The three and one-half years since JonBenet Ramsey was murdered have been filled with side show after side show. It seems that if a person could find a way to profit from this child's death, they did. A sad assumption perhaps, but hardly a false one. Now, the word, profit, does not necessarily mean monetary gain. There are, after all, other ways to profit -- fame and attention --are two that come to mind. Another is control -- having power. But, the common ingredient in all of these side shows is gain.
Now, one of these side shows has been the esoteric Patricia who sent a significant amount of email to various players. Some people called her Patricia, while others termed her Friend. However, for this article, she will be referred to as Letter Writer (LW). LW should not be confused with the woman from California (Callie or Bridget), who claims prior abuse, etc.
I have been interested in this drama since various people began writing about it on the boards in 1999. With the recent publishing of a good portion of the letters on ACandyRose's web site, I thought it a good opportunity to attempt to bring some closure to this mystery. And additionally, I felt it was certainly within the realm of solving. Therefore, the objective of this analysis has been to uncover the identity of the LW by comparing psychological profiles, linguistic characteristics and other evidence related to the events surrounding this puzzle. Of course, right behind the question, who, is the question, why? But, before we talk about the who and why, let's go back to the beginning -- when the letters first began circulating and start unraveling this mystery.
The website located here displays various grave sites of prominent people. Among the photos exhibited at this website are pictures of both JonBenet's grave and her older step-sister's grave. Below JonBenet's photo, an email address was (is) listed: email@example.com.
The pictures first arrived to the Find a Grave website on October 29, 1998. They were sent from the email address: firstname.lastname@example.org. The anonymous email address http://email@example.com was also signed at the bottom of the email.
As people became aware of the pictures, they began emailing the website. Some people received a response; others did not. I found this curious. After all, why were some people getting email back and others not? I emailed the website on several occasions, but did not receive a response. I have not been able to come up with a good count of how many people did, in fact, email the site, but it appears that LW was selective with whom she chose to reply to. Again, why? Certainly if a well-wisher had put up those photos of JonBenet and someone emailed them and said that this was a nice gesture, a thank you response would be polite. However, that did not happen.
On April 19, 1999, a post appeared on the Yahoo JonBenet Ramsey message board:
Gravesite on the WWW
by: CHEESYinWisconsin (45/Very immature for my age)
4/19/99 11:10 am
Msg: 23685 of 97518
i emailed the "friend of the Ramsey's" who posted that website, BadSusie. Here is what I asked:
I am curious about someone who would put JonBenet's gravesite picture on the WWW and claim to be a friend of the Ramsey's.
Who are you and what is your relation to the Ramsey's, if I may ask?
What a sick thing to do, I think!!
CHEESYinWisconsin (Cheesy) was the first person to receive email from LW that I know of. She sent the initial correspondence (above). Incredibly, her correspondence with LW went on from this first letter sent on April 19, 1999 until November 11, 1999 when LW abruptly ended all email correspondence -- stating that for security reasons the correspondence had to end. This penpal relationship went on just short of seven months.
Through the grapevine, other people heard about Cheesy's correspondence with LW, sent their first letter and bingo, a reply. Gsquared/Closer2/Secret was one of those people. She began her correspondence with LW on May 4, 1999. As with Cheesy, correspondence abruptly stopped on November 11, 1999. To view Cheesy's correspondence: go here.
There were a few others who corresponded with LW -- TwoPlusTwo, Mame, Carol McKinley and for a short time, Michael Tracey. (Please note that three of the four names were associated with the media in some way.) However, aside from the two letters that TwoPlusTwo posted at the Webbsleuths JBR forum and those that reside in the Patricia collection on ACandyRose's website to and from Cheesy, Gsquared, Mr. Tracey and Ms. McKinley, I have not had the opportunity to view the additional correspondence.
This, however, was not the only account that LW used to send correspondence. For a short time, she used firstname.lastname@example.org. I performed a domain trace on this address and it appears that it originates from Raleigh, North Carolina. I also emailed this address on June 8, 2000. To my surprise, my mail was not returned. Won't LW be surprised to be hearing from me.
Now, briefly, what was going on in the Jonbenet case during this period, April through November 1999? The Grand Jury was in session and ended on October 13, 1999 with no indictments. JonBenet would have celebrated her 9th birthday on August 6, 1999. The Ramseys had also signed a book deal and "Death of Innocence" was in the works. Various posters were travelling to and from Atlanta to either visit the Ramseys or JonBenet's gravesite. All in all, a slack time on the message boards with little or no news emerging from the closed doors of the Grand Jury.
At this point, I'd like to illustrate how this investigation was conducted. Explaining this part of the study holds a twofold process: it helps the reader to visualize the task at hand and also to draw in some of the elements, or pieces that will eventually fit together to identify the LW.
Taking on an endeavor such as this brings with it some code of conduct. Certainly, identifying the LW exposes the person for all eyes to see. Of course, one can always deny any similarities, but there are always those that will believe, no matter what. On the other hand, it also exposes the writer(s) to criticism and a possible loss of credibility in the eyes of the community. Therefore, it is not only in the LW's writer best interests, but in the writer's best interests, to not only keep this analysis as unbiased as possible, but to seek only the truth by not distorting the facts.
My first task in starting this study was to enlist the help of Delmar England. I, quite frankly, didn't trust my own abilities enough to try this at home. Mr. England graciously offered his assistance. I sent him as much information and links as I could so that he could bone up on the history, actually, of the internet, forums, and the people involved.
The next step was reading the available letters to gain a better understanding of LW and to find patterns in linguistic style. The first question that needed to be answered: Is there only one LW or are there several people playing this part? At this point the letter recipients were also contacted along with some of the fringe involvement people to gain their perspectives on LW. From this, a list of people who may have been involved was put together. Who had a motive to attempt such a hoax? Or, was it a hoax at all -- was this indeed, Patsy Ramsey? Each person was looked and either eliminated or passed on. This was reiterated until all the pieces of the puzzle were fit together and the LW could be but one person. Then the arduous task of explaining this process in an uncomplicated manner was accomplished. Just like an a criminal investigation, all facades were looked at -- from a psychological profile involving a perusal of former behavior and other people's perspectives to linguistic comparisons that helped to form the pattern of style.
An admitted flaw in this analysis is the omission of Susan Stein. Although she was on the list of potential LWs, there was not enough of her known writings available for her linguistic style to be looked at. Certainly, she would have motive -- she was a tried and true friend of Patsy Ramsey. And, as an officer in the JonBenet Foundation, she was given the computer that was bought through this not-for-profit organization. It gives her both the motive and means. Even though there was not enough of Stein's writing to sufficiently evaluate it, it is doubtful that the conclusions in this paper would have changed.
The Letters: Who Received Them; What Was the Objective
Let's briefly take a look at who received (or was chosen if you will) to receive the Patricia letters. Cheesy was pretty much the catalyst for the hoax. Her role (although she was unaware of it) was to spread the word. Cheesy enlisted the help of Gsquared (who knew Michael Tracey) and she, indeed, played right into LW's hands by getting Michael Tracey (A&E documentary producer) involved. Cheesy also spoke with Carol McKinley (a media person) and then Mame (a media person). TwoPlusTwo is again the lone ranger although as I recall he did hint at writing a book.
What do these letter recipients say about the letters?
i'm not sure what i feel about the letters. when i first started receiving them...they were almost laughable in their simplicity. stupid references to wording in the ramson note to make me think it was really "her". but, at a certain point the letters changed dramatically. " and "...if it wasn't someone close to patsy. (like susan stine). or, if not patsy then a mulitiple personality.
I don't think it was really Patsy. ... "Jams or some other sicko, somebody close to the Atlanta area.
Yes I think it is Patsy and I have no idea what the motive is.
All in all, LW kept her subjects as confused as she could. Initially, the LW states that keeping her identity secret is crucial to her objective. But, what is the objective? She states: I hope to only tell you how I feel about JonBenet and how I feel about her loss. I have no intention to tell you anything more.
However, this objective quickly fades. One of the themes that emerges is LW's desire to tell her theory of the crime to the public. This becomes a central theme in the letter. However, reading between the lines, her hidden agenda -- attention, control, and manipulation-- is revealed in the letters by this intense need to get this theory out. This need is coupled with her desire to be a victim. LW enjoys being a victim and I suspect the real LW was a victim of abuse. Additionally, her need to control and manipulate surfaces.
LW dangled promises of information that would help solve JonBenet's murder. She talks about the mystery man as both a prince and a devil. She repeatedly cautions her penpals to not alert the police -- all quite dramatic.
As I read these letters and visualized the effects that her remarks must have had on her victims, I could not help but picture mice scurrying to and fro to find the prize at the end of the maze. One thing is certain. LW had played this part before -- she was well seasoned in the art of deception.
People like Charlie Brennan would love to know about this address.
I have a story to tell, but I fear that no one will think much of it unless I sign my name.
I recently severed my relationship with my latest contact who promised my voice might be heard; therefore, my plea heard by my child's killer. It was lengthy and painful. I will miss her. She was my last chance to be heard from where I sit now - a fact that is hard to handle.
In one of LW's initial letters to Michael Tracey, she talks about the mystery man -- the maybe pedophile, young, and handsome man who stays close to JonBenet's grave (his goddess), and then dangles the final sentence: Michael, there is so much more to tell.
Exit Stage Left
On November 11, 1999, LW sent correspondence to both Cheesy and Gsquared:
It is with heavy heart that I come to you with the following unfortunate news - I must leave you now. For security reasons, the email@example.com address will continue to exist to avoid sabotage through possible takeovers of the account; however, I will not have access to the account after tonight.
There were a couple of incidents occurring during this period that I think are worth mentioning. Although Jameson had remained relatively quiet concerning LW, she had recently started a thread about the letters. I emailed her and told her that I had a few letters in my possession and she encouraged me to send them to the BPD, Lou Smit, the Ramseys, Alex Hunter and the Ramseys investigators. I did. An email was sent to all of the above on November 4, 1999.
There was also talk between the letter recipients that this drama had gone on to long and the authorities should be notified.
It was also during this period that Jameson spent time with the Ramseys.
The investigation began in an indirect way long before I was aware of the letters and LW. In earlier Internet research for other reasons, I covered a vast volume of related material which served as a ready made reference while examining the letters and the causal writer. It is from memory and additional research that I have reached my conclusions. During the investigative process, I conservatively say that I looked at several dozen potentials. Many were briefly examined and quickly dismissed; others were looked into in much detail. When the dust settled, one and only one stood out. JAMESON. At least, that's one of the names she uses.
Having made such a declaration, it is certainly incumbent upon me to support the declaration with evidence. Let's begin with this excerpt from Jameson's theory of the murder:
I believe the killer walked to the house - lived very near or parked his car at the college, park, or on one of the side streets. Walking to the house was part of the crime, part of the build-up. His ability to act out the fantasy or act on his rage grew as he got closer to the house. Whatever he had chosen to do, it was not an everyday occurrence, and he "walked" himself into character. (This practice of "getting into character" is common in the theater; I suspect it was the same in this situation.)
Getting into character is, indeed, often a practice of some actors and actresses. Some even spend time in the occupation and environment of the character he or she is to portray to get a better feel for the part. Some accomplish the transition to such a degree that by developed reflex and deep emotional involvement with the character, he or she almost becomes the character; with speech, body language and various mannerisms altered to fit the role. Real self is temporarily mentally relegated to non existence; only to return when the portrayal is finished.
As illustrated by the foregoing, getting into character is an aware psychological transition from self to non self, i.e., the character. To say that the killer walked himself into character is to say that the killer had the character of a non killer before he started the walk. What then motivated him to come to the area before walking into the character of the killer? Although fantasies may precede a host of actions, including murder, the fantasies are already within the character, and not something to be assumed on an ad hoc basis like a role in movie.
If in this serious scene of murder, a real scene, Jameson believes that the killer was a matter of getting into characte,r does she believe that everything is a matter of getting into character, that there is no difference between real life and a pretend character? Whatever the answer, there is no doubt that she has more than a passing interest in getting into character. Some More Common Ground
(For sake of brevity, I will use only a small part of the information available to support the conclusion. Much more can be presented if need arises.)
Jamesonmanipulate information on disks? This remark and others items indicate an intent to pretend ignorance of the technicalities of the computer\internet circumstance.
I started a little notebook.... Later I learned how to use the memory of the computer and the marvelous ability to manipulate information on discs. From all that, I have produced this timeline.....
I do have friends who know a lot about computers and the Internet. I would have to to get through even one of these e-mails. You see, these mails are encrypted, then decrypted; in-route, routed through anonymous servers, etc. I did not figure this out by myself.
LW also pretends ignorance of the in and outs of the computer\internet world, while speaking with ease about secure addresses, address under attack, account takeover, etc.
Pretending to be without computer\internet savvy is something you are not likely to come across frequently. Two individuals sharing this in common is a bit unusual, but could happen.
I said I would lie if I was pushed, and I did.
On the contrary, once I assume someone is close to my identity, I will launch a diversionary tactic that will dismiss any such assumption.
Since telling in advance of intended deception is somewhat self- defeating, it doesn't happen often. Two individuals sharing this in common is a bit unusual, but it could happen.
Jameson: Yes, its true. I was a suspect.
LW: Many think I am her killer,...
Two persons, both staunch supporters of the Ramseys and each referring to self as a suspect is a bit unusual, but could happen.
LW: After all, Christmas night would not allow any family man a chance to escape long enough to do a horrible act and return in time so as not to be detected missing.
Jameson: I had to consider - who could get out of the house for a few hours on a holiday night and not be missed?
Two individuals with intruder theories and each theory pivoting on being missed is a bit unusual, but could happen.
However, when we consider the particular nature of these specific commonalities, which aren't all that common, and see that all four create a bond between Jameson and LW, a bit unusual and could happen must yield to the law of probability and stand aside for the high probability conclusion that the appearance of commonalities in two minds is actually the product of only one mind: Jameson.
Letters of Intent -- to Defraud
No matter what level of knowledge one has about punctuation, typos, carelessness, mind wandering, etc, can cause errors that are of no significance. What to look for is pattern, a sustained pattern. Regardless of the level of knowledge of punctuation rules an individual has, that individual will follow a pattern consistent with that knowledge, or the lack of it. That individual will not just make a mistake, but will repeat that same mistake in a similar circumstance throughout. Any convincing deception must necessarily abide by this premise. LW did not. Instead of setting a pattern away from her own, and sticking with the pattern with consistent error, she, in conjunction with correct punctuation in substantial areas, chose random interjection.
There are very few spelling errors in the letters. Other than the horrendous punctuation, sentence structure as to content and form is adequate; at least, most of the time. The punctuation errors are horribly incongruent with the level of knowledge required for all other parts of the construction. This indicates that the punctuation errors were consciously deliberate.
Since LW says that she intends to keep her identity secret, it is no surprise to find an alteration of writing style, or change in punctuation. The fact that she felt the need to change punctuation indicates that her normal punctuation was visible to the correspondents. The most likely places are websites and\or forums. So, when LW said she never has posted to a forum and never will, there's a pretty good chance its a lie.
LW evidences a fondness for semicolons in the place of periods, but by far, the most blatant punctuation abuse is the use, that is, misuse of the comma. There are errors in this area of a type that I can't recall ever seeing even once before. To see such quantity and an endless parade of such rare errors is more than strange. Here are a few samples of the many available:
Some have described in detail, how they killed JonBenet.
I have been told by my friends who frequent the forums, that they are full of hate for the Ramsey family,I cannot imagine any human being even remotely familiar with the concept, punctuation, performing that horribly. How then can this be explained? Answer: Random interjection.
to have the full version of my theory posted to another forum, by a friend of mine.
99% of all the people I have talked to, think I am Patricia Ramsey.
You might notice that I refer to JonBenet's death as, torture.
Apparently, LW feared identity trace by linguistic analysis which is pattern dependent. However, the random interjection IS the pattern of LW.
What is a given in this circumstance is that we know that the random interjections arrive with the arrival of LW. In other words, the random interjections start with a character assumption. This means the creator of the character apparently wants to get away from her usual writing style and usual manner of punctuation in an effort to deceive as to the source of the missive.
We now have as a hypothesis that the shift from self to assuming a character means a shift to random interjection in regard to punctuation. This sets up an interesting question: Are there other created characters that prompt the random interjection of commas? We have already established that LW, that is, the creator of the character, LW, is heavy into character assumption. So, this sets up the possibility and probability that the creator of LW is also the creator of other characters. If so, what is the best place to look to find out?
Ramsey supporter, sees self as close link to Ramsey family, highly visible on the Internet in the circle of Ramsey investigation and discussion, (reason for disguise) and more than usual interest in getting into character. All of these characteristic point directly toward Jameson.
"Max on the DNA"
Posted by jameson on May-25-00 at 06:13 AM (EST)
Here's the email from Max:
"The question therefore is: "Where do you find a totally random, and accessible, source of DNA between late night Christmas and early morning, that's convenient and possibly untraceable?"
An inappropriate comma before the word, that, is found often in the letters.
Small samples can be misleading; so, let's look at a very large sample in its entirety.
15 . "from N"
Posted by jams on Jun-02-00 at 07:51 PM (EST)
Jameson, My name is ***** ****. I am a Mother and a Grandmother. I am a Widow (My Husband died in 99). I have never believed the Ramseys were Guilty of their little Girl's Murder. I could not see that a Child, who appeared so loved and cherished, as She did, being killed by Her Parents or any other close Family Member. I have always maintained to anyone I talk to, in Person, or on the Computor, my feelings about this. I think Mrand Mrs Ramsey, were treated very shabby by the Media., and Talk Shows. I don,t know the People, but I think its sad that nowadays, some folks, like them, instead of being"innocent till proven Guilty", its the other way around. It struck me strange that People were so willing to believe them guilty(With no REAL Proof), but, on the other hand, even with all the Proof (DNA,etc.) a large number of People refused to believe O.J. Simpson was guilty, as I truly believe HE WAS. I think the Ramsey's have conducted themselves amazingly well, considering all that has happened. They really have had to do their their grieving Publicly, which is a shame. My Husband died after a lengthy illness and that was hard, but I can only imagine how it must have been for them, losing their beautiful little Girl so tragically. A couple of things I would like to mention, that I have never heard expounded on, and have wondered about are these two things; On one of the Shows on AandE, the Investigation Show with Bill Kurtis, it was brought out that there was an Entrance Door, somewhere in that Boulder House that was left unlocked that night, all night, I might add. So an Intruder(Perhaps even Someone they knew, who left incidentals, such as the Note on her Pad with Her Pen that could make them appear Guilty) could get in and not have to break in. Also it had to be Someone with intimate Knowledge of the Bonus Mr Ramsy received, and knew the House Layout, which has been brought out. The Person could have been there while they were away, writing the Note etc. and waited hidden till they went to Bed. Also, I have heard that there was a Pedophile who lived close to them, and I wondered if He was really thoroughly investigated? It is my own personal belief, that someone was either jealous of one or both of the Ramseys, or Perhaps even jealous over the success of Jon Benet's success in Pageants. I have to say, I have seen many pretty, and goodlooking Children, but I believe without a doubt that this Child was the most beautiful little Girl I ever saw. I believe its her sweet little Face and the fact of such an untimely grisley Death that haunts People. I know I'll never meet the Ramseys, but I would like them to know that there is one Lady, in *******, Va who has believed and will continue to believe in their Innocence......And I wish them to have Peace ,as best as possible N (end post)
The gross misuse of capital letters comes across as something of a joke. It has the essence of a word misspelled as an advertising gimmick. I short, the document doesn't ring true. Anyone sufficiently literate to compose such a document will also be aware of at least a basic rule or two governing the use of small case and capitals. In view of the wanton and repeated disregard of even the most basic rules of capitalizing, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe this absurd and extensive random capitalization is honest error.
If taken in seriousness at all, I am left to conclude that it is a childlike attempt to deceive, to hide knowledge of punctuation held by the writer. The logically implied purpose is to induce the reader to conclude that the writer is someone other than the actual author.
The punctuation errors are no less absurd and prompt the same conclusion. The deliberate act of randomly inserting commas, etc. where they don't belongs is self-defeating in the effort to deceive. Fix in mind the actual purpose of punctuating elements such as period, colon, semicolon, and comma. Now apply the purpose of these punctuating marks to the random and wanton misuse in the document; that is, let your mind move with the punctuation with stops, starts, pauses long and pauses short as dictated by the punctuation. There is no continuity, no consistent thought flow corresponding to reality. Ergo, we wind up with incoherent syntax.
It appears that the writer, with knowledge of correct punctuation, concluded that any and every incorrect punctuation would serve to point away from self as the creator of the document. It has the opposite effect. Without selective restraint, the interjection of a comma often ends up between a subject and verb without dependent clause, between a preposition and its object, before the word, that, when that is used as introduction, and other equally absurd placements. No individual even slightly aware of punctuation would honestly make errors of this type and frequency. Thus is the attempted deceit again exposed.
Although the writer intended to create a diversion away from self as the author, said writer, by random error, i.e., the undisciplined insertion of punctuation marks, created a document so unique that it has no application except to its creator. It is so unique that it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to find parallel punctuation in another document. However, I have encountered one other set of documents that are an unmistakable match: The LW letters.
Allegedly, the document inserted herein is an email contribution by writer "N", who appears to be a kindred spirit of Max. Since we have already concluded that the document is fraudulent, the high probability is that "N" is a fraud as well; that is, does not exist as a real person. This shifts the focus to Jameson who submitted the letter as constructed by "N."
In the interest of accuracy and fairness, I sincerely seek evidence opposing the conclusions above. If any person can show me any document apart from these sources that pre-date this analysis, and evidences the punctuation errors in focus in substantial degree, I will re-examine my conclusion and stand corrected if necessary. Barring the production of such evidence, I am logically obliged to conclude that LW and Jameson are one.
LW departed from the correspondence scene in November of 1999, but she was not forgotten.
Posted by jams on May-20-00 at 09:08 PM (EST)
On another thread, someone asked about Patricia.
In 1999, someone pretended they were Patsy Ramsey and emailed some posters. The person went on and on about the person they thought killed JonBenét. The posters were sympathetic to a point but alternated that sympathy with accusations - went on and on about how they thought Patricia was jameson or about how Patricia shouldn't trust me. Did she know I had a TimeLine? (LOL - what idiots!)
Later in the post, Jameson goes on to say:
The Patricia chapter is a weird one. A puzzle that may never be
solved. After reading the letters on-line, I have an idea who it was - I think it is someone who was in email contact with me long ago. And I believe I know the motive for all of that mail. Unfortunately, it was not handled properly - Patricia was ultimately betrayed, the evidence is on-line - and so will probably never reveal herself."
Jameson did not say what she thought the motive was for Patricia to write the letters. Misty posted an inquiry about this and did not receive an answer.
It appears that initially LW gave the impression that she did not know Jameson, high profile that she was. Each mention of Jameson in the correspondence was brushed aside in one way or another.
Bye and bye, LW said:
I'm sorry, but I am not going to address anything that she has to say with an answer. I dare her to write to me, personally.
Well, it finally happened. Jameson concluded her post with:
'Patricia - if you are who I think.... you know I tried. Things have changed - what was a negative before is a positive now. Let me know if you want to move forward.
I have no idea what the negative\positive stuff is about, but I do wonder: Did Jameson get a response from Patricia? :)
For further information on the Patricia letters, visit ACandyRose's website here
For additional essays by Delmar England:
Gods and Government: The Twin Perils
Various articles relating to the Ramsey murder case