LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc.     |   home
Intro to SCAN   |   SCAN Training   |   Products   |   News Media   |   Reports   |   Contact LSI   |   SCAN en Espanol
Ramsey's T.V. Interview   |   Ramsey's Press Conference   |   Susan Smith's Confession   |   Desiree Washington's Interview on Mike Tyson   |   Clinton, Netanyahu, Arafat, and the Prepositions   |   O.J. Simpson Suicide Letter   |   Michael Jackson's Statement
The JonBenet Ramsey Case:  Analysis of Ramsey's T.V. Interview

The following are my observations from the CNN interview with John and Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet Ramsey's parents:

1.  John Ramsey said:

a)  "Patsy and I... Burke our son is 9, every family member."

b)  "I told Patsy to call the police immediately..."

Please note the following:

a.  The subject didn't introduce "Patsy" as my "wife". This would amount to an "improper introduction" indicating a bad relationship.

On the other hand, Patsy Ramsey used a "proper introduction" in saying:

" take care of my children and my husband..."

This should bring us to conclude that while John perceives himself as distant from Patsy, Patsy perceives herself as close to John.

b.  The missing possessive singular pronoun "my" ("Burke our son")
One should note that the overwhelming majority of people use the singular possessive "my" when referring to their son or daughter. When a person uses the "our" instead of the "my" it might indicate divorce or adoption in the person's past.

2.  John Ramsey related to the victim in the following:

a)  "JonBenet didn't carry any burdens."

b)  "There is no answer as to why our daughter died."

c)  "...and to know where JonBenet's bedroom was..."

d)  "We wanted to get our daughter buried."

e)  "Like all parents would say she's a perfect child."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject used the "proper introduction" ("our daughter") only in proximity to the words "died" and "buried".  However, when talking about her in regard to the time when she was alive he used either her first name ("JonBenet") or "child".

b.  It is interesting to note the following:

i.    Many parents who abuse their children have a problem in using the words "son" and "daughter". This is due to the process which a person must undergo in his/her mind before being able to abuse his/her own son/daughter.

ii.   In many cases of child abuse which result in murder, we find a change of language after the murder. As if to say that once the victim is dead, the victim is "safe".

iii.   Usually, the word "child" might indicate that speaker might have been abused earlier in childhood, and very likely sexual abuse.

I would recommend to start the follow-up interview with the following question:

"I have inside knowledge that you might have been abused in childhood, and quite likely sexual abuse.  
How do you relate to it?"

Please be on alert to the fact that the subject might answer with a question. In any case, the subject should not be told the source of the information!!!

3.  Patsy Ramsey said:

a)  "...and I said our child had been kidnapped..."

b)  "She loved her daddy... She loved her daddy, she was daddy's girl. She's such a happy spiritual child... she's a very spiritual...deeply...deep sense of understanding the world around her for a very young child."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject used the word "girl" in regard to "daddy".

One should notice that the overwhelming majority of parents suspected of child abuse (including sexual abuse) relate to their children either by first name or by the gender/sex.

The fact that the word "girl" entered the language in proximity to the word "daddy" would raise the suspicion that the subject knew of JonBenet's sexual abuse by her father.

b.  The word "child" entered in proximity to "daddy's girl". While the word "girl" is in proximity to "daddy", the word "child" is in proximity to the word "spiritual".

It would be safe to suspect that the subject is running a comparison here: "child" is for "spiritual" as "girl" is for "physical" (="daddy").

4.  John Ramsey said:

a)  "...we now have to find out why this happened..."

b)  "...the only way that my family can move on now is to resolve why, who this happened."

Please compare this to Patsy Ramsey who said:

a)  "...we have to find out who did this."

b)  "There is a killer on the loose. I don't know who it is..."

While John wants to know "why" (he doesn't say that he wants to know "what happened"), Patsy wants to know "who did this".

Please also note the following:

a.  In (b) John produced the "who" in a broken sentence. The sentence would have been a good sentence if he were to say, "is to resolve why, who did this." As it is now, the "who" is inserted as an afterthought.

b.  In (b) Patsy said, "I don't know..."

The "editing process" means that the subject can report to us only what the subject knows/remembers. What the subject does not know/remember, the subject would not report to us. Therefore, the phrase "I don't know/remember" in an open statement (which is controlled by the "editing process", unlike answers to specific questions) is a signal of suppressing knowledge.

5.  John Ramsey said:

"Well like all parents would say she's a perfect child. But the thing to remember about her was that uh if I would frown she would look at me and say, 'Dad, I don't like that face,' and I would smile, and she'd say, 'that's better.' That's just the way she was."

Please notice the following:

a.  The subject said, "But the thing to remember about her..." The subject didn't say, "But the thing I remember about her..."

By omitting the pronoun "I" the subject violated the formula of "first person singular past tense". This formula establishes commitment on the part of the subject as to what happened. But, since there is no commitment, there is no "Total Belief".

Since the subject ran away from commitment to that part of the story it should be considered as a sensitive point for the subject and is likely to be unreliable.

b.  The word "if" reduces commitment as to what the subject describes in this section.

c.  The word "would" violated the above-mentioned formula of "first person singular past tense".

Since the subject didn't tell us that this actually happened (past tense) we cannot say that it happened.

One should conclude that in the only place in which the subject wanted to portray his relationship with the victim as a good relationship, it is also the only place in the transcript in which the subject avoided commitment by running away from the past tense.

6.  John Ramsey said:

"...when I opened the door, there were no windows in that room and I turned the light on and I... that was her."

Please note that when a subject mentions "turning the lights on" in an open statement, it has been found in the past to be associated with a sexual motive for the crime.

Conclusion: There are enough signals in the language to indicate that John Ramsey is involved in the murder of JonBenet. Patsy Ramsey is likely to have known of the sexual abuse.