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.

Friday, March 31, 2017

More "lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I was surprised to learn that the items cited by Zed didn't include any of the more troubling instances mentioned so often by those who insist that Patsy must have been involved. To be thorough, I'll now add as many of them as I can think of to Zed's previous 25. But before I do, I want to emphasize two important points.
  • There is a distinction to be made between an untruth and a lie. Someone may assert something that is not in fact true, but for a perfectly innocent reason: confusion, faulty memory, "gaslighting," etc. I would not call that a "lie."  And in the context of a criminal investigation, an untruth is meaningful only if the untruth is relevant to the case and the suspect has something to gain by asserting it.
  • There is a distinction to be made between a statement that is deceptive and a statement that implies guilt. For example, someone might be deceptive regarding some question about his bank account because he fudged a bit on his taxes. That doesn't necessarily mean that he embezzled any funds.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

"Lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I recently challenged anyone reading here to list all the various "lies" and other statements or actions that have convinced so many of Patsy's involvement in either the crime or the coverup. Zed very cooperatively responded with a list of 25 items, to which MHN replied on an item by item basis. Since MHN's response includes the original points listed by Zed, I'll reproduce his (or her) response in full, with annotations of my own in bold (for some reason italics don't seem to be working here anymore). Thanks to both of you for your very thoughtful comments:

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Edge On

According to a still isolated by Hercule from a police video made public by James Kolar, the edges of the glass in the broken window pane (see previous post) appear to reveal a layer of dust and/or dirt, proving that the break was in fact old, as John Ramsey claimed. He recently sent me this image via email, to illustrate:

Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 4

Before continuing with my analysis of Patsy's role in all this, I want to add one more bit of evidence to the long list offered in my previous posts. Not sure why I failed to mention it before -- it's important because it involves hard evidence rather than logical inference. The broken window glass was examined by forensic experts, but their conclusions have never been made public. When James Kolar was asked about this in his Reddit AMA, he replied that, to his knowledge, "there is no method to determine when the window was broken." He adds the following: "My examination of the video and 35 mm photos strongly suggested no recent entry had been made through that location."

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 3

Let's start all over from the beginning, only this time we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that John was telling the truth, and that he had indeed broken that window the previous summer. So now it's the morning after the assault, Patsy has called 911 and John, as he has testified, makes his way into the basement. As he enters the area with the broken window, it occurs to him that he himself must have broken it the previous summer, so maybe that break is irrelevant. But then he notices, according to his own testimony, that it is open. And for some reason he was never able to explain, he closes it.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 2

(continued from previous post)

Given Linda's denial, the question arises: why would Patsy have included Linda in her story if she were lying to support John's version of what happened? Patsy included Linda when interviewed the following year as well:
Well, one of these windows is the one that John -- John got locked out one time,  can't remember, at the lake, I think. And he said he broke a window pane and, you know, he reached in and came in through this window right into the house.
TRIP DEMUTH: What did you do after the window was broken, did you have some involvement with that at all?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, yes. When I came back, you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out -- 1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda sweep down there because the kids, the boys would sometimes play in here. 
If John's story is true, then why would Linda have denied any knowledge of any broken window or helping Patsy clean up the glass? And if both he and Patsy were lying, then why would Patsy have included Linda in her story, on two separate occasions, knowing full well she'd deny it?

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The Broken Window Redux

A child is found dead in a remote basement room in her own house. The parents have previously called the police, informing them that she'd been kidnapped and presenting a ransom note as evidence. When the body is found it becomes clear that no kidnapping had taken place.

Upon further inspection, a window in another area of the basement is found to be broken. Packing peanuts from the window well are strewn on the basement floor, a hard suitcase has been observed flush against the wall directly beneath that window, and a scuff mark is seen on the wall just beneath that same window. Would you say that looks suspicious? I would certainly think so. As seems obvious, the window was either broken during a forced entry by an intruder, or someone from inside the house staged it to look that way. Upon close examination it is determined that no one could have passed through that window the previous night, as there was no disturbance of the considerable layer of dust and dirt on the very narrow windowsill, and an intact spider web was found in the opening beside the sill. Looks like someone was trying to stage a window entry, and exit, by an intruder who stood on the suitcase to boost himself out. And since there was no sign that anyone actually passed through that window, the amateurish staging looks pretty obvious. Clearly, this is an inside job.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Round and Round We Go

Down and down we go. Like a leaf that's caught in the tide.

More comments, more comments, can't get enough of 'em . . .

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Process of Elimination

A psychopathic pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. Someone intending to kidnap JonBenet would have prepared his ransom note in advance, not written it on paper from a notepad he happened to find in the house. And he would actually have kidnapped his victim. Someone out to get John Ramsey would have had no reason to write a ransom note, and if he'd wanted to leave a note would have prepared it in advance. Someone intending to frame the Ramseys would have attempted to forge John or Patsy's hand, but none of the many "experts" who've examined the note has ever suggested it was a forgery. Someone entering the house via the basement window would have left clear signs of his presence there, yet there was no sign anyone had even lifted the grate over the window well or passed through the narrow window sill. And someone with a key would have had no reason to break the basement window, displace debris from the well onto the basement floor or position a suitcase under that window. Thus no intruder theory makes sense.

Monday, March 6, 2017

"Things to Come" -- Announcing a New Blog

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I can't resist advertising my new blog, and inviting everyone reading here to check it out -- and, hopefully, get involved by commenting and contributing ideas of your own. As you might have guessed, DocG is never at a loss for ideas, and new ideas for future developments is what my new blog is all about. New products, new scientific theories, new forms of personal expression, new approaches to old problems. In short (and with apologies to HG Wells -- and George Pal): some predictions of Things to Come.

Rest assured, I won't be neglecting this blog, but the Ramsey case is only one of many things I've had on my mind and at this point I'm ready to expand my horizons by looking to the future. Hope you are too.

(Feel free to continue posting Ramsey case comments below.)

Friday, March 3, 2017

Waiting for Developments

Still waiting for new developments in the Burke Ramsey lawsuit. No word yet from CBS. Will they or won't they try for a settlement? No word either on the new "scientific" testing of evidence in the Teresa Halbach case. It's been a long time since that process began and Avery's lawyer has been uncharacteristically quiet, after tweeting on an almost daily basis for months.

Meanwhile, here's some room for more comments.