I Don't Get It

Supposedly,Schiller said there is only a certain amount of information he was allowed to put into his book PMPT,Steve Thomas apparently has information he does not want people to be privy to,Fleet sure acts like he's got some kind of secrets that can only be shared in the court of law.

Well,it's been almost 10 years,they are no longer investigating,no one is going to trial.What's the sense of having this apparently very damning information,if it will go along with them to their death beds? If they are waiting for a match from CODIS and the DNA,well hell,if there's a match we won't need their information then!

If they do have some kind of damning info,they feel can put someone in jail ... I think it's time they stepped up to the plate,and came out with it.

I'm starting to think there is no such information.

If you are familiar with the vanDam trial (which is really the only other case I have followed), then you will be aware that there were several witnesses who came forward at the sentencing stage with stories which gave insight into David Westerfield as a potential molester and sexual pervert. If you like, they added colour to the background of the picture - put it into some kind of context.

However, if he had not been found guilty, any of these stories might have resulted in a libel case. The people who knew he was a pervert might have remained silent - for a quiet life.

There is also the aspect of "safety within numbers" - if one person tells their story, others might feel brave enough to do so. I relate the story of a British tv presenter called John Leslie (a childrens tv presenter no less). He was Mr Squeaky Clean - an all-round nice guy. Then a celebrity published her autobiography and in it, she related the sordid story of how she had been raped by another celebrity, but she didn't name him. This caused great excitement until one day, whilst discussing the case on a magazine programme, one of the presenters let the name slip - it was John Leslie. There was a media frenzy and then several women came forward to report that Leslie had sexually assaulted them too. He was charged and tried. During this period, many more women came forward to report innappropriate behaviour and sexual molestation by Mr Squeaky Clean. It was a nasty case, but surprisingly, he was acquitted. He attacked his accusers, said he'd been fitted up. Some time afterwards, pictures were published of him participating in a cocaine fuelled orgy and he couldn't deny them.

He went away quietly.

The point of this post is that there are many reasons why people "in the know" will remain quiet about what they know.

Open secrets do exist and are kept by those "in the know". Oft times, these people will not reveal what they know unles compelled to do so by a court case or within the "safety of numbers".

Also, guilty people will frequently deny their errant ways - and continue to do so until faced with irrefutable proof of it - and they are not above accusing others of lying if they think that they can get away with it.
I have no doubt that there is much we haven't heard about the Ramseys. Many of their friends have remained silent. They have neither criticised nor supported them. My guess is that their social standing (or imagined social standing) made them resist involvment in a sordid murder case. Many of them are independently wealthy enough to resist the lure of media pay-outs. They all witnessed the treatment of those who did speak out so why subject themselves to that? Their characters get assassinated by online Ramsey supporters.

I personally wouldn't sell a tabloid story in order to make $$$s for luxuries. It is morally abhorrent to me to make money at the cost of another's misery..... but I don't have to and the truth is, I don't know what I'd do if my children were starving or if one of them needed a life-saving operation.

Just because someone accepts money to tell their story does NOT mean it isn't true.

Jayelles said:

...
Just because someone accepts money to tell their story does NOT mean it isn't true.

Click to expand...

Just because something is printed or vocalised in the media does not mean it is true!

You people have that great Freedom of Information Act in the USA. I know of other true crime cases where Grand Jury testimonies can be read online (the Jeffrey MacDonald case for example).
Is there any chance that this will happen one day in the JBR case too? Or does it have to be a closed case for these transcripts to be finally available via FOIA?

rashomon said:

You people have that great Freedom of Information Act in the USA. I know of other true crime cases where Grand Jury testimonies can be read online (the Jeffrey MacDonald case for example).
Is there any chance that this will happen one day in the JBR case too? Or does it have to be a closed case for these transcripts to be finally available via FOIA?

Click to expand...

I have no idea but I would like to know that as well....

UKGuy said:

Just because something is printed or vocalised in the media does not mean it is true!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think we all know that, you can take Tracey's documentaries as three excellent examples of that!

capps said:

Supposedly,Schiller said there is only a certain amount of information he was allowed to put into his book PMPT,Steve Thomas apparently has information he does not want people to be privy to,Fleet sure acts like he's got some kind of secrets that can only be shared in the court of law.

Well,it's been almost 10 years,they are no longer investigating,no one is going to trial.What's the sense of having this apparently very damning information,if it will go along with them to their death beds? If they are waiting for a match from CODIS and the DNA,well hell,if there's a match we won't need their information then!

If they do have some kind of damning info,they feel can put someone in jail ... I think it's time they stepped up to the plate,and came out with it.

I'm starting to think there is no such information.

Click to expand...

capps,

Lots of what Schiller has tucked away somewhere will be hearsay the result of interviews and information fed to him by 3rd parties and he will know this full well. Publishing it will simply leave him open to law suits!

Steve Thomas as a former officer of the law has similar legal injunctions placed upon him, particularly with evidence that has not been placed in the public domain.

This is why the R's take everyone they consider a threat to court. And should suggest there is something volcanic waiting to erupt. It need not actually be a smoking gun wrt JonBenet's homicide possibly skeletons in the cupboard. e.g. a liberal lifestyle organised by some R's and other leading lights in their strata of society?

.

I know,I know ....

You are all correct. I just get so frustrated sometime,thinking that maybe someone may be holding on to information that could possibly be helpful to solve the murder of JonBenet,but will never be known,because there will,in most probability,never be a trial.

Very frustrating.

Steve Thomas recalls how angry he became when he ran into Lawrence Schiller at headquarters reading the JBR case files. That is why this case has not resulted in any arrests. Everyone and his dog "scanned" through the case files.

Burke may not likely ever speak about that fateful night. Just like some boys who are sexually abused....they go to their graves without ever talking about it to anyone.

capps said:

Supposedly,Schiller said there is only a certain amount of information he was allowed to put into his book PMPT,Steve Thomas apparently has information he does not want people to be privy to,Fleet sure acts like he's got some kind of secrets that can only be shared in the court of law.


I'm starting to think there is no such information.

Click to expand...

Schiller and Thomas think it was an accident/cover-up, so they can't have too much pertinent info. Who knows what Fleet White thinks he knows. He just wants to protect Boulder and jack around Colorado Governors via newspapers.

Justice doesn't stand a chance in this case. The best anyone can hope for is knowing the truth. And the best chance for that is after Patsy dies, dies, dies.

Yes yes yes.
Let's hope the truth comes out, waiting for Patsy to die is like waiting on the second coming though.

I assume we're going to have to wait John out, too. If he outlives Patsy, I doubt he's going to allow any truth to surface while he's still alive to prevent himself from going to jail for his part in this murder and/or cover up. I think the best bet is with Burke saying something after both his parents have died. I doubt we'll ever hear much from either Melinda or John Andrew, if they know anything to tell.

Nuisanceposter said:

I assume we're going to have to wait John out, too. If he outlives Patsy, I doubt he's going to allow any truth to surface while he's still alive to prevent himself from going to jail for his part in this murder and/or cover up. I think the best bet is with Burke saying something after both his parents have died. I doubt we'll ever hear much from either Melinda or John Andrew, if they know anything to tell.

Click to expand...

Maybe that is what John meant when he said Burke would deal with his sister's death when he's forty years old....