Thursday, February 26, 2015

Understanding the Analysis of the 911 Call by Patsy Ramsey



The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6, explained in more detail, so that those less familiar with Statement Analysis may understand this case.  

I have also added some commentary regarding what may have happened to Jonbenet.  

Statement Analysis, under various names, is the scientific study of words we use.  Setting a background for this understanding allows for a reference point. 

When comparing statements of truthful and deceptive people, patterns emerge.  In applying the principles to 911 calls, there is no difference or 'special status' to be used.  The same indicators of deception in written statements are employed in verbal statements, whether in an interview, a phone call, or in casual conversation. 

The subject is the speaker.  He or she has the information we seek.  Here is what must take place when one tells us "What happened" in an event, including this report. 

1.  The subject cannot tell us everything.  

This is impossible, as it would go on and on, therefore, the subject must edit her account of what happened. She must tell us what is important for us to hear, taking out details that she considers unnecessary or unimportant.   

2.  She must choose the words to use. 

The subject has information to be communicated but since she cannot tell us everything that happened, she must edit down the account, choosing the words to communicate to us what is important.  

This choosing of words is from a 'memory bank' of vocabulary that began its accumulation before speech, from her parents, siblings and those around her, and then from books, television, school, and so on.  How many words does a person of average intelligence have in the memory bank from which to choose from?

Studies vary but the average adult has at least 20,000 to 35,000 words to choose from.  This number increases with education and intelligence.  Patsy Ramsey was an intelligent woman.  Let's take the lower number on average:

Patsy Ramsey, who made this 911 call, had to choose words to report her missing daughter, from about 20,000 words.  

3.  She must now decide the order of words to use.  

From the 20,000 words, she will choose only a few, and will decide the order in which the communication takes place. Each sentence will be placed in a specific order so that communication of what she wants known by the police is completed. 

4.  She must now choose who to order these words within each sentence.  

She must put, for example, the pronoun "I" before the verb "found" and then add "the ransom note" in a specific way in order for it to make sense.  This is syntax, defined as:   the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.

In conclusion, in order to make this call, Patsy Ramsey must:

1.  Edit out information she does not want communicated
2.  Choose which words to use.  She spoke about 105 words (some repeated) from her library of more than 20,000.  In answering a question, she chose, approximately, 10 words out of 20,000 for any given answer. 
3.  She must choose the order of sentences, prioritizing the sentences to what is important.
4.  She then must process these words to a formulate a coherent sentence. 

This entire process takes place in the brain in less than a second.  

This speed is what gives Statement Analysis its powerful insight and advantage over every other form of deception detection.  

When Patsy Ramsey (subject) is asked a question, she must answer with just a few words out of a large memory bank, and put even a single sentence into a cohesive order.  The "odds", for example, of getting a pronoun "wrong" is not measurable.  I have "staked my career" and reputation upon a single pronoun in a number of cases, including before experienced and well trained veterans of investigation; men and women of greater intelligence than myself. My confidence is not found in my ability, but in this speed, especially since pronouns are universal and instinctive.  

Pronouns do not lie. 

Recently, the former police officer in charge of the Jonbenet murder investigation took to "Reddit" to discuss the case, but upon learning that this was public knowledge, requested the information to be taken down.  From what I have read of his comments, there was nothing new or fascinating in his discussion.  His target was John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of the murdered child, in a case that captivated the nation. 

Why did this little girl's death demand so much attention when there are other cases in which parents were thought to have murdered or accidentally killed their own children, and made public statements?

Among details that caught attention were allegations of sex abuse, the wealth of the parents, the high powered attorneys, the refusal to cooperate, the initial response to the crime scene, and the sexualized nature of child beauty pageants.  These were all areas of interest as a 6 year old girl was dressed up in provocative costumes and make up; something, in the late 90's, that was not commonly known as it is today.  The nation has become de-sensitized to crass parents, sexualized outfits and brutal competition due to 'reality' television and the bombardment of the absurdity of those so engaged.  That the parents held a need to tell the nation that they were "normal" told us that they were anything but.  

Yet, in spite of all these fascinating elements, there was something else that shocked the nation.  This was the  behavior of the District Attorney, Alex Hunter.  

Hunter did not simply withhold support from the police investigators, he sabotaged it.  The more he spoke, the more we knew.  Even the 'leaking' of information to tabloids was something that the post-Watergate country did not appear shocked at.  

What many people felt stunned over was his behavior, like a junior high kid trying to be accepted by the 'cool crowd' of high school seniors, willing to do anything to be "one of the gang."  It was his pandering to the Ramsey attorneys that appeared to go far beyond fear of public humiliation in a court room.  

Self interest is nothing new to elected officials; it is their mainstay.  They tell themselves that compromise is necessary, at any and every stage, in order to 'get elected and do go' later on.  They do not consider the damage to their own character and self respect, that, like a cancer, rots away at the bone marrow, weakening them to the position of no longer protecting a reputation, but being seen in clownish cowardice, rushing away from microphones thrust in their faces, closing doors and hiding behind prepared statements. 

That Hunter was outclassed by the powerful Atlanta law firm was not in question, it was more in how far he was willing to go to please them. Not satisfied with leaks and perhaps, even collusion, it reached it zenith when a Grand Jury was assembled, heard the evidence that police worked so long and hard on presenting, handed down an indictment against the Ramseys, of which Hunter not only refused to sign:

He deliberately deceived the press. 

He staked his own reputation upon Grand Jury secrecy:  his hidden cowardice would not come out because the Grand Jury indictment was sealed.  

He was, for years, a success in hiding this shame.  

Had he believed John and Patsy innocent, he could have taken the bold step and told the truth:  "I have refused to sign the indictment."

He did not.

Instead, he employed passive language which led the press to report:  "No indictment handed down against John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of their daughter, Jonbenet."

Patsy's sister immediately took to the press and stated that the Grand Jury "did not indict" her sister and brother-in-law.  

When the next District Attorney took over, she moved quickly to arrest the "suspect" John Mark Carr, without bothering to check if he had ever been in Boulder that year.  

She held an ostentatious self-congratulatory press conference, going one by one proclaiming praise upon each member of her team, making sure the press got every name noted, while the general public shook its collective head in disbelief. John Mark Carr may have had the best day of his life, being in the spot light, finally, after many failed attempts. 

 "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a letter to the child's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion."

Here is the beginning of the case; the first contact with law enforcement, via the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey. 

The analysis of such looks at:

1.  pronouns
2.  connections
3.  unnecessary words
4.  change of language
5.  the expected versus the unexpected 

This last point is, perhaps, the simplest to understand. 

A 6 year old girl is missing, and the mother (biological mother) has found a ransom note (the FBI reportedly stated that this was the longest ever, concluding that it was a ruse.  Statement Analysis of the Ransom note shows it is "deception indicated" and that it was, indeed, an attempt to deceive the police.  

What do we expect to hear from the caller?

We expect:

1.  The mother of a missing/kidnapped child to use the pronoun "I", because relationships between mothers and children are powerful, and they are personal.  We do not stop to think, "should I say "I", or should I say "we", even more so when it comes to the powerful maternal instinct.  In antiquity, a mother bear robbed of her whelps is referenced as dangerous, and Solomon exploited this maternal weakness in his landmark custody decision.  

2.  The mother of a missing/kidnapped child to demand the child be found safe and unharmed.  We expect to hear her demand help for her child, who, in the setting, is in the worst possible scenario a parent can endure:  the unknown.  

3.  The mother to express concern for her well being.  Who has her?  Why does he have her?  What has he done with her?  What is he doing with her?  Is she okay?  Does she have her blankie? (and so forth).  

Since out of 20,000 words processed in less than a "micro-second" or "mili-second" we expect the biological mother of a child in unknown danger to be unable to not say these words, in some form, at some time.  


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

We view the expected, and when it does not show itself, we are 'confronted' with the 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 process of choosing the order of sentences is in the same time period, of less than a second, for the brain to signal the tongue:  

"My daughter is missing!" with the expected possessive pronoun "my", from a biological mother.  

We must ask:  

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

Recall the 911 call by Misty Croslin, babysitting "missing" Haleigh Cummings, age 5.  

"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  missing, that police know that she was asleep.  In less than a second, she showed priority.  

Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason?  If so, it is to be red flagged.  Recall what Statement Analyst Kaaryn Gough said on Crime Wire:


The brain knows even when the tongue is attempting to deceive.  The brain knows. 

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. 


I am always on alert when a single individual says, "we called 911" as I struggle to picture more than one person actually dialing the phone.  I ask clarifying questions to learn if, perhaps, more than one party spoke to the 911 operator.  If the subject, alone, dialed and spoke, did the subject discuss the call ahead of time, slowing the pace of the emergency down, dramatically.  

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


Statement Analysis has shown the following in the case:

Deception
Linguistic indicators of sexual abuse.

Scientific Content Analysis analyzes the content in a manner that is repetitive with the expectation of results being seen in a consistent manner.  


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"


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

The expected:  "My daughter is missing!" or "My daughter is kidnapped!" is not heard. 


 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.  She is the biological mother, not step mother, not aunt, not family friend (even in these cases, the concern would be so personal that we might hear "I" instead of "we."  That she does not produce this instinctive pronoun is our first indication, in the very first word of this call, that something is amiss.  

Think of it. 

This is the first word of the investigation into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey; the first word, consisting of only one letter, and already we are aware that in less than a micro second, the mother has avoided personal connection to her missing daughter.  

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.  The kidnapping is the conclusion of the matter, rather than her "missing."

Since she has a ransom note, we can say that she knows someone has her.  This will then produce the most natural of parental responses:

Concern for her well being.  Who has her?  What is he doing to her right now, as we speak?  The unknown is the most painful element for any parent.  Stephen King said he could not compete, in horror writing, with what the imagination of a parent can do to itself in tormenting horror.  

I could not bear not knowing where my child was, who had her, and what he was doing to her.  Even parents of murdered children are thus given opportunity for closure when they learn the truth.  This is what makes the cruelty of one Terri Horman, so indescribably acute, as she allows for Desire Young, mother of a missing son, to suffer, hour by hour, day by day, week by week, month by month, and year by year.  

We look to see this element in parental capacity and desire to "know" and inability to process the unknown, in the caller.  

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  Patsy Ramsey in a Christmas card. 

This links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.  


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.  

There is nothing more personal for a mother.  

There is nothing more painful than 'not knowing.'

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.  

This leads us to a question that arises naturally:

Question:  Is this rehearsed?  

By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged.  She has gone to the conclusion and if it is directed from the ransom note, we then expect her to express concern about her daughter's welfare in the hands of the kidnappers.  If there is no concern, we follow the trail of rehearsal and staging.  

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for Jonbenet since Jonbenet is the one 'suffering' at the hands of kidnappers.  Jonbenet is in a position of vulnerability and incapable of self protection. 

This is something that should be in the vocabulary of a biological mother of a young child, especially one who has lived her entire life in the mother's custody.  

Next, we must note that not only is this biological, and that the child has lived her entire life with her mother, but that the mother was intimately involved in the 'hobby' of child beauty pageants.  This means that the mother spent many additional hours with the child  with these hours holding strong emotional connections, including hopes and aspirations.  

This should show itself in even a single sentence about what Jonbenet is suffering at the hands of the kidnappers.  

The mother knows the child well; from head to toe.  She has not only done all the usual things mothers do, including changing, dressing, and helping with school, but has been involved in the child pageantry circuit.  This builds the connection even more so. 

Yet, there is another element of connection. 

The mother, herself, was a beauty pageant contestant.  

What does this mean to the 911 call?

1.  The mother was biological
2.  The mother had full custody of the child
3.  The mother handled the child's pageant activities
4.  The mother, herself, was a participant in the same activities, and could, by extension through her daughter, 'continue' this lifestyle. 

There is no acceptance of the lack of singular, personal pronoun "I"  in this call.   If only point 1 was applicable, there would be no excuse.  Even a mother who does not have full time custody of the child will use the pronoun "I" (See Kyron Horman case for samples). 

That the caller had her entire life wrapped up, not only present but her own past, in the child, the pronoun "we" should tell us that this caller/mother has a need to share responsibility or spread out guilt, psychologically, in this setting of the missing/kidnapped child. 

I have staked myself on pronouns.  They are intuitive and reliable. 

"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.  


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" or even, "my daughter is kidnapped."

She reported that "we have", which puts the focus upon her and someone else, likely her husband.  

What is the situation at hand?

Answer:  it is what Patsy and John Ramsey are experiencing, and not what Jonbenet is experiencing.  

Next, note that the focus is "we" and she does not, in the first sentence, inform the operator who it is that has been kidnapped. 

Is there any way possible that you, as a mother, would be able to not say, in the very first words, who it is that is gone from your home, if it were your child?

Of all the words she chose from her vast vocabulary, "Jonbenet" and "daughter" are not part of them.  

Priority. 

Priority is what "we have" going on, and not the child.  


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. (Dillingham) The initial sentence is repeated and this should cause us to ask:

Is this scripted?  

By "scripted", I mean 'planned, rehearsed' by the caller.   Since it is repeated, it is important.  Now, the investigator, upon hearing this, should be on alert for the possibility of not only sharing guilt ("we") but of scripting. 

The investigator that comes upon the lengthy and deceptive 'ransom note' knows that the length of such a note speaks to planning, or 'scripting' the entire event.  

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. Given the nature of the time spent with Jonbenet (biological, full custody, pageantry) this pronoun "our" confirms the alert that began with the very first word of this case:  "We."

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 and does not show "demand" for the safe return of Jonbenet.  

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

Priority emerging: 

1.  We have---it is their situation
2.  Note found
3.  Mention of "daughter" but not her name.  
4.  No concern yet for her daughter's well being.   We continue to listen for this.  

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?

That a note is "left" is to tell us that whoever did it, is not here. 

This is not necessary to say.  This simple inclusion of an unnecessary word tells us that she wants police to believe that those responsible for the kidnapping are not present in the home.  
The word is unnecessary. 

In Statement Analysis, an unnecessary word is deemed doubly important to the analysis.  

Again, as we consider the order in which she is communicating information:


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"

Should we have expected her to?

If she does not know the kidnappers' identity, passivity is appropriate.  

Please consider this point carefully before moving on in analysis.  

If ISIS took your child, would you know who took your child?  You would say "ISIS has her!" even though you do not know the individual names.  Therefore, in thinking that ISIS took your child, you would not use passivity in language.  

Keep this in mind as Patsy reveals that she does know the identity of the kidnappers, according to the ransom note.  

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.  It is surprising since kidnappers give some form of identity in how they can be reached to get the ransom to be paid.  

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 is the connection she had with Jonbenet and tells us how she saw her daughter.  The heavy make up, inappropriate Las Vegas showgirl outfit, false teeth, bleached hair, and so on, were all part of her connection to her daughter. 

  At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child. 

She does not use Jonbenet's name.  


911: How long ago was this?

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

Missing pronoun. 

Deceptive people or those who wish to reduce commitment (casually--this is not a 'casual scenario) or those who wish to psychologically distance themselves drop pronouns.  

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.    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 does not say who "found" a note.  

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?
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 again: 


911: Does it say who took her?

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

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. "

Please note that "ransom note" is longer.  The law of economy shows that we go from longer to shorter, once identified, in language. 

"My wife, Heather and I went to the stores" will become, "Heather bought..." and not "My wife, Heather then bought..."

Here, we have the reverse.  There is no apparent justification for this change found within the context of her statement.  This is very likely an indiction that she is not speaking from experiential memory of an actual ransom note, but of deception.  

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.  We would not expect it to be anywhere else.  That it was "left" means the kidnappers are gone (unnecessary to report) and the location of the ransom note is not necessary to report. 

Both are unnecessary words, making it very important in the analysis.  

Remember: of the 20,000 plus words to choose from, she, in less than a micro second, felt the need to add these in. 

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. There is some identification of who kidnapped the unnamed child in this case.  

 Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for Jonbenet.  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"

She has yet to use Jonbenet's name. 
She has yet to say a single word of what Jonbenet may be experiencing in the horrific unknown. 


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.  

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  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.  

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?

"Please find her!   FIND HER!  FIND HER!"


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?

Why not the name, "Jonbenet" in the call?

This must be explored.  The mother's statements do not produce her daughter's name, which is distancing language.  
This should be considered in light of the use of "we" and "our" in her language.  This is not what we expect a biological mother to use. It is especially not what we expect a biological mother who had full custody and of whom a lifestyle was shared, to say. 

The absence of Jonbenet's name is to distance herself from Jonbenet. 

Why?

Analysis of other statements made by the parents indicate not only deception but childhood sexual abuse.  Yet, in this call, there may be more than just guilt. 

There may be anger.  

Please see 911 call by police chief William McCollum who shot his wife on New Year's, 2015, for extremity of avoidance of victim's name.  

It may well be that the mother blames the child for causing the situation.  This is not uncommon in child abuse cases.  

Of injured, wrenched legs:  the child "would not let me change him";
Of suffocated children, "She would not drink her milk..."
Of murdered children, "I would not harm her..."

There is both minimization and subtle blaming of the victim in child abuse and child homicide cases.  

If a child acted out and the parent killed the child unintentionally, the parent may try to blame the child. 

If a child is sexually abused, and threatened to tell someone at school, for example, the parent may feel that the child caused the death, since she would not remain silent. 

I do not believe Jonbenet was killed intentionally but it happened in a moment of rage, perhaps when she wet the bed and got up demanding food in the middle of the night.  A child paraded before others not only is at risk for narcissism to develop, but must "stand still" for long periods of time, at an early age, to submit to the mother's intentions of putting on make up, or doing an elaborate work up on her hair.  

Did Jonbenet defy her mother that fateful night? 

Recall:  the parents did not want police to know she was up that night and lied about her getting up and eating pineapple.  

The chronic urinary tract inflections and chronic bed wetting should be taken in correlation with the linguistic indicators of sexual abuse in the language of the father, including the "lights" and "door" of his public statement.  (see linguistic indicators of sexual abuse, via the search engine, at this blog for more information.  Also see "Wise As a Serpent" at Amazon for more understanding of Statement Analysis).  

Although I don't believe that Jonbenet was killed intentionally (rather, from a violent outburst), I must remain open to the possibility of her threatening to "tell" as potentially fueling rage against her.  This call shows a mother not using her daughter's name, nor expressing a single word of fear of what Jonbenet might have been experiencing in the hands of unknown kidnappers.  
 
This 911 call which is the initial contact with police in the death of Jonbenet shows 
 deception. 

 The 911 call also indicates distancing language by the mother, away from the daughter.  


The call sounds scripted, just as the crime scene appeared scripted and the ransom note was scripted (and rehearsed) with a kidnapper unafraid of being found out, and unafraid of time passing.  

The mother of Jonbenet had a lifestyle which put her closer to her child than many mothers.  That she began the call with "we" shows this distance and the facts of the case, including analysis of interviews, shows the reason for the distance:  guilt.  



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