The Missing Period (.)

[BrotherMoon]

I.D.I.O.T.I.C :laugh: :crazy:

 

[Ivy]

BC, if Nathan was at the Ramseys the night JonBenet died, the Ramseys and Stines must feel completely confident that he'll never spill the beans. If he was involved in JonBenet's death, he wouldn't want to implicate himself, but why would the Ramseys and Stines be so sure he wouldn't have a few too many drinks some night and confess everything, implicating Burke and Doug as well?

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

BC, if Nathan was at the Ramseys the night JonBenet died, the Ramseys and Stines must feel completely confident that he'll never spill the beans. If he was involved in JonBenet's death, he wouldn't want to implicate himself, but why would the Ramseys and Stines be so sure he wouldn't have a few too many drinks some night and confess everything, implicating Burke and Doug as well?IMO

If Nathan or anyone else not a family member was the perp or an accomplice along with a Ramsey, then getting drunk and spilling the beans as a witness is always a possibility. It happens all the time. But what's the alternative? There is none other than the witness being fitted with cement shoes.

I'd like to remind you that, in my APAC theory, I'm suggesting that ANY of the 29 APAC members could be the perp -- not just Nathan. There's a loose cannon in almost any group. I'd begin by taking a good look at K.J.L.B

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

Which group do you belong to?

 

[BlueCrab]

Which group do you belong to?

I'm not a member, but right now I'm interested in K.J.L.B Groups.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

Why are you getting so upset DocWatson? Am I getting too close to the truth with my APAC theory? Do you rant and rave like this over any of the other theories?

JMO

BC, that you elect to rely on an ad hominem attack instead of rebutting the evidence I provided speaks volumes about your credibility and motivation.

For those who don't know you, here's a brief evolution of your theory:
1. Theory 1: Burke and Doug Stine did it accidently, an AEA game gone astray; parents covered it up to avoid embarrasment. LE is well aware of what happened and also is motivated to cover up due to confidentiality restrictions regarding crimes involving a minor.
Objection: boys their age would have no interest in AEA
2. Theory 2: Nathan encouraged Burke and Doug to play an AEA game with JBR and she accidently died; parents covered it up to avoid embarrasment.
Objection: why would parents cover for a non-family teen who led their innocent son astray?
3. Theory 3: Burke and Doug let Nathan into house, who apparently murdered JBR due to sinister APAC political motives; parents covered it up to avoid embarrasment.
Objection: Nathan wasn't in Boulder on December 25, 1996; moreover it's bizarre to think LE would look the other way in such a case.
4. Theory 4: ANY member of APAC could have murdered JBR due to sinister APAC political motives.
Objection: EVIDENCE???????

Your "theory" has a common thread: you seem insistent that Burke was involved (even though you've offered not a shred of psychological evidence supporting this). Every time one theory gets shot down on plausibility grounds you substitute yet another BDI theory. Therefore, I am not in the least concerned you are close to the truth. Your own behavior suggests how very far from the truth you are.

 

[BlueCrab]

Your "theory" has a common thread: you seem insistent that Burke was involved...

Correct. I arrived at that conclusion by the process of elimination and common sense. For instance:

1. The Ramseys conspired to lie about Burke being out of bed and downstairs talking to his parents at 5:52 A.M. Why would they do that?

2. The murder had to involve one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night, and the forensic evidence, handwriting examinations, and lie-detector tests tend to clear John and Patsy -- leaving Burke.

3. A lengthy fake ransom note, naively and childly written to divert suspicion away from the family, was not needed if a bonafide intruder had committed the crime.

4. The ransom note contained information that would normally be known only by Ramsey family members.

5. The time-consuming note was written in the occupied house without concern about being discovered.

6. When Burke was "awakened" at 7:00 A.M. and taken to the White's house he didn't ask any questions. He seemed to already know.

7. JonBenet's hymen had been eroded away and the hymenal opening was about twice the size it should have been. There were acute and chronic injuries to the vagina. Burke and JonBenet slept together on Christman Eve night.

8. Despite evidence of vaginal penetration, there was no semen at the crime scene and no evidence of adult male penetration.

9. JonBenet had been wiped down with a dark blue cloth and re-dressed in size 12 panties. She normally wore size 4 and 6 panties. John and Patsy would have known better.

10. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet had snacked from approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours before she died, placing Burke secretly downstairs with JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed.

11. It was obviously Burke's Hi-Tec boot print next to the body in the wine cellar.

12. There is evidence the crime was solved by the grand jury, it involved children too young to prosecute and to legally reveal their names, and the top echelons of the BPD, the D.A.'s office, and the court, have been dancing on hot coals ever since trying to keep the lid on the truth.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

There are many premises I do not accept in your reply (e.g., Ramseys lied about Burke being asleep). Let's take all your "evidence" at face value: how in the world does APAC fit the theory that YOU YOURSELF have constructed? The reality is that there is much intruder evidence you have ignored (which is why your premise that it MUST have been one of 3 surviving Ramseys is wrong). Your APAC theory of political motivation--especially if you have ruled out Nathan--is far more consistent with an intruder theory, which you have repeatedly and consistently rejected.

For example: If an APAC member not Nathan was involved, what would motivate Burke to let him/her into house?

Likewise, how plausible does it seem to YOU that Burke & Doug (IF Doug was there: you have offered only speculation rather than evidence that he was) would get involved with AEA games with a stranger?

Likewise, how plausible does it seem to YOU that if Burke had let this stranger into house and been talked into AEA games, that a) parents would cover up what happened AND b) LE would go along with this cover up?????!!!!!?????

My rough estimate of the likelihood that your bizarre theory is true: .000000000000001% Others can draw their own conclusions.

 

[TLynn]

Ah, but semen was found at the crime scene - it belonged to JAR - and the blue fibers on JonBenet were consistent with the comforter in the suitcase (on which the semen was found).

 

[sissi]

I don't believe the Ramseys have a clue who killed their child, if it was Nathan,they wouldn't suspect him,and would Burke at age (almost 10) cover for him?
Remember Burke was interrogated on the 28th,without parental consent,he would have not been savvy enough at that age to foil even the worst of cops.
Yesterday I looked up the profile for a sadistic pedophile for the very first time,because until yesterday I wasn't willing to consider Lou Smit's take on the perp.

I read and read again the same "stuff" and as time goes on I tend to be more open to the ideas of others. Today I reread Shapiro......

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...le+sadistic+pedophile+murderer&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[BlueCrab]

There are many premises I do not accept in your reply (e.g., Ramseys lied about Burke being asleep). Let's take all your "evidence" at face value: how in the world does APAC fit the theory that YOU YOURSELF have constructed? The reality is that there is much intruder evidence you have ignored (which is why your premise that it MUST have been one of 3 surviving Ramseys is wrong). Your APAC theory of political motivation--especially if you have ruled out Nathan--is far more consistent with an intruder theory, which you have repeatedly and consistently rejected.

For example: If an APAC member not Nathan was involved, what would motivate Burke to let him/her into house?

Likewise, how plausible does it seem to YOU that Burke & Doug (IF Doug was there: you have offered only speculation rather than evidence that he was) would get involved with AEA games with a stranger?

Likewise, how plausible does it seem to YOU that if Burke had let this stranger into house and been talked into AEA games, that a) parents would cover up what happened AND b) LE would go along with this cover up?????!!!!!?????

My rough estimate of the likelihood that your bizarre theory is true: .000000000000001% Others can draw their own conclusions.

DW, I have never rejected the intruder theory. Burke could have killed JonBenet all by himself and the parents are covering it up, but most of my BDI theories include Burke and an accomplice -- a fifth person in the house that night. The fifth person could have been an overnight guest or he could have been an intruder invited in by Burke.

I suspect there was a fifth person because there's a lot of crime scene evidence missing. I suspect a teenage male because of the wording in the ransom note. I suspect Burke's involvement because of the Ramsey coverup. I suspect Doug A/O Nathan because of their conspicuous absence from books and news articles written about the case and the Stines peculiar behavior following the murder (it appears both Doug's and Nathan's names had been purged from PMPT). I suspect APAC because of the sudden disappearance of the group following the murder. Etc., etc., etc.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Remember Burke was interrogated on the 28th,without parental consent,he would have not been savvy enough at that age to foil even the worst of cops.

We have no idea what the cop asked Burke that day. It has never been made public and it was probably a bunch of stupid questions since the investigation had not evolved very far by that time. Even when Patsy brought Burke in for questioning he wasn't really "interogated". Nobody asked Burke any hard-hitting questions at the time he would have been most likely to confess if he was involved.

 

[Shylock]

Every time one theory gets shot down on plausibility grounds you substitute yet another BDI theory.

I don't think ANY of BlueCrab's theories have been "shot down". He's started with the most basic scenerio of Burke hitting her over the head and expanded the possibilities from there to include other avenues, including the involvement of other people.

The only problem I have with ANY of BC's theories is his insistance that Patsy didn't write the note. The hard evidence (that anyone with eyes can see) shows only Patsy could have written that note. The fact is that if Burke alone, or Burke with help from Doug Stine, caused JBR's death, Patsy would have written the note to cover for him/them.

 

[Lance55]

I suspect there was a fifth person because there's a lot of crime scene evidence missing. I suspect a teenage male because of the wording in the ransom note. I suspect Burke's involvement because of the Ramsey coverup. I suspect Doug A/O Nathan because of their conspicuous absence from books and news articles written about the case
JMO

Lance: I suspect I don't really know, but then, I could be wrong.

 

[BlueCrab]

DocWatson,

Could you please reveal your evidence of an intruder? Thanks.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

DW, I have never rejected the intruder theory. Burke could have killed JonBenet all by himself and the parents are covering it up, but most of my BDI theories include Burke and an accomplice -- a fifth person in the house that night. The fifth person could have been an overnight guest or he could have been an intruder invited in by Burke.

But note that you do NOT contemplate the possibility of a "lone" intruder uninvited by Burke! Strange indeed.

I suspect there was a fifth person because there's a lot of crime scene evidence missing.

Good work, Sherlock. This missing evidence is PRECISELY what suggests there may have been a bona fide intruder and there's no good logical or psychological reason to connect this individual to Burke.

I suspect a teenage male because of the wording in the ransom note.

Right, just as many other posters here are CERTAIN that same note was written by Patsy because of its obvious "female" characteristics. Reality: people see what they want to see in the RN. The fact that the weight of handwriting expert evidence rules Patsy out does NOT rule a teen male in. None of the handwriting experts--who presumably know WAY more about all of this than either you or I--speculated in any fashion about either age or gender of author.

I suspect Burke's involvement because of the Ramsey coverup.

Correction: the ASSUMED Ramsey coverup. Most objective posters correctly concluded that Burke's voice was NOT on the tape, hence your "evidence" of a coverup is very far from solid.

I suspect Doug A/O Nathan because of their conspicuous absence from books and news articles written about the case and the Stines peculiar behavior following the murder (it appears both Doug's and Nathan's names had been purged from PMPT).

It's hard to keep up with the constant changes in your theory. Now you believe Nathan's name ALSO was purged? I've read your reasoning regarding Doug and I've seen a convincing refutation of this by another poster. Hence I don't find this "evidence" convincing either.

I suspect APAC because of the sudden disappearance of the group following the murder. Etc., etc., etc.

Someday perhaps you'll learn that correlation doesn't equal causation. LOTS of things happened in late 1996 and early 1997 (Monica Lewinsky's involvement with an ex-president, for instance!): that doesn't mean they are tied to JBR murder. APAC didn't "suddenly" disappear: they still were in existence as late as March or April 1997. The most logical explanation is that this group "died" because those involved with it graduated--a ridiculously common event on college campuses. You keep alluding to the possibly sinister political motives of this group who might have wished to "make a statement" with JBR and that they fit "small foreign faction" etc. but none of this ties in AT ALL to the rest of your theory. What motivation would Burke have for facilitating their efforts? Why would parents have covered it up? Why would LE look the other way. Your theory makes ZERO logical sense! Why do you so desperately cling to ANY theory that will implicate Burke?

 

[BlueCrab]

Why do you so desperately cling to ANY theory that will implicate Burke?

Neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet and the Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for an intruder unless Burke was involved. Therefore, Burke did it or knows who did it.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for an intruder unless Burke was involved. Therefore, Burke did it or knows who did it.

I completely agree. I do however, think there might be a slight chance that Patsy caused JonBenet's death by accident during a fit of rage. Something on the order of Steve Thomas' theory with Patsy shoving her too hard into a bathroom fixture. I don't think bed wetting was the cause. Maybe she just wouldn't go to sleep when they got home and was throwing a tantrum that Patsy couldn't deal with.

 

[BlueCrab]

But note that you do NOT contemplate the possibility of a "lone" intruder uninvited by Burke! Strange indeed.

It's elementary my dear Watson. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for a lone intruder uninvited by Burke.

IMO there was a fifth person in the house (an intruder if you will) AND a Ramsey involved (Burke). IOW both the IDI theorists and the RDI theorists are right.

JMO

 

[Ivy]

For me to be a PDIer and not a BDIer, I would have to understand how the "gentle" sexual molestation would fit into a PDI scenario. Even if I could believe Patsy had caused the vaginal injury by wiping JonBenet too hard, I would still find it unimaginable that John would cover for Patsy, or allow Patsy and Burke to fly unaccompanied to Atlanta soon after JonBenet's death. If Patsy killed JonBenet by over-reacting to a bedwetting incident or some such thing, what would keep her from over-reacting to something Burke did and killing him? John apparently wasn't worried she would, and neither was Burke.

IMO