Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[BlueCrab]

If you are talking about the Stine's son - his name only appears once but (I think) in all the other page numbers the text refers to the Stines. I noticed his father has identical page numbers plus 3 more. The pages listed for Glenn also don't always refer to him by name. Same is true for Susan but she (like Glenn) has 7 additional pages listed.

tipper,

The purging of full names is made easier by changing the full names of each individual to just the surname to include the whole family, and that's exactly what appears they did.

By contrast, compare Burke's name in the index. Everytime his name appears in the index his name appears in the text, as it should.

Why didn't PMPT follow parallel construction when listing the two different names?

BlueCrab

 

[asdasd]

Jayelles,

It was the timing. Schiller had his book, "Perfect Murder Perfect Town", ready for the presses and was waiting in late 1999 for the Ramsey grand jury to finally adjourn so he could include the jury's decision (who was indicted, etc.).

When the GJ finally adjourned on October 13, 1999, after investigating for 13 months, it surprised almost everyone by not indicting anyone in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. IMO, the reason there were no indictments was because children too young to prosecute were involved. And not only that, but under the Colorado Chidren's Code, the names of the children would had to have been kept strictly confidential.

Schiller, who had access to all of the police reports, knew what was going on and was coerced by Boulder authorities (he admits it in his book) to cooperate in what amounts to a government endorsed coverup of the truth. This led to scrambling by Schiller and his publisher to delete certain names and references, which they did.

However, that left a big red flag waving in the air -- people who had been a part of the daily lives of the Ramseys were now not even mentioned in Schiller's book. The purging of one person's name, however, was apparently botched. His name appears only once in the text, but his name appears nine times in the book's name index. The other person's name wasn't mentioned at all in PMPT, despite his membership in what could be considered a scary small foreign faction on campus and his daily personal access to Burke and JonBenet.

Therefore, I released his name and background on the internet a couple of years ago because, IMO, the public had a right to know. Both of these gentlemen may be perfectly innocent, as asdasd says, but I don't agree with the coverup of the names. Why are only THEIR names kept confidential?

BlueCrab

Why indeed no one who is innocent of the crime should of had to be subjected to being in that awful book or any other book about the case. Personally I find it to be one of the most despicable things I ever saw when I read the information that you feel the public has a right to know about two innocent people.

Would you like information to be released about you or those you love for no reason other than to blacken their good name and cause their families distress. This is not an attack directly aimed at you BC or this site because they no longer allow the mentioning of specific names but an attack on all especially the tabloids who decided that pointing fingers at the defenseless innocent is a good way to make a buck or get your name "strung up in lights".

 

[BlueCrab]

Why indeed no one who is innocent of the crime should of had to be subjected to being in that awful book or any other book about the case. Personally I find it to be one of the most despicable things I ever saw when I read the information that you feel the public has a right to know about two innocent people.

Would you like information to be released about you or those you love for no reason other than to blacken their good name and cause their families distress. This is not an attack directly aimed at you BC or this site because they no longer allow the mentioning of specific names but an attack on all especially the tabloids who decided that pointing fingers at the defenseless innocent is a good way to make a buck or get your name "strung up in lights".

asdasd,

When the murder is a who-done-it, as this one is, then a lot of innocent people have to be investigated and discussed. The process of elimination is a basic technique. How else can it be done?

 

[tipper]

tipper,

The purging of full names is made easier by changing the full names of each individual to just the surname to include the whole family, and that's exactly what appears they did.

By contrast, compare Burke's name in the index. Everytime his name appears in the index his name appears in the text, as it should.

Why didn't PMPT follow parallel construction when listing the two different names?

BlueCrab

I think I asked before but Did you ever write Schiller and ask him about the index etc?

 

[asdasd]

asdasd,

When the murder is a who-done-it, as this one is, then a lot of innocent people have to be investigated and discussed. The process of elimination is a basic technique. How else can it be done?

By not metioning people with so little evidence that the only thing you can cite is a lack of the name being in a book that in my opinion is an unimportant book with a great deal of fallicies filling its pages. (When an error can be found before one finishes the first three pages, the entire book must be questioned.)

(The error is that JonBenet did not attend a private school some may feel this is minor but Schillier uses this fact to make a point and that I feel is inexcusesable.)

 

[Jayelles]

By not metioning people with so little evidence that the only thing you can cite is a lack of the name being in a in my opinion an unimportant book with a great deal of fallicies filling its pages. (When an error can be found before one finishes the first three pages, the entire book must be questioned.)

(The error is that JonBenet did not attend a private school some may feel this is minor but Schillier uses this fact to make a point and that I feel is inexcusesable.)

I've had a quick look at my paperback copy of PMPT and I can't find the reference about Jonbenet going to a private school - however, it has been reported that she attended a Montessori nursery school. Is this incorrect?

http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/26-2.html

Aren't Montessori schools private/fee-paying? I know my cousin paid fees for her children to attend Montessori school.

 

[Jayelles]

tipper,

The purging of full names is made easier by changing the full names of each individual to just the surname to include the whole family, and that's exactly what appears they did.

By contrast, compare Burke's name in the index. Everytime his name appears in the index his name appears in the text, as it should.

Why didn't PMPT follow parallel construction when listing the two different names?

BlueCrab

Yes, but there is a difference between "purging" (which has suspicious connotations) and perhaps "downgrading" a reference because there's nothing noteworthy about the person to write about!

I really do feel that if Schiller had found out something about your suspects, he would have given us the biggest hint he could have - whilst stayig within the bounds of the law.

I also think the police would have closed the case.

 

[Jayelles]

Why indeed no one who is innocent of the crime should of had to be subjected to being in that awful book or any other book about the case. Personally I find it to be one of the most despicable things I ever saw when I read the information that you feel the public has a right to know about two innocent people.

Would you like information to be released about you or those you love for no reason other than to blacken their good name and cause their families distress. This is not an attack directly aimed at you BC or this site because they no longer allow the mentioning of specific names but an attack on all especially the tabloids who decided that pointing fingers at the defenseless innocent is a good way to make a buck or get your name "strung up in lights".

Like many others, I am most uncomfortable with BC's theory. BC has singlehandedly brought up his grandchildren and he clearly adores them. I'm sure he would hate it if he found out that someone was posting dreadful accusations against one of his grandchildren on the Internet.

I've often wondered if Burke has suffered at school as a result of people reading the forums. I find that heart-breaking. I feel so sorry for Burke.

 

[narlacat]

Alot of us feel sorry for Burke, but that hasn't stopped us talking about him on these forums. We have no control over what Burkes hears or reads or finds out.

Burke is obviously doing ok. He has managed to keep a handle on life....in his own words when a child...."I'm getting on with my life". To me it looks like he has. He is a healthy good looking 18 yr old on his way to obtaining a university degree, undergoing a healthy relationship with a girl for the last few years.
He appears quite normal and at ease.
He must have a strong sense of self, to remain so unaffected despite having a nightmare of a childhood.
What he had to deal with after the untimely death of his sister, noone should have to go through. Just dealing with her death alone would have been a very traumatic experience. Experiencing death as a child is hard, let alone dealing with what happened to JonBenet.
Someone with less strength of character would have turned to drugs and or alcohol. I see no signs of drug abuse or alcoholism and I give Burke credit for staying strong.

 

[Tricia]

I've had a quick look at my paperback copy of PMPT and I can't find the reference about Jonbenet going to a private school - however, it has been reported that she attended a Montessori nursery school. Is this incorrect?

http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/26-2.html

Aren't Montessori schools private/fee-paying? I know my cousin paid fees for her children to attend Montessori school.

Yes. Montessori schools are private/fee-paying and very expensive to boot.

Montessori schools teach great things like environmental responsibility, animal kindness, food drives for the poor, and many things that would be considered very "liberal."

I am glad to hear JBR went to a Montessori school. The school would never focus on what someone looked like in a gown. The school would focus on important and life involving things. Certainly just the opposite of a Beauty Pageant.

 

[why_nutt]

I've had a quick look at my paperback copy of PMPT and I can't find the reference about Jonbenet going to a private school - however, it has been reported that she attended a Montessori nursery school. Is this incorrect?

http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/26-2.html

Aren't Montessori schools private/fee-paying? I know my cousin paid fees for her children to attend Montessori school.

The reference in the article was somewhat incorrect. JonBenet did go to the combo school of Martin Park and High Peaks. But they were not Montessori schools, they were Core Knowledge schools. There is a difference in that the Core Knowledge classes emphasize specific accomplishments, while the Montessori method is more freeform and less focused on getting a specific set of lessons learned in a specific period of time.

 

[Jayelles]

The reference in the article was somewhat incorrect. JonBenet did go to the combo school of Martin Park and High Peaks. But they were not Montessori schools, they were Core Knowledge schools. There is a difference in that the Core Knowledge classes emphasize specific accomplishments, while the Montessori method is more freeform and less focused on getting a specific set of lessons learned in a specific period of time.

In this case, it's a simple enough error to assume that Jonbenet went to a private school if the name Montessori were used.

I found a website which explained that there are Montessori schools - which are private and public schools which follow a Montessori-styled programme.

It's not a huge error by Schiller. I daresay there are other errors in his book, but I think it's a fairly accurate account on the whole and certainly the least biased of the books.

 

[BlueCrab]

I'd be more inclined to think that if Schiller removed all traces of certain individuals from his book, it would be because he knew they weren't involved and was doing the decent thing in protecting their privacy.

If there was a bombshell ... Schiller would have found some way to expose it.

Jayelles,

Schiller wouldn't have exposed it if in doing so he was violating the Colorado Children's Code and the court gag order that shields the identity of children involved in a major crime. Schiller would have been charged with contempt of court -- a criminal offense.

 

[asdasd]

Jayelles,

Schiller wouldn't have exposed it if in doing so he was violating the Colorado Children's Code and the court gag order that shields the identity of children involved in a major crime. Schiller would have been charged with contempt of court -- a criminal offense.

Can you link to the Colorado Children's Code please I'm almost positive that the CCC does not apply the way you think it does. In fact doing a google search on the subject turns up nothing at all about protecting children's idenities, the goal of the CCC seems to be to put children accused of violent crimes into better rehabilitation centers.

 

[capps]

I just finished watching local news. The newscaster was talking about a crime that has dominated the local news for a few months,he ended the story with: "...the suspect has been taken into custody,but the name cannot be released because of age." I probably won't hear much more of this story ... because obviously they cannot divulge much more.So ... case is "closed",without the newscaster officially saying the case is closed.

Of course I thought of BC's theory. If BlueCrab is correct ...why couldn't the same thing be said in the Ramsey case?

 

[Eagle1]

Probably the difference in the two cases is that the too-young suspect isn't known in that case, but in the Ramsey case if they said they couldn't divulge anything because of the age of the suspect, everyone would know Burke was meant. Just a guess.

 

[capps]

Probably the difference in the two cases is that the too-young suspect isn't known in that case, but in the Ramsey case if they said they couldn't divulge anything because of the age of the suspect, everyone would know Burke was meant. Just a guess.

Eagle1,

That's a good guess. At first I also felt the same.But the more I thought about it,it just didn't make sense ... because the results would be the same.

Because of the local coverage of this case,the whole city now has a good idea of who it is,and definitely,the surrounding neighborhood,friends,relatives,etc.,know who it is.But legally,that newscaster did not break the law ... and the city can now sleep a little better,knowing there isn't a killer roaming their streets, or wondering if it's that (innocent) person who lives down the street. Smart move.

It would be the same in the Ramsey case ...in fact,not everyone would automatically think it's BR .... some might think it's DS.

 

[asdasd]

Eagle1,

That's a good guess. At first I also felt the same.But the more I thought about it,it just didn't make sense ... because the results would be the same.

Because of the local coverage of this case,the whole city now has a good idea of who it is,and definitely,the surrounding neighborhood,friends,relatives,etc.,know who it is.But legally,that newscaster did not break the law ... and the city can now sleep a little better,knowing there isn't a killer roaming their streets, or wondering if it's that (innocent) person who lives down the street. Smart move.

It would be the same in the Ramsey case ...in fact,not everyone would automatically think it's BR .... some might think it's DS.

My point was they were protecting them because they were too young at conviction. The age the crime was committed at is not relevent in most cases. In most cases where it has been relevent the perp was caught very soon after the crime the grand jury would have been able to release names of all those mentioned if they had inditied them.

 

[capps]

Quote from asdasd:
The age the crime was committed at is not relevent in most cases.

I disagree.

Furthermore ... I don't know what "point" of yours, you're referring to. My post was not about your "point",it was referring to a discussion we had concerning BlueCrab's theory,and why the concealed identities of the perps in the Ramsey case,could not be handled,in the same way the local newscaster handled it.

 

[BlueCrab]

Probably the difference in the two cases is that the too-young suspect isn't known in that case, but in the Ramsey case if they said they couldn't divulge anything because of the age of the suspect, everyone would know Burke was meant. Just a guess.

Eagle1,

Exactly. The only thing the Boulder authorities can do is what they are doing. The case is sealed forever and they can legally lie to prevent the juvenile from being publicly identified.

Included in the Colorado Children's Code is the following:

"Persons who have had their juvenile records sealed may lawfully and properly reply that no such records exists. However, the record is still available to the district attorney, law enforcement, the courts, and the department of human services. Government agencies cannot show the records to anyone without an order from the court."

BlueCrab