 Today we're going to talk about John Bennett Ramsey, and he's an American businessman and father of John Benay Ramsey who was murdered in Colorado in December of 1996. Greg, you want to tell us about the videos we're going to watch? Yeah, we have two videos, one's from a recent crime con where he's talking about DNA evidence and asking whether he can get someone else to test with all the modern changes to DNA. And the other is a 2000 interview, not long after this happened with him and Patsy and they're being questioned, I believe, in their Boulder home at the time. I think he was still CEO of a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, if he wasn't, he had not been long left there. So let's ask John, John, who do you think murdered your daughter? Why was your daughter murdered? Well, I don't know. I subscribed to John Douglas and John Douglas was an FBI person who started their profiling program years ago, PhD in psychology and interviewed over 5,000 bad guys to develop this profiling skill. And he said, this is difficult for me to accept. He said, someone, this was not about your daughter, John Benay, this was about you, somebody who's either very angry at you or very jealous of you. And I said, I can't imagine I made anybody that angry. I just, it's not my nature. He said, well, you may not even know him. And that was somewhat comforting. But we were, our company was in Boulder, Colorado, which is not a big town. And, you know, we were kind of a big fish in a small pond, I guess. And I think, unfortunately, I think he's right. And that's difficult for me to accept or swallow. But now I know Lou Smith, who's one of the real seasoned detectives that was brought in by the DA on this, said, no, it's it. He thought it was a kidnapping going wrong. If you don't know who we are, we're the behavior panel. And I'm Scott Rouse, I'm a body language expert and analyst and I train law enforcement in the military and interrogation in body language. And it created the number one online course, BodyLanguageTactics.com with Greg Hartley. Mark. I'm Mark Bowden. I'm an expert in human behavior and body language, help people all over the world to stand out, win trust, gain credibility every time they communicate, including some of the leaders of the G7. Chase. I'm Chase Hughes. I did 20 years in U.S. military and wrote the number one bestselling book in behavior profiling, influence and persuasion. And I teach those things in my courses today, Greg. Greg Hartley. I'm a former Army interrogator, interrogation instructor, resistance to interrogation instructor, written 10 books on body language and behavior and put together the number one body language online course, BodyLanguageTactics.com with Scott Rouse and I spend most of my time in corporate America. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah. OK. So first of all, interesting interview new to me. I don't like the way the interviewer collides two questions together. She actually gets some good answers. But just as a general rule, if you're asking questions, try not to collide two together because it means you can't pass out which one's being answered in what kind of way. So, you know, when you're trying, especially when you've got a high value interview like the one in front of this crowd, incredibly high value interview can get excited, you can let it get out of control. Just hold back one question at a time. However, very relaxed there from the subject in what is a high stress situation. I expect big hall there. We can hear the reverb big hall, probably therefore a big crowd, a crowd that, from my understanding, would be a true crime crowd. So they will have some strong judgments about the character that they have in front of them right now. But he's very relaxed in this large hall situation. With a very difficult, what should be a very difficult subject for him here. His illustrators are good. They're on point. They match what he's saying in the rhythm is good. That suggests not under stress around this subject or very little stress around this this subject, a lot of congruence there, which can suggest a lot of honesty around what he's saying. Very few looks for approval. Only really one, which is didn't. I don't think I made anyone angry and there's a look to the interviewer. Therefore, I think some kind of approval on that. So look, there may be some ideas in his mind around how he performed as a CEO and and his perception of how he came across and other people's perceptions of how he came across. There may be some differences there. Very reflective in his answers, you know, thinking about his own experience, thinking about his own view of himself. People don't tend to do that under the stress and pressure of lying in my experience. There's that sense of resignation as well. It's quite depressed. The tone, it's quite resigned to the tone. And he says, well, I don't know. That's fairly firm. I don't know. So first off the bat there seems very congruent, very relaxed, very honest, what's being said there. But I'm open, I'm open to being persuaded into some other viewpoint on this. Chase, what do you got for me? Yeah, one thing we're seeing here for sure in this video is probably baseline behavior. And one of these baselines we're seeing is counting on fingers. And this is something that we can watch for in the future in response to other questions. And I personally have a hard time believing this is any behavior profiler's opinion. If currently, with the evidence that was there, this might be one of the worst criminal profiles. But I don't think maybe he misunderstood or misinterpreted it. I don't think there's any possible way a profiler would come to this conclusion. If so, it's flawed, to say the very least. And I think it had to have been misheard in some way. There's a standard profile for this based on FBI statistics, criminal profiling. This person is more likely to be Caucasian male between 28 and 40 socially isolated, very few friends, obsession with martial arts and weapons. This is a brand new thing. It's kind of well brand new in the last eight years. And social behavior is probably passive, need to be in control of other people. Nonconformist probably has long hair, probably knew the family in passing as a high chance of having an older sister didn't play sports. High chance there's at least one online record of visiting sites that exploit children. That's the current profile has nothing to do with being angry. This is probably a sexually driven crime just from looking at the evidence. And I know very little about the case. So I'm not a case expert. If you know more, educate me down there in the comments. Great. What do you think? Yeah, first of all, guys, there's no way we can know more than all of the internet sleuths here because you guys who spend a tremendous amount of time that's going to tell us we don't know the facts and you're right. That's the reason we look at body language. I think Chase, you said in the beginning, we're not the forensics panel. We are the behavior panel. A couple of things, Mark, you hit dead on. I'm going to use interrogator speak for what you said. Don't ask compound questions. Do you want to go to the store or to the to the CNN building? That's a compound question. The person can answer it any one of many ways and you don't know what they're answering. So ask clear, concise questions. Rule one, he's got a halting speech pattern here that people may say. Well, he's stopping to he has had this throughout the entire thing. We'll see him in a few minutes from 2000. He has a halting speech pattern. He also does a data insert and you'll hear him say John Douglas. And then he goes on to qualify who John Douglas is and moves his hands. Congruent messaging when he does his body language moves that. Remember, the organism does what made the organism successful. Business people are accustomed to not being able to introduce a new variable without qualifying it. If you're a CEO and you go out to the street and you start introducing while variable X, you create all kinds of chaos. And this guy was a business guy. So there you go. His illustrators are tied tightly to that qualifying his resource. And then his mark, I use the same word, congruent whole body messaging that you may know, may not know the person that that whole mindset. Then he does that characteristic. And we're going to see this over and over and over from him, this tongue jet. That's just part of his baseline, how he does. And then he does do a disappointment or disdain movement that withdrawal of his lips. And I think maybe he is right. It's a good start. He looks believable, trustworthy, all of those things. Scott, what do you got? I agree with all you guys at this point. His body language movements are very fluid. Little or no stress, his voice, cadence and volume and tone are all relatively normal to what we've seen and heard before. No in stress indicators. Those are then the slight squeezing of his hands. His vernacular is commensurate with what we've heard before as well. His illustrators are on point, like all you guys were saying. They're very fluid and they land where they should on the words. He's emphasizing like I just did just then words. He's emphasizing and he's told this story a thousand times. And he's almost loping. He's so comfortable telling such a horrific story. So I think he's used to telling it. So let's ask John. John, who do you think murdered your daughter? Why was your daughter murdered? Well, I don't know. I subscribe to John Douglas's and John Douglas was an FBI person who started their profiling program years ago. PhD in psychology or interviewed over five thousand bad guys to develop this profiling skill. And he said, this is difficult for me to accept. He said, someone, this was not about your daughter, gentlemen, this was about you. Somebody who's either very angry at you or very jealous of you. And I said, I can't imagine I made anybody that angry. I just it's not my nature. He said, well, you may not even know him. And that was somewhat comforting. But we were our company was in Boulder, Colorado, which is not a big town. And, you know, we were kind of a big fish in a small pond, I guess. And I think, unfortunately, I think he's right. And that's difficult for me to accept or swallow. But now I know Lou Smith, who's one of the real seasoned detectives that brought him by the DA on this. Said, no, it's it. He thought it was a kidnapping going wrong. John, we I need to ask the question for all these people here. They need to hear your voice. Did you murder your daughter? No, did Patsy? No, did Burke? No, that's no, why should we believe you? Well, based based on what the media reported, I don't know how you could believe otherwise. And we used to get letters from people that say, oh, you know, like for years, I thought you were the murderers of murderers of your daughter. And I'm so sorry I felt that way. And I'd write a magazine that's OK. How could you have believed otherwise, based on what you were being told? You know, the media was vicious to us. The police were vicious. People were wonderful to us. You know, I was asked early on, how is it to be out in public? And I said, it's wonderful. People stop us, give us hugs, apologize for what's being said about us. I said, it really gave me a understanding or an appreciation about my fellow man that they care about other people. And it changed me personally. You know, I was pretty much, I don't know, just insensitive, I guess, to the fact that most people carry a heavy burden. And life's not easy. And I was just so touched by the people that would stop. And that even happened today. And it was a blessing. People stop us and pray for us and, you know, at this meeting. And so people were wonderful to us. But of course, the media was vicious. It was a main for TV entertainment. And it was a billion-dollar industry for the media. The Jon Benet Inc. It was called in a magazine publication. You know, we came along when the O.J. Simpson trial had ended. And there was this whole bandwidth of media, court TV, all these things that were came up and alive because of the O.J. Simpson trial. And that was over. It's like, hey, what do we do with all this airtime? Well, then we came along and filled it. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, it's interesting. We always say you should hear an emphatic no when a person is denying something. He does an emphatic no. When he's asked if Patsy did it, he does an emphatic no. And then when he's asked if Bert did, he says, no, and he trails off and starts to say something. And she steps on him and we don't know what he would have said. Whatever that was, I would have gone back and cleaned that up and said, what exactly were you talking about right here? Just give him a chance to talk. But it's unnatural for a person to step over that and let the person go, especially when it's a situation where you're talking about their closest loved ones. This guy's lost two daughters, I believe, and a wife. So and I think he had lost a daughter in an accident before. But he's doing sacred space, what I call sacred space. He's burying and adapting. So he's grinding his hands and making a barrier out of him when he's being asked about his family. Once he comes out of that, his whole baseline goes to normal. He starts talking. He does do one thing that's interesting is when she starts asking him about the questions, he starts to move off and not actually answer questions about why should we not think it's you and just starts answering questions about, I don't know how you would not think it's me with all the media has done to us, but then to bring up things about other people. Realize this guy's done this for 20 years, 20 plus years. He's been talking about loss of this kid and about treatment and how they've been perceived. So he also is keenly wears in front of crime con. And if you say he's not making eye contact, he's looking down at the audience. If you look at video of all of us at the live event, our eyes are all cast down because we're looking at people. We're standing at a higher level. Same thing here. She's so anxious to get her next question that she's drumming her fingers. It's interesting to watch, but she doesn't want to cut him off. And you can see that you can see a good baseline from. I see pretty congruent messaging here. I hear emphatic, emphatic, emphatic with some qualifiers. I wish we could have heard what the qualifiers were. We all have our own opinion. We have reviewed Burke, but I'd love to hear what his is. Chase, what do you got? Yes. So we see more counting on fingers here. And that behavior can be seen here again. There's a rising pitch when he makes the denial about himself. And I know some people may jump on that. This does not mean deception because there's not a cluster of behavior. When you hear all of us dog pile onto a behavior, you're hearing us just layer this mountain of behavioral indicators together. Those are clusters. There is a cluster of behavior in an unusual place here, though, is denial about Burke. This was the strongest hesitancy. The only time he repeats himself, the strongest head and eye aversion from the person asking the question, the largest hand movement. And this would be a red flag. Not deception, necessarily. This just means that there's more for us to ask exactly what Greg was just telling you. This is just another place where there's something that needs to come out because something's there. There's something present there that's different than the other two denials. Scott, what do you got? I agree with you. I think there's something else there. But I think what that something else is, is his anger toward all the fingers that have been pointing toward Burke. I think that's and so he's trying not to go off on a tangent there about his thoughts on that, which he probably could have done. Like you said, Greg, she hadn't stepped on him. So that kind of that got on my nerves a little bit. But I'm under the impression he knows what the questions are going to be, because what else one of the questions are there, besides what he's been asked a thousand times, his legs are crossed as he uses those as a barrier. But I think it's for the question more than for the interviewer. And he uses his hands again as as as adapters. The first two knows on whether he killed or they killed the child. He is he did his wife did or Burke did. The first two knows are are close. But obviously, as we talked about a second ago, the third one is a little bit different, but it goes from no, no, no, like that's like that. So he's he's getting more relaxed as he goes along because but it's very quick. His answer is very fast at the top of that, almost like he was not angry, but he's poking back there just a little bit. Then when she asks, why should we believe you? The throat clearing, I think, is just a little bit of nervousness because it questions his veracity at that point. And he keeps his hands hands class because it's pretty big deal for these questions to be asked in front of a crowd. So that's understandable that he would look just a bit nervous in that way. And he asks questions at the beginning and then it goes into people who felt bad about thinking he was guilty. You know, he starts talking about that, how bad they felt. And he's trying to he's given the impression there are a lot of people that believe him and believe that his family didn't do it, which is fine. His illustrator is still on point and uses them again fluently. And this lets us know that he's relaxed, that he's he's done this before he's used to it. And I think he's got his stock answers. And depending on where he is, he sort of plays off those those answers, adds to it or takes away from it, depending on what you could have a hostile crowd or you could have a really nice one. Apparently this is a really nice one. It's a crime call. And so they're really into hearing what he has to say. So they're going to give him a lot of brush or push back on anything. But I'm not seeing any deception so far or any big stress cues. And I think it's it's going smoothly so far. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so he knows this question is coming. And so we do see him prepare himself. I think he crosses his legs. He bolts himself down a little bit. I think that's understandable. I'm not going to put that down as he he's he's getting ready for his deception. Also, there are three clear nose, but different intonation on each. I like Scott that they they go down in tonality each time. It's very finalised on the end one, although you're absolutely right. No, that's no. I, you know, it this interviewer. You know, one of the things you've got to do if you've got a high value interview is take your own pulse first, you know, look after yourself before you go into that high value interview because you need to calm down during that. And and I don't think this interview is is is calm enough to really get the best out of this situation because you're right. She should have gone back on that or she should have let him answer fully because we want to know what is his view on this. He has very different views on why not, why no for each one of those participants there. And that's why I think we get a different intonation of no, some subtle differences there because the reasons why it's not, you know, him or his wife or his son, I think are very, very different in his in his mind. Look, for me, what's most interesting about this is that he says, look, media needed something to to fill their their airtime with. We all have a little media outlet called the Behaviour Panel. And there's just been this huge jamboree that's gone on of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, OK, which has caused many new channels to kind of bubble up because, you know, why not? Of course, why not? And there has been no bigger story since O.J. Simpson, this it's been a once in in every quarter of a century tsunami of interest, which means money. People have made a lot of money out of those stories. OK. And what if you'd have started a channel and then suddenly it disappears? Now what do you do? Now, what are you going to do for viewers? Because you were part of that tsunami. You were you were riding this wave, which was a hundred feet tall, that only happens every quarter of a century. Now, what are you going to do with your time? Because you haven't built up that base beforehand. OK. Now, you know, we're good. We've been going a long, long time, and we'll just keep doing what we've always done. But if you put on top of that, what if you bought airspace? We don't buy any airspace with this is all kind of free. So this is low cost for us. We show up, we have a great time and we go home. OK, you know, it's fantastic. But what if we'd spent money? We would be sitting here right now going, man, we've got to make our money back here. We spent all that money out to the airwaves. We've promised advertisers, viewers. We've got contracts right now. What are we going to give them? We would want a story. And that's what he's highlighting here is he's not just, you know, a dad who's lost a child, a family that's lost a child. He's part of the media machine, which is massive. And these stories are bigger than some of the biggest stories. If the Benet story was as big as an OJ, that means it outclassed any of any royal stories. If you put a Meghan Markle there, it would get wiped by it. So I just want to, you know, put it in that context, that what he's saying there about media and the desire, the appetite for big stories, absolutely true. And people's jobs depend on it. And and he's as a as a it's very factual, I would suggest what he's saying there. Great. Yeah, there's one other one. They're a key point when you mention that his tone is different depending on the person. I know for a fact I didn't do it. I'm sure she didn't do it. There could be and he could have knowledge and information that would be guilty knowledge if he released it to the public that tells him there's no way that child did it. There's also that the piece that we don't know is all of that information that's been withheld so that when they get the right person, they know they've got the right person, he may have, he may have that and can't share it. So just remember that when you hear a person talk like that. Yeah, good point. John, we I need to ask the question for all these people here, they need to hear your voice. Did you murder your daughter? No. Did Patsy? No. Did Burke? No, that's no. Why should we believe you? Well, based on what the media reported, I don't know how you could believe otherwise. And we used to get letters from people that say, oh, you know, for years, I thought you were the murderers of your daughter. And I'm so sorry, I felt that way. And I would write a magazine. That's OK. How could you have believed otherwise based on what you were being told? You know, the media was vicious to us, the police were vicious. People were wonderful to us. You know, I was asked early on how is it to be out in public? And I said, it's wonderful. People stop us, give us hugs, apologize for what's being said about us. I said, it really gave me understanding or an appreciation of my fellow man that they care about other people and it changed me personally. You know, I was pretty much I don't know, just insensitive, I guess, to the fact that most people carry a heavy burden and life's not easy. And I was just so touched by the people that would stop. And that even happened today. And it was a blessing. People stop us and pray for us. And, you know, at this meeting. And so people were wonderful to us. But of course, the media was vicious. It was it was a main for TV entertainment. And it was a billion dollar industry for the media. The John Bonnet Inc. It was called in a magazine publication. You know, we came along when the O.J. Simpson trial had ended and there was this whole bandwidth of media, court TV, all these things that were came up and alive because of the O.J. Simpson trial and that was over. It's like, hey, what do we do with all this airtime? Well, then we came along and and filled it. And there will be people who want us and say, as you say that, we want to find the killer. They'll say, well, you are the killer. You know, look, we're never going to convince cynics of the truth, so we don't try to. What we're trying to do is solicit help from the public to find this creature and to beg the Colorado officials to be at least objective and open enough to listen when that tip comes through. Then we'll find this person. What's going on with this hatred and obsession and fringe? I don't know what we've learned through all this. We've come out of this realizing there are a lot of good people in the world. We've had wonderful people come forward and support us from all the world. And even though you think that we would come out of this being hateful and want to go to a mountain retreat and fence ourselves off the world, we realize there are some wonderful, good people in the world. But we also realized that there's some very fundamentally evil bad people in the world. That's a fact. We were naive about that, but it exists. There are more good people than bad, but the bad exists. And we're never going to change that. And we're not trying to to convince the bad people and the cynics and the hateful people that we loved our daughter and that we didn't kill her. We're trying to appeal to the good people and say, let's find this evil creature that's among us and put him away because this person will kill another child. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this is a great lesson in microculture. Remember, we talk about cultures being from macro all the way to very large organizations of human beings all the way down to what I call microculture. Two people can be a microculture and signaling and all of that between two people is powerful. She just signal him, this is yours. Please take it. You can't miss it. And let's talk about Will and Jada for just a minute at the Oscars. If you don't think they're signaling going on with a and then hard eye contact, they're signaling, too. That's the way we all of us in relationships have that capability. We all know how to signal each other. We all know each other's hot buttons. We know that if I don't respond to a certain thing, something's going to happen, it's interesting to watch this signaling and her move over. Because what you're seeing here is a guy who worked for Lockheed Martin, who's accustomed to being on the hot seat and probably can take it a lot better, and his hot buttons don't rise to the top as quickly as somebody who doesn't have to deal with that. Because if he did, he wouldn't make it to the point he did in business because his buttons would get pushed and he would get walked out the door. So they're taking advantage of their strengths. One of the interesting pieces to me here is he starts to work to search for words. If you see him go to his right and search for words to characterize what he wants to say. And I thought to start with that was probably what it was. And we get confirmation when she asks him a conjecture question. What is going on in the world that forced him to go and create thought. So he goes right back to the same place he's doing when he's trying to answer her initial question. You hear his cadence shift to give him time to think when he says what we're trying to do. Inhales and delivers his words. Dr. Phil has a term that I love called CEO itis. And it's when a person feels like they have to answer a question even without data. And even though you just asked them three minutes ago and then you come back to the question and they're like, well, I'd better have the answer now. And they come back and answer it. What he is really good at is he doesn't do it. You can see he's trying to come up with the right answer. But all of that messaging when he's delivering it is congruent. Voice, nods, cadence raises his brow. But his brow is not a request for approval. It's a do you understand more of an illustrator of that's the point. And then you see him do a tongue jut. We know that's just kind of something he does over and over and over. And it might even be an illustrator in this case for that's all I got to say about that when he's interested in when she's talking, you see him raising his brow a little, but his lips are pursed when she's asking that conjecture question. He breaks his eyes, goes the answers and then goes back down to right to talk about what's going on all around. This looks congruent mimics. The same thing we saw before when he's talking about non-threatening people, cadence, illustrators, everything's together. Scott, what do you got? All right. After the question, Patsy looks to him like you were saying, because they've worked out who's going to answer what when that subject comes up, she looks to him and he starts answering the question and during the question when he says hateful, we see a micro expression of contempt. And that's for the people who spoke out against them. And all the lip licking, like we said earlier, that's just part of his baseline. It means most likely absolutely nothing. It may be an adapter here in a little while, while when he sort of leans on that at the end of some things. But his entire answer, as with all of his answers, like you were talking about, Greg, it's CEO like, it's like a CEO speaking. And which makes sense. His sentence structure is the same as somebody who's highly educated and has experience with solving problems. And he's great at getting to the root of the problem and get and sussing it out and getting to explain what the problem is. There's a guy named Michael Bertram. And he was a CEO at the Nashville Entrepreneur's Center. And he was really good at that. He could look at something and say, OK, here's the problem. Explain it to you very quickly. And then after getting to the root of it, say, here's a problem. Here's how we fix this. Greg, you can do this. You're good at that, even with us. Sussing out a problem and saying, hey, here's what the problem is. Here's what we need to do. This is what's been done before. And this is what I think we should do moving forward. And we talk about it. We do it 99 percent of the time because it makes sense. And it seems like the thing to do. And with those kinds of things, you're either a person who can do that or you're not. I don't think it's something that's that you can learn to be able to see to see the root of problems like in that the specificity of a of a problem, the very bottom of a problem. I think that's that's for whatever company you're with. I think that's a gift for your CEO to have that because it's so potent and powerful. I think he's good at that. I think he's controlling everything he says and everything he does and putting it in that his past experience of being a CEO and treating this like he's dealing with a problem with a company. So I think from that point of view, I think it's really it's really cool to see him doing that. I think it's that that's kind of cool. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so first off, it really is the same person as we saw in the first two videos, just with a more an even more intense situation here. It's it's closer in time to the the the loss of the daughter. And though I think that maybe some months or years between them again, I'm not an expert on this case like many people may be out there. But look, totally there's no changing character between who we saw in the first videos and this person here. The word creature, we see distaste, that sense of, you know, a nasty taste around sour taste here in around creature. Then we'll find the person. There's anger there. We get the tightening of the lips. And I think we get a tongue jut or a grooming there, which might be out of that baseline that we're seeing all the time, where he's maybe grooming the anger away, he doesn't seem like a person that wants to overtly display his anger around this situation. He may want to give the impression that he's very much in control of his his emotions, big stress on beg will beg the Colorado officials. Well, I think there's some stress there because why would you ever have to beg any officials to do their job, which is to investigate where things should be investigating. So, you know, you could say, hey, you know, he's trying to lay up some some chaff and redirect over there doesn't really seem like that, though. We'd want a lot more attention over over there. I think it's just a little lay down there of of we are we are truly subservient to you and we beg you to to reinitiate this investigation, you know, because we're hoping that if we keep on putting this story out there, new information will come in and you will investigate this instead of putting all the pressure on investigating us. Lots of other parts of anger, I think, in there. Certainly, yes, you're right, Scott, contempt and disdain on hateful anger on naive about that and the and the bad exists. Let's find this evil creature that's among among us. Let's find this evil creature that's among us. So, Chase, to your point, often there's no vanishing perpetrator here. They know the perpetrator, the perpetrator. I mean, they know they haven't they have a description in their mind of that perpetrator creature, distasteful creature, an evil creature that's among us. Again, that's not something I would expect to hear from people being or someone being deceptive in past. What we've heard a lot of is why I just don't know. Just don't know what the person is going to be like. Just, you know, who knows? Who knows? They know they know they've got a character. They've got some characteristics in mind for this. Chase, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I agree with you guys. And I think, Mark, to your begging point, I think they will they are having to beg at that point. I think throughout the trial until today, they're dealing with a stunning degree of incompetence slash negligence on on that side of the fence. But in this video, we see another baseline behavior of defaulting to answering questions by socializing the answer and redirecting the topic to social support. So that was not the question of the first video that we looked at where we saw this that wasn't necessarily the question in this video. But the answer gets redirected to social support. And we're seeing good baseline. This is a decade or more apart, I think two decades apart. There's comfort using two key words in this clip. Kill and creature, neither of which would be more likely in a deception. So we're seeing truthful here. Answers are focused directly on perpetrator, not the story and directly focusing on getting help and law enforcement involvement when not specifically asked about it. It's not like I'm a reporter saying, hey, would you like the police to get involved? And the parents are going, yes, that sounds like a great idea. He's he's forcefully pushing it into the conversation, which is a big deal. Blink rate is steady, no people dilation or constriction. He failed to use his daughter's name. We say that every once in a while, but we say it inside of a mountain of other clusters. So if I have a scale here and I put the failure to use the daughter's name here and all the other behaviors on this, that wins. So this whole clip communicates innocence. And there will be people who want to say, as you say that we want to find the killer. They'll say, well, you are the killer. You know, look, we're never going to convince cynics of the truth. So we don't try to. What we're trying to do is solicit help from the public to find this creature and to beg the Colorado officials to be at least objective and open enough to listen when that tip comes through. Then we'll find this person. What's going on with this hatred and obsession and fringe? I don't know what we've learned through all this. We've come out of this realizing there are a lot of good people in the world. We've had wonderful people come forward and support us from all the world. And even though you think that we've come out of this being hateful and want to go to a mountain retreat and fence ourselves off the world, we realized there are some wonderful, good people in the world. But we also realized that there's some very fundamentally evil, bad people in the world. That's a fact. We were naive about that, but it exists. There are more good people than bad, but the bad exists. And we're never going to change that. And we're not trying to to convince the bad people and the cynics and the hateful people that we loved our daughter and that we didn't kill her. We're trying to appeal to the good people and say, let's find this evil creature that's among us and put him away because this person will kill another child. Mr. Ramsey, the police officers told you or the police officer, the police detective told you to search the house. Tell us about that, please. I don't remember exactly when it was that morning, but we were standing in the foyer of the house and Linda Arant asked me to take someone with me and go through the house thoroughly, look for anything that was out of the ordinary. Fleet was standing there, my friend, and we both went to the basement and first went into what we call the train room, which is where we found the open window and the suitcase up against the wall. We looked there for glass again to see if we could find any any glass because the window was not only open, it was broken. Then I went to the to the room where we did find Jambané. The door was latched and latched and pulled it open and instantly what I found. Tell us about that, please. Well, it was a rush of relief, but also fear because her eyes were closed. I immediately took the tape off of her mouth, tried to untie her arms bound above her head, I tried to untie the knot and I couldn't get it untied. Her skin was cool to the touch and I picked her up and that's when I screamed. Because I was, I guess, just realizing that things were not going to be OK after all. And things never have been since. Oh, yeah, then there will be. We've lost our child. It's never going to be the same. All right, Chase, what do you got? I think there's a strong deviation from baseline here at a very particular point about finding her in the second half of this clip. The eye accessing goes way off baseline to three o'clock to as you're looking at it, it's your three o'clock at this unusual moment. He says went to the basement right at that part. And this a massive detail spike way out of baseline on evidence and data and insignificant details. And all these details revolve around proving that a crime occurred, that some kidnapping attempt occurred and he's maintaining eye contact after an emotional revelation, a revelation. This is largely out of his baseline big time and also a red flag for a lot of interviews. If there's an emotional revelation, you don't stare at the interviewer unless you're looking for did they believe it? So this shows that there's a potential that for a desire to check if it was accepted by the other party. When he says the window was broken, there's lip licking, there's a postural bump, there's a detailed spike, there's eye blocking behavior, like a blink flutter here. It's the longest pause that he makes ever. So huge deviations from baseline. There's a sour pucker on his face, as Mark would say, it's a bit. It's a bit of taste. It's another huge detail spike on describing the latch. And then he says the room where we did find John Benet, not the room where we found her, it's the room where we did find her. So this is a strong deviation from his baseline, a shift to clinical language, shifting over to clinical language that sounds like an instruction manual. And a lot of us do this unconsciously when we're being deceptive and it's more congruent speech. So our brain defaults to this congruent speech that sounds more believable and more factual. This is the exact same reason that people are less likely to use pronouns. If you go down to your utility room right now, flip open the manual for your clothes washing machine, it's not going to have a pronoun in it when it tells you how to do things, no pronouns. So that's a lot of what we're seeing here. It's an overall lack of scene, space, sensory details in most of the language here and the details are adding contain no emotion, which is fine. That's maybe a baseline for him. But all the detail, the spike in detail is focused on having found her at a particular time, focused on having found her at a very particular time. And I think that's important to note here. This overall suggested at least a strong discrepancy with timeline and when she was actually discovered according to me anyway, in my opinion. Greg, what do you got? I only see a hell of a lot of emotion here contained, but a hell of a lot of emotion. I see hard eye contact when she's doing data intake. She's he's doing this hard eye contact. What are you asking? Then he goes to emotional eye accessing down hard right as quickly as he starts talking about facts, his cadence slows. We associate slowing of cadence with emotion. His voice softens. We associate that with emotion. His illustrator, his head, his hands, his mouth all seem to be doing the same thing while I agree, he does make a minor. It's pertinent because of when it happens, but a minor eye accessing deviation. Remember that when we go back to memory for eye accessing, it can mean a lot of things. It can mean, hey, where's the there can be a red line that I'm not supposed to cross that somebody told me, do not divulge this piece of information. And if I'm remembering an auditory cue, I'm going to go there to find out what was it that Chase told me. So I would be careful with that one is my only one I'd be concerned with. But there's a lip compression and a cadence shift. That one is a flag for me to go and say, is that around? Did I miss her when I look the first time? Is that around something else? I don't know. I can't tell you that. But I see lip compression and a cadence shift after all of that fluid, congruent messaging. So then he goes again. I think that's an emotional issue is the reason he's doing this and stretching it out. If you want to really see how he feels, freeze this video and we will at one minute and five seconds and see his face. His brows are tight. There's disdain with drawn lips, a lip compression, eye blocking and deep swallow. All of that stuff at what I found makes it look like a very emotional recall that's tough for a person. Now, does that mean he had nothing to do? No, but what it does mean is when he sees her body, I think that at 105 go see that and that's appropriate body language for that. And after that's when I screamed, you see disdain and all those arrows are aligned. This is a guy who's accustomed. I always say this if you've never dealt, if you never worked in corporate American, you never worked at the level of a leader of a company. I don't know how big this one is. Then you get used to being able to get take punches in the face and stomps on your feet. It's what they do for a living. I mean, they have to deal with day in, day out adversity. Don't know this question, but I've worked alongside CEOs who have to go tell somebody their son, their wife, their husband has been killed at work. You've got to get pretty tough at certain things. So I think depending on where he's been, maybe some of this comes from the only place I have had a question was around that in that lip compression and the cadence shift. But then he does it again as he's getting into that face. So, Chase, I see your red flags. I think he's still telling the truth. But, you know, this is we can't read minds. This is what makes this great is we're pointing out what we do see. Mark, what do you see? Yeah, let me see if I can add anything here. I see a facial gesture of disgust around the basement. And but that seems congruent to me. If there's a it's going to see something horrible, there's a horrible act happened down there, whether he's something to do with it or maybe isn't something to do with it. Disgust seems more fitting, I think, for if he's not had anything to do with it, potentially seems congruent for me. I'm happy with the steady pace that he's going through it, through that story. Here's what I'm not happy with, Chase, is for me, there's some discrepancies in some details here. Maybe it talks to Greg's point that there are some things that can't be that need to be kept secret, should this investigation go further. But for me, there's there's discrepancy around. I think he talks about the window was broken and so they looked for the glass. Well, the glass will be below the window if the person broke in. But you won't find the glass potentially, possibly, probably if they broke out. And so so there's no description of why they would find it. They're why they would need to look for the glass. If somebody's broken in, it's going to be at your feet right now. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's there's other stuff happens there. But but I don't I don't I don't quite understand that discrepancy there and why that isn't really fully gone into or seems glossed over a little bit. There's certainly distress, I think, around what he sounds. There's a big outbreath of resignation before that description of of of his daughter. His breathing is depressed, his voice is depressed. That's not usual in my view around deception, that resignation. Most people, many people that we viewed that are being deceptive, they'll be really up, they'll be really quite energized, they'll be a little more amber heard about the whole thing, a little more up, a little more buoyant to try and prove it. It's done. It's gone. She's gone now. It's it's there's nothing he can do about it. It's more despondent, I would say. So I get what you're saying that they're chase. I'm I'm there are there are some discrepancies for me as well. But in terms of out and out deception, which is not what you're saying anyway, but in terms of out and out deception, I'm good, I'm good, seems pretty honest to me. But Scott, you got anything? All right. I saw when I was looking at these videos, because Greg sends a link in the thing and there's a video just to the right of one of these, I can't remember which one, but I remember seeing him describe the same thing almost the exact same way. I mean, use this because I have the same picture of it in my head as he was explaining it, I'll see if I can find it and send you guys. But his voice tone and cadence were pretty much the same through that one as in this one, if I remember correctly. But I think his cadence is a little bit slower here, other than that. But in this, I'm not hearing any fade in facts. His volume is solid all the way through, pretty much. And I think his looking way indicates that he's seeing in his mind what he saw that day. And I think the reason we're seeing all these things that may look iffy like he's bounced around a little bit is because he's thinking of his daughter and finding her body and and going through that as he's talking about it. And his wife sitting right there. So that's got to be a little unnerving, not to make him nervous, but just, you know, keep him on, try to keep him on point. He's trying to focus on what he's saying as he's thinking about the most horrible thing that's ever happened to him in his life. But I think he's in control and he's calm. Not any real visible nervousness or heavy nervousness. Just I think it's just a painful run through of what he saw and when he found the body, but you can be completely right, Chase. This is you. We can't tell and stuff like this, you know, I don't disagree that that it was an emotional finding the body. I don't disagree that I haven't disgusted by the basement. I'm just saying there's a there's this discrepancy to me about timeline and when the body was discovered. It's interesting if you go to the very last frame of that video, last few frames, you'll see him lost with internal focus and emotion. We talk about people looking down to their right is one thing. But when they go to their down the right and they get a thousand yards stare, that's lost. That's internal focus. We don't see that very often and he has it, which is why I think the emotion is real. Now, like you said, could there be discrepancies in detail? Sure, there still could be a ton of things that go on because human emotion is tied up tightly with children, no matter what happens. Mr. Wailsey, the police officers told you with the police officer, the police detective told you to search the house. Tell us about that, please. I don't remember exactly what it was that morning, but we were standing in the foyer of the house and Linda Arant asked me to take someone with me and go through the house thoroughly, look for anything that was out of the ordinary. Fleet was standing there, my friend, and we both. Went to the basement and first went into what we call the train room, which is where we found the open window and the suitcase up against the wall. We looked there for glass again to see if we could find any glass because the window was not only open, it was broken. Then I went to the to the room where we did find Jambané. The door was latched and latched and pulled it open and instantly what I found. Tell us about that, please. Well, it was a a rush of relief, but also fear because her eyes were closed. I immediately took the tape off of her mouth, tried to untie the her arms bound above her head. I tried to untie the knot and I couldn't get it untied. Her skin was cool to the touch and I picked her up and I that's when I screamed because I was, I guess, just realizing that things were not going to be OK after all. And things never have been since. Oh, yeah, then there will be. We've lost our child. It's never going to be the same. One of the most unusual parts of this has been this person, you know, that you've seen several times, but would you go over with us and tell us what you know and what you've been told about it? Well, first of first of all, this is this is what is going to help us convict the killer. This is three pages of handwritten writing samples of the killer. We've been told by experts that if we have a suspect and we get sufficient samples of his writing, they will be able to tell conclusively with this much of a sample that the person wrote that note. So this is a huge clue why it was left out. And let me just interject at this point, Mrs. Ramsey, it's my understanding that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation took your handwriting samples to the Secret Service. Do you know the results of that test definitively? No, I don't. I just know we had experts do the same kind of testing. And it's my understanding that the people that that we use trained the people from the CBI, Colorado Bureau that administered the tests, and they on a scale of one to five with five being absolutely no match, I ranked at a four point five with one being a perfect match. So, you know, we don't we don't know the results of the police testing. We've heard that they're at best inconclusive. The governor said this morning on National TV that you've seen all the evidence in the case. Oh, I would be desperate if there is evidence we haven't seen. I would ask the governor to please let us see it. Please let our investigators see it. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, for the most part, this is what I call steering, not clearing. Help me find, help me find, help me find. Clearing is I'm clearing my name. Hey, look, I didn't do anything wrong, except she does say that the Secret Service or their handwriting expert gave her a four point five out of five with discrepancy. So she comes across and I think this is part of the reason people disliked her so much is she feels this need to clear. He doesn't. He doesn't do any clearing. And the best, my favorite part of this whole thing is the very beginning. Her dominant eyes shrunk down very small. And she is like, you're about on my last nerve and you can see it's getting really close and he knows that. So he just does what he does. He stole it goes on about his business. However, he's got such a plan for what he wanted to say. And this is what happens when you go into a negotiation. You come in with something in your mind. You want to say when you hear tripwords that sound like what you're saying, you immediately think they said what you did. You go after it. Listen, because he comes in with a plan where he wants to say, I, we need all the available evidence and and and and whatever the governor has we want. And the lady says the governor says you've had all the evidence. Well, we'd like to see all that evidence, whatever there is, he says he's tripwired by it. So he looks like he's not paying attention. I think that's pretty common. I have to teach people in business all the time that when you're going to negotiate, come in with what you have in mind always and stick to your plan. But listen to what they're saying, not what you think they're saying. That's the biggest mistake people make. And often the person you're negotiating with has something else to win other than the financial value of what you're talking about. And you leave money on the table because you're so worried about what you came in thinking about. That's all. I'll leave it at that. Hop off there and say, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so many people, maybe some people here with us right now, we'll talk about this nose rub that goes on. OK, so often, you know, troll the internet and you'll find a whole bunch of articles that if somebody touches their nose, they're being deceptive. And that's that's just inaccurate. Why might he be touching his nose at this point? So what happens is is when when we we have an emotion, blood can rush to the face. OK, you'll see it happening right now as I produce pleasure. You'll see these get rosier and this get a little rosier. OK, and and that can cause an itchy sensation. And so often, you know, somebody will come to their nose and rub or rub here to deal with that sensation. I believe he's getting excited around this letter because he says, and it's kind of like a semi punishment question here. You know, what should happen to this person? Well, clearly, they should be convicted because he says, this is the letter that will convict them. OK, so that's that's good news. I think he's saying, say, look, we're going to get the person. We want to get the person and we want to get them convicted. So it's almost towards a punishment ideal here. And he wants to use this. This is a tool of conviction rather than one that is going to distract into another another area of thought. So to your point, Greg, yeah, he's very clear about where he's going with this. He wants he wants somebody caught and he wants somebody convicted. Now, his his his wife, Patsy, isn't it Patsy? Yeah, Patsy, yeah, which you can go and see an analysis that we've done of her. And I think we all found her easily unlikable, OK, easily unlikable. I don't think we thought that she had a lot to do with a murder of a child, if anything at all, but we found a very, very unlikable. And so in the court of public opinion, she's not going to do well. And here's a classic example is that basically she pulls rank. She pulls status on this one. And she says our experts taught their experts. That's the kind of thing that's the rank that we're at right now. You don't need to do that. You come across as unlikeable, potentially that people are going to shout out narcissists at you. And once they start doing that, they're going to layer on a whole bunch of other stuff. And it's it's a public opinion nightmare. Of course, now he never looks good because he's sitting next to her. OK, and when you're sitting next to somebody unlikable, yeah, that doesn't make you particularly likable either. So we've got to look at our frames around this. But, you know, as for this letter piece, yeah, it all seems congruent. It seems pretty good and I'm OK with that nose rub. But I'm happy to have my mind changed on that. Scott, what do you think? All right, I agree. I think it might be one of the things where you got a little excited and touch his nose, because I think when he got fired up at that point, but at the same time, he gets quieter when he starts talking about this letter because this is one of the main points that he focuses on or likes to focus on. I was under the impression at first that she's the one that wrote this. That's what all the everybody said. Ah, she wrote the letter. She wrote the letters, you know, that proves she wrote the letter. I don't know who she's talking about. Said these guys, the people who said she didn't. She said these are the people that train those people. I don't know those those guys. If that is true, if she is just a four point five and which says she didn't do it. You remember, I had that theory about they thought that Burke did it. And that's why when she wrote the letter, then they found out that Burke didn't do it. And there was this letter in the air that kind of messed everything up. But I guess that they're worth a hoot now. If that is true, that she didn't write the letter. But I think he's probably right. I think the police dropped the ball on this. But I think if if they approach it from, we know you all are guilty. I think they just dismissed a bunch of stuff and let a bunch of things go. But he's really serious about this. That's he totally focuses on that. So he talks about this will convict him. This is important and all those things because this is that letter to him is the key and he believes that is one of the keys to get that person out of circulation. So he doesn't do that again. Chase, what do you got? All right. We're at a crossroads. So I want you to think and just put yourself in their shoes for a minute. If this letter is real, this is a real ransom note. You've been obsessing over this note at the time of this video for, I think, weeks, it's been weeks when this video was filmed, not months, but every day over and over, spending your entire life obsessing over this document. So then when they get handed a copy of this document, they exhibit the behavior of curious people, people who have been obsessing over a ransom note they didn't write, would not need much of an examination at all. They wouldn't need to put on glasses. They wouldn't need to sit there and and dig into it as if they'd never seen it before. I think I'm not saying they wrote it, but I am saying this is a desire to display unfamiliarity, which is also a desire to communicate something to the viewer. So if you think about that, there's also no denial about writing the letter or any anger or anything whatsoever. All it is is a score measurement, not a denial. And I think the lack of denial is the same as if they were also kind of waiting to see the results of the test of the handwriting. Why were they waiting for the results? Why were the results important if you didn't have anything to do with it? The results wouldn't be important at all. You just you wouldn't be eagerly waiting the results. So this behavior you're seeing right here is not, in my opinion, the behavior you would see. This is unusual at best. This single moment in the case kind of sent chills down my spine a little bit. I'm not saying they committed the murder or wrote the note, but something is way off the charts in this behavior that I'm seeing in this clip in particular, their interest in seeing more of the evidence is one hundred percent compelling, honest, genuine. However, so I think all of that is one hundred percent honest. But something is off about the behavior around this note. I'm sorry to disagree with all three of you. And I'm also not sorry. Who do you think you are? Who is the thief? I think I have a reason for you a little later on as to why they're doing it. All right. Is it ready? Let's see. One of the most unusual parts of this has been this fair. So now I know that you've seen it all the time, but would you go over with us and tell us what you know and what you've been told about it? Well, first of first of all, this is this is what is going to help us convict the killer. This is three pages of handwritten writing samples of the killer. We've been told by experts that if we have a suspect and we get sufficient samples of his writing, they will be able to tell conclusively with this much of a sample that the person wrote that note. So this is a huge clue why it was left out. And let me just interject at this point. Mrs. Ramsey, it's my understanding that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation took your handwriting samples to the Secret Service. Do you know the results of that test definitively? No, I don't. I just know we had experts do the same kind of testing. And it's my understanding that the people that that we use trained the people from the CBI Colorado Bureau that administered the tests. And they on a scale of one to five, with five being absolutely no match, I ranked at a four point five with one being a perfect match. So we know we don't we don't know the results of the police testing. We we've heard that they're at best inconclusive. The governor said this morning on national TV that you've seen all the evidence in the case. Oh, I would be desperate if there is evidence we haven't seen. I would ask the governor to please let us see it. Please let our investigators see it. What is it that you want to do with regard to this case? What we are desperate to have happen now, we've gone for three years. Only my family has been investigated. The grand jury refused to indict us and it takes very little evidence to indict someone. All we've done has gotten back to the beginning. But we don't want it to be the end. I'd like for political ambitions to be put aside. I'd like for egos to be put aside. There are no apologies needed, but let's get on with an investigation. Let's get on. Let's staff this investigation with seasoned experienced homicide investigators. The best we can find the best we can how do we know that it's just because you don't like the outcome of what Boulder police have decided that you're under an umbrella of suspicion that you just want another. They can investigate us if the governor would put together a seasoned investigative team to start over, go back through all the leads, all the evidence. We'd be fully cooperative and they can investigate us again if they want. That's fine. But please don't just investigate us because if you do, we're never going to find the killer. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, watch him as he's listening. He's moving his mouth. Now, one of two things could be happening. He could be wanting to step on her and go and tell her what he's thinking or it could be data intake. Some people when they're doing that mouth movement, they're digesting information. Animals move their mouth. It's just what we do. Mammals specifically. Horses do it when they're learning. They'll do that. Your children, you have to teach them not to do that when they're coloring because that's what mammals do. So it's part of a data intake for us. Again, we get the steering not clearing help us, help us, help us. Not, hey, here's why we're innocent. The most demonstrative thing he said to now, the most emotion we've seen is they can investigate us happy with that. And then the head shake, you'd say that's opposite of his messaging when he says they can investigate us. I think it supports his messaging saying we didn't do anything. Come get us. This is the first time he shows any anger and he's showing those lower teeth that we associate with anger and then a lip compression at the very end as he controls emotion. I think they're getting on his nerves there, but he's doing all the right stuff, delivering the message that he needs to deliver to make sure this gets gets out. Scott, what do you got? All right, I'm so close to yours. I'll try to word it up a little bit differently. There's a lot of tongue juts and lip licking and mouth maneuvers going on in there. But that's, again, part of his baseline. Just like we saw now back then earlier in the videos, we saw they were more up to date, but even back then when he's doing this, he's still doing the same stuff today as he was back then. So that's part of his baseline. It's just something he does. And we can see and hear the anger and frustration in his voice when he's telling what he wants done and how they can and putting together a new investigative team to check into all this stuff. His indicators, let us know he's speaking freely and he's speaking with the emotion that makes those illustrators land on point where they should every time. And while he's talking, he's almost lopin' along there. He's as he's given this out because it's heartfelt, I think, from what he's talking about. Again, we're seeing the tongue juts in the middle of all this and the lip lick and that's just part of his baseline. I'm not seeing any cues or signs of deception or hearing any either. And I think he's being a hundred percent himself. They say what he wants to say with no holds barred. And he's as he remains the professional that he is keeping in that CEO lane of solving problems and telling what the problem is, but he just notches it up a little bit and gets over that emotional thing. And so we see a little bit more emotion in here than we have up to this point as he's being that professional. But again, keeping in mind, this is the most horrific thing that's ever happened to him, and that's why. So I think all that's OK. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so let me see if I can pull this together a little bit with what you're saying and also what we noticed at the start of of this in the first videos, which is why should we believe you you didn't do it was the question asked in that in that that event and he doesn't answer that question. Why does any answer? Why should we believe you didn't do it? Why do they lean in on this piece of paper to display clearly? Let's have a really good look at this. Because this is one of the pieces of evidence that they have an analysis of that says from the analysis, they did not write it. Now, having said that, it's not their job to prove their innocence. That's not their job. That's not modern detective work or law. No detective should ever go, which they have done on this case, which he, according to him, hey, give us the evidence that you're innocent and we'll shout it out to the streets. That's not the way it works. That's not the way modern detective work or the law for sure works. Well, why doesn't it work like that? So we're going to get into some in here that some some deep, almost pedantic values about the way that justice is meant to work. And they go right back to Johannes Monarchus, twelve hundreds. He was a French lawyer and knew you were going to love this. And what he said to Pope Boniface was because Pope Boniface was like he was like he would as much as look at you and go, well, you're obviously guilty. Pope Boniface, Johannes Monarchus. So he says he says to the Pope, look, you can't just go calling people guilty just because you like it. You have to presume them innocent, the presumption of innocence. Nobody has to say that it has to prove their innocence. They're already innocent unless you can prove them beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The Pope said, well, why should I do that? And he said, well, because God did that when when God called Adam in the garden and said, hey, Adam, who ate that apple? He didn't. God didn't go clearly you. I mean, and this God like he didn't go clearly you. You're guilty. He said he actually took him into court and presumed. God presumed Adam innocent until Adam went. Yeah, sorry. It was me. I ate the apple. Well, actually, she she told me to I was copying her. So it's a little more complex. But ultimately he said because God did it, the Pope should do it. And therefore everybody should do it. I think this guy thinks exactly the same. It's a little bit pedantic. It's a little bit pedantic. But he's so annoyed and angry that there is no presumption of innocence for him. And that's why they lead in because they don't want to prove themselves innocent, because it's not their job, but they're having to do that in order to get some kind of real investigation and maybe justice for their daughter. There you go. Hope that was worth your time, everybody. Thanks for tuning in. Greg, what do you got on that one? Oh, Chase, Chase, come at us. What you got? Yeah, so I sincerely admire John's composure. As I understand it, this is one of the most incompetent investigations in a very long time. And this request for help to find the killer, not the alleged kidnapper, but the killer are totally honest and absolutely truthful. There's not a shred of stress or deception that I could see here other than the emotional stress of of having gone through what he did. What is it that you want to do with regard to this case? What we are desperate to have happen now, we've gone for three years. Only my family has been investigated. The grand jury refused to indict us. And it takes very little evidence to indict someone. All we've done is gotten back to the beginning. But we don't want it to be the end. I'd like for political ambitions to be put aside. I'd like for egos to be put aside. There are no apologies needed, but let's get on with an investigation. Let's get on. Let's staff this investigation with seasoned, experienced homicide investigators. The best we can find, the best we can. How do we know that it's just because you don't like the outcome of what the police have decided that you're under an umbrella of suspicion that you just want another. They can investigate us if the governor would put together a seasoned investigative team to start over, go back through all the leads, all the evidence. We can start all over again. And they can investigate us again if they want. That's fine. But please don't just investigate us because if you do, we're never going to find the killer. What do you think happened in your version of when the intruder broke in, how the intruder broke in, when the intruder broke, wrote the ransom note and when the intruder kidnapped Germany and do you think that the intruder wanted to actually take her out of the house was actually going to kidnap her? We've been told by seasoned investigators that this is what it appeared. It is what it appeared. It was an attempted kidnapping. Something went very badly wrong. We believe that the killer was in the house when we came home. We believe the note was written before Germany was killed, whether it was before we got home or after we went to bed. We don't know. We have I have strong reason to believe that the killer either entered or left the house through the basement window that we found open and we found a hard Samsonite suitcase flush up against the wall as if it were a step to get out of the window. The window was probably five feet off the floor. They had to step on something to get out. That's my best guess at how at least they got out. They would have needed the suitcase to get out of that window. How do you think they were going to get her out of the house? Or he? We've been told that suitcase may have been involved. Chase, what do you got? There's a Patsy has a very strong chin thrust right at the beginning there, right at the mention of ransom note. And there's a very hard digital flexion at the mention of Kidnapper. You can watch it back and maybe it'll be playing right now on your screen. And when the words come out of John, it is what it appeared. There's a this is a detail spike occurring now in just a really strange place. It is what it appeared of, of course, it's what it appeared to be or it should be. So all the stress and deception markers are wrapped around. This isn't 90 90 percent honest. But where we see little spikes of stress and deception markers, which are just stress markers most of the time, are wrapped around the ransom note attempted kidnapping with kind of zero stress and deception markers around the murder and a lot of just very straightforwardness around the murder. And all the detail spikes are adding detail to every piece of evidence about the kidnapping and zero detail spikes about the murder. And keep that in mind, they didn't talk about any of the murder weapon, any of the stuff that's publicly available. The murder had zero detail spikes. The kidnapping elements had tons of detail spikes. Super strange to me, definitely a data point worth looking into. Greg, what do you think? Yeah, this is an interesting one. Remember, when we covered Patsy, what we said is there's so much moving. There's so many moving parts here. It's difficult for us to get our head around why they would cover some of this stuff or why they would show spikes. I always try to say in the benefit of a doubt when you're dealing with a crime like this, where there's so much hidden stuff, the way the person is going to be convicted is on guilty knowledge. We'll probably never see a conviction in this murder. So I always try to figure, are they trying to hide some guilty knowledge? And by that, we mean, for example, a red shoelace was used to bind or throw. They would never tell us what color shoelace was or any of that kind of thing, because they don't want us to know exactly what that was. The person who did it, they'll find out because I'll find that person owned red laces or something like that. So you look through that kind of data, they may have to try to cover. Now, there are some interesting, you're right. I mean, there's some odd too much detail when he's talking about the letter. I think a letter, there's another piece that you have to remember when you lose a child, things start to represent that child as creepy as this might sound to you, that letter is the last connection they had to that little girl. Now, what kind of brain that does to your brain? I don't have any idea because I've never been through it, but it may have a place in their brain. I try to give them benefit of a doubt there. It's interesting because the woman asked a conjecture question, which is good for baselining, but this guy's answered this question many times by now, so you can't get a good baseline because it's repeated. But the way you break cover is by asking a person enough questions that go away from memory to try to get a conjecture answer. She does. He does go to conjecture in his eye movement that we saw earlier. So we know he's following that. She does one of the worst questions I've ever heard. So Chase, what do you want for Christmas and where do you think it'll be built? And who do you think who do you think is coming over to your to your back to the party? And that's the question she just asked. Like, what the hell is she asking? It goes on and on and on in so multifaceted and so compound, you can't really answer. Patsy to me with that chin thrust, Mike, this is my instinct. Now I'm going to say this is instinct. It's only based on a lot of experience with people is she's been taught to actively listen because it's not in her DNA. It's in her DNA to go and go right back at you when you go after something. It is her hot button and she's been taught to actively listen, something he does well. And he said, don't say a word. Somebody has said, don't say a word until they finish the question. You watch him moving his mouth when he does it. And we all know that your partner in whoever that is in your life knows more about you than you know about you in terms of your behavior with others. Ask them. They'll tell you where you need to where you need to focus. He's doing that back to that CEO and data points, but he does give more data chase. Why? I don't know. But there is more data in some places. There's also a lip compression at the end of we don't know. And he's conjecturing using I mean, he's not willing to conjecture and use the data that he does have right in that area around the suitcase and all that. I think he's hiding something. I think he's hiding something is making him uncomfortable to hide it, even though that something he's hiding is probably legitimate and above board. And somebody's giving it, giving him information and said, do not share this. Give you a great example of the Stephen Panky thing. Remember, we covered that there was a specific story around that there were a rake had been used to hide tracks around the back of the house. And it was guilty knowledge they hung him on. So just to give you an idea, it could be something that simple. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, only one thing and just backing up what everybody said there really, which is well, look, blink rate is fairly low there, feels fairly confident. It's a steady story. The details to me sound fairly relevant. The only place it moves from the baseline of that is around the suitcase. And it slows right down. There's some gaps there. So, you know, the only relevant thing I have there is something deeper about the suitcase. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is about this suitcase. But there's summing up with that. I have no idea what it is, but there's a strong deviation from the baseline there. Scott, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I agree with Greg. I think the suitcase is a situation when they said, here's what happened. Don't say this. Don't talk about because when he went in there, he's the first one. And he saw a bunch of stuff. And they said, and as you know, when they say, don't talk about this because the only person that will know this other than you and that guy that was with you is the person who did this. So you want to you just keep that to yourself. So I think maybe he accidentally stepped in something he shouldn't have. And that's why we see that little bit of frustration, not frustration, but panic on him when he gets in that situation. That's the feeling that that's what I thought when I saw. I thought, whoops, he's letting something out because he thought about it. Thought about it. He shook his head, went forward three times before he said before he said there's something to do with the suitcase, which obviously means they're going to put her in a suitcase, maybe there was one laying out. Now that they would put her in and that was the reason for it. No one person that would know that was the person who was who was doing it. That can be the situation. But I think he accidentally let information out. And that's what we're seeing on the feeling that maybe not feeling bad, but going, oh, no, I shouldn't have done that at the same time being frustrated because he wants to say all that because the same police department has messed things up so badly. That's the frustration I think we're seeing there. I think that's what is with with with that statement. And the confirmation nods he's showing during that are just that. They're confirmation nods. A lot of people will be saying, oh, I should be shaking his head. No, but he's shaking his head. Yes, he's confirming it. He's just confirming what he's what what he's saying and what he believes in at this point other than that, I'm not seeing anything deceptive. You guys just around that suitcase. I know everybody's focused on that. That's that's what I think happened. It was an accident. He let out let out too much and it was too late to reel it back in. But so he let out even though he thinks he didn't let out too much or stopped. It doesn't matter at that point. The photos, all the photos are shared online of that suitcase. But maybe there was another one in that room is what I'm saying. Yeah. And my point is it doesn't matter. It may have nothing to do with a suitcase. It may have something to do with around the suitcase. But you know, you never know what guilty knowledge is that they're trying to hide. Just don't know. It could be one weird little thing, you know, one weird thing. You just never know. I'm not saying that there's not some anomaly in his behavior. I'm saying that could be a reason. Oh, there is. Yeah. That's true. Yeah, it gets weird there. It shows an anomaly. Yeah. Yeah. But and this one was good. We all got a different point of view. What do you think happened in your version of when the intruder broke in, how the intruder broke in, when the intruder broke, wrote the ransom note and when the intruder kidnapped Germany and do you think that the intruder wanted to actually take her out of the house was actually going to kidnap her? We've been told by seasoned investigators that this is what it appeared. It is what it appeared. It was it was an attempted kidnapping. Something went very badly wrong. We believe that the killer was in the house when we came home. We believe the note was written before John Money was killed, whether it was before we got home or after we went to bed. We don't know. We have I have strong reason to believe that the killer either entered or left the house through the basement window that we found open and we found a hard case, flush up against the wall as if it were a step to get out of the window. The window was probably five feet off the floor. They had to step on something to get out. That's my best guess at how at least they got out. They would have needed the suitcase to get out of that window. How do you think they were going to get her out of the house or he? We've been told that the suitcase may have been involved. Mr. Ramsey? The police asked that question of me. They said, hypothetically, if Patsy did it or you thought she did it, would you turn her in? And I had to think about it because I never even thought about that. Because I and I tried to give them a thoughtful answer. I thought and I said, yes, I would. Absolutely. You turn her in. Yes. Without question. Your love for a child is unconditional. Your love for a spouse is conditional. And there's no question. I mean, it's I would do anything to protect my children. Mark, what do you got? Yep, I think there is real surprise there in I had to think about it. Though it's though it's kind of acted out. You know, he's he's he's displaying that moment of when they said, hey, you know, would you turn in your wife if she did it? But I think that's that's real surprise. Go back, take a look, see, see if you see those those facial action codings of surprise, I think I do. He's very clear. You love your love for a child is unconditional. That that seems unequivocable and and and very clear from him. The way he says that, the nonverbals around that don't shout out to me. You're the guy who murdered that child in any way whatsoever. I would do anything to protect my children. I think I see more anger there suppressed. Yeah, so I think I see suppressed anger on. I would do anything to protect my my my children. Yeah, that's all I got on that one. But again, seems relatively congruent for this situation. Not deceptive in my mind. Chase, what do you got? I never saw this clip before until this morning about five 15 in the morning. And this single clip shot me out of my chair this morning when I watched it. I think this has the potential to illustrate the case. And let me walk you through my brain here for just a moment. If you'll bear with me, he says your love for a child. So he says you're socializing everything because he wants you to understand his decisions. Love for a child is unconditional. And he does not say my love for Jean Benet or my love for my child or my love for my daughter, love for a child in general. So one question I repeatedly asked during every interview, especially ones like this, very, very calculatedly, what issue is being covertly socialized? So he's only deviating from baseline, which is talking about himself and Patsy and shifting to using the word you to subconsciously socialize something to you. The video ends with him saying I would do anything to protect my children plural. And if I had made a decision to protect a different child and I was fiercely defending that, that might explain the anger that you are just describing there at the end of that clip, Mark. Scott, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this is an interesting one for me because she asked a question and he that shock, that surprise that that you see, Mark, he's remembering when he was first asked the question and but he gets awfully animated and he's wow, that's a weird question for me, but he gets really animated almost like a kid. Like I really never did think of her as doing it until I was asked the question. And then I had to ask myself a hard question. What would I do? And I said, look, and look, he's been divorced. If you've been divorced, you know, love is conditional. Spouse, most of us know that we're not going to cling onto the person where that we left behind. So that's a fairly bold statement. It's also a pretty bold statement with her sitting right there. You know, that's saying something. And I think he purses his lips in this case because he's thinking. I don't think it's a disapproval or any of that kind of thing. I think is Mark, you and I are on the same page. He's animated. We don't typically think of people who are lying, being this kind of animated. This is more bubbly and, you know, look, I never even thought of that. I see all of his arrows lining up. I see him being positive. I don't see him being negative. I don't see him lilting. I don't see him doing any kind of weird body language. Anything that would make me think anything. Otherwise, Chase, to your point, whether he's done something other than above board to protect, I can't see that from here, but he's clearly making a statement. My child is more important than anyone, including my wife. And he says children, which means all of his children are more important than anyone, including his wife, I see congruency. I trust that what he's saying is true when I watch this. Scott, what do you have? All right, I think there's going to be a lot of people that say you shook his head, no, when he was when he should have said yes, we should have been nodding at yes and vice versa and but not in this situation because he's sifting through the information he's getting, he's structuring his answer and get ready to deliver that and is delivering it at the same time while he's structuring it. Even though he's told this story a thousand times up to this point, I think this might be the first time he said this out loud about his loyalty to his who would be the most loyal to his wife or his kids. So I think there might be a little a little question on that, which goes back to the absolutes, you know, just because you do one thing doesn't mean you're lying, telling the truth or anything like that. So I think that's pretty important. But that's I see what you're saying, Chase, about about you're like we talked about earlier, getting ready to go down the thing or you did go down the road. It's not just my child. It's my children. So that's how that what you're talking about fits fits in there. What we discussed in the break there. So I agree with that. Mr. Ramsey. The police asked that question of me. They said, hypothetically, if Patsy did it or you thought she did it, would you turn her in? And I had to think about it because I was like, I never even thought about that. Because I tried to give them a thoughtful answer. I thought I said, yes, I would absolutely. You turn her in. Yes. Without question. Your love for a child is unconditional. Your love for a spouse is conditional. And there's no question. It's I would do anything to protect my children. All right, well, let's roll around the room and tell us one of the things about what's going on. I made it or less and Mark, you would go first. If you think that John Ramsey murdered his own child in or was involved in that in any kind of way, I will gamble big money. You are barking up the wrong tree and wasting your time on this one. And we've said that. I've said that about other cases. If you take me to the casino on that one, I guarantee I'm going to win. I'm going to win that casino. Chase, what do you think? I fully agree, absolutely agree with you. And I'm going to throw a hypothetical situation in here really quick. I think, in my opinion, there was one hundred percent a legitimate killer that has yet to be identified as we know of. And here's this hypothetical situation. They thought John Benet's brother, their son, did this to her. He hit her with a golf club in real life recently before the murder took place to protect Ramsey. They staged the kidnapping attempt and later realized that he wasn't at fault. And I think all these years have passed and each passing day made it more difficult to admit that anything was done to protect their son at all costs because they may have thought he had done the act. This is hypothetical, but that one hypothetical situation makes every single anomaly in all of the behaviors, even the one we analyze with Dr. Phil, all of the anomalies line up if that situation is placed. Just my opinion. Greg, what do you got? Well, you sound like OJ hypothetically. Yeah, no, look, guys, something went on this house that we can't see. Nobody can see. There's probably some guilty knowledge, some hidden information in there that we can't have access to because they're hoping to hold that to get that last person, whether they have enough DNA. Now he's asking for DNA testing. So look, a guy didn't come out and say, DNA test this and you'll prove me right if he knows he's going to prison. He'd rather just this guy could quietly disappear if he killed his daughter. I'm with Mark. If you think this guy killed his daughter, this is a rare thing for me to say out loud. I think you're absolutely wrong. And we know that some of you know a hell of a lot more about this case than we do. And you're going to tell us how wrong we are in the comments. It's good because we're not going to change what we think because of what you tell us, we're telling you what we see. And this is based on behavior in these videos that we have watched. Now, I'll tell you, this is a complex case. There's a lot more to it than any of us know. And it's probably been so poorly handled over the past 25 years. It will never be solved. All you can hope is that somebody heard something and that they come forward and say something or somebody gets a conscience on their death. Who knows how this will be solved? But this is going to be one of those that forever will be a big deal. I just think that a person who killed his child, number one, would not be bringing it up in the latter part of his life when you could quietly go away. Scott, what do you got? I see. And I see what you're saying, Chase. And my thing originally was that they thought that Burt did it. Yeah. And that's why she wrote the letter. Yes. I would. I didn't think about them going down there and like doing a whole scene about it. I think they did that before they found. I was in the impression that she wrote the letter before they found the child. And because when the cops showed up, they had the letter. So that that's what I thought happened. And I can't imagine a parent doing that to a child who's even, you know, who's passed away. I can't imagine them. The grief they would be in. I don't think they touched her. In that hypothetical situation, they wouldn't touch her at all. They just wrote a letter. And OK, I thought you meant they that he did something to her. They stuff. OK, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So that was my original thing. If she did write the letter, I think that's what happened. If she didn't write the letter, then game on. I think somebody broke in and did it. And I was always always thought it was somebody like a workman or somebody who'd like, you know, clean, did the yard or something like that. Would know where that window was, know how to get in and be a little bit familiar with the place. That's what I always thought. Some like a handyman or something like that is what I thought. But if she wrote the letter and I think I I think that's what happened. I go back to my original thing of they thought the kid did it, that Burke did it and they're trying to protect him. So it makes the most sense to me. So all right, I think this is another good and fellas. And yeah, I'll see you next time.