I would have thought this would not be too difficult to verify, even for the Boulder police.

How logical is it to, for almost 6 years, be touting the case as solved (by the grand jury), but buried as a solved case with no charges laid against the necessary conspiratorial adults to make his theory work? And, how logical is it to continue to administer DNA tests and enter the results into the databanks, looking for a match, in a "solved" case? And, how logical is it to have investigators still investigating a "solved" crime? Some important questions (and I'm sure there are more), if you ask me (and you probably are not).

the HAIR is from a caucasian (gender unknown)

the DNA is from a male (race unknown)

The hair has NOT been determined to be from a male. There has been no announcement as to the race of the contributor of the foreign DNA.

He had no motive - - no opportunity - - and no one has put the cord, tape or stun gun in his world either.

I don't know who for sure killed JonBenet no more than you know for sure who killed her.

I deal with the credible evidence and other credible facts pertaining to the case, and draw theories from this information. I have a half dozen or more theories because, like you, I don't have ALL of the evidence. However, all of my theories do include Burke Ramsey in them because, unlike John and Patsy, I haven't seen one piece of exculpatory evidence in Burke's favor. Until there is at least one credible item of evidence that exculpates Burke, he stays in my theories. I don't think Burke killed JonBenet, but he's directly involved somehow or the Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for him.

Margoo, instead of making broad-brush insinuations about what I post, please be specific about at least one item of evidence or fact that I say that in your mind isn't credible, then we'll have something to debate.

I include Nathan in some of the theories because it's a fact he lived at the Stines; it's a fact he cared for Burke and JonBenet; and it's a fact he was a member of APAC. Maybe you want to ignore facts like this, but I don't.

I have never said that Nathan murdered JonBenet and, in fact, if APAC was involved somehow in this crime the perpetrator would more likely be a renegade member of APAC, not Nathan. But like it or not, Nathan and APAC are a part of the JonBenet story.

Incidentally, when I first brought up this issue about 2 years ago, DocWatson, formerly known as DrC on the boards, did say he contacted Nathan and he said that Nathan told him he was in California during Christmas of 1996, but we have no proof of that. DocWatson says he discarded the e-mail response from Nathan.

It would be nice if Nathan Inouye could take the time to join in on this internet discussion, if he isn't blocked by the court gag order apparently still in place on the case.

BlueCrab

Margoo,

You said in one of your above posts that I was trying to hang this crime on a 10-year-old neighbor. I assure you I'm not trying to hang this crime on anyone other than the person who murdered JonBenet, regardless of who this person might be. I assume you are referring to Doug Stine in your post. I thought Doug was 9 years old at the time of the crime. Please provide a source that he was 10. Thanks.

BlueCrab

Jonbenet ........ Aug 6 1990 ... hiroshima ..... Aug 6

John Ramsey ... Dec 7 1943 ... pearl harbor .. Dec 7

the Japanese connection between there birthdates is interesting - and I considered this as a possible motive in the crime - a revenge for hiroshima - killing

at face value this would seem a possibility




however - although I think these two birthdates and there numerical value to one another are of paramount importance in the crime and attending motives




I do not think the revenge theory - the obvious face value theory is -

the correct theory




there birthdates were used as a motive in the crime - but for a totally different reason than hiroshima

Margoo,

I'm bumping this up to ask you again, since you apparently know, how old was Doug Stine on December 26, 1996? Thanks.

BlueCrab

Margoo,

I don't know who killed JonBenet, and neither do you. Likewise, we don't know for sure who DIDN'T kill her, do we? Yet you blindly defend all three Ramseys who were in the house that night.

There was no intruder. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and blatantly covering up to protect the identity of an intruder. They wouldn't even do it for each other. They would only cover up for Burke.

John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor. They didn't do it. That leaves Burke and most likely a fifth person who was in the house that night. Therefore, IMO Burke is involved somehow or another in the death of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

Subtract 6 (Think about it. Shouldn't be hard.)

And the answer is 4

Now we got genetic, environmental, astrologolic, and fourism.

Yes, 4 whing-a-do's to be factored in. Get that? 4

Out of order. I was replying to message # l5.

Even though you don't see no evil nor hear no evil when it comes to a Ramsey, the fact of the matter is that evidence points in the direction of Burke, and likely a friend or two of Burke's as accomplices. Here's my logic:

o There was no intruder. The Ramseys wouldn't be covering up to protect an intruder nor to protect the other spouse.

o Neither John nor Patsy likely murdered JonBenet because they both have exculpatory evidence (DNA, handwriting, and polygraph) in their favor.

o That leaves Burke.

o Burke could not be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note by the CBI.

o But it wasn't Burke's DNA in the panties.

o Therefore, Burke apparently wrote the ransom note and the DNA belongs to a fifth person who was in the house that night at the invitation of a Ramsey.

BlueCrab

Do you know what a 9 year old growing up in the household he grew up in knows about? Nintendo, Basketball, friends, school, mom and dad and sister were his world. His world was: INNOCENCE.

Why won't you let him have that? IS there something wrong with your head that you could go on and on about this for 8 years? I asked that in all honesty. Something is WRONG!

Ashley,

The truth can be upsetting, can't it? Take a Melatonin, get some rest, and post me in the morning.

BlueCrab

Is that the best you can do? Call the Ramseys liars? Accuse me of wearing rose-colored glasses? Narrow the field of probable perpetrators to three, eliminate two, "and that leaves one"?

I am convinced that you are desperate to find some help through your theory. I believe you don't REALLY believe Burke had a darn thing to do with JonBenét's death and I think you have come to realize that. I don't believe you have the necessary blinders to believe your own theory or to disregard all the intruder evidence.

One by one EVERY argument you have USED to support your BDI theory has been shot down. You KNOW your theory has trouble, really doesn't fly, and you are looking for that one person to help you through, to provide that much needed BIG boost.

For years, that shot in the arm for your theory has not only NOT been forthcoming, all the bits and pieces of your theory have been shot down in flames. I believe you understand that. You are hoping someone will slip you the magic solution.

You'll not get any help here.

Here's to better sleuthing in 2005.

Margoo

Margoo,

There is no intruder evidence. If there is, let's hear it.

ZZZZZZ s-i-l-e-n-c-e ZZZZZZ

BlueCrab

In virtually any other case, the foreign fibers, unsourced tape and cord, the bat, etc., etc., etc., would be considered evidence of an intruder.

Don't you wonder why none of it was viewed as such by the BPD?

I have known a lot of nine-year-olds, many of them highly intelligent. Yet, at the age of nine, I do not believe any of them would know the words attache or deviation. Not one of those children I knew would have been able to construct such a ransom note at the age of nine. Nope, not even the kid who went on to score a perfect SAT test.

Now, that's not to say that perhaps somewhere out there some nine-year-old kid couldn't have done so, but there is no reason to believe Burke is a genius or some of those muckrakers at other forums wouldn't be posting about his autism, would they?

The 911 tape is a bust. We've all heard it. It's been tested by other laboratories since the infamous BPD testing. Not one person or laboratory has ever been able to find the conversation you'd so like to have validated. Not even back in the day of the prosecution's presentation of the enhanced tape...nope. As a matter of fact, it was noted by one person, "if you could be sure it was a voice."

And the purported conversation of the 911 tape is all you have that points to Burke.

Rainsong

>reason to believe Burke is a genius or some of those
>muckrakers at other forums wouldn't be posting about his
>autism, would they?
>
>The 911 tape is a bust. We've all heard it. It's been tested
>by other laboratories since the infamous BPD testing. Not
>one person or laboratory has ever been able to find the
>conversation you'd so like to have validated. Not even back
>in the day of the prosecution's presentation of the enhanced
>tape...nope. As a matter of fact, it was noted by one
>person, "if you could be sure it was a voice."
>
>And the purported conversation of the 911 tape is all you
>have that points to Burke.
>
>Rainsong

Rainsong,

What you consider evidence of an intruder I consider evidence of a fifth person invited into the house that night by a Ramsey. Otherwise the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, obfuscating answers to questions during the investigations, and covering up.

I don't know who that fifth (and perhaps even sixth) person might be, but common sense tells me he or they were there. Do you think for one minute the Ramseys would be covering up to protect the identity of an intruder? Of course not. That fifth person in the house that night could have been Douggie Stine, A/O Nathan Inouye, A/O Fleet White III, A/O one of the kids who live nearby, A/O a loose cannon from APAC, A/O some character from the street -- but he was there, he's friendly with Burke, and he is likely the killer.

In regard to the enhanced 911 tape with Burke's voice on it, a copy of it was ordered given to Burke by the court before Burke testified in front of the grand jury for five hours in 1998 ONLY because he was entitled by law to review HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS. Otherwise he wouldn't have qualified to receive the copy. Once Burke's copy got into the hands of Lin Wood the chain of custody of that copy of the tape was compromised forever. The end of it was simply edited out.

There are dozens of people who have heard Burke's voice on the original enhanced 911 tape. THAT copy is protected.

BlueCrab

Please, show me where the Ramseys are lying. No, not about Burke being awake because you and I will never agree on that aspect not to mention we all heard the tape Tricia received--and it did not go through Lin Wood's hands. People hear what they want to hear. I'd much rather go by all those outside laboratories and my own ears. Nothing on the tape.

Show me where the Ramseys have obfuscated the investigation.
Show me where they failed to answer any question pertaining to the night of December 25th, 1996.

Show me, Blue Crab. Show me.

Rainsong

one_eyed_Jack,

"Darling?" and "respect in the morning?"

Please. I'm a "Jimmy" (male) blue crab, not a "Sook" (female) blue crab. You'll have a helluva time trying to get me in the sack.

BlueCrab

Ah, another unfounded conclusion based on tenuous evidence!

Rainsong

Actually, Bluecrab, I'm female. The 'hat' comes from my one-eyed male cat.