Comments
181 - 199 of 199 Comments Last updated Mar 22, 2014
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#243 Feb 23, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Acceptable in a court of law. Unless her allegations can be shown to be outright lies, her testimony would be completely acceptable. So let John have his day in court, and when that day comes then his lawyers can cross examine Linda Hoffmann Pugh and try to poke holes in her story. The jury can then decide for itself if they think she was lying.
I see no reason for her to lie about that window, by the way. And her comments about the window date from the time she was supporting Patsy wholeheartedly, so again no reason for her to lie.
Also, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering "other things" you think she lied about.
Accepting LHP’s “testimony” establishes that she did not know the window was broken and that she doesn’t remember cleaning up any glass. Well, she didn’t clean up the glass, Mrs Ramsey did. I suppose she could be asked if she ever, at any time, swept or vacuumed that room.

If she had, then she may have swept or vacuumed up whatever Mrs Ramsey left behind without knowing it.
If she had not, then how could she say that the window was not broken? How can we know she was she ever in that room?

In PMPT Schiller describes LHP looking for artificial Christmas trees; it is some time around thanksgiving. She looks in the basement and sees a door that she had never noticed before – a door! P. 230 And, we’re to believe she would have noticed THAT broken window?

I think after our prospective “lawyers” are done lawyering all we’d end up with is LHP didn’t know the window was broken and she doesn’t recall cleaning up what she didn’t clean up.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#244 Feb 23, 2013
As for Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up being a lie, it would be presented that it is not reasonable to believe that Mrs Ramsey would UNNECESSARILY include a non-conspirator or accomplice in a lie.

Unlike Mrs Ramsey LHP did have a reason to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s claim. LHP was named a suspect and she was investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. So, it could be argued that LHP had motive to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up.

But, we don’t need to go that far. We can accept both Mrs Ramsey's and LHP’s versions as being true. LHP was not aware of the broken window, she either did not sweep or vacuum that room or she did so without knowing why (the glass was already cleaned up, every chunk). Or, the discrepancy can as easily be dismissed as a result of the vagaries of memory.

However you spin and twist it we still end up at no evidence that the window was broken crime night and no evidence the glass was cleaned up that morning.


AK

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#245 Feb 23, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think that the use of acronyms, indents, and exclamations points are unique to Patsy?
It is not enough that there are similarities. Similarities between random writing styles are not unusual, especially if both writers are females of the same cultural background.
There has to be at least a 90% match before one can have any confidence that the two writers may be one and the same. We do not have that here, not even approximately.
Maybe indentations, exclamation points, phrases, etc., may not be unique to Patsy but Patsy was in the house for crying out loud. Wow, that means something. What's the chances that some strange intruder came in that house and wrote a letter bearing striking similarity to Patsy's style? She either wrote the note or someone tried to frame her.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#247 Feb 24, 2013
The fact remains that LHP actively disputes John's story and is in fact the ONLY eye witness to what was going on inside that house outside of the Ramsey family. That, plus all the other many aspects of John's testimony regarding the window that make his story so hard to believe, AND the fact that his story is essentially an alibi, would certainly allow the prosecution to present her as a witness. The arguments you offer would most likely be presented by the defense and then it would be up to the jury to decide. I'd have no problem with that.

But to argue that her testimony would be irrelevant simply because she failed to notice a broken window that was, in all likelihood, never actually broken, that's lawyer talk. Why would she have gone out of her way to observe a window that wasn't broken? And how could she possibly have failed to notice a window that was?

As far as Patsy's reasons for mentioning Linda as her assistant in cleaning up the mess: if in fact Linda had nothing to do with it, then Patsy's reasons are irrelevant. You are seeing things from the wrong end of the telescope, AK. What we have is an alibi corroborated ONLY by the suspect's wife, who was, by the way, also implicated in the same crime, and would therefor have a strong motivation to support her husband's version of what happened. And the ONLY person outside the family in a position to corroborate that alibi has vociferously denied knowing anything about it. In any ordinary case, such an alibi would hardly be expected to stand up in court. But this case is far from ordinary, so apparently any story John Ramsey wants to tell must be accepted at face value regardless of whether it can be corroborated.
Anti-K wrote:
As for Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up being a lie, it would be presented that it is not reasonable to believe that Mrs Ramsey would UNNECESSARILY include a non-conspirator or accomplice in a lie.
Unlike Mrs Ramsey LHP did have a reason to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s claim. LHP was named a suspect and she was investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. So, it could be argued that LHP had motive to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up.
But, we don’t need to go that far. We can accept both Mrs Ramsey's and LHP’s versions as being true. LHP was not aware of the broken window, she either did not sweep or vacuum that room or she did so without knowing why (the glass was already cleaned up, every chunk). Or, the discrepancy can as easily be dismissed as a result of the vagaries of memory.
However you spin and twist it we still end up at no evidence that the window was broken crime night and no evidence the glass was cleaned up that morning.

AK
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#248 Feb 24, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe indentations, exclamation points, phrases, etc., may not be unique to Patsy but Patsy was in the house for crying out loud. Wow, that means something. What's the chances that some strange intruder came in that house and wrote a letter bearing striking similarity to Patsy's style? She either wrote the note or someone tried to frame her.
The "ransom" note bears no significant similarity to Patsy's style. It's always possible to cherry pick isolated similarities because there will always be something similar to find in the writings of any two people. That means nothing. On the other hand, as far as John is concerned, see: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/j...

Could the similarities I've found also be the result of cherry picking? Sure. But no one seems interested in looking for THAT sort of thing, because everyone has been hypnotized into accepting the edict that John was "ruled out." Which is nonsense.

Since: May 11

AOL

#249 Feb 24, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
The "ransom" note bears no significant similarity to Patsy's style. It's always possible to cherry pick isolated similarities because there will always be something similar to find in the writings of any two people. That means nothing. On the other hand, as far as John is concerned, see: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/j...
Could the similarities I've found also be the result of cherry picking? Sure. But no one seems interested in looking for THAT sort of thing, because everyone has been hypnotized into accepting the edict that John was "ruled out." Which is nonsense.
Excellent! Or should I say THAT you gave it a PROPER treatment and I'm 100% convinced? LOL

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#251 Feb 24, 2013
B.S.

If that were remotely possible others would have seen it, her doctors at the NIH and trained professionals involved in trying to decipher Jonbenet's death.

It wouldn't come from rantings of dissociative bean counter.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#257 Feb 24, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Doc, but you are grasping at straws. "All six experts cited in the Carnes opinion (see Patsy Ramsey discussion above) "agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note.(SMF P 194; PSMF P 194.)" (Carnes 2003:26)."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/1168...
The ransom note was two and a half pages long. There are a lot of words in that note. JR, like the note writer, speaks American English. Therefore, he is going to use some of the exact same words as are found in the note, from time to time, just as anyone else who speaks American English.
Neither content analysis nor handwriting analysis is sufficient to prove a particular person either wrote or did not write a deliberately deceptive document such as the Ramsey "ransom" note. My purpose in posting those "Johnisms" was to demonstrate that John is at least as good a candidate as Patsy for the dubious "honor" of having written that note. As I see it, he is in fact a far better candidate, because I seriously doubt anyone could compile a comparable list from anything Patsy ever wrote or said. There is, of course, no way to do a similar comparison for any intruder suspect, because there is no such animal. And to that extent I'll agree that the list I've compiled for John in itself proves nothing about whether or not he wrote that note. All it does is challenge all you Patsy "lovers" out there to come up with something similar for her.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#259 Feb 24, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither content analysis nor handwriting analysis is sufficient to prove a particular person either wrote or did not write a deliberately deceptive document such as the Ramsey "ransom" note. My purpose in posting those "Johnisms" was to demonstrate that John is at least as good a candidate as Patsy for the dubious "honor" of having written that note. As I see it, he is in fact a far better candidate, because I seriously doubt anyone could compile a comparable list from anything Patsy ever wrote or said. There is, of course, no way to do a similar comparison for any intruder suspect, because there is no such animal. And to that extent I'll agree that the list I've compiled for John in itself proves nothing about whether or not he wrote that note. All it does is challenge all you Patsy "lovers" out there to come up with something similar for her.
If you really are interested in comparisons, read Rivers comparison of the RN with McReynolds writing - dead on.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#261 Feb 24, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really are interested in comparisons, read Rivers comparison of the RN with McReynolds writing - dead on.
In other words, some people see what they
want to see.

Sincerely,

SBTC
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#264 Feb 25, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really are interested in comparisons, read Rivers comparison of the RN with McReynolds writing - dead on.
Well that's exactly my point. And Chris Wolf's handwriting looks a lot like the note, when you focus on individual letters and ignore his overall style. Such comparisons are useless. We have to stick with the facts of the case and logical inferences based on those facts or we're lost.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#265 Feb 25, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better to work with the evidence then against it. The evidence suggests that neither the handwriting nor the contents of the ransom note fit JR.
In that case, you should have no trouble sorting his exemplars from those of the note in the scrambled comparison I placed on the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/s...

Once again, I'm not saying this proves John wrote the note. But it certainly makes me question the decision to rule him out.
docG

Dunlevy, PA

#269 Feb 25, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
While I make no claim to being expert in handwriting analysis, I do not see anything that would lead me to suspect (let alone believe) that the writer of the deposition and the writer of the ransom note are one and same.
Fine. Then tell us which of these exemplars are from the note, and which were penned by John. And if you can't do that, then spare us the lecture on how John could not have written it because it's too long.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#270 Feb 25, 2013
The fact is that Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the writer of the note. So says professional questioned document examiners.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#274 Feb 25, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that she could not be INCLUDED as the writer of the note according to the balance of expert opinion, and this is what matters. In other words, the balance of expert opinion could not positively identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the note. Therefore, in all probability, she DID NOT write the note.
Most people can figure out that not being excluded means she may be included. There are highly qualified professional QDEs who state they are 99 per cent sure she wrote the note. That you choose not to believe them is your decision.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#276 Feb 27, 2013
Marleysghost wrote:
The fact is that Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the writer of the note. So says professional questioned document examiners.
The fact is that the "experts" who ruled John out, were offering an opinion, NOT presenting a fact.

On the other hand, it IS a FACT that no one in all these years has EVER been able to sort John's exemplars from the ransom note exemplars in the scrambled graphic I concocted.

So please explain: on what basis was John ruled out?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#277 Mar 21, 2014
docG wrote:
....Now to your questions. Of course, it's possible that Patsy could have changed her writing style to make it look less like the ransom note. But if that were the case one would suppose the change would be pretty obvious, and that the BPD, and the various "experts," would have been all over it. To my knowledge, however, the ONLY instance where a change of that sort was ever noted was by Steve Thomas, who claimed Patsy stopped using the "manuscript a" after JonBenet's murder, whereas she had routinely used it previously. Thomas was mistaken. I count 8 instances of manuscript "a" in the London Letter (along with 10 cursive "a"s), clearly written AFTER the murder. This seems consistent with Patsy's earlier practice of mixing both forms. All the "a"s in her pageant entry form are cursive, by the way.
So -- while it does seem reasonable to assume she might have changed her style to confuse the investigators, there is actually no evidence of that. If you have any, please share.
I don't think anyone shared so, while I don't really want to wake up this sleeping thread, I'm proffering a reference to the evidence.

From _JonBenet_:

"While I steered Don Paugh into a conversation about taxes, Gosage sought some unrehearsed writings by Patsy and struck gold.'If Patsy didn't write the [ransom] note, why not offer some handwriting to prove it?' he asked Nedra. She defiantly thrust a piece of paper at him and declared,'Patsy wrote that just this morning.'

As we drove away, Ron examined the list of addresses and telephone numbers Patsy had written. It included the name of her friend Barbara Fernie with an important tell-tale correction.

In the 376-word ransom note, the small letter 'a' was printed in manuscript style 109 times and written in cursive lowercase style only 5 times. The entry on Fernie contained just such a printed manuscript 'a' as the second letter of the word 'Barbara,' but it had been boldly written over with a black felt-tip pen and made into a cursive-style 'a.'"

ALSO:

"Not only did certain letters change, but her entire writing styles seemed to have transformed after the homicide. There were new ways of indenting, spelling, and writing out long numbers that contrasted with her earlier examples, and she was the only suspect who altered her usual preferences when supplying writing samples to the police."

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#278 Mar 21, 2014
erratum: "styles" should be "style."
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#279 Mar 22, 2014
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe indentations, exclamation points, phrases, etc., may not be unique to Patsy but Patsy was in the house for crying out loud. Wow, that means something. What's the chances that some strange intruder came in that house and wrote a letter bearing striking similarity to Patsy's style? She either wrote the note or someone tried to frame her.
Wish we had an icon for "strongly agree!" Such a great post bringing everything back to the commonsense analysis of the situation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 3 hr note 425
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? 11 hr Undrtheradar 82
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) 23 hr Just Wondering 1,050
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Wed JTF 7,469
Lou Smit window video Aug 26 Just Wondering 1
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." Aug 25 Count 27
The London Letter Aug 25 Bee 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••