With the 20th anniversary of the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, media reports ongoing interest from the public.
Statement Analysis shows a 'solved case', howbeit sans adjudication.
What did Statement Analysis of the case indicate?
What was analyzed to draw the conclusion?
Analyzing the statements made public, including the 911 call show:
Jonbenet was a victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of her father.
Statement Analysis shows the connection to "lights" within statements and sexual activity, and "doors" to childhood sexual abuse. Repeated studies into these two elements shows a consistent linguistic connection. When taken with the belief that it is rare to lie outright, we consider:
Instead of saying, "I found my daughter in the basement closet" or something else, John Ramsey went to 'narrative' form; that is, to lengthen out information, to explain, where no explanation is needed. In doing so, he gave us links to sexual abuse without the need to even view the sexualization of the child in her outfits, or the world of childhood beauty pageants. We listen to him:
"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was" as a truthful statement.
Here we have not only the "door" but the "opening of the door", something closely associated with childhood abuse of the subject, himself. This sometimes enters the language of adults who were abused in childhood and it does not take much imagination to understand why as the memory of a door opening, leading to abuse, is something that is strongly ingrained due to the hormonal increase to the brain under trauma.
When these words are used unnecessarily they are recognized as "freely chosen" by the subject who is now going into the narrative form within his answer.
Next, it is not necessary for him to tell us that the lights were off, or that they were even turned on, but for him, he must tell us that the lights were off, the lights were turned on, and it was he, himself, who turned on the lights.
This, too, fits the "narrative" form of speech instead of simply saying, "I discovered my daughter's remains in the basement" or anything similar. He halts this in order to add in:
b. opening the door
c. he, himself, not his friend, opening the door
e. lights off
f. he, himself, not his friend, turning on the lights.
This is to take sexual activity (lights), in a kinetic form (turning on) and cross it with linguistic indicators of his own childhood sexual abuse.
Outside the statement we learned that she was a chronic bed wetter and she had chronic urinary tract infections and was an otherwise healthy child who was at her pediatrician's office an extreme number of times (consternation of mother). Social workers and law enforcement who have investigated cases of sexual abuse of children recognize, as do many teachers, what chronic urinary tract infections and bedwetting can indicate. Bed wetting, alone, is not conclusive evidence of childhood sexual abuse, nor is a single urinary tract infection.
Chronic bed wetting can be a warning.
Chronic urinary tract infections can be a warning .
Taken together, the warning has now increased.
Add to this that the language of the father matches these signals and the evidence builds.
Then we look at how John Ramsey related, linguistically, to his daughter, including the 'corrective action' after the publicity of analysis and intervention of lawyers. The free editing process was touched upon and 'corrected' social introductions made.
Jonbenet's mother failed to protect her, and was cognizant of the ongoing abuse, perhaps incapable of stopping it due to her own background.
Jonbenet died as a result of child abuse, which was the finding of the Grand Jury.
Alex Hunter used passive voice in deceiving the public into believing that the Grand Jury had not handed down an indictment. Thus he was able to both deceive the public and avoid the outright lie but allowed them to interpret his words. Alex Hunter had sabotaged the case as soon as he met the wealthy, high powered, private attorneys of the Ramseys. He would not be made a fool of in public, justice be damned. He undermined the police investigation, which was cited for errors early on, but did not destroy the investigation as sometimes reported. The police were used as scapegoats.
The Ransom Note Analysis showed "deception indicated" which means, specifically, the author of the note intended the note to appear to be written from multiple persons, foreigners, and money related. The deception exists as it is a cover of a crime. The phraseology of the note suggests single female author.
The 911 call, made by Patsy Ramsey, is indicated for deception. This means, specifically, that the caller knows her daughter is not kidnapped and is concealing information about what happened to her. It is useful for analysis instruction and presents an insight into not only the deception, but Patsy's priorities, background, experiences and personality.
These conclusions come from the public statements, ransom note, interviews and 911 call.
There is no mystery left within the case, but media sells it as such because mystery sells. When the mystery is solved, the case is closed.
John and Patsy Ramsey got away with homicide.