The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey: The Ransom Note Part 2
Case Study:
Anonymous Author, Profiling
Anonymous Author Analysis: The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey part 2.
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.***
THE NOTE:
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
OPINION (PROFILE):
From the first layer of an analysis we did in part 1, we saw strong suggestions the author(s) used the note to mask their true identity, that there is more than one author to the ransom note and even that John Ramsey was a participant in it’s creation. We looked at the note to begin to see what it revealed about the ‘kidnapping.’
Here, we are going to see what the note suggests to us about the author(s) profile, including their age, sex, background, personality, etc. A profile becomes complex when masking is involved which is only augmented by the belief that there are multiple people involved in the content of the note, however, some profiling aspects were still suggested in the language and alluded to in the previous post. Some are stronger and some are lesser. The lesser established aspects exist but with less reinforcement observed in the analysis which weakens the confidence in their accuracy.
When masking is present, we must consider that it suggests that the author who has the need to mask their identity in a note that is, or could have otherwise simply been, anonymous, is one who fears that their true identity would otherwise have been easily exposed to the reader. So masking itself lends to a profile in that it suggests the author is likely either going to be someone close to the intended recipient or the ‘recipient’ themselves. This author is not likely going to be a stranger or even a casual acquaintance. The author of this note is likely someone relatively close to, or one (or both) of the Ramseys themselves. This is augmented by several factors to recall from the previous post as follows:
The author is considerate and empathetic to John Ramsey
The author is familiar enough with John Ramsey’s business to “respect” it.
The author suggested they will be with John Ramsey at the bank and suggested a possible vested interest in his bank account.
The author placed themself linguistically closer to John Ramsey than the purported co-conspirators, separating by merely one word between them, when the note said, “I advise you not to provoke them.”
The author suggested they believed to know how John would react and perceive this ‘kidnapping of his daughter’ when they suggested very low expectations he would go to the police and would consider it to be his “situation.”
The author is aware John Ramsey is from the south.
The author reduced “Mr. Ramsey” to merely “John,” suggesting familiarity once the emotions entered the note.
I’d like to add another small point not previously noted, but may contribute to the aforementioned points. When the author said, “be sure to bring an adequate size attaché to the bank,” the author suggested that they have sufficient reason to believe that not only does John know what an “attaché” is, but that he has access to more than one, particularly of different sizes. Perhaps what this suggests even more than just being someone close to John, is that the author who caused this term to be placed in the note is someone who likely has some connection to high society and familiarity with the corporate world, either directly by existing in such a world, or indirectly by means of working closely with, being related to , or working for those who are. This is not a strong point as it only mildly appears to be further supported by the author’s choice to use the term, “gentlemen” in the note, but the word choice is one that should be scrutinized.
Although this is not handwriting analysis, there are suggestions of someone who is detailed oriented in the need to include “to the letter” that is supported by the author who physically wrote the note being sure to use periods after each letter of the abbreviations used, such as “F.B.I.”and “S.B.T.C” and to use orderly margins on the left-hand side of the writing. The indented paragraphs and the salutation at the right margin also support the suggestion that this author is well educated. This author may be one who likes things to be in order.
This author is also responsible for putting the exclamation points within the note, suggesting that the emotions that emerge at the end of the note may have been from the author who physically wrote the note and the more controlled emotional aspects of the note may have been from another dictating to this author.
A personality trait also emerges in the note of someone who may be high minded or has narcissistic like tendencies as well. This would be someone who is seen by others around them as arrogant or conceded and may often think they are one of the smartest people in the room. This author is someone able to put down others. It is suggested by the phrase, “don’t try to grow brain John,” but supported by the two instances when the author(s) said, “I advise you...” This has an element of narcissism in how it appeared in the note, whereas the author who caused it to be included, appears to be one who feels the need to unnecessarily put themself in with the ‘advice.’ In other words, the author could’ve simply given the advice. It was unnecessary to tell John who it was from, just as it was unnecessary for the author to say that ‘advising’ was something he/she was doing to John. It linguistically placed the author in a position of power, contextually noted as power over John Ramsey. This is not necessarily unexpected from a ‘kidnapping’ for a ransom, as the ‘kidnapper’ is expected to assert power over the parents, but if we look at it under the suggested context of masking and staging, then it becomes more insightful.
The note also refers to “bank authorities” and “the authorities.” The fact that the term entered into the note on two occasions is to suggest that it is extra important and sensitive, even if only slightly elevated for the author(s). What is the author(s) definition of “authorities?” It’s used in two contexts; the first being “bank authorities” and the second being implied to be law enforcement, although not specifically stated. Another small point, but one that, in an investigation, would be worth noting, is that this author who chose this term may be someone who sees ‘authority’ in others and may even have a tendency or desire to submit to ‘authority.’ In other words, consider that this might be someone who would take the position, ‘if the police say it, it’s probably true’ or ‘if the bank manager tells me to put my money in one type of an account as opposed to another, it's probably good advice.’ This may be someone who would be seen by others as accepting of the ‘narrative’ and whom does not question ‘authority.’
There also appears to be a female voice in this note, particularly that of a mother. This is due to the suggestion that the note includes a maternal instinct. When the author(s) stated, “make sure you bring an adequate size attaché to the bank,” we see instructions given to John Ramsey in the same vein a mother does to her child when the child leaves the house in the morning for school. Why would the ‘kidnapper’ care if John brings an “adequate size attaché?” More importantly, why would the ‘kidnapper’ be concerned that John would come to the bank unprepared? This becomes a critical point for the profile as it strengthens the idea of someone familiar with John Ramsey. The author suggests sufficient reason to think John would be unprepared, while also feeling the need to prepare John to go to the bank, as if he were a child. This maternal instinct also emerges when the author gave John the advice to be “rested,” which is to be concerned for his physical wellbeing while he is working to complete all the ‘kidnapper’s’ tasks.
Perhaps a more general parental voice also appeared to enter the note when the author wrote about someone “watching over” JonBenet as well as a consideration for JonBenet to have a “proper burial.”
If we consider the ‘maternal voice’ to be accurate, then we should look back to the passive distancing language the author used to threaten JonBenet’s life. Is the suggestion of ‘guilty feelings’ entering the note accurate? Are the author(s) feelings of ‘guilt’ associated with this parental voice? The profile now strongly suggests that one or more of the authors are parents and that at least one is particularly more likely going to be a mother.
Although not a particularly critical point to make, as it’s unlikely that anyone would expect a child to have authored this note, as an exercise in critical thinking, we can also consider that if the suggestion of a parent is accurate, it gives us an approximation as to how young this author could possibly be.
Although there is likely much more to be observed in the note, which would benefit from a team of analysts putting in many hours, I believe there is sufficient information to work with from the analysis and profile to develop a reasonable opinion. When taking these data points under consideration and then including those of the analysis I previously posted about the 9-1-1 call, I believe there is strong reasons to believe that John and Patsy Ramsey were involved in authoring and staging this ransom note.
In a follow up post, we will look back at the note under this new context and dive into deeper speculation to attempt to develop hypotheses as to how this note may reveal something more about the crime itself.