The Missing Period (.)

Very good, K777angel! Seeing your points laid out like that really brings it home just how suspicious the R/S relationship was.

Maybe I've missed something, but why was Doug Stine called to testify before the grand jury? In his testimony he revealed (and so did Burke) that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes, but why was Doug was called to testify in the first place?

IMO
 
K777angel said:
even stranger yet is the fact that John Ramsey did not even consider the Stines close friends of theirs!! (His deposition) And yet there is this immediate "bond" after the murder. Why?
Let's imagine for a moment that they did pickup Doug Stine and returned home with he and Burke so they could play for a couple hours. Now if Doug and Burke caused JonBenet's death, how did Doug get home? How did the Ramseys inform the Stines what was going on?
 
Shylock, I've been wondering that too. Maybe the Ramseys call to the Stines was documented on the expunged phone records. And maybe the Rs didn't call the Stines to come over when they summoned their other friends because both the Stines and the Ramseys thought it best to distance the Stines from what had happened to JonBenet.

The Stines could have picked Doug up on the corner or something instead of going to the Ramseys to get him. Or Doug could have walked, though I doubt he would have. In any event, I am sure that if Doug was there that night and had something to do with JonBenet's death, the Ramseys would have somehow notified the Stines about it and arranged for Doug to go home, pronto.

IMO
 
So, what do you BDI with DS theorists make of the fact that by Jan 8, 1997, Burke was back in school and Doug Stine had already returned to school. Doncha think it's odd that neither parent would worry that their 9 year old son might let something slip that shouldn't slip?
 
I'll tell you what I do find odd though, Susan Stine was never interviewed for PMPT. Even Nedra is quoted in PMPT, but the person with whom the Rams took sanctuary was not interviewed? Wonder why?
 
Hi, twi. I believe both boys would've been thoroughly coached by that time. At school, Burke Watch was in place, which would have ensured that no one asked Burke any questions or made any remarks about JonBenet's death. The "web of pretection" not only guarded Burke from reporters and the small foreign faction (lol), it protected him from everyone else too, including kids with questions. Parents and teachers alike would have already instructed the kids not to mention JonBenet's death to Burke, except to perhaps offer condolences on the death of his sister. The same instructions would likely have been given previously about approaching Doug Stine with questions about his best friend's sister's death.

IMO
 
Where do you think SS was coming from with the emails? Remember...

"Police determined that Stine had been accessing the [email protected] address through an Internet provider in Georgia.

One e-mail signed "Mark" was purportedly from Beckner to former Detective Steve Thomas: "Steve, I know we've had our differences in the past, but I want you to know I'm behind you all the way in this B.S. lawsuit the Ramseys filed, as are others here. I'm sure (Ramsey attorney Lin) Wood is bluffing. . . . Call me and let me know what I can do to help. Remember: truth is on our side. (Signed) Mark."

Thomas' response: "Thanks for the message, (and nice try), but Beckner doesn't sound anything like that."

"At this point, we've decided not to file charges," Beckner said. "That doesn't preclude us from doing so in the future."

Stine said she had already sent Beckner an apology - by e-mail, of course.

"Sure, I knew they were traceable," she said of the e-mails. "It was just a joke. I'm a very funny person."
 
Lance55 said:
Hass anyone ever looked at how someone who learned English as a second language might have left clues?

Of special interest would be signs of Arabic as a first language?

That's been discussed. For one thing you have the one dollar sign that looks like a pound sign was written first, and then changed to a dollar sign. If you look in a dictionary, it lists countries that use the pound sign (ie: Egypt)

Some have mentioned the word attache' sounding more like a word a foreigner would use.....others have mentioned the note sounding too proper--like something a foreigner with English as a second language would come up with. On the other hand, I put suitcase in a thesaursus link, and attache' came up.

Then you have the movie lines---would someone that spoke with a heavy accent copy movie lines to show they knew more English then they really did? At one time, many foreigners viewing John Wayne movies really thought that was what the US was like.

There are some countries where kidnapping is big business, like Mexico...and the families pay--many times they don't involve the police, because for one thing, in some cases they're in on it. So the families pay and get the family member back. Someone of foreign descent may not have known it doesn't work that way in the US. That if they don't ask for at least a million dollars, even the FBI will think the note is bogus.

Wouldn't it be something if after all these years, the perp is part of a small foreign faction? Not an organized terrorist group---but a foreigner that thought he could get some fast cash by writing a scary-sounding letter.

There is an analysis I found one time on the internet, of the note based on someone that had English as a second language---I don't recall anything about it, though.
 
twilight said:
So, what do you BDI with DS theorists make of the fact that by Jan 8, 1997, Burke was back in school and Doug Stine had already returned to school. Doncha think it's odd that neither parent would worry that their 9 year old son might let something slip that shouldn't slip?
Yes, that is odd. Almost as odd as neither parent worrying that their child might be killed by a member of the S.B.T.C. with a sniper rifle. Neither Patsy or Susan Stine even bothered to ask the BPD how they planned on protecting the kids.
Doesn't sound like they had anything to be scared of, does it...
 
There are no "expunged" phone records.

The BPD did not spend millions of dollars to pretend someone besides Burke killed and molested JonBenét. The FBI and Boulder DA did not conspire with the BPD to pretend that someone else did it while "knowing" that Burke did it. The parents were not pursued as suspects in order to throw suspicion off Burke and/or his peer friends.

Burke was not ever a viable suspect, and his 10 year old friend Doug Stine as a suspect is merely a few posters (if even a few is an accurate protrayal) using vivid but factually unsupported imaginations. It's ludicrous.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
Burke was not ever a viable suspect

If Burke was never a viable suspect, then why were the police asking Patsy if perhaps Burke killed his sister by accident? The simple fact that they asked that question showed they at one time or another considered Burke a suspect.

Your opinion does not agree with the facts in this case, LovelyPigeon.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
Burke was not ever a viable suspect


Shylock and others, please don't get sucked in on the tricky "suspect" word game the Ramseys are promoting. Technically, NO ONE has ever been a viable suspect in the case according to the D.A. and the BPD. It's a devious word game to protect Burke. LP is continuing the fraud that Alex Hunter, Lin Wood, and the Ramseys have been using to try to make Burke look as though he's been cleared when he hasn't.

No one of authority (the Boulder D.A., the Boulder police, or the Boulder courts) has ever put it in writing that Burke was cleared in the death of JonBenet. They can't because they know better.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
No one of authority (the Boulder D.A., the Boulder police, or the Boulder courts) has ever put it in writing that Burke was cleared in the death of JonBenet. They can't because they know better.

BlueCrab,
I don't believe that there is any type of legal cover-up because Burke was not culpable. From comments Steve Thomas made in chat it was obvious that he had a mindset that whoever the perp was, he (or she) committed an all-inclusive crime from start to finish. Burke didn't fit that bill, so he was given a pass.
This was the mentality of the entire Boulder LE authority. None of them could get past a basic 2+2=4 and consider that Burke could have begun the event which his parents had to finish to keep him from being the poster child for "Murder by Incest".
 
Shylock said:
BlueCrab,
I don't believe that there is any type of legal cover-up because Burke was not culpable. From comments Steve Thomas made in chat it was obvious that he had a mindset that whoever the perp was, he (or she) committed an all-inclusive crime from start to finish. Burke didn't fit that bill, so he was given a pass.
This was the mentality of the entire Boulder LE authority. None of them could get past a basic 2+2=4 and consider that Burke could have begun the event which his parents had to finish to keep him from being the poster child for "Murder by Incest".


I agree with most of which you say Shylock. My concern is that the investigators, after realizing after the GJ findings that Burke was involved and couldn't be prosecuted, dropped the active investigation -- which let an accomplice 18 years of age or older to slip between the cracks unnoticed.

IOW, the authorities may think that, since unprosecutable kids were involved, the crime is solved, but perhaps only a part of it is solved. Perhaps a culpable person over 18 was also involved and that person is walking the streets.

JMO
 
Shylock, I think Patsy was asked that as part of interrogation technique. BPD hoped to "catch" Patsy, and one way to do that would be to imply that Burke might have done it.

If Patsy could be drawn into defending Burke she might "tell on" herself with her choice of words, description of the crime, etc

Same approach might be useful for BPD by hinting about or accusing John.

Always keep in mind that police are not required to speak the truth when interrogating or interviewing. Sometimes interrogators' untruths produce more information that truths.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
Shylock, I think Patsy was asked that as part of interrogation technique. BPD hoped to "catch" Patsy, and one way to do that would be to imply that Burke might have done it.

If Patsy could be drawn into defending Burke she might "tell on" herself with her choice of words, description of the crime, etc

Same approach might be useful for BPD by hinting about or accusing John.

Always keep in mind that police are not required to speak the truth when interrogating or interviewing. Sometimes interrogators' untruths produce more information that truths.

AND sometimes they may really be asking about Burke or John. We just don't know do we?

Remember Susan Smith.

I have asked this question many times, and have never received a single answer. If you would, I would be very curious to know your opinion LP

The experts agree: Had Susan Smith gotten an attorney, she would be a free woman today. They would not have allowed her to speak to the police and therefore, the police could not have "tricked" her (police admit tricking her) into confessing. Every lawyer on every talking heads show both prosecutors and defense attorneys agree on the above (she would be a free woman today)

My question: Should Susan Smith have had a lawyer? I would be interested in knowing your opinion LP as well as others
 
I hate it when people answer a question with a question.

But I wonder what happened to the idea that it was better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict an innocent person? It’s a scary possibility when some of the crimes today are so horrific. But if we casually convict people on flimsy evidence then we increase the odds that the actual dangerous person is still out walking around. Things like hair evidence, eyewitness testimony, and jailhouse confessions are more and more being shown to be highly unreliable. When police are allowed to lie about evidence and request that suspects speculate about the mythical evidence and they then present that speculation as some kind of proof of involvement in a crime I think we get into dangerous territory. I'm afraid that while we trapped a guilty Susan Smith we also snare people like the following:

Should Robert Miller have had an attorney present whenever he talked with police?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=141


In 1987 in Oklahoma, Robert Miller, a regular drug user, suggested to the police that he had some kind of psychic link to a murderer who had raped and killed a number of elderly women. In the twelve hours of interview that followed, Miller, prompted by police, gave a hit-and-miss account of the crime as seen through his "visions". Miller was convicted of the murders and sentenced to death. In 1991 and 1993, DNA tests proved that Miller could not have been the rapist. Despite this and the fact that another man had been arrested and convicted of almost identical rapes in the same neighborhood, Miller was not freed until 1998.



Or Walter Snyder:

[url]http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=444&issue_id=89[/url]

In 1986, nineteen year-old Walter Snyder was wrongly convicted of raping a neighbor in Alexandria, VA.1 The evidence consisted almost exclusively of the victim’s testimony identifying Snyder as the rapist. However, the police handled the identification using procedures that have repeatedly been associated with witness misidentification.


 
Susan Smith could have obtained a lawyer any time she wanted one. Does that suffice as an answer? ;)

Do I think that Susan Smith wouldn't have been found out as the killer of her children if she had obtained a lawyer prior to talking to police? No, I don't.

Smith had a history of emotional instablity, of mental problems, of attempted suicides, of incest forced upon her, of incest continued by her choice into adulthood...her story of car jacking did not add up, was unsupported when examined closely. With or without a lawyer, Smith would have been found out.

Was she entitled to a lawyer? Yes. Should she have insisted on a lawyer before talking to police? Yes. Would it have helped her get away with murder if she'd obtained one before an interviews? No, I don't think so.
 
tipper said:
I hate it when people answer a question with a question.

But I wonder what happened to the idea that it was better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict an innocent person? It’s a scary possibility when some of the crimes today are so horrific. But if we casually convict people on flimsy evidence then we increase the odds that the actual dangerous person is still out walking around. Things like hair evidence, eyewitness testimony, and jailhouse confessions are more and more being shown to be highly unreliable. When police are allowed to lie about evidence and request that suspects speculate about the mythical evidence and they then present that speculation as some kind of proof of involvement in a crime I think we get into dangerous territory. I'm afraid that while we trapped a guilty Susan Smith we also snare people like the following:

Should Robert Miller have had an attorney present whenever he talked with police?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=141


In 1987 in Oklahoma, Robert Miller, a regular drug user, suggested to the police that he had some kind of psychic link to a murderer who had raped and killed a number of elderly women. In the twelve hours of interview that followed, Miller, prompted by police, gave a hit-and-miss account of the crime as seen through his "visions". Miller was convicted of the murders and sentenced to death. In 1991 and 1993, DNA tests proved that Miller could not have been the rapist. Despite this and the fact that another man had been arrested and convicted of almost identical rapes in the same neighborhood, Miller was not freed until 1998.



Or Walter Snyder:

[url]http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=444&issue_id=89[/url]

In 1986, nineteen year-old Walter Snyder was wrongly convicted of raping a neighbor in Alexandria, VA.1 The evidence consisted almost exclusively of the victim’s testimony identifying Snyder as the rapist. However, the police handled the identification using procedures that have repeatedly been associated with witness misidentification.




What happened to the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict an innocent person? Nothing, in my opinion. I still believe that.

As far as Susan Smith, I wasn't answering a question with a question. I wasn't asked anything.

That's why I was curious to see who would answer about Susan Smith. I believe that had she had a lawyer she would have been a free woman today. Do I think she should have had a lawyer? YES. Do I think she would have been caught anyway? NO. I just have the guts to say it.

Personally, I'm glad she didn't.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
541
Total visitors
624

Forum statistics

Threads
627,040
Messages
18,536,873
Members
241,171
Latest member
Tr0j4n
Back
Top