Thursday, January 31, 2019

Hollywood Actor: Attempted Lynching Alleged

Hollywood actor Jussie Smollett reported to police that he was a victim of an attack in Chicago, about 2am, from two "Make America Great Again" assailants. 

He reported that they had attacked him, put a noose around his neck, threw a chemical, presumed to be bleach upon him, and called him racist and homophobic slurs. Politicians and Hollywood elitists quickly condemned the assault. 

“This was an attempted modern-day lynching. No-one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or colour of their skin. We must confront this hate.” Kamala Harris 

The condemnations are noted as they are "unnecessary language", which analysts and readers are familiar with.  The statements of condemnation presuppose a faction (necessity) of "pro racist homophobic violent lynching." 

Without a statement from Jussie Smollett, I do not know if he is telling the truth. 

There are some things to consider:

The language that he alleged the attackers used is similar with the language he used in Tweets, particularly January 2018, against the president of the United States. 

In the police interview, he did not state the "make America great again" taunts. 

Reportedly, police learned this from TMZ and spoke to (or reinterviewed) him in which he then added this portion. 

This is of particular interest due to the acute hormonal response in a horrific attack such at lynching, which is attempted murder. The hormonal response under such an attack is heightened by the taunts which seek to humiliate.  

That this may have been left out of the initial police interview is unexpected

2am Call 

He reportedly called his "friend" (or "manager") at the time of the alleged assault who told responding police investigators:

"a noose was placed on his neck."

This is a statement of importance.  It tells us the verbalized perception of reality that the manager/friend revealed.

"placed" is a very soft word for such a violent attack.  

Question:  does the manager/friend believe the alleged victim put it there himself? 

"was placed" is passive meaning it conceals the identity or responsibility of who "placed" it there.  Expected is "the attackers tried to kill him!" putting the responsibility on the two men, whether or not they were known.  

This type of assault is intrusive.  Even relaying this (an "ear witness") reflects the speaker's own perception of what happened.  Some can experience a form of secondary trauma from just the account. The softness and passivity are unexpected. 

Next note the location of "placing" a noose: 

"on" is not "around" his neck. 

A lynching is an act of attempted murder via terror.  

The alleged victim apparently (verification needed) left the rope "on" his neck when he went to the hospital.  This is unexpected due to the vulnerability (and fear) of having such an instrument of cruelty still in place where oxygen can be cut off.  It is against human nature's self preservation instinct. 

The manager claims to have audibly heard the attack on the cell phone, while it took place. 

Two men are seen walking in a video, but police do not know if they were the attackers, witnesses, or simply walked by. 

alleged scenario:

At or near 2am in Chicago, two "MAGA" men were walking with a noose, near Subway Sandwich, while also having a container of bleach or another chemical, who recognized a celebrity.  

The attackers used the same language the victim used regularly, in his own social media posts. 

Analysis Conclusion is not available at this time. 

If the alleged victim's original statement to police is released, we are likely to know if he is truthful, or if he is deceptive. 

If deceptive, it is very likely that motive will be in his words.

To study Deception Detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services 

Friday, January 25, 2019

Alex Salmond Charged With Sexual Assault

hat tip John: 
Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and two of attempted rape. 
The Crown Office listed nine counts of sexual assault, two of indecent assault and one breach of the peace.  The statements are mingled with the article, therefore they are highlighted in italics followed by some analysis in bold type.
After appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Salmond said he is “innocent of any criminality” and that he will “defend himself to the utmost."
Note that it is unknown whether a single word plea is entered normally, or if this was said in response to specific words.  
Note: "innocent of any criminality" is to specify criminal action, which may speak to a defense of "consensual sexual activity." 
It can be difficult to obtain a Reliable Denial ("I did not sexually assault ___") if there is:
a. multiple victims
b. multiple allegations 
c. vague allegations 
Next, he spoke outside the court which allows us more insight: 
In a statement outside court, Salmond said: 
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever. Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.I’ve got great faith in the court system in Scotland.”
This is a larger statement and allows us to analyze with more precision
Let's look at this statement:
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever. Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court. And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.I’ve got great faith in the court system in Scotland.”
a. Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever.
Here we may now affirm that the subject is likely intending that the sexual activity was neither assault nor rape, but consensual. He revisits the word "criminality."
"Let me say from the outset" is a subtle form of psychological distancing.  It may be that the subject doubts his own words, but it also could be a "need to be heard." This latter point is not well taken as he is the accused, not a victim. Yet, if he is falsely accused he could perceive himself as the victim
How might we know?
He will tell us us. 
We therefore expect him to say
a. "I"
b. "did not"
c. address the allegation (s)
With multiple victims, he could use "anyone, anybody" (etc), or even the "accusers."
Although not technically a fulfillment of a Reliable Denial, it would be strong. 
"I did not rape or sexually assault the accused" would be strong. If references both allegations and the victim, using the pronoun "I" and the past tense "did not" ("didn't" is treated the same). 
If this is followed by, "I told the truth" (referencing the denial), it is 99% reliable. 
"I didn't rape or sexually assault ____. I am telling the truth" is very likely to be true. 
What does he say?
"let me say from the onset" is similar to "first of all" as the subject, at the time of this statement, is very likely thinking of a follow up answer and/or a lengthy ordeal. This is a suggestion that the subject may not have the strength that comes from actual innocence.  He may be indicating a lack of confidence. 
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever.
"whatsoever" is unnecessary emphasis and may be as a result of the overwhelming ("let me say") nature of multiple accusations and possibly multiple assaults. 
Time, as an element, is in play:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.
Would he still feel the need to "respect the court" the day before, or even the hour before the proceedings, these "criminal proceedings" were "live"?
This is to be viewed in this form:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.
Hina clause explains to his audience why respecting the court is indicated. 
This is an unnecessary explanation. 
This is an unnecessary explanation linked specifically to the element of time. 
b. Time 
This is a very sensitive point to him. 
What is its purpose?
He anticipates and preempts the question, "Did you do it?" that is plainly asked and, for those who are in actual innocence, plainly answered. 
Please note that there is no consequence for an innocent (de facto rather than judicial) person so say, "I did not do it..." in spite of many claims. This is the point of the psychological "wall of truth" where the subject falls back to his reference point of not having done what he is accused of. There is no psychological connection with sexual assault/rape to one who has no psychological connection. It is, for the subject, someone else's (including police, prosecutors' and even a false accuser's) but not his own. 
"proceedings" is also very sensitive to him (repeated) and the word itself speaks to the passing of time. 
"Respecting the court" is his reason to not talk about the allegation. 
Next, he talks about the allegation. 
What does it mean to "respect the court"?
The analyst should be on alert for possible ingratiation. 
This is where a guilty person may have the need to align himself, or "ingratiate" himself into authority (authorities) such as the court, prosecutor and/or the investigators.  It is a need to "make friends" with the opposition. It may also indicate an acutely manipulative personality type. 
Guilty parties will defend the police, for example, where an innocent person, wrongfully accused, considers the police investigators to be wrong, foolish and in some cases, hostile. 
"What if I said to you that I think you're lying and you did it?"
"I'd say you need a new job." 

Let's see if the ingratiation is affirmed or not in the rest of the statement. 
He said the court must be respected yet:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court. And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.
"the only thing" uses the dependent word "only" which indicates to the exclusion of what is on his mind. 
The expectation is, "the only thing I can say is I did not rape..." or something similar to the direction of a Reliable Denial. 
He does not. 
He does not state that he did not sexually assault anyone.
He does not state that he did not attempt to rape anyone. 
He does state that he "refutes" (which is to declare debate, or refutation) the allegations.
The allegations are "these" (psychologically close to him). 
He repeats "criminality" in his response. 
He then offers that his refutation will be "to the upmost in court." This can sometimes indicate...
a possible plea bargain. 
When we consider the word "only" to indicate the comparison of what followed with at least one other thought, prosecutors may see that our subject:
*does not want lengthy proceedings
*is unable or unwilling to say he did not do it
*he may be open to a time savings plea bargain. 
If Alex Salmond is unwilling to tell us he did not do it, we shall not declare it for him. 

If you wish to be trained in Statement Analysis, or host a training for your department or company, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services and the video examples at You Tube. 

Sunday, January 20, 2019

Anonymous Author Threat: Petrol Bomb

What do you note about this letter's language? 

updated photo = more information 

from BBC:

More than a dozen churches have been sent "threatening letters" bearing a West Midlands postmark, with one letter warning of a petrol bomb attack.
West Midlands Police is investigating and said churches and supermarkets in the region and further afield had been targeted "over a period of months".
In one handwritten letter, threats were made to "petrol bomb" services and stab congregation members "one by one".
A priest from Sheffield described the letter he had received as "horrifying".
Each letter bears a West Midlands postmark, the BBC understands.
Parish priest Father Andrew Browne, of St Mary's Church in High Green, Sheffield, received a letter on 4 January. 
He said: "It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter on the outside. 
"But when I opened it and read what it said, the horror of what it could entail became clear."
Fr Browne said he was told at least 15 letters had been received by churches nationally during a Bishops' conference last week.
He added West Midlands Police took over the investigation from the South Yorkshire force after discovering all the letters originated from the region.
In a statement the force said: "West Midlands Police is investigating after several threatening letters have been sent to mainly churches and supermarkets across the region and officers are aware of a few sent further afield over a period of months. 
"Enquiries remain ongoing."
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said it could not comment on an ongoing police investigation.

Monday, January 14, 2019

Hospital Neglect Allegation Statement Analyzed

In a mental health hospital in-patient wing in Chicago, a male, aged 30 patient was reportedly locked out by the hospital, in the cold (below 10 degrees F), without proper clothing and was not permitted entrance. 

        Analyze the accusation for content to learn what happened.  

_____ Hotline:  "What's happening?" 

Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke. I was right out there with him. He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part. He didn't even have a jacket on him. " 

So, what happened?

Let's take a look. 

_____ Hotline:  "What's happening?" 

The present tense was due to live call, rather than "what happened?" 

What is the very first thing the subject wants authorities to know?

Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. 

This sentence has the elements of location and time as a priority. 

She tells dispatch the reason for her to see the patient (man) in question. 

This means she anticipated being asked, "Why would you be in a position to see him?" rather than reporting the event (neglect, cold)

As a dispatcher, you would not have thought to ask her, "Hey, wait a minute here.  You say there's a guy out there in the cold.  How did you come to see him there?" 

This concern came from the subject; not the dispatcher. 

In fact, it is a priority for the subject; greater than the priority of what she saw.  

By anticipating being asked this, her verbalized perception tells us that there is something very sensitive about being outside, at this time, to witness this particular patient, of which she is very concerned that authorities will ask her about. 

As she began her answer with the pronoun "I", we should consider that she is psychologically committed to this statement and we should believe her. 

I believe her. 

I believe it is a priority for her to tell us why she was outside and able to see this particular man. 

This is why we listen and do not interpret. 

This location - time element is very strong (important) in her language.  She revisits is: 

I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  

Analysts flag this as "normal" or "the normal factor" in language. 

"Once upon a time, on a day like any other day..." signals even to young audiences, that this day is anything but "normal" to the speaker (subject). 

The portrayal as her norm to go outside 20 times a day to smoke tells us that we should be thinking:

What was not normal about this one? 

He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. 

His body posture is important to her. 
The additional word "even" is added. 

Analysts believe her. 

Then, she repeats the dependent word "even" here: 

I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke

This is her third reference to smoking. 

We would not have given much thought to her smoking had she not kept repeating it, but since we believe her, we believe that smoking is very sensitive to her, in spite of doing it 20 times a day.

For clarity: smoking is very sensitive to her in the context of this phone call. 

She repeats her location; not his, but her location:

I was right out there with him. 

It is very important to her that the authorities know that she was so close to him, out there to smoke often, that she must be telling the truth. 

We should continue to believe her.

We only cease to believe a subject when they talk us out of it.  Thus far, she has followed the most likely pattern in deception of "missing information" while her content appears to be:

100% accurate.

He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. 

Note the shortness of this sentence.  It is very likely to be reliable. 

They were yelling at him from the window. 

This is also short (non emotional) and likely to be reliable. If she is making this up, she is a very dangerous (-10%) liar. 

She is concerned that we will not believe her: 

I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. 

She has now told us why she took a picture.  She anticipated being asked, "Why did you take a picture of him?" though dispatch would not likely have thought to ask such a thing, even if offered photographic evidence. 

She now tells us an "unnecessary" point of morals or ethics. 

Unnecessary sermonizing is often projective.

Q. Why would she need "proof"?
A. Because she needs proof.  

Believe her in this, as in other points.  

Let the subject guide you to the truth. 

This is wrong on their part. 

She would not have the need to tell us that locking a patient outside in the cold without a jacket is "wrong" unless...

she had a need to tell us that locking a patient outside in the cold without a jacket. 

He didn't even have a jacket on him. " 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Yet, what does "deception indicated" really mean here?

It means she is deliberately withholding information about this allegation. This is to say:

While she is making this call (choosing her words), she is consciously engaged in making certain she does not tell them certain information about what happened.

What information?

This is a good lesson in how most people lie.

It is not true that "the average person tells xx number of lies per day" as oft claimed.

In fact, people rarely "tell" a lie.

Here is what happened:

It is true that a patient was outside the facility, without his jacket, in the very cold temperatures and they would not let him in. 

What happened?

The caller hates the hospital. She has a lengthy history of fraudulent complaints against them.  She has her own mental health issues and may even wish to be residential.

She knows this patient well. They're smoking buddies and likely drinking buddies as well.

He likes to drink and when he does, he knows he cannot reenter the facility but must either go to the ER or to a homeless shelter.

She was outside smoking with him and took his jacket off him for the photo op.

By knowing what areas are "sensitive" to her, simply asking her (often repeatedly) about smoking (location and time) will produce the truth.

If you wish to study deception detection, we offer seminars for law enforcement, military intelligence, private businesses, etc, as well as "The Complete Statement Analysis Course" done entirely in your home, at your pace, with 12 months of e support,


see training opportunities

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.