JonBenet Ramsey's brother to break near 20 year silence and speak publicly for the first time about his sisters murder

Silverspeed wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-breaks-his-silence-nearly-20-years-after-his-sisters-murder/ar-BBv86s9?li=BBoPOOl

According to some, he is a suspect - allegedly enraged with all the attention given to his younger sister.

Mrs Ramsey forging the ransom letter for $118,000 is still the biggest clue to what really happened.

I hope this is the truth coming out, not just another fudge.

New documentary on JBR murder. 

https://youtu.be/pbrSU5emoSA

A higher quality video of the new Dateline 2016 docu on Jonbenet Ramsey case. 

https://youtu.be/vO59bNt3bbo

I watched the video and I am astonished how similar the Ramsey and the McCann sagas are. The one BIG difference is that with the J Ramsey case, there was a body. Apart from that, there is very little difference. The comfort blanket and some "loved toy". The refusal of the Ramseys to speak to  the police, yet within days they were giving press conferences, hiring private detectives etc. The list goes on and on. Parents of a murdered child would want to cooperate with the police 24/7.

Moreover, what parent would CARRY a murdered child from the place where he/she was murdered? John Ramsey was intelligent enough to know that the crime scene should have been left exactly as he found it, if he wanted his daughter's killer brought to justice. That didn't happen, but the question is WHY did he move the body?

https://youtu.be/FxSBUjf4QLo
Burke Ramsey & Dr Phil interview.

MayMuse wrote:https://youtu.be/FxSBUjf4QLo
Burke Ramsey & Dr Phil interview.

I watched it the other day.
He's a bit weird, isn't he.

BlueBag wrote:

MayMuse wrote:https://youtu.be/FxSBUjf4QLo
Burke Ramsey & Dr Phil interview.

I watched it the other day.
He's a bit weird, isn't he.

Socially inept as many are saying, his nervous disposition ( the smiles at seemingly inappropriate places ) can be seen in the tapes released of his interview as a child, it's his personality and have met people with the same disposition. 
I actually feel v sorry for him and believe he had nothing to do with his sisters death. 
Many I realise may disagree but sticking to my own thoughts of this sad and tragic case.

I watched the Dr Phil interview but I have not watched as of yet the interviews of Burke being questioned as a young boy. Did any of our members notice John Ramsey touching his left ear when asked a question by Dr Phil? I remember watching him and Gerry Mcann sprung into my mind
If your planning to kidnap a child you would presume the ransom note would be done & the kidnapper would not be saying "it's ok I'll find a pen & paper in the child's house and write it out there, I've 3 pages to write"
Did Burke kill her & the parents made it look like a kidnapping gone wrong? The ransom note had to be written first as when he killed her & sexually assaulted her because why write a ransom note when you were going to leave the victim in the house dead any way, he was not to know when she would be found! $118,000 exact bonus John Ramsey was paid, kidnapper never looked for much when John could have paid millions. Police think mother wrote it, I do too.
Did Patsy her mother kill her over bed wetting? I don't think so, she loved Jonbenet dressed in cowboy outfits plastered in makeup and doing her routines for the next show, and her grief looked genuine to me, if she knew Burke killed her would she cover that up? Yes I think she would and thats my opinion so far in this other tragic tale of child murder.

DENNISSALLY wrote:"it's ok I'll find a pen & paper in the child's house and write it out there, I've 3 pages to write"

Crazy innit.

I have no idea why they are not in prison.

I agree BlueBag, Burke didn't leave his room when his mother came in in a panic by the way looking for Jonbenet, nor did he get up when policeman came in with a torch. He was 9 years old not a slumbering toddler! If your mother comes into your room in a panic and you hear and see her then you get up out your bed to see what the commotion is. I repeat he was 9!
He was not smirking through that interview he was laughing you could clearly see it in his eyes. Maybe he is shy but he is far from special needs and I for the life of me can't see how a brother could smile all through a talk over his baby sisters brutal murder without one expression on his face showing pain anger hurt rage at what happened to her, all I could see was a big grin throughout.

I cannot see a parent garrotting their own precious daughter and more to hide or cover up for their 9 year old son. 
DNA was found years later and not from anyone in that house, neither did the part paint brush come from Patsys art stuff, neither did the duck tape or the rope, there is much more to this. 
The truth will come out, not any time soon but it will. 
It is a cover up, but not the parents. 
The media had a field day and hung them out to dry from day one, pity they didn't do that in the case of Madeleine. 
IMO

I can see it's hard to believe a parent would be accused of garrotting their own child to protect their living child, but as you know parents have done so much more evil to their children. Do you believe the Mcanns covered up the murder or accidental death of their child to save their own skins? Do you know because I do not if a sample of Burkes semen was ever took when he was 9 years old or in an older year when he was an adult?
The case of Jonbenet to me going by ransom note and more importantly, if you find a ransom note and you go looking like Patsy did through the house that when she entered Burkes bedroom then house is searched including basement but you do not find your dead daughter until your told again to go searching the next day?
The police always thought Patsy wrote the ransom note & if they are correct in that then why?

I have watched a substantial part of the video. Many years ago I researched the JonBenet case in detail and became convinced that the Ramsey family killed JonBenet and coverd it up.

Having seen the video, these are my observations FWIW:

1. I saw and heard Pat Ramsey at one point say: "I lived that child". I immediately thought of our 'Hobs'. It looked and sounded like a classic case of putting distance between herself and JonBenet (the sort of thing we have seen in other cases on here)

2. At one point Pat Ramsey was asked: "Did you kill JonBenet?".  The answer wasn't a simple 'No', or 'No I did not'. It was quite a bit longer...as I understand Hobs' analysis, that weakens the strength of the denial

3. I looked at Pat Ramsey's tears and found them utterly fake and probably rehearsed

4. I know, from having posted up an analysis by some expert on the ransom note that it was definitely written by Pat Ramsey, though she tried to disguise it. It was not just her and writing, it was also that she used a number of very specific but uncommon words in her rambling note that gave her away. And on top of that, the reference to $118,000 was a dead giveaway 

5. The responses of Burke, grinning, smirking and laughing throughout, was right off the scale of weirdness, especially given the subject matter. I wouk,d deduce from that, that he knows exactly what happened and was told by his parents to lie about it

6. I agree with the expert who said: "Whoever wrote that note killed JonBenet".

In summary, I strongly tend to believe that JonBenet was killed when her temperamental and ambitious mother momentarily 'lost it'.

That leaves the issue of John Ramsey's role in all of this.

I think it is plausible that the parents agreed to stage a faked sexual assault on JonBenet to persuade the police that she was murdered by a third party.

But whatever really happened, the poor girl's final minutes become too gruesome to think about any further

We will all have our difference of opinions and observations from any case researched. 
I respect that not everyone can agree. 
I'm not here to change anyone's mind and am not deterred. 
I believe in their innocence and think they have been persecuted enough. It is extremely sad. 
Patsy was medicated to help her cope and that is so obvious in some interviews.
Burke could be on the autism spectrum as much of his "ways" mirror the syndrome.
I feel they were shocked to the core and that the police were out of their depth.
I could go on with so many discrepancies regarding the note, DNA,  the molestation which incidentally was not proved other than the horrific sexual assault that evening. 
Jonbenet was a vocal child and would have spoken out. Burke was always the shy one. 
DNA found on certain items excluded the family. 
Distancing can be to self protect & not everyone who touches their ear is guilty of lies. 
Jonbenet was hit so hard it cracked her skull, she died from the strangulation up to 2 hours later during which she was assaulted resulting in a most torturous death. If this was an accident by a family member who loved her, I do not believe they would then cover it up in this horrific way, and still be corpus mentis to sit down and write a ransom note etc. Sometimes common sense prevails along with intelligence, gut instinct and facts. 
There is absolutely no evidence of her parents or Burke ever committing this crime.
This was a planned murder by someone who had murdered before. 
Incidentally what my thoughts are on this case have no bearing on my thoughts of the McCann case. 
IMO

1. Chronic sexual abuse of JonBenet is a fact not a myth. She was assaulted prior to the night of her murder, perhaps numerous times given the 'vaginitis' she suffered from frequently, and the evidence of bedwetting AND fecal incontinence.  (No 9 year old boy was responsible for this kind of abuse )

2. She died from strangulation (per Dr. Cyril Wecht quote " a sex game gone wrong")[size=69]. Barely a teaspoon of blood resulted from the absolutely massive headblow. It's science. Blood doesn't flow when you're dead.[/size]


[size=69]Having said that, I do not believe the Ramsey's were personally responsible for laying hands on their daughter and killing her but I believe, as did the grand jurors, that they were not only complicit in their daughter's death, they deliberately staged a cover up to hide the true facts behind the murder.[/size]


[size=69]Read the indictments for yourself. IMO they tell the whole story in a nutshell:[/size]


Count four of the indictment said the Ramseys “did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.”


Count seven of the indictment said the Ramseys did “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

~~~~~

Astonishingly, if you read between the lines, the jurors seemed to believe, given the FACT  of the chronic abuse,  that the parents pimped out their child and when this led to her death they had to scramble to invent a faked/ aborted abduction to cover for the murderer. The unidentified DNA IS significant but it  doesn't absolve the Ramsey's it merely points to the as yet mysterious (but not so secret as one might believe) culprit the jurors believe they covered up for.

MayMuse wrote:I cannot see a parent garrotting their own precious daughter and more to hide or cover up for their 9 year old son. 
DNA was found years later and not from anyone in that house, neither did the part paint brush come from Patsys art stuff, neither did the duck tape or the rope, there is much more to this. 
The truth will come out, not any time soon but it will. 
It is a cover up, but not the parents. 
The media had a field day and hung them out to dry from day one, pity they didn't do that in the case of Madeleine. 
IMO

I've seen the DNA explained somewhere. 

I've never seen the paintbrush ruled out from belonging to the mother - in fact I've seen the opposite.

Do you have any links?

BlueBag wrote:

MayMuse wrote:I cannot see a parent garrotting their own precious daughter and more to hide or cover up for their 9 year old son. 
DNA was found years later and not from anyone in that house, neither did the part paint brush come from Patsys art stuff, neither did the duck tape or the rope, there is much more to this. 
The truth will come out, not any time soon but it will. 
It is a cover up, but not the parents. 
The media had a field day and hung them out to dry from day one, pity they didn't do that in the case of Madeleine. 
IMO

I've seen the DNA explained somewhere. 

I've never seen the paintbrush ruled out from belonging to the mother - in fact I've seen the opposite.

Do you have any links?

I also thought the paintbrush had been discovered to be from the mothers painting/decorating kit.
I believe they knew and covered up.
I know a grandmother who said to me, "well I was abused when I was four and it didn't damage me!". If people have this attitude maybe they're prepared to turn a blind eye if the rewards are great enough. I find it abhorrent but it DOES happen! We would be naive to not think it does!
The ransom note makes no sense to me at all!

They found the bristle end of the brush in a tub in the house - it was her brush.

The note pad and pen that was used for the ransom note is also interesting.

They were both put back where they came from - two different places, the hall and the kitchen.

Very tidy.

This after writing an unnecessarily verbose three pages and a practice draft (possibly two practice drafts) in a house where three people were upstairs.

The culprit must have felt they had all the time in the world.

There were dogs in this story too.

The neighbours dogs didn't bark.

They apparently barked when anyone entered the alley where the houses were.

Oh and the FBI reconstructed the writing of the note.

21 minutes is what they reckon.

Bold.

Very bold.

BlueBag wrote:They found the bristle end of the brush in a tub in the house - it was her brush.

The note pad and pen that was used for the ransom note is also interesting.

They were both put back where they came from - two different places, the hall and the kitchen.

Very tidy.

This after writing an unnecessarily verbose three pages and a practice draft (possibly two practice drafts) in a house where three people were upstairs.

The culprit must have felt they had all the time in the world.

There were dogs in this story too.

The neighbours dogs didn't bark.

They apparently barked when anyone entered the alley where the houses were.

And there were particles of fibre, from Patsy Ramsey's sweater on the duct tape taken from Jonbennet's mouth

Here is the Statement Analysis of the ransom note letter to which I referred above:

--------------------

I have recently found this which is very interesting: the actual ransom note, and comments on it


Statement Analysis
by Mark McClish

JonBenet Ramsey Ransom Note
Posted July 9, 2001
Click here for an update on this case.

A key piece of evidence in solving this murder is the ransom note. The police as well as the Ramseys believe that whoever wrote the note is probably the killer. If the police can match the handwriting in the ransom note to a suspect's handwriting, the case is solved. The problem has been they have not found a match. Even without a positive match, the ransom note is still the key to solving this crime.

Using Statement Analysis we can examine this ransom note and determine if it is a legitimate ransom note. Was it the intention of the writer to extort money from the Ramseys, or was the note written as a ploy after JonBenet was killed? Determining the veracity of the ransom note is important. If the note is legitimate, then we know we have a kidnapping that went bad. This would exclude the Ramseys as possible suspects. Why would they kidnap their own child and demand money from themselves? If the note is fraudulent, then we know this was a murder made to look like a kidnapping. Anyone could be a possible suspect. Let's examine the ransom note left at the Ramsey residence. I have added the numbers in the left hand column to make it easier to reference while analyzing it.

1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.
8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99%
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."


One of the first things we notice is that this is a very long ransom note. Most ransom notes are short and to the point. "We have your kid and she is safe. It will cost you $400,000 to get her back. Do not call the police. We will be contacting you." This ransom note was written on three pieces of paper. This is our first clue this note may be bogus.

As we read the ransom note, we find it doesn't make much sense. Line #2, "We are a group of individuals." What exactly does the writer mean by "group of individuals?" Every group is comprised of individuals. That's what makes it a group. Is the writer telling us despite being a group, they maintain their individuality? Most of the year they live separate lives, but everyone once in a while they come together as a group?


1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves.

The writer also states in lines #2 and #3 that they "represent a small foreign faction." The use of the word "foreign" doesn't make sense. Even if to us they are foreigners, they wouldn't call themselves foreigners. They are not foreigners to themselves. They would tell us, "We are the Islamic Jihad." Remember you can learn a lot if you ask yourself how you would state something. Then compare your statement with the suspect's statement. If you went to Iran and kidnapped someone, it is doubtful you would leave a note stating you are a foreigner.

The writer goes on to say in lines #3 and #4, "We respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves." Are we to believe that JonBenet was kidnapped and then murdered because someone has a hatred for the United States? Most people would agree this crime is not an international incident.
1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves.

In line #3, the writer crossed out the beginning of a word. It appears that the first letter was a "d" and the second letter possibly an "o." The writer may have started to write "We don't respect your business" but then changed it to "We respect your business." A kidnapper who already has his mind set would probably not make this mistake.

The writer misspells two common words in lines #4 and #5, "business" and "possessions." However, the writer correctly spells the words "deviation" and "attache" even including the accent on the word "attache." This leads us to believe the writer purposefully misspelled these two words to try to make it look like an uneducated person or a foreigner wrote this note. The two misspellings occur in the first paragraph. After that, the writer uses correct grammar except for using the article "a" when he should have written "an." This is further indication the misspellings were done on purpose. The writer showed his true writing skills and forgot to misspell words throughout the note.
1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

In lines #4 and #5, the writer tells us "...we have your daughter in our possession." Remember that the shortest way to say something is the best way to state it. A true kidnapper would have said, "We have your daughter." The words "in our possession" are understood and unnecessary. This wordiness shows us that someone was trying to make this look like a kidnapping.

The writer states in line #8, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." The kidnapper may know the Ramseys are wealthy, but how does the writer know they have $118,000 in their account. Most kidnappers would simply state "get the money." They don't care where you get it from just get it.
8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.

The amount of $118,000 is a relatively small amount of money. Kidnappers are greedy. A true kidnapper would demand much more money.

The phrase "your account" is very interesting. First, as I previously mentioned a kidnapper would not tell you from where to obtain the money. If the kidnapper did, the writer would probably use the phrase "the bank." Secondly, if Patsy Ramsey was the author of this note, then we can see how in targeting the note towards her husband, she would use the phrase "your account" vs "my account."

In line #10, the writer tells the Ramseys to "bring an adequate size attache to the bank." Most kidnappers are not going to remind you to bring an adequate size case to hold the money. Likewise in line #13, it is doubtful that a kidnapper will tell you "to be rested" because the delivery process will be exhausting.
8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

Line #13 and #14 the writer states, "If we monitor you getting the money early...." The word "monitor" implies a continual surveilance. This is further emphasized in line #30 when the writer states, "You and your family are under constant scrutiny...." The kidnapper would have us believe that they are continually watching the Ramsey family which is highly unlikely.

In line #19, we have an unnecessary word, "over."
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter

Unnecessary words are words that can be taken out of the sentence, and yet the sentence still makes sense. The writer could have stated, "The two gentlemen watching your daughter." By including the extra word, the writer is including extra information. What is the difference between watching someone and watching over someone? The best example I can think of is in reference to God. If I say that God is watching over me, I visualize God keeping his distance. He sees me, but he also see the entire world at the same time. He can see me because I am part of the world. While He is watching over me He is also watching over others. The word "over" means God is spreading His watchful eye upon the earth. However, if I say that God is watching me it becomes more personal. Even though He can see the entire world, He is focusing His attention on me. Another example would be if a friend asked you to "watch over" his house while he was out of town. In this case, he probably wants you to stop by every once in a while and make sure everything is okay. Maybe you will pick up his mail and water his plants. However, if he asked you to "watch" his house he probably wants you to housesit. He wants you to be there where you can keep a close eye on things.

In a kidnapping, the kidnappers should be "watching" the abductee. They will want to keep a close eye on her. They want to make sure she doesn't escape or alert someone that she needs help. They will want to make sure she doesn't harm herself if her being alive is dependent upon them receiving the ransom. When the writer of the ransom note said they were "watching over" JonBenet, the writer was telling us they were not keeping a close eye on her. There are only two reasons why you would not closely watch your hostage: 1. If you knew for certain she was alright and could not escape; 2. If you knew she was dead. Since a dead body isn't going anywhere, it is something you "watch over." Based on the language used, it appears the writer knew JonBenet was dead when writing the ransom note.

Line #19 continues on stating "The two men watching over your daughter do not particularly like you...." When we look at a copy of the ransom note, we find the writer originally wrote "....do particularly like you...." The word "not" was then written above the space between the words "do" and "particularly." A line was then drawn indicating the word "not" should be inserted between these two words. A true kidnapper would not make the mistake of saying these gentlemen do like you.
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.

The sentence "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them" is not very aggressive language. This would indicate that a woman wrote this note. Other statements in the ransom note such as "I advise you to be rested" also show a feminine touch.

Saying that JonBenet will be "beheaded" in line #22 is very unusual. In the United States, we generally do not talk about beheading people. This was put in the note to make it look like a "foreign faction" was behind this kidnapping.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies.

In lines #13 and #30, the writer said the Ramseys were being monitored and under constant scrutiny. Yet, in line #22 the writer contradicts this when he or she writes "if we catch you talking." This would indicate the family is not under constant scrutiny.

Four times the writer uses the phrase "she dies." (Lines #23 - #26) The problem is the writer should be speaking in the future tense; "she will die." This is a strong indication the writer knew JonBenet was dead when the ransom note was written.

The note is addressed to "Mr. Ramsey." However, towards the end of the note Mr. Ramsey becomes "John." The writer refers to Mr. Ramsey as "John" three times in lines #31 - #34. If this was a foreign faction, they would continually use the term "Mr. Ramsey." Referring to him by his first name is too personal for an unknown kidnapper.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."

There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Every word or name means something different even if it is only slightly different in meaning. A truthful person will usually be consistent in their language and not change their language by using synonyms unless their is a justification for the change. Deceptive people will sometimes use synonyms because they are making up the story and are not speaking from the heart. If the writer saw John Ramsey as being "Mr. Ramsey", then he should always refer to him as "Mr. Ramsey." When the writer changed the language and called him "John" it is an indication the story is deceptive.

The note is signed "S.B.T.C" There is no period after the letter "C." When writing we end a thought by placing a period at the end of the sentence. Not using a period tells us the writer intentionally stopped writing. There may be conflict at this point in the story. The writer may have more information that was purposely withheld.
After re-examining a copy of the ransom note, I believe there is a period after the letter "C." It looks like the period was placed so close to the "C" that it bled into the letter.

There has been a lot of speculation as to what the letters S.B.T.C. mean. The one that makes some sense to me is "Saved By The Cross." This is because the Ramseys profess to have faith in God and because word "Victory" precedes the initials S.B.T.C. As all Christians know, it is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross that we have "victory" over death.

In examining the pronouns, we find this crime was not committed by a group. If you are writing for a group, then your language will reflect there are several people involved. Throughout the ransom note, the writer uses the plural pronouns "we," "us" and "our" because the writer wants to give the impression that a group is responsible for the kidnapping. In lines #2 - #5 we find the statements, "We are a group of individuals." "We respect your business." "We have your daughter." In line #6 the writer states, "You must follow our instructions." In line #28, "Follow our instructions." However, in line #17 we have, "Any deviation of my instructions." If this was a group effort, the writer would have a group mentality and would consistently use the plural pronouns. Look at line #11 and line #14, "I will call you" vs "We might call you." People's words will betray them. The truth will slip out and in this case we can easily see it in the pronouns. We see deception in this ransom note with the changing pronouns. This kidnapping was not the work of a terrorist group. One person, probably a woman, wrote this ransom note. One person and perhaps an accomplice committed this crime.


As you can see there is a lot of deception in this ransom note. The writer's own words tell us this ransom note was not written with the intent to obtain money. Since the ransom note was written as a ruse, we can conclude this was not a kidnapping that turned into a murder, but a murder made to look like a kidnapping. This means we cannot exclude the Ramseys as possible suspects. Let's look at what evidence ties John and Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.


1. The ransom note was written on a pad of paper that was in the Ramsey's residence. Likewise, the pen that was used to write the note also came from their residence.

2. The killer placed a nylon cord made into a garrote around JonBenet's neck and strangled her. A broken paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey was used to make the garrote.

3. While handwriting analysis shows that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, Patsy Ramsey could not be completely eliminated as the writer.

4. Certain words in the ransom note such as "instruction" "monitor" "execution" "scanned" "electronic" and "device" are computer terms. At the time of JonBenet's death, John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics a computer distribution company.

5. The kidnapper demanded $118,000 from the Ramseys. This is a very unusual amount. Most people would ask for a much larger amount. There is a reason why the writer chose $118,000. Even John Ramsey agrees that the number 118 is significant to the killer. It has been reported that in 1996 John Ramsey received a bonus of $118,000. Is this a coincidence? When the writer had to think of a number, $118,000 was on his mind.
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

6. In lines #13 - 16, the writer states, "If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier pickup of your daughter." The word "hence" is a formal way of saying "therefore." The writer starts out the ransom note misspelling words giving the appearance he is uneducated. However, his educational level begins to show when he uses words such as "hence."

The word "hence" is not a very common word. When was the last time you used that word in a sentence? Chances are you have not used it this week. We should look to see if this word appears in any writings of John or Patsy Ramsey. Well, it does. On December 14, 1997, the First United Methodist Church in Boulder, Colorado held a memorial service for JonBenet. In the program, there was "A Christmas Message from the Ramsey Family." This message was also posted on the Ramsey family's web site. In the message, we find the statement, "Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

7. The word "hence" is a transition word. You do not have to use the word "and" with it. For example, "The arcade was closed, hence, I spent my money at the mall." The writer of the ransom note used the phrase "and hence." In their Christmas Message, the Ramseys used this exact same phrase. "Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

In their book, The Death of Innocence, Patsy Ramsey addresses the use of the phrase "and hence."

"Actually, I have no idea why we used that phrase. Maybe we'd seen it so many times in reading the ransom note - and having to write it over and over again for the police - that it became a part of our subconscious vocabulary. Who Knows? Then again, maybe people everywhere use the phrase ‘and hence' everyday of the week, because it's a normal part of the English language."

Like I said, when was the last time you used that phrase? It is not part of the normal English vocabulary. Patsy Ramsey does not tell us why they used that phrase. She only says "maybe" it is because they saw it in the ransom note and had to write it several times for the police. She then asked a question, "Who knows?" She is trying to sweep this under the carpet as if it is no big deal. However, this is a very big deal. We have the same phrase that is in the ransom note, appearing in their writings.

On October 12, 2000, the Ramsey's did a webcast interview with Newseum (www.newsuem.org). In the interview, John Ramsey makes the following statement:

"The justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism."

8. Many Ramsey supporters believe the Ramseys did subconsciously adopt the phrase "and hence" found in the ransom note. Okay. I will admit it is possible. But lets take a closer look at the phrase "and hence." When we look at the original ransom note we find the writer had crossed out a word.
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

The writer started to say that upon receiving the money he would "deliver" JonBenet to her parents. He then realized that a kidnapper would not deliver the hostage but would tell the authorities where she could be found. Therefore, he changed it to "pick-up." It is doubtful that a kidnapper would make this mistake.

More importantly, an examination of the author's writing style shows us that whatever comes before the phrase "and hence" comes after the phrase "and hence."
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

We see the same writing style in the Ramsey's Christmas message.

"Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

So, the Ramsey supporters would have us believe that the Ramseys not only adopted the word "hence" they also adopted the phrase "and hence" and they also adopted the killer's writing style! Possible but not probable.

From Wendy Murphy:

"Police told John Ramsey they found black wool sweater fibers inside the underpants JonBenet was wearing when her body was found, fibers that matched the Israeli wool sweater John was wearing on the night in question. Ramsey had no explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there, so he just yelled and filibustered – a common tactic when the suspect doesn’t want to, or can’t, answer a particular question. If the facts were different, he might have said the sweater fibers got there through laundering. But the sweater was never washed – it was wool – and the underpants were three sizes too big and had never been worn before."

Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20080719/NEWS/307199853

This was a child of a Lockheed Martin executive of a
$18 billion a year firm with Pentagon and top secret clearance across
the world.

With this huge multi-million dollar security apparatus that exists for
that day that any member of a family of a corporate executive; any
member, wife, child of corporate executive's family should be kidnapped;
they go into overdrive. That's when they earn their money and it==s when
they face the CEO's in Denver, and that's where they say "here's where
Lockheed Martin stands: your children can or cannot go to school; your
wives can or cannot go to the market". An entire protocol unfolds. The
interface between the head of Lockheed Martin Security and the FBI is
elaborate and its interlocking and its complete.

So the two units, in the Boulder Area, are trained to react to an act of
terrorism, like kidnapping, are Lockheed Martin Security on one hand and
the FBI on the other. Now, NOBODY FROM EITHER TWO OF THESE UNITS CAME
NEAR THAT CRIME SCENE and the question is as in the case of Sherlock
Holme's dog that didn't bark. What you're looking at here is SOMETHING
THAT IS SO IRREGULAR; SO IMPOSSIBLE, because remember, the SOG, the seat
of government operates in this regard.

More...

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg51312.html

I am very suprised they were not arrested, if Tony is correct and the ransom note was written when Jonbenet was already dead then why bother risk writing a 3 page ransom note & would a group of individuals who were preparing to kidnap a little girl for the suspicious sum of 118,000 sexually assault her in the house and then kill her? Didn't a neighbour hear screams from the house that night & I also read somewhere that Jonbenet had the signs of sexual abuse that were from before that night. I believe the Ramseys were deeply involved in their child's murder all the evidence points to it.

DENNISSALLY wrote:I am very suprised they were not arrested, if Tony is correct and the ransom note was written when Jonbenet was already dead then why bother risk writing a 3 page ransom note & would a group of individuals who were preparing to kidnap a little girl  for the suspicious sum of 118,000 sexually assault her in the house and then kill her? (SNIPPED}

Indeed, indeed. It is surely blindingly obvious that someone in that family killed Jonbenet - and this should have been obvious to the police. And the Ramseys' cover-up attempts look amateurish in the extreme.

But then we know of other cases where a hoax abduction looks to have been carried out equally incompetently, yet the authorities cannot see the obvious.

A power network with money, needing to cover up something dreadful, can get away with almost anything.

Jimmy Savile, Greville Janner, Cyril Smith, Clement Freud, Michael Barrymore - and tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests

DENNISSALLY wrote:I am very suprised they were not arrested, if Tony is correct and the ransom note was written when Jonbenet was already dead then why bother risk writing a 3 page ransom note & would a group of individuals who were preparing to kidnap a little girl  for the suspicious sum of 118,000 sexually assault her in the house and then kill her?  Didn't a neighbour hear screams from the house that night & I also read somewhere that Jonbenet had the signs of sexual abuse that were from before that night.  I believe the Ramseys were deeply involved in their child's murder all the evidence points to it.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by the fact that the Ramsey's were never arrested. Ramsey was the owner and CEO of a subsidiary of Lockheed Matin, one of the Pentagon's largest contractors. I'd be shocked beyond belief if they WERE arrested--- especially if the arrest pertained to information given to the police by one Nancy Krebs of an elite, multi-generational, pedophile ring and CP operation which not only involved members of her own immediate and extended family, one of whom is Fleet White who was the host of a Christmas 'party' the night of JBR'S death and who was with JR when he found the child’s body, but allegedly John Ramsey himself.

The ramseys escaped justice as the prosecutor did not  sign off on the Grand Jury indictments, he was terrified of coming up against hig paid defense attorneys hired by the wealthy ramseys.
From what is known, JonBenet had bedwetting issues as well as frequent UTI's and, it seems vaginal trauma which looked to have been ongoing.

I suspect that doctors she was taken to and subsequently interviewed all denied this was a problem (probably because if they saw it and didn't notify the relevant authorities then they would be in deep doodoo.
I wonder if the fact that the parents were wealthy and litigious caused the doctors to deny the obvious and say nothing.

Regarding the 'ransom' note, it was written by patsy.
I am not aware of any kidnap for ransom case where the note itself runs to three pages rather than the more usual and expected brief instructions along the lines of we have your (loved one) we want x amount of money, we will contact you again  followed by do not call the police.

They do not explain why they took the victim, why they want the money, any clue as to who they are.
The intention is to terrorize the family into cooperation, all contact being brief and to the point with threats made to harm or kill the victim.
it is also likely that their victim is treated reasonably well as the kidnappers do not want their victim scared enough to do something dumb, especially with children.
Children may not even properly realise they have been kidnapped (depending on age and also manner of abduction) they would likely be told their parents are  cooperating so they remain calm and compliant.
The kidnappers want their money and a clean and quick escape.
What they don't want is their victim making a run for it  or them having to hurt or kill them.
Kidnap is one thing, murder is something worse and they won't want to risk facing capital murder charges on top of everything else.

No kidnapper will state they are part of a foreign faction, they aren't foreign to themselves, everyone else is foreign to them.
When i went to Canada and America they were all still foreign to me whilst i was foreign to them.

The specific language used in the note  were the same as language spoken and written by patsy.
The amount demanded was ridiculously low and the exact amount of his bonus, this meant it was someone known to him and familiar enough to know what his bonus was, $118,000.
The handwriting matched patsy.

Given his position as a business man the demand would be expected to be in the millions or at least hundreds of thousands
His net worth was reported at $6.4 million as of May 1, 1996

Fortunately there is no time limit on murder and there is still the chance that a prosecutor will prosecute john ramsey and anyone else involved n either the death or the cover up.

I have asked if the grand jury  indictments can still be signed off by the current prosecutor or if they would have to reconvene a new grand jury

The fate of JonBenet Ramsay begins and ends here..



When she died she was six years of age - not thirty six - not twenty six - not sixteen - but SIX!

The parents are as guilty as the scum that committed the act of first degree murder.  The murder has been shrouded by conspiracy just the same as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.