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.)

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.

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.

TLynn said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

trixie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sissi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

UKGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

trixie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Trixie, try some of the other forums on this site, we'll be happy to talk to ya!

trixie said:

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!!??

Click to expand...

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

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

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

sissi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sissi,

But after the known evidence is factored in, then Occam's Razor would dictate that a Ramsey likely killed JonBenet.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

But after the known evidence is factored in, then Occam's Razor would dictate that a Ramsey likely killed JonBenet.

Click to expand...

You are right BlueCrab, but that shoots down your 5th person theory.
Occam's Razor requires a solution with only the known/existing elements and would not allow for any additional people to be in the house, be it intruder, or family friend.

No disrespect but I do doubt Occam's Razor ,can be applied to a murder investigation. IMO

There is nothing short of experience on the part of a good homicide detective that can solve this crime.

UK Guy said: So JonBenet may have been killed upstairs and her body transferred downstairs, then the staging occurred.

I've often wondered why "cord fibers" were found in JonBenet's bed.

from the police reports as posted on cr;
On December 27, 1996, Your Affiant applied for a second search warrant for the premises of 755 15th Street, City and County of Boulder, State of Colorado. The Honorable Judge Diane R. MacDonald signed the second warrant. On December 29, 1996, Your Affiant talked to Sergeant Bob Whitson of the Boulder Police Department. Seargeant Witson told Your Affiant that he responded to 755 15th Street, City and County of Boulder, State of Colorado at approximately 0930 hours on December 25, 1996 in response to the report of a kidnapping. Seargeant Whitson told Your Affiant that when he arrived at the Ramsey residence, he entered through the rear exterior kitchen door. He told Your Affiant that as he entered the residence he saw what appeared to be a pry-mark in the door jam of this door. He told Your Affiant that the mark he observed was on the exterior of the house near the door knob and lock on the door, and that the damaged area appeared to have been less weathered than the surrounding surfaces on the door and door jam. Seargeant Whitson told Your Affiant that he spoke to John Ramsey who identified himself as the owner of the residence and the father of JonBenet Ramsey who he reported was now missing. Seargeant Witson told Your Affiant that Jon Ramsey stated to him that all the doors to the residence were locked when he and his family went to bed on the previous evening of December 25, 1996. Seargeant Whitson told Your Affiant that John Ramsey told him that the doors were still locked this morning when they discovered the child was missing. Detective Linda Arndt told Your Affiant that John Ramsey stated to her that his daughter is six years old and that he last saw her at approximately 2200 hours on December 25, 1996.

On December 28, 1996 Your Affiant observed that the Ramsey residence has several exterior doors and windows. Your Affiant observed that many of these potential entrances into the house are secured with locks or locking mechanisms. Your Affiant knows from personal experience and training that tools commonly known as lock picks can open locks and locking mechanisms. Your Affiant also knows from his personal experience and training that the use of tools, such as lock picks, can leave marks on the external surfaces or internal workings of a lock. Since all the doors were allegedly locked, an examination of any markings on the internal workings of their locks would provide material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution.