“Who Will Speak for JonBenet?” Book Review
James O. Raney, M.D., International Journal of Communicative Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy 15:4 (2000).
Summary: In his second book on Ramsey case Hodges reveals new information obtained after he wrote his first book and also investigates the investigators explaining what went wrong. The reviewer comments on the missing motive established by thoughtprint decoding, blindspots of investigators, the need for investigators to reconsider the potential guide the method offers to further investigation, and compares Hodges’ work on the case to the two most popular forensic experts-former FBI profiler John Douglas and Vassar linguist Donald Foster both of whom were consulted on the case.
“...Much information has appeared since publication of A Mother Gone Bad (1998). More investigation of the case, a book authored by the Ramseys, and other public communications seem to complicate rather than clarify the case. Andrew Hodges is steeped in a clinical tradition that solves impasses by examining the therapist and therapeutic frame. This kind of problem is a match for his skills. As a consultant to a therapist might examine the therapist-patient dyad and the therapy frame, in this book Hodges similarly steps back from the disrupted Ramsey family frame to examine the investigators and the investigative frame.
At first glance, he finds the investigators appear to have ignored important obvious and ordinary aspects of the investigation. These interruptions in the investigative frame must have reasons.
The Ramsey parents have responded to the flurry of information and opinion with extraordinary public performances. Hodges speculates that this interaction between the Ramseys and their audiences has generated unconscious reasons for the behaviors, apparent errors and odd comings and goings of all parties. Not only have key investigators failed to make a coherent case, they have failed to comprehend the coherent case that Hodges has made in his first book. (The investigators appear to have also flatly rejected the lengthy forensic analysis that he wrote with his colleagues Jess Groesbeck and Patrick Callahan.) Hodges attributes these failures to their personal and emotional involvement with the Ramseys. (I suspect another reason. The coherence of Hodges’ analysis did catch their attention. Instead of Hodges, who might embarrass them, they found an expert of their own, the Vassar English professor, Donald Foster.)
These investigators, similar to many therapists, seem unaware of the effects of their investigation on their suspects. They also seem unaware that the suspect may influence them and, consequently, the course of their investigation. Hodges’ bipersonal perspective examines how each party may influence the other.
The investigators, as well as others, such as friends, members of the public and the various media are Hodges’ subjects. He applies psychoanalytic methods that Robert Langs refined from object relations...He presumes the written and spoken narratives of his subjects to include derivatives of unconscious meaning. Using this method, he differs from all other investigators.
Here the reviewer also compares Hodges work on the case to the two most popular forensic experts-former FBI profiler John Douglas and Vassar linguist Donald Foster both of whom were consulted on the case. He demonstrates how Dr. Hodges brings a vastly different method revealing far more information. He suggests that Douglas subtly attacked Hodges’ work and Foster intentionally ignored it.
“...A renown expert, the former FBI profiler, John Douglas, has reviewed the case at the behest of the Ramseys. He uses his extensive experience with other murderers to indicate that the Ramseys do not fit any of his profiles for this murder. He admits that the evidence in this case is seriously compromised. He makes no direct reference to Hodges in his writings about the case. ... His impressions of the Ramseys in person also lead him to believe that acting alone and writing the note would not be within Mrs. Ramsey’s capacity. Douglas may be underrating her capacity. She may be an exception to his ’profile.’ He may not consider her extraordinary personality or that she may have experienced a brief psychosis or a dissociative episode. Several of Douglas’ conjectures do not include the possibility of the murderer’s unconscious wish to be caught.
The“Mindhunter”John Douglas, who was retained by the Ramseys, similarly may have met his match in the Ramseys obfuscation of the case, especially that of John Ramsey (Douglas, 2000). Douglas may refer to Hodges implicity where he repeats Hodges’ exact hypothesis and then writes,“Despite absolutely no evidence for any of these suppositions, despite a feeding frenzy of character investigation...facts become almost irrelevant to certain ’analysts.’”(Douglas, 2000, p 14) Perhaps the Ramsey’s expert, Mr. Douglas, despite his declaration of objectivity, reveals himself through his“absolutely no evidence” hyperbole as the Ramseys’ proxy voice.
Another investigator in the case, apparently one who was invited by the investigators, is the Vassar English professor and linguistic expert, Donald Foster...Andrew Hodges uses similar methods but adds conjectures about the content based upon his psychological knowledge and experience. Hodges differs from Foster (2000) in this important respect...
Therapists (and patients) unconsciously reveal the truth about themselves. [In forensic work] Hodges calls these“thoughtprints”and Donald Foster calls them“signatures.”Hodges takes into account unconscious motivation, stressors, the individual’s history and the like. He suggests that these are revealed in the grammar, the nature of the disguise, and even the arrangement of the words and letters on the page. These are then the author’s thoughtprints. Foster seems to utilize idiosyncratic characteristic writing style that appears across writing productions by the same author as the signature of that author.
Foster perhaps coyly, writes that he cannot reveal his work now, however, because of a ’confidentiality agreement’ to not discuss the investigation or court proceedings. In his discussions of his other work he emphasizes that the reviews all writings that may, if even marginally, pertain to the case. He also describes his resourcefulness in locating sources and potential authors. How could he miss Hodges’ book?
Foster also acknowledges a frame break. Before Foster determined that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note, he communicated personally with Pasty Ramsey about it. This action compromises the appearance of objectivity in the impartial expert. If Foster had done this before Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter hired him he should have recused himself. In his recent book, he acknowledges his mistake, attributes it to naivete...If Foster becomes a witness, the case against whomever he names is weakened...Foster affirms however that he stands by“....the statements that he has made for the record...”(P 17, Foster, 2000).
Mindhunter Douglas, who also claims confidentiality because of testimony to the Grand Jury, reveals that Foster has implicated Patsy Ramsey. Douglas, despite his confidentiality pledge, spends several pages of his book arguing that Patsy Ramsey could not have done it (Douglas, 2000). Are these breaches of a secure frame (of the confidentiality of his Grand Jury testimony)?
Reviewer Suggests Police Reconsider Evidence
“...Therapists’ defensiveness is ubiquitous. Reducing this defensiveness is the goal of the therapist’s personal analysis, therapy supervision and consultation....Therapists who review their work with trusted peers in case study groups...continue to expose unconscious blind spots and resistances. Hodges provides a model for this kind of review for Ramsey investigators...
Hodges’ new perspectives on the evidence could open new leads as interpretations open new trains of thought in therapy. His perspectives could coalesce the existing evidence into a new story or explanation...Hodges suggests that the investigators take another look. In supervision of therapists we do little more. We suggest that therapists look again at the material they have viewed in one particular way or ignored. These new perspectives can be useful in subsequent hours. The police could similarly examine blindnesses to some evidence and likely open up new leads.
In the Ramsey case, investigators appear unable to find a motive, which seems to be the essential element to“explain”from the legal perspective. This is a...missing piece that prevents making a coherent case argument for any suspect. As they lack other suspects, witnesses, or the“smoking gun,”motive appears the remaining exception to including the Ramsey parents as prime suspects. The investigators cannot find a motive. Hodges supplies conditions that, when converged, suggest several plausible motives.
(Psychologists conjecture motives...Motives with which we are concerned are unconscious....Taking the position that several circumstances coming together would motivate a certain act suggests motive in a given case....This is how texts, historical events, and psychoanalytical reconstructions are conjectured. This is exactly Hodges’ method. In A Mother Gone Bad he uses textual analysis and historical reconstruction....He clearly supplies a“motive”that most of the important investigators and media members appear at a loss to explain...This missing piece explains the murder.)
...Hodges suggests reasons and motives for the investigators’ lapses...He takes several important people and, one by one, explains plausible reasons for their oversights in entertaining the rudimentary circumstances that could lead them to productive inquiries in their own specialties about this case...In each of his inquiries he is more like a consultant to the investigators....Hodges’ account of Mr. Kane’s [the principal prosecutor] behavior almost suggests Kane is defending rather than prosecuting...Kane responded to unconscious resistances and rejected not only his [Hodges’] conclusions but also Hodges’ method itself. Kane tipped his hand when he admitted he had not read the opinions and attacked Hodges’ credibility instead. This seems to be an attorney who is not open to all options.
Hodges obtained his own legal opinion about the scientific validity of his work. [According to the law scholar, also a former District Attorney, Hodges and his colleagues extensive report met scientific credibility according to the Daubert rule. In ]... this standard experts must reflect“scientific knowledge,”their findings are“derived by the scientific method,”and their work product amount to“good science.”Further, the expert testimony must be relevant to the task at hand and that must logically advance a material aspect of the case....
With Detective Smit, Hodges notes a serious break in the investigative frame. Smit communicated directly with Mr. Ramsey before he did the bulk of his investigating.
Hodges hypothesizes an unconscious death fear in his analysis of Smit’s motives. Had Smit merely retired from the case quietly and admitted that either he was defeated or was at cross purposes with the rest of the team, this anxiety would not have been so obvious. Instead, he was compelled to write a letter that contained symbolic meaning, i.e., Hodges’ ’thoughtprints.”Not only does Hodges apply his thoughtprint method to Smit’s detailed resignation letter, he points out inconsistencies in the letter and Smit’s own behavior in the case. Smit’s behavior surprisingly contradicts his previous professional and personal history. Smit, as well as John and Patsy Ramsey, cannot escape Hodges’ scrutiny where they cite Christian teachings. Hodges reveals his own scriptural grounding in his analysis of Smit. If Hodges is correct, Smit could not acknowledge defeat, because it is too close to the ultimate defeat which is death.
...the clues and directions elaborated by Hodges, et al, provide questions and directions in interrogations of the Ramseys. Many attorneys who have little use for psychiatric expert testimony would find the advice of an investigative psychiatrist very useful in opening up areas that might be missed or unconsciously avoided...
In this book, the consistency of data supports his views. He reviewed most of the other writings and opinions in the case and has found no one who substantially addresses and contradicts the evidence from which he draws his opinions.
With his analysis of the murder, the case as whole, and the vicissitudes of the investigators and other experts, Andrew Hodges brings to the forefront an important application of communicative psychoanalysis. This approach to non-clinical situations has useful applications in forensic evaluation, but also to the evaluation and understanding of communication in many areas of human endeavor and interaction.
A Mother Gone Bad
read reviews and buy from Amazon.com
Who Will Speak For JonBenet?
read reviews, excerpt and buy from Amazon.com