Using the Big Five Personality Traits for Character Development

Many contemporary psychologists believe there are five primary dimensions to our personalities. In their business, psychological experts refer to the categories as the “Big Five” personality traits. They are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). You could also list them as conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion (CANOE).

The Big Five has surpassed the Myers-Briggs Personality Test and the Enneagram as currently used, open-source psychological assessment tools. I’ve taken both the Myers-Briggs and the Enneagram and found them quite descriptive as I see myself to be. But then, I’m a Libra and Libras tend to agree with pretty much everything.

What got me going on the Big Five, and why it might be useful as a characterization tool for fiction writers, was Jordan Peterson. For those who don’t know of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, the New York Times described him as “The most influential public intellectual in the western world right now”. Dr. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and the author of a wildly successful book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Our daughter bought tickets for my wife and me to see Jordan Peterson live a few weeks ago. I certainly knew who Jordan Peterson is. Although I’ve never read his book, I’ve watched/heard several of his podcasts, and the guy always makes sense to me. I know he’s vilified by the woke progressives, and that pissing them off is precisely what he attempts to accomplish.

Dr. Peterson didn’t invent the Big Five Personality Traits, but he wholeheartedly endorses them. So much so that he offers a short assessment called Understand Myself which produces an individual psychological assessment report on how you fit within the Big Five. It takes about twenty minutes and costs ten bucks. I found it an interesting exercise. So much so that I signed up for his five-hour, seven-module online course for eighty bucks.

It was money well spent. Not to find out that I don’t have a neurotic bone in my body and that I’m quite low on compassion, but to learn that this Big Five psychological breakdown/assessment has great potential as a tool for character building. So much so that I’m already applying it to developing characters in my WIP titled City Of Danger.

What are the OCEAN / CANOE traits and how do they involve secondary supportive psychological categories? Let’s have a quick look.

1. Agreeableness is kindness. It includes attributes like trust, altruism, affection, and other prosocial behaviors. Agreeableness has two subcategories—compassion and politeness.

2. Conscientiousness is thoughtfulness. It’s defined by factors like impulse control and goal-directed behaviors. Conscientiousness has two subcategories—industriousness and orderliness.

3. Extraversion (Extroversion) is sociability. Traits are characterized by measuring excitability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and emotional expressiveness. Extraversion has two subcategories—enthusiasm and assertiveness.

4. Neuroticism involves sadness and emotional instability. It includes things like mood swings, anxiety, and irritability. Neuroticism has two subcategories—withdrawal and volatility.

5. Openness is creativity and intrigue. Being open is being imaginative and having insight. Openness has two subcategories—experience and intellect.

Okay. That’s the CliffsNotes of the Big Five Personality Traits. Now, how did I score from 0 to 100 (low to high) on Jordan Peterson’s Understand Myself test?   Here goes:

Agreeableness—61  Compassion—31  Politeness—85

Conscientiousness—91  Industriousness—97  Orderliness—66

Extraversion—89  Enthusiasm—59  Assertiveness—96

Neuroticism—0  Withdrawal—1  Volatility—1

Openness—95  Experience—95  Intellect—96

Moving on to applying the Big Five to characterization, I took my arch-villain, Klaus Rothel in my City Of Danger project, and ran him through Dr. Peterson’s Understand Myself questionnaire. To my surprise, or maybe not to my surprise, Klaus Rothel has almost the same personality as me. Except for compassion. Klaus scores even worse than me there.

I like the Big Five Personally Trait test for characterization. So much so (yes, I know I’ve overused “so much so” but I like “so much so” and it’s my TKZ blog post turn today so the so-much-sos stay) that I plan to run all my characters in the City Of Danger series through the Big Five test. It really makes you think about who they are, what they think, and how they’ll act.

Kill Zoners—Has anyone out there heard of, or used, the Big Five psychological evaluation for character development or even for getting to know yourself better? Also, how do you go about building fictional characters?

The Art of Being Interviewed

I planned this piece as How to be a Good Podcast Guest. But as I plugged away in research, I realized the tips I’ll list are just as applicable to regular online conversations like Zooms and written guest posts. To keep on track, though, let’s focus on how to behave as a guest during a video podcast. After all, there is an art to being interviewed.

First, a look at how big today’s podcast world is. I found a statistics site called DemandSage and dug into their podcast stats as of 23February2023. Here are some interesting bits:

  • There’re an estimated 464.7 million podcast listeners globally.
  • That’s expected to reach 504.9 million by the end of 2024.
  • It’s up from 274.8 million in 2019—approaching double.
  • There’re over 5 million podcast sites with over 70 million episodes combined.
  • Over 100 million Americans regularly tune in to podcasts.
  • 78% of US citizens are aware of podcasts.
  • 28% listen to at least one podcast per week.
  • This year the podcast industry’s value is $2 billion USD.
  • Next year, 2024, it’s expected to be $4 billion.
  • 79% of Americans who enjoy podcasts download the episodes to their mobile smartphones.
  • 15% still use a web browser and only 6% use a tablet.
  • Apple is the leading podcast streamer followed by Spotify.
  • 90% of podcasts are pre-recorded. Only 10% go live.
  • The majority of podcasts are 20-40 minutes long.

You’re probably wondering why I’m qualified to write a post about podcasts. No, I don’t host a podcast, although the thought has shot through my mind. My experience is from being a guest—being interviewed by podcast hosts, some with large audiences.

Also, I’ve been a resource person in webinars and on talk shows. In the past few years, I’ve had several dozen online appearances and now it’s common to have one guest podspot per week and a half. Today, for instance, I’m on a crime writing podcast based in Ireland. (I hope my west coast Canadian accent amuses them.)

On with it. I’ll break my tips into three areas. Before the show, during the show, and after the show.

Before the Show

Be on time. This is crucial. Do not be late or arrive at the last second. It’s rude and unprofessional and you wouldn’t want anyone doing that to you.

Know your material and be prepared. This sounds so basic, but it’s the key to a meaningful performance. The host’s audience tunes in to get something out. Make sure you’re ready to give it.

Be familiar with your host and their show’s style. It’s a good idea to watch a couple of previous episodes if you’re not familiar with the program.

Tell the host what to ask you. This might sound vain, but you are the resource the host is presenting. You should know more about your particular subject matter than your host and it can be particularly helpful for them to formulate questions if you tell them what to ask.

Check your equipment. I’ve done enough appearances now to make a worthwhile investment in professional quality stuff—noise-cancelling headphones, a 1080-pixel camera, and two boom mics (one dynamic and one condenser). You can always use your computer’s mic and camera along with earbuds but the quality won’t be as good. Regardless, just ensure they’re operating.

My Writing & Recording Station

Check your internet signal—especially if you’re on wireless. I had an embarrassing experience last week when I was on a live webinar and my signal crashed. I had to shut down, leave my studio with its backdrop full of props, and restart in the kitchen near the router. I survived, but I went and bought a roll of coaxial cable to hardwire my feed for next time.

Secure your room. Make sure whatever place you’re speaking from is secure from unexpected interruptions that could derail your presentation. Watch this funny video of a professor being interviewed live on BBC when his little kids crash the door. (BTW, it has 54 million YouTube hits.)

Turn off your cell phone.

Sound deaden your background. This is important. No one wants to listen to an echoey or tinny talk. I’ve decorated my space with fabrics like drapes, cushions, and neckties. Yes, I admit I’m a grabologist and collect neckties. (Have about 500.) They’re excellent for acoustic control and make a great backdrop. For economy, just lay towels over hard surfaces to do the job.

My Studio

Adjust your camera angle. How many pods and webs have you watched when you stared up a person’s nostrils or had a good view of their bald spot? I’ve learned to have the camera right at eye level so it appears you’re looking right into the audience’s eyes. And I’ve got a trick to share. I work with two screens. One is my laptop on the desk surface. The other is a larger monitor higher up. I fasten my Logitec digital camera with a piece of duct tape right in the center of the upper monitor. The audience can’t see the jury-rigging and the angle is perfect, but I do sit at an angle so my good side gets exposed. (I have a multi-time broken nose with a hump on one side.)

Microphone distancing. I use adjustable boom mics with pop filters. I find the best mouth-to-mic distance is spreading your palm and fingers open and place the mic from your mouth the space that your thumb tip is to your little finger. In my case, that’s 8 inches. Also, try to place the mic close to the centerline of your mouth but not blocking the camera view too much.

Lighting. Very important and should be unnoticed. You need a balance of light impacts, and it’s a visual tool to experiment with. Kind of the Goldilocks zone where it’s not too much, and not too little, but just about right. You want your front illuminated enough to be clear but not so bright that every imperfection (zit) is highlighted. I have dimmable LED overheads with adjustable side lights as well as backlighting. Part of the pre-show test with the host is checking the lights.

Dress and grooming. When you appear on camera, think of it like a job interview. Dress and look the part for the job. Clean and well kept but not overdressed or underdressed. Cameras are finicky when it comes to patterns like checks and stripes. It’s okay to be plain, Jane.

Water and bathroom. Make sure you’re comfortable. Take a pre-show bathroom break whether you need to or not. There’s nothing worse than feeling the urge at half-time. Hydration is important and the best drink is a lukewarm glass of lemon water. Also, have lip balm ready to suppress dry mouth lip smacks.

Eating on camera. This is a big no. Don’t even have food nearby and the same goes for chewing gum. It’s terribly distracting for a viewer to see a host or guest chomping away and then—Eghads!—letting off a belch or a fart.

Rest. Make sure you’re rested and ready. Don’t pull an all-nighter and go on a podcast in the morning. A yawn, or series of yawns, is a show killer.

Be aware of your tics. We all have ‘em. Use hand gestures to accent your speech but leave your hands from touching your face. As for tic words—“uhh”, “aww”, “geeze”, “like”, and “etcetera”—just be aware and keep them minimal. I know. That’s harder than it sounds because we don’t want to sound robotic.

Cheat sheets, notes, and props. It’s handy to have talking points or reference facts handy. Anticipate what you might need and have the materials nearby. Also, ask your host in advance if they’d like some “show as well as tell”. Never surprise them by whipping out something unexpected.

Your bio. Send your host a short and current bio before the podcast. A decent headshot, too. They’ll use this to introduce you. Clearly say who you are in third person and what expertise you have for the show. Include your links on how to be found but don’t try to sell anything. That can wait till the end of the show and let your host do the selling for you.

Nerves. We’re human, right? It’s natural to be nervous before a performance. Being properly prepared, as in all of the above, goes a long way toward killing butterflies. I like to engage with the host for about 15 minutes before show time. This sets a tone and allows an equipment check as well as giving some nerve-quelling time. If you do get a bit fluttery while on camera, here’s a remedy that works and no one sees. Simply place your fist in your solar plexus and slowly press. There’s a physiological reaction that calms the nerves.

During the Show

It’s your host’s show and audience. Your appearance is not about you. You’re just adding value to the host and their audience. Keep that in mind and focus on what’s in it for them. Remember, your host allowed you to go before their audience so be humble.

Listen as much as you talk. Take cues from your host and answer the questions. Clearly and concisely. Don’t seem evasive or unclear. Audiences, as well as hosts, pick this up and it either helps or hurts delivery not to mention credibility.

Stay “on brand”. Try not to get sidetracked and ramble off the topic. If you find yourself drifting, stop. The host will recognize this and steer you back.

Be conversational. Talk like you’re speaking casually with a friend. Ignore the audience and converse with the host as if the audience wasn’t even part of the show.

If you stumble or fumble your words, just own it. Laugh it off. Correct course. Move on.

Don’t hesitate to have a notepad handy. Stop and capture an idea or a link that comes up. It adds to your authenticity.

Lean forward toward the camera when you’re speaking. Lean back when you’re not. This subtlety truly works to engage interest. If you practice it, it becomes second nature. You won’t realize you’re doing it.

Use gestures. Don’t just sit stationary and converse. Smile, nod, wink if it’s appropriate, and use hand gestures, especially when explaining or comparing. But do this in moderation and be sure it appears natural, not contrived.

Be yourself. Relax and enjoy your time. Be entertaining and deliver value. But, you don’t have to be a comedian. It’s fine to freely laugh and get others laughing, too.

Remember your host’s name (and how to pronounce it). I keep the host and podcast name on a sticky note on the monitor, and I naturally use the host’s name in conversation. Can you imagine being interviewed by Joe Rogan and mistakenly calling him Neil Young?

Don’t hesitate to mention previous work your host has accomplished. Leave a compliment and/or a reference to something your host has previously done.

Leave a takeaway at the end. Be prepared to sum up your core reason for being on the show. Depart by planting a seed in your host’s and their audience’s minds.

After the Show

Send a thank you note. Possibly a small gift, too. A little gratitude goes a long way toward being remembered, and you want to be remembered as a great interviewee.

Promote the podcast. Source the links and pitch the program on your social media sites and your mailing list. It not only boosts your host’s podcast but it increases your personal exposure.

Ask for referrals. Your host undoubtedly knows other podcasters and influencers. Don’t be afraid to ask if your host knows anyone else who’d like to have you as a guest. The worst they could say is no.

Get ready for your next podcast appearance.

*   *   *

I hear the question. How do you get leads and invites to appear on a podcast or be interviewed on a show? Well, there are lots of pitching tips on the internet. Some involve cold-calling. Some involve building rapport through networking and referrals. I don’t solicit appearances and can only speak to what’s worked for my discovery.

It’s come from my blog at Dyingwords.net. I’ve been at it 10 years and have over 400 posts. I stick to my tagline Provoking Thoughts on Life, Death, and Writing, and I consistently publish new material every second Saturday morning. I’ve worked out proper backlist Search Engine Optimization (SEO) protocols, and I get randomly found by podcast hosts and film producers on their constant search for new content.

And I have somewhat of a catchy bio:

Garry Rodgers is a retired homicide detective and coroner, now turned crime writer and emerging film content producer. Garry has twenty indie publications on the market as well as being a regular podcast guest focussing on crime and forensics.

Garry Rodgers lives on Vancouver Island at Canada’s west coast. You can contact him via his Twitter handle at  @GarryRodgers1 or follow his blog at www.dyingwords.net.

Kill Zoners – What’s your experience in being interviewed? Have you been a podcast guest? If so, how was your time? And what helpful art of being interviewed tips do you have for us?

Five Most Influential Resource Books for Fiction Writers

For a fiction writing seminar I’m part of this weekend, I’m presenting to the class five resource books that influenced me the most over the years. I’ve got a lot of material stashed away on shelves, in boxes, and under the bed (not to mention what’s cached on my computer). It wasn’t hard, though, to fish out the best which I’ll share here on the Kill Zone.

1. Think & Grow Rich.

This gem isn’t everyone’s birthstone. The original version, published in 1937, is written in an old-style masculine tone that reeks of misogyny. There are current versions published in a gender-neutral, more modern tongue but setting that aside author Napoleon Hill identifies seventeen core principles of personal achievement: Definiteness of Purpose, Mastermind Alliance, Applied Faith, Going the Extra Mile, Pleasing Personality, Personal Initiative, Positive Mental Attitude, Enthusiasm, Self-Discipline, Accurate Thinking, Controlled Attention, Teamwork, Learning From Adversity and Defeat, Creative Vision, Soundness of Health, Budgeting Time and Money, and Developing Strong Positive Habits.

Napoleon Hill published two earlier editions of his research. One was titled The Science of Personal Achievement. The other was called The Philosophy of Success. Both sounded too heady, so Hill rebranded a condensed version into Think & Grow Rich. From over four decades of being a Napoleon Hill student, I can confidently say the main theme in T&GR is not money. It’s about wealth gained from the satisfaction of accomplishment like writing and publishing a book.

2. On Writing — A Memoir of the Craft

Stephen King originally released On Writing in 2000 when he had only like a zillion books out, nothing compared to the spazillion he’s penned out today. The first half of On Writing deals with his personal story of depression, addiction, and chronic pain. The remainder is pure adrenaline to any writer, regardless of genre or slotting.

King does not wash words. He doesn’t choke back the F-word, and he gives you straight goods like, “There is a muse but don’t expect it to come fluttering down into your writing room and sprinkle creative fairy dust on your typewriter.” How about, “If you don’t have the time to read, you don’t have the tools to write. Simple as that.” Or, “Writing isn’t about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it’s about enrichening the lives of those who will read your work, and enrichening your own life, as well.”

3. The Elements of Style

No kid should graduate high school English without passing an exam on this primer originally released in 1935 by William Strunk Jr. It was revised by E.B. White (author of Charlotte’s Web) somewhere in the 50s or 60s, and I have a copy of the fourth edition circa 2000. A well-worn, underlined and highlighted fourth edition.

In 104 pages, The Elements of Style is a Cliffs Notes of my 1500+ page The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. It’s broken into five short parts covering Elementary Rules of Usage, Elementary Principles of Composition, A Few Matters of Form, Words and Expressions Commonly Misused, and an Approach to Style (With a List of Reminders). There’s a lot of power in this little book.

4. Wired For Story

Lisa Cron subtitled her book The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence. If you haven’t watched Lisa’s TedxTalk, do not miss out on her message. It’s vital fiction writers have a basic understanding of brain science as it applies to storytelling.

I just opened my paperback version and read this passage that I transposed from the text and printed on the inner jacket. “The goal is not to write a story that focuses on the plot. Rather, a plot that forces the protagonist to come to grips with the inner issue that’s keeping her from solving the story question and attaining that goal. Her inner struggle is her real problem, and the reader’s question isn’t will the protagonist solve the mystery, it’s what will it cost her emotionally to solve it”. Wired For Story is full of this stuff.

5. Self-Editing for Fiction Writers / Thanks, But This Isn’t For Us

I said I was going to list my five top writing resources and I had to tie two fiction editing books that I’ve carved up. The first must-read is by Renni Browne and Dave King. The second must-know is from Jessica Page Morrell. Although they cover the same subject—self-editing your fiction work to make it more saleable—the authors take two different and interesting approaches to delivering what could be boring matter.

Brown and King subtitle their work How to Edit Yourself Into Print, and they do an excellent job of fiction instruction such as explaining core rules of show &tell, characterization, exposition, dialogue, and a lot more. Morrell, who subtitles hers A (Sort of) Compassionate Guide to Why Your Writing is Being Rejected, writes more from a critical editor’s point. Both resources are keepers, just like I’d never part with the other writing treasures listed here.

Kill Zoners — Let’s get a discussion going. Who has read any or all six of the five on this list? If you were writing this piece, what are the top writing resources you’d recommend? (That can include websites, seminars, or whatever you think can help us up our game.) And if I can ask you to be bold, who’s written and published a writing resource they’d recommend to this gang?

What Heinlein’s Rules Mean to Me: An Excerpt

Today’s guest post is from longtime Kill Zone supporter and frequent commenter, Harvey Stanbrough. Harvey is a prolific (now that’s an understatement) writer and publisher who’s here to share his thoughts and experiences on Heinlein’s Rules for Writers and other interesting things… like writing Into the dark and cycling.

When Garry Rodgers invited me to write a guest post about Heinlein’s Rules for TKZ, as an adherent of the Rules and a long-time follower of TKZ, I was flattered. I considered simply offering up my annotated Heinlein’s Business Habits for Writers, but that didn’t feel like enough. It’s more of a what-to-do updated for the 21st century. It says nothing about why-to-do.

What follows is an excerpt from a compilation of five posts from my instructive almost-daily Journal. These posts comprise a would-be interview about Heinlein’s Business Habits for Writers and why, as a professional fiction writer, I personally find them essential.

This series was first published on my instructive from March 8 ­– March 12, 2021 at https://hestanbrough.com. You can download the entire article in PDF, free, by clicking https://harveystanbrough.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/What-Heinleins-Rules-Mean-to-Me.pdf.

Topic: Awhile Back: An Introduction to a Series on Heinlein’s Rules

Awhile back, I received a note from a writer who wanted to interview me about my adherence to Heinlein’s Rules. The purpose was so the writer could put up a blog post on the topic.

Later, the writer decided the post would be too long for their format. I agreed.

But the questions the writer asked, and the incidental comments the writer made, were absolutely typical (usually even word for word) of the questions and comments I’ve heard from writers at conferences and conventions for the past thirty years.

So I decided to use that writer’s questions and comments to post a series of topics here for the benefit of the few who read this Journal. Note: If the writer emails me to ask me to take this post down, I will do so. Then I will paraphrase the questions and comments and continue the series.

Some of this will hit home. Some of it might make you angry. Some of it will sound repetitious. I don’t mean any harm. In fact, I’ve added a disclaimer to the very end of every post now to maybe help satisfy detractors.

In my own experience, I’ve often found I had to hear something more than once or hear it said in a different way before I finally got it. It is in that spirit that I offer this and the following few posts on Heinlein’s Rules and Writing Into the Dark, which really do go hand in hand.

First, here are Heinlein’s Rules so we’re all starting from the same place. As I’ve said many times, you can download a free PDF copy of Heinlein’s Rules (annotated) by clicking https://harveystanbrough.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Heinleins-Business-Habits-Annotated-2.pdf.

Heinlein first outlined his rules in Of Worlds Beyond: The Science of Science Fiction Writing. Largely as an afterthought to his article, he wrote the following:

“I’m told that these articles are supposed to be some use to the reader. I have a guilty feeling that all of the above may have been more for my amusement than for your edification. Therefore I shall chuck in as a bonus a group of practical, tested rules, which, if followed meticulously, will prove rewarding to any writer.”

Then he lists what he calls his Business Habits:

  1. You must write.
  2. You must finish what you start.
  3. You must refrain from rewriting except to editorial order.
  4. You must put it on the market.
  5. You must keep it on the market until sold.

Note: Heinlein also add that if you follow these rules, eventually you would find some editor (reader) somewhere who would buy your work. Nothing could be more spot-on the money.

Here are some excerpts from the rest of the writer’s introduction, which contain some of those “typical” questions and comments I alluded to earlier and my responses:

Q: “It stands to reason that if we, as writers, spend the bulk of our time writing, we’re only going to improve. And if, instead of hopping from unfinished project to unfinished project or obsessing over a work to the point of ridiculousness, we move on to the next story, we’re going to spend more time writing. Which is the one thing we all need to do a lot of to succeed.”

Harvey: I agree in principle with this point. Instead of “hopping from unfinished project to unfinished project or obsessing over a work” at all, we should write the current story (even the very first) to the best of our ability, then publish it and move on to the next story.

But this isn’t only so we’ll “spend more time” writing. Writing a lot without learning and practice will not help you succeed. Practice (vs. hovering via revisions and rewrites) is what will help you succeed. To practice, you learn and then apply what you learned in the next story.

Never look back. Always look forward to the next technique to learn and the next story to write.

Q: “I have a few concerns with some of the rules to the point that I’ve never been able to embrace the process. … I’ve always wished I knew someone personally who follows Heinlein Rules so I could talk to them and see what they would say about my concerns.”

Harvey: You came to the right place. I was exactly the same way. Exactly. Which is to say I was filled with unreasoning fear. Unreasoning because there are no real consequences to writing a “bad” (in your opinon) story. The truth is, the world won’t stop if you write a “bad” story and not that much good will happen if you write a “good” (again, in your opinion) story. Your opinion of your work is still only one opinion.

To you, your original voice is boring because it’s with you 24/7. But to others, your original voice is unique and fresh. Given the chance to read your story, some will love it, some will hate it, and the majority will enjoy it—if you don’t polish your original voice off it.

Topic: Post 2 in the Heinlein’s Rules Series

Actually, more introductory stuff today, with some specifics on Heinlein’s Rules mixed in.

Q: To provide context, how long have you been using this process, how many books/stories have you been able to write, and what kind of success have you achieved?

Harvey: I first discovered Heinlein’s Rules and a technique called Writing Into the Dark in February 2014. I made the conscious decision to pull up my big boy pants and give it an honest try. And frankly I was amazed. Since then I’ve written over 220 short stories, 8 novellas and 70 novels. (And I didn’t write for almost 2 years of that time.)

That’s the real secret to Heinlein’s Rules and Writing Into the Dark, if there is a secret: You have to dedicate yourself to pushing down your fears and really trying it for yourself. It helps to realize you have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. You can always go back to writing the “old” way: outlining, revising, critique grouping, rewriting however many times, etc.

I started with short stories (one a week) and ended that streak with 72 short stories in 72 weeks, all written in accordance with Heinlein’s Rules, all written into the dark.

If you look at a mean average, that’s just over 8 novels per year for 7 years and just over 28 short stories per year in that same time period, plus 8 novellas scattered in.

But I expect to produce a lot more this year. I finished my 58th novel on March 2, but it was also the 4th novel I started and completed this year. So on average, I’m on track to write 20 novels this year alone. All because I found Heinlein’s Rules and Writing Into the Dark, pushed my fears down and really tried them. The trust in the process came quickly after that.

My success is because I learn and then I write. I don’t hover. I use a process called “cycling” as I write. Some call it revision, but revision is a conscious-mind process and cycling is a creative-mind process. That’s the big difference, and it’s all-important.

Q: And what is “cycling”?

Harvey: When I return for the next writing session, I read what I wrote during the previous session. But I read as a reader, just enjoying the story, not critically as a writer. And I allow myself and my characters to touch the story as I go. When I get back to the blank space, I’m back into the flow of the story and I just keep writing.

I mentioned that I finished my 58th novel on March 2. On March 3 I started my 59th. I’m not quite 27,000 words into that one. My daily word count goal is 4,000 words of publishable fiction per day, but that’s only 4 hours out of the 24 that we are given in each day. In that regard, and measured against the old pulp writers (who wrote on manual typewriters) I am a total slacker.

Q: I’ve heard many (not all) writers who adhere religiously to Heinlein’s Rules poo-poo the things writers often do to improve their craft, such as attending conferences, reading books and blogs, taking courses, etc. I understand, I think, the principle here, that if you spend too much time doing those things, you’re not doing the actual writing. But there are some things that writing alone can’t fix; sometimes we need direct instruction from people who’ve been there to identify what’s wrong and learn how to address those issues. What are your thoughts on continuing education as an author?

Harvey: Not to be contrary, but on this point I have to disagree. I’ve never heard a writer who adheres to Heinlein’s Rules “poo-poo” doing anything to improve their craft. In fact, all of them stress learning as only a very close second in importance to actually writing.

That said, even a decade or so before the CovID panic, actual physical conferences were falling by the wayside, leaving only large, often unaffordable conferences. But I personally have always urged writers to attend conferences and even the much more affordable conventions that interested them, for networking opportunities if nothing else.

Today most of those opportunities are virtual, a concept I have trouble grasping. I need the physicality and the immediate back and forth between actual people. That said, I still recommend even virtual conferences if that’s something the writer is interested in.

Re reading books and blogs on writing, of course I recommend those and I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t. In fact, I often provide links to other resources in my Journal. And my author website at HarveyStanbrough.com is rich with writer resources.

My own personal caveat is that the writer should exercise due caution and check out the author of the book or blog. For example, if that person doesn’t write novels, s/he has no business teaching others how to write novels. Would you go to a car mechanic to learn the finer points of carpentry or medicine? And re taking courses, I urge writers to do so, again after investing the time to do due diligence.

The process I recommend is this: The aspiring or beginning or experienced fiction writer should

  1. write every story to the best of their current ability, not revise and rewrite their original voice off it, then publish it.
  2. take time to attend a class or lecture (online is fine) and then stick one technique they want to practice in the back of their mind when they start writing the next story and practice it as they write that story.
  3. then write that story to the best of their current ability, not revise and rewrite their original voice off it, then publish it.

Q: How easy is it for you to follow the rules?

Harvey: I find it extremely easy to follow HR1, 2, and 3. I’m dedicated to a daily word count goal of 4,000 words of publishable fiction (no drivel). Re HR1 and 2, I’m a fiction writer, so I write as part of my daily routine.

Re HR3, I don’t even allow my own critical, conscious mind into my work, so even the thought of allowing someone else to tell me how to “fix” the story that came out of my mind is ludicrous to me. As I’ve alluded to before, Rule 4 is the most difficult for me to follow because I’d much rather be writing the next story.

# # #

To read the rest of this article, download the free PDF: https://harveystanbrough.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/What-Heinleins-Rules-Mean-to-Me.pdf.

 # # #

Bio:

Harvey Stanbrough was born in New Mexico, seasoned in Texas and baked in Arizona, so he’s pretty well done. For a time, Harvey wrote under five personas and several pseudonyms, but he takes a pill for that now and writes only under his own name. Mostly.

Harvey is a prolific professional fiction writer by pretty much any standard. In just over 6 years he’s written over 70 novels, 8 novellas, and around 220 short stories across several genres.

He’s also compiled around 30 short story collections and several lauded, major-prize-nominated poetry collections and nonfiction books on the craft of writing. That is in addition to his hundreds of articles, essays and blog posts.

To see Harvey’s work visit StoneThreadPublishing.com or his author website at HarveyStanbrough.com. If you’re a writer and would like to increase your productivity, visit his instructive daily Journal on writing at HEStanbrough.com. You can contact Harvey directly at harveystanbrough@gmail.com.

Oh, as a bonus, you can read about Harvey’s personas at https://harveystanbrough.com/my-personas/. Each has his or her own brief bio

Using ChatGPT as a Blog Research and Writing Tool

ChatGPT is a deep-learning natural language processing application developed by Open AI that can simplify research and writing for bloggers.

In today’s digital landscape, bloggers are regularly being challenged to produce high quality, informative blogs to reach their target audience. This can be a daunting task, especially when a blogger is pressed for time and resources. Luckily, with advances in technology, a helping hand is now available: Open AI ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is a text-generating deep-learning means application developed by Open AI. It uses a number of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, including natural language processing (NLP), to help people generate text.

By entering a prompt and providing concise answers to the application’s questions, ChatGPT can provide a starting point for your blog article. It does this by returning the prompt in a new format, with additional verbiage, in order to aid in the research and writing aspects of your blog post.

Using ChatGPT is an efficient way to streamline research and writing. It allows you to skip the preliminary research and start writing. ChatGPT simplifies the research and writing process through three key steps.

The first step is to enter your prompt into the application’s text window. Once your prompt has been entered, the user is then asked to provide answers to questions that are related to the prompt. By submitting your answers, ChatGPT can generate a blog post topic and develop a skeleton structure that can be used as a basis for the content.

The second step is validating the information. After the initial output has been generated, the user can then refine the research by verifying any information that is provided by the program. This is an important step as it ensures that any data provided by the application is accurate.

The third step is to utilise the text output in the blog post. Once your main points have been made, the information generated by ChatGPT can be used to craft content around the main points by providing additional detail. This can be especially helpful if the user is short on ideas or lacks the depth of knowledge required for a particular subject.

ChatGPT is an effective tool for bloggers because of the time and resources it saves. Instead of putting in hours of research and writing, users can quickly get the information they need and have a solid foundation for their blog post.

Unlike other AI applications, ChatGPT is extremely versatile, offering blog writers an effective means of generating fresh ideas, verifying sources of material, and providing structure and direction to their writing. Furthermore, the application’s natural language capability makes it quite effective at helping users stay in tune with readers’ interest and quickly provide quality material.

To conclude, ChatGPT is a powerful tool that offers real and tangible benefits to bloggers. It can help save time and resources by providing a easy and convenient starting point for blog content. Moreover, its natural language capabilities ensure that the content created is relevant to readers. So, if you are looking for a way to simplify research and writing for your blog, Open AI ChatGPT should be at the top of your list.

Kill Zoners — I (Garry Rodgers) didn’t write this post. Nor did I copy & paste. Artificial Intelligence composed this original content for me, at my request. Yes, it’s a bot’s work and it’s unedited. All I did was enter the following prompt into Open AI ChatGPT. Then I pressed submit and, in 34 seconds, the app produced the preceding piece:

Please write me an approximately 500-word blog post on what Open AI ChatGPT is and how to effectively use it as a blog research and writing tool. I want to post this on The Kill Zone and need it written in a format that suits The Kill Zone style. Please include a clear and helpful conclusion.

Here’s the link to the Playground where you can try out ChatGPT:  https://beta.openai.com/playground

Here’s a link to a clear tutorial about using ChatGPT: https://app.gumroad.com/d/e52116ff42766c5d8567cb6d812c5dbb

Discussion question: Has anyone else used ChatGPT technology? It’s been available for six weeks and is getting a lot of attention.

Footnote: I’m offline for the next few days, so I’ve asked Debbie Burke to drive the KZ comment bus for me. Thanks, Debbie!

The World’s Deadliest Fish

Most folks think great white, tiger, and mako sharks are the world’s deadliest fish. They’re dangerous all right, but the deep’s deadliest distinction goes to the cute little pufferfish you remember from Disney’s Little Mermaid. Also called blowfish and sunfish, these sashimi delicacies known as fugu kill 10 times more people per year than sharks. And they do it a lot slower and far more viciously.

Shark attack deaths are super rare. Sharks kill an average of 5 people each year worldwide, although statistics show at least 80 violent human-to-shark encounters happen annually. Most shark victims are seriously injured like having an arm or leg torn apart, yet somehow survive. Not so with pufferfish poisoning.

Pufferfish death statistics are hard to nail down, but the World Health Organization and an article in National Geographic confirm at least 50 people expire every year after ingesting neurotoxins found in pufferfish livers, ovaries, testicles, intestines, and skin. Hundreds more become seriously ill and only bounce back through immediate medical intervention.

What makes pufferfish so toxic is tetrodotoxin. It’s 1,200 times more powerful than potassium cyanide which the Nazis used in their poison pills. Tetrodotoxin is the world’s deadliest substance by volume next to anthrax and a chemical inside the tropical cone snail. In fact, tetrodotoxin is far more lethal than venom found in the common death adder and the notorious taipan snake. Injecting 1 microdot of pure tetrodotoxin will kill the average-sized human. That’s equivalent to 10 nanograms, which is an amount impossible to see with the naked eye.

So why are powerfully poisonous pufferfish such a preferred palatable pleasure?

It’s because specialized fugu chefs know how to safely filet this culinary delight. In Japan, where fugu is so popular, chefs undergo a state-required licensing program. Apprentice fugu chefs train for 3 years before taking a written, oral, and practical exam on the 30 prescribed steps for properly preparing pufferfish. Only a third pass.

Fugu chefs are extremely cautious about processing their pufferfish. They meticulously remove the toxic parts and treat the offal like nuclear waste. Pufferfish flesh is delicate and exceptionally tasty. The Japanese have a high demand for this sashimi dish, but it’s popular all through the warm water world where pufferfish naturally occur.

There are over 120 different pufferfish or tetrodontiforme sub-species. An adult dwarf blowfish is only an inch long and too small for a meal. But the largest fugu fish reach two feet in length and weigh up to five pounds. Pufferfish get their common name from a defensive ability to swallow water and expand their stomachs up to four times. Blowing into a ball shape makes pufferfish hard to grip by predators’ teeth. Many sub-species have sharp, poisonous spikes on the skin surface which lay flat when uninflated. However, when alarmed and expanded, pufferfish turn into deadly mines.

Pufferfish don’t manufacture tetrodotoxin within a body system.

Rather, tetrodotoxin is a by-product made by invasive bacteria that pufferfish ingest in their food. Snails are the main part of pufferfish diet. These subtle sea creatures contain a combination of alteromona, shewanella, and vibrio bacteria which react with pufferfish innards to isolate tetrodotoxin. Evolution created a pufferfish immunity to the toxin where sodium channels are mutated. This is why the bacterial doesn’t kill its host.

But tetrodotoxin certainly tries to kill anything trying to eat a pufferfish, particularly human beings. It does this by molecularly bonding to cells and blocking the sodium channels which allow neurological information instructing cells to be elastic. When sodium channels are blocked, cells remain neutral or paralyzed. If enough tetrodotoxin is taken, the victim suffers total paralysis including the diaphragm’s ability to move. There’s no lung inhaling or exhaling and the stricken person smothers while remaining totally conscious.

It’s a nasty way to die—lying there with eyes open and knowing the end is near. But not all pufferfish poisoning patients die. It greatly depends on the amount or dose of tetrodotoxin consumed. It also depends on having medical assistance present. Standard treatment for tetrodotoxin cases is keeping the ailing victim on mechanical ventilation while the person metabolizes the toxin and excretes it. This can be several days or even weeks if a person becomes comatose. There’s no known antidote.

Even the slightest amount of tetrodotoxin will cause discomfort and distress.

First, the lips and face feel tingly. Similarly, the finger and toes tips are affected. Headache, nausea, and vomiting follow. Then total muscular paralysis occurs along with the inability to breathe. Respiratory failure causes a loss of oxygenated blood to the heart and the patient suffers cardiac arrest.

Tetrodotoxin is non-soluble in water and heat resistant. A chef can’t flush tetrodotoxin from pufferfish sashimi flesh. Nor can they cook it out. But tetrodotoxin never occurs naturally in pufferfish flesh. It’s only introduced when an organ is punctured. Once the flesh is contaminated by a leaky liver, gut, bladder, or reproductive organ, it’s impossible to rid. It’s also impossible for the untrained eye to spot a leak as the toxin is colorless.

Despite pufferfish being so dangerous, there’s no hesitation to eat the stuff.

Japan is the largest fugu-consuming country. It’s an important part of their culinary culture. Fugu is a seasonal commodity as the fish’s toxicity is directly related to water temperature. Even though pufferfish require warm, sub-tropical water, tetrodotoxin intensity stays relatively low during the fall and winter when waters are cooler. Once the spring and summer heat hits, the bacteria blooms and pufferfish become far too toxic to risk handling. Even pufferfish urine absorbed through the skin can be lethal.

The finest fugu pufferfish come from the Shimonoseki region in southern Japan. It’s a city of 250,000 and boasts 500 licensed fugu chefs. Shimonoseki’s fish market is a Mecca for fugu aficionados. It’s world renown in fugu circles, having a giant brass pufferfish statue outside. Live and processed pufferfish are shipped worldwide every day from Shimonoseki and command the industry’s highest price.

The fugu fishing industry is tightly regulated with a restriction on licenses. Fishing openings are on a lottery base and apply daily. Shimonoseki’s fugu market processes over 300 tons of pufferfish yearly. Every day, the market hosts a pufferfish auction where buyers secretly bid with the auctioneer by hand signals concealed in a black cloth bag. This way, no one knows the current price except the successful bidder and auctioneer. This allows fluctuating market prices which is considered healthy for the fugu industry.

Fugu dining isn’t just a palatial experience.

The Japanese have fugu down to an art form. Not only are fugu chefs trained not to poison customers, they’re skilled at delighting guests who will pay $200-300 USD for a fugu dinner. Most fugu is sliced as ultra-thin shimini wafers and accompanied with sushi rice rolls and sauces. This is expected, but the presentation can be breathtaking.

Top fugu chefs take enormous pride and enjoy tremendous recognition for preparing and presenting their pufferfish. Commonly, fugu platters are laid out in traditional Japanese patterns representing swans and chrysanthemums. They’re a thing of beauty and so is how a fugu dinner unfolds.

Most fugu dinners run from five to seven courses eaten over several hours. The best fugu restaurants have live tanks where guests pick their personal pufferfish. It’s then prepared in front of the table with the fugu-master fileting the fish and plucking the poison. Guests are progressively served raw or shimini-style fugu followed by cooked fugu in soups, stews and hot sake.

But for every honorable and noble fugu establishment, there are always those pushing the rules.

Believe it or not, there’s a flourishing fugu black market where patrons seek seedy sushi saloons. Some fugu daredevils thrive on devouring fugu tainted with tetrodotoxin. They claim it gives them an incredible high found nowhere else. And where there’s a buck to be made, someone will take it.

Finally, there’s a fugu subculture with its own rules and regulations. For instance, it’s considered bad manners to ask someone else to first try a fugu serving in fine restaurants. It’s also considered crude to take a fugu bite, then mockingly grasp the throat and recoil in agony. And no patron should ever appear shocked when presented their fugu bill.

Kill Zoners: Have you ever used poison (the weapon of women) in your stories? If so, tell us about it and how it turned out. Also, has anyone out there tried fugu?

The Bizarre Death of Gloria Ramirez — The Toxic Lady

At 8:15 pm on February 9, 1994, paramedics wheeled 31-year-old Gloria Ramirez—semi-conscious—into the Emergency Room at Riverside General Hospital in Moreno Valley, California. Forty-five minutes later, Ramirez was dead and 23 out of the 37 ER staff were ill after being exposed to toxic fumes radiating from Ramirez’s body. Some medical professionals were so sick they required hospitalization. Now, 28 years later, and despite one of the largest forensic investigations in history, no conclusive cause of her toxicity has been identified. Or has there?

The Toxic Lady case drew worldwide attention. No one in medical science had experienced this, nor had anyone heard of it. How could a dying woman radiate enough toxin to poison so many people yet leave no pathological trace?

The medical cause of Ramirez’s death was clear, though. She was in Stage 4 cervical cancer, had gone into renal failure, which led to cardiac arrest. Anatomically, the fumes had nothing to do with Gloria Ramirez’s death. But what caused the fumes?

“If the toxic emittance was not a death factor, then what in the world’s going on here?” was the question going on in so many minds—medico, legal, and layperson. To answer that, as best as is possible, it’s necessary to look at the Ramirez case facts both from what the eyewitnesses (and the overcome) said and what forensic science can tell us.

Gloria Ramirez, a wife and mother of two, was in terrible health when she arrived at Riverside Hospital. She’d rapidly deteriorated after being in palliative, home-based care with a diagnosed case of terminal cervical cancer. In the evening of February 9th, Ramirez developed Cheyne-Stokes breathing and went into cardiac arrhythmia or heart palpitations. Both are well-known signs of imminent death. Her home caregivers called an ambulance and had her rushed to the hospital as a last life-saving resort.

A terminal cancer patient, like Gloria Ramirez, was nothing new to the Riverside ER team. She was immediately triaged, and time-proven techniques were quickly applied. First, an IV of Ringer’s lactate solution was employed—a standard procedure for stabilizing possible blood and electrolyte deficiencies. Next, the trauma team sedated Ramirez with injections of diazepam, midazolam, and lorazepam. Thirdly, they began applying oxygen with an Amb-bag which forced purified air directly into Ramirez’s lungs rather than hooking up a regular, on-demand oxygen supply.

So far, Ramirez’s case was typical. It wasn’t until an RN, Susan Kane, installed a catheter in Ramirez’s arm to withdraw a syringe of blood that circumstances went from controlled to completely uncontrollable. Kane, a highly experienced RN, immediately noted an ammonia-like odor emanating from the syringe tip when she removed it from the catheter. Kane handed the syringe to Maureen Welch, a respiratory therapist, and then Kane leaned closer to Ramirez to try and trace the unusual odor source.

Welch also sniffed the syringe and later agreed with the ammonia-like smell. “It was like how rancid blood smells when people take chemotherapy treatment,” Welch would say. Welch turned the syringe over to Julie Gorchynski, a medical resident, who noticed manila-colored particles floating in the blood as well as confirming the ammonia odor. Dr. Humberto Ochoa, the ER in-charge, also observed the peculiar particles and gave a fourth opinion that the syringe smelled of ammonia.

Susan Kane stood up from Ramirez (who was still alive) and felt faint. Kane moved toward the door and promptly passed out—being caught in the nick of time before bouncing her head off the floor. Julie Gorchynski also succumbed. She was put on a gurney and removed just as Maureen Welch presented the same symptoms of being overcome by a noxious substance.

By now, everyone near the dying Gloria Ramirez was feeling the effects. Ochoa, himself now ill, ordered the ER evacuation and for everyone—staff and patients—to muster in the open parking lot where they stripped down to their underclothes and stuffed their outer garments into hazmat bags.

Ramirez remained on an ER stretcher. A secondary trauma team quickly donned hazmat PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) and went back to give Ramirez what little help was left. They did CPR until 8:50 pm when the supervising doctor declared Gloria Ramirez to be dead.

Taking utter precaution, the backup trauma team sealed Gloria Ramirez’s body in multi-layers of body shrouds, sealed it in an aluminum casket, and placed it in an isolated section of the morgue. Then they activated a specially-trained hazmat team to comb the ER for traces of whatever substance had been released and caused such baffling effects to so many people. They found nothing.

Meanwhile, Riverside hospital staff had to treat their own. Five workers were hospitalized including Susan Kane, Julie Gorchynski, and Maureen Welch. Gorchynski suffered the worst and spent two weeks detoxifying in the intensive care unit.

The Riverside pathologists faced a daunting and dangerous task—autopsying the body which they considered a canister of nerve gas harboring a fugitive pathogen or toxic chemical. In airtight moon suits, three pathologists performed what might have been the world’s fastest autopsy. Ninety minutes later, they exited a sealed and air-tight examining room with samples of Gloria Ramirez’s blood and tissues along with air from within the shrouds and the sealed aluminum casket.

The autopsy and subsequent toxicology testing found nothing—nothing remotely abnormal that would explain how a routine cancer patient could be so incredibly hostile. The cause of death, the pathologists agreed, was cardiac arrest antecedent (brought on by) to renal (kidney) failure antecedent to Stage 4 cervical cancer. The Riverside coroner concurred, and his mandate was fulfilled with no doubt left about why and how Gloria Ramirez died.

For the coroner, that should have been it. There was no evidence linking the mysterious fumes to the cause of death, and whatever by-product was in the ER air was not a contributor to the decedent’s demise. That problem should have been one for the hospital to figure out on their own. However, the Riverside coroner was under immense public pressure to identify the noxious substance for no other reason than preventing it from happening again.

The coroner worked with the hospital, the health department, the toxicology lab, and Gloria Ramirez’s family to come to some sort of reasonable conclusion. The Ramirez family had no clue—no suspicions whatsoever—of any foreign substance Ramirez had ingested or been exposed to that could trigger such a toxic effect. The toxicology lab was at a wit’s end. They’d never seen a case like this, let alone heard of one. And the health department went off on a tangent.

The county’s health department appointed a two-person team—a team of medical research professionals—to interview every person exposed to the ER and surrounding area on February 9, 1994. They profiled those people so closely that the two-expert team even cross-compared what everyone did, or didn’t, have for dinner that night. When that preeminent probe was over, and no closer to a smoking gun than the struck-out hazmat team failed to find on the night of the fright, the interviewers came to a conclusion—mass hysteria.

The team of two medical doctors, both research scientists, concluded there was no poisonous gas. In their view, in the absence of evidence, there was only one explanation and that was that 23 people simply imagined they were sick. Some, they concluded, had such vivid imaginations that they placed themselves into the intensive care unit.

This was the report the health department delivered to the coroner. While the coroner was now scrambling for damage control, some of the “imaginary” health care workers who could have died during exposure, launched a defamation lawsuit against the hospital, the health department, and the two investigators who concocted the mass hysteria conclusion.

Frustrated with futility, the coroner (who was way outside his jurisdictional boundaries) turned to outside help. He found it at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) near San Francisco.

Lawrence Livermore initially wasn’t in the medical or toxicological business. They were nuclear weapons makers with a busy mandate back in the cold war era. Now, by the 90s, their usefulness was waning, and so was their funding, so they decided to broaden their horizons by creating the Forensic Science Center at LLNL.

Brian Andresen, the center’s director, took on the Toxic Lady case. The coroner gave Andresen all the biological samples from Ramirez’s autopsy as well as the air-trapping containers. Andresen set about using gas-chromatograph-mass spectrometer (CG-MS) analysis which would have been the same process the Riverside County toxicologist would have used to come up with a “nothing to see here, folks” result.

But Andresen did find something new to see. He found traces dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in Ramirez’s system. Not a lot—just traces—but clearly it was there. Andresen felt he was on to something.

Dimethyl sulfoxide, on its own, is stable and harmless. It’s an organic sulfur compound with the chemical formula (CH3)2S0 and is readily available as a degreasing agent used in automotive cleaning. It’s also commonly ingested and topically applied by a cult-like, self-medicating culture of cancer patients. At one time, there was a clinical trial approved by the FDA to use DMSO as a medicine for pain treatment, and it was dearly adopted by the athletic world as a miracle drug for sports injuries. The FDA abruptly dropped the DMSO program when they realized prolonged use could make people go blind.

Brian Andresen developed a theory—a theory adopted by many scientists who desperately wanted some sort of scientific straw to grasp in explaining the bizarre death of the Toxic Lady—Gloria Ramirez. Andresen’s theory went like this:

Gloria Ramirez had been self-medicating with DMSO. When she went into distress at home, the paramedics placed her in an ambulance and immediately applied oxygen. Ramirez received more oxygen at the ER which started a chemical reaction with the DMSO already in her body systems.

Note: Chemically, DMSO is (CH3)2SO which is one atom of carbon, three atoms of hydrogen, two atoms of sulfur, and one atom of oxygen—a stable and harmless mix.

However, according to the Andresen theory, when medical staff applied intense oxygen to Ramirez, the DMSO chemically changed by adding another oxygen atom to the formula—becoming (CH3)2SO2—dimethyl sulfone (DMSF).  DMSF, also, is harmless and it’s commonly found in plants and marketed as a dietary supplement. So far, so good.

It’s when four oxygen atoms are present that the stuff turns nasty. The compound (CH3)2SO4 is called dimethyl sulfate, and it emits terribly toxic gas-offs. This is what Andresen suspected was the smoking gun. The amplified oxygenation turned the self-medicating dimethyl sulfoxide Ramirez was taking into dimethyl sulfone which morphed into the noxious emission, dimethyl sulfate.

The coroner liked it. So did many leading scientists. The coroner released Andresen’s report as an addendum to his final report, even though all agreed that if dimethyl sulfate was gassed-off by Ramirez in the ER that made so many people sick, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Toxic Lady’s death. The coroner closed his file, and the finding went on to be published in the peer-reviewed publication Forensic Science International.

There were two problems with Andresen’s conclusion. One was more scientists were disagreeing with it than agreeing. Some of the dissenters were world-class toxicologists who said it was chemically impossible for hospital-administered oxygen to set off this reaction. Two was Ramirez’s family adamantly denied she was self-medicating with DMSO.

The Toxic Lady case interest was far from over. Many people knew DSMO would be present in minute amounts in most people’s bodies and called bullshit. It’s a common ingredient in processed food and metabolizes well with a quick pass-through rate in the urinary tract. In Ramirez’s case, she had a urinary tract blockage which triggered the renal failure which triggered the heart attack. If it wasn’t for the blockage, the DSMO probably wouldn’t have been detected.

On the sidelines, there were people—knowledgeable people—strongly saying another chemical would give the same ammonia-like, gassing-off toxins that ticked all the 23-person symptom boxes.

Methylamine.

Methylamine isn’t rare. It’s produced in huge quantities as a cleaning agent, often shipped in pressurized railroad cars, but it’s tightly controlled by the government. That’s because methylamine can be used for biological terrorism and for cooking meth.

Yes, methylamine is a highly sought-after precursor used in manufacturing methamphetamines. Remember Breaking Bad and the lengths Walt and Jesse go to steal methylamine? Remember the precautions they take in handling methylamine?

Well, back before Breaking Bad broke out, the New Times LA ran a story giving an alternative theory of what happened to make the Toxic Lady toxic. Whether the Times got a tip, or some inside information, they didn’t say. What they did say was that Riverside County was one of the largest methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution points in America, and that Riverside hospital workers had been smuggling out methylamine to sell to the meth cookers. (Hospitals routinely use methylamine as a disinfectant in cleaning agents, including sterilizing surgical instruments.)

The Times report said Riverside hospital workers used IV bags to capture and store methylamine as the IV bags were sealed, safe to handle, and entirely inconspicuous. The story theorized that an IV bag loaded with about-to-be smuggled methylamine accidentally found its way into the ER and got plugged into Gloria Ramirez’s arm. Because methylamine turns to gas so quickly when exposed to oxygen, this would explain why no traces were found in the toxicology testing—it all went into the air and into the lungs of 23 people.

———

As a former coroner, I’d be skeptical of this methylamine theory except for personal knowledge of a similar case. My cross-shift attended a death where a meth cooker had methylamine get away from him in a clandestine lab. The victim made it outside yelling for help but shortly succumbed. The civilians, hearing his cries, rushed over and were immediately overpowered with the exact symptoms as the Riverside medical people experienced.

The first responders also succumbed to toxic fumes and had to back off. By the time my cross-shift arrived to view the body, many contaminated people were already at the hospital. My colleague made a wise decision. He signed-off the death as an accident, declined to autopsy, and sent the body straight to the crematorium—accompanied by guys in hazmat suits with the body sealed in a metal container and strapped to a flat deck truck.

Do I buy the Times methylamine theory? Well, I’m a big believer in Occam’s razor. You know, when you have two conflicting hypotheses for the same puzzle, the simpler answer is usually correct. Some one-in-a-billion, complex chemical reaction that world-leading toxicologists say can’t be done? Or some low-life, crooked hospital drone letting an IV bag full of stolen methylamine get away on them?

You know which one I’m going with to explain the bizarre death of the Toxic Lady — Gloria Ramirez.

Kill Zoners — What do you think? Does the methylamine theory hold water? Or am I just all wet?

Clue — Analyzing the Board Game’s Murder Weapons

Recently, a writer from the online humor site Cracked contacted me with a fun proposal. JM McNab wanted to do a Cracked piece on how effective the murder weapons were in the board game Clue. You remember—the lead pipe, the rope, the knife, the wrench, the revolver and—who could forget—caving a guy’s head in with the candlestick.

JM McNab found me through a Google search. He was looking for an “expert” in murder weapons, and I fit his bill. We had a great phone conversation resulting in this Cracked article being published this past Sunday. With JM’s and the Cracked editorial department’s permission, I’m sharing it today on the Kill Zone:

Which ‘Clue’ Weapon is Best, According to a Former Homicide Detective

Since none of Monopoly’s property disputes end up with grisly stabbings on Park Place, and as far as we know, Candyland isn’t secretly littered with sugary corpses, no doubt the most thematically-intense family board game in history is Clue, in which players are tasked with solving the murder of “Mr. Boddy” in a remote, two-dimensional country manor.

Winning the game means puzzling out the identity of the murderer, which room the crime took place in, and which of six potential deadly weapons was used. Admittedly, this a baffling premise for a murder mystery story; after all, even a drunken party guest should be able to quickly eyeball between a knife wound and a strangulation, right? Yet somehow, all of these confusing elements were skillfully weaved together in the comedy classic that is 1985’s Clue.

So we couldn’t help but wonder; in the world of Clue, given these options, which weapon would actually be the best and most effective choice for the fictitious killer; the rope, the candlestick, the revolver, the wrench, the knife, or the lead pipe? To get to the bottom of this pressing issue, we spoke with Garry Rodgers, a retired homicide detective and coroner, as well as a current best-selling crime writer.

As Mr. Rodgers pointed out, the six weapons fall into different categories; the candlestick, wrench, and lead pipe are all “blunt edge objects,” whereas the knife is a “sharp edge object.” The rope is a “ligature” and the revolver, of course, is a “firearm.”

In terms of the first category, the weapons that could be used to bash someone’s head in, any of these could conceivably be used as an instrument of death – but as Rodgers points out, “human beings are notoriously hard to kill” and can “take a wicked beating.” Using any of these effectively, not to mention discreetly, would be difficult because it might require a lot of work, and the victim could conceivably become “defensive,” either by fighting back, or by just running away at the first sign of an attack. And no one wants to play a round of Clue where “Mr. Boddy bolted out the front door” is the solution.

Rodgers reasoned that if the killer was wielding a lead pipe, approached the victim from behind and “gave a good whack” they ”could probably kill them with one blow.” The same goes for the wrench if it was big enough, since you would need “enough bulk” to “transfer the kinetic energy” and land a fatal blow – although it might be “hard to swing.”

The candlestick was ranked by Rodgers as the worst of all the Clue weapons, since it’s oddly-shaped, could be difficult to handle, and wouldn’t result in a “sharp directed transfer of energy to a particular spot” the way, say, the pipe would. And while Rodgers has investigated cases involving every other Clue weapon, he couldn’t recall any real life murders involving  candlesticks – which, incidentally, doesn’t mean that there aren’t similarly wacky murder weapons in the real world. Rodgers described one case where someone was stabbed with an oyster shucker, and another where the victim was beaten to death with a “bag of frozen pork chops,” AKA the reverse-Rocky.

Then we have the rope, which also has its major issues. For one thing, the killer would have to “overpower somebody to be able to get that rope around the neck” and there would likely have to be “some element of surprise in it.” This is why most strangulations are manual strangulations, as in by hand, “to start off with … followed up by ligature strangulation.” In other words, killers choke their victims until they black out, then finish them off with the ligature. But still “strangulations take quite a bit of time,” which could be a big problem if you need to hurriedly duck into a secret passage and head back to the Conservatory before anyone notices you’re gone.

As for the knife, it’s certainly deadly, but “people can take a lot of slashings with a knife.” So in addition to the fact that “you’re going to have your victim screaming” there would be “blood all over the place.” Meaning that Prof. Plum would have a tough time maintaining his innocence with Mr. Boddy’s innards Jackson Pollock-ed all over his evening wear.

Rodgers concluded that the revolver, of all the Clue weapons, would be the “most effective.” And, really, if there’s a gun in the house, why is anybody running around bludgeoning folks with a candlestick? While it’s noisier than some of the other weapons, “you can easily muffle it by shooting it through a pillow.” Although the further away one is from the target, the less accurate the shot – and accuracy would be key to ensuring that Mr. Boddy goes down for good.

All that being said, were one to attend a secluded country manor with murder on their mind, the ideal weapon would be … none of the Clue weapons. According to Garry Rodgers, the Clue murderer’s best course of action would have been to simply dose the victim with a little bit of poison, which is bafflingly not an option in the game. Of course, Clue obsessives may recall that poison was added as a weapon in the expanded version of the game, 1988’s Clue Master Detective – but then again, so was a horseshoe, which is just as goofy as a candlestick.

Kill Zoners — Who can name the six original suspects in Clue (without Googling them)? And if you were realistically rewriting the game ala 2022, what murder weapons would you retain, what would you change, and with what?

Solving the JonBenet Ramsay Murder

JonBenet Ramsay’s murder is perhaps the world’s highest profile, unsolved homicide case. Officially unsolved, that is. For today’s True Crime Thursday post, I resurrected the most-read piece from my personal site at Dyingwords.net. Drawing on thirty-plus years of hands-on experience in human death investigations, these are my thoughts about who really murdered JonBenet Ramsay:

_________________________________

On December 26, 1996, the beaten and strangled body of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found hidden in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado home. Immediately, police and media suspicion focused on her wealthy parents, John Bennet Ramsey and Patricia (Patsy) Ramsey, as being responsible. Now—twenty-five years later—the child beauty queen’s cold case has little new to offer except for the stupid suggestion that JonBenet never really died and that she’s actually the pop-star, Katy Perry.

Setting crazy conspiracy theories aside, the fact remains that someone viciously slaughtered JonBenet. The little girl became a cultural obsession, and the person or persons guilty of JonBenet’s murder were never prosecuted. Was it a lack of viable suspects? Lack of admissible evidence? A homicide investigation mishandled right from the start? Or was it failure to properly decipher the murder mystery’s most important clue—the ransom note?

Here’s a look at what the case facts tell us about who really murdered JonBenet Ramsey.

Patsy Ramsey claimed to have come downstairs to the kitchen at five o’clock on Boxing Day morning and found a two-and-a-half page, hand-written ransom note on the landing of their secondary staircase. The author directed the letter at John Ramsey and claimed to represent a group of individuals from a foreign faction who were “in possession” of JonBenet. The note demanded a ransom of $118,000 be paid in certain bills or JonBenet would die.

Boulder Police recorded Patsy Ramsey’s report being phoned in at 5:51 am. Two patrol officers attended and took basic information but did not treat the Ramsey house as a crime scene. It was not secured, nor searched, and an unrecorded number of people had access to the residence until early afternoon when a detective took over and asked a family friend to assist John Ramsey to search the house for “anything unusual”.

The recorded events are confusing, but it’s said John Ramsey located JonBenet’s dead body in a far corner of a basement wine cellar, covered with her bedroom blanket. She had a ligature cord around her neck, her hands were bound above her head, and her mouth was sealed with duct tape. John Ramsey apparently removed the tape and carried the body up to the living room where it was laid in front of the Christmas tree. The police were called back, and the case began being treated as a homicide.

A forensic crime scene examination identified several points of unsecured ingress to the house but no sign of forced entry nor anything to clearly suggest an unauthorized intruder had been present.

Prominent was the ligature or cord around JonBenet’s neck that was tied to a wooden handle, described as a “garrote”. It was physically matched to a broken paint brush handle in Patsy’s art room which was in the basement, near the wine cellar. Similar pieces of cord were also found in the home. As well, the pad which the notepaper originated from was located on the main floor, as was the pen used to write it.

The Ramsey parents were not formally interviewed, no statements were taken, and continuity of the note—being a prime piece of evidence—as well as its forensic treatment was questionably handled.

The pathologist attended the residence at 6 pm and did a cursory examination of JonBenet’s body before removing her to the morgue. She was dressed in a white nightie and white panties with white tights overtop. The panties and tights were soaked in urine. Postmortem changes were advanced with rigor mortis already passing and early decomposition presenting.

Though the stages of mortis are not precise science for conclusively identifying the time of death, the body’s physical condition suggested that JonBenet had been dead for a considerable time, estimated between 10 pm the previous evening and no later than 5:51 am when the police report was received.

In pathologist John E. Meyer’s words — “Far closer to 10 pm than to 5 am.”

JonBenet’s autopsy determined her cause of death as “asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma” and the medical diagnosis was:

I. Ligature strangulation

Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck

Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck

Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin of face

II. Craniocerebral injuries

Scalp contusion

Linear comminuted fracture of right skull

Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere

Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage

Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes

III. Abrasions

Abrasion of right cheek

Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

Abrasions of lower left back and posterior left lower leg

Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa

IV. Ligature of right wrist

V. Toxicology

Blood ethanol – none detected

Blood drug screen – no drugs detected

——————————————————–

From reading this, it’s clear JonBenet received a massive blow to the upper right of her head from contact with a blunt object, approximately an hour or more before death. This is supported by the contusion (bruise, not a laceration or cut) to her scalp, the linear fractures to her skull, and the subdural (underlying) hemorrhaging (bleeding) in her brain. This cannot occur after death and the known pathology established a considerable time elapsed between when the blow was administered and when the cardiovascular system stopped functioning. The pathologist opinioned that JonBenet was alive but unconscious for an hour, possibly an hour-and-a-half before she was strangled.

It’s also clear that ligature asphyxia (strangling with the cord) was her death’s triggering mechanism, and this is corroborated by the presence of petechial hemorrhages (tiny bloodspots) in her eyes and on her face. This is a classic symptom of mechanical strangulation and is peculiar to the airway being violently interrupted.

The presence of various abrasions and contusions are evident of physical violence being inflicted on JonBenet prior to death, as is the violation of her vaginal area. Her cheek abrasion is consistent with a slap to the face, her shoulder and legs marks are consistent with her still-alive body being roughly handled as if dragged, but caution must be taken in interpreting her vaginal injury as being consistent with sexual assault.

There was no presence of semen, however some blood spotting was noted in her underwear. Later forensic examination would identify a foreign pubic hair on her blanket and an unknown DNA sample (not semen) on her underwear that was consistent with a male contributor.

The police and district attorney’s investigation focused on the improbability that a total stranger would break into the home, severely wound JonBenet, then kill her at least an hour later after packing her body from an upper bedroom and down two floors to the basement of a house in which three others were present—all the while hanging around to write a lengthy note.

From the start, Patsy Ramsey’s behavior was suspect—as was her husband’s. Though there was no suggestion of previous child abuse in the home, it was well known Patsy Ramsey selfishly promoted her daughter like a trophy doll who she desperately wanted to shine in fame and fortune.

As police and media attention centered on the Ramsays, they limited their contact with investigators and quickly “lawyered-up” until a controlled, counter-offensive in the media could be established.

The evidence against the Ramseys was examined by a grand jury empaneled during a ten-month period in 1998. The jury returned an indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in JonBenet’s death but was quashed by the district attorney who felt there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction. The grand jury’s findings were sealed and only released to the public in 2013, seven years after Patsy Ramsay’s death from cancer.

To this day, the smoking gun in JonBenet’s homicide is the alleged ransom note.

If the note is legitimate, then it’s a kidnapping that went sideways. If it’s fraudulent, it’s a murder staged to look like a kidnapping. Regardless, there’s no doubt the note’s author is responsible for killing JonBenet and it’s within the note where the killer reveals their true identity.

Let’s look at it:

The note needs to be examined in three ways.

First — Was there any forensic evidence present to physically identify the author? I can’t imagine it not being fingerprinted nor examined for DNA, however I can’t find any internet reference one way or the other and existing photos don’t show the normal discoloration associated with chemically checking for fingerprints on paper.

Second — What do forensic handwriting analysists say about the writer? A number of document examiners have analyzed the note and have eliminated John Ramsey as well as fifty-three other subjects as the author. But, they cannot rule Patsy Ramsay out as penning it. To be fair, no one conclusively states she was the writer but all agree the author intentionally attempted to disguise themselves.

Third —  What does the science of statement analysis tell us? It’s here where the killer’s identity is revealed.

Let’s look at the note in detail:

Mr. Ramsey,

Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We don respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlierdelivery pick-up of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.

You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.

It is up to you now John!

Victory!

S.B.T.C

The first thing that comes to my mind when reading the note is that it’s nonsense. It’s complete and utter bullshit and here’s why:

— It’s very long with a lot of unnecessary, redundant information. It’s written on three pieces of paper which took a considerable amount of time to compose. True ransom notes are exceptionally rare and all are short and to the point: “We have your daughter! We will kill her if you don’t give us X-amount of money by __!. Wait for instructions!! DO NOT call the police or she dies!!!”

— The writer introduces themself as representing a “group of individuals from a small foreign faction“. Foreign? Faction? Who calls themselves a foreign faction?

— Patsy had been up an hour before calling police.

— The writer states to not respect Ramsey’s business, but not his country then changes the message by striking out “don’t” to reflect a friendlier tone.

— The asking sum of $118,000.00 is a bizarre number. Some examiners equate it to a similar salary bonus amount John Ramsey recently collected but how would a foreigner know if it’s even in his bank account never mind how much?

— Calling “tomorrow between 8 and 10 am” indicates the note was written before midnight on December 25th.

— “The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be well rested” indicates someone thinking about a lack of sleep before the event is exposed.

— “And hence” is a unique phrase that’s rarely used except in very formal correspondence or in biblical phrases.

— There are obvious misspellings in common words like “possession” and “business” while more easily erred words such as “adequate”, “attache (with the accent)”, “deceive”, “deviation”, and “scrutiny”. Otherwise, the writer uses proper punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure which indicates an attempt at disguise by a person with a fair degree of education.

— The use of exclamation points in only the opening and closing is not realistic of a desperate person’s threat. You’d expect emphasis being put on the instructions to get money and threats to retaliate.

— “Beheaded” and “stray dog” indicate a feint towards some sort of middle-eastern ethnic decoy.

— “Proper burial” is indicative of someone who knew what JonBenet’s final disposal would be. Burial was the accepted practice in the Ramsay’s’ religious faith, rather than cremation.

— The phrase “two gentlemen watching over” stands right out. “Gentlemen” being a term used in a ransom note? Totally unrealistic. And “watching over” is another term like “and hence” where it doesn’t remotely resemble normal speech, rather it reflects a biblical overtone where “God watches over”.

— “I advise you not to provoke them” and “I advise you to be rested” are passive statements and reflect a feminine touch.

— Four times the writer uses the phrase “she dies.” If JonBenet was still alive when the note was written, the author would likely use the term “she will die”. This indicates the writer knew JonBenet was already dead.

— The note’s address changes from “Mr. Ramsey” being used once to “John” being repeated three times. This is far too familiar for an unknown kidnapper and strongly indicates the writer knew John Ramsey personally.

— The closing terms “Victory!” and “S.B.T.C” appear cryptic and of some personal, religious significance to the writer.

_________________________________

A principle behind the science of statement analysis is that truthful people rarely use synonyms. They remain consistent in language whereas deceitful people change language and weave in synonyms to distract. Another principle is that people expose their psychological profile in their writing.

So what does the JonBenet Ramsay note say about the author?

It’s clearly a deceitful attempt to distort the facts, using unrealistic, bizarre, and unbelievable demands to shift attention from the reality of the situation. It’s apparently written by a woman of higher education, with a religious background, familiar with John Ramsey, who can’t bear to bring JonBenet’s name into the equation, yet cryptically reveals a personal message.

It’s written in characters that can’t be eliminated from Patsy Ramsey’s known handwriting and it was written with a Sharpie pen and foolscap paper found in her home—the home in which JonBenet was murdered and who’s body was stashed on the cold basement floor.

Patsy Ramsey denied culpability until her death but denials are cheaper than a thrift store suit. A look at her psychological profile is telling.

Patsy Ramsay was a beauty queen, herself—crowned Miss West Virginia in 1977. She graduated from university with a B.A. in journalism and was a devout member of the Episcopalian church and a wealthy socialite in her community. Perversely, she flaunted an air of modest integrity while flogging every chance to sexually exploit her six-year-old daughter in front of every pageant and camera she could find.

Patsy Ramsey was an educated, articulate, and calculating woman. She was also very religious.

It’s in the Bible where the key to the ransom note’s lock is hidden.

— The terms “watching over” and “and hence” are consistent with a religious mindset and they are known to be used in the Ramsey family Christmas message which Patsy wrote the year after JonBenet’s death.

— The numeric figure “118” is highly revealing and it fits with a notable Bible passage recognized by the Episcopalian faith. It’s found in Corinthians 1:18.

— “For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

— Significant are the note’s closings,“Victory!” and “S.B.T.C”. Victory is well established as a Christian slogan which refers to Christ’s triumph by rising from the dead and symbolizing the triumph of good over evil and the forgiveness and everlasting salvation of a soul from sin. “S.B.T.C” is the well-known acronym for “Saved By The Cross.”

— The “Victory” reference is also revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57:

“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable must be put on the imperishable, and this mortal must be put on immortality… then will come about the saying that is written “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

_________________________________

In my opinion, there’s a convincing case that Patsy Ramsay authored the ransom note and, therefore, the person who really murdered JonBenet.

It’s also likely that John Ramsey had some knowledge and covered up for his wife. He’d already had a previous daughter die—now a second—and he couldn’t bear to lose the rest of the family. Only he will know.

But this still leaves the question of why Patsy Ramsey slayed her daughter? What were the horrific circumstances that led to such a senseless, barbaric crime?

I think the best theory is offered by Steve Thomas who is the original Boulder detective who investigated the case and wrote the book JonBenet—Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation.

Detective Thomas postulates that Patsy and John Ramsey returned to their home around 10 pm Christmas Day after a social event. Patsy checked on JonBenet and found she’d been bed-wetting again. At the time, Patsy was already on emotional overload—about to pop a breaker. She was under severe psychological stress with heavy socialite commitments, seasonal depression, struggling to face her fortieth birthday, keeping the perfect face, and… who knows what all else.

With temper stretched, Patsy severely admonished JonBenet for the urinary mess and likely did an aggressive wiping simulation on her daughter’s crotch, accounting for the “abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa”. This escalated to a violent event where JonBenet’s head was smashed into a hard, blunt surface such as a doorframe or piece of furniture which rendered her unconscious with a potentially lethal brain injury.

Possibly thinking JonBenet was dead and probably panicking, Patsy went into damage control which may have involved John Ramsey at this point. It’s inconceivable to think he didn’t know or at least suspect something.

Somewhere during the next hour to an hour-and-a-half, JonBenet was finished off with a garrote fashioned from available materials, her body was moved, and the stage was set to simulate a ritualistic killing. A plan was then devised to deceive the authorities by way of a concocted ransom note which contained a cryptic justification with some hope of divine reconciliation.

But what’s really evident to me—why I truly believe both Patricia and John Ramsey were culpable in JonBenet’s murder—is the date on the inscription they jointly approved for the headstone on their daughter’s grave.

They knew she was dead before midnight.

Kill Zoners – Who do you think really murdered JonBenet Ramsay?