The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6.
In domestic homicide 911 calls, there is specific guidelines to follow that place the caller in one of two categories: Guilty Caller or Innocent Caller. The study done by Dr. Susan Adams is of great value, especially when combined with the principles of Statement Analysis or SCAN. In her study, she has police 'red flag' certain points within a call that may indicate that the caller is guilty, or has guilty knowledge, of the crime reported to the 911 operator.
Some are simple common sense such as a call that begins with a greeting.
In what legally is called "excited utterance", we do not expect to hear a person make an emergency 911 call with a common and polite greeting. "Hello. How's the weather? My daughter isn't breathing..." just doesn't fit.
Here is Dr. Adams' study at the FBI Bulletin:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2008-pdfs/june08leb.pdf
In it, we look for specifics, such as:
Did the caller specifically ask for help for the victim? "Help me!" is a call for help for the person and not for the victim.
The order indicting priority. Is it a cry for help, or is it alibi building?
"hello, I was sleeping and the door was open..." said Misty Croslin, showing that to her it was a priority that police know that before she reports Haleigh Cummings, 5, missing, that police know that she was asleep.
Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason? If so, it is to be red flagged.
No single indicator is proof of anything, but it works as a guide in, what Statement Analysis calls, "the expected." We expect a parent, for example, to speak for herself, take personal ownership of her child, and ask for help for the child.
What do the pronouns tell us? If the caller is on speakerphone with the spouse, we may hear "we", but if it is one parent, we expect "my" when it comes to the child in question.
Below is the call placed by Patsy Ramsey, from 1996, when she reported that she found a ransom call. Statement Analysis has shown the following in the case:
Deception
Linguistic indicators of sexual abuse.
911: What is going on there ma’am?
This is the best question: What is the emergency? It is open ended and allows the subject to say anything. At this point, we expect a mother to speak for herself (a missing child is a very personal thing to a mother) and if she is on the phone by herself, the expected pronoun use is: "I"
PR: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please
The expected: "My daughter is missing" or "My daughter is kidnapped."
We note first that Patsy Ramsey, mother of alleged kidnapping victim, uses the pronoun, "we" and reports a kidnapping; not that her daughter, Jonbenet, is missing. Statement Analysis of the ransom note shows that it is deceptive; it did not come from a "small foreign faction" and that the writer attempted to disguise herself. In particular, the unusual and it is improper English: "and hence" (it is two words that are redundant) was used in it. It is an unusual phrase and what was quickly found out that it was used at least twice, including a Christmas card written by Patsy Ramsey.
This links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note. For analysis of the note, please see Mark McClish' work here
We expect a mother of a missing child to immediately say "I" as the mother of a missing child is going to take this very personally. We also expect her to say her daughter is missing, but here, it sounds contrived: "we have a kidnapping" not only uses the weak, "we", but also is a conclusion.
Question: Is this rehearsed?
We look for specific help for the victim, Jonbenet; not just help itself, or in general. We expect a mother of a missing 6 year old to use the pronoun "I" as this is very personal and enflames the maternal instinct. The use of "we" is not strong.
"We have" does not report Jonbenet missing and it sounds more in line with having an event which is not personal to the mother, but to be shared with others.
911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?
The initial reaction of the 911 operator has caused the operator to ask for clarification because she has not said "my daughter is missing"
PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone
A broken sentence means missing information.
"We have a..." sounds like a repetition of the first line, which would suggest rehearsed or coached words. This means that the operator has already spoken to Patsy Ramsey, the mother, without the mother reporting her daughter missing. It appears that this was her third sentence which still does not report a missing child.
This is the mother of a missing child calling: we expect maternal instinct to use the pronoun "I" strongly, and ask for help for her daughter, wondering what her daughter must be going through (if she was with kidnappers, particularly a "small foreign faction" holding her.
Please note "our" daughter is gone.
The use of the plural "we" is explained by Christopher Dillingham, who states that his research has shown that those who wish to share guilt will instinctively use the plural pronoun, even when speaking only for oneself. Any parent of a teenager, just like every teacher in school is familiar with this principle.
Please note that "our" daughter is used when there is a need to 'share' ownership. This is often seen when step-parenting (or foster/adoption) is involved. When "our" is used by a family that has no reason to 'share' the child, it may indicate looming divorce.
A parental instinct to protect is powerful. Humans are highly possessive, and learn the word "my" and "mine" even predating speech as a toddler. It is difficult to imagine a stronger bond than mother to child, which is why "my" is the expected.
Patsy Ramsey's use of the pronoun "we" and "our" goes against maternal instinct.
Next take notice that Patsy (the subject) says that there is a "note" here. This is her choice of wording for the ransom note, and should remain consistent in a truthful statement, unless something in reality changes.
The reason language changes is that reality changes; with emotions having the greatest impact upon language, especially to cause a non to change. If there is no change in reality, deception may be present.
"please" is polite.
*Note the order showing priority: the note comes before the daughter.
Also note that there was a note "left", with the word "left" an unnecessary word giving additional information. The subject (Patsy) is emphasizing the note. Why would this be necessary?
Priority: Here is what we have thus far in the call:
1. We have a kidnapping.
2. Hurry, please
3. We have a... (broken)
4. There's a note left
These four things are mentioned before reporting Jonbenet missing.
5. "...our daughter is gone."
Question: Would it take you to point 5 before telling police your daughter was missing?
See: Misty Croslin's 911 call on missing Haliegh Cummings.
911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?
Please notice that "note was left" is reflective language, using the subject's language. The 911 operator reflects back the words and the order.
The note is mentioned before the daughter which indicates the priority is the note more than the daughter. For those of you who believe Statement Analysis and know that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive in the investigation, this is a good indicator of what she was worried about: she must make them believe and she is not thinking about the child, but the note. As author of the note, it would cause her concern.
PR: Yes.
911: How old is you daughter?
PR: She is six years old she is blonde...six years old
Patsy Ramsey goes beyond the question; she repeats the answer (sensitivity) but adds a physical description in strange terms:
"she is blonde" rather than "she has blonde hair"; when one is described as "blonde" it is often a view of appearance, like "brunette" or "red head" describing someone who's appearance is of importance.
This may give insight into how Jonbenet was viewed by her mother, even as the child was dressed up like a sexualized Las Vegas showgirl. At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child.
Please note that several pictures of Jonbenet suggest bleaching or coloring of the child's hair.
911: How long ago was this?
PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing
Patsy Ramsey may not have been ready for this question, "how long ago was this?" as she should know exactly how long ago she found the note. It would be burned in a mother's memory. To say, 'wouldn't a mother under trauma lose her memory?' is to seek to excuse. An innocent mother of a missing child is on high alert, with adrenaline flowing, with clarity and 'fight or flight' responses in 'fight' mode, like a mother bear robbed of her whelps.
Please note the dropped pronoun: "just found a note...". When pronouns are dropped, there is a decrease in commitment. Recent studies have verified what was taught in SCAN for decades: when pronouns disappear, there is a lack of commitment and more people that drop pronouns are likely to be deceptive. She did not say that she "just found a note." She did not lie. Lying causes stress and here she can communicate about the note without saying "I just found a note" or, consistent with her other sentences, "we just found a note." The pronouns do not lie. They are instinctive and reliable. She drops the pronoun and does not commit. We shall not do it for her.
The "note" is repeated, but consistent from the first mention of it. It is a "note" that was "left"; this should not change.
Please also note a change from "our daughter" to the more natural "my daughter". What caused the change?
A change in language must reflect a change in reality; otherwise it is an indicator of deception: the subject is not working from experiential memory and has lost track of the words used.
Is there any change in reality? The following is critical:
"our daughter is gone" but "my daughter is missing."
The shared daughter is "gone" but the personal and up close "my" daughter is missing.
Is there a difference between Jonbenet being "gone" and Jonbenet being "missing" in reality?
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: What?
Note that she answers a question with a question. What is sensitive to Patsy? The question is "who took her?" The operator asks again:
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: No. I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.
Please note the answer to the question, "does the note say who took her?"
a. No, even though it says a "small foreign faction" took her.
b. I don't know.
Note the pronoun "I" is used.
Note that the note says she was taken by a small foreign faction.
Please note that the "note" that was "left" has changed language and is now a "ransom note".
What has caused the change in language from "note left" to a "ransom note"?
The language, if truthful, should remain consistent, unless reality has changed causing the language to change, such as insurance adjusters see:
"My car sputtered so I pulled over. It would not start. I left the vehicle on the side of the road. "
The "car" while driving (even if sputtering) changed into a "vehicle" when it would no longer drive. You can bet that after it is repaired and running, the owner will call it "my car" again and not "the" "vehicle. "
"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.
When something does not come from experiential memory, it is easy to lose track of what words were used, even simple nouns. Here, there does not appear to be any change in reality, judging by the context. This is a strong indication that the caller is being deceptive about her daughter.
911: It’s a ransom note?
Please note the reflective language of the 911 operator, instinctively picking up on the change. It was just a "note" but now it is a "ransom note". What is the difference between a "note" and a "ransom note"?
The answer is found in reading it. In reading it, it demands money, but previously, she said, "no" that she did not know, and "I don't know" but by identifying it now as a "ransom note" we have deception on the part of the caller.
PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please
The subject tells the operator what the "note" and now "ransom note" says. She is referring to the end of the ransom note now.
Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for the victim. We look to see if the caller asks for help for Jonbenet.
911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...
PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.
The 911 operator may have been about to ask her if she was the mother.
Note "please" still does not ask for help for her daughter, who is alleged by the mother, to be in the hands of kidnappers."
911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?
PR: Please.
911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my God Please.
Critical portion.
Extra words give us additional information.
Note that in Dr. Susan Adam's study, guilty callers did not ask for help for the victim, pleading, but not for the victim.
Some guilty callers asked for help for their own selves, but not for the victim.
Please note the question is answered about how long she has been gone:
a. No
b. I don't
The subject gives two answers; the first is "no", but then she adds the broken sentence, which indicates missing information.
Pronouns do not lie and are reliable for the analyst.
"we just got up" is additional information. What is the purpose? The time has been sought by the 911 operator. This sentence, "we just go up" is very very important. By offering this, it sounds like alibi building.
"We got up" would cause investigators to think that "we", John and Patsy, were likely up all night. There is no reason to offer this information. Note the pronouns.
Why use the word "we" when this should be something very personal to a mother, who, if her daughter was kidnapped, would be filled with sole purpose: saving her daughter. The word "we" is not expected here, and should be viewed under Dillingham's research: the sharing of guilt.
But also note the importance to the caller that the police believe that they both just got up.
This is not asked in the question. The operator did not say "were you sleeping?" It would be presumed that they were sleeping and not that they would be awake and allow their daughter to be kidnapping. It is, therefore, needless information.
This sentence is very very important.
What do we make of needless information in Statement Analysis? We recognize how important it is to the subject, who included it, therefore, it is vital to our analysis.
It represents a need to persuade. It is needless information, therefore, doubly important. It is alibi building and because it was offered, has suggested that they were up all night.
Please note that it was learned that Patsy Ramsey, known for vanity, was in the same clothes that morning that she was in the night before at a party. We have linguistic indication that she was up all night, and then we have the clothing confirming the wording and the need to persuade that in order to "get up" they would have had to have gone to sleep. She did not say they were asleep and we will not say it for her. It is likely that they did not sleep that night.
Question: Why would a parent need to tell police that she and her husband were asleep during a kidnapping since it could happen no other way?
Answer: Because they did not go to sleep.
911: Ok.
PR: Please send somebody.
Who does the subject want to come out for her kidnapped daughter? The FBI kidnapping team? A whole army of police to rescue Jonbenet from the small foreign faction who have her?
Answer: "somebody" is singular.
911: I am, honey.
PR: Please.
Note that in this call, there is not specific request for help for the victim.
911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).
PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).
911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?
(Patsy reportedly said "Help me, Jesus" repeatedly here. See note below)
It is believed, according to police, that at this point, the call did not disconnect and Patsy Ramsey spoke to her son, Burke, whom she later said was sleeping. Detective Steve Thomas found this vital because it showed that Patsy was lying, from the beginning.
It is, however, not necessary, as this initial contact with police showed deception.
Trust the pronouns.
Pronouns and articles are used by us more than any other words and are engrained within us from the earliest days of speech. Pronouns can solve crimes all by themselves.
When parents are seated together, speaking as one, they will use the plural, but in a time of emergency, there is no "sharing" of a child, but maternal instinct, measured in words dating back to the time of Solomon's display of wisdom using analysis, indicate the closeness between mother and child.
The pronouns bring initial doubt to the caller's veracity, which then the change of language confirms:
This is a deceptive call to 911 that does not ask for help for its victim.
She is reported to have said "help me, Jesus" in the background, highlighting the principle that a guilty caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim, and will often ask for help, for herself.
There is distancing language as the name is not used until asked.
There is alibi building with "we just got up";
There is priority seen with the "note", having not read it, but then changing it to a "ransom note" which demands payment for a child. The "ransom note" is, here in the 911 call, sensitive to Patsy Ramsey, connecting her with it.
The 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey is a deceptive call.
A frantic young man called 911: “Get an ambulance to 168 Birch. My friend’s been shot!” In another instance, the father of a 1-year-old boy reported, “Yes, ma’am...my, my son can’t breathe.” Do 911 homicide calls contain clues that could help investigators identify the killer? In these two examples, the first caller demanded immediate medical assistance for his friend and did not commit the crime. In the second instance, the father politely reported his child’s condition, never asking for help for his son or expressing any urgency. He had shaken the boy, who later died.
Such calls provide invaluable clues to investigators because the caller, in fact, may have committed the crime. It is not unusual for homicide offenders to contact 911 without revealing their involvement in the murder.1
Homicide calls are unique. They originate from distressed callers confronted with urgent life-and-death situations. These initial contacts can contain the most valuable statements— those least contaminated by suspects’ attempts to conceal the truth, attorneys’ advice to remain silent, and investigators’ leading questions.2 In these instances, the dispatcher simply asks, “What is your emergency?” and the caller responds with insightful, uncontaminated verbal and vocal clues.
Fortunately, 911 calls are recorded. Therefore, investigators have access to a transcript, the actual call, and, thus, important evidence. They can examine both the words and the tone of voice. An analysis of the calls can provide investigators with immediate insight and interviewing strategies to help solve homicide cases.
The authors analyzed 100 homicide calls from adjudicated cases to examine the differences between innocent and guilty callers.3 Innocent individuals made 50 of the calls, and guilty persons who either committed the homicide or arranged for another person to do so made the other half. Specific differences appeared that helped distinguish innocent callers from guilty ones during an examination of the answers to the following three questions: 1) What was the call about? 2) Who was the call about? and 3) How was the call made?
WHAT WAS THE CALL ABOUT?
Request for Help When analyzing a 911 homicide call, the investigator’s primary question should be, Was the caller requesting assistance? If not, why not? Was the individual simply reporting a crime? Almost twice as many innocent callers (67 percent) in this study asked for help for the victim than did guilty callers (34 percent).
Relevance of Information
During the dispatchers’ questioning, few of the guilty 911 callers actually lied unless forced to. Most of them deceived by omission, rather than commission. In lieu of offering the complete truth, such as I did it, many provided rambling information, instead of concise points; confusing, rather than clear, details; and extraneous information, instead of relevant facts. These details, although, irrelevant to the dispatchers’ questions, frequently related to the criminal act. People who provide more information than necessary may be attempting to convince someone of a deceptive story, rather than simply conveying truthful information.4 In this regard, investigators must listen carefully to the complete call because the caller may have provided information that reveals vital clues to the homicide.
Dispatcher: What is your emergency?
Guilty caller: Um, I...
I need someone out here right now for my little daughter.
Dispatcher: What’s going on?
Guilty caller: She threw up water. She...um...when she..when she got off the stool... she was drinking water, and we told her to get down, and she threw herself down off the floor...off the stool.
The caller, the father of an adopted 4-year-old girl, mentioned water twice. Although extraneous to the question asked, this had critical relevance to the case. The investigation revealed that the girl disobeyed the caller by taking a sip of her sister’s (his biological daughter) drink. As punishment, the man tied the victim’s hands behind her back and forced her to drink 64 ounces of water. She died of hyponatremia, a dangerously low sodium concentration in the blood, caused by rapid ingestion of the water.
Innocent callers, instead of adding extraneous information, were more likely to focus on the objective—getting medical assistance for the victim as soon as possible. According to the four maxims of communication, people should provide accurate, concise, clear, and relevant information; 5 most innocent callers in the study did so to obtain immediate medical assistance.
Dispatcher: What is your emergency?
Innocent caller: I’m at the East End Bar. Please, there’s been gunfire. People are running out of the building. We need help as soon as possible.
Forty-four percent of the 911 homicide callers included extraneous information in their call. Of those, 96 percent were guilty of the offense, and only 4 percent were innocent. Extraneous information was the strongest indicator of guilt in the study.
Attitude Toward the Victim
Blame or insults toward a dying victim in 911 calls indicate strained relationships. As an example, a father called 911 to report that his 4-year-old daughter was in serious medical distress.
Dispatcher: Do you know what’s wrong with your daughter?
Guilty caller: Not a clue.
Dispatcher: Has she taken any medications?
Guilty caller: Maybe. She’s very, very sneaky. She threw a huge temper tantrum earlier. She might have taken something.
As his daughter lay dying, the father unexpectedly insulted her with the description “very, very sneaky” and referred to her “huge temper tantrum.” He later was convicted of her murder.
Similarly, individuals should not blame dying victims for the predicament. For illustration, a woman called 911 to report that her husband had been shot.
Dispatcher: Was this accidental or on purpose?
Guilty caller: We were having a domestic fight, and he threw me on the bed and grabbed my purse so I couldn’t leave.
Instead of answering the dispatcher’s question, the wife blamed her husband for his fatal injury, suggesting that he was responsible for his death because he threw her on the bed and stopped her from leaving. The subsequent investigation revealed that the woman intentionally shot and killed him; she was convicted of his murder.
Five percent of the callers in the study insulted or blamed the victim, and all were guilty of the homicide. No innocent callers did so; they simply sought help (e.g., “A kid fell down the steps. He’s bleeding real bad. Hurry!”).
Accuracy of Facts
Innocent callers in this study were much more likely than guilty ones to correct erroneous information when additional details revealed discrepancies.
Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?
Innocent caller: There’s a man been shot down the hall of my apartment.
Dispatcher: Can you check and see if he has a pulse?
Innocent caller: OK. (The caller checks on the victim.)
Innocent caller: I thought it was a man, but it’s a lady. It’s a lady, and I didn’t feel a pulse.
The caller was innocent, did not know the victim, and had assumed that the person was male. After learning additional information, he corrected the previous inaccuracy about the victim’s gender.
Also, innocent 911 callers remained more consistent regarding facts. In contrast, several guilty callers provided information that conflicted with previously provided details and failed to resolve the discrepancy. For example, a mother contacted 911 to report that her baby was not breathing.
Dispatcher: How long has your baby not been breathing?
Guilty caller: Just now. She’s been fine for the last few hours.
Dispatcher: Has she been sick lately?
Guilty caller: No, we were just sleeping, and the phone woke me up.
The caller advised the dispatcher that her baby had “been fine for the last few hours.” However, she later added a conflicting statement indicating that the phone just woke her. How could she have known her child’s condition? The mother was charged and convicted of killing her daughter.
Twenty-eight percent of the 911 homicide callers gave conflicting facts and failed to correct them; all were guilty of the offense. Six percent of the callers corrected themselves when they learned additional information, and all of these were innocent.
© Photos.com
WHO WAS THE CALL ABOUT?
Topic of the Call When contacting 911, innocent individuals remained focused on the victim. For example, one caller urgently stated, “This guy’s hurt real bad. Tell them to hurry!”
Why would individuals call the emergency line and concentrate on themselves, reporting a problem without asking the dispatcher for assistance for the person who needs it? The following dialogue occurred when a father called 911 concerning his son:
Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?
Guilty caller: I have an unconscious child who is breathing very shallowly.
In this case, the father took personal possession of a problem (“I have”) and referred to his problem (his dying son) as “an unconscious child.” When the paramedics arrived at the residence, the child already had died. The father had assaulted his son, causing cerebral hemorrhaging. Twelve percent of the 911 callers in the study took personal possession of the problem. All were guilty of the homicide.
Focus of the Help
When individuals call 911 because someone is in critical condition, they logically will ask for help for the victim, even if the callers themselves need assistance. However, when callers request help only for themselves and not the victim, homicide investigators should realize that the caller could, in fact, be the killer. As an example, a young man called 911 to report that his father was dead.
Dispatcher: What happened to your father?
Guilty caller: Say something to me! Help me!
In this example, the caller wanted help for himself and never asked for help for his father. The investigation revealed that the son shot his sleeping parent. The man died of the wound, and the son was convicted of the crime. Seven percent of the callers in the study requested help for themselves and not for the victim. All were guilty of the homicides.
Conversely, 41 percent of callers requested help for the victim alone; 68 percent of these were innocent, and 32 percent were guilty. The following call serves as an example of an innocent individual demanding assistance for a victim:
Dispatcher: What’s your emergency?
Innocent caller: Both her eyes are open, and blood’s coming out of her mouth. Send somebody!
Attitude Toward the Victim’s Death
People can survive horrific injuries, such as gunshot wounds to the head and stab wounds to the heart. Therefore, a 911 caller should demand help for the victim, even if survival appears doubtful. The caller should not accept the victim’s death before the person’s actual condition becomes known.
For instance, patrol officers who have informed a citizen that a family member has been killed in a traffic accident know that people often respond with denial because of their inability to immediately process such shocking information. The surviving family members cannot accept the fact that their loved one is dead, and they want every lifesaving measure attempted, even demanding medical help for individuals in full rigor. The following quote is from an innocent witness trying desperately to save a life: “He don’t have a pulse. He don’t have nothing! Just please send somebody.”
However, a caller stating that a victim is dead without absolute proof (e.g., decapitation) would raise serious questions. An example illustrates this point:
Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?
Guilty caller: I just heard a gunshot in the apartment next door, and I went over. My neighbor is dead!
In this case, the caller immediately declared the mortal