Monday, December 19, 2016

ABC's "20/20" Jonbenet Ramsey Case

Although many Americans do not trust main stream media, as seen in both surveys and ratings, people tuned in to ABC's "20/20" to 'learn inside information'  from the Grand Jury that indicted John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of their daughter  Jonbenet.

ABC's 20/20 brought on a juror who said he knew who killed Jonbenet only to have him not give the answer, angering viewers.

20/20 is not a live broadcast.  

As we see consistently, even after public "mea culpa" by the NY Times, the narrative, deliberate race baiting, divisive deceptive reporting, and service of the political elite and overall sense of contempt for viewership, has not changed since the election.  

Reuters reported the race of Donald Trump's recent cabinet, prioritizing it against  qualifications.  This is done to entice racial discord, reducing discernment to pigmentation of skin.  

Journalists  trained in analysis are desperately needed  today.  Journalistic integrity is now considered 'narrative based' and 'fluid.'

The internet remains mostly free at this point, in spite of political attempts to quell free speech by the elite, as well as the major social media players.  The public shift towards "fake media" continues, en masse, because trust has long been broken and remains broken.  


The Ransom Note

I am currently working on a new training manual on ransom notes and threat assessment.  The JBR ransom note will be given a complete and in depth analysis in this work, as using psycho-linguistics from analysis, the author of the note (and of all ransom notes) emerges. 

In analyzing the threat of an anonymous note (including ransom demand), analyzing the words reveals a great deal about the subject's commitment to the threat.  This, alone, is a great tool in assessing (and assigning) threat response.  

Yet, there is more:  

After the analysis is complete, it is now known if the threat is real, or it is a fake; 
How committed the writer is to the threat, via the strength of language and the psycho-linguistics used to identify the author will tell us:

His background;
His experiences;
His priority (especially in a threat or ransom note) 

but also:

his personality.  

Know the author and we know a lot more about the threat. 

Information is gleaned by asking questions and listening to responses.  The legally sound, open ended questions are best to allow the subject to enter into the free editing process where he is choosing his own words freely.  This speed of transmission means he is choosing, for example, to say the word "we" or the word "I" in a process faster than we can measure.  Pronouns are intuitive.  People do not pause to think, 

"Hmm.  Should I say "we", or should I say "I" before I answer this questions?" 

A 6 year old child was reported kidnapped and later discovered murdered. 

We can know what happened by listening to the parents in order:

1 . The 911 Call Analysis will show the priority of the call. 

Will the caller be truthful, or be indicated for deception? 

2.  The Ransom Note will tell us if it is real or a ruse as well as reveal the identity of the author.  

3.  The interviews the parents gave shortly after the murder will tell us if they are truthful or deceptive.  

4.  Behavioral Analysis:  did the parents work to facilitate the capture of their daughter's killer, 

or did they not? 

One must answer this for oneself:  

If the parents are lying about the murder of their daughter...


This is basic Statement Analysis of original Ramsey CNN interview. 

Quotes in italics

Note that at the time of the interview, the police had accused the Ramseys of not cooperating.  This will become the accusation to be answered.  

When an interview is conducted by police regarding any serious accusation, the interviewer is going to have one of two impressions.  In this case:  

1.  This person is doing everything he/she can to help facilitate the flow of information to find out who killed their daughter;

2.  This person (the subject) is not seeking to facilitate the flow of information to help catch Jonbenet's killer.  

This is seen in "Behavioral Analysis" of which the words and the behaviors are consistent.   


1.  The words in the interview show desire to assist police, while their actions (responses to requests) confirm this desire that was witnessed linguistically in the interview.  

2.  The words show distance from police, while their actions show a lack of cooperation.  

In analysis, there is something we call "the wall of truth" that remains between an innocent (de facto) subject and a false accusation.  It takes a great deal of both time and effort to dismantle down this wall.  The wall is a powerful element as seen in the language.  We sometimes see this in missing person cases where the parents are, in fact, innocent.  They care either little nor not at all, that police may suspect them:  they are buttressed by truth, itself, and have little need to defend themselves.  They want their child recovered. 

We analyze the statements of both the innocent and the deceptive and can compare the two.  

NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: And Brian is here, he conducted an exclusive interview today with the child's parents, John and Patricia Ramsey.

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: First of all, from a newsstand point, a couple of item's came out, the Ramsey are going to be putting together their own investigative team, they say, private investigaters. This is not meant as any disrespect, they say, for the Colorado authorities. They just want the best mind possible, they say, looking into this crime.

Note that the family used their financial resources to construct their own "investigatory team" which included defense attorneys. This is a highly unusual step in a child murder. When hiring defense attorneys, the Ramseys:

1. Believed they had a need to attorneys
2. Brought strong public criticism upon themselves.
3. The Ramseys, themselves, brought greater focus upon their own behaviors in terms of Behavioral Analysis, which had already shown that they were not cooperating but hindering the investigation from the very beginning. 

CNN:  Secondly, they will be offering a reward perhaps as much as $50,000 starting next week. It has been a very difficult week as you might expect for the Ramsey family, a very difficult interview as well, we talked to them for about 45 minutes.  

Do they fear losing the money?  Please note the amount of the money is less than half of his Christmas bonus.  

This is also unusual. The norm is to have money raised for a reward; including law enforcement and private citizens working together to entice somoene with knowledge to come forward.

CABELL: Why did you decide you wanted to talk now?

The police reported that they have not been cooperative but lawyered up immediately and made the interviews conditional with one of the most basic elements present:

They would not be interviewed separately.  

This is a signal of Behavioral Analysis that they were concerned of giving conflicting accounts.  

Expected:  with a murdered child, there is no expectation that innocent parents will:

a.  lawyer up
b.  make demands or conditions on police
c.  circumvent police investigation with their own.  

Q.  When might innocent people circumvent police?

A.   After years of blatant incompetence, frustration, unanswered calls for help, and after contacting other elements of law enforcement for intervention.   

We begin noting Behavioral Analysis, which does not conclude guilt or innocence.  

To have an analytical  conclusion, the analysis conclusion must present itself.  

JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

Notice first that the question is "why" did you decide to talk "now".

Let's look at John Ramsey's answer as to "why".

"Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days"

"well" may be habitual manner of speaking; generally used as a pause to think. As with all habitual speech, we look to see if a pattern develops of when any 'delaying' or pause words are used. It can indicate that the question asked is sensitive.

"we have been pretty isolated". In Statement Analysis, extra words give us additional information. If a sentence works without a word, the word is deemed "extra" and is valuable to the analyst.
"We have been isolated" is a straight forward answer. Here we have the additional word "pretty"; which would indicate a sensitivity. Someone who is "pretty" isolated is somewhat isolated. Remember, words are chosen in less than a microsecond. Ramsey then contradicts himself with another additional word, "totally" isolated.

"for the last five days" is added. This would indicate that they were not "pretty" isolated, or even "totally" isolated before the 5 days.
5 days have elapsed since the death of Jonbenet and police have accused the Ramseys of stalling and not cooperating fully with the investigation. In most investigations, particularly  murder investigations, it is the norm to interview and reinterview those close to the victim and the police had vented their frustration that the Ramseys were not cooperating with follow up interviews, and later accused the Ramseys of setting boundaries and limits to the interviews.

Ramsey said they were "pretty isolated" but then changed it to "totally" isolated, reducing commitment to the issue.

He is now portraying himself and Patsy in the role of victim.  Consider the emotional effort to accomplish this when they reported a brutal murder of their daughter.  This concern for self is not expected while a violent killer remains on the loose.  

Since the Ramsey home was targeted, specifically, for ransom, is Burke next?

Imagine the terror any parent would feel after this.  

Would you possess the wherewithal days after such a brutal murder to even care to talk about your being "pretty isolated"?

Next, we have the word "but" which is a refutation of what was previously said.

"but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people".

From the morning of the 26th of December, the Ramseys called in a lawyer, minister, and family friends and surrounded themselves with these people. "But" refutes his claim of isolation, which he already weakened with "pretty" and "totally".

That "we" (weak) have only "sensed" from their friends suggests the presence of some friends who are suspicious of them. 

Friends  communicate to grieving parents expressing sorrow and how much the victim meant to them; not  in a way where the grieving parents are left having to discern meaning ( to only "sense" rather than "know") that they have been "touched" (emotionally impacted, yet using physical language, noted).   

Therefore, as he contradicts the view of "isolation" it is determined that John Ramsey is being deceptive on a minor point, and it is regarding those around him.  

We note that from an early age, a child that feels guilt will often seek to mitigate guilt by 'spreading it around' just as adults will use the plural pronoun rather than singular, as sharing guilt, or protecting oneself using others, is evident.  


We listen to hear the "linguistic disposition towards the murderer" by the subject. 

What does the subject think and feel about the one who:

a.  wrote him a very personal ransom note
b.  made a specific demand for his Christmas bonus money
c.  Exercised unprecedented boldness:  got into his house
d.  used his pen and pad
e.  used insults and taunts 
f.  did not keep his word about payment
g.  brutally 'tortured' (garroted) his beautiful little daughter.

We expect both fear and rage.  

Instead we have "minimizing" language and a clear linguistic disposition: 

Note the language of his daughter's murder is a "tragedy" that has "touched" them and others. This is unusually soft language.  We expect to hear rage from the father of a murdered daughter, not something that "touches" but something that devastates and destroys.  One should wonder why he shows no anger towards the murderer, and no rage for justice.  This absence of rage and fear shows a neutral (in context, "positive") linguistic disposition towards the one responsible for the murder, which is, in John's language, a "tragedy."  

We now have a linguistic tie between the subject (John, father) and the killer:   neutrality.  

Ramsey then gives the answer as to "why" they are now speaking:

And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing

He does not speak for himself but for he and his wife. 
Rather than talking about coming forward to capture the killer, he portrays himself and his wife as "secluded", which can elicit public sympathy.  

He stated that they came to do this interview to "thank" the people who are praying for them and to tell them that they are "healing".
This is also unusual.

If you found your child murdered in your home, would you feel the need to, less than a week later, go on national TV to say "thank you" and tell people that you are healing instead of working 24/7 with police? 

Processing Time:

Natural parental denial is powerful.  

We often find an acceptance in the language of guilty parents, even while the child is still missing, which shows that processing of death has taken place.  (McCann)

Would you be healing at such a time of crisis? This gave the appearance of "spin" and a presentation of the family. Why would such a presentation of the family be necessary? The analyst should consider the influence of lawyers using "promotion techniques" as possible influence upon the language.  

 If your child was murdered, would you feel a need to have the nation view your family image while the killer is still on the loose?

 For most people, they would be blind by grief and care nothing for what others thought of them. 

Parents of a murdered child would want the killer caught, first and foremost.  Refusing to be interviewed by police, they have instead chosen to go on television and spend their own money to hire their own investigators.  Now, the father uses plural pronouns ("we, us") and employs soft language towards the murder, and its impact, and what is missing is also shocking:  rage towards the killer.

As you can see by the lengthy answer, no objection remains strong to say "he is only answering the question posed."  The expected is to give a short answer on self and move immediately to the most pressing emergency possible as a priority: 

"....a personal, invasive killing of my daughter has left me in fear for my son; I, not we, must get this $%^&*( caught!" 

But Ramsey sounds more collected and in narrative and goes on in his answer and gives us an insight into his thinking:

and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

This is a self-serving person. 

It is no surprise that when his daughter was born, he named the child after himself,  and we see this characteristic in his language consistently throughout the years.  It is more than just self preservation.  

As in other analysis, the element of sexual abuse is in the language and those who sexually abuse children are narcissistic - like in that what they do brings life long damage to the victim, but gives momentary satisfaction to the molester.  

Please note that he recognizes the victim as "safe" which is true, but with the killer on the loose, and his home and person being the specified target of said killer, what priority does the language yield? 

The police want to catch Jonbenet's killer.
The Ramseys do not want to help the police catch Jonbenet's killer. 
The Ramseys language shows concern for the sensitivities of others; to thank them. 
The soft language is not expected from innocent parents. 

 They do not show fear that the killer might target their son.
They do not show fear the killer will strike other children.

He tells the nation that Jonbenet is "safe" now that she is dead. 
This indicates that prior to being dead, she was not safe. This is a theme that we now listen for. This is a critical point.   Why was Jonbenet not "safe" before her murder?

We now have Patsy Ramsey's answer to "why" they are speaking now. 

There are two expectations:

1.  She will speak for herself as biological mother.  Even seated wit her husband, this event must trigger powerful maternal instincts:  this was her daughter brutally murdered, humiliated, tied, garroted, etc.  There is nothing more "up close and personal" than this.  
2.  She will show priority of helping police catch the killer.  

PATRICIA RAMSEY, JONBENET'S MOTHER: We have just been overwhelmed by the cards and letters and visits and people we haven't seen for years have come to call and be supportive in their -- many of them are parents, and they know and can feel our grief.

Is it possible for any parent to know and feel the grief of another parent under the auspices of a vicious murder?

She reported that they (plural) have been overwhelmed by cards, letters and visits, including people that they have not seen for years.

This shows that the sensitivity indicators in John Ramsey's language ( he went from being pretty isolated to totally isolated as police attempted to get them in to talk) shows the incongruity of  deception. John reported that he and Patsy were "totally" isolated in the past 5 days; but Patsy Ramsey reported that they were "overwhelmed" which included people visiting tha they had not seen for years. 

One cannot be totally isolated and overwhelmed by people.  "Cards, letters, and visits" have overwhelmed them (plural according to her language).

Therefore, the answer given as to "why" is not acceptable.  He has come forward because they were isolated?  She has come forth because she has been overwhelmed with people.

Investigators listening to the CNN interview would then ask themselves:

Why do the Ramseys have the need to lie?
Why do the Ramseys have the need to avoid being interviewed separately?

It is interesting in that of all the things she could say, she included "card."  

This is likely why the attorneys fought allowing them to be interviewed separately.  

RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.

There is another reason, lower in priority, for speaking out now.  The first was to communicate that they were isolated but were able to "sense" that this "tragedy" had "touched" others.  

This is not minimized for the "other" reason;

Will this be to find out who killed his daughter?

It is not. 

He has a question:  not "who" did it, but "why?" 

John Ramsey then says that there is another reason why they came forward, so soon after their daughter's murder, to speak to the nation: the need to know "why" Jonbenet was murdered.
He does not ask the expected:  Who done it?  The "who done it?" exists only in mysteries that need to be solved.

Note: Avinoam Sapir, Lab for Scientific Interrogation pointed out that John Ramsey did not ask "who" killed his daughter; only "why"; which is an indication that he knew who killed her.  Please see his analysis at for more detail. 

CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

Note the timing:   It was important for them to have people there at a certain point.  It is not when they found the body that he refers to, but the finding of the note.  What would be the most important reference point for you?  Finding a fake ransom note, or finding your daughter's body?  He could have chosen any particular moment:  he chose the note. 

Note that John Ramsey gives a time line for being "surrounded" by friends as being "almost the moment" that "we" found the note. This is weighed against his "total isolation".  One should wonder why it is that he reports being isolated, collectively, while being "surrounded" by people.  

This leads to the question:  Who has isolated John Ramsey?

Please note that John Ramsey refused to be interviewed by police by himself.  Patsy Ramsey refused to be interviewed by police by herself.  Perhaps this is the "isolation" he refers to:  from police.  He has defense attorneys to protect him and Patsy and has surrounded himself with supporters. 

The only people that John and Patsy Ramsey were isolated from were those responsible for finding Jonbenet's killer. 

Note also that his friend "suggested" that it would be "foolish" not to have "knowledgeable counsel" (not just "counsel") to help both "us" (not to help "us" but "both" us; additional wording emphasizing why both would need attorneys) and to help with the investigation.

Question:  How would defense attorneys help "with the investigation"? 

Answer:  Defense attorneys seek to stop the flow of information in order to protect their clients. 

Solving Jonbenet's murder means getting information. 

Solving Jonbenet's murder and the work of defense attorneys is in opposition. 

By stalling interviews; by shopping various polygraphers, by refusing to release the results, by making the rules of the interviews, and so forth, they have opposed the flow of information. In short, by doing everything they could to sabotage the investigation, including orchestrating a public appearance on national television a week from the murder, the defense attorneys have done what they could to stop information.

This is in stark contrast to John Walsh, America's Most Wanted; and the general behavior of innocent parents. Innocent parents take immediate polygraphs, interviews, DNA submissions; in short, innocent parents do anything they can to help; and are often found "pestering" law enforcement daily for answers. Note that John Ramsey's initial reaction was to arrange to fly his family out of Boulder; leaving behind his daughter's body; something parents are generally unable to bear even the thought.

John Ramsey's statement shows that he knew, from the finding of the note, that he needed "counsel" and in particular, he was going to need a lawyer to help with "the investigation."  The only people who need lawyers in investigations are the guilty.  

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

Note that Patsy wants to find out "who" did this, for the "safety of all of the children" which may have been in response to the public statement by police that Boulder was safe from an unknown child killer.  This is different than John Ramsey's statement.  

But is her statement strong?  She gives the reason to find out "who" did this:  for the safety of all the children.  This is her reason "why", which is sensitive.  It is not for justice for Jonbenet, nor even safety for her own son, but for "all the children."

This must be taken in context with what she first says:

"if anyone knows anything"

Would not someone know something?  Why the need to qualify with the word, "if"?  This reminds me of Jeremy Irwin who told media that his daughter was kidnapped, only to say "if someone has her..." reducing his commitment to the notion of a kidnapping. 

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

A missing child, or a murdered child is something very personal to a parent.  It is unusual to hear them always speak in the plural.  The expected is the more personal use of the pronoun, "I" when speaking, even as a spokesman for both.  The overabundance of the word "we" in situations likes these suggests a need or desire to share guilt/responsibility.  

John is not angry. This is not the reaction of an innocent father who's daughter has just been murdered.  Please note the position in which the body was found, a staging to appear to show Jonbenet tortured before death. 

If your child was murdered, you would be angry.  If your child was tortured before being murdered, your anger would burn hotter than words could describe accurately.  

An innocent parent would have boiling wrath.  This is the expected.  

Objection:  John Ramsey is just numb with shock. 

Answer:     his refusal to cooperate with police shows an intellect engaged for a reason.  He showed anger at the police, and not the killer; this showed emotions engaged.  His language towards the killer is consistently soft.  He is not numb, but working the publicity and propaganda well. 

John Ramsey called the brutal murder a "tragedy"
John Ramsey did not ask who killed Jonbenet.
John Ramsey did not call for the killer to be caught. 
John Ramsey used soft language to describe the impact of the murder as "touched" lives. 
Now, John Ramsey makes sure people know he is not "angry." 

Where is the righteous anger and indignation of a father of a murdered daughter?

Why would John Ramsey want the public to think that they are not angry? This was another criticism of "spin" against the Ramseys, seeking to portray themselves in the most positive light possible. It is an unnatural reaction that suggests deception.

 A mother bear robbed of its whelp is dangerous; how much more so the parents (John says "we") of a murdered child? It was the anger that John Walsh felt that he eventually channeled into helping others and turned it into "America's Most Wanted."

 Remember, this is just a week away from the murder where his daughter was found bound and with a garrote around her neck. 

RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --

RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

John repeats that he wants to know why (not who) but then tells us that there is no answer as to "why". This raises our own question: Why would there be no answer?  This is insight into the years of stonewalling that would follow.  

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes-- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are .

Follow the pronouns:  Before he can complete one sentence, he says, "I, we, you" which is a strong indication that he is deceptively withholding information through self censoring.

Broken sentences are indications of withholding information; including Patsy's "we can't" above. Here, John changes his flow of information so that he can tell the nation that they are a "loving" family.

Repetition shows sensitivity. John Ramsey repeats "family" with regards to public image. There are two things he wants the nation to know:

The family is loving.

This is an indication that the family had turmoil and stress. When a subject must tell us that they are "loving", there is a reason why it is included. Most families are considered "loving" and don't feel the need to say so. But John Ramsey goes further. He not only wants the public to know that they were "loving" but also that they were "gentle".

"Gentle" is a term applied to someone who is not violent. Why is it important for John Ramsey to tell the public that his family is "gentle"? This raises more questions.

He also says they lost "one" child.  This is an attempt to elicit sympathy for them, and take focus off the police work, by allowing or manipulating the audience into having empathy for the parents who are being 'persecuted' by police.

Note: John Ramsey lost an older daughter in a car accident years earlier.  This irrelevant point to capturing the killer of the victim may also be the influence of a defense attorney.  It is interesting to note that the interviewer introduced the topic of defense attorney and this topic produced the words that followed.  

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten note, three pages?

Note the question asked.

RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up.

The broken sentence tells us that she is withholding information. She began with "didn't" but then changes to "couldn't".

We also have Patsy Ramsey giving us the reason why she didn't or couldn't read the note: she had just gotten up. When a subject tells us the reason of something, it is highly sensitive.

Advanced Statement Analysis reveals the author's background, experience, priorities and personality of the Ransom note.  

We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed

Here, Patsy tells us she was awake and alert enough to get dressed. 

The analyst must consider:

While her daughter is murdered and she found the ransom note, she could say anything about it, yet she chooses to address her dressing. 

This means that her dress, the morning of the discovery of the ransom note and murder of her daughter, is very important to Patsy Ramsey.  

and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas,

Here we have the 'intention' or reason why she was going to the kitchen as sensitive.  This means she anticipated being asked about her positioning when finding the note.  It is a strong indicator that she placed the note where it was found. 

"Coffee" is significant.  


Remember:  in the editing process, no one can tell us everything that happened when asked to; it  would never end. Therefore, what they choose to say is important to them.

Many people refer to "coffee" as it is often a "social drink", meaning that the reason they freely bring "coffee" into a statement is because they are thinking of someone else, or a conversation, or something socially. 

As a matter of routine, when we see "coffee" in a statement, we ask, "where you with someone else?" 

The result is often fruitful information as the person mentioned "coffee" because they were specifically thinking about a conversation they had with someone else.  Contextually, this would be "John" the husband.  

Remember, they did not want to be interviewed alone. 
They use the pronoun "we" in answering questions frequently, where the singular is expected from biological parents in a murder case of a biological child.  

There was just a conflict in description from husband to wife. 

"Coffee" or the possible knitting together of the narrative (alibi) may be the reason she chose, out of many other things, to mention it here. 

Again, she is telling us "why" and not "what happened" indicating an area of sensitivity that may be due to the actual placement of the ransom note by her.  

and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down.

1.  Note the "normal" factor in analysis. 
2.  Note the need to tell us why she, herself, came down and was not with him (see "coffee"). 

Patsy Ramsey is literally re-tracing her steps in order to make it appear that she 'suddenly' found the ransom note. 

This need to portray this is unnecessary for those who did not have guilty knowledge of the ransom note's location.  


Supervisor: "What time did you get to work today?"

Employee: "Oh, man. I usually get to work a few minutes before 8. I like to get my coffee and be ready for the clients. I think they appreciate my punctuality and how ready I am for them at 8 on the dot!"

Note: the subject did not answer the question. The subject would like you to interpret that she was there a few minutes early but does not say so. Lying is stressful and people attempt to avoid lying.

Note: In Statement Analysis, when someone does not answer a question, the subject has answered the question.

Here, Patsy Ramsey tells us what she usually does. She is building a narrative of 'surprise' that should have no necessity unless there is something very wrong.

Patsy Ramsey feels the need to tell us, among anything, that she was dressed in her clothing and that the route she took that came upon the note, is the route she takes every day. 

This is deception.  She wants us to interpret for her ,but we do not; we listen.  

And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit.

Statement Analysis is 90% rules of grammar. It is 10% specific language and engaging principles of discourse. We flag unusual words for all statements. We flag when a subject mentions an inanimate object as "lying, laying, sitting, seated, standing, stood, etc" as an indication of tension present. This is especially useful when "drugs are sitting on the table", as this type of description is generally an indicator that the subject put the drugs on the table, since drugs don't "sit" or "lay".

This is further indication that Patsy Ramsey, the subject, placed the note on the stairs.

Analysts in training cannot grow outside time.  Time gives experience and as they work month after month, they come upon this principle where an inanimate object is given "life"; that is, some form of human body posture. 

Who has human body posture?
Answer:  Humans

When the inanimate object has human posture, it is an indication of human connection, 

Question:  Who is the human making the connection with the inanimate object?

Answer:  the subject.

"across one of the stair treads. It was dimly lit"

This is another indication of deception. When a subject gives extra details, it can often be an attempt to persuade, just as too vague a report is an indication of deception. A good example is found with Casey Anthony's description of Zanny the Nanny, where Casey went into unnecessary (and unrealistic) detail, including teeth, family, hair straightener, dog, and so on, in an attempt to persuade rather than report. 

It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.

This one answer could fill an entire article of analysis.  From time ("just very early") to "address" and shifting away from self to John, to the self censoring of broken sentences, the analysis necessary for thoroughness is beyond the scope of this article.  

Here are a few points to consider:  

Note: first person singular, past tense, establishes commitment. Here, Patsy accurately reports what the note said. She screamed for John, but reported that Burke (her son)slept through it all.

 Later, the enhanced 911 call cast doubt on her claim that Burke was asleep.

Broken sentences indicate information that began, but was halted and withheld.

Extra words show sensitivity: note that it was "very" early and that she "immediately" ran upstairs. These words show that it is important to Patsy that the audience know her reaction as immediate. Since it would not be plausible for a mother to read a ransom note, but then stop, make coffee and do her make up, it is unnecessary information and appears as an attempt to persuade.

This is akin to "narrative building" including the unnecessary "immediately" (as if we would think that she sat down for her coffee first) that police often intuitively know and label, "story telling."  

CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?

If your daughter was reported kidnapping, would this strike you in any sense??

RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit.

Note the reaction to the note that says "we have your daughter" begins with a pause to think of what to say. 

Next, it is a denial in a yes or no question.  Nothing struck him, including "we have your daughter."

Then, we have the artificial placement of emotion in the "perfect" or logical part of the statement:  right when it happened.  This is indicative of later editing and processing of information, consistent with deceptive narrative building.  Note another "immediately" is used:

both parents have a need to persuade that this was not planned, but was "urgent" where the interviewer has not accused them of staging it.  

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

Here we now have the need to answer; that is, to anticipate being asked before being asked, "Why did you...?"

Is this before or after she called 911? Is this before, after, or during the time when he "ran" through the house, "a bit". Why is "a bit" added? The sentence works without it. It is reasonable to expect that when JonBenet was discovered missing that the large house would be searched, yet John only ran "a bit". Where did he run to?

Note also "our son". A mother will generally say "my" unless:

foster child
step child
step parenting involved

or, there is thoughts of divorce or a need to completely share everything due to guilt.  This is consistent with the rest of their statements as bio parents.  

RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were --

Missing pronoun noted. 

John does not commit to his statement and neither can we. This is likely also not reliable information. Note that she interrupts at this point, showing how sensitive it is. The events run in time.

A truthful account does not tax the memory. It can be repeated like a parade going before your eyes; backwards and forwards. The Ramseys have not been consistent (Burke sleeping) and the time line of events appears sensitive to both Ramseys.

Note:  "sometimes she sleeps in there" is not "sometimes Jonbenet sleeps in there"; which should be understood with the missing pronoun.  

RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

"just" is a dependent word, meaning that another thought must be in play that is to be compared to the unnecessary "frantic" used here.  This is consistent with story telling.  

CABELL: How did you happen later to look in the basement?

John found the body. 
John is speaking. 
John is the victim's father.  

The expected is a response that begins with the reliable "I" in his answer  (see "Santa Claus") analysis.  

RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.

What caused you to check the basement?
Answer;  a detective told me to search.  

Yet, there is a very different response from him, including the inability to be alone in his answer; even when the pronoun "I" is used, he must not be alone but with a friend.  

It takes him a long time to get to the answer.  This is a lengthy introduction to "the detective told me to search" which is a form of psychological avoidance.  


In John Ramsey's verbalized perception of reality, not only is the victim "safe", and the identify of the killer not necessary, but

      It is the detective's fault that he found the body.  

Here we have another indicator of deception. Pronouns are considered the most important part of investigatory speech. Pronouns give ownership and are ingrained within us since our first days of speech. "my daddy" "my toy". Innocent people, for instance, will not take ownership of something they are innocent of:

"for those of you who believe in my guilt..." OJ Simpson

John reported that he found the body. Here, he begins with "we", which is an indication that his account is not reliable. This was hours later. Didn't he search the house ealier when he "ran" through it? Instead, although his daughter had been "missing" for hours, a father didn't search the house, the doors, the windows?

one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there

"who was there" are additional words. This is sensitive and it is important to John that there were others present. (recall the isolation).  "who was there" is passive, which means that John is deliberately avoiding, while thinking about, what caused his friend to be there.  

to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.

The need to explain "why" he had to search the house is very sensitive to him.  He needed a justification for finding the victim.  

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

Patsy gives the reason why the house would be searched. John repeats back her words; reflection shows sensitivity. The search is highly sensitive to both. This may be an indication that both knew where the body was.

RAMSEY, J: Look for clues, asking us to do that,

note that this violates the formula of First person singular, past tense for reliability: "asking" is present tense. Since we know from the detective Linda Arndt that she did ask him to search the house (she stated that she feared him), why wouldn't John relate this in past tense? Why the need for sensitivity? This may also indicate that he knew where the body was and as the subject is approached, the sensitivity increases.

He still has not gotten to finding the body.  This is 'heavily weighted' in the "before" section of 'what happened' here.  

give us something more to do to occupy our mind, and so we started in the basement, and -- and we were just looking, and we -- one room in the basement that -- when I opened the door -- there were no windows in that room, and I turned the light on, and I -- that was her.

John then tells us that focus is an issue: not only to look to see if something is abnormal, but to "occupy" "our mind" (note contradiction of singluar v plural) and "we were just looking" with the word "just" as a reduction.

Broken sentence: change of thought; withheld information.

Note: opening and closing of door. When this enters a statement, it is closely linked with sexual abuse of a child. In subjects, it is often found "opening" a door by the abusive parent and "closing" the door often enters into the language of the abused child. For the abused child, the opening of a door represents the start of the sexual abuse, which is too painful often to talk about, so the child will often say he or she remembers the door "closing" as it is often associated with "relief" since the abuser has now left and the abuse is over.

In Statement Analysis, the opening and closing of doors; the turning on and off of lights and the introduction of water (washing, etc) are three indicators of sexual abuse or activity, so that when any of the three enter a statement they are automatically flagged by the analyst.

For example:
"washing my hands
In a sexual homicide, the killer stated that he had picked up the victim hitchiking, and later reports stopping for gas and ". The "washing" of the hands; something people do without reporting it, was an indication that the rape had taken place just prior to the rest stop.

Or, when someone describes going to bed, they don't feel a need to say that they turned off the lights before sleeping; it is just something we all do. But when it is important enough to mention in a statement, it is because it holds importance to the subject: something took place out of the ordinary. This is why Statement Analysis will flag these words.

Here, John Ramsey mentions two factors: opening the door and turning on the light. both are flagged for sexual abuse by John Ramsey.

There are linguistic indications that John Ramsey was likely sexually abusing his daughter. 

RAMSEY, P: She was --

CABELL (on camera): Mr. Ramsey did confirm that duct tape was found on his daughter's mouth. I asked him about a cord found around her neck, that was a report out of Colorado today, he said he didn't see, it could have been there but he was panicked at that point. He picked up the body, ran screaming upstairs, hoping she was still alive, of course she was not.

There was also a reference to another child that was lost. They lost his daughter -- his adult daughter -- about four years ago in an auto accident. This is the second child they have lost.

Note that the CNN interviewer calls John Ramsey's older daughter, who died in a car accident, "his" adult daughter. This is correct usage, without the need to share with Patsy.  This is in context with the almost inability to speak for himself regarding Jonbenet. 

Coming up in just a few minutes, we address the question -- I address the question -- to them of their being suspects themselves. That's natural in a case like this and we'll ask them about that coming up.

LOU WATERS, CNN ANCHOR: At this hour we're concentrating on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey which has shocked and saddened many in her home town of Boulder, Colorado.

ALLEN: CNN's Brian Cabell this afternoon had exclusive interview with her parents and he's here again with more of the emotional interview after the killing.

CABELL: As you know in cases like this it's very normal police procedure to look at the family first of all as possible suspects in this case. The Ramsey's say they understand this, they're well aware of the Susan Smith case of a couple of years ago, they understand that possibly they would be looked at suspiciously and they say they accept this.

CABELL (off camera): You were asked shortly thereafter for a hair sample and writing sample, blood sample. Who else was asked for this?

RAMSEY, J: Well, Patsy and I, Burke, our son, who is nine, every family member.

John introduces Burke, by name and pronoun. He was likely close to Burke. Social introductions are important. John and Patsy introduced each other differently, indicating that Patsy felt closer to John than John did to Patsy.

For example:

"Mr. Johnson, my supervisor, asked me to..." This type of social introduction is indicative of a good working relationship.

"My supervisor told me..." has the name withheld, and "told" rather than the softer "said", indicating some tension or distance.

John said his entire family.

Note that John introduces Burke as "our" son.  Most parents will say "my son" unless there is a sharing element involved.  A sharing element can be:

1.  Step parenting
2.  Other caregivers not married
3.  Foster parenting
4.  Adoption

5.  Possible impending divorce.  It can be indicative that one parent may be considering divorce

Contextually, the 'need to share' is consistent throughout with guilt, even to the point of addressing John Ramsey's older daughter.  

CABELL: Including your two elder children?

RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

This would affirm that both of his older children gave DNA samples.

CABELL: Any friends?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know.

In a child murder case, the parents are in with the police constantly, and seek to know every possible detail. They also speak to their friends and likely know who the police have spoken to.  They lose sleep attempting to remember any possible detail that might help police find the killer.  This is similar to missing child cases:  the parent never wants the flow of information to police to stop, unless the parent has guilty knowledge of the child's demise and wants to shut off the valve of information.  "And that's all I know" is not something an innocent parent will likely say. 

CABELL: Now, did you give the samples?

RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

CABELL: Oh, really? Because the word was that they thought you were too grief stricken. So both of you, you gave samples?


CABELL: Were you offended by that?


RAMSEY, P: It was difficult. But, you know, they need to know -- I mean our hand prints are all over our home, so they need to know if there's -- if there are other ones --

John denied being offended at giving samples and he did not elaborate on the comment made about the difference in information where police reported that they were too upset to provide samples.

The innocent parent of a murdered child is filled with resolve. The anger drives them to not only cooperate, but get others to cooperate and it drives them to stay on top of the police. The mother bear robbed of its whelp is a fiery subject who will be pacified easily. This is why some of the unsolved cases including the South Amboy, NJ case where a 6 year old boy went missing at a carnival, only later to be found beheaded, focused upon the mother (still uncharged) as her post event behavior, along with her deception, brought the focus upon her.

Innocent parents give samples immediately because they are focused on catching the killer. They are filled with angry resolve. They are not insulted. They do not need lawyers. Their boldness is noted by police and they are quickly cleared. This is the norm.

John and Patsy Ramsey were not angry, and they did their best to hinder the investigation into the murder of their daughter.

The Ramseys hired famed FBI profiler, John Douglas, who concluded that John didn't fit the profile of a child killer who would garrote (slowly kill and torture) his own child.  

Jonbenet died from blunt force trauma; not slow torture.   Douglas said there was no history leading up to the death.  

1.  History of abuse. 

There were indicators of abuse. Jonbenet had a series of infections (UTI) that was treated regularly. 

She was also bedwetting. The doctor saw her many times; far more than normal, and did not make a report. 

My years in child protective have taught me that doctors do not make reports of well-to-do parents, as suspicion for abuse and/or neglect is low. The well to do family is under less financial strain than others, which can contribute to abuse/neglect.

JBR had a history of UTI, bed wetting and was dressed in a sexualized manner. 

These three red flags taken together, must then be considered with the language of John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey which show connection with sexual abuse. 

While most mothers of childhood sexual abuse become overly protective and hypervigiliant, some mothers who were victims of childhood sexual abuse fail to identify  the same patterns going on in the lives of their own daughters.

2. Since that time, news story after news story  shows harsh crimes committed by those without histories of violence. Recently, a 17 year old was convicted of killer another girl; up close and personal. She had no criminal record and was reportedly not in trouble and was not known for violence in her home nor at school.

There are just those who committ violent crimes who do not "work their way up" the ladder of violence; and though many do, we also have the classic "under reporting"; especially in domestic violence where denial is the norm.  I agree that history is the best predictor of the future, but it is not absolute.  

CABELL: The police said a couple of days ago, to assure other residents of Boulder there is no killer on the loose here, you can be assured everything is under control. You believe it's someone outside your home.

RAMSEY, P: There is a killer on the loose.

RAMSEY, J: Absolutely.

Note the unnecessary need to persuade.   

RAMSEY, P: I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's a he or a she. But if I were a resident of Boulder, I would tell my friends to keep -- keep your babies close to you, there's someone out there.

Note the unnecessary need to tell us she does not know and its repetition. 

Note the inconsistency in this fear as Patsy described living in a safe neighborhood in another interview.

Please note that this was a week after the murder.  She already has distanced herself from the area in which her daughter was murdered.  She only says "if" she was a resident of Boulder, even though, legally, she was.  
Note the distancing language:

1.  If she was a resident of Boulder
2.  She "would" which is future/conditional tense.  This is not a strong declaration. 
3.  Soft language:  "there's someone out there":   "Someone"?  This is soft language. 

The "babies" are alive; not "children."  Note in her and John's language the use of "child", so often associated with "child abuse" and "child molester" 

CABELL: An FBI spokesman was quoted as saying at this point they don't regard it necessarily as a kidnapping. You think that's a wrong assumption?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said -- your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.

Consider her words:  it only "seemed" like a kidnapping to her?

She found a ransom note say "we have your daughter" and her daughter was "missing"

RAMSEY, J: I guess that's what concerns me because if we don't have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I am going to be very upset.

John is not angry at the murder of his daughter.
John does not ask who killed his daughter.
John will be "upset" (future tense) if he doesn't have the "full" resources of law enforcement, even though Boulder police worked with the FBI. This is likley deceptive.
Note that all those hired by the Ramseys believed that the Ramseys were innocent.
How many families of murdered children hire their own investigators on day one of a case? It is something few can afford, and is generally only done when the case goes cold. Here, we have it while the case is "hot"; with the Ramseys cooperating with their own hired help, but not with the full resources of the "community" in which they lived.

CABELL: Inevitably, speculation on talk shows will focus on you. It's got to be a sickening --

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.

RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.

Note that Patsy associates her case with Susan Smith and OJ Simpson.

We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children.

With the alleged murder 'loose" on the streets and unknown, why would Patsy Ramsey feel the need to tell the nation that they are "Christian", "God fearing" and that they love their children?
Innocent parents of murdered children are on the move. They are proactive, helpful, and are often described as "pains in the necks" of law enforcement because they search for the killer. Here, we see why the Ramseys were accused of public relations:

They wouldn't talk repeatedly and freely to the police, but instead spoke to the nation;
they engaged in shameless self promotion; describing themselves as "loving", "gentle", "Christian" and "God fearing" which is designed to influence public opinion rather than contribute anything to finding justice for Jonbenet.

When the bizarre behavior of a parent is called upon, the parent often responds by saying, "there is no book on grieving" or "everyone reacts differently in a tragedy". Cindy Anthony said this when Casey danced, got a tattoo and celebrated Caylee's death.

There is, however, a "book" on how parents react.

There are indicators of guilt and of innocence and law enforcment studies these things in great detail.

A general rule of thumb:

Innocent families work hard with law enforcement to advance the investigation;
Guilty families will hinder the work of law enforcement.

CABELL: Do you truly think the perpetrator will be found?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. Yes. Has to be found.

Repetition shows sensitivity. 

Note the  missing pronoun.   
Question for John:  Who has to be found?

Here we have a psychological "disappearance" (lack of commitment) to wanting the killer found.  This is consistent with needing to know "why" rather than "who", and also consistent with "tragedy" and the focus upon appealing to the public for pity for the death of his first daughter, rather than a call to find the killer.  

Consider the police announcement that "no killer was loose"

Most people will automatically say "he" or "they", yet, didn't John Ramsey receive a ransom note from a "small foreign faction"? That would mean "they". The missing pronoun shows a lack of committment by John Ramsey.  He cannot even bring himself to say "the SOB killer of my daughter has to be found!" since he is portraying himself in such soft, gentle language.  In the same manner, he offered that they were a "gentle" family. 

That he identifies themselves as a "gentle" family is unnecessary and such an offering should concern detectives that things that are not "gentle" have taken place in this household.  This is similar to the "I love you" and "I'm a great mother" attempts to persuade that should be unnecessary.  

Hearing this, from his own language, offered instead of as in response to a question, would lead me to want to know more about possible domestic violence inside the home. 

CABELL: Do you think it's a single individual?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. In my heart I do.

Then it is not a small "foriegn faction"?  The ransom note was specifically plural, not singular. Here John tells us that he knows the ransom note was a fake. 

 Note that in his "heart" he does.  Elsewhere, does he think there is more than one person responsible, overall, for what happened to Jonbenet?  Does he blame someone else, intellectually, but not in his heart?  

CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place.

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.

RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.

In studies of children murdered by their parents, a strong category arose in which a child was killed to "protect" the child from future abuse. The parent feels that the child (or children) must be saved from "sin" or from "suffering". In these cases, it was often found that the children were suffering at the hands of a family member prior to the death.  

Patsy introduces "death" and "cancer" as having, somehow, Jonbenet protected from these things. 

This may be a subtle attempt to justify her death, thus reducing guilt.  

RAMSEY, J: We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens.

Here again is the mentioning of the first child, including using the word "child" to describe his teenaged daughter.  This is something we see in John's choice of wording.  He does not say, here, "my daughter", as this was not Patsy's child, but continues with the 'need to share' using "we" and "our" associated with the word "child."  The attempt to arouse public sympathy for them, specifically, from something years ago, and unrelated to murder is particularly of interest:

Since "child" is used, one may wonder if the other daughter was also sexually abused, or if this was via coaching by the attorneys to obtain sympathy.  Even if it is the latter, who chose the word "child" rather than "daughter"?  Why did John not take ownership of his daughter, choosing, instead, to share ownership with the non-biological mother?

CABELL: The Ramseys are staying here in the Atlanta area with family right now. They say they intend to go back to Boulder within a few days, precisely when they're not quite sure. They say when they go back they will sit down with the Boulder police. They will talk. They will tell them anything they want to know.  Note that Patsy Ramsey did not consider herself a resident of Boulder, though she was.  Here, Cabell knows of her intention to return to Boulder. 

ALLEN: Brian, are police saying anymore about the investigation? Leads or evidence from the home?

CABELL: Police have not been particularly forthcoming about leads perhaps deliberately so, but they have said very little as to forced entry, anything like that we simply do not know. The police are keeping that to themselves at this point.

WATERS: What's intriguing to me is the Boulder cop said -- assured the public -- there was no killer on the loose. Now, that suggests they may have a line on who did this. Isn't that what --

CABELL: You start to question that, but keep in mind this was the first and only murder in Boulder this year so there was a bit of panic, a bit of alarm in the community. I think the police were simply trying to tell them: Don't worry we have everything under control, we have police out in the streets. They did step up their surveillance, so perhaps that's the way to explain that.

ALLEN: When was the last time they saw JonBenet Ramsey?

CABELL: When they put her to bed Christmas night, as a matter of fact, and sometime between the time they put her to bed and 5:50 or so the following morning she was apparently abducted from her bed.

WATERS: Did I hear the Ramseys are putting out some money to hire private investigators?

CABELL: They will be assembling their own private investigative team, exactly how many individuals we don't know, but private investigators, attorneys, they say they want the best investigative minds in the country. They want to coordinate this with the authorities in Boulder and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. But they are hiring their own people and offer a reward starting next week.

The investigatory team hired by the Ramseys all believed in the Ramsey innocence. Attorneys "polygraph shopped" until they found the results they sought, yet would not release the results of the polygraph; only agreed to allow the polygrapher to be interviewed. The "team" also dictated the terms of the interviews and did everything legal, within their power, to inhibit the investigation.

Readers may draw their own conclusions on why.

WATERS: What kind of reward?

CABELL: Fifty-thousand dollars was the figure he tossed out there. He wasn't absolutely certain but he thought it would be at least $50,000.

Note that this was not public funding nor was it raised voluntarily by the community.  It is less than half his Christmas bonus.  

ALLEN: Was there something that struck you the most from your conversation with them?

CABELL: It's just looking at two parents, myself being a parent. It's very difficult to conduct an interview, very difficult to be interviewed about losing a six-year-old child especially in such a violent way.

I wondered if Cabell was shocked that, as a father himself, John Ramsey was not angry.

WATERS: Did you try hard to get them to sit down and talk? Most folks, in this kind of situation, I would think, would be very reluctant to sit in front of a television camera.

Agreed.  It would take time for the anger to be contained enough to speak.  This is not a missing child case, but the innocent parents might take to the cameras to help catch the killer.  This was not the case with the Ramseys.  They were out to change the public's perception of them as being uncooperative with police.  This was a public relations move and they did it for self serving purposes

CABELL: They said that they had to get over this five of six days of grieving and burying their daughter, now they want to get on with this new stage of their life, and that is: finding the killer. They wanted to get this off their chest, they want to get this in motion.

Note that Cabell interprets, rather than listens. He is projecting himself as a parent. He would be searching for the killer but that is not what John Ramsey said.

By appealing to people, the Ramseys touched upon the sensivilities of loving parents, especially those who are "Christian" and who are "God fearing" in the public message. In fact, the investigator they hired, Lou Smit, prayed with the Ramseys.

When America first heard of this case, we were shocked at the sexualized appearance of Jonbenet Ramsey; dressed up like a showgirl. Later, we learned via S/A  the language of John Ramsey shows consistency with sexual abuse.  

Did they really want the killer caught?

Listen to what they say and do not project your meaning into it.  Listen, and do not interpret.  

John Ramsey:

"So, as we looked at this group of people that we pulled together, it was not only to advise us in this process, but hopefully to assist the investigation to a closure."

"But an arrest is absolutely necessary in our lives for closure."

Patsy Ramsey said:

"We need the one phone call to this number that will help the authorities come to a conclusion to this case.

Both parents are talking about "closure" and "conclusion" but not a "solution" nor  a finding of the "killer"

Most people want a case "solved" and "the killer brought to justice" and "answer for what he did." 

 Remember, we choose words based upon a signal from the brain that takes place in a less than a microsecond.

Analysis suggests that John Ramsey had been sexually abusing his daughter, and that Patsy Ramsey knew of it, and conspired in a cover up after the fact, by writing a fake ransom note; and conspiring with him to use their wealth to hinder the police investigation.


Ney said...

"we were fortunate " is a term just as strange as the McCanns saying it was such a "relaxing holiday".
Hard to imagine a parent would view anything "fortunate" or "relaxing" around loosing their child, may it be before or after the crime.
Peter, what did you think about Burke's interview? Did you see deception in his language? Did he indicate he knows what happened?

Bobcat said...

Patsy quote:

"We need the one phone call to this number that will help the authorities come to a conclusion to this case."

Might this intonation of "phone call" fit with the statistical connection of stating "phone" and being present when a crime took place?


I tried to watch the ABC coverage on 20/20 and it amounted to nothing new. I had a feeling this would be more of nothing from them but I decided to give it another chance. Thankfully I was multi tasking and didn't completely waste my time. Had I only watched the flimsy coverage without the multi tasking, I would have been upset.

There isn't anything new to report. Statement Analysis gets to the truth which is why I choose to follow this site.

Jasmine said...

Phenomenal piece of S/A investigating Peter, in depth, truthful. Thanks so much for posting this. I heard via TV report that another major network
Is having their own airing as to what happened, believe it is a public education channel. I suppose there won't be anything different than what's already been televised but who knows? One thing that got to me,there were many, one that stuck out......Why Linda Aren't, the initial detective, let it be known she was afraid of John. Sounds as if he was a Canon about to go off possibly wanting to hurt someone, possibly Linda herself? This spoke volumes to me concerning John's character.

Jasmine said...

Hey said about Burke to Poster:Did he indicate he knows what happened?. Yes, he said a pedophile. When I heard that from Burke's mouth, I was somewhat taken aback. Of course I didn't want to believe that John Ramsey would be an abuser especially of his own daughter but SA. Proves it. Now JonBenet would sleep in Burke's room from time to time, something that I never would want opposite siblings doing even though probably no cause for alarm in most cases. I just never cared for such a thing because children can be known for playing doctor. I'm wondering if like father, like son......Burke is quite odd and we know now that father John is a pervert. Jon Benet never had much of a chance of living to a ripe old age and if she would have, what a mess the precious child would have had to continually endure. Her death a tender mercy in some way?

Hey Jude said...

I find the idea of 'healing' to be incongruous to death in general, and particularly to the outrage of murder - it is unexpected? The perpetrator is still at large, yet John Ramsey claims they are 'healing'. What does it mean - when was ever a death, or more particularly a murder, healed? It sounds like a disconnect from reality - I think every recollection of the condition in which JonBenet was found would ensure that grief, rage and a desire for justice would mitigate against 'healing' - they could not 'heal' or even think in such terms.

Does speaking of 'healing', in the context of a murder, signify anything particular in SA? It seems out of place, to me.


He has come forward because they were isolated? She has come forth because she has been overwhelmed with people.

Viewed so incisively, it becomes apparent how very self-serving the interview is - it's not about finding JonBenet's killer.


It is interesting in that of all the things she could say, she included "card."

This is likely why the attorneys fought allowing them to be interviewed separately.

Will you expand on the significance of Patsy including 'card'?

Anonymous said...

What a lovely Christmas card photo if only the parents were not so very evil. Patsy certainly is the picture of elegance and certainly no vampires would approach her with that giant cross she is wearing.

Imagrandma said...

She does have a lovely sweater set, and I am so sorry I have not been here in weeks, has it been months even, to help solve these cases I hold so dear to my heart. I've been withdrawing from thyroid medication and the tremors I'm afraid have inhibited my typing skills until I embarked on a juice fast to flush all the toxins out, and as of now, I am good as new! Please keep up the great work everyone! I'll be here to help in any way that I can! You know that I have thought about these cases even in the midst of my thyroid medication withdrawal seizures, worried as I was, they were my number one concern over even my own health! I'm so pleased to see the progress that has continued while I was gone!

Allen said...

Imagrandma, we need you on other cases besides the Ramsey case, I know you're challenged with your health issues but if you could try to spread yourself out a little and give a little attention to the other cases as well, your skills are sorely needed!

Anonymous said...

I have read every book, watched every special, watched each experts "opinion", and read every article on this case. This blog is interesting, but I am not convinced this is an absolute accurate tool regarding guilt. I found it interesting that John Ramsey in the CNN segment said, "so our family can go on." and Burke Ramsey in his interview by a social service questioner at the age of 9 that "you know get on with my life." When asked did he think the killer would be found. With all of the family "getting on and going forward" where is the anger that THEIR daughter and sister was brutally murdered? They act like robots with no emotion, both John and Burke. Patsy is not innocent either but at least she was emotional, sometimes angry, as one would expect. Linda Ardnt looked like a mad woman in her tv interview with her eyes bulging out and she didn't appear afraid of John Ramsey as she stated. She appeared flat, unfeeling, as she counted out her 18 shots when John asked her if Jonbenet was dead, she replied, "and I said, yes, she's dead." Then he gave her a look over Jonbenet's body that made her count her bullets. Give me a break. She didn't give a flying flip that little girl had lost her life in such a cruel way. What to me is most sickening is the fact that an innocent child is in her grave and she was betrayed by numerous adults around her. Money does not make someone less likely to kill their child. I know plenty of poor people who would give their very life to save their child's life. So that theory is baloney. I'm like FBI professionals, and forensic experts, this case will never be solved and that fact, along with Jonbenet's death, is the greatest tragedy of all. Period.