Missing Link - What's the compelling motive for government cover-up?...

I have enjoyed reading this forum in my week or so lurking. I have been truly enlightened (not that I believed "intruder did it" before I read this forum) with the discussions of the facts of the case, primarily physical evidence. But most explanations depend upon a cover-up by government officials. What motive would Hunter have? The Ramseys aren’t anything special, except they have a few bucks. And his successor? She had her ticket to the governor's mansion if she solved the case, yet she decides to go ahead and risk the slammer? What would they GAIN by doing this?

On the other hand, I can think of numerous motives not to cover it up. You risk jail time by covering it up. You have an opportunity at fame and fortune by solving the mystery.

I understand the constraints of Colorado juvenile law, but it can’t be construed that narrowly to shield adults if they happen to participate in criminal activities with children.

Further, while GJ activities are sealed, they are frequently leaked. Assorted facts may have been, but the “solution” has not been. Further, people could make immense sums by publishing this, and we saw last week that writers and reporters are willing to risk jail to “protect” sources; add this idealistic notion plus a huge payday and someone would pierce the silence.

I know cover-ups happen. But this is a small town and the incentives NOT to cover-up seem signficant, while I can't think of a single compelling reason to cover it up.


Just another small point - if the Atlanta alibi of the elder son is bogus, it should be easy enough to bust (from my superficial analysis, it seems fishy as hell); and why wouldn't they if they could? He's an adult. Further, no way can I see PR coverning up for him.


Just my thoughts.

I agree and furthermore they weren't all that wealthy. Their net worth amounted to about $6 million. Hardly one of the mega-rich.

Well by my standards the Ramsey's were wealthy.
I agree Edison, I cant see Patsy covering for JAR. IMO JonBenet meant more to Patsy than John Andrew and rightly so, John Andrew is not Patsy's child.

narlacat said:

I cant see Patsy covering for JAR. IMO JonBenet meant more to Patsy than John Andrew and rightly so, John Andrew is not Patsy's child.

Click to expand...

Add BR to the JAR equation and Patsy's decision on whether or not to coverup becomes more difficult.

Wellllll, IF JR was awake during the entire aftermath, he WOULD want a coverup. Do you think under the circumstances that PR would deny helping him?

An horrific set of circumstances IF neither JR and PR had any direct involvement. The dictionary open to the page 'incest' could have great significance to the entire matter.


.

EdisonDoyle said:

But most explanations depend upon a cover-up by government officials.

You risk jail time by covering it up.

Click to expand...

EdisonDoyle,

This case is a little different in that the government officials involved in the coverup appear to include the court. Stir in the media with the conspiracy and you got yourself one helluva coverup.

For instance, federal judge Julia Carnes unsolicited opinions, in a civil case in Atlanta, about a murder investigation in Colorado, was a glaring attempt to make it appear the Ramseys were not invoved in the murder of JonBenet -- and it was an effort to rehabilitate the Ramsey's image. And the repeated airings of the error-filled and biased one-hour-long Ramsey infomercial by the media on national TV, without rebuttals, clearly shows the media is involved in the conspiracy.

There's an obvious on-going coverup, and the ONLY way a powerful conspiracy could materialize that voluntarily includes the court and the media as a part of it, is if the perpetrators were very young children. Otherwise, the court and the media wouldn't touch the effort to help the Ramseys with a 10-foot pole.

BlueCrab

Are you talking about Carnes contacting BPD for information about what should be redacted from ST's deposition?

The media would have a field day if it were shown that Burke was the killer. They certainly wouldn't participate in a coverup in lieu of the money-making "Burke Did It!" headlines.

tipper said:

Are you talking about Carnes contacting BPD for information about what should be redacted from ST's deposition?

The media would have a field day if it were shown that Burke was the killer. They certainly wouldn't participate in a coverup in lieu of the money-making "Burke Did It!" headlines.

Click to expand...

tipper,

I'm talking about Carnes' written comments in her dismissal of the Wolf v Ramsey lawsuit.

When I say media, I'm referring to ABC, NBC, and CBS as participants in the conspiratorial coverup of what really happened.

I didn't include FOX, because FOX held firm and didn't settle, called Lin Wood's bluff, and successfully challenged the Ramsey defamation lawsuit. The court tossed it out, as it should have in all of the other Ramsey lawsuits if only the defendants would have spent the money to carry on and prove it was all a Lin Wood bluff, as FOX proved.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

EdisonDoyle,

This case is a little different in that the government officials involved in the coverup appear to include the court. Stir in the media with the conspiracy and you got yourself one helluva coverup.

For instance, federal judge Julia Carnes unsolicited opinions, in a civil case in Atlanta, about a murder investigation in Colorado, was a glaring attempt to make it appear the Ramseys were not invoved in the murder of JonBenet -- and it was an effort to rehabilitate the Ramsey's image. And the repeated airings of the error-filled and biased one-hour-long Ramsey infomercial by the media on national TV, without rebuttals, clearly shows the media is involved in the conspiracy.

There's an obvious on-going coverup, and the ONLY way a powerful conspiracy could materialize that voluntarily includes the court and the media as a part of it, is if the perpetrators were very young children. Otherwise, the court and the media wouldn't touch the effort to help the Ramseys with a 10-foot pole.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Thanks for yours and the others' responses.
But I'm left with WHY?
I agree with you in the sense that if there is a cover-up, it is widespread.
But why? Why are they covering this up?
I know the CIA and FBI cover things up for national security and other reasons (plane crashes?). But this piddlin' case (which is really what it is, in the course and scope of things). Maybe that's the reason - it was piddlin and they figured no one would notice; yet conspirators joined the conspiracy after it was no longer piddlin'
So why?

And do you think it will ever be exposed?

IF IF BlueCrabs hypothesis is correct and two little boys accomplished the accidental death and the note that was written, they are not prosecutable, and their childhood goes ahead unblemished.

Therefore the DA, the BPD, all involved covered up the loss of innocence of two underage boys.

Seems if that is the case, that all of the money collected by Lin Woods suits on the Ramsey's behalf 'claiming' the innocence of any involvement of Burke in the crime, should be returned to those who paid through their noses losing the suits brought by the Ramseys.

Yet again, perhaps Burke was an innocent bystander or observer. Again why was the burglar alarm not set that night? Who was expected that night that the door was left unarmed? Who was the person that JonBenet told her friend that 'she JBR' was to have a secret visit from Santa after Christmas?

I wonder IF the drooling perp ever made another EA device and is using it or hopefully perfected the use of it, IF he/she did make another one. IF it was a young boy, he would now be prosecutable since he is 8.5 years older, should he accidentally kill another victim.



.

.

BlueCrab said:

tipper,

I'm talking about Carnes' written comments in her dismissal of the Wolf v Ramsey lawsuit.

[...]

Click to expand...

Yes. Didn't she make the comments in reference to ST's requested redactions in his deposition?

EdisonDoyle said:

Thanks for yours and the others' responses.
But I'm left with WHY?
I agree with you in the sense that if there is a cover-up, it is widespread.
But why? Why are they covering this up?
I know the CIA and FBI cover things up for national security and other reasons (plane crashes?). But this piddlin' case (which is really what it is, in the course and scope of things). Maybe that's the reason - it was piddlin and they figured no one would notice; yet conspirators joined the conspiracy after it was no longer piddlin'
So why?

And do you think it will ever be exposed?

Click to expand...

Edison Doyle,

As you know, I'm of the opinion the case was solved by the grand jury's investigators in 1999; kids too young to prosecute were involved; and the case (in accordance with Colorado law) went to Alex Hunter to decide what to do. Hunter's actions have never been made public and the case has been under a gag order ever since.

It appears to me that Boulder officials, the D.A.'s office, and the court want the Ramsey case put to sleep. There's no money in the budget to pursue an active investigation. And the media has apparently been approached to help declare JonBenet's death an unsolved murder by an unknown intruder, and to try to rehabilitate the Ramsey's public image.

However, most of us, especially those of us posting on the WS forum and similar forums, know a Ramsey was involved in the brutal murder of JonBenet, and we're not going to let it happen. JonBenet deserves justice and she's going to get it. Numerous lies have proven the Ramseys are engaged in a coverup to protect someone involved in the killing -- and that someone has to be a Ramsey or there wouldn't be a need for a coverup in the first place.

BlueCrab

>>I know the CIA and FBI cover things up for national security and other reasons (plane crashes?). But this piddlin' case (which is really what it is, in the course and scope of things). Maybe that's the reason - it was piddlin and they figured no one would notice; yet conspirators joined the conspiracy after it was no longer piddlin'<<


Edison
This case is America's most famous/infamous unsolved murder and has attracted attention world wide. It is rated as the 2nd most famous/infamous murder crime in the world, after Jack the Ripper.

There is no compelling motive because there is no large government coverup. Nobody knows who killed her.

Someone does.

narlacat said:

>>I know the CIA and FBI cover things up for national security and other reasons (plane crashes?). But this piddlin' case (which is really what it is, in the course and scope of things). Maybe that's the reason - it was piddlin and they figured no one would notice; yet conspirators joined the conspiracy after it was no longer piddlin'<<


Edison
This case is America's most famous/infamous unsolved murder and has attracted attention world wide. It is rated as the 2nd most famous/infamous murder crime in the world, after Jack the Ripper.

Click to expand...

Narla - it certainly is now. No question.

BlueCrab said:

Edison Doyle,

As you know, I'm of the opinion the case was solved by the grand jury's investigators in 1999; kids too young to prosecute were involved; and the case (in accordance with Colorado law) went to Alex Hunter to decide what to do. Hunter's actions have never been made public and the case has been under a gag order ever since.

It appears to me that Boulder officials, the D.A.'s office, and the court want the Ramsey case put to sleep. There's no money in the budget to pursue an active investigation. And the media has apparently been approached to help declare JonBenet's death an unsolved murder by an unknown intruder, and to try to rehabilitate the Ramsey's public image.

However, most of us, especially those of us posting on the WS forum and similar forums, know a Ramsey was involved in the brutal murder of JonBenet, and we're not going to let it happen. JonBenet deserves justice and she's going to get it. Numerous lies have proven the Ramseys are engaged in a coverup to protect someone involved in the killing -- and that someone has to be a Ramsey or there wouldn't be a need for a coverup in the first place.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

BC
I applaud the tenacity of yourself and others in keeping this case in the spotlight. And indeed, JonBenet deserves justice. And I by no means aim to belittle this case - the facts of this case are, sadly, common in America and would in normal circumstances offer no scrutiny beyond boulder or colorado. Same is true with Peterson and a number of others.

My only disagreement in your theory is this: Cover-up lacks a motive to cover-up. You've astutely explained your theory and why you think there is a cover-up, but I haven't heard a reason WHY all of these parties are covering it up. I don't disagree that there is a cover-up- several things point to it, many of which you pointed out.

At the outset, I understand the DA's constraints re juveniles I understand your points re his instincts at that time. But the public also has an interest to know that a)justice has been served and b)that there is NOT some maniac out there raping and killing children. Hunter has failed in both regards re public service AND risked jail.


You noted that "the media has apparently been approached...to try to rehabilitate the Ramsey's public image." Why? Why would the Boulder DA, much less the media, give a hoot about their public image?

"There's no money in the budget to pursue an active investigation." If it's been solved, what money is needed?

One other point that might suggest cover-up is this: State AGs can get involved in things like this and they have the money; so could the FBI (child *advertiser censored* is a federal offense, and sufficient links can be made to put this under their purview IF they wanted; and with the publicity around this case they would WANT in normal circumstances). Yet the state AG and FBI, to my knowledge, are silent.

People rarely turn down the opportunity for money or cheap publicity. Many parties have done just that. FUrther, if there is a vast cover-up many more people will have had to. Money and fame are big temptations, yet it's turned down to shield 2 people.

Why?

Hopefully, people with the power to persuade will keep this fire burning (maybe you are one of those people; if you are, I'd suggest further digging for motive). I believe you mentioned once that even Schiller only published a small token of what he knows - if he was hesitant, that portends a long wait, unfortunately.

I don't really see a motive for a government coverup, I see a motive for family cover-up (eta: if a family member is guilty), and of course coverup by the perpetrator, too, whether a family member or not.

narlacat said:

Someone does.

Click to expand...

Very true. I was sloppy.

I don't think there was a cover-up, but I do think the case would have been solved had the first police on site treated the house like a crime scene (which it was) instead of allowing the Ramsey's to have their little tea party and contaminate the crime scene.

Had the Ramsey's been Mr. & Mrs. Joe Blow, I think the police would have handled it differently. The were treated with kid-gloves. Once they lawyered-up, it was over.

There is a reason they are the most hated couple in America.