TLynn
New Member
A "lone" intruder not connected to any Ramsey (Burke included) does not explain the pineapple.
I don't accept the premise that Ramseys lied or covered up. Such claims require bulletproof evidence, which you cannot offer. An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."BlueCrab said:It's elementary my dear Watson. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for a lone intruder uninvited by Burke.
IMO there was a fifth person in the house (an intruder if you will) AND a Ramsey involved (Burke). IOW both the IDI theorists and the RDI theorists are right.
JMO
DocWatson said:I don't accept the premise that Ramseys lied or covered up. Such claims require bulletproof evidence, which you cannot offer. An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."
Moreover, the evidence regarding sexual assault is far better explained with a "genuine" intruder, not someone invited by a family member. JBR suffered a painful and calculated death: those who claim it was accidental (whether by Patsy or by Burke) haven't looked at the evidence very carefully.
"Dave", he's nothing but another mindless Swampette, interested only in spewing propaganda like the *advertiser censored* he answers to. Jayelles posted some of dipchit Dave's back-patting analysis here where everyone saw right threw it. Others wasted their time traveling to the Swamp for a good laugh. Dave failed to even mention the 4-second gap in the CD version where Burke and John's voices were redacted. Dave is useless. He need to grow a pair and post on a REAL forum instead of hiding behind the *advertiser censored*'s apron strings.DocWatson said:An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."
Shylock said:"Dave", he's nothing but another mindless Swampette, interested only in spewing propaganda like the *advertiser censored* he answers to. Jayelles posted some of dipchit Dave's back-patting analysis here where everyone saw right threw it. Others wasted their time traveling to the Swamp for a good laugh. Dave failed to even mention the 4-second gap in the CD version where Burke and John's voices were redacted. Dave is useless. He need to grow a pair and post on a REAL forum instead of hiding behind the *advertiser censored*'s apron strings.
This is a completely bogus claim. If Burke's attorney anticipated questions about the ALLEGED existence of Burke's voice on the tape then he would have been entitled to receive this ALLEGED evidence in order to thoroughly examine it and be in a position to rebut the junk science claims that Burke's voice was on it. Doing so is merely good legal practice and in NO WAY connotes that the lawyer or his client believed these junk science claims. To imply otherwise is to engage in flagrant truth-twisting.BlueCrab said:The end of the original 911 tape has noise on it that MAY be voices. The end of the enhanced tape verifies that the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on it.
A lot of people behind the scenes in addition to the few who have publicly known to have heard the enhanced tape acknowledge the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on those final few seconds of the tape.
In 1998 Burke's attorney at the time, Jenkins, and the court also verified the existence of Burke's voice on the tape when the attorney requested and received a copy of the tape from the the D.A., upon order of the court, to satisfy a witnesses' right to any "previous statements" prior to testifying in front of a grand jury.
If Burke's voice wasn't on the 911 tape Burke wouldn't have been entitled to receive a copy of his "previous statement" (on the 911 tape). Therefore, Burke's voice had to be on the tape.
JMO
DocWatson said:This is a completely bogus claim. If Burke's attorney anticipated questions about the ALLEGED existence of Burke's voice on the tape then he would have been entitled to receive this ALLEGED evidence in order to thoroughly examine it and be in a position to rebut the junk science claims that Burke's voice was on it. Doing so is merely good legal practice and in NO WAY connotes that the lawyer or his client believed these junk science claims. To imply otherwise is to engage in flagrant truth-twisting.
DocWatson said:The difference between Dave and you and is that Dave is not afraid to put all his evidence and reasoning out in public where anyone can see it, your ad hominem attacks on Dave are most unconvincing as evidence to this observer. Dave's analysis and conclusions stand unrefuted to this day.
BlueCrab said:If Burke's voice wasn't on the 911 tape Burke wouldn't have been entitled to receive a copy of his "previous statement" (on the 911 tape). Therefore, Burke's voice had to be on the tape.
Fact: Dave has analyzed both the tape and CD versionShylock said:Sorry, but you have your facts wrong, (which doesn't really surprise me since you base your opinion on mis-information that is constantly manufactured over on the Swamp.)
"Dave" kicked himself in the *advertiser censored* by jumping the gun and writing some trumped-up analysis based on the 911 tape that was originally released by Keenan on audio tape. That version of the tape was prematurely cut off and didn't even include Patsy's voice at the end of it. That was the version that Limp Wood passed around to the networks which they played on-air and sent to a couple audio labs. It's no wonder "Dave" found nothing on the tape, nobody did, the tape was cut off WAY before it actually ended!
Weeks later, Keenan released a copy of the 911 tape on CD. That version is drastically different than the original audio tape version she released:
-- It contains some extra noise at the beginning of the call.
-- It doesn't end prematurely.
-- It contains Patsy's voice saying "help me, help me jesus, help me jesus" which can clearly be heard by anyone with good hearing and a decent audio system.
-- It contains a 4-second gap. Located after Patsy, in the exact spot which Thomas says the voices of Burke and John can be heard. This version has obviously been redacted to exclude those voices.
Those are the FACTS, and anyone hear can go out and listen to both the audio version and the CD version to prove it to themselves. We don't need "Dave", "Spade", or "Tricia", to interprete for us what our own ears can hear! We know Burke's voice appears on the 911 call or there would have been NO REASON for Keenen to redact 4-seconds of audio from the end of the tape. When asked about the 4-second gap, Keenan's only statement was "no comment".
LovelyPigeon said:Providing a copy of the tape to Burke's lawyer does not prove that Burke spoke on the 911 tape or that he was present when it was recorded. It merely establishes that someone claimed Burke's voice was on the tape.
Shylock said:This is true, LovelyPigeon. However it does prove that the BPD and DA's office were so confident that Burke's voice was on the tape that they were willing to take that evidence to a Grand Jury.
You have one DA that takes the tape to a Grand Jury, then the very next DA redacts the tape before public release. Not too hard to figure out what's on it...is it.
The Stine's lived in Boulder at 816 10th Street. It was about a five-block walk between the Ramsey's house and the Stine's house.
JMO
I'd like to recap "The Missing Period (.)" thread because it might lead to something if investigated. (Or, of course, it could just be a bunch of unusual coincidences.) But for example:
o The APAC website signs off "K.J.L.B Groups"; and the Ramsey ransom note signs off "S.B.T.C";
o Both sign-offs used four capital letters;
o Both sign-offs used periods after each capital letter except the last one (the missing period);
o Both sign-offs were written around the same 1996 - 1997 time period;
o APAC can be loosely referred to as "a small foreign faction", (as written in the RN);
o APAC can be considered "a group of individuals", (as written in the RN);
o There was a direct link between APAC and the Ramsey household by way of Doug Stine and APAC member Nathan Inouye who lived at the Stine's house and was somewhat close to the Ramseys;
o APAC at CU was within walking distance of the Ramsey house, as was the Stines house within walking distance of the Ramsey house;
o APAC abruptly and suspiciously disbanded shortly after the murder of JonBenet.
IMO the 29 students at CU who were APAC members in 1996 should each be checked out.
JMO