BlueCrab said:
Angel, you know a book could be written just on the lying and covering up that went on to try to make Burke look innocent. Here's a few examples:
1. The Ramseys lied to the 911 dispatcher at 5:52 A.M. about Burke being in bed asleep in an early effort to distant him from the crime.
This is a fiercely disputed point. Steve Thomas claims this is true, but he also asserts many things that you yourself find ridiculous (e.g., PDI). There are very solid scientific reasons for believing the alleged voices at the end of the tape are nothing more than mechanical sounds.
BlueCrab said:
2. Burke was given his own personal attorney.
This is no proof of a cover-up. On the contrary, it might just as easily be viewed as proof that Ramseys had nothing to hide since they would have much less control over an attorney hired to defend Burke's interests even if these ran counter to those of the parents. A simple counterfactual will suffice: had Ramseys used the same attorney to represent everyone's interests, you would have pointed to THIS as evidence of cover-up on grounds that it proved they were trying to "control" the story and make certain everyone was on the same page.
BlueCrab said:
3. The Ramseys, by using the threat to sue anyone who suggests Burke killed JonBenet, erected an "umbrella of intimidation" over everyone on earth.
This too is not proof of cover-up, since presumably even completely innnocent parents also would have been motivated to go after individuals who shamefully and shamelessly were promoting BDI theories without a single shred of evidence to support them. The fact that Ramseys have won EVERY SINGLE SUIT SO FILED should tell us a great deal about where the "weight of the evidence" actually lies in this case.
BlueCrab said:
4. The religious Ramseys were asked by Steve Thomas "Without confession, there is no forgiveness. Do you think God will forgive the person who did this?" The Ramsey's response: "That's up to God". So the Ramseys don't believe the killer needs to confess, not even to be forgiven by God..
This in no way is proof of coverup. If you polled the average American on this question, you might discover millions who agree with Ramseys on this point: does that make them complicit in a cover-up?
BlueCrab said:
5. John and Patsy each agree they wouldn't cover for the other spouse but have a forgiving perspective when it comes to a child. John: "It's a tougher question to think through". IOW, they would at least consider a coverup if they knew Burke had killed JonBenet..
This in no way is proof of coverup. If you polled the average American parent on this question, you might again discover millions who agree with Ramseys on this point: does that make them complicit in a cover-up?
BlueCrab said:
6. During a deposition in 1998 John Ramsey was asked under oath to name his friends. He provided the list, but it didn't include Glen and Susan Stine. Even though the Ramseys had lived with the Stines for 5 months following JonBenet's death, and the Stines were the Ramseys biggest defenders, and the Ramseys and the Stines went together on social trips out of town before and after the murder, and the Stines were the last people to see the Ramsey family that night when the Ramseys stopped by to leave off a Christmas gift, and Burke and Doug were best friends, and the Stines pulled up stakes to leave home and jobs behind and followed the Ramseys to Georgia -- John nevertheless left the Stines OFF his list of friends. John was obviously lying and covering up a strong link between the Ramseys and the Stines so as to short circuit any follow-up questions linking Burke and Doug as best friends. Why else would John lie?.
Well I guess this transparent effort at covering up the "strong link" failed pretty miserably, didn't it? It's pretty obvious that John himself DIDN'T view Stines as good friends. I know lots of married couples who might spend lots of time with each other because the SPOUSES are friendly but in which the males wouldn't list each other as good friends. This "evidence" actually proves the opposite of your claim. According to your theory, John "lawyered up" and was carefully coached before daring to submit to police questioning. But since all this background info relating Stines to Ramseys already had seen PLENTY of press play by the time John finally was deposed in 1998, wouldn't any good lawyer caution John AGAINST such a transparent effort to create "distance"? The mere fact of leaving Stines off such a list might invite suspicion (just as it did you!). It's quite clear that John either answered forthrightly (from his own perspective--which might well differ from Patsy's--Stines were not HIS good friends) or he inadvertently forgot about including them (think about it: if you were asked this question on the spot out of the blue and then we all got to "Monday morning quarterback" about it, don't you think there's at least one person you might inadvertently leave off the list?). In either case, this behavior would be exculpatory rather than incriminatory. The fact that you "filter" information such as this only in the direction of your own favorite theory of cover-up suggests just how strongly biased you are in this case.
BlueCrab said:
7. The lie detector examinations the Ramseys passed in 2000 included the seemingly unnecessary term "for sure" in the wording of the specially formulated questions asked. It suggests the Ramseys could know there was more than one person involved in the murder, but didn't know "for sure" which one was the actual killer because Burke had never told them, and they really didn't want to know the truth. This would allow them to pass the "for sure" test without showing deception..
Think about this for a minute. According to your theory, the Ramseys embarked on an irreversible lifelong path of cover-up and potential obstruction of justice on behalf of their son, knowing he was implicated in the death of their own beloved daughter. And they don't want to KNOW the truth????? Get real. ESPECIALLY if there were others involved, they would desperately want to know the truth. For all they knew, the "fifth man" might break and spill the beans 2 years later, at which point they might be in severe legal jeopardy for having misled investigators about what they knew and when they knew it. What rational parents would go down that road with a blindfold on, ESPECIALLY if they were wealthy enough to "lawyer up" and get the strongest possible advice against that path? The reality is, if your theory were true--a 20-something either "induced" some 9-year olds into letting him sexually assault and kill JBR (whether through malevolence or AEA game gone awry scarcely matters)--the parents would have had means, motive and opportunity to NAIL that perp, revealing Burke to be the innocent victim of that adult's twisted taking advantage of a 9-year old. Doing so would have gotten the police off their backs and would have led to an outpouring of public sympathy for their plight. Instead, according to your logic, they have settled for their current state of hell in which technically they are regarded as innocent, but literally millions of Americans are convinced they somehow are involved. Makes NO logical sense.