SUSPECT BEHAVIOR PART I
One of the most prominent pieces of evidence in the Ramsey case
is the alleged ransom note. It is a critical element in many
respects. A highly visible feature of the note is the spastic
reactive construction indicative of absence of organization and
absence of deliberate contemplation.
If you were going to write a note and try to make it appear
authentic, would you not consider the probable viewpoint of those
who would see and write accordingly? Do you see any indication of
this in the bogus note?
Certainly, the intent was to convince others that the note is an
authentic ransom note. Yet, it failed miserably. Few persons gave
the note credibility. The writer did not even come close to
achieving the goal. Why this horrendous failure? Why was this
writer so incapable of doing a better job?
This is not just an instance of a novice making a few mistakes
under extreme pressure, it reveals much about the personality and
psychology of the writer that existed long before the note was
written and in all probability still exists. It reveals the mode
of thought, thus exposing the underlying belief and value system
of said writer.
By general knowledge of other human beings, you can anticipate in
large degree the probable response to something you are thinking
of saying or doing. In closer interpersonal relationships with
individuals, this is refined to a higher degree of anticipated
reaction. This does not mean that you will correctly anticipate
100% of the time, but it does mean that you calculate the
potential reaction and evaluate it in making a decision that
involves these other persons. Its a mental habit.
This thought process and psychology is missing from the note.
The note clearly indicates the writer made no attempt whatsoever
to anticipate and write accordingly. The writer shows no empathy
with the likely viewers. The note was written from a reactive
personal perspective and presented from a personal viewpoint
without the slightest consideration for the probable viewpoint of
others. It is as if the writer's viewpoint is the only one that
exists or can exist. It was presented from this psychology. The
writer could not think and write from any other perspective
because this is the fundamental psychology of the writer.
I do not wish to dwell on this, but just wanted to point out this
absence of empathy and an isolation factor that appears to be a
central element of the psychology of the note writer. The logical
inferences of this are far reaching and potential explanation of
What I am describing here as indicated by the note is an
emotional isolation that in all probability you have never
experienced. You may be accustomed to having warm, deep, loving
and affectionate relationships with parents, children, friends,
etc; and observing others doing the same, but the writer of the
note is totally incapable of this.
It may appear differently on the surface, but its merely role
playing at what the writer thinks is proper and socially
acceptable. The actual emotions are non existent. There is no
deep and close emotional connection to anyone and never has been.
Any semblance of such a relationship is forced and temporary. In
a brief period of time, the relationship disappears as it yields
to the dominant underlying psychology of rejection and isolation.
There are, of course, many problems with the note, but there are
just one or two items that I wish to call attention to at this
time. What stands out in sharp contrast is the writer's warm
attitude toward John's company and the overt hostility toward the
person, John. In conjunction with this hostility, the note writer
connects John as cause in regard to JonBenet. It is not presented
as an accusation of direct actual cause, but more of "You made me
do it" tone. There is an indication here of a suppressed anger
toward John that was unleased when triggered by something
JonBenet said or did. (A bit speculative, yes, but within bounds
and consistent with the psychological profile of the writer as
determined by the content of the note.)
Moving on to the main purpose of this writing, let's look at
suspect behavior and how it provides a direct and clear insight
into the truth. Visualize the morning of Dec. 26, 1996. The
police have arrived. The multi page "ransom note" has been found.
John and Patsy are giving information to the police.
The absurd note was the first clue that this scene is a set up;
bogus from the git go. Suspect behavior soon clearly revealed
this fact again and again. Yet, although there was some
suspicion, the observers did not adequately read suspect behavior
to be sure.
There was much suspect behavior inconsistent with the
circumstance of a missing child believed to have been taken by a
kidnapper. These inconsistences then and later were "excused" by
reference to the stress of the moment and "panic." It has been
repeatedly stated in conjunction that no one knows what he or she
would do under such circumstance. Not true, Although one may
under emotional stress and hasty conclusions commit error, one
thing that does not change under any condition is that an
individual will act upon what that individual believes to be
true. Claims of truth may coincide with the actions, or claims of
truth may conflict with the actions. If the latter, you can
safely bet the person is lying.
Using yourself as a reference, imagine that your much-loved child
is missing and you have reason to believe the child has been
kidnapped. At this instant, your priority value becomes getting
the child back safely. Drinking, eating, sleeping and all else is
mentally pushed aside and recognized on in minimal requirement.
Even if you try to force your mind away from for a brief release
from the stress, you find it nearly impossible.
Did the actions of John Ramsey on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996
indicate that he believed JonBenet had been kidnapped? There were
many actions that conflicted with the claimed belief. A very
telling one was John going to the phone and calling in other
What was his mind on then? How was this going to help find the
alleged kidnapper and JonBenet? Were any of those called in
knowledgeable about kidnapping and called in to assist? If they
were not there to assist, why were they there? Could they be
anything but a distraction and a hindrance to the investigation?
Yet, John called them in. Why? What truth in John's mind
motivated this call? He valued them being there. For what purpose
if not to assist in the investigation? They provided consolation
and indication that he was believed. Assurance. They provided a
buffer between John and the police just by their presence. They
provided an emotional escape in a situation that had John on the
verge of breakdown.
Although co-perpetrator, Patsy, was on the premises, John was
pretty much alone in hostile territory. The hostile territory was
in his mind as he knew there would be hostile action if the truth
came out. The pressure was getting to him. He was about to lose
it. He needed help in the form of friends who would believe, not
question. This is what the phone call was about.
If the officer in charge had read suspect behavior, then had upon
the arrival of the "guests" met them at the door and sent them
away from the crime scene, it could have been a far different
story than the long saga that is still being played out.
John knew the staging was poor. He originally held out little
hope of getting away with it. On Dec. 26, 1996, he was waiting
for the axe to fall. Suppose the officer in charge had after
turning away the guest had turned to John and said, "O.K., John,
I know there was no kidnapping. You know there was no kidnapping.
The shock of direct accusation with the expectation of being
discovered would have most likely triggered the collapse of all
defenses. I estimate that by this move there was a 90%+ chance of
getting a confession and ending the matter then and there.
The failure of investigators to correctly observe suspect
behavior and the invited "guests" provided John with a bit of a
reprieve and a chance to compose himself a bit. Yet, the stress
and fear was still very strong and reaching the point of
intolerance. Something had to give.
John knew that sooner or later that the body would be discovered
in the basement. Even worse, he feared it would not be discovered
soon. The dread of what would happen after the discovery was so
great that John wanted it over with. Again, John got a break.
With the mention of searching the house again, John seized the
opportunity and straightway "discovered" the body of JonBenet.
The tension was still there. It would not go away. Fear pervaded
every thought. He wanted to run. He tried to run. He called the
airport and planned to vacate the premises and the crime scene as
soon as possible. He claimed this was out of concern for the
safety of his family. Does anyone believe this?
The suspect behavior mentioned here is part of the pattern that
is evidenced throughout this case from the start until present
SUSPECT BEHAVIOR PART II
Fundamentals: In the commission of a crime involving material
items, the perpetrator has an emotional connection to the items
and crime scene as well as a physical connection. Consciously
and\or unconsciously, the perpetrator, not wanting to get caught,
desires a disassociation from the evidence. Still, the truth is
in the mind of the perpetrator. The truth is what the perpetrator
does not want known.
The objective of the investigator is to identify the truth in the
mind of the perpetrator with the unknowing assistance of the
perpetrator. I.E., by suspect behavior. It is the words and
actions of the perpetrator trying to achieve disassociation that
often exposes the suspect's specific connection to the crime.
Thus does the efforts of the perpetrator to hide the truth often
result in the exact opposite of conscious intent. By properly
reading suspect behavior, the perpetrator frequently becomes the
very best witness, a witness against self.
All identifications are made by differential reference. You may
not think in this terminology, but its something you do thousands
of times a day. You identify a specific person by difference in
physical and\or mental characteristics than those of another
person. This is fundamentally true in the identification of
relationships as well. I mention this now as a focal basis for
what is about to follow and identification by difference as we
look into suspect behavior.
First, let us establish a differential reference rooted in
reality. The focus is upon the concept, ransom, and ransom note.
Suppose your child was kidnapped and a ransom note left. This
ransom note is the link to your child. Taking things at face
value, the fate of your child depends on the wishes of the
kidnapper and your abiding by those wishes, or at least appearing
If the note says don't call the police, either you don't call the
police or try to hide the fact from the kidnapper. You study the
note in every detail trying to get every bit of information you
can. You establish a specific relationship with the note as a
link to the kidnapper.
Notice there are two relationships to the note. Your relationship
to the note and the kidnapper's relationship to the note. The
difference in the two relationship to the note establishes two
different attitudes toward the note. They are opposites. This is
Your relationship to the note is as recipient. Your association
with the note is open and known. You have no reason for it to be
otherwise. What about the kidnapper's relationship and
association? The kidnapper's relationship to the note is as
creator, thus linking to the kidnapping. The kidnapper does not
want this relationship known. The kidnapper wishes to dissociate
himself from the note.
We have established here two differentiating attitudes, i.e., two
emotional states and directives in relationships to the note. We
have established that the creator of the note is the only one
with motive to dissociate self from the note. Creator association
with the note means guilty of the kidnapping and all that it
implies. The desire to not be associated with the note as creator
is very strong in the perpetrator. This desire is the director of
words and action even is the perpetrator is not aware of it.
Keeping this in mind, let now have a look at the actual crime
scene and the actual alleged ransom note. This note has been and
still is a high tension object for the Ramseys. In an early
interview, when the note was mentioned, Patsy quickly blurted out
"I didn't...." The mention of the note by the interviewer did not
ask if she wrote the note, but it appears she had the answer at
the ready and wanted much to declare her dissociation.
The circumstance made it necessary to acknowledge the note to
report it to the police. After this initial reporting, the real
attitude was evidenced again and again. Without digging out exact
quotes, the Ramseys spoke of the note in this general manner. "I
didn't read it all." "I read it very swiftly." "I saw it said we
have you daughter and I just couldn't....."
This emphasis was so strong that it created in my mind a visual
of a physical pushing away of the note by the Ramseys. It was
emotionally treated as pure poison and something to be avoided.
The attempted dissociation was loud and clear and frequently
repeated as you will find if you care to read the transcripts.
Who has reason, motive and emotional directive to dissociate from
the note? As recipients, there would have been no emotional
directive to dissociate from the note. Only as creators of the
note can the words and actions of the Ramseys be explained in
logical and definitive manner.
Moving on to the next item: In one interview, John Ramsey stated
that JonBenet's wrists were tightly bound and he could not get it
loose. The coroner's report and photos shows ties so loose that
they barely can be called bonds. Thus is there a dissociation
from the evidence of loose ties.
John repeatedly spoke of the garrote as "sophisticated" and
"professional." As has been shown in an earlier post, the so
called garrote is very amateurish. Thus is there a dissociation
from the evidence of amateur.
The wrapped handle was prominently displayed on the internet and
the knot called complex by John. As has also be shown in a
previous post, this handle is also amateurish. Thus is there a
disassociation from the evidence of amateur.
Last but not least, John repeatedly spoke of JonBenet's death as
caused by strangulation while disregarding the head injury. In
the pattern of dissociation, he has in effect identified the head
trauma as the actual evidence of the crime.
Whether viewing item by item or the total in mutual support, what
you observe in this suspect behavior is a detailed confession.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England, 2000. All Rights Reserved.