Where Should Boulder Police Start?

[lawlady84]

Where I grew up / now live, pageants were almost nonexistent - and I had no idea of the "extent" of them until the JBR case. Maybe its my lens of ignorance about the whole pageant world, but I think mothers must have "something" missing if they are dying a 5 year old child's hair. Children's scalps are sensitive. And when I get my hair dyed - or especially when I dye it myself - it can BURN! But at 25 I tell myself to suck it up... but a 5 year old? Shouldn't you love your child, dark hair, light hair, freckles, no freckles?

I know most pageant moms are not killers, but PR just gave me an awful feeling - if you care THAT much about parading your child around, what do you do when she continues to be a kid (and not a showdog)

JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree. I believe that its a lie too. OF COURSE, he is going to ask questions about his sister, it is not like he was an infant when she died. He was nine years old. I think that Patsy just didn't want them to question Burke any further, that is why she said that he never talked about JB or asked any questions. Trying to make him look as if he didn't care, or had no knowledge or that night.

That's how I feel, too Ames. First of all, (assuming PR's statement is true) for a child who was nearly 10 when his little sister was found brutally murdered in the family home to NEVER ask about that night or what happened to his sister to me, indicates a truly disturbed child.
It is possible, however, that his parents would not speak about it to him, or would not allow him to speak about it, so that could be the reason. And lets face it, the Rs would do ANYTHING to keep their son from being questioned about that night. The fact that he may have seen or heard something that would have helped investigators? Well- that's the point, isn't it? What he may have seen or heard might have led them right to - his parents!

 

[JaneInOz]

That's how I feel, too Ames. First of all, (assuming PR's statement is true) for a child who was nearly 10 when his little sister was found brutally murdered in the family home to NEVER ask about that night or what happened to his sister to me, indicates a truly disturbed child.
It is possible, however, that his parents would not speak about it to him, or would not allow him to speak about it, so that could be the reason. And lets face it, the Rs would do ANYTHING to keep their son from being questioned about that night. The fact that he may have seen or heard something that would have helped investigators? Well- that's the point, isn't it? What he may have seen or heard might have led them right to - his parents!

I wonder what would happen if he had Hypnosis that took him back to that night
:hypno::gavel:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We all do, JaneInOz. But the good guys don't always win. When she was alive, I wanted her punished, in some form. But you and I have talked this over in the past, and I truly want to believe that she escaped the torments of the next world. There's a difference between someone truly evil and someone who made a horrible mistake and lived in pain until the end.

I've got some news for you, SD. You're wrong.

Whoever strangled, headbashed, sexually semi-assaulted, and wrote 'she will be beheaded' all in reference to a small child IS truly evil. It doesn't matter if they were staging or pretending, or for real.

Doesn't matter if they had cancer or were healthy as a horse. Man or woman, intruder or family member.

Truly evil. Of course, evil is really a subjective, abstract thing. Maybe 'violently psychotic' is a better characterization.

 

[Solace]

I've got some news for you, SD. You're wrong.

Whoever strangled, headbashed, sexually semi-assaulted, and wrote 'she will be beheaded' all in reference to a small child IS truly evil. It doesn't matter if they were staging or pretending, or for real.

Doesn't matter if they had cancer or were healthy as a horse. Man or woman, intruder or family member.

Truly evil. Of course, evil is really a subjective, abstract thing. Maybe 'violently psychotic' is a better characterization.

Holdon,

If this killing were committed in a rage episode, it is not truly evil. It was not planned, it was not premeditated - it was a rage incident. Patsy had been up for 16 hours and was exhausted. Couple that with two glasses of wine and a few xanax. There is no way I believe Patsy was not on some kind of medication. She was just going into remission - she did not just give up those meds, which are incredibly addictive.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,

If this killing were committed in a rage episode, it is not truly evil. It was not planned, it was not premeditated - it was a rage incident. Patsy had been up for 16 hours and was exhausted. Couple that with two glasses of wine and a few xanax. There is no way I believe Patsy was not on some kind of medication. She was just going into remission - she did not just give up those meds, which are incredibly addictive.

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion.

My opinion is that a person who is RAGING MAD, ON DRUGS, and DRUNK cound be murderous. That rage filled person could strangle and headbash a small child.

Further, however, I believe that this same person who also sexually semi-assaults AND puts the idea of chopping the head off of a small child on paper , is in a TOTALLY different category: Violent Psychopath.

Doesn't even matter if it was staged or real, because its the thoughts that count.

 

[BBB167893]

I've got some news for you, SD. You're wrong.

Whoever strangled, headbashed, sexually semi-assaulted, and wrote 'she will be beheaded' all in reference to a small child IS truly evil. It doesn't matter if they were staging or pretending, or for real.

I'll be honest with you, Holdon. I get what you're saying. It's an evil act. It doesn't get any worse. And I hate it. But that doesn't mean I have to hate the person.

Doesn't matter if they had cancer or were healthy as a horse. Man or woman, intruder or family member. Truly evil.

I realize you probably don't want to hear this, Holdon, especially from me, but that sounds like something I would have said a few years ago.

Now, if you're saying that there's no excuse, you won't get any argument from me. But I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Of course, evil is really a subjective, abstract thing. Maybe 'violently psychotic' is a better characterization.

Well, not to get into a protracted philosophical debate, but I think it's dangerous to categorize evil as abstract or subjective. Moral relativism just doesn't do it for me. So call it what you like, and I won't talk against you. But if we are at the point where we can't even acknowledge the existance of evil, then we have no way to fight it. That's my take on it.

 

[JMO8778]

there's a difference between someone who is psychotic (and truly out of it) as opposed to someone who is evil.
I do think someone in that house lost it that night,but what's almost just as bad is the way the R's behaved afterwards ..throwing their friends under the bus,misleading everyone,and betraying their own daughter.

 

[Tadpole12]

the warehouse full of evidence never tested.

Hi JMO.

WOW!
* imagining that warehouse .... ....ark of the covenant


On a different train of thought.....
How are exhonerations repreived?
By arrest?

I'd like to see PHONE RECORDS.

hmmm ...... as far as IDI, compile a list of all arrests for tresspassing, loitering, B&E's in the last decade.....

 

[Tadpole12]

Evil and protracted philosophical debates:

JustMO ... can be seen in both rage and apathy .....

 

[BBB167893]

Evil and protracted philosophical debates:

JustMO ... can be seen in both rage and apathy .....

Doesn't hurt to hear people out, though.

 

[Solace]

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion.

My opinion is that a person who is RAGING MAD, ON DRUGS, and DRUNK cound be murderous. That rage filled person could strangle and headbash a small child.

Further, however, I believe that this same person who also sexually semi-assaults AND puts the idea of chopping the head off of a small child on paper , is in a TOTALLY different category: Violent Psychopath.

Doesn't even matter if it was staged or real, because its the thoughts that count.

On the other hand, a person could easily hurt a 40 pound 6 year old without much force. Of course she used force and it is seen by the thumbprint on JonBenet's neck and I have no doubt there was a loud crack when JB hit either the sink or the floor and then again. And I believe it was Patsy and she was SHOCKED. But it can be over in a second.

Speaking of the staging and the assault, it is pretty bad and that is what is really shocking about the case. But when one considers that there was prior sexual abuse going on in this house, then the sexual assault fits right in. It is horrible and too shocking for some to digest, but there is no doubt that this assault was staged. So why, to cover up prior abuse? If so, thlen the staging is believable - because anyone who could have sex with a child is capable of staging an assault. It goes right along with all the evidence.

But if one looks at all the actions of John and Patsy, it is clear that they are very strong people who intend to protect themselves no matter what and that means when Steve Thomas gets too close for comfort on their interviews not happening (on the LKL show) John jumps right in and changes to the subject. Immediately. He never wants to answer too many questions and he certainly did not want the public to know that they truly only answered questions the morning of the 26th. The 27th, Thomas says, the detectives were turned down, and on the 28th, they were forced to give samples. John changes the subject at that point.

I am not going to say they are evil, because I don't think this is an intentional killing - it was reckless homicide. The resulting staging is something else, but I am not going to say evil - I am going to say desparate.

Look at that Holdon, I defended the people who I believe are involved.:doh:

But I do feel this way.

 

[BBB167893]

Look at that Holdon, I defended the people who I believe are involved.:doh:

Hard to believe, isn't it? Speaking for myself, I was shocked when I started doing it. (But my mother didn't believe in grudges.)

 

[JMO8778]

I'd like to see PHONE RECORDS.

the records would be interesting,if any do indeed still exist.it appears someone was paid to make them 'go away'.whether there are copies of them,or if the person that did it still recalls who was called on them,remains to be seen.it wouldn't surprise me in the future if someone spoke up,when and if the threat of a lawsuit is no longer an issue.
I do think the records disappeared because of calls made prior to the 911 call.Those would have been the ones that said it all...who all was involved in the cover-up.

On that note,in the R's book,Patsy expressed some concern about possible listening devices being placed in their room at the Stine's.Not that any were found for sure,but she made comment about 'if anything was heard,it was just the white noise machine SS had placed in their room'.Uh-huh...
And then there is SS searching the web every day...she was clearly looking to see what might have been said about them! ..and you have to wonder why that was so..

 

[redheadedgal]

Great idea, of course, but he'll never be allowed to talk to police... Because he was under 10 at the time, under Colorado law, he can't be charged (even today) even if he did commit the crime.

ok - i have a question about burke and please forgive if it seems stupid, but isn't it a crime in the US to knowingly withhold telling the police what you know about a crime if you have knowledge of a crime? and if so, couldn't burke be charged now as an adult for not coming forward and telling police what he knows about JB's death? could this not be used as an "incentive" to get him to talk? (b/c he HAS to know now or have a good theory about what happened that night if his parents were involved, right?)

 

[JMO8778]

I think it's based on the age at the time of the crime.And he was a minor,so no,I'm sure there is nothing he can be charged with now.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it's based on the age at the time of the crime.And he was a minor,so no,I'm sure there is nothing he can be charged with now.

Even so, I think the statute has run out by now.

 

[lawlady84]

Speaking of the staging and the assault, it is pretty bad and that is what is really shocking about the case. But when one considers that there was prior sexual abuse going on in this house, then the sexual assault fits right in. It is horrible and too shocking for some to digest, but there is no doubt that this assault was staged. So why, to cover up prior abuse? If so, thlen the staging is believable - because anyone who could have sex with a child is capable of staging an assault. It goes right along with all the evidence.

Snipped, bold by me. I haven't read as much as most here on this case, but is it a fact there was sexual abuse? Or your opinion? Thanks!

 

[BBB167893]

Snipped, bold by me. I haven't read as much as most here on this case, but is it a fact there was sexual abuse? Or your opinion? Thanks!

I'm sad to say there is truth to it. And I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it. It was never that well-known to begin with, and LW spends a lot of time making sure no one mentions it. But the autopsy report listed "chronic inflammation," "epithelial erosion," and a hymen that had been stretched over twice as large as a six-year-old should have. Moreover, eight physicians agreed, independently, that JBR was the victim of molestation for a period of anywhere from three days to six weeks. (Some go higher than that!)

Whether or not that is conclusive is a matter of opinion, apparently.

 

[DeeDee249]

ok - i have a question about burke and please forgive if it seems stupid, but isn't it a crime in the US to knowingly withhold telling the police what you know about a crime if you have knowledge of a crime? and if so, couldn't burke be charged now as an adult for not coming forward and telling police what he knows about JB's death? could this not be used as an "incentive" to get him to talk? (b/c he HAS to know now or have a good theory about what happened that night if his parents were involved, right?)

Under Colorado law, he can't be charged with ANY crime that was committed while he was under 10. BR was never allowed to be thoroughly questioned. He may not have lied to police- he just didn't tell them anything. A person can't be compelled to testify about a crime that no one can prove he was a witness to. He has never said he knows what happened, so he can't be forced to tell police anything. Whether police (or anyone else) thinks or knows that he knows what happened doesn't enter in to it. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks.
It is NOT illegal to withhold information about a crime, because you can't be forced to admit to knowing about that crime. If you are KNOWN to be a witness, you still can't be compelled to answer questions. Your lawyers can prevent you from answering, or you can invoke your 5th Amendment privilege. The only time you can be compelled to answer (and not allowed to have your lawyer present) is in front of a Grand Jury.
It is illegal to lie to police about the whereabouts of a person accused of a crime, if it can be proved you knew where they were when you were asked. (like when the perp is in your house and police come to the door and you tell them the perp is not there.). This really isn't the same thing as what you mean with BR.