 I'm Scott Rouse, my Body Language Expert and Analyst, and I train law enforcement in the military in interrogation and body language. And I created the number one online body language course, BodyLanguageTactics.com, with Greg Hartley. Mark? I'm Mark Bowden. I'm an expert in human behavior and body language to help people all over the world to stand out, win trust, and gain credibility every time they communicate, including some of the leaders of the G7. Chase? Hi, I'm Chase Hughes. I'm a behavior expert. I did 20 years in the US military, published a number one bestselling book on influence, persuasion, and people reading. And I teach corporate America and the general public today. Greg? Greg Hartley. I'm a former Army interrogator, interrogation instructor, resistance to interrogation instructor, written 10 books on body language and behavior, put together this BodyLanguageTactics.com course with Scott. And I spend most of my time on Wall Street and in corporate America. Excellent. All right. So today we're going to talk about somebody who keeps, we, every time we put a video out, we get at least, I don't know how many we get people saying, do Patsy Ramsey, let's hear about the Ramsey. Talk about John Benet. So we're going to do that today. So it's come to the point where we can't put it off any longer. So today we're going to talk about, we're going to take a look at Patsy Ramsey. Greg, you're the one that found the video. We're going to use you and tell us a little bit about it. Yeah. And there's some irony to this. I'm going to almost be a cold reading today because I found this video a few months ago when people kept harassing us for this one. And this video is from 2000, so a few years after the John Benet Ramsey murder. And they've released a book and they're back in front of the cameras. And I think it speaks for itself past that this has become the hottest one we constantly get asked for. I honestly don't find it as interesting as other cases often, but when other people ask for it, I think it's good for us to all spend our time looking at this. And if you don't know this case, this is one of those long running cases no one has ever figured out. Nobody knows what happened exactly on that Christmas day or Christmas Eve. So it's a timely one. I think it'll always be around and people always be conjecturing. What we don't plan to do is say, this is what happened. It was, you know, Colonel Mustard in the study, we're not going to do that kind of thing. We're just going to tell you what we see. We're not going to say she's guilty or innocent. We're going to say what we think in terms of this. We're not trying to be the court here. There's way too many people looked at this case. This is the behavior panel's opinion of what we see in Patsy. Excellent. Okay. The first thing we're going to do is we're going to listen to the 911 call because that, a lot of it's centered around that there are two parts to it. The first part is the 911 call itself and then we're going to listen to the last part of it, which we won't hear in this first video, but we'll hear it again later where it was questionable about what went on in there. So here we go. There's a note left and our daughter is gone. A note was left and your daughter is gone? Yes. How old is your daughter? She's six years old. She's gone. Six years old. How long ago was this? I don't know. I just filled the note. And my daughter is gone. Is it say who took her? What? Does it say who took her? I don't know. There's a ransom note here. It's a ransom note? It says FBTC. Victory. Okay. What's your name? Are you that? Cassie Ramsey. I'm the mother. Oh my God. Please. I'm okay. I'm sending an officer over. Okay. Do you know how long she's been gone? No, I don't. Please. We just got out and she's right here. Oh my God. Please. Okay. Well, I am, honey. Please. Take a deep breath. Please. Hurry, hurry, hurry. Cassie. Cassie. Cassie. Cassie. All right, Greg. What do you got? Yeah, guys, I'm always talking about 911 calls. They're among my favorite things. Because when a person has a true emergency, they're there to tell you the story and get as much information to you as possible. I need you at my address right now for this problem. I need police to look for my daughter. Not please, please. Not telling you their story, but telling you these stories. Usually responding to prompts. Now, people can be hysterical. If you lose a child, if something happens, you're going to be hysterical. But you typically don't control release information. Control release of information sounds like storytelling. Mark, you talk about storytelling a hell of a lot on these things and this is storytelling. It feels awkward to me. And all this HBTC victory, who cares about any of that? Who cares what's in the note? What you want is the police right now. You're beginning to release a story and those are typically alibis when you're doing that. So this is a red flag conversation for me. Never mind all the, it feels like bad acting to me. Now, I'm not in her situation. I can't say what she's normally like. I don't see her enough. But this looks like telling her story, not the story. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So here's what I want you to do. I want you to replay that. And I want you to breathe along with the caller there. Because what I want you to see is whether you can sustain that level of breathing in out, in out, it's pretty rapid. So it's real panic breathing, but can you sustain it without giving up and going, wow, I'm going to fall over, I'm going to faint? Because here's the thing, that level of breathing without having an adrenaline, you would stop. So here's what I'm going to say. That's real panic breathing from this person. There must be some adrenaline in the system. There's some kind of real panic going on. Because otherwise she wouldn't be able to breathe like that for so long, I would suggest. And I've tried this again and again and again with lots of performers. How do you do panic and do it take after take after take and not collapse all over? Forget the words that you've got. You have to have some adrenaline going through your system to burn up that oxygen. So real panic going on here. Now, I don't know why there's real panic going on. I can think of a whole bunch of reasons. I don't know why, but there's something real emotional going on there. Again, heightened emotions are very, very difficult to sustain. Most of the heightened emotions you've ever had, you won't have been able to sustain them for more than about 10 minutes. And very quickly, you will have peaked, you'll have found your body start to get tingly, your legs start to go from underneath you. So again, breathe along to that video and see how long you can sustain it for. There's something real going on there. Scott, what have you got? Hey, Greg. Yeah. We can't see you. Like, are you about to waterboard us, Greg? I turned it off and said, I didn't notice something. Oh. I didn't notice something. I always get worried when it all goes apart. A dark piece of felt goes out of my head like that. And Greg's like, it's very worrying. Don't do that to me. Okay, you ready? Yeah. All right, well, here's what I got. Greg and I did a whole, which this is from, from our course, thetruecrimeworkshop.com. And so we've studied some of these things. And this is what I've been able to spend a little time with. And like Greg was saying earlier, there are specific things you say when you're in a panic, when you're calling 911. You're calling the people that are gonna help you the quickest and the fastest and get there to get you as much help as possible. Two or three things for me lit up in here. Right out of the gate. She says the right thing. She gives her address. That's the first thing she does. Usually you'll hear that when cops call, when police officers call, the first thing they'll say is the address and they'll say our house is on fire or whatever the problem is. But then in this case, when there's a kidnapping, she wouldn't have said, we have a kidnapping. Nobody says that. She would have said, my daughter's gone, my baby's gone, somebody's got my kid, something like that. And then when she would ask questions and there was a note. It takes her a minute to get to the part where she says a ransom note, but she makes sure to say that, which means she's read it. So that part of it is a little bit iffy for me. I don't think she would have hung up at the end. I don't think she would have kept talking and trying to communicate and find out when this help is coming. Cause she's saying, please, please, please help me get this. There's a 911 call we have in this course where the woman has, her children have been killed. And she's screaming just like the Patsy Ramsey is screaming there toward the end when she goes, oh my God. I think what's firing her adrenaline off there, Mark, is the fact that she's, as she's doing this, she's realizing the depth of the situation of where they are in it. And I think that's what's helping fire off her adrenaline to get her excited as she moves forward through that, her communication with the 911 dispatcher. So I think that's what we're hearing there. We are hearing some panic because when that happens, you've got to lean into it like this is, and I think your body, even with a lot of actors, they'll go ahead and lean on into the panic mode. I think that's what we're hearing at this point. But I think she would have stayed on. I don't think she would have just hung up. I think she would have kept talking to her until they showed up. I don't think she would have hung up with this. So those are a few things in there that bother me. Chase, what do you got? So let's just talk about language here. You guys covered a lot. If your house was burning, would you report we've got a fire or we have a gas fire? And would you say I found the ransom note? Or would you say I found a ransom note? Let's say you found something insignificant. You're staying in a hotel and there's a cockroach in your room and you call the front desk. You're not going to say I found the cockroach in my room. The word the suggests familiarity with the other person. If I say I'm going to meet you at the restaurant, you will have to know exactly what I mean. And I think it's subconsciously was a way for her to imply familiarity and understanding with the situation. Excellent. Okay. Any cockroaches in your Jamaican hotel, Chase? So far, no. I'm in Tower Isle, Jamaica right now and it's been good. I don't have any. I'll bet if you find a cockroach, it'll be a very specific. It will be a cockroach. Yeah. If it's on the beach, it would be nude. Am I correct about that? Yes, I think. All the cockroaches are nude here. Okay, good, good. All right, let's move along. Lovely. Police. What's going on? 5515 Street. What's going on there, ma'am? We have a kidnapping. All right, please. Explain to me what's going on, okay? There, we have a note left and our daughter's gone. A note was left and your daughter is gone? Yeah. How old is your daughter? She's six years old. She's gone. Six years old. How long ago was this? I don't know, I just found the note. And my daughter's gone. Does it say who took her? What? Does it say who took her? I don't know, there's a ransom note here. It's a ransom note? It says FBTC, victory. Please. Okay, what's your name? Are you that? Cassie Ramsey, I'm the mother. Oh my God, please. Okay, I'm sending an officer over, okay? Please. Do you know how long she's been gone? No, I don't. Please, we just got out from here. Oh my God, please. Okay, well, I am, honey. Please. Take the key, please. Please, hurry, hurry, hurry. Cassie, Cassie, Cassie, Cassie. Footprints outside the house. No evidence of footprints. I think it said no footprints in the snow. And we have seen photographs that were taken the morning of the 26th. By the police. By the police of each of the door entries and around the house, and there was no snow. Urban myth. All right, Chase, what do you got? There are what I describe in my training. We've talked before about something called a confirmation glance. If you're looking at an accomplice, you'll probably do it before you answer. If you're looking at two interrogators, you'll probably do it after you answer. But there are five ways you can look at someone that's with you in a conversation to gain something from that person. And they spell out the word crash. The first one is confirmation. It says, I want the other person to nod. The next is relief. Somebody speaks for us and we're glad that they took the opportunity. The next is approval. I'm requesting for the other person to nod or affirm what I'm doing. Then we have suggestion. And this is a request for them to continue for me or add some details for me. And finally is help. Spelling out crash. H is help. And this is a requesting for rescue. Things have gone south in the conversation. I need a bailout. I need a mulligan here. I need you to help me out. And we see this relief glance in this. The moment that his wife speaks, starts speaking to answer the question. We see this relief in his face that somebody else has answered it. And I think it's interesting there's a strong chin raise in this woman's face by what she's saying by the police. And her statement is kind of showing a little indignation and welcoming a challenge. This is what we do when we want to challenge another primate and expose these vital organs. We see it in bar fights even. Drunk people throw their chin up and their arms out. I think that's interesting. And right at the end of the clip, we're starting to see something called a pre swallow movement where this throat is starting to go up as a result of a saliva dump into the mouth. All in, I think there is, there's a few credibility issues with the statement. Scott, what do you got? All right, I agree with you a hundred percent. I didn't catch that swallow thing though. Fascinating. Here we see her heads tilted as she's talking. When people, if you say playing poker, when poker players are playing, when they do this and they expose that side of their neck and they get that head back, that denotes and indicates confidence. So here she's given information that she knows or that she believes to be true and she's sort of like sticking it up this interviewers because from, you can tell her, I would suggest her attitude would be more of a holier than thou at that point because she's almost like, I've got a huge nose so I can talk about noses. She's almost looking down her nose at her. She's, as you say that as her head goes back and the tone of voice is that dominant tone of voice you use when you're talking to a child or you're mad at someone and you're saying, well, I'll tell you what I do know. And the same thing with her, we'll see as we go along her illustrators get larger as we go, illustrators are the ways your brain focuses on specific words and emphasizes specific words or phrases just like I did then, I did then. And so we're seeing a lot of that and it gets more predominant as we go along. But the longer it goes, the more into it she gets of being more dominant over this person and we'll talk about some other things I'm sure everybody's caught them as we go through this where she's being that way as well. Mark? Yeah, so arrogance, condescension, we see exactly as been said there, the chin comes up, which means she ends up looking down the nose in condescension, that's the over display of kill points on the body in close proximity, basically saying, you have no power. I don't think you would strike or if you did strike, I don't think it would have any effect on me. So she's wanting to display power at this point. I think that's because she's wanting to re-control the story, their story. This is about them getting their story out. And so she uses this idea of how forceful she is. There was no snow. I almost said it there, fake news. But instead she says urban myth and urban myth was the kind of 80s, 90s version of fake news. She's saying everybody else has controlled this narrative. They've made up stories about this. Now I'm taking control of the story. This is our story. So I think that's what people don't... This is my first indicator of she's not a very likable person in this situation because she wants to assert power. That as a good generalization across many cultures is a female asserting power is not looked on well. It's often looked on well by men and women. They don't neither like it. They want the women to share power. But she's taking control of this. I'll show you later on how actually she's very similar to Margaret Thatcher, the 80s Prime Minister of the UK. Very, very similar vocal range. Very, very similar gestures as well. Again, not a likable woman by many people at the time. So assertion of power, assertion of the narrative. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so you guys have gotten almost everything I had. There are a couple of other small things. Number one, you could have just as easily finished this sentence with you stupid twit. That's the whole demeanor that she has when she's talking to this woman. It's condescending. It's arrogant. It's telling. You always talk about that pawing, that pushing down. She's pushing down when she's talking to this person more. And the other piece that she does is she does what I typically refer to authority by association, hear her blast police out. She uses that word like it gives her some kind of authority. And we'll hear her again do what I would call holy ground or take some kind of authority figure and use it to validate her story. That's the only thing I saw that you guys haven't mentioned. I'm a great round cover. I think all of this, you're dead on. I think when I was watching this, all I could think was letting them eat cake. Famous last words. She's condescending. She's looking down her nose. And it's hard to like her. And if you don't like her, you're going to look for reasons why she did it. That's what I'll leave this piece of. OK. Footprints outside the house. No evidence of footprints. I think it said no footprints in the snow. And we have seen photographs that were taken the morning of the 26th by the police, by the police of each of the door entries and around the house. And there was no snow. Urban myth. Yeah, are we good? Yeah. This is Ramsey, the 911 call. There are contradictions about whether or not the phone was hung up and whether or not for some Burke came downstairs and was talking. Some police officers believe that they can hear that on an enhanced audio tape. Others say no. What do you say? We have not heard the 911 tape, but we understand from people who have heard it that it sounds like a bunch of chipmunks chattering and that it is almost unintelligible. All we know is that Burke did not come downstairs that morning, nor did we say to him go back or whatever it is they say that it's set on the 911 tape. I phoned the police called 911 from the kitchen telephone, wall phone. Hung up, dialed one set of our friends, hung up and dialed another set of friends and asked them to come quickly to help. How soon after that 911 call did you get all the information? Immediately, immediately. So it seems to me like if you hang up the phone you're not going to be able to place another call unless the phone is completely. This is another, there's been no logic applied to any of this case in my judgment. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so, to your point, often Scott, this idea of loping, what I like about this is her story seems to kind of jump along quite well. It seems kind of okay. Again, the problem is I think for a lot of people is it just seems a little bit cold. You know, it doesn't have some of that variation. It doesn't have the cracks in the voice of emotion. And yet at the same time, in terms of looking for truth it seems to romp along fairly well. Again, I don't think people like the forthright aggressive nature of which it lobes along at. I don't think people like her assurity around this because, you know, everybody out there we've all got ideas about what might have happened here. The first point I pick up here of the, what looks to me like lip grooming. You know, it's a lick of the lips I would say in order to say, hey, I'm looking good. I want to look good for this. So it already feels to me like looking good is important to her. And, you know, I know, I think her daughter was obviously in pageants. I think she was in pageants. The idea of looking good and presenting well, my guess is, is massively important. And that comes across for me in the lip grooming. Oh, also this idea of social status and two sets of friends. So this is this idea of already, you know, I've got my whole crowd involved. I've got lots of friends, they're a set as well. Strong social structure and looking good in front of the social structure. That's what I've got out of that. And Chase, I want to go to you. What do you got? Yeah, absolutely agree with you guys. Yeah, I think there's some indignation at the beginning here with the question. And the mention of the 911 call and the sun coming downstairs produces immediate eye flutter, which I thought pretty telling. And we've not heard the 911 tape. And this is a reassurance and approval glance that we see here. And all we know is that Burke didn't come downstairs. We know nothing else. We know that there was no involvement. The one thing we're certain of is that he did not come downstairs. We know nothing else about anything. He just didn't come downstairs. And I fully agree with Mark. And this is the world that they live in is appearance and image and perception management. So most of her life pageants are about perception management. It's not about true beauty. It's not about a whole lot of other things that they might purport themselves to be. Perception management is the name of the game. And I think that has bled into many other areas of her life. And we see that here. Scott, what do you got? All right, I think we're seeing some really odd eye blinking behavior here. And this is the first time I've actually ever paid attention to it where I've seen it like this. We do see the eye flutters at the beginning, but she blinks twice every time when she hears whether or not the phone was hung up when the interviewer says that, she blinks twice. When she says, son Burke came down and was talking, she blinks two times there. And then she says, some police officers believe they can hear that on the enhanced audio. She blinks two times there. No other time is she doing two blinks like that. So she may do it a couple of other times as we go down the road here. But in this thing, that seems to almost trigger her double eye blink, which I've never seen it before. That was really, really odd as far as that goes. And I agree with you guys on everything else. So Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so we always talk about fight or flight increasing blink rate. In this specific case, this is fight, almost guaranteed this is not flight. This is how dare you attack me again. I can see it written all over and the double blink is a condemning double blink, I think. It's the how dare you ask that again. And it's a poke. She's ready for a fight. You can see she's ready for a fight. She's not backing away from it and looking afraid. She's not, her lips are not getting thin. She's ready for going at this person's what I see. When she starts to talk and she's nodding and she's thinking, watch your head slow down. The speed of her nodding slows down as her processor kicks in. As she's thinking about how to answer this question. Love the confirmation glance. Love the connecting glance. As she looks over to make connection and think, okay, I'm not alone in this. We're on the same page. And you guys covered everything else. I think those pieces, Scotty, I love the fact that you're catching that double blink. And I think fight or flight makes us blink more rapidly. And I'm a Southern boy. I was raised in the South. I can see a Southern woman looking at me and blink and rise twice and saying, oh no, you didn't. I can see that written all over this woman. If my grandmother had done something like that or would have thought, oh, here it comes. Something bad's about to happen to me. So think about the park culture place because we're all born capable of doing everything the other person's doing. And all culture does is add nuance to those meanings. That's all it does. So when somebody looks at you and goes, that means something. She's done it before and it's a method for her. I see fight or flight and she's after you. That's it. It's all I got. This is Ramsey, the 911 call. There are contradictions about whether or not the phone was hung up and whether or not for some Burke came downstairs and was talking. Some police officers believe that they can hear that on enhanced audio tape. Others say no. What do you say? Well, we have not heard the 911 tape, but we understand from people who have heard it that it sounds like a bunch of chipmunks chattering and that it is almost unintelligible. All we know is that Burke did not come downstairs that morning, nor did we say to him go back or whatever it is they say it said on the 911 tape. I phoned the police called 911 from the kitchen telephone wall phone, hung up, dialed one set of our friends, hung up and dialed another set of friends and asked them to come quickly to help. How soon after that 911 call did you dial the first? Immediately, immediately. So it seems to me like if you hang up the phone, you're not gonna be able to place another call unless the phone is completely. This is another, there's been no logic applied to any of this case in my judgment. Cool, all right, here we go. So what we'll do is this, we're gonna play this the last part of the 911 call. We're not gonna comment on it. What we want you to do is you talk about it and you tell us what you think is being said in this. It's really tough to make out. I'm hearing one thing, but I'm not really even sure what that is. So why don't we do that? We're just gonna play this for you. We'll play it, it'll go through three times and you'll listen to that and then you write what you think it says in the comments. Cool, all right, here we go. Mrs. Ramsey, it's my understanding of 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, no, we had experts do the same kind of testing and it's my understanding that the people 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 4.5 with one being perfect match. So, you know. Yeah, we don't know the result. All right, I'll go first on this one. When she's nodding, yes, we see her squint when they talk about the Secret Service. She freezes and you see those eyes squint up. So something's there, I don't think she knew that had happened because once they say that, once they throw in that jab at her, in other words, she comes back with, well, here's what I do know that I'm not the person that did it and here's all the proof that tells why. That's what I'm seeing. That stuck out to me like, you know, like a red flag. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I'm on the same page. Watch her pupils. There's a flash in her pupils in this. Like you don't get the opportunity to see very often. Her pupils go to pinpoint and then back out a little. When she does that squint thing, I'm with you. I think if she really believes that whatever she has, her expert's better than your expert is what she just said, my expert taught your expert. So there, I'll see your expert and raise you another. That, if she really believed that and didn't know about the secret service doing it, she probably would quickly go, uh-oh, there's a piece of data I didn't expect and the squint is data intake and what you call it, fake concern or concern. She's doing data intake. So those are really big things for me. And the other one is, Mark, you brought up last time she's lip grooming. This is not lip grooming. That was a quick jut. That usually is distaste. That usually is disapproval, whatever. You know, it doesn't, more said, it's our first no. It's how we push a nipple away from our lips. And so it's rejection of an idea, rejection of that. It makes me want to talk to her more about the handwriting. And in fact, guys, if you really want to know about the handwriting, there are hours and hours and hours of stuff about her handwriting, about her talking to in a deposition about the handwriting. So you can go and dig into this for yourself and not just look at what we're doing about it. I'm Chase. What do you got? Let's keep in mind when they're talking about handwriting analysis, they're talking not about graphology, which is referred to sometimes as a pseudoscience. They're referring to the characteristic and nature of how letters are constructed and written and whether or not they match someone else all the way down to pressure of the pen on the paper. Great call out, great call out. Yep. So right here, she starts out discrediting the evidence instead of making any kind of denial. Makes no denial, as a matter of fact, whatsoever. And she says, it's my understanding. And this is the first thing that any good lawyer is gonna teach you to say during an interview. You always say it's my understanding and you can never be backed into any corner for the rest of your life. And I think that's just being used here. And I think it's interesting they would hire people to analyze their own handwriting to begin with. Mark? Yeah, so here's what we see again is this playoff of status there. Instantly goes to, as Greg was saying, my graphologist is better than your graphologist. My graphologist trained your graphologist. So kind of almost the resume statement or resumes at dawn. It's a dueling matches going on immediately. And here's why I think this is important for our perception of her is it's very aloof and high status. And I think what we want to see is the public from her is sorrow and loss. And she doesn't give us any sorrow and loss. So I think what we need to do as a public kind of watching this is go, what am I really wanting from her? And if she isn't able to give it to me, might I be against her? Might it cause a bias in me? I think her aloofness here easily triggers us into a bias against her because she is a mother. And from a mother we want to see continued sorrow and loss around this. That's all I've gotten. Oh, I will bring up again as well this idea of the urban myth. And the idea that in urban myths in mythology, you often get children going missing. It's a classic of mythology and also infanticide, parents killing their kids as well. So again, as a public here, we are in this wonderful world of mythology of the most horrible crimes of parents killing kids or kids just going missing, being taken away by the fairies. So again, we've got to check in with ourselves around this and make sure that mythology isn't biasing us and that we can get to the real truth of what's going on here. Okay, let me leave it at that. Guys, this is going to be another McCann's for us. People are going to hate or love us because they made up their mind a thousand years ago and all their evidence is right. Their expert's going to be better than our expert. You know, they're going to say, this expert said that. So we're going to see that too. This is a mess. None of us know what happened in this house. And, you know, I always say, somebody says, well, it couldn't be, she couldn't have killed her child because she's not a murderer. And my answer is murder is a crime of passion and people do stupid things. 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. No, we had experts do the same kind of testing. And it's my understanding that the people 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 4.5 with one being a perfect match. So, you know. Yeah, we don't know the results. And the ransom note was already written? I believe it was. I mean, it's very unusual for a ransom note to be this long. From what we understand from professionals we've talked with that after someone commits such a crime as this, they, you know, get the heck out of there. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so again, playing status. The idea of this is very unusual. This is very unique. This is very, very special. So again, this idea of the status coming forward. Here's what triggers me around this. Furrowed brow, lots of helpfulness, lots of confusion, lots of expertise where you maybe shouldn't have any expertise. I think we've seen this time and time again with people who we know are not telling the truth. It's a usual trope of I'm gonna be very, very concerned, really helpful, a little bit confused and actually quite knowledgeable about things that I really shouldn't be. Four or five big reg flags come up for me at this moment, probably the most concerning moment of all of these videos for me. Chase, what do you got? We have another great case of the missing perpetrator. Everyone here has talked to somebody who's done some stupid or bad stuff. And in nine out of 10 of those cases those people don't wanna talk about the one who committed it. They don't wanna talk about the perpetrator who did this. And as the video starts or as this clip starts we see some false confusion, but it's confusion for agreement. It's looking confused with my face in hopes that it becomes contagious to the other person. And when she says someone did this, not kidnapper, not murderer, not potential rapist, it's someone. And when she says such a crime as this, it's not any of the harsh words, kill or murder or whatever else we could be saying. If that happens to a person's family member there is a 99.9% chance they have no problem and they're even very vocal about using that word to evoke emotion out of the person listening to them. If you think about the phrase, I did not have sexual relations with that woman. The same thing happens. Instead of saying sex, we change it to sexual relations. And when she says at the very end, get the heck out of here, she actually does with her eyes. She escapes the conversation as fast as she possibly can in hopes for a subject change. Scott, what do you got? All right. Yeah, this kind of bothers me too because when she says, ransom note was already written and she uses what I call fading facts. She starts getting quieter and quieter. The further along she goes, the quieter she gets. And she goes like, then when she says in a crime such as this when she's explained, her head goes down to guard her neck because her neck as up to this point we've seen a lot of times has been up. Going back to the, when she was talking about the 911 call earlier we saw it go down and guard a lot. It was bouncing around and it guarded a lot down there. When it was talking about if she had her involvement in the second part of the call. But when she says a crime such as this that head comes back down and guards the neck. And then again, she continues to speak quietly as she goes along. So this shouts to me some guilty knowledge. Something's not right here. Something's not right here. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I had a few more sprinkles on what you guys have already said. Too much eye contact. Way, way too much eye contact. Mesmerizing eye contact. She breaks eye contact at the end. Yes, but during this time even when she's stammering as she's admitting that this was an unusual ransom note which is probably a point that people are using to establish guilt. Usually a ransom note would say, hey, give me some money. I got your kid. It wouldn't say victory to the whatever she said. That's not usually what you expect. You don't expect three pages. You also, if you did something and it has become the place that is the most scrutiny and you wrote a three page thing, you're giving a real handwriting sample on a level nobody has ever done and now they can compare it and they go look at your work. Now you probably are feeling a little dumb about that so you may stammer and stutter your way through it. Way too much eye contact. She's almost trying to give you a, we will never find this guy because this is such an unusual thing. And this just sprinkles on everything you guys said I agree. All these pieces around distancing and all that, usually a person would say, whatever scumbag took my kid, I want their head. That's the way they approach it. Now, a lot of this is just her personality, all that stuff, but the chin down and all this together you should have a pretty good picture that we're all concerned here. Yeah. That's it. Correct. And the ransom note was already written. I believe it was. I mean, it's very unusual for a ransom note to be this long. From what we understand from professionals we've talked with that after someone commits such a crime as this, they, you know, get the heck out of there. Cool. You good? Yeah. Let's go to the law. Good luck out Mrs. Ramsey. Your child's been killed brutally and then someone writes out this ransom note. Why do you think that's not feasible? Why do you think it was written before? Because I have been told by people who are experienced in this field that that is usually the way it happens. I have no previous knowledge about these kinds of things but we have been, you know, in conversation and in... We think about this every day. Every day. And we've sought out, you know, the top people in the field that know about how the criminal mind works. And this is what we're going on. The profile that's in the book, you know, all of that information is not from John and from me. This is from people that know what they're doing. All right, Chase, what do you got? If you're watching this, do me the biggest favor of all time and watch this clip and only listen to her responses and see if somebody offered you a million dollars to figure out what she's talking about if you could figure it out. This is the most generalized, a non-specific, non-committal answer I've ever heard in any interview, I think in my lifetime. Those people, these people, these techniques, this agency, those agencies, these people, all arguments are arguments from authority or an argument on authority. So if you told me, oh, I think she's on drugs and my response would be, oh, where did you graduate pharmacology school? That's the argument of authority. And what they're doing is something called borrowing authority. So I am borrowing the authority of another agency or another group of people in order to make my story more believable or more palatable for people to like me more, which certainly lead to maybe an innocent claim at the end, but it would certainly lead to where I want somebody to start believing I'm going to wind up. Greg. Yeah, what you call borrowing authority, I call authority by association and she doesn't just borrow it, she paid for it. She tells you, we have the experts. There's a status claim here and there's a resume statement of sorts there. I would say I paid for this expertise and I know. So I agree with you. There's that certainly up front. She swallows really hard at the beginning of this. Did you all see that? Just the awkward. Now it's probably from the question before, but it's still there. She smiles awkwardly in the middle of this thing. I don't get that of all the things. It's kind of that condescending spot. Some of this is her baseline of snarkiness. I mean, it's just how she's wired, I think. But she is in the middle of a rambling to your point. I mean, there are not many questions and answers that are quite this messy, but she's rambling and running off into the quicksand and he rescues her. You see that when she said, we, she has a word pattern. Think about this every day. She has a word pattern shift that says, we have been. She's not said that up to now. Any weird word pattern like that. Not just non-committal, not just rambling, but it's a weird word pattern for her. Remember, she was a beauty queen. She was a pageant person. And presentation is everything to your point earlier. Even if you don't answer a question, you probably have a long rhythmic process to it. So I would say, what are you talking about here? And I would probably be a little snarky back and push her a little bit and be critical. And I'd get what she's got. I guarantee you, she would go at me to tell me how dumb I am and go from there. So Scott, what do you got? All right, here we see the largest illustrators in the whole thing. And when she says, as she's going along, she illustrates almost every word she's saying. And it's like she's answering to a child for the fifth time answering a question and she's not gonna answer it anymore. This is what people do when they're done, when they're finished with it. They're telling you they're finished with it. They say, I'm not, you know, but the interesting thing here is, and I just caught this, was that big head dip when she says, we have no previous knowledge of this, but we, when she says we, her head goes, it dips almost like she's bowing to this interviewer. That lets me know she's done at this point. She's saying, this is the last you're getting about this right now, because her head goes low on that part of it. And then she starts again, back in what she just set up with all this data that means, you know, absolutely nothing when you sit down and try to write it out. But when you listen to it, it just goes, it's just like Huffin and Puffin is all that is as you go along, there's nothing really there. It's there, but there's nothing there. It's just all smoke and mirrors at that point. Yeah, but she's making sure she gets her point across. She's done with that question. So Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so as the camera pans to her, you get the lip groom. So she really knows that the camera is moving on her. Again, perception is really, really important. Condescending, lecturing tone almost to a child. And that's what's eminently unlikeable about her. I want you to take a look at some of Margaret Thatcher's interviews, because this is the most like Thatcher that she is. You see the nodding of the head and then the shaking of the head. At the same time, this condescending, downward low voice that is almost male in its way of pushing you down and telling you exactly how the world is. It's not very likable, is it? And Thatcher was never very likable and neither is this lady here. So it has that cold kind of iron lady perception to it. Again, we've got to be careful how that influences our ideas about her. I mean, one of the things you probably want to do if you're in this kind of situation is be eminently likable so the public will be on your side. And there's no way that the public is going to be on her side. Again, because she doesn't have that sense of loss around her either. So bad public perception from somebody who is all about public perception. And I hope you liked my Thatcher impression there. Loved it. Good to have met that, Mrs. Ramsey. Your child's been killed brutally and then someone writes out this way and said no. Why do you think that that's not feasible? Why do you think it was written before? Because I have been told by people who are experienced in this field that that is usually the way it happens. I have no previous knowledge about these kind of things but we have been in conversation and in... We think about this every day. Every day. And we've sought out the top people in the field that know about how the criminal line works and this is what we're going on. The profile that's in the book, all that information is not from John and for me, this is from people that know what they're doing. Okay, we're good? Yeah, all right. How is it that you are able to sit here and talk about your body and your daughter? I have to kind of put it in a clinical perspective rather than emotionally when I can to talk about it. You know, we have a strong faith. Hi, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this one, the speech pattern shifts. She's almost childlike in her recall of what she should say. Now, here's the thing, guys. I'm also going to go with you, Mark. If one of us were being questioned, we're in trouble because we would not be likable because we would be informing and telling you how things are and it's just in the way we're wired. She shifts here and when they ask her, now, if you ask me about bodies and that kind of thing in my past life or Chase, well, we probably have a little more experience in that world than is normal. But when it's your own child, I'm going to tell you that seeing somebody else's body that I don't know probably wouldn't affect me nearly as much as someone I love. I've seen quite a few bodies in my life and when you lose someone in your family, that is a devastating thing. This is awfully clinical to talk about it, but it's also childlike. So this is probably one of the few places where I start to say, well, there's a soft side of her and she's trying to say whatever and then she goes up and her accessing changes. She's not focused on you and making eye contact and trying to hypnotize you. She's doing something else. She's recalling and thinking and she's avoiding eye contact, which is actually more endearing of her than anything she's done to now. If she'd looked at you and said, well, I just compartmentalize it, you would think, yeah, this woman needs to go somewhere. So there's that. Chase, what do you got? I think they publicly announced that they're doing all this from a clinical perspective, which I think is them saying, this is why you're not seeing emotion. This is why you're not seeing our grief. That's the way that they can explain this. And some people might say, well, we're not seeing a lot of grief here because they're numb after this experience. It's an experience. We watched the McCanns, for example, and they were really numb. And we'll get back to that in a second, but when she does this, she's gesturing off to her right side when she's talking about something horrible, like something horrible that she needs to get out. She's gesturing to her right side. And this is important. Later, if I was interrogating or interviewing her when I want her to be emotional, I'll move to that other side, the opposite from where she was associating this clinical part. And I'm also gonna gesture with that hand to make her look over that direction, to make her use eye-accessing in that direction. And when people say, oh, maybe they're numb, and that's the reason they just don't show any emotion, there's a ton of emotion here. It's fear, social approval-seeking, anger, and disagreement. We see a lot of it here. And people who are spent or empty on emotions are just numb after an experience like this. They're numb from all emotions, not just one. And I think this is an attempt to explain the lack of feeling about the issue. But when emotions are there, you're not numb to the experience. Mark? Yeah, so I totally agree. And I'd buy in from this video to her idea of compartmentalization. She's very clear about where she's placed it, and she seems to be clear to me about where the feelings are. And that she's not accessing those now. She's put it in a little package over here. And her eyes go all around the house to get from one to another. So I think she really is experiencing and truly has packaged up the story and the emotions in different places. But the important thing is, is it comes across very, very cold. And again, from a perception point of view, it doesn't work well for us. So she comes across as cold that easily makes us feel like she is calculating and then inhuman. And at that point, we've dehumanized her. At that point, we can turn her into doing horrific crimes. I don't know whether she did or not, but all I'm saying is, because of her behavior right now, it's easy for us to dehumanize her and make her the bad person. She could well be, maybe she isn't, but it's easy for us to put it there. So we've got to be careful about that. Scott, what have you got? I don't think she's thought about compartmentalizing anything up to this point. However, she has compartmentalized, like you said, Mark, everything. Because this is years later and she's been able to put everything in a box. I'm gonna talk about this, this is what I talk about. I'm gonna talk about this and this is what I talk about. So when you get called to do a gig somewhere, all of us, you go do a keynote. What is it for? Oh, it's for the military. Okay, I know the things that I'm gonna go deep. Here are the things I always cover on the deep stuff. Then I wanna go talk to a dental assistant and then it goes small. A lot of the same stuff, but you just don't go as deep on anything because you legal, we can't, but you don't go as deep on anything. So she's compartmentalized all this stuff and that's where she's got hers over here. She's compartmentalized what she thinks about her over here. So as a whole, everything's got its own spot and that's all she's talking about because I think this whole thing has been compartmentalized for her. She keeps it in a box and then she brings it up and then she starts looking at the different separate parts of it mentally. That's what I'm getting from that. Five years is a long time. You can do a lot of compartmentalization in five years. Yeah. I will say this. The rule of thumb to go off of in compartmentalization, the more a person feels like what they did that they need to compartmentalize or what they witnessed was a result of doing something good or doing the right thing, the easier it is to branch off and scoot somewhere else. Well, it's the reason soldiers can box things in a lot easier than the other guys, right? Yeah. Yeah, we've all seen and been witnessed to a lot of horrible stuff in our gigs and you have to have a place to do that because if you don't, when you come home it'll eat you up. You know, it'll start getting everywhere. So I think everybody compartmentalizes and I think this is just observing somebody explaining what that is for maybe the first time possibly. How is it that you are able to sit here and talk about the body of your daughter? I have to kind of put it in a clinical perspective rather than emotionally when I can to talk about it like this. And we have a strong faith. So. All right, we good? Yeah. Look, the death of innocence, your pictures on the cover. Why your picture about your daughters on the cover? This is our story. I mean, there have been, I think this is now the 10th book I'm understanding that has been written about this case. You know, we are the only ones that know what has happened to us since Jean Benet's death. No one else. This is a story only we can tell. I was even a bit uncomfortable putting her picture on the back. All right, Chase, what do you got? Why would it be a story and not an ordeal and experience, a trauma, our suffering, our history, our family, it's a story. I think that's an interesting choice of words there. And this offering of discomfort means nothing in terms of the question of true events. When he's talking about, I was actually uncomfortable to put this photo on the cover. And I think it's incredible to hear that it's our story, not her story, it's ours. And I just think that's an unusual choice of words. Maybe she's looking in Jean Benet with the word hours. I won't claim to know that, but I will claim to know that she did not credit her daughter in the story at all directly. Scott? I agree completely. I think it's John Benet's story. So that's what you'd be telling what happened. But maybe she's leaning toward the section of, here's what we went through for her story. So maybe that's what she's talking about is our story or whatever. But I think maybe she separated the child from this whole thing. I mean, it's all about the child, but she's not telling the story like you just said, Chase, of talking about the child at all. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so this to me is her baseline. It's all about me. It's all about me. It's about us. You need to listen. This is our story. This is about us. Other people shouldn't be writing our stories what I'm hearing. So yeah, this makes her not likeable. And Mark, I don't think we can say enough times. Doesn't mean she killed anybody. I do think when you are forthcoming, there's not a lot of smoke and mirrors and stuff about your kid dying. If you talk about somebody, whether murdered or something else, you'll get to clear easy points. If I'm going to tell you a story about something that happened five years ago and losing a child, I'm gonna be very clear about what happened. I don't need to make it a big deal in a song and dance and about me. It's gonna be about what happened and where it's gone. Look, these are all well-known facts and it makes you feel like someone is hiding something. In my world, when somebody looks like they're hiding something, it's usually guilty knowledge. That's, and we'll always say, you can't tell what happened, but you can certainly say, we need to lift the covers on this when something's up and that's what I see. Mark, you wanna bring it home? Yeah, so why does this make the public feel really bad? And I think the interviewer hits the nail on their head here. People don't understand how you are past the loss of this. That's the big problem with this. We as a public go, I wouldn't have let her go so quickly. I'd still be in loss and mourning. Why? Because she wasn't ours in the first place, but we've made her ours. She became a, Jean Benet became really an icon of the death of innocence, a beauty that gets taken away for no apparent reason. She is almost an urban legend. She is mythology. And so the parent, I think at this point is going, you can't have that. This is now my story. I'm gonna take control of that. And we don't like that because we don't want to dead. We don't want that child dead. We wanna keep that child alive. And the parent here is really killing that child for us and going, she's not even on the cover. We don't even want her on the back. This is our story now. So we don't see the value, I think, of that maneuver that the parents are doing. We may have our arguments for why it isn't valuable, but we've gotta see from their point of view why it may be valuable to them. Again, I don't know who's culpable, who's guilty of anything here. All I know is that in this interview, she is wholly unlikable. And I think we've got some of the reasons why we don't like her. And we've gotta be really careful that we understand that that's gonna bias us in our judgments and the stories we make up about her. There, I'll leave it at that. This book, The Death of Innocence, your picture's on the cover. Why your picture and not your daughter's on the cover? This is our story. I mean, there have been, I think this is now the 10th book I'm understanding that has been written about this case. You know, we are the only ones that know what has happened to us since Jean Benet's death. No one else. This is a story only we can tell. I was even a bit uncomfortable putting your picture on the back. All right, let's throw it around the room and let's come up with two words for what you think's going on here. Greg. Jury's out. What about you, Chase? Guilty knowledge. Mark? Guilty of bad public perception. I know it's not two words, but I don't do two words. All right. Mine would be, I don't know. I don't know what I'd say. I don't know what I'd say. I don't have two words for it. I talk too much. 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's, and John Douglas was an FBI person who started their profiling program years ago. PhD in psychology, 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 Venet, 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 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 for in 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, okay. 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, you 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 and the rhythm is good. That suggests not under stress around this subject or very little stress around 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 there for 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 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, 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 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, non-conformist, 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 them 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. Greg, what do you think? Yeah, first of all, guys, there's no way we can know more than all of the internet sleuths here. Cause you guys who spend a tremendous amount of time that's gonna 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. Couple of things, Mark, you hit dead on, I'm gonna use interrogator, speak for what you said. Don't ask compound questions. Do you wanna go to the store or 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 wild 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 not know the person, that whole mindset. Then he does that characteristic and we're gonna 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. This is a good start. He looks believable, trustworthy, all of those things. Scott, what do you got? I agree with all you guys up 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 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 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 subscribed to John Douglas's, and John Douglas was an FBI person who started their profiling program years ago. PhD in psychology, 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, 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 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, he thought it was a kidnapping going wrong. John, 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, like for years, I thought you were the murderers of your daughter. And I'm so sorry, I felt that way. And I'd write a magazine, that's okay. 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 of my fellow man that they care about other people. And it changed me personally. You know, I was pretty much a, 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, it was a, made 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 filled it. All right, 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 Burke 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 the loss of this kid and about the treatment and how they've been perceived. So he also is keenly where he's in front of a 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 wanna cut him off and you can see that. You can see a good baseline from him. 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? Yeah, so we see more counting on fingers here and that behavior can be seen here again. There's 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 gonna be because what else, what other 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 hands again as adapters. The first two knows on whether he killed or they killed the child he did, his wife did or Burke did. The first two knows are close but then obviously as we talked about a second ago the third one's a little bit different but it goes from no, no, no like that. It's like dun, dun, dun. So 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 clasped because it's a 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 a question 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 giving 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 he uses them again fluently and this lets us know that he's relaxed, that 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 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 con so they're really into hearing what he has to say. So I think they're gonna 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 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 gonna put that down as he's getting ready for his deception. Also, there are three clear nose but different intonation on each. I like Scott that they go down in tonality each time. It's very finalized on that end one. Although you're absolutely right. No, that's no. This interviewer, one of the things you've got to do if you've got a high value interview is take your own pulse first. Look after yourself before you go into that high value interview because you need to calm down during that. And I don't think this interviewer 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 wanna 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 mind. Look for me, what's most interesting about this is that he says, look, media needed something to fill their airtime with. We all have a little media outlet called the Behavior Panel and there's just been this huge jamboree that's gone on of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, okay, 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 every quarter of a century tsunami of interest, which means money. People have made a lot of money out of those stories, okay? And what if you'd have started a channel and then suddenly it disappears? Now what do you do? Now what are you gonna do for viewers? Because you were part of that tsunami, you were riding this wave, which was a hundred feet tall that only happens every quarter of a century. Now what are you gonna do with your time? Because you haven't built up that base beforehand, okay? 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, 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, okay? You know, it's fantastic. But what if we'd spent money? We would be sitting here right now going, man, we gotta make our money back here. We spend all that money out to the airwaves. We've promised advertisers, viewers. We've got contracts right now. What are we gonna 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 royal stories. If you put a Meghan Markle there, it would get wiped by it. So I just wanna, you know, put it in that context that what he's saying there about media and the desire, the appetite for a big story is absolutely true and people's jobs depend on it. And he's, as a, it's very factual. I would suggest what he's saying there. Greg. Yeah, there's one other, one other key point. When you mentioned 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, I, for years, I thought you were the murderers of your daughter and I'm so sorry I felt that way. And I'd write a magazine, that's okay. 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 an 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 a, 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, it was a main for TV entertainment. And it was a billion dollar industry for the media. The Jambane Inc., it was called in a magazine publication. You know, we came along when the OG 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 OG 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. And there will be people who watch this 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've come out of this being hateful and want to go to a mountain retreat and fence ourselves off in 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 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 them 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 microcultures. 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 there's signaling going on with, and then hard eye contact, there's signaling too. That's a 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 CEOitis. 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 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 what 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 and 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 and answers and then goes back down to right to talk about what's going on. All of around this looks congruent. Memics 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 gonna 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 him. 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 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 is 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 get into the room and explain what the problem is. There's a guy named Michael Burcham and he was a CEO at the Nashville Entrepreneur Center. And he was really good at that. He could look at something and say, okay here's the problem, explain it to you very quickly. And then after getting to the root of it and say here's the 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% of the time because it makes sense and it seems like the thing to do. And with those kinds of things that you're either a person who can do that or you're not. I don't think it's something that you can learn to be able to see the root of problems like in that the specificity of a problem, the very bottom of a problem. I think 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 cool to see him doing that. I think 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 and even more intense situation here. It's closer in time to the loss of the daughter and though I think there may be 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 change in character between who we saw in the first videos and this person here. The word creature we see distaste, that sense of a nasty taste around sour taste here around creature. Then we'll find the person. There's anger there. We get tightening of the lips. And I think we get a tongue jut or a grooming there which might be out of his 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 emotions. Big stress on beg. Well, 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 chaff and redirect over there. Doesn't really seem like that though. We'd want a lot more attention over there. I think it's just a little lay down there of we are truly subservient to you and we beg you 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 bad exists. Let's find this evil creature that's 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 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, well, I just don't know. Just don't know what the person's going to be like. Just, you know, who knows? Who knows? 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 that side. Not on the outside 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 at 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, and 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 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 forcefully pushing it into the conversation, which is a big deal. Blink rate is steady, no pupil 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 watch this 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 gonna 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 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 gonna change that. And we're not trying 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, the police officer, the police detective told you to search the house. Tell us about that, now, please. I don't remember exactly when it was that morning, but we were standing in the four-year of the house and Linda Arndt asked me to take someone with me and go through the house thoroughly, look for anything that was out of the ordinary. The 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 room where we did find Jean Bonnet. The door was latched, I unlatched, pulled it open and used to see what it 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 the, her arms were 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 and I was, I guess, just realizing that things were not gonna be okay after all. And things never have been since. No, yeah, they never will be. We've lost our child, it's never gonna 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. 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 a massive detail spike way out of baseline on evidence and data and insignificant details. And all of these details revolve around proving that a crime occurred, that some kidnapping attempt occurred. And he's maintaining eye contact after an emotional 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 bitter, it's a bitter taste. It's another huge detail spike on describing the latch. And then he says the room where we did find John Bonnet, 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 gonna 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. There'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 either hand 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 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 gonna 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 would 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 wanna 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, withdrawn 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've never worked in corporate American, you've 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 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 gotta get pretty tough at certain things. So I think depending on where he's been and maybe some of this comes from it, the only place I had a question was around that um and 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 happening 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, it 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 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, probably if they broke out. And so, there's no description of why they would need to look for the glass. If somebody's broken in, it's gonna be at your feet right now. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's other stuff happens there, but 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 sound. There's a big outbreath of resignation before that description 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-haired 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, there's nothing he can do about it. It's more despondent, I would say. So I get what you're saying there, Chase, I'm, 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, 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, and because I have the same picture of it in my head as he was explaining it, I'll try, I'll see if I can find it since 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 going through that as he's talking about it in his life sitting right there. So that's got to be a little unnerving, not to make him nervous, but just 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, we can't tell and stuff like this, you know? I don't disagree that it was an emotional finding the body. I don't disagree that he's mad and disgusted by the basement. I'm just saying there's a discrepancy to me about timeline and when the body was discovered. There's an 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 to their right and they get a thousand yards of 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. Ramsey, the police officers told you, but 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 four-year of the house and Linda Arnk 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 room where we did find Jean Bonnet, the door was latched, I un-latched and pulled it open and they used to make what I'd 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 the, her arms were 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 and I was, I guess, just realizing that things were not gonna be okay after all. And things never have been since. No, they never will be. We've lost our child, it's never gonna be the same. One of the most unusual parts of this has been this far somehow, and I know that you've seen this 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 all, this is what is gonna 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 it. No, so this is a huge clue. Why it was left out on him. 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? Defensively? No, I don't. We had experts do the same kind of testing and it's my understanding that the people 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 4.5, with one being a perfect match. So, we know. 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's 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 as I'm clearing my name. Hey, look, I didn't do anything wrong. I accept. She does say that the Secret Service or their handwriting expert gave her a 4.5 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 eye is 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's stoic, 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, and when you hear trip words that sound like what you're saying, you immediately think they said what you did and you go after it. Listen, because he comes in with a plan where he wants to say, we need all the available evidence and, and, and whatever the governor has, we want. And then 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. Okay. So often, you know, draw the internet and you'll find a whole bunch of articles that if somebody touches their nose they're being deceptive and that's just inaccurate. Why might he be touching his nose at this point? So what happens is when we have an emotion, blood can rush to the face. Okay. You'll see it happening right now as I produce pleasure. You'll see these get rosier and this get a little rosier. Okay. 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. Okay. So that's good news. I think he's saying, 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 area of thought. So to your point, Greg, yeah, he's very clear about where he's going with this. He wants somebody caught and he wants somebody convicted. Now, 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 unlikeable, okay? Easily unlikeable. 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 her very, very unlikeable. 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 expert 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 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 a public opinion nightmare. Of course, now he never looks good because he's sitting next to her, okay? And when you're sitting next to somebody unlikeable, yeah? That doesn't make you particularly likeable either. So we 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 okay 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 those things where he got a little excited and touched 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 letter. You know, that proves she wrote the letter. I don't know who she's talking about. She 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 guys. If that is true, if she is just a 4.5 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 even worth a hoot now. 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 they approached 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. That's why 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, 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 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 100% compelling, honest, genuine. However, so I think all of that is 100% 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. That's all I got. Who do you think you are? Who in the... Keith. I think I have a reason for you a little later on as to why they did that. All right. Is it a day? Let's say. One of the most unusual parts of this has been this person. I know that you've seen this several times, but would you go over it with us and tell us what you know and what you've been told about it? Well, first of all, 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, I don't know. 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. We had experts do the same kind of testing and it's my understanding that the people 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 4.5 with one being a perfect match. So, we know. 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. You're not saying all the things. If there's 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's 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 find. 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 shoe? 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. They 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 gonna 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 to 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. Don't 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 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. 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 step 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 loping 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 licking. 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 100% himself. They're saying what he wants to say with no holds barred. And he's, as he remains the professional that he is to keep it in that CEO lane of solving problems and tell 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. I think all that's okay. 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 this in the first videos, which is why should we believe you didn't do it? Was the question asked in 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? Or 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 deep, almost pedantic values about the way that justice is meant to work. And they go right back to Johannes Monarchus, 1200s. He was a French lawyer. I 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 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 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 that's God. Like he didn't go clearly you, you're guilty. 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 sold me too. 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, okay? 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 wanna 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. I 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 was 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 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 do. 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 shooting? 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, they 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 gonna 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 Giamani, 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 Giamani 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, so you 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 a 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% 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? 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 they'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 the 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 if it's never been through it, but it may have a place in their brain. I'll 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 is coming over 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 and so multifaceted and so compound, you can't really answer. Patsy to me with that chin thrust, this is my instinct. Now I'm gonna say this is an 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 that 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 their 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 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 to Steven 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 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 that because when he went in there, he was the first one in, he saw a bunch of stuff 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 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 into that situation. That's the feeling, that's what I thought when I saw it. I thought, whoops, he's letting something out because he thought about it, thought about it, he shook his head butt forward three times before he said, before he said there's something to do with a suitcase which obviously means they're gonna put her in a suitcase. Maybe there was one laying out 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 doing it. That could be the situation but I think he accidentally let information out and that's what we're seeing on him. They're feeling bad and 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 and I think that's what is with that statement and the confirmation nods he's showing during that are just at their confirmation nods and a lot of people will be saying, oh, he should be shaking his head no but he's shaking his head yes and he's confirming it. He's just confirming 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 what I think happened. It was an accident. He 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. All the photos are shared online at that suitcase. But maybe there was another one in that room is what I'm saying. 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 never know what guilty knowledge is that they're trying to hide. You just don't know. It could be one weird little thing. 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. That's true. It gets weird there for a second. He certainly shows an anomaly. Yeah. This one was good. We all got a different point of view. What do you think happened in your version 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. So you 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 didn't, and I tried to give them a thoughtful answer and I thought, I said yes, I would. Absolutely. You turned 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 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 kind of acted out, he's displaying that moment of when they said, hey, would you turn in your wife if she did it? But I think that's real surprise. Go back, take a look, see. See if you see those facial action codings of surprise. I think I do. He's very clear. Your love for a child is unconditional. That seems unequivocable 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 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 5.15 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 you see, Mark, he's remembering when he was first asked the question. And he, 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. 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 gonna cling onto the person 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 gonna be a lot of people that say, he shook his head, no, when he should have said yes, he should have been nodding it yes, and vice versa. And, but not in this situation. Cause 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 question on that, which goes back to the absolutes, 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 your, like we talked about earlier, you're 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 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 never even thought about that. And I tried to give them a thoughtful answer. And 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 would do anything to protect my children. All right, well, this is the roll around the room and tell what each one of us thinks about what's going on. A minute or less. And Mark, you wanna go first? If you think that John Ramsey murdered his own child 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 I've said that about other cases. If you take me to the casino on that one, I guarantee I'm gonna win. I'm gonna win that casino. Chase, what do you think? I fully agree. Absolutely agree with you. And I'm gonna throw a hypothetical situation in here really quick. I think in my opinion, there was 100% a legitimate killer that has yet to be identified as we know of. And here's this hypothetical situation. They thought John Bonet'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 analyzed 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 gonna tell us how wrong we are in the comments. Good, because we're not gonna change what we think because of what you tell us, we're telling you what we see. 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 gonna 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 he could quietly go away. What do you got? I see, and I see what you're saying, Chase. And my thing originally was that they thought that Burke did it. And that's why she wrote the letter. But 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 cop showed up, they had the letter. So that's what I thought happened. And I can't imagine a parent doing that to a child who's passed away. I can't imagine 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 so that- Oh, okay. I thought you meant that he did something to her in the- You don't like the stuff. Okay, 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 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. Something like a handyman or something like that. That's what I thought. But if she wrote the letter, then 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 were trying to protect him. So it makes the most sense to me.