patsy's linguistics, and the exact amount of John's bonus, meantime

Patsy never notices the missing documentation, but

the killer returns the stolen documentation so it remains unnoticed but oddly enough also returns the whole writing pad to the house along with the ransom note, rather than simply carrying the note itself in their pocket?

Hmm.

 

[Lady O]

So the killer breaks into the home and takes the pad and letters or documents handwritten by Patsy, then

the killer goes home and takes the time to practice forging Patsy's handwriting to write the ransom note, and

somehow finds the time and means to also learn Patsy's linguistics, and the exact amount of John's bonus, meantime

Patsy never notices the missing documentation, but

the killer returns the stolen documentation so it remains unnoticed but oddly enough also returns the whole writing pad to the house along with the ransom note, rather than simply carrying the note itself in their pocket?

Hmm.

So there is no chance at all that the person had been in the house previously?

 

[Cataholic]

So there is no chance at all that the person had been in the house previously?

There's a chance - the first step I described essentially outlines the killer being in the house 'previously', before going away to practice their handwriting etc then returning to murder the poor girl etc.

I'm just don't think that a killer freely coming and going, helping themselves to examples of Patsy's handwriting / linguistics whilst also browsing John's correspondence is a likely scenario.

Just my opinion.

 

[Kurve]

So there is no chance at all that the person had been in the house previously?

Two storey houses in particular, are targeted at Christmas, there's stacks of gifts lying around. My brother's house was robbed on Christmas eve, the bedrooms upstairs, they got in downstairs and walked out with a couple of new phones and the new smart TV that was in the loungeroom.

There was seven people asleep in the house, it could have ended really badly. His house wasn't the only one in the street targeted that night either.

Good burglars will do a trial run first, apparently. They go in, see where all the exits are etc and go back.

 

[jason_recliner]

If you were from a 'foreign faction' or simply had it in for John and had done the homework required to know how much he'd recently received in order to ask for that sum in the ransom note, why on Earth would you chose Christmas.
A time when kids are restless and people are up late at gatherings etc. to commit a break and enter abduction of a child where rather than getting in and out as quickly as possible, you wait until youre in the house to write a multi page ransom note, grab the child, go down into the basement rather than out the nearest exit, and with freedom in sight decide to bash the child with a blunt instrument and then fashion a garrot to strangle her, and then leave her, meaning no chance of obtaining the money it was all for.

It makes absolutely no sense.

The kind of person who breaks in and murders a little girl in her own home doesn't think like you or me.

 

[Kurve]

There's a chance - the first step I described essentially outlines the killer being in the house 'previously', before going away to practice their handwriting etc then returning to murder the poor girl etc.

I'm just don't think that a killer freely coming and going, helping themselves to examples of Patsy's handwriting / linguistics whilst also browsing John's correspondence is a likely scenario.

Just my opinion.

The Ramseys had two houses, they weren't always in Boulder. After JonBenet was killed, they realised they'd had a problem with someone getting in to their Atlanta house and making themselves at home when they were in Boulder.

It was a homeless person iirc, not connected to JonBenet's murder.

 

[Lady O]

There's a chance - the first step I described essentially outlines the killer being in the house 'previously', before going away to practice their handwriting etc then returning to murder the poor girl etc.

I'm just don't think that a killer freely coming and going, helping themselves to examples of Patsy's handwriting / linguistics whilst also browsing John's correspondence is a likely scenario.

Just my opinion.

Sure. You'd be surprised to hear just how relaxed real criminals are about being in someone else's house. Drinking their beer, swimming in their pool. When someone in the house comes out and see's them, they say g'day, like they belong there. JMO

 

[frontierpsychiatrist]

Two storey houses in particular, are targeted at Christmas

Can confirm. Source:

 

[PenfoldsFan]

The kind of person who breaks in and murders a little girl in her own home doesn't think like you or me.

But they didnt go with intent to murder, they went to abduct, which is why they went to the effort of writing a lengthy ransom letter or doing a trial run whilst gathering intel on John, pens and pads.

They just decided at the last minute that all of that effort was pointless and escelated to Murdering a child on Christmas with an increased risk of being caught.

If John was worth 6 mil, you could pick any much safer day and if you'd done the supposed homework, much more money, he'd still be good for it.

It makes no sense.

 

[jason_recliner]

But they didnt go with intent to murder, they went to abduct, which is why they went to the effort of writing a lengthy ransom letter or doing a trial run whilst gathering intel on John, pens and pads.

They just decided at the last minute that all of that effort was pointless and escelated to Murdering a child on Christmas with an increased risk of being caught.

If John was worth 6 mil, you could pick any much safer day and if you'd done the supposed homework, much more money, he'd still be good for it.

It makes no sense.

He might not have gone there with the intent but he DID murder her.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

He might not have gone there with the intent but he DID murder her.

Someone killed her, just not sure it was someone who supposedly went to the great lengths of doing intel on John, stole Pattys pen, pad, hand writing and language to write a lengthy ransom note, took Jonbenet to the basement and with the finishline in sight, decided to throw it all away and risk being caught as a child killer.

And if the original intention was extortion, why leave the body behind, it guarantees no payday.
Once she was hit she'd be easier to remove and maintain the extortion.
Once she was incapacitated why strangle her.


Makes no sense.

 

[BonzaRam]

Hmm

Someone who knew the family well or even someone who worked with or under John could have known what his work bonus was. Someone perhaps who for whatever reasons found themselves in financial strife right at Christmas time and became disgruntled or even jealous of John getting a bonus larger than his salary whilst his children went without for Christmas. He snaps on Christmas Eve from the pressure and devices a plan to abduct John's daughter and get that bonus for his Christmas instead, with maximum damage to John in the process.

He hurriedly puts his plan in motion. During the course of the abduction he tapes sleepy JBs mouth and starts to carry her out. She awakens fully and once realizing whats going on fights back, hence the two fingernail clippings with DNA under them. He then panics in case someone hears them and hits her over the head to try and knock her unconscious. It severely injures JB but does not knock her out and he can see the wound is severe. At this point he is in absolute panic of being caught and done for attempted murder. JB has seen him and possibly knows who it is so in sheer panic he sees his only chance is to have no witnesses and to get out of there as fast as he can.

Just a thought...

 

[jason_recliner]

Someone killed her, just not sure it was someone who supposedly went to the great lengths of doing intel on John, stole Pattys pen, pad, hand writing and language to write a lengthy ransom note, took Jonbenet to the basement and with the finishline in sight, decided to throw it all away and risk being caught as a child killer.

And if the original intention was extortion, why leave the body behind, it guarantees no payday.
Once she was hit she'd be easier to remove and maintain the extortion.
Once she was incapacitated why strangle her.


Makes no sense.

There are some very sick, evil people out there. One of them found Jonbenet. I'm not aware that they used Patsy's handwriting and language.

 

[ms finch]

Hmm

Someone who knew the family well or even someone who worked with or under John could have known what his work bonus was. Someone perhaps who for whatever reasons found themselves in financial strife right at Christmas time and became disgruntled or even jealous of John getting a bonus larger than his salary whilst his children went without for Christmas. He snaps on Christmas Eve from the pressure and devices a plan to abduct John's daughter and get that bonus for his Christmas instead, with maximum damage to John in the process.

He hurriedly puts his plan in motion. During the course of the abduction he tapes sleepy JBs mouth and starts to carry her out. She awakens fully and once realizing whats going on fights back, hence the two fingernail clippings with DNA under them. He then panics in case someone hears them and hits her over the head to try and knock her unconscious. It severely injures JB but does not knock her out and he can see the wound is severe. At this point he is in absolute panic of being caught and done for attempted murder. JB has seen him and possibly knows who it is so in sheer panic he sees his only chance is to have no witnesses and to get out of there as fast as he can.

Just a thought...

Yes, to me what happened suggests the perpetrators knew John and Patsy, and something like this is a very plausible scenario.

In addition, if a person known to John and Patsy came in the house they could well have felt comfortable enough to take time to write the ransom note before doing anything else. If they were interrupted they would have looked weird, but would also have been able to come across as non-threatening to everyone. "Was just jogging past your house and saw the door wide open and came in to investigate."

Not that you mentioned it, but I don't put much stock in the handwriting and linguistics analysis that suggest the note was written by Patsy. Handwriting analysis is unreliable, and people in the same social circles and demographics tend to share similarities in their communication styles. This was especially true 30 years ago before technology made it easier for us to easily access broader communications styles and be influenced by them.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

There are some very sick, evil people out there. One of them found Jonbenet. I'm not aware that they used Patsy's handwriting and language.

Some experts have found over 200 comparisons to the letter too patsy’s hand writing.

The odds some random stranger would have over 200 similarities to patsys known handwriting is astronomically low. Especially in the parts of the handwriting where patsy groups her letters within words.

Original note :


Patsys right hand sample:

 

[jason_recliner]

Some experts have found over 200 comparisons to the letter too patsy’s hand writing.

The odds some random stranger would have over 200 similarities to patsys known handwriting is astronomically low. Especially in the parts of the handwriting where patsy groups her letters within words.

Original note :
View attachment 2190252

Patsys right hand sample:


View attachment 2190254




View attachment 2190255View attachment 2190256View attachment 2190257View attachment 2190258

Definitely some similarities but lots of differences too. Some of it can be explained by writing with a Sharpie, IMO. Certain writing techniques are needed to avoid too much running and to retain legibility. This ends up in styles using a Sharpie that are different to when using a Bic.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

Not that you mentioned it, but I don't put much stock in the handwriting and linguistics analysis that suggest the note was written by Patsy.

as someone who has studied and had limited training in linguistics and statement analysis, it’s very fascinating to me and I buy into 100 percent.
I understand not everyone believes in it or buys into. Which is why I don’t post statement analysis from someone like a Peter Hyatt, because people just blow it off.

people give themselves away by the words they choose to use all the time the problem is most people aren’t trained to catch it.

 

[Earls Smother]

Yes, to me what happened suggests the perpetrators knew John and Patsy, and something like this is a very plausible scenario.

In addition, if a person known to John and Patsy came in the house they could well have felt comfortable enough to take time to write the ransom note before doing anything else. If they were interrupted they would have looked weird, but would also have been able to come across as non-threatening to everyone. "Was just jogging past your house and saw the door wide open and came in to investigate."

Not that you mentioned it, but I don't put much stock in the handwriting and linguistics analysis that suggest the note was written by Patsy. Handwriting analysis is unreliable, and people in the same social circles and demographics tend to share similarities in their communication styles. This was especially true 30 years ago before technology made it easier for us to easily access broader communications styles and be influenced by them.

Wasn't there a suggestion that the person could have been in the house for some hours on Christmas day? The Ramsey's were out at a Christmas party until quite late.

Plenty of time to have snooped around the office etc. Time to write the note in advance, with perhaps even trying to imitate Patsy's handwriting to some extent (6 experts analysed the writing and determined it was not hers, despite some similarities).

We will likely never know the exact plan. Was it just to mess with the Ramsey's and try to implicate them? Or was the original intention to abduct, and then the realisation that he couldn't get her out of the window quietly enough if she was alive? Personally, I don't see why you'd SA her in the basement, if the plan was to take her elsewhere, so that suggests the plan was to destroy the Ramseys. The motivation could have largely been jealousy (as well as other issues). I'd be looking at someone who either didn't/couldn't have kids, or maybe someone whose girl was a perennial also-ran in the pageants.

Even if the person didn't know the Ramsey's well, you can learn a lot about people by going through their house, and particularly an office with financial details exposed.

 

[ms finch]

as someone who has studied and had limited training in linguistics and statement analysis, it’s very fascinating to me and I buy into 100 percent.
I understand not everyone believes in it or buys into. Which is why I don’t post statement analysis from someone like a Peter Hyatt, because people just blow it off.

people give themselves away by the words they choose to use all the time the problem is most people aren’t trained to catch it.

There are numerous problems with handwriting analysis.

One of them is the immediate bias. People who compare two samples of handwriting are looking for similarities. It would be somewhat different if an expert was given an array of similar examples from different people and told to determine which one was the one that matched. We expect more of people in a police line up than we do when it comes to handwriting analysis.

Another is the lack of any context taken into account. The manner in which people were taught handwriting, particularly back then, tends towards people having similarities especially if they are the same age, went to the same school etc. Patsy and John may even have grown up in the generation where they forced left handed people to learn to write with their right hands and rapped children over the knuckles with canes when they didn't form letters properly.

People are also linguistically influenced by what they read. If I have just finished a book and I write something, my style will tend towards theirs a bit.

There are also examples of experts who have dismissed two lots of handwriting as written by different people when they were in fact written by the same person.

It might be interesting, but it's not evidence that rises to any sort of acceptable standard.

 

[Earls Smother]

as someone who has studied and had limited training in linguistics and statement analysis, it’s very fascinating to me and I buy into 100 percent.
I understand not everyone believes in it or buys into. Which is why I don’t post statement analysis from someone like a Peter Hyatt, because people just blow it off.

people give themselves away by the words they choose to use all the time the problem is most people aren’t trained to catch it.

Going off track here, but I find this interesting from a Mr. Cruel perspective.

The first 2 offences (Lower Plenty and Ringwood) he was analysed for the use of certain atypical words like worry wart, missy, bozo etc. Also discussion around Aussie accent, gruff tone at times but gentle at others.

He would always have concerns that someone from the families could recognise his voice in future. I reckon that played in to how he chose his next victims. The Lynas family were English and about to return to London - they're not going to be a problem with voice recognition. Then the Chans were Asian, and less likely to distinguish between the nuances of one Australian accent to the next.

 

[ms finch]

Wasn't there a suggestion that the person could have been in the house for some hours on Christmas day? The Ramsey's were out at a Christmas party until quite late.

Plenty of time to have snooped around the office etc. Time to write the note in advance, with perhaps even trying to imitate Patsy's handwriting to some extent (6 experts analysed the writing and determined it was not hers, despite some similarities).

We will likely never know the exact plan. Was it just to mess with the Ramsey's and try to implicate them? Or was the original intention to abduct, and then the realisation that he couldn't get her out of the window quietly enough if she was alive? Personally, I don't see why you'd SA her in the basement, if the plan was to take her elsewhere, so that suggests the plan was to destroy the Ramseys. The motivation could have largely been jealousy (as well as other issues). I'd be looking at someone who either didn't/couldn't have kids, or maybe someone whose girl was a perennial also-ran in the pageants.

Even if the person didn't know the Ramsey's well, you can learn a lot about people by going through their house, and particularly an office with financial details exposed.

Yes, it's possible the note was written in advance. That is something that has definitely occurred to me over the years. The person could even have taken things from the office and returned them when they came back. It's not like John or Patsy would be particularly disturbed by a missing notepad or letter, if they even noticed it at that time of year.

I agree you can learn a lot about people by going through their house, especially if you are looking, and also anyone who knew them would have known a lot about them.

I think we'll only get a clear picture on motive if someone is caught. I do believe this was about hurting John and Patsy. Whether something went wrong in the process and they panicked and it escalated or whether their plan all along was to hurt John and Patsy in the worst way possible and/or frame them is hard to know. To me there is probably a combination of someone who had a personal connection to them and was angry/jealous and who was a CSO. Someone who is just out to get John and Patsy wouldn't SA JonBenet - that requires a particular psychology. But someone who was both would.

 

[Cataholic]

Wasn't the SA of JB deemed by police to be 'staging'?

 

[Earls Smother]

Wasn't the SA of JB deemed by police to be 'staging'?

No parent, and particularly a mother, is going to insert a paint brush handle into their 6 year old daughter to "stage" something.

The police were utter fools.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

So the killer breaks into the home and takes the pad and letters or documents handwritten by Patsy, then

the killer goes home and takes the time to practice forging Patsy's handwriting to write the ransom note, and

somehow finds the time and means to also learn Patsy's linguistics, and the exact amount of John's bonus, meantime

Patsy never notices the missing documentation, but

the killer returns the stolen documentation so it remains unnoticed but oddly enough also returns the whole writing pad to the house along with the ransom note, rather than simply carrying the note itself in their pocket?

Hmm.

Don’t forget the intruder was considerate to not disturb the spiders web as well.

 

[Cataholic]

No parent, and particularly a mother, is going to insert a paint brush handle into their 6 year old daughter to "stage" something.

The police were utter fools.

It's bloody disgusting.

Was it ever determined whether or not it was post mortem?