Why was JonBenet never referred by her name in the RN?

[shill]

That's something we haven't talked much about at all, the total lack of referring to JonBenet by name in the ransom note.

I know a few of us feel this was an act of revenge against John and it wasn't about JB.
IMO the lack of using JonBenet's name in the note shows a disinterest in JB and only an interest about John and his company and his behavior with no direction of anger towards Patsy, JB, or Burke.

[LindaA]

Because the writer didn't know how to spell it or didn't know exactly what it was. IMO.

[LadyFisher]

That's something we haven't talked much about at all, the total lack of referring to JonBenet by name in the ransom note.

I know a few of us feel this was an act of revenge against John and it wasn't about JB.
IMO the lack of using JonBenet's name in the note shows a disinterest in JB and only an interest about John and his company and his behavior with no direction of anger towards Patsy, JB, or Burke.

I don't think the perp really knew how to spell it....it certainly isn't a common name....although I think it was a beautiful name! jmho I don't think he did have anger at Patsy or the children....but the coward decided to harm the smallest one in the family.....he didn't have the ba((s to confront John directly! jmho

[Mikie]

That's something we haven't talked much about at all, the total lack of referring to JonBenet by name in the ransom note.

I know a few of us feel this was an act of revenge against John and it wasn't about JB.
IMO the lack of using JonBenet's name in the note shows a disinterest in JB and only an interest about John and his company and his behavior with no direction of anger towards Patsy, JB, or Burke.

Because if you study previous notes you will see that it is done that way. The kidnappers must remain annonymous, and give no sign that they are familiar, even if they are, which is generally the case.

[LindaA]

Interesting observation, Mikie. I wonder why that is.

[Jayelles]

Because her killer hated her with a passion?

[LindaA]

How could a 6 year old inspire that much hate? Perhaps because he hated her family with a passion.

[Athena]

Interesting observation, Mikie. I wonder why that is.

Other similar ransom notes:

Hauptman note: Lindbergh case:
Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ann/Ransom.htm

LaMarca Note: Weinberger Case
Attention,'' it said. ``I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter.''

It demanded $2,000 in small bills. The money was to be placed in a brown envelope and left near the Weinberger home, next to a signpost at Albemarle Road and Park Avenue, at 10 o'clock the next morning.

http://tinyurl.com/y2ggod


William Hance - Gail Jackson case:
The letters were signed "Forces of Evil," a fictitious group the appellant had created. The second of these letters received by the Chief of Police demanded either the apprehension of the Columbus strangler or a $10,000 ransom in return for the victim's safety. In addition, the appellant found an Army Cap with a different unit insignia than his unit and placed this near the crime scene, also in order to avert suspicion.

http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/8449/

Comments on the Gail Jackson note and comparison to the Ramsey note:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/E...46/ransom.html

Attached was a note written in pencil on brown parcel-wrapping paper. It began:

"Mr. Cudahy: We have kidnapped your child and demand $25,000 for his safe return. If you give us the money he will return as safe as when you last saw him, but if you refuse, we will put acid in his eyes and blind him."

The note continued with a number of threats....

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangster...napping/3.html

[Athena]

How could a 6 year old inspire that much hate? Perhaps because he hated her family with a passion.

IMO the perp wanted to hurt JR very badly..... and JBR was just a symbol of the hatred he had for John.

[Melungeon]

I suspect her name was not mentioned because of "distancing." It hurt too much to use her name. Anybody that can spell attache' should have been able to find something in the home that indicated how to spell JonBenet

[Athena]

I suspect her name was not mentioned because of "distancing." It hurt too much to use her name. Anybody that can spell attache' should have been able to find something in the home that indicated how to spell JonBenet

Ya know what's funny Mel is that there is no accent mark over the e in attache - it is just the end of the letter "y" above it. I think I posted this months back - but I asked kids how to spell attache and MOST of them were able to sans the accent mark.

[Evening2]

Ya know what's funny Mel is that there is no accent mark over the e in attache - it is just the end of the letter "y" above it. I think I posted this months back - but I asked kids how to spell attache and MOST of them were able to sans the accent mark.

Athena, thee are varying opinions on whether or not there is an accent mark over "attache'". I, for one, believe there is.

It's my opinion that the reason JonBenet's name isn't in the note is because the "story" is not about JonBenet.

[starlite]

I agree with mikie.If they had used her name,it would appear that they were too familiar with the Ramseys,and by not using her name, they could claim they were this small group that belonged to a foreign faction. It was simply an attempt to mislead. JMO

[shill]

I agree with mikie.If they had used her name,it would appear that they were too familiar with the Ramseys,and by not using her name, they could claim they were this small group that belonged to a foreign faction. It was simply an attempt to mislead. JMO

But they show a familiarity about John in the note that shows they certainly aren't hiding the fact they are no strangers to John's persona, but they seem clueless to his daughters name. IMO.

[Sharon]

But they show a familiarity about John in the note that shows they certainly aren't hiding the fact they are no strangers to John's persona, but they seem clueless to his daughters name. IMO.

And more than that, they dont say anything personal about her even in sarcasm. Might you have expected a comment about her `pretty head` or something of that nature. imo

[Jayelles]

I posted this on another thread, but it I thought I was posting on this thread:-

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showp...&postcount=218

[Eagle1]

I'd like to point out that Patsy was omitted from the RN.

Both females' names were omitted.

Someone might like to google the word Misonygist.

There are guys who believe females simply don't count, who interpret the Bible as proof and may pretend to be super religious. They say the devil quotes more scriptures than anyone, but perverts and misuses.

Years ago, for a while, some families' church bulletins were addressed only to the man. Anyone else ever heard of such a thing. I don't know if there was any outcry.

Crossing out Mr. and Mrs. on the first note, not discarded, and rewriting it to John only I believe was to make sure it would be noticed that he wanted to insult the females in the family by leaving out their names.

I've mentioned before that I "may have" known someone years ago about whom people said he accused a woman of having been a "star" and beauty queen, a failure become sociopath trying to sabotage her career and accomplishments, claiming it was pride, that she needed humbling. All in his own head, obviously, but like Manson, who we're told is a RARE type, he could get others to carry out his ideas, show women who's boss, even pay out large bribes, I really think. IMO if the housekeeper's husband was involved, it would have been for money, and he may have been drinking more than usual (?) when he blurted out, "Was she strangled?" Just guessing, no source.

[andU]

Because if you study previous notes you will see that it is done that way. The kidnappers must remain annonymous, and give no sign that they are familiar, even if they are, which is generally the case.

Ahh, but they did imply that they knew John well ... and his company!

[andU]

I'd like to point out that Patsy was omitted from the RN.

Both females' names were omitted.

Someone might like to google the word Misonygist.

There are guys who believe females simply don't count, who interpret the Bible as proof and may pretend to be super religious. They say the devil quotes more scriptures than anyone, but perverts and misuses.

Years ago, for a while, some families' church bulletins were addressed only to the man. Anyone else ever heard of such a thing. I don't know if there was any outcry.

Crossing out Mr. and Mrs. on the first note, not discarded, and rewriting it to John only I believe was to make sure it would be noticed that he wanted to insult the females in the family by leaving out their names.

I've mentioned before that I "may have" known someone years ago about whom people said he accused a woman of having been a "star" and beauty queen, a failure become sociopath trying to sabotage her career and accomplishments, claiming it was pride, that she needed humbling. All in his own head, obviously, but like Manson, who we're told is a RARE type, he could get others to carry out his ideas, show women who's boss, even pay out large bribes, I really think. IMO if the housekeeper's husband was involved, it would have been for money, and he may have been drinking more than usual (?) when he blurted out, "Was she strangled?" Just guessing, no source.

Shill also pointed out that Muslims treat women in this manner; they are property, not beings with any rights.

[Sharon]

Ahh, but they did imply that they knew John well ... and his company!

My first best guess, is that the perp was in the house because he had an agenda against John. He wrote the note before the attack and murder while the family were out. He knew that J. had a daughter that was going to be his target that night. He figured out where her room was etc, and where he was going to take her etc in a rough way. He had some ideas of what he was going to do, but also was going to go with the flow. He had no idea of the girls name, nor did he care to find out. It was unimportant. Also, they never wrote the girls name in those films, she was always just in the background. The fantasy wasnt about the girl, it was about the father, and bringing this fat cat down. It was a `mans` story. imo

Another idea......She was the sacrifice, the punishment, like in the Bible, they punish the parent by killing the child. But the child is unimportant in this context, the child exists just to be the vehicle in which to punish the parent. imo

[LindaA]

I would have to agree that it's not for the usual reason of not giving away a familiarity with the victim's family. I'm still of the opinion that John was the reason for the crime. As a successful businessman he most certainly made decisions over ethe years that hurt individuals. How well were those people investigated? Evey comment in the note was about or directed to JR.

I also don't agree that this was about petty jealousies among PTA moms. Did one of them do it? I don't think so. I've never thought a woman did it at all. Did they hire a hit man? That doesn't seem likely either. Not that these PTA moms aren't above revenge for real or imagined slights or advantages, but their methods are far more subtle. I don't think they would have the stomach for what was done to JBR. JMO.

[andU]

But, don't forget that we are talking about Boulder. The eccentrics, the elite, the 'at any lengths' group of people that are not like our neighbors. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, but I believe that Boulder-ites live beyond what any of us might call 'normal' lives. They are 'important' people; the rest of the citizens of the good ol' USA just take up space, in their opinions - and this is my opinion.

[Jayelles]

I would have to agree that it's not for the usual reason of not giving away a familiarity with the victim's family. I'm still of the opinion that John was the reason for the crime. As a successful businessman he most certainly made decisions over ethe years that hurt individuals. How well were those people investigated? Evey comment in the note was about or directed to JR.

I also don't agree that this was about petty jealousies among PTA moms. Did one of them do it? I don't think so. I've never thought a woman did it at all.

What might seem like a "petty jealousy" to you and I could be a massive issue to an obssessed and mentally unbalanced person. From time to time we hear about someone getting murdered because they parked their car in the wrong place, or because they looked at someone the wrong way. A mentally unstable person can lash out at any imagined slight.

I've always thought this murder had the hallmarks of a woman.

Did they hire a hit man? That doesn't seem likely either. Not that these PTA moms aren't above revenge for real or imagined slights or advantages, but their methods are far more subtle. I don't think they would have the stomach for what was done to JBR. JMO.

Yet you would appear to entertain FWDI and SDI theories. What makes you think that the McSantas or Fleet White had the stomach for it? What is there, in their history, which would make it conceivable that they had the stomach to do this (as opposed to some as yet unnamed person)?

[Evening2]

What might seem like a "petty jealousy" to you and I could be a massive issue to an obssessed and mentally unbalanced person. From time to time we hear about someone getting murdered because they parked their car in the wrong place, or because they looked at someone the wrong way. A mentally unstable person can lash out at any imagined slight.

I've always thought this murder had the hallmarks of a woman.

Yet you would appear to entertain FWDI and SDI theories. What makes you think that the McSantas or Fleet White had the stomach for it? What is there, in their history, which would make it conceivable that they had the stomach to do this (as opposed to some as yet unnamed person)?

Jayelle's, if what you said in your post, that the crime seems to point to a woman, then why on earth would you dismiss Janet McReynolds as suspect? That makes NO sense to me.

[nuisanceposter]

What might seem like a "petty jealousy" to you and I could be a massive issue to an obssessed and mentally unbalanced person. From time to time we hear about someone getting murdered because they parked their car in the wrong place, or because they looked at someone the wrong way. A mentally unstable person can lash out at any imagined slight.

<snip>

And this is exactly what many speculate was the issue with the killer - it was a man who encountered JR at some point, perhaps through business, and due to being mentally imbalanced, perceived an action or comment as a slight that ultimately evolved into the abuse and murder of his youngest child.

Why couldn't that have happened with a female instead of a male...perhaps someone who encountered the R family through school, or pageants, or at lessons/rehearsals for activities that JonBenet was in? I also believe this crime has hallmarks of a woman, especially the RN with its cordial and conversational tone. "Two gentlemen" and "be well rested", indeed.

Addressing JR in the RN and not Patsy or JB would be a pretty good way to throw off the crime being about P and JB....hmmm, makes me think of the "practice" RN, with Mr and Mrs I (not quite an R when the writer stopped writing and discarded it) as the heading. Was that really a "practice" RN, that was rejected in favor of just addressing JR? If so, why did the author decide to address just JR and not Mr and Mrs R?

[Mikie]

And this is exactly what many speculate was the issue with the killer - it was a man who encountered JR at some point, perhaps through business, and due to being mentally imbalanced, perceived an action or comment as a slight that ultimately evolved into the abuse and murder of his youngest child.

Why couldn't that have happened with a female instead of a male...perhaps someone who encountered the R family through school, or pageants, or at lessons/rehearsals for activities that JonBenet was in? I also believe this crime has hallmarks of a woman, especially the RN with its cordial and conversational tone. "Two gentlemen" and "be well rested", indeed.

Addressing JR in the RN and not Patsy or JB would be a pretty good way to throw off the crime being about P and JB....hmmm, makes me think of the "practice" RN, with Mr and Mrs I (not quite an R when the writer stopped writing and discarded it) as the heading. Was that really a "practice" RN, that was rejected in favor of just addressing JR? If so, why did the author decide to address just JR and not Mr and Mrs R?

I think of the writing of the note as something akin to writing a research paper or thesis. It took some research of previous notes as well as research of movie lines that would fit. The impression I get is that it was not a single writer but several, sitting around a table, throwing out ideas. Maybe one person wrote Mr. and Mrs. and then someone stopped him and reminded him of the annonymity necessity. The movie "Speed" gives the tone of a madman bent on revenge against "John". The idea of a "Dear John" letter is nothing unique. The idea to be "well rested" brings memories of Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry", running all over town, picking up pay phones. So maybe it was a sort of letter by commitee, with input from several who liked that type of movie.

Incidentally, it was in McReynold's obituary that I read this:
Colleagues and students remember that his teaching didn’t stop outside the classroom. Former journalism professor Ardyth Sohn recalled McReynolds dragging her away from grading papers to “play hooky.” McReynolds took her to see movies or go on long walks, pointing out the flora along the way.

Wonder what movies they saw? Ramsom? Speed? Dirty Harry?

And of course Janet was a film critic so she saw all those.

[Jayelles]

Jayelle's, if what you said in your post, that the crime seems to point to a woman, then why on earth would you dismiss Janet McReynolds as suspect? That makes NO sense to me.

As I have said before, I can see no motive for this elderly grandmother to have left her mountain home on Christmas Day and driven through rugged mountain countryside - possibly through snow - to break into a house and take a young child she'd only met once from her bed and murder her.

Yes I dismiss Janet McReynolds - outright. There is no evidence to link her to the crime, she has an alibi, no history or pathology and no apparent motive for committing this deed.

[Mikie]

As I have said before, I can see no motive for this elderly grandmother to have left her mountain home on Christmas Day and driven through rugged mountain countryside - possibly through snow - to break into a house and take a young child she'd only met once from her bed and murder her.

Yes I dismiss Janet McReynolds - outright. There is no evidence to link her to the crime, she has an alibi, no history or pathology and no apparent motive for committing this deed.

Right. All she did was write a play about a girl murdered in a basement, repeatedly said JonBenet "deserved to die" on national TV, and was married to a man who was very fond of her. Now how could those possibly be relevant?

[Evening2]

As I have said before, I can see no motive for this elderly grandmother to have left her mountain home on Christmas Day and driven through rugged mountain countryside - possibly through snow - to break into a house and take a young child she'd only met once from her bed and murder her.

Yes I dismiss Janet McReynolds - outright. There is no evidence to link her to the crime, she has an alibi, no history or pathology and no apparent motive for committing this deed.

She wasn't elderly - she was 62 - same age as me and I'm FAR from elderly! If she had some health problems, I KNOW we would have heard about them in much the same way we heard about Bill's health, over, and over, and over again!

They live a mere 15 miles from Boulder and unless someone shows me that the roads were closed or treacherous due to snow, I have no reason to believe they couldn't have, and in fact, didn't, make that short run that night.

She has NO alibi and you know it, and it was that lack of an alibi for each of them that keeps them on the suspect list, along with all the other things that you can't seem to figure out.

As far as her pathology, after reading more than a thousand pages of her thesis, dissertation and the majority of her plays and her novel, "i have a great desire", I'd say there IS pathology.

Motive for anyone with strong pathology, who believes in fate and destiny more than reality, might be something difficult to understand, but that doesn't mean their motive isn't real, at least to them.

This is, of course, MY opinion.

[Jayelles]

Right. All she did was write a play about a girl murdered in a basement, repeatedly said JonBenet "deserved to die" on national TV, and was married to a man who was very fond of her. Now how could those possibly be relevant?

They aren't IMVHO.

The play was written twenty years before JonBenet was murdered.

The comments about Jonbenet "derserving to die" were not Janet McReynolds opinion but rather her disgusted impression of the media's portrayal of her pageant life and murder.

I don't know what santa Bill's being fond of Janet (or Jonbenet - hard to tell from your wording which you intend) has to do with anything. I'm sure plenty of people were fond of Jonbenet. It isn't a strong motive for murder and it certainly isn't evidence.

If you have any REAL evidence that the McReynolds were involved in JonBenet's murder, then post it and I'll be happy to discuss it but I'm tired of debating this fantasy santa theory which is far fetched beyond imagine (IMO).

[Jayelles]

She wasn't elderly - she was 62 - same age as me and I'm FAR from elderly! If she had some health problems, I KNOW we would have heard about them in much the same way we heard about Bill's health, over, and over, and over again!

They live a mere 15 miles from Boulder and unless someone shows me that the roads were closed or treacherous due to snow, I have no reason to believe they couldn't have, and in fact, didn't, make that short run that night.

She has NO alibi and you know it, and it was that lack of an alibi for each of them that keeps them on the suspect list, along with all the other things that you can't seem to figure out.

As far as her pathology, after reading more than a thousand pages of her thesis, dissertation and the majority of her plays and her novel, "i have a great desire", I'd say there IS pathology.

Motive for anyone with strong pathology, who believes in fate and destiny more than reality, might be something difficult to understand, but that doesn't mean their motive isn't real, at least to them.

This is, of course, MY opinion.

None of this is evidence IMO. It is my opinion that this is just a far fetched theory based on conjecture and a lot of speculation and fantasising (IMO).

[thewhitewitch1]

They aren't IMVHO.

The play was written twenty years before JonBenet was murdered.

The comments about Jonbenet "derserving to die" were not Janet McReynolds opinion but rather her disgusted impression of the media's portrayal of her pageant life and murder.

I don't know what santa Bill's being fond of Janet (or Jonbenet - hard to tell from your wording which you intend) has to do with anything. I'm sure plenty of people were fond of Jonbenet. It isn't a strong motive for murder and it certainly isn't evidence.

If you have any REAL evidence that the McReynolds were involved in JonBenet's murder, then post it and I'll be happy to discuss it but I'm tired of debating this fantasy santa theory which is far fetched beyond imagine (IMO).

I couldn't agree more.

[Evening2]

None of this is evidence IMO. It is my opinion that this is just a far fetched theory based on conjecture and a lot of speculation and fantasising (IMO).

I guess that's what Mary-Keenan-Lacy and others in LE were doing as well when they placed and to this day keep the McReynolds on the top of the suspect list. Just speculation and fantasy - my oh my!

[thewhitewitch1]

She wasn't elderly - she was 62 - same age as me and I'm FAR from elderly! If she had some health problems, I KNOW we would have heard about them in much the same way we heard about Bill's health, over, and over, and over again!

They live a mere 15 miles from Boulder and unless someone shows me that the roads were closed or treacherous due to snow, I have no reason to believe they couldn't have, and in fact, didn't, make that short run that night.

She has NO alibi and you know it, and it was that lack of an alibi for each of them that keeps them on the suspect list, along with all the other things that you can't seem to figure out.

As far as her pathology, after reading more than a thousand pages of her thesis, dissertation and the majority of her plays and her novel, "i have a great desire", I'd say there IS pathology.

Motive for anyone with strong pathology, who believes in fate and destiny more than reality, might be something difficult to understand, but that doesn't mean their motive isn't real, at least to them.

This is, of course, MY opinion.

What exactly is Janets "pathology"?
I believe in fate and destiny so what's my "pathology"? I read horror novels and true crime novels. At one time I wrote short stories with horror/murder themes. I am interested in the criminal mind (murderers in particular) and psychology. I must be some kind of sicko. I guess it's only a matter of time before I write a fake kidnapping note and sneak into someones house to murder their child for no particular reason except for the things mentioned above. I think I might wait until I'm 62, though because I am not nearly as inflexible physically, nor suffer from enough aches and pains right now to climb through a window and sneak around under the parent's noses perpetuating this murder of a child that I only met once.

[Evening2]

They aren't IMVHO.

The play was written twenty years before JonBenet was murdered.

The comments about Jonbenet "derserving to die" were not Janet McReynolds opinion but rather her disgusted impression of the media's portrayal of her pageant life and murder.

I don't know what santa Bill's being fond of Janet (or Jonbenet - hard to tell from your wording which you intend) has to do with anything. I'm sure plenty of people were fond of Jonbenet. It isn't a strong motive for murder and it certainly isn't evidence.

If you have any REAL evidence that the McReynolds were involved in JonBenet's murder, then post it and I'll be happy to discuss it but I'm tired of debating this fantasy santa theory which is far fetched beyond imagine (IMO).

Jayelle's, certainly it's evidence. I guess you mean, IYO, it's not evidence they murdered JonBenet. Is THAT what you mean?

If you're tired of discussing and "debating" that, in my and LE's opinion, it is more than likely the McReynolds (both or either) murdered JonBenet, then don't. You are free to debate and discuss anything you want, and we are as well.

[Jayelles]

I guess that's what Mary-Keenan-Lacy and others in LE were doing as well when they placed and to this day keep the McReynolds on the top of the suspect list. Just speculation and fantasy - my oh my!

Where is your proof that the McReynolds are "at the very top of the suspect list"? Do you know that for a fact or is it just your opinion?

[Jayelles]

[/COLOR]

Jayelle's, certainly it's evidence. I guess you mean, IYO, it's not evidence they murdered JonBenet. Is THAT what you mean?

If you're tired of discussing and "debating" that, in my and LE's opinion, it is more than likely the McReynolds (both or either) murdered JonBenet, then don't. You are free to debate and discuss anything you want, and we are as well.

I wish that were true. The fantasy santa theory seems to be dominating practically every thread IMO.

[Evening2]

Where is your proof that the McReynolds are "at the very top of the suspect list"? Do you know that for a fact or is it just your opinion?

I said, in my opinion, but looking back it wasn't quite clear. Yes, that is in my opinion.

[Mikie]

They aren't IMVHO.

The play was written twenty years before JonBenet was murdered.

The comments about Jonbenet "derserving to die" were not Janet McReynolds opinion but rather her disgusted impression of the media's portrayal of her pageant life and murder.

I don't know what santa Bill's being fond of Janet (or Jonbenet - hard to tell from your wording which you intend) has to do with anything. I'm sure plenty of people were fond of Jonbenet. It isn't a strong motive for murder and it certainly isn't evidence.

If you have any REAL evidence that the McReynolds were involved in JonBenet's murder, then post it and I'll be happy to discuss it but I'm tired of debating this fantasy santa theory which is far fetched beyond imagine (IMO).

Good counterarguments, but I think it would be helpful to briefly review the definition of "evidence". Some people may think "evidence" and "proof" are synonyms. They are not. Here's what Webster says:

1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling".

2. An indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear".

3. (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

There is no such thing as "real" evidence and "not real" evidence. Either something is evidence, that is, it is "basis for belief", an "indication", or it is not. You probably thought "evidence" is the same as "proof" when you wrote the above. Wrong.

[Jayelles]

Good counterarguments, but I think it would be helpful to briefly review the definition of "evidence". Some people may think "evidence" and "proof" are synonyms. They are not. Here's what Webster says:

1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling".

2. An indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear".

3. (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

There is no such thing as "real" evidence and "not real" evidence. Either something is evidence, that is, it is "basis for belief", an "indication", or it is not. You probably thought "evidence" is the same as "proof" when you wrote the above. Wrong.

OK - evidence which would stand up in court.