Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Det. Steve Thomas and The Ramseys
Below is transcripts from the Larry King Live show in which John and Patsy Ramsey appeared alongside Steve Thomas, former detective who wrote a book alleging Ramsey guilt.
Statement Analysis (and commentary)is in bold type.
P. RAMSEY: You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet?
Patsy forms the words innocent people avoid: "murderer of my child" which indicates guilt. Even when entering the language of another, it is something innocent people feel disdain towards and avoid. She said that he called her, and not he said...
Note she uses the word "child", associated with child abuse, risk, etc.
"I killed Jonbenet". This is a principle in Statement Analysis used in investigations frequently. "You think I did it" contains the words "I did it" within the sentence. This is something the innocent do not normally do.
An early example of this is when Christ was on trial and told the accusers that their own lips had framed the words that He was "King of the Jews" He pointed this out to those who accused Him. Their own words, even when framed in the form of a question or accusation, had literally formed the truth.
An innocent person is not likely to frame words projecting guilt in any form; especially not in an open statement. Here, Patsy implicates herself while challenging the detective. She asserts that he has reasons, 1 through 10 that he should tell her. Then, we have repetition. Repetition heightens sensitivity.
Patsy affirms what she had already said by saying "murderer of my child" when she frames the words "I killed Jonbenet" in her statement. She herself confirms to us by the words she has chosen: first the "murderer of my child" and then "I killed Jonbenet". In Statement Analysis, we listen to what someone actually says, rather than what they want us to think via interpretation. Listen, do not interpret.
It is unusual that one would use both these phrases together.
notice also the words Patsy uses: "conjures up". Is this what she did in fabricating the ransom note, including building a "suspense novel" like length, complete with overtures of terrorists? Interesting choice of words.
J. RAMSEY: Answer the question. What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime?
The defense for the Ramsey pair is not "we didn't do it" but that they did not have a history of violence.
this common profiling technique popular in the 80's and 90's, that one must work their way up to murder, is no longer used today. We have cases regularly in the news of murders committed by someone with no criminal history.
See: Tammy Moorer
When John Ramsey says, "answer the question" it is not clear if he meant the previous question or the one he now asks.
Note the same principle used above is applied here: John Douglas said, "we are capable of this crime" within his sentence. This is not something we see in innocent statements. This same principle is applied in all statements, so when someone says "just because you think I implicated myself" we note that they were able to frame "I implicated myself" within their objection and is an indicator of guilt. In this particular example, you will find, indeed, that once you search the statement, the subject will have implicated himself.
John Ramsey himself, using the plural, says "we are capable of this crime". Take this statement and look at their actions after calling the police, as well as full analysis of the ransom note at www.statementanalysis.com and decide if John Ramsey has told us the truth.
John Ramsey read John Douglas' book on profiling and had the financial resources and pull to bring in the celebrity author to do a profile of him for his "own" investigation. Dougas said that no one just "graduates" to this type of killing, but would have had a history of violence leading up to killing. This emboldened the Ramseys.
Since that time, a number of cases have come to light where the killer had no history of violence that suggested the killing. Generally, violence escalates and we often can see a pattern; not always, but enough to see a history of violence and be on alarm. But this does not change the fact that some will kill without warning. When a 17 year old girl killed a school mate recently, it was learned by media that the killer had no history of violence; no school reports, nor anything else that suggested she could "graduate" to this level of violence. If someone accused of murder is not guilty by reason of not having a record of violence, Casey Anthony would be acquitted. We do not have a record of violence by her; nor have we heard any witnesses claim that she was violent to Caylee. Does that negate all the evidence?
My own experience in child abuse investigations tells me that the doctor would have likely suspected child abuse when he saw the constant infections that Jonbenet suffered from, and if Patsy reported the constant bed wetting, but due to their afluence, he likely did not.
When a young girl is being sexually abused, we will likely find infections, along with bed wetting. The fact that she was dressed up in a sexualized manner is difficult to ignore. The doctor should have reported this, and had he done so, Jonbenet may be alive to this day, a sophmore in college.
Steve Thomas didn't have evidence of violence on the part of the Ramseys. What he did have, however, was a history of doctor visits that should have triggered suspicions of sexual abuse and a child protective assessment.
It also should be noted that Jonbenet's death location was staged.
P. RAMSEY: God willing, if you ever have a child one day, you will know the pain perhaps when someone hands you the child in your arms, and says, Mr. Thomas, this is your child, do you tell me that you are going to look at that child, and -- you just had a new baby, Larry. Could you ever conceive of...
Patsy presses an emotional issue which avoids the topic of murder. In her wording she wishes the pain upon Steve Thomas. This is unusual for a victim, but not for a guilty party who has rage capable of a murder; or the cunning capable of not only a cover up, but an ability to take to the airways. She would have likely said later, "that's not what I meant", but in Statement Analysis, people choose their words in less than a micro second and we do not interpret: we listen to what they say. This is what she said: she wished horrific pain upon him, and judging by the anger they showed towards him, including threats of suit, etc, Patsy gave no indication that she didn't mean exactly what she said.
KING: I can't imagine how anyone could harm a child.
This is what most people do: they project their own beliefs and value systems upon others and struggle to believe that someone could actually kill a child.
Had I had a chance to interview King, I would have asked him if he would have dyed his 5 year old daughter's hair, given her false teeth, and dressed her up in provocative show girl outfits for pagents followed by pedophiles. This may have helped him think outside of his own experiences.
I would have asked him that if he had found his child "kidnapped", would he have called in neighbors, friends, and lawyers after being warned not to call the police;or would he have been so scared that he would have waited for instructions from the police?
I would have asked him if he would have made arrangements to disappear from the scene on a plane,leaving behind his daughter?
I would have asked him if he would have had his lawyer stall the investigation.
I would have asked him if he would have rather spoken to the media than investigators.
I would have asked him if he would have shopped around for a polygraph that was passed.
I would have asked him if he would have then made the polygrapher sign a contract limiting what he can release.
He may have understood a bit more.
P. RAMSEY: ... doing something to this child, let alone the things that this man is...
"this man". . It is unclear who he is referring to. Is it the kidnapper? If so: I thought it was a "group of individuals" or a "small foreign faction? Note that "this" man is close; "that" shows distance.
Or is "this" man (close) Det Steve Thomas, who was physically close and who has alleged that the Ramseys are responsible for the death of Jonbenet.".
J. RAMSEY: I've lived with her for 20 years. I know that she loved that child more than anything in the world.
Note that "I" and "her" are distant. He could have said "Patsy and I have lived together for 20 years..." but he did not. He chose to use the word "with" which commonly shows distance.
"My wife and I went shopping" is different from
"I went shopping with my wife" The subsequent interview revealed that the latter statement showed distance as he did not want to go shopping that day.
J. RAMSEY: We speculate. The world's -- one of the world's leading profilers, John Douglas, has said that this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.
The autopsy showed signs of vaginal trauma consistent with sexual abuse. John may have now inadvertently revealed that Patsy was angry with him, and may have coerced him into helping stage the death scene if indeed, this was an accidental killing during discipline where Patsy then went into cover up mode, sat down for a long time (something an intruder would not do) and wrote a practice note and then the real note. .
KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.
J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.
J. RAMSEY: I am not ruling out any possibility. It's a horrible thought to think that somebody would be angry with me enough to kill my daughter, but I'm not ruling out anything.
The issue of "anger" is sensitive which is seen by John's repetition.
Now we have the motive-this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.
KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.
J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.
And finally who wrote the note-
KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably killed the child?
Patsy was never ruled out as the author of the note. The linguistics point to her: including the now famous "and hence" phrase she used in her Christmas card to the church (the same unique (and improper) phrase is in the ransom note)
J. RAMSEY: I agree.
P. RAMSEY: I would agree with
Notice the weakening of Patsy's agreement. A simple "I agree" would suffice but she gives us additional words which give us additional information: "I would" is future tense; weakening her commitment, and "with" shows distance, as does "that". "I agree" would be first person singular, present tense (the statement by King was present tense) and would have been strong.
KING: It's a strange, letter, isn't it?
THOMAS: Absolutely. It is an absolutely bizarre letter, that the writer knew so much about this family, using Patsy's tablet, a pen from within the home, and...
P. RAMSEY: They did not use JonBenet's name.
This shows familiarity with the lengthy note. Why the absence of Jonbenet's name? The author would likely had struggled due to emotional attachment and not used Jonbenet's name. We saw this often in the answers given by Ronald Cummings. His use of Haleigh's name was limited, especially in the "Cobra tapes" where the investigator repeatedly used her name.