Gaslighting

I received a really nice email the other day from a blog follower who provided a link to a very convincing and disturbing article on gaslighting. 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.

Existential Crisis

OK, 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.

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.

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.

N.B.: The book is now available here, via Amazon.com.

And Now for Something Completely Different

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 Rebecca Zahau and Max Shaknai. What they all have in common, which for me validates their inclusion here, is the fundamental issue of: justice. 

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 climate justice?

New Thread

Time for a new thread, I've been told. (What's wrong with the old one, if I may ask?)

The Neverending Story

I 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.

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.

What 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.

Any 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.

Darlie Routier case on Court TV

I 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.

Part 1:

Darlie Routier: part 4

When 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 he could have been the "intruder." I am now convinced that he is 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.

Darlie Routier: part 3

It'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.

Darlie Routier: part 2

As 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.

The Impossible Darlie Routier Case

No 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.

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 Case Background.

Back to Basics

Aka "Making room for more comments."

The Mysterious case of Max Shaknai and Rebecca Zahau - guest post by Lou

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. 

The Case of Larry Nassar

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

The Gate

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

Hoo Hah!

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

According to Judge Groner,

This Court finds that the statements at issue and the docu-series as a whole could reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about Plaintiff. This Court does not find that the “disclaimer” at the beginning and at the end of the program negate the docu-series potentially defamatory meaning.

As someone who watched this travesty with a growing sense of dismay, I fully agree

An Interview with Lin Wood

From Westword, dated Oct. 12:

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

John and Patsy Opposite Hand Samples

Courtesy of Castor:

Did Putin Do It?

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

The Case Against Lin Wood

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

John's Lawsuit

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

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

The Case Against Self-Driving Cars

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

The Case Against Colonizing Mars

Sorry. I'm running out of topics.

The Case Against Patsy Ramsey

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

The Case Against DNA-Man

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

The Case Against Burke

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

One More Time -- the Case Against John Ramsey

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

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

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

Zellner loses it!

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

Onward and Upward (or sideways?)

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

Ms. Zellner Files a Motion

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

Casey Anthony?

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

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

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

Round and Round we go . . .

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

In Circles

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

Making Sense

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

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

Still more else

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

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

More Else

Or else . . .

What Else - continued

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

What else?

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