Nedra & Patsy's sisters

[IrishMist]

I dont claim to know what happened in this case, but I doubt there is a coverup. If the authorities had all the answers, im sure that the JMK thing would have never happened. They are still spending thousands of dollars on the case...

I tend to agree with this. I don't think they would have gone through the time, money and trouble if they "knew" BDI.

And I also think they wouldn't just let B go scott free. Mandatory counseling... something. Not- we know he did it, and we're hoping his parents ground him for it.

At the very least, even if they couldn't charge him, I think they would have said something like "this case is solved, but the perp is too young to charge." And let everyone make their own assumptions.

It's a compelling theory, but I'm just not convinced.

 

[kaykay]

UKGuy,

Correct, but as we all know, there was no intruder. Therefore, one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night is either the killer or let the killer into the house.

IMO the authorities know exactly who killed JonBenet, but a government conspiracy in Boulder is covering it up.

There's more than enough evidence in the Ramsey case to solve it (and I think the grand jury did solve it in 1999), but the powerful conspiratorial coverup, which includes even the courts, and has now apparently reached into the internet forums discussing the case, is blocking the naming of that killer.

Why else would we be denied the freedom in this forum to discuss a known suspect (or "witness" if Alex Hunter and Lin Wood would have their way) in a famous world-wide known murder case, unless outside pressure has been put on Websleuths?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,
I must have missed something...I can't find anywhere on here that the rules have changed...I have always said I'm a BDI person. I don't think he was alone, I just think he was there and knows all.

It looks like to me, others were not informed as well. I'm in the dark about this.

What would be the purpose to continue disguising thoughts and opinions on any forum without names?

Who or what would we post about?

I think if this is the case, people here should be told whats going on.

Hope you can help me out. Thanks,

kaykay

This is my opinion only!

 

[Solace]

Then why are you interested in the names of the other two suspects if you do not believe BlueCrab?

Why not? Just proves what I believe, that BlueCrab is delusional when it comes to his theories. This is not the McCarthy Era. This is a murder case of a five year old, completely with destroyed evidence by the parents and the Aunt who was allowed to remove evidence and lets not forget those "helpful" victim "aides" who went around the house with windex wiping off fingerprints from the banisters and such after the police were dusting. And the fact that the Boulder DA was friends with the Ramsey lawyers and on and on and on. And if I do not believe Blue Crab's theories, what? Is that now allowed. This is a forum, is it not where opinions are expressed. I think Blue Crab can handle herself. If she would like to put out misinformation I will gladly correct her. Or maybe Blue Crab is a he.

 

[BlueCrab]

But doesn't he have a solid alibi? I'm thinking he was in California at the time.

IrishMist,

His alibi is not solid. We have only his word that he was in California on December 25, 1996; with no verification of any kind since he was not investigated. Even that info was second hand, communicated to WS by a poster who was defending him and called him in California.

Besides, the over-all picture isn't all that clear-cut since there has never been an investigation into him and the strange organization he belonged to at CU. The person we are alluding to may be perfectly innocent but, because he helped baby-sit JonBenet and drove the children to school, he may have unknowingly been the link between the Ramseys and a zealous member of the politically liberal pro-active organization at CU known as APAC (Asian Pacific American Coalition). According to its by-laws, to earn points and thus maintain good standing in APAC, the members had to individually produce results that benefited the goals of APAC. Among the goals of APAC was political retribution for the unfair treatment of Asian-American females who had been victims of violent crimes in the U.S. It is also extremely suspicious that APAC disbanded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, even though they had meetings scheduled and speakers lined up for 1997.

Why wasn't any of this investigated by Boulder law enforcement? Why is it being swept under the rug?

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

IrishMist,

His alibi is not solid. We have only his word that he was in California on December 25, 1996; with no verification of any kind since he was not investigated. Even that info was second hand, communicated to WS by a poster who was defending him and called him in California.

Besides, the over-all picture isn't all that clear-cut since there has never been an investigation into him and the strange organization he belonged to at CU. The person we are alluding to may be perfectly innocent but, because he helped baby-sit JonBenet and drove the children to school, he may have unknowingly been the link between the Ramseys and a zealous member of the politically liberal pro-active organization at CU known as APAC (Asian Pacific American Coalition). According to its by-laws, to earn points and thus maintain good standing in APAC, the members had to individually produce results that benefited the goals of APAC. Among the goals of APAC was political retribution for the unfair treatment of Asian-American females who had been victims of violent crimes in the U.S. It is also extremely suspicious that APAC disbanded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, even though they had meetings scheduled and speakers lined up for 1997.

Why wasn't any of this investigated by Boulder law enforcement? Why is it being swept under the rug?

BlueCrab

Probably because it has no bearing on the case.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,
I must have missed something...I can't find anywhere on here that the rules have changed...I have always said I'm a BDI person. I don't think he was alone, I just think he was there and knows all.

It looks like to me, others were not informed as well. I'm in the dark about this.

What would be the purpose to continue disguising thoughts and opinions on any forum without names?

Who or what would we post about?

I think if this is the case, people here should be told whats going on.

Hope you can help me out. Thanks,

kaykay

This is my opinion only!

KayKay,

I agree with you 100 percent.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

Probably because it has no bearing on the case.

Solace,

That's ludicrous. I just laid out some facts in the post above that prove that our person of interest and APAC should have been investigated. But, prior to the Atlanta interviews in 2000, law enforcement claims they didn't even know our person of interest even existed, despite the fact that he regularly baby sat JonBenet and drove the children to school. And to the best of my knowledge, LE has not interviewed him to this day; nor have they investigated the strange behaviors of the 29 APAC members who disbanded their organization just weeks after the murder of JonBenet despite having lined up meetings and speakers for 1997.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Solace,

That's ludicrous. I just laid out some facts in the post above that prove that our person of interest and APAC should have been investigated. But, prior to the Atlanta interviews in 2000, law enforcement claims they didn't even know our person of interest even existed, despite the fact that he regularly baby sat JonBenet and drove the children to school. And to the best of my knowledge, LE has not interviewed him to this day; nor have they investigated the strange behaviors of the 29 APAC members who disbanded their organization just weeks after the murder of JonBenet despite having lined up meetings and speakers for 1997.

BlueCrab

There you go again BlueCrab. An organization that disbanded has some bearing on the murder of JonBenet. Probably the foreign faction.

Among the goals of APAC was political retribution for the unfair treatment of Asian-American females who had been victims of violent crimes in the U.S. It is also extremely suspicious that APAC disbanded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, even though they had meetings scheduled and speakers lined up for 1997.

I definitely see the connection and how you arrrived at your theory. Great work.

 

[BlueCrab]

There you go again BlueCrab. An organization that disbanded has some bearing on the murder of JonBenet. Probably the foreign faction.

.....

I definitely see the connection and how you arrrived at your theory. Great work.

Solace,

?????? Are you being your usual condescending self with feelings of superioity, or do you finally agree with something I said?

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Solace,

?????? Are you being your usual condescending self with feelings of superioity, or do you finally agree with something I said?

BlueCrab

I am being my usual condescending self with feelings of superiority.

 

[Toltec]

Why not? Just proves what I believe, that BlueCrab is delusional when it comes to his theories. This is not the McCarthy Era. This is a murder case of a five year old, completely with destroyed evidence by the parents and the Aunt who was allowed to remove evidence and lets not forget those "helpful" victim "aides" who went around the house with windex wiping off fingerprints from the banisters and such after the police were dusting. And the fact that the Boulder DA was friends with the Ramsey lawyers and on and on and on. And if I do not believe Blue Crab's theories, what? Is that now allowed. This is a forum, is it not where opinions are expressed. I think Blue Crab can handle herself. If she would like to put out misinformation I will gladly correct her. Or maybe Blue Crab is a he.

I do not think you should call BlueCrab delusional...in fact you should not be flaming any posters on this site.

Every poster here is entitled to their theories and opinions and BlueCrab is one of them.

 

[Solace]

I do not think you should call BlueCrab delusional...in fact you should not be flaming any posters on this site.

Every poster here is entitled to their theories and opinions and BlueCrab is one of them.

What is with you people? Who is flaming? If I feel that BlueCrab's theories are wrong, I am posting it. You can deal with it or not. You want everyone to agree with you, go to CourtTV. Everyone agrees over there.

Nothing against BlueCrab at all, just his theories. They lack substance, credence and most of all fact. No one is flaming anyone. I disagree. So deal with it.

 

[BlueCrab]

Why not? Just proves what I believe, that BlueCrab is delusional when it comes to his theories.

Solace,

You are obviously unaware what constitutes "flaming". When a poster does not agree with what has been posted, the rule of thumb is to attack what was said in the post, NOT THE POSTER. When you attack the poster, it is flaming. Flaming adds nothing productive to the discussion and is not allowed on this forum.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Solace,

You are obviously unaware what constitutes "flaming". When a poster does not agree with what has been posted, the rule of thumb is to attack what was said in the post, NOT THE POSTER. When you attack the poster, it is flaming. Flaming adds nothing productive to the discussion and is not allowed on this forum.

BlueCrab

Oh, okay. I retract that you are delusional.

Now let me attack what was said in the post. The theory that you posted about an outside faction possibly being involved strikes me as one that does not hold water, not even a drop of water.

I see that UK posted on another thread "could the soiled pants left in the bathroom by JonBenet be the result of sodomy".

My opinion is that this is so far out in left field that no one can catch it and if you would like to keep on this track, the odds of you solving this case are zilch to none. The odds of UK solving it are even less.

Right they sodomized her before she went to the party that day at the Whites and she did not show one sign of being unhappy. She just defecated in her jeans and that was that. The only thing wrong with that is she is 6 and is prone to soiling her pants as probably most six year olds. But UK is on the track of sodomy so we are going there. She soiled her pants. She did not defecate in them. Big difference.

She wanted to go to the Whites and she wanted to go see the cross on the mountain and get out and touch it and then she wanted to go deliver gifts to the Stines or whoever it was. But having just been sodomized does not seem to faze her. Probably because she was sodomized before and was use to it.

Does that sound plausible to you Blue Crab? Eagle has a theory that there was a sex ring going on involving the Ramseys friends.

Keep going guys, at that rate, it may take a while for you to solve it.

 

[BlueCrab]

Oh, okay. I retract that you are delusional.

Now let me attack what was said in the post. The theory that you posted about an outside faction possibly being involved strikes me as one that does not hold water, not even a drop of water.

I see that UK posted on another thread "could the soiled pants left in the bathroom by JonBenet be the result of sodomy".

My opinion is that this is so far out in left field that no one can catch it and if you would like to keep on this track, the odds of you solving this case are zilch to none. The odds of UK solving it are even less.

Right they sodomized her before she went to the party that day at the Whites and she did not show one sign of being unhappy. She just defecated in her jeans and that was that. The only thing wrong with that is she is 6 and is prone to soiling her pants as probably most six year olds. But UK is on the track of sodomy so we are going there. She soiled her pants. She did not defecate in them. Big difference.

She wanted to go to the Whites and she wanted to go see the cross on the mountain and get out and touch it and then she wanted to go deliver gifts to the Stines or whoever it was. But having just been sodomized does not seem to faze her. Probably because she was sodomized before and was use to it.

Does that sound plausible to you Blue Crab? Eagle has a theory that there was a sex ring going on involving the Ramseys friends.

Keep going guys, at that rate, it may take a while for you to solve it.

Solace,

You offer few if any facts (quotes from interviews, books, etc.) in support of why you think the various individual theories are not viable. For instance, give me a specific reason why my theory is not viable and we can discuss it. "Not holding water" is not a reason. Thanks.

BlueCrab

 

[Toltec]

Oh, okay. I retract that you are delusional.

Now let me attack what was said in the post. The theory that you posted about an outside faction possibly being involved strikes me as one that does not hold water, not even a drop of water.

I see that UK posted on another thread "could the soiled pants left in the bathroom by JonBenet be the result of sodomy".

My opinion is that this is so far out in left field that no one can catch it and if you would like to keep on this track, the odds of you solving this case are zilch to none. The odds of UK solving it are even less.

Right they sodomized her before she went to the party that day at the Whites and she did not show one sign of being unhappy. She just defecated in her jeans and that was that. The only thing wrong with that is she is 6 and is prone to soiling her pants as probably most six year olds. But UK is on the track of sodomy so we are going there. She soiled her pants. She did not defecate in them. Big difference.

She wanted to go to the Whites and she wanted to go see the cross on the mountain and get out and touch it and then she wanted to go deliver gifts to the Stines or whoever it was. But having just been sodomized does not seem to faze her. Probably because she was sodomized before and was use to it.

Does that sound plausible to you Blue Crab? Eagle has a theory that there was a sex ring going on involving the Ramseys friends.

Keep going guys, at that rate, it may take a while for you to solve it.

Let's get the facts straight:

JonBenet went to see the star on Christmas Eve...she also went to the Whites home Christmas Eve.

Gifts were not delivered until the next night, Christmas.

 

[laini]

Solace,

That's ludicrous. I just laid out some facts in the post above that prove that our person of interest and APAC should have been investigated. But, prior to the Atlanta interviews in 2000, law enforcement claims they didn't even know our person of interest even existed, despite the fact that he regularly baby sat JonBenet and drove the children to school. And to the best of my knowledge, LE has not interviewed him to this day; nor have they investigated the strange behaviors of the 29 APAC members who disbanded their organization just weeks after the murder of JonBenet despite having lined up meetings and speakers for 1997.

BlueCrab

They had a man from nearby college babysit Jon Benet regularly? That surprises me.

 

[laini]

I like reading all theories whether I agree or not. IMO, we do not know what happened that night. Only our opinions based on what we have read/seen - which has what appear to be lies mixed in throughout the whole case. So until it is solved, I hope BlueCrab and everyone will keep posting their thoughts. Even those who think an indtruder killed Jon Benet should be able to support their opinions without anger directed towards them. I just wish we could agree to disagree with each other nicely.JMO :truce:


(Now someone posting on websleuthes for the FIRST TIME saying it was a satanic sacrifice - that does irritate me)

 

[BlueCrab]

They had a man from nearby college babysit Jon Benet regularly? That surprises me.

laini,

The young man was a senior at CU and lived with the Stines to take care of Doug while the parents worked at CU. He regularly drove JonBenet, Burke and Doug to school and sometimes helped babysit the children. For instance, when the Ramseys and the Stines visited New York for the weekend in early December of 1996, he and Nedra watched the children in Boulder. Glen Stine was vice president at the University and Susan Stine was a director. Doug Stine and Burke Ramsey were best friends.

BlueCrab

 

[laini]

laini,

The young man was a senior at CU and lived with the Stines to take care of Doug while the parents worked at CU. He regularly drove JonBenet, Burke and Doug to school and sometimes helped babysit the children. For instance, when the Ramseys and the Stines visited New York for the weekend in early December of 1996, he and Nedra watched the children in Boulder. Glen Stine was vice president at the University and Susan Stine was a director. Doug Stine and Burke Ramsey were best friends.

BlueCrab

Very interesting! Thanks. It seems quite a while back I read someone thought Burke let some friends in and they were "messing around" and things got carried away. They left in a hurry and JonBenet's parents then went to work covering to protect Burk and the other boys. (Stine's son?) In a way this theory makes sense to me, also. But then - I don't think they would have let Burke leave on that day if he was involved. And let him be interviewe as soon as they did.