I can't find a hole in this theory...

[midwest mama]

DocG, Anyone Else with JDI:
I want to lean totally your way - but am a BDI at this point. Where do you have comments on your blog about the abrasions on JB's right cheek, lower back and lower leg? If the stun gun is discounted, and the train track is considered according to Kolar's theory, how do you tie the abrasions into JR being responsible?:dunno:

 

[sandover]

DocG, Anyone Else with JDI:
I want to lean totally your way - but am a BDI at this point. Where do you have comments on your blog about the abrasions on JB's right cheek, lower back and lower leg? If the stun gun is discounted, and the train track is considered according to Kolar's theory, how do you tie the abrasions into JR being responsible?:dunno:

JB was an active kid and she often had bruises and abrasions. It's entirely possible those abrasions were there from before, or else happened that night in JR's handling of the body.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I guess his is a JDI only with Patsy not involved? If Patsy was truly unaware (which I obviously don't believe) I'd have to say she probably did think so, unless BR had been caught with JB in "play" that may have been more rough than previously thought. Patsy was observed "crying" through splayed fingers by LE at the scene before the body was found. There are just so many things that point to her knowing that I have a hard time imagining her not having been.

Most notably for me was her butt didn't get off the sofa when she heard Jonbenet had been found


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SyraKelly]

Maybe you're not going off in so many directions, but I still found your post confusing. It's this part confuses me most. Are you wondering why she wouldn't go along with what John said just prior to calling 911 but would go along afterwards? My answer is that these are two very different circumstances, so I don't understand why the inconsistency would puzzle you. Also I think it possible that Patsy never read beyond the first sentence or two. That's what she said she did. And then screamed and called for John. While John was reading the note, she dialed 911, according to the story in their book. So it's possible John never had a chance to even try to convince her not to make the call. It could have happened too quickly for him to deal with. I don't buy their official story, but it still could have happened too quickly for John to say much of anything to convince her not to call.

Does that help, or am I still not getting it?

If this is true-how did Pasty know to tell the 911 operator who signed the RN

 

[SyraKelly]

Why didn't JR tell anyone in LE about the broken window that morning-he never told them until months later?

 

[midwest mama]

JB was an active kid and she often had bruises and abrasions. It's entirely possible those abrasions were there from before, or else happened that night in JR's handling of the body.

Sandover and DocG -
I WANT to move from the BDI camp to the JDI camp. All the info you both use as substantiation for a JDI theory is convincing, and while most of it can easily be used to establish JR as the strangler (cause of death = murder), I must see all the clues, which are being used to create the various theories, be able to clearly lead to the killer.

At least the cheek abrasion becomes part of the crime investigation, IMO, because of the published photo of JB on Christmas morning showing NO abrasion on her right cheek. The lower back and lower leg abrasions, now connected to the train track MIGHT signal that she was "prodded" for a response of some sort, and this most likely, IMO, would have been done while she was nude, since we have no reports that I have seen which indicated that her clothing had holes or tears. It is possible she was prodded by the track hard enough through her clothing to make the abrasions, but without tears in the them, then there could be blood on at least the backside of those articles of clothing, according to the looks of the abrasions.

I do not feel we can dismiss the presence of those abrasions and how they got there as "speculation" regarding this case. The absence of them would not compound the crime with more clues, but with them there, I feel they should be considered crime clues which could lead to possibilities of pinning down the real killer when they can be clearly inserted into a theory.

Please guys, don't dismiss the aspect of the abrasions as 'points of speculation'. In order to keep the wheel moving forward on this case which could lead to JR being charged, we will have to have SOLID and ABSOLUTE conviction to be motivated to becoming proactive enough to start forcing Garnetts hand.

I BELIEVE, as does Kolar, that this case can be prosecuted to a resolve, if there is a chargeable murder suspect. The most obvious suspect then, would be JR. :websleuther:

From Kolar book, pg 453: " Expressed in another way, I would propose that we have a responsibility as criminal investigators to consider all of the possibilities that present themselves in a case, but we should carefully weigh the probabilities as we go about the task of investigating and eventually solving a crime."

 

[midwest mama]

Midwest Mama, the problem with this sort of evidence is that it can be debated endlessly and this is exactly what a defense attorney is likely to encourage, in order to blow smoke and complicate the prosecution's case. For every argument to be made on one side, there will be a counterargument from the other side and the prosecution will wear itself out trying to prove the unprovable, and the jury will just get bored and tune out. I think the case can be made in a much simpler way by concentrating on just a very small number of indisputable facts, coupled with an analysis of John's testimony demonstrating that he clearly lied.

I see your point. And I agree that the case can be made by simply looking at the facts leading to a RDI theory, as they are indisputable to me as well.

If a clear, DOCUMENTED and SUBSTANTIATED analysis of John's testimony can be prepared in order to enable those of us not clearly in the JDI camp, then perhaps that's the hill some of us should start climbing, instead of so many of us going around and around on the same track over and over which has been leading to nowhere.

If we start at the bottom, with all the right equipment, and focus on the goal, which is proving JR suspect for prosecution, and take it step by step up an unencumbered path, then we should make it to the top of the hill. Let's call this task: Scaling Mt. Justice or perhaps, Scaling Justice Mountain !!:rocker:

 

[OpenMind4U]

Nicely said, MM...

Can be nicely done? Let's see...

Step 1 is to get independent experts to conclude that RN was written by JR. If this is done - the case against JR is 40% complete.

Step 2 is to expose all of JR LIES which is not such a big deal because EVERY Ramsey have been lied at some point of time during investigation. But, let say upon comletion of this step - we're 10% closer to JR conviction.

Finally, the MOST IMPORTANT STEP 3, someone should be able to PROOF that JR is responsible of his daughter/CHILD MOLESTATION! Not simply saying because Step 1 and Step 2 points to JR therefore he IS 'the most likely the molester'. This step is the mine field. It could blow-out prosecusion case! But, when successfully completed - we'll got JR conviction!!!!! Revenge is completed, Case closed.

....now, you have to ask yourself a question: do you really believe in JDI? Otherwise, you're sending an innocent person to jail.....

 

[justthinkin]

OK, mama, excellent suggestion. This one's for you:

1. Foundation: John lied about breaking the basement window prior to the night of the crime. (See my four posts dealing with the basement window, beginning here.

2. Foothills: The only reason for such a lie would be to point away from his breaking that same window ON the night of the crime to stage a breakin consistent with the kidnap staging in the "ransom" note, which he must also have been, at the very least, aware of.

3. Halfway there: This tells us we are dealing with an inside job, which in turn tells us there was no intruder, which in turn tells us that all the so-called intruder evidence, including the vaunted DNA is garbage and can be tossed.

4. Almost there: So. At this point we know John is involved, but what about Patsy? Well, Patsy was the one who called the cops, which undermined the staging in the note. If she'd written the note or been part of the coverup she wouldn't have called the police so early. And hence: Patsy is not involved. If you want to argue that John is the one who told her to call, that makes no sense because we already know (see #1) that he lied about the window, which tells us he'd been staging a breakin the night of the murder but needed more time to complete it, so would not have wanted the cops called in so soon. It also stands to reason he'd have known about the phoney note and the body hidden in the basement or he wouldn't have bothered staging at the window.

[I'm editing here because there is a much simpler version of step 4: If both John and Patsy were in on the coverup together, the 911 call would not have been made, because by calling the police so early, with the body still in the house, the kidnap staging would have been totally undermined. We already know from step 2 that John was involved -- and hence, Patsy, who after all is the one who made the call, must be innocent.]

5. Finally there: John and only John murdered JonBenet, staging the kidnapping to cover his own behind.

You'll notice that I've left Burke out of this picture. That's because I see no reason for John to take such a huge risk to cover for Burke, who would not have been prosecutable anyhow because of his age. Also, if Burke was the one who struck that blow, it could easily have been reported as an accident. Oh wait, no it couldn't, because of the vaginal injuries. And sorry, but the only adult male in that house is far more likely to have inflicted those injuries than 9 year old Burke. And if that mature male would want to argue in court that he was only covering for his son, then let him. I'll leave it to you to guess if any jury would believe such a story. So why should we?

I don't think there's anyway the Ramseys would have known that night that Burke wasn't prosecutable under the law without consulting someone.

What Burke would or wouldn't testify to might well depend on how much moola Burke stands to inherit. If it's a goodly sum, and I would imagine it is, then one mention of his inheritance from dear old dad might be enough to get Burke to go along and back up his dad. He might not do it if Patsy were still alive, but with her gone, this could well turn out to be like the Anthonys against the system, willing to say anything or lie about anything to save one of their own.

The point being, Burke is still off the hook even if he had a hand in this. All he'd have to agree to say is that he was the one molesting JonBenet. I don't like it, but there it is, case lost.

 

[Chrishope]

I don't think there's anyway the Ramseys would have known that night that Burke wasn't prosecutable under the law without consulting someone.

What Burke would or wouldn't testify to might well depend on how much moola Burke stands to inherit. If it's a goodly sum, and I would imagine it is, then one mention of his inheritance from dear old dad might be enough to get Burke to go along and back up his dad. He might not do it if Patsy were still alive, but with her gone, this could well turn out to be like the Anthonys against the system, willing to say anything or lie about anything to save one of their own.

The point being, Burke is still off the hook even if he had a hand in this. All he'd have to agree to say is that he was the one molesting JonBenet. I don't like it, but there it is, case
lost.

This isn't necessarily directed at you justthinkin, but many RDIs theorize all kinds of late night phone calls to doctors, lawyers, the Governor, etc. I'm not saying such calls were made, but if a call were made to anyone with any legal knowledge at all they'd surely have been informed that Burke was too young to be prosecuted.

It would be ironic if the cover up was done just out of ignorance of the age of culpability. JR was the kind of guy who could get his lawyer out of bed at 3 am and the lawyer would not have a cross word to say.

I didn't get an ISP until '99, so I can't say what the state of the net was in '96. I don't even know if the Rs had internet service then. I'm wondering if JR couldn't have looked it up on the computer? (I assume they had one)

I can't believe the Rs didn't at least know that Burke could not be tried as an adult, even if they thought he was chargeable.

 

[justthinkin]

You seem to be assuming Burke is the most likely suspect and I'm wondering why. In the eyes of most I'd think he'd be the least likely by far.

docG, not at all. I agree in theory with JDI. What I'm saying is if this were to go to court, all that would be needed to lose the case is for Burke to cover for his dad, and state that he was the one who chronically molested JonBenet. If molestation can't be proved against JR, then that throws reasonable doubt out to the jury who can then decide whatever monkey wrench they want to throw into it because the motive's been lost.

You're advancing the theory that JDI killed her to cover up what amounts to chronic molestation or at least prior molestation to the night in question. If Burke's testimony could sway the jury against that, then what? Do they throw the case out, does it result in a hung jury, or a much lessor charge of accessory?

The case isn't going to go anywhere, sad to say because JR would sit on the stand and say he did what he did to cover for Patsy or Burke, and since most folks think PDI anyhoo....

 

[KoldKase]

Well, if either Ramsey admitted to anything, I for one would be fascinated to see how many lawsuits would fall on top of their heads.

 

[KoldKase]

So if JR kicked that window in and glass was all over inside the basement room...how'd he do that without raising the grate in the widow well and leaving all kinds of evidence someone had been in there?

Remember that little bugaboo? Leaves, some tied string, a glass shard on the outer window ledge, spider web connected to the outside structure and the grate, spider web in the corner of the window frame?

Same problem as with an intruder entering that way; because if glass is on the INSIDE, it had to be kicked in/broken from the outside.

Just a thought.

Also, what's the big deal about the gardener not seeing the broken window? It was fall and winter; the window was hidden by the well and grate. Maybe he just didn't see it. There were no Christmas decorations connected through that set of windows to the outside. The front window had the deliberate "break" to pull the electrical cord through for those in front of the house.

The maid not seeing it may be for other reasons besides the one you WANT to be the reason. Maybe whatever was significant enough that Patsy and John felt the need to lie about how and when that window got broken was related to the murder, but not how we're thinking. Maybe Burke broke it with the golf club, or a bat, and the Ramseys didn't want to point that out because Burke smashed his sister with the golf club one other time, so it's starting to look like a pattern. Maybe a pattern that resulted in cracking her skull in half. I'm just making that up, of course, but it's to make a point: Patsy or JR could have cleaned up the glass themselves for countless reasons; JAR had been arrested for underage drinking, so maybe he broke it one night trying to get in while drunk, and the Ramseys didn't want the maid gossiping. Who knows?

But the glass had been cleaned up and the cobwebs clearly had been in the windows a while. No one crawled in that window that night, so how did JR climb into the window well, break the window, change his mind and clean up the glass, without the window well showing that someone had crawled around in there, etc.?

And this is such a weak argument: The gardener didn't see the broken window therefore that proves it wasn't broken? If he didn't see anyone hit JB, does that mean it didn't happen?

I agree that Patsy and John were lying for some reason about that broken window. But to keep twisting your theory to fit why is not convincing. If Patsy lied, she had a reason, same as John. So you can make up what you want, because the fact is none of us has ever been inside Patsy Ramsey's mind.

And if you're going to dismiss the evidence you don't like because it doesn't fit your theory, then what's the point? Nobody is guilty if there's no evidence against anyone except what you imagine in your fantasies John was thinking when he did something you can't prove he did because the evidence is irrelevant? Really?

Game over.

 

[justthinkin]

So if JR kicked that window in and glass was all over inside the basement room...how'd he do that without raising the grate in the widow well and leaving all kinds of evidence someone had been in there?

Remember that little bugaboo? Leaves, some tied string, a glass shard on the outer window ledge, spider web connected to the outside structure and the grate, spider web in the corner of the window frame?

Same problem as with an intruder entering that way; because if glass is on the INSIDE, it had to be kicked in/broken from the outside.

Just a thought.

Also, what's the big deal about the gardener not seeing the broken window? It was fall and winter; the window was hidden by the well and grate. Maybe he just didn't see it. There were no Christmas decorations connected through that set of windows to the outside. The front window had the deliberate "break" to pull the electrical cord through for those in front of the house.

The maid not seeing it may be for other reasons besides the one you WANT to be the reason. Maybe whatever was significant enough that Patsy and John felt the need to create a story about how and when that window got broken other than the truth was related to the murder, but not how we're thinking. Maybe Burke broke it with the golf club, and the Ramseys didn't want to point that out because Burke smashed his sister with the golf club one other time, so it's starting to look like a pattern. Maybe a pattern that resulted in cracking her skull in half. I'm just making that up, of course, but it's to make a point: Patsy or JR could have cleaned up the glass herself for another reason: JAR was getting arrested for underage drinking, so maybe he broke it one night trying to get in while drunk, and the Ramseys didn't want the maid gossiping. Who knows?

But the glass had been cleaned up and the cobwebs clearly had been in the windows a while. No one crawled in that window that night, so how did JR climb into the window well, break the window, change his mind and clean up the glass, without the window well showing that someone had crawled around in there, etc.?

And this is such a weak argument: The gardener didn't see the broken window therefore that proves it wasn't broken? If he didn't see anyone hit JB, does that mean it didn't happen?

I agree that Patsy and John were lying for some reason about that broken window. But to keep twisting your theory to fit why is not convincing. If Patsy lied, she had a reason, same as John. So you can make up what you want, because the fact is none of us has ever been inside Patsy Ramsey's mind.

And if you're going to dismiss the evidence you don't like because it doesn't fit your theory, then what's the point? Nobody is guilty if there's no evidence against anyone except what you imagine in your fantasies John was thinking when he did something you can't prove he did because the evidence is irrelevant? Really?

Game over.

A person could stand in the basement open the window, break it, and latch it again. The window opens to the inside of the basement. It's not one of those windows that goes up and down in place.

The maid and the gardener testified about the window. That's not seeing it in regards to a theory. Those are facts.

 

[sandover]

So if JR kicked that window in and glass was all over inside the basement room...how'd he do that without raising the grate in the widow well and leaving all kinds of evidence someone had been in there?

Remember that little bugaboo? Leaves, some tied string, a glass shard on the outer window ledge, spider web connected to the outside structure and the grate, spider web in the corner of the window frame?

Same problem as with an intruder entering that way; because if glass is on the INSIDE, it had to be kicked in/broken from the outside.

Just a thought.

Also, what's the big deal about the gardener not seeing the broken window? It was fall and winter; the window was hidden by the well and grate. Maybe he just didn't see it. There were no Christmas decorations connected through that set of windows to the outside. The front window had the deliberate "break" to pull the electrical cord through for those in front of the house.

The maid not seeing it may be for other reasons besides the one you WANT to be the reason. Maybe whatever was significant enough that Patsy and John felt the need to lie about how and when that window got broken was related to the murder, but not how we're thinking. Maybe Burke broke it with the golf club, or a bat, and the Ramseys didn't want to point that out because Burke smashed his sister with the golf club one other time, so it's starting to look like a pattern. Maybe a pattern that resulted in cracking her skull in half. I'm just making that up, of course, but it's to make a point: Patsy or JR could have cleaned up the glass themselves for countless reasons; JAR had been arrested for underage drinking, so maybe he broke it one night trying to get in while drunk, and the Ramseys didn't want the maid gossiping. Who knows?

But the glass had been cleaned up and the cobwebs clearly had been in the windows a while. No one crawled in that window that night, so how did JR climb into the window well, break the window, change his mind and clean up the glass, without the window well showing that someone had crawled around in there, etc.?

And this is such a weak argument: The gardener didn't see the broken window therefore that proves it wasn't broken? If he didn't see anyone hit JB, does that mean it didn't happen?

I agree that Patsy and John were lying for some reason about that broken window. But to keep twisting your theory to fit why is not convincing. If Patsy lied, she had a reason, same as John. So you can make up what you want, because the fact is none of us has ever been inside Patsy Ramsey's mind.

And if you're going to dismiss the evidence you don't like because it doesn't fit your theory, then what's the point? Nobody is guilty if there's no evidence against anyone except what you imagine in your fantasies John was thinking when he did something you can't prove he did because the evidence is irrelevant? Really?

Game over.

JR could have broken it from the inside and then swept some of it in to make it look like it had been broken from outside. And he might have cleaned it up (imperfectly, panicked) if he thought there might be evidence on the glass that he had broken it that night.

 

[UKGuy]

JR could have broken it from the inside and then swept some of it in to make it look like it had been broken from outside. And he might have cleaned it up (imperfectly, panicked) if he thought there might be evidence on the glass that he had broken it that night.

sandover,
Just because JR might have broken the window does not mean he was acting without Patsy's knowledge.

It could be BDI with John breaking the window, so to fake an intruder, then he abandons it later, then partially cleans up, for whatever reason was in his mind at the time.

I do not think its a coincidence that later on, after a few prayer sessions, Lou Smit had a legend about a crazed pedophile who climbed in that window and sexually assaulted JonBenet with a garrote!

So whatever the rationale the R's worked it into the zeitgest!


.

 

[KoldKase]

A person could stand in the basement open the window, break it, and latch it again. The window opens to the inside of the basement. It's not one of those windows that goes up and down in place.

The maid and the gardener testified about the window. That's not seeing it in regards to a theory. Those are facts.

Okay, you got one on me there. Where did these people "testify" about the window?

Last I looked, The Star is not a court of law, but maybe I'm missing something.

And you still haven't explained where that glass went.

Besides which, this is all pretty much a fiction of someone's imagination.

There is no evidence the window wasn't broken long before that morning. Spider webs. Missing broken glass.

 

[Chrishope]

So if JR kicked that window in and glass was all over inside the basement room...how'd he do that without raising the grate in the widow well and leaving all kinds of evidence someone had been in there?

Remember that little bugaboo? Leaves, some tied string, a glass shard on the outer window ledge, spider web connected to the outside structure and the grate, spider web in the corner of the window frame?

Same problem as with an intruder entering that way; because if glass is on the INSIDE, it had to be kicked in/broken from the outside.

Just a thought.

Also, what's the big deal about the gardener not seeing the broken window? It was fall and winter; the window was hidden by the well and grate. Maybe he just didn't see it. There were no Christmas decorations connected through that set of windows to the outside. The front window had the deliberate "break" to pull the electrical cord through for those in front of the house.

The maid not seeing it may be for other reasons besides the one you WANT to be the reason. Maybe whatever was significant enough that Patsy and John felt the need to lie about how and when that window got broken was related to the murder, but not how we're thinking. Maybe Burke broke it with the golf club, or a bat, and the Ramseys didn't want to point that out because Burke smashed his sister with the golf club one other time, so it's starting to look like a pattern. Maybe a pattern that resulted in cracking her skull in half. I'm just making that up, of course, but it's to make a point: Patsy or JR could have cleaned up the glass themselves for countless reasons; JAR had been arrested for underage drinking, so maybe he broke it one night trying to get in while drunk, and the Ramseys didn't want the maid gossiping. Who knows?

But the glass had been cleaned up and the cobwebs clearly had been in the windows a while. No one crawled in that window that night, so how did JR climb into the window well, break the window, change his mind and clean up the glass, without the window well showing that someone had crawled around in there, etc.?

And this is such a weak argument: The gardener didn't see the broken window therefore that proves it wasn't broken? If he didn't see anyone hit JB, does that mean it didn't happen?

I agree that Patsy and John were lying for some reason about that broken window. But to keep twisting your theory to fit why is not convincing. If Patsy lied, she had a reason, same as John. So you can make up what you want, because the fact is none of us has ever been inside Patsy Ramsey's mind.

And if you're going to dismiss the evidence you don't like because it doesn't fit your theory, then what's the point? Nobody is guilty if there's no evidence against anyone except what you imagine in your fantasies John was thinking when he did something you can't prove he did because the evidence is irrelevant? Really?

Game over.

I hope you take this in the right spirit. Either I'm missing something in your post, or you simply have not fully grasped this aspect of docG's theory. Or, you are trying very hard to keep from accepting it.

Instead of trying to come up with various ways that the window might have been broken for months, yet no one is quite sure exactly when, or exactly why it hasn't been repaired, just ask yourself this -

Do you believe that a family lives with a broken window, letting in the very cold air of a Boulder winter? Yes or no?

Recall that there is no plastic sheeting taped over the hole, or any cardboard taped over the hole, or any rags stuffed in the hole. Do you really believe Burke played with his trains down there with a hole in the window, unfixed, for months? The bugs would come in in the summer and the cold air in the winter. Is it plausible that they lived with this?

That's should be enough, all by itself.

... So if JR kicked that window in and glass was all over inside the basement room...how'd he do that without raising the grate in the widow well and leaving all kinds of evidence someone had been in there?

Remember that little bugaboo? Leaves, some tied string, a glass shard on the outer window ledge, spider web connected to the outside structure and the grate, spider web in the corner of the window frame?

Same problem as with an intruder entering that way; because if glass is on the INSIDE, it had to be kicked in/broken from the outside.

Just a thought.

JR didn't kick the window. That's the story he was telling in an interview. That would not be how he'd actually do it. He'd swing the window open - it opens into the basement, as I'm sure you know, and press on the glass from the outside of the window. He couldn't very well say that at an interview.

Also, what's the big deal about the gardener not seeing the broken window? It was fall and winter; the window was hidden by the well and grate. Maybe he just didn't see it. There were no Christmas decorations connected through that set of windows to the outside. The front window had the deliberate "break" to pull the electrical cord through for those in front of the house.

I agree that there is a reasonable explanation for the gardener not to have noticed the break.

The maid not seeing it may be for other reasons besides the one you WANT to be the reason. Maybe whatever was significant enough that Patsy and John felt the need to lie about how and when that window got broken was related to the murder, but not how we're thinking. Maybe Burke broke it with the golf club, or a bat, and the Ramseys didn't want to point that out because Burke smashed his sister with the golf club one other time, so it's starting to look like a pattern. Maybe a pattern that resulted in cracking her skull in half. I'm just making that up, of course, but it's to make a point: Patsy or JR could have cleaned up the glass themselves for countless reasons; JAR had been arrested for underage drinking, so maybe he broke it one night trying to get in while drunk, and the Ramseys didn't want the maid gossiping. Who knows?

I am not a BDI fan, as you know, but it's a good thought that BR may have broken the window with the golf club. However, it would take two separate swings wouldn't it? If he hit her on the first swing there would be no reason for a second swing. If he missed on the first swing, hitting the window, then he'd swing again. The sound of breaking glass might be what alerts the Rs? (Am I really playing along with BDI theory here? I must be out of my mind)

It seems implausible that the housekeeper didn't notice it, after months and months of it being broken. Her job brought her to the basement, fairly regularly. And most families would insist that broken glass be cleaned up immediately to avoid the danger of someone being cut -especially children. Yet we are to believe that there are still a few shards of glass left after the window had been broken months ago? (on the sill and on the suitcase, which then would have had to stand in that spot since the time JR supposedly broke the window in the summer to get into the house -otherwise why is there a piece of glass still on it? ) Does that really seem plausible ?

But the glass had been cleaned up and the cobwebs clearly had been in the windows a while. No one crawled in that window that night, so how did JR climb into the window well, break the window, change his mind and clean up the glass, without the window well showing that someone had crawled around in there, etc.?

JR didn't crawl in the window. He merely swung the window in, broke it, swung the window back in place. The glass had not been fully cleaned up, which makes the story about breaking it months prior very very dubious. Not to mention the dubiousness of living with a hole in the window through half a Colorado winter.

I think the remainder of your comments must have been in anger or frustration.

 

[KoldKase]

I hope you take this in the right spirit. Either I'm missing something in your post, or you simply have not fully grasped this aspect of docG's theory. Or, you are trying very hard to keep from accepting it.

Instead of trying to come up with various ways that the window might have been broken for months, yet no one is quite sure exactly when, or exactly why it hasn't been repaired, just ask yourself this -

Do you believe that a family lives with a broken window, letting in the very cold air of a Boulder winter? Yes or no?

Recall that there is no plastic sheeting taped over the hole, or any cardboard taped over the hole, or any rags stuffed in the hole. Do you really believe Burke played with his trains down there with a hole in the window, unfixed, for months? The bugs would come in in the summer and the cold air in the winter. Is it plausible that they lived with this?

That's should be enough, all by itself.

JR didn't kick the window. That's the story he was telling in an interview. That would not be how he'd actually do it. He'd swing the window open - it opens into the basement, as I'm sure you know, and press on the glass from the outside of the window. He couldn't very well say that at an interview.

I agree that there is a reasonable explanation for the gardener not to have noticed the break.

I am not a BDI fan, as you know, but it's a good thought that BR may have broken the window with the golf club. However, it would take two separate swings wouldn't it? If he hit her on the first swing there would be no reason for a second swing. If he missed on the first swing, hitting the window, then he's swing again. The sound of breaking glass might be what alerts the Rs? (Am I really playing along with BDI theory here? I must be out of my mind)

It seems implausible that the housekeeper didn't notice it, after months and months of it being broken. Her job brought her to the basement, fairly regularly. And most families would insist that broken glass be cleaned up immediately to avoid the danger of someone being cut -especially children. Yet we are to believe that there are still a few shards of glass left after the window had been broken months ago? (on the sill and on the suitcase, which then would have had to stand in that spot since the time JR supposedly broke the window in the summer to get into the house -otherwise why is there a piece of glass still on it? ) Does that really seem plausible ?



JR didn't crawl in the window. He merely swung the window in, broke it, swung the window back in place. The glass had not been fully cleaned up, which makes the story about breaking it months prior very very dubious. Not to mention the dubiousness of living with a hole in the window through half a Colorado winter.

I think the remainder of your comments must have been in anger or frustration.

Uh, no, let's go back to what you said before you changed it: My comments are "beneath me."

Right.

I never said Burke struck the window THAT NIGHT.

And DocG has been pushing this theory for many years. It didn't fly with me then, and it doesn't fly now.

So you can make it personal and attack me if that makes you feel better about it.

Me, I'm done. Have a nice life.

 

[Chrishope]

Uh, no, let's go back to what you said before you changed it: My comments are "beneath me."

Right.

I never said Burke struck the window THAT NIGHT.

And DocG has been pushing this theory for many years. It didn't fly with me then, and it doesn't fly now.

So you can make it personal and attack me if that makes you feel better about it.

Me, I'm done. Have a nice life.

It was not intended as an attack, and that's why I changed it. I'm sorry you took it that way. The ending comments you made did seem beneath you, as you are usually an insightful contributor who tries to see different points of view.

I will have a nice life, thank you.