Friday, January 11, 2019

Jonbenet Ramsey 911 Call



A pedophile has confessed to the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey.

This is the second pedophile to do so. 

John and Patsy Ramsey were indicted in the child's death, but the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, refused to sign the grand jury's indictment. 


The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6. 

A 911 or 999 call is not a topic of separate study, but a context of which Statement Analysis is applied. 

The Expected versus The Unexpected:


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

It is likely that you would demand she be found. 

Is that what the caller here wants?

Is that what the caller seeks?

We view the expected, and when it does not show itself, we are confronted with words that are 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 is judging priority in analysis.  We note that order indicates importance, whether it is a domestic homicide call, or any statement of importance.  


The context:   kidnapping.

The recipient of information:  law enforcement 

We listen carefully and allow the subject (caller)  to guide us.  


We begin with the presupposition of the subject (caller) telling the truth. 

To conclude deception, the words will have to talk us out of this position. 

Some questions arise from our contextual setting of a kidnapping, ransom note, and missing child. 

Here, Behavioral Analysis and Statement Analysis coincide. Like a child missing in a supermarket, the first response, both behaviorally and linguistically, is to "call out" or find the child. 

Does the subject ask for help for the victim? 

If she is kidnapped, we expect a biological mother to use the personal pronoun "my" and to express concern for what Jonbenet is currently experiencing.

 It is Jonbenet who is in need of help.  She needs to be found. She is with specific kidnappers, plural. ("we are a small foreign faction)

 We find it, therefore 'unexpected' for a caller to ask for help for herself, or not to show concern for what her daughter is currently experiencing.  If the caller asks for help, is it, for example, in the context of seeking guidance for CPR?

As this is an extremity in life, pronouns are instinctive and possession should be immediate and personal.  

A distant step mother, or non relative caller might use plural, but not a close relative, such as spouse, and not a biological parent.  

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


"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 Cummings, 5, missing, that police know that she was asleep. 

Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason?  If so, it is to be red flagged. 


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. 



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

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"

"My daughter has been kidnapped!" is the single most important phrase, with gets directly to the point.  Even without the name here would be due to the rush for help.

1.  "My daughter" is expected as this is a biological mother and the child is incapable of self protection
2.  "kidnapped" and not "missing" because she is not "missing" but someone has her because a ransom note has been left.  This brief statement should be heard first.  The very first words of the caller's mother speaks to us:  


PR: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please

The expected:  "My daughter is kidnapped."  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. 

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.   In fact, the use of "we" has not only alerted us that something is amiss, but in her first sentence, she not only fails to identify the victim but tells us:

Whoever the "we"are,  have a problem on their hands.  

This language puts the focus upon "we" having something.  It is not just the avoidance of Jonbenet, but the words leaving her lips, chosen from the brain in less than a microsecond, put the focus upon two people ("we") who have some issue at hand that they must deal with.  

It is, in fact, accurate.  

Jonbenet does not have a problem, nor any issues, but the people represented by the pronoun "we" most certainly do.  Their ordeal now begins, but Jonbenet's is over. 

She is signaling this in her language in the very first sentence.   

The first sentence is always important and sometimes tells us why the statement is being made. 

This call is not about a kidnapping victim, but a circumstance that is weighing upon the caller, who is joining herself with someone else. 

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 at least twice, including a Christmas card written by Patsy Ramsey.  We will explore this in full, later. 

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.  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.  

Question:  Is this rehearsed?  By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged. 

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for the victim, Jonbenet; not just help itself, or in general.  We expect a mother of a missing 6 year old to use the pronoun "I" as this is very personal and enflames the maternal instinct.  The use of "we" is not strong. 

"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.  


"hurry" is unnecessary, making it 'doubly important'; 

"please" is polite.  We do not like to hear politeness in missing persons or kidnapping cases while it is unresolved.  This is similar to praising of police while they have not been successful.  


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."

We look for the mother of a missing/kidnapped child to say the pronoun "I" as this is very personal to a mother and inflames the maternal instinct:


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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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?

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"; with "they" being the kidnappers or "small foreign faction."

This same principle is used to highlight guilty knowledge by John Ramsey (see youtube video).  

Passivity:  "a not was left" is passive voice, rather than "I have" or consistent with her own plural "we have"; but "there is" is both passive and distancing language and is not expected as this is her own daughter.  

This is a small signal that should cause investigators to wonder if the caller knows more about the ransom note than she is letting on.  

With passivity we have concealing of identity and/or responsibility.  

As an unknown author, passivity should be regarding the writing of it; this is about its location and something this awful, this personal, and this close, should not have distancing language associated with it.  

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. 

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 may give insight into how Jonbenet was viewed by her mother, even as the child was dressed up like a sexualized Las Vegas showgirl.  At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child. 

Please note that several pictures of Jonbenet suggest bleaching or coloring of the child's hair. 


911: How long ago was this?

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

Missing pronoun. 

The psychological refusal to commitment to the ransom note is indicated. 

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.  Recent studies have verified what was taught in analysis for decades:  when pronouns disappear, there is a lack of commitment and more people that drop pronouns are likely to be deceptive.  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 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?

The passivity earlier gives a 'gray' feeling to the listener; that is, there is not clear forceful information coming from the caller.  The use of "we", the avoidance of telling us immediately who was kidnapped, and the self censoring all come together to give even untrained ears a warning signal.  

"Passive, passivity" and "passive voice" are not grammatical but psychological terms. 

"Passive voice" speaks to the analyst entering into the mindset of the subject who is not simply using a point of passivity, but is entering a specific mindset of distance that may apply, for the analysts, to the words that follow. 


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 this unnecessary question again: 


911: Does it say who took her?

PR: No.  I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.

Reversal of law of economy.
Location changed in language. 

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. "

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.  It was a "note" and now has changed reversing the trend of the law of economy where we go from longer to shorter.  

"The ransom note" to "a note" is an indication of deception.  Once identified, "a" turns to "the" as articles are instinctive.  By this time, we know that the caller is deceptive

This is seen in time measured in seconds.  She has spoken but a few words and we know the caller is deceptive. 

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. 

 Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for the victim.  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"which is distancing language from the victim.  This, too, is most unexpected and we ask:  why does she distance herself from her child?


This is a linguistic hint that the mother knows her child is dead by the time she made this call.  

The guilt is indicated within the language; affirmed by the need to distance herself from Jonbenet. 

I continue to believe, after analyzing the statements of the parents, that Jonbenet died inadvertently of which the parents engaged in a coverup.  


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.  

Alibi building while her biological daughter is "missing" 

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 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.  

Note the inclusion of divinity as another signal of concern; one of many.  

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?


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?

(Patsy reportedly said "Help me, Jesus" repeatedly here.  See note below)

It is believed, according to police, that at this point, the call did not disconnect and Patsy Ramsey spoke to her son, Burke, whom she later said was sleeping. Detective Steve Thomas found this vital because it showed that Patsy was lying, from the beginning.  

It is, however, not necessary, as this initial contact with police showed deception. 

In fact, for those new to analysis:  This is an indication of a 911 call that is 'overwhelmingly deceptive.'  It is useful for training as most deceptive callers are not this blunt or readily evidenced.  

Trust the pronouns. 

Pronouns and articles are used by us more than any other words and are engrained within us from the earliest days of speech.  Pronouns can solve crimes all by themselves.  

When parents are seated together, speaking as one, they will use the plural, but in a time of emergency, there is no "sharing" of a child, but maternal instinct, measured in words dating back to the time of Solomon's display of wisdom using analysis, indicate the closeness between mother and child.  

The pronouns bring  initial doubt to the caller's veracity, which then the change of language confirms:

This is a deceptive call to 911 that does not ask for help for its victim.  

She is reported to have said "help me, Jesus" in the background, highlighting the principle that a guilty caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim, and will often ask for help, for herself.  

There is distancing language as the name is not used until asked. 
There is alibi building with "we just got up";
There is priority seen with the "note", having not read it, but then changing it to a "ransom note" which demands payment for a child.  The "ransom note" is, here in the 911 call, sensitive to Patsy Ramsey, connecting her with it. 

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


The first thing you know about the Jonbenet Ramsey case is from the 911 call.  The other, Patsy Ramsey, deliberately withheld information about what happened to her daughter, of whom she has shown an awareness that Jonbenet is dead, and not in need of a mother any longer.  

32 comments:

Dagny Taggart said...

Off topic:
Today I read about the murder of Amanda Blackburn on this site and found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxCi72SV3ZE

Look at the text Davey Blackburn posted next to the picture: could this be an embedded confession?

M said...



OT


'I'm the victim': Tearful wheelchair-bound survivor, 86, insists she's 'no liar' as Florida pardons the four black men accused of raping her at gunpoint in 1949 when she was 17
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583585/Florida-Governor-Ron-DeSantis-posthumously-pardons-four-black-men-1949-rape-case.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Groveland Four accuser's full statement to the clemency board
Norma Padgett, 86, delivered the following statement before Florida's Board of Executive Clemency and Governor Ron DeSantis on Friday, January 11, 2019 in Tallahassee:

'My name is Norma Tyson Padgett Upshaw and I'm the victim of that night.

And I'll tell you now that it's on my mind, it's been on my mind for about 70 years.

I was 17-years-old and this never left my mind…

I'll tell you this: If you had a gun held to your head and told that you if you screamed and didn't do what they said that they'd blow your brains out, so what would you do?

And if you had a daughter and a mother and a wife and a sister or a niece, would you give 'em pardon? No, I don't think you would. I really don't.

And every time it comes up, I just quiver on the inside. And I have lived it for 60 years.

When my boys was little, I kept my mouth shut 'cause…I was afraid something would happen to 'em. They might find out where they were and kill 'em or do somethin' to 'em. Now my grandkids is up, and they go to school, and I worry about them. And my great-grandkids are coming up.

Y'all just don't know what kind of horror I've been through for all these many years.

(Her voice trembles.)

I never told my kids...they knew it but they never did know what kind of horror I've been through. And I love each and every one of them.

And I don't want them pardoned, no, I do not. And you wouldn't either.

I know she (Beverly Robinson, Samuel Shepherd's cousin) called me a liar.

But I'm not no liar.

If I had to go to court today I could tell you the same story that I told then and I could [take] you on the route. Some of the places is not there no more but I could [take] you and I could show you and I walked all night long.

I don't know how many miles it was but I walked all night. And I knew I was closer to another town. But they went that way and I'd seen headlights and I'd run to the woods. I don't know how long I stayed in there. I didn't have no watch. I didn't have nothing.

And right now, my nerves is so bad and I'm quiverin' on the inside and I can't help it.

I'm beggin' y'all not to give them pardon because they done it.

Your minds might be made up. I don't know.

If you do [pardon them], y'all going to be just like them…

And that's all I got to say, 'cause I know I'm telling the truth.

I went to court twice.…

I can tell you right now — not the exact words — but could tell you today almost quote to what I said then. And if any of you got any questions, ask me, I'll answer them the best I know how.

Like I say...if something happens to any of my kids I hope it ponders y'all's mind [because] I begged you not to do it and it's liable to.

Like I said, if there's any question ya'll want to ask me, I'll try to answer it if I can.'

Buckley said...

All the hullabaloo over this case and looking at the 911 call makes it seem so simple. Thanks, Peter.

Anonymous said...

Ot

When you just can't bring yourself to say "i didn't/did not say.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6583599/Dwayne-Rock-Johnson-claims-controversial-snowflake-generation-interview-never-happened.html?ito=social-facebook

Just hours after a controversial interview where he lashed out at millennials, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson has fired back at the comments and claimed the interview never even happened.

The 46-year-old took to his Instagram on Friday afternoon to insist that he had never made the remarks and wrote in the caption that he's, 'Settin' the record straight. The interview never happened.'

He said: 'Never said those words. 100% false. If I ever had an issue with someone, a group, community or a generation — I’d seek them out, create dialogue and do my best to understand them.'

'Criticizing ain’t my style. I don't cast stones and we all get to be who we are,' he said, adding the hashtags, '#millies, #plurals, #boomers and #TequilaGeneration'.

In the video, he began by stating, 'I can't believe I have to do this again, and set the record straight on something, but I'm happy to do it.'

'Earlier today online, an interview dropped with me, apparently it was with me, where I was insulting and criticizing millennials. The interview never took place, never happened.

Adding: 'I never said any of those words, completely untrue, 100% fabricated. The interview never took place, never happened. I never said any of those words, completely untrue, 100% fabricated.'

'I was quite baffled when I woke up this morning.'

The Baywatch actor once again reiterated that the interview never happened.

He continued: 'You know, I've gained such a great trust and equity with all you guys, all over the world throughout the years, and you know it's not a true DJ interview if I'm ever insulting a group, a generation or anyone, cause that's not me.'

'That's not who I am and that's not what I do. So, to the millennials, the interview never happened.'

He concluded his video by telling his fans that he encourages empathy and growth.

'To the plurals, the baby boomers, the snowflake generation, I don't even know where that term came from, the Tequila Generation, that's a generation I just started, that's a good one, you'll want to join it...

Anonymous said...

'I always encourage empathy, I encourage growth, but most importantly, I always encourage everybody to be exactly what they want to be.'

In the interview with the Daily Star, he reportedly said, 'I don’t have to agree with what somebody thinks, who they vote for, what they voted for, what they think, but I will back their right to say or believe it. That's democracy.

'So many good people fought for freedom and equality - but this generation are looking for a reason to be offended. If you are not agreeing with them then they are offended - and that is not what so many great men and women fought for.'

He added: 'We thankfully now live in a world that has progressed over the last 30 or 40 years. People can be who they want, be with who they want, and live how they want.

'That can only be a good thing – but generation snowflake or, whatever you want to call them, are actually putting us backwards.'

Last month, the star amused fans when he took to Instagram to share a snapshot of his proudly displayed Razzie award, handed down to him for his critically-panned remake of classic TV series Baywatch.

And a sweet little GOLDEN RAZZIE AWARD for making BAYWATCH. Categorized as — A movie so rotten and sh***y, you actually fell in love with it.

He added: 'Hey, I take full responsibility for the [poop] so punch me right in the kisser for that one.'

The Razzie Awards, held the night before the Oscars, honour what are generally regarded as the worst films of the year.

And a new category was recently introduced — The Razzie Nominee So Rotten You Loved It — the inaugural winner being Baywatch.

- David

LC said...

All of the evidence in the Ramsey case shows deception.
The family hid behind their own hired investigators because they were considered suspects from the beginning. This allowed them to control the official investigation on their own terms.
The lack of fingerprints & any substantial DNA at the scene points to a well-planned coverup.
I will say that son Burke likely would have passed any polygraph if he stated (truthfully) that he did not kill JonBenet. The only scenario that makes sense to me involves Burke striking his sister, causing damage that she could not recover from. Frantic parents secluded their son from the immediate scene, while they conspired how to save him from the consequences of his actions. The father was likely instructed to end his daughter's suffering, while Patsy carefully constructed the ridiculous note, unable to disguise her perception.
The Ramsey family was extremely lucky to have an inexperienced police department aiding and abetting the compromise of any remaining evidence, leading to a zero chance for any prosecution to take place.
All of the above is speculation, of course - but that is all that is left, beyond Statement Analysis.

Buckley said...

Except for “instructed to end daughter’s suffering” I agree. And I disagree more with “instructed” than the “end” her...

LC said...

Perhaps they 'agreed' to end their daughter's suffering... but I get the impression that Patsy played a predominant role in that marriage - and that she was very convincing.
If she would have written a brief & less detailed ransom note, it would have been less suspicious...

Anonymous said...

Everyone seems to think Burke did it but I have always thought that it was the Dad and somehow the result of a sexual assault gone bad. She had signs of prolonged sexual abuse.

Anonymous said...

Everyone seems to think Burke did it but I have always thought that it was the Dad and somehow the result of a sexual assault gone bad. She had signs of prolonged sexual abuse.

Peter Hyatt said...

I do not know what happened. I know that Patsy and John lied, and had a reason to lie. Both show guilty knowledge.

My guess?

Patsy was under great stress. The image of "perfect family" with the drive of pageantry along with knowledge that John had sexually abused her all came apart at the seams when Jonbenet was up, again, the middle of the night.

Add in possible psychotropics;
Patsy's own abuse background and failure to protect...

I think she may have hit Jonbenet who likely hit her head.

Panic and cover up.

John either helps or she reports him, so they were bound together.

I disagree with the "Burke did it" thinking based upon parents' language and behavior. Self protection is powerful.

Jonbenet likely died unintentional and the garroting was staged.

John Douglas being hired by the defense damaged his reputation. He was very strict in his opinion, which allowed him to be "technically accurate" in saying, "John Ramsey did not fit the profile of one who would do slow torture of garroting..."

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

I tweeted about "Captain High Pants" but it did not seem to bring response.

Anyone remember this phrase?

Peter

Buckley said...

It relates to Karr. I forget why.

M said...

I found this:

"This guy wanted the publicity, he wants to be famous. For that reason, Glenn Beck refers to him as "Captain High-Pants" :lol: and blurrs his face on his TV show when talking about him."

Anonymous said...

I need to go back and read more of SA on Patsy. I just always concurred after hearing that JB had such trauma to her vaginal area, showing signs of long-term sexual abuse, that maybe she fought back that night? Patsy had to go along with it all to protect her image OR that maybe she walked in on it happening and flew into a rage. Patsy is so obviously lying in the 911 call, thanks for the renewed analysis.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A father killed his eight month-old baby son, then staged a kidnapping to make it look like the little boy had been abducted, police say.
Christoper Davila is accused of deliberately injuring the youngster, named King Jay, then roping in his mom and cousin to claim the infant was abducted when his car was stolen from outside a gas station.
King’s body was stuffed in a black backpack and buried in a field in San Antonio, Texas, Friday, with Davila reportedly leading cops to the burial site himself.

Davila is said to have claimed that King died while he was sat in his car seat, on a bed.
The child abuse suspect claims that when he sat down on the bed, King bounced off, hit himself on a dresser and landed face-first on the floor.

Davila claims a large bump formed around the child’s eyes, leaving him too scared to call 911, and said that when he checked a few hours later, the baby had died, according to KSAT.
He reportedly buried King less than a mile from his home, and has so far been charged with crimes including felony injury to a child as well as evidence tampering.
Davila reported King’s abduction last Friday, sparking a huge police search for the little boy.

Within 24 hours, officials revealed that they were beginning to doubt whether the youngster had really been abducted, and said that King’s family were refusing to fully cooperate with their investigation.
Surveillance footage showing a woman in a gray hoodie ‘stealing the car’ was released, with cops saying her purposeful, hesitation-free stride up towards and into the vehicle suggested a set-up.
Davila’s cousin, Angie Torres, 45, was identified as that woman two days later, prompting police to brand the kidnapping a ‘staged event.’
And his mother, Beatrice Sampayo Davila, 65, was arrested earlier this week over claims she was the one who drove Torres to the gas station.
She is said to have told Torres that Davila had told her he’d greviously injured his baby son. Both women face evidence tampering charges.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/11/dad-killed-baby-son-faked-kidnapping-cover-killing-8335057/

Anonymous said...

OT: ROBERT BLAKE on 20/20

I watched (and plan to rewatch) Robert Blake's interview on 20/20, this weekend.

I woder if anyone else has any thoughts about his guilt or innocence.

The thing that caught my ear was him saying something to the effect of his wife being shot in the head when he ran back to use the bathrrom. It was suggested as a hypotheticval, but got me wondering if that had been one "plan" that was considered and dismissed... since she was shot when he went back to retrieve his gone fromt he restaurant, which I assume was the "better option" (from an ailbi standpoint) since it would have meant he was NOT armed when she was shot.

Anonymous said...

O/T -- what do you think is behind Clint Dunn'e new "media blitz"? As soon as it started, Billie Jean set her FB to private.

Sherrie Johnson said...

That 20/20 was a strange mishmash of quotes taken from various questions posed to Blake, at various times.

Interviews like that are for the goal of sensationalism and are very difficult to get any significant material to analyze without see the unedited comments to the questions posed.

For example, Blake gets visibly upset and asks, "What you think I'm a monster too..." At some point in the interview and it is used as a clip before commerical break, implying to the viewer - Walters will be asking hard hitting questions about his guilt. Later, when we see the context it was said, he is upset and asks the question in reference to Walters asking if Rosie (the baby) really is his biological child.

What I would like to know, is if he relates people thinking he is a "monster" for being accused of killing Bonnie, or if that "monster" label is only reserved for people who do not know their own child, to him?

But, from this interview, one wouldn't know that, bc if he did ever say anything like that to being accused of murdering or a plot of murder against his wife, it has been edited out. Or never existed. Not such a great source.

Maybe the early stuff, like maybe the Larry King Live interview he did at some point, I believe after he was aquitted. That one seemed to be more continuous and not edited, probably due to be live.

Just my thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Could Patsy have had a “borderline personality disorder (BPD)” or whatever it is called now? Could this affect her use of language and account for some of its strangeness?

You stated in your analysis that:
“…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.”

Is a person with a BPD capable of wondering what her daughter is going through?

And I’ve never understood the ransom note. It started out “Mr. Ramsey, listen carefully.” This is a written document, shouldn’t it have said “read carefully?”

Maggie said...

Waht color/colour wear/where the car doors???????????????????????? BLACK??????????????/ HUH?HEY?HUH???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I BET THEY WEAR/WHERE BLACK???????????Waht color/colour wear/where the car doors???????????????????????? BLACK??????????????/ HUH?HEY?HUH???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I BET THEY WEAR/WHERE BLACK???????????????????????????????????HUH?HEY?????/HUH???????????????????????????????

MAGGIE said...

Waht color/colour wear/where the car doors???????????????????????? BLACK??????????????/ HUH?HEY?HUH???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I BET THEY WEAR/WHERE BLACK????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SPERMS said...

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BobCat said...

hee hee IMAGRANMA is back lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anonymous said...

Peter said:

“My guess? Patsy was under great stress. (…) all came apart at the seams when Jonbenet was up, again, the middle of the night. (…) I think she may have hit Jonbenet who likely hit her head. Panic and cover up.”

Investigator Tom Haney suggested a similar scenario to Patsy Ramsey in the following interrogation (see this video ):
TH: "JonBenet got up and somebody in that house - legally, lawfully, one of the three of you - also happens to be up, or gets up because she makes noise. There is some discussion or something happens, there's an accident."
PR: "You're going down the wrong path, buddy."
TH: "OK. Somebody accidentally or somebody gets upset over bedwetting, that's one of the things that's been proposed."
PR: "Didn't happen. If she got up in the night and ran into somebody, it was somebody there that wasn't supposed to be there. I don't know what transpired after that, whether it was accident, intentional, premeditated or what not. It was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement."

- Patsy starts with: “You’re going down the wrong path, buddy.” Her tone is aggressive here. Almost threatening. As if she wants the interrogator to shut up. Is it because he’s entering dangerous territory (wrong path) for Patsy?
- Patsy then says “Didn’t happen” instead of “That didn’t happen”. By leaving out “that” she seems to avoid addressing the specific allegation.
- Patsy continues with: “If she got up in the night and ran into somebody (…)”. Here, she’s narrowing things down to JonBenet running into somebody whereas the interrogator’s question left room for several alternative scenario’s. E.g.: JonBenet making noise in her bedroom and one of her parents checking in on her. Perhaps Patsy narrowed it down to what she knows actually happened that night?
- Patsy then says: “(…) it was somebody there that wasn’t supposed to be there.” This seems such a neutral way to describe JonBenet’s murderer. Why not say: it was an intruder? Or why not simply say: it wasn’t one of us? Maybe Patsy is leaking here: JonBenet (who got up and ran into “somebody”) wasn’t supposed to be there. If that “somebody” was Patsy, she may have even said to her daughter: “You’re not supposed to be here.” JonBenet (and ultimately Patsy herself) was “going down the wrong path”, so to speak.
- Patsy continues: “I don’t know what transpired after that (…)”. By saying “after that” she seems to imply that she knows what transpired up until JonBenet ran into somebody. A synonym for “transpire” is “fall out” (and if Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet she probably transpired a lot after that).
- Patsy subsequently seems to reduce her lack of knowledge of what transpired to the question “whether it was accident, intentional, premeditated or what not.” Supposedly an intruder enters the house, sexually assaults JonBenet, puts duct tape over her mouth, ties her up, smashes her head in, strangles her by means of garrote, leaves a ransom note and Patsy still wonders whether it is accidental, intentional or premeditated? That’s very strange. Unless the scenario suggested by Peter and the interrogator is actually true. If Patsy (or John or Burke (I think Patsy)) intentionally hit JonBenet but not with the expectation or intention to kill her, it would be normal that she struggles with the question whether she killed JonBenet accidentally or intentionally.
- Patsy concludes with: “It was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement.” If Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet, could she be subconsciously telling us that she was menstruating at the time and that she blames her period for JonBenet's end? That she wasn’t herself at the time?

Autumn

Maggie said...

Hi ImaGranMa xxx“My guess? Patsy was under great stress. (…) all came apart at the seams when Jonbenet was up, again, the middle of the night. (…) I think she may have hit Jonbenet who likely hit her head. Panic and cover up.”

Investigator Tom Haney suggested a similar scenario to Patsy Ramsey in the following interrogation (see this video ):
TH: "JonBenet got up and somebody in that house - legally, lawfully, one of the three of you - also happens to be up, or gets up because she makes noise. There is some discussion or something happens, there's an accident."
PR: "You're going down the wrong path, buddy."
TH: "OK. Somebody accidentally or somebody gets upset over bedwetting, that's one of the things that's been proposed."
PR: "Didn't happen. If she got up in the night and ran into somebody, it was somebody there that wasn't supposed to be there. I don't know what transpired after that, whether it was accident, intentional, premeditated or what not. It was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement."

- Patsy starts with: “You’re going down the wrong path, buddy.” Her tone is aggressive here. Almost threatening. As if she wants the interrogator to shut up. Is it because he’s entering dangerous territory (wrong path) for Patsy?
- Patsy then says “Didn’t happen” instead of “That didn’t happen”. By leaving out “that” she seems to avoid addressing the specific allegation.
- Patsy continues with: “If she got up in the night and ran into somebody (…)”. Here, she’s narrowing things down to JonBenet running into somebody whereas the interrogator’s question left room for several alternative scenario’s. E.g.: JonBenet making noise in her bedroom and one of her parents checking in on her. Perhaps Patsy narrowed it down to what she knows actually happened that night?
- Patsy then says: “(…) it was somebody there that wasn’t supposed to be there.” This seems such a neutral way to describe JonBenet’s murderer. Why not say: it was an intruder? Or why not simply say: it wasn’t one of us? Maybe Patsy is leaking here: JonBenet (who got up and ran into “somebody”) wasn’t supposed to be there. If that “somebody” was Patsy, she may have even said to her daughter: “You’re not supposed to be here.” JonBenet (and ultimately Patsy herself) was “going down the wrong path”, so to speak.PRONOUNS ARE 87% FAKED HERE,ask jeeves?

Sherrie Johnson said...

#MeTo IS POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I HAVE AN ERECT PENICE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sherrie Johnson said...

Sherrie Johnson im spermy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonShexrriJohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherriexxxxxxxxxxxxxJohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherriexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxJohnsonShexxxxxxxxxxxrrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JxxxxxxxxxxxmmmmmmmmmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxohnsonShhnsonSJohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrieJohnsonSherriohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrieJohnsonSherriohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrieohnsonSherrie JohnsonSherrieJohnsonSherrieohnsonSherrie JohnsonnSherrie Johnson mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anonymous said...

"We have a kidnapping" is claiming ownership of the kidnapping and also sharing the responsibility of it. Who would word it this way if they were not involved?

Anonymous said...

"We have a kidnapping" is claiming ownership of the kidnapping and also sharing the responsibility of it. Who would word it this way if they were not involved?

The primary goal of Patsy’s 911 call was probably to convince the listener that someone else had their child. Yet (almost) the first words Patsy utters are: "We have a kidnapping". Prior to that she had already given the location without being asked for it. The operator asked: "What's going on ma'am". Patsy answered: "755 15th street". When suspects (perpetrators) use the word "sleeping" or "asleep" while describing their victim, it is said to often be a metaphor for death. I was wondering if "napping" could be seen the same way? I know it may seem far-fetched because "napping" does not refer to a deep sleep and Patsy merely said it as part of larger word with its own meaning (i.e. kidnapping), but maybe she was subconsciously telling us: We have a dead kid at 755 15th street. In any case, the person(s) who caused JonBenet's death had probably been looking at her being passed out for a while that night because the strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike (based on the swelling of her brain). If this person was Patsy, that image must have been etched in her brain.

I find it also interesting that the first statements in this case were made by Patsy and not by John. They seemed quite a traditional couple and in almost every interview John seemed to hold the reins. So why was it Patsy who had to make the 911 call. Why was she the one (i.m.o.) who wrote the ransom letter. Why did John leave that up to her? Maybe he said: You got us into this mess, now you try to get us out of it. But I also think Patsy had an overwhelming urge to communicate about what happened. In the ransom letter she seem to be replaying the death of her daughter over and over again. It is literally riddled with references thereto, e.g.:
“Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in way marked or tampered with, she dies.”

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I have a theory about the JBR case and I wonder if you’ll look over the statements to see if the analysis fits it. Instead of the black and white question of was it an intruder or was it a cover up, I think it is possibly both. In that, an intruder did kill JBR, and she was found (before any 911 call) by a member of the family (likely Burke) who went and told his parents, and when they found JBR they believed that Burke had killed her and in a panic decided to create this ridiculous ransom note and thus cover it up. Obviously there are the extreme behavior issues Burke had leading up to that time so I can see why they would assume he did it (especially if they didn’t see an offender or any blatant signs of a break in). This theory fits with unknown DNA on JBR, and the comm9n belief that PR wrote the note.

Anonymous said...

Even with Patsy’s concern with appearances, why would they not immediately report JBR’s injury and seek help? How did it help their image by trying to fly (sneak) off to Michigan (but were stopped by LE) after their daughter was found dead, garroted in their wine cellar with vaginal trauma?

I don’t believe Burke did anything malicious. But I can’t fathom why creating a coverup, which I’m convinved they did, seemed like a rational, reasonable thing to do.

We’ll never know. But Burke has this hanging over his head forever, and if he’s collateral damage of his parents’ vanity and pride, that is tragically unfair to him. If he hurt JB, all they had to do was report a tragic accident, and all of this scrutiny would have disappeared.