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:

First of all, my approach is oriented primarily toward facts and only secondarily toward evidence. While the various and sundry pieces of evidence should certainly not be ignored, in this particular case almost all are either inconclusive, irrelevant, confusing or contrived. Because it's so easy to be misled by all the various bits of evidence I feel it important to rely primarily on the facts, i.e., that which is known to be the case beyond any question. Of course, facts are also evidence, but not all evidence is factual, so we must be very careful to distinguish between the two.

Secondly, since the facts themselves need to be interpreted, I rely also on logical inference. For example, we know for a fact that intact, undisturbed spider webs were found both on the grate over the well leading to the basement window and in the window opening itself, and we know for a fact that none of the dirt and dust covering the window sill was disturbed. We can infer from these facts, as did the police who reported "no sign of forced entry," that no one passed through that window on the night of the crime.

And finally, I try very hard to avoid making assumptions, or uncritically accepting opinions or testimony, even when offered by so-called "experts" or eye witnesses. For example, it's generally believed that "the Ramseys" called 911 early on the morning of Dec. 26th, 1996. But is this really a fact? Of course not. The call was made, not by some theoretical entity called "the Ramseys," but by Patsy Ramsey, a person who had a separate identity and was capable of acting independently of her spouse. The notion that "the Ramseys" called 911 is an assumption, not a fact. The fact is that Patsy called 911.

Moreover, the notion that both John and Patsy agreed to make that call is also an assumption, not a fact, though usually treated as a fact. All we have to go on regarding that call is the testimony offered by the Ramseys themselves. And since both Ramseys were prime suspects in the murder of their daughter, there is no reason to accept their version of what happened. There are, in fact, two contradictory versions: the one offered by the Ramseys in their book, and another offered by Patsy when interviewed for the A&E documentary on the case. In the former, it is John who tells Patsy to call, but in the latter it is Patsy who informs John that she had decided to make the call. In the former, John is next to her when she picks up the receiver, down on his knees examining the note; in the latter, John is going upstairs to check on their son, Burke, while Patsy runs downstairs to make the call. Neither version is necessarily factual, but it is a fact that the two versions contradict one another. And we need to ask: why?

Another example of an assumption taken as fact is the assumption that John could not have written the ransom note. This assumption is based on the opinion of a team of handwriting "experts" who decided, for some reason that's never been made public, to rule John out as a possible writer of the note. Now an opinion is not the same as a fact, even when offered by a group of experts. And when we take into account that questioned document analysis is not regarded as a true science and that, in many instances, judges have refused to allow the opinions of such "experts" as courtroom testimony for just this reason, then we have good reason to be skeptical regarding the decision to "rule out" John Ramsey. Which tells us that the person who was, in fact, the leading suspect prior to that fateful decision, must be ruled back IN.

Another example of an assumption taken as fact, is the assumption that some miniscule traces of male "touch DNA" found on the victim's clothing must be that of her attacker. On the basis of this assumption, DA Mary Lacy famously "exonerated" the Ramseys, a decision regarded as outrageous and uncalled for by many law enforcement professionals. The fact is that "touch DNA" is very easily transferred, both directly and indirectly, from one person or object to another and the DNA in question could easily have been transferred to JonBenet in a completely innocent manner. Once on her fingers it could have then been transferred to any part of her body she herself happened to touch. According to Lacy's lead investigator, James Kolar, in his authoritative book, Foreign Faction, six different unsourced DNA profiles were found on the victim's clothing. Was she attacked, as he suggests, tongue in cheek, by six different intruders? Or did she pick up the DNA of six different people accidentally, in the course of her normal activities during the preceding days?

Because this case has become so very complex, so very mysterious, with such a superabundance of both evidence and suspects, and so many assumptions, opinions, and contradictory and/or questionable testimony, it is, in my view, especially important to exercise the greatest diligence in tracking down the facts and only the facts and not allowing oneself to get distracted by all the rest. If we stick ONLY with the facts, and very straightforward inferences based on these facts, then as it seems to me, a very clear picture emerges. Which is what this blog is all about.