I believe it was preemptive postulation of the flashlight evidence that CBS was going to reveal on their docu-series.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ahh....the old "all the real evidence for BDI is in the portion of the show they didn't broadcast" theory.
I can tell you there is absolutely zero evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet. Period.
Hogwash.
If there's zero evidence Patsy killed her, there's less than zero evidence(literally) that Burke killed her.
I do like how BDI has a need to whitewash Patsy out of the story. It uses two different approaches....
1. No evidence Patsy did it
2. Too much evidence Patsy did it....which means Burke did it.
Both are equally absurd. The case had been investigated and discussed continuously for 19 years before BDI truly caught on. To insinuate there's zero evidence that Patsy did it, which was the main theory for 19 years, is a cosmic joke. Its also an insult to the thousands of people who discussed the case here. You think people spent years discussing the case but mentioned zero evidence? Hell....more evidence was discussed back then than it is now!
Of course there's motive. If you're that new to the case to not know of any motives for either Patsy or John, you've got tons of reading to do.
If straight PDI/JDI, they would have absolute zero reason to lie about Burke being up during the 911 call.
Plenty of reasons to lie. Simply not wanting him involved, the possibility he saw/heard something, might reveal something from even earlier(or later)....
In fact, it would have helped their cause(PDI/JDI)to have LE know Burke was up during the 911 call, because it would have shown that the parents were waking up/asking Burke when he last saw his sister etc...
No it wouldn't have "helped their cause". The only scenario where it helps is if they're innocent.
We have without a doubt, proof Burke was up and very near his parents during the 911 call.
All this means is that he was awake.....something I assumed immediately. NO kid was going to sleep through such a nightmare....and in the offchance he was asleep, Patsy yelling during a phone call is sure to wake him up and/or get him to go find out what's going on....
and he just so happens to ask a question any kid would ask stumbling into that conversation.
JR's tone when addressing Burke is undeniably, parent-child, and his tongue is poisonous with contempt, when he says "We're not speaking to you". Now why would JR have contempt for Burke, if he was completely innocent and out of the scenario?
BDI acts as if they were all sitting there eating ice cream sundaes watching The Brady Bunch and out of the blue, John has "contempt" for Burke.
Their daughter is dead down in that hellhole and they've got a freak show they've got to get rolling. I'd find it much more shocking if John was being nice to him. John says nothing out of the ordinary....they're dealing with a phone call that is the most important of their lives...everything is on the line....Burke walks into the scene. John jumps in and announces the sky is blue. They're literally not speaking to him. Why would they be speaking to him? In the event of homicide or kidnapping, do you interrupt 911 calls in progress to speak to your other children? If they had interrupted that call to speak to Burke, you would have issues with that too.
I do find it interesting that some people can pinpoint contempt from one line pulled out of white noise.
What reasons would they have to be upset with their only living child?
I'm not sure....
Maybe the fact their daughter is down in the basement bludgeoned and strangled and they're not in the mood to have a cozy fireside chat with their son? Again....I'd like to see examples of 911 calls where parents pause the call to have sweet little chats with the surviving children in the house.
What reasons would they have to lie to police about him being up during the 911 call?
Been over that.
Why would they tell BR to go back to bed and fake like he was sleeping?
In domestic incidents what is the one thing the participants tell the children in the house? To go back to bed. I also doubt it was the only time that night he was told to do that. I think he knew the drill....
Why would they usher him out of the house before being questioned?
Why would they want him roaming around the house? What if he got bored and wanted to play with his trains? How does traumatizing Burke by creating an environment where he might find her body help the situation?
Getting Burke away from the freak show was the one humane thing they did that day.
I know what you're getting at but there's a better question....
If guilty, why run the risk of exposing him to LE, including the feds? He was sent to a place where Patsy and John couldn't monitor his activities....and he was there all day. They didn't even inquire as to what he was doing. They didn't care.....because they had no reason to.
In the 24 hours leading up to her murder, the only person displaying maladjusted, premeditated, spiteful, and contempt-filled behavior towards her, was BR.
Wrong.
There is ZERO evidence of "maladjusted, premeditated, spiteful, and contempt-filled behavior" in the 24 hours towards Jonbenet displayed by Burke.
ZERO.
There's evidence of only one person who had any tension with Jonbenet leading up to her murder....and that's Patsy(the clothing issue).
This is one of many issues I have with BDI and I think its one of the main reasons so many are fleeing these Ramsey forums.....
The creation of an alternate Ramsey universe with an entirely new set of 'facts'...and these so called facts are spewed as if its no different than saying the sky is blue. People start repeating it and instead of the actual case being discussed....its 'facts' in a case that literally does not exist. BDI was already in trouble which is why the continuous focus on a couple issues....now its creating its own set of facts out of thin air.
Before that one continually gets repeated I'd like to see the examples of the "maladjusted, premeditated, spiteful, and contempt-filled behavior" in the 24 hours leading up to her murder but we're not going to see those examples get posted because they do not exist.
Furthermore, the fact that the Ramsey's prevented the release of BR's medical records, should set-off alarm bells. Now why would they not release his medical records?
Why single his out? The "island of privacy" did not revolve around him.
The fact is, "someone" broke into the Department of Social Services computers in June of 1997, and breached Burke Ramsey's Social Services records, along with documents and information concerning his interview with Dr. Bernhard
This isn't the only thing 'broke into"....so if bringing up the issue...why only focus on that?
We need to start accepting known facts about this case, instead of ignoring or playing down certain evidence that doesn't fit into a personal theory.
Now there's some irony.... :happydance: