Occam's Razor

[DocWatson]

Sissi,
RDI theorists conveniently overlook the mountains of evidence that suggest an intruder was present, including that which you cite. If Ramseys were 'staging' wouldn't it have been pretty obvious that they'd have to stage an exit route? If so, why insist that the doors were all locked? If the downstairs room was the escape route, why not more clearly "stage" the exit by leaving the grate up etc.? Why insist a chair was blocking the door to that room? Even BC concedes a stun gun was used, but where did it go? What would the point be of leaving a bag of rope in the upstairs room? Where did the rest of the roll of duct tape go, etc.?

In short, there are WAY too many loose ends for Occam's Razor to be used to support an RDI theory. Doctor Invincibilis must be rolling over in his grave to see his principle being so grotesquely misused here.

 

[aRnd2it]

Sissi,
RDI theorists conveniently overlook the mountains of evidence that suggest an intruder was present, including that which you cite.

DocWatson, your "mountains of evidence" are the same ol' RST myths, lies, and the playing of fast and loose with actual case facts.

Take for example you're citing of the bag of rope, which just happened to be the same rope present at the feet of JonBenet in the "tomboy" photo shoot.

Or your missing tape and rope when there is no proof that a full roll of tape or coil of cord was even at the crime scene.

And then there is the window well, where everyone but the RST can see the amount of dirt on the sill proves nobody went through that window for months.

When you take away all the trumped up "evidence" that can't even be dated to the crime, the intruder theory goes "POOF!" into thin air.

 

[DocWatson]

When you take away all the trumped up "evidence" that can't even be dated to the crime, the intruder theory goes "POOF!" into thin air.

Oh, I get it. The evidence of a break-in at the Ramsey's door apparently means that someone tried or did break in on a completely DIFFERENT occasion and the evidence only happened to be spotted after JBR's murder.
And the Ramseys must have PLANTED that DNA evidence on JBR that can be sourced to no known Ramsey. That's pretty damned good planning, doncha think? They apparently PLANNED for an accidental death by having a handy supply of someone else's DNA on hand on Xmas night so that they could better execute their cover-up. With that kind of skill and foresight, it's regrettable they didn't assist in planning the Iraq war: it might have gone a hell of a lot smoother...

The idea that a credible RDI theory can account for these disparate bits of intruder evidence (the above being only a few tiny crumbs from the mountain of intruder evidence) is ludicrous on its face. Every single RDI theory I've seen posted here "works" only by IGNORING important components of the available evidence--the DNA evidence being among the strongest.

 

[aRnd2it]

Oh, I get it. The evidence of a break-in at the Ramsey's door apparently means that someone tried or did break in on a completely DIFFERENT occasion and the evidence only happened to be spotted after JBR's murder.

Another one of your case myths, DocWatson. There was no evidence of a break-in at any Ramsey door. Both French and Reichenbach checked ALL the doors and windows on the morning of the crime, and neither found any indications of forced entry.

And I guess you haven't heard "this is NOT a DNA case". That little bit of contamination you want to believe is actually evidence will NEVER match anybody, so if you're holding your breath--Don't. You'll be long dead and that DNA garbage still won't match anyone. (Unless you plan on testing all the garment workers in Taiwan...LOL)

 

[DocWatson]

Another one of your case myths, DocWatson. There was no evidence of a break-in at any Ramsey door. Both French and Reichenbach checked ALL the doors and windows on the morning of the crime, and neither found any indications of forced entry.)

"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. "
So Sergeant Whitson was lying?

And I guess you haven't heard "this is NOT a DNA case". That little bit of contamination you want to believe is actually evidence will NEVER match anybody, so if you're holding your breath--Don't. You'll be long dead and that DNA garbage still won't match anyone. (Unless you plan on testing all the garment workers in Taiwan...LOL)

No garment worker in Taiwan could have managed to get DNA under JBR's fingernails. This case is not a DNA case in the sense that the limited amount of available DNA is too degraded to make a 100% identification. But it IS sufficient to identify the perp as male and NOT a Ramsey! Needless to say, RDI theorists don't like to acknowledge these inconvenient facts of the case. The fact there is so little DNA indicates just how careful this perp was--apparently wearing gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints or DNA, wiping down the body etc. These are not the hallmarks of amateur parents engaged in a frantic cover-up.

 

[aRnd2it]

"he saw what appeared to be a pry-mark in the door jam of this door."

Here we go again with the usual NON-EVIDENCE that has no value to this case.
Can you date those marks to the night of the crime?--NO.
Can you even date those marks to within a YEAR of the crime?--NO.

Try reading THIS, or several articles just like it:
"No forced entry", says locksmith. "No one broke into the Ramsey home the night JonBenet was killed, according to the owner of a security company that changed the locks after the little girl died."
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1001jon.htm

No garment worker in Taiwan could have managed to get DNA under JBR's fingernails. This case is not a DNA case in the sense that the limited amount of available DNA is too degraded to make a 100% identification. But it IS sufficient to identify the perp as male and NOT a Ramsey!

Test samples proved panties identicle to those she had on contained DNA from the garment factory. The DNA could have gotten under her fingernail when she wiped herself and contacted the panty material. Or, maybe she touched something that day, got some dirt under her nails, and transfered it into the panties herself. Again, that's not the point.

Regardless of how the DNA contamination got into the samples sent for testing, IT CANNOT BE DATED TO THE CRIME. In no other rape or murder crime where the perp left behind his/her DNA was it so degraded that an entire DNA strand couldn't be obtained.

Explain to us how anyone could leave behind that little DNA, DocWatson. Even in the cases where the person was identified by the saliva on a cigarette butt, or a piece of chicken with a bite taken out of it, there was a complete set of DNA markers. The experts from CellMark told LE that the DNA contamination in this case might have come from more than one donor, and one of those donors MIGHT BE a Ramsey.

This is not a DNA case - it's a case of DNA contamination.

 

[Jayelles]

Another one of your case myths, DocWatson. There was no evidence of a break-in at any Ramsey door. Both French and Reichenbach checked ALL the doors and windows on the morning of the crime, and neither found any indications of forced entry.

And I guess you haven't heard "this is NOT a DNA case". That little bit of contamination you want to believe is actually evidence will NEVER match anybody, so if you're holding your breath--Don't. You'll be long dead and that DNA garbage still won't match anyone. (Unless you plan on testing all the garment workers in Taiwan...LOL)

Linda Hoffman Pugh later stated that the prymarks had been there before and that they had been pointed out to the Ramseys some months before the murder.

 

[Jayelles]

"The Ramseys' former housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, was surprised to see both the picture and Haddon's statement. The photograph showed the spot where a protective metal plate on the door jamb had fallen off months before the murder. She had seen the plate become looser until one day it fell off, revealing the same marks that she now saw in the photograph. Hoffmann-Pugh had taken the plate to Patsy, who wasn't concerned enough to have it replaced. The detached plate had sat on a shelf in the hallway near the kitchen. Now Hoffmann-Pugh wondered if the police had discovered it and made the connection."

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

 

[DocWatson]

Thanks for the reminder of further intruder evidence!
-A pubic hair on the blanket covering JonBenet's body when she was found, which has not been traced to any family member.
-A suitcase discovered beneath a broken basement window.
-A conclusion by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that John Ramsey didn't write the ransom note, and that there's only a low probability that Patsy is its author.

I concur that suitcase could have been staged, so this bit of evidence doesn't really differentiate IDI from RDI theories. But is your claim that the parents planted a non-Ramsey pubic hair? Great planning! Similarly, is your claim that CBI handwriting experts are inept and that JR or PR actually did write the ransom note even though the EVIDENCE argues against it?

Thus, you can cast some doubt on each individual piece of intruder evidence, but in their totality, these bits of evidence provide stronger support for IDI than RDI theory because the simplest theory that explains all these bits of evidence together is an intruder whereas no RDI theory accounts for their totality. Occam's Razor leads to an IDI conclusion. Cherry-picking the evidence by those who already have made up their minds leads to a RDI result. Of course you consider Keenan and Hunter dunces: they don't care to stoop to the truth-twisting required to support your theory of the case.

 

[aRnd2it]

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

Thanks Jayelles. - Another intruder myth based on twisted information. Here's the whole story:

"Perfect Murder, Perfect Town - Page 405:
"The second addendum to the search warrant noted that when Sgt. Whitson first arrived at the Ramsey house, he noticed what seemed to be a pry mark on the door jamb. The damage are 'appeared to hae been less weathered than the surrounding surfaces on the door and door jamb,' the document said."

"The Ramseys' attorneys were quick to point out in a press statement that the documents contained nothing to incriminate their clients. Hal Haddon said it was "significant" that people close to the investigation had not leaked information that was exculpatory to the Ramsey family, such as the pry mark. He also provided the media with a photograph of the door jamb, which the police had seen on December 26, and said, "The material released today demonstrates substantial evidence of an intruder."

"The next day, the Rocky Mountain News published the 5 x 8 inch photograph alongside a story that quoted Haddon as saying that important evidence of an intruder had been withheld from the public."

"The Ramseys' former housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, was surprised to see both the picture and Haddon's statement. The photograph showed the spot where a protective metal plate on the door jamb had fallen off months before the murder. She had seen the plate become looser until one day it fell off, revealing the same marks that she now saw in the photograph. Hoffmann-Pugh had taken the plate to Patsy, who wasn't concerned enough to have it replaced. The detached plate had sat on a shelf in the hallway near the kitchen. Now Hoffmann-Pugh wondered if the police had discovered it and made the connection."

 

[aRnd2it]

-A pubic hair on the blanket covering JonBenet's body when she was found, which has not been traced to any family member.
-A suitcase discovered beneath a broken basement window.
-A conclusion by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that John Ramsey didn't write the ransom note, and that there's only a low probability that Patsy is its author.

Sheesh, do the twisted facts EVER stop?!

-It wasn't a "pubic" hair. It was a body hair that might have been picked up off the filthy floor. No way of tying it to the crime.

-A suitcase under a window that has so much dirt on the sill that proves nobody climbed through it. So who cares if the suitcase had been there for a month.

-A conclusion by Speckin Labs that the ransom note is written in disguised writing--therefore Patsy can not be identified at the author--however, the chances anyone else wrote the note are zero.


The "intruder" will never be anything more than myths and twisted case facts...

 

[BlueCrab]

The purpose in applying Occam's Razor to this crime is, IMO, to reduce the number of theories down to only plausible theories. Since most crimes of this nature involve an adult male member of the household, and John Ramsey was the only known adult male in the house that night, then at first blush Occam's Razor points to John as the prime suspect.

But, of course, Occam's Razor must also incorporate all known credible items of evidence -- which may or may not not alter the original broad premise of John being the prime suspect.

Here's some of the credible items of evidence, pro and con, as I see them:

1. John was the only adult male known to be in the house.

2. JonBenet had acute injuries (night of the crime) and chronic injuries (up to 72 hours prior to her death) to the vagina. The chronic injuries limit the perp as someone very close to JonBenet and able to get to her on a daily and repetitive basis.

3. John has some exculpatory evidence in his favor -- the handwriting analysis; the polygraph analysis, and the DNA analysis.

4. John has told a number of deliberate lies, including Burke being in bed during the 911 call when he was not; the Stines' not being close friends when they obviously were; he did not search the basement when his own statement about his moving the chair from in front of the train room door proved he had been in the basement prior to the 911 call; and his statement that the only item of clothing he removed from JonBenet that night were her shoes, but he nevertheless let it slip that he knew whether or not JonBenet was wearing underwear.

5. John, by not fully and timely cooperating with the investigation, has clearly been trying to cover up for someone in the family. He wouldn't be doing this for an intruder he didn't even know.

There are probably other credible items, pro and con, that can be added to this list but, from those mentioned above and while trying to keep it plain and obvious for the sake of complying with Occam's Razor, I for one conclude that John can NOT be eliminated as a prime suspect.

JMO

 

[sissi]

If LHP is to be used as a source, for either information she provided for Schiller, or later for the NE, we may as well give up. She has contradicted herself continually, we can only hope it's to keep the dollars coming in by offering "fresh" info. and not that she has some involvement. I don't believe a liar is harmless..but that's IMO

 

[aRnd2it]

If LHP is to be used as a source, for either information she provided for Schiller, or later for the NE, we may as well give up. She has contradicted herself continually, we can only hope it's to keep the dollars coming in by offering "fresh" info. and not that she has some involvement. I don't believe a liar is harmless..but that's IMO

I don't know if Schiller spoke to LHP directly. I think his information came from the BPD case files he had access to. LHP had no credibility problems during her initial interviews when she believed Patsy was innocent. If anything, she would have slanted her answers to support the Ramseys.

It wasn't until much later in the case that LHP lost her credibility. It took her quite a while to realize she had been thrown under the bus by the Rammers. Even after that, it wasn't until she hooked up with Darnay Hoffman that she started supposedly remembering things she had forgotten earlier.

 

[Nehemiah]

JR was asked if he helped to undress JB on Christmas Night. Instead, JR says this:
"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."

He was not asked about his usual routine...I find it odd that he goes into what he usually does as opposed to what he did. It's like he was saying "this is what I usually do, but on the night in question I did something differently."

 

[Eagle1]

Wouldn't that have coincided exactly with the party on the 23rd, when JonBenet was crying, and told McSanta's wife she didn't feel pretty?

She'd evidently tried to make a 911 call and had the phone snatched away from her. When police came, Susan Stine turned them away at the door, correct? And a story was made up, someone later discredited, about FW's mother being in a hospital while he's at a party, calling someone about her medicine. Someone told us later where FW's mother really had been. Not a hospital.

I haven't been to this forum in a while, so memory is a bit vague. She was also at a party?

My point is that it was evidently someone who was at the party on the 23rd and molested JonBenet, who did the 72-hrs-old injuries, and probably the final ones.

 

[sissi]

I don't know if Schiller spoke to LHP directly. I think his information came from the BPD case files he had access to. LHP had no credibility problems during her initial interviews when she believed Patsy was innocent. If anything, she would have slanted her answers to support the Ramseys.

It wasn't until much later in the case that LHP lost her credibility. It took her quite a while to realize she had been thrown under the bus by the Rammers. Even after that, it wasn't until she hooked up with Darnay Hoffman that she started supposedly remembering things she had forgotten earlier.

I believe you really didn't know that Schiller spoke to LHP. However, Schiller wanted her information so badly he hired her to be his housekeeper.

In interview with Schiller...quote...

S: We went to Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's house. Merv was there. She didn't want to talk much. So we hired her as the housekeeper at our office/condo, so that we could interview her whenever we wanted to.
(Audience groans disapproval)

* * * * *

 

[sissi]

Sheesh, do the twisted facts EVER stop?!

-It wasn't a "pubic" hair. It was a body hair that might have been picked up off the filthy floor. No way of tying it to the crime.

-A suitcase under a window that has so much dirt on the sill that proves nobody climbed through it. So who cares if the suitcase had been there for a month.

-A conclusion by Speckin Labs that the ransom note is written in disguised writing--therefore Patsy can not be identified at the author--however, the chances anyone else wrote the note are zero.


The "intruder" will never be anything more than myths and twisted case facts...

Speckin Labs said, there was NO indication that Patsy disquised her handwriting. Source the deposition of Thomas.

There is no logical reason for a suitcase to have been moved into a room under a broken window unless someone placed it there in case of a "need".
The need would be to hoist oneself up to get out if the household was to awaken while he was down there.

The locksmith admitted he was misquoted, he said he "did notice fresh tampering", there was no one pressing for this to hit the papers was there?

There were several hairs, as there were several prints on the door, as there were other sets of shoes that left prints, other than the Hi-tec ones. There was a set of SAS prints found, and the only person that addressed this was Pam Griffith (sp), who claimed she owned the brand but had "given them away".

Yes, myths surround this case.

 

[sissi]

Wouldn't that have coincided exactly with the party on the 23rd, when JonBenet was crying, and told McSanta's wife she didn't feel pretty?

She'd evidently tried to make a 911 call and had the phone snatched away from her. When police came, Susan Stine turned them away at the door, correct? And a story was made up, someone later discredited, about FW's mother being in a hospital while he's at a party, calling someone about her medicine. Someone told us later where FW's mother really had been. Not a hospital.

I haven't been to this forum in a while, so memory is a bit vague. She was also at a party?

My point is that it was evidently someone who was at the party on the 23rd and molested JonBenet, who did the 72-hrs-old injuries, and probably the final ones.

Fleet White would have everything to lose wouldn't he, if he did not claim to have dialed 911 mistakenly. If this is a lie, it would be HUGE!
I say HUGE because it has happened in other crimes where a call in to 911 is made to test the response time....before the crime!

 

[TLynn]

Well, I'll go a bit further with the "pubic hair..." - I thought it turned out to be an "arm" hair or what not belonging to Melinda (along with the palm print).

I also remember reading that you had to dial "9" to get long distance in the Ramsey home. I thought that odd - and that's why I remember it.

However, I'll agree with the 72 hours leading back to the 23d party. And often thought it was connected. Perhaps, someone afraid JonBenet would tell or speak of it.

Remember Thomas stating he saw a note written by Patty (shown/given to him by Patsy's mom) - it had the manuscript "a" and then crossed out?