Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note

[Cherokee]

Copyright 2007 by Cherokee


PREFACE

The three different components of this analysis are:

1. linguistic
2. graphological
and
3. exemplar comparison

Much of this same work has been presented by various linguists, graphologists and document examiners. I do not pretend to break new ground or make startling revelations. I am only posting my own analysis and research. Most of it was done before I ever came to the forums.

I have found people and web sites devoted to linguistic statement analysis, handwriting analysis, and exemplar comparison of the ransom note, but none that combine all three areas of analysis into a composite picture. Of course, opinions on the Ramsey case, and particularly on the ransom note, are a dime a dozen. All I can offer is what I have done with the knowledge I have.

Because this kind of analysis is a subjective science, there can be disagreement as to the correct interpretation and conclusion. Therefore, confirmation of a conclusion from multiple, and varied, approaches is the best way to insure an accurate interpretation of data. That is why I think it is important that more than ONE area of analysis be used to determine the authorship of the Ramsey “ransom note.” By itself, linguistics is not enough, graphology is not enough, and exemplar comparison is not enough ... but taken together, they offer a more complete picture of the truth.


Typed Reproduction of the Ransom Note

1. Mr. Ramsey,
2. Listen carefully! We are a
3. group of individuals that represent
4. a small foreign faction. We xx
5. respect your bussiness but not the
6. country that it serves. At this
7. time, we have your daughter in our
8. posession. She is safe and unharmed
9. and if you want her to see 1997,
10. you must follow our instructions to
11. the letter.
12. You will withdraw $118,000.00
13. from your account. $100,000 will be
14. in $100 bills and the remaining
15. $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
16. that you bring an adequate size
17. attache to the bank. When you
18. get home you will put the money
19. in a brown paper bag. I will
20. call you between 8 and 10 am
21. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
22. The delivery will be exhausting so
23. I advise you to be rested. If
24. we monitor you getting the money
25. early we might call you early to
26. arrange an earlier delivery of the

27. money and hence a earlier
28. xxxxxxxx pick-up of your daughter.
29. Any deviation of my instructions
30. will result in the immediate
31. execution of your daughter. You
32. will also be denied her remains
33. for a proper burial. The two
34. gentlemen watching over your daughter
35. do \not/ particularly like you so I
36. advise you not to provoke them.
37. Speaking to anyone about your
38. situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc.,
39. will result in your daughter being
40. beheaded. If we catch you talking
41. to a stray dog, she dies. If you
42. alert bank authorities, she dies.
43. If the money is in any way
44. marked or tampered with, she
45. dies. You will be scanned for
46. electronic devices and if any are
47. found, she dies. You can try to
48. deceive us, but be warned that
49. we are familiar with law enforcement
50. countermeasures and tactics. You
51. stand a 99% chance of killing
52. your daughter if you try to out
53. smart us. Follow our instructions

54. and you stand a 100% chance
55. of getting her back. You and
56. your family are under constant
57. scrutiny as well as the authorities.
58. Don't try to grow a brain
59. John. You are not the only
60. fat cat around so don't think
61. that killing will be difficult.
62. Don't underestimate us, John.
63. Use that good southern common
64. sense of yours. It is up to
65. you now John!
66. Victory !
67. S.B.T.C.


LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Introduction

When I first read a copy of the Ramsey ransom note, I immediately knew it was a fake. The content was overly dramatic and much too wordy to be a real ransom note from real kidnappers. The instructions were laughable and the change in “voice” from plural to singular, threatening to helpful, and formal to informal showed a person trying to assume an identity that was not their own.

Further analysis of the note showed that even though the author strove to present a threatening tone, a strange concern for the recipient of the ransom note was present. There was almost a “motherly” quality to the instructions given in phrases such as “Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache,” “put the money in a brown paper bag,” and “I advise you to be rested,” among others.

In addition, the parallel linguistic construction of the paragraph containing the sentences ending with “she dies” was almost poetic in nature, and certainly not believable. The author was not a hardened, experienced criminal.

It was also apparent the change in voice from plural to singular betrayed the awkward phrase “we are a group of individuals.” There was no group, only a lone actor who wished to portray themselves a part of a “small foreign faction.”

There was something very wrong with this picture. Why would a person break into the Ramsey home to leave a fake ransom note written by a person claiming to be something they weren’t? If the ransom note was a fake, and it obviously was, then there had been no attempt at kidnapping. Why did the author wish us to believe there had been? What was their motive for leaving a detailed ransom note when there had been no kidnapping and there would be no ransom?

To answer these questions, we must delve further into the actual wording of the ransom note.

The ransom note is famous for its length. At two and a half written pages, it defies the most common rule of ransom notes … keep it short. The less said the better; the more you say, the more you reveal, so make your demands and shut up.

Also, within these two and a half pages, we have a salutation, a closing and three indented paragraphs.

The author is obviously used to writing letters and familiar with the standard mechanics of written English. Further proof of this the caret used to insert the word “not” between the words “do” and “particularly.” It has been pointed out that English and journalism majors are taught to use carets (among other editing symbols) in their manuscripts. In addition, the ransom note features standard American English capitalization, spelling and punctuation.

Although there are two misspelled words in the beginning paragraph, the rest of the note, including much more difficult words, is free of spelling errors. Therefore, it is probable the author purposefully misspelled the words to give the impression they were not well educated and/or English was not their native language.

To begin a more detailed analysis, let’s break the ransom note into different sections.


LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section I

Here are the first four lines of page one, and the last four lines of page three, of the ransom note.

1. Mr. Ramsey,
2. Listen carefully! We are a
3. group of individuals that represent
4. a small foreign faction. We xx

64. sense of yours. It is up to
65. you now John!
66. Victory !
67. S.B.T.C.


The salutation only addresses one parent, not both parents of the allegedly kidnapped child. The ransom note author uses the formal “Mr. Ramsey.” What is interesting is why the author felt a salutation was necessary. A ransom note only has to state the amount of money demanded and the time of a call and/or where to make the drop. Finding the note in their home, and their daughter missing, the Ramseys would assume the note was addressed to them.

In line 2, the author indents to begin a paragraph. There are two more examples in the rest of the ransom note where the author indents to begin a new paragraph. The author is obviously educated in the proper structure and form of written English.

Also in line 2, the beginning phrase, “Listen carefully!” has been noted by others for its ironic use of the word “listen” even though the communication is written, not spoken.

Another interesting part of this phrase is its punctuation with an exclamation mark.

There are three exclamation points used in the ransom note. There is one at the beginning, and two more at the end of the note - in line 67 after the last sentence, and in line 68 after the closing.

Since we are examining the closing in relation to punctuation, one more item of note is that the closing and signed “name” are indented to the right under the body of the letter as is taught for the writing of informal letters.

Linguistically speaking, the paragraph indentation - after the salutation, the use of exclamation points - particularly, after the closing, and the far right indentation of the closing and name are significant because one of JonBenet’s parents uses the same structure for written correspondence.

Of course, this parent is not the only person in the world who uses these elements in their writing. However, along with many other factors to be discussed in later analyses, it is significant because of the total COMBINED similarities between their writing and the ransom note. In addition, this parent was present when JonBenet died and the ransom note was allegedly placed in the home.

This parent is Patsy Ramsey.

In the following jpg. of Patsy’s handwriting, we find examples of a salutation with paragraph indentation (in yellow), separate paragraph indentation (in yellow), far right indentations of the closing and name under the body of the letter (in red), and exclamation marks, particularly one placed after the closing (in blue). These all match the structure and punctuation of the ransom note. It is also worth noting exactly how much distance Patsy places between her exclamation points and the words preceding them. Later, in our exemplar comparison analysis, we will show this punctuation distance, and the angle of the exclamation marks, are the same.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section II

Next, let’s examine the body of the first paragraph.

1. Mr. Ramsey,
2. Listen carefully! We are a
3. group of individuals that represent
4. a small foreign faction. We xx
5. respect your bussiness but not the
6. country that it serves. At this
7. time, we have your daughter in our
8. posession. She is safe and unharmed
9. and if you want her to see 1997,
10. you must follow our instructions to
11. the letter.


Other analysts have touched on the awkward nonsense of “We are a group of individuals” in lines 2 and 3. Linguistically, we have a subject noun (We), verb (are), article (a), object noun (group), and a prepositional phrase consisting of a preposition (of) and its noun (individuals). The prepositional phrase is redundant. Of course, a group is made up of individuals.

One of the tenets of linguistic statement analysis is that extraneous detail can be a clue that the author (or speaker) is trying to point the reader (or listener) away from the truth. The ransom note author wants the reader to believe there is more than ONE person acting. They want it so badly, they over describe their alleged group to emphasize this point.

Next, in lines 3 and 4, we have the rest of the sentence – “that represent a small foreign faction.” Notice, the author does not say their group IS a small foreign faction but that it REPRESENTS a small foreign faction. This choice of verb is an example of linguistic distancing. Subconsciously, even the ransom note author cannot say they ARE this group because it is not their true identity.

As has been said by others, the phrase “small foreign faction” is a clue as to the author’s point of reference.

First of all, the faction would not be “foreign” to the writer if they were truly foreign. Secondly, a true terrorist or rebel faction never describes their organization as “small.” They want to appear powerful and able to inflict harm at will. They will boast of their large numbers and ability to do damage. By using the adjective “small,” the author is obviously trying to minimize their threat. But why?

The answer is because the author wants to invent a shadowy, nefarious “foreign faction” as the kidnapper’s identity, BUT they want it to be “small” enough to be previously unknown. The PLO, the IRA, and other world terrorist factions (this was before group names like Al Qaida) were all too big and notorious to fit the ransom note author’s needs.

The use of the word “faction” is interesting because it denotes a breaking away from something. But what? The author never says. The “name” of the alleged faction is only given as an acronym (at the end of the ransom note) with no explanation for its meaning. Even after the overdone description, we still know nothing about the alleged kidnappers. That is the intent of the author. It is all a smoke screen.

In lines 4, 5 and 6, the author goes on to give further unnecessary detail regarding their alleged group. “We xx respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves.” (It appears the author started to write a ‘d’ and an ‘o’ after the word “We” but crossed them out.)

Why does the author feel it is important to say their faction “respects” John Ramsey’s business but not his “country”? Once again, the writer is trying to appear “foreign” by throwing a small dig at the United States, but what does the author gain by referencing John’s business? The answer is in the paragraph dealing with the ransom amount, which we will discuss later.

The most important linguistic clue of the beginning of the ransom note (lines 2 through 6) is that the author is preoccupied with giving extraneous information about their identity. The primary goal of the writer is NOT to give the facts of who is kidnapped and the ransom amount, as is the case with “real” ransom notes. Instead, the author begins with what is most important to them – that the reader BELIEVES they are someone they are not.

To illustrate this further, think about when you make a phone call regarding an urgent topic. You begin with the most necessary and important information first; then, if there is time, you add details and other conversation. In newspaper and magazine articles, journalists and reporters are taught to put the most important facts of the story AT THE BEGINNING. Each successive paragraph contains information of lesser importance. That way, an editor can cut from the bottom of the story if they need to save space.

The ransom note author has chosen the most important topic to them, and it is NOT the kidnapping or the ransom, but the explanation of their identity. Why is the writer preoccupied with this subject? Because it is a false identity, and the ransom note author is concerned with concealing their true selves.

In lines 6 through 8, the author finally states the fact that normally would have begun a “real” ransom note - that someone in Mr. Ramsey’s family has been kidnapped. The author states, “At this time, we have your daughter in our posession.”

The ransom note writer prefaces their statement with an adverbial clause “at this time.” Again, we have extraneous information. Of course, the kidnappers have JonBenet “at this time.” Why is this phrase important to the writer? Because they desperately want the reader to believe JonBenet is in their hands at the moment of writing. Once more, the writer tries to point the reader in the opposite direction of the truth with unnecessary information.

The “kidnapped” person is called by the writer, “your daughter,” and is never mentioned by name in the ransom note. Much has been made of this fact by other analysts.

When we think of a person’s name, their image is attached to that name. We “see” them in our mind’s eye for that split second. On a subconscious level, we invoke that person’s identity and give them substance. A person’s name can be a powerful psychological link.

Why did the ransom note author refuse to use JonBenet’s name, and instead, used the phrase “your daughter” six times in the ransom note? Because psychologically, the writer needed to put distance between themselves and JonBenet. For some reason, they did not want to give her form in their mind.

In lines 8 through 11, the author states, “She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.”

Once again, the writer is somewhat redundant in saying JonBenet is “safe and unharmed.” To be “safe” is to assume to be “unharmed” and vice versa. The writer’s preoccupation with extolling JonBenet’s “safe” condition brings into question the validity of the statement because everything they’ve said so far is a lie. If JonBenet is NOT “safe and unharmed,” then the opposite is true, and she is either injured or dead.

At this point, the ransom note author is still trying to keep up the illusion of a group of kidnappers by using the plural possessive “our” in reference to the word “instructions.” This soon changes in the next paragraph when the writer begins using the singular pronoun, “I” to describe their identity. We will discuss that paragraph, and what the author reveals about themselves, in the next section.

[Cherokee]

Before moving to the next section, I'd like to post one more graphic showing a comparison between the paragraph indentions, far right closing indentions and exclamation points used by Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note author.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section III

12. You will withdraw $118,000.00
13. from your account. $100,000 will be
14. in $100 bills and the remaining
15. $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
16. that you bring an adequate size
17. attache to the bank. When you
18. get home you will put the money
19. in a brown paper bag. I will
20. call you between 8 and 10 am
21. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.
22. The delivery will be exhausting so
23. I advise you to be rested. If
24. we monitor you getting the money
25. early we might call you early to
26. arrange an earlier delivery of the

27. money and hence a earlier
28. xxxxxxxx pick-up of your daughter.


The second paragraph in the ransom note contains the ransom amount and instructions for its delivery.

As we have seen, the ransom note author’s main purpose was to establish the identity of who wrote the note, and therefore, who was ultimately responsible for the dead body in the home. Once that priority was taken care of, they turned to what and why, a kidnapping scenario somehow related to a foreign faction, and when, supposedly at the time of writing. With those details in order, the writer next concentrates on where to get the money and how it should be delivered

The ransom note author is following the steps taught to all communications/journalism majors on how to write a story ... who, what, why, when, where, and how.

It should be noted that Patsy Ramsey was a journalism major, and very proud of that accomplishment. She even used the initials of her bachelor’s degree in an acronym with her name. Patsy knew how to write and tell a good story. Her “talent” portion for beauty pageants was dramatic speech.

Of course, Patsy is not the only journalism major in the world, just as she is not the only person who uses far right indentation in her letter closings and exclamation marks. But the fact is important because Patsy was one of four people in the house the night JonBenet died, and she had access to the ransom note pad and pen.

The second paragraph begins with the ransom amount in lines 12 and 13, “You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account.” Much has been made of this strange and unusual ransom amount.

Why $118,000? It is a small amount for a ransom, but even more, it is an uneven amount. Ransom demands are usually given in huge, even-numbered sums like $100,000 million or $2 million. But if the kidnappers were looking for a smaller amount, even $150,000 wouldn’t have look so strange. But $118,000? Why not at least round it up to $120,000?

The other unusual component of the ransom amount is the decimal and two number places AFTER that decimal. The ransom note author is so intent on making the reader believe the demand is real that, once again, they give redundant details. An amount that large would normally end with no cents indicated, but the writer takes pains to place the decimal and write two zeros in the cents columns. This is very telling. A foreigner, a hardened criminal, or even a sex offender bum off the street would not think to bother with the CENTS of a ransom demand.

The ransom note author is obviously detailed oriented. They are also concerned that the ransom amount be clearly understood. Why the preoccupation with this odd amount? Because it is a direct link to John’s “bussiness” that has been mentioned before by the writer.

It is now a well-known fact that John Ramsey’s salary bonus that year from Access Graphics was $118,000, but when the ransom note was written, very few people knew that information. Obviously, only John and Patsy, anyone they might have told, and a small circle of Access Graphics employees would be aware of the bonus amount.

The ransom note writer counts on the Access Graphics link because they want to give the impression that SOMEONE in John’s place of business (referenced in the preceding paragraph), not in John’s home, has given the writer information that has lead to the scenario described in the ransom note. The reason is not clear, just as the “foreign faction” is not clear, but that does not matter. The author is desperate to create a reason for JonBenet’s dead body, and as the saying goes, “Any port in a storm.”

Once again, the writer is trying to put distance between the Ramseys and what happened to JonBenet. Casting suspicion on the employees of Access Graphics is a red herring they hope will help confuse law enforcement. In addition, anyone the Ramseys might have TOLD about the bonus would be another avenue for investigation.

Let’s continue with our analysis of lines 12 and 13. The ransom amount is not the only strange and interesting thing about this first sentence of the second paragraph.

The ransom note writer says, “You will withdraw $118,000.00.” Instead of saying, “We demand $118,000,” the writer switches from first person plural tense used in the initial paragraph to second person by making the reader (“You”) the subject of the sentence. The author also uses the modal auxiliary verb “will” with the verb “withdraw” to form a verb clause indicating action that should be taken in the future.

In other words, the writer has phrased this sentence to be instruction, not demand. Instead of saying, “We want $118,000” - the writer says, “You will withdraw.” The emphasis and action is on the reader.

These instructions are further refined in the next sentence (lines 13 through 15) when the writer says, “$100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills.”

The ransom note author is “talking” the reader through the situation almost like a mother giving detailed instructions to a child on how to run an errand.

In lines 15 through 17, the writer then gives instructions that are slightly ridiculous in their extreme detail, “Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.”

Again, the author speaks in second person, but what is interesting about this sentence is that they use the verb “bring” to describe action that would normally use the verb “take.”

From the writer’s assumed point of reference, John would be at his house to go to the bank. Therefore, John would “take” not “bring” an attache to the bank, unless the “foreign faction” writer was already at the bank when composing the note. That is not likely.

So what are we to make of this verb anomaly?

In some parts of the southern United States, it is common to use the verb “bring” as a substitute for the verb “take.” This verb transfer is a clue to the identity of the author when added to other regional linguistics found further in the ransom note.

The instruction to “bring an adequate size attache” is unnecessary and part of the author’s need to tell the story. They are visualizing the scenario as though it was playing out in a movie, from where they probably got most of their ideas for the ransom note. Concern about the “adequate size” of a container for ransom is NOT in the mindset of most kidnappers. Instead, the author begins to write with a linguistic tone that by lines 22 and 23 sounds decidedly female in its concern.

The use, and correct spelling, of the words “adequate” and “attache” tell us the writer is well educated with a high level vocabulary. A person with a lesser vocabulary would have used words such as “big” and “briefcase” if they even thought about it at all. The adopted French word “attache” has an almost genteel quality, which we will see again later in the ransom note.

The writer gives further instructions by saying, “When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag.” Once again, the author is visualizing the scenario as they see John come home from the bank with the money. The writer is still speaking in second person and concentrating on unnecessary details.

In lines 19 through 21, the author suddenly switches tense from second person to first person, and for the first time, uses a singular pronoun instead of the plural pronoun used in the first paragraph. As mentioned previously, this change from plural to singular is just one of the many clues telling us the ransom note author is acting alone and their proclaimed identity is a lie.

The sentence reads, “I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery.”

Once again, the writer is concerned with instructions, not action. The author’s true focus is subconsciously revealed because they know there has been no kidnapping, there will be no ransom and therefore, no real action will be taken or needed.

There has been much debate regarding the actual date and time of the writing of the ransom note. The reference to “tomorrow” in line 21 is central to this discussion. If the author composed the note BEFORE midnight on December 25th, tomorrow would be December 26; or if written in the early morning hours of the 26th, then tomorrow would be the 27th.

However, if the author penned the ransom note during the nighttime of December 25th that continued to the dark hours of the 26th; then conceivably, in their mind, the next morning light would be tomorrow. It did not matter if the clock was past midnight or not, the writer was living and writing (and staging the crime scene) on December 25th.

This is important because we now have the date as set in the ransom note author’s mind of when the events leading to JonBenet’s death occurred. It is the same date, December 25, 1996, inscribed on JonBenet’s headstone by the Ramseys even though her body was found the following day, and her true time of death is officially unknown, possibly an hour or so after midnight.

In lines 22 through 23, the writer continues their instructions. The main thought of the sentence, “The delivery will be exhausting” is followed by a subordinate clause “so I advise you to be rested.”

The author continues using the first person singular pronoun, but the most important factor in this sentence is the concern expressed for John’s welfare. No hardened criminal, vagrant or “foreign faction” would care if John was “rested” or not. The concern is a subconscious revelation of the author’s personality, which is nurturing, and therefore, according to probability, female.

This is further confirmation of what we saw earlier in the paragraph. Linguistically, the ransom note author has now taken on a decidedly feminine voice in their overall tone and choice of words.

The next sentence in lines 23 through 28 (which continues from page one to page two of the ransom note) further illustrates the truth of that fact when the author offers a helpful suggestion regarding the money. They write, “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 xxxxxxxx (the word “delivery” crossed out) pick-up of your daughter.”

This sentence is long and grammatically awkward. The writer uses the words “early” and “earlier” twice each. The word “delivery” has been used in each of the two sentences preceding this one, and is used again twice in this sentence until the author crosses the last one out and substitutes the noun “pick-up” for “delivery.”

The ransom note writer has been intent on the delivery of the money and continues that thought with the delivery of JonBenet, but something changes. On a purely subconscious level, the author knows there will be no “delivery” of JonBenet, but that someone will “pick-up” her body. Consciously, this self-edit is required because the writer is making up the scenario as they go along, and there is no substance behind the words. There is no original kidnap plan to be explained, but one that needs to be invented.

Linguistically speaking, the ransom note author is meandering all over the field because psychologically, they are telling a story not speaking from true intent or real action.

We will find more clues to the ransom note author’s identity in the next section.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section IV

29. Any deviation of my instructions
30. will result in the immediate
31. execution of your daughter. You
32. will also be denied her remains
33. for a proper burial. The two
34. gentlemen watching over your daughter
35. do \not/ particularly like you so I
36. advise you not to provoke them.
37. Speaking to anyone about your
38. situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc.,
39. will result in your daughter being
40. beheaded. If we catch you talking
41. to a stray dog, she dies. If you
42. alert bank authorities, she dies.
43. If the money is in any way
44. marked or tampered with, she
45. dies. You will be scanned for
46. electronic devices and if any are
47. found, she dies. You can try to
48. deceive us, but be warned that
49. we are familiar with law enforcement
50. countermeasures and tactics. You
51. stand a 99% chance of killing
52. your daughter if you try to out
53. smart us. Follow our instructions

54. and you stand a 100% chance
55. of getting her back. You and
56. your family are under constant
57. scrutiny as well as the authorities.
58. Don't try to grow a brain
59. John. You are not the only
60. fat cat around so don't think
61. that killing will be difficult.
62. Don't underestimate us, John.
63. Use that good southern common
64. sense of yours. It is up to
65. you now John!
66. Victory !
66. S.B.T.C.


The last paragraph of the ransom note is the longest and most complicated. Structurally, it falls apart compared to the careful indentation, grammar and formality present at the first of the note. In this last section, the writer slowly loses their composure and non-emotional façade. By the end of the note, they are showing signs of desperation and anger in their quest to convince the reader of their false identity and motive.

In graphology, a handwriting sample is first analyzed from the bottom of the page, or from the end to the beginning. The reason for this is that as a person writes they loosen up, and their true personality is revealed. When we start writing a letter or note, the writing is more controlled as we try to follow conventional dictates and present our best “self.” But the farther we go on the page, our natural tendencies begin to exert themselves, and the false control gives way to a freer hand.

The same thing is true in linguistic analysis, and we see that fact in the last paragraph of the ransom note.

In reality, the ransom note writer is not the cool, calm and detached “kidnapper” portrayed in the first paragraph. In fact, the writer is quite conflicted and emotional by the end of the note, and has lost all pretense of formality as “Mr. Ramsey” becomes “John,” and the writer’s demands become more personal.

Another truth becomes evident. Not only is the ransom note author lying about their identity and about the “kidnapping” of JonBenet, they begin to embellish their authority and power. They claim omnipotence in being able to discern the Ramseys actions. Their writing becomes repetitious and grandiose, losing all credibility. The author is having trouble concentrating on the task at hand, and in an effort to convince the reader of what they themselves know is not true, they “say” too much. They literally cannot stop talking.

Have you ever seen a person, especially a child, try to lie their way out of trouble? If they talk long enough, details of the story will change, and often, they don’t know when to quit. For this same reason, law enforcement personnel will separate suspects and make them tell their story many times over. Eventually, if the suspect is lying, inconsistencies and changes of detail will come out. Investigators know that a long, rambling story (featuring changes in detail) is a sign the story is made up and false.

One of the main features of this last section of the ransom note is its rambling nature. The writer goes from formal to informal, helpful to threatening, first person to third person and back, repeats themselves unnecessarily, and ends with a closing (that has no relation to the personal instructions of the preceding sentences) tacked on as an afterthought.

In effect, the ransom note author began their writing task by suppressing their emotions in an effort to get through what they had to do, but by the end of the note, their inner turmoil is beginning to show, and the mask begins to slip.

Most importantly, in this last paragraph, the writer sets the stage for the reason JonBenet will be found dead. They threaten that JonBenet she will be “executed” if there is any “deviation” from their instructions. They warn, among other things, that the Ramseys are not to call or contact anyone.

With this, the purpose of the ransom note is revealed. The ransom note author KNOWS the Ramseys will completely ignore their repeated warnings and contact not only the police, but also an address book full of friends. How does the writer know this? Because they are not a foreign faction, or even a criminal, but a member of the Ramsey family who knows JonBenet is already dead.

For this Ramsey, ignoring the very warnings they have penned is part of the plan. It provides the reason for JonBenet’s death and why her body is found in the Ramsey’s basement where it was presumably taken after the kidnappers detect (with their omnipotence) the Ramsey’s non-compliance of their demands.

Because of the length and complexity of the ransom note’s last paragraph, we will divide the following detailed linguistic analysis of this section into three parts.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section V, Part 1

29. Any deviation of my instructions
30. will result in the immediate
31. execution of your daughter. You
32. will also be denied her remains
33. for a proper burial. The two
34. gentlemen watching over your daughter
35. do \not/ particularly like you so I
36. advise you not to provoke them.


In the last ransom note paragraph we discussed, the author switched from their beginning plural pronoun to a singular pronoun (“I will call you” “I advise you”) and back again to a plural pronoun (“If we monitor you”). This linguistic morphing is a precursor to the identity shifts that will become more marked as the ransom note progresses and ends.

The first sentence of the third, and final, paragraph of the ransom note continues this change in pronoun use. Lines 29 through 31 begin, “Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter.” The prepositional phrase “of my instructions” includes the singular possessive pronoun “my” that contrasts with the plural pronoun “we” of the preceding sentence.

As previously discussed, we see the author is still fixated on giving “instructions,” even to the point of using the word in this sentence. But it is here that we see a change in the writer’s tone from helpful to threatening, and the control, that has been shaky at best, begins to disintegrate.

The linguistic structure and high level vocabulary (“deviation” and “execution”) of this sentence is interesting. A much more direct way to get the message of this sentence across would be to say, “If you don’t follow our instructions, we will kill JonBenet.” As we have seen before, the ransom note author is well educated and not at a loss for words.

The writer’s use of the word “deviation” in close proximity to the word “execution” is a clue to the reader that JonBenet’s death won’t be pretty sight. The adjective “immediate,” like so much of the author’s writing, is not needed for the overall understanding of the sentence, but it IS necessary to the author because they are getting to the truth behind the ransom note.

JonBenet’s death was not slow and lingering. It happened suddenly. The fatal blow to JonBenet’s skull (which may have followed unintentional strangulation with her shirt collar) and the subsequent tying of the neck cord all took place within a single half-hour. The ransom note writer is still reeling from the events, and the speed with which they took place.

In addition, the author still refuses to name JonBenet and instead, uses the phrase “your daughter” for the third time since beginning the ransom note.

The threatening tone of this paragraph continues with the sentence in lines 31 through 33. The sentence reads, “You will also be denied her remains for a proper burial.” This statement opens a window into the ransom note author’s mind, as they try to top the execution threat with another punishment.

Why is this necessary? Wouldn’t JonBenet’s DEATH be considered the ultimate punishment in the mind of the writer? The answer is because JonBenet’s death has already happened. It is a fact of reality and the only thing left is for her body to be found, thus the focus is on JonBenet’s BODY not her death.

The ransom note author is now having trouble suppressing their emotions about JonBenet’s death, and the accompanying images of her lifeless body. These images are starting to become a part of the ransom note as the writer struggles to maintain focus and concentration.

The use of the adjective “proper” in relation to the noun “burial” is interesting as it shows how important a “proper burial” is to the writer. The author is concerned with the care of JonBenet’s body just as they were concerned with John being rested. There is a nurturing, and feminine, component in the midst of the sentence’s threatening tone.

Before modern times and the advent of funeral homes, women were responsible for the care and proper preparation of a body for burial. They bathed the corpse and dressed it in the deceased’s favorite or best clothing. JonBenet’s body was treated in similar fashion. When it was found, it had been wiped clean and wrapped carefully in a blanket.

The parallel with the ransom note with JonBenet’s body cannot be dismissed. In both the staging of the ransom note and of JonBenet’s body, there are elements of the macabre and horrific, but underneath the harsh words and images there is a paradoxical thread of nurture and concern. This thread is part of the writer’s true identity that lies just below the false self-imposed mask.

In the next sentence, (lines 33 through 36), the author states, “The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do [not] particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.” Linguistically, this statement is very complex and holds a number of clues to the writer’s identity.

The flowery and stilted language (“two gentlemen” “particularly like” “provoke them”) is in direct contrast to the topic at hand. It is as if the author is an old dowager sitting at tea and handing out advice to a neighbor about her lap dog, “Sadie does not particulary like you, so I advise you not to provoke her.”

The subject of the sentence, “two gentlemen,” has received a lot of comment from different analysts because it is so unusual in the context of a ransom note. Why did the writer not just say “two men”? Why infer the people allegedly “watching over” JonBenet are persons of good breeding and manners?

The author does not realize they have given another clue as to their regional origins. It is common for females in some parts of the American South to refer to unidentified males with the word “gentleman” instead of the more straightforward term “man.” It is a relic of the Old South where a man was assumed a gentleman until proven otherwise, and the word’s euphemistic qualities are well suited to the genteel tone preferred by some women of the South.

This brings us to one of the sociolinguistic traits found in some areas of the Deep South. Among women, general conversation often skirts an issue with euphemisms or “talks around” a topic because it is considered impolite to be too forward. In public, great care is taken not to offend. (This concern is not so present in private conversation.) It is considered rude to be blunt and direct.

[For more on the topic of American regional linguistics, see works by William Labov, Walt Wolfram, Frederic Cassidy, Joan Houston Hall, and Craig M. Carver among others.]

We have previously discussed the American regional misuse of the verb “bring” and “take” in the ransom note. This verb transference occurs primarily in the American South although there are pockets of individual use throughout the United States. With the phrase “two gentlemen,” the ransom note author not only reinforces the possibility they learned their native speech patterns in the regional area known as the American South, but also the probability they are female.

Patsy Ramsey was born and raised in West Virginia, considered a “Southern state” according to American regional dialect maps. [See map below.] Patsy also lived part of her life in Atlanta, Georgia, a bastion of the Deep South. Her speech patterns would have been formed, and affected, by the daily language of those around her.

It has been noted that Patsy wrote the very same phrase, “two gentlemen,” in her “spontaneous” note written for investigators. Using the word “gentlemen” for the word “men” is obviously something that is part of Patsy’s natural speaking vocabulary.

The fact that the ransom note author used the adjective “two” to describe the number of “gentlemen” is an unsuccessful attempt to return to the plural identity originally introduced at the beginning of the ransom note. The “foreign faction” is getting smaller and is starting to waver more and more often between plural and singular pronouns.

Let’s continue with our analyzation of the sentence in lines 33 through 36.

The author states, “The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do [not] particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.” This is the fourth time (out of six) the writer calls JonBenet “your daughter” in the ransom note.

It is interesting to note the writer does not say the gentlemen are “watching your daughter” but instead inserts the preposition “over” to make the sentence read, “two gentlemen are watching OVER your daughter…” This word placement has psychological ramifications which suggest not only concerned motherly hovering, but also that the person is being watched from above.

In this one phrase, the author reinforces two clues we have seen previously in the ransom note; that the author is a caring female and that JonBenet is already dead.

The writer goes on to state the gentlemen “do [not] particularly like you …” Here, the author uses a caret to insert the word “not” into the verb phrase “do particularly like.” The use of this caret shows the writer to be knowledgeable regarding the placement of editing marks used by English teachers, journalists, reporters and educated people.

The author concludes the sentence by saying, “ … so I advise you not to provoke them.” Once again, the writer uses a singular pronoun and shows personal concern by saying, “I advise you.” A more direct way of stating the same sentence would be, “the men watching JonBenet don’t like you, so don’t make them mad.” Instead, the author takes great pains to phrase the sentence carefully and emphasizes they are giving advice and instructions.

The writer is slowly building their case for why JonBenet must die. As the author knows, the Ramseys will callously ignore their careful instructions, and so JonBenet must suffer “immediate execution.”

We will explore this promise, and its fulfillment, along with the ransom note writer’s very personal instructions to John, in the next two sections.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section V, Part 2

37. Speaking to anyone about your
38. situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc.,
39. will result in your daughter being
40. beheaded. If we catch you talking
41. to a stray dog, she dies. If you
42. alert bank authorities, she dies.
43. If the money is in any way
44. marked or tampered with, she
45. dies. You will be scanned for
46. electronic devices and if any are
47. found, she dies. You can try to
48. deceive us, but be warned that
49. we are familiar with law enforcement
50. countermeasures and tactics. You
51. stand a 99% chance of killing
52. your daughter if you try to out
53. smart us. Follow our instructions

54. and you stand a 100% chance
55. of getting her back. You and
56. your family are under constant
57. scrutiny as well as the authorities.


The next section of the ransom note is a lengthy and overly dramatic warning about what will happen to JonBenet if the Ramseys speak to anyone about their “situation,” “tamper with” the ransom money, or wear any “electronic devices” during the money drop. The writer also claims they are familiar with “law enforcement countermeasures and tactics,” gives percentages on the Ramseys chances of getting JonBenet back or of “killing” her, and states the Ramseys are “under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities.”

The author takes great pains to stress what will happen to JonBenet if the Ramsey do not cooperate with their instructions. They also stress their omniscience in being able to monitor the Ramseys and “the authorities” which includes bank workers and law enforcement. Because the ransom note writer is working backward from an end result, the excessive threats and claims of omnipotent surveillance are necessary to explain events that have already happened in the Ramsey home.

Let’s look closer at the first half of this section.

In lines 37 through 40, the writer says, “Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F. B. I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded.”

The sentence paints a grisly picture and is psychologically jarring, especially when juxtaposed against the caring admonition of the previous sentence not to “provoke” the kidnappers. The writer is obviously going for the “shock effect” but much more than that is revealed in this very specific threat.

First of all, we notice that the ransom note author capitalized the word “police” as a proper noun, abbreviated FBI with unnecessary periods, and used separating commas after those two words and the abbreviation “etc.” The writer is someone who is very concerned with trying to give words proper capitalization and punctuation.

Secondly, the author writes the sentence using “passive voice.” If the writer had used “active voice,” they would have said something like “We will behead JonBenet if you speak to anyone” or “Speak to anyone about this, and we will behead JonBenet. Instead, they made the threat passive and implied the Ramsey’s action of “speaking to anyone” would trigger the “result” of JonBenet “being beheaded.”

Why does the writer give such an exact and detailed threat in a passive voice? Why not just say, “We will kill her?” The answer is because the author has a specific way JonBenet must die, and it relates to the way she has already died and the staging that surrounds her.

The author is focused on JonBenet’s head, specifically the neck area. As we’ve said before, the writer knows the end of their story, and now, they must make the facts of their ransom note fit the facts of her death as much as possible if it is to explain JonBenet’s dead body in the Ramsey home.

Even though JonBenet was not beheaded, she was found with a strangling cord wrapped around her neck. This association is enough for the ransom note author to suggest “beheading” in their threat. The clumsy, so-called “garrote” was a crude device that was not designed for effective strangulation. The cord was more of a prop than anything else, and it was probably left around JonBenet’s neck to help deflect attention away from her head injury, cover any manual (or clothing) strangulation marks like the bruise on the front left side of her neck, and promote the idea that a vicious intruder had killed her.

Also, in lines 37 through 40, the ransom note writer uses the phrase “your daughter” instead of JonBenet’s name for the fifth time. The author is continuing their conscious effort at psychological distancing from JonBenet.

In lines 40 through 47, the author repeats their threat by using a form of parallel construction that, without its violent topic, would appear almost poetic in form. In four successive sentences, the writer ends with the phrase “she dies.” This type of structure is meant to reinforce an idea and make it “stick” in the reader’s mind. The author is now at the heart of their message.

“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.”

Linguistically, each of the four sentences incorporates a subordinate clause beginning with the word “if.” The first three sentences begin with this clause, the last one has it placed at the end. Each of the sentences concludes with the noun-verb construction “she dies.”

The author is emphasizing that the actions of the Ramseys determine the fate of JonBenet. One again, the writer is using passive voice instead of the active “we will kill”. They are absolving themselves of the death of JonBenet and saying it is entirely up to the Ramseys whether JonBenet lives or dies.

The Ramsey have been already been warned not to speak to the “Police, F.B.I., etc.” and now they are told not to talk to “a stray dog,” or by implication, anyone else. They are cautioned not to alert bank authorities or tamper with the ransom money. John is warned he will be scanned for electronic devices. This last sentence is one of many clues that the ransom note is a fake. Kidnappers do not favor face-to-face meetings for many reasons; primarily, to keep their true identity unknown. Ransom money is usually left at a location to be later picked up by the kidnappers.

We know the Ramsey immediately called 911 and then a host of friends. They contacted the bank to arrange the ransom money instead of following the kidnapper’s instruction to merely go to the bank and withdraw the money. By ignoring the ransom note writer’s instructions and warnings, the Ramseys brought about JonBenet’s “immediate execution,” and by extrapolation, the reason her body was found in the basement of their home.

There is another component to this section containing the words “she dies.” As has been discussed in other analyses of the ransom note, there are phrases and ideas within it that seem to have been taken directly from three different action movies, “Dirty Harry,” “Ransom” and “Speed.” The next few sentences continue that association.

Following is a list of the various story lines and phrases from these movies which match the ransom note.

“DIRTY HARRY” –

Story Lines
Specified denomination of bills and type of container for delivery of the ransom
The delivery of the ransom requires extreme physical exertion
The kidnapper employs counter-surveillance

Phrases
"If I even think you're being followed, the girl dies."
"If you talk to anyone, I don't care if it's a Pekinese p i s s ing against a lamppost, the girl dies."
"... that's the end of the game. The girl dies."
"Now listen to me carefully."
"Now listen. Listen very carefully."
"It sounds like you had a good rest. You'll need it."

“RANSOM” –

Story Lines
Specified denomination of bills and type of container for delivery of the ransom
The delivery of the ransom requires extreme physical exertion
The child is bound with his hands placed above his head
Duct tape is used on the child
The child's parent is a wealthy businessman
The kidnapper employs counter-surveillance

Phrases
"Do not involve the police or the FBI. If you do, I will kill him."
"Do not inform the media or I will kill him."
"No tracking devices in the money or the cases or I will kill him."

“SPEED” –

Story Lines
Specified denomination of bills and type of container for delivery of the ransom
The kidnapper employs counter-surveillance

Phrases
"You know that I'm on top of you. Do not attempt to grow a brain."


It is obvious the ransom note writer had seen these three movies at some time in their life. Their amateur attempt at posturing as a kidnapper made them search for ways to appear criminal in thinking. But there is another reason specific dialogue was used from these movies, particularly the phrase about growing “a brain.” We will discuss that reason in the last section of the linguistic analysis that deals with the writer’s personal warnings to John.

Continuing with this section, in lines 47 through 53, the ransom note author writes, “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.” The writer is still using ideas from the movies to reinforce their warnings, but something has changed in the grammatical structure of their sentences.

The three sentences in lines 40 through 44 begin with the conjunction “if.” The three sentences in lines 45 through 53 begin with the personal pronoun “you.” Psychologically, placing the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence emphasizes personal contact. The ransom note writer has gradually shifted from the formal “Mr. Ramsey” of the opening line to a much more informal tone that continues to the end of the ransom note.

After the personal advice and singular pronoun use of line 35 and 36, the author switches back to a plural identity in lines 40 through 53. The writer uses plural words such as “we,” “us” and “our” to promote the idea of multiple actors, but the personal tone of the writing negates that illusion.

In line 52, they also use the phrase, “your daughter,” as a substitution for JonBenet’s name for the sixth and last time in the ransom note. Psychological distancing aside, the frequency with which the author uses this phrase is another indicator of their motive in writing the ransom note.

Most ransom notes do not concentrate on the kidnapping victim, but rather, on the ransom amount and where (and how) it is to be delivered. JonBenet, minus her name, features prominently in this ransom note. She is referred to six times as “your daughter,” five times as “she,” and twice as “her.” The ransom note writer is focused on JonBenet and what will happen to her if the Ramsey ignore the kidnapper’s warnings, (which we know they did).

No pedophile, no disgruntled employee or friend, no bum off the street, would have a reason to leave a note (long or short) setting up a false kidnapping scenario with the motive of explaining JonBenet’s dead body in the Ramsey home. Furthermore, it is obvious from the linguistic clues in the ransom note that JonBenet was already dead when it was written, so it would have been extremely risky for an intruder to stay in the Ramsey home and use a Ramsey pen and notepad to construct, practice and write the note.

If the killing of JonBenet was an act of revenge, or for any other conceivable motive from someone outside the Ramsey family, NO NOTE WOULD BE NECESSARY. The perpetrator would just kill JonBenet and leave. If they felt an urge to explain their act at all, the note would have been a revenge note, not a ransom note.

In line 51, the author continues with their thought, and placement, of percentages with, “Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.” Once again, direct emphasis is put on the Ramseys following the writer’s instructions to ensure JonBenet’s survival. The repeated instructions and warnings are necessary in the author’s mind even though their redundancy (and ridiculous language) is so evident to us. They want there to be no mistake that JonBenet WILL BE DEAD if the Ramsey don’t comply with their demands.

Line 55 through 57 begins with the personal pronoun “you” as the author continues their grammatical structure of the previous sentences. (All five sentences in lines 47 through 57 begin with the word “You” except for the fourth one, which inserts the phrase, “Follow our instructions” before the pronoun “you.”) The writers states, “You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities.” This sentence is awkward in its construction. “You and your family are under constant scrutiny” is a complete sentence. The addition of the incomplete phrase “as well as the authorities” is obviously tagged on at the end as the writer struggles with organizing their thoughts.

The words “scrutiny” and “authorities” in this sentence, as well as the previous phrase, “law enforcement countermeasures,” underscores the writer’s high functioning vocabulary and education level. The use of the word “authorities” to describe representatives of local law is selective and implies respect, not criminal disdain. It is interesting to note the Ramseys use the word “authorities” to refer to law enforcement in communications that were attached to their now defunct web site. Two examples follow:

“John and Patsy Ramsey are unaware of any efforts at present by Boulder authorities to stimulate new leads or tips in the case.”

“To those who have cared enough to write or email, the information has been forwarded to the proper authorities.”

The most important element of this section relates to the ransom note writer’s use of the personal pronoun “you” and their linguistic attempt to connect with the reader. This type of writing is indicative of a female author. Female writers favor personal words such as “you,” “her” and “she,” and relationship words such as “for,” “with,” “in,” and “not.” Mr. Shlomo Argamon, a linguist and computer scientist at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, states, “Women have a more interactive style. They want to create a relationship between the writer and the reader. Men, on the other hand, use more numbers, adjectives and determiners - words such as “the,” “this” and “that.”

After much research, Mr. Argamon and a colleague, Mr. Moshe Koppel, designed a computer program that can determine the gender of an anonymous author of fiction writing with 80% accuracy. Their findings were first published in the April 2003 edition of the journal Literary and Linguistic Computing. It has been reprinted in other magazines such as Nature, and referenced in many newspapers such as The New York Times and The (Melbourne) Age.

After performing my own analysis on the ransom note many years ago, I recently came across a web site which used a simplified version of the algorithm developed by Argamon and Koppel. I typed in the Ramsey ransom note text to obtain a gender analysis from the computer program. The result confirmed my earlier analysis, and that of many others. The Argamon and Koppel program said the ransom note author was female. In fact, the score was 1077 (female) to 464 (male).

I did screen captures of the web page results and made a composite .jpg, which I have posted below. The web site is Bookblog, the computer program is called Gender Genie and the URL is http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html. An article regarding the original research may be found at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...801370330.html.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Section V, Part 3

58. Don't try to grow a brain
59. John. You are not the only
60. fat cat around so don't think
61. that killing will be difficult.
62. Don't underestimate us, John.
63. Use that good southern common
64. sense of yours. It is up to
65. you now John!
66. Victory !
67. S.B.T.C.


The final section of the ransom note underscores the personal relationship the writer has with John Ramsey. As we have seen, the author slowly changes the language in their writing from formal to informal, plural to singular, and general to personal. Part of this shift in linguistic tone is subconscious, but the final five sentences of the ransom note are intentionally direct and extremely personal for a reason.

At this juncture, the ransom note writer is done with setting the stage and telling the story of what will happen/what has happened to JonBenet. They have issued their dire warnings, and they know the forbidden phone calls will be made. There is only one thing left to do, and that is make sure no one gets in the way of how the author plans for the rest of the story to be played out.

For the ransom note writer’s plan to succeed there must be complete cooperation from the presumed reader of the ransom note, John Ramsey, to whom the last five lines are directed. Ostensibly, the author pretends to be warning John about the kidnapper’s intentions, but linguisitically, there is much more written between the lines.

This section begins with lines 58 through 59, which state, “Don’t try to grow a brain John.” Linguistically, the subject of this sentence is the non-written, but understood pronoun, “you.” Placing John’s name after the sentence is the author’s way of reinforcing exactly to whom the subject pronoun “you” refers.

This is the first of three times John’s name will be used within the last five sentences. Gone is the informal “Mr. Ramsey” of the beginning salutation. The ransom note author now uses John’s given name to emphasize a personal connection between them.

The writer takes a drastic step by using John’s name in this way and is signaling a sea change in the narrative. This is no longer about some nebulous foreign plot involving the government and Access Graphics. The author is personally directing all their energy and words at John. The writer is through with playing “kidnapper” and is down to more serious business.

In everyday life, we often call a person’s name to get their visual attention. The ransom note author is doing the same thing by repeatedly mentioning John’s given name. They want John to “look them in the eye” so to speak because they have something very important to say, and they are linguistically underlining the importance of their words as well as their relationship to him.

The phrase “Don’t try to grow a brain” is almost word for word the same sentence as “Do not attempt to grow a brain” from spoken dialogue in the movie thriller Speed, a movie that came out in 1994, two years before the ransom note was written. Many analysts have interpreted the inclusion of this phrase by the ransom note writer to be an attempt to sound streetwise and criminal, but there is more than that behind the words.

By placing John’s name directly after the phrase “Don’t try to grow a brain,” the writer is giving a larger hint as to their purpose. This isn’t just some vague and ridiculous threat. It is a specific message from the author to John. Why would the ransom note writer choose this particular phrase? Because they knew it meant something to both them and to John, kind of like a secret password that holds the key to encryption.

I believe the ransom note author and John had seen the movie Speed together, sometime between its debut in 1994 and Christmas night 1996. They may have seen it several times. The sentence “Do not attempt to grow a brain” morphed into the phrase “Don’t try to grow a brain,” and the writer and John probably repeated it to each other as a kind of “inside” joke. This often happens when people see movies together. Sometimes the words become national catch phrases; sometimes they are just personal references shared by two people or a family.

The ransom note writer chose the sarcastic phrase “Don’t try to grow a brain” to send a message to John, but it was no joking matter. It was the first of many linguistic “face slaps” given by the author. They were warning John not to mess up their plan.

The next sentence in lines 59 through 60 is another veiled threat to John that says, “You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult.” The ransom note author begins the sentence with the written, instead of understood, subject pronoun, “you.” There is no mistake regarding just whom the writer is addressing since John’s name precedes this pronoun.

The author has a message for John and it begins, “You are not the only fat cat around….” The slang expression “fat cat” usually means a person of great wealth and power, a tycoon of sorts. But as with the previous sentence, there is more here than street lingo.

According to a taped interview of John Ramsey in June of 1998 by investigator Michael Kane, John recalled a reception given after JonBenet’s funeral in Atlanta by his wealthy stockbroker and friend, Rod Westmoreland. John said, “My friends were around me, consoling me and trying to give me advice. And to be a part of that group - it's the Atlanta fat cats.” Obviously, John was familiar with using the phrase “fat cats” as a reference to a certain subset of people he associated with in Atlanta. Once again, the ransom note writer counted on John’s recognition of those words as being a part of their joint personal history.

The author has given two major hints as to their identity with the “brain” and “fat cat” phrases. They are someone with whom John has shared movies, inside jokes and time in Atlanta.

Linguistically, the second half of the “fat cat” sentence is a coded threat directed to John although the writer disguises it as a veiled reference to JonBenet. It reads “… so don’t think that killing will be difficult.” This begs the question … killing “what” or “who”? Linguistically, the sentence lacks an indirect object.

The ransom note author hopes the reader will think they are referring to JonBenet, but the lack of an indirect object is obvious. The writer has not hesitated to mention JonBenet by other phrases such as “your daughter,” “she,” or “her,” but in this sentence there is NO reference to JonBenet at all. That is because the author is not thinking about JonBenet, but about the “killing” of something else.

What is the ransom note writer referring to? The first half of the sentence is the clue to what is at stake because it specifically references John as a “fat cat,” someone who has everything. The “killing,” alluded to by the ransom note author, will be the death of John’s reputation, his wealth, his family, and his job; everything he holds dear in life. If John does not play along with what the author has in mind, he will lose it all.

The next sentence, in line 62, once again has a non-written but understood “you” for the subject pronoun. The writer says, “Don’t underestimate us, John.” This is the third sentence in a row in which the author uses negative grammatical structure as in “(You) don’t try,” “You are not,” and “(You) don’t underestimate.” The writer is intent on preventing John from either accidentally, or on purpose, sabotaging their plan. The ransom note author also reverts to the plural pronoun “us,” and for the second time, uses John’s given at the end of the sentence to underscore the seriousness of their coded message.

The fourth sentence of this section also begins with the non-written but understood pronoun “you” and instructs John to, “Use that good southern common sense of yours.” This sentence has been analyzed in different ways with some believing the writer mistakenly thought John was from the American South. Others have reported that even though John Ramsey was not a southerner, his family and friends reportedly teased him about being one for having lived in Atlanta and marrying a West Virginian.

Once again, the ransom note author has inserted a personal note regarding John’s life into this final section of the ransom note. It emphasizes their personal connection to John and carries a coded threat about what will happen if he doesn't help the writer carry out their plan. This is the third reference to John's personal history in four successive sentences.

The last sentence of the ransom note, in lines 64 through 65, is the writer’s final instruction to John. If he doesn’t get it now, he never will. The author says, “It is up to you now John!” For the last and third time, the writer uses John’s name at the end of the sentence. The writer is linguistically using John’s name like a doorstop. It ends the sentence with a grammatical “bang” that interrupts the rhythm, or flow, of the words. Subconsciously, the author is now focused on John as the end point of this narrative. Everything hinges on John’s recognition of his part in the script.

This sentence, and the one before it, is written with positive structure in direct contrast to the three negative sentences preceding them. The writer has given John the “bad news,” and now presents him with the solution, or “good news.” Basically, they are telling John he has the key to the success of the author's plan and to his future. They have done everything they can do to remind John who they are, and what will happen if he does not cooperate with them. It is now truly up to John to make it work.

The closing word, “Victory!” in line 66 ends with an exclamation mark as does the preceding sentence. The author used another exclamation point in the first line of the ransom note after the instructions, “Listen carefully!” All of these exclamation marks are unnecessary for the understanding of the words, so they are inserted at the prerogative of the writer. Obviously, the author feels the need to emphasize certain parts of their communication with these exclamation points. It was noted at the beginning of this analysis that Patsy Ramsey also habitually used exclamation marks in her letters and notes.

In addition to the illustration previously posted of Patsy’s use of exclamation points, we also have an example of her predilection for this type of punctuation in a letter requesting funds for John’s failed political campaign in the summer of 2004. The letter is reprinted below.


June 16th, 2004

Dear Family & Friends,

I hope all is well with you.

I am writing you today to update you on my health status and talk a little about John’s campaign. This past weekend I participated in the national Relay for Life Cancer benefit in Cheboygan, MI. It was a wonderful experience in a community that we have been spending a great deal of time in.

As you know, I am celebrating eleven years as a survivor and praying for many more. With regard to this tough battle, two weeks ago I took Chemotherapy #4 and had a severe adverse reaction. Today I will take treatment #5 in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital so that I can be closely monitored. The good news is that I am responding very well to the chemotherapy and the tumor is shrinking! We are praising God for that!

The bad news is that I will be unable to assist with the campaign while I am in the hospital. In light of the fact that I have to deal with the aftermath of two more chemo treatments, I won’t be able to physically handle all the things I’ve been doing for John’s campaign lately – like going door-to-door, handing out literature in parades, and most importantly, fundraising.

So… I NEED YOUR HELP !

Because of our unique situation, we have to do a significant amount media in order to get our message out and correct past misperceptions. We are currently ahead in the most recent poll that was run, but we are expecting one of our opponents to be very negative in his campaign tactics. In order to fight this, it requires a great deal of fundraising effort. The Primary Election is seven weeks from today, therefore we need help from supporters such as you. And we need your help now. Your contributions will help us pay for important television, radio, and direct mail advertising.

Thank you very much to the numerous people who have donated so far, both online and in the mail. Your support is appreciated in this critical time.

If you have not yet helped us in this important effort, or have not yet sent the maximum of $500 per person, please help by making an online donation to the Friends to Elect Ramsey by clicking here. If you prefer, you can send as big a check as possible to: Friends to Elect John Ramsey – 106 W. Carpenter St., Charlevoix, MI 49720.

I simply can’t be everywhere and I am not going to be able to spend time on the telephone talking with each of your while I am in chemotherapy. But we need to help John so I’m counting on YOU!

Thank you for your prayers and your financial support. I’ll let you know how the next two chemos go. God bless.

Love,
Patsy


Exclamation marks aside, what does the word “victory” have to do with the ransom note as penned by the author? After the long rambling narrative which has discarded the formal and plural “foreign faction” of the beginning statement and descended into a personal and singular conclusion, it is out of place and jarring in its placement as a closing.

Here, we see the author’s habit of style coming out in their writing. A ransom note DOES NOT NEED a “closing,” but the writer is thinking like their true selves, not like a kidnapping criminal. They have been taught that a letter ends with a closing, a comma, and a name. But just what IS an appropriate closing for a threatening ransom note based on a kidnapping that will never take place because the victim is already dead?

The author decides to return to the idea of a shadowy “foreign faction” who wants John’s bonus money to accomplish their unstated and obscure aims. Most terrorist groups want “victory” over something, and they will do anything to achieve their goals. The ransom note writer is driven with the same kind of zeal. Their plan must succeed at all costs. They know it is risky, but it is the only way they can “win” their freedom and hope to keep themselves free of the blame for what happened to JonBenet.

The final writing from the author in line 67 is the assumed “name” of the foreign faction” spelled as an acronym using the letters “S. B. T. C.” During the 1960s and 1970s, many “factions” and social protest groups that were highly visible in the news had names that were acronyms of other words. For example, there was SDS – Students for a Democratic Society, SLA – the Symbionese Liberation Army, NAACP – National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, PLO – the Palestine Liberation Organization, LULAC – League of United Latin American Citizens, and IRA – the Irish Republican Army, among many others.

The ransom note author was obviously aware of these groups and felt the need to “legitimize” their fantasy “foreign faction” with a name that mimicked their acronized names. The letters S, B, T and C may have meant something to the writer (and to John), or they may have been picked at random from the beginning and end of the alphabet. It is interesting to note that the author thought it necessary to place punctuation periods between the letters of their acronym just as they had previously between the letters of “FBI.”

In the last 20 years or so, periods in acronistic names have been dropped from use and are no longer considered a requirement for correct punctuation. It is obvious the ransom note writer learned their writing skills in a generation that grew up before this change in punctuation. Even the placing of the closing and name under the body of the ransom note reveals a person who was educated before the current “block style” of letter writing was made popular. The ransom note author was definitely not a child or a teenager, but an intelligent adult who had been taught “old school” grammar and style.

It has been observed by other analysts that Patsy Ramsey liked to invent and “sign off” letters with acronyms. One Christmas note to a friend that was signed "P.P.R.B.S.J.," which she said stood for "Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.” It is interesting to note that Patsy felt the need to place punctuating periods between the letters of her closing acronym just as the ransom note writer did in their closing acronym.

The next, and final, section will present a summation of the ransom note writer's identity and the conclusion of our linguistic analysis.

[Cherokee]

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS – Conclusion

Linguistically, the ransom note is a fake and has nothing to do with ransom or kidnapping. As confirmed by the FBI and Colorado law enforcement, it was part of a staged crime scene found in the Ramsey home. By definition, a “staged” crime scene is one in which someone tries to manipulate the evidence in order to thwart or redirect an investigation.

According to Vernon J. Geberth, Former New York Police Department Commander, the most common type of staging occurs when the perpetrator changes elements of the scene to make the death appear to be a suicide or accident in order to cover up a murder. The second most common type of staging is when the perpetrator attempts to redirect the investigation by making the crime appear to be a sex-related homicide.

This kind of staging was the one employed by the person who arranged JonBenet’s body and who wrote the fake ransom note. Unfortunately for them, they created a first in the annals of crime. Murdering pedophiles do not leave ransom notes, fake or otherwise, and they certainly don’t take their time composing a three page letter in their victim’s home using pen and paper left on the kitchen counter.

Whoever staged the Ramsey crime scene went too far in their attempt at redirecting the truth, just as they went too far in writing their idea of a ransom note. Their desperation to explain JonBenet’s dead body led them to devise a far-fetched kidnapping plot with elements of sexual abuse and “immediate execution.” The very piece of paper they used to escape from justice is now the one piece of evidence that ties them to JonBenet’s death.

We reveal ourselves in our writing, and the ransom note author is not immune to this truth. Through careful analysis of their words and style of speech, we can determine much about their real identity.

Following is a list of what we know about the author from the ransom note. It is broken down into three categories – the language mechanics used by the writer, the individual knowledge they display, and personal attributes revealed by their words.

The ransom note author:

Mechanics

1. uses American English spelling and punctuation
2. uses a “salutation” (with correct punctuation) to begin the letter
3. indents to begin new paragraphs
4. uses exclamation points for emphasis, especially at the beginning and end of letters
5. uses a “closing” and a “name” at the end of the letter, and places them under the body of the letter instead of using block style
6. follows the steps taught to communications/journalism majors on how to write a story; i.e. who, what, why, when, where and how.
7. writes the ransom amount in detail, including the decimal and cents column
8. uses the editing mark known as a “caret” to insert the word “not” between the words “do” and “particularly”
9. places periods between the letters of the acronym “FBI” and the closing acronym “SBTC”
10. uses the high level vocabulary words such as “monitor,” “tactics,” and “authorities”
11. uses an acronym for their “name”

Knowledge

12. is educated in the proper structure and punctuation of written English
13. knows John Ramsey’s bonus amount from Access Graphics which was $118,000
14. uses phrases from the movies Dirty Harry, Ransom, and Speed
15. is intimately acquainted with John’s personal history as shown by references such as “fat cat” and “use that good southern common sense”

Attributes

16. gives extremely detailed instructions instead of making demands
17. uses the verb “bring” instead of “take” which is a regionalism mostly found in the American South
18. uses the word “gentlemen” in regards to male strangers which is a regionalism mostly found in the American South
19. writes with “passive voice” instead of “active voice” implying real action is not necessary
20. is detail oriented as to how things look; i.e. uses descriptive adjectives such “brown paper bag,” “adequate size attaché,” “a stray dog”
21. distances themselves psychologically from JonBenet by not using her name and instead refers to her six times as “your daughter,” five times as “she,” and twice as “her”
22. thinks a “proper burial” is important
23. displays an inconsistent and therefore false identity by using singular and plural personal pronouns as well as a formal and informal writing style
24. writes with an overt “feminine” style using many personal pronouns and other elements of female communication


From the list above detailing the ransom note writer’s mechanics, knowledge and personal attributes, we can deduce the ransom note writer is:

1. American with English as their native language
2. well educated, probably a college graduate
3. trained in correct American English punctuation and editing symbols such as carets
4. detail oriented and used to giving instructions/being in charge
5. intelligent with a high level vocabulary
6. taught to place periods between letters in an acronym
7. taught to place the closing and name under the body of a letter
8. familiar with the six journalism elements of writing a story; i.e. who, what, why, when, where and how
9. old enough to have seen and remembered the R-rated movies Dirty Harry, Ransom and Speed

In addition, the ransom note writer was also someone who:

10. felt correct punctuation and editing was important
11. used words such as “monitor,” “tactics,” and “authorities”
12. felt a ransom note (like any letter) needed a salutation, closing and name
13. liked to use exclamation points, especially at the beginning and end of letters
14. knew John’s bonus amount of $118,000 from Access Graphics
15. knew John personally and well enough to reference “inside” information from his history such as the phrases “fat cat” and “good southern common sense”
16. used American Southern regionalisms such as “gentlemen” for male strangers and substituted the word “bring” for the verb “take”
17. felt a “proper burial” was important
18. wrote with a overtly feminine style and vocabulary, and was most probably female

The ransom note writer also wants us to believe that:

1. they are uneducated and lack English language proficiency by misspelling two words at the beginning of the letter
2. they are part of a “foreign faction”
3. they are not alone in their actions but are part of a group
4. their actions have something to do with John’s business, Access Graphics
5. JonBenet was still alive (“safe and unharmed”) when they wrote the letter

Linguistically, these are all lies. The ransom note writer’s own words tell us they were educated, not foreign, and not part of a group. Most importantly, the ransom note reveals JonBenet was not alive when it was written, and that her death had nothing to do with John’s business, but everything to do with John’s home.

From the clues left for us in the ransom note, we know the ransom note author was verbose, intelligent, well educated, knowledgeable in journalistic composition and punctuation, detail-oriented, visually descriptive (aware of how things look), used to giving instructions, familiar with the movies Dirty Harry, Ransom and Speed, intimately acquainted with John Ramsey and his personal history, someone who learned their native speech in the American South, and most probably female since they wrote with an overt feminine style, word choice and concern.

The ransom note writer was also someone who felt comfortable enough to spend an inordinate amount of time in the Ramsey home while practicing, writing, and editing the two and half pages of detailed and unnecessary instructions.

Very few people fit this profile. Even fewer had the means, motive and opportunity to write the ransom note.

There is one person who does.

Patsy Ramsey matches every one of the mechanics, knowledge and personal attributes mentioned above. There is not one thing in the ransom note that excludes her, and every thing in it points to her. Patsy not only had access to the ransom note components; she had the time and opportunity to write its contents. Most importantly, she had a motive.

Patsy needed to explain why JonBenet’s dead body was found in the Ramsey home, and she needed to steer the investigation away from herself and her family. There is no other reason for a ransom note to exist in a kidnapping that never happened.


Independent Confirmation of the Linguistic Analysis

The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI says the staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder Police, and the totality of the case points in one direction – that it was not the act of an intruder.

The FBI also believes “the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship." In addition, FBI profilers feel that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home.”

The FBI experts say the ligature around JonBenet’s neck “indicated staging rather than control.” The profilers believe that "no one intended to kill the child” and that the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

Former FBI profiler, Robert Ressler, says the evidence in the Ramsey case, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and “an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.” He believes JonBenet was garroted to divert police from what he believes was the true cause of her death: a blow to the head. The writing of the note, Ressler says, was part of the overall effort to send police astray.

Ressler also believes the language of the ransom note has a caretaker quality and sounds like it comes from a “college-educated mature female.”

One of the world’s foremost forensic scientists, Dr. Henry Lee, has examined all of the evidence in the Ramsey case, including the ransom note. Regarding JonBenet’s death, he states, “I think it is quite possible that some kind of horrific domestic accident may have occurred involving this little girl.”

After analyzing the ransom note, Thomas McAninch, professor of criminal justice at Scott Community College in Bettendorf, Iowa, says the author “is a right-handed person who wrote this block-style with their left hand.”

McAninch states, “I don’t know who killed JonBenet. I do know that someone in that house is connected with her death.” He says that parts of the ransom note show the author is a person who knows John Ramsey well, and that it is likely to have been written by a well-educated female.

McAninch says, “Patsy ends up fitting the profile really well.”

[Cherokee]

HANDWRITING ANALYSIS – Introduction

A thorough investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey must contain a detailed analysis of the so-called “Ransom Note” which was part of the staged crime scene. It is the primary link to the person or persons who were involved in JonBenet’s death.

There was an obvious attempt to disguise the true handwriting traits of the Ransom Note author. I believe this was done by using the non-dominant hand at times, and also by deliberate variation of strokes, especially at the beginning of the ransom note. It does make it more difficult to determine the identity of the ransom note author, but not impossible. We carry the same individual traits in our handwriting no matter which hand we use to write.

Handwriting is a revelation of personality ... the way we form letters, use the space on the page, approach the baseline, etc. is a subconscious reflection of ourselves. There can be attempts to modify, change, or disguise our handwriting, but our true nature will always come through eventually.

In handwriting analysis, a sample is first analyzed from the bottom of the page, or from the end to the beginning. The reason for this is that as a person writes they loosen up, and their true personality is revealed. When we start writing a letter or note, the writing is more controlled as we try to follow conventional dictates and present our best “self.” But the farther we go on the page, our natural tendencies begin to exert themselves, and the false control gives way to a freer hand. This fact is very evident in the Ramsey Ransom Note and helps identify the author by giving us multiple samples of letter formations.

It is obvious that in a staged crime scene, such as the one found in the Ramsey home, the people present in the house when the crime was committed should have their handwriting compared to that of the Ransom Note.

The handwriting, vocabulary and syntax of the Ransom Note are those of an adult which excludes JonBenet’s brother Burke, who was nine-years-old at the time. That leaves the two adults who were there at the time, John and Patsy Ramsey.

Using samples of John and Patsy Ramsey's printed handwriting, I have made visual analysis charts that compare certain distinctive elements of their handwriting with the Ransom Note. John Ramsey’s sample was taken from a note written to a contractor. Patsy Ramsey’s samples came from three different sources, all written at the request of investigators: (1) her right hand sample of the Ransom Note, (2) her "spontaneous" letter written at the request of investigators, and (3) her "London Letter.”

I have made additional comparisons of Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting using other available samples that were written both pre and post Christmas 1996.

There are several avenues of exploration available to us in performing an analysis of the comparisons that follow. Lacking the originals, it is difficult to determine actual pen pressure, and since we are dealing with copies of copies, it is also difficult to ascertain true pastosity. However, we can still analyze slant, the use of space (between letters, between words, between lines and on the page), speed, rhythm, zones, loops, connecting strokes, and other defining traits such as unique individual letter formations.

What follows is not my complete analysis of the Ransom Note using graphology and exemplar comparisons, but a few selected important examples from that analysis.

I have divided the handwriting analysis into two parts with the first part comparing the handwriting of John and Patsy Ramsey with that of the Ransom Note writer. After eliminating John as the Ransom Note author, I then provide examples showing the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey in comparison to the Ransom Note.


HANDWRITING ANALYSIS – Part I, Section I

The Importance of Slant in Handwriting

To begin, I would like to address the issue of "slant as it is an important component of handwriting analysis. The slant of a person’s handwriting reveals their emotional response to the outside world. A person whose handwriting slants towards the left will try to avoid emotional situations. A person whose handwriting slants right is more willing to communicate their emotions.

Certified graphologist, Sheila Lowe, says, “Writing slant tracks the moment-to-moment flow of feelings and responses. It demonstrates surface reactions but not the deeper emotional expression found in some other areas of handwriting, such as pressure…. Handwriting is a lot like body language…. The degree to which handwriting slants to the right or left reveals how much the writer wants to be involved” with other people.

Andrea McNichol is a certified expert witness and graphology consultant for American and British law enforcement. In her book on handwriting analysis, Ms. McNichol says, “Slant reveals the degree to which you express your real emotional feelings to others.”

“Slanting to the right is to express your real emotional feelings, to be demonstrative, affectionate, and passionate. It also means oriented toward the future…. Writing vertically is to suppress your real emotional feelings. It’s the slant associated with diplomacy in that you neither express nor repress your feelings. It also means oriented toward the present…. Slanting to the left is to repress your real emotional feelings, to think one thing but say another, to lean over backward to avoid emotional situations. It also means oriented toward the past…. The unstable slant is a slant constantly changing directions and means to lack control over the expression of your emotions, to be emotionally unstable.”

A person under great emotional turmoil and stress at a given time will sometimes write with a varied slant, and even change the slant of the letters while writing them so it looks like the "back" of the letter is "breaking." It is indicative of the emotional pressure weighing down on the person. Their letters cannot even stand up straight. We find both the different slants and especially the bent letters in the handwriting of the Ransom Note author.

John Ramsey prints with a backward slant that correlates with what we know of his personality.

The Ransom Note author prints primarily in a straight-up-and-down fashion, or slant to the right, with a few left slants thrown in. The inner turmoil experienced by the Ransom Note author is revealed in the bent letters that speak of the enormous pressure under which they were written.

Patsy Ramsey prints in either a straight-up-and-down fashion, or with a slant to the right. This also matches what we know of Patsy's personality. (Her cursive handwriting usually has a right slant.)

The following graphic compares the slant of John Ramsey's printed handwriting with that of the Ransom Note author's handwriting.

[Cherokee]

This next graphic is a comparison of slant between the printed handwriting of John Ramsey, the handwriting of Ransom Note author, and the printed handwriting of Patsy Ramsey from three different sources.

As illustrated below, Patsy Ramsey has the same slant patterns as those of the Ransom Note author. John Ramsey does not.

[Cherokee]

HANDWRITING ANALYSIS – Part I, Section II

The Use of the Lowercase Letter ‘N’

Next, I would like to address the individual letter trait of the lowercase letter 'n'.

In John's printed handwriting, he uses the lowercase 'n' for the beginnings of words such as "not" and "notified." In all other words using a lowercase 'n', John substitutes a small uppercase 'N' in the middle, and at the ends, of words. Examples from his handwriting are:

beeN
iNstaller
discrepaNcy
oN
occasioNs
accouNt
wheN


This case substitution is one of John’s identifying handwriting traits, and is made subconsciously.

The Ransom Note author uses only the lowercase 'n' at the beginning, middle and end of words and DOES NOT make this substitution even once.

Patsy Ramsey also uses only the lowercase 'n' at the beginning, middle and end of words.

The following graphics will illustrate that point.

As shown in the examples, Patsy Ramsey writes with the same lowercase letter ‘n’ as that of the Ransom Note author. John Ramsey does not.