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.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Any News?

OK, time for a new post, making room for a new round of comments. If anyone  DOES have any news regarding the CBS lawsuit please post it. I can't imagine what's taking so much time, but maybe CC can offer some insights into the process.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Darlie Routier case on Court TV

I just saw this very informative review of the case as broadcast on Court TV back in 2013. Everyone concerned about this case should watch it -- all the way through.

Part 1:



Monday, August 6, 2018

Darlie Routier: part 4

When Darlie foolishly agreed to let her husband off the hook and testify that he was not the one who assaulted her and her children, she signed her own death warrant, as all the evidence pointed to an inside job -- no sign of an intruder. Her own family must take a large part of the responsibility because they agreed to hire a lawyer who was already representing the husband in another case and was ethically constrained from even suggesting that he could have been the "intruder." I am now convinced that he is in fact the guilty party. If there could have been no intruder, and Darlie could not have done it (see my earlier posts), then the only possibility is Darin, her husband -- who had already contemplated staging a phony home invasion; who'd been spending recklessly for years and was now heavily in debt; who had over $200,000 in insurance money to gain upon Darlie's death; who had already expressed contempt for her over some  weight gain and driven her to contemplate suicide.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Darlie Routier: part 3

It's been reported that Darlie's husband Darin stated that, if Darlie had died, he'd be the one now sitting on death row. Think about that for a moment. Allow it to fully sink in. Because it's a literally mind blowing statement, a remarkable insight into the bizarre nature of this case. If Darlie Routier had died on the operating table, which was a  real possibility since the knife that slashed her came within 2 millimeters of her carotid artery, then she would have been deemed a victim, along with her two boys -- and given the total lack of intruder evidence, the only possible perpetrator would have been Darin. How very strange. If she dies, she's a victim; if she lives, she's a murderess. If she lives, Darin is an innocent bystander; if she dies, he's a murderer.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Darlie Routier: part 2

As long time readers of this blog know, I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to criminal profiling. (I sometimes have to laugh out loud when watching a show like "Criminal Minds" -- it's comical to see how those people are always so sure of themselves). What all too often happens is that the person identified from the start as the most likely suspect is subject to intense scrutiny -- every word, every inflection, every gesture is probed for signs of deceit or pathology. And all too often, the old adage "seek and ye shall find" is borne out. If you are looking for signs that someone might be lying or contradicting himself or dissembling or acting you will very likely find them. I saw this over and over when following the Ramsey case investigation and yes, I find it in the Routier investigation as well.

Friday, July 27, 2018

The Impossible Darlie Routier Case

No action around here for some time. Very unusual because this blog is usually overwhelmed with comments, often too many for me to keep up with. I get it though, because, well, what more is there to say about the Ramsey case that hasn't already been said a thousand times? We're all patiently waiting for news regarding the CBS lawsuits, but those wheels are grinding really, really slowly.

Meanwhile I've been preoccupied with various other, very different, projects, all of which are now complete -- which means I'm getting bored. The  other day, however, I accidentally came across a youtube video on the Darlie Routier case. That peaked my interest, so I decided to do a bit of research, and what I learned truly stumped me. For a brief summary of the case, for those of you who may not be familiar with it, I recommend this presentation of the Case Background.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Sunday, February 4, 2018

The Mysterious case of Max Shaknai and Rebecca Zahau - guest post by Lou

On July 11, 2011 6 year-old Max Shaknai, son of  wealthy pharmaceutical company CEO Jonah Shaknai, was found lying on the floor at the foot of the staircase with his Razor scooter resting on top of his leg, the shattered chandelier nearby.  Rebecca Zahau, Jonah's live-in 32 year old girlfriend found Max, rushed to his side and heard him say the word "Ocean" - the name of her dog, before he slipped into unconsciousness. Rebecca's 13 year old sister was visiting at the time, and Rebecca instructed her to dial 911 immediately. 

Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Case of Larry Nassar

I've been bothered for some time with questions regarding certain issues that have received much media attention during the past few months. And since I feel a need to share my thoughts, I've decided to go out on a limb here, despite the fact that these issues have no direct bearing on the  Ramsey case. While the focus of this blog is on JonBenet's murder, more general questions pertaining to justice and injustice have always been lurking in the background, which is why I've felt justified in occasionally addressing such issues in reference to both the Amanda Knox and Steven Avery cases.

Monday, January 22, 2018

The Gate

A gate can be either open or closed. If open, one can pass through. If closed, it becomes a barrier. Nevertheless, there is always a way to overcome such a barrier, by climbing over it or tunneling under it or breaking the lock, etc. But when the gate is a gateless gate, no barrier presents itself, in which case there is nothing to climb over, tunnel under or break. Consequently, the gateless gate is impenetrable.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Hoo Hah!

The judge rejected the defendants' plea that the accusations directed at Burke (and by implication, John and Patsy as well) on the CBS special we've all seen, were only statements of "opinion," protected by the First Amendment. So the case will proceed to the next steps. Read all about it here.

According to Judge Groner,
This Court finds that the statements at issue and the docu-series as a whole could reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about Plaintiff. This Court does not find that the “disclaimer” at the beginning and at the end of the program negate the docu-series potentially defamatory meaning.
As someone who watched this travesty with a growing sense of dismay, I fully agree

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Did Putin Do It?

Depends on what your definition of "it" is. More room for comments. On all things Ramsey, Trump, Putin, whatever.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

The Case Against Lin Wood

Lin Wood must know a LOT about this case, and some of it could be important, but of course he can't say a word, thanks to lawyer-client privilege. Wonder what he thinks about John and how he'd feel if he suspected him yet felt obliged to continually defend him?

Friday, October 13, 2017

John's Lawsuit

As most reading here must know by now, Lin Wood has filed a new lawsuit on behalf of John, based on allegations in the CBS "documentary" that he participated in a coverup to protect Burke, after Burke allegedly assaulted his sister. In my opinion, this could be a huge mistake, since a defense by the CBS "experts" would not necessarily have to involve Burke, but could focus exclusively on John's role in the coverup, which would be much easier to demonstrate.

If I were representing CBS in this particular lawsuit, I would have some questions for John that could make him VERY uncomfortable. For example:

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

The Case Against Self-Driving Cars

I have pretty strong feelings on this topic. For details, see my other blog, Things to Come. For more on the Ramsey case, stick with this one. :-)

Friday, September 22, 2017

The Case Against Patsy Ramsey

More and more comments are being devoted to  Patsy's role in this case, so here's some more room to carry on with that. As it seems to me, the widespread assumption that Patsy HAS to be involved is one of the principal reasons this case has gone nowhere for over 20 years -- and most likely never will be solved. As I've observed many times, once the Patsy bandwagon got started, there was no stopping it -- and anything she ever said or did that might possibly look suspicious has been seen by a great many as proof positive of her involvement.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

The Case Against DNA-Man

What if a match to that mysterious male DNA is ever found? It's got to match someone. Could a case be made against that individual? Any thoughts?

Saturday, August 26, 2017

The Case Against Burke

There is no case against Burke. Fingerprints on a bowl are not evidence. They could have gotten there at any time. While estimates vary, the chances that JonBenet ate pineapple immediately prior to the assault are very slim. The remnants were found in her intestine, not her stomach, meaning they had already been digested. For a detailed report on the various timing estimates, see this JBR Encyclopedia entry. Moreover, according to the book by Paula Woodward, remnants of cherry and grape were also found, suggesting that she had eaten fruit cocktail, making the bowl of pineapple irrelevant.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

One More Time -- the Case Against John Ramsey

As so many times previously, I now feel the need to once again outline the case against John Ramsey. But before I do, I must remind everyone that

1. As with so many cases, this one is circumstantial. If there were a smoking gun, we wouldn't be here.

2. There is no point in demanding proof that John was having an incestuous sexual relationship with his daughter. No such proof exists, admittedly. However, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. It is also important to realize that incest, and the need to cover it up, is the ONLY motive ever offered in this case that makes any sense at all. Bed wetting as a motive is a huge stretch, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Sibling rivalry on the part of Burke might make sense if it weren't for the difficulty in assigning a motive to the sexual assault, "garotte" strangulation and phony ransom note, as no parents in their right mind would go to such bizarre and disgusting lengths to disguise what could have been reported as an accident.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Zellner loses it!

Finally we're getting some real action on the Steven Avery front. After submitting her 1,272-page monster of a motion, consisting mostly of stale arguments left over from the original court case and therefore not likely to mean much to a court of appeals, she has chosen to up the ante by offering a $10,000 cash award to anyone able to prove Avery's guilt by answering a 100-question test: "The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge." This travesty actually got the attention of Rolling Stone magazine, as reported in an article by one Joyce Chen, who seems to be taking it seriously. 

Monday, July 10, 2017

Onward and Upward (or sideways?)

Please calm down, everyone. I know it's frustrating, as we see no sign of resolution on the Ramsey case. Since that case is going nowhere, I thought it might be more interesting to focus on the Avery case, which does seem to be going somewhere (but who knows where?). In any case (forgive the pun), please try to be civil and concentrate on the issues, not the advocates, OK?

Friday, June 16, 2017

Ms. Zellner Files a Motion

Finally, after months of (relative) silence, Steven Avery's new lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, has filed her motion for appeal. All mind-numbing 1,272 pages of it. The first 200 pages have been made available online for anyone with the patience to wade through it all.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Casey Anthony?

Interesting. There seems to be more interest here in Casey Anthony than Steven Avery. So be it. As for me, if I don't see a clear path to the truth I prefer to stay out of it.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The Avery case test results are IN -- and Zellner is "under scrutiny"

Maybe we all need a break from going around in circles on the Ramsey case. I certainly could use one. While I don't have the time to investigate all the many notorious crimes to have hit the headlines in recent years, at least two, aside from the Ramsey case, have gotten under my skin. One is the Amanda Knox case, which has, thankfully, been resolved. The other is the murder of Teresa Halbach, for which Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey are currently serving time.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Round and Round we go . . .

Oh and by the way, as I understand it, the "scientific" tests ordered by Steven Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, were due for completion first some time in March, then "late in April." But still nothing in the media regarding these results. So I'm wondering: why the delay? And why we've had narry a tweet out of Ms. Zellner in all this time.

Monday, April 24, 2017

In Circles

We're going around in circles, folks. And there are way too many posts expressing frustration and indignation with other participants in this increasingly futile discussion. I too am getting both frustrated and impatient.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Making Sense

No intruder theory makes sense. I think most posting here would agree.

BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Still more else

Seems like we've arrived at an impasse regarding Patsy's role in this case. And that's fine by me. I've done my best to make my points, and some others here are doing a great job of clarifying and amplifying the case for JDI, for which I am both grateful and impressed. What bothers me is not that certain others disagree, which is to be expected, but the assumption that somehow, by our refusal to bow before arguments that seem deeply flawed, those of us convinced of John's guilt and Patsy's innocence are somehow imposing our views on everyone else.

Since I have never made any effort to censor or modify any post containing an argument for any position on this case I find such accusations totally unfair. This is an open blog and all points of view are and always have been welcome. But at the same time I, for one, reserve the right to defend my position, why shouldn't I? So please lay off the offensive (and defensive) rhetoric, folks, and stick to a meaningful consideration of the facts, evidence and logic of the case. Thank you.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

What Else - continued

Any more else? So far no one has even attempted to respond to any of my responses to the accusations leveled at Patsy. You guys chicken or what?

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

What else?

I just spent two posts listing several things that have made people suspicious of Patsy Ramsey, offering my own take on each, and demonstrating why, imo, none can be seen as evidence of guilt, even when, in some cases, they might actually be counterfactual. I feel sure I missed some, however, so now is your chance to fill in the blanks. Those of you who are still bothered by Patsy's "lies" and "deceptions," by all means add more items to the list that's already been compiled, and let's consider them one by one.

Friday, March 31, 2017

More "lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I was surprised to learn that the items cited by Zed didn't include any of the more troubling instances mentioned so often by those who insist that Patsy must have been involved. To be thorough, I'll now add as many of them as I can think of to Zed's previous 25. But before I do, I want to emphasize two important points.
  • There is a distinction to be made between an untruth and a lie. Someone may assert something that is not in fact true, but for a perfectly innocent reason: confusion, faulty memory, "gaslighting," etc. I would not call that a "lie."  And in the context of a criminal investigation, an untruth is meaningful only if the untruth is relevant to the case and the suspect has something to gain by asserting it.
  • There is a distinction to be made between a statement that is deceptive and a statement that implies guilt. For example, someone might be deceptive regarding some question about his bank account because he fudged a bit on his taxes. That doesn't necessarily mean that he embezzled any funds.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

"Lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I recently challenged anyone reading here to list all the various "lies" and other statements or actions that have convinced so many of Patsy's involvement in either the crime or the coverup. Zed very cooperatively responded with a list of 25 items, to which MHN replied on an item by item basis. Since MHN's response includes the original points listed by Zed, I'll reproduce his (or her) response in full, with annotations of my own in bold (for some reason italics don't seem to be working here anymore). Thanks to both of you for your very thoughtful comments:

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Edge On

According to a still isolated by Hercule from a police video made public by James Kolar, the edges of the glass in the broken window pane (see previous post) appear to reveal a layer of dust and/or dirt, proving that the break was in fact old, as John Ramsey claimed. He recently sent me this image via email, to illustrate:


Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 4

Before continuing with my analysis of Patsy's role in all this, I want to add one more bit of evidence to the long list offered in my previous posts. Not sure why I failed to mention it before -- it's important because it involves hard evidence rather than logical inference. The broken window glass was examined by forensic experts, but their conclusions have never been made public. When James Kolar was asked about this in his Reddit AMA, he replied that, to his knowledge, "there is no method to determine when the window was broken." He adds the following: "My examination of the video and 35 mm photos strongly suggested no recent entry had been made through that location."

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 3

Let's start all over from the beginning, only this time we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that John was telling the truth, and that he had indeed broken that window the previous summer. So now it's the morning after the assault, Patsy has called 911 and John, as he has testified, makes his way into the basement. As he enters the area with the broken window, it occurs to him that he himself must have broken it the previous summer, so maybe that break is irrelevant. But then he notices, according to his own testimony, that it is open. And for some reason he was never able to explain, he closes it.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 2

(continued from previous post)

Given Linda's denial, the question arises: why would Patsy have included Linda in her story if she were lying to support John's version of what happened? Patsy included Linda when interviewed the following year as well:
Well, one of these windows is the one that John -- John got locked out one time,  can't remember, at the lake, I think. And he said he broke a window pane and, you know, he reached in and came in through this window right into the house.
TRIP DEMUTH: What did you do after the window was broken, did you have some involvement with that at all?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, yes. When I came back, you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out -- 1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda sweep down there because the kids, the boys would sometimes play in here. 
If John's story is true, then why would Linda have denied any knowledge of any broken window or helping Patsy clean up the glass? And if both he and Patsy were lying, then why would Patsy have included Linda in her story, on two separate occasions, knowing full well she'd deny it?