In the consult, we discuss cases that are sexually violent in nature.

Listener discretion is advised.

Welcome to the consult.

I'm Julia Cowley, retired FBI agent and profiler, and I'm joined by Bob Drew, who is also a retired FBI agent and profiler. In today's episode, it is going to be part two of our discussion of the

John Bonnet Ramsey ransom note or letter. It's more of a letter than a note. I had not planned

to do a part two, but we received a lot of great listener feedback and questions regarding part

one. So I thought this topic merited further discussion.

We're not going to rehash what we've already been over, but I think some of the

questions that listeners brought up were very good questions.

And specifically, I want to read some pertinent excerpts from an email that we received because I think it

does raise some really good points and gives us an opportunity to expand on our approach

to the task of analyzing this ransom note.

The email reads in part.

I really like your podcast and love your latest episode

on the JBR ransom letter.

I am wondering if you can address why in the episode

you and your colleague didn't explore

or analyze the idea of the letter being fake.

It seemed to me like in your analysis, you just took the passages you analyzed at face value,

as opposed to considering that they were included in an attempt to mislead the reader.

For example, you spent quite a bit of time discussing the usage of the term attache and make quite a few comments and analysis around the usage of that word, but didn't comment on the fact that someone may have been using it to try to throw off the reader, which to me seems like an obvious reason it would be used, beyond all the very good other reasons you

also discussed. Or do you really think that the author was just someone who used the term

...