The bombshell news that the Grand Jury had voted indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of Jonbenet Ramsey has begun to settled in.
We have seen both Statement Analysis and Behavioral Analysis indicating guilty knowledge of Jonbenet's death.
Each and every small or seemingly insignificant point, in an of itself, can be dismissed, but when an entire overview is structured before us, a portrait emerges.
I. Observations
II. Specific Analysis Explained
I. Observations
1. A child was reported missing in a 911 call by the mother. Specific analysis of the call shows indications of "guilty knowledge."
2. A very lengthy ransom note was left. Ransom notes are generally very short, and to the point. "We have your daughter; we want money." The kidnappers must move quickly in order to be undetected.
3. The note was written from items inside the house along with a practice note found. The author of the note:
a. Very emotional as seen in the length.
b. Likely female due to length (and analysis)
c. The length of the note indicates the author was unafraid of detection while writing it.
d. The author was educated and had knowledge of John's personal finances and personality.
e. The author used the phrase, "and hence", which is rarely seen as it is redundant. Later, a Christmas card written by Patsy used the exact same phrase. Analysis of the note showed that it was a ruse, and the phrases used in the note came from movies and books that the Ramseys had seen and read.
4. The child was dressed in a sexualized manner, and photographed as such.
5. The child was a chronic bed wetter.
6. The child suffered from chronic urinary tract infections.
Points 4 through 6 suggest sexual abuse.
7. The autopsy showed vaginal irritation consistent with sexual abuse confirming 4-6.
Again, please keep in mind that any one of these points, alone, can be dismissed, therefore, they must be taken together.
The Grand Jury heard all of these things, and likely many other things which caused them to vote to indict.
This is the first time I have ever read where a District Attorney refused to sign the indictment. This would have meant, had it been signed, that the war between the state and the high priced attorneys would commence, and a possible plea bargain in the works. We would have likely learned quite a few ugly details about the home, with parents casting blame one to another. Had an accidental or unintended death come from the brother, cover up would have been investigated.
8. Alex Hunter deliberately sought to avoid the confrontation with the lawyers who were superior to him, which led him to leaks, disclosures and speaking to a tabloid reporter. Police were enraged as he attempted to blame the investigation, but we now know that the presentation to the Grand Jury by the police was sufficient to bring indictment.
Self interest ruled the day. The Grand Jury heard more than we know, but based only on what we know here, there is enough for an arrest. How much more so did Hunter's refusal to prosecute reveal his own personal cowardice?
II. Specific Analysis Explained.
The following can be found at www.lsiscan.com, the work of the nation's leading and most widely respected analyst. The posts are brief, and are meant for his students, and not for the general public, therefore, I had added explanations to his findings for non SCAN students and general readership. The added material is in bold type.
1. John Ramsey's words in regard to his daughter. It is almost impossible for a man to molest his own "daughter"; therefore, perpetrating fathers go through a process in their minds which is revealed by the language. Recall the man who called his victim "my daughter" while his wife was home, but when his wife left, his daughter became, in his language, "the girl" while he molested her. When his wife returned, the perp called her, "my daughter" again. This indicated, linguistically, that the victim was "safe" only while the mother was home, but became the "girl" when he victimized her. This is the verbalized reality. This is why, "the subject is 'dead'; the statement is alive" is a firm principle to follow.
It was not that he called her "my daughter", but when and where he called her "my daughter" in context.
It is not that he called her "the girl" that is troublesome, it is the context in which she changed from "my daughter" to "the girl" that indicated molestation.
To review this, see CHILD MOLESTATION QUIZ
| John Ramsey related to the victim in the following: |
 | a) "JonBenet didn't carry any burdens." |
| b) "There is no answer as to why our daughter died." |
| c) "...and to know where JonBenet's bedroom was..." |
| d) "We wanted to get our daughter buried." |
| e) "Like all parents would say she's a perfect child." |
| Please notice the following: |
| a. The subject used the "proper introduction" ("our daughter") only in proximity to the words "died" and "buried". However, when talking about her in regard to the time when she was alive he used either her first name ("JonBenet") or "child". |
| b. It is interesting to note the following: |
| i. Many parents who abuse their children have a problem in using the words "son" and "daughter". This is due to the process which a person must undergo in his/her mind before being able to abuse his/her own son/daughter. Here is where we view the context of the words used. It is both the context and any changes that are noted. For more understanding, search the case of Haleigh Cummings in Statement Analysis for linguistic indicators of abuse by her father. |
| ii. In many cases of child abuse which result in murder, we find a change of language after the murder. As if to say that once the victim is dead, the victim is "safe". This is something we note, particularly when we know the date or even the time of death. We can sometimes find the time of death from the language of the killer alone. |
| iii. Usually, the word "child" might indicate that speaker might have been abused earlier in childhood, and very likely sexual abuse. We have "child abuse" and "child molesters" but not often do we hear "kid molester" or "kid abuse"; which is why the word "child" is highlighted. School teachers use this phrase often, and Avinoam Sapir's upcoming book on Genesis should contain quite a bit of information on the Hebrew word for "child" as it relates to risk or danger. (pre weaning). |
| I would recommend to start the follow-up interview with the following question: |
| "I have inside knowledge that you might have been abused in childhood, and quite likely sexual abuse. |
| How do you relate to it?" |
In my own work, verification of this principle has been consistent. For example, when a person is asked, "Tell me about what you were like growing up" and they say, "when I was a child..." there is often a history of child abuse, with the higher percentage of abuse being sexual.
Those who molest children were most always known to have been victims of molestation when growing up. Most who are molested do not offend. Offenders, however, were likely victims themselves. We flag the word "child" for exploration in the interview process.
| Please be on alert to the fact that the subject might answer with a question. In any case, the subject should not be told the source of the information!!! |
| 3. Patsy Ramsey said: |
| a) "...and I said our child had been kidnapped..." |
| b) "She loved her daddy... She loved her daddy, she was daddy's girl. She's such a happy spiritual child... she's a very spiritual...deeply...deep sense of understanding the world around her for a very young child." Note how often the word "child" was used here. |
| Please notice the following: |
| a. The subject used the word "girl" in regard to "daddy". |
| One should notice that the overwhelming majority of parents suspected of child abuse (including sexual abuse) relate to their children either by first name or by the gender/sex. |
| The fact that the word "girl" entered the language in proximity to the word "daddy" would raise the suspicion that the subject knew of JonBenet's sexual abuse by her father. |
| b. The word "child" entered in proximity to "daddy's girl". While the word "girl" is in proximity to "daddy", the word "child" is in proximity to the word "spiritual". |
| It would be safe to suspect that the subject is running a comparison here: "child" is for "spiritual" as "girl" is for "physical" (="daddy"). |
| 4. John Ramsey said: |
| a) "...we now have to find out why this happened..." |
| b) "...the only way that my family can move on now is to resolve why, who this happened." |
| Please compare this to Patsy Ramsey who said: |
| a) "...we have to find out who did this." |
| b) "There is a killer on the loose. I don't know who it is..." |
| While John wants to know "why" (he doesn't say that he wants to know "what happened"), Patsy wants to know "who did this". |
| Please also note the following: |
| a. In (b) John produced the "who" in a broken sentence. The sentence would have been a good sentence if he were to say, "is to resolve why, who did this." As it is now, the "who" is inserted as an afterthought. |
| b. In (b) Patsy said, "I don't know..." |
| The "editing process" means that the subject can report to us only what the subject knows/remembers. What the subject does not know/remember, the subject would not report to us. Therefore, the phrase "I don't know/remember" in an open statement (which is controlled by the "editing process", unlike answers to specific questions) is a signal of suppressing knowledge. |
| 5. John Ramsey said: |
| "Well like all parents would say she's a perfect child. But the thing to remember about her was that uh if I would frown she would look at me and say, 'Dad, I don't like that face,' and I would smile, and she'd say, 'that's better.' That's just the way she was." |
| Please notice the following: |
| a. The subject said, "But the thing to remember about her..." The subject didn't say, "But the thing I remember about her..." |
| By omitting the pronoun "I" the subject violated the formula of "first person singular past tense". This formula establishes commitment on the part of the subject as to what happened. But, since there is no commitment, there is no "Total Belief". |
| Since the subject ran away from commitment to that part of the story it should be considered as a sensitive point for the subject and is likely to be unreliable. |
| b. The word "if" reduces commitment as to what the subject describes in this section. |
| c. The word "would" violated the above-mentioned formula of "first person singular past tense". |
| Since the subject didn't tell us that this actually happened (past tense) we cannot say that it happened. |
| One should conclude that in the only place in which the subject wanted to portray his relationship with the victim as a good relationship, it is also the only place in the transcript in which the subject avoided commitment by running away from the past tense. |
| 6. John Ramsey said: |
| "...when I opened the door, there were no windows in that room and I turned the light on and I... that was her." |
| Please note that when a subject mentions "turning the lights on" in an open statement, it has been found in the past to be associated with a sexual motive for the crime. |
Conclusion: There are enough signals in the language to indicate that John Ramsey is involved in the murder of JonBenet. Patsy Ramsey is likely to have known of the sexual abuse.
We find that doors opening and closing are sometimes indicative of child sexual abuse, along with references to water (and lights, mentioned above).
"...when I opened the door, there were no windows in that room and I turned the light on and I... that was her.
Note that this sentence contains no lies.
The Ramseys refused to cooperate with police. The Ramseys refused to polygraph and eventually their attorneys went "polygraph shopping" and found one to pass them after a number of failures.
The polygrapher signed an agreement to not disclose any of the questions asked the Ramseys.
Jonbenet died in the home at the hands of her parents. Indications were that she was sexually abused, and the language shows that this came at the hands of her father. Patsy Ramsey had a reason to cooperate with John in a coverup, likely for several reasons among them that Jonbenet may have died, hitting her head on the bathtub, or falling down the stairs, or something similar, when she woke up in the middle of the night and may have been struck by Patsy.
Patsy was caught in the lie about Jonbenet not getting up in the middle of the night, eating pineapple. This was in the sensitive time zone.
The body location was staged. She died from blunt trauma to the head, with someone having lost their temper with her. The garroting was staged to make it look like a "small foreign faction" or a torture killing. She was not tortured.
The phrases from the note came from words from movies and books in their home (videos) and the attempt to throw off investigators. The Ramseys likely feared not only not being believed about an unintended death but of losing Burke.
Had Burke been directly involved, I do not think we would have heard the language of sexual abuse from the father that we did, and I think the smart lawyers would have found a way to get the boy help, rather than criminal fretting over the parents.
There was no intruder in the home and the Grand Jury knew it.
Hunter could not bear the public humiliation of a loss so he sabotaged the case, destroyed justice for Jonbenet, and maligned police officers...all for fear of losing in court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment