GAME ON!

As we know, Lin Wood has finally filed his lawsuit against CBS and their investigative team. I used to think this was going to be a slam dunk for Wood, since the allegations against Burke have no basis in fact. But now, thanks to some intriguing comments from resident legal expert, "Dog," things are starting to look more complicated. Apparently it's not enough to demonstrate that such allegations have no basis in fact, but also necessary to actually prove they are false, a very different matter, it would seem. The most thorough discussion of the case I've seen so far can be found in, of all places, the showbiz paper, Variety: JonBenet Ramsey’s Brother’s Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS May Hinge on Fact Vs. Opinion But I'm sure we'll see many more such treatments in the coming days and weeks.

Nut Case

And yes, the Ramsey case is also a nut case along very similar lines. You need to keep adjusting all the different pieces of the puzzle until the kernel of truth pops out.

And speaking of nuts, here's my favorite nutty squirrel video of all time:

See if you can figure out what's going on.

Sorry, but I can't resist adding one more squirrel video:

While this too is hilarious, it demonstrates how clever, and persistent, these little critters can be. If that squirrel can make its way to the bird feeder, then maybe there's some hope this case can eventually make it to court.

Hard Nut to Crack

What this nutty case needs: a Nutcracker.

Happy Holidays!!!!!

Going Nuts

From Dizzie to Louie. What more could one ask?

Comments, anyone?

Salt Peanuts

is what's in a nutshell.

Sorry, but I'm feeling a bit wacky today. More room for comments, so what the heck.

In a Nutshell

In response to the heavy dose of speculation we've been seeing, both here and in the media generally, I've decided to one more time present the essence of my thinking on this case. Before I begin I want to stress that my approach was originally prompted by a situation very similar to the one we are now facing, which hasn't changed much over 20 years: since just about all the "evidence" is inconclusive, literally every theory based on the evidence is, of necessity, speculative -- based on little more than amateur profiling bolstered by a host of unsubstantiated assumptions.

Leftovers, anyone?

Thanksgiving got too stuffed. Here's room for more . . .

Special Thanksgiving Edition

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Here's a generous portion of free space on which to post more comments without anything getting lost (for now). And by the way, if you suspect a comment of getting lost, be sure to go to the bottom of the page and click on Load More. The blog software has room for only so many comments on a single page. If you still can't find your comment, email me and I'll post it for you.

Did Lin Wood Have a Change of Heart?

Here we see an interview with Lin Wood, dated Sept. 22, 2016. In it, he assures the interviewer that he will file a lawsuit against CBS after a mandated waiting period, giving the network the opportunity to retract. If there is no retraction, the lawsuit will be filed "sometime within the next 30 days." He then adds: "It's not a threat. It's going to be filed."

More Handwriting Evidence -- Part 4:Tom Miller

Thanks to a link provided by an alert commenter calling herself "Danni," I recently came across an extensive document by attorney slash handwriting "expert" Tom Miller, outlining his view of the Ramsey case. For someone interested in learning more about what transpired among the various members of the investigation team, the Ramsey legal team and the media, Miller's document provides some fascinating information and insights. Much of his text is taken up by the story of how he became implicated in an attempt by an editor of The Globe to illegally purchase a copy of the ransom note. Interesting, but beside the point as far as I'm concerned. More relevant is the story about how he got hold of some handwriting exemplars attributed to Patsy. These had originally been acquired, according to him, by the same Globe editor, under mysterious circumstances. Apparently, Miller is the one who passed them on to Darnay Hoffman, who sent them to his team of handwriting "experts" with the express purpose of "proving" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. In no uncertain terms, Miller makes clear his conviction that Patsy did indeed write that note. On what basis?

To learn more, let's proceed to the report Miller sent to Darnay, as posted at the Acandyrose website. I've already produced an evaluation of Miller's report on this blog, but at this point I find it necessary to go into more detail.

More Handwriting Evidence - Part 3

Some more dubious comparisons from Cina Wong's analysis:

The oversized "c" in "crash course" and "contenders" in S1 closely matches the oversized "c" of "carefully" in line 2 of the QD.

Where is THIS coming from? The words "Crash Course" and "Contenders" are not "oversized," they are capitalized. The "c" in "carefully is not oversized, but roughly the same size as the other letters. And looks nothing like any of Patsy's "C"s.

More Handwriting Evidence - Part 2

Let's move now to Cina Wong's written report, as reproduced at the Acandyrose website. Here's what she writes on the first line of her analysis: "The "R" is open to the left in the "Ramsey" written in S4, closely matches the "R" of "Ramsey" in line 1 of the QD." Exemplar S4 is a poster reading "Ramsey Xmas" in large letters, with a very small "Ramsey" near the right hand bottom corner. It's the small "Ramsey" she's referring to, as the large one is not open to the left. "QD" stands for "questioned document," i.e., the ransom note. Here are the two examples she's referring to, presented side by side:

More Handwriting Evidence

I've already covered some of this territory in an earlier post, Some Revealing Comparisons. Also in a much older post, Some Handwriting Evidence. At this point, however, I'd like to go into more detail, starting with some of the so-called "matches" claimed by Darnay Hoffman's star "expert," Cina Wong. I've been hampered in the past by copyright issues preventing me from posting copies of Wong's comparisons on my blog, so I'll have to make do, once again, with Internet links. However, it occurred to me that the actual exemplars used by Wong are not her private property, so as long as I don't directly display her graphic, I won't be violating her copyright.

I'm Running as Fast as Can to Keep Up

I wish this blog didn't do that "Load More" thing, which makes it so hard to find some of the later posts. Here's still more space to vent. Enjoy!

More comments, anyone?

Anyone at all? Comments?

Hot Off the Press:Doubtful DNA

An anonymous poster (thank you) just linked us to an article titled DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys, from the Boulder Daily Camera of Oct. 27. The lead author is Charlie Brennan, the reporter who sued to get the GJ indictment made public, and a long term student of the case -- he assisted Lawrence Schiller in the writing of PMPT. At first glance this looks like nothing new. The presence of multiple DNA samples at the crime scene was reported some time ago in James Kolar's book. (Interesting that Kolar is not mentioned.) What makes it important is its thoroughness. Brennan digs deeply into many details of this evidence, consulting with and quoting several DNA experts (though fans of Dr. Henry Lee may be disappointed).

Granddaughter of More Room

More room for comments . . . .

Burke's Interview

The full transcript of Burke Ramsey's 1998 interview is now available via the Oct. 3 issue of the National Enquirer. Thanks to diamondlil16, we have a link to a Websleuth's page where the entire document has been reproduced. You'll need to scroll down a bit, but you'll eventually find it, as posted by "DrollForeignFaction." While most items emanating from the NE should be taken with a huge grain of salt, this one looks authentic. It's also important, as it provides us with some information we didn't have before, and either clears things up or muddies the waters, depending on how reliable a witness we take Burke to be.

Some Revealing Comparisons

The handwriting evidence has once more emerged as a topic of discussion by certain commenters on this blog -- and thanks to Zed, we were linked to one of the better known sets of comparisons compiled by Cina Wong: http://www.acandyrose.com/w3.gif

(NB: Due to copyright considerations I've been warned not to directly reproduce any of Cina Wong's comparisons on this blog -- so I've done the next best thing by posting the appropriate link above.)

I took another look and decided to respond with some comments of my own regarding this particular document. And now, thinking about it some more, I realize that my observations are relevant enough to warrant a blog post of their own. Here's what I wrote in response to the image linked to by Zed (with some additions and edits):

Grandson of More Room

Time to make room for more comments.

Son of More Room

Just making room for more discussion.

Lin Wood for the Defense

NB: I am not any longer going to tolerate posts containing personal attacks, on me or anyone else. If you feel the need to vent some frustration, that's OK. But attacks on an individual are not OK. Posts containing such attacks will be deleted.

WARNING: Especially offensive posts will be marked as spam -- meaning that from now on nothing posted from the offending source will appear at all. If you desire reinstatement, you may email me with your request.


As I'm sure we all know by now, Lin Wood has sued Dr. Werner Spitz over his allegations that Burke Ramsey murdered his sister. Now, in an interview with Westword, he discusses his plans to sue CBS and the production company Critical Content over the same allegations. I have mixed feelings regarding Mr. Wood. On the one hand, I find his stubborn defense of "the Ramseys" over so many years to be misleading in the extreme. Thanks to his aggressive involvement in this case, all sorts of inaccurate and often outdated information has been widely disseminated (my all time favorite, the outrageous bit about "seven open doors and windows"). Stubbornly clinging to an intruder theory that's long since been thoroughly debunked, Wood has done everything possible to blow smoke over the substantial evidence of an inside job in which one or more of his clients very likely committed horrific acts.

This is Getting Ridiculous

The volume of comments on this blog is hard to keep up with. Once we reach a certain number, the software turns a page and comments can easily become hard to find or lost altogether. I welcome your comments and hope they'll keep coming, but to keep up with the volume I need to keep adding more posts such as this. Please from now on, post your comments here. Or, speaking generally, always post your comments under the most recent blog post, to make sure they get seen. Thank you.

More Room Still

More free space for comments. If you can't find your comment on one of the longer threads, go to the bottom of the page and select "Load More." You may need to do this more than once. Sorry about that.

Still More Room

OK, time to make space for more comments. Please everyone, try to keep your comments under the most recent post. If not, they may not get read, by me or anyone else.

The Gospel According to Michael Tracey and David Mills

Warning: this post contains disturbing images some readers might prefer to avoid.

Well, finally I was able to view the recent A & E show, The Killing of JonBenet: The Truth Uncovered, produced by the same person who produced the first A & E "Documentary," David Mills, with his former co-producer, Michael Tracey, serving as consultant. It's now available, on a pay-per-view basis (not much), via youtube. (What would we do without youtube? I'm almost tempted to refer to it as Saint youtube.)

More on Woodward's Book

Continuing with my review of Paula Woodward's book. Also, I'd appreciate any comments anyone would like to make on the CNN special that just aired. I don't have cable so I'm curious as to whether they've come up with anything new.

The Gospel According to St. Paula

NB: Don't forget the CNN HLN 2 hour special on the Ramsey case, starting tomorrow night (Friday) at 9 PM Eastern time.

Paula Woodward has finally released her long-promised book. Current title: We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later. She's been a long-time Ramsey supporter (more accurately: apologist) practically from day one, so I more or less knew what was coming and was reluctant to shell out hard cash to read more of same. On the other hand, she did claim to have new information and also some access to images and files that have never before been released. So, what the Hell, I decided to get it anyhow.

More Room More Room

Making more room for comments.

`No room! No room!' they cried out when they saw Alice coming. `There's plenty of room!' said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large arm-chair at one end of the table.

NB: I've been informed that CNN Headline News (HLN) will be presenting a 2 hour program on the JonBenet Ramsey case on Friday, Sept. 30 (this Friday). At either 8 or 9 PM, depending on your time zone. This is a bit of a mystery because I've seen no advance publicity on this show, nor do I see it on the CNN HLN schedule. It's possible the show has been cancelled, but for those of you with cable it might be worth tracking down. Hope you can find it. I don't have cable. :-(

This just in. The CNN show WILL be aired, on HLN, at 9PM Eastern time this Friday, the 30th. Here's a preview. 

Straw Poll

I've come up with a couple questions designed to help me understand the mind set of those reading and posting here. For purposes of this poll, please try to forget about the Ramseys and assume this is something happening to you personally.

Evidence of "chronic sexual abuse" -- a guest post by CC

[NB: Since my inbox is now overwhelmed with comments I can no longer deal with any comment not found under the most recent blog post. So please try to avoid posting anywhere else. I appreciate all the many comments but lack the time to individually address every single one, sorry. If you've already posted something important elsewhere feel free to repeat it here. DocG]

An autopsy of the body of Jonbenet Ramsey was conducted on 12/26/96 by Dr John Meyer, Boulder County Medical Examiner,  and witnessed by Detective Linda Arndt of the Boulder Police Department.   Dr Meyer told Arndt that JBR had injuries consistent with prior  digital penetration of her vagina.   Meyer later returned to the morgue with Dr Andrew Sirontak,  Chief of Denver Children's Hospital Child Protection Team, who also examined the body and found the hymen "shriveled and retracted", among other old injuries to her vagina, and agreed that JBR had been sexually abused prior to the night of her death.

Assumptions, Speculations, Logical Inferences, etc.

What the world might need least is yet another lecture from DocG on the importance of logic. Well, screw the world. You're going to get one anyhow.

Thinking Through the 911 Call

To me the 911 call is the most important aspect of the case, as it literally tells us who wrote the ransom note, and also, very likely, who killed JonBenet. It's also the most controversial aspect of my interpretation of this case, and many challenges have been offered ever since I first proposed it (see the first three posts on this blog). So I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify.

Lawsuit

This just in! Lin Wood has announced he will be suing CBS over their investigator's allegation that Burke killed JonBenet. Read all about it! Here's what I just wrote in response to the news:

The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey - Part 2 continued

It's now tomorrow -- and I've decided to start over on a new page.

While the investigators heading up the CBS team make much of their decision to make a fresh start, they fall into many of the same old traps. First, they accept many of the same assumptions that have led everyone else astray. Second, they overestimate their ability to interpret the evidence, which remains elusive, ambiguous, and -- to use that magic word we see so often: inconclusive. Third, they tend to neglect or downplay the logic of the case, which, for me, is of the greatest significance. And the profiling to which they attach so much importance is rife with confirmation bias.

The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey - Part 2

I must say, it's extremely gratifying to see all the comments pouring in -- and now that part 2 of the CBS special has just concluded I'm expecting many more. Much more, I'm afraid, than I'll be able to handle myself. I'm hoping I can just find enough time to read them all. So for the time being at least this blog will be morphing into an open forum, where everyone participating can share their thoughts and bounce them off each other -- with me trying to keep up as best I can.

Now to the matter at hand, which is, of course Part 2 of the program, and an overview of the entire thing:

The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey - Part 1

[NB: Don't forget. Today at 3PM Eastern, Dr. Phil completes his interview with Burke. Tonight at 9 Eastern, the final episode of the CBS program. Also, a very interesting followup to the first two Dr. Phil interviews can be found here on youtube. (During the course of this segment, Ramsey attorney admits to what I have long suspected: DA Lacey was intimidated by the threat of a huge lawsuit -- it was only after Lin Wood threatened her that she decided to "exonerate" the Ramseys.)

For those of you curious as to what my take on this case might be, please read the first three posts on this blog -- links can be found in the intro, just above. But please don't comment under those posts, as they are already much too cluttered. If you have questions, post them here.]

See below for the long-awaited 911 "enhancement"

I just saw part one of "The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey" on CBS, as I feel sure everyone reading here did -- at least those of you living in the USA. It's late, so I won't be going into any details for now, but I plan on adding more thoughts in this space from time to time, so please stay tuned.

For now, I'll just share a few thoughts:

Showtime Thread Part Three

[Update: Last night I found part three of the ID/Discovery program on the Ramsey case on youtube. It contained two especially interesting segments, a fascinating interview with John Mark Karr, and a clear statement by a DNA expert asserting that the DNA evidence should not be seen as an essential element in this case. In other words, there was never any reason to exonerate "the Ramseys." I was going to post the link but now I can't find it anymore. (I've just now found it: here. Not sure how long this is going to be up. It's much more interesting than part one.) Instead I see a copy of part 1 posted by some lady who feels sure she'll have to take it down soon due to copyright laws. But for now you can find it here. Looks like youtube is going to be an interesting place to search for Ramsey related materials in the next few weeks at least, so I suggest you check there periodically.]

Wow, the comments are coming thick and fast. I can no longer keep up. I'll try to find time to read them all but probably won't be responding much as I feel overwhelmed at this point. All I'll say for now is:

Showtime Thread Part Two

Room for more comments relating to the current spate of media presentations.

NB: I'm pleased to see all the comments, but I am also feeling a bit overwhelmed. Forgive me if I don't respond to all your questions, as I just don't have the time. For those of you new to the case and/or new to this blog: 1. Please post your comments and questions here rather than somewhere else on the blog, or they might not be noticed; 2. If you have questions about any aspect of the case, please use the search mechanism on the upper right of the page before posting a question here. Chances are your question has already been addressed somewhere on this blog. If not, feel free to post it here, and if it's something that has not already been addressed I'll try to answer as best I can.

For a relatively brief and succinct summary of my interpretation of this case, I recommend the post titled Why John?

It's nice to see so many of you reading here. Thanks for your participation.

DocG

PS: Please avoid adding comments to the first few posts or any other posts with lots of comments, as they are too difficult for me to find, and no one else is likely to see them. I won't be responding to such posts anymore. Please DO comment here or on the most recent post where there's sufficient room. Thank you.

A Minor Mystery Revealed?

[Point of interest. I was recently contacted by an author offering her e-book on the Ramsey case as a "free book giveaway" this week only. The book is called "Little Girl Blu: The JonBenet Inside Circle Theory"  and it can be downloaded from this website: https://www.amazon.com/Little-JonBenet-Inside-Circle-Theory-ebook/dp/B0149IE9M8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473648813&sr=8-1&keywords=sweetie+bee ]

[UPDATES: 

Burke will be interviewed by Dr. Phil at 3PM Monday on CBS. First of a series.

JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery, this Monday, SEPTEMBER 12-14 10/9C on Investigation/Discovery.

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, first episode, Sunday 8:30 p.m., CBS, Sept. 18, continues on Monday, Sept. 19 (9:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) and concludes Sunday, Sept. 25 (8:30-10:30 PM, ET/PT)]

Thanks to the A&E trailer (I don't have cable, so was unable to access the show itself), we have a brief but tantalizing glimpse of John (I'm assuming it's John) writing on a lined notepad, which (finally) gives us a chance to see some examples of his "official" writing style -- assuming that's what we see in that shot. The use of "artfully" superimposed images makes things a bit challenging, but I was able to do a couple screen captures that might prove helpful.

Has the Author of the Ransom Note Been Unmasked? Part 2

(.....continued from previous post.)

I don't think Mr. Berger will mind my calling him Tom. Over the last week or so we've exchanged several emails and by this time I see him as a friend. Not that we always agree. But I find him to be affable, open-minded, reasonable and extremely helpful. Also very knowledgeable. As I mentioned last time, when Tom did me the favor of double-checking his previous result with a different set of exemplars, he came up with a completely different "suspect," drawn from the large pool of Enron texts used as a control. Did someone who once worked at Enron write the Ramsey ransom note? I seriously doubt it. The Enron "hit" can be regarded as an artifact of the methodology, designed to control for confirmation bias by including a large sampling of texts from a presumably innocent source.

Has the Author of the Ransom Note Been Unmasked?

In a comment dated August 30, we were directed by "Anonymous" to a web page titled Unmasking the JonBenet Ransom Note with Linguistic Analysis. The author has employed computer software, based on the science of "stylometry," to identify the writer of the Ramsey ransom note -- and lo and behold, as you might expect, the culprit turns out to be everyone's favorite villain: Patsy Ramsey.

It's Showtime!

This post is for comments on the various media presentations. I'm looking forward to reading them, especially since I don't have cable, so I'll be needing your eyes and ears.

UPDATES:

 NBC's Dateline will be airing a 2 hour special on the Ramsey case Friday, Sept. 9, at 9 PM Eastern time.

Burke will be interviewed by Dr. Phil at 3PM this Monday on CBS. First of a series.

JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery, this Monday, SEPTEMBER 12-14 10/9C on Investigation/Discovery.

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, first episode, Sunday 8:30 p.m., CBS, Sept. 18, continues on Monday, Sept. 19 (9:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) and concludes Sunday, Sept. 25 (8:30-10:30 PM, ET/PT)

Suggestions for Newcomers

There's been a steep rise in blog hits over the last few days, probably due to all the publicity generated by upcoming media events. And from some recent comments I've been reading it looks like this blog is being accessed by people either new to the case or unfamiliar with certain issues regularly discussed here. As a result, and to save myself the time and effort of answering the same questions or correcting the same errors over and over, I've decided to offer some suggestions to the newcomers among us. This might well apply to some of you old timers as well:

Media Madness

Early last May I was contacted by a producer at one of the major networks. She'd discovered this blog, was impressed by my knowledge of the case, and wanted to include me in an upcoming JonBenet Ramsey special. Naturally I was interested. Shortly afterward we had a long phone conversation in which I outlined my take on the case, stressing my certainty that John was the long sought-after culprit. She didn't completely agree, but she made it clear that my argument impressed her and that she definitely wanted to interview me for the show. I was impressed by this woman's open mind and her intelligence, as evidenced by her many excellent questions, and looked forward to working with her.

Right Hand vs. Left Hand

An anonymous commenter has called my attention to a very interesting interview regarding 1. the possibility that the Ramsey ransom note could have been written by someone who is ambidextrous and 2. certain evidence suggesting that Patsy was in fact ambidextrous. According to the commenter, not only was Patsy ambidextrous, she wanted to hide that fact. Which would explain why the left-hand sample she provided to the authorities was so messy looking.

Open Thread -- Part Ten

Time to make room for more comments . . .

Why John?

Since there's been so much discussion here lately regarding the respective roles of Patsy and John in both the 911 call and the crime itself, I've decided to add a post summarizing the logic behind my conviction that John was solely responsible for both the death of his daughter and the writing of the note, and that Patsy must have made the call in all innocence.

Can Anyone Help Me Out on This?

In my blog post, Seeing Is Believing, I refer to a youtube video containing the A&E documentary on the Ramsey case by Michael Tracey -- specifically to a particular scene in that video where Patsy indicates very clearly that calling 911 was her idea:

from the transcript:

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And  I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." 

A few months ago someone emailed to inform me that this video had been taken off the youtube site. And sure enough, when I checked, it was gone. Since then I've tried to find another copy but found myself in a state of confusion, because there is in fact a copy of the documentary still on youtube, but it's completely different from what's in the transcript posted by Jameson, to which I usually refer. And the scene where Patsy explains how she told John she was going to call the police is nowhere to be found.

New Color Scheme

At the request of a reader who found it difficult to read the light on dark lettering, I have altered the colors to make things more legible. Please let me know what you think.

Meanwhile this is a good chance to start fresh with a new set of comments.

A Timely Rerun

Since I've been getting so many comments lately, challenging my conviction that Patsy played no role in either the murder or coverup, I've decided to post a repeat of one of my all time favorite creative efforts, a little number titled, "Honey, I Killed the Kid." At the risk of offending those who might find a satirical treatment of JonBenet's death just a wee bit tacky, I'm reposting this because, despite the tongue in cheek style, it manages to convey as forcefully as possible my firm conviction that all the many suspicions centering on Patsy are completely absurd. I've been criticized in the past for dismissing those who sincerely believe Patsy must have, at the very least, written the ransom note, and I apologize in advance for ridiculing this view in such a cavalier fashion. While obviously there is no one who would want to claim that the following scenario literally took place, if we look past the obvious satire to the subtext, the underlying message should be clear: no two people in their right minds would do all the things Patsy and John are assumed to have done on the night their daughter was killed.

Open Thread -- Part Nine

Time for yet another open thread. Enjoy!

Important notice regarding comments

From time to time I see new comments appearing under old blog posts, which is not a good idea because those comments can very easily get lost and ignored. If you have a comment on any aspect of the case, please place it here, or under one of the more active recent posts. Otherwise most reading here will probably never see it.

Also: Very often I see comments by newcomers pertaining to issues that have already been addressed, either on a blog post or in other comments, and I don't always have the time or patience to respond yet again to these same issues. If you are fairly new and have a question about a particular aspect of this case, please use the search mechanism first, as the answer may already have been posted here. Thanks.

"The Stranger Beside Me"

A film based on Anne Rule's remarkable "true crime" memoir, "The Stranger Beside Me," is scheduled for viewing in my area at 8PM Eastern time tonight, Jan. 26th. I'm posting to alert anyone reading here who might be interested, just in case it's available in your area as well. It's not on one of the major networks, but a relatively new one called "Decades."

"Making a Murderer" - part 4: red herrings

In the context of criminal investigation, a "red herring" is a piece of bogus or questionable evidence, or lack of same, used to distract investigators, or a jury, from the central issues of the case. According to one explanation, "if a herring is dragged across a trail that hounds are following, it throws them off the scent." A red herring is typically an isolated piece of inconclusive evidence, or odd discrepancy, that can't be immediately explained. When skillfully employed, as in the Avery case, red herrings can be used to induce gullible jurors, along with members of the media and the public, to take seriously even the most preposterous claims.

"Making a Murderer" - Part 3

6. Let's turn now to Brendan Dassey. His police interviews are now available on youtube. Both are fascinating. Here's one:

Here's another:

Unfortunately the earliest interview was recorded on audio only, and the recording is extremely noisy. I tried to clean it up using noise reduction techniques, but nothing helped. It really seems unusable, because hardly anything said is clearly audible. The sound on the videos, however, is adequate, and despite the very annoying dropouts in the second one, there is more than enough important information that comes through loud and clear.

"Making a Murderer" - Part 2

4. I would now like to consider the DNA evidence that was found. While the prosecution stressed the importance of DNA, supposedly from Avery's sweat, found on the hood  of the victim's vehicle, I see that evidence as questionable. If any of the investigators had been in contact with Avery, or touched any of his clothing, prior to their discovery of the vehicle, then his DNA could have been transferred to the hood indirectly. And I'm afraid the same could be said for Avery's DNA found on the victim's car key, which could also have been transferred inadvertently by an investigator. Before evaluating that evidence, it would be necessary to learn whether strict precautions had been taken to make sure such a transfer could not have occurred, and I doubt that was the case. Same with the victim's DNA found on the spent bullet in the garage. If the same gloves had been used to handle the victim's remains and handle the bullet, there could have been inadvertent transfer. As I've stressed with respect to the Ramsey case, DNA evidence is not always what it seems, and can be seriously misleading.

Some Observations Regarding the "Making a Murderer" Documentary

I rarely comment here on anything but the Ramsey case. But from time to time, as with the Amanda Knox case, I find myself compelled to speak out in defense of justice. The murder of Teresa Halbach, as presented in the so-called documentary, "Making a Murderer," is such a case. I write "so-called" because this 10 part film, now available via Netflix, is not a documentary at all, but a propaganda film, shamelessly serving the interests of Avery's defense team. I'm reminded of the notorious A&E "documentary" put together by Michael Tracey to whitewash the Ramseys. What's particularly disturbing in both cases is the powerful influence of such films on the mind of the public. At some point in our history, it would seem, critical thinking seems to have been supplanted by media hype. So now we have a situation where literally millions of Americans are convinced that the conviction of a vicious rapist and murderer, practically caught in the act, is a travesty of justice performed by a conspiracy involving both corrupt police officials and the FBI. I can't cover everything that bothers me about this treatment of the case, but I'd like to share some pertinent observations:

Open Thread -- Part Eight

Part Seven filled up quickly and is now a bit cumbersome. So -- on to Part Eight!