Thursday, February 26, 2015

Understanding the Analysis of the 911 Call by Patsy Ramsey

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6, explained in more detail, so that those less familiar with Statement Analysis may understand this case.  

I have also added some commentary regarding what may have happened to Jonbenet.  

Statement Analysis, under various names, is the scientific study of words we use.  Setting a background for this understanding allows for a reference point. 

When comparing statements of truthful and deceptive people, patterns emerge.  In applying the principles to 911 calls, there is no difference or 'special status' to be used.  The same indicators of deception in written statements are employed in verbal statements, whether in an interview, a phone call, or in casual conversation. 

The subject is the speaker.  He or she has the information we seek.  Here is what must take place when one tells us "What happened" in an event, including this report. 

1.  The subject cannot tell us everything.  

This is impossible, as it would go on and on, therefore, the subject must edit her account of what happened. She must tell us what is important for us to hear, taking out details that she considers unnecessary or unimportant.   

2.  She must choose the words to use. 

The subject has information to be communicated but since she cannot tell us everything that happened, she must edit down the account, choosing the words to communicate to us what is important.  

This choosing of words is from a 'memory bank' of vocabulary that began its accumulation before speech, from her parents, siblings and those around her, and then from books, television, school, and so on.  How many words does a person of average intelligence have in the memory bank from which to choose from?

Studies vary but the average adult has at least 20,000 to 35,000 words to choose from.  This number increases with education and intelligence.  Patsy Ramsey was an intelligent woman.  Let's take the lower number on average:

Patsy Ramsey, who made this 911 call, had to choose words to report her missing daughter, from about 20,000 words.  

3.  She must now decide the order of words to use.  

From the 20,000 words, she will choose only a few, and will decide the order in which the communication takes place. Each sentence will be placed in a specific order so that communication of what she wants known by the police is completed. 

4.  She must now choose who to order these words within each sentence.  

She must put, for example, the pronoun "I" before the verb "found" and then add "the ransom note" in a specific way in order for it to make sense.  This is syntax, defined as:   the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.

In conclusion, in order to make this call, Patsy Ramsey must:

1.  Edit out information she does not want communicated
2.  Choose which words to use.  She spoke about 105 words (some repeated) from her library of more than 20,000.  In answering a question, she chose, approximately, 10 words out of 20,000 for any given answer. 
3.  She must choose the order of sentences, prioritizing the sentences to what is important.
4.  She then must process these words to a formulate a coherent sentence. 

This entire process takes place in the brain in less than a second.  

This speed is what gives Statement Analysis its powerful insight and advantage over every other form of deception detection.  

When Patsy Ramsey (subject) is asked a question, she must answer with just a few words out of a large memory bank, and put even a single sentence into a cohesive order.  The "odds", for example, of getting a pronoun "wrong" is not measurable.  I have "staked my career" and reputation upon a single pronoun in a number of cases, including before experienced and well trained veterans of investigation; men and women of greater intelligence than myself. My confidence is not found in my ability, but in this speed, especially since pronouns are universal and instinctive.  

Pronouns do not lie. 

Recently, the former police officer in charge of the Jonbenet murder investigation took to "Reddit" to discuss the case, but upon learning that this was public knowledge, requested the information to be taken down.  From what I have read of his comments, there was nothing new or fascinating in his discussion.  His target was John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of the murdered child, in a case that captivated the nation. 

Why did this little girl's death demand so much attention when there are other cases in which parents were thought to have murdered or accidentally killed their own children, and made public statements?

Among details that caught attention were allegations of sex abuse, the wealth of the parents, the high powered attorneys, the refusal to cooperate, the initial response to the crime scene, and the sexualized nature of child beauty pageants.  These were all areas of interest as a 6 year old girl was dressed up in provocative costumes and make up; something, in the late 90's, that was not commonly known as it is today.  The nation has become de-sensitized to crass parents, sexualized outfits and brutal competition due to 'reality' television and the bombardment of the absurdity of those so engaged.  That the parents held a need to tell the nation that they were "normal" told us that they were anything but.  

Yet, in spite of all these fascinating elements, there was something else that shocked the nation.  This was the  behavior of the District Attorney, Alex Hunter.  

Hunter did not simply withhold support from the police investigators, he sabotaged it.  The more he spoke, the more we knew.  Even the 'leaking' of information to tabloids was something that the post-Watergate country did not appear shocked at.  

What many people felt stunned over was his behavior, like a junior high kid trying to be accepted by the 'cool crowd' of high school seniors, willing to do anything to be "one of the gang."  It was his pandering to the Ramsey attorneys that appeared to go far beyond fear of public humiliation in a court room.  

Self interest is nothing new to elected officials; it is their mainstay.  They tell themselves that compromise is necessary, at any and every stage, in order to 'get elected and do go' later on.  They do not consider the damage to their own character and self respect, that, like a cancer, rots away at the bone marrow, weakening them to the position of no longer protecting a reputation, but being seen in clownish cowardice, rushing away from microphones thrust in their faces, closing doors and hiding behind prepared statements. 

That Hunter was outclassed by the powerful Atlanta law firm was not in question, it was more in how far he was willing to go to please them. Not satisfied with leaks and perhaps, even collusion, it reached it zenith when a Grand Jury was assembled, heard the evidence that police worked so long and hard on presenting, handed down an indictment against the Ramseys, of which Hunter not only refused to sign:

He deliberately deceived the press. 

He staked his own reputation upon Grand Jury secrecy:  his hidden cowardice would not come out because the Grand Jury indictment was sealed.  

He was, for years, a success in hiding this shame.  

Had he believed John and Patsy innocent, he could have taken the bold step and told the truth:  "I have refused to sign the indictment."

He did not.

Instead, he employed passive language which led the press to report:  "No indictment handed down against John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of their daughter, Jonbenet."

Patsy's sister immediately took to the press and stated that the Grand Jury "did not indict" her sister and brother-in-law.  

When the next District Attorney took over, she moved quickly to arrest the "suspect" John Mark Carr, without bothering to check if he had ever been in Boulder that year.  

She held an ostentatious self-congratulatory press conference, going one by one proclaiming praise upon each member of her team, making sure the press got every name noted, while the general public shook its collective head in disbelief. John Mark Carr may have had the best day of his life, being in the spot light, finally, after many failed attempts. 

 "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a letter to the child's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion."

Here is the beginning of the case; the first contact with law enforcement, via the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey. 

The analysis of such looks at:

1.  pronouns
2.  connections
3.  unnecessary words
4.  change of language
5.  the expected versus the unexpected 

This last point is, perhaps, the simplest to understand. 

A 6 year old girl is missing, and the mother (biological mother) has found a ransom note (the FBI reportedly stated that this was the longest ever, concluding that it was a ruse.  Statement Analysis of the Ransom note shows it is "deception indicated" and that it was, indeed, an attempt to deceive the police.  

What do we expect to hear from the caller?

We expect:

1.  The mother of a missing/kidnapped child to use the pronoun "I", because relationships between mothers and children are powerful, and they are personal.  We do not stop to think, "should I say "I", or should I say "we", even more so when it comes to the powerful maternal instinct.  In antiquity, a mother bear robbed of her whelps is referenced as dangerous, and Solomon exploited this maternal weakness in his landmark custody decision.  

2.  The mother of a missing/kidnapped child to demand the child be found safe and unharmed.  We expect to hear her demand help for her child, who, in the setting, is in the worst possible scenario a parent can endure:  the unknown.  

3.  The mother to express concern for her well being.  Who has her?  Why does he have her?  What has he done with her?  What is he doing with her?  Is she okay?  Does she have her blankie? (and so forth).  

Since out of 20,000 words processed in less than a "micro-second" or "mili-second" we expect the biological mother of a child in unknown danger to be unable to not say these words, in some form, at some time.  

If you did not know where your daughter was, what help would you seek?

We view the expected, and when it does not show itself, we are 'confronted' with the unexpected.  

A 911 call is sometimes referred to as "excited utterance", meaning that it is expected to come from less pre-thought and more reaction.  This is not something we need to evaluate in analysis.  Even in deception, we view content, recognizing that deception does not come from a void. 

We expect, that in an emergency, the caller will get right to the point at hand. This process of choosing the order of sentences is in the same time period, of less than a second, for the brain to signal the tongue:  

"My daughter is missing!" with the expected possessive pronoun "my", from a biological mother.  

We must ask:  

  Is this a cry for help for Jonbenet, or is it alibi building?

Recall the 911 call by Misty Croslin, babysitting "missing" Haleigh Cummings, age 5.  

"Hello, I was sleeping and the door was open..." said Misty Croslin, showing that to her it was a priority that police know that even before she reports Haleigh  missing, that police know that she was asleep.  In less than a second, she showed priority.  

Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason?  If so, it is to be red flagged.  Recall what Statement Analyst Kaaryn Gough said on Crime Wire:

The brain knows even when the tongue is attempting to deceive.  The brain knows. 

Child injury or death call:

  We expect a parent, for example, to speak for herself, take personal ownership of her child, and ask for help for the child. 

What do the pronouns tell us?  If the caller is on speakerphone with the spouse, we may hear "we", but if it is one parent, we expect "my" when it comes to the child in question. 

I am always on alert when a single individual says, "we called 911" as I struggle to picture more than one person actually dialing the phone.  I ask clarifying questions to learn if, perhaps, more than one party spoke to the 911 operator.  If the subject, alone, dialed and spoke, did the subject discuss the call ahead of time, slowing the pace of the emergency down, dramatically.  

Below is the call placed by Patsy Ramsey, from 1996, when she reported that she found a ransom call.  

Statement Analysis has shown the following in the case:

Linguistic indicators of sexual abuse.

Scientific Content Analysis analyzes the content in a manner that is repetitive with the expectation of results being seen in a consistent manner.  

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 have a kidnapping...Hurry, please

The expected:  "My daughter is missing!" or "My daughter is kidnapped!" is not heard. 

 We expect to hear the pronoun, "I" early and often in this call.  This is a mother calling and she is missing her youngest child.  Our expectation was the pronoun "I" as this is deeply personal (Solomonic wisdom) for a mother of a missing child.  She is the biological mother, not step mother, not aunt, not family friend (even in these cases, the concern would be so personal that we might hear "I" instead of "we."  That she does not produce this instinctive pronoun is our first indication, in the very first word of this call, that something is amiss.  

Think of it. 

This is the first word of the investigation into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey; the first word, consisting of only one letter, and already we are aware that in less than a micro second, the mother has avoided personal connection to her missing daughter.  

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.  The kidnapping is the conclusion of the matter, rather than her "missing."

Since she has a ransom note, we can say that she knows someone has her.  This will then produce the most natural of parental responses:

Concern for her well being.  Who has her?  What is he doing to her right now, as we speak?  The unknown is the most painful element for any parent.  Stephen King said he could not compete, in horror writing, with what the imagination of a parent can do to itself in tormenting horror.  

I could not bear not knowing where my child was, who had her, and what he was doing to her.  Even parents of murdered children are thus given opportunity for closure when they learn the truth.  This is what makes the cruelty of one Terri Horman, so indescribably acute, as she allows for Desire Young, mother of a missing son, to suffer, hour by hour, day by day, week by week, month by month, and year by year.  

We look to see this element in parental capacity and desire to "know" and inability to process the unknown, in the caller.  

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  Patsy Ramsey in a Christmas card. 

This links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.  

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.  

There is nothing more personal for a mother.  

There is nothing more painful than 'not knowing.'

We also expect her to say her daughter is missing, but here, it sounds somewhat concessionary or contrived:  "we have a kidnapping" not only uses the weak, "we", but also is a conclusion.  

This leads us to a question that arises naturally:

Question:  Is this rehearsed?  

By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged.  She has gone to the conclusion and if it is directed from the ransom note, we then expect her to express concern about her daughter's welfare in the hands of the kidnappers.  If there is no concern, we follow the trail of rehearsal and staging.  

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for Jonbenet since Jonbenet is the one 'suffering' at the hands of kidnappers.  Jonbenet is in a position of vulnerability and incapable of self protection. 

This is something that should be in the vocabulary of a biological mother of a young child, especially one who has lived her entire life in the mother's custody.  

Next, we must note that not only is this biological, and that the child has lived her entire life with her mother, but that the mother was intimately involved in the 'hobby' of child beauty pageants.  This means that the mother spent many additional hours with the child  with these hours holding strong emotional connections, including hopes and aspirations.  

This should show itself in even a single sentence about what Jonbenet is suffering at the hands of the kidnappers.  

The mother knows the child well; from head to toe.  She has not only done all the usual things mothers do, including changing, dressing, and helping with school, but has been involved in the child pageantry circuit.  This builds the connection even more so. 

Yet, there is another element of connection. 

The mother, herself, was a beauty pageant contestant.  

What does this mean to the 911 call?

1.  The mother was biological
2.  The mother had full custody of the child
3.  The mother handled the child's pageant activities
4.  The mother, herself, was a participant in the same activities, and could, by extension through her daughter, 'continue' this lifestyle. 

There is no acceptance of the lack of singular, personal pronoun "I"  in this call.   If only point 1 was applicable, there would be no excuse.  Even a mother who does not have full time custody of the child will use the pronoun "I" (See Kyron Horman case for samples). 

That the caller had her entire life wrapped up, not only present but her own past, in the child, the pronoun "we" should tell us that this caller/mother has a need to share responsibility or spread out guilt, psychologically, in this setting of the missing/kidnapped child. 

I have staked myself on pronouns.  They are intuitive and reliable. 

"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.  

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" or even, "my daughter is kidnapped."

She reported that "we have", which puts the focus upon her and someone else, likely her husband.  

What is the situation at hand?

Answer:  it is what Patsy and John Ramsey are experiencing, and not what Jonbenet is experiencing.  

Next, note that the focus is "we" and she does not, in the first sentence, inform the operator who it is that has been kidnapped. 

Is there any way possible that you, as a mother, would be able to not say, in the very first words, who it is that is gone from your home, if it were your child?

Of all the words she chose from her vast vocabulary, "Jonbenet" and "daughter" are not part of them.  


Priority is what "we have" going on, and not the child.  

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) The initial sentence is repeated and this should cause us to ask:

Is this scripted?  

By "scripted", I mean 'planned, rehearsed' by the caller.   Since it is repeated, it is important.  Now, the investigator, upon hearing this, should be on alert for the possibility of not only sharing guilt ("we") but of scripting. 

The investigator that comes upon the lengthy and deceptive 'ransom note' knows that the length of such a note speaks to planning, or 'scripting' the entire event.  

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. Given the nature of the time spent with Jonbenet (biological, full custody, pageantry) this pronoun "our" confirms the alert that began with the very first word of this case:  "We."

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 and does not show "demand" for the safe return of Jonbenet.  

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

Priority emerging: 

1.  We have---it is their situation
2.  Note found
3.  Mention of "daughter" but not her name.  
4.  No concern yet for her daughter's well being.   We continue to listen for this.  

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?

That a note is "left" is to tell us that whoever did it, is not here. 

This is not necessary to say.  This simple inclusion of an unnecessary word tells us that she wants police to believe that those responsible for the kidnapping are not present in the home.  
The word is unnecessary. 

In Statement Analysis, an unnecessary word is deemed doubly important to the analysis.  

Again, as we consider the order in which she is communicating information:

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?

"There's a note left" is passive language.  Passivity in language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility.  Here, "there's a note left" removes all traces of responsibility. She does not even say "they left a note"

Should we have expected her to?

If she does not know the kidnappers' identity, passivity is appropriate.  

Please consider this point carefully before moving on in analysis.  

If ISIS took your child, would you know who took your child?  You would say "ISIS has her!" even though you do not know the individual names.  Therefore, in thinking that ISIS took your child, you would not use passivity in language.  

Keep this in mind as Patsy reveals that she does know the identity of the kidnappers, according to the ransom note.  

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.  It is surprising since kidnappers give some form of identity in how they can be reached to get the ransom to be paid.  

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 is the connection she had with Jonbenet and tells us how she saw her daughter.  The heavy make up, inappropriate Las Vegas showgirl outfit, false teeth, bleached hair, and so on, were all part of her connection to her daughter. 

  At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child. 

She does not use Jonbenet's name.  

911: How long ago was this?

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

Missing pronoun. 

Deceptive people or those who wish to reduce commitment (casually--this is not a 'casual scenario) or those who wish to psychologically distance themselves drop pronouns.  

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 should 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.    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.  She does not say who "found" a note.  

She did not want to say, "I just found a note" because it would be a lie.  "Just found a note" does not say who just found it and is a way of avoiding a lie.  We hear this in children who lie, just as we hear it here. 

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. "

Please note that "ransom note" is longer.  The law of economy shows that we go from longer to shorter, once identified, in language. 

"My wife, Heather and I went to the stores" will become, "Heather bought..." and not "My wife, Heather then bought..."

Here, we have the reverse.  There is no apparent justification for this change found within the context of her statement.  This is very likely an indiction that she is not speaking from experiential memory of an actual ransom note, but of deception.  

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.  We would not expect it to be anywhere else.  That it was "left" means the kidnappers are gone (unnecessary to report) and the location of the ransom note is not necessary to report. 

Both are unnecessary words, making it very important in the analysis.  

Remember: of the 20,000 plus words to choose from, she, in less than a micro second, felt the need to add these in. 

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. There is some identification of who kidnapped the unnamed child in this case.  

 Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for Jonbenet.  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."

"I am the mother" and not "her" mother, or "Jonbenet's mother"

She has yet to use Jonbenet's name. 
She has yet to say a single word of what Jonbenet may be experiencing in the horrific unknown. 

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

Who is in need of help?  Is it Jonbenet?  Patsy and John?
For whom does she ask for help?

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.  

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  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.  What was the expected?  Begging?  Pleading?  Demanding?

"Please find her!   FIND HER!  FIND HER!"

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?

Why not the name, "Jonbenet" in the call?

This must be explored.  The mother's statements do not produce her daughter's name, which is distancing language.  
This should be considered in light of the use of "we" and "our" in her language.  This is not what we expect a biological mother to use. It is especially not what we expect a biological mother who had full custody and of whom a lifestyle was shared, to say. 

The absence of Jonbenet's name is to distance herself from Jonbenet. 


Analysis of other statements made by the parents indicate not only deception but childhood sexual abuse.  Yet, in this call, there may be more than just guilt. 

There may be anger.  

Please see 911 call by police chief William McCollum who shot his wife on New Year's, 2015, for extremity of avoidance of victim's name.  

It may well be that the mother blames the child for causing the situation.  This is not uncommon in child abuse cases.  

Of injured, wrenched legs:  the child "would not let me change him";
Of suffocated children, "She would not drink her milk..."
Of murdered children, "I would not harm her..."

There is both minimization and subtle blaming of the victim in child abuse and child homicide cases.  

If a child acted out and the parent killed the child unintentionally, the parent may try to blame the child. 

If a child is sexually abused, and threatened to tell someone at school, for example, the parent may feel that the child caused the death, since she would not remain silent. 

I do not believe Jonbenet was killed intentionally but it happened in a moment of rage, perhaps when she wet the bed and got up demanding food in the middle of the night.  A child paraded before others not only is at risk for narcissism to develop, but must "stand still" for long periods of time, at an early age, to submit to the mother's intentions of putting on make up, or doing an elaborate work up on her hair.  

Did Jonbenet defy her mother that fateful night? 

Recall:  the parents did not want police to know she was up that night and lied about her getting up and eating pineapple.  

The chronic urinary tract inflections and chronic bed wetting should be taken in correlation with the linguistic indicators of sexual abuse in the language of the father, including the "lights" and "door" of his public statement.  (see linguistic indicators of sexual abuse, via the search engine, at this blog for more information.  Also see "Wise As a Serpent" at Amazon for more understanding of Statement Analysis).  

Although I don't believe that Jonbenet was killed intentionally (rather, from a violent outburst), I must remain open to the possibility of her threatening to "tell" as potentially fueling rage against her.  This call shows a mother not using her daughter's name, nor expressing a single word of fear of what Jonbenet might have been experiencing in the hands of unknown kidnappers.  
This 911 call which is the initial contact with police in the death of Jonbenet shows 

 The 911 call also indicates distancing language by the mother, away from the daughter.  

The call sounds scripted, just as the crime scene appeared scripted and the ransom note was scripted (and rehearsed) with a kidnapper unafraid of being found out, and unafraid of time passing.  

The mother of Jonbenet had a lifestyle which put her closer to her child than many mothers.  That she began the call with "we" shows this distance and the facts of the case, including analysis of interviews, shows the reason for the distance:  guilt.  

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


trustmeigetit said...

Quick OT but possibly interesting on the Black Dahlia case.

Peter, Hobbs or one of the others good at SA

So I have read a lil about the Black Dahlia case. I never realized they had a strong suspect and that suspect was the father of one of the cops on the case, and the cop was convinced of his father’s guilt.

I guess they had a taped conversation with the suspect and this was some of those statements. They do not know who he was talking to but I guess during the call they heard what sounded like someone going down stairs and then there were sounds of a woman screaming.

Almost makes me think another murder. Very scary to imagine. He may have killed many and got away with it.

The statements are below. Anyone see anything strong in that or is it too little. I did note that he actually phrases “I did kill the Black Daliah” so does that seem like it may really be him?

George Hodel was the man. His exact statement was “Supposing I did kill the Black Daliah, they couldn’t prove it now. They cant talk to my secretary because shes dead.”

Link to where I read this

trustmeigetit said...

I think your analysis is right on on this case even without looking at SA.

Even the family maid thinks mom did it.

She thinks it may have been accidental… not that she didn’t hurt her, but that she didn’t intend to kill her. Abuse gone too far. She also commented that she took a knife away from Burke (the knife was found near the body) and it was in the hall closest behind the sheets by Jon Benets room. She thinks that after wetting the bed, that when mom went to get new sheets, that’s when the knife came into the picture.

I almost think she made the bed after she died as part of the cover up. Saw the knife

Then back on SA, the Jon Benets doctor (Beuf) was asked about child abuse allegations and stated this.

Woodward: When you talked with the police, did they ask you about sexual abuse of JonBenet?

Beuf: Yes, of course they did.

Woodward: What did you tell them?

Beuf: I told them absolutely, categorically no. There was absolutely no evidence - either physical or historical.

Anonymous said...

I didn't click the link, so just going on the statement you posted:

How did his secretary die?

His statement makes it sound like they could prove it (now), if they could talk to his secretary.

trustmeigetit said...

One last comment with the maid, I think that her stating she hid that knife in the linen closet may have been one of the most crutial points in this case. An intruder would not have gone up stairs in the linen closet.

It's like the shelves in Travis's closet that Jodi Airias said she climbed to get Travis's gun. The shelves could not be climbed so her whole gun claim was proved false.

I find some justice that mommy dearest died a painful death.

But it's time for dad to go down.

trustmeigetit said...


I had to look this up too. I just saw a link on facebook about unsolved murders so I have not read up on all this.

This is a quick search that brought up data from wikepedia.

George Hodel. February 18, 1950 “Maybe I did kill my secretary.... “

Ruth Spaulding (his secretary) died from an overdose and Hodel was investigated by the LAPD in 1945 for her suspected murder. He was present when Spaulding died and had burnt some of her papers before police were called. The case was dropped owing to lack of evidence, but documents were later found that indicated Spaulding may have been about to make public that Hodel was intentionally misdiagnosing patients and billing them for laboratory tests, medical treatment, and prescriptions not needed. Hodel's son, former LAPD homicide detective Steve Hodel, believes Elizabeth Short may have been one of his father's patients.

Anonymous said...

Way too many qualifiers there.

Plus, I hate when people say there's "no evidence". To me, it doesn't matter if there's supposedly no evidence. That doesn't mean the crime, or whatever is in question, didn't happen. It means that the person making the statement thinks there's no legal evidence. It's not a reliable denial, and to me, it's even sort of "cocky", kind of like saying "prove it".

Anonymous said...

I'm the same Anon that's been replying.

Here's another cocky statement - "Maybe I did XYZ". It's similar to, "no evidence", and "prove it". This one in particular (maybe I did) is like an open invitation for him to be suspected and investigated.

trustmeigetit said...

And if his secretary was another victim, he may have killed her to keep her from stating Elisabeth (black dahlia) was a patient.

Very interesting. May be time to investigate other potential patients and murders around that time.

Also she had the blood drained from her body, something I think a doctor would have the ability to do.

Deejay said...

What is known:
The family went to a party.
They came home.
JB was dressed in pjs.
She wet the bed and her clothing.
She ate pineapple.
The parents did not change clothing.
JB was dead in the basement; head injury, strangled, assaulted.
Items from the house were used.
A long note was written.
Patsy called 911.
Some things the parents said were not true.
The parents were not cooperative.
The parents did not allow the brother to be interviewed.

Assuming that they lied to cover something- what makes sense?

Father, mother, or brother assaulted her. (On-going)
Father, mother, or brother killed her.
Parents staged death scene and wrote ransom note.
Intruder (or other non-family member) assaulted her (On-going)
Intruder assaulted her that night.
Intruder killed her.
Intruder wrote ransom note.

john said...

The power of Pronouns never cease to amaze me.

Anonymous said...

I don't know anything about the case at all, but you've got me interested now, lol. I'm going to look it up when I have time.

elf said...

JonBenet The Police Files edited by Don Gentile & David Wright (copyright 2003 America Media Inc Books)
This book includes exact transcripts of john and Patsy Ramsey's police interrogations.
ST- detective. Steve Thomas
PR- Patsy Ramsey

ST- Why do you think somebody did this Patsy?
PR- I don't know.
ST- Do you the person who did this, under any circumstances, would deserve a second chance?
PR- A second chance?
ST- Pity or forgiveness?
PR-Oh God no
ST- What should happen to the person that we apprehend, Patsy?
PR- I don't know what you do to people that do this. But whatever it is, strongest punishment there is
***this portion of the interrogation caught my eye because her answer is not what id expect a mother of a murdered child to answer. (The date of the interrogation was April 30, 1997- 4 months after jonbenets death) as a mother, myself, I would expect to hear Patsy say very strongly that she wanted the murderer to suffer, be put to death, electric chair, etc...
Also even if jonbenets death was a botched kidnapping when det. Thomas asked why somebody would do this Patsy says she doesn't know, that's a lie because presuming the botched kidnapping is the real story (as the Ramsey's wanted everyone to believe) that would mean that Patsy DID KNOW or have some idea WHY somebody would do this. ***
John Ramsey talking about finding jonbenet:
LS (detective Lou Smit) - What else do you remember right at that time?
JR- I just remember talking and 'Come on baby's and I tried to untie her arms. They were tied up behind hee head..
LS- were they tied tight?
JR- yeah, very tight...her skin was swollen around. And they were not easy to get off. I tried to untie them quickly and I just picked her up, carried her upstairs, I was screaming. In fact, I couldn't even scream.
And then I I brought her upstairs into the living room and laid her there, at one point, tried to untie the knot further and Linda arndt stopped me from doing it...
I remember Linda arndt kneeling down beside her, I was there and Linda said "she's dead"
My emotion was that id found her, which was good. But she was dead, which was horrible. But it was almost better than not knowing. Cause not knowing where your child is, is the most horrible feeling, I think, a parent can experience. And that was what was going through our mind all that morning.
So when I found her I was like "thank God I found her". I didn't want Patsy to see her that way, and I ran up and got a blanket off one of the chairs.
LS- Upstairs?
JR- probably up in the TV room. I just ran up these stairs and went back down and put the blanket over her.

*** ummm...ok. this part of the interrogation was dated June 23, 1998.
The first thing I notice is he tried to untie her hands but couldn't and then he carried her upstairs and tried again until officer Arndt stopped him. He said he was screaming and in the very next sentence says that he 'in fact' couldn't scream. He places the emotion that finding her was good but that she's dead which is horrible. He seems to minimize jonbenets death by saying the MOST HORRIBLE FEELING is not knowing where your child is, but when he found her he was 'like thank God I found her'. He states he didn't want Patsy to see her THAT WAY and he ran upstairs to get a blanket.
According to john Ramsey he found jonbenet wrapped in a white blanket, and after taking off the tape from her mouth and trying to untie her hands, carried her upstairs to the living room which is on the same floor as the TV room. Did he find jonbenet then run upstairs for a blanket and go back down?
:inconsistent much, Mr Ramsey?

Anonymous said...

I read the Redit thing from chief of police. seems he thinks parents did it. tho he was careful not to say so directly. I also like what he said at the end - specifically that you can't throw out evidence - esp just because it doesn't fit your theory, and he was referring to the DNA (maybe more stuff too) but he was saying - you got somebody else DNA - while that does NOT exonerate parents, it's still very important - and likely means at least one per person - who's DNA was never compared - was involved.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Becky, 16, disappeared from her father Darren Galsworthy's home a week ago and has not been seen or heard from since

The dad of missing Becky Watts has posted a disturbing Facebook message warning to 'wives, mothers and girlfriends' to look out for his daughter's blood on their partners' underwear.

Becky, 16, disappeared from her father Darren Galsworthy's home a week ago and has not been seen or heard from since.

Mr Galsworthy, 51, posted the unusual message on her profile page on Wednesday morning - six days after she vanished.

The note - written it in block capital letters and repeated three times in just 11 minutes - asked women to watch out for blood on family member's underwear.


Within five hours of the post appearing, Mr Galdsworthy and his disabled wife Anjie, 49, were ushered out of their home by police and taken to a 'safe house'.

When he left the house, the tearful dad said: "I'm very grateful for the support from the public.

"The search this afternoon was organised by my brother and I hope lots of people turn out for it. I can't say anything else right now, I have to go."

Minutes after they left, teams of forensics officers moved in and began meticulously examining the semi in St George, Bristol.

Investigators combed the house property for clues, taking photographs of the front of the house and leaving with evidence bags and were still working today.

A spokeswoman for Avon and Somerset police said removing the parents was 'routine'.

She said: "We've taken them somewhere - they might be going to friends or family - while we are going to be doing searches of the house, as is routine in a missing persons investigation, to find any clues.

"We've already searched her room and parks, and this is extending that to within the house."

Becky, who is currently at college resitting her GCSEs, was last seen at around 10.30am on Thursday when her stepmum left their home for a hospital appointment.

Her best friend Courtney Bicker sent her a one-word text message at 11.06am which said "bae" - a slang term of endearment which she used as a jokey nickname for Becky.

The 17-year-old got an alert back saying it had been read, but she didn't get a reply, and Becky left home at 11.15am, apparently to meet her boyfriend.

Courtney said texts were later sent from Becky's phone to her boyfriend Luke about meeting up later that day, but he didn't reply because he was having dental work.

Mr Galsworthy also posted messages on Facebook which suggested there had been clashes at home over Becky's lack of tidiness.

Writing on Monday, he said: "Bex if you can see this please come home were heart broken we need you in our lives you wont be told off and you can make as much mess as you want and I wont say a word promise."

He also said he had seen a white transit van "hanging around" near the house the day she went missing.

The Facebook posts came to light after friends who took part in a mass search for the girl handed over a bag of potential evidence to police officers.

The team of more than 100 people spent almost three hours on Wednesday evening distributing leaflets, knocking on doors, talking to local residents and hunting for clues.

tania cadogan said...


At the end of the search a number of items were handed to officers, including a pair of shoes, a notebook, a jumper and a blue t-shirt.

Hunters also spotted a bag buried in a hedge and covered in leaves, which was looked at by forensics officers on Wednesday night.

It is not yet known if any of the items have any significance to Becky's disappearance.

One woman who found the items said: "We haven't necessarily found much but we do hope that what we have found will be of some use to the police.

"We just hope and pray that she is returned home safely."

A spokesman for Avon & Somerset Police said: “We’re using every resource we can to try and find Becky. We have dedicated teams of officers on the ground and in the local area.

"We are also focusing heavily on social media due to the fact that Becky is an active social media user.

"We cannot comment on individual posts but would like to reiterate our thanks to the public and online community for their support so far."

I find the language of the father concerning especially since he has referred to her in the past tense previously

Mr Galsworthy said his daughter's disappearance was out of character, as the fashion conscious teen was too shy to even pay the cashier at a shop on her own.

'Becky is introverted. She does not mix with big groups of people,' he said.

'She would not go and ask for anything or go to a till on her own - she was that kind of girl.

'This is why her disappearing is so out of character for her. I am trying to remain positive, but really starting to fear for the worst.

'This just really is a nightmare come true - I am just so worried we don't know what to do.

'She loved fashion and clothes and all she took with her was a blue quilted jacket. Her purse and bank cards are all here at home.

'If she had planned to go anywhere she would have taken her phone charger - she was never without her phone and always on Facebook.'

Becky, who is studying at college to resit her GCSE exams, was last seen on Thursday morning by Darren's wife Anjie, 49, who left to go to a hospital appointment at around 10.30am.

Read more:

Looking at the photos of him and his wife, she looks calm and stoic whereas as he appears very emotional and overwrought( which reminds me of mick philpott who killed 6 of his children in a house fire with his wife and a friend as accomplaces and stuart hazell who killed his step grandaughter( he was married to her gran)

His facebook post concerns me as well.
Why would he post such a comment 3 times (3 is the liars number Mark McClish)in a short period of time.
Why would he assume she had been raped (It being unlikely she would have consensual sex whilst on her period)
Is this perhaps to explain away any blood found in the house?

Is this perhaps to explain away injuries if her body is found?

I have never heard a parent of any missing child tell the world their daughter was on her period and to look for blood stain in male underwear.
All this does is make me think this is sensitive to him and perhaps he is alibi building ( remember adam baker talking about him not seeing his daughter Zahra Baker for several weeks as she was going through puberty and hid in her bedroom. She was repored abducted by him and his wife, her step mo was found guilty of homicide and he faced no charges and legged it back to Australia)

Something is very off here.

elf said...

That is one of the weirdest Facebook post I've ever seen. What father thinks like that? What father is that aware of his daughters menses?

Anonymous said...

huh - father of missing daughter interesting. gotta say -- If he did know she was on her period -- I don't think it's so crazy to think of looking for blood as a possible way to find who took her, it's tasteless - but if he got it in his head as a way to catch whoever took his daughter _ I could see him posting it despite sounding weird. surely a friend, or bf or the aunt knew she was on her period and maybe told her dad - some people are more open about that type of info. he's probably just thinking of every possible lead he can. so far I take him as utterly sincere, and I hope they find the girl!!

Anonymous said...

wow - watching more on Darren father of Becky. to me - he's the most sincere father of missing kid I have ever seen. devastating. becky is a very attractive and - as he said un-outspoken girl. she was probably targeted by somebody who had seen her before maybe even knew her a little - and thought she was an easy mark - knew where she lived and - planned and acted like any planned theft. i hope they find her safe.

Sus said...

OT Becky Watts
I would do that. I would put on facebook what the father did. It could be a ploy in case the police find blood in the house. Yet again, looking at his entire body of words, the father is becoming frantic looking for his daughter. He's repeatedly said she is shy and won't speak to others, even the bus driver. Though thankful for public support, it's clear he is becoming suspicious of neighbors. Whether it's an act on his part, or not, I would do it to get some tips and find my daughter.

Sus said...

I find Becky Watts' birth mother more suspicious. She just sits back "waiting"...says that's all we can do. Oh, and complains how upsetting it is that her daughter went missing on her brother's birthday.

GetThem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Katprint said...

Not using the child's name during a 911 call to report them missing stands out to me more than almost anything else.

There have been several cases of children who wandered off and were found by police before the parents realized they had gone missing. A couple of years ago, I remember seeing an early morning news report asking people if they recognized a toddler who had been found in a Walmart parking lot. A couple hours later, the same news channel reported that the toddler had been identified and returned to his family. His mother had woken up and discovered him missing from his crib; she called 911 to report her missing son and learned that he had been found a few hours earlier. Apparently they lived a few blocks away from the Walmart and he had wanted from french fries from the McDonalds restaurant inside the Walmart so he climbed out of his crib, let himself out of the house and walked over there.

Wouldn't any parent of a missing child be hoping that the police had already found their child? The perfect 911 conversation would go something like "My daughter is missing! Her name is Jon Benet Ramsey!" "Don't worry, she's safe. An officer found her wandering around outside an hour ago."

Sus said...

"She hadn't come here on her own for a long time. It's got to be at least THREE weeks since last Thursday that I have seen her."

"She'd only just come back that morning from staying at her friend's house. THREE hours later she GOES again but NO ONE she's [sic] (SEES) her LEAVE SO I'm a bit confused about the laptop and phone BECAUSE NO ONE actually SEES her LEAVE and NO ONE SEEMS to have spotted her AT ALL."

"Darren has looked after her for the past 13 years. She went missing on her brother, Danny's, birthday, which is very upsetting. I WAS EXPECTING HER TO COME OVER and get her pocket money. I didn't hear anything from her AND THEN I heard she had gone missing. I'M TOTALLY IN THE DARK REALLY. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE SHE MIGHT BE."

"Darren's family and the community have all been out searching, the police CANT DO ANYMORE. It's just a WAITING GAME."

What do you all think of the mother's comments? More at the site.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of wierd things with this case. How her father disappeared, then it ended up he moved to CA, and she later moved in with him. I assume that was probably just so she could pursue her possible desire to become an actress though, but her living with him didn't last long. It was said that he kicked her out because she was lazy and messy, I think I read. There's conflicting reports of her personal (promiscuous) behavior, which I don't believe she was promiscuous. There is conflicting reports on her genitalia possibly having some sort of defect. I also read that a newspaper initially contacted her mother and told her that Elizabeth had won a beauty pageant, in order to get info from her, then after they got the info they wanted, they told her she had been found dead. How awful! :( That's one reason why I don't believe the promiscuity. It seems like the media had a field day, so to speak, with this poor girl. I feel like they made a lot of things up, to spice up their stories/ratings. The story itself was awful enough.

This website itself has conflicting info throughout it, and they seem to think her murderer was a certain person, who died shortly before being questioned. I don't remember his name to post it, it's in the website though.

Do you have any websites with statements from Hodels son? Or even any more from Hodel himself? I don't think the guy that the people at this ^ website mention is such a strong suspect.

Another thing, it's so strange, to me anyway, how many people falsely admitted to murdering her.

GetThem said...

Wow, that's crazy not hearing Patsy mention JB's name. Your analysis was terrifying. It's even more shocking that Hunter was able to get away with supporting them. He was so arrogant.

You bring up a great point wondering if JB was "acting up" that night. She was 6, she was tired, hungry, grumpy from being out all day and probably she was challenging them. What 6 year old hasn't acted that way.

BTW, who is Dillinger? The only reference I could find was Death of a Salesman?

Thank you. Great analysis.

Anonymous said...

I think it's weird too. I know some people are very open about personal things, but this just seems overboard to me. Even if a father is open with the menses talk, at home, I can't think of a father/guy who would post something like that. He says that she's so quiet and shy, and he's out there telling the world that she has her period and how messy she is? Weird. I guess if it helps find her, then great, but it still seems weird to me.

Anonymous said...

I think the mother and father have some weird statements. I'm not convinced they've done something to her though. I think there were a lot of issues at home, and that's where the weirdness is coming from. I can't even figure out the family dynamics. Was she living with the father for the past 13 years? Was she away at college at her young age? I don't understand what that refers to that she was studying at college. She lived with the father, and rarely visited the mother? That might be where the mothers distancing comes from.

john said...


'I went to a hospital appointment and left her at home at around 10.30am.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of you guys saying that it's weird for a parent to not use their childs name when calling 911. I think a lot of things are weird with Patsy's call, but I don't think it's so weird to not use Jon Benet's name. I hope I never have to find out, but I would imagine when calling 911 saying that my son/daughter is missing. I don't feel like I'd say "my daughter SusieQ is missing".

GetThem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetThem said...

What do you think you might say instead? Sometimes it helps to look at what you might say and compare it to the analysis. Would you take ownership?

For examp: Would you say "my daughter?" Because Patsy does not even open with that... or would you say "the child that lives here with us is missing?" That is basically what Patsy said only reworded to help make a point.

Sus said...

Right, I'm not calling her a suspect. But I do wonder why she switches to present tense in the quote about no one seeing Becky leave, and only in that quote. I also find it weird that she has "no idea" what happened when she just stated she expected her to come by.

Seagull said...

OT: in the UK, the BBC Drama "Wolf Hall" has just finished and centres around Henry VIII's second marriage to Anne Boleyn. Anne was accused of adultery and was beheaded. There are a number of different historical accounts which debate the veracity of the charge. Some feel Anne was guilty, others not. The charges of adultery and incest brought about her demise. All trial transcripts and records were destroyed but the below witness account remained quoting Anne's speech. It's not from Anne first hand but might make an interesting study for statement analysis:-

Alison Weir quotes Crispin de Milherve’s version of Anne’s speech:-
“My lords, I will not say your sentence is unjust, nor presume that my reasons can prevail against your convictions. I am willing to believe that you have sufficient reasons for what you have done; but then they must be other than those which have been produced in court, for I am clear of all the offences which you then laid to my charge. I have ever been a faithful wife to the King, though I do not say I have always shown him that humility which his goodness to me, and the honours to which he raised me, merited. I confess I have had jealous fancies and suspicions of him, which I had not discretion enough, and wisdom, to conceal at all times. But God knows, and is my witness, that I have not sinned against him in any other way. Think not I say this in the hope to prolong my life, for He who saveth from death hath taught me how to die, and He will strengthen my faith. Think not, however, that I am so bewildered in my mind as not to lay the honour of my chastity to heart now in mine extremity, when I have maintained it all my life long, much as ever queen did. I know these, my last words, will avail me nothing but for the justification of my chastity and honour. As for my brother and those others who are unjustly condemned, I would willingly suffer many deaths to deliver them, but since I see it so pleases the King, I shall willingly accompany them in death, with this assurance, that I shall lead an endless life with them in peace and joy, where I will pray to God for the King and for you, my lords.”14

It is interesting to see how statement analysis applies to text from 1536

Anonymous said...

What's weird about this case is they (the police) actually INVITED others to contaminate the crime scene and even put the family to work doing their job for them like searching the house for the girl.

Local police messed up. The "experts" messed up. The federal agents messed up.

This was a staged crime for the purpose of "trial of the century." That trial never made it so the case lives on as unsolved. The media certainly does not want it solved. Who would? There goes the gravy train!

I have a hard time beleiving Mrs. Ramsey penned a letter so similar to: Lindberg ransom note, Zodiac threats, with a scenerio similar to Johnny Gosch's disappearance.

It would be easy enough to slip in, take pad, pen, do search of home, install bugging devices, cameras, etc. in advance of the murder as well as hack into the business computers.

Forgers are the reason the Secret Service are called in. Testing the "system." No one ever identified the person responible for writing the Zodiac letters. Even forgers sent fake ransom notes in the Lindberg kidnapping to duplicate Hauptmann's writing by accessing public records (journalists, cops, etc.) hoping to bag the reward.

They aren't interested in catching these people. The interest is in promoting their "experts" come trial time again.

This gig is getting old. What is going to shock the audience now?

GetThem said...

Seagull, I would love to see an SA of Ann B's letter. I don't think I could even try with the way they spoke back then.

Seagull said...

Get them, it would be fascinating to see if SA could reliably be applied to this historical statement although context would come into consideration as the statement is reported by a witness and the old English language itself. It could throw some interesting light on a long and much debated historical topic. I'd be interested to see what Peter thinks of it and any of the other readership for feedback.

Anonymous said...

Yes, absolutely, she was distant in her language. Since reading a lot of these supposed missing kids cases, I think what I'd actually say is "I can't find my daughter". I don't think I'd actually consider my kids as missing per say, that early on. In her case, where there was supposed to be a ransom note - if my daughter was missing and there really was a ransom note THEN I probably would say "my daughter is missing, I can't find her", and I'd say something about the ransom note.

I would take ownership, but I just don't feel like I'd "introduce" her name right away. Maybe I would though, who knows. Do we have any 911 calls here analyzed where the childs name was immediately introduced? Maybe a comparison would help me with this.

elf said...

I just read that post again and noticed how the father keeps referencing Becky in the past tense:( that's not good...

Anonymous said...

Someone with great knowledge of the language back then would have to analyze it.

Peter recently posted about how much language changes over time. Many years from now, people will be wondering what, "#Me and my bff had a wicked cool time lol", means. Lol ;)

Seagull said...

Peter, would it be possible for you to have a look at Anne Boleyn's statement if you have time? It's fascinating and I'm interested to know how SA can be applied to ancient historical documents

I look forward to reading your next book.

GetThem said...

May I second Seagull's request please?

Anonymous said...

I could look at the statement. I can read Chaucerian middle English (which that statement is not but I understand how the language evolved and understand the syntactical variations in early English.

Anonymous said...

I am willing to believe that you have sufficient reasons for what you have done; but then they must be other than those which have been produced in court, for I am clear of all the offences which you then laid to my charge

She is innocent of the adultery. This would be incriminating in modern English that there were adulteries outside of what the court accused her of that she actually had committed. But her way of wording this reflects the formality of the language at the time, where people spoke in a much more meandering kind of way. They spoke in a way which was not as direct as we do, they spoke in a meandering kind of way where they would touch upon more than we do when we speak.

Anonymous said...

Anne Boleyn's statement reveals that she is truthful and that she was accused of adultery for being jealous of the king's adulteries.

Anonymous said...

Anne Boleyn said

"I confess I have had jealous fancies and suspicions of him, which I had not discretion enough, and wisdom, to conceal at all times. But God knows, and is my witness, that I have not sinned against him in any other way.

Anne invokes God to her defense twice
1) God knows
2) he is her witness

This "swear to God" we see coming from Anne is not sensitive as it would be in our modern time. Invoking God to one's defense would be very anxiety producing to a liar in Anne's day as it carried heavy emotional weight (the fear of going to Hell having lied using God's name). In our times, liars often grasp at the phrase "swear to God" due to it being carried down in the language as a sign of truthfulness due to the heavy emotional weight it used to have, however it has little no emotional weight in our language to a religious or non-religious liar. What we see with "swear to God" being used by liars is a relic of the past where it did reflect truthfulness. A liar in Anne's day might invoke God once if he was bold to try to make himself look good but to do so twice would be highly anxiety producing.

Another thing different with the language here is that if you look at the language there is a mellifluous, musical quality due to the fact of English at this time very much reflecting the story telling found in Middle English as most were illiterate. Long story short, the language was pleasing to the ear. Look for that to change with a liar. We see that with Iago in Shakespeare. It is the opposite of our modern English where a liar often goes on and on explaining. We say: Shorter is better for truthful answers. It is almost the opposite if you go back this far in the language, where shorter answers and a deviation from this mellifluous quality of speech is where you want to sit up and take notice.

Anonymous said...

Anne Boleyn said

"Think not, however, that I am so bewildered in my mind as not to lay the honour of my chastity to heart now in mine extremity, when I have maintained it all my life, much as ever a queen did. I know these, my last words, will avail me nothing but for the justification of my chastity and honour."

This is an earnest plea to the court telling them basically "do not think that because I am completely freaked out at having been sentenced to death that I would sacrifice my integrity that I have maintained my entire life by lying to you. I am declaring my innocence knowing I will die for the sake of my "chastity and honor".
She is truthful. She knows she is going to die and wants to be believed.

"I have maintained it all my life, much as ever queen did".

This in modern English could be sensitive. One could say well maybe she's lying because maybe in her view she doesn't think queens maintain their chastity. However, the subtlety of the language is different here where she is more invoking an "ideal" the "ideal of the queen". She is saying I am as good as that ideal queen who is chaste, faithful. You have to keep in mind, she is being faced with death and she is insisting that she has measured up to this ideal. It is supportive of truthfulness.

Anonymous said...

"I have ever been a faithful wife to the King, though I do not say I have always shown him that humility which his goodness to me, and the honours to which he raised me, merited"

"I have ever been a faithful wife to the king"

--the "ever" here is not sensitive. The "ever" is appropriate as she is in "defense" mode. She is imploring "I have always been a faithful wife.

"though I do not say that I have always shown him that humility, which his goodness to me, and the honours to which he raised me merited"

She is saying basically that she should have kept her mouth shut about complaining about his affairs since he had been so benevolent to her by making her his wife and making her the queen.
She mentions his "goodness" first which is highly ironic. I don't know much about this kind, but my guess is he was anything but good. You can certainly tell he demanded deference from her. She seems to have felt very dominated by him. He "raised" her. We can infer that she was "below" him in a very profound way. My guess is that the king was highly abusive. Peasant wives at this time could speak in a more "equal" way regarding their husband where the husband would not "raise" them, the husband was not this high above them.

Anonymous said...

I confess I have had jealous fancies and suspicions of him, which I had not discretion enough, and wisdom, to conceal at all times.

The King was angry about a specific person (or people) she told of his affair. I think the "at all times" she wasn't discrete about her suspicions is sensitive in that she told others of his affairs on several occassions. I wonder if she told a woman he was sleeping with and particularly interested in at the time that he was also sleeping with another woman and this caused friction between the King and the lover he was focused on at the time. It seems from her use of she was not discrete about her jealousies "at all times" that there was a specific time when she told someone something that very much upset the kind. I think she frequently complained to others but there was one particular time that got her in trouble.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seagull said...

Anonymous: Thank you for your analysis. I enjoyed reading it, particularly regarding the context of the then English language which gives additional perspective. You've also applied the principles of SA, shortest answers being the best, repetition etc I'm glad you took time to provide some feedback. I feel the charges were made up but have set my own opinions to one side in order to obtain more from the statement. I'm grateful you took the time to reply.

Anonymous said...

" Did he find jonbenet then run upstairs for a blanket and go back down?
:inconsistent much, Mr Ramsey?"

elf, most likely he did go upstairs to get a blanket, during staging the scene... He mixed up reality and their story.

Elizabeth said...

I reported my son missing once, when he didnt come home from school. I had to say "I am sorry" to the policeman taking the call, as I cried so much, it was hard to understand what I was saying.

Luckily, he was found safe at a friends house.

I believe Patsy killed JonBenet, but I base that on both statements and behaviour.

Sus said...

Thanks for analyzing Anne Boleyn's statement. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I would venture to guess the mistake she especially regretted was speaking to Jane Seymore, her Lady in Waiting, and Henry's next wife. I wonder also, if the "raised me up" comment is a sly mention of Jane Seymore, who was far beneath Anne in social standing. Last, I'd like to say it was a catch-22 for Anne. She had to take blame because the king was absolute authority. It was treason to betray him and treason to speak against his charges. Thanks again.

trustmeigetit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
trustmeigetit said...


in regards to Jon saying he ran upstairs to get a blanket then back AFTER he found Jon Benet

Anon said “most likely he did go upstairs to get a blanket, during staging the scene... He mixed up reality and their story.February 27, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Wow, that was a great point. He mixed up what he did during staging with repeating his story.


I just read an article that said during the documentary Who Killed JonBenet?, made by Channel Four in London, John Ramsey describes what they found. Note what he says about the blanket. I am going to see if I can find this actual video but this actual quote is listed several places online. If I can and he did say that, we have a pretty clear indication he staged the scene

John Ramsey “As I was walking through the basement, I opened the door to a room and knew immediately that I’d found her because there was a white blanket — her eyes were closed, I feared the worse but yet — I’d found her.”

Blanket was placed on her before police arrived. If that was said, then he was wrong that he did it after he found her.


Makes me think that Patsy's Strangled her I'm anger (actual cause of death) over wetting the bed, Jon then set the stage to damage body to make it appear like a kidnapping for them
To avoid murder charges,

John then put her in basement, taped and tied her and Patsy did not see that as she stayed upstairs. Then his comment that he "didn't want Patsy to see her like that" is truthful. She had died but patsy didn't see what she looked like after staging a more brutal death. Being tied and taped. Patsy could not see that. Jon did that to protect Patsy.

Also, the pubic hair found ON the blanket means it was there before.

And I know some think that leads to their innocence. I do not. They had a lot of company. It's likely the guest bath room was not ever used by them but only their kids (neither had pubic air yet) that a guest may have left a pubic hair behind. On toilet, floor etc. it's happened at my home. They may have had a stray hair that they placed on the blanket. More staging.

trustmeigetit said...

One last comment to my above post.

I still think she was molested by John. Even the family doctor failed to issue a reliable denial about the claims.

This would be the motivation for John to help stage vs call the cops on his wife. help protect Patsy or she will eat you out for child molestation

Anonymous said...

Hence is not a conjunction. It is a transitional adverb. It cannot connect two clauses. It merely shows how the ideas are related.

Hence, too, can be preceded by and. In this case, it acts like a conjunction.

We didn’t have enough money to buy the tickets and hence we cancelled the trip.

Hence means from this place: Away; from this time; because of a preceding fact or premise: Therefore*.

We will reunite five years hence.
She won the talent competition, hence her good spirits.
They fell in love and hence they married.

The adverb hence has a few meanings, including (1) for this reason, (2) from this source, (3) from now, (4) from that time, and (5) from this place. It once functioned as a noun in the phrase from hence, but in modern English that redundancy has fallen out of favor.


In this example, hence is synonymous with therefore:
"It’s that India has an airline that is run by politicians and hence can be milked by various interest groups." [Wall Street Journal]

Sara said...

I don't know if this has ever been addressed before--
In the 911 call, the operator asks, "Is this Kath" and is interrupted by Patsy saying "this is Patsy".
This makes me think the caller id showed that the phone was registered to a woman named Kathy or Kathleen. But, it was reported that Patsy called from the home phone.
Who is the home phone registered too?
Was there a person named Kathy in the home?
Are any friends or family members named Kathy.
Has this ever been investigated or reported on?

Peter Hyatt said...


where did you learn of this information?


Buckley said...

Anonymous said...

It's dreamed out of thin air the phone registration. Most likely an admission of a phone/cyberstalker/hacker.

Just today one called me from my own number. These people like to monitor mail, phone calls, friends and family members and make death threats. Often they carry them out. It's all for a really good charitable cause.

Kellie said...

trustmeigetit said
I am going to see if I can find this actual video but this actual quote is listed several places online.

John Ramsey “As I was walking through the basement, I opened the door to a room and knew immediately that I’d found her because there was a white blanket — her eyes were closed, I feared the worse but yet — I’d found her.”

In the video link below, at the 20 min mark, Jon makes the statement you've quoted.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...

Peter, you asked Sara for a link.
Here'a one ...

trustmeigetit said...

Thanks Kellie and John. Sure does validate that John was in fact involved.

Does anyone know..since the grand jury indictment was denied by the prosecutor, can John ever have charged again?

I know about double jeopardy if acquitted but not sure how this works.

Seems to me he needs to be charged....Alex Hunter as well.

Patsy died of cancer, I feel like justice has been done. But John needs to rot in hell

Anonymous said...

Sara, If that is true about the 911 operator calling her "Kath" this is probably a shortened version of Kathy or Kathleen indicating possible familialarity with the caller. During the party the Ramsey's had a few days earlier, someone had also dialed 911 from the home and it was supppsedly a mistake. Any possibility 911 called back and spoke to someone named "Kath" and that information came up on the computer when Patsy called 911? Did caller ID even exist at that time? Could 911 have talked to someone named "Kath" the night os the party when someone called 911 from Ramsey residence the night of the party a few days esrlier????