Linguistic Analysis of one sentence from Patsy Ramsey's 911 Call
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Having just watched a Statement Analysis video on Patsy Ramsey's 911 call, I made this short response. It is not meant to be an ad hominem attack so no names are mentioned, I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that if one is in the business of analysing statements, inferences about deception and truthfulness should be based upon sound linguistic principles.
I have no idea what u said but it sure sounded good! Your voice is so smooth & relaxing. Please consider making sleep or meditation videos, read books, anything u want to say for at least an hour
Yes - perfect voice for ASMR
I clicked on this so fast!
Me too!
Me too. Gotta hear this!
Same!
Great video! Thank you!!
Wow! Such wisdom here! Statement analysis is amazingly accurate in uncovering deception.
Hi there. Do you find it odd she didnt establish ownership reflecting her social status in a time of mass panic? Maybe she might use the words, my daughter? My daughter has been kidnapped or someone took my daughter? I'm in the medical feild so idk if that means anything really. Just asking
I think she is limited in her choice of subject by the question, "What's going on there?" Patsy cannot use "my daughter' as subject because her daughter is not 'there'. The question demands an "I am" or "we are" theme. That is why I say she is guided to "we" by the 911 operator, but steers the sentence back to one containing a message about her daughter's kidnapping. The only way she can do that is to nominalise the clause, "My daughter has been kidnapped," into " a kidnapping".
@@Plingu698 Yes. We cant take a principle of SA and then insist everyone conform to it. I often find myself using apparently absurd phraseology in my haste to answer a poorly constructed question. "What's going on there?" is not a good way for the operator to initiate because it contaminates the response for precisely the reason you give. It looks like a new profession is opening up: linguistic analysis for the defense.
@@personanongrata7976 just out of curiosity, what would be a better question for 911 and other emergency operators to ask to elicit better answers? Genuinely curious.
How about the way they are Trained to ask, for starters? @@johannahoneyman697
@@johannahoneyman697 After leaving my comment, I asked myself that same question, and to my embarrassment was unable to think of a question that didn't promise to become problematic. "Where is your emergency?" followed by ....? "What is the nature of your emergency?" IDK. Maybe being a 911 operator isn't as easy as I thought, LOL
Great video
@@riac5388 thanks
Interesting that you used the example 'Peter is the leader'. Was it by chance a Peter Hyatt statement analysis you watched? I appreciate your breakdown, very insightful as always. Be that as it may, I think the more expected response to the operator would have been something like "My daughter has been kidnapped." Of course I'm no linguist but "We have a kidnapping" strikes me as unusual and vague in the circumstances. For starters, it necessitates another question i.e. "Who has been kidnapped?" If you are hellbent on getting the information as quickly as possible to the operator, I would think being vague on details would be something you might want to avoid. From a reply you left on another comment I see you think that the word "there" used by the operator made Patsy not reply with "My daughter..." as JonBenet was not physically there. A couple of thoughts on that - firstly, JonBenet was in fact there as it turned out. She was only "not there" if you think Patsy was not involved. Many if not most people think the Ramsays were involved in JonBenet's death. In that case, can we view Patsy's response as being even more directly aimed at distancing herself from the reality? "What's going on there" - in truth (If the Ramsays are guilty) the answer is "My daughter is dead in the basement and one of us killed her"... so, in Patsy's panicked mind she must hurriedly deflect the truth - must remember to not imply that her daughter is here which is a hastily cobbled-together plot... so she replies with the unusual and frankly unhelpful "We have a kidnapping" which necessitates another question. Secondly, the word "there" in the context used by the operator seems little more than another way of saying "with you". To me it doesn't demand the unusual and vague response that Patsy gives even though you laid out linguistic reasons as to why it does. I maintain that a perfectly acceptable response to "What's going on there" is "My daughter has been kidnapped". If Patsy is telling the truth, then the kidnap happened "there" and it's solely "what's going on" as it's the only reason for the panic and the call. Just my 2c as a layman. Apart from the 911 call which I do find strange, I would be very interested to see you break down the ransom note and/or hear your thoughts on the case in general. On the reddit group there seem to be different factions pdi, jdi, bdi, rdi, idi - Patsy did it, John did it, Burke did it, Ramseys did it, Intruder did it. I'm in one of the first 4 camps but I'm never sure which one. Intriguing case and tragic. I firmly believe Patsy wrote that ransom note. I have often wondered what would possess John Bennett Ramsey to construct an ugly portmanteau of his first two names into a slightly ridiculous made-up name for his female child? Hubris? Any thoughts on that, linguistically? Keep up the great work. Thank you for your videos which are always well-reasoned and thought-provoking.
@YellowJello57 ha! Actually, no, it wasn't Peter hyatt. Actually, I have taken down my peter hyatt gripe video because, while I wanted to say something, I didn't want to shout it out forever. For the same reason, I won't say who I am referring to, but it was a video that was uploaded 7 days ago. I think I explain my reason for the obligatory 'we have' theme, so there's no need to restate that, but consider, " Houston, we have a problem!" The astronaut did not say," Houston, the oxygen tank has fallen off!" The main point comes first, details later. I am not familiar with all the theories surrounding the case, but that is okay because I want to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible.
@@Plingu698 Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
Yes. I would like to hear you read Winnie the Pooh. Seriously.
Also, I have been waiting for this one-thank you!
@@AnotherAmy has he ever given a statement to the police?
@@Plingu698 Lol-no-not the police, silly old bear! But he has given many statements to piglet and Eeyore. You would need to start a separate channel for the Winnie the Pooh part.
Interesting video,as always! Here in Scotland, 7 hours ago would be 4am, so sorry im late to the party!!
@@gillianlaing1073 haha! i think you are still early.
@@Plingu698 new Orleans nice?
@@gillianlaing1073 I couldn't possibly say
@@Plingu698 I'm running out of places to quess🧐
@@gillianlaing1073 you'll have to start on a whole new continent soon!
Dear Bob, thanks for another great video, love the topic! however I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that this is not deceptive. If Your Child is missing that is your first priority and it should be communicated like this.
Her main aim however is to convince everyone about the alleged kidnapping.
„We“ points to a conspiracy, imo.
According to her own words, they both voluntarily take ownership of the kidnapping, that was allegedly bestowed on them… it’s like saying „I have a black eye“ instead of saying „someone gave me a black eye“.
If your child is lost, you don’t „have“ anything!
She does not even mention her daughter, who she knows has ceased to exist. It’s all self-protection that’s left.
They are guilty as hell for me.
I think her statement in Truth is short for: „We have (staged) a kidnapping!“
@user-ul8ow6xj3u I guess I lost my way a bit. What I should have said was that this statement is not " passive beyond belief", in fact, it is by no means passive whatsoever . So, one cannot draw from it a conclusion that it is a deceptive statement based on its " passivity." If one wants to say it is deceptive for other reasons, that it's urgent message is wrapped up as a possessed noun, then that would be okay by me, but I think she was led into that structure by the operator. It is hard to know what her unprompted statement would have been. Anyway, thanks for your feedback.
@@Plingu698 thanks for the clarification!! It’s so nice to read your personal replies! 🥰
Very interesting, thank you so much - I need to listen again a few times, you're way too clever for me, plus I was just off to sleep when i saw this. Couldn't wait until morning! I got the gist, I think but what if we swap the word 'kidnapping for, 'story' or, 'performance' or 'show'? That's how it sounds to me. Like, lights, camera - action! I know I'm not.presenting evidence but I dont believe Patsy had anything to do with the death of Jonbennet and she suffered so much. Can't imagine the shock she was in at this moment, the poor woman. Thanks again🙏
Hi penelope, nice to hear from you. I don't know if you got my message, but per your request. I did create an email address and added it to the channel, so it's there if you need it. I have never looked at the language in the Ramsey case before, but I think it is easy to be guided by what has been said about the case already and find guilt in the language where there might not be any. I thought this was an example worth highlighting. The analyst I watched pronounces the sentence "passive beyond belief," with the inference being that "passive"= deception. So this is a mistake based on a mistake, in my opinion. If Patsy is guilty, it is not being revealed in this sentence, so is that conclusion coming from elsewhere, and the language being misread to fit ?
Thanka so.much just almost seen this but wirhout glasses! Will get back to you asap 🙏@Plingu698
I may be biased, but it was dislike at first sight/sound of Patsy. The ransom letter says don't call police and she remains inside the house while calling the police. You would think she would be calling their most intimidating male friend or neighbor in close proximity but no, here we are....
@@kafusada1041 that may be so, but what I caution against is working backwards from a preconceived notion of guilt to a prejudiced reading of a statement
@@Plingu698 I am in agreement with that but it is somewhat harder with the Ramseys. Will you go further with analysis of their statements? Objectively, in a forward fashion, of course...
@@kafusada1041 I might do one more sentence!
I just listened to the JP Miller sermon and was wondering if you had some JonBenet. Thank you now it’s here a few days later!!
Would LOVE to see you analyze the Karen Read case/trial.
@@eliza3001 if you can point me to a specific speech sample, I don't mind.
@@Plingu698 Most people believe that the defendant was framed for a murder she didn't commit and that many of the prosecution witnesses lied on the stand. It is hard to choose one witnesses, I'd love to see your analysis of all of their testimonies. But Jen McCabes, or Brian Higgins testimonies were especially interesting. Many think Higgins could even been the murderer.