NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, 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.
I've been considering a piece of evidence I hadn't thought about in a while, something that's rarely if ever discussed. Not something I myself discovered. I found it on a Facebook page devoted to the case -- can't recall what that was or how to find it again. But someone here might know.
I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'm curious as to whether anyone reading here will see it. It concerns a very interesting difference between this page of the ransom note
Back in July 2013, I presented a theory, prompted by some comments from someone calling himself "Pete," that John could have premeditated the murder and could therefore have prepared the "ransom" note in advance. You can find that post here. My theory prompted a lively debate in which considerable skepticism was expressed. I admitted then that I was on the fence regarding that possibility. There would certainly have been plenty of time for John to write his note after the murder. On the other hand, it did seem to have been carefully prepared, both conceptually and physically. And if, as I strongly suspect, it had been traced or copied from a computer display, that in itself would have taken considerable time and patience, not to mention a certain amount of trial and error. Not to mention, also, the possibility that his wife or son could awaken at any moment and catch him in the act.
There's been lots of discussion here lately by several very intelligent, observant (and persistent) commenters focusing primarily on the 911 call and whether or not John wanted that call made. To save time and effort, I've decided to add a post summarizing my thoughts on this issue, and explaining, moreover, why I feel so sure John is the culprit and Patsy the innocent dupe.
If we focus only on the call per se, and neglect the overall context of the case as a whole, then admittedly it's hard to understand why Patsy would want to support John in a lie over who decided to make that call. Since my approach has been to concentrate primarily on the facts, I've emphasized that it was Patsy who called, not John. And on the basis of that incontrovertible fact, I've concluded that, given the absurdity of the intruder theory, Patsy must be innocent and John guilty. My reasoning is summarized as follows:
NB: this page is now also filled up with comments. To see the most recent comments, you need to go to the very bottom of the page and select "Load More." I'll be opening a new forum soon, on the next blog post, so please post any new comments there. Thanks.
The previous page is filling up with comments pretty quickly, so I decided to start a new page exclusively as an open forum where anyone with any questions or ideas can post them as comments. As for myself, I believe I've finally run out of new things to say about this case, but I'm always interested in what others are thinking. So if you have a comment or question, please post it below.
And remember: it's always best to post your comment on the latest blog page where everyone can easily find it. Also, please identify yourself with some sort of moniker -- makes it easier to follow up on comments if we know who is who.
First of all I want to thank all those commenting here. Your thoughts, questions, theories and other comments, even the negative ones, have helped make this blog interesting, meaningful and relevant. You've noted, I hope, that I don't censor posts -- unless they are redundant, irrelevant, inordinately rude or outright spam. Even then I've deleted only a very small number of posts since day one -- as I recall, only maybe six or seven (most of which came from the same redundant source). All viewpoints are welcome here.
While for me, as I've so often stressed, it is "the facts" of any case that are of primary importance, I have sometimes been accused of selecting those facts that support my theory while ignoring all those facts that don't. In other words, it's been suggested that I too, like so many of those I've criticized, have indulged in "cherry picking." So maybe it's time for me to frankly address this accusation, to see whether it has any merit.
And God help me to keep that promise because I have no desire to get enmeshed in yet another Internet morass.
My final word on the murder of Meredith Kersher and the question of guilt on the part of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito is admittedly influenced by my experiences with the Ramsey case, and for that reason I have to admit I could be biased. It's not always a good idea to base one's thinking regarding one case on what one has learned from another, so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt.
In both the Meredith Kercher and JonBenet Ramsey cases, much has hinged on the interpretation of DNA evidence. And many people have made up their minds prematurely based on this evidence. Thus, since some unsourced traces of DNA were found on JonBenet's longjohns, consistent with DNA found mixed with blood from a stain on her panties, this, in the mind of DA Mary Lacy, must be the DNA of JonBenet's attacker, meaning her parents must be innocent. In the Kercher case, traces of Rafaelle Sollecito's DNA, found on Meredith Kercher's bra clasps, convinced the prosecution, along with the most recent panel of judges, that he must have been one of her attackers. The existence of this DNA, plus a trace of Meredith's DNA supposedly found on a knife blade from Sollecito's kitchen have been enough to convince large segments of the public that he must have been involved.
OK, now this case in Italy is starting to get under my skin, God help me. One reason it intrigues me so much is the existence of so many themes in common with the Ramsey case. In both we find a crime scene with "no sign of forced breakin." Nevertheless, in both we have a broken window to account for, a window through which no one apparently could have passed, strongly suggesting the staging of an intruder breakin. We have, in both cases, a huge debate over the meaning of DNA evidence. Both cases are characterized by a violent sexual attack. We also have reports of a scream.
As is by now well known, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were once again found guilty in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox's flat mate in Perugia, Italy. There are some interesting resonances between this case and the Ramsey case which are, imo, worth discussing here. The case is far too complex to get into in any detail in a blog post, but for those interested in digging deeper, a fairly detailed summary is provided on Wikipedia. It's a complicated case for sure, and not easy to get a handle on.
Amazingly enough, the JonBenet forums seem as active as ever, even after all these years -- but I've noticed a significant change. Whereas Patsy Ramsey was originally everyone's favorite murder suspect, that "honor" has now fallen to her son, Burke. Not only on the forums, but also in so many comments I'm reading on this blog, people seem unable to let go of the idea that Burke Ramsey could be the one who killed his sister, either on purpose or by accident. And since, as we know, she was sexually assaulted, these same people have no problem tossing that accusation into the bin along with everything else -- including, of course, strangulation with a "garotte."
Well, not exactly popular request. However, some readers have been bugging me to write a book on the case for some time, and they keep pestering me, and so finally I decided, against my better judgement, to give in and let them have their way. So here it is: