Hi guys,
Here is my analysis of the RN, based on http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
To be honest, this is EXACTLY the type of RN that my mother would write if she was ever asked to write one. It's completely naive yet laden with just enough cliches to convince her that it's plausible.
The biggest give-away that it's not written by a "professional kidnapper" is the lack of conviction in the phrasing. "We might call you", "the two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them." ,"You stand a 99%
chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us."
It is interesting to note that the only time anything truly commanding and compelling is said is when it's in someone else's words (movie lines and cliches). For example: "immediate execution of your daughter", "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.", "Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult".
Whoever wrote the RN obviously has a problem confronting people and being outright "mean" to people. It seems that the author of the note doesn't usually use words like “hate” or “murder” and finds it difficult to directly insult someone or give bad news that is concise and straight to the point.
What is most telling is the wording of the following statements: “Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter… Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.”
There is no-one attributed to killing JBR. It is, “she dies”, not “we will kill her”. Speaking to the FBI “will result in your daughter being beheaded”, not “if you speak to the FBI we will behead her”. There is an inability to accept responsibility for her death. Her death is being attributed to some sort of outside force; it will just happen, without being anyone’s fault. This seems to admit some sort of denial of culpability for JBR’s death. It implies that the writer of the note knows that she is dead but is unable to come to terms with the fact that the death was caused by someone’s positive actions.
I think that too much as been made out of the use of the word “hence”. I’m Australian, so I’m not completely aware of the American usage of this word, but I use it all the time, especially when writing. What is important to note about this word, however, is the fact that it is indicative of a higher education. It is mostly used in formal and academic writing and it is unlikely that someone without a university education would use it.
One thing is for sure, the writer of the note certainly isn’t “foreign”. I agree entirely with Mark McClish’s interpretation that you are unlikely to consider yourself “foreign” even if you are. In my opinion, however, it is the reference to “that good old southern common sense of yours” that is the dead give-away that the author is not foreign. I’m “foreign” and it is highly unlikely that “foreigners” will distinguish between “southern” Americans and “normal” Americans. “Foreigners” would also be completely unaware that southerners are even characterised by their common sense in the first place. The writer of the note is clearly familiar and conscious of the differences between North and South and had probably had to deal with cultural differences between North and South in their everyday life.
As for the SBTC, I also think too much has been made out of this. I don’t think it (consciously) stands for anything, it was just thrown in for credibility, perhaps to give the “small foreign faction” some sort of name. I do think, however, that the writer of the note commonly abbreviates things in his or her everyday life.
It is also interesting to note the unfailing use of full-stops in the abbreviations: “F.B.I.” “etc.” “Mr.”, S.B.T.C.”. Again, I’m not sure about the American situation, but in Australia, since the early 90s, it has been unfashionable to abbreviate this way. It is taught in schools just to write “FBI, Mr, etc, SBTC”. The writer has obviously been well taught the old way, so it is likely that he or she completed college at least 10 years before 1996.
Below is an extremely interesting observation from twinkiesmom that I agree with. I don’t necessarily assert that the author of the note is a trained writer or editor, but they have clearly had a college education that requires careful editing of their writing.
I also remember reading somewhere that there is a relatively large margin on the left hand side of the RN pages and this is a common convention used by journalists.
I need to go off-track for a minute, but trust me it is relevant to the ransom note. My mother has no idea of the value of money. She does the grocery shopping, so knows how much that costs, but her husband pays all the bills and the mortgage. She doesn’t know how much money her husband earns and, when they were getting their house valued she estimated that it would be worth “at least $150 000” when it was really worth about $600 000. They have recently taken out another mortgage for $100 000 and she is in a massive panic attack that she will lose her job and they won’t be able to afford the repayments (despite the fact that her husband earns more than enough to pay three times that amount on his income alone).
$118 000 is the type of figure that my mother would use in a ransom note. It seems like a lot of money to those who aren’t used to having to worry about paying for anything and are unfamiliar with the real value of money. It is such a MASSIVE coincidence that John received an $118 000 bonus that I can’t help but think that the writer of the note had to have been aware of this.
I believe the following two sentences are also very revealing: “You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter…”. These sentences reveal a strong Christian background. I’ve noticed from September 11 that Americans are extremely concerned with their relatives receiving a “proper Christian burial”, something that Australians (mostly non-Christian) aren’t so concerned about. I also agree that “watching over” has strong Christian connotations. The writer of the note is either a “strong Christian”, or has had a Christian upbringing.
So, in summary, in my opinion, the writer of the note:
1) Is used to being “charming” and does not usually say aggressive, hateful or insulting things to other people.
2) Is not a hardened criminal.
3) Has a college education, probably in an area that requires formal writing.
4) Is unconcerned about money, probably because he or she doesn’t control the money in his or her every day life.
5) Has a Christian background
6) Is American and is southern or has strong southern ties.
7) Was over 30 in 1996.
Here is my analysis of the RN, based on http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
To be honest, this is EXACTLY the type of RN that my mother would write if she was ever asked to write one. It's completely naive yet laden with just enough cliches to convince her that it's plausible.
The biggest give-away that it's not written by a "professional kidnapper" is the lack of conviction in the phrasing. "We might call you", "the two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them." ,"You stand a 99%
chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us."
It is interesting to note that the only time anything truly commanding and compelling is said is when it's in someone else's words (movie lines and cliches). For example: "immediate execution of your daughter", "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.", "Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult".
Whoever wrote the RN obviously has a problem confronting people and being outright "mean" to people. It seems that the author of the note doesn't usually use words like “hate” or “murder” and finds it difficult to directly insult someone or give bad news that is concise and straight to the point.
What is most telling is the wording of the following statements: “Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter… Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies.”
There is no-one attributed to killing JBR. It is, “she dies”, not “we will kill her”. Speaking to the FBI “will result in your daughter being beheaded”, not “if you speak to the FBI we will behead her”. There is an inability to accept responsibility for her death. Her death is being attributed to some sort of outside force; it will just happen, without being anyone’s fault. This seems to admit some sort of denial of culpability for JBR’s death. It implies that the writer of the note knows that she is dead but is unable to come to terms with the fact that the death was caused by someone’s positive actions.
I think that too much as been made out of the use of the word “hence”. I’m Australian, so I’m not completely aware of the American usage of this word, but I use it all the time, especially when writing. What is important to note about this word, however, is the fact that it is indicative of a higher education. It is mostly used in formal and academic writing and it is unlikely that someone without a university education would use it.
One thing is for sure, the writer of the note certainly isn’t “foreign”. I agree entirely with Mark McClish’s interpretation that you are unlikely to consider yourself “foreign” even if you are. In my opinion, however, it is the reference to “that good old southern common sense of yours” that is the dead give-away that the author is not foreign. I’m “foreign” and it is highly unlikely that “foreigners” will distinguish between “southern” Americans and “normal” Americans. “Foreigners” would also be completely unaware that southerners are even characterised by their common sense in the first place. The writer of the note is clearly familiar and conscious of the differences between North and South and had probably had to deal with cultural differences between North and South in their everyday life.
As for the SBTC, I also think too much has been made out of this. I don’t think it (consciously) stands for anything, it was just thrown in for credibility, perhaps to give the “small foreign faction” some sort of name. I do think, however, that the writer of the note commonly abbreviates things in his or her everyday life.
It is also interesting to note the unfailing use of full-stops in the abbreviations: “F.B.I.” “etc.” “Mr.”, S.B.T.C.”. Again, I’m not sure about the American situation, but in Australia, since the early 90s, it has been unfashionable to abbreviate this way. It is taught in schools just to write “FBI, Mr, etc, SBTC”. The writer has obviously been well taught the old way, so it is likely that he or she completed college at least 10 years before 1996.
Below is an extremely interesting observation from twinkiesmom that I agree with. I don’t necessarily assert that the author of the note is a trained writer or editor, but they have clearly had a college education that requires careful editing of their writing.
I would add another thought to the ransom analysis....I believe the author was trained as a writer from the crossout of the word "delivery." Writers are taught not to repeat the same word in the same sentence if avoidable. IMHO, the writer of the note was trained to edit his/her own writing.
Also, the use of the editor's carat on the second page indicates a trained writer/editor:
http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage2.gif
I also remember reading somewhere that there is a relatively large margin on the left hand side of the RN pages and this is a common convention used by journalists.
I need to go off-track for a minute, but trust me it is relevant to the ransom note. My mother has no idea of the value of money. She does the grocery shopping, so knows how much that costs, but her husband pays all the bills and the mortgage. She doesn’t know how much money her husband earns and, when they were getting their house valued she estimated that it would be worth “at least $150 000” when it was really worth about $600 000. They have recently taken out another mortgage for $100 000 and she is in a massive panic attack that she will lose her job and they won’t be able to afford the repayments (despite the fact that her husband earns more than enough to pay three times that amount on his income alone).
$118 000 is the type of figure that my mother would use in a ransom note. It seems like a lot of money to those who aren’t used to having to worry about paying for anything and are unfamiliar with the real value of money. It is such a MASSIVE coincidence that John received an $118 000 bonus that I can’t help but think that the writer of the note had to have been aware of this.
I believe the following two sentences are also very revealing: “You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter…”. These sentences reveal a strong Christian background. I’ve noticed from September 11 that Americans are extremely concerned with their relatives receiving a “proper Christian burial”, something that Australians (mostly non-Christian) aren’t so concerned about. I also agree that “watching over” has strong Christian connotations. The writer of the note is either a “strong Christian”, or has had a Christian upbringing.
So, in summary, in my opinion, the writer of the note:
1) Is used to being “charming” and does not usually say aggressive, hateful or insulting things to other people.
2) Is not a hardened criminal.
3) Has a college education, probably in an area that requires formal writing.
4) Is unconcerned about money, probably because he or she doesn’t control the money in his or her every day life.
5) Has a Christian background
6) Is American and is southern or has strong southern ties.
7) Was over 30 in 1996.