Sixteen years... back to the basics

[belimom]

Nom de plume,
Aspergers might be true or his behaviour has another more lurid explanation.

Aspergers does not explain how you can go from molestation to a fatal head injury in the blink of an eye?

Its more likely that Burke Ramsey learned some innapropriate behaviour from boys older than himself?

Its part of my theory that JonBenet was being molested by both non-family and family members.

This is the missing conspiracy aspect that many people think never happened, i.e. its just a sexual abuse case gone accidently wrong.

bbm

I was just reading this and had another thought.

- some folks upthread (or on another thread?) are talking possibly about (someone else's) son maybe being involved in the possible incident on 12/23, considering his mother answering the door *through the speaker system*, saying everything is fine, turning the police away, etc.

- the Ramseys were very close to the Stines: Christmas Party on 12/23; sons were good friends; the last to see the Ramseys on 12/25 as they dropped a present off; they stayed with the Stines after JBR's murder; the Stines followed the Ramseys to Atlanta later on (as in 'moved to Atlanta'); etc.

- HOWEVER, the Ramseys did NOT call the Stines over the morning of 12/26 (at least I can't find it mentioned). Who did they call? the Whites and the Fernies. Who have since cut ties with the Ramseys or vice versa? the Whites and the Fernies.

- you know the saying 'Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer'? They called the Whites and Fernies to come over immediately, to be close by.

- If what folks are saying may be true, then the Ramseys knew there was no need to contact the Stines, for more reason than one, especially because they were not the friends they needed to persuade to stay on their side: they were on their side and would never leave. It was the Whites and Fernies (who were probably also at the party on 12/23 and who they needed to keep on eye on - so call them, get them over there, get them wrapped up in the drama.

Does this make sense? Not sure I buy into it completely, but it's a train of thought that I had this evening when reading the above bolded statements by UKGuy: if it was not an accident, then maybe - just maybe - someone had to get rid of JBR b/c the chronic abuse plus the hypothetical incident on 12/23 inflicted too much damage, to the point of no return. Someone was going to find out, someone was going to tell. A doctor, other friends (the Fernies, the Whites, etc). And no one involved wanted to go down that road at all.

Now that I've spelled it all out, I must say that it's still a little bit too much 'out there' for me - I'm still leaning towards an accident. But, I might could be persuaded otherwise. Thoughts?

 

[midwest mama]

As with many Autism disorders, Asberger's has a WIDE range of symptoms that manifest. That is why it is sometimes referred to as the "Autism Spectrum". Some people are far more impacted than others. Most are very high functioning, and other than possibly being socially awkward or reclusive, you would not know they suffered from it. But some are very debilitated by it. You can't compare BR to other people who have Asberger's.

Thanks for the clarification on the disorder having a broad range of symptoms that can vary according to each individual.

Learning that there is no set pattern of regular identifying symptoms helps to understand why one person with the disorder might do something that another one never would.

It is interesting to learn that some people with the disorder have a scatological behavior, and that by Burke demonstrating this behavior, maybe we can also consider that he had other disorder symptoms that could have contributed to behaviors that might have led to a rage strong enough for him to have bashed JB?

 

[UKGuy]

bbm

I was just reading this and had another thought.

- some folks upthread (or on another thread?) are talking possibly about (someone else's) son maybe being involved in the possible incident on 12/23, considering his mother answering the door *through the speaker system*, saying everything is fine, turning the police away, etc.

- the Ramseys were very close to the Stines: Christmas Party on 12/23; sons were good friends; the last to see the Ramseys on 12/25 as they dropped a present off; they stayed with the Stines after JBR's murder; the Stines followed the Ramseys to Atlanta later on (as in 'moved to Atlanta'); etc.

- HOWEVER, the Ramseys did NOT call the Stines over the morning of 12/26 (at least I can't find it mentioned). Who did they call? the Whites and the Fernies. Who have since cut ties with the Ramseys or vice versa? the Whites and the Fernies.

- you know the saying 'Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer'? They called the Whites and Fernies to come over immediately, to be close by.

- If what folks are saying may be true, then the Ramseys knew there was no need to contact the Stines, for more reason than one, especially because they were not the friends they needed to persuade to stay on their side: they were on their side and would never leave. It was the Whites and Fernies (who were probably also at the party on 12/23 and who they needed to keep on eye on - so call them, get them over there, get them wrapped up in the drama.

Does this make sense? Not sure I buy into it completely, but it's a train of thought that I had this evening when reading the above bolded statements by UKGuy: if it was not an accident, then maybe - just maybe - someone had to get rid of JBR b/c the chronic abuse plus the hypothetical incident on 12/23 inflicted too much damage, to the point of no return. Someone was going to find out, someone was going to tell. A doctor, other friends (the Fernies, the Whites, etc). And no one involved wanted to go down that road at all.

Now that I've spelled it all out, I must say that it's still a little bit too much 'out there' for me - I'm still leaning towards an accident. But, I might could be persuaded otherwise. Thoughts?

belimom,

HOWEVER, the Ramseys did NOT call the Stines over the morning of 12/26

And in what circumstances might be helpful NOT to call the Stines over?


.

 

[belimom]

belimom,

And in what circumstances might be helpful NOT to call the Stines over?


.

It just stands out to me that they were omitted. Seems like they would have come over but I can't find any source referencing the Stines being there that day. Sometimes there is so much focus on what *was* done that we don't think of what was *not* done. Why not call them? Were they in on it? Did the Ramseys make a deliberate choice to separate themselves from the Stines that day? Did the Stines make a deliberate choice not to go over - not to appear too close/involved in the situation? To not have their behavior scrutinized by LE when trying to 'fake' being surprised? Did they not want to be around in case of questioning by LE of those present at the home (do you know who may have kidnapped her? etc)? Was their son there that night and rode his bike home, creating the tracks in the snow? So they needed to keep him away from LE and the situation that day?

It may mean nothing - just a thought I had. Why weren't the Stines there as well? I paired that with the whole 12/23 911 call when Susan turned LE away. Their absence on 12/26 stood out to me, especially considering that the Stines have remained defenders of the Ramseys while the Whites and Fernies have not. I believe Susan was called Patsy's pit bull or something of the sort and even impersonated Chief Beckner in e-mails. (Although that of course makes her look even more suspicious and draws scrutiny from LE. But that was years later, not at the heat of the moment when stories needed to be concocted and kept straight. And why would anyone ever impersonate a police chief in e-mails? And why weren't charges pressed?)

But the Ramseys needed/wanted some kind of support that morning - whether they really needed it or whether they wanted more people over there so LE would focus less on their own behaviors or whether they realized it would be the 'natural' thing to do in the situation (call people for emotional support). So the Whites and the Fernies were called over - but not the Stines. Better to have someone not involved there when she was found, than to have someone who may have intimate knowledge of the situation there at that time.

It's a loose theory and may mean nothing at all. It would also mean a higher level of conspiracy - spreading beyond just the Ramsey family - that I'm not sure I agree with, yet. Just an observation that I thought I'd throw out there and see if anyone else thought that their absence is suspicious.

 

[belimom]

Thanks for the clarification on the disorder having a broad range of symptoms that can vary according to each individual.

Learning that there is no set pattern of regular identifying symptoms helps to understand why one person with the disorder might do something that another one never would.

It is interesting to learn that some people with the disorder have a scatological behavior, and that by Burke demonstrating this behavior, maybe we can also consider that he had other disorder symptoms that could have contributed to behaviors that might have led to a rage strong enough for him to have bashed JB?

My nephew has Asperger's. When he was 10, he tried to drown my 3-yr-old son b/c my son was swimming too close to him. When reprimanded, he kept defending himself rather than ever saying sorry, etc. He is a different person as an older teen now than he was then, however, and I cannot see him doing anything like that now.

As DeeDee pointed out, I see a wide range of behaviors in Asperger's children in my job. It's hard to come up with a set of symptoms that fit everyone.

 

[Nom de plume]

bbm

I was just reading this and had another thought.

- some folks upthread (or on another thread?) are talking possibly about (someone else's) son maybe being involved in the possible incident on 12/23, considering his mother answering the door *through the speaker system*, saying everything is fine, turning the police away, etc.

- the Ramseys were very close to the Stines: Christmas Party on 12/23; sons were good friends; the last to see the Ramseys on 12/25 as they dropped a present off; they stayed with the Stines after JBR's murder; the Stines followed the Ramseys to Atlanta later on (as in 'moved to Atlanta'); etc.

- HOWEVER, the Ramseys did NOT call the Stines over the morning of 12/26 (at least I can't find it mentioned). Who did they call? the Whites and the Fernies. Who have since cut ties with the Ramseys or vice versa? the Whites and the Fernies.

- you know the saying 'Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer'? They called the Whites and Fernies to come over immediately, to be close by.

- If what folks are saying may be true, then the Ramseys knew there was no need to contact the Stines, for more reason than one, especially because they were not the friends they needed to persuade to stay on their side: they were on their side and would never leave. It was the Whites and Fernies (who were probably also at the party on 12/23 and who they needed to keep on eye on - so call them, get them over there, get them wrapped up in the drama.

Does this make sense? Not sure I buy into it completely, but it's a train of thought that I had this evening when reading the above bolded statements by UKGuy: if it was not an accident, then maybe - just maybe - someone had to get rid of JBR b/c the chronic abuse plus the hypothetical incident on 12/23 inflicted too much damage, to the point of no return. Someone was going to find out, someone was going to tell. A doctor, other friends (the Fernies, the Whites, etc). And no one involved wanted to go down that road at all.

Now that I've spelled it all out, I must say that it's still a little bit too much 'out there' for me - I'm still leaning towards an accident. But, I might could be persuaded otherwise. Thoughts?

BBM Are you thinking that JBR was abused at the party on 12/23, possibly by BR & the Stines son (can't remember his first name), and that she was the one to dial 911? That does kind of make sense about SS talking to LE when they came if she KNEW what happened.

Since they were the last ones to see the Rs on the night of the 25th, it's possible their son went home with the Rs to spend the night with BR. Although I can't imagine letting the boy go over there if they were caught molesting JBR at the party. Wasn't PR's new bike missing after that? It would explain the tire tracks in the snow.

Hmmm......:waitasec:

 

[belimom]

BBM Are you thinking that JBR was abused at the party on 12/23, possibly by BR & the Stines son (can't remember his first name), and that she was the one to dial 911? That does kind of make sense about SS talking to LE when they came if she KNEW what happened.

Since they were the last ones to see the Rs on the night of the 25th, it's possible their son went home with the Rs to spend the night with BR. Although I can't imagine letting the boy go over there if they were caught molesting JBR at the party. Wasn't PR's new bike missing after that? It would explain the tire tracks in the snow.

Hmmm......:waitasec:

The thing is -- I think it's a possible scenario. As to what I think really happened, I have a few main theories bouncing around in my head. BDI with PR/JR cover-up, PR with PR/JR cover-up, etc. But this is one that just dawned on me last night when the Stines' absence jumped out at me.

If LE responded to a party and nothing was wrong - an accidental call, etc - then why not open the door and greet them in person? Or even ask them into the foyer to discuss it? Or let them talk to the person who made the call? But for someone to answer through the speaker system seems odd, especially when it wasn't even the homeowner. Which makes me wonder - where was PR at that time? Why didn't she answer the door? Was she and JR with JBR and BR, trying to control the situation, calm JBR, separate BR and/or his friends from JBR? In other words, were they too occupied to answer the door?

Just something else to think about. :twocents:

ETA: maybe a wider circle was becoming aware of or involved in the chronic abuse (or the incident on 12/23), but perhaps a much smaller subset was aware of what happened to JBR regarding her death.

 

[UKGuy]

It just stands out to me that they were omitted. Seems like they would have come over but I can't find any source referencing the Stines being there that day. Sometimes there is so much focus on what *was* done that we don't think of what was *not* done. Why not call them? Were they in on it? Did the Ramseys make a deliberate choice to separate themselves from the Stines that day? Did the Stines make a deliberate choice not to go over - not to appear too close/involved in the situation? To not have their behavior scrutinized by LE when trying to 'fake' being surprised? Did they not want to be around in case of questioning by LE of those present at the home (do you know who may have kidnapped her? etc)? Was their son there that night and rode his bike home, creating the tracks in the snow? So they needed to keep him away from LE and the situation that day?

It may mean nothing - just a thought I had. Why weren't the Stines there as well? I paired that with the whole 12/23 911 call when Susan turned LE away. Their absence on 12/26 stood out to me, especially considering that the Stines have remained defenders of the Ramseys while the Whites and Fernies have not. I believe Susan was called Patsy's pit bull or something of the sort and even impersonated Chief Beckner in e-mails. (Although that of course makes her look even more suspicious and draws scrutiny from LE. But that was years later, not at the heat of the moment when stories needed to be concocted and kept straight. And why would anyone ever impersonate a police chief in e-mails? And why weren't charges pressed?)

But the Ramseys needed/wanted some kind of support that morning - whether they really needed it or whether they wanted more people over there so LE would focus less on their own behaviors or whether they realized it would be the 'natural' thing to do in the situation (call people for emotional support). So the Whites and the Fernies were called over - but not the Stines. Better to have someone not involved there when she was found, than to have someone who may have intimate knowledge of the situation there at that time.

It's a loose theory and may mean nothing at all. It would also mean a higher level of conspiracy - spreading beyond just the Ramsey family - that I'm not sure I agree with, yet. Just an observation that I thought I'd throw out there and see if anyone else thought that their absence is suspicious.

belimom,
It appears that the White's never invited the Stines to their party. And the Ramsey's never phoned the Stines to come over 12/26. In contrast to the Ramseys inviting the Stines on 12/23.

It looks to me as if the Ramseys wanted to make sure that the Stines would never become suspects by virtue of coming over on 12/26, i.e. the Ramseys wanted a firewall between themselves and the Stines.

If they were not friends prior to JonBenet's death, then they were not long afterwards. To this day Burke Ramsey and Doug Stine are close friends still in regular contact.

That there was a conspiracy is undeniable, Susan Stines email impersonation along with the family moving house along with the Ramsey's proves this.

The question is why? What was the common factor that led them to collude so to avoid justice?



.

 

[otg]

Anyone wanting to understand even a little bit about Asberger's should really read on Wikipedia or any other place that has a comprehensive description of it and the other ASD's (autism spectrum disorder). I don't claim to have any personal knowledge or experience with it, but just reading there, it is obvious that no one can point to the little we know about the "poop perp" and say that he had -- or did not have -- Asberger syndrome. Much of his known behaviors could be attributed to it, but even professionals sometimes have difficulty making a diagnosis with certainty. And as far as his now ostensibly functioning well in his adult life, I will quote this little bit from Wikipedia (bbm):

The mainstay of management is behavioral therapy, focusing on specific deficits to address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness. Most children improve as they mature to adulthood, but social and communication difficulties may persist. Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.

So what it comes down to is that we don't know, and probably never will know if BR had (or has) AS. Some of his known behaviors from that period of time indicate that he might have, but it doesn't matter now anyway as far as this case is involved. And as far as his functioning well now, that is no indication that he did not (or does not now) have AS.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism

wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervasive_developmental_disorder

wikipedia.org/wiki/PDD-NOS

wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_disintegrative_disorder

 

[belimom]

Anyone wanting to understand even a little bit about Asberger's should really read on Wikipedia or any other place that has a comprehensive description of it and the other ASD's (autism spectrum disorder). I don't claim to have any personal knowledge or experience with it, but just reading there, it is obvious that no one can point to the little we know about the "poop perp" and say that he had -- or did not have -- Asberger syndrome. Much of his known behaviors could be attributed to it, but even professionals sometimes have difficulty making a diagnosis with certainty. And as far as his now ostensibly functioning well in his adult life, I will quote this little bit from Wikipedia (bbm):
So what it comes down to is that we don't know, and probably never will know if BR had (or has) AS. Some of his known behaviors from that period of time indicate that he might have, but it doesn't matter now anyway as far as this case is involved. And as far as his functioning well now, that is no indication that he did not (or does not now) have AS.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism

wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervasive_developmental_disorder

wikipedia.org/wiki/PDD-NOS

wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_disintegrative_disorder

Thanks for posting this info. I'm a psychologist and work with kids with various disorders, including Asperger's. It is hard to describe any one set of symptoms as describing different children with Asperger's.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I find this interesting. It's Patsy and Susan's accounts of 12/25/96:

Susan Stine: "They came to our house and I talked to Patsy for awhile maybe 10 or 15 minutes and they all seemed perfectly normal. They were all the same - bubbly about Christmas and about where they were going and we, my husband and I, waved good-bye to them as they were leaving and that was the last time we saw them as an intact family."

--------


Tom Trujillo: "Was she awake at all when you were over at the Stines' house?

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, well, I just went to the door. We didn't all go in. I just went to the door... and gave them a basket of something... for a Christmas present or something. We were going, I remember, cause I had a big basket in the car to take to the Fernie, but since JonBenet had fallen asleep and it was getting kind of late.. I think we just decided not to go to the Fernies."

-------

Susan's account makes it sound like the entire Ramsey family came to the door. Also, 15 minutes is a pretty long time to chat (especially in the cold December weather...But no mention of the family going inside) but Patsy makes it sound like it was 1-2-3. Patsy isn't very clear, but I think she's saying that only she went to the door. Also, Susan says "they were bubbly" implying JonBenet was bubbly too...but according to Patsy, she was asleep as soon as they left the house.

Not sure if this makes a difference but...Susan's statement was given during a TV Special. Maybe the producers told her to say that story because it's more sensational then: "Patsy came to the door, and gave me a gift. Very quick chat".

 

[Nom de plume]

Could someone please point me to a link or source about SS and the fake e-mails please? I must have forgotten about that and would like to read up on it. TIA

 

[belimom]

Could someone please point me to a link or source about SS and the fake e-mails please? I must have forgotten about that and would like to read up on it. TIA

I linked it above but here is an official account of it:

http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3622&Itemid=0

 

[dodie20]

I find this interesting. It's Patsy and Susan's accounts of 12/25/96:

Susan Stine: "They came to our house and I talked to Patsy for awhile maybe 10 or 15 minutes and they all seemed perfectly normal. They were all the same - bubbly about Christmas and about where they were going and we, my husband and I, waved good-bye to them as they were leaving and that was the last time we saw them as an intact family."

--------


Tom Trujillo: "Was she awake at all when you were over at the Stines' house?

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, well, I just went to the door. We didn't all go in. I just went to the door... and gave them a basket of something... for a Christmas present or something. We were going, I remember, cause I had a big basket in the car to take to the Fernie, but since JonBenet had fallen asleep and it was getting kind of late.. I think we just decided not to go to the Fernies."

-------

Susan's account makes it sound like the entire Ramsey family came to the door. Also, 15 minutes is a pretty long time to chat (especially in the cold December weather...But no mention of the family going inside) but Patsy makes it sound like it was 1-2-3. Patsy isn't very clear, but I think she's saying that only she went to the door. Also, Susan says "they were bubbly" implying JonBenet was bubbly too...but according to Patsy, she was asleep as soon as they left the house.

Not sure if this makes a difference but...Susan's statement was given during a TV Special. Maybe the producers told her to say that story because it's more sensational then: "Patsy came to the door, and gave me a gift. Very quick chat".

I think it does make a difference, because the time that the Rs got home, is the start of the timeline. I don't know why, but the Rs seemed to want to make the time that they got home, later than it really was. I don't know what a lie would accomplish here, but I'm suspicious of the Rs going to the S's house last, and having a lengthy chat...because from later events, we know that SS would (and did), do whatever she could, to protect/defend PR. moo

 

[Nom de plume]

This is a little OT, but it's been bothering me for a long time. I'd like everyone else's opinion on this.

Does it seem odd that JR unwrapped the blanket and carried JBR upstairs without it? I don't know why but that bothers me, but it does. Taking the time to "untie her hands", remove the tape, etc. I keep thinking my reaction would be to just scoop her up ASAP, blanket and all, and run for help screaming for paramedics the whole time. I probably would remove the tape, but I'd be on the move at the time. Maybe this is of no significance at all, but it just strikes me as weird, like there was some specific reason he left the blanket.

Of course I wouldn't "find" my dead daughter in the basement either. :furious:

 

[Nom de plume]

I linked it above but here is an official account of it:

http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3622&Itemid=0

Thanks belimom! I missed the link above. :blushing:

What in the world was she hoping to accomplish with this stunt? Gain someone's trust and then pry info out of them? I just don't get it. Me thinks she's been dipping into some of Patsy's "special" pills.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is a little OT, but it's been bothering me for a long time. I'd like everyone else's opinion on this.

Does it seem odd that JR unwrapped the blanket and carried JBR upstairs without it? I don't know why but that bothers me, but it does. Taking the time to "untie her hands", remove the tape, etc. I keep thinking my reaction would be to just scoop her up ASAP, blanket and all, and run for help screaming for paramedics the whole time. I probably would remove the tape, but I'd be on the move at the time. Maybe this is of no significance at all, but it just strikes me as weird, like there was some specific reason he left the blanket.

Of course I wouldn't "find" my dead daughter in the basement either. :furious:

Doesn't seem odd, really. I am sure of the two choices (keep wrapped or take her FROM the blanket) it comes down to the first reaction you have. In either case, it really doesn't matter much. BUT- one thing that it DID do was reserve at least one part of the crime scene. For example, Patsy claimed not to have ever been in the basement that night. She claimed to see JB for the first time since putting her to bed Christmas night when her body was under the Christmas tree in the living room. Of course, fibers from the jacket she wore that day (and was STILL wearing when JB was found the next day) were on objects that remained in the basement- the tape and paint tote, on the cord which was covered with a blanket when Patsy threw herself on the body, and Patsy's forearm hair was on the blanket which also remained in the basement.

 

[Nom de plume]

Doesn't seem odd, really. I am sure of the two choices (keep wrapped or take her FROM the blanket) it comes down to the first reaction you have. In either case, it really doesn't matter much. BUT- one thing that it DID do was reserve at least one part of the crime scene. For example, Patsy claimed not to have ever been in the basement that night. She claimed to see JB for the first time since putting her to bed Christmas night when her body was under the Christmas tree in the living room. Of course, fibers from the jacket she wore that day (and was STILL wearing when JB was found the next day) were on objects that remained in the basement- the tape and paint tote, on the cord which was covered with a blanket when Patsy threw herself on the body, and Patsy's forearm hair was on the blanket which also remained in the basement.

That's it DD!! Now I know why it's bothering me! Thank you!!

Did JR screw up when he left the blanket in the basement? Was the plan to bring it up with JBR so that Patsy could throw herself on it to explain fibers and/or hairs? Was that the reason she wore the jacket (or was STILL wearing it more likely) on the 26th? On one hand I can see her reaction as perfectly natural, but this is PR we're talking about. It was a planned and intentional act IMO to CYA.

These two weren't completely stupid. I can see that they thought they were covering their tracks pretty well, or at least trying to. They had obviously seen enough movies, read enough books, watched enough TV shows to know LE would look for hair & fibers. They, or PR, just didn't know enough not to write a rambling, nonsensical RN note to cover up a murder.

 

[dodie20]

This is a little OT, but it's been bothering me for a long time. I'd like everyone else's opinion on this.

Does it seem odd that JR unwrapped the blanket and carried JBR upstairs without it? I don't know why but that bothers me, but it does. Taking the time to "untie her hands", remove the tape, etc. I keep thinking my reaction would be to just scoop her up ASAP, blanket and all, and run for help screaming for paramedics the whole time. I probably would remove the tape, but I'd be on the move at the time. Maybe this is of no significance at all, but it just strikes me as weird, like there was some specific reason he left the blanket.

Of course I wouldn't "find" my dead daughter in the basement either. :furious:

There are a couple of ways to look at this. 1, with the assumption that JR didn't have anything to do with the murder, or 2, he was involved. 1, if he wasn't involved and found JB, he would have been mortified, and I don't think him trying to undo some of the damage, is all that odd. But, it's moo, that even if he wasn't involved, he didn't just happen to find JB. IMO, he had reasons, based on past experience and knowing his family dynamic, to have an idea where JB was. 2, if he was involved, a case could be made that he found JB, so he could contaminate the crime scene and provide a reason for his personal dna, fibers, fingerprints, etc., to be on JB...ditto for PR throwing herself on JB's body. I don't know what they were aware of as far as investigative evidence went, but most educated people understood enough to be aware of fingerprints, clothes fibers, and body fluids. On a personal level, I can't imagine what I would do if I found my daughter murdered. I think I'd grab her up and start removing the ties, tape, etc...in an attempt to 'undo' the horror. Mixed with the instant denial and hope that she could be saved, I think I might completely contaminate the crime scene, without realizing it.

 

[DeeDee249]

belimom,

And in what circumstances might be helpful NOT to call the Stines over?


.

If their son HAD been involved, they would have been called over in the middle of the night to retrieve him/help deal with what happened. I always think of JRs comment "There were a lot of people there at 3 in the morning". Odd thing to say, right? He didn't supposedly call his friends till 6 am, after the 911 call and after being warned not to do so in the note (as if).
If this was the case and they WERE there in the night, they'd have gone home before the others were called. I have not seen any comments made by the other friends wondering where they were, but that doesn't mean anything because we don't actually know what they thought about it or if they were ever questioned about their absence.
It would have been helpful NOT to have them there because their demeanor may have given away that they knew what happened to JB. They may not have been able to hide how upset they were. So it was really better not to have them there.