970 users online (130 members and 840 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 79
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,661

    Occam's Razor

    I'm curious as to why people have largely given JR a pass on guilt in this homicide.

    Occam's razor would seem to indicate the only adult male in the house would be responsible for the assault and murder, with the adult female most likely only involved in the coverup.

    It seems like public opinion has largely give JR a pass on this crime. I wonder what is it about this case that leads us to be more likely believe one of the PR went nuts theories, BR being capable of a crime way beyond his years, or intruder scenarios?

    And assuming the assault was staged (which I don't personally believe), why would either JR or PR stage something that made JR look so guilty?

    (I too feel this way that I don't want to believe JR did it.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I'm not sure if OR works for most who consider any Ramsey. The most likely scenario for a murdered child of a CEO of Access Graphics a subsidary of Lock Heed Martin ( the world's largest arms exporters) would simply be an intruder.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    I, too, feel that John is a viable suspect. And am surprised of the "pass."

    Perhaps because the writing didn't match the RN...but Patsy's isn't that big of a match.

    The RN being addressed to him is reverse psychology - along with his comment of it being an "inside job."

    Almost all items were Patsy's - nothing of John's, except maybe the flashlight whose batteries were wiped clean.

    From finding the window open and not telling anyone - to seeing a suspicous car/van outside with his binoculars and not telling anyone...and, finally, finding the body.

    You know, the FBI theory of Patsy catching John molesting JonBenet and swinging at him with the flashlight - missing and hitting JonBenet - hence, the cover-up - may not be so far-fetched.
    IMO -

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by TLynn

    You know, the FBI theory of Patsy catching John molesting JonBenet and swinging at him with the flashlight - missing and hitting JonBenet - hence, the cover-up - may not be so far-fetched.

    TLynn,

    That FBI theory is supported by the overheard phone conversation when Pam Paugh called John at work giving him hell about something along those lines. I forget the details and will have to look it up.

    But here's something interesting about John. As is known, fibers from John's black shirt that he wore to the White's that night were found in JonBenet's crotch. During the 2000 interviews in Atlanta, this interesting response from John occurred:

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall asleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally."

    CHIEF BECKNER: "I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't."

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you recall if you took her underwear off?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "No, I'm sure I did not."


    So John says he would have NOTICED if JonBenet wasn't wearing underwear. How could he notice whether or not JonBenet was wearing underwear if all he did was take off her shoes? She was wearing black velvet slacks.

    JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594

    Bluecrab

    I 've been yelling about this statement for a long time but nobody would acknowledge me. WHY would he notice if she were wearing underwear or not if all he did was take off her shoes and coat and if that was always the normal routine!!?? Now that YOU have brought it up maybe others will have a comment. Nobody ever answers me so I have just given up posting. I think you have to be a member of the "circle" here or something. But good catch and thanks for finally noticing what I noticed a long time ago.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    CHIEF BECKNER: "Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall asleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally."

    CHIEF BECKNER: "I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't."

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you recall if you took her underwear off?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "No, I'm sure I did not."


    So John says he would have NOTICED if JonBenet wasn't wearing underwear. How could he notice whether or not JonBenet was wearing underwear if all he did was take off her shoes? She was wearing black velvet slacks.

    JMO
    So indirectly Chief Beckner, knowing there is fiber evidence, wants to elicit a contradiction from JR. And he gets one, so someone somewhere decided not to follow through with the implicit accusation phase and ask JR if he could explain why fibers from his shirt were found on JonBenet's thighs etc?

    Normally fiber evidence found in such an intimate place is a "smoking gun", so its possible they dont consider such evidence as decisive, given a simple defense of transference by air or PR might be sufficient to refute it.

    I remember when I first read PMPT. On the night of the 25th JR went to bed took some sleeping aid and fell asleep only to awaken to the ensuing crisis.

    Now I realize I dont know if that is really true.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    I 've been yelling about this statement for a long time but nobody would acknowledge me. WHY would he notice if she were wearing underwear or not if all he did was take off her shoes and coat and if that was always the normal routine!!?? Now that YOU have brought it up maybe others will have a comment. Nobody ever answers me so I have just given up posting. I think you have to be a member of the "circle" here or something. But good catch and thanks for finally noticing what I noticed a long time ago.
    JR knew this line of question was leading, so he was deliberately ambiguous with all his answers, he never answered if she was wearing underwear until:

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you recall if you took her underwear off?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "No, I'm sure I did not."

    JR Never confirmed if she was or was not wearing underwear, only "if" had she been wearing any, he was "sure" he did not remove them.

    I suspect for Chief Beckner the Size 12 pants, she was found wearing, was the more pertinent line of questioning he really wanted to follow. And he was maybe hoping it would go something like this.

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you remember whether she was or was not wearing underwear?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "No she was not, I assumed Patsy was going to change her."

    CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you recall if you "changed" her underwear?"

    JOHN RAMSEY: "Yes I think I made her decent with a clean pair, if I remember correctly"

    =========

    For the Chief that would have eliminated the fibers as hard evidence.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    The most likely scenario for a murdered child of a CEO of Access Graphics a subsidary of Lock Heed Martin ( the world's largest arms exporters) would simply be an intruder.
    Sure Sissi, on Christmas night when an intruder wouldn't know if they were going to return home, or if they were going to be returning home with a dozen relatives.

    How about this, Sissi: Christmas is just around the corner - pick a family that lives on the block next to yours and tell us what time they will be going to bed on Christmas night.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy

    I remember when I first read PMPT. On the night of the 25th JR went to bed took some sleeping aid and fell asleep only to awaken to the ensuing crisis.

    Now I realize I dont know if that is really true.

    UKGuy,

    Also, please remember that the enhanced 911 tape caught all three Ramseys, John, Patsy, and Burke, in a lie about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he was actually up and talking to his parents. With a whopper like that, the credibility of EVERYTHING the Ramseys had said that took place that night and that morning is in serious question.

    Familial incest becomes a real possibility. For instance, John, because of Patsy's ovarian cancer problem, has been without sex -- and he comes home after imbibing on an unknown number of Christmas libations at the White's house and undresses JonBenet to put her to bed ... black fibers from John's shirt are transferred to JonBenet's crotch during the oral sex.

    In walks Patsy ... "I thought I told you to stop doing this!" Patsy picks up the closest heavy object and swings it at John -- and misses, hitting JonBenet in the head.

    There were two heavy objects in JonBenet's bedroom that could have been used -- an iron dumbbell, and JonBenet's largest trophy which was found lying upset on the bedroom floor.

    JMO
    Last edited by BlueCrab; 11-28-2004 at 10:06 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,628
    I had found it interesting that in at least one of their press conferences, JR starts out by saying straight up "I did not kill my daughter." Meanwhile, PR, who is sitting right next to him, does not repeat that statement, and says nothing, instead.


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,628
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    I 've been yelling about this statement for a long time but nobody would acknowledge me. WHY would he notice if she were wearing underwear or not if all he did was take off her shoes and coat and if that was always the normal routine!!?? Now that YOU have brought it up maybe others will have a comment. Nobody ever answers me so I have just given up posting. I think you have to be a member of the "circle" here or something. But good catch and thanks for finally noticing what I noticed a long time ago.
    Trixie, try some of the other forums on this site, we'll be happy to talk to ya!


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    WHY would he notice if she were wearing underwear or not if all he did was take off her shoes and coat and if that was always the normal routine!!??

    Trixie,

    Good point about the "normal routine". Apparently the normal routine was ALWAYS more than just the shoes and coat, and not just that night.

    JMO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    In regard to familial incest possibly taking place in that house, I'd like to emphasize that JonBenet had both acute and chronic injuries to her vagina. It was determined the chronic injuries were partially healed, and therefore had likely occurred within the past 72 hours prior to her death.

    On Christmas Eve night, the Ramseys admit JonBenet slept in Burke's room. There is only one bed in Burke's room.

    JMO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    In regard to familial incest possibly taking place in that house, I'd like to emphasize that JonBenet had both acute and chronic injuries to her vagina. It was determined the chronic injuries were partially healed, and therefore had likely occurred within the past 72 hours prior to her death.

    On Christmas Eve night, the Ramseys admit JonBenet slept in Burke's room. There is only one bed in Burke's room.

    JMO
    Familial incest seems to have a greater explanatory range, than any other theory. Minimally it shows why they might all collude to obscure and forget details.

    So JonBenet may have been killed upstairs and her body transferred downstairs, then the staging occurred. There are aspects to the staging that appear contrived , although were probably not meant to be, ie using a paintbrush handle, both as a garrotting aid, and to injure her, those size 12 pants. The laying out of her nightdress suggests the staging was interrupted at some point.

    If we accept the psychological pressures that BlueCrab suggets JR was under, and strip away the staging. What appears is a homicide with an explicable motive.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I never suggested she was murdered by a faction, I did suggest that in using , OR, it would have been the most likely of the possibilities.
    IMO according to Occam's Razor, I would be correct.
    Suggesting John would be the clear choice for the perpetrator using OR, is clearly wrong, given his position, wealth, marital status, and history he would most likely be a victim.
    Remember what ya' asked for.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast