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.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Traffic Jam

This blog has been popular for some time, but at the moment it's been getting an unusual number of hits -- and also a surge of comments. Please keep those comments coming, folks, because I always hoped this blog would become a forum for discussion of this troubling but also fascinating case, and that does seem to be happening, which is great.

On the other hand, with more and more comments piling up I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I've always tried to respond to every comment, at least where a response seemed called for, but at this point I'm afraid I can't keep up anymore. That's a GOOD thing as I see it -- so long as everyone understands and is willing to cut me some slack. I'll still try to respond as much as I can, especially to questions or theories that haven't yet been adequately addressed. But so long as the surge continues I won't have time to keep up to the extent I've done in the past. Thanks so much for your participation and I do hope it continues. But please forgive me if your comments aren't always addressed by me. I'll continue to read every one, but won't always be able to respond.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Methodological Issues

I'm aware, of course, that I'm not the only one with a theory regarding this very notorious, highly publicized case. And when I read some of the other theories I get discouraged, because I realize, very painfully, how easy it is for people to delude themselves into believing they've solved it. We can't all be right, obviously, but nevertheless most of us are in fact all too easily convinced by our own arguments, which is troubling. And I have to admit, my thinking may be no better than anyone else's.

That said, I do feel that my methods are very different from those of anyone else writing about this case and I think it important that I make some attempt to explain them.  So here goes:

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Friday, November 15, 2013

A Prosecution Strategy

I often hear, even from those who agree with me, that prosecution of this case is unlikely, and I've tended to agree. Because 1. the case is just too complicated for a typical jury to follow; 2. it would be too difficult to overcome the opinion of the six forensic documentation "experts" who ruled John out, 3. it would be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that Patsy was manipulated by John  into lying about certain key aspects of the case. Finally, the fact that the Ramseys had been "exonerated" by DA Mary Lacy on the basis of that "touch DNA" evidence would be impossible to overcome.

Nevertheless, I've come up with a strategy that just might work despite the above-stated obstacles. Pay attention, please. This is going to be long, but it's really quite simple and straightforward:

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts

[For the benefit of early readers of this post, I must confess to having made some important changes a few minutes after posting it -- hope that's not confusing.]

To summarize and also clarify the various possibilities discussed on this blog, I decided to see if I could put together some "flow charts" illustrating the logic behind some of the most common theories of the case. Instead of literally producing flow chart diagrams, I decided it would be simpler to present my "flow chart" logic in outline form. So here goes:

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Three Little Words

Not sure why I never caught this one until the other day. Check it out:

JonBenet Investigation Part 2 (

Specifically, check out what John has to say at precisely 3 minutes and 28 seconds into the clip:

"To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric."

Which should, of course, be compared with this sentence from the ransom note: 

"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."

Sunday, November 3, 2013

The Power of Inference

Much of the debate in this case has centered on the evidence, and I must say, there's a whole lot of it, far more than in a great many other cases. The problem is that much of it really isn't relevant (such as, e.g., the stun gun, butler door, "pubic hair," baseball bat, Hi-Tec print, DNA, etc., etc.) and  just about all of it is, to coin a term: inconclusive. One might comment that, in fact, there seems to be too much "evidence" in this case, to the point that ones head starts to spin just trying to get a handle on it. A trip to one of the forums will give you an idea of what I mean. We see endless discussions and debates that just go around continually in circles over the meaning of this that or the other piece of "evidence" and there never seems to be any definitive agreement on any of it.

On the other hand, an extremely valuable investigative tool has almost been ignored -- the favorite tool of the legendary Sherlock Holmes -- logical deduction, also known as inference. Let me give you a few examples of how logical inference can be put to work in understanding certain meaningful aspects of this case:

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Reading the Oracle

Well, as we now know, the Oracle has spoken. And, as with a great many Oracular Utterances, this one is definitely cryptic. Brief, but hardly to the point.

Patsy and John Ramsey, each indicted separately, "did ... permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey." And, in a second indictment both parents, also indicted separately, "did ... render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Grand Jury Indictment to be Released

Yes, you read that right. As announced today in the Boulder Daily Camera
A judge has ordered the release of the grand jury indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey in the JonBenet case that has been sealed since the grand jury was dismissed in 1999.
Retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled Wednesday morning that the indictment will be released Friday in response to a lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seeking the release of the unprosecuted indictment of the Ramseys.
While I, like everyone else following this case, am eager to read what the Grand Jury had to say, I must confess I am far from thrilled. Yes, according to what we've heard so far, the GJ did decide to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey, thus ruling against Lou Smit and his absurd intruder theory. That's the good news. The bad news is that the GJ appears to have accepted Steve Thomas's version of what happened, which is equally absurd. The indictment is also meaningless, as far as justice is concerned, since the charge they apparently came up with was something like involuntary manslaughter associated with child abuse, a crime that can no longer be prosecuted, since it carries a three year statute of limitations that expired years ago.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Dispelling Some Myths

Myths abound in this case. More than I could possibly deal with in a single post. But here are some of the most persistent and misleading:

1. Patsy Ramsey is responsible for the notorious "and hence" in the Ramsey Christmas message, a phrase that also appears in the "ransom" note.
  • Not likely. The Christmas message was a collaboration between John and Patsy, so technically we have no way of knowing which of them wrote it. We do know, however, that John made use of it in the Newseum interview of Oct. 12, 2000 (this was online at one time, but the link is now broken, unfortunately): "The police as a gov-, …you know, the justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism, and, uh…and, uh…suspicion."  I don't know of any place where Patsy is on record as using that phrase, and indeed it would seem uncharacteristic of her communication style, which always tended toward the colloquial and informal. John, on the other hand, tends to express himself in a more formal, and even academic, manner, so his use of "and hence" would not be surprising.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Either Or

The key to the JonBenet Ramsey case has always been that puzzling "ransom" note. And in the minds of just about everyone following the case, it's a matter of either/or. EITHER the note was written by some crazed, but elusive, intruder OR it was written by Patsy Ramsey. Clearly no other alternative is possible. Burke, at the age of nine, was far too young to have written it. And John was "ruled out" by some of the leading experts in the field of document analysis. So he couldn't have written it.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

How to Lie with Statistics

A recent email from a reader of this blog pointed me to a website I'd seen but forgotten about, in which the author attempted to prove that Patsy and only Patsy could have written the Ramsey "ransom" note by means of a statistical analysis. If you're curious, here's the URL:

I had to laugh, because this person's use of statistics was clearly a travesty. It reminded me of the title of a book I'd heard about, published back in the 50's by Darrell Huff, entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Here's how his little game worked:

Thursday, August 1, 2013

And yet . . .

And yet. And yet. And yet.

If they were not in it together, and in fact John did it all on his own, as I contend, then . . .

In It Together?

Almost everyone who grasps the absurdity of the intruder theory feels sure both Patsy and John were both involved, either as murderer and accomplice or as "dutiful parents" desperate to cover for Burke.

But if this were the case, then . . .

Saturday, July 27, 2013


I haven't added any new posts to this blog for some time, basically because I felt I'd said all I had to say on this case. However, I've continued to respond to reader's comments all along, and there have been quite a few. Unfortunately the old gadget that once listed recent comments is apparently broken, so I apologize to those interested in keeping up with the comments, because they're hard to find. I just added a search mechanism to the blog, however, so if you sign with your name, rather than "anonymous," you'll hopefully be able to more easily find any comments you've made. And if you have a favorite topic, you can now look it up.

I'm posting again thanks to some comments by someone calling himself "Pete," who kept insisting that the ransom note was too well thought out and too detailed to have been written after the murder. Pete feels sure JonBenet was killed by an intruder, but at the same time it's hard for him to believe the intruder could have composed such a long, complicated note while at the Ramsey home. While Pete is sure John didn't write the note, and of course I'm sure he did, his argument for premeditation is kind of convincing, I must admit. So thank you, Pete. (And I want also to apologize to Pete for sometimes being rude and impatient when responding to his posts, which was uncalled for and unfair.)

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Friday, February 15, 2013

The Basic Dilemma

Just posted the following at the Topix forum, addressed to all my fellow sleuths, PDI, BDI, JDI and IDI, puzzling over this very puzzling, and vexing case:

Look, as far as this case is concerned, we are all faced with essentially the same dilemma:

Monday, February 11, 2013

Patsy's London Letter Revisited

For Topix poster "Cyber," Patsy's left-hand sample was not the only decisive piece of evidence:
The nail on the coffin for me is the so-called "London Letter", a form letter given to suspects to copy. This is also at the back of the book. Patsy's sample of the London Letter shows a lower case "a" which is the same style as in the Ransom Note.
The Ransom Note features an "a" that faces "left", such as in the typeface in which I am writing. Almost all of Patsy's samples show the "elementary school a", a circle with a post on the right side, EXCEPT for the a's in the London Letter. They are dead ringers for the Ransom Note a's, and they have the final word with me. I believe she wrote the note. I don't see how anyone else could have written it and just coincidentally have left handed printing that was just like Patsy's.
We've already discovered that the ransom note is in fact not at all "just like Patsy's" left handed printing (see previous post) -- not remotely. So now let's turn to her London Letter:

Friday, February 8, 2013

Patsy's Left Hand Sample Revisited

Ah the joys of cherry picking. The National Enquirer obviously wanted in on the Patsy Ramsey bandwagon (before they were threatened with a lawsuit, that is, after which they changed their tune completely). So they decided to publish a (partial) copy of the ransom note alongside a (partial) copy of Patsy's left-hand sample, with a headline blaring the dramatic news: Patsy's sample was "AN EXACT MATCH"!

Tuesday, February 5, 2013


Some years ago, I put together a list of what I called "Johnisms," i.e., characteristics of John Ramsey's speech that seemed consistent with certain details found in the "ransom note." I find it remarkable that so many of those who've looked so hard for signs of Patsy in the note, had never made any attempt to do the same for John. Yet as far as I can tell, there are far more "Johnisms" in the note than "Patsyisms." Here are some examples -- pay attention to the words in Italics (unfortunately many of the links I provided are now dead):

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Grand Jury Voted to Indict

I suppose just about everyone reading here has seen the news. The Grand Jury formed back in 1999 voted to indict Patsy and John Ramsey, a decision that was kept under wraps by DA Alex Hunter, who decided to abruptly end the process without taking any further action. This tidbit has been splashed over headlines in a great many news venues, but it originated with an article in the Boulder Daily Camera, by a reporter with a long history of reporting this case: Charlie Brennan. Incidentally, Brennan collaborated with Lawrence Schiller on what is probably still the most definitive book on the case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.