Would We Be Willing To Change Our Theories?

[BlueCrab]

I understand what you're saying BC.
But if one of your general BDI theories is BR knows who did it .... then your general theories should also include PDI and JDI,because I think they also know who did it.Knowing who did it,and actually being involved in the crime are two different things ... could one of your theories be JARDI ... I would imagine that would be the only other Ramsey JR and PR would cover up for. But JAR has been cleared.I don't think they would cover up for any other minor.Agree?

capps,

When I say BR may know who did it, it still means BR was involved, but he was not the killer. The killer would be the fifth person who I hypothesize was in the house that night as a guest. IMO the parents would coverup ONLY if BR was involved. I doubt if one parent would coverup for the other, and I doubt if the parents would cover for JAR.

 

[capps]

capps,

When I say BR may know who did it, it still means BR was involved, but he was not the killer. The killer would be the fifth person who I hypothesize was in the house that night as a guest. IMO the parents would coverup ONLY if BR was involved. I doubt if one parent would coverup for the other, and I doubt if the parents would cover for JAR.

BR being involved ... that's the part I'm struggling with ...I kind of have a theory,but I won't commit myself to it, until I can think about it a little longer.

Interesting ... JAR was not involved,but why would you think that JR would not cover up for his son? I have an answer to that,but I would like to hear yours.

 

[BlueCrab]

Interesting ... JAR was not involved,but why would you think that JR would not cover up for his son? I have an answer to that,but I would like to hear yours.

capps,

John wouldn't cover for JAR because JAR was an adult at the time (20); and Patsy would have never stood for it. BR is the only one, IMO, the parents would have covered for.

 

[capps]

capps,

John wouldn't cover for JAR because JAR was an adult at the time (20); and Patsy would have never stood for it. BR is the only one, IMO, the parents would have covered for.

I partially agree with you.

I feel JR would have at least attempted to cover up for JAR (he wouldn't want this to ruin his pillar of the community status,especially if it was due to a shocking sexual nature),but I agree PR would never stand for it (after all it wasn't her son,and I believe she is heart broken about JB.)

 

[GuruJosh]

tipper,

The final four seconds of the 911 call were enhanced, not the entire 911 call.


BlueCrab

i wonder what resolution / sound quality/ density is required to resolve the supposed voices of John and Burke?

It would be a bit like a JPG image. If someone gave you a crappy JPG (they may look fine at 800 x 600), you couldn't zoom in on any part of it unless they gave you, say, a 10000 x 7000 image. get it?

The sound quality of the released 911 tape is probably pretty poor, in terms of resolution. It's compressed into MP3 for one thing.

I wonder if, say everyone on this forum put in $20, and we got the tape analyzed professionally - i wonder if the supposed extra voices in the last 4 seconds would be audible. I doubt it.

I bet you'd need the real, analogue, "high-res" original , to be able to discern sounds at such "low res" (sorry for the graphics analogies when we're talking about sound! But you should see what i mean)

 

[tipper]

i wonder what resolution / sound quality/ density is required to resolve the supposed voices of John and Burke?

It would be a bit like a JPG image. If someone gave you a crappy JPG (they may look fine at 800 x 600), you couldn't zoom in on any part of it unless they gave you, say, a 10000 x 7000 image. get it?

The sound quality of the released 911 tape is probably pretty poor, in terms of resolution. It's compressed into MP3 for one thing.

I wonder if, say everyone on this forum put in $20, and we got the tape analyzed professionally - i wonder if the supposed extra voices in the last 4 seconds would be audible. I doubt it.

I bet you'd need the real, analogue, "high-res" original , to be able to discern sounds at such "low res" (sorry for the graphics analogies when we're talking about sound! But you should see what i mean)

Tricia had both the CD and cassette analyzed and other than the "Help me jesus" nothing was found. I understand your analogy but it seems like one should hear something, even if one couldn't discern the precise words. So far I still think Burke was upstairs pretending to be asleep.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4576&page=1&pp=12

"What Mr. Ginsberg did not hear unfortunately was Burke or John. He is not surprised. He warned me. This generation of copy is like mud basically. Also he did not pick up any editing attempts. However like I said earlier he did not have the same robot that was used earlier. Plus this was a different tape. By that I mean the same tape that came from the D.A.'s office just not the same tape that Spade used in his lab. "

 

[halycon]

Lacy Wood:

I don't recall Mrs. Levy making that statement. Do you know where that was said? I would have guessed her to be menopausal.

The expert I mentioned had been in contact with the Levys, but that detail was not mentioned at the seminar. Besides, a lot can happen in two weeks with a sexually active young woman. Had there been blood a HGC level might have been taken.

Regardless, Mrs. Levy has probably clarified the matter to the federal grand jury that is hearing or was hearing testimony. So at last, there are some people with a full picture, even if we don't have it.

 

[Jayelles]

911 tape
I don't know what all the fuss is about the 911 tape. Whether Burke's voice is or isn't on it is of little consequence IMO. Presence of voices is not proof that the Ramseys killed Jonbenet - nor does "no voices" mean they didn't!

We already know Burke WAS awake and not asleep as the Ramsey claimed. I actually find it intriguing that he "pretended to be asleep" when there was a commotion when most children would be at least curious to know what was going on. That to me rings alarm bells and makes me wonder if shouting was a regular occurrence in the Ramsey household (that Burke would instinctively stay out of the way.)

I'd like to hear what a child psychologist would make of this.

I cannot imagine either of the Ramseys killing their daughter but nor can I dismiss some of the facts:-

1. the fact that Patsy cannot be eliminated as the writer of the note

2. the fact that the Ramsey Christmas letter contained the unusual phrase "and hence"

3. the fact that fibres which were consistent with Patsy's jacket were found entwined in the garrote knot

4. the fact that the DNA may NOT be the killer's

5. the fact that the Ramseys were so reluctant to participate in standard interview procedures and refused a polygraph

6. the fact that the evidence of the pineapple sugests that she was either awake when she came home (and not asleep as the Ramseys claimed) OR that she died very soon after arriving home and probably before John Ramsey claims he went to bed.

7. the fact that she had injuries to her vagina which suggested that she had been sexually assaulted during the 72 hours prior to her death (presenting a motive for her murder)

8. the fact that there WAS such a longwinded and non-sensical ransom note - suggesting that the killer was desperately trying to create a red herring

9. The fact that the marks on her body have not been conclusively proved to be stungun marks and that the #1 leading expert on stunguns does not think they were.

I believe the above are some of the reasons why the Ramseys have not been cleared and quite frankly, they cannot simply be dismissed. They are BUGABOOS!

Also, there is the suggestion that JonBenet's murder was committed as an act of revenge against the Ramseys - someone with a grudge. IMO, if someone had a grudge against the Ramseys, there would have been some evidence of this prior to the murder. People who carry out acts of hatred against others often conduct campaigns of hatred which may increase in intensity. Hate letters, damage to property, abusive telephone calls, injuring pets.... there was no evidence any of this happened to the Ramseys. It seems strange that an enemy would simply murder an innocent child because they hated the parents - with no evidence of the hatred being apparent prior to the murder.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Lacy Wood:

I don't recall Mrs. Levy making that statement. Do you know where that was said? I would have guessed her to be menopausal.

The expert I mentioned had been in contact with the Levys, but that detail was not mentioned at the seminar. Besides, a lot can happen in two weeks with a sexually active young woman. Had there been blood a HGC level might have been taken.

Regardless, Mrs. Levy has probably clarified the matter to the federal grand jury that is hearing or was hearing testimony. So at last, there are some people with a full picture, even if we don't have it.

Thanks again for your interest. It is entirely appropriate to question what I said because the press and pundits ignored it.

I personally saw Judy Bachrach, reporter for "Vanity Fair", on the NBC "Today" show when she revealed what Mrs Levy told her. Ann Curry, the interviewer, was taken aback and did not follow up on the (at that time) shocking news that Chandra Levy was not pregnant. (I believe she did ask when Judy had talked to Mrs Levy and the answer was a day or two earlier.) Judy Bachrach's story was elaborated on in a few venues but ignored by nearly everyone else. I believe she had a subsequent article in "Vanity Fair."

The specific news was that Chandra had been in California in April, 2001, and she and her Mom (not menopausal evidently) had simultaneously had their periods. Chandra disappeared only a couple weeks later. Mrs Levy had no doubts, and had no reason to think her daughter was pregnant. The apparent reason for their attorney's coy, suggestive, statement in not revealing this would seem to be to keep the press talking. With a daughter missing, they understandably wanted the press attention.

In searching, the most encompassing account (but a bit angry) was at www.dailyhowler.com ...click on 2001 archives, then 8-27-01, and go down through the part called "Daily Update". It includes the "Today" transcript and other references.

I thought this was a good example in a thread about ability to change opinions, since it shows the press wouldn't, and people can't if they don't hear the facts. (Disclaimer: I am NOT a Condit supporter!)

 

[IrishMist]

Thank you, Jayelles, for putting into words what I have been unable to.

I bounce all over the place with this case, and don't want to think the parents had anything to do with it, but the reasons you stated keep coming back to me.

 

[tipper]

911 tape

I don't know what all the fuss is about the 911 tape. Whether Burke's voice is or isn't on it is of little consequence IMO. Presence of voices is not proof that the Ramseys killed Jonbenet - nor does "no voices" mean they didn't! .

True. But Burke apparently says he wasn’t downstairs when the call was made. If it could be definitively shown that he was I would wonder why a) His parents denied it and b) why he was coached to say he wasn’t. Not "proof" of anything but questionable behavior nonetheless.

We already know Burke WAS awake and not asleep as the Ramsey claimed. I actually find it intriguing that he "pretended to be asleep" when there was a commotion when most children would be at least curious to know what was going on. That to me rings alarm bells and makes me wonder if shouting was a regular occurrence in the Ramsey household (that Burke would instinctively stay out of the way.) I'd like to hear what a child psychologist would make of this.

This I don’t find particularly odd. Burke struck me (from what little we know) as a somewhat reticent boy. I have 3 kids. At that age 2 would probably have been out and curious, the third would have lain low until the unpleasantness was over. Also, should you get a chance to talk to a child psychologist Patsy’s cancer treatments and history ought to be included in your synopsis. I think kids who live with serious illness are definitely marked by it.

1. the fact that Patsy cannot be eliminated as the writer of the note.

Nor can several others

2. the fact that the Ramsey Christmas letter contained the unusual phrase "and hence".

"And hence" is not an unusual phrase. I grew up hearing it. I use it. I hear reporters on TV use it. It may be a regional phrase (East coast?) but not "unusual."

3. the fact that fibres which were consistent with Patsy's jacket were found entwined in the garrote knot"

That is interesting. There are explanations – some benign, some not. I’d like to see the lab reports on that.

4. the fact that the DNA may NOT be the killer's"

Or it may be…

5. the fact that the Ramseys were so reluctant to participate in standard interview procedures and refused a polygraph"

Following their lawyers advice. In retrospect it was a bad move from a public relations perspective but I think I would probably have done the same. Even while they were not officially meeting with BPD they were talking with LE they trusted. After Keenan took over them met with her for however long she wanted. They’ve also met with other well-known experts over the years which I think they would not have done if they’d been hiding a guilty secret. According to ST they weren’t given the opportunity to take a polygraph, (pp 243-244) "An agent wanted to know why Patsy, who had volunteered to take ten polygraphs, had not been given the opportunity to do so."

6. the fact that the evidence of the pineapple sugests that she was either awake when she came home (and not asleep as the Ramseys claimed) OR that she died very soon after arriving home and probably before John Ramsey claims he went to bed.

Our knowledge of digestion times in the real world, particularly in children, is too sketchy to draw any conclusion.

7. the fact that she had injuries to her vagina which suggested that she had been sexually assaulted during the 72 hours prior to her death (presenting a motive for her murder)

The sexual assault prior to the night she was killed is the opinion of the BPD's carefully selected panel. There are other, well accepted, non-assault related causes of vaginal irritation recognized by experts. Why did BPD not include Sirotnik on their panel?

8. the fact that there WAS such a longwinded and non-sensical ransom note - suggesting that the killer was desperately trying to create a red herring

Or it was written while waiting for the Ramseys to return home and fulfilled some sort of self-aggrandizing fantasy of the writer.

9. The fact that the marks on her body have not been conclusively proved to be stungun marks and that the #1 leading expert on stunguns does not think they were.

And until both sets (pro and con) of experts can be examined and cross-examined as to the reasons for their conclusions we can’t really form any firm opinions.

Also, there is the suggestion that JonBenet's murder was committed as an act of revenge against the Ramseys - someone with a grudge. IMO, if someone had a grudge against the Ramseys, there would have been some evidence of this prior to the murder. People who carry out acts of hatred against others often conduct campaigns of hatred which may increase in intensity. Hate letters, damage to property, abusive telephone calls, injuring pets.... there was no evidence any of this happened to the Ramseys. It seems strange that an enemy would simply murder an innocent child because they hated the parents - with no evidence of the hatred being apparent prior to the murder.

Not necessarily. There was the Annie Lauren Hearin kidnapping in Florida. The note refers to Mr. Laurin’s photography business and the crime was committed by an angry employee with a failed lawsuit. Mrs. Hearins was old (72) and in poor health. Not involved in the running of her husband's busiiness. As far as I know, other than the lawsuit, there was no escalating pattern of hatred against the Hearins. Her body was never found.

 

[Jayelles]

Thank you Tipper. Yes I know that all of the above can be debated and that there are different potential explanations. However, as I said, they cannot be dismissed and as such, I feel that these may be why the Ramseys have not been cleared.

It is just such a pity that JonBenet's body wasn't found immediately by police and that the ramseys weren't separated and interviewed immediately.

 

[K777angel]

I base my opinion on the known facts I've seen and read over the past 8 yrs. Not only have there been published books and articles on the case, but we've also had numerous interviews by the Ramseys themselves and detectives and experts that have worked the case.
We've been able to watch the desicions and choices the Ramseys have made - and failed to make - and compare them to many other parents of murdered children to see how typical their behavior is and if it matches up to their public "claims."
For instance, it is only in the past 2-3 months that little Jessica Lundsford was kidnapped, molested and murdered. And already in the short amount of time her father, spurred on by his outrage at what happened to his daughter and trying to do something so that it doesn't happen to another child - has confronted the Florida legislature and got a bill passed that will help protect children from these sexual predators!
It's been EIGHT YEARS plus since JonBenet Ramsey was murdered - have John and Patsy EVER done one darned thing like that? When have THEY ever gone to congress - even though John Ramsey even RAN FOR CONGRESS?
Where is the "foundation" they set up in their daughter's name?
Where is their effort to "find the killer of their daughter" other than smearing innocent people's names that they KNOW had nothing to do with it and hiring their own "team" of investigators, lawyers and public relations helpers??
Their efforts have been to CLEAR THEIR NAME. Not to find the non-existent killer of their daughter.
In their first CNN interview - just the day after they BURIED their daughter, they were at first asked why they decided to do the interview. (Especially since they had claimed they couldn't be interviewed by the police because they were "too distraught"). Incredibly, they did not immediately say that the reason they agreed to do the interview was to enlist help from the public to help find the killer - no! The first reason they give is to "thank people" for their kindness blah, blah, blah! On and on - until finally, as an afterthought, it occurs to John to mention that oh yea - and we want to find out "why" this happened. Not WHO the hell did it - but "why" it happened. You know - not cuz they are "ANGRY" he says - but so they can go on.
I mean, folks, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY AND DO NOT SAY!!
Where is the rage? Where is ANY mention of fear? Where do they say how frightened their son Burke is?

The only way I would change my theory that a Ramsey did it and a Ramsey or Ramseys staged the crime scene and covered it up is if the BPD and the District Attorney's office cleared the Ramseys of all involvement of the crime.
This has NEVER been done. Not for John. Not for Patsy. Not for Burke.

(My most prominent theory by the way based on all the information I have and what I've seen occur over the past 8 years is that Burke Ramsey is most likely the instigator of the crime setting the whole thing in motion and his parents covered it up for him. Of any theory this one fits the known facts and circumstances best and most certainly fits the behavior and choices the Ramseys made from the moment the 911 call was placed to the present day. Their answers to interview questions regarding Burke over the years - what they said and did not say (that you would expect) continue to confirm my suspicion.)

 

[Jayelles]

Someone once posted a theory about the head injury being caused by the garage door. I can't remember whose theory this was but it was quite compelling.

Also, Cutter posted a graphic showing marks on JBR's neck which appeared to correspond with a telephone cord (the curly ones) - that too was compelling.

I'd like to know more about the so called male friend of Patsy's - the financial advisor.

I'd also like to know if the Ramseys and the Stines are still as friendly and if not, why not.

 

[tipper]

Thank you Tipper. Yes I know that all of the above can be debated and that there are different potential explanations. However, as I said, they cannot be dismissed and as such, I feel that these may be why the Ramseys have not been cleared.

It is just such a pity that JonBenet's body wasn't found immediately by police and that the ramseys weren't separated and interviewed immediately.

I agree completely.

 

[K777angel]

Someone once posted a theory about the head injury being caused by the garage door. I can't remember whose theory this was but it was quite compelling.

Also, Cutter posted a graphic showing marks on JBR's neck which appeared to correspond with a telephone cord (the curly ones) - that too was compelling.

I'd like to know more about the so called male friend of Patsy's - the financial advisor.

I'd also like to know if the Ramseys and the Stines are still as friendly and if not, why not.

The head injury was consistent with a "blow to the head". I don't think it is the same kind of injury you'd see if her head was crushed by the garage door. Besides - that would truly be an accident they'd quickly summon help for - not something they'd be ashamed of and need to cover-up.

I too would like to know what this banker/friend/man of Patsy's is all about.
Is there any truth to it? Did she go "out" that night which would explain why she was STILL wearing the same clothes she had on that night the next morning?
Did John indeed go to bed having taken a sleeping pill and sleep through Burke and JonBenet getting up and all hell breaking loose?
Then when Patsy waltzes in after seeing her "man-friend" - she stumbles on the biggest horror of her life and proceeds to cover it up?

 

[halycon]

Thanks again for your interest. It is entirely appropriate to question what I said because the press and pundits ignored it.

I personally saw Judy Bachrach, reporter for "Vanity Fair", on the NBC "Today" show when she revealed what Mrs Levy told her. Ann Curry, the interviewer, was taken aback and did not follow up on the (at that time) shocking news that Chandra Levy was not pregnant. (I believe she did ask when Judy had talked to Mrs Levy and the answer was a day or two earlier.) Judy Bachrach's story was elaborated on in a few venues but ignored by nearly everyone else. I believe she had a subsequent article in "Vanity Fair."

The specific news was that Chandra had been in California in April, 2001, and she and her Mom (not menopausal evidently) had simultaneously had their periods. Chandra disappeared only a couple weeks later. Mrs Levy had no doubts, and had no reason to think her daughter was pregnant. The apparent reason for their attorney's coy, suggestive, statement in not revealing this would seem to be to keep the press talking. With a daughter missing, they understandably wanted the press attention.

In searching, the most encompassing account (but a bit angry) was at www.dailyhowler.com ...click on 2001 archives, then 8-27-01, and go down through the part called "Daily Update". It includes the "Today" transcript and other references.

I thought this was a good example in a thread about ability to change opinions, since it shows the press wouldn't, and people can't if they don't hear the facts. (Disclaimer: I am NOT a Condit supporter!)

Great research, thank you. I had never seen that site before. Yes, that blogger is a bit angry! For someone who seems to hate the media so much he must watch every show and take notes!

The pregnancy issue came up in a Q&A portion of what I attended, and because it isn't provable didn't get much discussion. The speaker stuck to what might be used in trial and the good news about a new grand jury (the second in this case).

Last time Condit's kids were on TV they tried to suggest there wasn't a sexual relationship between Chandra and Condit, which I don't think is widely believed in LE. But it will take more than sex to indict anyone. I hope investigators are making progress. The cold case workers at the conference were grateful for the media coverage, even if Mr. Daily Howler doesn't approve.

 

[BlueCrab]

I base my opinion on the known facts I've seen and read over the past 8 yrs. Not only have there been published books and articles on the case, but we've also had numerous interviews by the Ramseys themselves and detectives and experts that have worked the case.
We've been able to watch the desicions and choices the Ramseys have made - and failed to make - and compare them to many other parents of murdered children to see how typical their behavior is and if it matches up to their public "claims."
For instance, it is only in the past 2-3 months that little Jessica Lundsford was kidnapped, molested and murdered. And already in the short amount of time her father, spurred on by his outrage at what happened to his daughter and trying to do something so that it doesn't happen to another child - has confronted the Florida legislature and got a bill passed that will help protect children from these sexual predators!
It's been EIGHT YEARS plus since JonBenet Ramsey was murdered - have John and Patsy EVER done one darned thing like that? When have THEY ever gone to congress - even though John Ramsey even RAN FOR CONGRESS?
Where is the "foundation" they set up in their daughter's name?
Where is their effort to "find the killer of their daughter" other than smearing innocent people's names that they KNOW had nothing to do with it and hiring their own "team" of investigators, lawyers and public relations helpers??
Their efforts have been to CLEAR THEIR NAME. Not to find the non-existent killer of their daughter.
In their first CNN interview - just the day after they BURIED their daughter, they were at first asked why they decided to do the interview. (Especially since they had claimed they couldn't be interviewed by the police because they were "too distraught"). Incredibly, they did not immediately say that the reason they agreed to do the interview was to enlist help from the public to help find the killer - no! The first reason they give is to "thank people" for their kindness blah, blah, blah! On and on - until finally, as an afterthought, it occurs to John to mention that oh yea - and we want to find out "why" this happened. Not WHO the hell did it - but "why" it happened. You know - not cuz they are "ANGRY" he says - but so they can go on.
I mean, folks, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY AND DO NOT SAY!!
Where is the rage? Where is ANY mention of fear? Where do they say how frightened their son Burke is?

The only way I would change my theory that a Ramsey did it and a Ramsey or Ramseys staged the crime scene and covered it up is if the BPD and the District Attorney's office cleared the Ramseys of all involvement of the crime.
This has NEVER been done. Not for John. Not for Patsy. Not for Burke.

(My most prominent theory by the way based on all the information I have and what I've seen occur over the past 8 years is that Burke Ramsey is most likely the instigator of the crime setting the whole thing in motion and his parents covered it up for him. Of any theory this one fits the known facts and circumstances best and most certainly fits the behavior and choices the Ramseys made from the moment the 911 call was placed to the present day. Their answers to interview questions regarding Burke over the years - what they said and did not say (that you would expect) continue to confirm my suspicion.)

angel,

My sentiments to a tee. All of the evidence and everything else points to BDI and, if he had been an adult instead of nine at the time, he would have been on death row a long time ago. I think the grand jury solved the case in 1999 and that part of the case has been handled properly by the court and Alex Hunter due to the ages of the children.

I have no qualms about BR's involvement and Hunter's disposition of it . What I am concerned about is whether or not a person of culpable age, who IMO was in the house at the invitation of BR that night and may have been the actual killer, has slipped between the cracks and is walking the streets a free man.

BlueCrab

 

[capps]

angel,

My sentiments to a tee. All of the evidence and everything else points to BDI and, if he had been an adult instead of nine at the time, he would have been on death row a long time ago. I think the grand jury solved the case in 1999 and that part of the case has been handled properly by the court and Alex Hunter due to the ages of the children.

I have no qualms about BR's involvement and Hunter's disposition of it . What I am concerned about is whether or not a person of culpable age, who IMO was in the house at the invitation of BR that night and may have been the actual killer, has slipped between the cracks and is walking the streets a free man.

BlueCrab

Interesting BC .....

But wouldn't there have been a way for the Ramsey's to go after the culpable age person without BR being involved?

I don't think I'm wording this right ... so bare with me while I "talk" this through.

Let's say BR was involved but didn't actually kill JB, the culpable age person (will use CAP in rest of post) did. I'm thinking the Ramsey's of course will cover up for BR,but no way are they going to let CAP get away scott free for murdering their daughter.And since you believe the grand jury knows the whole story,but cannot do anything with BR because of his age ... don't you think the Ramsey's would want CAP to pay for this crime? Why would they want to cover up for CAP also?

Is this making sense to you?

 

[UKGuy]

Interesting BC .....

But wouldn't there have been a way for the Ramsey's to go after the culpable age person without BR being involved?

I don't think I'm wording this right ... so bare with me while I "talk" this through.

Let's say BR was involved but didn't actually kill JB, the culpable age person (will use CAP in rest of post) did. I'm thinking the Ramsey's of course will cover up for BR,but no way are they going to let CAP get away scott free for murdering their daughter.And since you believe the grand jury knows the whole story,but cannot do anything with BR because of his age ... don't you think the Ramsey's would want CAP to pay for this crime? Why would they want to cover up for CAP also?

Is this making sense to you?

IMO this is an important inconsistency in the current BDI, which extends by inference to the BPD and most of colorado state administration, why would they ignore and sanction the liberty of someone for whom it has been alleged they have been party to the murder of a young child!

The sealing of records need not be mandatory it can be done by agreement, Burke's records may be sealed , not because he is guilty , but because he was considered a child and worthy of protection from the media, this policy should extend to other children in the case.


Unless the Colorado State records are available under FOI and it can be verified that at the time of JonBenet's death, and thereafter that the child protection policy was intended to indemify all children below the age of criminal responsibility, involved in capital crimes, from having their records released in perpetuity. I consider the current BDI flawed.

The sealing of only guilty childrens records would flag up to all and sundry along which lines the authorities were travelling.

The current BDI would be more consistent if it was amended to reflect this anomaly.