BlueCrab:BlueCrab said:UKGuy,
There are several scenarios that could have occurred in which children were involved with an older accomplice but the older accomplice walked. Here's some of them:
1. The cops and the grand jury may not have known of his existence. For instance, the testimony in the Atlanta interviews of 2000 revealed the cops had never even heard of Nathan Inouye.
2. The older accomplice's invovement could have been minimal compared to the damage the young boys did, so rather than bring charges, which would likely reveal the names of the children, the D.A. decided to do nothing.
3. The older accomplice would have benefited from a coverup that extended from the D.A.'s office all the way to the governor's office and kept a lid on the case and a virtual impossibility to collect crucial evidence, such as the December cellphone calls of John Ramsey.
4. The Ramsey family was involved in familial incest that included children and people from out of the family. Ratting out the adult killer would spill the beans and everybody would end up in jail.
JMO
Thanks for your reply.
Option 1. and Nathan Inouye is a possibilty since he spent quality time with both Burke and JonBenet.
Option 2. Seems like the default choice.
Option 3. Moves into the area of conspiracy theory.
Option 4. Is my preferred outside theory, other than your BDI or the PDI it also explains away lots of amnesia and apparent inconsistencies, but also depends on a degree of conspiracy.
One thing I am convinced of is the course events as presented by the Ramsey's both in interview and as staged evidence, is not what occurred.
e.g. I dont think JonBenet went to bed after entering the house that night.
JR and PR version of events was meant to chime with her fiinal staging but it was never finished.