Hello everyone. I took a long self imposed break from posting, however I have done a lot of reading in the mean time.
There are so many pieces of this puzzle that do not fit. Patsy changed her story for that morning too. That's the important thing in this case- the Rs changed their stories about many things. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said. A big red flag for me (and a well-known defense attorney tactic when clients are guilty) was that the Rs refused to answer questions that had previously been asked. They also asked for the questions to be submitted in advance in writing, and refused to be questioned separately. All of these are BIG indications that they were hiding their previous lies. I am nit sure which of these outrageous demands were accommodated, but if the BPD didn't raise a stink AH would have just given the defense lawyers what they asked for.
I think the red flag for me was the special treatment the parents were issued from the first moments of the 911 call. The 'normal' avenues that LE follows when a child is missing, (start with the parents, step parents, boyfriends, other family members and work your way out), was not upheld.
It is pretty much impossible to solve a crime, when you don't question subjects immediately, keep a crime scene, (reported kidnapping), pristine, gather evidence in a timely fashion, (parents and BR's clothing, blanket JB was wrapped in, etc.).
You then allow the suspects the ability to demand how, when, what they will be asked, as well as by whom. Questions were to be submitted ahead of time in writing? Sheesh!! Odd to say the least, suspect to be a little more honest about it. I truly believe there were many in the local BPD that wanted to get this right and make sure that HB's killer(s) would be found and punished. The real question is why didn't that happen.
The time they left the White's can be somewhat verified- according to the Rs it was around 9 pm.I am sure the White's would have been questioned about this and given a reasonably correct answer. After that- it is all R's version, so we cannot corroborate much of it. They said they brought along gifts for friends who were not at the White's that day, and made at least 2 stops. The last stop they decided not to take as it was the furthest away and it was getting late. I suppose LE would have questioned the people they claimed to visit- the approximate time, whether JB came into the house or if they saw her awake, etc. We do not have evidence of those questions being asked, but they should have been.
The Rs claim to have arrived home between 9:30 and 10 PM, which sounds accurate given the time they left the party and made a few stops. At this point, it seems truthful. After that, it is backpedalling and "rearranging" the truth and events of the rest of the night. BR claimed his sister was awake and walked into the house, his parents claim she fell asleep in the car and was carried into the house. The truth is probably that she fell asleep in the car (as kids often do) but woke up when they arrived home and walked in. I believe BR's version rather than his parents, because regardless of his involvement or not, at that point BR would not have understood the necessity of lying about his sister being awake. In his mind (nearly 10 at the time) he just wouldn't be thinking about needing to lie about it and why. We already know his parents later admitted BR actually WAS awake that morning, but decided to say that he had been asleep the whole time because "it was easier and wouldn't be bothered being questioned".
Now...if your child is kidnapped from her room and murdered and found in a garrote in the basement wouldn't you WANT police to talk to your surviving child whose room was just down the hall? They admit themselves they never talked to him about that night. This offends reason. Just wouldn't happen in real life. One of the many red flags that scream LIE.
Because they admitted lying about BR being asleep, it isn't too much of a leap to understand that they were also lying about JB being awake.
As far as the rest of it- the parents tell conflicting stories then, too. JR said he played with a toy with BR. They said JB never woke up, then he said he read to her. They denied knowing about any bedtime snack which was PROVEN to be pineapple and the pineapple was still sitting out on a table.
The neighbor who heard the scream then claimed she didn't, then later (after she moved out of Boulder) that she did, indeed, hear a scream around midnight (the approx time of death) and her husband claimed to hear the scraping sounds (he described it as "metal scraping concrete" after his wife woke him up when she heard the scream. Not much more is known, not sure how much LE spoke to them or what they thought of it.
Please excuse me for editing your post, but in this example alone, there are at least three incidences of conflicting 'reports' by the R's. This should have been when the BPD declared the R's suspects and questioned them individually,since it hadn't been done before at this point, with any real conscious effort. People can remain suspects until they are cleared.
This is when it should have turned in to a full fledged murder investigation. Lawyers should not have the ability to prevent questioning, if a person is named a suspect in a murder investigation. In our great US, you have undeniable rights, for a lawyer to be present, or to refuse to answer a question. Not the right to refuse to be asked those questions.
The only reason I can see for the turn of events as they played out the way they did, is if BR was indeed guilty of a crime. Since LE, (Colorado government) had the responsibility to protect BR, due to his age, they couldn't really 'investigate.'
Thanks, but the previous 911 still bothers me. I've read that it was the Rs friend, (can't remember her name, but she was later referred to as PR's bulldog, or some such), who told the cops that the 911 call was an accident, and there was no emergency. Does anybody believe this? A 911 call from the same house where a murdered child was found, was a misdial? If the call was made, LE needs to investigate it....go back to that night, what led up to the call, every little detail of who said what, who all was there, and interrogate the lady who turned the cops away. I've also read that this lady said FW accidentally made the call. I'm not inclined to believe this, because how do you accidentally dial 911 instead of a regular number? If he was trying to call 411, a comb through of the phone records would verify it, and the 411 would be just a few seconds after the misdial. But, FW, was a grown man, so I can't imagine him hanging up on 911, or refusing to answer when they called back.
Susan Stein is a vortex. She was Patsy's bulldog, impersonates the BP Chief and doesn't pay any consequences for impersonating an officer. There were felonies involved in her little 'prank'.
She felt it was her duty to not only defend the R's, but to intimidate people who didn't see the R's the way she did.
She spoke through the speaker to the BPD officer(s), who responded to the 911 call and was able to convince them that there was no reason for them to investigate the call, or the reason behind it. Persuasive is one word I can think to describe her, if she were on my side. I would use other words, if she were not a 'friend.'
