Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Why John?

Since there's been so much discussion here lately regarding the respective roles of Patsy and John in both the 911 call and the crime itself, I've decided to add a post summarizing the logic behind my conviction that John was solely responsible for both the death of his daughter and the writing of the note, and that Patsy must have made the call in all innocence.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Can Anyone Help Me Out on This?

In my blog post, Seeing Is Believing, I refer to a youtube video containing the A&E documentary on the Ramsey case by Michael Tracey -- specifically to a particular scene in that video where Patsy indicates very clearly that calling 911 was her idea:

from the transcript:
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And  I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." 
A few months ago someone emailed to inform me that this video had been taken off the youtube site. And sure enough, when I checked, it was gone. Since then I've tried to find another copy but found myself in a state of confusion, because there is in fact a copy of the documentary still on youtube, but it's completely different from what's in the transcript posted by Jameson, to which I usually refer. And the scene where Patsy explains how she told John she was going to call the police is nowhere to be found.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

New Color Scheme

At the request of a reader who found it difficult to read the light on dark lettering, I have altered the colors to make things more legible. Please let me know what you think.

Meanwhile this is a good chance to start fresh with a new set of comments.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

A Timely Rerun

Since I've been getting so many comments lately, challenging my conviction that Patsy played no role in either the murder or coverup, I've decided to post a repeat of one of my all time favorite creative efforts, a little number titled, "Honey, I Killed the Kid." At the risk of offending those who might find a satirical treatment of JonBenet's death just a wee bit tacky, I'm reposting this because, despite the tongue in cheek style, it manages to convey as forcefully as possible my firm conviction that all the many suspicions centering on Patsy are completely absurd. I've been criticized in the past for dismissing those who sincerely believe Patsy must have, at the very least, written the ransom note, and I apologize in advance for ridiculing this view in such a cavalier fashion. While obviously there is no one who would want to claim that the following scenario literally took place, if we look past the obvious satire to the subtext, the underlying message should be clear: no two people in their right minds would do all the things Patsy and John are assumed to have done on the night their daughter was killed.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Important notice regarding comments

From time to time I see new comments appearing under old blog posts, which is not a good idea because those comments can very easily get lost and ignored. If you have a comment on any aspect of the case, please place it here, or under one of the more active recent posts. Otherwise most reading here will probably never see it.

Also: Very often I see comments by newcomers pertaining to issues that have already been addressed, either on a blog post or in other comments, and I don't always have the time or patience to respond yet again to these same issues. If you are fairly new and have a question about a particular aspect of this case, please use the search mechanism first, as the answer may already have been posted here. Thanks.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

"The Stranger Beside Me"

A film based on Anne Rule's remarkable "true crime" memoir, "The Stranger Beside Me," is scheduled for viewing in my area at 8PM Eastern time tonight, Jan. 26th. I'm posting to alert anyone reading here who might be interested, just in case it's available in your area as well. It's not on one of the major networks, but a relatively new one called "Decades."

Sunday, January 17, 2016

"Making a Murderer" - part 4: red herrings

In the context of criminal investigation, a "red herring" is a piece of bogus or questionable evidence, or lack of same, used to distract investigators, or a jury, from the central issues of the case. According to one explanation, "if a herring is dragged across a trail that hounds are following, it throws them off the scent." A red herring is typically an isolated piece of inconclusive evidence, or odd discrepancy, that can't be immediately explained. When skillfully employed, as in the Avery case, red herrings can be used to induce gullible jurors, along with members of the media and the public, to take seriously even the most preposterous claims.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

"Making a Murderer" - Part 3

6. Let's turn now to Brendan Dassey. His police interviews are now available on youtube. Both are fascinating. Here's one:


Here's another:


Unfortunately the earliest interview was recorded on audio only, and the recording is extremely noisy. I tried to clean it up using noise reduction techniques, but nothing helped. It really seems unusable, because hardly anything said is clearly audible. The sound on the videos, however, is adequate, and despite the very annoying dropouts in the second one, there is more than enough important information that comes through loud and clear.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

"Making a Murderer" - Part 2

4. I would now like to consider the DNA evidence that was found. While the prosecution stressed the importance of DNA, supposedly from Avery's sweat, found on the hood  of the victim's vehicle, I see that evidence as questionable. If any of the investigators had been in contact with Avery, or touched any of his clothing, prior to their discovery of the vehicle, then his DNA could have been transferred to the hood indirectly. And I'm afraid the same could be said for Avery's DNA found on the victim's car key, which could also have been transferred inadvertently by an investigator. Before evaluating that evidence, it would be necessary to learn whether strict precautions had been taken to make sure such a transfer could not have occurred, and I doubt that was the case. Same with the victim's DNA found on the spent bullet in the garage. If the same gloves had been used to handle the victim's remains and handle the bullet, there could have been inadvertent transfer. As I've stressed with respect to the Ramsey case, DNA evidence is not always what it seems, and can be seriously misleading.

Some Observations Regarding the "Making a Murderer" Documentary

I rarely comment here on anything but the Ramsey case. But from time to time, as with the Amanda Knox case, I find myself compelled to speak out in defense of justice. The murder of Teresa Halbach, as presented in the so-called documentary, "Making a Murderer," is such a case. I write "so-called" because this 10 part film, now available via Netflix, is not a documentary at all, but a propaganda film, shamelessly serving the interests of Avery's defense team. I'm reminded of the notorious A&E "documentary" put together by Michael Tracey to whitewash the Ramseys. What's particularly disturbing in both cases is the powerful influence of such films on the mind of the public. At some point in our history, it would seem, critical thinking seems to have been supplanted by media hype. So now we have a situation where literally millions of Americans are convinced that the conviction of a vicious rapist and murderer, practically caught in the act, is a travesty of justice performed by a conspiracy involving both corrupt police officials and the FBI. I can't cover everything that bothers me about this treatment of the case, but I'd like to share some pertinent observations:

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Open Thread -- Part Eight

Part Seven filled up quickly and is now a bit cumbersome. So -- on to Part Eight!

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Open Thread -- Part Seven

Comments are steadily accumulating. Time for another open thread.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Open Thread -- Part Six

Time for yet another thread. Keep those comments coming folks. It's heartening to see how many are still interested in this case after so many years.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Open Thread Part Four

The blog software has problems with displaying too many comments on one page, so after a certain point you need to look down at the bottom of the page where you'll see a link labeled "Load More." If you don't know where to look for that then you might get the impression your post has been deleted, which is what I've recently been accused of. I never delete legitimate comments (i.e. anything other than obvious spam or something outrageously inappropriate) even if the commenter disagrees with me.  So if you can't find your post, check out the "Load More" link at the very bottom of the page.

To avoid future problems of this sort I keep adding new open threads. Here's no. 4.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Seeing is Believing

I've already quoted the following from the transcript of the A&E documentary on this case, titled (in the British version) "JonBenet's America":
Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.          
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And  I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." 

Friday, June 26, 2015

Open Thread Part Three

My last post is being overwhelmed with comments and getting a bit difficult to navigate. Time to open up some new space. And hopefully consider some new topics.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

New and Improved

The second edition of my book, Ruled IN: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case is now available at the Amazon.com Kindle store. I'd been bothered for some time by passages where more or less the same material is unnecessarily repeated, as justly noted by some of the reviewers. I was also bothered by certain technical passages that went on for too long. And there were several passages that cried out for editing and/or refining or in some cases, outright cutting. Inspired by some recent discussions in the comments section of this blog, I also decided to add a chapter dealing with the vexing question of motive. Additionally, I moved certain long technical discussions to appendices, where they will be less obtrusive. An additional appendix is devoted to an alternative scenario based on the possibility of premeditation (as already discussed here at some length).

Monday, March 30, 2015

Open Thread -- part 2

The previous thread is getting cluttered with posts so I'm opening up a fresh window. Feel free to continue posting responses on the previous thread, but I'd appreciate it if new topics would be posted here. Thanks.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Open Thread

I'm continually impressed by the inordinate amount of interest this case has generated, as indicated by the continual flow of comments. Obviously I'm not the only one who's fascinated, if not obsessed. It's been a long time since I've had any new thoughts or theories to post, so I've decided to create a thread exclusively for your comments and questions (the last set has gotten so long as to be unwieldy). As I've been busy with other projects, I've decided to keep my responses to a minimum, much as I'm tempted to reply to all. I'll respond to questions related to issues that still remain open, but otherwise won't be commenting. Please feel free to discuss the case among yourselves, as in any open forum.

PS: As before, I'll ask that each comment be accompanied by some sort of identifier, either your name or a moniker of some sort. It can get confusing trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

A New Wrinkle

I've been considering a piece of evidence I hadn't thought about in a while, something that's rarely if ever discussed. Not something I myself discovered. I found it on a Facebook page devoted to the case -- can't recall what that was or how to find it again. But someone here might know.

I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'm curious as to whether anyone reading here will see it. It concerns a very interesting difference between this page of the ransom note

and this one:



Monday, September 22, 2014

Premeditation Revisited

Back in July 2013, I presented a theory, prompted by some comments from someone calling himself "Pete," that John could have premeditated the murder and could therefore have prepared the "ransom" note in advance. You can find that post here. My theory prompted a lively debate in which considerable skepticism was expressed. I admitted then that I was on the fence regarding that possibility. There would certainly have been plenty of time for John to write his note after the murder. On the other hand, it did seem to have been carefully prepared, both conceptually and physically. And if, as I strongly suspect, it had been traced or copied from a computer display, that in itself would have taken considerable time and patience, not to mention a certain amount of trial and error. Not to mention, also, the possibility that his wife or son could awaken at any moment and catch him in the act.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Patsy's Role

There's been lots of discussion here lately by several very intelligent, observant (and persistent) commenters focusing primarily on the 911 call and whether or not John wanted that call made. To save time and effort, I've decided to add a post summarizing my thoughts on this issue, and explaining, moreover, why I feel so sure John is the culprit and Patsy the innocent dupe.

If we focus only on the call per se, and neglect the overall context of the case as a whole, then admittedly it's hard to understand why Patsy would want to support John in a lie over who decided to make that call. Since my approach has been to concentrate primarily on the facts, I've emphasized that it was Patsy who called, not John. And on the basis of that incontrovertible fact, I've concluded that, given the absurdity of the intruder theory, Patsy must be innocent and John guilty. My reasoning is summarized as follows:

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Open Forum Part Two

Since the previous post now has over 200 comments, I've decided to continue the discussion here.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Open Forum

NB: this page is now also filled up with comments. To see the most recent comments, you need to go to the very bottom of the page and select "Load More." I'll be opening a new forum soon, on the next blog post, so please post any new comments there. Thanks.

The previous page is filling up with comments pretty quickly, so I decided to start a new page exclusively as an open forum where anyone with any questions or ideas can post them as comments. As for myself, I believe I've finally run out of new things to say about this case, but I'm always interested in what others are thinking. So if you have a comment or question, please post it below.

And remember: it's always best to post your comment on the latest blog page where everyone can easily find it. Also, please identify yourself with some sort of moniker -- makes it easier to follow up on comments if we know who is who.

Thanks.

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Comment Suggestions

First of all I want to thank all those commenting here. Your thoughts, questions, theories and other comments, even the negative ones, have helped make this blog interesting, meaningful and relevant. You've noted, I hope, that I don't censor posts -- unless they are redundant, irrelevant, inordinately rude or outright spam. Even then I've deleted only a very small number of posts since day one -- as I recall, only maybe six or seven (most of which came from the same redundant source). All viewpoints are welcome here.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Facts, Facts, Who's Got the Facts?

While for me, as I've so often stressed, it is "the facts" of any case that are of primary importance, I have sometimes been accused of selecting those facts that support my theory while ignoring all those facts that don't. In other words, it's been suggested that I too, like so many of those I've criticized, have indulged in "cherry picking." So maybe it's time for me to frankly address this accusation, to see whether it has any merit.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Amanda Knox -- My very last word on this case so help me

And God help me to keep that promise because I have no desire to get enmeshed in yet another Internet morass.

My final word on the murder of Meredith Kersher and the question of guilt on the part of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito is admittedly influenced by my experiences with the Ramsey case, and for that reason I have to admit I could be biased. It's not always a good idea to base one's thinking regarding one case on what one has learned from another, so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

The Problem with DNA

In both the Meredith Kercher and JonBenet Ramsey cases, much has hinged on the interpretation of DNA evidence. And many people have made up their minds prematurely based on this evidence. Thus, since some unsourced traces of DNA were found on JonBenet's longjohns, consistent with DNA found mixed with blood from a stain on her panties, this, in the mind of DA Mary Lacy, must be the DNA of JonBenet's attacker, meaning her parents must be innocent. In the Kercher case, traces of Rafaelle Sollecito's DNA, found on Meredith Kercher's bra clasps, convinced the prosecution, along with the most recent panel of judges, that he must have been one of her attackers. The existence of this DNA, plus a trace of Meredith's DNA supposedly found on a knife blade from Sollecito's kitchen have been enough to convince large segments of the public that he must have been involved.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

More on Amanda Knox

OK, now this case in Italy is starting to get under my skin, God help me. One reason it intrigues me so much is the existence of so many themes in common with the Ramsey case. In both we find a crime scene with "no sign of forced breakin." Nevertheless, in both we have a broken window to account for, a window through which no one apparently could have passed, strongly suggesting the staging of an intruder breakin. We have, in both cases, a huge debate over the meaning of DNA evidence. Both cases are characterized by a violent sexual attack. We also have reports of a scream. 

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Another DNA Case: Amanda Knox

As is by now well known, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were once again found guilty in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox's flat mate in Perugia, Italy. There are some interesting resonances between this case and the Ramsey case which are, imo, worth discussing here. The case is far too complex to get into in any detail in a blog post, but for those interested in digging deeper, a fairly detailed summary is provided on Wikipedia. It's a complicated case for sure, and not easy to get a handle on.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Still More on Burke

Amazingly enough, the JonBenet forums seem as active as ever, even after all these years -- but I've noticed a significant change. Whereas Patsy Ramsey was originally everyone's favorite murder suspect, that "honor" has now fallen to her son, Burke. Not only on the forums, but also in so many comments I'm reading on this blog, people seem unable to let go of the idea that Burke Ramsey could be the one who killed his sister, either on purpose or by accident. And since, as we know, she was sexually assaulted, these same people have no problem tossing that accusation into the bin along with everything else -- including, of course, strangulation with a "garotte."

Friday, January 3, 2014

By Popular Request

Well, not exactly popular request. However, some readers have been bugging me to write a book on the case for some time, and they keep pestering me, and so finally I decided, against my better judgement, to give in and let them have their way. So here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HNWYIEM

(To purchase a copy, click on the cover image.)


Sunday, December 29, 2013

Traffic Jam

This blog has been popular for some time, but at the moment it's been getting an unusual number of hits -- and also a surge of comments. Please keep those comments coming, folks, because I always hoped this blog would become a forum for discussion of this troubling but also fascinating case, and that does seem to be happening, which is great.

On the other hand, with more and more comments piling up I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I've always tried to respond to every comment, at least where a response seemed called for, but at this point I'm afraid I can't keep up anymore. That's a GOOD thing as I see it -- so long as everyone understands and is willing to cut me some slack. I'll still try to respond as much as I can, especially to questions or theories that haven't yet been adequately addressed. But so long as the surge continues I won't have time to keep up to the extent I've done in the past. Thanks so much for your participation and I do hope it continues. But please forgive me if your comments aren't always addressed by me. I'll continue to read every one, but won't always be able to respond.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Methodological Issues

I'm aware, of course, that I'm not the only one with a theory regarding this very notorious, highly publicized case. And when I read some of the other theories I get discouraged, because I realize, very painfully, how easy it is for people to delude themselves into believing they've solved it. We can't all be right, obviously, but nevertheless most of us are in fact all too easily convinced by our own arguments, which is troubling. And I have to admit, my thinking may be no better than anyone else's.

That said, I do feel that my methods are very different from those of anyone else writing about this case and I think it important that I make some attempt to explain them.  So here goes:

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Friday, November 15, 2013

A Prosecution Strategy

I often hear, even from those who agree with me, that prosecution of this case is unlikely, and I've tended to agree. Because 1. the case is just too complicated for a typical jury to follow; 2. it would be too difficult to overcome the opinion of the six forensic documentation "experts" who ruled John out, 3. it would be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that Patsy was manipulated by John  into lying about certain key aspects of the case. Finally, the fact that the Ramseys had been "exonerated" by DA Mary Lacy on the basis of that "touch DNA" evidence would be impossible to overcome.

Nevertheless, I've come up with a strategy that just might work despite the above-stated obstacles. Pay attention, please. This is going to be long, but it's really quite simple and straightforward:

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts

[For the benefit of early readers of this post, I must confess to having made some important changes a few minutes after posting it -- hope that's not confusing.]

To summarize and also clarify the various possibilities discussed on this blog, I decided to see if I could put together some "flow charts" illustrating the logic behind some of the most common theories of the case. Instead of literally producing flow chart diagrams, I decided it would be simpler to present my "flow chart" logic in outline form. So here goes:

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Three Little Words

Not sure why I never caught this one until the other day. Check it out:


JonBenet Investigation Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnTEbCdQTQ)

Specifically, check out what John has to say at precisely 3 minutes and 28 seconds into the clip:

"To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric."

Which should, of course, be compared with this sentence from the ransom note: 

"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."