



Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Kolar's Book -- Part 2: Burke

The obvious suspect from the beginning was John Ramsey. This was especially true after it had been determined that prior sexual molestation seemed likely. World renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht became convinced, very early on, that the physical evidence pointed to John as both molester and murderer. And as I was recently reminded, the original theory of the original investigation team was apparently very similar to mine, i.e., John killed his daughter and wrote the note to stage a phoney kidnapping, of which Patsy knew nothing. Patsy foiled his plan by calling in the cops, and he was left with egg on his face, in the form of a very incriminating note and a body hidden in the basement. Pretty much open and shut, I'd say.

But then the investigation took a surprising turn: John Ramsey was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a blue ribbon panel of six handwriting "experts," two hired by him (amazingly enough, this was permitted) and four representing law enforcement. Incredibly, no one challenged such a patently questionable and in my view outrageous conclusion, which threw a monkey wrench into the investigation and became the source of so much confusion from then till now. 

With John "home free," and an intruder unlikely, everyone puzzling out this case had no choice but to consider scenarios that were truly bizarre. I won't list them here as they are already very well known. What they all have in common is a tendency to turn away from John and focus either on a very strange intruder with incomprehensible motives or an "over the top" Patsy Ramsey, flying into a rage, killing her daughter, and writing an equally "over the top" ransom note, for some odd reason that no one can fathom, since she then called the police on herself first thing in the morning.

Kolar's notion that Burke Ramsey must have been sexually molesting his sister and for some reason flew into a rage and killed her, is only the latest of these many fantastic ideas. Just as the various theories about Patsy have been bolstered by books and studies of all sorts on the psychology of stage mothers, narcissistic mothers, mothers who control their children, mothers who fall into uncontrollable rages over bedwetting, etc., Kolar dredges up all sorts of materials in the psychological literature pertaining to the perverse tendencies of young children. What all this "evidence" has in common is, of course, a complete lack of any direct relevance to the actual case at hand.

Of course, Kolar doesn't see it that way. Looking into the family history, he dredges up all sorts of "behavioral clues," suggesting that Burke may have had some serious emotional problems. He apparently smeared the walls with feces at one point, while his mother was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. And feces were apparently found in some odd places during the investigation, e.g., smeared on a box of chocolates in JonBenet's bedroom. The possibility that Burke's problems, assuming he actually had any, might have been prompted by suspicions that his father was molesting his sister, never occurs to Kolar. John is simply off his radar.

Instead he bends himself into a pretzel attempting to demonstrate that yes someone as apparently as frail as the nine year old Burke could indeed have slammed his sister over the head with such force that her skull was cracked from end to end. And, yes, a boy as young as Burke might in fact have been sexually active, which would make him responsible for both the acute and chronic damage to his sister's vagina. While such a possibility might seem utterly fantastic to you or me, Kolar manages to find "studies" that appear to support it.

All sorts of "red flags" are raised regarding Patsy and John's reluctance to allow Burke to be questioned, and some of things he ultimately said that seem suspicious, and in fact there is good reason to believe Burke was not being completely honest about what he knew. Rather than consider the possibility that the young boy might have been convinced or even coerced to keep silent regarding certain details that might make "the family" look bad, Kolar sees this as strong evidence that Burke must be responsible for his sister's death, with Patsy and John covering for him by writing the note, staging the "garotte" attack and protecting him from the curious probings of the investigators.

For Kolar, everything hinges on motive, and since he can find no motive for either John or Patsy to kill their daughter, then he has no choice but to fixate on Burke. After all, sibling rivalry can be a powerful motive, no question. What his theory lacks, however, is a motive for John and Patsy to then stage such an elaborate kidnapping scenario, complete with the War and Peace of ransom notes, not to mention the staging of a particularly violent and disgusting "garotte attack," simply to bolster the illusion of a violent pedophile intruder -- for the sake of "family honor"????? How does this gibe with his view of them as a good Christian couple? And what might have been their motive for calling the police on themselves first thing in the morning, so their elaborate staging could be undone and all suspicion focused on them. As a nine year old, Burke could not be indicted in the state of Colorado -- but they certainly could.

Kolar's scenario is, very simply, an act of desperation. And I must say, despite my skepticism, I can understand why he might have felt driven to take such an extreme and in fact outlandish position. Once John is taken out of the picture as writer of the note, then, very simply, there is no longer any theory of the case that does not require some very strange and indeed twisted thinking. Kolar's theory is definitely one of the more off-the-wall, but there is no lack of others, all, in one way or another, bizarre.

The ultimate irony is that Kolar, after excoriating the "good Christians" John and Patsy for their nefarious efforts in covering up the murder of their daughter, and claiming to have solved it by pointing to Burke as the perpetrator, throws up his hands to explain how the case is in fact beyond the reach of any future prosecution:
I am sure it has become apparent that I believe each member of the Ramsey family, home on the night of the murder, may have been involved at least as an accessory after the fact.
Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. The statutes of limitation for the crime of accessory after the fact have long since expired. (p. 428.)
Say what???? Why do I feel at this point that I've been subject to some sort of hocus pocus in which three people supposedly guilty of a horrendous crime suddenly disappear before my very eyes? Presto Chango! The case Kolar has been at such pains to make cannot be prosecuted because the murderer was too young and the conspirators responsible for staging the coverup are protected by the statute of limitations!!!!!

I would never accuse Kolar of conspiring with team Ramsey to get John off the hook. He destroys the intruder theory and reveals far too many examples of John's dishonesty and duplicity. All the same, what his book amounts to in the end is a very bizzare and surprising whitewash in which all three perpetrators, regardless of their guilt, are solemnly issued "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

What a strange strange case this has become!!!!!


  1. Not that I agree with BDI theory, but if that is the conclusion, then Kolar is correct in saying BR can never be prosecuted. I had never thought about the statute of limitations on AAF but I'm sure Kolar is correct on that too. The problem isn't that all 3 are beyond prosecution if it's BDI, the problem is BDI is such silly theory to begin with.

    1. Yes, you are right, he could not have been prosecuted -- which is one reason to wonder why his parents would have gone to such lengths to cover for him. As far as the statute of limitations is concerned, I'm not so sure. Apparently she was still alive when the "garotte" was applied, so whoever did that could be tried for murder, whether he was "only" an accessory or not.

      But you're right, BDI is a silly theory. Sure a 9 year old is capable of murdering a 6 year old, I'm sure that's happened in the past. But the overall circumstances of this case are not consistent with anything like that. If there were signs of a struggle, if her head had been bashed against the concrete floor over and over, then maybe. But a single blow, no. For one thing he would have had to be a lot stronger. And for another, a single head wound could have been explained away as an accident.

      So no. Burke did NOT kill his sister.

    2. You're assuming the Ramseys (or any other normal parents) were familiar with the laws regarding the age of culpability in Colorado. Certainly not the case.
      In Fact, the evidence photo shows the Ramseys looked up the word "incest" in the family dictionary to try and determine what Burke may be guilty of.

      Also, a single blow by a baseball bat (found outside the back door) in the hands of a boy about to turn 10 years old, could easily have cracked the skull of a 6 year old in half. The sexual molestation prevented the parents from calling 911 and claiming the incident was an accident.

    3. John "lawyered up" very quickly. And if he was covering for Burke, then Burke's culpability would certainly have been discussed. Once he'd learned that Burke couldn't be prosecuted, there would no longer be any reason to continue with the charade. He could have explained what happened, and apologized, claiming he was only trying to protect his son. If Burke then confessed, that would have been the end of it. Instead, John persisted with the kidnap staging and we have to ask why, especially since he himself was initially the principal suspect. As I see it, there is only one reason he would do that: to protect his own neck. The idea that he'd do such a thing to protect the "family honor" strikes me as ludicrous.

      As for the word "incest," all we know is that a dictionary was found with the page containing that word folded down. But even if the word were underlined (it was not), it takes quite an imagination to associate incest with a nine year old child, and not his father. If someone in the family was curious about that word, the implication is that something might have been going on between John and his daughter, not Burke.

      JonBenet was not attacked with a baseball bat. If she had been, the medical examiner would have reported lacerations to her skull and there would have been a lot of blood. There would also have been blood and traces of hair on the bat.

    4. was there blood and traces of hair on the flashlight?

    5. No, but the flashlight had been thoroughly wiped down as were the batteries. That strongly suggests that this was indeed the weapon used to crack her skull. The hard rubber end of the maglite would not have broken the skin and in fact her scalp showed no sign of lacerations. If she'd been struck by anything with a hard wooden or metallic surface there would certainly have been scalp lacerations.

  2. I don't think BR was "frail." He was skinny, but he played softball and he knew how to swing a bat. He's clobbered JB in the face with a golf club about two years previously. I think BR had a lot of emotional problems and no wonder, with PR's cancer and her absence from the home and JR's long business trips. I think it quite possible BR inflicted the initial blow to the head. I don't know, of course, and none of us will ever know. That's the second saddest thing in this case, beyond the fact that a little girl had her life cut so short, that people will never know the absolute truth about what went on in that house that night.

    1. Iagree. i always knew Burke was the killer.

    2. Iagree. i always knew Burke was the killer.

  3. Burke might have taken a swing at her with a bat, yes. But that could easily have been explained as an accident. The scenario that Burke was having some sort of sexual relations with his sister is very far fetched and would never ever fly in court without hard evidence, such as semen. When faced with the possibility that either a grown man molested her or a nine year old boy, I think most people would opt for the grown man, not the boy. Since Kolar presents no evidence either way, his decision to finger Burke and not even consider John seems really out there.

    1. Sibling incest is fairly common, but I don't think any incest would fly in a courtroom without more evidence against either BR or JR and it shouldn't, and BR couldn't be prosecuted in Colorado, of course. I do believe it possible that BDI and his parents covered up for some reason, but I wish Kolar would have gone into why he excluded JR from his suspect list. That would have been interesting to read and maybe shed more light on whether JR did or did not commit this crime. I do believe a RDI, and it wasn't PR. That leaves me torn between BR and JR.

    2. I too wish Kolar had said more about excluding John. My guess is that he realized Patsy would never have covered for John if he was the one who killed JonBenet. She'd have slugged him. And then made sure he was locked up for good.

      He may have realized also that all the scenarios involving Patsy as the killer were extremely far fetched and unlikely. JonBenet was the apple of her eye, the reason for her existence. She might scold her, but physically attack her? No.

      Yet in his eyes Patsy had to be the one who wrote the note. And she had to have done it for some reason. So protecting Burke seemed the only logical choice.

      It amazes me that NO ONE who ever investigated this case even considered for a minute that John could have written the note despite what the "experts" said. If Kolar had been willing even to consider that possibility, it would have been obvious who killed her. And it wouldn't have been difficult to guess why.

  4. I agree that the Burke theory is too far fetch. When a child is injured by her sibling, the parents call 911. It is not believable that instead of calling the medics, the parents decide to go into a theatrical production of staging a crime scene... Even when the injured child is lifeless, the parents' instinct is still dialing 911, not turning an accident caused by a kid into a crime committed by intruders.

    1. Exactly. But we have to realize that Kolar, like so many others attempting to understand this case, was forced to push reason and common sense beyond their normal limits, because no matter where you turn, to an intruder, to Patsy, to Burke, you sooner or later run into impenetrable obstacles. It's only when we consider John as the sole perpetrator that such obstacles vanish. But, once John had been "ruled out," this is something literally NO ONE investigating the case has ever even attempted to do.

    2. I think that would depend on the circumstances. If it would mean your only surviving child would be taken away from you then I think you'd protect him.

    3. I'm sorry, but JonBenet was the family star, the apple of Patsy's eye, NOT Burke. If Burke had killed JonBenet, Patsy would never have forgiven him, much less staged a phoney kidnapping to protect. You can read all the psychology books you want, but sorry, Burke could not have done this without suffering HUGE consequences at the hands of his parents. To think they'd risk the chair to protect the kid who just murdered their beloved JonBenet? Think again.

    4. Patsy made the statement that she "didn't know what she'd do if anything happened to Burke." She did give most of her attention to JB, but I feel she loved BR, too, and would protect him at any cost. And yes, JB, being an extrovert and a "people person" was the family star, but I think BR liked it that way. He was shy and didn't enjoy talking to others.

    5. See my latest post for more on Burke.

    6. Patsy said that if anything happened to Burke, she would have nothing left to live for and/or no reason to keep on living. If Burke was convicted of killing JonBenet, he would have been put in a juvenile detention center, until he reached adulthood. Thus, he would have been taken away from Patsy.

    7. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean he had anything to do with JonBenet's murder. Nor does it mean that Patsy would have gone to such extreme lengths to cover for him. Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Burke was involved, nor any reason for the Ramseys to stage a phoney kidnapping to cover for what could easily have been reported as an accident.

    8. Hi, I'm a late-comer here but I just read Kolar's book and I'd like to make a comment. According to the coroner's report, JonBenet may have lived several hours between being hit and being garroted. Assume Burke hit her over the head. Remember that there was virtualy no wound or laceration on her head. That means he would have hit her, and she would have become unconscious but there is *no way* her parents could have known how grievously wounded she was. In fact, it was a surprise to the person who performed the autopsy that she had such a huge fracture of her skull. So, as far as the parents can tell, she's just been knocked out. Why on earth would they not immediately call 911? Instead, they sit around for hours waiting for her to die, and when she fails to do so, they decide to GAROTTE her to help things along? And all of this is so that they won't have to tell the authorities that there was some kind of accident involving her brother? Because then they would somehow immediately know that he had been molesting her? How did THEY know he'd been molesting her? Why would they think that there would be physical evidence that he had done so in the past? In comparison to this theory, the "intruder" theory actually makes sense.

    9. Exactly. And you're right. The head wound cracked her skull but drew no blood from her scalp, and in fact the med. ex. didn't even notice it until later, at the autopsy. So if they'd found her she'd have simply been unconscious and they'd have called 911 for sure. But as I've said, Kolar's thinking re Burke was an act of sheer desperation, because once you rule John Ramsey out as note writer, then nothing makes sense.

    10. I'm late to this site. I'm re reading Kolar's book at this point. Don't forget that there had been some 30 plus trips to JonBenet's pediatrician in the last few years. Also Patsy had called the pediatrician on Dec. 17. The vaginal injuries except for the one on the night of the murder, showed chronic abuse, but not of rape, possibly using a finger or some instrument. Something a child might do when rather aggressively playing doctor.

    11. More likely something an adult male would do.


      But getting convicted of murder doesn't "protect" Burke, and the parents end up loosing him anyway.

    13. Per Anonymous on August 21, 2013 at 2:52 PM:

      "Don't forget that there had been some 30 plus trips to JonBenet's pediatrician in the last few years. Also Patsy had called the pediatrician on Dec. 17. The vaginal injuries...showed chronic abuse...possibly using a finger...Something a child might do when rather aggressively playing doctor."

      Per DocG on August 25, 2013 at 6:54 PM:

      "More likely something an adult male would do."

      Or maybe it could be something a female (whether child OR adult) might do while constantly battling annoyingly itchy chronic UTI's or yeast infections???

      Think about it ladies. A good number of us, both old AND young, have probably had UTI's/yeast infections at some point in our lives. I know *I* have. Even infants can suffer from them. But for those of us who have not experienced one or more, let it be known that they can be so damn itchy that we will use and/or do just about ANYTHING to relieve both the inner and outer vaginal itch - whether it be a finger, a Q-Tip, a tampon, what EVER!

      Therefore, could there be a possibility that these reported vaginal injuries were self-inflicted? Just a thought.

    14. You have me at a disadvantage, DonnaJean, though crotch itch can probably be just as bad as what you're describing.

      When it comes to possibilities, yes, there are endless possibilities, and if we were to think of each and every one and take each and every one seriously then no one would ever be brought to justice for any crime. Nor would we have much in the way of scientific progress for that matter. There is a wide range of endless possible causes for any effect. After all, the stars might just have been put into place by advanced creatures from some parallel universe who just enjoy messing with us.

      At some point, we have no choice but to go with simple logic and common sense. A woman's dead body is found. She has obviously been murdered. Her body has been carefully wiped down but the interior of her vagina is all bloody. I'm sorry, but I'd be really surprised if it would occur to anyone investigating the case that she might have been scratching herself. It's only THIS particular case that for some odd reason inspires people to come up with possibilities of that sort.

      They call it "reasonable" doubt for a very good reason.

    15. I hear ya loud & clear Doc.

      And here's a bit more on simple logic and common sense:

      Perhaps that unknown male/female DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails stemmed merely from her interactin' (playin'/roughhousin') with other kids at the holiday dinner/party she was at that night. We all know how rambunctious kids can be at playtime and I think its safe to say that most likely she didn't bathe/wash upon her arrival home cuz she fell asleep in the car and was carried straight to bed.

      And about that partial boot imprint left on the moldy floor of the "wine cellar". If I'm not mistaken that room appeared to be in the process of renovation at some point in time so it just coulda innocently been left there by a worker.

      So much for the intruder theory, shot to hell yet again :-)

    16. As I recall, there weren't any skin cells found under her fingernails, so she did not "get a piece of her attacker" as Lou Smit claimed. What was found were signs of contamination by the medical examiner or his staff. The fingernail DNA is not considered relevant in any case. And yes the Hi Tec label found imprinted in the "wine cellar" floor was probably from one of the many workmen who'd been in the basement recently. Also, Burke owned a HiTec boot.

      If a real intruder had been in the house, there would have been many signs of his presence and they would have been obvious.

  5. All people are capable of all things - this is what the history of the world teaches us..anyone given the right set of circumstances can do something that is so utterly horrific neither they or those observing dreamed it could be possible.

    Until we see that I'm not sure we will see this case clearly and will continue to run into self erected barriers that proclaim he or she couldn't have done this (because we just can't concieve how they could have done).

    Anything is possible..why not consider it from that angle?

    1. I agree. That's a fair assessment. I don't think either Pasty or Burke would have been capable of murder, but that's only my opinion and I could be wrong. Which is why I focus not on my opinion, but the evidence.

    2. I finished reading the book and I want my money back!

    3. I agree, almost everyone is capable of both heroic and horrendous acts they never thought they were capable of until their back is against the wall.

      Right now, I do believe BDI. But, I'll read this blog with an open mind and not rule out JDI. I want to hear the full story first. I think one thing we do have to consider is that Kolar had access to the complete case file, including the GJ testimony, something we will never read.

  6. "Anything is possible..why not consider it from that angle?"

    Because that's the perfect out for anyone accused of anything. "Sure, they found me with a smoking gun in my hand, and sure there were powder burns on my wrist, and hey, ballistic tests determined that this was the gun that killed the victim, but hey, anything is possible, so you can't say with total certainty that I fired the shot that killed that phoney creep."

    And sure, who knows, since anything is possible, then maybe this was some sort of setup and the guy is innocent. But at a certain point you have to apply common sense. Sure, you could be wrong, but reasonable doubt is NOT the same as any old doubt, because there will always be some degree of doubt in any case, we just have to live with that if justice is to be done.

    So when assessing any event, it's important to add common sense to the mix, along with the facts of the case. As far as I'm concerned, both the facts and the logic of this particular case point in exactly the same direction. If you want to say either Burke or John could have killed her, fine. Because anything is possible.

    But when you ask yourself who would have been more likely to have molested her and who would have been more likely to have produced both the chronic and acute injuries to her vagina, a nine year old child or a grown man, then I'm sorry, common sense has to kick in at this point. Unless there is clear evidence that Burke did this, or that John could not have, I'm afraid we have to point the finger at John. It would then be up to him to make a case against Burke, assuming he thought he could prove it. And if he tried convincing a jury his son did it and he was only trying to protect him, how lame would that sound?

    1. I don't think it would have ever come to a jury because no one could say for sure who did what in that house. There were three Ramseys in the house that survived the night. No one could prove in a court of law which Ramsey did exactly what, hence no indictment, ever. But I do think JB's vaginal injuries are more consistent with sibling incest that father-daughter incest. A grown man would have injured her more, most likely. Sibling incest is fairly common, unfortunately.

      I would like to know why the Ramseys adamantly refused to turn over BR's medical records. His medical records were "an island of privacy." Why? It had to be because there was something incriminating in them.

    2. Actually there doesn't have to be anything incriminating in BR's records. If police are allowed to see the records, and if there isn't anything incriminating in those records, then the police jump off the BDI bandwagon and start focusing on the real culprit.

      If docG's overall theory of the case is correct, and I think it is, then keeping authorities guessing that it might have been Burke works just fine for JR.

    3. "I don't think it would have ever come to a jury because no one could say for sure who did what in that house."

      With no reliable witnesses and little hard evidence, you would need to build a circumstantial case. And in fact many convictions have been achieved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. So I can't agree that the case can't be brought to a jury. The circumstantial case against John is imo rock solid. There are too many indicators pointing to his guilt. All you really have to do is prove he lied about an important aspect of the case and you've got him. Think I've done that.

    4. As for Burke's records, I'd imagine he'd had some problems and may have been treated by a child psychologist, so it's understandable that his parents wouldn't want that made public. And since the police were never looking at Burke as a suspect, they may have seen no point in digging any farther. If Burke had had a history of molesting his sister, however, I'm sure that would have come out.

    5. As I recall, from Kolar's book, Burke had been seen by a child psychologist. Of course, this could be because his mother had been diagnosed with cancer and he was struggling with the possibility of her death. Kolar stresses that the police should have looked into these records and, as I recall, he still feels there could be very incriminating information there that should be looked into. Doesn't the police have the right to look at these records, under subpoena, or are they still protected because of patient confidentiality laws and/or minor laws?

      Overall, I am convinced JR did this. But, I have to say, Burke would be my runner up suspect. A few things stick out that cause suspicions for me regarding him:

      1. Why would John and Patsy let him continue sleeping that morning after they discovered the ransom note and Jon Benet missing? Wouldn't you think they would instantly wake him and ask him about Jon Benet . . . if he knew where she was, if he heard or saw anything during the night or, simply, to help them look around the house for her?

      2. I read that when he was taken from the house to go over to a friend's house, he never said anything during the car ride over there. No question about what's going on, where his sister was . . . nada.

      3. If he was innocent and felt his parents were also, why wouldn't he have come forward (during his adult years) and support them? There are any number of anxious reporters that would LOVE to interview him, and he would then have the opportunity to go on ad nauseam about how wonderful, caring and loving his parents are. Again, nada.

      4. And what about that golf club blow he gave to Jon Benet's face a few years prior to the murder? I know kids fight, but that kind of blow is pretty significant -- more than just pushing and shoving --especially given the way she died. It also shows some possible anger management issues.

      Now, I know the sexual molestation seems implausible for a 9-year old pre-puberty boy, but as a poster said above, "all people are capable of all things", especially in this day and age where sexual material is easily viewed on TV, movies and the internet.

      I wish I knew for sure who did this!!! I often ask myself if I had the psychic ability of going back in time and into that house, that night, and witnessing what happened, would I want to? As horrifying as it might be to see, I absolutely would want to!

    6. Kolar suspects Burke because he refuses to accept that one parent would cover for the other but thinks it plausible that both would cover for their son. To me that sounds like nonsense, because the son they'd have been covering for would have just raped, bludgeoned and strangled the daughter who was the apple of their eye. I can see parents covering for a child who'd attacked someone else's child, but not their own and especially not so ferociously. And as I've said before, as soon as John had spoken with his lawyer he'd have learned that Burke couldn't be prosecuted and I'm sure some sort of plea deal could have been worked out with the DA.

      Kolar's problem is that he bought into John being "ruled out" and thus had no choice but to see Patsy as writer of the note. And in his mind, if John, the most likely to have sexually molested JBR, did not write that note, then Patsy must have been covering for him and I can understand if that was a problem for Kolar. The only way out of Kolar's dilemma was to focus on Burke, by far the least likely to have done all that was done to his sister. If he had the imagination to consider the possibility that John could have written the note after all, then he'd have realized that John was by far the most likely suspect.

      I can certainly understand that Burke could have been jealous of JBR. And the blow with the golf club might not have been an accident, though we have no way to know for sure. However, it's not just unlikely for a 9 year old boy to have any interest in girls or sex, it's extremely unlikely, to the point of absurdity. I can see him getting into a fight with her and possibly slamming her head against something. I can't see him literally raping her. Nor can I see him delivering such a powerful blow, nor constructing a "garotte" to strangle her with.

      The sort of remote possibility dreamed up by Kolar from his research on deviant behavior is NOT the same as evidence, sorry. He was stuck with Burke, but we don't have to be.

  7. my theory is jon benet was being abused prior to the murder, but who was the abuser. the staging of the scene was done to divert attention away from the family. they had to plan a major coverup because jon benet was being abused before her death and they knew that her vaginal trauma would be noticed straight away.

  8. i dont think BDI. the reason i doubt burke is because patsy and john sent him back to school not long after the murder, and i seriously doubt they would sent him back so soon if he was a sexual deviant killer, if fact they would probably have never sent him back to school in case he said something. if burke was responsible there would have been signs of his disturbance.

  9. to me a child was looking up the definition of the word INCEST. an adult wouldnt need to look up the word because all adults know what it means.

  10. I haven’t read Kolar’s book, but I know that a child can be molested by a sibling. However, the trauma to JB’s vagina told me that it most likely wasn’t her brother; I don’t think she would have been “compliant” with him if he were hurting her. I have no problem believing that he might have swung a mag flashlight on her, in a rage about something. He’d swung a golf club and injured her significantly prior to this.
    The staging was so elaborate, I think both parents were hiding something: PR hiding BR’s “killing”/knocking her unconscious and PR’s panic. I think she wrote the long ransom letter while JR was staging the body. The staging of the body was so intrinsically horrible, that only someone with both ice water in his veins and something to hide (prior abuse) could have done it. Strictly my opinion.

    1. I feel sure the "staging" wasn't staging at all, but what actually took place when John was molesting and then assaulting JonBenet. And I see NO reason whatsoever to think that Patsy would have been willing to assist him in covering that up.

      I all boils down to the very dubious handwriting evidence. If it weren't for the incredible incompetence of all these "forensic documentation experts," no one would have thought twice about Patsy and John would have been tried and convicted years ago. He was obviously the one most like to have been molesting JonBenet, and if she'd threatened to "tell," that in itself is a powerful motive for murder. Keep it simple, sez I.

  11. there were many experts who all agreed that patsy wrote the ransom note, and they were not all team ramsey. they cant all be wrong.

    1. Sure they can. First of all, they weren't really experts. They were people posing as experts. They were wrong because Patsy's writing that note and then calling the police on herself makes no sense. Pay attention to the facts and forget about the "experts." There were also "experts" who felt sure she didn't write it. So what's your point?

      You want her to be the one who wrote it. And maybe you need to ask yourself why.

    2. Sorry to be so brusque, Lee. Actually I've studied the reports of these "experts" very carefully -- my results can be found in a series of blog posts beginning here:

      After you've read what I have to say, feel free to ask any questions that come to mind.

  12. the 911 call was part of the staging. just like the ransom note. i believe they left jon benet in the cellar because it was to risky taking her outside. the ransom note was the key to diverting attention away from themselves.

    1. The 911 call negated the staging in the ransom note. And if they thought that taking the body outside was too risky, then they'd have destroyed the ransom note and never reported it, because with the body in the house the note is obviously phoney. No way it diverted attention away from themselves, it is what caused the authorities to suspect them.

    2. The Ramseys had to explain JonBenet's dead body, somehow.

      John would not have been willing to just dump her little body, somewhere; "proper burial" was very important to him.

      That morning, the Ramseys were due at the airport, in a very short time.

      They could not just show up at the airport without a living, breathing JonBenet. What would they say -- "Oops, we misplaced our six-year-old daughter?"

      John Ramsey could have dictated the ransom note to Patsy. In one of the books that I read, one language expert opined that two people had collaborated on it.

      The Ramseys were scheduled to meet John Ramsey's adult children (from his previous marriage) in Minneapolis, where they would take John's private plane to the family's second home in Charlevoix, Michigan, that very morning.

      His two older children had already left Atlanta and were on their way to meet John and Patsy.

      The Ramseys had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why JonBenet was missing. Since the Ramseys were due at the airport, they had to come up with an explanation, FAST.

      Since JonBenet was dead, calling 911 and pretending that she was kidnapped looked better than confessing that one of them had murdered her.

      According to many friends and acquaintances of Patsy, she always had to keep up the pretense that she and her family were absolutely perfect, with no faults or problems whatsoever. It's called "keeping up appearances." To confess that one (or more) of the three remaining family members had molested and/or murdered JonBenet would have absolutely horrified Patsy, who was known to be extremely religious, excessively self-righteous and inordinately egotistical.

      They also could have received the death penalty, if convicted of JonBenet's murder.

      The pretense of a kidnapping could have been an effort to keep the Ramseys out of prison; an attempt to protect Patsy's "perfect Christian family" reputation; and also an attempt to protect John's ability to continue making a (very wealthy) living.

      By completely contaminating the crime scene, the Ramseys ensured that none of them could be convicted of the crime, as no jury could actually know, beyond a reasonable doubt, WHICH Ramsey did WHAT.

      Then, when John "discovered" the body, they could claim that the would-be kidnapper murdered JonBenet, for some unknown reason.

      The Ramseys had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why their six-year-old daughter was missing.

      The two alternatives seem to be either claiming that JonBenet was kidnapped or saying to John Ramsey's adult children, "Hey, one of us molested and murdered JonBenet. That's why she won't be joining the rest of the family, today, in Michigan."

    3. Also:

      I have read Kolar's book and most of the other books that were written about this murder. I have considered all of the four major theories; i.e., an intruder, John, Patsy or Burke murdered JonBenet.

      At various times, I have favored each different possibility, in turn.

      Based on the information given in this new book, Burke was not grieving the death of his sister, at all. Burke's behavior was quite bizarre. He appeared completely detached, cold and quite unfeeling. However, he did seem happy!

      Who smeared the feces all over the box of chocolates in JonBenet's bedroom? That is a sign of extreme hostility!

      (Burke had smeared feces on the walls, in the past.) Hmmm. . .

      A forensic body-language expert, voice expert and jury consultant, who was hired by the Boulder Police Department to look at Burke's drawings and to watch the interview videos of Burke, said that his drawings were sexualized. In addition, she stated that his body language indicated that he was being deceptive.

      On the other hand, maybe it WAS John who molested and murdered JonBenet, although he and Patsy were very convincing, regarding their supposed innocence, in their last joint interview, which was done very shortly before Patsy's death.


      Since I was sexually molested by a "good Christian" uncle, I do believe that John could have been the perpetrator.

      Patsy and John both had reputations for getting very angry, at times.

      Patsy was under a tremendous amount of stress, at the time of JonBenet's murder.

      I happen to believe that it was either John or Burke who was molesting JonBenet; but I also think that Patsy participated in the cover-up.

      I firmly believe that the evidence indicates that any one of the three Ramseys could have murdered JonBenet.

      Reasonable people disagree over which of the three Ramseys killed JonBenet; and they are all basing their opinions on the evidence.

      Mr. Kolar had access to all of the available evidence, which we will never see.

      Steve Thomas had access to a huge amount of evidence, although Mr. Kolar, obviously, saw more evidence than Steve Thomas did.

      Yet, these dedicated and intelligent police officers came to two different conclusions.

      Quite frankly, portions of the evidence can be interpreted as pointing to all three of the Ramseys and/or to each one of them, separately, based on which theory that one is pursuing.

      The only thing that is certain is that one or more of the Ramseys is culpable. There never was an intruder.

    4. You posted this elsewhere, and I've already responded. If you read the first few posts in this blog you'll see why I'm convinced the note could not have been the result of a collaboration between John and Patsy. The trip to Charlevois could easily have been cancelled due to illness.


      At various times, I have favored each different possibility, in turn."

      Well, this is a very complex and confusing case, which is why it's led nowhere even after so many years.


      I'm glad to learn you don't mention the "intruder," which for me seems by far the least likely possibility, and in fact can be safely ruled out as far as I'm concerned. As for "the Ramseys" I see no evidence pointing to either Patsy or Burke, nor do I see any reason for Patsy to have wanted to either murder her daughter or cover for whoever did. And an accident could easily have been reported as such, no need to stage an elaborate kidnapping plot. JonBenet was very clearly sexually assaulted, and very likely sexually abused in the past -- which points very clearly in one direction: John Ramsey. When this is combined with all the other reasons we have to suspect John, then it seem clear he is the most likely suspect by far.

  13. From James Kolar's book:

    "I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

    There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

    Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body.

    I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.

    I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candy would have been smeared with human excrement."

    Who, in your opinion, smeared the feces all over the box of candy in JonBenét's bedroom?

    Even if John Ramsey did sexually assault (and murder) his daughter, I have a hard time picturing John doing that.

    Burke had a history of playing with his feces. Both children had a history of "soiling" (defecating in) their pants. It seems more likely to me that Burke did it, although I suppose poor JonBenét could have done so.

    Such behavior; i.e., smearing feces on the candy, would seem to be an expression of great anger toward JonBenét.

    I wonder if the feces on the box of candy was ever tested for DNA.

    Behind that "perfect family" facade, a lot of bizarre things were going on in that home. . .

    1. Kolar made public some very interesting aspects of life in the Ramsey household, for sure. And from at least some of this it seems logical to conclude that Burke was a troubled child. On the other hand, when we consider the trauma experienced by a young boy whose mother's life was threatened with cancer, and was undergoing the sort of chemotherapy that would have made her alarmingly ill, that in itself would be more than enough reason for Burke to have been extremely upset, and acting very strangely.

      It's also not difficult to understand why Burke might have been jealous of all the attention his sister was getting. And if, as I strongly suspect, his father was having an intimate sexual relation with his sister, knowledge of that could very likely have had a damaging effect on Burke's psyche. So even if the feces on the candy could be traced to Burke, all that would prove would be sibling rivalry -- not unusual for siblings of that, or any, age.

      All the above would certainly be more than enough to explain any strange or even pathological behavior on Burke's part. But Kolar prefers to ignore such possibilities, to focus exclusively on all this strange behavior as evidence the child attacked his sister in a fit of rage, with the parents covering for him, out of fear of losing Patsy's only remaining child.

      Sorry, but I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Evidence someone could have or might have committed a crime is NOT evidence he actually committed it. And in this case, since a head injury could easily be explained as due to an accident, it seems absurd to assume his parents would have gone to such great lengths to stage a sexual assault and kidnapping, complete with vaginal penetration and ransom note.

      When we add the fact that the 911 call nullified the staging implicit in the ransom note, then Kolar's notion that the parents collaborated to cover for Burke makes no sense. And when we realize that Kolar never even considers the possibility that John might have been responsible for his daughter's vaginal wounds and death, then we have serious reason to be skeptical regarding his theory of the case.

  14. i have not yet read kolar's book, but i heard he found the wounds to jon benet's body were caused by pieces of burke's train track. is this correct.

    1. Not exactly. Lou Smit had claimed, on the basis of NO evidence whatsoever, that JonBenet had been assaulted with a stun gun. The basis for his claim were two sets of marks seen on photos of the body that looked to HIM as though they COULD have been produced by a stun gun. And after shopping around all over the place, he finally found a stun gun on the market that COULD have produced those marks. (Yet another example of cherry picking, incidentally.) On this basis, and this basis alone, he concluded that JonBenet's attacker was an intruder with a stun gun. For sure, for sure.

      Of course, this was total garbage, but the investigators felt obliged to take it seriously, and many people accept it even today as gospel, despite the fact that it's obviously a fantasy. Just because something COULD have produced a certain type of wound or abrasion, does NOT mean it actually did. And when NOTHING even resembling a stun gun was ever found on or near the crime scene, it's obvious that it's pure speculation, aka pure red herring nonsense.

      What Kolar did was find photos of some train tracks from a train set owned apparently by Burke that had been lying around in the basement and (again) COULD have produced those marks. This is far more likely than a stun gun, because the tracks were actually found on the scene, while the stun gun was simply dreamed up by Lou Smit. But again, a possibility is NOT the same as a fact, so we still don't know what caused those marks.

      The marks could have been produced if JonBenet had been at some point pinned to the floor or knocked to the floor where the tracks happened to be, and some protruding bits of track accidentally dug into her body. Kolar deserves credit for noticing an alternative to the stun gun theory, but imo the stun gun theory was always pure nonsense. There are a great many reasons why such marks could have been on her body, especially since she was obviously the victim of a vicious attack.

      There is of course no evidence whatsoever that Burke actually assaulted her with those pieces of track, if that's what you're thinking.

  15. burke was back in school only weeks after jon benet's murder. if he was responsible there is no way they would have sent him back to school. this appears to rule him out.

    1. Yes, good point. As I see it, there are a great many reasons to rule out Burke as the cause of JonBenet's death. And this is certainly one of them.

  16. i dont think burke used pieces of the train track on jon benet. i just wanted to know what kolar found. i get the impression that kolar thinks that burke is responsible because he found another alternative to the stun gun theory.

  17. I just dont know why people cant except the intruder theory? I have 4 children. 3 boys and 1 beautiful girl. I read the ransom note and think if i was to hurt my child and i tried to cover this up i could not go to extreme to write the most bizzar letter in the world... I look at my 9year old boy and think he would try to hit his sister with a bat she would run and get away from him fast. I dont buy it. I dont buy anyone did this in their family. I believe they are guilty perading jonbonet around town and they are guilty in the public eye of acting strange. My mond would be out of this world if i woke up and my life was turn upside down like theirs. The killer hated john, and killed what was most important to this family :-(

  18. In the great majority of cases like this, the perpetrator turns out to be a family member. Yes, this is disturbing and I know how you feel. But it happens.

    Now just because it happens in the majority of cases does not mean it necessarily happened that way in the Ramsey case. However, when we consider all the evidence, it's literally impossible to believe an intruder could have been present. And of the three remaining family members, the most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim is her father. So that's where we have to start. I invite you to read more in this blog to learn why I'm convinced he did it. Sad but true, imo.

  19. I dont get everyone still blaming the ramseys..and believe me. i used to think that too 0but touch dna proved in 2008 that Jonbenet was killed by a male unrelated to her. So the intruder theory fits.

    1. The intruder theory makes no sense. And as far as the DNA evidence is concerned, if the DNA were that of her attacker, they'd have found much more of it than the bits and pieces requiring extremely complex and sophisticated techniques to retrieve. For my take on the "touch" DNA, see:

  20. I have just started reading your blog, having just finished Kolar's book. You are spot on about Kolar. Reading the book, I felt like I had been led down this path where I had wanted to hear his theory -- craved it even -- only to be told that I should draw my own conclusions based on all the evidence and facts he lists in his book. I was so disappointed. This case has mesmerized me since it's beginning. I go crazy thinking that I will probably die not ever knowing who murdered Jon Benet. I had hoped that Kolar's book would convince me who did this. He definitely leans toward Burke, but leaves you still uncertain, unconvinced.

    Then I found your blog. First of all, you are an excellent writer. It is very easy to understand exactly what you are saying. Second, you have a theory and explain it, in very convincing detail. Everything you say makes sense. I have always suspected John Ramsey but, like so many others, fell away from that suspicion based on what the media was feeding me. Also, when I would see him talking on TV, I could not believe that that soft spoken, older man could be such a monster with his own daughter. And then there is Detective Linda Arnadt's chilling interview where she insists, after looking in John Ramsey's eyes as they leaned over Jon Benet's body, that she was ABSOLUTELY sure who murdered Jon Benet.

    Thank you for your most interesting blog about an incredibly puzzling case.

    Rest in Peace Jon Benet.

    John Ramsey did this. He is a monster, in hiding.

    1. Your comments are very much appreciated. Thanks.

  21. I've just finished reading Kolar's book. My third now, after Schiller's and Thomas' book.

    I have a few of random comments.

    In detailing the interview with Father Holverstock on December 30th, Kolar reports that "Father Holverstock advised he had been heating A GLASS of water in the kitchen microwave when things began to happen..." It may be simple and irrelevant, but this just jumped out at me. Is this a possible explanation for the glass of water with the tea bag pictured next to the bowl of pineapple...?

    Also, I was intrigued by the photo of the Maglite on the kitchen counter. The flashlight is pictured among many dishes and food items, including a plate of toast, a squeeze bottle of honey and other plates and bowls containing whatever. I guess this is remnants of the food preparation that was being done by the cops and family friends who were unbelievably allowed in the Ramsey kitchen before it had been processed as a crime scene. This photo leads me to believe that the Maglite is probably not the murder weapon. My guess is that the flashlight belongs to an officer, possibly French, who never wanted to own up to leaving it behind. French had already taken some heat as to his initial work at the home, according to Thomas.

    The photo of the chair in front of the Train Room door confuses me. If JR claims he had to move this chair to enter the room then why is it photographed in place in front of the door? I can't make any sense out of that at all.

    Although I find Kolar's "Burke theory" sorely lacking in corroboration, the housekeeper's observation of grapefruit size fecal matter on JonBenet's bed is interesting. The description implies to me a pile. If JonBenet soiled herself while sleeping the feces would be smeared all over herself, her underwear and her sheets. A single large pile implies to me that someone would have had to pull down their underwear and squat on the bed. Hmmmm...

    I am confused as to whether or not there was urine in JonBenet's bed? Lou Smitt claimed the sheets were clean. The detectives supposedly noted a strong smell of urine. It is this type of thing that frustrates me about this case! Did she wet her bed or not, I mean, cmon, how hard is it to determine that answer! If the BPD devised a theory that this was a result of anger over bedwetting then why didn't they test the sheets for urine.

    I found Kolar's overlay of the train track and JonBenet's injury to her back to be quite convincing. It's a perfect match and the odds are against this just being a coincidence. I don't believe those marks on JonBenet could have occurred simply by her body being laid upon a flat piece of track. Some stabbing force would have been needed...

    And lastly, Kolar reports that there is a photo of binoculars I believe on a counter in the home. I agree with Kolar that this suggests that JR may have used binoculars at some point that morning as he claimed. Why would he do this and what was he looking for? If he knew JonBenet was dead in the basement he certainly wasn't looking for strange cars, so what then?

    I realize these are just random questions and thoughts, but I wonder if you have any thoughts regarding these things?

    1. You know, if you add them all up there are probably hundreds of different things about this case that seem puzzling or odd or in need of further explanation. That's what I call "the quagmire," and if you let yourself get caught up in it, you are doomed: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here," as it says on Dante's Gate of Hell. And for good reason.

      I happen to think the maglite is very probably the murder weapon, but honestly I can't be sure -- nor can anyone, in all likelihood. The glass of tea might mean something, or it might, as you suggest, just be part of the little "tea party" offered to the "guests" in that house of horrors the morning after JonBenet's murder.

      Which is why I try very hard to stick with what we know to be the case rather than what might possibly be meaningful, but probably isn't, and is ultimately just confusing and irrelevant.

  22. It's possible that JB committed suicide, has anyone read 'The strange case of the flashlight suicides' by Professor Margaret Branch?

  23. I found it very suspect that JR and a friend with him searched the house at the urging of the police and just happened to find her in that little room in the basement.

    He took his friend with him as an alibi so he would be a witness to John's shock. This was a part of the cover up.

    JB molested and killed his daughter I think. This is plausible since Patsy had such cancer problems and was probably not having sex with John.

  24. I have another theory about this case . (In this case theories are like belly buttons, everyone has a different one huh?) If anyone would go online and look up M'Linda Kula JonBenet's true story (on Internet Explorer, the chapters on my computers won't turn in Mozilla or Google Chrome) go the the top where it says the Book. Then at the bottom where it says ENTER, and find chapter one and start reading. It's long but worth reading you if are really into this case . I personally think this man she is talking about is a child that John Ramsey sired by an affair that he had many years before his divorced his first wife. You can look that up also , her name was Gloria Williams. It would make sense that 1. Patsy did not know about him. 2. John Ramsey holds his children dear, but in fact, his son did kill JonBenet. It just was not Burke. 3. Perhaps Burke woke up while stuff was going on and the guy told him he would kill him if he uttered a word. 5. That would be why John and Patsy was so worried about him being unguarded at school when he went back after JonBenet died. 5. He was a sick, evil man , and 6. his mother was like fatal attraction type woman according to John. 7.. If John actually suspected that one of his children had actually killed another one in this manner, would he keep it a secret? Would he feel guilty about having an affair that caused this awful crime to happen in his own house? It would answer a lot of questions about it. This illicit evil son could have used his stun gun and no one would hear her scream at least not upstairs. According to M'Linda this man has since changed his name and truck and license plates many times since this murder was committed.

    1. Thanks for referring me to this book. I read the first few chapters but found it completely unconvincing. The author is essentially free associating, based on some things she might or might not have observed and the testimony of individuals who are not identified.

      As I believe I've demonstrated in this blog and in my book, and as James Kolar similarly demonstrated in his book, there is no reason to believe an intruder of any kind was responsible for this crime. No conclusive intruder evidence exists, nor was there any reason for an intruder to do all that was done that night. If you read the first two posts on this blog you'll find a summary of the evidence and the reasoning behind that conclusion.

  25. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Did JonBenet fail to win a pageant competition and Patsy was furious? i.e she was not behaving well on stage, messed it up that day and failed? All I can find are a list of her wins, not her fails.
    Also, a 9 year old is perfectly capable. I was bullied at school by 7 and 8 year old's who were as mean and nasty as an adult.

  26. I do believe JR did it. A sicko psychopath. That did not care about anyone other than himself. Same as that Blagg character in Grand Junction his little girl never found and could give a rat's ass less. More than likely little girl ground to mush in trash. Some men just do not care about females as a whole and see the wife and daughter as someone to destroy their manliness aka wiles of the woman. She always gets what she wants train of thought.

  27. Thanks so much for both this post and the blog more widely, which is incredibly good at cutting through the ridiculous obfuscation around this case.

    I have not read Kolar's book but I hope that you can clear something up for me. This post indicates that Kolar's theory is that "Burke must be responsible for his sister's death, with Patsy and John covering for him by writing the note, staging the "garotte" attack and protecting him".

    Doesn't that indicate that Kolar in fact thinks John did it? Staging or not the garotte attack killed her. I know that Kolar said in his AMA that he ran the text by a lawyer and left out his full "theory" as a result, but if the book suggests that the parents staged the ligature then surely the book concludes that Burke did not in fact do it? And as you can't libel the dead and his theory was omitted as potentially defamatory, clearly John is involved in some way.

    1. Excellent question. Kolar never makes it clear exactly what he thinks happened. However, as I recall from reading his book, there is a very clear implication that Burke would have been capable of both sexually assaulting JonBenet and tying the knot on the ligature device. Maybe he's afraid that if he made that accusation explicit, he could be sued by Burke. But he could probably be sued in any case, since he makes clear he sees this as an inside job.

      If he believed John constructed that ligature then I think he'd have accused him of that, which would be the same as an accusation of murder, as you say. So my guess is that he actually believed Burke could have both bludgeoned and strangled JonBenet. Very odd.

      What I find most puzzling is Kolar's reluctance to see John as anything more than a concerned parent willing to lie to "save" his son. I noticed that in the AMA he dodged the two questions relating specifically to John's role. I think he is simply unwilling to go there.

  28. JBR could be polishing the knob, PR sees them, whacks her with the flashlight, writes the note to "save" her and her husband. I always felt incest was involved and the "note" was a coverup. Why the garrote... maybe to throw-off real evidence.

  29. No one compromises more for their self interests more than Christians. Burke is the best catalyst in this whole story and anyone who disagrees should read more. Had John Ramsey been a pedophile there would have been a history of it. This is a good blog but far from unbiased and informed. That was a straight up family with a screwed up son and they covered for him, simple as that. Christians or no Christians, they're reputation was pretty important to them. Further evidence of this is the house tour, the Jaguar, the beauty pageants, the planes. The dead daughter in the basement kind of is a black mark on an otherwise seemingly unblemished record.

  30. I am curious where the possible train track marks were found on her body? I am wondering if she could have been down in the basement playing with Burke, laying on the tracks tied up, pretending to be run over by a train? This could explain being tied up, and why the rope appeared to be staging, as it wasn't really meant to restrain her, only as part of the game. I have always felt like John admitting to previously breaking the window in the train room was an effort to detract attention away from that room.

    I theorize Burke and JonBonet were playing, Burke very likely had anger issues and took the game to extremes, perhaps throwing the flashlight they used to see to sneak downstairs at her. With the rubber is it possible it bounced off her head and hit and broke the window? Or maybe he whacked her and got scared when she didn't respond, and threw the flashlight at the window in anger/fear. John and Patsy heard the window break and came running, only to find JonBenet in a deep coma, possibly with such a weak pulse/breathing they thought she already was dead.

    Patsy began writing the ransom note to cover for Burke while John made phone calls to the lawyer and both did the cleanup. The strangulation could have occured when trying to move her while eliminating evidence of Burke being in the room. The wipedown of her body was so she would be clean when found, having voided her bladder at death outside a door in the basement where she was moved for cleaning of the train room. Patsy or John in a panic grabbed the wrong sized underwear, by the time the cleanup was finished they realized this, but her body was already going into rigor and it would have been too difficult to remove and replace them.The blood in her vagina could have been from Burke playing "doctor" with her before or during the train game, and the parents were unaware or unable to clean that part of her effectively.

    Knowing the clock was ticking they decided to hide the body and call the police, thinking that the police wouldn't be looking there for her because the ransom note would point them away. Not knowing the police would stay there all day, they thought once they were gone they could sneak her (small child could be possible to fit in suitcase, and there was a suitcase found in the basement) onto their plane and fly somewhere out of the way to bury her. But the police did not leave, and getting anxious, knowing the body would start to smell soon, John decided he would have to "discover" her, thinking a grieving, distraught family having just discovered their dead daughter, would be hard to point the finger at.

    I recall reading that when later asked by police if Burke knew what happened to his sister, he replied that someone had pulled out a knife, and hit her on the head. 2 facts that he shouldn't have known, especially not at that point. As it was his knife found near her, and that he knew about the knife and head wound (among many other reasons), I am fairly convinced Burke did it. That being said I also can find scenarios for both Patsy and John doing it as well, but I lean towards BDI. Also I don't think if he killed his sister he would go around telling people, and this is why there was no issue with him returning to school so quickly. The quicker he went back, the better it made him look. The Ramsey's knew it.

    *All Simply My Own Personal Opinion*

    1. The problem with your theory is that the head blow could have been reported as an accident. No reason to stage a murder to cover for an accident. Usually it's the other way 'round, no? They could also have reported it for what it was, a fight between two kids that got out of hand.

  31. Incest happens every day in even the most unexpected circumstances. The theory that JBR would not have allowed BR to molest her is complete nonsense.He was her older brother, she loved him & trusted him. It is entirely plausible. My children were aged 8yrs & 6yrs when their 15 yr old brother molested had been going on for at least 6months right under my nose & there were no signs. My 2 younger children were not afraid of their brother & continued to play & interact with him normally. I only became aware of the situation when my son, then 8yrs who has Tourette's disorder blurted it out one day. The older child who had been abusing both siblings showed no remorse whatsoever; no emotion at all. He was removed from our home & charges laid....
    Having experienced this l can tell you all firsthand that l now understand why families cover these things up & choose to live in denial. We were forced to change schools because parents would not allow their children to play with mine or visit our home even though the perpetrator no longer lived there, family & friends would no longer speak to me as l had my son charged & surrendered his care to Social Services.....

    1. I am so sorry to hear your story, traumatic what your children went through, and then to be treated so poorly by everyone else. That family & friends would cut you off because you "did the right thing" is awful, but it speaks volumes in terms of this case.
      Of course your younger children trusted their older brother, that's how abuse happens within families, the abused child has no way of knowing that what they are being asked to do is wrong. I hope you were able to get counselling for them and yourself too.

      I believe it is very likely that if JBR was being molested, that it was her brother who was responsible. The type of behavior patterns he exhibited with respect to feces are NOT just "stressed out kid stuff" to blame on other life factors, they are serious red flags for childcare workers.

      With their preoccupation with proper appearances, PR and JR would want to hide sibling incest. Hide the serious problems their son has. Hide the indignities their daughter experienced. And above all else, maintain the illusion of the perfect family. And with that, they staged the cartoonish ransom note & death scene. More indignities for a little girl who deserved better.

  32. Everything you say is like from a mentally deranged person, you have absolute zero facts correct. NONE.
    I couldn't even read thru this stupid blog. JB was NOT sexually abused, not until that night, so that BLOWS everything you said. You should be sued for this blog. Absolute junk.