Monday, July 27, 2015
How Many Lies Can You Spot?
When analysis was published on radio talk shows, two things were included: The Reliable Denial, and the social introduction. The analyst carefully explained how each parent related to Jonbenet in context of the sentence including when she was "daughter" and when she was not.
The analyst concluded that the parents were not truthful, and that there was linguistic indication that John Ramsey had sexually molested his daughter, and Patsy Ramsey was likely a victim of early childhood sexual abuse, which is perhaps why she failed to protect Jonbenet.
Shortly after that, John and Patsy Ramsey went on television and said,
"I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet" using not only the three elements of a Reliable Denial, but also the complete social introduction, in each of their opening statements.
Regarding sexual abuse, the language gave indication that John Ramsey had, in fact, sexually abused his own daughter. This was via the language only. Yet we later learned that she had signals that, by themselves, are not conclusive, but when taken in light of the language, and as a whole, paint a picture. Besides the linguistic indicators, she was dressed up in a sexualized manner, but then we later learned that she was a constant bed wetter, and had frequent urinary tract infections.
Risk factors for sexual abuse:
1. Language of the alleged perpetrator towards his daughter
2. Language of the alleged perpetrator in general ("lights" and "doors")
3. sexualized environment of the pageantry
4. Frequent bed wetting
5. Chronic urinary tract infections
6. A mother who may have been molested herself (failure to protect)
7. The autopsy showed vaginal trauma/insertion
Although (1) and (2), when taken with deception, is a strong indictment, the others strengthened the allegation's posture.
Here, we have the copies of those first televised denials, along with other subsequent interviews.
Yet, we also have some comments, particularly about handwriting, that does not appear to be rehearsed.
The analysis of the 911 call concluded "Guilty Caller Status" and
The analysis of the Ransom Note was "deception indicated", which means, it was not a "ransom note", nor was it written by foreigners, but was intended to move suspicion as far from the house as possible. I hope to finish my book on child murder cases and statement analysis and will publish "anonymous threatening letter" profile of the ransom note to see if it yields a strong profile.
When a denial is rehearsed, it is not in the Free Editing Process. Months afterwards, it is not difficult to parrot what is read, but when someone is brought into that process where they have moved away from the 'script', we are able to glean information.
Yes or No?
Yes or No questions are less stressful to lie to, as the deceptive person can be thinking of anything else while answering. Yet, they hold great value as well, for we are able to "lock someone into an answer" of yes or no, and then refer back to it. This is where we point someone to their lie, and ask questions about it, knowing how they will not want to "lie about their lie", and begin to alter their language.
You may recall quite a few deceptive subjects who moved away from "no" responses to other deceptive responses, such as Joey Buttofuouco, who felt the need to "defy" the question, rather than add to it. This was highlighted as deceptive at the time, only to later be part of his "confession" before the court, as his arm was twisted too far behind his back.
Yes or No questions do have their place.
"Absolutely not!" to a "yes or no" question shows a need to persuade and is a response of deceptive people who also wish to "defy" the question, rather than answer it.
What answers do you find deceptive?
How many can you spot? What about handwriting on your own children's pictures? Would you feel 'comfortable' denying such? The documentary seeks to uncover the 'absurd' via viewer observation where you can compare your answers to those you hear from John and Patsy Ramsey.