Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?
- Thread starter let`s talk
- Start date
Cainkane1
Philosopher
All I have to say is this. Poor little girl. Shes the victim of an unsolved murder and it doesn't look like its ever going to be solved. She like other child victims makes me hurt when I think about it. Some little six year old girl fighting for her life while shes beaten over her head and strangled presents the worst possible image in my mind.
Hopefully a measure of justice either will or has been meted out to whomever did this thng.
Hopefully a measure of justice either will or has been meted out to whomever did this thng.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I once read an article that said police consider kidnappers to be the stupidest criminals on the planet. They are almost always caught, usually when they pick up the ransom. Unfortunately, their stupidity can make them very dangerous, as they often injure or kill the kidnap victim by mistake or out of incompetence.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Is the text of the draft ransom note available anywhere?
I just read the text of the ransom note itself, and it didn't seem "fake" to me. I'd be interested in hearing what causes others to think it is.
To me, it sounds like a kidnapping gone bad. If someone who knew John Ramsey and knew about his bonus broke into the house, choked Jon Benet unconscious to silence her, and took her to the basement, it might have happened like this:
He binds the child and tapes her mouth to make sure she won't alert anyone if she wakes up. Then he composes the first note, and prepares to leave. He discovers the child is dead, and revises the note to have a shorter, more urgent deadline, because he intends to leave the child in the house, and doesn't want her body discovered before he gets the money.
This would seem more likely if the draft note either contained a longer deadline, or asked for a larger amount. Is the text of the draft available?
I just read the text of the ransom note itself, and it didn't seem "fake" to me. I'd be interested in hearing what causes others to think it is.
To me, it sounds like a kidnapping gone bad. If someone who knew John Ramsey and knew about his bonus broke into the house, choked Jon Benet unconscious to silence her, and took her to the basement, it might have happened like this:
He binds the child and tapes her mouth to make sure she won't alert anyone if she wakes up. Then he composes the first note, and prepares to leave. He discovers the child is dead, and revises the note to have a shorter, more urgent deadline, because he intends to leave the child in the house, and doesn't want her body discovered before he gets the money.
This would seem more likely if the draft note either contained a longer deadline, or asked for a larger amount. Is the text of the draft available?
Who breaks into an occupied house for a kidnapping intending to write a ransom note after he gets there using whatever pen and paper he can find? You're also forgetting the crushed part of the skull and the signs of sexual abuse.
Here's why I read the ransom note as fake:
* It's way too long.
* It says far too many things that don't need to be said in the first place. It's like in any interview situation where you keep quiet and let the interviewee keep talking. If they are deceptive, they keep going and going until they think they have been convincing.
* There were two misspellings (Bussiness and posession) in the first paragraph that seem deliberate. For the most part the rest of the document uses proper grammar and punctuation. The choice of vocabulary (faction, attache, countermeasures, exhausting) doesn't seem consistent with not knowing how to spell business. It seems like the misspelling idea fell to the wayside after the first paragraph.
* Why ask for the amount of the guy's bonus and reveal that you're on the short list of people who knew the amount of the bonus.
* Why ask for such a small amount of money? Obviously they had plenty of money, especially with a bonus that large.
* What's with all this stuff about a foreign faction and his business? It makes no sense.
* Why tell them to withdraw the money from their account? Seems odd. Just come up with the money. Who cares how?
* Why tell them to bring an attache to the bank?
* Why use decimal places ($118,000.00)?
* Why advise them to be well rested because the drop will be exhausting?
* What's with the reference to beheading?
* Why switch from first person plural to singular (we, I)?
* Why point out that there are "two gentleman" guarding the daughter?
* Why use the phrase "watching over" the daughter?
* They say they will scan him for electronic devices. Do they plan to make the exchange in person?
* What's with all the "John" stuff in the last paragraph?
Individually these things mean little. Collectively it sounds like somebody is putting together a ransom note they are desperate to be believed because they know it's not real.
Here's why I read the ransom note as fake:
* It's way too long.
* It says far too many things that don't need to be said in the first place. It's like in any interview situation where you keep quiet and let the interviewee keep talking. If they are deceptive, they keep going and going until they think they have been convincing.
* There were two misspellings (Bussiness and posession) in the first paragraph that seem deliberate. For the most part the rest of the document uses proper grammar and punctuation. The choice of vocabulary (faction, attache, countermeasures, exhausting) doesn't seem consistent with not knowing how to spell business. It seems like the misspelling idea fell to the wayside after the first paragraph.
* Why ask for the amount of the guy's bonus and reveal that you're on the short list of people who knew the amount of the bonus.
* Why ask for such a small amount of money? Obviously they had plenty of money, especially with a bonus that large.
* What's with all this stuff about a foreign faction and his business? It makes no sense.
* Why tell them to withdraw the money from their account? Seems odd. Just come up with the money. Who cares how?
* Why tell them to bring an attache to the bank?
* Why use decimal places ($118,000.00)?
* Why advise them to be well rested because the drop will be exhausting?
* What's with the reference to beheading?
* Why switch from first person plural to singular (we, I)?
* Why point out that there are "two gentleman" guarding the daughter?
* Why use the phrase "watching over" the daughter?
* They say they will scan him for electronic devices. Do they plan to make the exchange in person?
* What's with all the "John" stuff in the last paragraph?
Individually these things mean little. Collectively it sounds like somebody is putting together a ransom note they are desperate to be believed because they know it's not real.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Gosh, I don't know, someone who doesn't want to bring a note with him that might be easier to trace back to someone outside the home?
And how do you know that's what happened? Maybe he DID bring a note from home, but after the girl died whatever was in that original note no longer seemed like a good idea.
How long does Emily Post recommend?
It seems to me that everything that's said in the note has a purpose; what is it that you think would have made the note sound more legitimate if it had been left out?
Could be, but if so it would only suggest that the writer of the note was attempting to be deceptive, perhaps to conceal his identity, not that there wasn't a real ransom demand.
How short was the list? Maybe whoever wrote the note heard the amount third-hand, and didn't think he'd be on any such list the police compiled.
As I say, maybe the original intent was to ask for more, but once the kidnapper had decided not to leave the house with the child, he thought it prudent to settle for an amount that could presumably be readily raised by writing a check, rather than one which would require liquidating assets.
I suspect the "foreign faction" is fictitious, but again this only indicates an attempt to disguise motive, not that the writer isn't making a real ransom demand.
To show that you know they HAVE the money in their account available to withdraw, and will not be receptive to excuses that "I need time to raise the money."
Obviously, if it IS a real ransom demand, the kidnapper doesn't want to spend time communicating after the authorities may have been notified. The more potential objections / problems that can be anticipated and dismissed in the note, the more likely it is that the next communication will be "I have the money, what next?"
Suggests that you are watching them, and want to see them go into the bank with an attache which can be used to walk out with the cash that has been requested.
Are you serious? Why not? Why use a comma? Why use a dollar sign?
Again, to forestall excuses. If the kidnapper planned some movie-style scavenger hunt from one location to the next to make it more likely he'd be able to retrieve the money without being captured, who's to say that being "well rested" isn't good advice?
Not something a parent would be likely to write, but something likely to terrorize a parent.
Carelessness? Is there any reason to think the "foreign faction" was real, and "we" was ever appropriate?
A lie intended to make the claim that the girl was still alive more convincing.
A lie intended to make the claim that the girl was being treated well more convincing.
Perhaps, or perhaps they just don't want him to be wearing a tracking device that will make it easier for authorities to follow his movements remotely.
It has a menacing tone, like "I know more about you than you think. I may be someone close. You can't trust anyone, so you'd better do what I say and not try to plan with your friends how to catch me."
Obviously, at the time the last note was being written, the person writing it knows it isn't real. The girl is dead; she will not be ransomed.
It may be that a real kidnapper would just pack it in at that point, and leave the body in the basement without trying to extort any money. If there is a real kidnapper, maybe his need for money at that point WAS desperate. I don't think I agree that the points you raise, even collectively, lead me to the conclusion that the note as a whole was phony. Obviously, there are elements in the note which are intended to mislead. I suspect there was never any follow-up attempt to collect the money, which could either indicate that the note was phony or that the discovery of the body had become public knowledge.
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
Wow -- this is getting borderline silly. I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion." What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?
The rest of your post is nonsensical -- again. This seems to be a theme when you have nothing of relevance to say.
Although this is actually pretty funny:
Oh, you mean circular logic is only part of your analysis? Phew. That's much better.
Last edited:
Huh? I think you watch too much TV. Shorting of leaving a monogrammed pen and using paper that reads, "From the Desk of UncaYimmy" nobody is going to trace anything back to you. At best they might find the paper and pen consistent with something you already own. However, at that point you're screwed anyway.
Which would mean what? Go ahead and say it. We all know the answer. It would mean...c'mon...the note was a fake.
Just like I figured would happen on the Internet, you picked apart each little thing when I clearly stated that by themselves they hold little meaning. It's like if I say that somebody is very likely to be the suspect because we know the culprit was a blue eyed, blond male with detached earlobes, six fingers on his left hand, a missing big toe on his right foot who could wiggle his ears and roll his tongue. Sure, lots of people match each one of those things but how many people have all those characteristics and happen to live next door to where the crime was committed?
Probably 90% of it. "We have your daughter. If you want to see her alive again, you need to give us $500,000. We will call you Tuesday morning between 8 and 10. Do not involve the police or try to find us yourself or she will be harmed or killed. We'll be watching you."
I'm pretty confident that the above combined with the fact that the daughter is missing and that the note was found in the house before the daughter was discovered to be missing is enough to convince anyone that the ransom note was real.
Everything else was just an attempt to convince someone that the note was real. The person did that because they knew the note was a fake. I'm just pointing out the numerous clues that taken together led me to this conclusion.
You don't conceal yourself by revealing that you know the person's surname, given name, his southern accent, and the amount of his bonus. Doing so eliminates a few billion possible suspects.
If 68 people were on that list, that's 0.000001% of the population. I'd call that a short list, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, you're arguing that the person overheard a conversation in a bar that John Ramsey of 1313 Mockingbird Lane just got a $118,000 bonus and has a six year old daughter.
I see. So, when the kidnapping was real, they would ask for an unrealistic amount of money, but when the kidnapping was fake, they would ask for a realistic amount. That makes a lot of sense.
How does the person know the money is in the account? Does he know for a fact that Ramsey has already received the bonus in a lump sum and that he has deposited into his account and the check has already cleared? He knows it wasn't a stock related bonus or a bonus paid out over time? And he knows that no taxes were taken out of the $118,000? And he assumes this guy who owns multiple homes, airplanes and servants has no other easily liquidated assets? He can't borrow the money quickly?
Right. It's not like they could walk into and out of the bank with an empty attache, huh?
Who includes a cents column when asking for $118,000? It's odd, especially since the author didn't do it a second time. It doesn't fit with the style of writing in the rest of the document. It was a further attempt to make people think the person wasn't all that bright.
Sure. "Sorry, Jonbenet, but Daddy is too sleepy to drive another 30 miles to rescue his little princess. If only the kidnappers had told me to rest up I would have skipped my YMCA league basketball game last night!"
Back in 1996, when did anybody ever talk about beheading people. It's exceedingly rare and totally unnecessary.
Right. Careless. Somebody was trying to convince people it was real.
Duh! That's what I am saying - the note was fake and intended to convince people it was real.
Your argument, which has no basis in evidence, is that the kidnapping scheme was real but botched. The old ransom note, for some strange reason known only to you, was insufficient to convince people it was real even though from the perspective of the Ramseys the situation would have been the same.
You've conceded twice now that perhaps the note wasn't real. That's enough for me.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
How do we know the amount of John Ramsey's bonus? Can someone point me to a source for this?
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
All these points and more are made in various books on the subject. I find them convincing, in certain ways, but I see the points that Bokonon raises as well. What a mystery! Something that I found quite interesting was the use of "and hence" in the ransnom note:
I can't find the references now, but John was fond of using "and hence" with the same noun on each side of the equation. "Hence" is pretty rare in my speech at least. Note that "delivery" is used, and then "delivery" was used again, as per the formula, but the writer had second thoughts and crossed it out preferring "pickup" with daughter. The use of "a earlier" and "an earlier" suggests to me that the letter is being dictated, by a businessman.
This guy[SIZE=+1], [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]McClish[/SIZE], is pretty good:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
It turns out that reference I was looking for is in fact in the link I gave.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
How do they know?
M.R.B.
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 447
Hi
I think you might be confusing "real" with "professional" here.
That's exactly the type of notes left behind by professional kidnappers in, say, Russia, or eastern Europe.
The note might be fake, but to me it reads more like someone delusional, paranoid and with a (real or, more likely, imagined) personal axe to grind.
But I am not at all familiar with the case, other than what I have read in this thread and the links posted in it.
Somebody pointed out that "and hence" is not proper since hence by itself is sufficient. Turns out the Pat Ramsey used "and hence" either in the speech or in the printed materials at the memorial service. She explained that perhaps she used it because she had seen it so many times in the days before.
As for it being rare, look at Google:
"hence" - 121,000,000 hits
"and hence" - 36,600,00 hits
Granted, some of the uses of hence might not be in the same manner such as a list of words: "my favorite words are pickle, genre and hence." However, I would not say that hence or "and hence" are rare by any means. Now, if you want to argue about how often "hence" or "and hence" is used in ransom notes, that's another story altogether.
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
I don't know if it came from the police report, or if the Ramseys themselves noted it. According to this article, a "family spokesperson" mentions it, and it seems to be confirmed by someone else who works at the company, so it appears to be valid.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
boooeee
Dart Fener
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2002
- Messages
- 2,671