Thursday, October 2, 2014

John Ramsey: Jonbenet, his Daughter, in Statement Analysis


We have published analysis on the CNN interview of John and Patsy Ramsey which is in our archives. 

The Grand Jury concluded:  Jonbenet Ramsey died as a result of child abuse. 

 I agree with LSI that the language shows that Jonbenet was likely a victim of sexual abuse and that Patsy Ramsey knew of the abuse. 

Sexual abuse takes place in all types of homes.  That this was an upper class, or upper middle class home does not discount that sexual abuse took place.  We focus upon the language, which suggests sexual abuse, while the bed wetting and urinary tract infections and constant visits to the doctors also suggests. The sexualized costumes do nothing to eliminate this from our minds. 

Here, we want to focus on how John  Ramsey referred to Jonbent.  This is a specific lesson.

We have already indicated him for deception.  

Parents who abuse their children sometimes struggle with the the words "my daughter" due to the process one must go through in one's mind, particularly in sexual abuse. 

Key is context.

When is she "Jonbenet"?
When is she "my daughter?"
When is she "our daughter"?
When is Jonbenet "she"?

Also, how often will they mention their daughter?  This is another interesting aspect since they were being interviewed about their daughter.  

To whom is given their time?   To whom is dedicated most of their words?

When a child dies due to child abuse, the child, in the ind of the parent, is often now "safe"; that is, no longer a "child" who is at risk.  

CNN Interview:  

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

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.

He calls the murder a "tragedy" which is not only softer or minimizing language, it is also often something used when something happens that is unintended. A "tragic accident" took place, and so forth.  This is not expected language. 

The Reference:  

1.  Jonbent

In this reference, she is "Jonbenet" who is "safe" and "with God"


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.

Note that John Ramsey wishes to learn "why" it happened, and not "who did it."

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.

No reference to Jonbenet. 

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.

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

He is not "angry" at the murder of his daughter.   No mention of Jonbenet. 

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.

He finished her sentence.  One might, in context, wonder if this was scripted and rehearsed, with Patsy losing her line. 

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

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- 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 .

He answers with "Yes" which is then followed by "I", "we", "you know" and then settles on the plural only.  The avoidance of the pronoun "I" by the father of a murdered child is unexpected. 

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

RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. 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 and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. 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.
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.

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

The "ransom note" was a fake, and it was also foolishly lengthy.  There are many things that would "strike" any father.  Here he feels the need to explain why nothing "struck him in any sense" by two explanations:  1.  He read it very fast  2.  He was out of his mind.  

During the long hours of just waiting around, would he not have re-read it, discussed it, and considered the meaning of the money demand, which matched his bonus?

The answer lacks credibility.  Although it was about Jonbenet, he does not mention her in his answer.  

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

Here she gives the reason why she ran through the house. Note she did not say they went to search for Jonbenet. 

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

"Checked our son's room" is missing a pronoun.   Who checked his room?  

RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

see above comment about scripting and rehearsing

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

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.

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

"I guess" is a weak assertion, yet here, again, we find John pick up her words, as if scripted:

"Look for clues":  

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

Please note that there are two references in this one answer that are both strongly associated with sexual abuse, the opening of a door, and the turning on of a light.  
The turning on of the light may be a reference to motive (LSI)

RAMSEY, P: She was --


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.

He did not call her his "wife" with possessive pronoun "my" in the interview, while Patsy called him "my husband", indicating that Patsy saw her self as close to him, but he did not see himself as close to her. 

CABELL: Including your two elder children?

RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

CABELL: Any friends?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know.

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?

RAMSEY, J: Yes.

CABELL: Were you offended by that?

RAMSEY, J: No.

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 --

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.

John Ramsey says "absolutely" to the statement that there is a killer on the loose, yet he said he wanted to find out "why" this happened and not "who" the killer out there is. 

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.

Not knowing is repeated, making it sensitive.  
Note that only "if" she were a resident of Boulder she "would" tell her" friends" which is a weak assertion. 
Would she not warn the residents of Boulder, only her friends?

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.

He may be quoting the note; if not, it is distancing language and not expected. 

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.

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.

He  is "going to be" very upset, spoken in future tense, conditional --"if we don't"
He is not "angry" that his daughter was murdered.  He will only get upset if...This very much sounds like a guilty speaker who struggles to condemn himself. 

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

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.

But not untrue, just nauseating?

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

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

RAMSEY, J: Yes. Yes. Has to be found.

Not "has to be found"

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

RAMSEY, J: Yes. In my heart I do.

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.

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.


Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Fake Rod Stewart?

These stories are silly, but sometimes supply a statement in 'everyday life' that readers can relate to.

Only the NY Post would carry such a story!  I have added emphasis to the man's denial.

What sayest you?

Does this man go around enjoying Rod Stewart attention?   Yes, or No, and explain your answer.

Hint:  caution advised.

Who is the fake Rod Stewart? NYC man denies it’s him


The search is still on for a phony Rod Stewart with spiked blond locks who is duping star-struck fans across the city.
The bogus Brit, who bears a striking resemblance to the “Maggie May” singer, has been seen in the Meatpacking District, posing with fans, crashing World Cup soccer bashes and was even spotted outside a Bronx schoolyard. An Instagram user last week posted a pic of one Rod lookalike sitting on a subway train, prompting commenters to dub him “Rockaway Rod.”
Modal Trigger
A Rod Stewart lookalike was spotted on a train in NYC.Photo: goingwitheddie.com
Paul Anton, 62, a divorced dad-of-three who lives in Midtown West, confirmed to Page Six he is the man in the picture — but denies he’s posing as the “Do You Think I’m Sexy” star.

Here is his denial.  Is it reliable?
Anton, who insists he’s hardly a rock star and works in real estate, told Page Six, “I have never pretended to be Rod Stewart. I am a respected businessman with children, I have never asked for free drinks. I pay my own way. People do mistake me for Rod, but I always say I’m not him. I would like to shake Rod’s hand and say I am not an imposter. I love his music, but I wouldn’t pretend to be him. And I’ve never been to the Rockaways.
When asked why he keeps Stewart’s trademark tousled blond cockatoo coiff, he added, “This is the way I look.
Meanwhile, Stewart’s manager, Arnold Stiefel, insists there is at least one, and perhaps many Faux-Rods, still at large.
He said, “This has been going on for years. The first fake Rod sighting was 15 years ago when Jann Wenner said, ‘I said hello to Rod and he ignored me.’”
Stiefel continued, “I said, ‘That’s not Rod, he’s in California.’ Then we got a call from a deputy sheriff outside New Orleans saying, ‘We’ve got Rod Stewart in the drunk tank, he’s been arrested for being drunk and disorderly in a bar.’ I said, ‘You’d better call the Dorchester in London because he’s there right now.’ The real Rod . . . thought it was funny, but said, let people know it isn’t me.”

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Baby Delano: Father is Deceptive

Statement Analysis has shown that Willie Wilson, Baby Delano's father, has been deceptive in his account of what happened to his missing son.

He has not spoken a great deal, but what he has said has been deceptive.

Please note:  when someone has brain damage, or acute mental illness, the account, even if untrue, may not necessarily show deception.

A woman said,

"My two children are missing.  I need a vacation."

Note that there is no problem with either sentence, until we put the context together, considering that a vacation and missing children are close together.  Reality:  she does not have children.

Deception is indicated when the subject intends to deceive the recipient of information.

Willie Wilson is indicated for deception because his account intends to deceive, not because he suffered a blow to the head, or had an alcohol blackout, or anything along these lines.

As to what actually happened to Baby Delano, he has not spoken enough for us to know.

Did he kill the child?
Did he sell the child?

With the family willing to speak, a journalist trained in Analytical Interviewing would get answers, even if Wilson continues to deceive.  This is because the words he choses in his attempt to deceive, must come from somewhere, and will likely be related to what is on his mind:  what happened to Baby Delano.

Here is the news story:

INDIANAPOLIS -
Saturday will mark one month since 6-week-old Delano Wilson disappeared.

His father, Willie Wilson, told police a man and woman took his infant son in an alley in the 1400 block of Henry Street after the man robbed Wilson at gun point and attacked him.

Eyewitness News ran a story earlier this week about Wilson looking for a sketch artist to draw the people he says took his baby. Following the airing of the story, the family got several offers to help.


Eyewitness News sat down again with Wilson Friday night, for a first look at the people he described to a sketch artist. The ones Wilson hopes someone will now recognize.

Even though a month has passed, Wilson says he can't forget what they looked like.
"This is it exactly. Exactly it. Like, it had me in tears when she was finished doing it," said Willie Wilson, holding up two sketches, one of a man, the other a woman.
Note the connection to the sketch, and not to the two "suspects" via the word, "it."
How would you react, presupposing truth?  Would your focus be upon the sketch, itself, or upon the two people who took your baby?  Taken in context with his other statements, he continues to be deceptive.

Wilson said the pictures were of the faces of the two people who took his 6-week-old son after the man robbed him at gun point and hit him, leaving him dazed and unable to fight back.

"Somebody knows something and that's the whole point. That's why we needed the sketch artist. This is what we needed. This is the extra step that we didn't have before," said Wilson.

"It was a line of faces and noses, eyes and stuff, you know. Just to help guide her. She did a great job," 

Note the absence of personal information, including rage, anger, frustration, hatred, etc, in this statement, and in the statement above, in which he clings, linguistically, to the sketch, but distances himself from the people the sketch represents.  
This may cause police to consider that he may not have sold the child.  It isn't conclusive, but it is something that should be considered:  harm, resulting in death, rather than sale. 

Would you have said, "That's them!  That's the *&*^()* that took my baby!" or something close?

Willie Wilson is lying.  He knows what happened to the child, and this is why police have not "cooperated" with him.   

Wilson said of the hour long process that went into the sketch artist drawing the people Wilson described.

Wilson said investigators never offered him a sketch artist, he believes because they're building a case against him.


Police though, have never named Wilson or the baby's mother, Taniasha Perkins, as suspects, saying repeatedly their primary focus still remains on finding baby Delano.

Investigators have interviewed the couple and removed items from their home during the investigation.

Wilson said he now hopes the sketches will become another piece of the effort to bring his son home.

"This opens up a whole other avenue, basically and we just want to let them know, we not stoppin', " said Wilson. "We out here. We still doing what we gotta do. Regardless of who help, who doesn't help. It's not going to stop us."

Wilson said he plans to give police copies of the sketches and hand out flyers with the pictures on them to anyone who will take one.

"I'm not going to give up," said Wilson.

We asked IMPD to comment on these sketches.

They told us in a written statement that IMPD has its own sketch artist. Police said the case was still active and open and encouraged anyone with information about missing baby Delano to contact them or Crime Stoppers at 262-TIPS.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

President Clinton's Grandchild

The press jumped on the fact that President Clinton "leaked" out "my grandson", before the child was born.

Some asked, "Was this a signal that he knew?"  The press had some fun on this, saying he accidentally slipped out that Chelsea was having a boy.

In Statement Analysis, we recognize that words do not come from a vacuum, and every word has meaning.

Why did President Clinton slip the word "grandson" in an interview, before his granddaughter was born?

We know:  it was in his mind, therefore, his brain produced it.
We don't know:  why.

Let's speculate:

1.  He knew:  He was having some fun with the press.
2.  He knew:  He was having an inside joke with Chelsea, his daughter, or with someone else.
3.  He did not know:  He was guessing.
4.  He did not know:  He was hoping for a grandson.

What is your viewpoint on why he said, "grandson" a few days before the birth?


Regardless, congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, on the birth of their first grandchild.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Al Sharpton on White House Contact

Did the White House ask Al Sharpton's advice on replacing Eric Holder?

It would be an honor to be called to advise the White House, and one in which would be personally a boost to his resume and provide traction for his career.  

Immediately after Eric Holder announced he was stepping down, civil right activist Al Sharpton, a liberal host on MSNBC, said the administration was consulting with him about who should be the next top dog at the Justice Department.

'We are engaged in immediate conversations with the White House on deliberations over a successor whom we hope will continue in the general direction of Attorney General Holder,' Sharpton said Thursday

If the White House asked your opinion, would you say "we", or "I"?

Statement Analysis: Tony Stewart

A strong denial would be, "I didn't intend to hit or intimidate Kevin Ward."  

I know 100 percent in my heart and in my mind that I did not do anything wrong. This was 100 percent an accident,” Stewart told The Associated Press on Thursday in his first interview since a grand jury decided he would not be charged in Ward’s death.
1.  "I know" allows for someone to "know" differently
2.  "100 percent"
3.  "in my heart"
4.  "in my mind"
There are four points of weakness in the statement.  
On the advice of legal counsel, Stewart would not describe what he remembers aboutthe crash at Canandaigua Motorsports Park.

Regarding what he did, it was not "wrong" in his mind.  

Ward’s family blasted Stewart Wednesday.
“Our son got out of his car during caution, while the race was suspended. All other vehicles were reducing speed and not accelerating, except for Tony Stewart, who intentionally tried to intimidate Kevin by accelerating and sliding his car towards him, causing this tragedy,” the Ward family said in a statement.
“The focus should be on the actions of Tony Stewart and not Kevin. The matter is not at rest and we will pursue all remedies, in fairness to Kevin.”

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Universal Language: Falling Down The Stairs

by Peter Hyatt


When is it appropriate for a person to use the pronoun "you" when the person speaks of himself? The use of the word "you" when speaking of oneself, is often found in both distancing language, as well as universal language (which is a form of distancing).

2 months ago, I fell down a flight of stairs.  I broke my collar bone, toe, and bruised up pretty badly.  I also tore my shoulder muscle, which has yet to heal.  I had just received a new prescription for glasses:  progressive lens glasses.  I was struggling with them, and came down very early in the morning, and had left a book on the step the night before.  I fell down almost the entire stairs, hit the landing, and fell down 2 more to the floor.  The pain was acute.

Note the following statement:

"It hurts when you break your collar bone."

This is not something you would expect me to say after the above described fall.

When was this said?

Herein lies the key: context.

A broken bone is very painful.

How close to the break was this sentence spoken?

When the pain is mostly a memory, it is appropriate to use not only distancing language, but 'universal' language:  "you" is anyone who experiences a broken collar bone, no matter how the injury occurred

For me, it was the flight of stairs.

Now, a case to examine from several years ago in which an employee fell down stairs.  I am always on alert for those who seek to "game" the system, and seek some form of compensation.  The subject said:

"Fell down a flight of stairs.  I have to be seen."

I noted the missing pronoun, as I take notes, always.  She did not say "I fell..." but "Fell..."  This is distancing language.  It could be because she was in severe pain.  Having experienced a fall down an almost entire flight of stairs, the pain is blinding.  Yet, "I have to be seen" is a legal responsibility an employer has.  Besides "gamers", I also am concerned about health, safety and well being.  No one in pain needs someone questioning their account, yet, my training has me on alert.

My response:  "Yes, immediately."

The subject continued to talk, therefore, rather than cutting her off with another insistence upon seeking medical attention immediately, I asked,

Q.  "How many steps did you fall down?"

A.  "How many steps did I fall down?  Well, uh, three."

I noted both the repetition of my question, and the number within the answer.  This sensitivity (answering a question with a question) may be due to pain.  I must always remain open-minded and believe what I am told.

Q.  What hurts?

A.  "Everything.  Everything.  Everywhere it hurts.  You hurt when you fall down the stairs."

Q.  Yes it does.  You need to be seen immediately.  

A.  "Okay.  I have to wait for my husband to drive me."

Q.  "Do you want me to arrange a ride? Would you like to go in an ambulance?"

A.   "No, I can wait."

Q.  "If you choose to wait, you can ice it, and take advil."

A.   "Yeah, that's true.  I should be seen, but I don't like when they prescribe pain medication.  It makes my head swim."

I noted the introduction of narcotics.  I noted that not only did she introduce narcotics, but she did so in the negative.

The secretary called the medical office contracted to see the employees, with the relevant information and the description of the injury.

The treating physician called me.  "I know your work!  What do you think about this case?"

I reported that I had my doubts, particularly for two reasons:

1.  The number of steps was given as three.  Of course, this may be true, but according to research by Mark McClish, "3" is to be flagged for possible deception.  (I think that "two" might sound too little, for a deceptive person, and "4" might sound excessive, therefore, 3 is chosen. More on this later).

2.  The distancing language within moments of the fall the subject used

I also told him that I had not asked about pain medications, but that by offering to me that she did not like pain medications, I was concerned that this may be a ruse to score meds.  I told him that she may have very well fallen down three steps, injured herself, and hates pain medication, but that the linguistic indications mean I should verify.

He thanked me for my opinion, and said that he would report back to me the findings, including any work restrictions.

After the examination, he said, "She reported global pain, and needed assistance to enter the office.  I have ordered x-rays as a matter of routine, due to the report of such acute pain.  Upon examination, there are no injuries.  She requested pain medication but I only gave her a script for a single tablet,  since there was no visible injury, and  I also noted that when she was leaving, she did not know I was watching.  I noted in my chart that she left with perfect gait. I told her that if the x-ray showed fracture, I would give her another prescription for pain medication. "

She was sent to the x-ray facility, next building down.

She did not show up.

When an injury, or a physical attack happens, it is very personal.  The distancing language comes into play as the pain or memory of the pain subsides.  Emotion has a powerful ability to change language, and in this case from

"I hurt" to "you hurt" when you break your...

Conclusion:  Part of context is when the subject makes a statement.  How often has the subject made the statement? If time has passed the subject is repeating his words, you make hear a "self reference" indicating the subject is no longer working from experiential memory, but memory of what he said earlier.

"Like I said, when you break your collarbone..."

As time and healing has taken place, universal, distancing language (2nd person, "you") is appropriate.

When the wound is fresh, or if the incident is not universal, distancing language should be examined for possible deception.  Passivity and dropped pronouns should also be noted.

Lesser injuries will use universal language.  When gender is not known, "their" or "they" is sometimes used, even when plural is denied.

Pronouns are instinctive.  When something is universal, "you" is sometimes used.  When something is up close and personal, we must question why one is using distancing or universal language.

Recall the Baby Ayla case, in which the deceptive grandmother took two unique, and terribly intrusive personal events and said:

"When you're waiting for someone to call about your missing granddaughter...when someone is casing your house..."

She did not lie.

People do not like to lie outright, instead will withhold or suppress information.  No one likes to be seen or caught as a liar.  When one is caught, rage is often the response.