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.