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), 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.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Prosecution Hints and Tips

I've already outlined a strategy for the prosecution, but I'll now add some additional hints and tips.

First hint:




Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The Experts

Now that I've reviewed all the various fantastic theories, I want to return to the one that isn't fantastic at all, but was, from the very beginning -- and by far -- the most likely. To understand why this theory got sidetracked in favor of all the others, regardless of how unlikely and indeed wacky they might sound, we need to return to the fateful decision of the so-called "experts" who ruled John out as writer of the note. And this decision did indeed determine the entire history of the case. Whenever I've attempted to convince anyone with any influence or clout that John is the most likely suspect by far, I've been greeted with the same response: "but wasn't he ruled out by the experts?" End of conversation.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Fantastic Theories - Part Five

I can't resist adding one more scenario, another little skit I dreamed up a few years ago, as a companion to the skit featuring John and Patsy. This one features an apocryphal character who, as has been alleged, teamed up with "bootman" Michael Helgoth, to invade the Ramsey home and slaughter JonBenet. An especially interesting feature of this one is the explanation it offers for the very strange initials S.B.T.C. 

Fantastic Theories - Part Four

A popular theory of late, thanks to Kolar's book, is that Burke killed JonBenet and the parents staged to cover for him. Would a Burke-did-it theory be less fantastic than the others?

Burke Did It

JonBenet can't sleep so she wakes Burke and the two of them have some pineapple together. One thing leads to another and either 1. Burke gets upset and swats her with the Maglite or a baseball bat or 2. Burke attacks her sexually, she resists and he swats her. In either case, the parents are awakened by the commotion, see what's happened, and are afraid to call 911 because 1. Burke is now Patsy's only remaining child and she's afraid he'll be arrested; 2. John is alarmed by the injuries to JonBenet's vagina and is afraid he'll be blamed for molesting her, because no one could possibly believe nine year old Burke could be responsible. 

Monday, August 20, 2012

Fantastic Theories - Part Three

Another perennial favorite, possibly the most popular of all, since the permutations, and thus the possibilities for speculation, seem endless:

Partners in Crime

This one is a variant of Patsy Did It, with both John and Patsy collaborating on various aspects of the crime and coverup, with no way of telling who did what. In some versions we see Patsy clobbering JonBenet with the Maglite and John agreeing, for some odd reason, to assist in the coverup, mainly by finishing the victim off with a "garotte." No telling who would have wanted to penetrate her vagina or why, but since her vagina was unquestionably penetrated (not to mention the clear signs of prior abuse), then that too somehow has to be woven into the staging. In other versions, it's John who clubs her, for reasons unexplained, and Patsy who agrees to assist, also for some odd, inexplicable reason. 

Fantastic Theories - Part Deux

Now to continue with the next fantastic theory, a perennial favorite entitled:

Patsy Did It

Christmas comes and goes. The Ramseys return from a party at the White's, deliver some packages, go home and go to sleep. At some point during the night, JonBenet wets her bed. For some reason Patsy wakes up, discovers the wet bed and flies into one of those rages so typical of so many women who fly into rages over the bedwetting of their children. This has been documented so we know it can happen.  One thing leads to another and at some point Patsy cracks. Reaching for a handy Maglite flashlight that just happens to be nearby, she smashes her daughter over the head with a tremendous blow, a blow so powerful it's been described as capable of felling a full sized man.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Fantastic Theories - Part One

There is only one theory of the Ramsey case that makes any sort of sense. The essentials can be stated succinctly. John Ramsey has been molesting his daughter, and on the night after Christmas, prior to a trip where they'll be visiting family, becomes convinced she is about to expose him. He consequently decides to kill her, in the least painful manner, by clubbing her over the head. When he notices she's still breathing, he strangles her with the aid of a ligature, twisted by a stick for convenience. To cover for himself, he contrives a staged kidnapping, complete with phoney ransom note and window breakin. (For details see A Scenario.)

As I understand it, John was in fact the prime suspect until an unexpected thing happened: he was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a team of handwriting "experts." Consequently the case was thrown into disarray where it has remained ever since, because once John is ruled out, the only possible alternatives to the scenario I've offered above are too fantastic and literally beyond belief to present in court. Not too fantastic, however, to be widely accepted by a great many people following the case, including some experienced law enforcement veterans who should know better.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Desperately Seeking Patsy

[NB: 1-25-2013 - Yesterday I received a notice from "The Blogger Team" that this blog post was being temporarily removed due to a notification they had received regarding the supposedly unauthorized use of copyrighted material. I was told I could repost it once the material was removed, but given no information regarding exactly who filed the complaint. Consequently I have decided to remove all materials that might have prompted this notification, at least for the time being, until I can more accurately determine its source. In my view all such materials are covered under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright laws, but that's not my call in this instance, so I have no choice but to comply.]

I believe I've demonstrated very logically that Patsy could not have been involved in any aspect of this crime, including the writing of the "ransom" note. Nevertheless, many of those following the case will find this extremely difficult to accept, because of all the supposedly "obvious" similarities between her handwriting and that of the "kidnapper." I've already covered some aspects of this issue in earlier posts, here and also here, but the handwriting evidence is so widely misunderstood that I feel the need to tackle it in more detail at this point.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Scaling Justice Mountain - for midwest mama

I recently was challenged on the Websleuths forum, by a poster calling herself "midwest mama." This is what she wrote:
I see your point. And I agree that the case can be made by simply looking at the facts leading to a RDI theory, as they are indisputable to me as well.

If a clear, DOCUMENTED and SUBSTANTIATED analysis of John's testimony can be prepared in order to enable those of us not clearly in the JDI camp, then perhaps that's the hill some of us should start climbing, instead of so many of us going around and around on the same track over and over which has been leading to nowhere.

If we start at the bottom, with all the right equipment, and focus on the goal, which is proving JR suspect for prosecution, and take it step by step up an unencumbered path, then we should make it to the top of the hill. Let's call this task: Scaling Mt. Justice or perhaps, Scaling Justice Mountain !!
Her request is eminently reasonable. So here is my 5 step summary, based on my Websleuths response:

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Odds and Ends

As I've made clear from the start, the heart of the case can be found in just a few uncontested facts. Aside from these facts, outlined in my first two posts, almost everything else has been deemed "inconclusive." Nevertheless, a great many people following the case, both professional and amateur, have set great store by some of this evidence, which from their standpoint is especially important. To make my position as clear as possible, I'd like now to go over some of these "odds and ends," which I have to admit I've neglected thus far. It should be remembered, however, that when we focus too strongly on trying to understand the meaning of this type of evidence, the case, as I see it, can very quickly turn into a morass, so we need to proceed with caution. Nevertheless, each item can tell us something significant, if we are willing to place it in perspective.

Patsy and John

I have to admit that the biggest problem with my theory concerns Patsy's role. As I see it, she was innocent of both the murder and the initial coverup, but participated in later aspects of the coverup by either remaining silent about what she knew to be true or lying outright. I'm referring in particular to two specific cases: 1. her decision not to challenge John's assertion that calling 911 was his idea (despite the fact that, in the A&E documentary, she provided a very different version in which this was her idea) and 2. her testimony supporting John's obvious lie about breaking the basement window pane on an earlier occasion. I think it revealing that in both instances she was lying to support John's version of what happened.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Making the Case

At first it might seem hopeless to attempt to make a case based on such a complicated state of affairs. First you'd have to prove a negative, i.e., that no intruder could have been present, which seems awfully hard to do, especially given the fact that the Ramseys have already been exonerated on the basis of what some believe to be solid DNA evidence. Second, you'd have to convince the jury that six highly regarded handwriting experts were wrong in ruling John out as writer of the note. Then you'd have to prove that calling 911 was Patsy's idea and not John's, despite the fact that Patsy never seems to have challenged John's claim that he told her to make the call.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

The Case Against John Ramsey

For some time after my epiphany, I was nevertheless troubled by the thought that some key piece of evidence could be missing, that, however unlikely, an intruder or intruders may have somehow entered the house after all, leaving no trace, possibly with a key, and left the note and the body for reasons of their own that I couldn't fathom. Despite my growing conviction that my theory explained all the strange "mysteries" of this case, there was always the possibility I could be wrong, and was pointing the finger of suspicion at an innocent man.

Half Truths, Deceptions, Lies

However, with the release of the police files, containing transcripts of all the Ramsey interrogations, it became crystal clear John was either hedging or lying outright about many key aspects of the case in a manner that removed all doubts. The most damaging lies are to be found in his testimony regarding the basement window, which I've already covered and will return to presently. There are many other instances as well, duly noted by Kolar in a chapter aptly titled, "The Evolution of John Ramsey's Statements." I'd already gone over many of these inconsistencies in a series of blog posts [correction, I should have written "forum posts"] back in 2005. Here are some excerpts, with my slightly revised comments:

Saturday, August 11, 2012


Burke Ramsey has now become "flavor of the month," as one forum poster recently put it. Thanks to Kolar's book, many have now become wedded to the theory that Burke must have struck JonBenet over the head in a fit of rage and/or jealousy, and his parents, terrified the "family honor" would be tarnished, contrived an elaborate coverup, involving a vicious strangulation by a demented sexual predator using a "garotte," and a two and a half page ransom note, written of course by Patsy, everyone's favorite villainess. John appears to have gone along for the ride, or possibly had nothing to do with it at all, as Boulder detective Steve Thomas seems to believe. (Steve gave him "a pass.")

Friday, August 10, 2012

The Basement Window -- Part 4

Time to deal with some remaining issues related to the window staging.

Repaired or Unrepaired?

First of all, we must ask the question: why wouldn't John and Patsy have testified simply that the window had in fact never been repaired? What would have been the harm in saying "no, we never got around to replacing that window"? Why did both, on the other hand, insist that they couldn't recall whether that work had been done or not?

Thursday, August 9, 2012

The Basement Window -- Part 3

The Gospel According to Patsy -- 1997

Continuing with my 2005 review.

From Patsy's 1997 police interview: 
ST: Tom has some questions for you about when John had to break in that basement window . . .

PR: Right.

ST: . . .but was there any reason you couldn’t or John could not have retrieve the key from the Barnhills at that time to get in rather than breaking the window?

PR: He, he may not have know they had a key.

TT: When did John break that window in the basement?

PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last suimmer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake. 
Another Ramsey who doesn't "know exactly" when or what or how or who. She THINKS it was last summer. Funny, I think John thinks he thinks the same thing.

The Basement Window -- Part 2

I've been reviewing my 2005 runthrough of John's testimony regarding the broken basement window. He claims he broke the window earlier, possibly the previous summer. But he's extremely vague about the details. And can't recall whether the window he broke was ever repaired. I'll continue from where I left off in the last post, but this time I'll include some of my sarcastic interjections, as they reflect a justifiable frustration with the manner in which this "interview" was conducted:

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Clear Evidence of Staging: The Basement Window

In Kolar's book we see many examples of John Ramsey's suspicious, apparently deceptive statements and behavior. One incident in particular gets the author's attention several times. Beginning with his police interview of April 1997, and on several occasions thereafter, as duly noted by Kolar, John reported going down into the basement early on the morning of Dec. 26th and observing that the window to the train room was cracked open. He reported that he closed the window, but told no one about it at the time. He also reported seeing a Samsonite suitcase placed flush with the wall directly beneath the window, and noted that this was not where it is usually kept.

More on Kolar's Book

Despite my disagreement with Kolar's Burke-did-it-with-Mom-and-Dad-covering-for-him theory, I do find much of real value in his book, and find many of his ideas insightful. This is certainly an important case study, at least until he begins fixating on Burke. His debunking of Lou Smit's intruder theory is particularly valuable, especially his meticulous evaluation of the stun gun theory -- bottom line on that one: JonBenet would have screamed bloody murder if that taser had been used on her. He makes it abundantly clear that no one went through that basement window that night. I've made a similar argument many times, but Kolar is a more authoritative source, so his take on this aspect of the case is particularly convincing.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Kolar's Book -- Part 2: Burke

The obvious suspect from the beginning was John Ramsey. This was especially true after it had been determined that prior sexual molestation seemed likely. World renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht became convinced, very early on, that the physical evidence pointed to John as both molester and murderer. And as I was recently reminded, the original theory of the original investigation team was apparently very similar to mine, i.e., John killed his daughter and wrote the note to stage a phoney kidnapping, of which Patsy knew nothing. Patsy foiled his plan by calling in the cops, and he was left with egg on his face, in the form of a very incriminating note and a body hidden in the basement. Pretty much open and shut, I'd say.

But then the investigation took a surprising turn: John Ramsey was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a blue ribbon panel of six handwriting "experts," two hired by him (amazingly enough, this was permitted) and four representing law enforcement. Incredibly, no one challenged such a patently questionable and in my view outrageous conclusion, which threw a monkey wrench into the investigation and became the source of so much confusion from then till now. 

Monday, August 6, 2012

Kolar's Book

I first read about James Kolar's new book, Foreign Faction, in a July 18 Daily Beast review by Carol McKinley, New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder. As I read, it became clear that Kolar wasn't buying either the intruder theory or the odd notion, put forth by former DA Mary Lacy, that DNA evidence  exonerated the Ramseys. This was heartening. Ever since Lacy's notorious letter informing John that he and Patsy (recently deceased) were officially cleared, I had given up hope that JonBenet's killer would ever be brought to justice.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

White Lies

I'm convinced Patsy Ramsey was innocent of either the murder of her daughter or the staging of a phoney kidnapping. I'm equally convinced, however, that she participated in the later stages of the coverup by lying from time to time in order to support her husband's version of what happened. Along with the outrageous decision to rule out John as writer of the note, Patsy's lies have been a major source of the confusion permeating this case.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Patsy the Patsy

Patsy Ramsey has become everyone's favorite Patsy, even in death. Virtually everyone skeptical of the intruder theory assumes that Patsy, at the very least, penned the ransom note, and many are convinced she is the one who killed her daughter (in a rage over bedwetting, or JonBenet's refusal to participate in more pageants, or perhaps while taking a swing at John, the blow landing on JonBenet instead), following that brutal act with an "over the top" coverup, involving ligature strangulation and vaginal penetration, with a paintbrush handle, no less, topped off with "the War and Peace of ransom notes." Calm down, folks. It's theories like these that are over the top, patently so. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever linking Patsy Ramsey to either the crime or the coverup.

But but but what about the fact that the note was written on Patsy's very own pad, that the "garotte" was fashioned from her very own paintbrush handle, that her fibers were found "all over" the crime scene, that she was wearing the same outfit the following day, etc., etc.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Ruled Out -- Part 3: Courier New

It occurred to me some time ago that the "ransom" note may have been originally typed on a word processor and then traced or copied onto the note pad. It would have made it easier to compose the note in the first place, without having to constantly cross words out to make corrections. (There are only a very few corrections in the final copy.) More importantly, this would also have been a very clever way for the writer to disguise his hand. I fiddled with various fonts and settings and got some interesting results, but nothing that fit exactly.