The Missing Period (.)

[TLynn]

A "lone" intruder not connected to any Ramsey (Burke included) does not explain the pineapple.

 

[DocWatson]

It's elementary my dear Watson. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for a lone intruder uninvited by Burke.

IMO there was a fifth person in the house (an intruder if you will) AND a Ramsey involved (Burke). IOW both the IDI theorists and the RDI theorists are right.

JMO

I don't accept the premise that Ramseys lied or covered up. Such claims require bulletproof evidence, which you cannot offer. An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."

Moreover, the evidence regarding sexual assault is far better explained with a "genuine" intruder, not someone invited by a family member. JBR suffered a painful and calculated death: those who claim it was accidental (whether by Patsy or by Burke) haven't looked at the evidence very carefully.

 

[Lance55]

I don't accept the premise that Ramseys lied or covered up. Such claims require bulletproof evidence, which you cannot offer. An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."

Moreover, the evidence regarding sexual assault is far better explained with a "genuine" intruder, not someone invited by a family member. JBR suffered a painful and calculated death: those who claim it was accidental (whether by Patsy or by Burke) haven't looked at the evidence very carefully.

I agree, Doc. -- But these people are not interested in what the evidence shows, they have been trying to make the evidence fit into their picture puzzle for years. -- Each of them "saw" the face of the killer, and as they pick up every piece, the cut off the deges, and get a hammer to force it into the puzzle.

Now, they are like a whole bunch of religious cults. -- They are not investigators, they are inquisitors.

 

[Ivy]

Fact are facts, Watson, and after all, you are only a general practitioner with very little experience and mediocre qualifications.
~~ from the lips of Sherlock Holmes in "The Adventure of the Dying Detective."

DocWatson, what do you consider "bulletproof evidence"? The Ramseys lied about Burke not having been awake, when in fact he was awake and talking to them during the 911 call. Dave's "careful and scientific" analysis of the 911 tape isn't accepted as gospel here. The tape has been professionally analyzed, and unless the intruder stayed for breakfast as another poster suggested TIC, Burke's voice is on it.

The vaginal injuries JonBenet incurred were minimal compared to injuries other victims of sexual assault have suffered, so how can you say the evidence regarding sexual assault is far better explained with a genuine intruder? That doesn't make sense.

IMO

 

[Shylock]

An even-handed assessment of the 911 tape does NOT result in the conclusion that Burke's voice is on it. If you don't believe this, you should read Dave's careful and scientific analysis of this evidence "over there."

"Dave", he's nothing but another mindless Swampette, interested only in spewing propaganda like the *advertiser censored* he answers to. Jayelles posted some of dipchit Dave's back-patting analysis here where everyone saw right threw it. Others wasted their time traveling to the Swamp for a good laugh. Dave failed to even mention the 4-second gap in the CD version where Burke and John's voices were redacted. Dave is useless. He need to grow a pair and post on a REAL forum instead of hiding behind the *advertiser censored*'s apron strings.

 

[DocWatson]

"Dave", he's nothing but another mindless Swampette, interested only in spewing propaganda like the *advertiser censored* he answers to. Jayelles posted some of dipchit Dave's back-patting analysis here where everyone saw right threw it. Others wasted their time traveling to the Swamp for a good laugh. Dave failed to even mention the 4-second gap in the CD version where Burke and John's voices were redacted. Dave is useless. He need to grow a pair and post on a REAL forum instead of hiding behind the *advertiser censored*'s apron strings.

The difference between Dave and you and is that Dave is not afraid to put all his evidence and reasoning out in public where anyone can see it:
http://www.***********.com/dcf/DCForumID101/1686.html

Dave and other posters "over there" have REPEATEDLY pointed out that cadence/sound of the portion of the CD version at the end where people such as you hear voices is nearly identical to the beginning of that same CD recording (before Patsy begins talking), strongly suggesting that whatever background noise there is came from the dispatcher side or some other (likely mechanical) source rather than from Ramsey house. NOBODY has to accept my word or conclusion on this point. Dave has thoughtfully posted ALL of his analysis and evidence so that fair-minded people can draw their own conclusions. In contrast, Spade and Tricia, who claim to have refuted Dave's analysis, have posted NO analysis and NO mp3 files ANYWHERE. You can rest assured that in contrast, your ad hominem attacks on Dave are most unconvincing as evidence to this observer. Dave's analysis and conclusions stand unrefuted to this day.

 

[Cain]

It seems as if Dave made his conclusions BEFORE making the analysis... He should re-try it in the rigth order...

 

[BlueCrab]

The end of the original 911 tape has noise on it that MAY be voices. The end of the enhanced tape verifies that the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on it.

A lot of people behind the scenes in addition to the few who have publicly known to have heard the enhanced tape acknowledge the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on those final few seconds of the tape.

In 1998 Burke's attorney at the time, Jenkins, and the court also verified the existence of Burke's voice on the tape when the attorney requested and received a copy of the tape from the the D.A., upon order of the court, to satisfy a witnesses' right to any "previous statements" prior to testifying in front of a grand jury.

If Burke's voice wasn't on the 911 tape Burke wouldn't have been entitled to receive a copy of his "previous statement" (on the 911 tape). Therefore, Burke's voice had to be on the tape.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

The end of the original 911 tape has noise on it that MAY be voices. The end of the enhanced tape verifies that the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on it.

A lot of people behind the scenes in addition to the few who have publicly known to have heard the enhanced tape acknowledge the voices of John, Patsy and Burke are on those final few seconds of the tape.

In 1998 Burke's attorney at the time, Jenkins, and the court also verified the existence of Burke's voice on the tape when the attorney requested and received a copy of the tape from the the D.A., upon order of the court, to satisfy a witnesses' right to any "previous statements" prior to testifying in front of a grand jury.

If Burke's voice wasn't on the 911 tape Burke wouldn't have been entitled to receive a copy of his "previous statement" (on the 911 tape). Therefore, Burke's voice had to be on the tape.

JMO

This is a completely bogus claim. If Burke's attorney anticipated questions about the ALLEGED existence of Burke's voice on the tape then he would have been entitled to receive this ALLEGED evidence in order to thoroughly examine it and be in a position to rebut the junk science claims that Burke's voice was on it. Doing so is merely good legal practice and in NO WAY connotes that the lawyer or his client believed these junk science claims. To imply otherwise is to engage in flagrant truth-twisting.

 

[BlueCrab]

This is a completely bogus claim. If Burke's attorney anticipated questions about the ALLEGED existence of Burke's voice on the tape then he would have been entitled to receive this ALLEGED evidence in order to thoroughly examine it and be in a position to rebut the junk science claims that Burke's voice was on it. Doing so is merely good legal practice and in NO WAY connotes that the lawyer or his client believed these junk science claims. To imply otherwise is to engage in flagrant truth-twisting.

Rocky Mountain News, May 30,1999:

"Shortly before Burke Ramsey's testimony, a judge ordered Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to turn over a copy of the tape to the Ramseys, Newsweek reported. In Colorado, a person testifying before a grand jury is allowed to see any "prior statement" he or she made."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0530tape1.shtml

JMO

 

[Shylock]

The difference between Dave and you and is that Dave is not afraid to put all his evidence and reasoning out in public where anyone can see it, your ad hominem attacks on Dave are most unconvincing as evidence to this observer. Dave's analysis and conclusions stand unrefuted to this day.

Sorry, but you have your facts wrong, (which doesn't really surprise me since you base your opinion on mis-information that is constantly manufactured over on the Swamp.)

"Dave" kicked himself in the *advertiser censored* by jumping the gun and writing some trumped-up analysis based on the 911 tape that was originally released by Keenan on audio tape. That version of the tape was prematurely cut off and didn't even include Patsy's voice at the end of it. That was the version that Limp Wood passed around to the networks which they played on-air and sent to a couple audio labs. It's no wonder "Dave" found nothing on the tape, nobody did, the tape was cut off WAY before it actually ended!

Weeks later, Keenan released a copy of the 911 tape on CD. That version is drastically different than the original audio tape version she released:

-- It contains some extra noise at the beginning of the call.
-- It doesn't end prematurely.
-- It contains Patsy's voice saying "help me, help me jesus, help me jesus" which can clearly be heard by anyone with good hearing and a decent audio system.
-- It contains a 4-second gap. Located after Patsy, in the exact spot which Thomas says the voices of Burke and John can be heard. This version has obviously been redacted to exclude those voices.

Those are the FACTS, and anyone hear can go out and listen to both the audio version and the CD version to prove it to themselves. We don't need "Dave", "Spade", or "Tricia", to interprete for us what our own ears can hear! We know Burke's voice appears on the 911 call or there would have been NO REASON for Keenen to redact 4-seconds of audio from the end of the tape. When asked about the 4-second gap, Keenan's only statement was "no comment".

 

[Shylock]

If Burke's voice wasn't on the 911 tape Burke wouldn't have been entitled to receive a copy of his "previous statement" (on the 911 tape). Therefore, Burke's voice had to be on the tape.

This is a good point, BlueCrab. We also have Thomas statement that the detectives were all in agreement that there is a 3rd voice on the tape, as well as Kane's statement that there is something there. Additionally, we know the DA's brother-inlaw at the Los Alamos Lab also found a third voice, but disagreed on what it was saying.

And the bottom line is: There should be no doubt in anyones mind that Burke is on the 911 tape, or else there would have been no reason for Keenan to redact the tape before releasing it. (See my post to DocWatson above...)

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Burke was entitled to a copy of the 911 tape because other/s had claimed his voice was on the tape. If someone asserts that you made a statement, you are entitled to learn what they have claimed you said.

Providing a copy of the tape to Burke's lawyer does not prove that Burke spoke on the 911 tape or that he was present when it was recorded. It merely establishes that someone claimed Burke's voice was on the tape.

 

[DocWatson]

Sorry, but you have your facts wrong, (which doesn't really surprise me since you base your opinion on mis-information that is constantly manufactured over on the Swamp.)

"Dave" kicked himself in the *advertiser censored* by jumping the gun and writing some trumped-up analysis based on the 911 tape that was originally released by Keenan on audio tape. That version of the tape was prematurely cut off and didn't even include Patsy's voice at the end of it. That was the version that Limp Wood passed around to the networks which they played on-air and sent to a couple audio labs. It's no wonder "Dave" found nothing on the tape, nobody did, the tape was cut off WAY before it actually ended!

Weeks later, Keenan released a copy of the 911 tape on CD. That version is drastically different than the original audio tape version she released:

-- It contains some extra noise at the beginning of the call.
-- It doesn't end prematurely.
-- It contains Patsy's voice saying "help me, help me jesus, help me jesus" which can clearly be heard by anyone with good hearing and a decent audio system.
-- It contains a 4-second gap. Located after Patsy, in the exact spot which Thomas says the voices of Burke and John can be heard. This version has obviously been redacted to exclude those voices.

Those are the FACTS, and anyone hear can go out and listen to both the audio version and the CD version to prove it to themselves. We don't need "Dave", "Spade", or "Tricia", to interprete for us what our own ears can hear! We know Burke's voice appears on the 911 call or there would have been NO REASON for Keenen to redact 4-seconds of audio from the end of the tape. When asked about the 4-second gap, Keenan's only statement was "no comment".

Fact: Dave has analyzed both the tape and CD version
Fact: The alleged "voices" of Burke and John appear on both versions
Fact: Dave has demonstrated convincingly that what you hear as voices actually is far more likely to be a non-human mechanical sound.
Fact: The 4 seconds of alleged redaction actually contain background sounds nearly identical to those appearing at the FRONT of the very same CD!
Fact: The handwriting comparisons shown in the attachment available at the URL in your signature line repeatedly show that the RN writer consistently used a "typewriter" style of forming a's whereas Patsy consistently used a more conventional "handwriting" style.
Fact: Patsy scored 4.5 out of 5.0 on the handwriting analysis, where 5.0=no possible way she could be the author.
Fact: People hear what they want to hear on the tape and see what they want to see in the RN. Given a choice between experts who have examined both sets of evidence and a biased amateur such as yourself, it's a no-brainer which to believe.

 

[Shylock]

Fact: Dave has analyzed both the tape and CD version

Who cares, he already lost his credibility with his useless analysis of the prematurely cut-off audio tape version. Now he wants to redeem himself?--Forget it, he's toast and so is his opinion.


Fact: The alleged "voices" of Burke and John appear on both versions

Sorry, you're wrong. This is how we know that you and "Dave" don't have a clue about what you're talking about. John and Burke's voices supposedly appear right after Patsy's cries to jesus. Right after that point on the CD version the 4-second gap comes in. There is NO WAY John or Burke's voices could be present on EITHER version. How could they??? That section of audio DOESN'T EXIST on EITHER version! When you figure that one out, be sure to let us know!


Fact: Dave has demonstrated convincingly that what you hear as voices actually is far more likely to be a non-human mechanical sound.

"Dave" hasn't demonstrated ANYTHING except for the fact that he isn't even listening to the correct area of the tape! Your incorrect fact above proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt!


Fact: The 4 seconds of alleged redaction actually contain background sounds nearly identical to those appearing at the FRONT of the very same CD!

Well, geeeeee...that's a real surprise isn't it! The recording wasn't started at the precise moment of the beginning of the tape so a blank area exists. Then, when the mic or line-input was unplugged to create the 4-second redaction, the same blank area is left behind for that period of time. Two identical blank areas, well SURPRISE-SURPRISE! (Not too hard to figure that one out, was it?... Too bad lame-Dave missed that boat too.)


Fact: The handwriting comparisons shown in the attachment available at the URL in your signature line repeatedly show that the RN writer consistently used a "typewriter" style of forming a's whereas Patsy consistently used a more conventional "handwriting" style.

Yeah...lets forget that Patsy wrote Nedra a note after the crime which contained the exact same style of manuscript letter "a" which she tried to hide and cross out after realizing her mistake. And exemplars of Patsy's writing taken from the house, written prior to the crime, also contained that style letter.


Fact: Patsy scored 4.5 out of 5.0 on the handwriting analysis, where 5.0=no possible way she could be the author.

Yeah...by experts that were bought and paid for by the Ramseys.
Who needs "experts", we have our own eyes and brains to see that Patsy wrote the note. Nobody else could have, unless you know someone that knows Patsy so intimately that they can perfectly imitate her disguised writing? Not possible.

The URL below proves that on a scale of 1 to 5 ZILLION chances, nobody but Patsy could have possibly written that note. Put THAT score in your pipe and smoke it...LOL!

 

[Shylock]

Providing a copy of the tape to Burke's lawyer does not prove that Burke spoke on the 911 tape or that he was present when it was recorded. It merely establishes that someone claimed Burke's voice was on the tape.

This is true, LovelyPigeon. However it does prove that the BPD and DA's office were so confident that Burke's voice was on the tape that they were willing to take that evidence to a Grand Jury.

You have one DA that takes the tape to a Grand Jury, then the very next DA redacts the tape before public release. Not too hard to figure out what's on it...is it.

 

[linnafay]

This is true, LovelyPigeon. However it does prove that the BPD and DA's office were so confident that Burke's voice was on the tape that they were willing to take that evidence to a Grand Jury.

You have one DA that takes the tape to a Grand Jury, then the very next DA redacts the tape before public release. Not too hard to figure out what's on it...is it.

S.B.T.C

could be Some Body That Cares

or Saving Burke Talking Cool

 

[ellen13]

Whatever happened to the idea of "Saved By The Cross"
and back to the idea that Patsy saw JB as a sacrifice?
I read someone's theory somewhere on this board but I
forget who wrote it.

 

[DeDee]

Bulldog Stine

The Stine's lived in Boulder at 816 10th Street. It was about a five-block walk between the Ramsey's house and the Stine's house.

JMO

 

[DeDee]

Although BlueCrab never divulged who their source was for all of the data imparted, it was obvious that BlueCrab had a reliable source fairly close to the investigation.

I'd like to recap "The Missing Period (.)" thread because it might lead to something if investigated. (Or, of course, it could just be a bunch of unusual coincidences.) But for example:

o The APAC website signs off "K.J.L.B Groups"; and the Ramsey ransom note signs off "S.B.T.C";

o Both sign-offs used four capital letters;

o Both sign-offs used periods after each capital letter except the last one (the missing period);

o Both sign-offs were written around the same 1996 - 1997 time period;

o APAC can be loosely referred to as "a small foreign faction", (as written in the RN);

o APAC can be considered "a group of individuals", (as written in the RN);

o There was a direct link between APAC and the Ramsey household by way of Doug Stine and APAC member Nathan Inouye who lived at the Stine's house and was somewhat close to the Ramseys;

o APAC at CU was within walking distance of the Ramsey house, as was the Stines house within walking distance of the Ramsey house;

o APAC abruptly and suspiciously disbanded shortly after the murder of JonBenet.

IMO the 29 students at CU who were APAC members in 1996 should each be checked out.

JMO