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.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Why I Am So Popular -- or: Murder on the Internet

Quoting some of my old contributions to Webbsleuths (see previous post), I was reminded of all the time spent on the JonBenet Internet forums, way back when, by so many of us, eager to see justice done, but eager also to promote our own particular version of what justice meant. Since maybe it's time for a change of pace, I've decided to post some excerpts from one of my most ambitious attempts at humor -- at the expense of the denizens of Webbsleuths (not to be confused with Websleuths, natch), a staunchly pro-Ramsey forum, run with an iron fist, but also a generous spirit, by the notorious Jameson. What can I say, I annoyed Hell out of her, but she had a soft spot for me, so she allowed me to do my thing without fear of censorship (now derision, that's another thing). The following set of posts really irritated just about everyone. I wish I could include some of their nasty ripostes, but I guess I'd need permission, so I won't. Anyhow, here are some choice bits from one of my all time favorite Webbsleuths threads, a little number I called: Why I Am So Popular. It was intended as humor, but as you'll see, it is also highly edifying -- and there is a moral to the story as well.



Why I Am So Popular (March 2006):

How can that be? DocG popular? No one in the whole wide world buys his theory. No one anywhere thinks he's solved this case. Everyone on all the forums gets really irritated by him. He is insulted regularly everywhere he goes. And can't even post on certain fora anymore. Banned! Jameson is the only one soft hearted and generous enough to tolerate this obnoxious and obviously lame brained character. And even SHE, from time to time, loses patience with him, lovable though he may be. :-) There is only one problem with this depressing and disheartening picture: there is NO ONE whom more people following this case agree with than docG. In fact, far more people on all the fora agree with docG than ANYONE else. That would make him (me) by far the most popular person now posting ANYWHERE in Ramseyland.

Why am I so popular? Why do so many people agree with me? Why do so many MORE people agree with me than with anyone else? I thought you'd never ask. (Actually, you didn't.) Well, for one thing, I feel sure there was no intruder in the Ramsey house on the night of the crime. And not only that, but I have a whole lot of really interesting and convincing reasons for feeling that way, and my reasons are also extremely well thought out and logical, based on solid evidence, faultless inference and simple common sense. Ask anyone and they'll agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Anyone over in those other forums that is, the ones that are Bent On Ramsey Guilt.

Whenever I'd post regarding Lou Smit's intruder theory, or Lin Wood's "7 open doors and windows," or John Ramsey's semi-nude frolic one summer or last summer or some summer, shirt on or shirt off, during his fabled grated window breakin, they'd eat it up over there, they'd think I was a bloody genius. When I argued how silly it was for Lou Smit to expect anyone to believe an intruder could have squeezed through that narrow window without leaving a trace, or how fragmented and inconclusive the DNA evidence was or how Smit went shopping for a stun gun until he found one that matched the wounds, how there was actually no stun gun evidence, that that was all just a fantasy in his own mind, part of a desperate attempt to establish some sort of reasonable doubt, all heads nodded sagely, they'd place their hands on their chins and agree, unanimously: this guy knows what he's talking about.

And the same exact thing would happen over here when I'd demonstrate how absurd it was to consider Patsy a suspect. How can Patsy be involved, there is NO case to be made against her, no reason for her to have written a long ransom note in her own hand and then call the police on herself knowing the body is in the house, no reason for her to write a note using her own pad and her own pen and stage a garotte attack using her own paintbrush, how dumb is THAT? Who in their right mind could think a woman living a life of affluence, complete with a housekeeper to clean up after her on a regular basis, would be motivated to club her beloved daughter over the head over bedwetting or how laughable it was to try to imagine the comic opera scene conjured up by some imaginative BORG Sherlocks where Patsy takes a swing at John and clobbers JonBenet instead.

I'd lace into Steve Thomas and Darnay Hoffmann, revealing them as the fools they were, I even showed Darnay's experts up for the incompetents they were, how more than one actually mistook a crooked xerox for margin drift, how they accepted an obviously juvenile little note probably scribbled by Burke for Patsy's hand, how Patsy's printing looked nothing like the note, how she wrote in an elegant flowing style while the note looked a lot more like . . . a chicken scratch. Hmmmmmm. Maybe I'm getting a bit carried away. Time for a break folks.

Ok, where was I? Oh yes, I was writing about the effect I've had on this forum when discussing the absurdities of Steve Thomas, Darnay Hoffmann, Donald Foster and their ridiculous attempts to pin this horrible crime on Patsy Ramsey. When I've posted here in this vein, I've been given absolutely the Royal treatment, the red carpet has been rolled out and every word savoured. Don't deny it, folks, whenever I've laced into the Patsy dunnit numbskulls and their dumb and desperate fumbling my reasoning has been impeccable, my mastery of the evidence impressive and my powers of observation magnificent. In other words: you've all agreed with me. One hundred percent!

So why am I so popular? Why am I held in such high esteem? Why do so many think so highly of my powers of reasoning, my eloquence, my ability to cut to the bone and penetrate so deeply into the deepest most mysterious recesses of this case? Why is it that BOTH those who are so firmly dedicated to Patsy as a homicidal maniac AND those who see an intruder under ever bit of fiber find me so appealing, intelligent and perspicacious? Why is it, in short, that just about everyone following the case agrees with me? What is my secret? I'll tell you. Or maybe you'd rather guess.

Why I am so intelligent

Sorry, time's up. You all guessed wrong. ;-) The reason everyone agrees with me is because I am so intelligent. What is it that makes me so intelligent? Because I tell you what you want to hear. When I tell the BORG what they want to hear about Lou Smit, Lin Wood, the intruder theory, etc., they think I'm a genius. When I tell you on this forum what most of you want to hear about Steve, Darnay and Donald's cluelessness and Patsy's innocence, you find me both a gentleman and a scholar. Also VERY intelligent. And what is more: astute! We see what we want to see.

Why I am so stupid

What, you say there's a problem with the picture I've painted? No one here or anywhere thinks I'm intelligent, you say? C'mon, docG, get real, no one thinks you have the slightest intelligence, in fact you've been vilified from all sides as stupid, narrow minded, obtuse, stubborn, fixated on your own theory, unwilling to consider any other possibilities, ignorant of the facts, illogical and just plain dumb. Oh yes, and also: arrogant. As Hell. What is it that makes me so impossibly arrogant, stupid, obnoxious, pig headed, clueless and simple minded? I tell you what you DON'T want to hear. I tell the BORG that Patsy must be innocent, which THEY don't want to hear. And I tell YOU folks there was no intruder, which YOU don't want to hear. We see what we want to see.

Why I am wrong

I am wrong because I think John Ramsey killed his daughter and covered it up basically on his own -- and that Patsy is guilty of no more than telling a few "white lies" so she wouldn't make him look bad by contradicting him publicly. No one else believes that. Because no one else wants to believe that. Because everyone has been programmed to believe John Ramsey was ruled out. By the "experts." Six, count 'em: six.

Why I am right

Simple arithmetic. Take the only possible suspects and put them all together: Patsy, John and the intruder. Subtract Patsy. Clearly innocent. And then subtract the intruder. Clearly there was none. That leaves: John. Huge numbers of people are convinced there was no intruder. They see no intruder evidence and no reason for an intruder to do what was done, certainly no reason to write a phoney ransom note. And I agree. So let's remove the intruder. No intruder. By popular acclaim. Huge numbers also see Steve Thomas, Darnay Hoffmann, Don Foster, etc., etc. as hopelessly deluded attention hunters, out to nail a perfectly innocent woman over a perfectly absurd motive: bedwetting. That's ridiculous. Patsy wouldn't have attacked her beloved daughter over bedwetting. And she had no reason to write a phoney ransom note and then hand it over to the police with her handwriting all over it and the body of her victim still in the house. So let's remove Patsy. By popular acclaim. So far I've been giving everyone what they want, right? Hey I'm not the most popular fellow in the 'net for nothing, I sense what the public wants and I GIVE it to them. And so: by popular demand. And by virtue of some arithmetic I learned in first grade. I give you the real culprit: John Ramsey.

Now WHY has EVERYONE suddenly gotten SO upset?????? You say NONE of you WANT John? I should take him back? We see what we want to see. But WHAT is it that makes us want what we want to want?

The point -- getting serious

OK, the "real" docG is now back with a serious message for everyone here. When I find myself being attacked time and time again as illogical, manipulative, ignoring evidence, making assumptions, one-sided, biased, etc., etc., etc., but ONLY when I am arguing against the current, against the view that prevails on any given forum (and as we know all the JonBenet forums have become almost totally polarized by now) AND find myself being praised, commended for my logic and grasp of the evidence, etc. ONLY when I am in agreement with everyone -- then, as seems obvious, there is a problem.

The exact same arguments that are attacked on one forum as indicative of ignorance, bias, defective logic, etc., are praised on the other as well informed, open minded, logical and to the point. What, then, am I to think? Can it be MY problem if people praise me when I tell them what they want to hear and attack me when I tell them what they don't want to hear? There are two prevailing views of this case. One is that Patsy must have killed her daughter and written the note. The other is that there was an intruder and both Patsy and John are innocent victims. Each side has provided more than enough evidence of the absurdity of the other side's view. And the arguments marshaled by both sides have been, I must say, VERY convincing. And so, yes: I'm convinced!!!! By BOTH sides. And I've said as much. TO both sides. I agree with you. You are BOTH wrong.

5 comments:

  1. Why am I so notorious? Is it me or my theory?

    I have been banned for life from WS, JQ, TRU, and Topix for no apparent reason. JQ pulled down their entire JBR forum when they banned me. Topix just pulled my theory down and banned me. (Albeit, technically, I can still post at Topix but no one but me, and I suppose the mods and admin, can see my posts.) WS banned me (under the nom de plume Eureka), locked up the thread and barred my IP. TRU banned me and blocked my IP so that I cannot even read my own posts to see who responded to them. Oddly, they haven't pulled my theory down yet, at least not the last time I checked, which I had to do from a different IP address.

    It's just an IDI theory. I don't see why it should be so unbearable to RDI theorists. And what is this banned for life crap? Most forums will at least give you a warning or some feedback, then a suspension or two before they permaban you. Instant permabans are usually reserved for posters who have grossly violated the TOS. In my case, on every single occasion, I was attacked by a few to a dozen flaming RDI fanatics, and then promptly permabanned as soon as I flamed them back in self-defense, even slightly. The bias was obvious to the point of being downright creepy and even some RDI zealots could not understand it, and were even annoyed by it having wanted engage me in a debate.

    I don't get it. Admittedly, I can talk some smack. Indeed, I am probably one of the top ten smack artists on the net, but only when provoked or in some arena where talking smack is allowed and encouraged. However, I was barely able to make a single dry sarcastic retort against a tide of very direct, obnoxious, and unwarranted insults on these crime forums, especially at WS and TRU, before being banned for life. JQ permabanned me for no reason whatsoever. The invisible mods at Topix don't even tell you that you're banned, let alone why. They just block your posts from being read. Meanwhile, I watch as RDI zealots insult each other and anyone else with total abandon and not even get suspended. What the hell is going on?


    - Sig Turner





    ReplyDelete
  2. I too have been banned from most of the forums. Posts of mine have been deleted. Whole threads have been deleted if they contained statements by me that might make someone look foolish or stupid. I've never attacked anyone nor made personal remarks, as so many do. But this is a case that many have made up their minds about very early on and their theories have become part of their personal identity I'm afraid. So they are extremely threatened by anyone who challenges them.

    You won't have that problem here. I reserve the right to delete posts that are rude, insulting or pointless. Other than that you may write what you like -- and I always try to respond with reasonable promptness. I welcome alternate and even opposing views as they enable me to think more clearly about the case -- and also give me an opportunity to explain myself more clearly. And who knows, someone posting here might actually get me to change my mind. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I felt JDI from day one, and agree totally with your theory. I think people have a hard time believing a woman would stay with a man who killed her daughter. Is it your belief that JR has completely manipulated PR into believing an intruder broke in??? She was clearly and understandably medicated for many days after her daughters death. It was very telling that JR did not want her interviewed alone, but when I saw her lone interview, she was a tough cookie. What about her statement to a friend, "We never meant for this to happen." ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Patsy was medicated for some time. Also confused. John was "ruled out" very early on and this made it impossible for her to either suspect or challenge him. She held her ground very well when finally questioned, yes. I don't think she ever had a clue to what really happened.

      The statement she made to her friend most likely was a reflection of her guilt over involving JonBenet in the pageant scene.

      Delete
    2. I believe that you are so popular because you write so eloquently and convincingly. I must agree that Pasty was totally innocent in all of this and her remark could have very well been in regards to involving her child in pagents.

      Delete