[ACandyRose Logo] A Personal view of the Internet Subculture
Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)
This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials

[December 26, 1996 Ramsey Ransom Note]
Page 1
. [December 26, 1996 Ramsey Ransom Note]
Page 2
. [December 26, 1996 Ramsey Ransom Note]
Page 3

Ramsey Ransom Note
Found by Patsy Ramsey
Morning of December 26, 1996


Page 1

Mr. Ramsey,

Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We de respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our po session [sic]. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

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

Page 2

money and hence a [sic] earlier *delivery* (the word delivery is crossed out) pick-up of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions

Page 3

and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. 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!



1997-04-30: Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo

Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo
Also present, Pat Burke, Bryan Morgan, Pete Hoffstrom, Jon Foster
April 30, 1997 - Boulder, Colorado

ST: The note was written from a pad inside the home.
PR: It was?
ST: UH-huh.
PR: Oh, I didnít know that.

ST: And let me ask you this, if this was somebody who came into the home that you knew, who might this person have been? Who would have had the best opportunity, if it was somebody that you know to have done this?
PR: God, I donít know. I mean, I have asked myself that question a million times. I mean, you know, anybody that had keys and Iím trying to remember everybody. I think I, you know, the cleaning lady and the (inaudible) had a key and the, or if somebody that could have gotten to a key, or if it was actually, I donít know how to pick locks, you know. And I donít know that the doors wee locked or they could have, you know, walked right in. And you know, have you seen that little side flip door in the garage? That had been locked don the inside, one of those slide locks, you know. I mean, I donít know, if that was open, they could have gotten in.
ST: Patsy, as youíve thought about this over the last four months, do you think that this incident, the death of JonBenet started out as a premeditated act or do you think it was an event that got out hand by the offender?
PR: I donít think that, I donít know. I canít begin to guess why anybody would do this.
ST: Why do you think somebody did this, Patsy?
PR: I donít know.
ST: Do you think the person who did this, under any circumstances, would deserve a second chance?
PR: A second chance?
ST: What do you mean, a second chance?
ST: Pity or forgiveness?

PR: Oh God, no. I mean, not aÖ
ST: What should happen to the person that we apprehend, Patsy?
PR: I donít know what you do tot people that do this. But whatever it is, strongest punishment there is, I donít, especially to a child.
ST: Patsy, did you write the note?
PR: No, I did not write the note.
ST: Is there any reason, Patsy, that your blatted print of your hand will be on that paper when it tests?
PR: I did not write the note and I donít, whatís blatted?
ST: This portion of your hand.
PR: I donít know. I mean, I picked it up or touched it, it may be on there, but I did not write the note.

ST: You can appreciate Patsy, and I watched on CNN, and I tried to follow this point closely. We know that weíre not a large police department, and Iím certainly the first to ask for help when somethingí beyond me or to go to experts. And Iím a little concerned because weíve gone to the experts, the FBI, and Secret Service and Interpol and they told us thereís not an SBTC, and weíre having trouble with this small foreign faction, and the FBI guys in Quantico say that there were steps taken to make this look like something that it wasnít.
PR: Iím losing you here. We having trouble with our what small foreign faction, whatís that?

ST: That was listed here in the note. That was some of the content of the note. But these guys at Quantico, Virginia with the FBI who do this day in and day out, told me they told Tom, they said, weíre having trouble wit the note. Because this is what we see in the movies, but not I real life. And whoever did this, all that was done was done and all that was made was made to make us look as something that wasnít there. And they think that this was an accident and panic on someoneís part and that there was no initial intent to harm, but that things simply got out of hand. And patsy, Iíve got to ask you, and Iíll ask you right now, did you participate in anyway in the death or the events after the death of JonBenet?
PR: No, absolutely not.
ST: Patsy, do you have any knowledge of John participating in this in any way?
PR: No.

ST: If that were the case, would you come forward and tell me?
PR: Of course, yes.


ST: Let me ask you one other thing Patsy. Iím no expert in handwriting, but I am concerned. And Iíll share with you quite frankly that Iím concerned and Iím having trouble moving away from you as being potentially involved, because the handwriting experts say, Steve, this means nothing to you because youíre not an expert,
but weíre seeing some indications that you may have authored that note. Is there any reason at all that you can think of, why these experts would say that?
PR: I, I mean I donít, Iím not a handwriting person. Iíve given handwriting after handwriting, after handwriting. You know, maybe itís a female that wrote the note. I mean, I donít know. I mean, I donít know how to analyze handwriting, but Iím sure theyíre doing the best they now how to do. But, I donít know what else to do, you know. I write like I write.
ST: Patsy, has everything that youíve told us today been voluntary and truthful?
PR: Yes.


[John Ramsey, June 1998 Interviews]1998-06-23: John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane
(Screen Capture from "CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer" 10/04/2002)

John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane
Present also were Bryan Morgan, PI David Williams
June 23, 24, 25, 1998 - Boulder, Colorado


June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (The Ransom Note)

18 LOU SMIT: One quick question. Could that
19 have been Patsy's handwriting?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: She has very good handwriting.
21 That just looks sick to me. It's the only
22 impression I had.

23 MIKE KANE: The note, do you have a copy of
24 this?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't. But I've seen it, yeah.


1 MIKE KANE: It's been released to you. What
2 was your first reaction?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Obviously my first reaction
4 was horrifying. I screamed. Just went through this
5 moment of panic, I guess.
6 MIKE KANE: Did you believe it at first or
7 did you disbelieve it?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: It took seconds to sink in,
9 you know. (INAUDIBLE) you don't know what to
10 believe. What is this, you know. Again,
11 (INAUDIBLE) believe it pretty quick.
12 MIKE KANE: What made you believe?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Because she was not there;
14 she was gone.

15 MIKE KANE: And did you look in her room
16 by the time you read this?
18 MIKE KANE: What did you do to determine
19 that she was gone?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Patsy and I went to the room,
21 I think I ran up and looked again. That was it.
22 MIKE KANE: Did you look any place else?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: At that time?
24 MIKE KANE: Yes.
25 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't think so.

1 MIKE KANE: I think you touched on this,
2 and I want to go into it a little bit more than
3 this. You were pretty adamant about calling the
4 police and the FBI obviously and all these
5 references to knowledge of police tactics and
6 stuff like that.
7 Was there any discussion about not calling the
8 police?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, for a moment. I mean,
10 Patsy said, it says not to call the police. I
11 said, call them anyway. We called them. I mean,
12 there's no question in my mind that that was the
13 right answer.
14 MIKE KANE: Did you have any concern
15 about doing that? Even when you had made that
16 decision, did you have any concerns?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: No. No. Because we couldn't
18 just sit there. We would have gone mad.
19 (INAUDIBLE). We didn't. No.
20 MIKE KANE: Did you have concerns cars
21 pulling up when they said --
22 JOHN RAMSEY: We were just anxious for
23 them to get there. They actually took care of that
24 themselves as soon as they found out what's going
25 on. They moved their cars and anybody else that

1 came had parked away.
2 MIKE KANE: You didn't even think about
3 before, that they got you under surveillance or
4 anything?


5 LOU SMIT: That's kind of
6 coincidental, isn't it, to have a
7 picture --
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, it is.
9 You think this came off my camera or
10 you're not sure?
11 MIKE KANE: I am pretty sure it
12 came off your camera.
13 JOHN RAMSEY: They asked if we had
14 any pictures of the Christmas party and I
15 literally -- well, it's possible, because we
16 had an unusual, an uncompleted roll of film in
17 the camera and I think I clicked off some
18 pictures fairly quickly just to finish up the
19 roll, handed it to the policeman, one of the
20 uniform fellows that was there, and they took it
21 to get developed.
22 LOU SMIT: Okay. So this
23 picture here with the pad --
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Could have
25 been when I was just burning up pictures.

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (The Ransom Note)

1 LOU SMIT: At the scene?
3 LOU SMIT: That morning?
5 LOU SMIT: So it could have been
6 taken just shortly before?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Right, it's
8 possible. That I think I remember they wanted
9 pictures of the party and I said yeah, we got
10 'em, there was wasn't complete.
11 LOU SMIT: So then that would
12 show the pad in its spot that morning?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
14 LOU SMIT: Prior to you giving it
15 to the police officer?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.


22 JOHN RAMSEY: Pretty early on.
23 I mean, I think we very early on were concerned
24 about the cleaning lady and the fact that she,
25 you know, asked to borrow money and called Patsy

1 all upset and had a big fight with her sister
2 the day before. I mean this was just kind of
3 like coming out, I didn't know about it, and you
4 know, Officer French was there, we very quickly
5 focused on the cleaning lady. I think they had
6 a wire tap put in place, they got hold of the
7 police in wherever she lives, Lafayette or
8 something like that, and they got involved.
9 So I think they wanted pictures of
10 the party because I think she was -- she was at
11 that 23rd party. Is I think the reason why they
12 wanted that roll of film. As well as they had
13 pictures of JonBenet on it. I don't remember if
14 that was the reason or not, but...
15 LOU SMIT: So then when this
16 photograph was taken you think you clicked
17 some off?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
19 LOU SMIT: That's why it
20 shows the pad there and then later you
21 gave the pad to the officer?
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
23 LOU SMIT: Now it's a short time
24 later then that these photographs are taken and
25 trying to figure out why they would have moved

1 the bag?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, there is
3 something else laying there too.
4 LOU SMIT: So that's a
5 question we have to answer.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, I don't know.
7 There is no reason I would have moved it.
8 LOU SMIT: So that wouldn't
9 have been three days prior that this thing
10 was taken, but it could have just been
11 taken hours prior--
12 JOHN RAMSEY: It could have been
13 that morning. Yeah, it could have been.
14 BRYAN MORGAN: Could I see the
15 photograph? Lou, is there any way to tell where
16 in the sequence of the roll it was taken?
17 LOU SMIT: On the roll of John --
18 I am sure there is. I am sure the negatives
19 would be available.
21 LOU SMIT: That would show what
22 number, that's absolutely true. Now if you
23 remember doing that?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: I do, I think I did
25 it, because I had to finish the roll up to get

1 it out of the camera.
2 LOU SMIT: Makes sense.
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Because it was
4 one of those electric rewinds and all that.
5 MIKE KANE: What kind of camera
6 was it?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: I -- it's a --
8 well, I am stretching if I try and remember. We
9 got a new camera, but I think that was after --
10 after that.
11 VOICE: But it had an auto winder?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, I am pretty
13 sure it did. Yeah, I am sure it rewound or --
14 it was one of those cartridge (INAUDIBLE).

[www.justicewatch.com]1998-09-17: Justice Watch Forum, thread titled, "Ransom Note Brain Storm..."

"Ransom Note Brain Storm..."
Posted by AuntieBJ on 20:35:37 9/17/98
Include Original Message on Reply

"Hello, I read this posting as follows:
2. "Somebody help me here"
Posted by China on 17:01:09 9/15/98
Include Original Message on Reply
a sometime poster told us that there was evidence in the ransom note that we couldn't *see* - they wouldn't elaborate other than to say it was not the handwiting per se, nor the phrase-ology, but it was there in plain view. Anybody else have the same recollection?"

Now this fascinates me.... I have thought about it and thought about and do you suppose that the original ranson note was written in ink or pencil and copied over with the Sharpie? Do you think this is what we can't see in our photocopies, etc? Maybe this is why the handwritting matches closer to Patsy's....maybe it is not the writing from the Sharpie but the pen or pencil writing underneath. And on the list of items removed from the house there were pens listed...not just felt tip and Sharpies but PENS. Why would the BPD take just pens if the note had been written in a thicker marker?

5. "Pens"
Posted by janab on 05:52:57 9/18/98
Include Original Message on Reply

In case anyone wanted an accurate accounting, these are the pens that were taken into evidence in the Boulder house:

BAB60-Sharpie-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAB61-Sharpie-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH08-Three black markers-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH09-Two pens-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH10-One marker and two pens-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH11-Three large markers-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH12-Five pens-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH13-One ball point pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH14-One fountain pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH51-One black pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH57-Black pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
BAH75-Two black felt pens-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
JRB01-Sharpie 1-29-96-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
JRB02-Sharpie 1-29-96-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
JRB06-Marker 1-29-96-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
JRB16-One magic marker-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
KKY43-Felt tip pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
KKY51-Sharpie marker-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
KKY58-Marker-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
KKY59-Marker-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
KKY67-Pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
MTE11-One felt pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)
MTE15-One felt tip pen-12/26/96 (8:00 p.m.)

There were 35 of them! That seems like a lot to me. I don't think you could find that many pens in my home. Here's the breakdown:

16 (generic and/or felt tip) Markers
5 Sharpies
1 Ball Point Pen
12 (miscelleanous) Pens
1 Fountain Pen

That means that they took a total of 14 pens that were not Sharpies or markers of any kind. Perhaps the practice note was not written with a Sharpie/Marker. I agree that a marker would not leave an indentation on the following pages or any mark that would be traceable.

I understand about the C. There is no period after C in the ransom note. Should we change all of our thinking then about what the initials stand for? Perhaps just using S.B.T., with C meaning something else entirely?

6. "Very hard."
Posted by Starling on 06:10:42 9/18/98
Include Original Message on Reply

If it's in plain view we have to see it. So I'm gonna list things I see wrong with the windy note.

bussiness - mispelled
do - scratched out
posession - mispelled
delivery - underlined from the "e to the e"
on delivery - underlined from the "n to v"
earlier - underlined from the "i to the e.
delivery - completely scratched out
not - added in. The v line that adds it in surrounds the "no" of the word not.
"B" - In S.B.T.C the B is not complete. The Back side is not connected uniformly with the upper loop. It is very connected in the capital "B" used in "F.B.I."
S.B.T.C - No period after C.

Maybe I'm looking to hard or still not hard enough.

10. "Starling"
Posted by janab on 06:54:28 9/18/98
Include Original Message on Reply

Excellent job on listing the errors in the ransom note!!! I was trying to follow along on my copy of the ransom note and I wanted to comment and/or ask you questions about some of the things you mentioned:

bussiness - mispelled Agreed.

do - scratched out I can't tell for sure that it was the word "do." Has this been firmly established? It looks to me like it might have been three letters before it was crossed, with the last letter possibly being an "a."

posession - mispelled Agreed.

delivery - underlined from the "e to the e" I'm assuming that you were going in the order that things appeared in the note and I cannot find the word delivery by itself in the note appearing before the next phrase you mentioned, which was "on delivery." In any event, I can't find a copy of the note anywhere that has the word delivery underlined. Help me, please!

on delivery - underlined from the "n to v" Ditto. I can't find a copy with this underlining. It seems that in several places you can see the lines from the lined paper, sometimes faintly, other times more clearly, but even taking that into consideration, I don't see those lines under the words you are talking about. Can you send me the URL for the copy of the ransom note that you used to make your list?

I wanted to add an error in here. The note states "a earlier pick-up" which is improper grammar and should be "an earlier pick-up."

Okay, back to your list:

earlier - underlined from the "i to the e. Again, I can't find a copy with underlining.

delivery - completely scratched out Agreed. Although I've heard many people say that they thought the writer of the note might have scratched this out because they felt that they had used the word delivery too often, my theory about this is that if the word delivery was used, that would imply that JBR would be taken to them. Whereas, if the word pick-up was used, that would imply that someone [John?] would have to leave the house and drive to an unknown destination in order to retrieve her. Whaddya think?

not - added in. The v line that adds it in surrounds the "no" of the word not.

Let's suppose for argument's sake (and because my theory/supposition that follows would not make sense otherwise) that the word on the first page that was crossed out was "don't" instead of "do." Wouldn't it then be odd to consider that the phrase was changed from "We don't like your bussiness" to "We like your business" [from a negative statement to a positive statement] and then this statement was changed from "The two gentlemen...do particularly like you" to "The two gentlemen.. do not particularly like you" [from a positive statement to a negative one].

Perhaps in the beginning they were thinking of not liking the business, but liking John and then decided that they would make it more personal by saying that they liked the business, but didn't like John?

"B" - In S.B.T.C the B is not complete. The Back side is not connected uniformly with the upper loop. It is very connected in the capital "B" used in "F.B.I." Agreed.

S.B.T.C - No period after C. Agreed.

One more thing:

Something that has always bothered me is the "fat cat" statement. The only interpretation of that that I can come up with is "You're not the only rich guy around and if you don't cooperate, we'll have no trouble killing your daughter and finding another rich guy to extort money from (or another rich guy's daughter to kidnap)." I know that's far-fetched, but I can't imagine what that means otherwise. "You are not the only fat cat around." Hmmmmm.

Okay, maybe it was two more things:

I could never in a million years write a note like this, being this long, with my left hand and have it anywhere near this legible. I'm not a handwriting expert, but my opinion would be that the reason the first part of the first page is so distorted looking is from complete and utter fear!! I have tried to write with my hands shaking before and it does come out looking a little awkward. I also have elderly relatives whose hands shake, and their writing is similarly distorted because of that. Once you get to the end of this note, I don't think there is any way that this is someone writing with their left (or unnatural) hand. It just looks too "clean."

Would love to hear comments about some of this.

14. "tracing"
Posted by CardyA on 10:09:47 9/18/98
Include Original Message on Reply

The idea that the ransom note may be a tracing with a thicker marker of an older note, thus explaining why it is an additional generation away from the original writer's handwriting, is a good theory.

Recently, I read the book on the Zodiac killer and apparently, that is how he wrote letters, with a complicated projection system so that it wasnot his handwriting. He would trace letters upside down with his left hand.

Obviously, a projection system was not used here, but a true crime buff might know the Zodiac story and try to think of some way to disguise the handwriting when in a desperate situation.

[www.justicewatch.com]1998-12-04: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Help me with "Ransom Notes"

"Help me with "Ransom Notes"
Posted by AuntieBJ on 15:27:37 12/04/98
Include Original Message on Reply

I think we all agree that much of the ransom note appears to have come from movies and books. But maybe not all of us have seen the movies or read the books. So can other posters help with typing out completely the various ransom notes from movies, books or the news whether the ransom was verbal or actually written, whether drama or comedy, or real life? Please state where the ransom note came from and if it is real or fiction from a movie, etc. Then after you type out the ransom note, give a short description of what the person did after receiving the note. Maybe in the end we could take out all the movie/book parts and see what we end up with.

I will start out with the following:


Mr. Stone,

Listen very carefully !! We have kidnapped your wife. We have no qualms about killing and will do so at the slightest provocation. Do you understand? I donít like repeating myself. Do you understand? You are to obtain a new black American Tourestor brief case, model #8104. Do you understand? In it you will place five hundred thousand dollars in unmarked non-consequential one hundred dollar bills. Do you understand? Monday morning at eleven you will proceed with case in hand to Hope Street Plaza and wait for a phone to ring. You will receive further instructions then. Do you understand? You will be watched at all phases of execution. If anyone is with you or if action is not carried out to our complete satisfaction it will be considered an infraction to the rules and your wife will be killed. Do you understand? If you notify the police, your wife will be killed. If you notify the media, she will be killed. If you deviate from our instructions in anyway, she will be killed. Do you understand?


This was a comedy movie and Mr. Stone (Danny Devito) wanted his wife killed anyway so he didn't follow any of the instructions, he called the police and the media immediately.

9. "Lindbergh Ransom"
Posted by AuntieBJ on 01:09:54 12/05/98
Include Original Message on Reply


Found on the nursery windowsill, the ransom note reads:

Dear sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for notify the polise the child is in gute care. Indication for all letters are singature and 3 holes.


Here is a link to the ransom note page for those of you who may be interested:


[Perfect Murder, Perfect Town]1999-02-18: "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, JonBenet and the City of Boulder"
Written by Lawrence Schiller, February 18, 1999

PMPT Page 576

"Even more mystifying, the ransom note itself showed no fingerprints or signs of handling, creasing, or damage. Patsy said she saw the three sheets of paper comprising the note spread across the entire width of a step as she descended the spiral staircase. She said she stepped over the three pages before turning around to read its contents. The pages showed no indication that they had been stepped on. This seemed plausible until the police recreated the scenario Patsy described. The detectives found it was impossible, while descending this spiral staircase, to skip any of the steps without losing one's balance and almost falling forward."

[Webbsleuths Community Forum at www.munitrading.com]1999-05-04: Webbsleuths Community Forum (http://munitrading.com)
on thread titled, "Ramseys Lie About Ransom Note!"

4. "Tall_p"
Posted by why_nut on 05:42:23 5/04/99
Include Original Message on Reply

"Hmmm....LP, I find this assertion by you mystifying! So you are saying that maybe the ransom note got seperated at the beginning, and that the Ramseys' really did want to keep that link connected with JBR. And that Patsey took one page of the note upstairs....?"
I was rewatching the 48 Hours program yesterday, and noted John's statement, "Well, I can remember Patsy saying, `What should we do,' you know, `It says not to call the police.'"

Patsy's statement on the January 1st CNN interview contradicts John's statement. She said, "It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said `Mr. Ramsey,' And it said, `we have your daughter.' And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- `we have your daughter.' and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John."

Is the contradiction clear? The reference to not calling police was on the SECOND page of the note. The reference to "we have your daughter" was on the FIRST page. So either Patsy READ, REGISTERED and RETAINED enough memory of the contents of the second page to be able to tell John within a minute or so what that page said while she was not holding it, or she did in fact pick up at least two pages to present to John, leaving us to puzzle out why she would not pick up the third page, or, if she did, why those pages would ever have ended up back on the staircase once they were handled.


[ABC News 20/20]2000-03-17: John and Patsy Ramsey on Barbara Walters ABC News 20/20


BARBARA WALTERS: Another major factor. The ransom note. The ransom note was written on a pad and a pen from your home.


BARBARA WALTERS: AndÖ the question is, if the intruder was planning to write a note why wouldn't he or she have brought their own pad and paper? (PAUSE)

JOHN RAMSEY: They knew that the less they brought in the house the better.

BARBARA WALTERS: But they planned to write a note? (PAUSE)

JOHN RAMSEY: Apparently.

BARBARA WALTERS: Before or after the crime?


JOHN RAMSEY: [OVERLAP] I think the note was written beforeÖ the crime was committed.

BARBARA WALTERS: What has thrown great suspicion on you Mrs. Ramsey as you know is that some handwriting experts have said that there's a similarity between the writing on this note and your handwriting. This has been inconclusive. But the similarity of the handwriting is the strongest piece of evidence implicating you. (PAUSE)

PATSY RAMSEY: Well if that's the strongest then there's not much of a case. Because we have had handwriting experts to look at my handwriting as well. And on a scale, I believe, of 1 to 5 with 5 being a totally incomplete match, I was rated at a 4.5. so they wereÖ there's very little.

BARBARA (V/O): In fact, law enforcement sources in Boulder, Colorado told me that media reports of similarities between Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the ransom note are quote "grossly exaggerated."

BARBARA WALTERS: One of the questions is, what reason would a kidnapper have for leaving behind both the ransom letter and the body.


[JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation]2000-04-11: ďJonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder InvestigationĒ
by Steve Thomas and Don Davis, April 11, 2000

ST Page 200

"One thing we managed to keep from them for a while was that the lab analysts had a partial print from the ransom note. However, it didn't belong to the killer but to Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, who handled the note during his examination. The only print identified on that note belonged to the document examiner.

There was no indication that an intruder had ever touched the ransom note. And it seemed odd to us that no prints were on the note from either of the parents, who presumably would have handled it and even gripped it tightly.

But lab analysts did identify seven latent fingerprints on the tablet from which the ransom note came. None of them belonged to an intruder. One belonged to Sergeant Whitson, who handled the tablet on the morning of December 26. A second belonged to CBI's Ubowski. The remaining five fingerprints were Patricia Ramsey's."


[Purgatory II Forum]2003-07-16: Puragory II Forum Thread titled,
"JonBenet Ramsey Case - Freudian slip-JR on Ransom Note"

From: CountryGirl (MARQUISDESOD) Jul-16 1:39
To: ALL (1 of 31) 1171.1

I was doing some reading tonight and in JR's deposition in December 2001, the following struck me as very strange: Darnay asks the question below:


Q. When you were looking at the ransom note, was there anything in the language of the ransom note that struck you as peculiar?

A. The whole thing was peculiar. We were addressed as "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," and then they switched to "John" personally. They asked for twenty dollar bills and hundred dollar bills, as I recall. The amount was a very odd amount. The way the note was signed was very odd.The cruelty that they threatened was bizarre. It was a very sick mind that wrote that note.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ONLY the PRACTICE NOTE addressed them as Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey. The real ransom note addressed only Mr. Ramsey.

From: Misty (MISTYYY) Aug-8 12:16 pm
To: CountryGirl (MARQUISDESOD) (30 of 31)
1171.30 in reply to 1171.10

I wrote this up sometime in 1997.

Ransom Note Comparision

I was reading Robert Ressler's book, "Whoever Fights Monsters." He has a chapter on ransom notes, ``Staging: Pattern o fDeceit." As I read the note, it struck me that it sounded eerily familiar to the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note. As I read on, I found other similarities between the Ramsey ransom note and other references to ransom notes in the chapter.

The ransom note below is shown on page 180 of Ressler's book. (Please be aware that the note itself has varying degrees of capitalization that I did not type out; however, the lower and upper case patterns appear to be random whereas in the Ramsey note, only select words are in caps.) There is similarity in style and in words, such as ``inform" and in the excessive detail used in each of the notes. Here is the Jackson ransom note (page 180).

Dear Sir:
We are an organization composed of 7 members. I'm writing this letter to inform you that we have one of your Columbus women captive. Her name is Gail Jackson.Since that coroner said that the s-strangler is black, we decided to come here and try to catch him or put more pressure on you. I see now, more pressure is needed. At this point Gail Jackson is still living. If that strangler is not caught by 1 June 1978. You will find Gail Jackson's body on Wynonton Rd. If he's still not caught by 1 September 1978. the vitims will double.... You have until Sunday for reply. Don't think we are bluffing.... We are call the: forces of evil.

Here are some of the similarities I found between the Jackson and Ramsey note.

Sentence 1: We are an organization composed of 7 members. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 2: We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. (Ramsey)
Sentence 2 :I'm writing this letter to inform you that we have one of your Columbus women Captive. Her name is Gail Jackson. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 4 :At this time we have your daughter in our possession. (Ramsey)
Sentence 3: Since that coroner said that the strangler is black, we decided to come here and try to catch him or put more pressure on you. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 4: I see now, more pressure is needed. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 5: At this point Gail Jackson is still living. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 5: She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter. (Ramsey)
Sentence 6: If that stangler is not caught by 1 June 1978. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 7: You will find Gail Jackson's body on Wynonton Rd. If he's still not caught by 1 sept 1978. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 8: The vitims will double. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 9: You have until Sunday for reply. (Ressler's book)
Sentence 6 etc.:You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be
in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure...I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. (Ramsey)
Second to last sentence: Don't think we are bluffing. (Ressler's book)
Third to last sentence: Don't underestimate us John. (Ramsey)
Ending: We are call the: Forces of Evil. (Ressler's book)
Ending: Victory S.B.T.C. (Ramsey)

There are other similarities in this chapter between the Ramsey note and other cases.

pg. 189 -- the case of Debra Vine
Girl disappears and the next day aunt gets a call: "We have your daughter. We want eighty thousand dollars or you will never see her again." (Ressler's book) "At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter." (Ramsey note)
page 186 -- a telephone call from someone who did not commit the crime:
"I have the greatest respect for you, George..." (Ressler's book)
"We respect your business..." (Ramsey note)
page 189 -- "Mr. Vine, too, asked to speak with his daughter, and the caller said that Vine would just have to trust him, and that instructions for delivery of the money would be given later."(Ressler's book)
"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money, early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery... (Ramsey note)

Here are short summaries of the cases mentioned above

Summary of Jackson Case:
In the Jackson case elderly women were being raped and strangled to death with nylon stockings in their homes. Some evidence from the crime scenes suggested that the killer was a black male. The killer was coined the ``stocking strangler." The ransom note (that I reprinted) was sent to the Columbus Chief of Police on U.S. Army stationery and addressed to him. There were succeeding letters that announced the Forces of Evil had come from Chicago, and that the police chief was to communicate with the organization through radio or television. There were also telephone calls and a further ransom note that talked of another woman, Irene. Both Irene and Gail were prostitutes -- William H. Hance, a black enlisted man and an associate of both women, was later arrested for their murders. Turns out that later Carlton Gary was arrested for the murders of the elderly women.

Ressler's reasoning on this case: ``Analyzing the communications, I immediately discounted the idea that Gail Jackson was about to be killed by a group of seven white men in reaction to the death of the seven elderly white women. The evidence pointed precisely in the opposite direction.I thought the probable cul rit was a single black male. The style of writing in the letters, as well as the accent of the voice on the telephone call tape, made that a reasonable assumption. Once I had figured that out, the reset was easy: the letters seemed quite clearly to be an attempt to lead the authorities away from the most likely suspect, a person who was a known associate of Gail Jacksons. But what other reason would the killer have to write such a letter?

Possibly to prevent the police from getting close to him, because he had already killed Jackson. It seemed likely that he had penned the letters in order to disguise the death. ." (p.181-182)

Summary of Yorkshire Ripper Case:
This killer bludgeoned women and then sexually assaulted them; after death, mutilated them. Chief Inspector George Oldfield, within the past year, had received two letters in the mail and a tape. A third letter was sent to a major newspaper -- all from ``Jack the Ripper." From Ressler's book, here is a reprint of the tape-recording (adult male who spoke with a slow, measured voice).

I'm Jack. I see you are still having no luck catching me. I have the greatest respect for you, George, but you are no nearer catching me now than four years ago when I started. I reckon your boys are letting you down, George; ya can't be much good, can ya? The only time they came near touching me was a few months back, in Chapeltown when I was disturbed. Even then it was a uniformed copper, not a detective. I warned you in March that I'd strike again...but I couldn't get there. I'm not quite sure when I'll strike again but it will definitely be some [time] this year, maybe September, October, even sooner if I get the chance ... there's plenty of them knocking about. They never learn, do they, George ....I'll keep on going for quite a while yet. I can't see myself being nicked just yet.

Even if you do get near, I'll probably top myself first. Well, it's been nice chatting to you, George....

Ressler and Douglas both thought the recording was a hoax. Why? Because ``what the person on the tape said seemed totally inconsistent with the crimes as Domaille had described those killings to us. We thought that the killer was not the type of extroverted man who would be communicating with the police, that he was the quiet, introverted, woman-hating type. Didn't they understand that his style of quickly rendering the victims unconscious and his postmortem mutilations showed that hatred of women?" (page. 187)

The killer was found eventually --35 year-old man, married truck driver for an engineering firm who regularly traveled around the country for the purposes of his job. The audio tape hoax was found to be a retired police officer who disliked the Chief.

There are other similarities in this chapter between the Ramsey note and other cases.

pg. 189 -- the case of Debra Vine Girl disappears and the next day aunt gets a call: "We have your daughter. We want eighty thousand dollars or you will never see her again." (Ressler's book) "At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter." (Ramsey note)

page 186 -- a telephone call from someone who did not commit the crime: "I have the greatest respect for you, George..." (Ressler's book) "We respect your business..." (Ramsey note)

page 189 -- "Mr. Vine, too, asked to speak with his daughter, and the caller said that Vine would just have to trust him, and that instructions for delivery of the money would be given later." (Ressler's book)

"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money, early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery... (Ramsey note)

[Purgatory II Forum]2003-09-17: Puragory II Forum Thread titled,
"JonBenet Ramsey Case - Forum Decorum"

From: Koldkase2 9/17/2003 2:05 am
To: Koldkase2 (130 of 178)
1346.130 in reply to 1346.127

I just got off on this tangent and if anyone wants to dicuss it, here it is:

"Her body was cared for after she was murdered and there is no question about that. [snip]

Add in that the ransom note writer was VERY COGNIZANT that the Rams would want to have JonBenet's body back FOR PROPER BURIAL...and you have one sensitive and caring killer.

Odd, isn't it, that the ransom note writer mentioned this? I'll continue in the next post."
Again, how strange is it that the "killer" who wrote the ransom note was thinking about JonBenet GETTING A PROPER BURIAL on some level.

This long, rambling note is clearly not a kidnapper trying to simply make off with a child victim for ransom. Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping is an illustration of what a kidnapper does when he wants THE CHILD to go out the door, for keeping or ransom. He gets her and leaves.

But in this long note, we have the "kidnapper" explaining so many things in such detail that it's mind boggling.

What bills to get. What SIZE ATTACHE to take to the bank to put the money in. What to put the money in after the bank. For John to rest. He describes the "others" as gentlemen who don't "particularly" like John. What will happen to JonBenet IF John strays from these detailed directions.


Just like caring for JonBenet's body, this killer also knows that it's important for her to receive her PROPER BURIAL. It was on the note writer's mind, wasn't it?

WE might call you earlier if we "MONITOR YOU GETTING THE MONEY EARLY."

In other words, the "we're watching" threats are reinforced...and that means that they WILL SEE the cops arrive, the FRIENDS arrive. The killer is looking for an EARLIER DELIVERY if they see John getting the money earlier. Don't mark it. Don't mess around with electronic devices we'll scan you for. Follow our instructions. "You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities." "You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult."

I get it. The two themes here are DEATH AND HURRY HURRY HURRY.

The writer wanted to make the reader believe these kidnappers were VERY violent: we'll behead her, behead her, behead her, behead her.

Since the writer already knew JonBenet was dead, that was just part and parcel of the garotte SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE NECK, THE ALLUSION TO BEHEADING.

The writer wanted to make these "kidnappers" convincing as violent enough to garotte JonBenet like she had been garotted. Yet she wasn't beheaded, but she was garotted so deeply the killer must have thought she looked like she was being beheaded on some level. The note writer ALREADY KNEW WHAT JONBENET LOOKED LIKE WITH THE GAROTTE #### IN HER NECK. SHE WAS DEAD WHEN THE NOTE WAS WRITTEN.

The mention of the PROPER BURIAL was another reference to her violent death. You have to be dead to be buried. But what kidnapper cares if a victim gets a proper burial? If he plans all along to kill the victim, he isn't worried about getting the body back to the FAMILY, is he? THAT'S THE POINT OF KILLING THE VICTIM! To not make the contact or leave evidence behind.

"YOU WILL ALSO BE DENIED HER REMAINS FOR PROPER BURIAL." This statement implies that the parents are thinking about getting her buried even if they kill her. It implies that the parents are going to expect to get her back even if murdered, so the writer INCLUDES the idea that no, YOU WON'T EVEN GET TO BURY HER PROPERLY. That's a pretty absurd train of thought. Instead of thinking I'M GETTING PAID FOR THIS, he's thinking about HOW CAN HE KEEP THE RAMS FROM LAYING JONBENET OUT IN A COFFIN AND BURYING HER WITH CEREMONY? What does the kidnapper plan on doing to keep them from ever finding her body? Burn her in a crematory? Bury her on another planet? The implication of YOU WILL ALSO BE DENIED is that not only will you not get her back ALIVE, YOU WON'T GET EVEN HER BODY. It's an absurd statement on many levels.

But it serves a purpose, doesn't it? It is another way of saying we will kill her and we're mean, aren't we? Again, the theme is DEATH in excess. Not money. DEATH. JonBenet is dead and the writer knows it. The writer is solely setting up the idea that some murderous intruder came into the home and murdered JonBenet while her parents slept. That's the only purpose of this note in light of the fact that JonBenet was NEVER taken from the home.

If it's someone who writes the note to set in motion a kidnapping that goes awry, as John says, why talk about her death in so many ways? To convince John to pay? To convince him not to call the cops? The "kidnapper" has her, doesn't he? John called the cops anyhow. And the body was left in the home, not with some "kidnapper." Even if something went wrong and JonBenet was killed, why would the kidnapper NOT STILL TAKE THE BODY. How could the parents know she was dead?

If the kidnapper sat in the home and wrote the note before the Rams got home, before the murder as Smit says, he has it all planned out, doesn't he? He's detailed. He's got it all figured out.

Then why take her to the basement and kill her? If he had her stunned and knocked out, then why not out the door and kidnapping complete?

He's got it all figured out in the note. He's got the child. Next step, make the call....

But there is no kidnapping. HE LEAVES HER THERE! And the note with the theme of death death death. And Patsy on the phone: hurry hurry hurry. Like the note: we'll call early for "delivery" if you have the money. Get the money like this: no having to discuss what bills, how to carry it, no LE special traps or elaborate setups to catch them....

But I don't believe the killer had any idea that JonBenet would not be found very quickly. By the time the cops got through reading and figuring out this note...JonBenet's body would have been found and the violent kidnappers blamed: beheaded beheaded beheaded beheaded.

Proper burial. Fly to ATlanta for the proper burial.

John called his pilot immediately after finding the body. They wanted the body released for proper burial and FAST. Screw the cops. Screw the investigation to catch the murderer. PROPER BURIAL. Moving on with their lives, though they want to understand HOW this happened...according to John on CNN. Not WHO DID IT, but HOW this happened.

Hurry hurry hurry....

Then the Ramseys left JonBenet on the floor 30 minutes later and never went back. Hired attorneys and refused to talk to LE in a few hours. Flew out of town in days. Gave her her PROPER BURIAL inside a week. Went on TV in 6 days. Hurry hurry hurry.

Refused to have her body exhumed for evidence after pushing to have it buried and using that as an excuse to blame LE for them not cooperating.

Get her buried and "at peace" and hurry hurry hurry....

The theme of the note: she's dead, get her buried, hurry hurry hurry.

Edited 9/17/2003 2:26:31 AM ET by KOLDKASE2

From: why_nut 9/17/2003 10:10 am
To: Koldkase2 (131 of 178)
1346.131 in reply to 1346.130

Thank you for posting that message, it brought a perspective to the case that I had not had and do find valuable. I think you are correct in your evaluation.

I would add that the ransom note writer was so intent on emphasizing the "hurry hurry hurry" aspects, s/he made sure to save JonBenet's rescuers time through NOT making them ensure that the bills obtained for the ransom were unmarked. Apparently, the single most UNimportant thing to the supposed kidnapper was any need to protect hirself from being caught spending the money. If all the ransom note instructions were followed, the ransom money itself could have consisted of new bills, sequential numbering, and been protected with the exploding dye packs that banks use, and the kidnapper would not have cared one whit. If there is any clearer indication that the person who wrote the note never intended to collect a ransom, it is in that missing fact; unlike other ransom notes, even the most-holy Leopold and Loeb notes that Ramsey defenders like to point to, where the money is only acceptable when untraceable, in the Ramsey case, the money could have ended up catching the killer, and the killer did not care. No, the killer cared far more about imposing a ticking clock on retrieving JonBenet dead or alive then about getting rich. And to whom in this case was the priority of ticking clocks most important in the days before December 26th? That is right; John and Patsy. Of all the suspects, only John and Patsy have made it clear that "hurry hurry hurry" was the single most important motive driving their lives

CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory

Home 1998 to 2007 ACandyRose©