sandover's point has been made over and over again, I reckon it has some validity. So we have to ask why would the R's be concerned if he was present when they were arrested. Could he not be sent to his bedroom whilst they were escorted away?
This gave me a stray idea... anyone find it odd that Burke wanted to put together a toy when they all got home from the Whites? It would seem to me most 9 year old boys would want to play the Nintendo they got. If indeed Burke was coached about what to say about that night -- if there was a pineapple snack, Nintendo playing etc -- one of the details the Ramseys might have added is that Burke was putting together his model garage or whatever it was (years later JR would misremember exactly what toy they were putting together).
A minor point but any little speculation can help spur creative juices
Sure, I do. Thinking back to when I was that age, building toys late at night, would be low on my to do list.
Did you check the autopsy photos? JonBenet has two ponytails held up by hair-ties of different colors?
Many things might explain the nightgown but static cling is a pretty weak argument, since the white blanket had to be folded then wrapped papoose style around JonBenet , it would have been seen. The nightgown is likely prior crime-scene evidence.
Coroner Meyer cites sexual contact which is definitive coming from a pathologist, so someone abused JonBenet before killing her, absence of semen does not deny the abuse argument. Since Coroner Meyer also cited digital penetration which might be consistent with the corporal punishment theory, it still does not explain away either the acute or chronic sexual abuse!
Because the hair-ties, the sexual abuse, corporal punishment, breakfast bar artifacts, and the size-12's all point to JonBenet being awake after returning from the White's!
Here you go:http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm
I do not know. I am simply reporting the evidence as recieved. It is possible that both are true, since Coroner Meyers remarks can be interpreted in a non inclusive sense. That is there was a sexual assault and a non sexual assault.
By inside job, I mean it was one of the Rs, not an intruder.
Repetition of a point doesn't make it valid. If you reckon it's valid, that's fine. My reckoning is that even if it had been an actual intruder kidnapping, BR was only going to the neighbors, while the neighborhood was filled with cop cars. The Rs would pick him up from the Whites when the cops were finished -if they weren't arrested. There was no danger to Burke at all.
It could have been done, but would it have been done ? If they expected to be arrested some arrangement for someone to take care of BR would have to be made. This way BR is safe with trusted friends.
Possibly for the reasons I've already suggested. Also they weren't really denying LE the opportunity to talk to BR. LE could go to the Whites and say they want to ask the boy a few questions. Whether or not the Whites would permit BR to be questioned is another matter. The Rs would have the same rights with BR at home - refusal to allow him to be questioned w/o a lawyer present.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I thinks it's RDI, and very unlikely to be BDI.
The problem here is that both parents have to have a motive to cover up a crime by a 9 year old who cannot be prosecuted for the crime due to his age. People keep asking what "normal" behavior is under the circumstances of this case. "Normal" behavior when your 9 year old kills your 6 year old is to call the police, a lawyer, and then get the 9 year old the mental help he so obviously needs. "Normal" isn't writing a fake RN and putting the body in the wine closet.
One explanation is that this was their first murder. They didn't know how to stage a crime scene (or did they? Given that they've gotten away with it) Another explanation is that they were both involved in the cover up, and both assuming the other had seen to things. It takes almost as long to check on someone else as it does to just do it yourself. They needed a division of labor, but this was all new and the adrenalin was flowing, and they just couldn't calmly go through a detailed checklist.
It might explain the prosecutor, though there are other explanations for that too. The police seem to have settled early in the case on some form of RDI theory. The FBI/CASKU seem also to have formed an RDI theory.
During other questioning, the Rs usually developed amnesia with regard to unpleasant questions. They didn't usually offer answers that could be verified -one way or the other. So, it makes us wonder why PR said the 12s were in the drawer when she knows the drawers have already been searched, and she knows the detectives already know what was/was not found. One explanation is the PR is telling the truth - to the extent she knows the truth. IOWs, PR actually believed the 12s were in the drawer because a co-conspirator had told her he'd put them in the drawer, OR, the co-conspirator removed them from the drawer and either forgot to tell her, or deliberately did not tell her they'd been removed.
Sure, that was intended irony.
BDI explains more of the evidence, JDI and PDI individually explain less and offer more contradictions.
The order of events should not deter us from revealing whomever we think is suspect.
Now this assumption is invalid, not only antemortem, but also perimortem. It is a fallacy that assists in a few RDI theories, particulary JDI.
Sure, but investigation rule #1 is do not make excuses for your suspects, since it is simply your own reasoning you are admonishing. Although not everything can be checked, the R's would know what was important, and facts that contradict their own version of events are paramount. This could even be done long after the 911 call, e.g. explaining away the size-12's at interview. Patsy should have known about the hair-ties, it is alleged she asphyxiated JonBenet, same applies wrt the size-12's, or the breakfast bar, did John or Patsy know JonBenet had snacked pineapple?
Its either a state sanctioned conspiracy, abeit entirely legal, or an informal conspiracy involving corporate style favors etc. In the socialist republic of Boulder, where they practise Integral Life Practise, smoke the tobacco with the funny odour, hold those dinner parties that involve fancy dress, anything is possible.
Went right over my head. I'm not suggesting it should.
Stated as a fact, you are right, the assumption is invalid. I should have stated it as a probability. Within a BDI scenario, where the parents arrive on the scene after the killing, it is very likely that BR would have had to do both the bashing and the strangling, regardless of what order.
I thought what I said was more in the nature of explanation than excuse. You wanted to know why so many loose ends were left. I think a plausible explanation is that most first time murderers probably leave loose ends. The Rs wouldn't necessarily know what's important - for example, if they were unaware that JB had some pineapple, then they were unaware that it would create a hole in their story.
I don't think it suggests they arrived late on the scene at all. I think it suggests they couldn't coordinate their actions well. This might have been due to lack of knowledge (e.g. they didn't know JBR snacked on pineapple and so didn't know they needed to tie up that loose end)
I'm not suggesting it should.
Stated as a fact, you are right, the assumption is invalid. I should have stated it as a probability. Within a BDI scenario, where the parents arrive on the scene after the killing, it is very likely that BR would have had to do both the bashing and the strangling, regardless of what order.
If you want to entertain theories of BR doing the initial bash/strangle and one (or both) parents doing the secondary strangle/bash, then very little time elapsed between discovery of what BR did and a mutual agreement to engage in a cover-up part of which includes the secondary bash/strangle. This seems an unlikely scenario to me. First because both parents must quickly come to an agreement to obstruct justice when it is unnecessary to protect BR, and when it is not apparent that both have an ulterior motive for hiding evidence of prior behavior. Second because the "NORMAL" parental reaction would be to call an ambulance. If one parent did not have an immediate need to cover up prior acts then I'd expect an immediate ambulance call, by that parent. There doesn't seem to be enough time elapsed between what Burke did (under a BDI scenario) and the mutual decision to engage in a cover up.
Of course, it's possible only one parent initially discovered the BDI situation, then administered the secondary injury, then involved the 2nd parent. But then we are left with the question why does the 2nd parent agree to cover up for the first? It's clear there is no reason to cover for Burke - he can't be prosecuted.
I thought what I said was more in the nature of explanation than excuse. You wanted to know why so many loose ends were left. I think a plausible explanation is that most first time murderers probably leave loose ends. The Rs wouldn't necessarily know what's important - for example, if they were unaware that JB had some pineapple, then they were unaware that it would create a hole in their story.
I don't think it suggests they arrived late on the scene at all. I think it suggests they couldn't coordinate their actions well. This might have been due to lack of knowledge (e.g. they didn't know JBR snacked on pineapple and so didn't know they needed to tie up that loose end)
I don't see why staging negates the "novices" theory to explain loose ends. It seems to me it fits very well with why the staging was done poorly (or was it?) and why "deal breaker" details were overlooked.
On TV all the murders are very nearly perfect - there is only one tiny detail for Columbo to catch -the wrong cigarette butt, the dead man's shoes tied left-handed when the dead man was right handed, etc. In real life there will be several loose ends.
And therein lies the focus on the fallacy.
Sure but the object of the exercise is not to identify loose ends, we all expect those, but to find contradictions in the staging logic, e.g. size-12's. A fictional example of this can be found in Columbo's Murder With Too Many Notes which is a staged homicide, where the prime suspect is played by Billy Connolly so appeared a little surreal to me.
Here is another way to consider it: To effect the staging someone decided to redress JonBenet in the size-12's, now whatever the merits of this is, it was hidden, buried beneath the longjohns. Now contrast that detail with her hair-ties, left in full view. Although you can suggest oh they just missed them, its a loose end, is it not a curious one, given JonBenet also has a head injury? Also you would think if the R's knew what occurred when they arrived back from the White's, e.g. if JonBenet had a pineapple snack, then direct evidence of this could be removed.
