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.

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:
OK, mama, excellent suggestion. This one's for you:

1. Foundation: John lied about breaking the basement window prior to the night of the crime. (See my four posts dealing with the basement window, beginning here. What I've presented in these posts is in fact fully documented, based on actual case testimony from the police files and an interview with the Ramsey's housekeeper Linda Hoffmann Pugh.)

2. Foothills: The only reason for such a lie would be to point away from his breaking that same window ON the night of the crime to stage a breakin consistent with the kidnap staging in the "ransom" note, which he must also have been, at the very least, aware of.

3. Halfway there: This tells us we are dealing with an inside job, which in turn tells us there was no intruder, which in turn tells us that all the so-called intruder evidence, including the vaunted DNA is garbage and can be tossed.

4. Almost there: So. At this point we know John is involved, but what about Patsy? Well, Patsy was the one who called the cops, which undermined the staging in the note. If she'd written the note or been part of the coverup she wouldn't have called the police so early. And hence: Patsy is not involved. If you want to argue that John is the one who told her to call, that makes no sense because we already know (see #1) that he lied about the window, which tells us he'd been staging a breakin the night of the murder but needed more time to complete it, so would not have wanted the cops called in so soon. It also stands to reason he'd have known about the phoney note and the body hidden in the basement or he wouldn't have bothered staging at the window.

[Simpler alternative to step 4: If both John and Patsy were in on the coverup together, the 911 call would not have been made, because by calling the police so early, with the body still in the house, the kidnap staging would have been totally undermined. We already know from step 2 that John was involved -- and hence, Patsy, who after all is the one who made the call, must be innocent.]

5. Finally there: John and only John murdered JonBenet, staging the kidnapping to cover his own behind. Halleluiah!

You'll notice that I've left Burke out of this picture. That's because I see no reason for John to take such a huge risk to cover for Burke, who would not have been prosecutable anyhow because of his age. Also, if Burke was the one who struck that blow, it could easily have been reported as an accident. Oh wait, no it couldn't, because of the vaginal injuries. And sorry, but the only adult male in that house is far more likely to have inflicted those injuries than 9 year old Burke. And if that mature male would want to argue in court that he was only covering for his son, who both sexually molested JonBenet and murdered her, then let him. I'll leave it to you to guess if any jury would believe such a story. So why should we?

Thank you, mama, for helping me realize how all that's needed is this simple 5 stage ascent.

1 comment:

  1. Hello,

    It makes sense to me, DocG !

    I never bought the intruder theory, but I always leaned towards Burke.

    But after reading your theory, it makes much more sense than BDI, and PDI as well.
    John had to cover the sexual abuse and it is clearer now to me than ever before that John was the abuser ... the other 2 in the house makes NO sense.

    I have read "theories" that BR was the abuser -- but IMO, most 9 year old boys think of their little sister as just that -- know what I mean ? Like "my lil sister" -- "girls" -- ugh.

    Then are the "theories" that PR was the abuser -- NO WAY ! That has to be one of the craziest theories out there. Patsy "lived for" JB and the pageants ... and I don't see her "risking" anything for that.

    Well, back to reading more of your blog ...

    Have a nice day !