An Interview with Lin Wood

From Westword, dated Oct. 12:

Inside John Ramsey's CBS Lawsuit Over Brother-Killed-JonBenét Show

John and Patsy Opposite Hand Samples

Courtesy of Castor:

Did Putin Do It?

Depends on what your definition of "it" is. More room for comments. On all things Ramsey, Trump, Putin, whatever.

The Case Against Lin Wood

Lin Wood must know a LOT about this case, and some of it could be important, but of course he can't say a word, thanks to lawyer-client privilege. Wonder what he thinks about John and how he'd feel if he suspected him yet felt obliged to continually defend him?

John's Lawsuit

As most reading here must know by now, Lin Wood has filed a new lawsuit on behalf of John, based on allegations in the CBS "documentary" that he participated in a coverup to protect Burke, after Burke allegedly assaulted his sister. In my opinion, this could be a huge mistake, since a defense by the CBS "experts" would not necessarily have to involve Burke, but could focus exclusively on John's role in the coverup, which would be much easier to demonstrate.

If I were representing CBS in this particular lawsuit, I would have some questions for John that could make him VERY uncomfortable. For example:

The Case Against Self-Driving Cars

I have pretty strong feelings on this topic. For details, see my other blog, Things to Come. For more on the Ramsey case, stick with this one. :-)

The Case Against Colonizing Mars

Sorry. I'm running out of topics.

The Case Against Patsy Ramsey

More and more comments are being devoted to  Patsy's role in this case, so here's some more room to carry on with that. As it seems to me, the widespread assumption that Patsy HAS to be involved is one of the principal reasons this case has gone nowhere for over 20 years -- and most likely never will be solved. As I've observed many times, once the Patsy bandwagon got started, there was no stopping it -- and anything she ever said or did that might possibly look suspicious has been seen by a great many as proof positive of her involvement.

The Case Against DNA-Man

What if a match to that mysterious male DNA is ever found? It's got to match someone. Could a case be made against that individual? Any thoughts?

The Case Against Burke

There is no case against Burke. Fingerprints on a bowl are not evidence. They could have gotten there at any time. While estimates vary, the chances that JonBenet ate pineapple immediately prior to the assault are very slim. The remnants were found in her intestine, not her stomach, meaning they had already been digested. For a detailed report on the various timing estimates, see this JBR Encyclopedia entry. Moreover, according to the book by Paula Woodward, remnants of cherry and grape were also found, suggesting that she had eaten fruit cocktail, making the bowl of pineapple irrelevant.

One More Time -- the Case Against John Ramsey

As so many times previously, I now feel the need to once again outline the case against John Ramsey. But before I do, I must remind everyone that

1. As with so many cases, this one is circumstantial. If there were a smoking gun, we wouldn't be here.

2. There is no point in demanding proof that John was having an incestuous sexual relationship with his daughter. No such proof exists, admittedly. However, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. It is also important to realize that incest, and the need to cover it up, is the ONLY motive ever offered in this case that makes any sense at all. Bed wetting as a motive is a huge stretch, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Sibling rivalry on the part of Burke might make sense if it weren't for the difficulty in assigning a motive to the sexual assault, "garotte" strangulation and phony ransom note, as no parents in their right mind would go to such bizarre and disgusting lengths to disguise what could have been reported as an accident.

Zellner loses it!

Finally we're getting some real action on the Steven Avery front. After submitting her 1,272-page monster of a motion, consisting mostly of stale arguments left over from the original court case and therefore not likely to mean much to a court of appeals, she has chosen to up the ante by offering a $10,000 cash award to anyone able to prove Avery's guilt by answering a 100-question test: "The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge." This travesty actually got the attention of Rolling Stone magazine, as reported in an article by one Joyce Chen, who seems to be taking it seriously. 

Onward and Upward (or sideways?)

Please calm down, everyone. I know it's frustrating, as we see no sign of resolution on the Ramsey case. Since that case is going nowhere, I thought it might be more interesting to focus on the Avery case, which does seem to be going somewhere (but who knows where?). In any case (forgive the pun), please try to be civil and concentrate on the issues, not the advocates, OK?

Ms. Zellner Files a Motion

Finally, after months of (relative) silence, Steven Avery's new lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, has filed her motion for appeal. All mind-numbing 1,272 pages of it. The first 200 pages have been made available online for anyone with the patience to wade through it all.

Casey Anthony?

Interesting. There seems to be more interest here in Casey Anthony than Steven Avery. So be it. As for me, if I don't see a clear path to the truth I prefer to stay out of it.

The Avery case test results are IN -- and Zellner is "under scrutiny"

Maybe we all need a break from going around in circles on the Ramsey case. I certainly could use one. While I don't have the time to investigate all the many notorious crimes to have hit the headlines in recent years, at least two, aside from the Ramsey case, have gotten under my skin. One is the Amanda Knox case, which has, thankfully, been resolved. The other is the murder of Teresa Halbach, for which Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey are currently serving time.

Round and Round we go . . .

Oh and by the way, as I understand it, the "scientific" tests ordered by Steven Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, were due for completion first some time in March, then "late in April." But still nothing in the media regarding these results. So I'm wondering: why the delay? And why we've had narry a tweet out of Ms. Zellner in all this time.

In Circles

We're going around in circles, folks. And there are way too many posts expressing frustration and indignation with other participants in this increasingly futile discussion. I too am getting both frustrated and impatient.

Making Sense

No intruder theory makes sense. I think most posting here would agree.

BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.

Still more else

Seems like we've arrived at an impasse regarding Patsy's role in this case. And that's fine by me. I've done my best to make my points, and some others here are doing a great job of clarifying and amplifying the case for JDI, for which I am both grateful and impressed. What bothers me is not that certain others disagree, which is to be expected, but the assumption that somehow, by our refusal to bow before arguments that seem deeply flawed, those of us convinced of John's guilt and Patsy's innocence are somehow imposing our views on everyone else.

Since I have never made any effort to censor or modify any post containing an argument for any position on this case I find such accusations totally unfair. This is an open blog and all points of view are and always have been welcome. But at the same time I, for one, reserve the right to defend my position, why shouldn't I? So please lay off the offensive (and defensive) rhetoric, folks, and stick to a meaningful consideration of the facts, evidence and logic of the case. Thank you.

More Else

Or else . . .

What Else - continued

Any more else? So far no one has even attempted to respond to any of my responses to the accusations leveled at Patsy. You guys chicken or what?

What else?

I just spent two posts listing several things that have made people suspicious of Patsy Ramsey, offering my own take on each, and demonstrating why, imo, none can be seen as evidence of guilt, even when, in some cases, they might actually be counterfactual. I feel sure I missed some, however, so now is your chance to fill in the blanks. Those of you who are still bothered by Patsy's "lies" and "deceptions," by all means add more items to the list that's already been compiled, and let's consider them one by one.

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.

"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:

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:

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."

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.

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?

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.

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 . . .

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.

"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.)

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.

The Gospel According to Cherokee

Some posting here have mentioned a new book on the case, titled Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case, authored, supposedly, by a group calling itself "The True Crime Detectives Guild." After some hesitation I decided to get a copy and I've been reading it recently with some degree of interest. To my surprise, however, I discovered that the analysis of the ransom note presented therein looked very familiar. That portion of the book, as I instantly recognized, was authored by an old veteran of the Ramsey case forums calling him- or her- self "Cherokee." And I suspect that "Cherokee" is the author of the whole thing, not just that one portion. [After reading further, I found the following notice: "Ransom note analysis used by permission. Originally published by Cherokee at forumsforjustice.org, copyright 2003." Which implies that Cherokee is not necessarily the author of the entire document as I'd originally suspected. While Cherokee's analysis dates from 2003, the book itself is fully up-to-date, with references to recent developments, such as the release of the Grand Jury indictments, the updated DNA information, Burke's interview with Dr. Phil, etc.]

Avery Case Heating Up

For those of you interested in the Teresa Halbach murder case, Dateline will be airing a special tomorrow night (Friday). Ken Kratz, the prosecutor with a new book out will be a featured guest. All sorts of tests have been taking place, supposedly, but Steven Avery's lawyer Kathleen Zellner has been uncharacteristically quiet for some time now, suggesting that all may not have panned out as she had hoped. Once the tests are in, I'll probably have more to contribute regarding Avery's guilt, which for me is a no brainer. Meanwhile a decision on the possible release of his nephew, Brandon Dassey, is pending. He could be out any day now.

The Complaint: Installment 11

Once again we're running out of room. Feel free once more to make fools of yourself by disagreeing with me. :-)

The Complaint 10

Nothing new to report, unfortunately.

The Complaint Part 9

Interesting developments in the Steven Avery case. 

Remember that one? I've been waiting patiently for the results of all the "scientific" testing ordered up by his new attorney, Kathleen Zellner. But she's been strangely silent since December, and some of his supporters are starting to wonder out loud. I'd imagine that if the tests proved Avery's innocence she'd have been tweeting like a whole flock of birds. What if they prove his guilt, I wonder? Will she tweet about that?

The Complaint -- Part 8

More room for comments. Still nothing new on the lawsuit front. Be on the lookout for the CBS response, folks.

The Complaint -- Part 7

Comments coming thick and fast, so here's more room.

The Complaint -- Part 6

More room for ruminating . . . .

The Complaint -- Part 5

More room for comments. Meanwhile there's apparently been no new news on the lawsuit. CBS will either opt for the "only an opinion" defense or the "Burke is a public figure" defense  -- or else either try for a settlement OR actually take it to trial. Since a settlement would probably require a public retraction, they might feel they have no choice but to fight it out in court. We just need to be patient.

The Complaint: Part 4

Puff puff puff, I'm running hard just to keep up with you guys.

By the way, I hope to God I'm not on the jury if this case ever goes to trial. Judging from the opinions being batted around here, and elsewhere, no one in that jury would ever be able to agree on anything and they'd all be at each other's throats after an hour or so. So much for our hopes that this case might sometime actually make it into court.

The Complaint: 3

Still waiting for more action on the lawsuit front. So far no word from CBS as to how they plan to respond. If I see something new, I'll add more commentary here.


P.S.: Just now I read a very thoughtful and convincing comment, placed under an older thread where it may well be missed by most reading here. (NB: always try to post your comments in the most recent thread where everyone can easily find them.) I decided to post it here for all to see, along with a (somewhat revised) version of my response.

The Complaint: 2

More room for comments on Lin Wood's "Complaint" (and/or any other relevant issue). All I'll add at this point are my observations that:

The Complaint

OK, the official Burke Ramsey Complaint  against CBS et al. is out there -- all mind numbing 108 pages. Let's take a look:

 The defendants are:

CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A. JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B. BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and HENRY C. LEE

As evident from the prefatory remarks, an important part of Lin Wood's case is that the program was presented as a documentary, based on the premise that new evidence had been uncovered and that this new team of investigators was going to conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.” However, according to the Complaint,