In Hodges’ dramatic book “A Mother Gone Bad” he applies his new forensic method “thoughtprint decoding” to the most crucial evidence in the Ramsey case—the ransom note– to reveal the killers. You can find more information on Dr. Hodges’ books and purchase them from Amazon.com.

For the first time in forensic profiling a suspect’s verbal communication (the ransom note) was decoded for super-intel messages between the lines. Hodges established a new psycholinguistic forensic science of unconscious communication. Unknowingly perpetrators are compelled to secretly confess in emails, journals, interviews, letters, ransom notes, etc. Often cases can be solved by these typically overlooked forensic documents.

The following excerpts are from a professional journal book review by a forensic psychiatrist of the first book Dr. Hodges wrote on the JonBenet Ramsey case applying his “thoughtprint decoding” method to the study of the ransom note. The reviewer’s impression reflects the growing appreciation among forensic professionals of Dr. Hodges new profiling method.

“Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?”—a review of A Mother Gone Bad

James O. Raney, M.D., International Journal of Communicative Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy 11:4 (1998). Dr. Raney is a forensic psychiatrist, a practicing psychotherapist, and a supervising analyst at the Seattle Psychoanalytic Institute.

This book is an exceptional example of an application in a non-therapy setting of the communicative approach to listening and interpreting. Applied here to criminal investigation, Dr. Hodges brilliantly decodes the complex and unusual communications of a very literate woman.

Hodges analyzes the text of the available written and spoken communications that surround the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. He began with the assumption that the so-called ransom note will contain clues, left unconsciously, which would reveal information about its author.

Methods of forensic science, physical science, and psychological science are very similar. The clinical method of the psychotherapist is also similar to science. In each procedure, preliminary data suggests initial hypothesis. The researcher then tests these hypotheses with further data and begins to create a story or working hypothesis. Further data supports, modifies or refutes the story. Previously ignored information that has not seemed important begins to fit and to support they hypothesis.

This is also the working method of the psychoanalytic psychotherapy. The communicative approach uses analysis of symbols and adds adaptive context to the investigative procedure. (In criminal contexts motive is synonymous with adaptive context.)

Symbolic communication means that the symbol stands for something unknown to the speaker. We therefore consider symbolically represented content to be unconscious. In this case, the writings and communications contain some that presumably Mrs. Ramsey knows. Much of her motivation and the impressively symbolic elements she uses, however, refer to meanings that are most likely unknown and unconscious to her.

An observer, such as a teacher, supervisor, or consultant can often read the symbolic communication of the therapy dyad more clearly than can the therapist. The analogy in this case is of course the outsider, Dr. Hodges, who analyzes the communication of all parties. In some sense Dr. Hodges speaks even for JonBenet as he constructs the events of her last hours and tells the truth that is hers. For other participants in the complex drama, he offers a voice and resolution.

Hodges suggests that this method of scientific psychological investigation of the text and context of criminal actions can offer important dimensions to criminal investigation. If this book is an example, his case is quite convincing.

The post The JonBenet Ramsey Case: Decoding the Key Evidence of the Ransom Note appeared first on Andrew G. Hodges, M.D..

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, blind spots 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.

The post The JonBenet Ramsey Case: Book II– Professional journal review appeared first on Andrew G. Hodges, M.D..

Forensic psychiatrist C. Jess Groesbeck and forensic psychologist Patrick Callahan, Ph.D. joined Hodges to present their conclusions pointing to Patsy and John Ramsey as the assailants. Along with the report a legal authority and law school professor submitted a mini-brief supporting the scientific nature of the report. He believed the report had an excellent chance of being admitted into court as evidence.

The grand jury never saw the report and likely the police didn’t. There was a stunning development with an unusual split in the case between prosecutors in the D.A.’s office and the police. Eventually D.A. Alex Hunter presented the evidence to the grand jury and implied afterwards they had voted not to indict the Ramseys. Much later in 2013 in light of sealed records being released, it was clear the grand jury had voted to indict and Hunter had decided not to go forward.

The eighty-page forensic report with fourteen conclusions can be found in the appendix to Hodges’ book, Who Will Speak for JonBenet?

The post Hodges and colleagues submit report to Boulder prosecutor appeared first on Andrew G. Hodges, M.D..

World-renowned psychoanalyst Robert Langs whose breakthrough clinical work formed the basis for the “thoughtprint decoding” approach of profiling (also known as “profile decoding”) noted, “I have long thought that there was a major connection between deep unconscious guilt and cancer.” In this light O.J. Simpson attorney Johnnie Cochran died of brain cancer within 7 years of getting the guilty Simpson off (see Simpson profile page). Could Cochran have secretly carried a great deal of buried guilt for his participation in the O.J. verdict?

The post Patsy’s Death Bed Confession? appeared first on Andrew G. Hodges, M.D..