October 31, 2025 • 50 mins
We finish discussing the ransom note and follow with the evidence we do know in the case. We will look at recent articles and assertions made by media in regards to what is going on in this case, and a suspect that seems to be part of a conspiracy that fits right in with the character assassination of John Ramsey and the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. Also, communications between that suspect and an editor, Michael Tracey, also seems to fall right into the media involvement we have talked about.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial, legal, counseling,
professional service, or any advice. You should seek the services
(00:23):
of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Good morning, True Seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
Happy Halloween, everybody. I hope everyone stays safe this holiday.
I want to see whether or not we had Nolan
back in yet, but it looks like we. He is
still trying to refresh and come back to us. Ah,
here he comes. Good morning. Oh I lost him again.
(01:20):
All right, that's the way the show is going to
go today. Anyways. So this last week was given a
video by Lindsay mcbraer and I thought she might be
here this morning, and I haven't seen her yet, but
we will bring her in when she arrives. And she
had sent an interesting video in regards to Charlie Kirk,
(01:41):
which I thought was extremely interesting as I watched it
over and over again trying to determine whether or not
there was a possibility that it was AI. I hopped
around a little bit and stumbled across the actual video
of him being shot, and of course they actually have
this up on the internet for the world to see.
(02:01):
I did not want to play that video, but I
did obviously capture a picture, in which case it shows
the direction in which he actually was forced and collapsed.
And of course what we're looking at here on the
presentation is the setup, So this is the overview of
where the shooter was down here on Loci center, and
(02:25):
then of course the area that Charlie Kirk was in himself.
And I was bewildered by this. I mean, honestly speaking,
I shoot guns. I understand a projectile when it hits
what direction things would fall or go in. So my
confusion came in the fact that Charlie Kirk actually fell
to the left, and every position that we can show
(02:46):
in all of these maps where the shooter actually was
positioned or purportedly positioned, any map that I looked at
all showed about the same location and firing to the left.
So with that trajectory, we would have expect that had
Charlie Kirk been hit in the right side of the neck.
From this, he would have fallen to his right, and
(03:06):
he actually fell to his left. So that's what got
me intrigued. And of course I think Terry Batcher kind
of climbed into my body. When I saw this, I
went down a rabbit hole. So I wanted to see maps,
I wanted to see other items. I'm hoping that somebody
can either correct me.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Let's see.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Whether or not I am correct in the fact that
this man had fallen the opposite direction. And of course
in that video there was this gentleman that seemed to
have had some very odd and strange movements that took
place in surrounding it. Here is the actual link down here,
and once you follow this link on YouTube, you can
you'll see this red pill type commentation that is happening,
(03:51):
or debate that's happening between Charlie Kirk and another person,
and then they go on to say that this is
why Charlie Kirk was killed. It does appear as though
he might have upset somebody. So I'm looking for any truth,
any comments, anybody wants to add to that. But now
I'm going to actually move on to what we're really
here for, and that is the John Benet Ramsey case.
(04:12):
So we had along with that video that Lindsay had sent.
She sent this particular It looks like it's either a
YouTube or some type of comment that is done. Maybe
it's Twitter or something. I'm not exactly sure. Oh there's
Lindsay and there's Nolan. You guys, welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Good morning everybody, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Good morning, Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Oh there it is, good morning, all right.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
So you guys, I really quickly passed by this, but
I'm going to go back to it really quick, because
you set me on fire last week, Lindsay with this
whole video, and I wanted your guys' take on it.
So I just asked everybody out there and you know,
Wonder World whether or not what they thought about it.
But I ended up skipping over to a live video
(05:03):
of Charlie Kirk actually being shot, and the direction hall
Or was propelled by this bullet hitting him was the
opposite direction I felt then what the shooter was sitting at,
or at least predicted to have shot from that particular building.
And that kind of blew my mind because I've watched
(05:26):
the video over and over and over again, and they
indicate that there was some gentleman there that they believe
might have been the person who truly shot him, and
the guy had some very odd and strange movements that
were going on. But let's just take a look at
this real quick. Here's the area where the shooter was
positioned on top of low C center, and we can
see it again, so this is just a second view
(05:47):
up here. And then of course he's shooting to the left.
So had he shot to the left and hit Charlie
Kirk in the neck, that should have sent Charlie Kirk
to his right, not to his left right. So now
I'm wondering who Charlie Kirk really pissed off and what
(06:09):
was really going on here. Anyway, he was.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
A long distance away. That's such a great shot from
that distance.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
For a young and that's for sure, I was just
going away by the propulsion of his body. I mean you,
that makes no common sense. Are we trying to you know,
fly past people? To single bullet theory again with JFK.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
It's literally a repeat.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
It's literally like I mean, it's like so many similarities.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It's insane.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
It's like Okay, are you using your same sia that
you use the JFK, Like what are y'all doing? Like
fool me once, fool me twice, but you're not going
to fool me three times. Right, they're so stupid, like
but they think they're so smart. You know.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Well, it's like Newsome right now with this special proposition
or the special election that he's doing where he says
that Trump is attempting to jerrymander, when this strict meaning
of that is to read district areas in order to
facilitate an unbiased or a bias election. And it doesn't
matter if you're doing that in the inverse or the adverse,
(07:17):
like if you're doing the redistricting so a person can't
achieve what they want achieve, that's still the same thing.
And he's looking at us straight to our our faces, saying,
let us take this power from you so the government
can redistrict California, and that's to prevent Trump from jerrymandering.
It's like, am I am I really hearing and seeing
(07:38):
what I'm seeing?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Yeah, they're doing the same thing. It's a kind of
a quid pro quote. It's the same thing on both sides.
Who is both Republicans and the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Oh yeah, or what what do you mean.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
It's you're trying to redistrict in order to get more
constituents in or more people elected from their party.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, Republicans are asked.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
All over.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh well, I'm saying Republicans in California are not attempting
to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Parts of the country. And the whole point is.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
And that's just saying like the majority of Republicans are
usually under cover rhinos that are really on the side
of the Democrats, is what he's saying.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
But we do have this one far in between, like
you said, in California.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
That are advocating against it.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
It's going to pass.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
I know it will. We are we are primarily a
democratic state, and if Newsom calls the Dems to to
the polls, then yeah, it's going to pass. There's what
what else is there to be said? And the bottom
line is is they're going to take the power out
of the public's hand or something. We've already been voted
and given the right to do and express and use
that for the next five years, We're never going to
see that again. We have just given up a power
(09:02):
to the government that I don't think is going to
come back around even at the expiration anyways.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
Well, and then also and then also Texas, just so
you guys know, Texas just passed a AI thing.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
In their state. Uh what is it called?
Speaker 5 (09:18):
The what are they calling it? The AI identity thing
where like you have to verify.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
On your phone for like everything?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Was it?
Speaker 3 (09:28):
I forget what they'd call no.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Do to use AI? Right?
Speaker 3 (09:37):
No, I can't remember. I'll have to see I have
to pull it up and then I'll tell you there.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
That would actually be a good thing because again, as
I sat there watching the video that you sent on
the Red Pill and Charlie Kirk, I kept monitoring for
if whether or not that was AI there at the end,
because we see him, we see him go from a
debate into he's talking by himself as if it's a
different clip in a different place in time. And I'm
not sure if that's him or if somebody is AI
(10:02):
that video. So that's why I didn't play or put
up any part of it. But I did show everybody
the link that they could go to look the look
at it if they wanted. Anyways, that brings us to
again the Ramsey case and of course we have this
this post. Where did you receive this post from about
mister Ramsey's company? Oh no, oh, there she is. Where
(10:31):
did you find this post on Ramsey's business?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Okay, there you are business this one? Oh oh it
was on that video. Oh oh oh, I didn't.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Oh you mean on the pageant the pageant?
Speaker 5 (10:50):
Uh huh.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I'm getting feedback from your from whatever your sound is going.
So it's repeating everything I say in my ears after
I say it. So you've done something with your.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
Say sound, yeah, something with you.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
It's snoopy.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Okay, she's on a delay. Refreshed the page. All right,
she's gone anyways. So she also Lindsay had also sent
me a video in regards to one of the last
pageants that John Benne Ramsey had been in it. And
(11:28):
I guess this is some type of post that was
beneath it. And it's not. I would love for it
to explain more, but it says mister Ramsey's company was
mixed up with some vile people. Years ago, before the
web was scrubbed, there were some amazing sites that held
info and photos. Read the essay agenda. I'm not sure
what the essay agenda is the Ramseys were in bed
(11:50):
with some very sick people. All of that info was
lost in cyberspace, and then somebody responded, you were very correct.
They were part of the club that we are not
a part of. So that's that was attached to a
YouTube video of her pageant.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
Correct, lindsay, Yeah, so an essay is sex assault sexual
health agenda.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Yeah huh. Well so that brings us back to you
figuring out or doing the research and finding out that
Ramsey's father built the runway for airplanes on Fox Island,
which was notoriously known as a pedophile island. Correct, Ye,
so maybe, just maybe, And and this is what this
(12:37):
is what bothers me about, you know, John Walsh not
wanting the FBI involved, and the Ramsey's not wanting you know,
people digging into their their dirt. Is that there are
they are in bed with some very you know, sadistic
people and they control you either through your family or
assassinations or murders or or what have you. So I
(13:00):
wouldn't discount this particular statement, but I just wish they
had given us a little bit more like who are
the people that they're dead with?
Speaker 5 (13:07):
You know, Well, this weekend I was going to dig
on it a little bit to see if I can
like go on like to our jobs and see if
there was something in there that was our job, and
like they scroll from the web that it's maybe still
in the our chobed websites.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Yeah, and i'd use the wayback machine. Have you tried that?
Speaker 3 (13:27):
But they call it the same thing?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Okay, okay, yeah, all right. Well that brings us back
to the actual ransom note, which we were finishing off
discussing last week. We read the entire note and then
I was going back over it and kind of just
doing a examination of the linguistics and what it was saying.
And of course we had made that comparison to the
fifty year anniversary of Susan Dagnan, a six year old
(13:51):
blonde girl that was killed father again a high up
an office type thing. And one of the things I
failed to mention is that we know John Bennay was
killed in the basement, and of course Susan Dagnan was
actually bisected in the basement of an apartment complex or
some type of a building that was in Chicago exactly.
(14:12):
So again there was just another one of those coincidences
we've got two six year old little girls. Now we
don't know where Susan Dignan was killed, whether she was
you know, abducted and then killed or she was killed
in their bed and then taken out the window. But
either way, the ending result was a basement for both
of these little girls. I did kind of pull out too.
(14:33):
One of the things that I kept catching on to,
especially when looking at the handwriting, was this particular formation
of the bees that looked like they're done in one
single stroke, and then they actually don't come back and
touch the bottom, so the bottom bowl does not actually
reach back to the stem and close that be up.
And we see that happening in the Scorpion letters and
(14:55):
in the John Benny Ramsey letter. So again, those those
little nuances always, you know, pop out at me, especially
when you've studied this handwriting long enough. So the use
of a lowercase y is a capital, which is just
like Jack does the individuals familiar with law enforcement countermeasures
(15:16):
and tactics. It's pretty much the same claim that the
Zodiacs were being in most other communications in the series
have talked about and the ability to conceal their identity,
which either conceal or they had good cover.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Okay, real quick, real quick, So I've read, I've ran
across something randomly about it was a military option, I
mean operation that was called Operation Scorpio, and it was
literally about about a military operation of them being in
control and using these experiments like literally to do whatever
(15:55):
they want to do, like pretty much like what you
just literally said, like that it literally described, yes.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Like concealing their identities and all of that. Yes, yes, yeah,
that would make sense. I mean, we've got Jack running
around with a million and one names. It feels like
he doesn't even know who he is, and maybe that
presents for a mental health issue as well.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
And get this, so it was I can't remember which
exact date, but it was nineteen sixty something is when
it started.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Oh really, so yeah, pre dating predating the well, definitely
pre dating Scorpion letters because that was nineteen ninety one purportedly.
I'm really not sure if I believe.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
You know that.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Well, we know that Jack was being very nefarious in
those days too, of course, from when we started, when
you started in the beginning, So yeah, that.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
It makes sense, and it falls along again with the
whole zodiac symbols and you know, the things Libra and
Taurus and all these other things that have come into play,
and people want to make it about the zodiac constellations
and things, and it's just it's just not no, it's
not no. I found it interesting also that we see
(17:14):
there's more than one reference to John in the letter,
calling him by his first name. And we saw that
in the two thousand and five finale letter when the
author kept referring to Tim Miller. I was not the
only person Tim that you know, he's basically using that
same personal first you know, name reference, as if he
(17:35):
is familiar or knows this person. It's odd, but we
don't usually see that in these type of taunting letters
to family members. You know, the killer wants to tell
you about what he's done. They're not, you know, taking
personal references to parents by calling them by their first names.
There is this the Southern statements again, use that good
(17:58):
Southern common sense of yours. Again. That's something we've talked
about a lot in all the letters, is these Southern references.
And then I did kind of pull out some things.
So these down here are the letter MS for Jack.
These are his normal lowercase ms. They look like capital
letter MS and they are done in a way that
we see actually happening up here in the word common
(18:22):
and then back on the last page in immediately, So
in those two words we found these particular style ms
which look far more consistent and natural than some of
these other funky ms that we're seeing in here that
look like they're all tremorous and shaky. And I found
that to be interesting. And of course I think that
I have some information in regards to Patsy's handwriting if
(18:45):
what they portrayed on the documentary was legitimately something she wrote,
and I don't believe that she had done these ms.
So these being dropped at the end of the communication
or being different from every other M on the page
is probably a good sign that we can rely on
these as natural writing. Also, we have Jack doing the
Tao tee, which we know about throughout you know, many
(19:05):
of the communications, which is also considered consistent with the
Tao tees that we see happening inside of this letter
as well.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Okay, how long before the discovery of the body was.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
The note time they found the note before they found
the body?
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Yeah, what was the time period?
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Uh, well, it took before I think, do you think no,
I believe that it was Fleet White and John Ramsey
that found her. So basically they friends found the note.
I'm sorry, Patsy found the note. Yes, sorry sorry. That
(19:45):
was on the bottom or on the steps that led
to the kitchen, and she was on her way down,
I guess, to the kitchen and stumbled across this note.
And then of course friends and family came over and they,
you know, ensued some type of a search throughout the
house not find her. And then it was at a
much later time I think when the police officers showed
up that they instructed the lay people, including John himself,
(20:08):
to go search for his own daughter. Then of course
that's when they ended up in the basement and found
her body, which is.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
So weird to me.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
So mob we do not look there first, like that
would be the most place that I would have thought
of first.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
So the note was basically a deflecting deflection tool was
to lead him off course and not look for the body,
thinking there's nobody has.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Been kidnapped exactly, And that's basically what occurred in the
Susan Dagnan case. There was a ransom note left on
her bed, but she was already dead by the time
they found the ransom note sore. Again, we have similar
circumstances that are breaking out here, and Susan Dagnan's father
was one of the head officers in the Office of
Price Administration where they set pricing for meat, and back
(20:56):
then there was this whole black market meat thing going on,
and I guess they were rationing meats and giving bad
meats to the Indians. They were doing all kinds of,
you know, really treacherous things, and of course his daughter
was taken, so it's something very similar. Now. This individual
actually broke apart the ransom letter, which I thought was
(21:17):
an extremely interesting find because it literally talks about the
different statements that are being made. Aside from what I've
discussed at this point, you could even apply most of
the statements that are made in this analysis to the
Zodiac Killer. So I know that in this statement, what
you're going to hear is them calling out Patsy Ramsey,
(21:38):
but we already know that she's been excluded as far
as DNA is concerned. So this statement analysis was done
by Mark McLish and it shows that it was posted
on July ninth of two thousand and one, so shortly
after this was read and done. So it says a
key piece of evidence in solving this murderer is the
ransom note. The police, as well as the Ramseys, believe
that whoever wrote the noticebly the killer. If the police
(22:01):
can match the handwriting and the ransom note to a
suspect's handwriting, the case is solved. The problem has been
they have not found a match. Even with a positive match,
the ransom note is still the key to solving this crime.
So I want to mention that, obviously they're going to
tell you, and I've heard this from the FBI, the
letters alone are not going to solve the case. Now,
what the heck are you talking about. You've got this
(22:22):
individual up here declaring that that's exactly what would happen
if we found a match. However, I suspect in this
particular case that we would not find a match to
the actual killer, because I think that this was handled
by more than one person, and I think that Jack
was legitimately just the author of the letter itself and
had the key information, just as John Mark Carr did
in this case, but was not actively part of that crime.
(22:46):
So it says, 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 John Benny 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.
(23:07):
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. I think
that's true, but I don't believe that it was murdered
by the family then tried to cover up and make
it look like a kidnapping. Anyway.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
Is she about the amount of money demanded too?
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yeah, yeah, it's going to cover. Yeah, it's going to
cover all of that. In this statement analysis, it says
anyone could be a possible suspect. Let's examine the ransom
note left at the Ramsey residents. I have added the
numbers in the left hand column to make it easier
to reference while analyzing it. So of course, over here
is the type written version of that actual letter, it says.
(23:53):
One of the first things we notice is that it
is a very long ransom note. Most ransom notes are
shortened to the point, as Susan Dag was very shortened
to the point. We have your kid and she is safe.
It will cost you four hundred thousand to get her back.
Now I don't know where he says four hundred thousand
to get her back, because yeah, I was like, what
that makes absolutely no sense. So I don't know what
(24:17):
that reference to it says. Do not call the police
will be contacting you. This ransom note was written on
three pieces of paper. This is our first clue this
note maybe bogus. As we read the ransom note, we
find it doesn't make much sense. Neither did a lot
of the things from the zodiac line number two. We
are a group of individuals. What exactly does the writer
(24:37):
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. I think
that there's some truth to that. Most of the year
they live separate lives, but every once in a while
they come together as a group. Theory right every now
(25:02):
and again they come together as a group. The writer
also states in line number two and number three that
they represent a small foreign faction. The use of word
four and doesn't make sense even to us they are foreigner.
If even if to us they are foreigners, they wouldn't
call themselves foreigners. It's like being in Brazil and calling
a brazil a nut. They're a brazil nut. When you're
(25:23):
in Brazil, it's just called a nut. I thought that
was cute, And I.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Think saying there is just to throw people off again
and cast blame on someone that wasn't responsible.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
And that's exactly what happened in the anthrax letters. So
it says, are we to believe that John Benay 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. No, we don't come to America
and kill a six year old little girl because we
hate the United States. It's about as dumb as the
rioters down in La burning up our own businesses and
(26:01):
hurting the people who live here instead of you know,
the government or whoever's responsible for whatever they're rioting for.
In line number three, 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
(26:23):
kidnapper who already has his mindset would probably not make
this mistake. The writer misspells two common words in lines
four and five, business and possessions. Now, this is what
we saw oftentimes in the Zodiac letters, an attempt to
dumb them down right. They were going to misspell some
words and then in the next line spell them correctly.
(26:43):
How However, the writer correctly spells the words deviation and attache,
even including the accent on the word attach. 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
(27:04):
a grammar, except for using the article A when he
should have written, and 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 anything
to add at this point.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
No, Well, I think I think that that interpretation of
sorry no was one.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Hundred and eighty four thousand.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
It's one hundred and eighteen thousand, is actually the amount, yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Sorry with a certain figure like one of the Ramsey's
account that only the Ramseys wouldn't know about.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It was a bonus that John Ramsey was being given
from his company that year.
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Yeah, So that is just really that's.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
The inside that's the inside information that I'm stating that
he was that the author was aware of. Just like
John mart Carr was also given an arsenal of inside
information but ultimately found not to be the actual suspect.
So we're going to get to John Mark Carr. It
says in line's number four, number five, the writer tells us,
we have your daughter in our possession. Remember that the
(28:08):
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 is an overdisclosure. This is an overdisclosure. You're trying
to impress upon somebody that you actually have their daughter.
So it sounds to me they killed her and then
this note was placed in or the two weren't on
(28:30):
the same task. Right, The killer and the author are
being done at separate times in separate ways, would have
led to these kind of mistakes. In a true note
about the crime, correct the writer states in line number eight,
you will withdraw one hundred and eighteen thousand from your account.
The kidnapper may know the Ramses are wealthy, but how
(28:51):
does the writer know they have one hundred and eighteen
thousand in their account? Most kidnappers kidnappers would simply state
get the money. They don't care where you get it from,
just get it. That is so true. Again, we have
an overstatement. The amount of one hundred and eighteen thousand,
(29:11):
of course, was asked for in one hundred dollar bills
and the remaining eighteen and twenty dollar bills. This is
also consistent with the Dagnan note because the author not
only asked for a specific amount, but he asked for
a specific denominations and two of all fives and tens.
I believe something ridiculous the amounts.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Of John did it. He did that, He actually did that.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He actually caught up his friend and that person actually
is kind of I've actually looked into him the one
he got the loan from to get the money out
as quick as he did, and he actually got the
money out and everything, like literally.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Why and why would you go through that if you
had been the one that killed your daughter and knew
she was downstairs?
Speaker 3 (29:52):
I know, why? Why to get the to give them
to not look here, look over there?
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So you you still believe that the Ramseys killed.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
I don't know that they did it. I don't think
that they did it physically. I think that uh, that.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
He knows more than he's talking about. You know, it's
more than he's letting us now.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
But I mean, I can tell you my my theory.
I think that she that they were.
Speaker 5 (30:26):
S trafficking her to their friends, and that they had
some kind of blackmail on the Ramseys in order to
and then that's when they had to They were pretty
much like sucked into it to where they had to
keep doing it, and that one of them, one of
their friends, accidentally did it did it, and uh they
(30:47):
had to cover it up because it was their fault technically,
because they allowed it to happen.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
That's an interesting thought, but that night, I mean, I
I don't really understand and they come back from a
Christmas party, than they were allowing their daughter to be
sexually abused. I just I have a hard time wrapping
my head around that whole entire scenario. But we can
definitely discuss that at a later date when we get
into some of the evidence that has been brought about.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I have a lot of that too, and I.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Put in a lot that you sent me. So the
amount of one hundred and eighteen thousand is 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,
(31:36):
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 versus my account.
And that's to suppose that she is the one that
actually wrote this. And we have to remember the initial
start of this letter showed that it was written to
(31:57):
both of them, so it was addressed to Bow, Patsy
and John in the very beginning In line number ten ten,
the writer tells Ramseys to bring an adequate size attached
to the bank. Most kidnappers are not going to remind
you to bring an adequate size case to hold the money. Likewise,
in line number thirteen, it is doubtful that a kidnapper
(32:18):
will tell you to be rested because the delivery process
will be exhausting. Yeah, nobody's going to tell you get
some rests. You got my kid. Nobody's resting, nobody's sleeping,
nobody's taking a nap, you know. Line number thirteen and
number fourteen, the writer states, if we monitor you getting
the money early. Later, in line number thirty, the writer states,
(32:39):
you and your family are under constant scrutiny. Kidnapper would
have us believe that they are continually watching the Ramsey family,
and they believe that that is highly unlikely. Well, it
is highly unlikely because consequently she's already dead. So nineteen
we have an unnecessary word, which is over. Unnecessary words
(33:01):
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,
(33:21):
I visualize God keeping me keeping his distance. He sees me,
but he also sees 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
(33:43):
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 house sit.
(34:03):
He wants you to be there where you can keep
a close eye on things. So that's a very good,
interesting statement, right.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
I always thought watching over was a little odd of
a statement to have made, versus if she had really
been kidnapped, they would be watching her right.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Well, and that is another indicator to me that somebody
was given the obligation to watch over her during these
acts that they were allowing.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Wow, you see.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Quick question on the paper itself that the note was
written on. Didn't they find similar paper inside the Ramsey
house it was suspected of writing a note.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Yes, and we and we covered a lot of this
last week when we started. John lad was definitely from
the Ramsey household, as was the sharpie pen that was found.
The pen that was actually used was an outdated, uh
expired sharpie, whereas all the rest of the sharpiees in
that cup were all brand new. And like Lindsey and
(35:18):
I had talked about, there was a break in before
this at the Ramsey's house in Charlet Boy, in which
case this horse training rope was found. There was some
things that did not appear to belong to the family,
and the maids didn't recognize any of it. And then
of course that could have been a place where he
picked up this this out of date sharpie pen and
(35:40):
this notepad, because I'm sure that they're they're carrying probably
both tight if she keeps it in one house. She's
rich enough to have it in the other house too.
She's not carrying her pads of papers and her sharpies
with her from one location to the next. I'd put
money on that. Yeah, in a kidnapping, the kidnappers should
be watching the abductee. They will want to keep a
(36:02):
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
being alive is dependent upon them receiving the ransom. When
the writer of the ransom note said they were watching
over John Manet, 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.
(36:23):
Number one, if you knew for certain she was all
right and could not escape. And number two, if you
knew she was dead. Since a dead body isn't going anywhere,
it is something you watch over. Based on the language
you used, it appears the writer knew John Manet was
dead when writing the ransom note, or that she was
going to be dead, So I would say in both
already if this, yeah, she's either already dead when it's written,
(36:46):
But then that would indicate that this long, lengthy note
was written with speed and haste. Obviously, because if you
just killed this little girl down in the basement, I mean,
how are you going to sit down and write a
three page ransom note. I just am finding some of
these things to be a little off. The sentence the
two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you,
(37:06):
so I advise you not to provoke them is not
very aggressive language. This would indicate that a woman wrote
this note. So he's back at Patsy here. Other statements
in the ransom notes, such as I advise you to
be rested, also show a feminine touch. Saying that John
Benney will be beheaded and line number twenty two is
very unusual in the United States, we generally do not
(37:26):
talk about beheading people. This was put in the note
to make it look like a foreign faction again, was
behind this kidnapping? That or my mind, it's the cross
over and tie into the Degnan murder.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
He goes on to say four times the writer uses
the phrase she dies. The problem is the writer should
be speaking in the future tense she will die. This
is a strong indication the writer knew John Benney was
dead when the ransom note was written. The note is
addressed to mister Ramsey. However, towards the end of the note,
mister Ramsey becomes John. The writer refers to mister Ramsey
(38:06):
as John three times. If this was a foreign faction,
he would continually use the term mister Ramsey. Referring to
him by his first name is too personal for an
unknown kidnapper.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Yeah, I think definitely were unknown, But it definitely was
not patchy either.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
No, No, it definitely was not.
Speaker 3 (38:24):
It was somebody they knew.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Somebody. Yeah, somebody was tasked to write this note, I
believe ahead of time, knowing what the overall plan was.
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 there is a justification for the change. Deceptive
(38:50):
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 mister Ramsey, then
he should always refer to him as mister Ramsey. When
the writer changed the language and called him John, it
is an indication the story is deceptive. Ooh Aamy goosebumps.
Speaker 5 (39:08):
But and then well, and then it gives you that
It lets you know right off the bat, like he's
been going on this whole time, Like keep you're talking
to somebody, you just keep going on and talking to them,
and then all of a sudden you just start saying
John instead. It's like you've gotten so comparable in that
conversation that it slips.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
It slips immediately, and your cover is over and it's
off well.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Like I said in the go Ahead, in the two
thousand and five finale note, he kept referring to Tim.
You know, first it started Tim Miller, bow it's me,
and then it became Tim. So again we see that
same So is that telling me that that particular letter
is deceptive by any means? Is he not telling the truth?
Is he taking credit for crimes he didn't commit? So
(39:52):
all of these things are floating around in my head
because that now leads me to the two thousand and
five finale letter where he's attempting to take culpability for
all these different crimes.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
And in reality, if it's a group of people that
are committing them, and he's trying to solidify that he's
the only one they should be looking for. Then that
wouldn't self make it deceptive mm hmm.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
But it could be different writers.
Speaker 5 (40:16):
But the only case if that would be the case,
then it would be then that means that Tim Miller
himself was part of the group as.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Well, well, not necessarily part of the group, but into
something that the group didn't like happening. And and there is.
Speaker 5 (40:33):
When I say the group, I mean it's kind of
like some people don't know how to take this word cult,
but he are some type of cult or group, like uh,
meetings with people and that actually knew him in that den.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
You know, Dennis shared with me that there was drugs involved.
And I don't know why Dennis would lie to me
about something like that or what his purpose would be,
but he indicated that Tim Miller himself had said that
that's what was going on during those times. So there
is a possibility that the the wrong territory, that they
were over exerting their their you know, supply who knows,
(41:15):
honestly speaking, But it does sound like it's something nefarious
because we have him go on to Texas Equi Search,
which is like John Walsh going on to America's Most Wanted.
Speaker 5 (41:24):
I mean, come on, the only the only benefit that
I could give him other than John Walsh is that
the fact that he hasn't really made himself as public
or he hasn't really put his.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Certainly tried, as he certainly tried. And he's the one
that found Casey Anthony's baby in that in that suitcase
off in Florida swamps. So he did make a name
for himself. He has been out there in in the
movie world and all of these other things. Oh, he's
right up there doing the documentaries just like John Walsh.
Speaker 5 (41:57):
Yeah, and actually a recent one actually, but I'm saying
like it's nowhere near as uh frequent as John Walsh
covered every single case in the creation and uh And
another thing would be like I think that maybe he
wanted to be in that limelight, but he was, but
(42:18):
they weren't. They're like, NA, we got this, we don't
need you. But he just kept trying because you know.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
He basically became the same person you know, searching for well.
And then I was going to tell you also like
he's also people were missing people while John Walsh was
looking for the suspects.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
Yes, so, yeah, that's what I was gonna say.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
But and if I thought I called myself like every
now and then asking somebody like people say, okay, you
know who America's most wanted host is. Okay, well do
you know who the founder of EQUI searches in Texas?
Speaker 3 (42:49):
And they're like, no, I have no idea what that is.
They don't know what it is. And I'm like, how
do you not?
Speaker 5 (42:55):
Like I was talking about the case that actually happened
here that and they came here. He came here literally,
and uh they were like, oh, I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
I don't know what that is. And I'm like what.
Speaker 5 (43:07):
So it just kind of gives you this that like
verification like that he definitely is not in that same position.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
He's not as well known. Yeah, got it. Yeah, So
the notice signed SBTC. There is no period after the
letter C. Purportedly, he says, 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 a conflict at this point in the story.
The writer may have more information that was purposely withheld
(43:36):
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
sea that it bled into the letter. And that's what
will happen with the sharpie pen if you don't give
yourself enough room. There has been a lot of speculation
as to what the letters SBTC mean. The one that
makes some sense to me is Saved by the Cross.
(43:57):
This is because the Ramsays professed to have faith in
God and because every victory precedes the initials s BTC.
As all Christians know, it is through Christ's sacrifice on
the Cross that we have victory over death. And then
of course there's this Subic Bay thing that that had
gone on with and John Ramsey was actually part of
(44:17):
that particular mission or whatever they did there. I'm not
really that's the Bay of pigs, right, No one as BTC.
Subig Bay was the uh it was the Bay of pigs, right.
It was something to do with bush, bush and oil
(44:39):
and Cuba, And.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
Yeah, that was the Bay of Pigs. What you're saying
about Bush. But I'm not sure about the ce Big Bay, haven't.
I haven't seen that correlation I'll have.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
To go back to it. It might have been something
that Terry B. Came up with. Okay. So in examining
the pronouns, we find this crime was not committed by
a group. If you were writing for a group, then
you our language will reflect there are several people involved.
Throughout the ransom note, the writer uses the plural pronouns
we us an hour because the writer wants to give
the impression that a group is responsible for the kidnapping.
(45:12):
In lines two through five, the writer states, you must
follow our instructions. In line twenty eight, follow our instructions. However,
in line seventeen we have any deviation of my instructions.
That's where That's where I believe that, Yes, the author
slipped up, because while he may have been writing this
for a group of people, he then referred to himself
(45:34):
because again he's displaced from the actual act that's happening.
So if it comes his erections, yeah, let's see if.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
This was a group, I've read my mind just then.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Good mind's sick alike. If this group effort, the writer
would have have a group mentality and would consistently use
the plural pronouns. Look at line eleven and fourteen, I
will call you versus we my 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.
This is what I do when I'm looking at anonymous
(46:10):
letters and somebody's attempting to accuse somebody of something or
act like there's somebody else telling on somebody. They or
they're writing a will for someone and they draft it
using the wrong pronouns. That's usually a co indicator that
you've got frog going on. We see deception in this
ransom note with the changing pronouns. This kidnapping was not
(46:30):
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 here or see,
there's 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
(46:51):
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, which they've already been excluded. Sorry, dude,
I don't know why in two thousand and one, if
you're writing this and you didn't realize that they had
been cleared from DNA in nineteen ninety seven, where you
would have gone there and obviously that would have led
us down a different road. So maybe this is a name.
Speaker 5 (47:11):
Don't forget the jury, the grand jury that they did, they.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
Agreed to indict. But what I'm saying is is that
this individual making it, trying to push away from a
group effort or that there's group involvement, would take away
from they take away from my theory and lead people
down a different path to continue to ensue the Ramses
as the murderers.
Speaker 3 (47:34):
Well that's what they want, you right, that's.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
What they want. Well, they want that or they want
it to be some lone single person. Which I still
find that every analysis that he's made in this could
still apply to the theory that I have about Jack
being part of a group but being the individual author
writing it knowing what was going to transpire. Let's see,
(47:57):
the ransom note was written on a pad of papers
that was in the Ramsey's residence. Likewise, the pen that
was used to write the note also came from their residence.
The killer placed a nylon cord made into a garrett
around John Benny's neck and strangled her. A broken paint
rush belonging to Patsy Ramsey was used to make the garrett.
While the handwriting analysis shows that John Ramsey did not
write the ransom note, Pantsy Ramsey could not be completely
(48:20):
eliminated as the writer. Certain words in the ransom notes,
such as instruction, monitor, execution, scanned, electronic, and device are
computer terms.
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Ding ding ding ding.
Speaker 2 (48:30):
There's Jack, you guys computer well.
Speaker 5 (48:33):
And they keep saying Patsy, But that's also indicator that
this person knew Patsy, that she knew what they knew, what.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
They're gonna be, They're gonna be well, no, no, no,
this isn't words Patsy used. You didn't listen. The person
is making note that these words are used are computer terms,
so somebody must be in the computer realm in order
to be using these as fluent as they are. And Jack,
we know, was into computers. At the time of John
(49:02):
Benay's death, John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics, a
computer distribution company. Kidnapper demanded one hundred and eighteen thousand
from the Ramseys. This is a very unusual amount. Most
people would ask for a much larger amount. There's a
reason why the writer chose the one eighteen and that
was because it was literally a bonus that John Ramsey
was receiving. We're down to about the last thirty seconds
(49:25):
or so. I think we're talking about the word hence
as something that Patsy used later in a Christmas card.
But she's read this note so many times. And I
know there's times when I do handwriting and I swear
I've never done a letter in a particular way, But
after studying somebody's handwriting for hours and hours, I find
myself the next day actually using that form when I've
(49:48):
never used that form before. It can get into your head,
and it can stick, and it can become part of
your arsenal if it is read and looked at enough.
That's it, you guys, Is there anything least a couple seconds? Really,
I just have time to sit absolutely. Everybody Happy Halloween
and have a great time. Stay safe. Thank you, you guys.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
You next week, all right, Sea
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial, legal, counseling,
professional service, or any advice. You should seek the services
(00:23):
of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Good morning, True Seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
Happy Halloween, everybody. I hope everyone stays safe this holiday.
I want to see whether or not we had Nolan
back in yet, but it looks like we. He is
still trying to refresh and come back to us. Ah,
here he comes. Good morning. Oh I lost him again.
(01:20):
All right, that's the way the show is going to
go today. Anyways. So this last week was given a
video by Lindsay mcbraer and I thought she might be
here this morning, and I haven't seen her yet, but
we will bring her in when she arrives. And she
had sent an interesting video in regards to Charlie Kirk,
(01:41):
which I thought was extremely interesting as I watched it
over and over again trying to determine whether or not
there was a possibility that it was AI. I hopped
around a little bit and stumbled across the actual video
of him being shot, and of course they actually have
this up on the internet for the world to see.
(02:01):
I did not want to play that video, but I
did obviously capture a picture, in which case it shows
the direction in which he actually was forced and collapsed.
And of course what we're looking at here on the
presentation is the setup, So this is the overview of
where the shooter was down here on Loci center, and
(02:25):
then of course the area that Charlie Kirk was in himself.
And I was bewildered by this. I mean, honestly speaking,
I shoot guns. I understand a projectile when it hits
what direction things would fall or go in. So my
confusion came in the fact that Charlie Kirk actually fell
to the left, and every position that we can show
(02:46):
in all of these maps where the shooter actually was
positioned or purportedly positioned, any map that I looked at
all showed about the same location and firing to the left.
So with that trajectory, we would have expect that had
Charlie Kirk been hit in the right side of the neck.
From this, he would have fallen to his right, and
(03:06):
he actually fell to his left. So that's what got
me intrigued. And of course I think Terry Batcher kind
of climbed into my body. When I saw this, I
went down a rabbit hole. So I wanted to see maps,
I wanted to see other items. I'm hoping that somebody
can either correct me.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Let's see.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Whether or not I am correct in the fact that
this man had fallen the opposite direction. And of course
in that video there was this gentleman that seemed to
have had some very odd and strange movements that took
place in surrounding it. Here is the actual link down here,
and once you follow this link on YouTube, you can
you'll see this red pill type commentation that is happening,
(03:51):
or debate that's happening between Charlie Kirk and another person,
and then they go on to say that this is
why Charlie Kirk was killed. It does appear as though
he might have upset somebody. So I'm looking for any truth,
any comments, anybody wants to add to that. But now
I'm going to actually move on to what we're really
here for, and that is the John Benet Ramsey case.
(04:12):
So we had along with that video that Lindsay had sent.
She sent this particular It looks like it's either a
YouTube or some type of comment that is done. Maybe
it's Twitter or something. I'm not exactly sure. Oh there's
Lindsay and there's Nolan. You guys, welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Good morning everybody, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Good morning, Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Oh there it is, good morning, all right.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
So you guys, I really quickly passed by this, but
I'm going to go back to it really quick, because
you set me on fire last week, Lindsay with this
whole video, and I wanted your guys' take on it.
So I just asked everybody out there and you know,
Wonder World whether or not what they thought about it.
But I ended up skipping over to a live video
(05:03):
of Charlie Kirk actually being shot, and the direction hall
Or was propelled by this bullet hitting him was the
opposite direction I felt then what the shooter was sitting at,
or at least predicted to have shot from that particular building.
And that kind of blew my mind because I've watched
(05:26):
the video over and over and over again, and they
indicate that there was some gentleman there that they believe
might have been the person who truly shot him, and
the guy had some very odd and strange movements that
were going on. But let's just take a look at
this real quick. Here's the area where the shooter was
positioned on top of low C center, and we can
see it again, so this is just a second view
(05:47):
up here. And then of course he's shooting to the left.
So had he shot to the left and hit Charlie
Kirk in the neck, that should have sent Charlie Kirk
to his right, not to his left right. So now
I'm wondering who Charlie Kirk really pissed off and what
(06:09):
was really going on here. Anyway, he was.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
A long distance away. That's such a great shot from
that distance.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
For a young and that's for sure, I was just
going away by the propulsion of his body. I mean you,
that makes no common sense. Are we trying to you know,
fly past people? To single bullet theory again with JFK.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
It's literally a repeat.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
It's literally like I mean, it's like so many similarities.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It's insane.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
It's like Okay, are you using your same sia that
you use the JFK, Like what are y'all doing? Like
fool me once, fool me twice, but you're not going
to fool me three times. Right, they're so stupid, like
but they think they're so smart. You know.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Well, it's like Newsome right now with this special proposition
or the special election that he's doing where he says
that Trump is attempting to jerrymander, when this strict meaning
of that is to read district areas in order to
facilitate an unbiased or a bias election. And it doesn't
matter if you're doing that in the inverse or the adverse,
(07:17):
like if you're doing the redistricting so a person can't
achieve what they want achieve, that's still the same thing.
And he's looking at us straight to our our faces, saying,
let us take this power from you so the government
can redistrict California, and that's to prevent Trump from jerrymandering.
It's like, am I am I really hearing and seeing
(07:38):
what I'm seeing?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Yeah, they're doing the same thing. It's a kind of
a quid pro quote. It's the same thing on both sides.
Who is both Republicans and the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Oh yeah, or what what do you mean.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
It's you're trying to redistrict in order to get more
constituents in or more people elected from their party.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, Republicans are asked.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
All over.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh well, I'm saying Republicans in California are not attempting
to redistrict.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Parts of the country. And the whole point is.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
And that's just saying like the majority of Republicans are
usually under cover rhinos that are really on the side
of the Democrats, is what he's saying.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
But we do have this one far in between, like
you said, in California.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
That are advocating against it.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
It's going to pass.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
I know it will. We are we are primarily a
democratic state, and if Newsom calls the Dems to to
the polls, then yeah, it's going to pass. There's what
what else is there to be said? And the bottom
line is is they're going to take the power out
of the public's hand or something. We've already been voted
and given the right to do and express and use
that for the next five years, We're never going to
see that again. We have just given up a power
(09:02):
to the government that I don't think is going to
come back around even at the expiration anyways.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
Well, and then also and then also Texas, just so
you guys know, Texas just passed a AI thing.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
In their state. Uh what is it called?
Speaker 5 (09:18):
The what are they calling it? The AI identity thing
where like you have to verify.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
On your phone for like everything?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Was it?
Speaker 3 (09:28):
I forget what they'd call no.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Do to use AI? Right?
Speaker 3 (09:37):
No, I can't remember. I'll have to see I have
to pull it up and then I'll tell you there.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
That would actually be a good thing because again, as
I sat there watching the video that you sent on
the Red Pill and Charlie Kirk, I kept monitoring for
if whether or not that was AI there at the end,
because we see him, we see him go from a
debate into he's talking by himself as if it's a
different clip in a different place in time. And I'm
not sure if that's him or if somebody is AI
(10:02):
that video. So that's why I didn't play or put
up any part of it. But I did show everybody
the link that they could go to look the look
at it if they wanted. Anyways, that brings us to
again the Ramsey case and of course we have this
this post. Where did you receive this post from about
mister Ramsey's company? Oh no, oh, there she is. Where
(10:31):
did you find this post on Ramsey's business?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Okay, there you are business this one? Oh oh it
was on that video. Oh oh oh, I didn't.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Oh you mean on the pageant the pageant?
Speaker 5 (10:50):
Uh huh.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I'm getting feedback from your from whatever your sound is going.
So it's repeating everything I say in my ears after
I say it. So you've done something with your.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
Say sound, yeah, something with you.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
It's snoopy.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Okay, she's on a delay. Refreshed the page. All right,
she's gone anyways. So she also Lindsay had also sent
me a video in regards to one of the last
pageants that John Benne Ramsey had been in it. And
(11:28):
I guess this is some type of post that was
beneath it. And it's not. I would love for it
to explain more, but it says mister Ramsey's company was
mixed up with some vile people. Years ago, before the
web was scrubbed, there were some amazing sites that held
info and photos. Read the essay agenda. I'm not sure
what the essay agenda is the Ramseys were in bed
(11:50):
with some very sick people. All of that info was
lost in cyberspace, and then somebody responded, you were very correct.
They were part of the club that we are not
a part of. So that's that was attached to a
YouTube video of her pageant.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
Correct, lindsay, Yeah, so an essay is sex assault sexual
health agenda.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Yeah huh. Well so that brings us back to you
figuring out or doing the research and finding out that
Ramsey's father built the runway for airplanes on Fox Island,
which was notoriously known as a pedophile island. Correct, Ye,
so maybe, just maybe, And and this is what this
(12:37):
is what bothers me about, you know, John Walsh not
wanting the FBI involved, and the Ramsey's not wanting you know,
people digging into their their dirt. Is that there are
they are in bed with some very you know, sadistic
people and they control you either through your family or
assassinations or murders or or what have you. So I
(13:00):
wouldn't discount this particular statement, but I just wish they
had given us a little bit more like who are
the people that they're dead with?
Speaker 5 (13:07):
You know, Well, this weekend I was going to dig
on it a little bit to see if I can
like go on like to our jobs and see if
there was something in there that was our job, and
like they scroll from the web that it's maybe still
in the our chobed websites.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Yeah, and i'd use the wayback machine. Have you tried that?
Speaker 3 (13:27):
But they call it the same thing?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Okay, okay, yeah, all right. Well that brings us back
to the actual ransom note, which we were finishing off
discussing last week. We read the entire note and then
I was going back over it and kind of just
doing a examination of the linguistics and what it was saying.
And of course we had made that comparison to the
fifty year anniversary of Susan Dagnan, a six year old
(13:51):
blonde girl that was killed father again a high up
an office type thing. And one of the things I
failed to mention is that we know John Bennay was
killed in the basement, and of course Susan Dagnan was
actually bisected in the basement of an apartment complex or
some type of a building that was in Chicago exactly.
(14:12):
So again there was just another one of those coincidences
we've got two six year old little girls. Now we
don't know where Susan Dignan was killed, whether she was
you know, abducted and then killed or she was killed
in their bed and then taken out the window. But
either way, the ending result was a basement for both
of these little girls. I did kind of pull out too.
(14:33):
One of the things that I kept catching on to,
especially when looking at the handwriting, was this particular formation
of the bees that looked like they're done in one
single stroke, and then they actually don't come back and
touch the bottom, so the bottom bowl does not actually
reach back to the stem and close that be up.
And we see that happening in the Scorpion letters and
(14:55):
in the John Benny Ramsey letter. So again, those those
little nuances always, you know, pop out at me, especially
when you've studied this handwriting long enough. So the use
of a lowercase y is a capital, which is just
like Jack does the individuals familiar with law enforcement countermeasures
(15:16):
and tactics. It's pretty much the same claim that the
Zodiacs were being in most other communications in the series
have talked about and the ability to conceal their identity,
which either conceal or they had good cover.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Okay, real quick, real quick, So I've read, I've ran
across something randomly about it was a military option, I
mean operation that was called Operation Scorpio, and it was
literally about about a military operation of them being in
control and using these experiments like literally to do whatever
(15:55):
they want to do, like pretty much like what you
just literally said, like that it literally described, yes.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Like concealing their identities and all of that. Yes, yes, yeah,
that would make sense. I mean, we've got Jack running
around with a million and one names. It feels like
he doesn't even know who he is, and maybe that
presents for a mental health issue as well.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
And get this, so it was I can't remember which
exact date, but it was nineteen sixty something is when
it started.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Oh really, so yeah, pre dating predating the well, definitely
pre dating Scorpion letters because that was nineteen ninety one purportedly.
I'm really not sure if I believe.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
You know that.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Well, we know that Jack was being very nefarious in
those days too, of course, from when we started, when
you started in the beginning, So yeah, that.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
It makes sense, and it falls along again with the
whole zodiac symbols and you know, the things Libra and
Taurus and all these other things that have come into play,
and people want to make it about the zodiac constellations
and things, and it's just it's just not no, it's
not no. I found it interesting also that we see
(17:14):
there's more than one reference to John in the letter,
calling him by his first name. And we saw that
in the two thousand and five finale letter when the
author kept referring to Tim Miller. I was not the
only person Tim that you know, he's basically using that
same personal first you know, name reference, as if he
(17:35):
is familiar or knows this person. It's odd, but we
don't usually see that in these type of taunting letters
to family members. You know, the killer wants to tell
you about what he's done. They're not, you know, taking
personal references to parents by calling them by their first names.
There is this the Southern statements again, use that good
(17:58):
Southern common sense of yours. Again. That's something we've talked
about a lot in all the letters, is these Southern references.
And then I did kind of pull out some things.
So these down here are the letter MS for Jack.
These are his normal lowercase ms. They look like capital
letter MS and they are done in a way that
we see actually happening up here in the word common
(18:22):
and then back on the last page in immediately, So
in those two words we found these particular style ms
which look far more consistent and natural than some of
these other funky ms that we're seeing in here that
look like they're all tremorous and shaky. And I found
that to be interesting. And of course I think that
I have some information in regards to Patsy's handwriting if
(18:45):
what they portrayed on the documentary was legitimately something she wrote,
and I don't believe that she had done these ms.
So these being dropped at the end of the communication
or being different from every other M on the page
is probably a good sign that we can rely on
these as natural writing. Also, we have Jack doing the
Tao tee, which we know about throughout you know, many
(19:05):
of the communications, which is also considered consistent with the
Tao tees that we see happening inside of this letter
as well.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Okay, how long before the discovery of the body was.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
The note time they found the note before they found
the body?
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Yeah, what was the time period?
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Uh, well, it took before I think, do you think no,
I believe that it was Fleet White and John Ramsey
that found her. So basically they friends found the note.
I'm sorry, Patsy found the note. Yes, sorry sorry. That
(19:45):
was on the bottom or on the steps that led
to the kitchen, and she was on her way down,
I guess, to the kitchen and stumbled across this note.
And then of course friends and family came over and they,
you know, ensued some type of a search throughout the
house not find her. And then it was at a
much later time I think when the police officers showed
up that they instructed the lay people, including John himself,
(20:08):
to go search for his own daughter. Then of course
that's when they ended up in the basement and found
her body, which is.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
So weird to me.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
So mob we do not look there first, like that
would be the most place that I would have thought
of first.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
So the note was basically a deflecting deflection tool was
to lead him off course and not look for the body,
thinking there's nobody has.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Been kidnapped exactly, And that's basically what occurred in the
Susan Dagnan case. There was a ransom note left on
her bed, but she was already dead by the time
they found the ransom note sore. Again, we have similar
circumstances that are breaking out here, and Susan Dagnan's father
was one of the head officers in the Office of
Price Administration where they set pricing for meat, and back
(20:56):
then there was this whole black market meat thing going on,
and I guess they were rationing meats and giving bad
meats to the Indians. They were doing all kinds of,
you know, really treacherous things, and of course his daughter
was taken, so it's something very similar. Now. This individual
actually broke apart the ransom letter, which I thought was
(21:17):
an extremely interesting find because it literally talks about the
different statements that are being made. Aside from what I've
discussed at this point, you could even apply most of
the statements that are made in this analysis to the
Zodiac Killer. So I know that in this statement, what
you're going to hear is them calling out Patsy Ramsey,
(21:38):
but we already know that she's been excluded as far
as DNA is concerned. So this statement analysis was done
by Mark McLish and it shows that it was posted
on July ninth of two thousand and one, so shortly
after this was read and done. So it says a
key piece of evidence in solving this murderer is the
ransom note. The police, as well as the Ramseys, believe
that whoever wrote the noticebly the killer. If the police
(22:01):
can match the handwriting and the ransom note to a
suspect's handwriting, the case is solved. The problem has been
they have not found a match. Even with a positive match,
the ransom note is still the key to solving this crime.
So I want to mention that, obviously they're going to
tell you, and I've heard this from the FBI, the
letters alone are not going to solve the case. Now,
what the heck are you talking about. You've got this
(22:22):
individual up here declaring that that's exactly what would happen
if we found a match. However, I suspect in this
particular case that we would not find a match to
the actual killer, because I think that this was handled
by more than one person, and I think that Jack
was legitimately just the author of the letter itself and
had the key information, just as John Mark Carr did
in this case, but was not actively part of that crime.
(22:46):
So it says, 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 John Benny 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.
(23:07):
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. I think
that's true, but I don't believe that it was murdered
by the family then tried to cover up and make
it look like a kidnapping. Anyway.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
Is she about the amount of money demanded too?
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yeah, yeah, it's going to cover. Yeah, it's going to
cover all of that. In this statement analysis, it says
anyone could be a possible suspect. Let's examine the ransom
note left at the Ramsey residents. I have added the
numbers in the left hand column to make it easier
to reference while analyzing it. So of course, over here
is the type written version of that actual letter, it says.
(23:53):
One of the first things we notice is that it
is a very long ransom note. Most ransom notes are
shortened to the point, as Susan Dag was very shortened
to the point. We have your kid and she is safe.
It will cost you four hundred thousand to get her back.
Now I don't know where he says four hundred thousand
to get her back, because yeah, I was like, what
that makes absolutely no sense. So I don't know what
(24:17):
that reference to it says. Do not call the police
will be contacting you. This ransom note was written on
three pieces of paper. This is our first clue this
note maybe bogus. As we read the ransom note, we
find it doesn't make much sense. Neither did a lot
of the things from the zodiac line number two. We
are a group of individuals. What exactly does the writer
(24:37):
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. I think
that there's some truth to that. Most of the year
they live separate lives, but every once in a while
they come together as a group. Theory right every now
(25:02):
and again they come together as a group. The writer
also states in line number two and number three that
they represent a small foreign faction. The use of word
four and doesn't make sense even to us they are foreigner.
If even if to us they are foreigners, they wouldn't
call themselves foreigners. It's like being in Brazil and calling
a brazil a nut. They're a brazil nut. When you're
(25:23):
in Brazil, it's just called a nut. I thought that
was cute, And I.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Think saying there is just to throw people off again
and cast blame on someone that wasn't responsible.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
And that's exactly what happened in the anthrax letters. So
it says, are we to believe that John Benay 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. No, we don't come to America
and kill a six year old little girl because we
hate the United States. It's about as dumb as the
rioters down in La burning up our own businesses and
(26:01):
hurting the people who live here instead of you know,
the government or whoever's responsible for whatever they're rioting for.
In line number three, 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
(26:23):
kidnapper who already has his mindset would probably not make
this mistake. The writer misspells two common words in lines
four and five, business and possessions. Now, this is what
we saw oftentimes in the Zodiac letters, an attempt to
dumb them down right. They were going to misspell some
words and then in the next line spell them correctly.
(26:43):
How However, the writer correctly spells the words deviation and attache,
even including the accent on the word attach. 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
(27:04):
a grammar, except for using the article A when he
should have written, and 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 anything
to add at this point.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
No, Well, I think I think that that interpretation of
sorry no was one.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Hundred and eighty four thousand.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
It's one hundred and eighteen thousand, is actually the amount, yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Sorry with a certain figure like one of the Ramsey's
account that only the Ramseys wouldn't know about.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It was a bonus that John Ramsey was being given
from his company that year.
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Yeah, So that is just really that's.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
The inside that's the inside information that I'm stating that
he was that the author was aware of. Just like
John mart Carr was also given an arsenal of inside
information but ultimately found not to be the actual suspect.
So we're going to get to John Mark Carr. It
says in line's number four, number five, the writer tells us,
we have your daughter in our possession. Remember that the
(28:08):
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 is an overdisclosure. This is an overdisclosure. You're trying
to impress upon somebody that you actually have their daughter.
So it sounds to me they killed her and then
this note was placed in or the two weren't on
(28:30):
the same task. Right, The killer and the author are
being done at separate times in separate ways, would have
led to these kind of mistakes. In a true note
about the crime, correct the writer states in line number eight,
you will withdraw one hundred and eighteen thousand from your account.
The kidnapper may know the Ramses are wealthy, but how
(28:51):
does the writer know they have one hundred and eighteen
thousand in their account? Most kidnappers kidnappers would simply state
get the money. They don't care where you get it from,
just get it. That is so true. Again, we have
an overstatement. The amount of one hundred and eighteen thousand,
(29:11):
of course, was asked for in one hundred dollar bills
and the remaining eighteen and twenty dollar bills. This is
also consistent with the Dagnan note because the author not
only asked for a specific amount, but he asked for
a specific denominations and two of all fives and tens.
I believe something ridiculous the amounts.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Of John did it. He did that, He actually did that.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He actually caught up his friend and that person actually
is kind of I've actually looked into him the one
he got the loan from to get the money out
as quick as he did, and he actually got the
money out and everything, like literally.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Why and why would you go through that if you
had been the one that killed your daughter and knew
she was downstairs?
Speaker 3 (29:52):
I know, why? Why to get the to give them
to not look here, look over there?
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So you you still believe that the Ramseys killed.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
I don't know that they did it. I don't think
that they did it physically. I think that uh, that.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
He knows more than he's talking about. You know, it's
more than he's letting us now.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
But I mean, I can tell you my my theory.
I think that she that they were.
Speaker 5 (30:26):
S trafficking her to their friends, and that they had
some kind of blackmail on the Ramseys in order to
and then that's when they had to They were pretty
much like sucked into it to where they had to
keep doing it, and that one of them, one of
their friends, accidentally did it did it, and uh they
(30:47):
had to cover it up because it was their fault technically,
because they allowed it to happen.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
That's an interesting thought, but that night, I mean, I
I don't really understand and they come back from a
Christmas party, than they were allowing their daughter to be
sexually abused. I just I have a hard time wrapping
my head around that whole entire scenario. But we can
definitely discuss that at a later date when we get
into some of the evidence that has been brought about.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I have a lot of that too, and I.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Put in a lot that you sent me. So the
amount of one hundred and eighteen thousand is 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,
(31:36):
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 versus my account.
And that's to suppose that she is the one that
actually wrote this. And we have to remember the initial
start of this letter showed that it was written to
(31:57):
both of them, so it was addressed to Bow, Patsy
and John in the very beginning In line number ten ten,
the writer tells Ramseys to bring an adequate size attached
to the bank. Most kidnappers are not going to remind
you to bring an adequate size case to hold the money. Likewise,
in line number thirteen, it is doubtful that a kidnapper
(32:18):
will tell you to be rested because the delivery process
will be exhausting. Yeah, nobody's going to tell you get
some rests. You got my kid. Nobody's resting, nobody's sleeping,
nobody's taking a nap, you know. Line number thirteen and
number fourteen, the writer states, if we monitor you getting
the money early. Later, in line number thirty, the writer states,
(32:39):
you and your family are under constant scrutiny. Kidnapper would
have us believe that they are continually watching the Ramsey family,
and they believe that that is highly unlikely. Well, it
is highly unlikely because consequently she's already dead. So nineteen
we have an unnecessary word, which is over. Unnecessary words
(33:01):
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,
(33:21):
I visualize God keeping me keeping his distance. He sees me,
but he also sees 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
(33:43):
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 house sit.
(34:03):
He wants you to be there where you can keep
a close eye on things. So that's a very good,
interesting statement, right.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
I always thought watching over was a little odd of
a statement to have made, versus if she had really
been kidnapped, they would be watching her right.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Well, and that is another indicator to me that somebody
was given the obligation to watch over her during these
acts that they were allowing.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Wow, you see.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Quick question on the paper itself that the note was
written on. Didn't they find similar paper inside the Ramsey
house it was suspected of writing a note.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Yes, and we and we covered a lot of this
last week when we started. John lad was definitely from
the Ramsey household, as was the sharpie pen that was found.
The pen that was actually used was an outdated, uh
expired sharpie, whereas all the rest of the sharpiees in
that cup were all brand new. And like Lindsey and
(35:18):
I had talked about, there was a break in before
this at the Ramsey's house in Charlet Boy, in which
case this horse training rope was found. There was some
things that did not appear to belong to the family,
and the maids didn't recognize any of it. And then
of course that could have been a place where he
picked up this this out of date sharpie pen and
(35:40):
this notepad, because I'm sure that they're they're carrying probably
both tight if she keeps it in one house. She's
rich enough to have it in the other house too.
She's not carrying her pads of papers and her sharpies
with her from one location to the next. I'd put
money on that. Yeah, in a kidnapping, the kidnappers should
be watching the abductee. They will want to keep a
(36:02):
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
being alive is dependent upon them receiving the ransom. When
the writer of the ransom note said they were watching
over John Manet, 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.
(36:23):
Number one, if you knew for certain she was all
right and could not escape. And number two, if you
knew she was dead. Since a dead body isn't going anywhere,
it is something you watch over. Based on the language
you used, it appears the writer knew John Manet was
dead when writing the ransom note, or that she was
going to be dead, So I would say in both
already if this, yeah, she's either already dead when it's written,
(36:46):
But then that would indicate that this long, lengthy note
was written with speed and haste. Obviously, because if you
just killed this little girl down in the basement, I mean,
how are you going to sit down and write a
three page ransom note. I just am finding some of
these things to be a little off. The sentence the
two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you,
(37:06):
so I advise you not to provoke them is not
very aggressive language. This would indicate that a woman wrote
this note. So he's back at Patsy here. Other statements
in the ransom notes, such as I advise you to
be rested, also show a feminine touch. Saying that John
Benney will be beheaded and line number twenty two is
very unusual in the United States, we generally do not
(37:26):
talk about beheading people. This was put in the note
to make it look like a foreign faction again, was
behind this kidnapping? That or my mind, it's the cross
over and tie into the Degnan murder.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
He goes on to say four times the writer uses
the phrase she dies. The problem is the writer should
be speaking in the future tense she will die. This
is a strong indication the writer knew John Benney was
dead when the ransom note was written. The note is
addressed to mister Ramsey. However, towards the end of the note,
mister Ramsey becomes John. The writer refers to mister Ramsey
(38:06):
as John three times. If this was a foreign faction,
he would continually use the term mister Ramsey. Referring to
him by his first name is too personal for an
unknown kidnapper.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Yeah, I think definitely were unknown, But it definitely was
not patchy either.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
No, No, it definitely was not.
Speaker 3 (38:24):
It was somebody they knew.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Somebody. Yeah, somebody was tasked to write this note, I
believe ahead of time, knowing what the overall plan was.
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 there is a justification for the change. Deceptive
(38:50):
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 mister Ramsey, then
he should always refer to him as mister Ramsey. When
the writer changed the language and called him John, it
is an indication the story is deceptive. Ooh Aamy goosebumps.
Speaker 5 (39:08):
But and then well, and then it gives you that
It lets you know right off the bat, like he's
been going on this whole time, Like keep you're talking
to somebody, you just keep going on and talking to them,
and then all of a sudden you just start saying
John instead. It's like you've gotten so comparable in that
conversation that it slips.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
It slips immediately, and your cover is over and it's
off well.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Like I said in the go Ahead, in the two
thousand and five finale note, he kept referring to Tim.
You know, first it started Tim Miller, bow it's me,
and then it became Tim. So again we see that
same So is that telling me that that particular letter
is deceptive by any means? Is he not telling the truth?
Is he taking credit for crimes he didn't commit? So
(39:52):
all of these things are floating around in my head
because that now leads me to the two thousand and
five finale letter where he's attempting to take culpability for
all these different crimes.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
And in reality, if it's a group of people that
are committing them, and he's trying to solidify that he's
the only one they should be looking for. Then that
wouldn't self make it deceptive mm hmm.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
But it could be different writers.
Speaker 5 (40:16):
But the only case if that would be the case,
then it would be then that means that Tim Miller
himself was part of the group as.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Well, well, not necessarily part of the group, but into
something that the group didn't like happening. And and there is.
Speaker 5 (40:33):
When I say the group, I mean it's kind of
like some people don't know how to take this word cult,
but he are some type of cult or group, like uh,
meetings with people and that actually knew him in that den.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
You know, Dennis shared with me that there was drugs involved.
And I don't know why Dennis would lie to me
about something like that or what his purpose would be,
but he indicated that Tim Miller himself had said that
that's what was going on during those times. So there
is a possibility that the the wrong territory, that they
were over exerting their their you know, supply who knows,
(41:15):
honestly speaking, But it does sound like it's something nefarious
because we have him go on to Texas Equi Search,
which is like John Walsh going on to America's Most Wanted.
Speaker 5 (41:24):
I mean, come on, the only the only benefit that
I could give him other than John Walsh is that
the fact that he hasn't really made himself as public
or he hasn't really put his.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Certainly tried, as he certainly tried. And he's the one
that found Casey Anthony's baby in that in that suitcase
off in Florida swamps. So he did make a name
for himself. He has been out there in in the
movie world and all of these other things. Oh, he's
right up there doing the documentaries just like John Walsh.
Speaker 5 (41:57):
Yeah, and actually a recent one actually, but I'm saying
like it's nowhere near as uh frequent as John Walsh
covered every single case in the creation and uh And
another thing would be like I think that maybe he
wanted to be in that limelight, but he was, but
(42:18):
they weren't. They're like, NA, we got this, we don't
need you. But he just kept trying because you know.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
He basically became the same person you know, searching for well.
And then I was going to tell you also like
he's also people were missing people while John Walsh was
looking for the suspects.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
Yes, so, yeah, that's what I was gonna say.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
But and if I thought I called myself like every
now and then asking somebody like people say, okay, you
know who America's most wanted host is. Okay, well do
you know who the founder of EQUI searches in Texas?
Speaker 3 (42:49):
And they're like, no, I have no idea what that is.
They don't know what it is. And I'm like, how
do you not?
Speaker 5 (42:55):
Like I was talking about the case that actually happened
here that and they came here. He came here literally,
and uh they were like, oh, I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
I don't know what that is. And I'm like what.
Speaker 5 (43:07):
So it just kind of gives you this that like
verification like that he definitely is not in that same position.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
He's not as well known. Yeah, got it. Yeah, So
the notice signed SBTC. There is no period after the
letter C. Purportedly, he says, 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 a conflict at this point in the story.
The writer may have more information that was purposely withheld
(43:36):
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
sea that it bled into the letter. And that's what
will happen with the sharpie pen if you don't give
yourself enough room. There has been a lot of speculation
as to what the letters SBTC mean. The one that
makes some sense to me is Saved by the Cross.
(43:57):
This is because the Ramsays professed to have faith in
God and because every victory precedes the initials s BTC.
As all Christians know, it is through Christ's sacrifice on
the Cross that we have victory over death. And then
of course there's this Subic Bay thing that that had
gone on with and John Ramsey was actually part of
(44:17):
that particular mission or whatever they did there. I'm not
really that's the Bay of pigs, right, No one as BTC.
Subig Bay was the uh it was the Bay of pigs, right.
It was something to do with bush, bush and oil
(44:39):
and Cuba, And.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
Yeah, that was the Bay of Pigs. What you're saying
about Bush. But I'm not sure about the ce Big Bay, haven't.
I haven't seen that correlation I'll have.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
To go back to it. It might have been something
that Terry B. Came up with. Okay. So in examining
the pronouns, we find this crime was not committed by
a group. If you were writing for a group, then
you our language will reflect there are several people involved.
Throughout the ransom note, the writer uses the plural pronouns
we us an hour because the writer wants to give
the impression that a group is responsible for the kidnapping.
(45:12):
In lines two through five, the writer states, you must
follow our instructions. In line twenty eight, follow our instructions. However,
in line seventeen we have any deviation of my instructions.
That's where That's where I believe that, Yes, the author
slipped up, because while he may have been writing this
for a group of people, he then referred to himself
(45:34):
because again he's displaced from the actual act that's happening.
So if it comes his erections, yeah, let's see if.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
This was a group, I've read my mind just then.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Good mind's sick alike. If this group effort, the writer
would have have a group mentality and would consistently use
the plural pronouns. Look at line eleven and fourteen, I
will call you versus we my 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.
This is what I do when I'm looking at anonymous
(46:10):
letters and somebody's attempting to accuse somebody of something or
act like there's somebody else telling on somebody. They or
they're writing a will for someone and they draft it
using the wrong pronouns. That's usually a co indicator that
you've got frog going on. We see deception in this
ransom note with the changing pronouns. This kidnapping was not
(46:30):
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 here or see,
there's 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
(46:51):
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, which they've already been excluded. Sorry, dude,
I don't know why in two thousand and one, if
you're writing this and you didn't realize that they had
been cleared from DNA in nineteen ninety seven, where you
would have gone there and obviously that would have led
us down a different road. So maybe this is a name.
Speaker 5 (47:11):
Don't forget the jury, the grand jury that they did, they.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
Agreed to indict. But what I'm saying is is that
this individual making it, trying to push away from a
group effort or that there's group involvement, would take away
from they take away from my theory and lead people
down a different path to continue to ensue the Ramses
as the murderers.
Speaker 3 (47:34):
Well that's what they want, you right, that's.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
What they want. Well, they want that or they want
it to be some lone single person. Which I still
find that every analysis that he's made in this could
still apply to the theory that I have about Jack
being part of a group but being the individual author
writing it knowing what was going to transpire. Let's see,
(47:57):
the ransom note was written on a pad of papers
that was in the Ramsey's residence. Likewise, the pen that
was used to write the note also came from their residence.
The killer placed a nylon cord made into a garrett
around John Benny's neck and strangled her. A broken paint
rush belonging to Patsy Ramsey was used to make the garrett.
While the handwriting analysis shows that John Ramsey did not
write the ransom note, Pantsy Ramsey could not be completely
(48:20):
eliminated as the writer. Certain words in the ransom notes,
such as instruction, monitor, execution, scanned, electronic, and device are
computer terms.
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Ding ding ding ding.
Speaker 2 (48:30):
There's Jack, you guys computer well.
Speaker 5 (48:33):
And they keep saying Patsy, But that's also indicator that
this person knew Patsy, that she knew what they knew, what.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
They're gonna be, They're gonna be well, no, no, no,
this isn't words Patsy used. You didn't listen. The person
is making note that these words are used are computer terms,
so somebody must be in the computer realm in order
to be using these as fluent as they are. And Jack,
we know, was into computers. At the time of John
(49:02):
Benay's death, John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics, a
computer distribution company. Kidnapper demanded one hundred and eighteen thousand
from the Ramseys. This is a very unusual amount. Most
people would ask for a much larger amount. There's a
reason why the writer chose the one eighteen and that
was because it was literally a bonus that John Ramsey
was receiving. We're down to about the last thirty seconds
(49:25):
or so. I think we're talking about the word hence
as something that Patsy used later in a Christmas card.
But she's read this note so many times. And I
know there's times when I do handwriting and I swear
I've never done a letter in a particular way, But
after studying somebody's handwriting for hours and hours, I find
myself the next day actually using that form when I've
(49:48):
never used that form before. It can get into your head,
and it can stick, and it can become part of
your arsenal if it is read and looked at enough.
That's it, you guys, Is there anything least a couple seconds? Really,
I just have time to sit absolutely. Everybody Happy Halloween
and have a great time. Stay safe. Thank you, you guys.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
You next week, all right, Sea
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com