911 Call Analysis: The JonBenet Ramsey Murder

Please NOTE: The blog is for educational purposes.  All parties are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.  No analysis can be a substitute for a thorough investigation, but instead must be taken as a tool for investigative purposes.

JonBenet Ramsey Murder – 9-1-1 Call 

Given that it is the time of year where we are at the anniversary of JonBenet Ramsey’s murder, I revisited the 911 call analysis I did in the past of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call based on a transcription I found on the internet.  It was reasonably accurate; however, there were some errors in my opinion.  I decided to look at the call with fresh eyes and with a transcription that I edited myself based on what I believe I could hear in the audio.  THIS IS NOT to address what many speculate occurred in the background when Patsy Ramsey concluded her conversation with the 911 dispatcher, only the words that can be reasonably transcribed with reasonable confidence.

When doing any analysis of audio being transcribed, it is important that the transcription be as accurate as possible.  The audio from the 911 call in the JonBenet Ramsey Case is of relatively poor quality by today’s standards, creating differences among transcriptions available via the internet.  While a reasonably accurate transcription will likely produce reasonably reliable results, we have to always remember NOT to allow our confidence in the analysis to be greater than our confidence in the transcription. 

My opinion has not changed.  We cannot know who killed JonBenet from doing an analysis of this call, but as you can see below, there is sufficient reason to believe that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive about her having belief that JonBenet was kidnapped and that she participated in covering up the crime.

The 911 Call with my notes:

911: (inaudible )  911 emergency

PR: (inaudible/ we need?) police.

The audio makes it difficult to understand what Patsy says at the very beginning of the call.  It would appear that she may have said, ‘we need police’ but what we do know for sure is that invoking “police” was in her priority.  If she started with ‘we need’ then this would only create more problems for the phone call, but because we can’t say with confidence, we will set it aside.

What this does suggest is that her motivation for making the call is fueled by something to do with the “police.”  One may not find this to be unexpected given that she’s expected to have called the police to help find her ‘kidnapped’ daughter.  However, consider that when the dispatcher answered the phone, her priority could have been to immediately report the emergency, and yet it wasn’t.  We have to note that it would appear that invoking the “police” is of higher priority than the nature of the emergency itself.  We can reasonably assert that what came before police was NOT stating the emergency given the dispatcher’s upcoming need to follow up by asking, “What’s going on there...?”

 We won’t flag this as problematic given the uncertainty of what proceeded her saying “police” and because the “police” is not unexpected to be within the hierarchy of her priority, but we note this because we now have a little better understanding of Patsy’s psyche during this call.

911: What’s going...

PR: 755 Fifteenth Street

911: What is going on there ma’am?

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

Here is where we start to see clear problems with the call.  First let’s address that among Patsy’s priority, second to whatever invoked her to bring the “police” into her call, is to give her address.  Again, one might argue that this isn’t unexpected to be among her priorities.  If she wants the police to arrive, then she needs them to know where to go.  However, consider that she has yet to tell the dispatcher WHY the police need to come to her residence.  It is not her need to give out her address that we question, but the fact that reporting the actual nature of the emergency is of lesser priority.  This is not enough to conclude deception alone, but we are going to take this relatively small observation in context with what she stated next.

When the dispatcher asked her “what’s going on there...”, Patsy was handed the perfect opportunity to tell the dispatcher what the actual emergency was.  This is what is expected to be the motivation behind making the 911 call and it is going to dictate the speed of the police’s response, the number of resources thrown at the call, etc.  In the larger context of this call, Patsy is purporting that an unknown perpetrator violated the sanctity of her home and took her child to an unknown location, meaning that she is not expected to be aware of what JonBenet is going through in that moment; if she is being harmed or even if she is still alive.  When asked, “what’s going on,” Patsy’s response was to say, “we have a kidnapping.”

Consider if you’ve ever been a victim of a theft, particularly of something that had any significant value to you.  If you haven’t, take the time to imagine you wake up tomorrow and you discover that something as valuable as your car has been stolen from your driveway.  You pick up the phone and when you report the crime, how would you formulate the sentence(s) that clearly articulates to police what has happened?  You probably would not say, ‘we have an auto theft.’  Instead, your most likely words are going to be something along the lines of ‘my car was stolen.’

Let’s look at what Patsy didn’t say and then let’s look at what she did say.

Patsy did NOT say, ‘my daughter's been kidnapped’ or anything to this effect.  When we note what was not said, we have to now take into consideration a few nuanced data points.

#1. Patsy has not made it within her priority to explicitly state that the kidnapping involved her daughter.  JonBenet is not mentioned or referenced in this statement in any way.  One must ask why or how is it that the kidnapping of JonBenet does not have enough of an emotional impact for Patsy to make this detail of who was kidnapped, top priority.

#2. Remember the example of your hypothetical stolen car.  When someone steals something from us, the emotional impact of having our property taken is expected to invoke the language of personal possession.  We look for the pronoun “my” to take personal possession of that which has been taken from us.  Then we expect the language to be clear about what it was that was taken.  If this would be true about a car, how much more expected is this language to occur when that which was stolen from us is our own child?  Add the expected maternal instinct that is natural in the psyche of mothers and the expectations for “my daughter” to enter Patsy’s language becomes extremely high.  We don’t see Patsy claim any personal possession over the person whom was kidnapped, why?

#3.  Because Patsy did not state JonBenet has been kidnapped, we are not allowed to say it for her.  This means, up to this point, she has not actually reported that her daughter was kidnapped.  We are not allowed to accept that Patsy believes this is truly a kidnapping of her daughter if she doesn’t tell us it is.

We must now look to see if and when she does make this as an explicit claim.   As we continue with the analysis, we are now on alert for if and how Patsy refers to what happened to JonBenet.

Now that we are aware of what she did not say, we must compare it with what she did say in its place, which was, “We have a kidnapping.”  Who is Patsy making her priority in her reported emergency?  Who’s needs are motivating this 911 call?  The answer lies in the use of the pronoun “we.”  Again, Patsy wishes to report that she has belief that someone broke into the sanctity of her home and stole her daughter from her.  Where does the maternal instinct dictate our expectations for Patsies priorities lay?  It’s with JonBenet; making sure she’s safe and returned home unharmed.  Who has her?  What is he/she doing to her? Will Patsy ever see her again?

All these questions are expected to motivate a panicked mother to be concerned for her daughter, but according to her language, Patsy has made this call about herself along with at least one other person.  According to Patsy’s language, she is in need of the “police” not JonBenet.

Further, when Patsy said, “we have...” she is showing ‘shared possession’ of “a kidnapping.”  It’s a level of ownership.  Her language is distancing from a statement about JonBenet being kidnapped, while simultaneously, she has a need to claim that this “kidnapping” ‘belongs to her and the other(s).’  Why would Patsy take linguistic ‘ownership’ or ‘possession’ of the “kidnapping?”

When Patsy called it “a kidnapping” she is focusing her language to express to the dispatcher that ‘among all the kidnappings that occur in the world, we have one of them.’  The article “a” is to introduce this kidnapping in an abstract way.  This would not necessarily be problematic if not for the nature of this emergency.  Properly introducing concepts in communications often requires the use of this article to establish mutual context.  However, this isn’t merely one of many kidnappings in Patsy’s world, it is THE only kidnapping that should exist in her psyche at that moment.  Patsy is being vague and nonspecific about the “kidnapping” of her daughter, which undermines any emotional impact expected from her in this time of crisis.

Who is “we?”   We can assume from outside context that “we” would likely include John Ramsey, but we can’t say that for sure from these words alone.   What we can say is that Patsy has a need to share possession of the kidnapping in her language.  She cannot be alone in taking responsibility or ‘ownership’ of it.  It not only adds to the impersonalized language unexpected of a mother under this context, it also suggests that she is not psychologically alone in her need for “police.”  In other words, it should have us ask the question, if it is true that Patsy is deceptively covering up what happened to JonBenet in this 911 call, then are those who make up the pronoun “we” with Patsy coconspirators?

911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?

PR: There, We have a... There’s a note left and our daughter is gone.

The suggestion that Patsy cannot be alone in this phone call is now augmented by the repeated use of “we” and the statement “our daughter is gone.”

Patsy’s language as it pertains to the note is passive, meaning that she has not assigned any responsibility for who “left” or who ‘found’ the note.   Because Patsy isn’t expected to know who authored or “left” the note, we will not make this a critical point just yet.  However, given the fuller context of the analysis, we must take note if this language as it will help develop a fuller picture of the patterns that exist within Patsy’s language.  What the passivity suggests under this specific context is that when Patsy is thinking of this note, her brain is NOT focused on thoughts about who may have written it or took JonBenet.  What she said, being, “there’s a note left” vs. what she didn’t say, being, ‘they left a note’ suggests that she is more focused on the note itself rather than on the perpetrator.

What we also don’t know from this statement is who, if anybody, actually found the “note.”  

More about the “note” as we continue, but for now, let's take a look at the phrase, “our daughter is gone.”  Question:  Is Patsy NOW reporting that her daughter was kidnapped?  The answer is, no.  Patsy told the dispatcher that she has a “kidnapping” but changed her language to “gone” when she finally invoked JonBenet to the conversation.  A subject’s internal, subjective dictionary will assign nuance to the use of any given term when applied.  Once the subject has changed their language from the use of one term to another, it tells us that something is different in how the latter is being applied from the former in the subject’s perception of reality, even if in small nuanced ways.  “Gone” is not the same as “kidnapped.”  When we look closely at Patsy’s word choice, “gone” is a broader term.  It can be applied in a larger variety of circumstances and should be noted to even be a term commonly used in situations involving death.  So we know that Patsy has still NOT reported to the dispatcher that JonBenet has been “kidnapped.”

As we already touched upon, “we” should have us asking the questions of who else is linguistically present and how are they important to Patsy’s account.  But now that Patsy said “our daughter” we can reasonably assert that “we” and “our” includes John Ramsey.  So, if Patsy is deceptively covering up what happened to JonBenet, then we now need to look to John Ramsey and question if he is a co-conspirator.

“Our daughter” also resurfaces the issue of Patsy NOT using personal language and taking personal ownership of JonBenet during this call.  When having a two-way conversation between Patsy and the dispatcher, the expected language is for Patsy to be speaking for herself.  In even a low stress situation, when a one-on-one conversation occurs, particularly when the context does not include the other parent, the subject speaking of their child will use the personal possessive pronoun, “my.”  In the traumatic experience of having a missing child, let alone a kidnapped one, a parent, particularly a mother, will find it difficult NOT to speak without showing the personal emotional impact of the situation.  Trauma causes psychological isolation and an emergency involving a child causes a mother to take it very personal that her child needs help.  There is no need for John to be included as a member of this conversation.  We have to take a few more data points into consideration:

1.    Patsy is not, and either cannot or will not, be alone in her need to discuss what happened to JonBenet.

2.    Patsy either lacks the maternal instinct we are looking for, or she has drowned it out with another need that has presented itself even stronger than this instinct.

3.    John Ramsey is now unnecessarily ‘present’ in Patsy’s language which suggest to us that he is important to the call.  We know from the use of “we” and “our” that John is one of the people who has “a kidnapping” and that he is, in part, along with Patsy, WHO the call is about.

Finally, lets pause for a moment.  Now that Patsy has invoked an emergency for JonBenet in some form, let's see where it lies on Patsy’s hierarchy of priorities.  Our list can conservatively and reasonably be made as follows:

1.    Something to invoke the “police.”

2.    The address of the emergency

3.    Patsy and John are in possession of “a kidnapping”

4.    “There’s a note left.”

5.    JonBenet is “gone.”

JonBenet’s status of “gone” comes at a resounding 5th place, behind several things, including the need to introduce “a note.”  Before Patsy had a need for the dispatcher to know that it was her “daughter” that was “gone” she had a need to tell the dispatcher that “there’s a note left.”  This suggests that the “note” is more important to Patsy’s account, which suggests the need to consider ‘crime scene staging’ may be present in Patsy’s language.

911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?

PR: Yes.

911: How old is you daughter?

PR: Six years old she is blond...six years old

911: How long ago was this?

PR: I don’t know. I just found the note and my daughter is (inaudible/gone?)

 We now know from Patsy’s words that she is the one who she is reporting “found the note.”  Patsy has also seemed to have brought herself to take personal possession of JonBenet.  Both of these are positive signs for Patsy’s credibility.  However, despite the poor quality of the audio, it seemed highly unlikely at this point that Patsy has finally reported JonBenet as being “kidnapped.”

When the dispatcher asked a question concerning the amount of time JonBenet has been “gone” Patsy minimizes time.  We should note that the time is being minimized as it relates to how long it’s been since Patsy “found the note,” not how long since she’s been up or since she discovered JonBenet was “gone.”  I’d like you to consider couple more data points:

1.  Patsy has kept the note as a higher linguistic priority than JonBenet’s status of being “gone.”  This strengthens the suggestion about the “note” being more important in her account that JonBenet’s status is and the need to consider staging is present with the crime scene.

2. By not minimizing the time from when she got up, it suggests that she has been up for what she, herself, perceives to be a significant length of time prior to ‘finding the note.’    I come to this opinion, because we expect the most relevant details that impact Patsy’s account to be pressing hardest upon the brain.  If Patsy were led to believe JonBenet had been stolen over night while she slept and that she could not have been taken during any time of the morning while Patsy was awake, then the time she woke up would be critical in determining a timeline of events. 

To dig a little deeper, consider that if Patsy had been awake for what she perceived to have been a significant amount of time, she should have exposed that detail to the dispatcher by answering the question with something to the effect of, ‘I don’t know.  I woke up about an hour ago, but I just found the note...’  This further suggests the need to explore for the possibility that Patsy, not only has been awake for a significant amount of time, but that she is suppressing talking about that time with the dispatcher.

911: Does it say who took her?

PR: What?

Answering a question with a question is deemed sensitive.  Is it because Patsy didn’t hear the dispatcher’s question, or is it because Patsy was caught off guard and her brain needed to stall for time to think?

911: Does it say who took her?

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

This is the second time Patsy has had a need to edit her response to the dispatcher and Patsy remains passive in her language about there being an author to the note.  Up to this point, Patsy’s language is void of any suggestion that she perceives an actual kidnapper.  If her brain truly perceived and/or held any heightened need to know who took JonBenet, her brain could expose this by choosing her words to include a place holder for the perpetrator, such as to say something to the effect of, ‘They left a ransom note here.’

The fact that the words of the perpetrator are present on the “note” is expected to make the perception of a perpetrator elevated as they are in some ways present with the Ramseys.  Someone violated the sanctity of Patsy’s home and stole her daughter and we have the perpetrator’s own words present with us in the form of this note, yet the perpetrator doesn't linguistically exist in Patsy’s perception of the emergency.  Add to this the critical point that her words are literally to address the dispatcher’s question of ‘who took JonBenet’ which is expected to prompt this question in Patsy’s brain, yet Patsy remains passive about the “ransom note.”  This becomes critical to the analysis.

Here we see that Patsy has now called it a “ransom note.”  This is another change in her language.  The expectation is for us to be economical with our words.  We are expected to move from the longer terms to the shorter ones.  Patsy should have told the dispatcher it was a “ransom note” from the beginning and then moved to just calling it a “note” after, not the other way around. 

How is it that the fact that it is a “ransom note” only enters into the account now?  Contextually, Patsy is driven to add this detail when the dispatch is asking her questions about whether the note states who took JonBenet.  Similarly to the aforementioned points on a perceived perpetrator, and bolstering that point, here it would appear that the need to add that it is a “ransom” note comes from the fact that the word “ransom” gives purpose behind the authoring of the note; the author’s purpose.  Patsy can only answer the question of ‘who wrote the note’ by offering the author’s purpose behind the note.

911: It’s a ransom note.

PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please

911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...

PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.

As Patsy gives her name, she invokes her parental connection as well.  The dispatcher began to ask her a question with the words, “Are you...”  Patsy may have anticipated the question being something to the effect of, ‘Are you, her mother?’  We must consider this may be where Patsy’s need to make that connection comes from.

Patsy did not say, ‘I’m HER mother.’  Instead, Patsy said, “I’m THE mother.”  Patsy used distancing language with JonBenet, why?   Consider several more data points:

1.  By not saying ‘I’m her mother,’ we cannot say it for Patsy.  Linguistically, in this moment and under this context, Patsy is not JonBenet’s mother she is only ‘a mother.’  This suggests that something in Patsy’s perception of reality has blocked her from allowing her brain to choose the words of a linguistic bond.

2. The term “the mother,” while void of a linguistic bond, is also specific in the use of the article “the.”  It speaks to her ‘role’ as ‘a mother’ in this emergency, not to her duties to JonBenet as Jonbenet's “mother.”

3. The term “mother” is formal and rigid.

Patsy’s language suggests that she is acutely aware of the role a kidnapped child’s “mother” plays in such an emergency.  Her language is to speak of her ‘role’ and not of her connection to her kidnapped daughter.  Consider the need to explore for the possibility that Patsy has had time to think about, or discuss with another, what her ‘role’ in this should be as a “mother.”  This further strengthens the suggestion of staging in Patsy’s language.

911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?

PR: Please.

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.

Patsy tells the dispatcher, “...we just got up.”  Another question about time from the dispatcher has now invoked Patsy to minimize time again, but now she does so as it relates to waking up, as we were looking for earlier.  Why did Patsy minimize time against finding the note earlier but does it against waking up now?  To attempt to answer this question we have to look at what surrounds Patsy’s words.  Consider the following:

When the dispatcher asked, “How long ago was this,” Patsy replied:

“...I just found the note and my daughter is (inaudible/gone?)”

 When the dispatcher asked, “...how long she’s been gone,” Patsy replied:

“...we just got up and she’s not here...”

1. In the former, although it is not clear from the audio, I believe Patsy is most likely saying, ‘my daughter is gone.’  In the latter, her response is to say “she’s not here.”  Even if I am wrong about what word or phrase Patsy used in the former, “she’s not here” is still flagged as a change of language because we do know she used the term “gone” to describe JonBenet’s status prior to this point.  In fact, it is worth noting that the dispatcher parroted this word back to Patsy in how she asked the latter question.  Again, our principle is to acknowledge that there is something different in Patsy’s perception of reality between how she applies the use of the term “gone” and the phrase “not here.”  In the latter, Patsy was confronted by the dispatcher’s question with her own word choice and in the fraction of a second it takes for Paty’s brain to formulate her speech, her brain dodged the word “gone” and redirected her terminology.  It would seem as if Patsy wasn’t comfortable being confronted by her own language.  Consider that if the insinuation I made earlier is true that Patsy may have chosen the word “gone” because it has leaked from her true perception of JonBenet based on knowledge of her death, then when confronted with this word here, in this context, she may not be comfortable with that question, thus causing her brain to need to change “gone” to “not here” when responding to it.

2.  It was unnecessary for Patsy to say JonBenet was “not here.”  It had already been expressed by Patsy and clearly understood by the dispatcher.  Repeating the concept of JonBenet being “gone” or “not here” was completely unnecessary.  However, to apply another principle, when something a subject says appears to be unnecessary, it only APPEARS unnecessary to us.  According to the subject’s psyche, it is necessary for them to state it, which means it is an extra important data point for us in our analysis.

Fundamentally, Patsy chose to answer a question about how long JonBenet’s been “gone” with an unnecessary statement that JonBenet is “not here.”  We need to flag this as a need from Patsy to persuade the dispatcher of the ‘truth’ that JonBenet is “kidnapped.”

3. “…we just got up…” is a form of an alibi.  Although, it is not unexpected for this to enter Patsy’s account given the context of the question being asked, we have to know that it does effectively act as a ‘sleep alibi’ which is to say that Patsy needs the dispatcher to know she is unable to answer a question about anything that occurred while she was asleep.

3A. Establishing an alibi was not flagged in Patsy’s priority.  It only comes in response to this question, so it does not appear that Patsy has the strong need for an alibi that we will often see with deceptive, guilty persons.  We should not conclude this as an indicator for guilt, but take it only in the micro context and use it to help establish the bigger picture.              

4. Now we have to look to see who “just got up.”  Patsy was linguistically alone when she “just found the note” but has the need to be in a linguistic crowd and share responsibility with others when she “just got up.”  Her level of linguistic commitment and responsibility is lessened.  When we share responsibility with others, we water down the amount of responsibility we take for ourselves.   We also give some of the responsibility to the others in the linguistic crowd.  It is less reliable than if Patsy had spoken for herself using the personal pronoun, ‘I.’  It presents us with questions of whether Patsy had a need to be included with the crowd or if she had a need to gather the crowd.  In other words, we have to consider several possibilities:

A.    Patsy’s brain used the plural “we” because ‘getting up’ was a group activity or team effort.  Did they (Patsy, John and/or Burke) have a need to get up at the same time?  Perhaps one got up and had to go and wake up the other.

B.    Patsy has a need to steal some of the responsibility of the time she “just got up” as if to say, she didn’t “just get up” according to her perception of reality, if she speaking for only herself, but can justify using the pronoun “we” to be general and vague because someone else, she is including herself with, did “just” get up.  So, by being general, she can avoid specifically speaking of when she, as an individual got up.  In other words, does Patsy have a need to borrow from someone else’s ‘sleep alibi?’

C.    Patsy has a need to give some of the responsibility to someone else.  In other words, does Patsy have a need to allow someone else in on using her ‘sleep alibi?'  Is Patsy concerned about others being asked this same question and has a need to shield them from it?

911: Ok.

PR: Please send somebody.

911: I am, honey.

PR: Please.

Patsy has used the word “please” eight times during this call.  This is ingratiating to the dispatcher.  Studies have shown a correlation between deceptive 911 emergency calls and ingratiation.  Similarly, the same studies showed a correlation between guilty callers invoking a ‘divine witness’ as Patsy did in this call when she stated, “Oh my God, please” on two of those occasions. In the state of an emergency, particularly when the person in need is a loved one, there is no time to be polite. 

Why does Patsy have the need to ingratiate the dispatcher?   Is her ‘pleading’ something to do with a belief that the police will drag their feet with their response or choose not to respond at all?   If not, then her need would likely be driven by a need to be seen in a positive light by the police, thus provoking the question, why would someone care if the police liked them during this type of an emergency?  When something like the life of one’s child is on the line, what might cause a parent to spend any energy on wanting police to ‘like’ them?

911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).

PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).

The repetition of the word “hurry” would suggest that Patsy has a very sensitive need for police to respond fast.  However, this point is highlighted as it further exposes the incongruity of Patsy in this call.  This is betrayed by the fact that Patsy made the nature of the emergency, being the theft of her daughter, so low on her list if linguistic priorities.

911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

As we conclude looking at the 911 call, we also must note that Patsy never used JonBenet’s name during any portion of the call.  Names are personal by their very nature.  We are all assigned a name as a way of being personally identified.  When someone cannot or will not use a loved one’s name, it can be a symptom of emotions associated with feelings of guilt.  When we look at this in connection with some of the distancing language Patsy used, we should consider that the call, as a whole, lends a suggestion to guilt in Patsy’s psyche. 

We can reasonably conclude with the following assessments and opinions based on Patsy’s words:

1.        Patsy never reports JonBenet as being kidnapped.

2.        Linguistically, a perpetrator doesn’t exist in Patsy’s account.

3.        Patsy and John Ramsey possess the kidnapping that is being reported.

4.        JonBenet’s status of “gone” is of low priority to Patsy as it pertains to what Patsy is reporting.

5.        The “ransom note” is of higher priority than JonBenet’s status as it pertains to what Patsy is reporting.

6.         Patsy does not demonstrate the expected maternal instinct in an emergency involving one’s own child.

7.        There is sufficient cause to be concerned for the presence of crime scene staging.