The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey: The Ransom Note Part 1
Case Study:
Anonymous Author, Profiling
Anonymous Author Analysis: The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey part 1.
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.
***I am not associated with any investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of any investigating entities.***
Psycho-Linguistic Profiling can be tricky and necessarily takes the analysis into the realm of deeper speculation, which means our expectation for accuracy is typically lessened. Anonymous authors can be the toughest analyses to profile. If a profile can be worked by a team of analysts who each brings their own background experiences and expertise to the table, more can typically be drawn out of the statement. Women are more likely to pick up on subtle feminine characteristics just as men will pick up on the masculine ones. Child advocates might see things that police officers don’t, or someone who belongs to Generation X may see something that a Millennial misses.
The analyst should work slow and everything the author communicates should be looked at closely.
An analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey Ransom Note was difficult and time consuming. There’s a lot to unpack within the two and half pages. I will attempt to address it in several parts. In part one we will simply look at the first layer of the analysis and see what the note is communicating to us on the surface. Is it an authentic ransom note? Was it staged for the purpose of the murder? Was it the author(S)’ intention to ‘kidnap’ JonBenet, but something went wrong? Did the author(s) write the note before or after she died? In the following posts, we will peel back each layer and see where the words on the three sheets of paper lead us.
Mr. Ramsey,
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We XX respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do (unreadable) particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. you stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t under estimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!
Victory!
S.B.T.C
Analysis:
Mr. Ramsey
We begin by noting that the author chose to add a greeting. Many have already pointed out that the ransom note is unexpectedly long at being approximately two and a half pages. This means that the note will likely be filled with unnecessary details as it pertains to the purported ‘kidnapping.’ Here we take specific note that when applying the context of the ‘kidnapping’ a greeting is very unnecessary.
We expect that whatever ends up in this note is there because the author perceives a need for it to exist. Why, if the intent is to ‘kidnap’ JonBenet, does the author feel the need to ‘greet’ “Mr. Ramsey” in the beginning? This short greeting tells us the following:
The author(s) are addressing “Mr. Ramsey,” likely to be JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey, but does not address Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet’s mother.
The author(s)’ greeting is formal and suggests a level of respect is being given to John Ramsey.
Listen carefully!
Priority is always important to look at in an analysis, but when conducting anonymous author work, its importance is even greater. We begin looking at priority by first seeing that a greeting was within it, but more specifically, as it pertains to the body of the note, the first thing the author(s) needs John Ramsey to read is an instruction to “listen carefully.” This came with an exclamation point, which means that this is also emphasized and that there is an element of emotion inserted to it.
Consider the following:
To “listen carefully” is to take in audible information. One can ‘read carefully’ when it comes to the written word, but can only “listen” to speech. The recipient’s presence is necessary in order for these words to accurately reflect reality. This suggests to us, at a minimum, that as the author put these words on paper, they perceived John Ramsey’s presence.
This also suggests that dictation may be occurring. The concept of ‘listening’ is on the brain of the writer as they put words to paper, meaning that they are likely actively participating in, or ‘listening to’ a dialogue or monologue.
The inclusion of this instruction, particularly as it pertains to the author’s priority, suggests a need for the author to be heard.
Right off the bat, we now have a suggestion that there’s more than one author and that John Ramsey may have been present as one of them. Where dictation is suggested, elevated emotions are suggested as well. This is put to paper by the one writing the note. Was this due to someone dictating with emotion? Is this the emotions of the one doing the writing entering the note?
Was someone not ‘listening?’
We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We XX respect your business but not the country that it serves.
Second on the list of priority, as it pertains to the body of the note in a broader sense, is for the author(s) to tell John Ramsey something about themselves. Not only is it counter intuitive for a kidnapper to give out any information that may help identify who they are, the author(s) has a need to put it right at the beginning. At this point, we have to consider that this has likely entered their priority as a means to persuade the intended recipient of something about themselves that needs to be known before anything else is said. We must consider this need to persuade on their identity will either be to attempt for the content of what comes after to be taken ‘more seriously’ or be ‘more believable’ (i.e. masking).
What does it mean to be a “group of individuals?” This phrase appears to be an oxymoron, in that it purports two contradictory concepts; a “group” and “individuals.” I’d like you to consider that this phrase and the pronoun “we” could be part of the masking, in that the author may feel more comfortable in ‘hiding in a linguistic crowd’ as this is a common tactic in deception. However, given the previous suggestion of more than one author, we should also consider it in that context and that this may actually be a “group of individuals,” meaning there’s more than one person involved. If this somehow reflects the author’s perception of reality, then we have to wonder why the need for ‘individualism.’
Let’s assume that the previous suggestions are misleading and that the rest of this analysis will confirm that the authors are in fact a “group of individuals who represent a small foreign faction” with the intent to kidnap JonBenet. What would this phrase tell us? I’d like you to consider that this “group” which the author is representing with the pronoun “we” is a linguistic team, yet the need for noting that they are “individuals” may be because in the lesser context, within the linguistic ‘team’ there may not be one unified task or goal. Perhaps this “group” is ‘compartmentalized’ as to what their “individual” tasks are that are meant to come together and pull off this ‘kidnapping.” It may also be that this “group of individuals” has infighting within it as they don’t see eye to eye on how to achieve the intended goal laid out in this note.
Now let’s apply this same type of thinking to the possibility that this note was staged and masking is contained within it. What may be present in the author(s) mind as they create this content?
Please note, that according to the author(s) themself, the “group” is not a “small foreign faction,” but it merely “represents” one. Were they merely ‘hired’ by a “small foreign faction?” We must also be on alert that a ‘representation’ is something ‘inauthentic.’
When the author(s) then said that they don’t respect the country that John Ramsey’s business “serves,” what country are they speaking of? The author doesn’t say ‘your country’ nor do they name any other country. This suggests to us two things. First, the author and John Ramsey share information. According to the perception of the author, both he and John know what country he’s speaking of without the need to express it. Second, this further suggests that this author is familiar with John Ramsey’s company, as they know who his clients are. This doesn’t exactly dramatically narrow down the suspect pool, but it contributes to the pieces that will help bring this picture into better focus as we go.
Others have already noted that it is highly unlikely that ‘foreigners’ would refer to their own country as a ‘foreign’ country. In other words, what this phrase does is give us a perspective of the author(s). He or she is speaking from the perspective of being a citizen of the United States. It further suggests another need for masking on their part as it may be the case that they need a “foreign” faction to be seen as one from far away, so identifying the suspects should not include a local investigation by the police.
Something else that has been noted by others is that by calling it “small” the author has minimized the size of the “foreign faction” as well. We’d expect that the members of a “foreign faction” would not wish to be seen as “small” as it would create the perception of weakness as it pertains to the world stage. This would appear to betray the consideration that the need for the author to tell John Ramsey about themselves comes from a need to be ‘taken seriously.’ It would appear consistent with the concept that this “group” merely ‘represents’ the “foreign faction” while also suggesting that the author(s) themselves view the “foreign faction” with an unexpected negative linguistic disposition as it pertains to its strength. This “group of individuals” who merely “represents” the “small foreign faction” is suggesting to us that they are Americans who don’t think highly about the stature of the ones whom they choose to “represent.”
If we consider the need for “small” to enter the statement, then we must note that it may suggest the need for minimization, as a “small foreign faction” is one that is likely much harder to find. This is also consistent with the concept of masking, as if to say, ‘we’re small, so you wouldn’t have heard of us and won’t find us.’ We can now view “small foreign faction” as possibly being a need for the author(s) to project onto the intended recipients a lower expectation that the authors can be found. If accurate, then we must now consider if the intended recipient for this note is not actually the Ramseys but instead the police.
What is the purpose of telling John Ramsey they don’t “respect” the country his business serves? Is this politically motivated? When we consider kidnapping JonBenet hurts the Ramsey’s, not any country, we must look to see if the author can make that connection. Not only do they not make such a connection, we also see that they give no indictments as to why they hold such contempt. It’s meaningless to the crime. If there were to be a political motive, we expect a political indictment with the direct language that would clearly identify the “country” being indicted. We don’t.
This sheds a light on another question. Why are these ‘representatives’ working for a “foreign faction” if not for political reasons? Are they mercenaries for hire? If they are hired, then why such a low ransom amount? If money were the motive, then this would make for bad business. $118,000.00 does not seem to be enough money to warrant paying a “group of individuals” and the members of the “small foreign faction” for a kidnapping and potential murder, in my subjective opinion. What if the Ramsey’s don’t follow through with payment? How does the “group of individuals” get compensated? Does the “small foreign faction” have to pay out of their pocket?
All this is yet another suggestion that masking is present.
Here we need to take a step back to address a critical point for the analysis. Fifth on the overall list of priority for what the author needs to say, and third on the list of things they need to tell John Ramsey about themselves, the author has a need for it to be known that they “respect” his business. The author is being ingratiating to John Ramsey while protecting the ‘ego’ of his company. Linguistically, it suggests it is more important than anything else which will follow, and yet it needs to be questioned as to why it was important for the author to include this at all. The author(s), who are meant to be believed to have broken in, kidnapped JonBenet, and whom will eventually murder her, want one of the very first things in the two and a half pages for John Ramsey to know is, “we respect your business.”
When we consider a principle that suggests the very beginning of the note will reveal something about what is behind the motive for writing it, we now have to consider that what motivated this note may be the need for misdirection, which may be attached to an elemental need to protect the ‘ego’ of John Ramsey’s business.
At this time we have your daughter in our posession.
We now see the author(s) get to the point of the note, which is to inform John Ramsey of the ‘kidnapping.’ We should now take another moment to pause and look at where the author’s need to inform John Ramsey of the kidnapping falls on the list of the author(s) priorities:
The need to ‘greet’ John Ramsey
The need for John Ramsey to “listen carefully” to the author(s).
The need to tell him that they are a “group of individuals”
The need to tell him that they “represent a small foreign faction”
The need to tell him that they “respect” his business
The need to tell him that they don’t respect the country his business serves.
The need to tell him that they have his daughter in their “possession” “at this time.”
Six items took linguistic priority with four of those items being information the authors needed John Ramsey to know about themself. The low placement creates a suggestion that the kidnapping is of lesser consequence behind the purpose of this note.
The phrase, “at this time” indicates that the author is comparing “this time” with another, likely being sometime in the future. It suggests to us that the author is thinking about a time, within the context of the ‘kidnapping’ they will NOT have JonBenet. This comes tethered to the phrase, “in our possession,” which is unnecessarily redundant. If the author does in fact “have (his) daughter” then why the need to double down and qualify it. Who else’s “possession” would she be in while the authors have her? It’s another dependent thought comparing the concept against one where she’s NOT in their “possession” and maybe even in someone else’s. The redundancy, suggests to us, at a minimum, that the author is showing another need to persuade.
She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
We can take note that where the author has suggested the dependent thought of JonBenet NOT being in their “possession” at a later time, we have the author avoiding any promise or suggestion that she will be returned to John Ramsey at this point.
We further should take note, at this point, that the author appears to be suggesting that they will ‘kill’ JonBenet if John Ramsey doesn’t “follow (their) instructions to the letter,” however, the author hasn’t brought him/herself to explicitly state that. Where her death is implied, the words are avoided.
This comes on the heels of “she is safe and unharmed,” which is somewhat reliably formed and takes linguistic precedence of the implication of her death. Its level of reliability is due to the short, concise and unequivocal way it's given. However, it must be noted that it is passive. The author hasn’t told us that they haven’t harmed JonBenet, so it lacks personal responsibility. We should consider the possibility that if it were the case that these words were written after JonBenet’s death, the one who authored them may be considered someone who falls within the approximate 10% of the population who can fabricate reality in the free editing process. It may be the case we are dealing with a ‘trained liar’ in that they have learned how to get away with lying early on in life and the stress caused by a lie is far less than for the average person.
Its precedence is to suggest this is important for the author. It doesn’t need to be included, but it was and it came prior to any suggestion that JonBenet may be ‘killed.’ Consider that at face value this suggests the following:
The author is being linguistically ‘considerate’ to John Ramsey by offering to ‘reduce his stress’ as he would’ve likely found even the littlest amount of comfort in knowing that JonBenet was “safe and unharmed.”
This further suggests that the author is showing empathy for John Ramsey, as they would be considering what John was going through emotionally at that time.
Either JonBenet’s ‘status’ of being “safe and unharmed” or John’s emotional state will likely be important to the author, as it comes in linguistic priority in this micro-context.
The phrase, “you must” suggests that the concept of John Ramsey NOT following these instructions “to the letter” is on the mind of the author. It’s another need to persuade as it exposes the idea that the author may believe John would otherwise not do as he is told. Compounding this idea is the phrase, “to the letter.” The author has at a minimum shown sensitivity towards the idea of John not deviating from these instructions.
You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills.
Note that the use of “will” twice here is to be assertive towards John. It is consistent with “you must” and “to the letter.” There is no chance, according to the authors’ words that John ‘will not’ do this. The author who included this is projecting authority onto John Ramsey.
We must look closely at the words “withdraw” and “your account.” We should note that the word, “withdraw” is perspective driven in that it carries a similar utility as the words ‘subtract’ or ‘take.’ It includes both ends of the equation; the money withdrawn and the account (or money) left behind. When we “withdraw” money from an account, we are not merely including the number of dollars obtained, but we linguistically add a latent form of concern for how it will affect the account itself. When the author chose the word “withdraw” they suggested that they may have a vested interest in John Ramsey’s bank account.
I’d like you to consider that “your” is unnecessarily specific and improperly introduces the “account” into these instructions. The author could’ve simply said to ‘go to the bank and get $118,000.00...’ It was unnecessary to tell John who’s account to get the money from. Its improper introduction is to note that the author doesn’t specify where to go to and/or which one of John Ramsey’s ‘accounts’ they are referring to. Without prior content or context, the author became very specific in their language. How many accounts, or even types of accounts, may John have and in how many different banks or institutions? How many places could John Ramsey have pulled this money from? More importantly, what would the perception from a ‘stranger’ be as to the answer to these questions?
The fact that the author cited “your account” without any prior context or content explaining where to go and which account to get the money from, suggests that there is a perception on the part of the author that John Ramsey didn’t need to be given these details for the author’s words to be clearly understood. In other words, the author suggests that they believe John Ramsey holds some of content about these “instructions” he “must follow” “to the letter” that have not been explicitly presented in this note, up to this point. This is critical to the analysis as we take into context the suggestion of an audible version of this note with “listen carefully,” which suggested John Ramsey’s presence as the note was being written. We have to now ask if John Ramsey was present and privileged to discussions as to what would be written as the note was being authored.
Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.
We now see the first content that explicitly tells us the author(s) intended for John Ramsey to get the money from a “bank” account. This is tethered to the previous point where content and context is missing, emphasizing the fact that as the author put pen to paper, they had the expectation that John Ramsey would understand which institution and which account he was to obtain the money from, despite the fact that it wasn’t explained prior.
Keep this in mind as we look at yet another critical point from this analysis. When the author told John Ramsey to “make sure you bring an adequate size attache to the bank” the author has strongly suggested they will either be going to “the bank” with John or that they will be meeting him there. “Bring” is perspective driven, whereas it comes from the perspective of being ‘with John’ at some point when he goes to the bank. It carries an element of ‘co-presence’ with it under the concept of a ‘shared destination.’ Again, at a minimum, we can look to see what it tells us about the perception of the author, which is that they author who created these words perceived an expectation that they would be ‘co-present’ with John Ramsey as he went to the bank. I’d like you to take this under consideration with the previous points concerning “withdraw” and “your account.”
When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.
The issue of this “pick-up” of JonBenet appears to be hypersensitive to the author(s) as they had a need to give three explanations on the topic, being:
Why they will call “between 8 and 10 am tomorrow”
Why they “advise” John to be rested
Why they “might” call John “early.”
This comes tethered to a missing determiner in the phrase, “to instruct you on delivery.” What delivery? Will it be ‘your delivery,’ ‘a delivery’ or ‘the delivery.’ The author’s language is extremely vague and abstract at this point.
Another sensitive issue within these details is the concept of “early.” The author repeated “early/earlier” four times in this short context. This suggests that something on the author(s) mind has elevated this concept as important and sensitive in their psyche.
Please note, where “we” was the norm, the author has now linguistically isolated and took personal responsibility as it pertains to making a “call” between 8 and 10 am “tomorrow.” This author went from speaking as a “group” to speaking as an “individual.” This also came with the advice they gave to John Ramsey on being “rested.” The advice was ‘personal.’
However, when the concept of calling “early” was introduced, the author retreated back into the crowd, why? This is tethered to more weakness as the author only says they “might” call “early.” The author has a need to allow for the call to still NOT come “early.” Where “I” presents linguistic strength with the unequivocal language, “we” presents weakness by equivocating on “might.”
What might happen “early” if they call? According to the author(s) words, the call may be “to arrange an earlier delivery of the money.” What does it mean to “arrange” details of a plan with someone else? I’d like you to consider that the word “arrange” in this context suggests that the author believes John Ramsey would take part in the ‘planning’ of “an earlier delivery of the money” if such an “early” call was made. In other words, the author is no longer speaking of giving instructions for John to “follow to the letter”, but is instead speaking of collaborating with John on new ones.
Please take a moment to ask one’s self, what does the author mean when they said, “If we monitor you getting the money early...?” What time could John have gone to the bank that was “early” according to the author(s)? When did the author expect John to “withdraw” the money? We cannot say, so one cannot expect John to be able to say either. “Early” is a relative term but the author has not provided any details to relate it to. Here is yet another critical point, whereas the author has suggested that content and context that is not provided in these instructions John is to follow “to the letter” is expected to be understood by John, meaning we have another suggestion that the author perceived they shared this content and context outside of the written words in this note.
Another critical point is when the author gave John Ramsey some advice. They advised him to “be rested.” The author, who is meant to be believed to have broken into the Ramsey home, stole JonBenet from John Ramsey and will eventually be discovered to have murdered her, is once again being ‘considerate’ and empathetic towards John.
Let’s pause again and attempt to address a few questions that have been raised often in this case; when was the note written, when was John expected to get the money, and when was the phone call expected to come? Could the theory that some hold of a ‘kidnapper’ authoring the note while hiding in the house on Christmas and waiting for the Ramsey’s to come home be true? Nothing in the note explicitly tells us the answers to these questions, yet through the analysis, we can extract an implicit one.
JonBenet was reported to have been last seen alive by her family the evening of Christmas after returning home from a Christmas celebration and putting JonBenet to bed that evening. This note was reported to have been discovered in the early hours the following morning, December 26th, which is also when police were called and JonBenet’s body was later found in the home. Based on the words the author(s) chose as they constructed this note, we see that there’s linguistic order (or syntax) to the details of the instructions. The author first introduced all the details as it pertained to John getting the money, what type of bills he will get and even the “brown paper bag” he was to place the money in before introducing the detail about receiving a phone call “tomorrow.” “Tomorrow” is given from the perspective of ‘today.’ So, we know that John wouldn’t have received a call until the day after the note was written. However, the order of details that outlines John getting the money from the bank came before the introduction of “tomorrow” which is to suggest that it was meant for John to get the money ‘today.’
This is further supported by the detail that the call that is to come “tomorrow” would come “between 8 and 10 am.” If we consider that including 8AM is within the time the author(s) may call with further instructions, then it suggests that the author(s) believed John would have the money before 8AM. It would be very likely that John’s bank would not have been opened prior to 8AM in the morning for John to have time to withdraw the money before a possible 8AM phone call. If accurate, then the suggestion that the money was to be obtained ‘today’ and the phone call was to come “tomorrow” is even stronger.
If this suggestion is accurate, it will also eliminate Christmas day as the day the note was authored as banks would not have been opened. So, by applying this logic, we can now see that the note strongly implies that it was written on December, 26th, John was meant to withdraw money later that day and then wait until December 27th for a phone call.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.
We know who will make the phone call and even have been given some linguistic indication as to who “might” make it if John gets the money early. The author is also now taking personal possession of the instructions being given when they said, “my instructions.” However, there is a cluster of passive details given here. The author doesn’t specifically refrain John Ramsey against “any deviation of (their) instructions,” nor anyone else. Nor do they tell us who will ‘execute’ his daughter or who will ‘deny’ John her remains. As the author is able to take steps away from the linguistic crowd and be more present in the note, they then turn around and become heavily dissociated from this topic.
Compare what the author said, being, “...will result in the immediate execution of your daughter” and compare it to how they could have said it, being, ‘...will result in your daughter being executed.’ What is the linguistic difference? The former is weaker and again adds an extra layer of passivity to the murder of JonBenet, but here it makes JonBenet’s role as a victim what is passive. It linguistically speaks of her death as if it were a ‘titled’ event more than it is a description of what will occur.
In conducting an analysis, we can often assess the physical distance placed between two people in a sentence to reflect something about the subject’s perception of distance in reality; sometimes physical and sometimes emotional. Here, even though no one other than JonBenet exists in this phrase, I’d like you to consider that her being placed at the very end is extending the distance already made through the author(s)’ passive language. While speaking of her “execution” the author cannot be ‘close’ to JonBenet. One should consider that emotions associated with the feelings of guilt may be entering the language at this point.
The linguistic threat is weak, yet we know that JonBenet was in fact murdered. I’d like you to juxtapose these to data points. Who has the ability to murder an innocent child, yet cannot bring themselves to make a committed threat to doing so? Now if we consider the suggestion of guilt may be accurate, then we should be on alert for the possibility that the author(s) did not intend to kill JonBenet and the speculation many have of an accident becomes strengthened. Did the note act to cover up for an unintended death or is the author(s) merely covering up for another who is the killer? We now have another reason to question staging and masking as it pertains to this note.
When the author(s) said, “you will also be denied her remains” it does two things. First, it further removes JonBenet as a ‘victim.’ Second, it elevates John Ramsey’s victim status. This is due to the phrase, “you will also” which is to suggest that what is to come after will be in ‘addition to’ what preceded it, which was JonBenet’s “execution.” This means that if being “denied her remains” is something that is “also” being done to John Ramsey, then the “execution” of JonBenet was something being perceived as an act victimizing John Ramsey too and NOT JonBenet.
When the author(s) qualified it with “for proper burial,” I’d like you to note that it is dependent and consider the following:
It introduces a latent concept of an ‘improper burial.’
It introduces a latent concept of NOT being denied her remains for some other purpose.
It suggests that the author(s) has entertained the thoughts of returning JonBenet to John Ramsey for a “proper burial.”
The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do (unreadable) particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
We now have a third instance of ‘consideration’ for John Ramsey as the author offers more advice. Please note that the linguist distance I mentioned earlier is again at play. The sentence, “I advise you not to provoke them,” has made the author (“I”) linguistically closer to John (“you”) than his own co-conspirators (“them”).
We also see yet another, subtle, but existing suggestion of outside shared content/context with John when the author introduced “the two gentlemen.” It speaks of these individuals as if John was already aware of their existence, and more particularly, their assignment of “watching over” JonBenet.
Note that if these “two gentlemen” did in fact exist, the author is telling us that they have enough familiarity with John Ramsey to hold an opinion about him.
I believe it was analyst, Mark McClish that once noted “watching over” JonBenet also shows distance and has a ‘divine’ element to it. God ‘watches over’ us. Parents may also ‘watch over’ their children, typically from a far, but kidnappers ‘guard’ the ones whom they hold captive. We should also denote that there may be a ‘parental instinct’ at play in the words the author(s) chose.
Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded.
What is it that the author is showing concern for John speaking about? Is it the ‘kidnapping’ of JonBenet? Is it her murder? It’s not JonBenet’s “situation” the author believes John Ramsey may report, but his own ‘personal situation.’ The author has suggested the perception that whatever is happening is happening to John Ramsey, NOT his daughter. This elevates the previous suggestion that the author has linguistically made this note about John Ramsey in their psyche and NOT about JonBenet, but more specifically, they suggest that they believe this would be the mind of John Ramsey if he were to ‘speak’ to anyone about this “situation.” According to this author, who has already suggested their ability to be empathetic to John, they have now indicated that within that empathy is the belief that John would feel like this is happing to him and be less concerned for what is happening to JonBenet.
We also have to note that a “situation” is a relatively weak term. JonBenet’s daughter is ‘kidnapped’ and it is merely a “situation” for John. If John were to get a flat tire and was running late for work, this too could fall into the verbiage of being in a “situation.” I’d like you to take this under consideration as we ask the following question.
How concerned is the author that John Ramsey will go to the police? Yet another instance of priority has come to the surface to raise another critical point. Approximately 50% of the two-and-a-half-page note was written before the author admonishes John against going to the “police” or “F.B.I.” This suggests it is of extremely low priority for the author. Looking at this in the micro-context as well, we see yet another indicator of how low it is. First, again the author is passive against specifically admonishing John in their language. The author didn’t say, ‘if YOU speak to anyone...,’ nor does the author say, ‘don’t speak to anyone,’ which weakens the impact it has for John Ramsey. The phrase, “speaking to anyone” is given as a hypothetical. In the author’s language, it suggests they perceive this more as something that merely could happen, not something that likely will happen.
Further, as the author’s thoughts were formulated into words, the author’s brain chose to first admonish John from “speaking to anyone” before being specific about “police” and “F.B.I.” “Anyone” includes ‘everyone,’ which is to say that “police” are included, but so is the mailman, his priest, the guy who lives down the block; “anyone.” What this means is that the author’s brain felt it was okay to be abstract before the need to be specific about law enforcement surfaced. It suggests that the need to admonish John from reporting his daughter’s kidnapping to police is of such low priority, it’s inclusion should be considered for not being motivated by an actual concern that he would. If accurate, then we have another suggestion of masking. However, more importantly, we have the suggestion that the author(s) knows the mind of John Ramsey, and by extension Patsy Ramsey. This author appears to have sufficient reason to not believe calling the police will be in the Ramsey’s priority, so it is not in the author’s either. Please consider this in context to the previous point where the author’s language also suggested they knew the mind of John Ramsey as they believed that if he were to go to police, he would not do so with concern for JonBenet, but for himself.
It is important to see that the consequence is that it “will result in your daughter being beheaded.” Where the author previously showed distancing from the language that included JonBenet’s death, here the author is explicit. Did this language originate from the same person?
Where JonBenet’s death is explicit, we still see passivity. The author has not brought themself to write, ‘I will behead her’ or even ‘we will behead her.’ The terms are strong, but the language is weak. Was this from the Ramseys? We have to ask, if John and/or Patsy Ramsey were included as authors of this note, how did it come to be that the topic of their “daughter being beheaded” came up at all? Could either one of them draw up such disturbing imagery of their own daughter? Could they have contributed to the note with a third party? This is extremely strong language to have originated from a parent about their own child.
If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.
Where the author(s) was passive in the admonishment against notifying police, they are linguistically addressing John in an admonishment against “talking” to “stray dogs” and ‘alerting’ “bank authorities.” We see that the author changed their language here. “Speaking,” “talking” and ‘alerting’ are not the same thing. Where the author showed that the communication ‘style’ is expected to change with the different audience, then we now have to wonder why John would merely ‘speak’ to “police” and “F.B.I.” but would “alert bank authorities.” The communication posed for “bank authorities” appears to be much stronger than for “police” or “F.B.I.,” why? Why the change at all?
The author wrote, “she dies” four times. We consider this concept to be extra-important and sensitive to the author(s). The fact that the author spent so much time explaining all the ways John could do something that would cause JonBenet’s death isn’t completely unexpected as a need to persuade John of how serious the situation is and to persuade him of his need to comply. However, if we apply the known context that JonBenet was murdered and the heavy suggestions for masking, then one should question if this need to persuade John wasn’t for his compliance, but to project yet more expectations onto the reader. In other words, one should consider that JonBenet may have already been deceased and the author is demonstrating a need to reduce the number of questions police may ask as to why she was killed.
Some have noted a theory that some of the language of this note was influenced by lines from movies involving kidnappings. If this is accurate, then this could account as ‘one of the other authors’ contributing to this note. However, if it is not the case that the ‘lines’ are copied word for word, but were merely paraphrases, then we could still analyze them as the author who put the words to paper could conflate their psyche into how they ‘perceive’ the lines. How they ‘interpret’ the lines could leave the author’s mark.
We also see the need for the author to step back into the linguistic crowd using “we” again as the topic of JonBenet’s death re-emerges, but is spoken of with passivity. Could it be the case that this author’s passivity in “being beheaded” and “she dies” be the mark of ‘guilt’ as they copied lines from someone else?
You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.
Note that the author has given John permission to “try to deceive” them, why? Further, the author follows up this permission with a ‘warning.’ Telling John to “be warned” is once again being unexpectedly ‘considerate’ towards John Ramsey.
Why the permission? What has the author(s) perceived that caused their need to give permission as opposed to simply saying, ‘don’t try to deceive us?’ If the previous suggestion is accurate that the author may have a need to explain all the ways John can mess up and cause JonBenet’s death in order to foreshadow it, then here the author’s permission may be originating from the same need.
However, we also have to take note that the author minimized the permission and gave priority to the warning by using the word “but.” ‘You have our permission, but you are warned.’ The warning may also have a similar utility to it as what precedes it, as it appears to add another layer of foreshadowing and persuasion. If John deviates, the probability of finding JonBenet deceased is great.
Why include and give priority to a warning? On its face, we should consider that it does a few things:
It elevates the author(s) from responsibility for what happens to JonBenet.
It exposed the fact that the author has been putting the responsibility for JonBenet’s death onto John Ramsey
you stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
Once again, the author puts the responsibility for “killing” JonBenet onto John Ramsey, but does so more explicitly. Why is it only a 99% chance? What has caused the author to deviate by only 1%? What lies in that 1% that is not John “killing (his) daughter if (he tries) to out smart (them)?”
Please note that if he follows their instructions, he “stands a 100% chance of getting her back” but the author does not explicitly state that she will be alive. Where the concept of JonBenet’s death exists, the concept of her ‘living’ does not.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities.
Note that “scrutiny” is not ‘surveillance.’ The word “scrutiny” is to closely inspect. Has the author leaked the perception or concern of the Ramsey family being ‘investigated?’ Further note that “scrutiny” has been extended beyond John and extended to his “family.” Where the note was addressed to, and about John Ramsey, the “scrutiny” has now included them too.
Who are “the authorities?” Is if the “police,” is it the “F.B.I.?” What is the author’s subjective definition of “authorities” as we see it applied here, but also previously applied to people at “the bank?”
Don’t try to grow a brain John.
There is a dramatic shift in tone, driven by emotions here. Where the author(s) needed John to follow instructions “to the letter” suggesting thoughts of a detailed plan and forethought on how the ‘ransom’ will go down, further suggesting the logical portion of the brain was heavily involved, the author has now indicated for strong negative emotions. The author who caused this to enter into the note is thinking emotionally more than they are logically. This is another suggestion that there is more than one author.
We should further note where previously, the author(s) were empathetic and considerate to John Ramsey, here they are holding a negative linguistic disposition towards him. The author has now told us, according to their perception of reality, John Ramsey doesn’t have a “brain.” In fact, according to this author, they are not sure he can even “grow” one as it would require effort on John’s part for him to “try.”
We also note that “Mr. Ramsey” has now become “John.” By calling him by his first name, this strongly suggests that the author feels very familiar with John Ramsey. It perhaps may be that they simply know a lot about him, perhaps from reading about his company. It may also be that they are familiar with John Ramsey in reality, such as they are at a minimum, acquainted with him.
Using his name was unnecessary. By doing so under this context, it increases the impact of the statement, adding to the emotions within it. It further makes this a personal attack.
This author is upset with John Ramsey.
You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t under estimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
The author has shown a hypersensitivity in the end of the note, which adds to the emotions previously suggested. They not only introduced the concept of “killing being difficult” in the negative, they also had the need to explain why it won’t be.
Note that the author once again doesn’t say who will do the “killing” nor do they say who will be ‘killed.’ I’d like you to consider that this author shows clear indicators for being very angry with John, but still doesn’t bring themself to say ‘killing your daughter’ won’t be difficult.
Please note that in the entirety of the note, the author(s) has told John, “don’t” do the following:
“Grow a brain”
“Think killing will be difficult”
“Underestimate us”
***John was also ‘advised’ “not to provoke” “the two gentlemen.” ***
The following are things the author(s) DIDN’T tell John, “don’t” do:
‘Deviate from our instructions’
Go to the police
“Try to deceive us”
“Try to out smart us”
Another point exposed by others is to scrutinize the phrase, “use that good southern common sense of yours.” By doing so, the author has suggested several more things:
They have knowledge that John Ramsey, who was currently living in Colorado at this time, was originally from the south (Georgia).
They have a positive linguistic disposition towards the “south.
John, who previously didn’t have a “brain” does have “common sense,” suggesting that they have a nuanced perception of his intellect.
They strengthen the perspective of being an American as it is highly unlikely that a ‘foreigner’ would perceive the United States as being of a northern and southern portion, in my estimate.
It is up to you now John!
Victory!
By telling John, “It is up to you now,” the author has ‘placed the ball in his court.’ When we look at it, combined with the word “victory” what it suggests to us is that the author had completed their part and the rest lies with John.
The word “victory” is driven with more emotion, only augmented by the exclamation point. It’s use only makes sense when a goal or objective has been reached. If this were a ransom note, but no ransom has yet been paid, how has the author(s) achieved a “victory?”
Further, it’s use may also be to suggest that a release of pent-up emotions has occurred. The author who this originated from may have felt tremendous stress while playing their ‘part’ in this ‘kidnapping’ and upon completion, felt an element of celebration that they ‘pulled it off.’ They’re part is over. They can now leave it up to John. Please consider this while referring back to the very beginning of the analysis when we examined the possible origins for the language, “a group of individuals.”
When we examine this word closer, it sheds light on another aspect of the note as it pertains to motive. Is this actually a ransom note? As we look back at the language the author used pertaining to the money, we see the following:
Nearly 15% of the note goes by before money is mentioned. It is unexpectedly low on the author’s list of priorities for being a ransom note.
The topic of money is less than 30% of the note with approximately 56% of it being about or able to be linked to ways John could fail and cause JonBenet’s death.
The author never uses the language ‘my money’ or ‘our money’ to lay a claim to it. If it were owed to them, then we’d like to see this enter the perception of the author(s)
The passivity of the “delivery” doesn’t merely deny us information as to who will make the “delivery” but it also doesn’t include the author(s) taking physical possession of it.
Much like how politics were not indicated as being part of the motive for writing this note, when we take it under the context of a ransom note, money is likely not either.
S.B.T.C
Much has been said about these four letters, but there is nothing within this note that I observed at this point that suggests anything behind their meaning or origin.
Opinion:
As we finish with the first stage of this analysis, I’d like you to at least consider the following:
The note strongly suggests that masking is contained within it.
The motive for writing the note is suggested to be the masking and not politics or money.
The author shows little, if any, concern about John Ramsey going to the police
The author believes John will see this ‘kidnapping’ as a “situation” he is in, not one that JonBenet is in.
There’s sufficient reason to begin to ask questions as to if JonBenet was already deceased as this note was authored and whether the author was experiencing guilt surrounding JonBenet’s death.
The author strongly suggests that they share important content and/or context with John Ramsey that they did not feel necessary to include in the note and that they further suggest that John may have played a part, or been privileged to its creation.