About the pineapple

sandover said:

Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

Incompetence does not = conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Looks like conspiracy to cover up to me:

"...Now, criminal charges might be filed against both Spanier and Schultz. The reason: sources told NBC News that according to recently-uncovered documents, the two discussed whether to report allegations of an “encounter” between Sandusky and a boy back in 2001. They ultimately decided that not reporting the allegations would be “humane”… to Sandusky...."

What about what would have been "humane" to the victims?

If you are calling the above collusion between Spanier and Schultz 'incompetence' then perhaps you need to redefine your definition of incompetence.....

eileenhawkeye said:

Let's say this case went to trial. Obviously, it would get massive media coverage, but do you think that Lockheed Martin could use their power to make sure the press didn't make a big issue out of John being a CEO of one of their sub-companies?

Click to expand...

I think LM took care of that long ago. I say that because I happen to be about the only person I can think of who brings this up for discussion. I'm actually surprised that I haven't mysteriously "disappeared" yet.... :what:

Ok, just kidding....

But few people online have mentioned LM in the context of aiding in any cover up of this murder. No one has shown any actual direct evidence of it, let me say. I'm purely speculating, based on case reports, interviews, statements, and circumstantial considerations, that LM could have used its status as a national defense contractor to quash any subpoena for phone records of the Ramseys, at any rate. It's been done in other cases I've seen discussed, but not with LM specifically in those.

You know, it could be that because of the hellfire that would be brought down if the Ramseys had gone with some LM protocol and brought in LM, they used the "foreign faction" ruse to confuse the bucolic BPD because they thought of it, and then called 911 instead of calling LM.

In all fairness, I have to say I don't travel in those kinds of circles of power and influence. I may have seen one too many movies about conspiracy. Maybe I've just spent way too long pondering how on earth this case got so FUBAR.

What I do know is this: between Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and Lou Smit & his PI sidekicks, I've never seen a better defense team or public relations campaign on behalf of a set of prime suspects. Since all of those people were hired and paid to work for the People on this case, how did that happen?

Whaleshark said:

Looks like conspiracy to cover up to me:

"...Now, criminal charges might be filed against both Spanier and Schultz. The reason: sources told NBC News that according to recently-uncovered documents, the two discussed whether to report allegations of an “encounter” between Sandusky and a boy back in 2001. They ultimately decided that not reporting the allegations would be “humane”… to Sandusky...."

What about what would have been "humane" to the victims?

If you are calling the above collusion between Spanier and Schultz 'incompetence' then perhaps you need to redefine your definition of incompetence.....

Click to expand...

If there had been a conspiracy there would not be "recently uncovered documents" nor a debate about what to do. Call it incompetence, call it corruption, but it ain't a conspiracy.

If you think about it, the media doesn't mention the Lockheed Martin connection much at all. I have a newspaper archive database, and about 24,000 articles come up when I search for JonBenet. But when I edit the search to include articles that mention JonBenet AND Lockheed Martin, only about 200 articles make the cut. However, was that LM's doing that the media didn't focus much on John working for them...or did they just get "lucky" that there was the whole pageant connection?

But if the case did go to trial, the LM connection might have become more mainstream. Perhaps people who worked for LM would be asked to testify. There might be new information that comes out about LM. The media might've reported more on John's LM connection if he became a defendant in a huge trial. Also, If Patsy and/or John had been indicted in October 1999, it would probably take 2-3 years for the trial to finally start...it would be around late 2001/2002....right after 9/11, near invasion of Afghanistan, and perhaps the LM angle would be very interesting to the media and the public because they are defense contractors. But then again, they couldn't have known about 9/11 in the 90s.

sandover said:

If there had been a conspiracy there would not be "recently uncovered documents" nor a debate about what to do. Call it incompetence, call it corruption, but it ain't a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Your assumption that if there is a conspiracy there will never be any evidence of it, is a fallacy.

Just because there may have been a conspiracy does not mean everyone perfectly got rid of any and all evidence.

That's how you find out if there ever was a conspiracy or cover up of something anyway....you follow the trail of evidence....or information...or what have you.

Every conspiracy or cover up that ever occurred was not fool-proof and undiscovered.... that's how you can determine 'evidence of a coverup', or 'evidence of a conspiracy'.

The definition of conspiracy is "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful".....

By that definition, When Spanier and Schultz decided not to report the illegal act of Sandusky assaulting a child, and cover that up, that was a 'secret plan to do something unlawful'.

The fact that it was initially secret makes it a cover up or conspiracy.... but that doesn't mean a secret or evidence of such is never ever going to be found out....often people keep 'insurance' of something they are a part of just in case something does come out.

Lots of people knew about Sandusky and made decisions - colluded - to cover up - keep secret -- conspired (by definition) to not have the info get out, if at all possible.

Once a victim was brave enough to finally come forward, the initial and totality of the cover up starts to show....and its corroborating evidence.

Just because any and all witnesses and evidence were not destroyed in the cover up or conspiracy does not mean that it negates the actions of some people as coverups or conspiracies.

I think the problem is that when people think of conspiracy...they think of JFK...and it's hard to imagine that the murder of an ordinary 6-year-old girl in Colorado could also involve a conspiracy.

Another thing is with all this wealth and connections John had, plus the massive media interest, shouldn't the intruder have been found?

KoldKase said:

Freeh's name is in the news again; this time in conjunction with the Penn State, Sandusky trial. Freeh is apparently involved in discovering some emails and files hidden by the Penn State administrators who deliberately aided a child predator in his awful crimes against children.

I've thought of the JBR case so many times reading about and listening to discussions on the Sandusky horror show.

People who can't believe in any conspiracy in the Ramsey case might want to read up on the Sandusky nightmare: for 15 years this pervert was allowed to prey on poor boys, even after he was caught MULTIPLE TIMES in compromising "positions" with them, by NUMEROUS coaches. One young man testified yesterday when he reported what was happening to his school counselor, SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. Off the top.

One child, still unidentified, was seen being ANALLY RAPED by Sandusky in the Penn State showers by another coach; the coach reported it to numerous people, INCLUDING JOE-PA, PENN STATE ADMIN, AND THE OVERSEER OF PENN STATE'S POLICE DEPT.: they all conspired to COVER IT UP AND THE SICKO CONTINUED TO WORK ON CAMPUS WITH CHILDREN, CONTINUED TO BRING BOYS INTO THE FOOTBALL LOCKER ROOM AND SHOWERS...FOR 8 MORE YEARS. They went so far as to lie to a grand jury about it, as well, because they knew exactly what they were doing...EXACTLY THAT THEY WERE ENABLING A CHILD MOLESTER TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN WITH IMPUNITY.

And if you are following this case, you may have noticed that MANY PENN STATE FANS HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND WITHOUT REMORSE DEFENDED PENN STATE FOR DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE. The victims have been THREATENED, OSTRACIZED, SHAMED, AND GONE INTO HIDING AT TIMES, they've been so viciously stalked FOR BEING VICTIMS WHO TOLD THE TRUTH. All for a stupid game.

Come on. Who can possibly scoff at a conspiracy of SOME kind in Boulder to aid the killer of JonBenet in escaping responsibility, knowing what we know about all the MANY Boulder LE who went ON THE RECORD doing just that?

Maybe there was no organized conspiracy; maybe there were just pockets of people being worked by powerful lawyers; maybe once you get in over your head, you have no choice but to keep going.

Or worse.

Until we know the truth, the unvarnished, uncensored, un-spun truth about the facts of evidence in this case, I can't rule out that some LE in Boulder egregiously obstructed this investigation, intentionally, knowing they were covering up for a child molester and killer, for whatever excuse they deemed worthy of doing so.

It's JMO.

Click to expand...

KoldKase,
I've read the opening trial coverage. The bit the got me was that Sandusky was running some Charity or Foundation, making him the local most trusted person. That he scoped out victims by checking if they were orphans, and buying their trust with gifts etc, eventually they ended up on his victim checklist?

Their will be others abusing their position with Sandusky's tacit approval, this is obviously one big pedophile conspiracy, lets wait and see if his cohorts mount a one bad apple defense, e.g Sandusky was a lone rogue pedophile, e.g. we all thought we were helping a good guy?


.

sandover said:

Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

Incompetence does not = conspiracy.

Click to expand...

sandover,
Overlooking something once is a mistake, twice is incompetence, thrice is a conspiracy.

Koldkase is 100% correct. The Sandusky case has all the hallmarks of a pedophile ring in action. e.g. a ringleader looking out for victims, a trusted organisation as a front, and insiders willing to look the other way, probably because they were involved too.

They all usually plead not guilty, or ignorance, or incompetence etc. And blame the person on trial.

There was a famous record producer/singer Jonathon King from the sixties, where similar charges were made, e.g. he was trusted, he ran an organisation, lots of boys were referred to him, and many around him knew what was taking place. Once he was convicted and sent to prison, they all denied any knowledge, or said they misinterppreted the signs etc, because Jonathon was such nice, respected guy!


.

KoldKase said:

It's probably one of the reasons BDI is a good theory: believing originally they were simply responding to helping a young boy who committed no crime, as a minor, but who was part of a terrible death, did Hunter et al start out thinking it was the humane thing to do in the People's Republic of Boulder?

Then you're in for a penny, in for a pound: and all the people who were falsely suspected and investigated, stuck under that umbrella with the actual perpetrators, painted with the brush of person-of-interest in this horrible "death" for all these years...what do you say to them? Sorry? I meant well?

It would explain a lot if BDI.

Click to expand...

KoldKase,
BDI appears to be the only theory without any major inconsistencies, all the others require tweaking or special pleading.


.

It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?

BOESP said:

It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?

Click to expand...

There are some things not often discussed anymore about John Ramsey and his LM job, primarily because they came out early in the investigation, back in 1997, some transpiring within that year, and the articles are no longer online or easily available.

[Edit for correction] All by way of saying in original news reports John Ramsey wasn't actually "fired" from LM, but was "moved" to a new Atlanta division or some such as a "consultant"; not long after that, JR was with a new company called "Jaleo", though I may be spelling that wrong. JR described himself as "fired," however, in DOI, when his company, Access Graphics (AG, for anyone not saturated with the facts of the case), was sold in 1997 (or 1998?) to General Electric. John said LM was very good to him when he was released, I'm assuming with a golden parachute, which was and is standard practice and included in executive contracts.

What people may not remember or never saw, however, is that it was reported in a local Colorado publication that John refused to take a polygraph during this change of flagship, and that led to him leaving AG as part of the deal with GE. It's not uncommon for large companies to use polygraphs on employees, of course, so it's arguable whether this was SOP for GE or if it was a deal-breaker because of the "umbrella of suspicion" which no company would want shadowing the CEO of a newly purchased company. I even wonder if GE was doing LM a business favor, helping get rid of JR without a straight out firing, which of course would cause the Ramseys to appear even more guilty, if that were possible.

So I saw that report once online, but can't find it online anymore. I have no proof if JR was in fact asked to take a polygraph by LM or GE, or if he refused. I read the one article published online, from a Colorado news publication, but I don't remember any source for the story being given, so I'm just saying that FYI.

What I can believe is that JR was a liability for AG and LM with the international media explosion of the unsolved case of his daughter's murder. His and Patsy's clearly suspicious behavior, the constant replays of the child in pageant costumes, etc., probably did have something to do with the sale of AG and the dumping of JR. I wish I knew what that golden parachute was worth, though. I bet JR got well-compensated for his resignation. He and Patsy took a vacation to a well-known "tax haven" island within a year of the murder, and don't tell me rich people don't have Swiss bank accounts, either.

The Ramseys and their polygraphs...another investigative LE tool they tried so hard to control. Besides the well known "self-sponsored" polygraphs they took with Lin Wood's guidance, we also have the Ramseys in an earlier media interview inadvertently revealing that they took a polygraph for their defense lawyers. This came out when they were asked if they'd taken polygraphs yet; they stuttered they couldn't answer because of "attorney-client privilege," which they apparently didn't realize WE KNOW THEY WERE THE CLIENTS AND COULD SAY WHAT THEY WANTED. It was clear--to me, at least--they were simply avoiding answering yes or no. Why not say "No" if they hadn't? Obviously the answer was yes and they didn't want to then be asked what the results were--IMO. This is typical Ramsey tap dancing: when it came to the truth, the Ramseys always had a movable line which I call evasion. (Michael Kane saw it that way, as well.)

[I did go back and edit out a lot of my rambling on here about case history, if you read it and were wondering....]

BOESP said:

It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?

Click to expand...

Exactly! If this were truly a intruder, they would have stood behind him. LM knew it as bogus!

KoldKase said:

There are some things not often discussed anymore about John Ramsey and his LM job, primarily because they came out early in the investigation, back in 1997, some transpiring within that year, and the articles are no longer online or easily available.

[Edit for correction] All by way of saying in original news reports John Ramsey wasn't actually "fired" from LM, but was "moved" to a new Atlanta division or some such as a "consultant"; not long after that, JR was with a new company called "Jaleo", though I may be spelling that wrong. JR described himself as "fired," however, in DOI, when his company, Access Graphics (AG, for anyone not saturated with the facts of the case), was sold in 1997 (or 1998?) to General Electric. John said LM was very good to him when he was released, I'm assuming with a golden parachute, which was and is standard practice and included in executive contracts.

What people may not remember or never saw, however, is that it was reported in a local Colorado publication that John refused to take a polygraph during this change of flagship, and that led to him leaving AG as part of the deal with GE. It's not uncommon for large companies to use polygraphs on employees, of course, so it's arguable whether this was SOP for GE or if it was a deal-breaker because of the "umbrella of suspicion" which no company would want shadowing the CEO of a newly purchased company. I even wonder if GE was doing LM a business favor, helping get rid of JR without a straight out firing, which of course would cause the Ramseys to appear even more guilty, if that were possible.

So I saw that report once online, but can't find it online anymore. I have no proof if JR was in fact asked to take a polygraph by LM or GE, or if he refused. I read the one article published online, from a Colorado news publication, but I don't remember any source for the story being given, so I'm just saying that FYI.

What I can believe is that JR was a liability for AG and LM with the international media explosion of the unsolved case of his daughter's murder. His and Patsy's clearly suspicious behavior, the constant replays of the child in pageant costumes, etc., probably did have something to do with the sale of AG and the dumping of JR. I wish I knew what that golden parachute was worth, though. I bet JR got well-compensated for his resignation. He and Patsy took a vacation to a well-known "tax haven" island within a year of the murder, and don't tell me rich people don't have Swiss bank accounts, either.

The Ramseys and their polygraphs...another investigative LE tool they tried so hard to control. Besides the well known "self-sponsored" polygraphs they took with Lin Wood's guidance, we also have the Ramseys in an earlier media interview inadvertently revealing that they took a polygraph for their defense lawyers. This came out when they were asked if they'd taken polygraphs yet; they stuttered they couldn't answer because of "attorney-client privilege," which they apparently didn't realize WE KNOW THEY WERE THE CLIENTS AND COULD SAY WHAT THEY WANTED. It was clear--to me, at least--they were simply avoiding answering yes or no. Why not say "No" if they hadn't? Obviously the answer was yes and they didn't want to then be asked what the results were--IMO. This is typical Ramsey tap dancing: when it came to the truth, the Ramseys always had a movable line which I call evasion. (Michael Kane saw it that way, as well.)

[I did go back and edit out a lot of my rambling on here about case history, if you read it and were wondering....]

Click to expand...

Through my college, I have access to a newspaper archive database that has about 24,000+ articles about this case, including around 5000 from 1997. It doesn't include every article ever written, as the Daily Camera articles aren't available. I'll do a search for "JonBenet + Lockheed Martin" to see what comes up. If anyone has anything they want me to search for, let me know.

Here are every piece of information I could find about LM and John. They are in chronological order:

The Denver Post reported that Ramsey has been temporarily removed from his post as president of Access Graphics, one of Boulder's largest companies and a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin .

Lockheed spokesman Evan McCollum said the company made the move because it did not want to bother him with business decisions while he grieves.

"This is a terrible time,'' McCollum said.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Ramsey has been temporarily relieved of his post at Access Graphics, which is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp.

Laurie Wagner, an Access marketing vice president, said Gary Mann of Lockheed Martin is temporarily taking over Ramsey's duties.

"That's really just so if there are any issues that need to be escalated to that level, that there is a person to go to,'' she said. "Actually, he's the person we would have gone to anyway. He's the person John reports to at Lockheed Martin .

"(He's) not on-site. The executive team here is running the business.''

Click to expand...

At Access Graphics, the Boulder subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp. where Ramsey has been temporarily relieved as president, a spokesman said he remains in touch with colleagues.

''But we are not burdening him with business issues,'' said Laurie Wagner. ''When he's ready (to return), the doors are wide open.''

Click to expand...

Ramsey was temporarily relieved of his post as president of the Lockheed Martin subsidiary several days after his daughter's Christmas night murder. In recent weeks he resumed doing some company work off-site while in seclusion.

Click to expand...

The Rocky Mountain News reported today that Lockheed Martin wants to sell Access Graphics, the Boulder-based computer business that John Ramsey heads. Ramsey has been on leave from his job as president of the Lockheed subsidiary since the killing.

Click to expand...

Ramsey, 54, was briefly relieved of his duties by Lockheed Martin , his company's parent corporation, following the Christmas night murder of his 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet .

After working limited hours off-site the first part of the year, he returned to his Pearl Street Mall office April 4.

Click to expand...

John Ramsey will leave Access Graphics, the computer distributor he founded, after its sale by parent Lockheed Martin Corp. to a division of General Electric Co., the companies said Monday.

In exchange for $2.8 billion in Lockheed preferred stock, Lockheed Martin will give GE Boulder-based Access Graphics, an aircraft engine parts manufacturer, a stake in its Globalstar satellite venture and about $1.5 billion cash in the form of a note.

Access Graphics will remain headquartered in Boulder and its 600 employees will retain their jobs, spokeswoman Julann Andresen said.

But Ramsey, now president of the company, will leave Access when the sale closes sometime before the end of 1997.

``He will stay on with Lockheed as a consultant, based in Atlanta,'' Andresen said

Click to expand...

The father of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey went to Spain recently to investigate a possible business venture, not to scout locations for a new home, a longtime friend said Thursday. John Ramsey, now a consultant for Lockheed Martin Corp. in Atlanta, traveled to Spain with his wife, Patsy, to check out a software company that produces a video software package, Jim Marino said.

Click to expand...

As the grand jury investigating the death of his daughter nears the end of its term, John Ramsey has left his executive position with a computer software firm.

Jaleo North America, a branch of the Madrid, Spain-based Jaleo International, confirmed Friday that Ramsey, 55, has stepped down as president and chief executive officer.

Click to expand...

Access Graphics, founded and led by John Ramsey for nine years, is shifting its focus and has changed its name to GE Access.

Click to expand...

Allegation: John piloted his own plane to Atlanta after the slaying.

Response (John): ``It wasn't my plane and I didn't fly it. My employer, Lockheed Martin , graciously provided a corporate jet and pilot to get us to Atlanta.''

Click to expand...

He started a computer products company that eventually was sold to the Lockheed Corp., and he eventually became a vice president of Lockheed-Martin . He's now "vice president for business development" for a Charlevoix-based Web site development and directory advertising business co-owned by his wife.

Click to expand...

If the conspiracy went above Hunter, why is there so much public knowledge of the case? If phone calls were made to high up people who advised the Rs, why did they advise them to leave fiber evidence, use their own materials, leave a phoney as a $3 bill RN, etc. ?

Chrishope said:

If the conspiracy went above Hunter, why is there so much public knowledge of the case? If phone calls were made to high up people who advised the Rs, why did they advise them to leave fiber evidence, use their own materials, leave a phoney as a $3 bill RN, etc. ?

Click to expand...

Chrishope,
When the case first broke, almost nobody thought conspiracy, nearly everyone thought psychotic pedophile, and one that must be linked to the pageants, those videos that played endlessly on the news bulletins, must have an explanation, with JonBenet dancing erotically!

But perceptions change and only those that cannot bear to think parents such as the R's might kill there own daughter, still think IDI.

In the beginning there was not a lot of public knowledge about the case, that which was, was debated and disputed on the forums. So you have the benefit of release, cross-references between cases litigated by the R, leaks from Team-Ramsey, etc etc.

Allegedly the consensus is now that an R killed JonBenet. So figuring out which one is the difficult task.

Conspiracy can be invoked to explain JonBenet's sexual abuse, e.g. multiple family abusers, hence the staging and coverup?

The conspiracy lies not in the staging but the postmortem developements or therein absence of.

Sometimes those who know how these things are accomplished can tell from the general pattern that a conspiracy is involved, and its effectiveness relies on messing the crime scene up just enough, so that prosecution can be avoided, but not the knowledge that the suspect probably did it!


.

UKGuy said:

Chrishope,
When the case first broke, almost nobody thought conspiracy, nearly everyone thought psychotic pedophile, and one that must be linked to the pageants, those videos that played endlessly on the news bulletins, must have an explanation, with JonBenet dancing erotically!

But perceptions change and only those that cannot bear to think parents such as the R's might kill there own daughter, still think IDI.

In the beginning there was not a lot of public knowledge about the case, that which was, was debated and disputed on the forums. So you have the benefit of release, cross-references between cases litigated by the R, leaks from Team-Ramsey, etc etc.

Allegedly the consensus is now that an R killed JonBenet. So figuring out which one is the difficult task.

Conspiracy can be invoked to explain JonBenet's sexual abuse, e.g. multiple family abusers, hence the staging and coverup?

The conspiracy lies not in the staging but the postmortem developements or therein absence of.

Sometimes those who know how these things are accomplished can tell from the general pattern that a conspiracy is involved, and its effectiveness relies on messing the crime scene up just enough, so that prosecution can be avoided, but not the knowledge that the suspect probably did it!


.

Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty unusual? With most cases, doesn't the majority of information come out within the first few months? I also follow Kyron and Lisa's cases, and I feel like I know 99% of what I will ever know in those cases, if they never go to trial. BTW, I know at times it seems like there's so much we don't know in this case, but compared to other high-profile cases, like the two I just mentioned, we know A LOT.

In a lot of other cases here, you literally know nothing beyond what was said in press conferences and media appearances by family members.

UKGuy said:

Chrishope,
When the case first broke, almost nobody thought conspiracy, nearly everyone thought psychotic pedophile, and one that must be linked to the pageants, those videos that played endlessly on the news bulletins, must have an explanation, with JonBenet dancing erotically!

But perceptions change and only those that cannot bear to think parents such as the R's might kill there own daughter, still think IDI.

In the beginning there was not a lot of public knowledge about the case, that which was, was debated and disputed on the forums. So you have the benefit of release, cross-references between cases litigated by the R, leaks from Team-Ramsey, etc etc.

Allegedly the consensus is now that an R killed JonBenet. So figuring out which one is the difficult task.

Conspiracy can be invoked to explain JonBenet's sexual abuse, e.g. multiple family abusers, hence the staging and coverup?

The conspiracy lies not in the staging but the postmortem developements or therein absence of.

Sometimes those who know how these things are accomplished can tell from the general pattern that a conspiracy is involved, and its effectiveness relies on messing the crime scene up just enough, so that prosecution can be avoided, but not the knowledge that the suspect probably did it!


.

Click to expand...

I don't recall the exact time-line of news about the case, but it seems to me that we knew very early -within hours or at most days- that there was both a dead body and a RN in the home. I've been RDI since I learned of those two things coinciding.

I don't doubt there was a conspiracy, but it doesn't seem to me to have been orchestrated at high levels. If it was at high levels it gives me chills thinking how incompetent high level people are.

I knew immediately that someone in the household committed the murder. Reason being? No parent would send their other child to a neighbor/friends house because they would be terrified the kidnapper was still out there. For all they knew the kidnappers could have been FW. No way, no how.

I believe, and I have from the very beginning PR found JR molesting JBR. She had the mag flashlight with her and swung it in fury at JR hitting JBR by mistake. The rest is history.

I was too young when this case broke, so I don't remember it, but from what I've read, most people were RDI as soon as John and Patsy made their CNN appearance and those pageant videos came out. Sure, some people thought that meant a pedophile could have killed JBR, but I think most people thought it showed that this wasn't a normal family.