Sunday, February 3, 2013

The Free Editing Process: Ramsey Press Conference

As we come to conclude the Jonbenet Ramsey case on this week's edition of "Crime Wire", as a precursor to the analysis, I want to cover what the "Free Editing Process" is.

The "Free Editing Process" (FEP) is when the subject is freely choosing his or her own words, and it increases the likelihood that analysis of the statements will have accuracy.

This must be understood in context:

"The subject is dead; the statement is alive."

For the analysis, we must continually be reminded that we are analyzing a statement, not a person.  We are able to look at the statement and stay within the statement as it is "verbalized" reality; and not reality itself.

I have seen statements in which the analysis appeared somewhat 'off base' from what is known about a person or a case.

In this cases, I reminded myself that it is the statement, itself, analyzed and not the person, and set it aside.  Each case, as time passed, the understanding of why the statement appeared to show, proved correct.

For example, in places where there was an incomplete social introduction indicating a poor relationship I learned later, in what appeared to be a good relationship, of the 'rough patch' the subject had gone through, or the particular anger or rage, in context of the statement.

In other words, the analysis always proved out.  When principle is followed, sometimes patience is necessary, but there is always a reason why a person choses a certain word at a certain time.

The Free Editing Process versus Prepared Statements

When I read the statements made by John and Patsy Ramsey at their news conference, I can hear the echo of the analysis that had gone public and the lawyers that coached them did so, in my opinion, based upon analysis.

We've discussed this previously regarding the Hailey Dunn case where Shawn Adkins had read analysis and still could not bring himself to issue a reliable denial.  When the mother read her statement, she still revealed much (both were indicated for deception in the case of 13 year old Hailey Dunn).

Q.  What is the response of Statement Analysis to the prepared statement?

A.  We continue in context.

The Free Editing Process is the most reliable, yet even with prepared statements, we find contextual underlinings that reveal much.


Q.  Did you take the money from her purse?
A.  No, I did not take the money from her purse. 

This is "reflective" language; that is, it did not come from the Free Editing Process where the subject chose his or her own words, freely.  This is why we ask open ended questions:  to allow the person to speak for himself. 

Take what follows from this same principle.  John and Patsy Ramsey had prepared statements, yet their references to each other, the child, and the investigation still showed information.

We continue with analysis after the news broke that the Grand Jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for child abuse resulting in the death of their daughter.  The Grand Jury's vote was thwarted by District Attorney Alex Hunter's refusal to sign the indictment.

Hunter's words and behavior indicate his fear of going up against John Ramsey's high paid and high powered attorneys.  Hunter castigated the police, and facilitated what amounts to sabotage, in assisting the Ramsey attorneys in obtaining an advantage over police.

The Ramseys refused to cooperate with police, refused to be interviewed alone, refused polygraphs and did whatever necessary to conceal the crime.

The Grand Jury saw the evidence.  Their vote is consistent with the findings of Statement Analysis..

This is the work of SCAN Training found here at SCAN 

We will keep you informed about the release date of SCAN book of Genesis. 

*********For training, there is no better way to learn than from the online course SCAN

Here is the sample for students of the SCAN process.  There is much to discuss here.

The JonBenet Ramsey Case:  Analysis of Ramsey's Press Conference



The following is the analysis of the statement/transcript of the news conference with John and Patsy Ramsey on May 1, 1997. 

The statement/transcript does not give us the opening question or the surrounding circumstances under which the statement was obtained. 


To analyze the language in order to find out if the subject(s) are involved in the murder of their daughter JonBenet Ramsey. 


The SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis) technique was used to analyze the language used by the subject in the enclosed transcript. 

What is the SCAN Technique? 

Every person has his own linguistic code. By using linguistic methods to break and decipher the subject's linguistic code, we are able to obtain more information and to reach an accurate decision concerning the reliability of the information. 

Both the interviewer and subject use language to communicate. However, there is no such thing as two people using the "same" language. Each person uses his own personal language. Each person might attribute different meanings to the same words. In a way, we can say that every single human being has his own personal linguistic code which he uses to communicate his thoughts and ideas. 

The SCAN analysis looks upon a statement as a mathematical equation. 

This means that in using SCAN we are not interested in the content of the statement, but in the relationship between: 

 1. The different links of the statement.
 2. The subjective meaning the subject attributes to each word.
 3. The different locations in which a certain word is used.
 4. The relationship between the different words.

The end result of the SCAN analysis is to know the background information which generated the subject's vocabulary or dictionary. Or, in other words, we would discover the full story that the subject didn't want to expose openly in the content of the story. However, the subject's language exposed it. 

NOTE: Since the following analysis is based upon the transcript, and it refers to the transcript throughout the report, it is recommended to have the transcript itself next to this report in order to enhance the reading. 

The report is divided into the following points: 

1. The couple's relationship with JonBenet.

2. The couple's relationship with each other.

3. The couple's perception of the investigation.

4. The couple's perception of the situation.

5. The couple's denials.

6. Other comments.

The Couple's Relationship with Jonbenet 

1.  John Ramsey said:

a)  "But because we were the parents of JonBenet..."

b)  "I did not kill my daughter JonBenet."

c)  "They are totally false, JonBenet (stumbles on name) and I had a very close relationship."

d)  "Were as you might imagine insulted that we even would he considered suspects in the death of our daughter."

e)  "Our lives cannot go on the same as they might have, had JonBenet still been here."

f)  "...but there was an article in the Atlanta Constitution, 'Georgia Says Goodbye to JonBenet' - we were terribly touched by that."

g)  "That was just one very small part of JonBenet's life."

h)  "And if that effect happened to more than one person, then JonBenet's life had some meaning."

Please notice that John Ramsey used the proper title "my daughter" only in (b) - when denying the accusation of killing JonBenet, and in (d) - when talking about being suspects in her death.

Please also notice that John Ramsey used the proper title "daughter" in proximity to the word "kill" - (b), and "death" - (d). This connection between the proper title and JonBenet's death was also found in the CNN interview. Or, in other words, John Ramsey maintains consistency in using first name - "JonBenet" - when talking about her as alive, vs. "daughter" when talking about her when she is dead.

2.  John Ramsey said:

a)  "But because we were the parents of JonBenet..."

b)  "We also at that time, as parents, looked at retaining of attorneys."

c)  " members and parents are ultimately involved."

3.  Patsy Ramsey said:

"I'm Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother..."

Please notice, that unlike Patsy, John Ramsey didn't use the title "father". He only talked in the plural - "parents".

Again, the proper title "father" is missing from his language, not only in regard to JonBenet, the way she relates to him, but also to himself, the way he relates to her.

4.  After the denial, Patsy Ramsey added a sentence: "I loved that child with my whole of my heart and soul."

Please notice the following:

a.  "That" means far away while "this" means close-by. This is to say that the subject is distancing herself from JonBenet when talking about loving her.

b.  When talking about "loving" the subject used the word "child".

The word "child" in conjunction with the word "love" should raise the suspicion that Patsy Ramsey knows that JonBenet was sexually abused. It might also indicate that Patsy Ramsey herself might have been abused earlier in childhood, and very likely sexual abuse.
The Couple's Relationship with Each Other 

5.  John Ramsey said:

a)  " We felt from the beginning an obligation to talk with the Boulder authorities and let them do their formal interrogation of Patsy and I."

b)  "So he retained counsel for Patsy and I."

c)  "Really the purpose that Patsy and I had for doing that interview was that we were overwhelmed by the outpouring of caring..."

d)  "...frankly for the first few months Patsy and I were really not capable of making any decisions."

e)  "As Patsy said, we're up to where we're now looking at what're we going to be doing next week."

Please notice the following:
a.  The subject didn't introduce "Patsy" as my "wife". This would amount to an "improper introduction" indicating a bad relationship.

b.  "Patsy and I" comes instead of the "us". This means distance in relationship in the points in which this phrase is used.

6.  Patsy Ramsey said:

"I'm appalled that anyone would think that John or I would be involved in such a hideous, heinous crime."

Again, she didn't introduce "John" as "my husband". This would amount to an "improper introduction" indicating a bad relationship.
The Couple's Perception of the Investigation 

7.  John Ramsey related to the recent conversation with the police in the following way:

a)  "...and let them do their formal interrogation of Patsy and I."

b)  "...what has been delayed has been this formal interrogation of us as suspects..."

c)  "And felt an interrogation of us was a waste of our time and a waste of police time."

d)  Question: "Have the police told you that they may need to do any more interviews with you?"

Answer: "We had no conversation with them after we left the interrogation yesterday."

In regard to the appearance on tv he said:

e)  "Really the purpose that Patsy and I had for doing that interview was that we were overwhelmed by the outpouring of caring."

f)  "And that was the principle reason we did that interview."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject related to the conversation with the police as "interrogation" and even as "interrogation of us as suspects..." - (b), while he labeled the appearance on tv as an interview - (e) and (f).

In contrast Patsy Ramsey related to the conversation with the police in the following way: "...until we had spent time interviewing with the authorities."

One can conclude that Patsy Ramsey perceived the conversation with the police as less threatening than John Ramsey.

8.  John Ramsey said:
a)  "So, as we looked at this group of people that we pulled together, it was not only to advise us in this process, but hopefully to assist the investigation to a closure."

b)  "But an arrest is absolutely necessary in our lives for closure."

Patsy Ramsey said:

"We need the one phone call to this number that will help the authorities come to a conclusion to this case.

Please notice that both subjects are talking about "closure" (John) and "conclusion" (Patsy) but not a "solution".
The Couple's Perception of the Situation 

9.  John Ramsey said:

a)  "The 'how', is that on the day after the tragedy..."

b)  "...most tragedies of this nature, the killing of a child..."

c)  "...that's a tragic statement for our country."

d)  "One of the most heartlifting things to us that came out of this tragedy..."

e)  "That's been an outcome I think we certainly wouldn't have anticipated with this kind of tragedy."

f)  "It's a tragedy that many children are killed in this country every year."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject talked about "tragedy" to be "the killing of a child..."

b.  In (a) the subject said, "...on the day after the tragedy..." The subject didn't say, "...on the day after the tragic event..."

c.  The subject restricted the "tragedy" in (a) only to the time of the event. For him the tragedy is the killing, and not the effects of the killing on him or his family.

In contrast please note the use of the word "tragic" in (c). This means that the "statement" is "tragic" and not the situation.

10. John Ramsey said:

"We felt we lived in a safe community. We still do..."

Please notice that the subject still feels that he lives in a safe community. This means that the subject knows that there is no killer out there.

11. Patsy Ramsey said:

"I know you have been diligently covering this case, and we have appreciated some of what you've said - I'll be frank, not all of what you've said..."

One should note that the subject acknowledged that some of the information in the newspapers is true.

In a follow-up interview the subject should be asked to expand on this point: what was true and what was not true.
The Couple's Denials 

12. John Ramsey related to two suspicions, murder and sexual abuse. In regard to the murder he said:

"I did not kill my daughter JonBenet."

In regard to the sexual abuse he said:

"I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendos to us as a family. They are totally false..."

Please note that John Ramsey didn't say "I didn't do it" in regard to the sexual abuse.

On the other hand, Patsy Ramsey said:

"But let me assure you that I did not kill JonBenet, I did not have anything to do with it."

Please notice that Patsy Ramsey added one more sentence in her denial - "I did not have anything to do with it." This emphasis is missing from John Ramsey's denial.
Other Comments 

13. Patsy Ramsey said:

"We feel like there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know who did this. And that is the killer, and someone that that person may have confided in."

Please notice the following:

a.  Patsy Ramsey talks about two people who know who did it - the killer and the killer's confidant.

b.  She didn't say, "And that is the killer, and someone that the killer may have confided in." Instead, she used the word "person".

One should note that the word "person" usually indicates an attempt to conceal identity.

Please note that John Ramsey said: "As a person, I think it makes you very much more guarded..."

14. John Ramsey said:

a)  "I think one of the issues that uh, was distressing to us and perhaps caused some bias of opinion is, why did we bring lawyers into this, uh, process early on?..."

b)  "And I think that's a, that's a... that's a tragic statement for our country."

c)  "As a person, I think it makes you very much more guarded..."

d)  "I think, think probably the first issue that raised people's curiosity was the involvement of lawyers."

e)  "I think we also as a country, and perhaps some of you as a reporting entity are cynics..."

f)  Question: "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, what do you think of the investigation by the Boulder Police Department?"

Answer: "Well, we think there are some very good people working on the case we're very impressed with the people the D.A.'s office has brought in."

g)  "We think we are a normal American family that loves and values their children..."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject used "I think" which expresses a lack of commitment. No commitment = no "total belief". This means that in the above-mentioned quotations the subject is not sure of himself.

b.  The uncertainty relates to the following points:

i.    Points (a) and (d) - what "caused some bias of opinion" against the couple - bringing lawyers into the picture.

ii.   Points (b) (c), and (e) - talking about the effect on the country and on himself personally.

iii.  Point (f) - the police's performance.

iv.   Point (g) - the subject's family as a normal family.

c.  In (f) the question dealt with the "Boulder Police Department" while the subject answered about "the D.A.'s office".

This indicates that the subject might be upset with the Police Department.

d.  In (g) the subject related to the family as being "normal". The subject did so also earlier in the interview by saying, "We are a normal family. We love our children dearly."

One should note the following;

In this place the subject used "their children" instead of "our children".

One should notice that the word "normal" is usually used only by people who were abnormal once in their life.


John Mc Gowan said...


Peter,i was wondering if you are going to revisit the McCanns?

Vita said...

Peter, first thank you for this write up, it brings clarity for those including myself, that do not know the case. I have questions, more as a quid pro quo's I guess.

What if Jonbenet had never been introduced into pageants. What if she was raised as any other typical girl in America, she born in 1990. What would her value be to her parents had she not been thrown into this "business" that she was forced into, which was her mothers reality. The iniquity of the statements of the parents, you have provided, is she was an object of value "once". What transpired that she was no longer valued?

Who was the one that decided between the two of them, that Jonbenet did not rate any longer as she wasn't their daughter to them, but a possession. Pageants or not, they demoralized her.

"I'm Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother..."

Yes, Patsy she created the "trophy" spinning Jonbenet, into a very adult judgmental world. Into a world based upon false, fake and smoke and mirrors. Patsy didn't win any notice her trials "pageants" in her youth. She to use abuse Jonbenet, to live vicariously through her? or she hated her with a vengeance simply because she was born female. Her rival? or worse? she saw her as a mini Patsy? that she recreated her own life through Jonbenet. Stage, lights, camera. " Action"

Peter, you wrote of Patsy's words on an earlier entry, this month.
The presumption is alive. She to preen Jonbenet to be an object of affection to who? pervs and pedo's. To find this world as accepting one must have had their own life within it? that it was their own normal? in their manual of success? * she to see it as Jonbenet will can survive it, as a triumph? as a part of Patsy's production? JB being an object, not a human being to Patsy. Jonbenet made Patsy look normal? She used her as a proverbial glittering shiny object, all would look at JB, not Patsy. Patsy to be her Agent, reap the rewards.

Jonbenet deserved what? Patsy felt unfulfilled? therefore she put her out to all and everyone, did not keep her behind a controlled environment. She to proffer (Jonbenet) for who? to who? who's acceptance?

"She loved her daddy... She loved her daddy, she was daddy's girl. She's such a happy spiritual child... she's a very spiritual...deeply...deep sense of understanding the world around her for a very young child."

Her words remind of the fictional movie: Girl Interrupted, character Daisy played by Brittany Murphy. The words said by Patsy are who's? I believe they are Patsy's of her own youth, her life, she to put Jonbenet into her looking glass. She to be delusional? No, she lived by what was engrained, into her. Patsy earned her keep by loving her Daddy? being Daddy's kept secret?

Daisy (clip) to be "by design" the perfect girl, Stepford wife? she though was not a woman, but a teen. She to be put into a mental ward for her eating disorders, laxative use. No, she was placed and put there for her to recover, until her father was ready to take her on again.

This exact clip, that She Daisy is called on the table, of her relationship with her father. Who this reminds me of is Patsy, herself. *mature ears only* it's poignant, very:

Interesting how much Daisy the character in this movie, is alike Patsy Ramsay. It is provocative movie, worth watching.

John Mc Gowan said...

Amazing film,and a great post Vita.

Anonymous said...

I think from the above quotes that it can be learned that Patsy was not a warm, loving mother. She related to Jonbenet as more of a narcissistic extension of herself, valuing her for her looks mostly and for whether she would win in the pageants. I can also see how there was distance or tension in John and Patsy's marriaage. But neither of these things prove that one of the parents killed Jonbenet.
I really feel that an intruder wrote the ransom note. Also, had Jonbenet been killed "accidentally" by a parent, it just does not make logical sense that the parents would simultaneously stage 2 conflicting scenarios to "coverup" the crime. One has to ask themself "well what would they have been thinking"? And the answer is there is no logical thinking that could have led to creating 2 conflicting scenarios--a kidnapping that didn't happen and a brutal, staged murder.

Sus said...

I agree and would like to add to your points.

Looking at Patsy Ramsey's police interviews the thing that stands out to me is that something (or someone) is missing...John Ramsey! It is like John was not a part of her daily life. It substantiates what SCAN shows and what witnesses testified to before the Grand Jury...the Ramseys had a distant relationship and Jon was rarely home.

Patsey used the coping skill she knew to keep her family intact, JonBenet was the sacrificial lamb to keep John. Several nannies and housekeepers said Patsy paid no attention to JonBenet until she entered her in pageants. JonBenet even wore Burke's hand me down clothes, including his boys pajamas and underwear! Then suddenly JonBenet was an asset to Patsy.

If you read Patsy's police interview again, rather than JonBenet being a delightful, spiritual child, Patsy describes how she argued with her and wanted her way on several occasions in the last days before her death. It might have been ruining Patsy's dream image.

Vita said...

Thank you John
Who caught on? Who was truly molesting Jonbenet? That the fear of this being found out was greater than the value of Jonbenet's life? Had this happened to Jonbenet outside the Ramsey house, it would preclude to John, Patsy they "this person" had proof. Photos and or film of they doing the deed, molesting JonBenet. They to have leverage over the Ramsey's. Or this is what they wanted us to believe? No such film, photos have surfaced. Whatever happened to Jonbenet happened within the walls of the Ramsey house. She was murdered on the cusp of the internet born. The Ransom note written like a bad script of Falcon Crest. This to prove the depth of Patsy herself, she living in a false reality.
Doesn't mean though the made up threat, by the Ramsey's to the Ramsey's was not viable. She Patsy on drugs, sorry scripts, she to admit it. JonBenet too, her personal $$ cash cow.

Who whispered Sweet Nothings into the ear of ( which parent) the night of the Party held at the house of Ramsey? Someone pretty high up in status within the pageant circle? a makeup artist, a gown designer, someone who had exchange with " vast people" that would be a source? a chatterbox?

They not to understand what they said that night? and still do not today? The person that this not idle but gossip came from, wasn't a threat at all, was found though as a threat? the gossip was of, was only one that confirm it, and that was Jonbenet herself.

Who ever attempted this, outing John, Patsy, It was at a point that it had surpassed, more than escalated, that this was no idle threat, a threat that was unbearable to both Patsy and John. Had it been stated publicly what was worse? the truth? or simply the consequences of what was to be leaked to the Pageant inner circle. This person GUESSING? feeding a frenzy of rumors that were just this rumor. Maybe this was of persons tired of Jonbenet being the Tiger Woods of Pageants, planting seeds for months. Led up to Patsy and John's paranoia. That this night of the party was a tipping point, yet wasn't the truth at all. Ms. Patsy said NO MORE JOHN. Get rid of the problem?

Someone attempted to dissect their perfect world, and this someone was attached to Jonbenet.

Enough to create the defamation of the Ramsey's notoriety, was one person? who was allowed inside the house of Ramsey? or was not this at all? Was that Jonbenet was becoming verbal, and she making relationships outside the Ramsey Circus TENT. This person to build a relationship with Jonbenet, that triggered Patsy and John to react, to this Person. (before not after)

The video of the basement that I found and posted here,

* The wealthy Ramsey's had zero tolerance for outsiders, repair men not allowed inside. The hot wire, let the house burn down? vs having the wire fixed? Jonbenet no different than the house.

Vita said...

Quotes of both - Patsy and John


Anonymous said...

OT: Comments by Ray Lewis about the double homicide in 2000. No reliable denial for sure and Boomer Esiason recognized it.

Anonymous said...

I think it comes back to Burke. I have wondered if Patsy was molesting Burke and had an inappropriate view of their relationship, thus the neglect of JonBenet prior to pageants. Then Burke started molesting JB acting out with her, the abuse from his mother. Then Pasty finds out and kills JB in a jealous rage. They cover it up because no way is Patsy losing Burke.

Lis said...

Anon, try to put your reasoning/logic of what you would do in the situation aside and just analyze the statements alone, with no preconceptions of what is probable or makes sense to you. Just let yourself focus on their words alone and see where those words take you.

John Mc Gowan said...

True or False? Pay Attention to a Story’s Structure and Detect Whether It’s Made Up
Pamela Meyer
Psychologists and psychotherapists have long relied on the power of narrative storytelling to help their patients make sense of their world. In fact, it's been said that we are our narratives. For evidence that this may be true, pay attention to how people shape their stories about themselves. As it turns out, there is a big difference between the way we narrate events that have really happened to us and those we've invented.
It would seem reasonable to assume that memories, like stories, have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But reason doesn't have much of a role in guiding memory. Avinoam Sapir is a former Israeli police officer, a lie- detection expert, and the developer of Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), a technique designed to interpret deception in written statements. Sapir notes that true stories drawn from real memories aren't typically narrated in chronological order; that's not the way the brain organizes them. The more dramatic the story, the less chronologic its structure. Why? Because our emotions guide our memories. The more powerfully we experience an event, the more likely we are to make it the first thing we talk about, filling in the less emotionally fraught details later.

That's not to say that any story that doesn't start with high drama is a fabrication. But truthful stories—though they may not be told in chronological order—will still contain three distinct stages: a prologue, a main event section, and an epilogue.

John Mc Gowan said...


The Prologue
Whether it contains details from the beginning or the end of the story, the prologue sets the scene for the main event. This part of the story is usually light on detail when someone is telling the truth. It should only take up about one—third, or less, of the total time it takes to tell the whole story. In a lie, however, the prologue might be quite detailed. This is often where the liar's story contains a lot of truthful elements, such as time and place. The liar feels comfortable in this relative safety zone—after all, he's not lying yet. He will spend as much time as possible here.

The Main Section
The main event section that follows in a truthful story is normally the longest part, since it's the whole point of telling the story, and is where most of the action lies. In a false narrative, the main event section is often glossed over. An unusually short main event section should give a liespotter pause. It's the part of the story that answers the question, "What happened?" Under truthful circumstances, therefore, it should be the focus of someone's account.

The Epilogue
Last, an honest storyteller will usually provide an epilogue. While it's unlikely to be the most dramatic part of his account, the epilogue can be very emotional—possibly even more emotion-laden than the main story. Often, when we experience frightening or surprising events, we're so caught up in what's happening to us that we don't have time to pro cess how we feel about them. It's only later, once a perceived threat has passed, that we'll calm down enough to be able to acknowledge the emotions that have been triggered.

Therefore, those emotions are likely to crop up as we describe the aftereffects of the main event. Ninety percent of the time, a liar's story will not include an epilogue; he'll simply conclude with the main event. An epilogue would require him to fabricate the way the event affected him. But of course it didn't affect him at all, because it never really happened—or at least it didn't happen the way he says it did. Liars will do their best to avoid lying unnecessarily, so once they think they have said what needs to be said, they'll stop talking. True stories are often jumbled and filled with irrelevant as well as sensory details. Deceptive stories are often logical and streamlined, yet lacking in vivid sensory descriptions.

John Mc Gowan said...

Link From Above

Anonymous said...

Lis, I listened to statements, read statements, and took into consideration the 911 call with Burke very much awake while jis parents claimed he was asleep. The statements have always indicated deception, sensitivity, and involvement of the parents. Patsy, through her statements, objectified Jon Benet and was not maternal toward her. Patsy is very self absorbed and in need of the spotlight. Taking the totality of years of statements, not just by them, but others connected to the case, it's difficult not to put the pieces together to form a hypothesis. Maybe it's my educational background that leads me to making a hypothesis but I am so frustrated with this case! There is no statute of limitations on murder but still John walks free. I don't know if he suffers in private or not but it seems like the people here, especially Peter who
keeps her in the spotlight to not be forgotten, call out for justice for her in a way her parents never did.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Interesting, Anonymous 8:20

I wonder if John has, or will consider doing a "tell all" for money, blaming Patsy, and an accident.

He'd have to find a way to do it that does not implicate himself and he would score an Oprah-like interview for a great deal of money.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote having two crimes staged (kidnapping and murder) does not make sense. The more I think about it, the more it does make sense.

If they are responsible, it was risky to move the body, they had to stage the crime scene inside the house. If the past abuse signs are correct from doctors, it makes sense they had to try to hide those signs.

If no kidnapping involved, and they repor their daughter's body was found in their home by them, it would point directly to them. Reporting a kidnapping happened, the first sign pointed to an intruder.

They probably started to set up the intruder evidence (broken window, boot print), but thought it will not be enough, they cannot run around the snow to make footprints, etc, risking being seen, a note is needed to point away from them during the 911 call and during the investigation. Cannot print it, has to be handwritten with left hand probably? That still sounds too risky though. The note must have been written last, after everything else was arranged.

The mother's statements about the ransom note makes me think they were involved. She glanced at it, didn't read the whole thing, didn't remember the time they were supposed to call for the exchange, etc.

Anonymous said...

Anon, But if the parents had staged the murder scene, why did the father rush in there and essentially "undo" the staging by picking up Jonbenet and rushing upstairs with her and taking the duct tape off, etc.?
Also, one other strange thing: I read up on this case a little more, and I never knew that there was a 911 call that came from the Ramsey home the day before Christmas during a Christmas party at their house. Supposedly, this call came from Fleet White, John's friend, who "accidentally" dialed the number. How strange is that? I've heard of kids accidentally calling 911 when they are playing around with a phone, but how often do adults "accidentally" call 911?
Could it be that someone within the house at the party had planned out this horrible attack on Jonbenet and was in some unconscious way trying to "stop themselves" before they did such a horrible crime by calling police? Or could it be, that someone within the house had planned the crime and was trying to figure out how long it would take police to get there when the police were called?
Or could it be that someone within the house had a "prank caller" type thing going on like where that was enjoyable to them to watch the police come? Like the way some arsonists will like to watch the fire department come put out the fire they set?
Anyway you look at it, I find the call VERY strange.

Jen said...

Anon 5:28

When applying the tools of SA, you must try to push aside your personal opinions about the subject. One reason the Ramsey's have skirted justice for so long is in part because everyone assumes that successful and educated people 'WOULDN'T' do something so terrible. Only when you look deeper into the details (like the grand jury or analyzing their statements) do you start to realize the Ramsey's only LOOK like good people. They behaved like common criminals when it came to cooperating with the investigation and they accused multiple 'friends' and supporters of committing the crime (including the same people they called to comfort them in their grief, their housekeeper and especially any one who questioned their Fleet White).

As far as the two conflicting scenarios you asked about...i don't see it as that. They couldn't dump the body, for both practical and sentimental reasons. First they would chance being caught or seen leaving the home in the middle of the night and second they would risk her body not being found for days, or possibly not at all. They want to give her a 'proper burial' (which they even mention in the note) so they don't want to risk losing her body OR losing control of the crime scene (inside their home their own DNA means nothing, but if they move her body somewhere else and their DNA, fibers, prints, etc. are found there, then they will have explaining to do).

If they simply call 911 and say..I can't find my daughter, then police find her dead in their basement..the only suspects are the people inside the home. So they write the 'ransom' note to make it seem as if someone else was inside their home and committed the crime. It's not two conflicting scenarios...just one desperate attempt to appear as victims themselves, and bury their dark secret forever. A crime like the murder of Jonbenet will NEVER make sense to those of us who cannot imagine hurting or killing a child...and it's even harder for most of us to accept that her parents are responsible for her death...yet their statements consistently show deception and guilty knowledge of her murder.

Anonymous said...

Can you provide statement analysis on the Ray Lewis case in 2000 where 2 men were killed? There appear to be several press reports news media to indicate Ray is innocent. But, when you listen and read his statements it appears that he and the other 2 men involved in the murders may not be coming forth with the truth. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Jen--Your explanation of the Ramsey's alleged thinking/reasoning for setting up these 2 conflicting staged crimes is the most comprehensible I have read so far.
Certain elements of the ransom note steer me away from wholeheartedly believing the Ramsey's are guilty.
It is assumed by people that one of the Ramseys accidentally killed Jonbenet, but, if that was the case, why does the ransom note reveal the mind of someone obssessed with crime movies/shows? Why is the "signature" of the letter so full of "zeal" and "enthusiasm"? "It is up to you now John!". Victory!". "SBTC". Would someone covering up an "accidental" killing include this type of "enthusiasm" in their note? Also, why include anything "cryptic"?
I am using statement analysis, but I am also looking
at the "tone" of the note.

Jen said...

Hi Anon 11:15-

As I mentioned before I've been reading a lot about this case lately and I believe there were several reasons why John decided to go 'find' Jonbenet himself...the first being that he was tired of waiting..the police had searched the house twice without finding when he was asked by the inexperienced detective Linda Ardnt to 'check the house' for anything out of the ordinary, he used the opportunity to stack the deck in his favor. (The following info is from Steve Thomas' book Jonbenet, and it helped to removed any doubt I may have had as to the parents involvement and their intentions to corrupt the investigation)

Fleet White who was with John when he found Jonbenet later told police that as soon as they got into the basement John walked directly to the door, opened it and screamed. When White got to the door, he saw John kneeling beside Jonbenet and he rushed up the stairs yelling to call an ambulance..then John appeared holding JonBenet's body (not cradled close to him) but instead, by the waist out in front of him, with her head above his and her arms sticking up in the air, stiff from rigor. (During all of this Patsy did not move from her seat on the couch). Detective Arndt ordered John to put the body down on the floor (she also moved the body herself a second time) at which point John grabbed a blanket from a nearby chair and tossed it over her body (adding more fibers, etc.-he just touched and moved her body, but now he can't stand to look at it?) At that point Patsy was led into the room where she continued the contamination by throwing herself on the body and calling out, "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!" (totally rehearsed and probably the last thing I would expect to hear from a mother who JUST FOUND OUT her child was dead)

Now consider what John gained by picking up and moving his daughters cold, stiff body(it chills me to even imagine him carrying her out in front of him like that). He now has a perfect excuse for any of his DNA, fibers, etc..and he also becomes the ONLY person who saw the original crime scene. There will be no pictures to be carefully analyzed, nobody and nothing can refute HIS account of what he 'found' in that room, and he can now craft his story and add details as needed to explain anything that comes up in the investigation. (also remember he refused to talk to the investigators for weeks, although he was the only one who could provide this crucial info).

Jen said...

Hi Anon-

Once you come to the conclusion that the note is a farce those phrases all fall into the same category...misdirection. The note is to confuse the issue of what happened to Jonbenet and all of the info in it is meant to confuse. To me everything from the length to the fact that they sign the note at all indicates the writer has very little knowledge of 'real' criminal behavior, and they are trying to sound like a criminal based on what they have seen in hostage movies, cop shows, etc. The writers attempt to sound convincing ends up sounding 'goofy', for lack of a better word. Kidnappers don't write business style LETTERS, complete with salutations, grammar corrections, and the 'motive' for their crime included (we respect your business, but not the country it serves). When you take that into consideration the only person with a need to explain the kidnappers motive, ethnicity, etc. are the Ramsey's who want the note to convince the police a kidnapper exists.

Anonymous said...

Jen--I agree--if one sees the letter as a farce everything does fall into place as far as OK this person is just "pretending" to be a kidnapper, etc. I do see that side of things and you have explained it well.
I guess the best way I can describe my impression of the note--which has changed after several rereadings of it--is that the writer of the note is sincere about wanting to kidnap/receive a ransom OR at the very least, is sincere about lashing out at John Ramsey and messing with John Ramsey's mind.
I can see how the note can be viewed as being written by someone who is "pretending" to be a kidnapper, but I hear in the tone of the note someone who is, at least, genuinely addressing this note to John, you know, like not just pretending to be writing it to John but actually angry with John and writing the note to him.
A lot of things that people have pointed out about the note I take issue with:
1) misspellings I do not believe are intentional
2) I do not believe that because the kidnapper demanded 118,000 then that means the writer is Patsy bc only Patsy could have known the amount. I also do not believe that it is necessarily "too low" of a sum for a kidnapper to demand.
3) I believe this writer had these phrases from movies (of which there are MANY within the letter) in their head at the time of the writing. Like memorized in their head. Which indicates, to me, excessive and repetitive watching of these types of movies as well as watching them over and over and taking interest in these cheesy lines enough to memorize them. Which indicates, to me, not the typical mindset of a middle aged woman--to memorize cheesy lines from crime movies. In my mind, this is a much more "male" thing to do. And I would not say this is a "typical" male thing to do either, but certainly it is not something a middle-aged woman would do.
4) The line "It is up to you now John!" just grabs me for some reason. The best way I can explain it is that it just really strikes me that the writer was not conspiring with John when they wrote the note. This line just seems so unnatural to write if in fact it was Patsy writing the letter and John was, say, in the same room with her or in the other room. It's just something about the tone of it--I feel that the writer was "distant" from John when they wrote that line--like John was not with them.
Well, I hope it is OK that I am kind of more going on the "tone" of the letter, and coming up with some opinions that don't necessarily match up with other things being said. It is a very odd note, and I guess there are many things that can be said about it and ways to look at it.

Anonymous said...

Oh also, one other thing I noticed about the note is that in certain places like for example the line "make sure you are rested, the journey will be exhausting" reminds me of the type of line that would be said by a villain in a superhero movie like Batman or Spiderman,etc. It just has that kind of a flavor. The mindset of the writer seems to be emotionally immature, and certainly, the writer, at the time of the writing of the note, would have had, in my opinion, many of these lines from movies memorized so it would strongly suggest repetitive watching of these types movies over and over.

deejay said...

I think she was hurt (damaged) accidentally. The parents joint crime was euthanizing their previously perfect daughter...

Anonymous said...

Anon, the ransom note was the writer's understanding of what a ransom note should be. The writer thought that will sound like a real ransom note. It wasn't only containing movie lines, but it had mixed concepts and it was mostly story building. Some lines of the note, some comments from the parents suggest they decided to direct the crime against the cleaning lady as one possible suspect to start with.
They gave the cleaning lady's name to the police before the body was found.
The mother told in an interview that the note is similar to her writing, becuase it was probably written by a woman.

Why would the writer risk giving her handwriting to the note though?

I think the most puzzling thing is the cause of death. Procecution would have had a hard time with that during the trial. It wasn't determined which injury came first, and it was told they happened very close to each other in time. No murder weapon was found. If it was an accidental head injury and the rope was staged, why does the autopsy report say "cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma"

Did they think she was dead but she wasn't during the staging? Or is deejay (from previous post )on the right track with the euthanizing after an accident idea?
The photos of the skull fracture indicate huge force was used, either with the itent to kill, or rage rather than accidentally hitting one's head.

Anonymous said...

You can look at it like this though also: anyone who is writing anything is going to write it, to a certain extent, the way they "think" something should sound. What I mean by this is if someone is writing, for example, an invitation to a party, they are not going to make it sound like a grocery list. The notable thing about the note is the amount of lines from movies, it says a LOT about the mind of the note writer--it says that he (or she) watched these kinds of movies over and over and had many lines from such movies memorized at the time of the writing of the note.
The other thing is that, in my opinion, someone who was feigning a kidnapping note just to "coverup" a crime would be LESS likely to write a long note with as much detail about the money (how it should be, etc.), as many detailed threats, etc. My reasoning for this is that there seems to be real emotion behind the note--anger, etc. and the writer does not skimp on detail, which, if someone is just "pretending" they would be more likely to do. It would certainly be MORE difficult, if the note is feigned, to come up with all the detail included in the note. Yes, some kidnapping ransom notes are "brief and to the point", BUT maybe the writer of the Ramsey note was full of personalized anger towards John and that is why they went on and on to "vent" this anger. And maybe in the writer's mind, "talking" like people do in movies, in their opinion, made them sound like a "powerful villain". It's just another way to look at it is all.

Jen said...

Here's the note copied from Peter's earlier post:

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.
8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99%
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C"

Jen said...

Hi Anon9:16-

I agree that every time I read the note something different jumps out at me. Each time I read it I try to concentrate on a different objective or concept, meaning, one time I will read it and concentrate on the pronouns...(I printed a copy and used a highlighter to separate the plural/singular pronoun usage) noticing when they change and in relation to what topic. (when the writer is giving instructions or 'advise' they slip into I/my usage, but when warning about surveillance or consequences the writer uses we/our in order to share responsibility/or seem menacing)

The next reading I will focus more on the content...the phrases or words that stand out for different reasons. The note starts out adressed to 'Mr Ramsey', but in the text of the note the writer calls him 'John' repeatedly. They state the motive for the kidnapping as a lack of respect for America, (first it's very strange that a motive would be included at all, and the motive is very abstract). The group doesn't 'respect' America, so they decided to pick a random computer software company president and kidnap his accomplish what?!

The amount of $118,000 is small in consideration of the cost that would be involved in organizing and carrying out a kidnapping like this one claims to be (24hr surveillance, monitoring of the different agencies, etc). Also, the amount is extremely low considering the target business had reached the billion dollar sales mark the previous year.(1996)

Anonymous said...

Jen--We're on the same page b/c after you posted the letter I started rereading it ( a couple hours ago) and this is where I *stopped to think*:
I noticed the writer first changes from "we" to "I" when he/she writes "I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow", and so, when there is "contact" to be made with John the writer "emerges" from his letter--maybe begins revealing him/herself a little. What you noticed is VERY interesting--how the writer uses "I/my" when "advising" or "instructing". And you are right--I see how the writer goes back to "we" when "monitoring"/"watching over"/"catching him talking to a dog"--also don't try to "outsmart us"--"we" are familiar with law enforcement tactics. So, the "we" is the brawn and the brains--"we" can't be outsmarted. The "I" will advise, instruct and call. When I look at it that way I see that the writer almost seems like they are "posturing"--like they are scared? frightened? but then they hide behind the "we"/the "small foreign faction"??? I also do see when I read it this way that the writer seems female--the writer will advise, instruct and call but the "small foreign faction" is what is "intimidating" (more of a typically male quality).
Very interesting to look at it from that angle.
I DO hear more of a female voice in the letter.
One other point though: the digs at the end of the letter "you're not the only fat cat around" and "use that good Southern common sense of yours" really do not seem to be coming from a wife figure. The observation in and of itself (were it true) that John is "Southern" to me, it shows someone who is not that close to him. It just seems to me, like that is one of the 1st things people do when we meet someone is kind of "sum up" what is their nationality/where are they from/etc. And then it just kind of goes into the background. Let's say you have a friend who is of Italian heritage just as an example--OK that might seem interesting at first but then it just does not jump out at you about that person, it's just who they are. Anyway, rambling. And if a person is married to someone it really becomes inconsequential for lack of a better word. Hope this makes sense.

Jen said...

Cont: Anon9:16

The details regarding the money are really interesting. Like everyone I think the writer is taking their que from hostage movies, where the kidnappers always say something like..'you will place $xxx in unmarked, non-sequential bills in a briefcase, etc'. But more telling to me are the specific details for HOW they are to go about getting the reads almost like a check list being made by someone with personal knowledge of the steps the Ramsey's will need to take to obtain the money. How would kidnappers know IF the Ramsey's even could go to the bank and "withdrawal $118,000 from YOUR account"?(maybe they have that much in their safe, maybe they would have to take out a loan or liquidate stock or retirement accounts). Why include specific detail for how to obtain the money, but NO instructions for delivery. The writer demands that their instructions be followed 'to the letter' and then turns over control of the resolution to the Ramsey's ("if we monitor you getting the money early, we MIGHT call you early to arrange an earlier (delivery) pickup of your daughter"). This rambling statement, along with confusing whether the bounty will be recovered by 'delivery' or 'pickup' makes me think that the writers 'plan' is being formulated as they write the note.

Jen said...

Hi Anon-

Sorry, I got tied up building a snowman, lol!

Im glad you enjoy reading up on this and husband is SO over statement analysis and Jonbenet, but I say at least we are learning something along the way, right!

In my opinion, the last few lines of the note are strange and don't follow the same tone of the rest of the note. Even when threatening to kill a child the note is pretty passive, and seems focused on building the idea that the Ramsey's are being 'watched'. I have a few different theories about the last three lines which are all directed at 'John'.

1. Patsy was the author of the majority of the note and when John reviewed it, he didn't think it sounded threatening he suggested the last few lines. That would account for the difference in tone and the fact that even though they are meant to be insults, they are somewhat complimentary. Also they serve to confuse and suggest different sources of origin. (someone who knows John, knows he's from the south, etc.)

2. Patsy authored the note and she WAS angry at John. Angry at whatever had happened and the role that John played in it. Maybe she wanted to take Jonbenet to the hospital or call for help and John discouraged it until they had concocted a cover story for her injures. While writing a bogus note she dies or her condition worsens and Patsy IS angry at him..saying, 'it's up to you now John'...(as in, look at the mess you've got us in better hope this works). That may be why after the first paragraph, the note suggests Jonbenet is already dead (referring to her remains, proper burial, she dies x4, being watched 'over', etc.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Jen--

I do find the note so interesting for possible clues and glad you don't mind my rambling!
Right, that is so true at the end how the tone changes and it is almost like the writer becomes full of "zeal" from the rest of the more passive tone. It does sound like someone could have been dictating at that point like "say this" "say you're not the only fat cat around".
What you wrote about the checklist with the money jumped out at me too. The writer gives a laundry list of instructions which seems to me like he/she is definitely trying to deflect attention from the true nature of the crime--like alright let's keep this guy busy (or keep police busy) like preoccupied with the detailed way the ransom needs to be gotten--he's gotta get the money and do it is this way, from this account, have a big enough attache and then (contradicting the big space that will be needed) put the money in a brown paper bag, etc.
Then, when it comes to the "delivery" it's like the writer just runs out of steam--like he/she's thinking well those other details will keep him busy and then make him think the "delivery" will be real complicated too--it'll be so exhausting like there will come another laundry list when the writer "calls" him.
That's one definite thing I see in the letter--the writer intentionally set out to deflect attention for as long as possible from the true nature of the crime by making John Ramsey (or the police if it was penned by Patsy) think that all these details need to be attended to in getting the money.
With the $118,000, it is interesting because it seems one of two things to me: either it was Patsy with the inside knowledge of the amount OR someone jealous of John Ramsey's money I am thinking and this maybe is a "tell"--like he knows he got this huge bonus and it angers him.

Anonymous said...

"You will also be denied her remains
for proper burial."

Well,didn't that end up being prophetic?!

"You stand a 99%
chance of killing your daughter"

That's also prophetic.

Also, shouldn't that have been 'You stand a 99% chance of US killing your daughter?" or is it a typo?

"She dies" is written 4 times. Was she dying while they wrote this?

"Killing will be difficult" I am sure it was when it was your own daughter

"Don't underestimate us" Phew. We all did, didn't we?.

"we are familiar
with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics." Indeed they were.

"You and your family are under constant scrutiny"

I think they felt this way. Of course they put themselves in that position by opening up their home to tours, putting their daughter on display, reaching for the golden rings of "beauty" (the pageants, the home), prestige, status, power, wealth, privilige, and admiration.

I think they both wrote the note, Patsy penning it, and John by her side. I think John killed her because of Patsy's statement that she had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think she was absolving herself there from everything but co-conspiring with John to cover it up. She wanted us to know she had nothing to do with the killing. She betrayed John with that statement, but he was too stupid and narcissistic to know it.

I think the note tells us a lot about the way they see themselves - as fat cats, as under scrutiny, and the way they think or desire the world sees them.

Jen said...

Hi Anon8:45-

Great catch on the "YOU stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter". You are so right...if kidnappers are in possession of Jonbenet then only THEY could kill her, regardless of the Ramsey's actions.

Peter says a large percentage of written documents will contain hidden pronoun confessions..I wonder if this qualifies?

Anonymous said...

I wonder...I feel like somewhere in the ransom note is the key.

Anonymous said...

It does sound like the whole note is a set up to explain why Jonbenet will be found dead. The note basically says no matter what you do, she dies, with little wiggle room, and it will be explained away because P and J didn't follow the instructions, "to the letter".

Unknown said...

Have you analyzed the statements of Fleet White?