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.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Open Letter to Stanley Garnett, Boulder County DA

Dear Mr. Garnett,

I can understand your reluctance to pursue the JonBenet Ramsey case after so many years of futility and frustration. You see no point in pursuing the case any further until new evidence emerges and I agree. This case has all the markings of an insoluble conundrum, leading from one dead end to another. So, without anything more to go on than what you already have, it seems pointless to continue. And yet the sexual assault and violent murder of a child remains unsolved and her attacker walks free. The continued failure to close this case must weigh very heavily on you and your colleagues.

While I have no new evidence to offer, I would nevertheless like to propose a fresh strategy in dealing with all the old evidence. As I understand it, John Ramsey was the original suspect, which made a great deal of sense. As the only mature male in the house that night, he was by far the most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim. Since it is unlikely that an intruder would have waited to write a ransom note until he was already in the house, or would have wanted to leave such a note without actually taking his victim, it seemed likely from the start that this was a staged kidnapping gone wrong -- and that the person most likely to be responsible for the staging was John Ramsey.

Shortly after the murder, Ramsey hired a legal team, which, under the umbrella of lawyer-client privilege, hired two leading forensic documentation examiners, who proceeded to compare the handwriting on the note to exemplars by John and Patsy. After only a few hours spent comparing these documents (as reported in the book, Perfect Murder Perfect Town), they proceeded to rule John out as writer of the note, something they were unable to do for Patsy. This finding was promptly leaked to the media, and shortly thereafter reported in a Newsweek article, which informed the world that John Ramsey could not have written the note. Amazingly, a team of four independent forensic doc. examiners, working in cooperation with the original pair, accepted their assessment: John must be "ruled out."

This surprising and in fact outrageous conclusion, questioned by exactly no one, promptly threw the investigation into a tailspin. If there was no intruder, which seemed more than likely, and John could not have written the note, all suspicion fell on Patsy Ramsey. As you well know, suspicion of Patsy set off a veritable feeding frenzy among a wide range of individuals, from law enforcement professionals and handwriting "experts" to every type of amateur, Hell bent on "proving" Patsy wrote the ransom note. This despite the fact that the look of her writing style is radically different from that of the note, as is her prose style, notably free of the sort of technical jargon, quotes from male-oriented movies, and percentage figures found in the note.

The failure of the various "experts" to agree on Patsy's handwriting, plus the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever linking her to the crime, nor any likely motive for her to have either committed it or participated in a coverup, made the case impossible to pursue. Thus there seemed no choice but to look endlessly for evidence of some sort of intruder, however unlikely it is that any intruder could or would have wanted to do all that was done. The original suspect, John Ramsey, quietly faded into the background. Where he remains.

What I'm proposing is very simple. I feel sure it was John who wrote that note after all and that the "experts" who ruled him out were, very simply, in error. Not surprising, given the fact that 1. only a relatively short amount of time and effort went into these handwriting comparisons; 2. there are no scientific standards by which it is possible to either rule in or rule out anyone in a case where deliberate deception is involved. It is not at all clear what standards these "experts" were using in any case, and in all these years it would seem as though their findings, unlike all other findings related to this case, were never challenged or even questioned.

What I suggest you do is, very quietly and discreetly, reopen this aspect of the case. Call in as many of these "experts" as you can and question them regarding the standards they were using, and the scientific basis for their conclusions. As I'm sure you are aware, the opinions of such "experts" are often not admissible in court, due to perfectly valid questions regarding the reliability of their methods. Try to learn what investigative tools they were using, and what their reasoning was. Call in, also, some independent forensic document examiners and ask them what sort of standards they would use in a case like this, and whether they consider it even possible to absolutely positively rule anyone out.

I have a feeling that when you have completed your investigation you will emerge convinced there was never any reason to rule John Ramsey out as writer of the note. And once John is ruled back in, then the nature of the case in almost all its aspects changes radically, meaning the investigation should be reopened and reconsidered with this possibility in mind. Once the investigators are free to pursue the case without being hobbled by the presumed "innocence" of the leading suspect, I feel sure the culpability of this suspect will become as clear as day. Hopefully some of the thinking presented on this blog will prove useful in this endeavor.

Thank you.


Dr. G


  1. Your best work so far, DocG. Plausible, logical and sincere!

  2. I guess Patsy wouldn't have had any experience at all with percentages pertaining to survival, would she?

    1. I recall reading someone's observation that Patsy, as a cancer survivor, would have been familiar with percentage figures, and I have no doubt that's true. But that's not the same as saying the use of percentage figures is part of her communication style and that's what we're talking about as far as the note is concerned. If you spend much time reading the interviews and transcripts you'll see John using percentage figures frequently. But I can't recall Patsy using a percentage even once. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

    2. *BREAKING NEWS* DNA doesn't LIE - Religious Psychopath Child Killers Do!
      JonBenet Ramsey was Murdered by this MONSTER:
      *R*O*B*E*R*T* *A*D*O*L*P*H* *E*N*Y*A*R*T* = *6*6*6* = *DAXIS* = *SON of SATAN*

      *ShadowGov leader Bob Enyart is a Sadistic Serial Child-Killer in a "Small Foreign Faction" waiting for All Secrets to Be Revealed! JonBenet Ransom Note was signed by the ShadowGov ~ "Victory! S.B.T.C"

      *S.B.T.C* = *Strangle Bind Torture Children* & *S.B.T.C = *Shadowgov Breaks The Case* - Google "Bob Enyart JonBenet Ransom Note"

      Bob Enyart is a closet fag who, among other things, is being sued by NPR because he's a thief in addition to being a twice divorced, twice convicted child abuser who's afraid of the police.....and his own DNA because Bob Enyart left it all over JonBenet Ramsey when he murdered her on Christmas 1996. Here's your social security number Bob 152-60-4382. You won't be needing it in prison, you'll get a new #. You're welcome, pastor.


      JONBENET Suspect=religious sociopath PASTOR ROBERT "BOB" ADOLPH ENYART a TWICE CONVICTED SERIAL CHILD ABUSER in the DENVER AREA who is AFRAID OF THE DNA! DOB 1-10-59 FBI#678532LA7 License#CO368941 Call DET TRUJILLO at the BOULDER PD 303-441-3338 & email BouldersMostWanted@bouldercolo­­­­, tell everything about ENYART!! We did. Google "Bob Enyart JonBenet Ransom Note" "BOB ADOLPH ENYART ARREST RECORD" "Enyart Protesters gather outside


      There are at least 3 areas of matching DNA belonging to a white male, who we now know is ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART DOB 1/10/59. The first 2 areas of DNA were identified immediately under her fingernails and in her underwear. The third area of DNA was identified in 2008 through a revolutionary DNA collection process called "Touch DNA." By this new evidence, the Boulder DA cleared the Ramseys. The DA said there is no innocent explanation for having matching DNA in 3 areas on JonBenet's person.


      CONTACT Pastor Bob Enyart - TELL HIM TO KILL HIMSELF! Denver Bible Church tollfree - 1-800-836-9278 OTHERS: 303 463-7789, 303-883-2435, 303-881-0376, 303-667-4918, Call his Google# 720-515-5468

      Addresses: 6126 BRAUN COURT, ARVADA CO, 80004 | 8602 YUKON ST ARVADA CO 80005 | 213 TONN VALLEY DR BOX 3639 EVERGREEN, CO 80437

      ENYART murdered JonBenet - He needs to DIE!

    3. You have a right to your opinion, Dani, so I'm allowing this comment, this time. But you've been sprinkling the same sort of thing all over this blog and I can't allow that, it's spam. So I'll be blocking these duplicate posts and any others like them. If you have any actual evidence to support your accusations, that's a different story. Anything new and potentially meaningful will be allowed -- but not spam.

  3. It is one thing for a blogger, who is not privy to all the facts and evidence in this case, to post his opinion, but to write a letter based on your opinion accusing John is wrong many levels.

    1. Well, first of all, this is not my opinion, but a logical conclusion, based on the known facts. As I understand it, all the relevant information has been released, in one form or another, either on the Internet or the various books on the case. If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me.

      Secondly, the purpose of the letter is not to accuse John, but to suggest a fresh investigative approach to the question of who wrote the ransom note. As I see it, once it becomes clear that John should never have been ruled out, then and only then can his guilt or innocence be meaningfully assessed.

    2. They have thousands of pieces of evidence - have they all been released? NO.

      You "logic" is based only on your opinion construed from what you have read.

      I doubt they have ruled anyone out, including John, but they have examined ALL the thousands of pieces of evidence, interviewed hundreds, including John, used info from the Grand Jury, all of which you are not privy to, and have DNA evidence. Perhaps they know more than you do.

      Your "logic" is not the "logic" of others who are more well-versed in this case. It is fine to have your opinion, but try to remember, that is all it is: your opinion based on only half of the information.

    3. Chief Kolar was the lead investigator on this case and certainly had access to all the evidence. He is certainly as "well versed" in this case as anyone. And he rejects the intruder theory. In his book he releases significant evidence that hadn't been released before. ALL of it points away from an intruder. He also mentions evidence pertaining to Burke that has never been released, not even to the investigators themselves, which is one reason he suspects Burke's involvement.

      It's hard to imagine the existence of any unreleased evidence that would support the intruder theory, as John and his lawyers would certainly have made it public by now. They have never been reluctant to leak such information in the past.

  4. Doc,
    Just wanted to say thank you for this blog. I, like many others have followed this case for years, and it has always been a case that didn't make sense.

    Well now that I read your explanation, it makes sense. As a matter of fact, this is the only explanation that makes sense. I had suspected JR but wasn't able to make sense of the call or the note. But when you explained that Patsy messed up the plan, I can completely agree with the facts and circumstances.

    The only thing I think I disagree with (and we will never know) is I don't believe that JR intended to involve anyone else like the Whites or any other friends. The more people that knew of the "kidnapping", the more likely the police would have been called, and he couldn't have that. He also couldn't trust that they would not call 911 from their house, so I don't believe he would have took that chance.
    So my belief is that he thought that he would convince Patsy to go onto their vacation home in Michigan and play like everything was normal. I believe he would tell her to tell everyone "JonBenet and I have a stomach virus" and will come later when we are able to travel. That would get her out of the house and not likely to call 911 from Michigan. That way too, they could keep Burke from knowing anything and let the "kidnappers" believe everything was going as planned.

    Now it wasn't a very logical plan, but I believe the power he held he thought he could pull it off. I believe too, that is why the practice note, that started with Mr. & Mrs., was thrown away so he could convince her that he and he alone had to do this. This would give him all the time in the world to complete the task.

    His biggest mistake was not starting the letter with the threat of calling the police. Patsy probably was telling the truth when she said she read the first few lines and looked to see who signed it. Anytime I have received a handwritten letter, I read the first few lines, and then see who it is from and then go back to reading it. A large part of the letter was dedicated to what would happen if the police was called, but was buried in that bizarre note. He also misjudged her reaction and probably never thought she would call the police while he was checking on Burke. That would explain a lot about him, he obviously didn't have that parental bond and thought he could control Patsy even in a situation like that.

    So yes she totally messed the plan up, and thank you for being able to explain it to me so I can finally deal with it in my mind. I never believed that she was involved and the Burke theory really seemed far-fetched, so it has bothered me for so many years. You made this very simple and easy. Hopefully one day we will see justice and I hate that Patsy died under suspicion and still many many people believe she did it. That is sad.

    The thing that bothered me the most about this, is if your explanation is correct, what kind of monster is still free? That is very disturbing to say the least. Anyone who could molest their daughter, murder her and then pull of a total hoax, is a horrific monster. Anyway with this being an anniversary, I wanted to say thank you because now I believe I know what happened and I didn't believe that until I read your blog.

  5. Thanks so much for the encouraging words, they are much appreciated.

    It's not easy to understand why either Patsy or John would have wanted to invite friends over for a "kidnapping party," but that's what happened. One of several really odd aspects of this case. My thinking on this matter is purely speculative, but it did occur to me that John might have put the idea into Patsy's head, because he would have needed friends to 1. get Patsy and Burke out of the house and 2. witness the contents of the note (since I'm assuming he'd have wanted to destroy it before it could get into the hands of the police). To me, that makes more sense than the assumption that Patsy felt she needed company.

    Your point is well taken, though, because the more people involved the harder it would have been for John to maintain control of the situation. It's possible he suggested calling the friends only after the 911 call had been made, in the hope that they'd serve as a distraction when the police came, and of course contaminate the crime scene, which they certainly did.

    I'm glad you agree about Patsy's innocence. I too always found it hard to believe she'd have been capable of not only bludgeoning her beloved daughter to death but then sexually assaulting and strangling her. And just as hard to believe John would have wanted to support her in covering it up. What a bizarre theory -- but if you "rule out" John, then you don't have much choice, I suppose.

    I don't see John as a monster, by the way, though what he did was certainly monstrous. I see him as an ordinary man who crossed a very decisive and dangerous line, and then panicked when threatened with exposure, forcing himself to commit that atrocious act. After that, once he realized how limited his options were, he must have felt he had no choice but to stage, and then dissimulate and manipulate, which he has done very well indeed.

  6. Thank you so much for this blog Docg. Unfortunately, the case is colder than cold, just as much as when the grand jury did not indict. If Stan leaves, his deputy Ryan Brackley takes over, who feels the same way about the case.

    1. You're probably right, Candy. This post was a last ditch effort, my Hail Mary pass. Since I've had no response, I'm assuming Garnett dropped the ball.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. I'm not sure exactly why but this website is loading very slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a issue on my end? I'll cheсk back lаter οn and see if
    the problem still existѕ.
    Feel free to surf my page ... marketing

  9. Hi Doc - I'm late to the party, but I just stumbled onto your blog and am really enjoying it, and yes, I started at the beginning!

    I was, of course, fascinated with this case from the get-go. The JBR murder/mystery ranks right up there with the Martha Moxley case, and the initial JBR investigation was handled just as badly. The Boulder PD should be hanging their heads in shame.

    I don't know who did it and I have no new info to share, but 16 years later I still have the same overwhelming feeling: the Ramseys had serious wealth and social status when this happened, and people in that position just do NOT stage elaborate cover-ups, i.e. fake kidnapping. They call their lawyers & circle their wagons... and NO legit attorney would possibly advise a client to engage in such a convoluted scheme - even if BR HAD accidentally killed his little sister. Nope - does NOT compute.

    Somewhere on your blog someone (forgive me, cannot recall) suggested it was a game of 'doctor' gone horribly awry - I'm definitely in that camp. IMHO, the JBR set-up has always felt juvenile. So, was every creepy teen and tween in the neighborhood investigated? JBR was locally well known, beautiful, outgoing and precocious, yet you consider JR and BR as the only two suspects? It seems much more likely that JBR was killed by an adolescent... who would've been able to squeeze in through the basement window, or who may have had access to a key, or who very simply may have been let in by BR or even JBR herself.

    Finally, even IF the murder scene were an elaborate set-up by the Ramseys, I do not buy that JR had the stones to twist a garrotte around his daughter's throat... even IF he was her abuser - no way. And the skull-bashing was an act of rage and/or passion, plus opportunity. So, that's my two cents - and I look forward to your future posts. Keep up the great work!

    1. Thanks for sharing your two cents. If I actually had two cents for every two cents worth of speculation offered on this case over the years, I'd probably have somewhere roughly around ten thousand cents. Now what on Earth would I do with all those pennies? I have NO idea. Too heavy to cart into the bank or super market. :-|

      Well, your two cents is as good as anyone else's, I suppose. But as for me I prefer sense to cents. As in: common sense. So sorry, but some adolescent getting into the house to mess with JonBenet and then kill her makes NO sense at all. If she let him in, then how do we explain the broken window, the suitcase under it, and the packing peanuts from the window well strewn on the floor beneath it? And if he crawled in, then even if he were a little guy (or gal), he'd have left very clear markings on the window frame and would have destroyed that spider web in the corner of the sill.

      He would certainly never have bothered to leave a note. Why on Earth would he have wanted to do that? And why take the time to write it while still in the house?

      No, there is only one logical explanation for the note. It was part of an effort to stage a phoney kidnapping, an effort that went wrong -- and left egg all over the face of the person who wrote it, egg that should have been clearly apparent to the police after Patsy, in all innocence, called them. But for some odd reason, the DA allowed suspect no. one to investigate his own case, and have himself "ruled out." Amazing!

    2. "So sorry, but some adolescent getting into the house to mess with JonBenet and then kill her makes NO sense at all."

      It makes as much sense as JR suddenly turning into a sadistic daughter-killer.

      "And if he crawled in, then even if he were a little guy (or gal), he'd have left very clear markings on the window frame and would have destroyed that spider web in the corner of the sill."

      Tracks can be covered, dirt replaced. And spider webs can form in a few hours.

      "No, there is only one logical explanation for the note. It was part of an effort to stage a phoney kidnapping, an effort that went wrong -- and left egg all over the face of the person who wrote it, egg that should have been clearly apparent to the police after Patsy, in all innocence, called them.

      'Logical' doesn't apply to the idea that JR sets up this elaborate staging... and then FAILS to take control of the situation. Why did JR leave the note for PR to find in the first place? All he had to do was 'find' the note himself, show it to PR and then convince her to NOT call the cops. And I believe if he were guilty, he would have been fully in control of the details. At the very least, wouldn't you think that he knew his wife well enough to know that when there's a crisis, PR calls everyone she knows?Furthermore, there is no way Patsy would have enabled him in any way after the fact - she was too devoted to her daughter.

      "But for some odd reason, the DA allowed suspect no. one to investigate his own case, and have himself "ruled out."

      Yeah, well - the rich get treated differently. That's been going on for a long, long time.


    3. The web in question is an old web -- a cob-web. And no, it's not possible to replace smudged dirt on a window frame without leaving clear traces. Besides, why would any intruder bother to do that? If John had been molesting JonBenet, and she was threatening to expose him, that would certainly have been motive enough for murder. As for John's planning with respect to Patsy, you are assuming he would have planned out every detail perfectly and perfectly anticipated her actions, and there's no reason to make such a supposition. Clearly, he miscalculated. The note was written to frighten her into not calling in the cops and John must have hoped it would work. This was clearly NOT the perfect crime -- what was perfect was the perfect incompetence of the investigation.

    4. J.B's pediatrician, who saw her 27 times, claims there was no sexual abuse prior to the night J.B. Died.

  10. Hello! I've been reading your web site for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Porter Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good job! Learn more
    Also see my web site: password manager form filler

  11. Curious to hear your take on the recent news that the Grand Jury had actually voted to indIct the Ramseys...

    1. You've been reading my mind. I just now posted on that.

  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  13. It was OK until you made the huge mistake of saying that John wrote the ransom note. His writing is not even close, but Patsy's is identical.

    1. You're wrong. Actually Patsy's writing is completely different from that of the note, as I've demonstrated in several blog posts. The assumption that John couldn't have written the note is the principal reason this case has gone nowhere. I urge you to read the first set of posts on this blog.

  14. Docg. I am new to this. I found your analysis that John may have written the note is intriguing because I do too. However, I felt that if Patsy was in o it together,then it was written by two people. This is evidenced by the carefully looking at the last page where the writing is more fluid than for first two. Why is that? My take on it is that the first two page was written with a left hand, could be both person switching back amd forth. That is reason why even experts can say for sure Patsy was the author. Then when they got to last page whoever wrote it switch over their right hand- this is the reaon why the writing is much more fluid, experts say. But they failed to see the switching of hands. I would not rule John out as the ransom note writer, even partially. Thanks.

    1. If Patsy was involved in the staging she would not have called 911 while the body was in the house. Please read the first three posts on this blog.