tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64942422813963129572024-03-18T03:48:43.184-04:00Solving the JonBenet Ramsey CaseDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger236125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-29831163458030106162019-10-09T15:18:00.001-04:002019-10-10T01:38:02.424-04:00GaslightingI received a really nice email the other day from a blog follower who provided a link to a very convincing and disturbing article on <a href="https://www.today.com/health/hidden-abuse-can-hurt-your-mental-health-what-gaslighting-t163927?cid=sm_npd_td_fb_kh" target="_blank">gaslighting</a>. The article got me thinking about the possible role of gaslighting in the Ramsey case, a topic we haven't considered for some time. As a result I've given this issue some thought lately and decided to once again go over the reasons why I believe John Ramsey very likely gaslighted Patsy into accepting his version of certain key events.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
1. While John initially made a point, on national television, of claiming the 911 call was his idea, Patsy offered a very different version when interviewed for the A&E documentary on the case. A third, more detailed, version appears in their book, <i>The Death of Innocence</i>, where John is on his hands and knees studying the "ransom" note, and tells Patsy to call the police. She reaches for a nearby phone and dials 911. This version is totally different from the version Patsy provided to the A&E interviewer: "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." I see no reason why Patsy would have wanted to lie about what happened, yet she apparently accepted John's very different version when the book was being prepared and never challenged it since. Why?<br />
<br />
2. John's story about breaking the basement window the previous summer is, as I've demonstrated both here and in my book, almost certainly a fabrication concocted to direct attention away from the much more probable likelihood that he broke it the night of the murder to stage an intruder breakin. Despite all the many reasons to doubt John's story, Patsy backed him up by claiming she swept up all the broken glass after returning from a summer vacation with the children. Listen to what she had to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
TT: When did John break that window in the basement?<br />
PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last summer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake.</blockquote>
She <i>thinks </i>it was last summer. First sign that something's off. If it happened last summer why couldn't she have been sure? Wasn't that long ago.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
TT: In Charlevoix.<br />
PR: In Charlevoix and he told me to come back from out of town or whatever and he didn’t have a key and the only way he could get in was to break the window.</blockquote>
"Or whatever"? What does that mean? And why would he have needed her to come back if he'd left the keys inside the house, as he reported in their book?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
TT: Okay. Yeah, right.<br />
PR: The little um, like door, little window to the basement there.<br />
TT: He had to lift the grate out of the way to, to get in there.<br />
PR: Yeah, that’s the one, um hum.<br />
TT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?<br />
PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that </blockquote>
Another red flag. A broken window in the basement and she can't recall whether she had it fixed? Can't even "remember even trying to remember that"? Obviously she's confused. But why?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
um, I remember when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .<br />
TT: Um hum.<br />
PR: . . .uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass.<br />
TT: Okay.<br />
PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
TT: Um hum.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere.<br />
<br />
TT: Okay.<br />
<br />
PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there.<br />
<br />
TT: To get all the glass.<br />
<br />
PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
The above is especially revealing. First, as we know, Linda (the housekeeper) later testified that she knew nothing about any broken window and certainly did <i>not </i>help Patsy clean up any glass in the basement. If Patsy were lying, why would she have included Linda in her story, knowing full well that Linda would deny it? And if she were telling the truth, why wouldn't Linda have been willing to corroborate her story? Is there a third possibility?<br />
<br />
Secondly, the area around the broken window was a royal mess,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oJolPTZz0kI/XZ4iwDMLmWI/AAAAAAAABcY/MFYk6wmGQ4cHN7Vi4_t81ZnlYWQCi_dYQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/basement%2Bwindow%2Barea.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="256" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oJolPTZz0kI/XZ4iwDMLmWI/AAAAAAAABcY/MFYk6wmGQ4cHN7Vi4_t81ZnlYWQCi_dYQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/basement%2Bwindow%2Barea.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
not a likely place for the children to play. Patsy seems to have confused this area with Burke's train room, in a different section of the basement. Why?<br />
<br />
Third, the "baseball size" hole in the window pane would hardly have produced "a ton of glass everywhere."<br />
<br />
So what are we to make of Patsy's story? If she were lying she'd have made sure her story hung together, made sense and was convincing, which is certainly <i>not </i>the case. And she is clearly not telling the truth, as her version of what happened is inconsistent with both Linda's testimony and the facts. When we couple this totally confused story with the inconsistencies surrounding the 911 call, no logical explanation seems possible -- until we consider gaslighting.<br />
<br />
When I first broached this possibility some time ago, it was greeted with considerable skepticism, as though I were grasping at straws to counter the many accusations that both Patsy and John were involved in their daughter's murder and lying to cover that up. As I see it, however, Patsy's involvement is totally inconsistent with all the other evidence, and her alleged lies, or most of them, can be explained due to either confusion on her part or confirmation bias based on unfounded assumptions. The "lies" that can't be so easily explained, such as her willingness to accept John's version of the 911 call, or her very confused story about the broken window glass, seem to make no sense -- unless we consider gaslighting.<br />
<br />
It's important to realize that 1. Patsy was heavily sedated for weeks after the discovery of JonBenet's body; 2. Patsy had recently undergone chemotherapy, which could also have affected her memory due to what is known as <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chemo-brain/symptoms-causes/syc-20351060" target="_blank">chemo brain</a>; 3. Once John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, and Patsy had not, she was suddenly catapulted into the role of chief suspect. All sorts of "experts" were examining her handwriting with a fine tooth comb and many felt they could prove she'd written it. A leading detective in the case, Steve Thomas, was literally accusing her to her face, convinced she'd "accidentally" clubbed her daughter to death in a rage over bedwetting. Her staunchest supporter throughout the investigation was her "devoted" husband, John, who dismissed all the accusations as ridiculous and hired one of the area's top lawyers to defend her.<br />
<br />
All of the above would have made Patsy the perfect candidate for gaslighting. And if, as I feel sure, John Ramsey is the guilty party, he'd have had every reason to manipulate her in any way he could, to make sure they were both "on the same page."<br />
<br />
According to the article linked above,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Gaslighting” . . . is an insidious form of psychological abuse. It’s an intricate web of lies woven to break down one partner’s sense of self-worth and perception of what is real. . .<br />
Nearly half of all women and men in the U.S. said they’ve been subjected to psychological aggression by an intimate partner, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For the person trying to control the partner through psychological tricks, the goal is often to make that partner feel completely dependent. By instigating this deep self-doubt and playing the role of the only one who knows what’s right, abusers can wear down their partners and gain control.</blockquote>
In fact, Patsy, as the principal suspect, was already completely dependent on John, who controlled all the money and hired all the lawyers, which would have made manipulation all that simpler.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The typical signs of gaslighting . . . are when the abusive partner: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Refuses to listen or pretends not to understand </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Challenges the partner’s memory or accuses them of being wrong</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Changes the subject or suggests the partner is imagining things </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Trivializes the feelings of the partner</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pretends to forget what happened or denies that anything happened at all</blockquote>
Patsy's unconvincing window story can, as I see it, only be explained if she'd been manipulated (i.e. "gaslighted") into actually believing that these events took place but was not completely clear regarding the details. Since Linda had always assisted her in cleaning up, it would have seemed natural to include her in the story, so in her mind's eye that's how it would have happened. As for the rest, it was probably just improvisation to bolster a story that would have been shrouded in fog.<br />
<br />
If she'd expressed any doubts regarding this event, John could have convinced her she was suffering from "chemo brain" and could not recall what happened. He would also have stressed the importance of her backing up his story, since the authorities were "out to get them" and it was essential that they present a united front.<br />
<br />
While gaslighting might seem an unlikely stretch of your host's imagination, as we learn from this article it is by no means as unusual as one might suppose. For me this is one of the keys to an understanding of this very challenging case.<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com273tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-6887517145756181112019-09-14T11:28:00.001-04:002019-09-23T02:19:10.093-04:00Existential CrisisOK, I confess. I've committed the unforgivable sin of writing yet another book on climate change. My only excuse is that the premise behind my little book is very different from any other I've seen, as should be evident from the brief introduction I've reproduced below. Needless to say, the topic I've chosen is of the greatest importance, which is why I felt so compelled to make at least some sort of attempt to come to terms with what I regard as the central issue, all too frequently overlooked.<br />
<br />
I decided to make a pre-publication version available to anyone reading here, in the hope that at least some followers of this blog will be interested enough to read it and chime in with comments, critiques and suggestions for improvement. Over the years I've been impressed with the intelligence of so many who've contributed comments on this blog, and am eagerly looking forward to your responses.<br />
<br />
I am therefor inviting anyone interested in receiving an MS Word copy of the entire preprint to email me at doktorgosh (at) live.com with their request. I'll promptly respond with the full text attached.<br />
<br />
N.B.: The book is now available <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Threat-Facing-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B07XZLQ1G4/" target="_blank">here</a>, via Amazon.com.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
A note on the use of pseudonyms. I originally chose the moniker DocG because I was afraid colleagues in the field(s) where I've published extensively might want to dismiss me as just another "crackpot who thinks he's solved the JonBenet Ramsey case." I might well be such a crackpot, but I certainly don't want fellow professionals to dismiss my more "serious" work on that basis. As for the use of a pseudonym for the new book, my motive is a bit different. Climate change has become such an emotionally charged topic that I'm afraid to use my real name for fear of alienating certain friends and relatives who feel very strongly about this issue. I'd love to take credit under my real name for all my hard work on this book, but I really don't want to destroy my relationship with people who are close to me as a result. It's a sad commentary on where things now stand in the world that such a stratagem should be necessary.<br />
<br />
The brief Introductory chapter should convey a good sense of how the book is organized and what it's about:<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Existential
Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h1>
<o:p></o:p></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Our world is in danger of spinning out of control, fraught
with a challenge far more daunting than anything humanity has ever experienced
in its long, convoluted history. And yes, I’m speaking of an “existential threat”
– only not the one you’re being urged to fear. We are currently faced with a
great many very real, very serious challenges: mass migration, mass shootings, regime
change wars, the ever-present possibility of nuclear war, economic inequality,
widespread poverty, drug addiction, etc. However, despite all these many, truly
alarming threats, the attention of huge segments of the population, including
many of our most influential scientists and powerful world leaders, is being
diverted to focus increasingly on one issue to the effective exclusion of all
others. You guessed it: “Climate Change.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Characterized as an “existential threat” to the future of
mankind, the continual warming of the Earth due to the nefarious effects of
unchecked fossil fuel emissions has, according to just about every media
source, become <i>the</i> foremost danger faced by humanity today. Based on the
latest report from the UN-based IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), we have only 12 years to drastically curtail our reliance on fossil
fuels (primarily oil, coal and natural gas) before the world is completely
overtaken by major hurricanes, droughts, forest fires, flooding, famine, mass
species extinctions, mass migrations and worse. Much worse – though precisely
how worse is hard to say. Especially since there is no real evidence for any of
it. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yes, that’s what I said. Not only a lack of evidence, but compelling
evidence to the contrary. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Not that it matters.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In Part One of this book I will present a scientific review
of the evidence. And yes, I am indeed, as you’ve undoubtedly noted, a skeptic.
However, unlike so many others who’ve written on this topic, I don’t expect you
to believe me. In fact, unless you are already a skeptic, I feel sure you
won’t. Based on many years of experience debating this issue, I’ve concluded
that no matter what evidence one might present, no matter what science, what
research, what data, what logic, attempting to convince someone who doesn’t
want to be convinced is a waste of time. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What makes this book different is the
fact that I no longer really care whether or not you believe me. As I see
things, it’s already too late to argue one way or another on this topic. It’s
not that “the science is settled” – I feel sure it isn’t – it’s that the <i>issue</i>
is settled. Climate change is no longer a scientific matter, but a <i>social
construct</i>. The debate is over and it’s been won by those most adept at
influencing public opinion. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">At this point, therefor, it’s no longer a matter of whether
“the science” is right or wrong, but whether humanity can survive the extremely
dangerous “existential” abyss we are now being forced to confront. I’m not
talking about the predicted climate disaster, but the social and psychological trauma
induced by demands increasingly seen as necessary to avoid it. The nature
of this abyss will be covered in Part Two. Those with no desire to read yet
another skeptical screed by another “denier” should feel free to skip Part One
altogether and proceed to Part Two.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><w:sdt docparttype="Table of Contents" docpartunique="t" id="1482734691" sdtdocpart="t">
</w:sdt>
<span style="line-height: 107%;">Why should I bother
at all with Part One if the science is no longer relevant, you may ask? Well,
maybe it’s just my ego, but I feel compelled to present my evidence and my
arguments regardless of whether they will make a difference, regardless of whether
it’s already too late. Maybe it isn’t too late, maybe that’s why I nevertheless
urge readers to read Part One anyhow, or at least skim it. Maybe there is still
some room for hope.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com1578tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-81055049569272681972019-09-10T12:40:00.000-04:002019-09-10T12:40:13.257-04:00And Now for Something Completely Different<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This blog began as an investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey case, and it's largely continued along the same lines to this day. Over time, however, we've come to consider other issues as well, notably the Amanda Knox case, the Darlier Routier case, and the especially mysterious case of <span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;">Rebecca Zahau and </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;">Max Shaknai. What they all have in common, which for me validates their inclusion here, is the fundamental issue of: justice. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;">For many years now, I've become increasingly drawn, as have so many others, to an issue of far greater scope and consequence than anything we've covered or possibly could cover, in this relatively modest venue. Indeed it would seem to be the elephant in just about every room these days that can no longer be ignored. I'm speaking, of course, of climate change and the question of whether or not it's any longer possible to justify business as usual in the face of what's famously been called "an existential threat" to the future of humanity. Indeed, how can we justify our endless debate over the mysteries of a single murder case, no matter how horrific, when the future of the world as we know it is at stake? Don't all of us have an obligation to confront this issue head-on? If we're concerned above all with justice then how can we ignore the all-important question of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice" target="_blank">climate justice</a>?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;">Or is it really an issue at all? Skeptics (aka "deniers") routinely scoff at what they regard as climate change "hysteria," contesting the notion that 97% of scientists agree, insisting that none of the extreme events we've been witnessing of late have anything to do with carbon dioxide emissions but are simply due to the same sort of natural forces the world has experienced since time immemorial. For climate change activists, however, the danger is real. And their demands are becoming increasingly alarming. It's easy enough to declare one's belief in "climate change." It's another thing entirely to willingly alter one's life style in the extreme manner now being demanded. Or else!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">I'm wondering how readers of this blog feel about this issue. Are you a "believer," a "skeptic," or somewhere in between? I'm hoping at least some of you will feel brave enough to open up on this issue in your comments, leading, hopefully, to a meaningful discussion/ debate. Those wishing to continue commenting on the Ramsey case can continue to do so on the previous thread.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">One note of caution, made necessary by the highly emotional nature of the climate debate: any comments containing personal attacks or other offensive material will be deleted.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"><br /></span></span>DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com1709tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-33937870354084374332019-08-28T00:29:00.002-04:002019-08-28T00:29:13.910-04:00New ThreadTime for a new thread, I've been told. (What's wrong with the old one, if I may ask?)DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com1373tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52553677044369328012019-07-10T10:48:00.002-04:002019-07-10T10:48:40.075-04:00The Neverending StoryI must say I'm impressed. After all these years and all our many frustrations there is still enough interest in the Ramsey case to prompt the current torrent of comments. That's fine with me -- but don't expect me to chime in very often, as I believe I've already said just about everything I have to say on this topic.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, I've been receiving reports that some, or all, of you are no longer able to comment. Maybe this new thread will solve the problem. If not, please keep me posted via email and I'll see what I can do.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com215tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-82158203128923172652019-05-23T16:34:00.001-04:002019-05-23T16:55:05.526-04:00What more to say?Sorry folks. I've been neglecting this blog for some time. But not without reason. I feel that I've said all there is for me to say about the Ramsey case. And despite some very gratifying positive feedback from so many of you, I'm discouraged. Our efforts at clearing a path toward a solution have been futile. The CBS lawsuit offered some hope that new information could be forthcoming. But now that this case has been "settled," with all details suppressed, that hope has been dashed. Burke has, in effect, been thrown under the bus by his father, who could not even bring himself to demand an apology for the blatant libeling of his son. Without such an apology, the lawsuit that was supposedly intended to vindicate him has done the opposite. Now, as far as the general public is concerned, the CBS special must have been on track after all, leaving poor Burke dangling in the wind. All that's left is the money, which, as now seems clear, was the whole point from the start.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I'll leave you with some thoughts by CC, who's been prodding me lately via email to continue fighting the good fight, regardless of how discouraged I've become. She's stubbornly reluctant to give up, and I respect her for that. She's offered some very sensible reasons why Patsy and John could not have been in it together and, of course, I agree:<br />
<br />
(a) Had they been acting in concert, the 911 call would not have happened until after the "kidnappers" deadline;<br />
<br />
(b) Had they been working in tandem, the staging in the basement would have been complete, perhaps the body removed; and<br />
<br />
(c) Had they colluded their stories would have been in complete sync, from the putting-to-bed scenario to the prior summer's breaking and entering by John; and<br />
<br />
(d) If their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911? Why commit first degree murder, thereby risking the death penalty themselves?<br />
<br />
Excellent points, worthy of further analysis and discussion. Thanks, CC.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com210tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-36119084500482166302018-12-09T01:02:00.002-05:002018-12-09T01:02:52.020-05:00Any News?OK, time for a new post, making room for a new round of comments. If anyone DOES have any news regarding the CBS lawsuit please post it. I can't imagine what's taking so much time, but maybe CC can offer some insights into the process.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com217tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-54692179227281028862018-08-13T20:27:00.002-04:002018-08-13T20:27:58.703-04:00Darlie Routier case on Court TVI just saw this very informative review of the case as broadcast on Court TV back in 2013. Everyone concerned about this case should watch it -- all the way through.<br />
<br />
Part 1:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tVMCq6mrbXc/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tVMCq6mrbXc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Part 2:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P3NC-nbya54/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P3NC-nbya54?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
Part 3:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TOAMR4CQcFo/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TOAMR4CQcFo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
Part 4:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpX4rHND1uE/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TpX4rHND1uE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com170tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-26709422075511275752018-08-06T12:02:00.001-04:002018-08-06T12:02:01.982-04:00Darlie Routier: part 4When Darlie foolishly agreed to let her husband off the hook and testify that he was not the one who assaulted her and her children, she signed her own death warrant, as all the evidence pointed to an inside job -- no sign of an intruder. Her own family must take a large part of the responsibility because they agreed to hire a lawyer who was already representing the husband in another case and was ethically constrained from even suggesting that <b>he </b>could have been the "intruder." I am now convinced that he <b>is </b>in fact the guilty party. If there could have been no intruder, and Darlie could not have done it (see my earlier posts), then the only possibility is Darin, her husband -- who had already contemplated staging a phony home invasion; who'd been spending recklessly for years and was now heavily in debt; who had over $200,000 in insurance money to gain upon Darlie's death; who had already expressed contempt for her over some weight gain and driven her to contemplate suicide.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
As I demonstrated in my previous post, it's not all that difficult to come up with a scenario starring him as a self-absorbed, cold-blooded killer. In this post I'd like to add a few more wrinkles.<br />
<br />
One very interesting piece of information I only learned of recently was the fact that Darin appeared on the scene naked from the waist up. While in itself there is nothing suspicious about that, the absence of a shirt could be a very important piece of the puzzle. If "the intruder" hadn't been wearing a shirt, Darlie would certainly have noticed that and reported it. She obviously saw someone wearing a shirt. And considering the nature of the assault, his shirt would have been covered in blood. The theory I outlined last time fails to take this into account. If Darin is the one, then his shirt would have been extremely bloody when he re-appeared to call the police. So what could have happened to that shirt?<br />
<br />
As I now see it, Darin's plan must have been to return to the house and call the police as soon as possible. His only serious problem would have been the bloody shirt. He couldn't very well re-enter the house to call 911 while wearing that shirt and there was no convenient place to hide it. This would explain why "the intruder" immediately exited via the garage, as Darlie reported, rather than remaining in the house after assuming Darlie was either dead or dying. Darin would have needed to discard that shirt some place where no one could find it. I think he ran very quickly to the storm drain in the alley, only a couple of short blocks away, just next to the spot where the bloody sock was found:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="170" data-original-width="309" src="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/12.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
As it was the middle of the night, the chances of his being noticed were slim. After removing the shirt, he would have stuffed it into the storm drain, accidentally dropping the bloody sock (which he'd been using as a glove) as he did so. He'd have then run back to the house, with the intention of cleaning all the blood off the knife, leaving a bloody trail from the family room through to the garage and out the window, and then calling 911 to report a home invasion and murder. While approaching the house, however, he'd have heard Darlie's screams and realized that she was still alive, which forced a change of plans. Instead of re-entering via the garage, which would have looked extremely suspicious, he decided to run around to the front entrance and, as I indicated in the previous post, create the impression that he'd just run down the stairs. He might even have quietly gone up the stairs and then noisily ran down to create the illusion that he'd been upstairs all the time. Which is what Darlie chose to assume.<br />
<br />
Here once again is the floor plan, indicating how easy it would have been for him to give the impression he'd just run downstairs, though in reality he'd entered via the front door:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="746" height="210" src="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Of course this is all speculation. There is no direct evidence implicating Darin, so even if Darlie's attorneys had provided a scenario similar to mine, they'd have had no way to prove it actually happened that way. As it seems to me, Darin is forever off the hook for this reason, there is probably no way he could be convicted of this crime. However, if her attorneys had been free to suggest the possibility that Darin could have done it, motivated by the prospect of collecting a considerable insurance payout, that would have made an effective argument for reasonable doubt, and she might very well have been found innocent. Unfortunately, as I understand it, reasonable doubt applies only to the trial itself and can't be used as an argument during any appeal. Burden of proof is reversed during an appeal, as there is no longer a presumption of innocence. The appellant must <b>prove</b> his or her innocence, which may, in this case, not be possible.<br />
<br />
Darlie's only hope may be for a pardon from the Governor. However, while she has a great many supporters, it will probably be impossible for anyone with law enforcement experience to pardon her, as there is no credible evidence of an intruder, and as far as I can tell none of her supporters seems interested in suggesting that Darin could be the guilty party. What a tragedy!<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com98tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-37338296962694892072018-07-30T12:39:00.002-04:002018-07-30T12:50:18.102-04:00Darlie Routier: part 3It's been reported that Darlie's husband Darin stated that, if Darlie had died, he'd be the one now sitting on death row. Think about that for a moment. Allow it to fully sink in. Because it's a literally mind blowing statement, a remarkable insight into the bizarre nature of this case. If Darlie Routier had died on the operating table, which was a real possibility since the knife that slashed her came within 2 millimeters of her carotid artery, then she would have been deemed a victim, along with her two boys -- and given the total lack of intruder evidence, the only possible perpetrator would have been Darin. How very strange. If she dies, she's a victim; if she lives, she's a murderess. If she lives, Darin is an innocent bystander; if she dies, he's a murderer.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I've been reading a lot about this case lately, and viewing some of the documentaries, and this extremely ironic aspect of the case is totally overlooked. If Darlie had died, Darin would have been the one put on trial and, if things had gone the way they went in Darlie's trial, HE would have been convicted of murder. Yet practically from day one, he was not considered a suspect. And one has to wonder why. Considering the seriousness of Darlie's throat wound, it's hard to rule out the possibility that she herself was the intended victim.<br />
<br />
Could Darin have decided to kill Darlie to collect on her $250,000 life insurance policy? He'd been living above his means for years and was, at the time, desperately trying to get a loan. The prospect of collecting on a quarter of a million dollar insurance policy is a pretty powerful motive, while it's all but impossible to find a motive for Darlie to suddenly snap and stab her own children to death. Is it possible to put together a convincing scenario with Darin instead of Darlie as the perpetrator and Darlie as a victim? Pure speculation of course -- but let's give it a try:<br />
<br />
As we know, Darin had recently contemplated the staging of a burglary as part of an insurance scam. This tells us how desperate he was for cash, and how willing he was to break the law in order to get some. So let's say that one day, out of sheer desperation, he decides that, instead of staging a burglary, he could stage the murder of his heavily insured wife by a would-be burglar. When alone in the house, he grabs a knife from the kitchen, walks into the garage and cuts a slit in a window screen to stage a point of entry. He then returns the knife to its rack in the kitchen and waits for Darlie and the children to come home. That night, he decides to make his move. He walks downstairs to the kitchen, takes a knife from the rack and quietly makes his way into the family room where Darlie and his two sons are fast asleep. It's possible that he could have prepared a paper towel soaked in chloroform or ether ahead of time. He'd have crept up from behind her, covered her face with the towel, and waited for her to lose consciousness. During this episode there could have been a struggle, which would explain the cut on her arm.<br />
<br />
Once she was unconscious, Darin could have slit her throat without fear of her screaming and alerting the neighbors. Since he'd slashed so deeply into her throat, Darin might well have assumed that she was either dead or dying at that point, so his attention then turned to the two boys, who could have awakened during the struggle. Since they could identify him, they too would have to be killed. He stabs them both viciously, to make it look as though they'd been attacked by some monstrous psychopath.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Darin, Darlie is slowly reviving and in an extremely confused state of mind. Suffering from shock, she doesn't recall what happened and doesn't realize at first that her throat had been slashed. And since she'd been assaulted from behind, she has no way of knowing who stabbed her. She looks up and sees what she assumes to be an intruder. She can't identify him because his back is turned. And by the same token, Darin has no idea that Darlie is alive and regaining consciousness. Assuming that everyone in the family room is either dead or dying, he drops the knife and heads for the utility room and from there to the garage.<br />
<br />
And at this point, I must admit, I find it difficult to speculate regarding what he would have been up to or what was on his mind. Perhaps he'd decided to make his way into the alley to plant that bloody sock. No need for him to run two blocks to plant it. He could have dropped it just outside the garage, as intruder evidence -- a stray dog might have got hold of it at some point, and carried it to the place where it was later found. Returning to the house, he would have overheard Darlie on the phone, hysterically trying to communicate with the 911 operator. Realizing to his horror that she was still alive, he would have had no choice but to forget about completing his staging, switching gears to play the innocent husband, "coming to the rescue" of his family. Quietly making his way back into the house from the front entrance, he could have given Darlie the impression that he'd just run downstairs after hearing her screams. As we can see from the floor plan, someone arriving via the front door could easily make it seem to someone in the kitchen as though he'd just emerged from the staircase:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="746" height="210" src="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While Darlie was distracted by her 911 call, Darin would then have thrown himself on top of one of the boys, pretending to render CPR, thus providing investigators with a reason why his victim's blood would be on his clothing. When the police arrive, he is, of course, "fully cooperative."<br />
<br />
Since I'm new to this case, I can't be sure that the above scenario is fully consistent with all the evidence, so at this point I'm just tossing it out for whatever it may be worth, in the hope that someone reading here can offer a critique.<br />
<br />
Regardless of how accurate my scenario might turn out to be, it does seem extremely strange that the authorities decided to rule Darin out so soon. Some light is shed on the situation by a writ of <a href="https://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/parks.html" target="_blank">Habeas Corpus </a>by Douglas Parks, a lawyer representing Darlie's appeal, dating, it would seem, from 2004. Some excerpts:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The State’s misconduct is matched only by the unethical and unconstitutional actions of Petitioner’s own defense counsel, who, even though advised by her prior counsel that the husband was a possible perpetrator, agreed not to implicate Petitioner’s husband in her trial as a condition of being hired by the family to defend her. By completely foreclosing this line of defense, her counsel never learned or presented to the jury evidence that Darin Routier had arranged to have his car stolen in 1994 to collect insurance proceeds and for a period of months before the events on June 6, 1996, had inquired of relatives and associates whether they knew of anyone who would “burglarize” his home so that he could collect the insurance proceeds. . . </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Defense Counsel’s Attorney-Client Relationship with Darin Routier and Employment Arrangement with the Routier Family Prevented Defense Counsel From Presenting an Effective Defense for Petitioner and From Effectively Cross-Examining Darin Routier at Trial.<br />
<br />
Defense counsel was twice conflicted in this case. First, he represented Darin Routier in a matter substantially related to this case. Although the State had evidence implicating Darin Routier in the crimes with which Petitioner was charged, that concurrent representation of Petitioner’s husband prevented defense counsel from investigating Darin Routier and pursuing a viable defense strategy for Petitioner. Second, Darin Routier “told [defense counsel] that if we hired him, [he] did not want him to ‘go after’ [him]. [Defense counsel] agreed that, if hired to represent [Petitioner], he would not argue as part of the defense that [Darin Routier] was in any way responsible for the death of [his] children.” Routier Aff. ¶ 7. These obvious and irreconcilable conflicts of interest adversely affected his representation of Petitioner throughout her trial.</blockquote>
All I can say is: hmmmmmm . . .<br />
<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-61124106285649514562018-07-29T14:54:00.001-04:002018-07-29T15:28:39.475-04:00Darlie Routier: part 2As long time readers of this blog know, I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to criminal profiling. (I sometimes have to laugh out loud when watching a show like "Criminal Minds" -- it's comical to see how those people are always so sure of themselves). What all too often happens is that the person identified from the start as the most likely suspect is subject to intense scrutiny -- every word, every inflection, every gesture is probed for signs of deceit or pathology. And all too often, the old adage "seek and ye shall find" is borne out. If you are looking for signs that someone might be lying or contradicting himself or dissembling or acting you will very likely find them. I saw this over and over when following the Ramsey case investigation and yes, I find it in the Routier investigation as well.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Darlie claims that she suddenly "woke up" to see a man in dark shirt and jeans, presumably an intruder, running out of the family room and into the kitchen. She couldn't describe him very well as the lights were off and his back was turned. She said that she then followed him into the kitchen, where she saw him go into the utility room.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="746" height="210" src="https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/375674_10151046279866505_124510107_n-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
She said that he then dropped a knife, which she picks up and places on the kitchen counter. At some point she notices that she "had blood on me." She then returns to the family room, where she discovers her son Devon lying on the floor with his eyes wide open. The other son, Damon, was standing and she claims that she did not at first notice that he too had been attacked. She starts screaming, calls for her husband, Darin, who then appears out of nowhere apparently, because there is no mention in her testimony of her seeing him run down the staircase. She then grabs the portable phone to call 911, and also heads for the sink to soak some towels, which she then places on Damon's back in an attempt to staunch the blood. She then sees Darin on the floor, trying to resuscitate Devon, but as he blows into Devon's mouth, blood pours out of his wounds. (The above description is based on the court <a href="file:///C:/Users/Victor/Documents/Routier%20Case/66_darlie-lynn-routier%20court%20transcript.pdf" target="_blank">transcript</a>.)<br />
<br />
The police arrive fairly promptly and an investigation begins. It doesn't take long before detectives report no sign of forced entry and no sign whatsoever of an intruder. At that point, naturally, all suspicion falls on Darlie, whose story does seem hard to believe. How is it possible for her to sleep through an attack during which her throat is slit? How convenient that the intruder had his back to her so she had no way of identifying him. How convenient that she picked up the murder weapon, thus providing an excuse for her prints being on it. Fragments from a recently slit window screen are found on a kitchen knife, proof positive that it was she herself who slit that screen to stage an intruder entry point. Her demeanor is also cause for suspicion, as she doesn't seem sufficiently distraught. And a few days after the murder, when she is filmed smiling and laughing during a "birthday" party for Devon, that clinches it as far as the profilers are concerned, since no genuinely grieving mother would behave like that -- shortly after that incident she is arrested and charged with first degree murder.<br />
<br />
As I've said, this is a case that has me stumped. If an intruder had been present, then some trace of his presence would almost have to be found, especially because this was a knife attack, which would in all likelihood have left him dripping with blood. On the other hand, I see Darlie's testimony in a very different light from that of the investigators. While her description of suddenly coming to after having been stabbed in the throat seems hard to understand, it's even more difficult to understand why someone staging a phony intruder attack would want to make such an unusual claim. It would have been much more believable to concoct something straightforward: "I went to the kitchen to prepare a snack, and when I returned to the family room I saw this strange guy with a mask over his face stabbing my children. When I tried to stop him he started stabbing me and then ran out." What would she have had to gain by claiming to have slept through a knife attack? And as far as the knife is concerned, this was a knife from her own kitchen, which would already have had her prints on it, so if she'd been staging, what would she have had to gain by picking it up?<br />
<br />
A forensic analysis of the blood evidence reveals several details that seem suspicious, notably some evidence suggesting an attempt to wash away a footprint and clean up at the sink, along with some other things that seem inconsistent with her version of what happened. But when we ask ourselves what she would have had to gain by obliterating a footprint or cleaning up the sink or deliberately changing her story, we come up empty. Whose footprint would she have wanted to erase; why bother to clean up blood from a scene she'd already described as bloody? As far as changing her story, we see examples of that sort of thing in many cases where the authorities are convinced of an innocent person's guilt. Yes, Patsy Ramsey was accused of changing her story, as was Amanda Knox, yet as I believe I've demonstrated, both are innocent. Amanda's case was ultimately thrown out of court. It's not difficult to see how someone traumatized by having her throat slit and seeing her children covered in blood might have trouble getting her story straight. A cold blooded killer would have no such problem.<br />
<br />
I've already described my methods several times on this blog, and they are very different from the way most crime investigators approach a case. For me, the evidence, the forensics, the psychological evaluations (profiling) are secondary -- in a typical trial every single piece of evidence and every single psychological evaluation can be contested, and interpreted in a variety of ways. I certainly don't believe we should ignore the evidence, but for me the two crucial elements in any case are: 1. the known facts and 2. logical inferences based on those facts. So, applying my method to this case:<br />
<br />
FACT: Darlie's neck wound was not superficial, as initially assumed, but very nearly fatal. According to the doctor, her throat had been slit so deeply that the knife missed her carotid artery by only 2 millimeters.<br />
<br />
INFERENCE: Darlie's throat wound could not have been self-inflicted.<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION: Darlie is innocent.<br />
<br />
Which leaves us with a baffling conundrum. If Darlie is innocent and there was no intruder, then who stabbed her and killed her two little boys? And, as with the Ramsey case, "when we eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true" (courtesy of Sherlock Holmes).<br />
<br />
More next time . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-20458367810146480732018-07-27T00:44:00.001-04:002018-07-27T01:09:07.489-04:00The Impossible Darlie Routier CaseNo action around here for some time. Very unusual because this blog is usually overwhelmed with comments, often too many for me to keep up with. I get it though, because, well, what more is there to say about the Ramsey case that hasn't already been said a thousand times? We're all patiently waiting for news regarding the CBS lawsuits, but those wheels are grinding really, really slowly.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile I've been preoccupied with various other, very different, projects, all of which are now complete -- which means I'm getting bored. The other day, however, I accidentally came across a youtube video on the Darlie Routier case. That peaked my interest, so I decided to do a bit of research, and what I learned truly stumped me. For a brief summary of the case, for those of you who may not be familiar with it, I recommend this presentation of the <a href="https://darliefacts.com/case-background/" target="_blank">Case Background</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
There are aspects of this case that remind me of both the Ramsey and Amanda Knox cases. As with the Ramsey case, we have an alleged intruder, but no evidence of his presence anywhere in the house. We have an apparent entry-exit point at a window that seems almost certainty staged. And of course we have the brutal murder of two young children, roughly the same age as JonBenet. We also have a mother, not unlike Patsy Ramsey, who, like Patsy, has been accused of putting on an act in order to cover up her "obvious" guilt. In both cases, we see the usual attempts to "nail" the favored suspect on the basis of heavy-handed and, imo amateurish attempts at "criminal profiling": her 911 call was "obviously" faked; her story kept changing; "no loving mother would do" this or that; she showed too much emotion; she showed too little emotion; she lied. Etc.<br />
<br />
We see similar efforts in the Amanda Knox case. Amanda did cartwheels while waiting to testify, Darlie held a birthday party for one of her murdered sons at which she appeared suspiciously happy; Amanda seemed emotionally detached; so, at times, did Darlie; Amanda was a spoiled brat; Darlie was a self-absorbed narcissist who had recently had breast implants. More seriously, we see a naive over-reliance by the investigators on dubious forensic evidence, coupled with a tendency to ignore exculpatory evidence and even simple logic. In both cases, the relative position of certain items in the house was deemed crucial despite the existence of alternative explanations. In both cases, efforts to establish motive bordered on the absurd.<br />
<br />
Thanks to the research I've done on both the Ramsey and Knox cases, I've developed a healthy skepticism regarding investigative methods of this sort, that are long on speculation and short on logic. Nevertheless, I must admit that, unlike my convictions regarding the innocence of both Patsy and Amanda, in this case I'm stumped. While evidence of an intruder was missing in both the Ramsey and Routier cases, the Ramsey case is different because the presence of an intruder along with the existence of a "ransom" note written on a pad from the house doesn't add up. The Ramsey intruder theory simply makes no sense. Darlie's contention that she was assaulted by an intruder does, on the other other hand, make sense -- there is no reason to assume an intruder could not have been present -- but there is no evidence to support it. While an intruder who had just stabbed two children so viciously that the knife went completely through them would be expected to leave a trail of blood along the entirety of his escape route, no such trail was found. Nor were there any traces of foreign DNA and no strange footprints or fingerprints. The presence of some of the victims' blood on a discarded sock found two or three blocks away is a complete mystery as no other blood was found anywhere near it. If it had somehow become attached to an intruder's clothing and accidentally fallen off, we'd expect to see a bloody trail leading to it. By the same token, if it had been planted there by Darlie after stabbing her children, then she too would have left a trail of blood.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I find it extremely difficult to conclude that Darlie could have stabbed her children and then covered it up by concocting an unlikely story, despite the lack of intruder evidence. First of all, it's literally impossible to see a motive. Why would a supposedly loving mother, with no record of any mental illness and no criminal record suddenly snap and brutally stab two boys that she apparently doted on? To what end? In the Ramsey case, an apparent motive becomes much more likely when we consider the evidence of prior molestation, but nothing of that sort or anything close to it has emerged in the Routier case. The children had life insurance, but it amounted to only $5,000, roughly the cost of burial. Secondly, the wound on Darlie's throat, which the investigator's assumed to be self-inflicted, came dangerously close to severing her carotid artery -- according to her doctor, it missed that artery by only one or two millimeters. This is most definitely NOT consistent with a self-inflicted wound. Darlie came very close to death that day.<br />
<br />
So WHAT exactly is the story here? What could have happened? I must say that if I'd been on that jury, I'd have voted for acquittal, based essentially on reasonable doubt, because the case remains an unsolved mystery as far as I'm concerned. I would certainly not have voted for the death sentence, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that, at this point, I'm completely stumped, I do have some thoughts regarding certain possibilities that might or might not be fully consistent with the evidence. And I'm eager to learn what readers might think and whether someone might come up with a convincing angle that I'm not aware of. In any case, I'll be discussing an alternative theory in my next post.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-15457573119350489272018-05-14T01:20:00.003-04:002018-05-14T01:20:32.416-04:00Back to BasicsAka "Making room for more comments."DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com219tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-80016152955976871752018-02-04T11:04:00.003-05:002018-02-04T11:06:24.679-05:00The Mysterious case of Max Shaknai and Rebecca Zahau - guest post by Lou<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
On July 11, 2011 6 year-old Max Shaknai, son of wealthy pharmaceutical company CEO Jonah Shaknai, was found lying on the floor at the foot of the staircase with his Razor scooter resting on top of his leg, the shattered chandelier nearby. Rebecca Zahau, Jonah's live-in 32 year old girlfriend found Max, rushed to his side and heard him say the word "Ocean" - the name of her dog, before he slipped into unconsciousness. Rebecca's 13 year old sister was visiting at the time, and Rebecca instructed her to dial 911 immediately. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
According to Jonah's ex-wife Dina, the doctors first suggested Max may have had a heart attack and fallen down the stairs. Both she and Jonah were asked if they had ever had heart problems. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
July 13, 2011 Max Shacknai died. Earlier in the day Jonah's brother Adam arrived at the Spreckle's mansion in Coronado where Max, Jonah and Rebecca resided. Adam was a 42 year old tug boat operator and would-be writer from Memphis, Tennessee. In a deposition Adam says he tried to comfort an understandably distraught Rebecca and offered her a shoulder to cry on. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
Jonah Shaknai says at approximately 12:30 p.m. July 13 he called Rebecca to inform her Max wasn't going to make it. She sent and received several text messages and at 12:50 a.m. she listened to a message from her voicemail, a message that was subsequently deleted either by the police, investigators, or Rebecca. By 3 a.m. she was dead, an apparent suicide.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
Adam Shaknai, who was staying in the guest house, reports that he went to have coffee in the main house at around 6:30 a.m. and saw Rebecca's nude body hanging from the second floor balcony from a rope or cord. He says he cut her down and tried to perform CPR while calling 911. He ankles had been bound with a red cord and blue T-shirt had been stuffed in her mouth. She also had duct tape residue on her ankles and a strange message was painted on the interior of her bedroom door in black paint. Authorities deemed Rebecca's death a suicide. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
Another physician, discounting the heart attack angle in Max's death tells Jonah and Dina Shacknai Max could have been suffocated. It is also believed Max may have been racing his scooter along the second floor corridor, tripped over the dog Ocean, and grabbed the chandelier as he fell. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
Not analyzed was a drop of blood in the shower by the master bedroom, a pair of panties found in the guesthouse trash, or a clear glass of liquid found near the scene. Dr. Wecht asks why tape residue would be found on Rebecca's ankles if she was found with cord wrapped around her ankles. Did she remove duct tape herself and then tie her self up instead? There also were lacerations on her scalp and scratches other wounds on her body. What happened - to Max, and to Rebecca?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif, serif, emojifont;">
Lou</div>
DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com259tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-8682972194568065942018-01-28T12:13:00.001-05:002018-01-29T14:19:36.971-05:00The Case of Larry NassarI'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.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The case of Larry Nassar, the now notorious Osteopath accused of sexually assaulting 150 (or more) young gymnasts, is particularly puzzling. Before I continue, I would like to make clear that I have no intention of defending this guy, because I simply don't know enough about the case to render a judgement. But there are certain aspects of the case that trouble me and certain questions that, in my view, need to addressed before Nassar is universally condemned as some sort of out of control pedophile monster.<br />
<br />
I'll start with the huge collection of "child pornography" found on his hard drive. When I first heard that he was being accused of "child pornography" my assumption was that he'd been discovered producing such pornography himself, i.e., taking photos or videos of underage girls and sharing them with others, presumably via some sort of online pedophile network. As I've read more about the case, however, I've seen no evidence that he's been accused of anything more than collecting such materials for his own "use," and while possession of child pornography is in fact illegal, it hardly seems more of an offense than, for example, possession of small amounts of marijuana for one's own use. In this regard, the sentence of 60 years imposed solely on the basis of his having collected such materials (the accusations of sexual molestation are another issue) seems way out of line. Which makes one wonder regarding the objectivity of a judge who would want to impose such a harsh sentence over what appears to be little more than a misdemeanor. [Added on Jan. 29: from the <a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/sex-crimes/child-pornography/" target="_blank">Justia </a>website:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Child pornography charges can be prosecuted in both federal and state court and carry hefty criminal punishments. First-time offenses can result in 15-20 years in prison plus extended time in supervised sex offender release programs. Being charged with possession of child pornography will also typically require a defendant to be registered in a sex offender database.]</blockquote>
The many accusations of sexual abuse are, of course, another matter entirely, and since so many young women have come forward with such accusations any attempt to defend Nassar would seem almost pointless. Yet, after reading several accounts of these accusations, I'm left scratching my head. While the word "rape" is often used in this context, I don't see any examples of anything that would usually be considered rape, i.e., sexual intercourse or other form of sexual assault imposed against the victim's will. In almost every case what he's being accused of is little more than digital penetration of an underage girl's vagina. And in almost every case it's become clear that the "victim" and her parents consented to this behavior at the time, with the understanding that it was a legitimate medical procedure.<br />
<br />
Now Nassar is an osteopath, an approach to medicine that's been controversial for some time and regarded in many quarters as seriously flaky. Osteopaths have all sorts of ideas that go against mainstream thinking and have often been ridiculed. Yet it has for some time been accepted by the AMA as a legitimate "alternative" approach to healing. Is the digital penetration of a vagina in fact considered legitimate in osteopathic circles and have other osteopaths used such methods? We see little reference to this question in typical media reports, but from the online research I've done the answer seems to be "yes." But with the qualification that the method is rarely used -- while Nassar has been accused of using it routinely, which does sound extremely suspicious.<br />
<br />
If he did in fact use it routinely, however, then it's very difficult to understand why he could have gotten away with this sort of behavior for so long, especially since he was never shy about explaining and even demonstrating his methods. Personally I find the whole idea extremely offensive, but if it is in fact regarded as a legitimate procedure, and if he made no secret of his methods, and if neither the girls themselves nor their parents saw it, at the time, as anything other than a medical procedure, then it's difficult to understand how, many years after the fact, all these women could regard themselves as having been violated -- and to the extent that they are now suffering serious psychological consequences as a result.<br />
<br />
There is also the question of intent. Is any action criminal if there is no criminal intent? In my eyes the penetration of the vagina of an underage girl with or without her consent is unacceptable under any circumstances. But given the context in which these actions occurred, it's possible to believe that Nassar himself saw them as legitimate medical treatment, with no more prurient intent than the actions of any gynecologist. If he had been put on trial, his lawyer could have argued on this basis for reasonable doubt, as there is no way to prove that his intentions were anything other than honorable. But Nassar decided to plead guilty and throw himself at the mercy of the judge, which may have been a huge mistake.<br />
<br />
From what I've been reading, Nassar actually denied ever penetrating anyone's vagina, with his finger or anything else. He claimed that his manipulations had been misinterpreted as penetration because his fingers would often come close to the vagina or even touch it, but he's denied actual penetration, claiming that there had been no need to use gloves since his fingers never went far enough to warrant them. Now this would seem especially hard to believe since you would think that anyone would be able to tell whether her vagina had been penetrated or not.<br />
<br />
Yet here too I find myself puzzled. How could he have penetrated the vaginas of so many young virgins without first encountering the obstacle posed by the hymen? Are we to believe he could have actually gotten away with breaking through the hymen of hundreds of girls without consequences? How would he have been able to explain the bleeding, not to mention the extreme pain? Penetration of the vagina explained away as medical treatment is one thing; destroying the hymen of a young virgin is quite another thing. I find it all but impossible to believe that either the girls or their parents would have tolerated such an action for one minute. However, unless we want to assume that these girls were not virgins at the time he was treating them, it's very hard to understand how he could have digitally penetrated their vaginas without first breaking their hymens.<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are details of this case I am still unaware of so, unlike the Knox or Avery cases, I'm not going to draw any hard and fast conclusions. I'm hoping that some of the women following this blog can provide some enlightenment regarding the issues I've raised and as always I welcome all relevant comments.<br />
<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com61tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-72599731246385223282018-01-22T01:11:00.001-05:002018-01-22T01:21:09.615-05:00The GateA 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.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The Japanese term for such a gate is "mumon." "Mu" is a negative term, meaning no, not or without. "Mon" means, simply, gate. The masters of Zen Buddhism composed little stories or prose poems, called <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm" target="_blank">koans</a>, that function as gateless gates. If the disciple can penetrate the koan, the gate will open. But the koans are impenetrable, so the gate will always remain closed.<br />
<br />
Franz Kafka wrote of <a href="http://www.kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html" target="_blank">a man who stood at such a gate</a> for most of his life and was never able to pass through. The Spanish filmmaker Luis Bunuel created a film about the gateless gate, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exterminating_Angel" target="_blank">The Exterminating Angel</a>. It's about a group of people who gather together for a dinner party but, when it's time to leave are unable to do so. Nothing prevents them from passing through the door, which presents no barrier, as it isn't locked. But for them it becomes a gateless gate and they remain trapped inside for months. The wealthy, privileged and spoiled partiers of Bunuel's film start the evening happy and carefree, but as the film progresses, food and water become increasingly scarce and the social order disintegrates.<br />
<br />
Our president could certainly use such a gate at the Mexican border -- it would save a lot of trouble and expense.<br />
<br />
I raise this issue here because I've gradually come to realize that the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey case is a perfect example of a gateless gate at work. The situation should have been obvious. The body of a child named JonBenet Ramsey is found in the basement of a house in which the parents have found a rather long and detailed ransom note. It is subsequently learned that the note was written on paper from a notepad found in the kitchen of this same house. While all the doors were reported as locked by the victim's father, John Ramsey, a broken window is found in the basement, with a hard suitcase propped just underneath it, flush with the wall, suggesting that an intruder must have entered and possibly also left via that window. However, only a few pieces of broken glass are found on the floor -- and Mr. Ramsey has claimed that he himself broke that window months earlier, after accidentally locking himself out. But Mr. Ramsey has never explained the presence of the suitcase, nor has he provided an explanation as to why he, by his own admission, closed that window after finding it open and never reported what he had found to the police on the scene at the time. And as was reported very early on, the housekeeper who had recently been spending a lot of time in that basement denied any knowledge of any broken window.<br />
<br />
Since there was in fact no kidnapping, and since there is no logical reason why a would-be kidnapper would not prepare his ransom note prior to entering the house, coupled with the fact that to this day no conclusive evidence of an intruder's presence has ever been found, it seems obvious that the "ransom note" could not have been written by a real kidnapper, but must have been written by someone living in the house, with the intention of staging a phony kidnapping. Meaning that the child must have been killed by one of the three people residing in the house that night.<br />
<br />
While it's been suggested that both John and Patsy Ramsey must have colluded to cover up what really happened by staging a fake kidnapping, Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning to report that her daughter was missing and that a ransom note had been found. It therefore makes little sense to suspect Patsy of involvement in either the crime or the staging, since the long, carefully composed note was clearly written with the intention of disposing of the body prior to calling the police. By calling them while the body was hidden away in the most obscure corner of the house, Patsy nullified the effect of the note, which she would not have done if she had either written it or had been involved in the staging. As should have been evident once the body had been found, something had gone wrong with the planning behind the note and that something could only have been Patsy's 911 call.<br />
<br />
Despite all the suspicions centering on Patsy nevertheless, no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible motive for her to kill the child who had become the center of her whole existence, on which she had been lavishing huge amounts of attention and expense. Nor has anyone ever been able to come up with a motive for Patsy or John to go to such bizarre extremes to cover for their young son, Burke, on the assumption that he might have inflicted the head blow on his sister, a wound that could easily have been explained as an accident.<br />
<br />
In fact, the only motive that makes any sense at all can be inferred from the finding of a group of pediatric experts, as reported in Steve Thomas's book: JonBenet had almost certainly been sexually molested prior to the attack that killed her. While it's never been possible to unequivocally identify the person who molested her, the desire to prevent her from exposing him as guilty of both child abuse and incest is in fact a very persuasive motive for murder and indeed, once an intruder has been ruled out, the only plausible motive that's ever been raised for anyone to do all the things that were done to her that night. It thus makes a great deal of sense to infer that the person who murdered her is the same person who had been abusing her. Since the only mature male in the house at the time she was murdered was her father, John Ramsey, and since it was Patsy, not John, who made the 911 call that would never have been made by someone who had been staging a kidnapping, it stands to reason that there was more than enough in the way of probable cause for John Ramsey to be indicted and put on trial for this crime.<br />
<br />
Not only did this not happen, but due to factors that I've elucidated many times on this blog and need not repeat here, John was ultimately all but ruled out as the possible abuser/ murderer, with all attention focused on either his wife or his frail 9 year old son. Steve Thomas announced to the world that he had given John "a pass," James Kolar refuses to even consider John in his book, and the investigators in the CBS special, when evaluating all possible suspects, including both Patsy and Burke, fail to even mention John's name.<br />
<br />
Considering the above, reinforced by all the other facts, evidence and inferences presented by me along with many others throughout this blog, this should have been an open and shut case. The door was in fact wide open and the solution clearly available for all informed persons to see. But no one in a position to make a difference has been able to pass through that door. Why? Because, like the gate in Kafka's fable, or the front door in Bunuel's film, it is a mumonkan -- a gateless gate.<br />
<br />
So what's the catch? What IS this "gateless gate"? Is it a total mystery or is some sort of explanation possible? Well, as I now see it, after many years of pondering the possible meanings of Zen, and realizing that no, it is not a form of mysticism, but an eminently practical philosophy, I have a theory. What is known in Zen as the gateless gate is a set of obstructions placed in everyone's mind that prevents them from seeing what is simply there before them -- unless they are psychologically prepared to see it. Because of the manner in which this case developed such an obstruction arose very early on, based on various factors, primarily the dubious, but NEVER contested, decision to rule John out as writer of the note and the conviction that, given no intruder, both John and Patsy ("the Ramseys") MUST be in it together. This interpretation has ultimately become a mind set, a barrier, preventing so many from even contemplating the very simple evidence, facts and logic of the case. Thus no amount of evidence, new or old, is going to change anything, because the case is really not about evidence at all, but the impossibility for so many of penetrating that gateless gate -- the mindset that holds us back, time after time, from accepting what is so obvious about the world around us and even the nature of our own existence.<br />
<br />
As I wrote some time ago on a very different blog:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The koan has been described as a hot coal stuck in the throat that one can neither spit out nor swallow. The Gateless Gate is the Gate of Hell.</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-98jigLxnm7Q/U4FvrUZFMMI/AAAAAAAALz8/2CLxhLyH8N4/s1600/L%2527ANGE+EXTERMINATEUR+-+French+Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1151" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-98jigLxnm7Q/U4FvrUZFMMI/AAAAAAAALz8/2CLxhLyH8N4/s400/L%2527ANGE+EXTERMINATEUR+-+French+Poster.jpg" width="287" /></a></div>
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com223tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-80734063034410833162018-01-05T23:52:00.002-05:002018-01-05T23:52:46.121-05:00Hoo 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 <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-scores-legal-victory-ready-to-expose-cbs-for-fraud/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
According to Judge Groner,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; color: #333333; font-family: Hind, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17.92px;">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.</span></blockquote>
As someone who watched this travesty with a growing sense of dismay, I fully agreeDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com149tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-41638909539550374372017-12-08T10:02:00.004-05:002017-12-08T10:05:31.772-05:00An Interview with Lin Wood<span style="font-size: large;">From <i>Westword</i>, dated Oct. 12:</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h1 style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: avalonWeb, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: 100; letter-spacing: -2px; line-height: 43px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 10px 0px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.westword.com/news/john-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-over-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-theory-program-9582176" target="_blank">Inside John Ramsey's CBS Lawsuit Over Brother-Killed-JonBenét Show</a></span></h1>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com240tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-55693341928045439992017-11-10T16:02:00.000-05:002017-11-10T23:34:28.108-05:00John and Patsy Opposite Hand SamplesCourtesy of Castor:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ndrvx_I7Gjk/WgYPMDCMOGI/AAAAAAAABO0/4GJqwxTBKGM02DxcUgNk2xO8DPcAMxtOQCLcBGAs/s1600/John%2B%2526%2BPatsy%2527s%2Bleft%2Bhand%2Bsample.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1183" data-original-width="1242" height="608" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ndrvx_I7Gjk/WgYPMDCMOGI/AAAAAAAABO0/4GJqwxTBKGM02DxcUgNk2xO8DPcAMxtOQCLcBGAs/s640/John%2B%2526%2BPatsy%2527s%2Bleft%2Bhand%2Bsample.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
And here's a sample from the ransom note that Castor has snipped for comparison purposes:
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zVkNalO02Po/WgYQ7oXbfyI/AAAAAAAABPA/T4DOCzW86Wk8aLsBznmfihWPLrnjcVMgACLcBGAs/s1600/ransom%2Bnote%2Bsample.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="640" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zVkNalO02Po/WgYQ7oXbfyI/AAAAAAAABPA/T4DOCzW86Wk8aLsBznmfihWPLrnjcVMgACLcBGAs/s400/ransom%2Bnote%2Bsample.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I've already analyzed Patsy's left hand sample in some detail <a href="http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html" target="_blank">here</a>. None of the samples John had provided to the authorities had ever been made public until Paula Woodward's book came out. The sample Castor has provided looks as though it's a reproduction from that book. I noticed that when I reviewed her book some time ago, but couldn't make much of it so never posted anything on it. One thing it tells us is that John is a lot better at writing with his left hand than Patsy is, though both samples are pretty messy. Oddly, while Patsy was apparently given a Sharpie pen to write with, the pen John was using seems to have a thinner point. Wonder how that happened.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, this is everyone's chance to chime in with their own analyses of these documents. As I see it, the note was NOT written with the opposite hand and for this reason I'm still waiting to see more of John's right handed exemplars. Though oddly, the document we've all seen uses a backhand style more consistent with what we'd expect from a lefty.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com239tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-28473612033500441862017-11-04T14:14:00.003-04:002017-11-04T14:14:37.502-04:00Did Putin Do It?Depends on what your definition of "it" is. More room for comments. On all things Ramsey, Trump, Putin, whatever.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com79tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-26465978027670796212017-10-22T12:43:00.001-04:002017-10-22T12:43:52.712-04:00The Case Against Lin WoodLin 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?DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com211tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-11977399901341671462017-10-13T23:57:00.001-04:002017-10-14T00:17:01.216-04:00John's LawsuitAs most reading here must know by now, Lin Wood has filed a <a href="http://www.westword.com/news/john-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-over-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-theory-program-9582176" target="_blank">new lawsuit</a> 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.<br />
<br />
If I were representing CBS in this particular lawsuit, I would have some questions for John that could make him VERY uncomfortable. For example:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
1. Why was the "ransom note" written in the Ramsey home rather than prepared in advance?<br />
<br />
2. Why would an intruder bother to wrap JonBenet's body in a blanket and hide it in the most remote room in the house rather than simply leave it where it lay after she was killed?<br />
<br />
3. What proof do you have that you yourself broke the basement window months earlier rather than on the night of the crime, to stage a breakin? How can you explain your housekeeper's testimony that she knew nothing about any broken window and did not help clean up any glass?<br />
<br />
4. Why didn't you immediately report finding that window open on the morning of the 26th? Why did you close it?<br />
<br />
5. How can you prove that you yourself did not pen the "ransom note," given your own lawyer's insistence that the testimony of handwriting "experts" has no basis in science and cannot be taken seriously?<br />
<br />
6. Why did you refuse to immediately go to the police station for questioning, rather than delay the process for months, knowing full well that your testimony might have assisted the investigation and possibly led to the apprehension of the alleged intruder?<br />
<br />
7. How can you explain the contradiction between the version of what happened prior to the 911 call presented by Patsy on the A&E documentary and the version presented in your book?<br />
<br />
8. What was the nature of the business meeting you claimed you needed to attend on the afternoon of the 26th. Can you name anyone else who attended that meeting?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com235tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-13201744586318178322017-10-03T16:27:00.001-04:002017-10-03T16:27:12.991-04:00The Case Against Self-Driving CarsI have pretty strong feelings on this topic. For details, see my other blog, <a href="http://tomorrowandtomorow.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-antoctycad-new-type-of-car-that-you.html" target="_blank">Things to Come</a>. For more on the Ramsey case, stick with this one. :-)<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com228tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-62780368028742210412017-09-26T01:25:00.004-04:002017-09-26T01:25:58.052-04:00The Case Against Colonizing MarsSorry. I'm running out of topics.DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com203tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-35987841214460063092017-09-22T10:02:00.001-04:002017-09-22T10:02:04.807-04:00The Case Against Patsy RamseyMore 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.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
One example: the continual assertion that an innocent person would 1. not have ignored the warnings in the note and call the police when she did; and 2. not have invited her friends over to "contaminate" the crime scene. Well, why would she have gone to all the trouble of including those dire warnings (including the decapitation of her daughter) in the first place, and then go ahead and ignore her own warnings by calling the police anyhow? Does THAT make sense?<br />
<br />
And if she called the friends with the intention of having them contaminate the crime scene, then why didn't she call them before calling the police, to make sure they would enter the house before the cops had a chance to stop them? And if she and John were in it together, as is so widely assumed, they could have contaminated the crime scene themselves, before calling 911 -- no need to have their friends do it.<br />
<br />
Now as for me, I'm not sure if I would call the police under similar circumstances, but maybe I would. I would certainly not call my friends over, as Patsy did. But then again I'm not Patsy. And if calling friends over is a sure sign of guilt, why would someone putting on an "innocent" act decide to do precisely that?<br />
<br />
You can argue all you want over the wisdom of calling the police in the face of all those threats and you can argue all you want over the wisdom of calling friends over. But by no means can either of these acts be seen as signs of guilt -- because they can just as easily be seen as signs of innocence.<br />
<br />
The same goes for literally everything Patsy said or did that's been held against her. If you're already convinced of her guilt then each and every one of these things will be seen in that light, regardless of any other interpretation that could be offered. Once the focus was on her, then it became all too easy to see guilt in the most innocuous actions or comments -- even the expression on her face.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: as with Burke, there is NO case to be made against Patsy. No motive for her to do the things so often attributed to her. NO motive to write a phony ransom note filled with threats she was later to ignore. No motive to call the police, knowing the body of her daughter would soon be discovered and her note rendered pointless. No motive to hand the police a note written by her, which would amount to providing them with evidence against her. No motive to kill the daughter who had become the focus of her entire life. No motive to cover for a husband who took that life from her. And no motive, certainly, to penetrate the vagina of that beloved child and then strangle her in some insane effort to protect a son too young to be prosecuted in any case.<br />
<br />
As far as all those "lies" attributed to Patsy, I've already responded to those accusations by systematically analyzing just about every one. See <a href="http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2017/03/lies-etc-attributed-to-patsy.html" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-lies-etc-attributed-to-patsy.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Now if anyone has anything new to add that might bolster the case against Patsy, then by all means include it in a comment below. But please don't bore us by continually repeating what's already been asserted over and over again. And please everyone try to control the endless bickering on both sides, which serves no useful purpose.<br />
<br />DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com243