Facts, Facts, Who's Got the Facts?

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.

Before continuing, however, I must stress that my standard for identifying a fact is unusually strict. What one person may consider to be "a fact" may not at all be accepted as such by someone else. And particularly with respect to the Ramsey case, it's not difficult to find all sorts of things that have been accepted as "facts" by one faction, only to be strenuously denied by another. Simply insisting on the "factuality" of some bit of "evidence" and arguing over it endlessly is what so many followers of this case have been doing for years, with no meaningful result.

To get past this very real difficulty, I decided at some point to accept as a fact only that which is known for certain to be beyond any doubt and on which all parties agree. The facts on which I've based my theory of this case are therefore what I've called, with good reason, "incontrovertible." Patsy Ramsey is the one who made the 911 call. No one denies that. It's an incontrovertible fact. The "ransom note" was written on paper from a notepad found in the Ramsey home. Again, that's something no one has ever denied.

Based on such facts, plus straightforward logical inferences easily drawn from these facts, I claim to have solved this case. But have I really considered all the relevant facts? Are there one or more facts I haven't considered that might point in a different direction?

For example, what about the decision, made by 6 very experienced and highly regarded document examiners, that John Ramsey could not have written the ransom note? For many years, only a very few people questioned that decision, though I wasn't the only one -- Italian document examiner Fausto Brugnatelli also questioned it, as did a few others, as I recall. Just about everyone else seems to have accepted it. Does that make it a fact? In my humble opinion, no. Because there is a huge difference between an opinion, no matter how authoritative, and a fact. It did not take a panel of experts to determine that Patsy made the 911 call. We have a recording of the call and indeed Patsy's voice is what we hear. The upper edges of the ransom note were found to match perfectly with corresponding edges on the Ramsey notepad. While this was indeed determined by a forensics expert, his conclusion was not a matter of opinion. Using a magnifying glass (or perhaps a microscope) he discovered, very simply, that the edges matched. The decision to rule John out was not that sort of decision. There is nothing in the ransom note that could possibly tell us with any degree of certainty that John could not have written it. That's simply an opinion, very different from a fact.

Well, what about Patsy wearing the same outfit as the night before? Isn't that a fact? Well, yes, of course, that's what's been reported and there's no good reason to doubt it. However, it's not a relevant fact, because it tells us nothing at all regarding any significant aspect of the case. While many see it as evidence that she was up all night staging a sexual assault and writing a phony note, it can equally well be seen as evidence of her innocence -- because if she'd been up all night it's hard to understand why she would not have showered and changed before calling in the police. Lots of other "facts" have been similarly interpreted as having more significance than they actually have. Yes, it's a fact that fibers from Patsy's sweater were found entwined in the knotting of the device that strangled her daughter. But the presence of those fibers can easily be explained as indirect transfer, since Patsy was in close contact with her daughter prior to the assault. So yes, it's a fact, but its meaning is inconclusive.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Nevertheless, it's possible there is something I've missed, some incontrovertible fact I've failed to consider that is relevant, and is conclusive, that points away from John Ramsey and toward someone else. If that's the case, then I may have to rethink my position or even change my mind completely. So, please, if anyone out there can think of anything important that I've missed, any potentially meaningful fact I've "conveniently" ignored, please by all means post it below.