Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
I agree. Lou Smit was a seasoned investigator. I'll bet he soon worked out who the prime suspect was.

I'll bet that leverage amounted to evidence that has been redacted, and which Lou Smit was not allowed to take away?


.

Who knows if we'll ever find out, UKGuy? Lou took what he knew to the grave, and I suspect Alex Hunter will, too.

 

[UKGuy]

Who knows if we'll ever find out, UKGuy? Lou took what he knew to the grave, and I suspect Alex Hunter will, too.

SuperDave,
Lou might have something locked up in a safety deposit box. Something will turn up it always does. Probably when its legally too late. Once people start passing on, relatives, co-workers, feel less restrainted about talking.

Burke Ramsey might have a little surprise for us in the near future, he will one day, become the focus of any further investigation, and I doubt he can stonewall for ever. In 1996 maybe, but in the modern world of media and the internet, he has nowhere to hide.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

SuperDave,
Lou might have something locked up in a safety deposit box. Something will turn up it always does. Probably when its legally too late. Once people start passing on, relatives, co-workers, feel less restrainted about talking.

Burke Ramsey might have a little surprise for us in the near future, he will one day, become the focus of any further investigation, and I doubt he can stonewall for ever. In 1996 maybe, but in the modern world of media and the internet, he has nowhere to hide.


.

There is no stature of limitations in this country for murder, so it will never be "too late" for information to come to light.
As far as BR- he will NEVER, EVER become the focus of an investigation in this crime because he was under 10 when it occurred. Even if someone sent LE a videotape of him killing his sister, he can NEVER be investigated, charged, or names a suspect. End of story.
That does not mean someone else can't pipe up with an accusation or that further incriminating things won't or can't come to light. It simply means that because of his age at the time, he can never be arrested, charged, or named a suspect in the crime.

Even if Colorado changed their law prohibiting children under 10 from being charged or named a suspect in a crime, it still wouldn't affect BR because it wouldn't be retroactive.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no stature of limitations in this country for murder, so it will never be "too late" for information to come to light.
As far as BR- he will NEVER, EVER become the focus of an investigation in this crime because he was under 10 when it occurred. Even if someone sent LE a videotape of him killing his sister, he can NEVER be investigated, charged, or names a suspect. End of story.
That does not mean someone else can't pipe up with an accusation or that further incriminating things won't or can't come to light. It simply means that because of his age at the time, he can never be arrested, charged, or named a suspect in the crime.

Even if Colorado changed their law prohibiting children under 10 from being charged or named a suspect in a crime, it still wouldn't affect BR because it wouldn't be retroactive.

DeeDee249,
Good points.

It simply means that because of his age at the time, he can never be arrested, charged, or named a suspect in the crime.

What happens if he is the only person that can confirm/disconfirm some allegation, lets say made publicly by Holly Smith five years from now? I suspect this scenario might pop up.


.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is there a source that says children under age 10 can not even be investigated? How does LE even find out that the child is guilty if they don't investigate him or her?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is there a source that says children under age 10 can not even be investigated? How does LE even find out that the child is guilty if they don't investigate him or her?

Obviously the guilt of the child may be uncovered in an investigation. But they are not allowed to actually investigate the child. If it is discovered that the child is the perp, the investigation simply goes nowhere....just like this one.
The Grand Jury returns NO indictment, and does not offer a reason why...just like this case. By the way, declining to indict is not the same as insufficient evidence to indict.
No matter how many DA's come to office in Boulder, and no matter how many times they say they will be taking a fresh look, it will go nowhere if BR is involved.

Oh, wait- it already IS going nowhere...

 

[UKGuy]

Obviously the guilt of the child may be uncovered in an investigation. But they are not allowed to actually investigate the child. If it is discovered that the child is the perp, the investigation simply goes nowhere....just like this one.
The Grand Jury returns NO indictment, and does not offer a reason why...just like this case. By the way, declining to indict is not the same as insufficient evidence to indict.
No matter how many DA's come to office in Boulder, and no matter how many times they say they will be taking a fresh look, it will go nowhere if BR is involved.

Oh, wait- it already IS going nowhere...

DeeDee249,
Maybe, so why would the cold-case investigators request an interview with Burke Ramsey?

They patently do not consider him guilty, not unless the proposed interview was an intended sham?


They want Burke Ramsey to obviously confirm/disconfirm some element of the R's version of events.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Maybe, so why would the cold-case investigators request an interview with Burke Ramsey?

They patently do not consider him guilty, not unless the proposed interview was an intended sham?


They want Burke Ramsey to obviously confirm/disconfirm some element of the R's version of events.


.

We can't assume they don't consider him guilty. They cannot PUBLICLY consider him guilty or arrest him or charge him for the crime. But they can consider him guilty, especially if they have evidence (which has not been made public) which leads them to this belief.
I feel they may want to ask more specific questions about things that are unclear- did she walk into the house or was she carried? What about that pineapple? Was he at the table with her when she was eating it? His prints are on that glass with the tea bag. When did he drink from that glass and was it at the same time as JB ate the pineapple? Did he eat any pineapple himself? If I recall, his prints are also on the bowl, along with Patsy's.
How about that 911 call? Did he hear it, and was that his voice on the tape?
And perhaps more important- was his older half-brother JAR present that day or evening- was he in Boulder Christmas night?
If I were LE and BR agreed to be interviewed, these would ALL be asked before he left the room (provided his ever-present family attorney allowed them to be answered- he refused to allow Patsy to answer anything which even got close to the events of that night).

 

[Vhead]

I just stumbled upon an interesting blog called eyes for lies. I don't know if I'm aloud to post the link .. From what I gather this lady is like a human lie detector and is one of very few in the world that have been tested on reading micro expressions and the like the detect if someone is lying. She does a really good analysis of the Ramsey's 48 hours appearance. She definitely thinks something is amiss with them.

I apologize If this is a topic already discussed. I was excited to find it and thought I'd share with everyone. If I can post the link I'll do so.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[chemgirl]

I just stumbled upon an interesting blog called eyes for lies. I don't know if I'm aloud to post the link ..

I apologize If this is a topic already discussed. I was excited to find it and thought I'd share with everyone. ]


Fascinating! I just googled the blog title you mentioned and selected the Ramsey critique among those cases listed on the homepage. Very insightful!
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I was watching Criminal Minds, and the scenario that occurred reminded me so much of an RDI theory. In the show, a woman attempted to murder her 6-year-old niece because her husband was molesting her and she blamed the girl for problems in the marriage. They showed how the girl was wetting the bed and drew all over her Barbie doll's face because that's how she saw herself. They also insinuated that the 13-year-old son of the killer could have been involved, or at least knew something. Also, they referenced Polly Klaas and Danielle Van Dam in the episode, so maybe the writers were doing some research on high-profile cases.

 

[UKGuy]

We can't assume they don't consider him guilty. They cannot PUBLICLY consider him guilty or arrest him or charge him for the crime. But they can consider him guilty, especially if they have evidence (which has not been made public) which leads them to this belief.
I feel they may want to ask more specific questions about things that are unclear- did she walk into the house or was she carried? What about that pineapple? Was he at the table with her when she was eating it? His prints are on that glass with the tea bag. When did he drink from that glass and was it at the same time as JB ate the pineapple? Did he eat any pineapple himself? If I recall, his prints are also on the bowl, along with Patsy's.
How about that 911 call? Did he hear it, and was that his voice on the tape?
And perhaps more important- was his older half-brother JAR present that day or evening- was he in Boulder Christmas night?
If I were LE and BR agreed to be interviewed, these would ALL be asked before he left the room (provided his ever-present family attorney allowed them to be answered- he refused to allow Patsy to answer anything which even got close to the events of that night).

DeeDee249,

We can't assume they don't consider him guilty. They cannot PUBLICLY consider him guilty or arrest him or charge him for the crime.

mmm, so why bother requesting an interview, if they know he is guilty, an he knows they know, why does he refuse an interview, does that not appear suspicious?

That is if it was a facade of a cold-case review, Burke would be interviewed and asked some mundane, run of the mill questions, then given the all clear.

So I reckon its not a facade, they do wish to question BR, there would be no need, never mind the question regarding its legality, if they did know BR was guilty.

So BR is required to confirm/disconfirm some events of that fateful night. After all his fingerprints are on the tea-glass and pineapple bowl, both of which place him in the breakfast bar.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I was watching Criminal Minds, and the scenario that occurred reminded me so much of an RDI theory. In the show, a woman attempted to murder her 6-year-old niece because her husband was molesting her and she blamed the girl for problems in the marriage. They showed how the girl was wetting the bed and drew all over her Barbie doll's face because that's how she saw herself. They also insinuated that the 13-year-old son of the killer could have been involved, or at least knew something. Also, they referenced Polly Klaas and Danielle Van Dam in the episode, so maybe the writers were doing some research on high-profile cases.

eileenhawkeye,
Sounds interesting. Did you note the series and episode?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

mmm, so why bother requesting an interview, if they know he is guilty, an he knows they know, why does he refuse an interview, does that not appear suspicious?

That is if it was a facade of a cold-case review, Burke would be interviewed and asked some mundane, run of the mill questions, then given the all clear.

So I reckon its not a facade, they do wish to question BR, there would be no need, never mind the question regarding its legality, if they did know BR was guilty.

So BR is required to confirm/disconfirm some events of that fateful night. After all his fingerprints are on the tea-glass and pineapple bowl, both of which place him in the breakfast bar.

.

We'll never know. BR can't be required to confirm or deny anything. Actually, NO one can be required to do so. People cannot be compelled to talk to police in the US, even people who have been arrested. "You have the right to remain silent"....is the most basic of rights.

 

[UKGuy]

We'll never know. BR can't be required to confirm or deny anything. Actually, NO one can be required to do so. People cannot be compelled to talk to police in the US, even people who have been arrested. "You have the right to remain silent"....is the most basic of rights.

DeeDee249,
Which indirectly confirms what we already suspect, one of the parents is directly responsible for the death of JonBenet?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Which indirectly confirms what we already suspect, one of the parents is directly responsible for the death of JonBenet?


.

How so? BR could be the responsible one.

 

[Agatha_C]

eileenhawkeye,
Sounds interesting. Did you note the series and episode?


.

Season 3 - Episode 5 - Title "Seven Seconds" - 6 y/o victim is Katie Jacobs (fictional of course)

 

[iluvmua]

Nope, i don't think they had anything to do with JB's death.

LE has already cleared them, no DNA found and yet people still think they had something to do with her death.

I think it is possible that they know who did kill JB.

 

[DeeDee249]

Nope, i don't think they had anything to do with JB's death.

LE has already cleared them, no DNA found and yet people still think they had something to do with her death.

I think it is possible that they know who did kill JB.

A DA is an ATTORNEY, not a law enforcement officer. No one in LE (Law Enforcement) cleared them or anyone else.
LE did NOT clear them. DA Mary Lacy "cleared" them. later admitting that UNTIL the killer is identified by NAME, no one who was in the house that night can be cleared from a legal aspect.
The NEW DA in Boulder has said that NO one is cleared because the case is not solved. When it is, everyone but the killer will then be cleared.

By the way, if they know who killed her they are guilty of obstructing justice and lying to police.

 

[UKGuy]

How so? BR could be the responsible one.

DeeDee249,
Oh, OK, I misunderstood, I thought the assumption was he was guilty, but reporting restrictions, due to his age, prevented this being made public.

.