Interesting theory. Extremely unlikely, so improbable that it can be dismissed IMO, but I thank you for sharing it.
Actually, it fits the evidence better than any theory out there.
I do enjoy thinking of any & every possible angle on this case, each time we can connect or dismiss bits & pieces edges us a bit closer to answers.
I agree, but only so long as we remain open to any possible angle and do not make the mistake of devoting ourselves to a particular conclusion about this case as if it were our religion, which it is not. It is an unsolved murder.
That said, I have some questions for you.
Going along with your hypothesis, let me ask you this: Why would a mere burglar or two sexually assualt JB? If-- in your theory-- they came to the reluctant conclusion they had to kill JB to keep her from identifying them, then how much of a bigger leap would it have been to sexually violate her? What purpose would it serve?
Clearly, child murder trumps child molestation in the hierarchy of evil human behavior. If the male burglar is depraved enough to brutally murder a six year old girl, he is certainly depraved enough to sexually assault her. Thus, it would not be at all unlikely for our male burglar, turned child murderer, to let all his demons out on this occasion. After all, he cannot possibly behave any worse after crushing a little girl's skull with a tire iron. (No, JBR was not hit over the head with a flashlight.)
And was it simply dumb luck that the coroner's report indicated prior sexual abuse?
For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is no controversy over the issue of whether or not there is definite evidence of prior sexual abuse. The fact of the matter is that JBR had an older brother. It is not terribly unusual for young children, even siblings, to play doctor. What is more, the evidence for prior sexual abuse is debatable. In other words, it is so scant that the evidence, at best, suggests little more than children playing doctor and does NOT suggest chronic, aggressive, sexual abuse at the hands of an adult. The Ramseys have been accused of "hiding something" since Day One of the investigation. If they were indeed hiding something it is most likely sexual play between Burke and JBR, and their motive for keeping it a family secret should be obvious and understandable, considering the relentless witch hunt to which the family was being subjected.
In your opinion, did the alleged burglar JB may have been able to identify know that the sexual dynamic in the R household was, umm, well, not the norm and took advantage of that fact to muddy the waters?
I have seen no substantial evidence to suggest that the Ramseys were "
umm, well, not the norm" whatever that means. I doubt they were the perfect family; but then again, no such family exists. They certainly were not radically dysfunctional and it is wrong for you to suggest that they were.
How did they enter? Why were there no signs of forced entry?
There would have been no reason for the burglars to murder JBR unless she could identify one of them by name. If JBR was so well acquainted with one of the burglars, it is entirely plausible that this person could have gotten her hands on a key to the Ramsey residence. Thus, there would have been no sign of forced entry.
What is more, the Ramseys were not very fastidious with their home security. Indeed, they did not even bother to set the alarm most of the time. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a door had actually been left unlocked, despite all assurances to the contrary by all concerned parties.
What do you think they were out to take in the first place?
The usual stuff: jewelry, guns, collectibles, cash, anything that can be easily thrown into a shoulder bag and hocked at the local pawn shop.
If they were an experienced team of burglars, wouldn't they have cased the R home prior to hitting it?
There is no reason to suspect that these were experienced, professional burglars who relied on swag as their primary source of income. In fact, it is
at least as likely that these were thrill burglars out for kicks and a little dope money.
Would they not have noticed the Rs arrived home that evening? Why not wait for the next night, when the Rs would have been away in Charlevoix? (The "insider" burglary suspect you theorise of might have known that, right? Or maybe not. What do you think?)
That the burglars could have screwed up so badly by getting wrong the date of the Ramseys departure to Michigan is telling of what sort of burglars we are dealing with, and perhaps ultimately, their identities.
If they had entered the home and suddenly came upon JB, why not simply grab her and get out? Why the ransom note, the search for objects in the household to tie & restrain her... wouldn't that all have taken a long time and put them in greater risk of discovery? Why not just grab her & leave?
Good question. Why
not just grab JBR and leave? Why hang around?
The answer: They had no where to take her. Indeed, they might not even have had a car with which to smuggle JBR away. Now what sort of burglars are these? My guess is that they are young adults. They either live with their parents in the surrounding neighborhood or they live in a dorm or frat house at UC, which is just around the corner from the Ramsey residence.
Most of all-- why would they bother to redress her and leave her covered in a blanket? That could show (and does especially if we consider JR/PR to be involved) remorse and a wish to "comfort" the now dead child. But why do you feel a burglar would go to that step?
The female burglar did this because she knew and liked JBR. It was she who wrote the ransom note. It was she who tried to persuade her depraved boyfriend not to kill JBR. It was she who felt genuine remorse for the murder.
If these experienced burglars made a mistake, and the result was that they had to kill JB, and then made a solemn vow to walk the straight and narrow from then on, how long to you think that vow of goodness would last?
I think there is a very high degree of probability that our female burglar is dead, having been murdered by her male accomplice not long after the murder of JBR. Has he walked the straight and narrow since then? I doubt it. But if he moved away to Europe or Israel or Australia, he could have easily eluded the radar of American law enforcement.
If they (the hypothetical burglars) were truly that remorseful, then why basically torture the child? Not just the vaginal penetration with what may have been a paintbrush of PR, but the head blow, the marks elsewhere on the body, the slow strangulation, etc. Did the remorse come after a snap that made them act so viciously?
Clearly, one of the burglars was possessed by an actual human soul and felt some degree of remorse while the other one was a sadistic, cold-hearted, psychopath.
Most of all, given the rates of family homicides, how does burglary gone wrong seem more plausible? Is there a particular piece or pieces of evidence that really stick out to you on this, and what is it?
The most glaring piece of evidence is the ransom note which was not likely written by Patsy, or John, or Burke. Obviously, somebody wrote the note and it was not a member of the Ramsey family.
