It has been mentioned that maybe DS was at the R's that night, and that he was going to Charlevoix with the R's. It seems to me that JR once stated that at 3:00 AM there were other people in the house. I have been thinking about this for some time.
What if DS was there, and either participated or saw JB sexually assaulted, or bashed in the head? Wouldn't the R's immediately call the Stines to have them come and take DS home?
Why weren't the Stines called to the house when PR called all the others after the 911 call?
Why did the R's stay at the Stines, when they supposedly weren't good friends? Why did SS act as PR's pit bull and send the cops away on the 23rd?
If DS was there and witnessed something, even a horrible accident, would these two sets of parents work together to protect the guilty party, if it was a child, or children who caused the injury to JB?
Darlene733510,
Over the years there have been a few DS was there theories, including he left on the
bike.
The Stine's behaviour appears similar to JR's on the morning of the 911 call, i.e. JR is injecting himself, lock stock and barrel into the case, why so?
Consider the latter in conjunction with sometimes overlooked aspect that the death of JonBenet is actually a staged homicide. This was brought to my attention again this week, when the
first ever criminal trial was broadcast on UK TV.
Guess what it was staged homicide. There was no body, and little forensic evidence to implicate anyone, still Nat Fraser was found guilty.
In this case client attorney privilege mattered not a bit, as the prosecuter advised us:
all that is required is for the prosecuter to establish beyond probable doubt that the person in the dock carried out the crime
What other attorney's know or do not, seems irrelevent, even to the point where everyone is regailed with a prosecution witness, Hector Dick, who recounts how a body could be dissapeared via a meat rendering machine.
Only by actually watching the trial can you convince yourself that the prosecutions case might be fiction and that a guilty man walked free, yet the jury believed it and returned a guilty verdict.
Similar to the case of JonBenet, Nat Fraser injected himself into his own case, he describes forensic evidence which may or may not be present, hello JR, broken window etc.
i.e. you know, I know, everyone else and their dog, including all participating attorney's, know that the version of events being recounted is false.
If you consider some theories where strict logic is applied, i.e. RN only makes particular sense, yet when JR fingers himself at the outset, well that usually never gets a mention.
So what does Nat Fraser and the Stine's have in common? Well in the former some might speculate that a guilty person walked free. some might suggest that the Stine's injected themselves into the case, even to the point of impersonating a serving officer of the law? Why so?
One aspect that I find curious is this. JonBenet's case is unique in that it spawned a new genre: internet sleuthing. Yet where are JonBenet's classmates, even those of BR? They are grown up now, you might think they could tell us what they knew way back then, but nothing is said.
.