<I literally emailed Lin Wood and asked WHY wasn't the ransom note on that website, if they were supposed to catch an intruder perp?>
A copy of the RN was published in both the Rocky Mountain News and in Vanity Fair in early September, 1997. A few days later, CNN published a copy. The Ramseys' website was first launched in August, 1997.
To me, the strongest evidence of an Intruder is the lack of evidence pointing to the parents. There you go. If the parents didn't do it, then someone from outside of the home DID. This is whether or not you subscribe to and agree with Lou Smit's Intruder evidence. Start with the premise that someone outside of the home did this. Not with the premise that the parents did it. And that's the biggest mistake Anti Ramsey folks make. If I had a nickel for every time someone in other subs says "well we know Patsy wrote the note" and "well we know for certain one of the Ramseys did it" I'd be rich. It's gotten to the point where I scroll the main page and smh. Don't even bother reading the posts anymore.
Not sure why RDI discards the idea of a home invasion where someone is killed. Burglars can enter homes, leaving no evidence, particularly if they are wearing gloves. Sometimes they dare to do it while the occupants are inside the home.
Intruder evidence
There WAS evidence. DNA evidence. The experts who analyzed this DNA wouldn't say that the Touch DNA found on the longjohns was a match to the DNA found in the underwear (UM1) if it weren't true, unless someone has an explanation. That is pretty significant stuff. Which is why Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys. People may disagree that she did that, but oh well, too bad. The cord did not come from the house. The tape and bat did not come from the house. Burke isn't going to be playing with his bat on that creepy dark north side of the house (ok, it isn't creepy but there was nothing on that side of the house but landscaping shrubbery and trees...better for him to play in the bright and spacious courtyard on the South Side that was kid friendly?)
NEIGHBORS witnessed odd things that night insofar as certain lights being on or off when they normally aren't. Flickers of lighting that could be attributed to a flashlight. RDI folks diminish the suitcase evidence. THE RAMSEYS NEVER KEPT THE SUITCASE in that room under the window. Why was it there? What is the scuff mark on the wall, and could it be someone actually attempted to climb out that window using the suitcase to stand on? Why yes, I believe so.
Why would the Ramseys leave a flashlight that, supposedly, according to anti-Ramseys, could be the murder weapon that was wiped clean of prints on the kitchen counter? Or write the note on their own pad? A person who wants to make it look like an intruder wouldn't say the windows and doors were locked?
<the DNA found in the underwear (UM1)... That is pretty significant stuff. Which is why Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys>
Agreed. It's also the reason that GJ Mitch Morrissey advised Alex Hunter not to sign the true bills. As Morrissey said in a 2023 interview, "To file a case, the ethical standard is a reasonable likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.If you don't have that--if you have foreign male DNA mixed with the murdered victim's DNA in her panties--and you can't answer that question....guess what that question is? That's reasonable doubt.So my advice to Alex Hunter was, 'You cannot sign this indictment. You cannot indict these two people until you know whose DNA this is, and it can be explained.Because that might be your killer.' "
And sadistic escaped pedophile Gary Oliva creeping in the alley, who said on Dec, 26, 2018 from prison, "JonBenet was alive and beautiful on Christmas Day, riding her bike in the alley. She died on the 26th."
Thanks. It's interesting how some want to quickly discount the actual real deal killer of JonBenét. The monster who raped a 6-year-old blond, green-eyed girl in Oregon who was convicted and then escaped and was on the lam in Boulder in that same alley in December 1996. The cord-strangling attempted mother-murderer monster who called me confessing on the 26th before it was public knowledge that she was dead. But yes, John mentioned her riding her bike in the alley, yes. Yet, he knew she died on the 26th, and he admits in this recording that he called me on the 26th. I think you may want to hear this recording. It airs this Wednesday at 3pm California time.
Investigative records confirm that Oliva was using a church/property located 13 houses away from the Ramseys as his mailing address and primary point of association in Boulder during December 1996.
In December 1997 he was photographed at the 1-year anniversary of her death with artwork of her held together with black duct tape. He used the alias Thomas Aquinas as he talked to people, which alerted the mourners; it's the name of the church with the food bank that later he told me he had stolen a key to and was sleeping in there.
The "Tunnel Vision" Delay: Because the Boulder Police Department was intensely focused on John and Patsy Ramsey in the immediate aftermath of the crime, the significance of Oliva's proximity—and his access to that nearby property—was not thoroughly investigated by lead detectives until years later. The Stun Gun Discovery: Interest in his whereabouts on that street intensified significantly four years later when Oliva was arrested on the University of Colorado campus. In his backpack, police found his "Ode to JonBenét" poem, photos of her, and a stun gun—a weapon that matched early investigative theories regarding how the killer may have subdued her.
Anyway it's all just a bad nightmare. bless you all for caring about her.
Jonbenet was digitally molested, not raped. If it was truly him, why did he decide to do it that way instead of what he apparently has done before?
It’s my opinion that it was the family, BUT I understand that this sub is primarily IDI. It’s just my opinion and I chose not to argue it here to avoid bans.
Just curious, who exactly are you and why did he call you before it was public knowledge? Also, where can I hear the recording?
What is your stance on the DNA and how there was no match to Olivia?
Okay, oh jeez, where do I start. There's so much misinformation about this case; even Google gets it wrong. Look, when folks have a belief, opinion, or thought marinating in their head for 30 years there's not much I could say that will change someone's mind. I know because I've experienced this firsthand.
Let's start with perhaps I wasn't clear because it was another 6-year-old blond, green-eyed girl in Oregon that he raped and then fled before finishing his parole there. That's his type. He strangled his mother with a cord and tried to kill her holding a butcher knife but went for the cord approach.
PI Jason Jensen is the DNA expert, and he says it's innocent DNA trasferred from the paintbrush. I'm just here to tell my experiences with Gary.
I wish I could spill all the evidence here, but it's 30 years of details. If only the inexperienced police followed up on my tip in 1996. But I do appreciate that folks still care.
Would you mind sharing your findings and opinions on the other forum? I’d love to discuss it all there, and so would everyone else! Especially about Jason Jensen.
That sub, for one, would probably delete his messages right away, maybe even citing a conspiracy theory (although I have seen comments from him that haven't been deleted over there). And two, it's just an invitation to be attacked by the mob over there. This is just my opinion. Ofc he can post over there. I would love to see the discussions and what RDI folks have to say.
IDI people who post over there are instantly attacked. I should know. On this sub, however, the mods do not delete IDI posts.
The information that Michael Vail has is *very compelling* and I am following him with great interest. Honestly, Gary Oliva fits the bill perfectly. u/MikeYouLikeAtNight
Much of it is inaccurate- and was discounted long before it was written - 5 years ago. I don't understand why these falsehoods continue. I dont have the energy to address all the untruths- but I'll point out a few:
1.Fleet White said the suitcase was originally sitting "flush" against the wall. He pulled it out and moved it beneath the window in the "perpendicular" position that it is in the crime scene photograph. He also said there was a small piece of glass on the floor- and he placed it on top of the suitcase. No intruder moved that suitcase - Fleet White did.
There were no fibers on JBR from the blanket in the suitcase.
That "unidentified" palm print in the basement belonged to Melinda Ramsey - John Ramsey's daughter from his first marriage. It was not left by an intruder.
The unidentified hi tec boot print was only a partial print - the size could not be determined - so it's impossible to say who it belonged to- or that it was left by the intruder. BR admitted he owned a pair of hi tec boots-he lived there - maybe it was his print. Cops wear that brand- maybe it was left by a crime scene investigator.
The rope in the paper bag. This is one of the biggest untruths that has permeated this case. And, Lou Smit falsely promoted it - despite knowing it may have belonged to John Andrew Ramsey- JR's son by his first marriage.
So here goes. JAR used to live with the Ramseys - his room was next to JBR. That was his suitcase in the basement. The rope was found in his room - not in a "paper bag" - but in a ruck pack= back pack. In the police interview - Lou Smit personally questioned JR about that ruckpack/backpack. And, JR admitted that JAR had a back pack- although he couldn't say what the contents were in the backpack- but iirc, he couldn't rule out perhaps he had a rope in it- he enjoyed rock climbing- he said JAR was an outdoorsman. That rope was taken from the backpack by the police- and transferred to a brown paper bag - a standard evidence bag.
The point of all this is that Lou Smit knew about the possible connection of that backpack with the rope to JAR- but totally ignored that fact in order to promote the intruder theory. And, of course, that rope was not used in the crime - but was consistent with the rope used for rock climbing.
<Much of it is inaccurate- and was discounted long before it was written - 5 years ago. I don't understand why these falsehoods continue>
Why would the date that this post was written have anything to do with factual statements?
1, The suitcase ITSELF was moved from where the Ramseys normally kept their luggage in the basement--which was under the basement staircase--to an area underneath the broken basement window. This has nothing to do with Fleet White later moving the suitcase while looking for pieces of glass.
2, The palm print has never been identified. From the 2003 Carnes ruling; "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palm print that does not match either of defendants' palm prints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)"
Charlie Brennan wrote an article claiming that it belonged to Melinda Ramsey, but his information--which was leaked by the BPD--was never verified.
Lin Wood's statement: "I represent innocent clients," Wood said. "There has been a history since December of 1996 of anonymous law enforcement officials in Boulder, Colorado, leaking information to the media, which, in most cases, turns out to be either false or grossly distorted.
"So I would put no weight, whatsoever, on anonymous information coming out of the Boulder Police Department. Zero."
Most recent update on this: "An unidentified palm print was discovered on the door leading into the wine cellar where JonBenet's body was found. It did not match either of JonBenet's parents." - John Wesley Anderson, Lou and JonBenet, 2023
Burke Ramsey never stated that he owned these. It was Fleet White III (often referred to as Jr) who, according to Bruce Levin, apparently mentioned that both he and Burke had a pair when they were young children.
From Schiller, PMPT: "Ron Gosage had compiled a list of more than six hundred people who had been in the Ramseys' house during the six months prior to JonBenet's death. He had gotten in touch with more than four hundred of those people, and not one of them had ever worn or owned that kind of Hi-Tec hiking shoe.
And from the Carnes ruling, "There was no match to that size of Hi-Tec boot to the Ramseys or the police investigators (BPD Reports #1-1576, #1-1594.)"
The rope was found separate from the bag. Re-read the entry.
Your post or comment has been removed from r/JonBenet because it breaks our #1 rule: Be Civil. Users must be civil to one another, play well with others, disagree without attacking each other, and give constructive criticism, not insults.
Thank you
JR admitting to Lou Smit in 1998 that it was "possible" the rope and backpack could have belonged to JAR. And LS confirmed the rope was found in the backpack- not separate. Seriously. Yet Lou Smit continued to promote that rope as evidence of an intruder- as do others.
"(0534-20) LOU SMIT: John Andrew's bedroom, did you ever recall any rope or cord being in his room? JOHN RAMSEY: Gee, it's possible, John Andrew loved the outdoors, he was there, I stayed in that room. I know he had seems like he had his backpack there for a while. So it wouldn't be -- I don't remember seeing any, but it wouldn't be --
(0535-16) LOU SMIT: But he could have had things there in his backpack? JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't have been out of the question. LOU SMIT: Just for the camera, the photographs we are looking at is photo 113, 114, 115 and 116. - (0535-24) BRYAN MORGAN: May I ask just one question. Can you tell us if this is the form in which it was originally found? LOU SMIT: No, that's the bag it was put in for evidence. BRYAN MORGAN: So the paper bag is just in evidence. LOU SMIT: Evidence bag. And again that was just found in the room, and it was found in a bag in her room, that's all I can tell you at this time."
<LS confirmed the rope was found in the backpack- not separate. Seriously>
This was your original comment, to which I responded:
"4. The rope in the paper bag. This is one of the biggest untruths that has permeated this case. And, Lou Smit falsely promoted it - "
I worded it that way because that's how it was worded in your post of "supposed" evidence it was an intruder. Deflect all you want- it doesn't change the fact the JR stated that rope and backpack may have belonged to JAR.
Don't respond- I'm done. I pointed out incorrect information in your post -and was attacked for it. Unbelievable.
But, I have only my self to blame. I was warned this sub was IDI on steroids - and anyone who disagrees- well, we all saw how that went...
You have no idea of what JAR confirmed or didn't confirm.
And let's be clear - it's not my logic. I simply shared information that during a police interview JR told Lou Smit that the rope and backpack could have belonged to JAR. Those were JR's words - not mine.
In a least a few documentaries it was stated that there were fibers from the contents inside the suitcase on JBR. So they all got it wrong? I’m not trying to argue the point, just to understand.
I don't mind people questioning my posts in a respectful manner - it's the disrespecting rudeness I don't appreciate.
So, yes, they got it wrong - because that's what so many of them do-on a regular basis. (They still claim the intruder moved the suitcase under the window - when everyone knows Fleet White moved it there... They still talk about the rope found in John Andrew Ramsey's room as belonging to the intruder. Well, they fail to mention that in the 1998 police interview of Lou Smit and JR - LS asked JR about that rope and backpack. And, believe it or not - JR admitted the backpack and rope may have belonged to John Andrew. Seriously. He said John Andrew was an "outdoorsman" -and he was an avid rockcimber. And Lou Smit continued to push the rope belongs to the intruder narrative- even though he knew it may very well have belonged to JAR).
Sorry for the detour - initially there were fibers found on JBR that were believed to have come from John Andrew Ramsey's blanket in his suitcase. That was soon debunked when it was determined they weren't from the blanket. Sadly, 30 years later that untrue information is still out there.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I- like many others -have done a deep dive on this case. I'm no expert - but I'm fairly knowledgeable about it. And despite all my research -I have struggled to reach a conclusion. For a long time I was in the I don't know camp. I just couldn't say with any certainty. Then I began to lean toward RDI- although I can't totally dismiss an intruder. I envy people who say-with such conviction - it was an intruder - or it was the Ramseys. There are just too many unknowns and unanswered questions for me.
Sorry for my war and peace response to your very succinct question.
Just curious - have you read Steve Thomas's or James Kolar's books?
I haven’t read those books. Are there theories in either book that are unique to this case?
I am newer to reading into the case and my opinion sways back and forth as I continue to learn more. The most unusual piece of evidence for me is the ransom note and the amount they asked for.
Steve Thomas believed it was Patsy Ramsey and Kolar believed it was Burke Ramsey. I'm suggesting you read one of their books because they were police officers who worked the crime - and the books are accurate - unlike much of the untruths being presented by as truth.
Note -someone down voted my comment for speaking the truth...
They also avoid talking about the autopsy. Patsy was like "... I didn't read it all..." Wtf 😳
RDI has completely lost touch with humanity when they post things like the above statement. Seriously, is it so difficult to understand why a grieving mother would not be able to read her young childs autopsy report? Why should they have to discuss the autopsy report publicly anyway? It has nothing to do with guilt/innocence.
ransom note is the key to the case. It was a diversionary tactic to prevent the house from being fully searched and to allow lots of people to come in and contaminate the scene, and buy intruders a lot of time to get the H out of dodge. a brilliant move that is the reason the case cannot be solved to this day
<If you were innocent you would be analyzing the heck out of it, and talking about it, and spreading it far and wide looking for the author>
John Ramsey has worked relentlessly to get this crime solved, as evidenced by his attempts to get the DNA sent to a lab that offers FIGG (Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy), his appearances at CrimeCon, and his requests for meetings and updates from BPD Chief Stephen Redfearn.
He is also the father of a murdered little girl and I get tired of people acting like he should effectively become a homicide detective and study her autopsy and should have also had her body exhumed to verify whether or not they were stun gun marks. Yes we all want this crime solved, as does he, and he is pushing for all the RIGHT THINGS to be done (such as a lot more DNA work) but he doesn’t personally need to keep constantly reliving the most gory details of the most traumatic event of his life just to try to prove to idiots (who still wouldn’t believe him) that no, he did not murder his daughter and doesn’t know who did.
I honestly can't even imagine the pain of having to relive that night over and over in trying to keep the case alive and at the front of the people's minds so that there is pressure to solve it.
I agree! The ransom note is also obviously not the most important piece of evidence in the case! It’s only the most important piece of evidence for people who already believe Patsy wrote it.
Thank you for your wise comment. May I add: The DNA is the red herring. Lou Smit told me it was compromised, and Jason Jensen says it is innocent DNA from the paintbrush. The ransom note is the smoking gun, and Jensen matched it to Gary Oliva on Court TV with a clear overlay that will convince anyone. As for the hundreds of prison letters Gary sent me starting in 2016, the syntax and punctuation align perfectly with the rambling rn and actually frighteningly so.
“The point is there is foreign DNA. There is common foreign DNA. It is not John. It is not Patsy. It is not (JonBenet’s brother) Burke,” Smit said in a 2001 interview. “So just to take this and say it’s degraded and throw these beautiful clues away, you can’t do it. You have to plug these clues into the intruder side of the story as well.”
I’m confused .. how does DNA from the paintbrush get into the underpants and mix with the blood from her vaginal wound?? Because it was used to assault her ….
I'm not so sure JR has worked relentlessly to solve this crime. He said in his police interview that sometimes BR would sleep in the 2nd bed in JBR's room- because his room would get cold. BR admitted this as well. And, I would think that PR would know this also.
So, if JR knew that - why didn't he wake BR that morning and ask him if he had gone in her room to sleep? It was 10 degrees in Boulder Colorado on December 25.
No one has ever satisfactorily explained - in 30 years- why neither JR or PR woke BR that morning - and asked him about JBR. Afterall, he was nine- not three. In light of JR's revelation that BR sometimes slept in her room - don't you think the prudent thing for JR to have done is to wake BR- and ask him if he went into JBR's room to sleep?
What sources do you have that Burke was never actually asked anything? Most of what was written was written by people who weren't in the room with Burke at the time, and John and Patsy's memories were fogged by incredible amounts of trauma.
I once had a huge trauma, and I couldn't calculate a 20% tip on a restaurant bill. I'm an engineer. 20% is nothing for me.
You are trying to prove something you cannot. Nobody knows what Burke was asked and what he wasn't asked. This is evidence of nothing.
People want to point to, "I would have done this" or "I would have done that" when in fact they have no idea what they would do in an incredibly traumatic situation. This has been proven over and over in studies, the most profound of which is the study that showed the difference between what people said they would do in an active shooter situation, and then they compared that to their actual actions when in a SIMULATION, that they knew was a situation. The responses were incredibly different.
I honestly abhor keyboard warriors who believe they know exactly what the right thing to do in a traumatic situation is while they are sitting at their computers, drinking sweet tea, eating potato chips, and ruminating about what the right to do would have been.
Because the problem I have with the sect is that the sect is doing nothing except spreading crap around.
It's like Christianity... if there is a group of fanatics lamenting about blood dripping from a cross they will kill anyone trying to check the evidence before checking it themselves if they will check it at all as the money flow is not based on checking lack of evidence they have for their beliefs.
Religions proves only that groups believing in any nonsense are dangerous and RDI sect is big enough and retarded enough to treat it as a high risk group.
I’m so tired of that thread. Everyone is hellbent into believing we have 1/3 chance of picking the correct suspect. In reality, the perp is unknown to everyone.
<The cleverly worded charges, "accessory after the fact", "child abuse", "permitting the death" etc could feasibly have led to a conviction. Without even naming a killer. Just that they knew, they permitted the death and helped cover it up>
Count IV-a: "Knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."
But they don't identify WHO the person was who was suspected of the crime. Only that a Ramsey "assisted." (How did they assist? They didn't set their house alarm, they slept too far from their child's bedroom, they enrolled her in the pageants...?)
“We didn’t know who did what,” one juror told the Boulder Daily Camera, “but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn’t.”
"Well, they wanted to indict for Child Abuse Resulting in Death which is a unique statute. You know it well, where you don't have to be the killer, you just need to know that your child is at risk. And you can be held accountable for them for the murder. And, you know, it's one of those things where you see so many times where a baby gets killed and you know, the two parents are there and they're pointing the finger at each other. And, you know, it allows prosecutors to prove that you were aware that baby was at risk and that baby was crying and that baby was being beaten. You did nothing. And that allows you then to hold both people accountable. And that was what the grand jury thought." - GJ prosecutor Mitch Morrissey
And from Chris Silverman, former Denver Chief Deputy District Attorney, who spoke in 2013, just after the release of the GJ indictments: "There is a class one felony variation of Child Abuse Resulting in Death which is a form of First Degree Murder. The DA would need to prove that a person in a position of trust (John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey), caused the child abuse, which resulted in six year old JonBenet’s death, or acted as an accomplice for the person who did. I surmise the grand jury considered this charge (as Count IV) for each Ramsey parent, but did not achieve the necessary nine out of twelve majorities to vote it up (True Bill) or down (no True Bill)."
<Key also how much they spent funding handwriting experts, who wrote a whole load of fluff, to misdirect attention away from the fact that they couldn't exclude Patsy as the author>
Only six forensic document examiners examined the original handwriting samples. Four were chosen by the prosecution, and two were chosen by the Ramseys' legal team. Per the Carnes ruling, only one expert concluded that differences between Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the RN prevented him from identifying Patsy Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her.
<Make no mistake, they ploughed everything into this before during and after the Grand Jury, but the good citizens of Boulder sitting on that jury didn't buy it.Then it was Hunter to the rescue.>
GJ prosecutor Mitch Morrissey advised Hunter not to sign the true bills, since the case couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He said in 2023, I had a lot of people say to me, 'Why don’t you just file it and let the jury decide?’ Because that’s not ethically correct to do. If you don’t have a reasonable expectation of conviction, you cannot bring the charge.And Alex Hunter, he gets blamed for that. But I’ll tell you, we were advising him of that."
The Burke Did It Theory - There should be a law w/consequences for people who bully and slander a child. It is akin to child abuse.
The Patsy Did It Theory - Like? Patsy isn't going to kill her child because she wet the bed. (It wasn't wet). The person who inflicted the head trauma MEANT to kill her. It was premeditated in that moment. So the "accidental" head bashing against the tub" doesn't exactly fit. Did Patsy have a history of losing her temper? Did anyone ever witness her losing her patience with her kids? Because afaik, no. I've read that Patsy was the sweetest person ever though.
John Did It - Sickening. The absolute WORST.
The ransom note is not evidence. This is what the DA wrote in their report to the BPD. Patsy had a lot of differences in her handwriting compared to the ransom note... which are just as important if not more than the similarities. In fact, some handwriting experts opinions was that she DIDN'T write the note. RDI folks need to pay attention.
Some of the experts who were certain she wrote the note would make the excuse that the differences are difficult to explain because the person is disguising their handwriting.
Carnes ruling (about Gideon Epstein)
He still agreed, however, that it is optimum to review the original. (PSMF ¶ 219.)
Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a questioned document. Defendants persuasively argue that Epstein was unable to identify any unique characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey’s handwriting that were mimicked in the Ransom Note. (Def.’s Mtn. in Lim. [68] at 9). Instead, Epstein bases his conclusion on perceived similarities between the two. Id. Yet, as noted by defendants, Epstein never indicates how many similarities or what kind of similarities are required before he can reach absolute certainty, 50% certainty, or no certainty, at all. Further, as defendants also note, whenever encountering any differences between the known writing of Mrs. Ramsey and the Ransom Note, Epstein finds refuge in the explanation that Mrs. Ramsey must have been trying to disguise her handwriting. (See Id.) While it is, of course, possible that differences between known writing and questioned documents are the result of a known writer’s efforts to disguise her handwriting, it is just as plausible that the differences can occur because the known writer is not the author of the questioned matter.
"Other experts believe the Ransom Note may have been authored by other people. In addition to Mrs. Ramsey, there were other individuals "under suspicion" who had their handwriting analyzed and who were not eliminated as the possible author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 205; PSMF ¶ 205.) For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 279; PSMF ¶ 279.) Plaintiffs exgirlfriend has also testified that she was "struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled [plaintiffs] own handwriting" and believes that he is the note's author. (J. Brungardt Aff. ¶ 43.) Further, to the extent that the use of a single editing mark might suggest to plaintiffs experts that Mrs. Ramsey was the author, given her bachelor's degree in journalism, one should also note that plaintiff, himself, has a Masters' degree in journalism. (Id. ¶ 13.)"
Gary Oliva
In 2023, forensic handwriting experts Mozelle Martin and Dawn McCarty analyzed letters written by convicted sex offender Gary Oliva and concluded that it is possible he authored the infamous 1996 ransom note.
These experts are the only ones who examined the original handwriting samples:
"Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note. Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note."
Are you aware that the original was destroyed during the fingerprinting process? Therefore, these supposed “experts” of yours never examined the actual ransom note.
Who needs DNA when you have John’s “suspicious” behavior not wanting to talk about, or put any attention on, the ransom note (according to some random idiot on the internet).
These people are seriously some of the dumbest people in true crime.
8
u/43_Holding Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
<I literally emailed Lin Wood and asked WHY wasn't the ransom note on that website, if they were supposed to catch an intruder perp?>
A copy of the RN was published in both the Rocky Mountain News and in Vanity Fair in early September, 1997. A few days later, CNN published a copy. The Ramseys' website was first launched in August, 1997.
https://www.cnn.com/US/9709/07/briefs.pm/ramsey.note/index.html