The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey: The Ransom Note Part 3

Case Study:  

Hypothesis Building

Anonymous Author Analysis: The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey part 3.

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.*** 

Hypotheses are more speculative than the general analysis in that some are less supported through patterns in the language and/or require deeper levels of critical thinking.  They are an important and useful step in applying a detailed analysis and/or profile to a case to fuel the critical thinking process and give the investigation suggestions as to the areas that need further exploration.  Where the analysis leads us to, and shows us a doorway, the hypothesis is speculating about what may be beyond it based on the features of the door we find ourselves standing in front of. 

From the first two posts on the ransom note, they laid out why I have the belief that the note was authored by John and Patsy Ramsey for the purpose of creating misdirection and covering up JonBenet’s death.  I had previously posted my opinion from analyzing Patsy Ramsey’s 9-1-1 call to police that came to a very similar conclusion, which was brought in as outside context to help identify Patsy as the potential ‘female voice’ I believe exists in the note. 

It’s important to note that despite the opinions one forms through other outside context or knowledge, that to take a forensic approach means that it is necessary to start the analysis of the note assuming nothing, holding back one’s biases and keeping the outside context at a minimum until the note itself persuades one about what it is that it communicates.  In other words, even if one believes that the Ramsey’s are guilty of a cover up prior to analyzing the note, one must assume they may be wrong and treat the note as a potential legitimate ransom note, unless and until the note itself convinces you otherwise. 

The analysis is not the investigation, merely one aspect of it.  There will always be a time and a place to bring in more of the outside context and knowledge to better understand how the words being analyzed relate to the crime itself.  The truth must account for everything, so the more information known, the more accurate hypotheses can be. 

I have heard a lot of information and theories about what others believe happened to JonBenet Ramsey and who they believe is responsible for her death.  There are undoubtedly many who will read this who have a far better command of the ‘facts’ of the case than I do, and yet there seems to be many ‘facts’ that are in dispute between parties who have different theories.  Hypotheses are only as reliable as the amount of reliable data you have to work with. 

I can’t pretend to have taken everything into account from this case, but for the purpose of demonstrating how the analysis may aid in developing hypotheses in any crime, this post will be to demonstrate how the ransom note may relate to this one. This will particularly be done while taking in the new context established by the opinion I set forward and bringing in some facts and theories from other sources, which this analysis appears to speak to. 

DEVELOPING A HYPOTHESIS: 

If it is accurate that the note was written with the intent to cover up JonBenet’s death, then we must assume her death necessarily occurred prior to its authoring.  The weak threats and passive language meant to speak of their already deceased daughter was noted for the suggestion that one or both parents experienced emotions of guilt as they reflected on her death.  This appears to support the theory held by many that JonBenet’s death was not intentional, at least on the part of one or both parents whose language is reflected in the note. 

I believe that theories of Patsy Ramsey being the primary author, who put the pen to paper, are credible.  There are aspects of the note that appear to support this theory, which included the maternal instinct, the suggestions of emotional guilt, the emotions of frustration and/or anger which are noted as specifically being directed towards John Ramsey, and a personality trait that takes some level of linguistic ‘power’ or ‘authority’ over him as well.  I believe  most of these traits to be consistent with traits Patsy Ramsey displayed during television and police interviews. 

Who killed JonBenet and how was she killed? 

These are extremely difficult questions to answer and we can’t definitively answer them from the note alone in my opinion.  There is little to address these questions from the analysis; and to even create something that rises to the level of being called a hypothesis based on this note, as it pertains to these questions may, be ill advised.  But there are aspects of the analysis that can delicately speak to address what those answers might be.   

When conducting an analysis, we simply start by making observations and then asking questions of those observations, noting as many potential ways to answer those questions and hope to deduce the likely correct one.  Perhaps we should not create a hypothesis as to who killed JonBenet or how she died from the ransom note, but we can always ask even more questions.  Those questions should then sit on the side lines, waiting to see if there ever rises a need to put them in the game. 

To begin, based on the analysis, and some of the outside context, we should, at a minimum, consider the following data points: 

1.) The note linguistically places responsibility for JonBenet’s death at the feet of John Ramsey.   The author who placed this responsibility onto John showed no significant indication that this was difficult to do in the same way as the note indicated strong dissociation from threatening JonBenet’s life. 

2.) The author extended “scrutiny” beyond just John Ramsey and extended it to his “family.”  While responsibility is laid at John’s feet, when the note stated, “you and your family” are under “scrutiny,” this wasn’t just linguistically including Patsy Ramsey, but is a much wider net than that and may speak to theories about JonBenet’s brother, Burke’s, involvement. 

3.) We know from forensic pathology that JonBenet suffered two distinct ‘attacks;’ a blow to the head and strangulation.  There appears to be dispute among experts as to which of these ‘attacks’ caused JonBenet’s death, however, some experts have been noted as stating that the blow to JonBenet’s head would not have necessarily been immediately fatal, but would have highly likely caused her to lose consciousness and by not receiving treatment, would have eventually become fatal. 

4.) Pathologists describe the injury as not having visually presented itself, meaning that it appears possible, if not likely, that the Ramsey’s may not have been aware of its severity. 

5.)  The note only made the odds that John Ramsey would, in fact, be responsible for JonBenet’s death at 99%, leaving the smallest amount of doubt. 

6.) There were reported signs of sexual abuse, believed to have occurred at the time of her death and historically as well. 

Next, we should apply the newer context of Patsy Ramsey as the suggested primary author of the note.  This gives us a perspective or ‘view point’ to attempt to see the staged crime from. 

When the note put so much linguistic responsibility at the foot of John Ramsey and included that not following the instructions put John at a “99% chance of killing” JonBenet, we have to consider that Patsy may have felt that John Ramsey held the brunt of the responsibility for her death in reality.  This doesn’t necessarily mean that she believes John killed JonBenet, per se, but she may blame him in a more general sense in a similar way a parent may be blamed for a child’s death through something like negligence.   This point is augmented by the fact that as the note becomes filled with frustration and/or anger, it demeans John Ramsey, directing the emotions at him specifically.  It appears as if Patsy was angry with John in reality, particularly as it pertains to the context of the crime. 

The note, which almost exclusively linguistically addressed John and placed responsibility at his feet, in a key moment, extended the concept of ‘scrutinizing’ John to ‘scrutinizing’ his “family” as well.  What the note did not say was, ‘you and your wife will be scrutinized...’ but addressed his “family” instead.  This is more than just ‘the parents.’  We cannot say that this means Burke did it, but it lends credibility to such a theory. 

We also see in the “99% chance” John is given for being responsible for JonBenet’s death, there is 1% of doubt.  Given the context of JonBenet being deceased at the time of its writing, and Patsy being the primary author of the note, this would eliminate the 1% doubt from being a belief that deviation of the instructions might NOT result in JonBenet’s death.  If this is accurate, where did it come from?   Nothing in our psyche comes from a vacuum. 

While I do have thoughts about the sexual abuse indicated from the medical examiner’s findings, there’s nothing in this note which I observed that appeared to address this question.  Notwithstanding, the aforementioned points can now present us with the following questions: 

Is it possible that Burke struck JonBenet on the head, perhaps in a fit of rage as others believe?   

Could this head injury have rendered JonBenet unconscious but not killed her, allowing John and Patsy the belief that JonBenet would recover from it? 

Once such an injury, untreated, became fatal, is it possible that JonBenet, in her last moments, began Chene-Stokes breathing, which may have alerted the Ramseys to her irreversible condition and/or caused them to believe JonBenet was suffering? 

In such a situation, could John Ramsey have opted to end JonBenet’s perceived suffering through the second ‘attack?’  If so, could this have been something that Patsy fought against as they made that decision together, resenting John in that moment for making her make said decision? 

Could such a scenario have caused Patsy Ramsey to have some degree of doubt as to whether the second ‘attack’ is what killed her daughter, and could such a heavy linguistic burden put on John Ramsey have been contributed by an elemental maternal need to protect the first attacker? 

What was the plan? 

Here is where we can develop an actual hypothesis from the ransom note.  The note more directly speaks to this question, allowing us more to work with. 

We previously noted the strong implication that the “instructions” were meant for John Ramsey to collect the money ‘today’ and to receive a call about delivering it “tomorrow.”  If this is correct, and we know that the note was reported to have been found more than 24 hours before 8AM the following day when the phone call was said to possibly come in, then we should consider that the Ramsey’s would have likely put this time to use.  This time would have allowed the Ramsey’s to remove JonBenet and conceal her somewhere outside of their home. 

The assertive and confident language used in the instructions of what John and the ‘kidnapper’ “will” do may indicate that the Ramsey’s intended to actually go to the bank and withdraw this money.  This would have likely placed the Ramseys on camera at the bank, showing investigators that they were taking the instructions on the note seriously and would reduce the questions by police as to why they didn’t call sooner. 

Time, under the context of obtaining the money, the “delivery” and the phone call, was hypersensitive in the note.  We noted this in the initial analysis (part 1), where among the sensitivity was the concept of following through with all if it “early.”  We don’t know what constitutes “early” but the Ramseys would have.  So, we should consider that the Ramseys would likely have had a ‘time frame’ or ‘time line’ that they planned for this to occur.  More specifically, when we consider that an “early” call would have been to “arrange an earlier delivery” we should recall the suggestion that “arrange” would have been to collaborate with John to come up with a ‘new plan’ for the “delivery.” This also came with the weakened language of “we might call you early.”  This means that they “might” not too. 

We also saw an elevated importance and sensitivity over the concept of the “delivery”.  It appeared four times in the note, with one of those times being a self-edit.  The first three instances were used to refer to the “delivery” of the money.  The fourth was to change “delivery” to the “pick-up” of JonBenet. 

Something was being considered that appears to have made, at least Patsy Ramsey, concerned that this plan could fall apart and some level of improvisation would need to be had, if they went to the bank “early.” 

So why is the topic of an “early” execution of this plan entering the note at all?  Perhaps more directly on the minds of others, if they had intended an elaborate plan, why did they not follow through at all and just call the police that morning?  I believe to answer this question; we need to draw in some more outside information.  In interviews, the Ramseys have been asked this same question, wanting to know why they called the police if the note ‘told them not to.’  When asked in a Larry King interview, John Ramsey replied as follows: 

Larry King: “The note said not to call 9-1-1?  But you did anyway.” 

John Ramsey: “You, you had no choice, we couldn’t have sat there. Th, the note also said, I will call you tomorrow.  We didn’t know if tomorrow was that day or the next day.  We couldn’t have waited.  We would have gone mad.” 

We should first note that John Ramsey’s response is another suggestion that he knew his daughter had not been kidnapped and she was no longer in need of help.  Consider that while John is reporting he had sufficient reason to believe his daughter was being held captive by persons unknown, his focus was on what he and Patsy were going through in those moments and not for JonBenet.  This was done to the point where, despite his claim that he believed what the note said, he uses his and Patsy’s own emotions as justification for placing his daughter's life at risk.  In other words, the implications of his words are that he was more concerned for his and Patsy’s emotional wellbeing than he was for his daughter’s physical wellbeing in those moments. 

More to the point of addressing this hypothesis, we note that John stated, “We couldn’t have waited. We would have gone mad.”  I believe him.  I believe that there was too much anxiety being built up and that even as they planned out the cover up and Patsy wrote the note, they were already considering that they “might” not be able to ‘stick to the plan’ as they knew the passing of time would ware on them.  After likely waiting several hours, they would have known they had several more before they could go to the bank and begin to execute the ‘plan,’ as it was meant to be.  This would account for the need to draw in an “earlier” execution of the plan, despite the appearance that there was no concrete ‘plan’ in place if it was in fact executed “early.” 

It appears there was likely something important, which I cannot speculate on at this point, that made time important, yet as “early” became sensitive, it was due to the fact that they were considering a ‘rush’ on the plan from the beginning and hoping to discover a new plan that would have allowed for a possible “earlier” phone call.  This could be attributed to something along the lines of how and where they planned to stage a phone call from, even if only to show up on phone records.  Such a hypothetical phone call may have hinged on something like using a specific anonymous pay phone that they could only access during a specific time. 

The only explicit language of JonBenet being returned is the aforementioned “pick-up” of her and when the note read, “Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”  Recall that we noted the note unnecessarily marked time and was redundant when it read, “At this time we have your daughter in our posession,” suggesting a future time when she would NOT be in their possession, and possibly even in someone else’s.  The note also later indicated the concepts of a “proper burial” vs. an ‘improper burial.’  I believe that there was an important element to this plan that included discussions on how JonBenet would be buried and even on ways they could still give her a “proper burial” when it was all over. 

Perhaps, the elaborate ‘plan’ would have been not to merely make it look like a ‘kidnapping’, but one where JonBenet could later be found deceased and John and Patsy could still give her a “proper burial.” Perhaps this ‘plan’ intended under the guise of the note, fell apart as they suspected it might, and the Ramseys began to improvise as they made the decision not to follow through with anything instructed on the note and to make an “earlier” call to the police. 

CONCLUSION: 

In conclusion, a profile and/or hypothesis should not be something that anyone falls in love with, but should be moldable according to any new analyses or other outside information that can be applied to it and should be continually evolving with the facts.  In any investigation where an analysis is utilized, the next step should be applying the analysis to the known facts of the case itself and establish stronger context and better focus on answering the questions it creates.  Once we begin the process of hypothesizing, we in courage our brains to think more critically and it can help the bigger picture come into better focus.