| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions! Dokkio, a new product from the PBworks team, integrates and organizes your Drive, Dropbox, Box, Slack and Gmail files. Sign up for free.

View
 

The Note by DocG

Page history last edited by PBworks 13 years, 9 months ago

docG on the Ramsey "ransom note":

Questions

An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

 

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

 

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

 

Though many think Patsy's writing resembles the writing on the note, there was no reason for her to write it either. As with the hypothetical "intruder," she would have had nothing to gain by writing it, no reason for doing so. On the contrary. Remember that it was she who phoned the police first thing in the morning, with the body still inside the house. It is inconceivable that she'd have written a note so clearly intended to forestall police involvement and then ignored its many threats to call the police anyhow, an act that would inevitably lead to the note being exposed as a fraud.

 

The same is NOT true for John. If we assume he did this crime on his own, then he would indeed have some very good reasons to write such a note: to prevent Patsy from scouring the house for JonBenet after realizing she was missing; to dissuade Patsy from calling the police; to create the impression that JonBenet was killed by kidnappers; to set up a situation which justifies his getting Patsy and Burke out of the house while he takes charge - the note is addressed to John, it makes clear that John is the one who must raise the ransom and get it to the kidnappers and it gives him plenty of time to do so (the note clearly states the kidnappers will call "tomorrow" morning). If John did the crime and wrote the note we can assume he would have made every attempt to ensure that neither the body nor the note would be found in the house by the police. Patsy is the one who called the police. John is the one who did NOT. Patsy is clearly innocent. The same cannot be said for John.

 

For more on the note and the plan behind it, see docG's theory.

 

John's Exemplars

According to an insider, who claims to have seen all the exemplars studied by the handwriting "experts" who eliminated John Ramsey, none of them bears even a slight resemblance to the note. A court document exists, however, that has been attributed to John, and DOES in fact have many points of similarity to the printing on the note. A copy of this document, along with 9 pages of comparisons, can be found on the web site of forensic documentation expert Fausto Brugnatelli. According to the same inside source, this document looks nothing like John's other exemplars and was NOT among the exemplars seen by the "experts."

 

There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the court document. It has been online at various websites for years and its authenticity has never been challenged by anyone in a positon to know. Many Ramsey defenders seem sure it is either a fake or something printed for John by an assistant. But, tellingly, those close enough to the family or the investigation to check on its authenticity have persistently refused to do so.

 

If this document was indeed printed by John Ramsey, as we have every reason to believe to be the case, then there is a very serious problem with the decision to eliminate him as a possible writer of the note. Unless the "experts" were able to examine the full range of John's printing, including possible alternative styles, their results are fatally flawed. If the document is genuine, then John must be ruled back IN as a possible writer of the note. AND the possibility that he could have deliberately deceived the authorities must be investigated.

 

Responses to docG's comments

Comments (1)

Larry Wolf said

at 3:46 pm on Apr 1, 2013

Even the examples Mr. Brugnatelli uses as possible matches between the Ramsey court document and the ransom note do not match. I have no confidence in any argument that John Ramsey wrote the ransom note or in Mr. Brugnatelli's analysis in this case.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.