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.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Case of Larry Nassar

I've been bothered for some time with questions regarding certain issues that have received much media attention during the past few months. And since I feel a need to share my thoughts, I've decided to go out on a limb here, despite the fact that these issues have no direct bearing on the  Ramsey case. While the focus of this blog is on JonBenet's murder, more general questions pertaining to justice and injustice have always been lurking in the background, which is why I've felt justified in occasionally addressing such issues in reference to both the Amanda Knox and Steven Avery cases.

Monday, January 22, 2018

The Gate

A gate can be either open or closed. If open, one can pass through. If closed, it becomes a barrier. Nevertheless, there is always a way to overcome such a barrier, by climbing over it or tunneling under it or breaking the lock, etc. But when the gate is a gateless gate, no barrier presents itself, in which case there is nothing to climb over, tunnel under or break. Consequently, the gateless gate is impenetrable.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Hoo Hah!

The judge rejected the defendants' plea that the accusations directed at Burke (and by implication, John and Patsy as well) on the CBS special we've all seen, were only statements of "opinion," protected by the First Amendment. So the case will proceed to the next steps. Read all about it here.

According to Judge Groner,
This Court finds that the statements at issue and the docu-series as a whole could reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about Plaintiff. This Court does not find that the “disclaimer” at the beginning and at the end of the program negate the docu-series potentially defamatory meaning.
As someone who watched this travesty with a growing sense of dismay, I fully agree