Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Four Points of Study of the Jonbenet Ramsey Case



Question:  Do you think the Jonbenet Ramsey case will ever be officially solved?

Answer:   I do not.  

Question:  What do you think actually happened to Jonbenet?

Answer:    I will address this in the fourth segment in this series, and ask for readers to contribute.  

It is important for new readers to know my opinion before going further with me, via the blog and the radio show.  There are four areas of study of which we can view this case.  I limit to these because they are readily available to us, even while forensics are debated. 

I believe that from the abundance of the human heart, the mouth will speak words that will guide us, even when it is a heart full of lies.  When one lies, one must find the words to use, and even these words give us information. 

I believe in Statement Analysis.  

This does not mean that every analyst is correct, or that someone who jumps to conclusions will remain accurate.  

Not at all. 

But given enough sample, and a healthy dose of common sense, and we can know. 

We know. 

It doesn't mean it is proof before a court, however. 

I believe in the reliable denial.  

Over the years, there have simply been too many cases in which the truly innocent (not judicially innocent) person could say "I didn't do it" but went out of his way to avoid these simple words.  It is what guilty people do.  

I also believe in the SCAN technique as it is best to show that deception is found in intent. It is only when someone wishes to conceal information, for the purpose of deception, that the language gives us the strong indication. 

When taken with the basics of Behavioral Analysis, when we have enough sample (statements), it is a powerful guide to truth. 

Back to the Ramsey case. 

Do you still wish to approach it with an open mind?  Would you look at, with us here at Statement Analysis:

The 911 call?
The Ransom note?
The behavior of the parents?
The televised interviews of the parents?

I don't ask you to simply look at one thing and make a conclusion, but to look at the larger picture, and take these matters as a whole. You might dismiss, the parents' behavior as in shock or that, given their economic status, having lawyer friends was simply part of their reference point in life. 

This is fine. 

Yet it is ("and hence") that it can be explained away, as most things can be...when isolated. 

But what as a whole?  

These four points of study are critical.  

I believe that justice was perverted from the very beginning and Alex Hunter and later, Mary Lacy, did not dare go up against the likes of Lin Wood and the other Ramsey attorneys.  50% of the secrets died with Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey will not be prosecuted.  

That Boulder police were inexperienced in homicides was a good thing for the citizens, and the criticism that was put upon them was overblown by the DA's office.  

James Kolar has written a book on the case found here at  Amazon.

Former Det. Steve Thomas also wrote about the case.  

From the beginning, the Ramseys did not cooperate, and hid behind an attorney.  From the beginning, the DA's office sought to blame an intruder.  They did not dare go up in a court battle which the entire nation would have watched.  

If we follow the case naturally, there is much to learn from it.  The case began, for us, with the 911 call.  From there, we can move to the Ransom note. 

I.  Is the 911 call a genuine call for help?  If not, the language points to the Ramseys as responsible, together, for the death and cover up of Jonbenet. 

II.  Is the Ransom note from the Ramseys?  If so, it is to cover up what happened to Jonbenet.  

III.  Is the behavior of the Ramseys (behavioral analysis) that of innocent parents desperate to find their daughter's killer, or does the behavior indicate the desire to cover up what happened and cloud the issues?

IV.  In the interviews given on television, are the Ramseys honest or are they dishonest and deceptive?  If they are deceptive, it points then to the fact that deceptive people need to deceive people. 

These are the basic four areas in which to view the case.  

If you have read the information on Statement Analysis and 911 calls, you likely have said something to yourself like, "Oh, I knew this.  This isn't difficult.  This is common sense."

It is interesting to listen to comments by readership on 911 calls.  It is a mesh of principle and common sense; principle, however, based upon common sense. 

For every 911 call related to a missing person:

1.  Does the caller specifically ask for help for the victim?
2.  Does the caller, for any reason, apologize?
3.  Does the caller take ownership, particularly if the caller is a biological parent?
4.  Statement Analysis proceeds from here...

these are just a few to look at, with two simple ones (1 and 2) to touch upon. 

These are two simple, yet overlooked aspects of analysis.  

"Of course the caller asked for help!"

Statement Analysis does not interpret:  It listens. 

Did the caller ask for help for the victim?  This is important.  The mind moves very fast, dictating what words come out.  Does the caller, instead of asking for help for the victim, ask for help for himself or herself?

Apologies. 

Sometimes, as the mind is racing, a guilty person might say "I'm sorry", expressing regret.  We simply note it.  We do not conclude "guilty caller" on any single indicator, but we do take note, especially if these common sense principles are in play, in number.  

Personal Connection.

There is nothing more up close and personal than a missing child to a mother.  Solomon's wisdom's own display came because he recognized that a mother's language would indicate this closeness
 in such a terrible circumstance. 

Therefore, we expect a mother to say the simple word she has used, literally, millions of times in her life:

the pronoun, "I", singular, 

Put yourself in the caller's shoes.  

If you woke up and your daughter was not in her bed and you found a ransom note, what would be the first thing you say, as biological parent?

I would say, "My daughter is missing!"  This would be the first thing out of my mouth, as a father. 

" I can't find my daughter!  I have this note claiming to have her!"  


911: What is going on there ma’am?

This is the best question:  What is the emergency?  It is open ended and allows the subject to say anything.  At this point, we expect a mother to speak for herself (a missing child is a very personal thing to a mother) and if she is on the phone by herself, the expected pronoun use is:  "I"


PR: We havekidnapping...Hurry, please

The expected:  "My daughter is missing" or "My daughter is kidnapped."  We expect to hear the pronoun, "I" early and often in this call.  

We note first that Patsy Ramsey, mother of alleged kidnapping victim, uses the pronoun, "we" and reports a kidnapping; not that her daughter, Jonbenet, is missing. Statement Analysis of the ransom note shows that it is deceptive; it did not come from a "small foreign faction" and that the writer attempted to disguise herself.  In particular, the unusual and it is improper English:   "and hence" (it is two words that are redundant) was used in it.  It is an unusual phrase and what was quickly found out that it was used at least twice, including a Christmas card written by Patsy Ramsey. 

This links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.  For analysis of the note, please see Mark McClish' work  here  

We expect a mother of a missing child to immediately say "I" as the mother of a missing child is going to take this very personally.  We also expect her to say her daughter is missing, but here, it sounds contrived:  "we have a kidnapping" not only uses the weak, "we", but also is a conclusion.  

Question:  Is this rehearsed?  By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged. 

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for the victim, Jonbenet; not just help itself, or in general.  We expect a mother of a missing 6 year old to use the pronoun "I" as this is very personal and enflames the maternal instinct.  The use of "we" is not strong. 

"We have" does not report Jonbenet missing and it sounds more in line with having an event which is not personal to the mother, but to be shared with others.  


To "have" a kidnapping is a conclusion and it is to accept the situation.  

The expected:  "I can't find my daughter" or "My daughter is missing" and not "we", certainly not "have", that is, an acceptance of anything. 

The "we" is bothersome enough, but for a mother of a missing child to literally accept the 'situation' on the terms of a ransom note, and not to respond with natural denial does not sound realistic. 

Remember, we do not make snap judgments nor do we draw a conclusion on any single indicator:  we allow the analysis to guide us.  


911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?

The initial reaction of the 911 operator has caused the operator to ask for clarification because she has not said "my daughter is missing."

We look for the mother of a missing/kidnapped child to say the pronoun "I" as this is very personal to a mother and inflames the maternal instinct:


PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone

Patsy Ramsey resorts to the pronoun, "we" again.  

The pronoun "we" is often used in an attempt to share guilt. (Dillingham)

A broken sentence means missing information, as she stopped herself.  Why?

"We have a..." sounds like a repetition of the first line, which would suggest rehearsed or coached words.   This means that the operator has already spoken to Patsy Ramsey, the mother, without the mother reporting her daughter missing.  It appears that this was her third sentence which still does not report a missing child. 

 This is the mother of a missing child calling:  we expect maternal instinct to use the pronoun "I" strongly, and ask for help for her daughter, wondering what her daughter must be going through (if she was with kidnappers, particularly a "small foreign faction" holding her.  

Please note "our" daughter is gone. 

The use of the plural "we" is explained by Christopher Dillingham, who states that his research has shown that those who wish to share guilt will instinctively use the plural pronoun, even when speaking only for oneself.  Any parent of a teenager, just like every teacher in school is familiar with this principle.  

Please note that "our" daughter is used when there is a need to 'share' ownership.  This is often seen when step-parenting (or foster/adoption) is involved.  When "our" is used by a family that has no reason to 'share' the child, it may indicate looming divorce.  

A parental instinct to protect is powerful.  Humans are highly possessive, and learn the word "my" and "mine" even predating speech as a toddler.  It is difficult to imagine a stronger bond than mother to child, which is why "my" is the expected. 

Patsy Ramsey's use of the pronoun "we" and "our"  goes against maternal instinct.  

Next take notice that Patsy (the subject) says that there is a "note" here.  This is her choice of wording for the ransom note, and should remain consistent in a truthful statement, unless something in reality changes.  

The reason language changes is that reality changes; with emotions having the greatest impact upon language, especially to cause a non to change.  If there is no change in reality, deception may be present. 

"please" is polite. 

*Note the order showing priority:  the note comes before the daughter.  

Also note that there was a note "left", with the word "left" an unnecessary word giving additional information.  The subject (Patsy) is emphasizing the note.  Why would this be necessary?

Priority:  Here is what we have thus far in the call:

1.  We have a kidnapping.
2.  Hurry, please 
3.  We have a... (broken)
4.  There's a note left

These four things are mentioned before reporting Jonbenet missing.  

5.  "...our daughter is gone."

Question:  Would it take you to point 5 before telling police your daughter was missing?

See:  Misty Croslin's 911 call on missing Haliegh Cummings. 


911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?

Please notice that "note was left" is reflective language, using the subject's language. The 911 operator reflects back the words and the order. 

The note is mentioned before the daughter which indicates the priority is the note more than the daughter.  For those of you who believe Statement Analysis and know that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive in the investigation, this is a good indicator of what she was worried about:  she must make them believe and she is not thinking about the child, but the note.  As author of the note, it would cause her concern.  

PR: Yes.

911: How old is you daughter?
PR: She is six years old she is blonde...six years old

Patsy Ramsey goes beyond the question; she repeats the answer (sensitivity) but adds a physical description in strange terms:

"she is blonde" rather than "she has blonde hair"; when one is described as "blonde" it is often a view of appearance, like "brunette" or "red head" describing someone who's appearance is of importance. 

This may give insight into how Jonbenet was viewed by her mother, even as the child was dressed up like a sexualized Las Vegas showgirl.  At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child. 

Please note that several pictures of Jonbenet suggest bleaching or coloring of the child's hair. 


911: How long ago was this?

PR: I don’t know. Just found a note note and my daughter is missing

Missing pronoun. 

Patsy Ramsey may not have been ready for this question, "how long ago was this?" as she should know exactly how long ago she found the note.  It would be burned in a mother's memory.  To say, 'wouldn't a mother under trauma lose her memory?' is to seek to excuse.  An innocent mother of a missing child is on high alert, with adrenaline flowing, with clarity and 'fight or flight' responses in 'fight' mode, like a mother bear robbed of her whelps.  


Please note the dropped pronoun:  "just found a note...".  When pronouns are dropped, there is a decrease in commitment.  Recent studies have verified what was taught in SCAN for decades:  when pronouns disappear, there is a lack of commitment and more people that drop pronouns are likely to be deceptive.  She did not say that she "just found a note."  She did not lie.  Lying causes stress and here she can communicate about the note without saying "I just found a note" or, consistent with her other sentences, "we just found a note."  The pronouns do not lie. They are instinctive and reliable.  She drops the pronoun and does not commit.  We shall not do it for her. 

The "note" is repeated, but consistent from the first mention of it.  It is a "note" that was "left"; this should not change. 

Please also note a change from "our daughter" to the more natural "my daughter".  What caused the change?

A change in language must reflect a change in reality; otherwise it is an indicator of deception:  the subject is not working from experiential memory and has lost track of the words used. 

Is there any change in reality?  The following is critical:  

"our daughter is gone" but "my daughter is missing."

The shared daughter is "gone" but the personal and up close "my" daughter is missing.  

Is there a difference between Jonbenet being "gone" and Jonbenet being "missing" in reality?

Note the word "just" in context may mean "sudden" and refer to time. 


911: Does it say who took her?
PR: What?

Note that she answers a question with a question.  What is sensitive to Patsy?  The question is "who took her?"  The operator asks again: 


911: Does it say who took her?

PR: No.  I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.

Please note the answer to the question, "does the note say who took her?"

a.  No, even though it says a "small foreign faction" took her.  
b.  I don't know. 

Note the pronoun "I" is now used. 

Note that the note says she was taken by a small foreign faction. 

Please note that the "note" that was "left" has changed language and is now a "ransom note". 

What has caused the change in language from "note left" to a "ransom note"?

The language, if truthful, should remain consistent, unless reality has changed causing the language to change, such as insurance adjusters see:

"My car sputtered so I pulled over.  It would not start.  I left the vehicle on the side of the road. "

The "car" while driving (even if sputtering) changed into a "vehicle" when it would no longer drive.  You can bet that after it is repaired and running, the owner will call it "my car" again and not "the" "vehicle. "

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.  

When something does not come from experiential memory, it is easy to lose track of what words were used, even simple nouns.  Here, there does not appear to be any change in reality, judging by the context. This is a strong indication that the caller is being deceptive about her daughter. 


911: It’s a ransom note?

Please note the reflective language of the 911 operator, instinctively picking up on the change.  It was just a "note" but now it is a "ransom note".  What is the difference between a "note" and a "ransom note"?

The answer is found in reading it.  In reading it, it demands money, but previously, she said, "no" that she did not know, and "I don't know" but by identifying it now as a "ransom note" we have deception on the part of the caller. 

PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please


The subject tells the operator what the "note" and now "ransom note" says.  She is referring to the end of the ransom note now. 

 Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for the victim.  We look to see if the caller asks for help for Jonbenet, herself.  Sometimes guilty people will ask for help for themselves, but not for the victim.  Sometimes the words "I'm sorry" slip into their language indicating it was on the mind.  

911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...

PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.

The 911 operator may have been about to ask her if she was the mother. 
Note "please" still does not ask for help for her daughter, who is alleged by the mother, to be in the hands of kidnappers."


911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?
PR: Please.


911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my God Please.

Critical portion.  

Extra words give us additional information.  

Note that in Dr. Susan Adam's study, guilty callers did not ask for help for the victim, pleading, but not for the victim.  
Some guilty callers asked for help for their own selves, but not for the victim. 

Please note the question is answered about how long she has been gone:

a.  No
b.  I don't  

The subject gives two answers; the first is "no", but then she adds the broken sentence, which indicates missing information. 

Pronouns do not lie and are reliable for the analyst. 

Please note that "we just got up" is additional information. 

 What is the purpose?  The time has been sought by the 911 operator.  This sentence, "we just go up" is very very important.  By offering this, it shows that she is concerned with alibi building; making sure, even without being asked, that police know that they just go it:   Attempt to lead police into thinking that they were both asleep.  

She does not say that they were sleeping.  What does the inclusion provoke?

"We got up" would cause investigators to think that "we", John and Patsy, were likely up all night.  There is no reason to offer this information.  Note the pronouns. 

Why use the word "we" when this should be something very personal to a mother, who, if her daughter was kidnapped, would be filled with sole purpose:  saving her daughter.  The word "we" is not expected here, and should be viewed under Dillingham's research:  the sharing of guilt. 

But also note the importance to the caller that the police believe that they both just got up.  

This is not asked in the question.  The operator did not say "were you sleeping?"  It would be presumed that they were sleeping and not that they would be awake and allow their daughter to be kidnapping.  It is, therefore, needless information.  

This sentence is very very important. 

What do we make of needless information in Statement Analysis?  We recognize how important it is to the subject, who included it, therefore, it is vital to our analysis. 

It represents a need to persuade.  It is needless information, therefore, doubly important.  It is alibi building and because it was offered, has suggested that they were up all night.  

Please note that it was learned that Patsy Ramsey, known for vanity, was in the same clothes that morning that she was in the night before at a party.  We have linguistic indication that she was up all night, and then we have the clothing confirming the wording and the need to persuade that in order to "get up" they would have had to have gone to sleep.  She did not say they were asleep and we will not say it for her.  It is likely that they did not sleep that night. 

Question:  Why would a parent need to tell police that she and her husband were asleep during a kidnapping since it could happen no other way?

Answer:  Because they did not go to sleep.  

911: Ok.
PR: Please send somebody.

Who does the subject want to come out for her kidnapped daughter?  The FBI kidnapping team?  A whole army of police to rescue Jonbenet from the small foreign faction who have her?

Answer:  "somebody" is singular. 


911: I am, honey.
PR: Please.

Note that in this call, there is not specific request for help for the victim.  

911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).
PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).
911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

(Patsy reportedly said "Help me, Jesus" repeatedly here.  See note below)

It is believed, according to police, that at this point, the call did not disconnect and Patsy Ramsey spoke to her son, Burke, whom she later said was sleeping. Detective Steve Thomas found this vital because it showed that Patsy was lying, from the beginning.  

It is, however, not necessary, as this initial contact with police showed deception. 

Trust the pronouns. 

Pronouns and articles are used by us more than any other words and are engrained within us from the earliest days of speech.  Pronouns can solve crimes all by themselves.  

When parents are seated together, speaking as one, they will use the plural, but in a time of emergency, there is no "sharing" of a child, but maternal instinct, measured in words dating back to the time of Solomon's display of wisdom using analysis, indicate the closeness between mother and child.  

The pronouns bring  initial doubt to the caller's veracity, which then the change of language confirms:

This is a deceptive call to 911 that does not ask for help for its victim.  

She is reported to have said "help me, Jesus" in the background, highlighting the principle that a guilty caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim, and will often ask for help, for herself.  

There is distancing language as the name is not used until asked. 
There is alibi building with "we just got up";
There is priority seen with the "note", having not read it, but then changing it to a "ransom note" which demands payment for a child.  The "ransom note" is, here in the 911 call, sensitive to Patsy Ramsey, connecting her with it. 

The 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey is a deceptive call. 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nltc6UeKigw

This is a YouTube-clip of JonBenet Ramsey's Parents Address Accusations in 2000 Interview for '20/20'.

Mrs Ramsey's is asked " Would you take a lie detector test?". Mrs Ramsey responds (at 3:51): "Yes, I would take a lie detector test" while shaking no with her head.

Eliza said...

It's so obvious that she is being deceptive, there are so many red flags there... If someone hears the audio, as I first did when I started reading about this case, they can be easily deceived by the panic in Patsy's voice. But one can be a good actor... If we just listen to the words said, then we have a clear picture.

Ivy said...

Peter,

I had wanted to post this quote when I came across it last spring, but you were not covering JonBenet. This is from March interview with John Ramsey on Nightline with regard to JonBenet's murder:

“I don’t know for sure what happened, and I don’t want to know, really,” John Ramsey said.

This line made me think of the polygraph question he was asked when he passed: "do you know for sure what happened" or something to that effect. Also, "I don't want to know, really" (huh?!!!)

He also has a couple of weird sentences in the interview about finding her, saying he was "relieved": “When I found her it was a rush of relief,” he said. “And then of course within moments, I realized that she probably was dead. But she was back in my arms.”

Also, this one about JonBenet in pageants. He is asked about the show Toddlers and Tiaras (weird reality show about child pageants) and says: “It’s very bizarre... And, it certainly– Patsy and JonBenet didn’t approach it that way. We– they just did it for fun.”

About JonBenet in a parade days before she was killed:

“Patsy had her sitting atop a friend’s convertible in the Christmas parade waving at the people lining the streets,” Ramsey recalled. “Patsy’s mother later told me that a strange man approached the car during the parade and it made her uncomfortable. I think about these things now and it makes me cringe. We were so na├»ve. I now believe with all my heart that it’s not a good idea to put your child on public display.”

Maggie said...

Peter, this was such a good analysis of the 911 call. It was so insightful and well-written.
Patsy's guilt is right there is the 911 call!
Especially how she begins "We have a kidnapping". That DOES sound rehearsed like you said and totally unnatural for someone to announce their daughter is "missing" in that way.
I wonder if Patsy had histrionic personality disorder--much like some have theorized about Sergio Celis.
Her choice of words "We have a kidnapping" seem like as you say she has rehearsed this (in her own mind) and like she is "inserting" herself into a "drama". Very sick!

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

Patsy: We have a kidnapping
I agree that it sounds final and rehearsed. The time frame between when JonB. was last seen alive to when the call was made re-enforces my belief that the parents are covering for their son. A ridiculous note and scenario all motivated by parental instinct to protect their living child.
“…we have your daughter in our posession” I think Patsy was thinking Possessed and misspelled business as the horror surrounded her.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

PR: (inaudible) police.
: 755 Fifteenth Street
PR: WE HAVE A kidnapping...Hurry, please
PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and OUR DAUGHTER is gone
PR: SHE IS six years old SHE IS blond...six years old


1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time WE HAVE
5. yOUR DAUGHTER in our posession. SHE IS safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

Weird how the note and call contain the same language in the same order.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and MY DAUGHTER is missing
PR: What?
PR: No I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.
PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C"

PR: Patsy Ramsey...I AM THE MOTHER( unnecessary explanation, she’s already said my daughter, unless she’s misreading her note, victory is before SBTC in the note, and is so soon making proper social introductions). Oh my God. Please.

Wreyeter72 said...

When she says "I am THE mother" instead of "I'm HER mother" is that a case of distancing? It strikes me that way. I wouldn't say it that way.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
I thought she was reading her note backwards;
PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please
PR: Patsy Ramsey...I AM THE MOTHER

36. S.B.T.C"
35. Victory!
34. It is up to you now John!

As opposed to the father who's name is on the next line.

Jen said...

There are so many strong indicators that Pasty wrote the note. I've been reading some of the other documents in the past few days while Peter has been covering this case and I found a striking similarity to the language in the note in Patsy's 1997 police interview. She tends to have a long-winded way of saying EVERYTHING, whether its significant or not. Heres an excerpt from the interview that stood out to me..

TT: Okay. Patsy, tell me, let’s start with Burke. Um, tell me about some of the kids that he plays with. Tell me some of this playmates.

PR: Um, well, he is among a group of seven boys in his class.

Kind of sounds a lot like, 'We are a group of individuals who represent a foreign faction'. She could simply say, well he has seven boys from school that he's friends with or better yet name a few that he is close to, but instead she says this wordy sentence which really doesn't offer any useful information to the investigators.

The entire interview is interesting but a very frustrating read, as her answers are SO ridiculous...claiming to have never read the entire note, and qualifying nearly EVERY answer she gives with, 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember'. Near the end when Steve Thomas basically calls her out and says that the handwriting experts say she wrote the 'ransom note', she stammers about how she not a handwriting person (downplaying the fact they are experts) and says, 'I guess I just write the way I write', which sounds like a confession to me. The entire interview could be analyzed line by line for years- its FULL of red flags!

Eliza said...

Jen, where did you find the transcripts of this Patsy Ramsey interview?

Jen said...

Hi Eliza

I did a google search for 'Patsy Ramsey police interview' and found a copy on forums for justice, hopefully this link will work for you.


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5197

Eliza said...

Thank you very much, Jen!

Ney said...

Jen,
the mother "claiming to have never read the entire note"
That is a huge red flag. She also claimed she didn't touch it, just leaned over it to read it. Can you picture anyone in that situation trying to kneel over to read it instead of holding up to their nose to figure out as fast as they can what it says? She was really hazy, scattered and not sure describing the events after they got home, indicating several hours of mess.
They also told they didn't wake Burke. Would a mother, would a father leave their son alone after a stranger went through their house taking their other child? If an intruder was in the home, would people really feel safe to stay inside the house, leaving the other kid alone?