I can't find a hole in this theory...

[midwest mama]

Because he focuses on Burke throughout the last section of his book. Because he states very clearly that he does not feel either Patsy or John capable of killing their own child, as they come across to him as a good Christian family. In this he is, very strangely, in complete agreement with Lou Smit, whose evaluation of the Ramseys he refers to in the same passage.

Finally, he makes it very clear that his take on this crime could not lead to a conviction because Burke was too young and the statute of limitations on accessory after the fact has passed.

By pressing for a re-examination of the case in the light of Kolar's theory, you are in effect arguing that the case be dropped.

Help me Jesus!

Doc - Evidently you and I are not interpreting Kolar's writing the same way.
While I agree with you that he has clearly indicated Burke has involvement in the death of JB, I am led to believe he also feels there is substantiating evidence that this crime included the other members in the household, each of them in varying degrees.

Kolar writes a section starting on page 401 of his book, titled Critical Analysis of John Ramsey's Statements, through to pg 404, and another section titled Closing Observations with regard to John not bringing up info after 1998 in his further interviews about a key element that would support the intruder theory, makes this statement:
"As a criminal investigator, I have to consider the question: Was this an oversight on John Ramsey's part, or does the intentional absence of this key element reveal consciousness of guilt?"

Because of what Kolar writes with regard to Patsy, I agree he does not feel her level of involvement contributed to JB's death.

When Kolar wrote to Gov. Owens in 2007, he stated, "I am convinced there are grounds for taking another look at the possibility of family involvement in the death of JonBenet and would request that the special prosecutors who were most familiar with the details of the first grand jury inquiry be asked to review the evidence......". Gov. Owens did contact the DA's office, and Kolar learned that only Bennet, Lacy and members of her command staff would look at his material - NO outside prosecutors, BPD reps or members of the BAU from the FBI. Kolar knew it was pointless, since Lacy was supporting the intruder theory and the DNA reports, and was unwilling to seek the assistance of outside experts. Gov Owens wanted Kolar to go public with his new theory, but he stated, "I thought about it for a few weeks and scrubbed the idea. I didn't particularly care for wearing a bulls-eye on my back and decided to wait for a change in regime in Boulder."

So, Kolar did wait, and then presented his document in 2011 to BPD and Stan Garnett and in his letter to Garnett wrote: "...I continue to argue that there is a course of action available to you that will ultimately clear this homicide...........In closing, I have to state that I have always held to the belief that the criminal justice system would be able to bring this case to a successful resolution." And this is how I interpret his comments: In other words, I can show you how to indict John Ramsey, since he is the only remaining prosecutable family member.

I believe Kolar holds John ultimately responsible for the final strangulation of JB. You are working very hard on 'probable cause' to indict JR, and I think Kolar's theory MUST point out there is probable cause to indict JR. He spends too much of his book pointing out the flaws of John's involvement.:moo:

My speculation that Kolar wants to see JR answer up in no way is an argument that I want to see this case get dropped, so I cannot agree with your sentiment, but I do not hold it against you for having it or expressing it. I know how seriously devoted you have become to also wanting to see JR be indicted, and I support your efforts totally. I can see no one else tightening that ligature except John Ramsey, given all the clues of the case to date. If he ever goes to trial, the bottom line will be to prove he was the killer, and I agree with your belief that a good prosecutor should be able to do just that.

JMO - and as other bylines say: THIS TIME WE GET IT RIGHT

p.s. As far as Jesus helping, I'm sure He will, if it's really His will.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, it's clear that he sees both John and Patsy as culpable, with both taking an active part in the cover-up. But he also makes it clear that John could not be prosecuted because of the statute of limitations on accessory after the fact. He refers to "clearing the case," but NOT to indicting John, not ever anywhere in his book (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

As far as the ligature strangulation is concerned as I recall he never really addresses that issue. John is simply off his radar as far as the molestation and murder of JonBenet is concerned. He focuses on Burke simply because he's convinced himself, like Lou Smit convinced himself, that Patsy and John could not have killed their daughter. And he's convinced there was no intruder. So Burke is the only one left. And when he finds literature suggesting that a boy that young is in fact capable of both molestation and murder, then he's off to the races.

His case against Burke is based solely on speculations stemming from what he's read in the psych. literature, and the parents eagerness to "protect" him from the investigators. But he presents NO evidence whatsoever that even suggests Burke's involvement in any aspect of the crime. And for some odd reason refuses to even consider the possibility that John could be guilty of more than an accessory role. Despite the fact that there have literally been thousands of cases of sexual molestation by a parent, almost always a male, and hardly any cases, if any at all, of sexual molestation by a nine year old, he fixates on Burke and nothing will deter him. And since Burke was too young to be prosecuted and the statute of limitations on accessory has past, then presto chango: John is home free.

Sure, Kolar would love to see an inquiry that would "clear the case" in the sense of revealing what actually happened, but realistically there is absolutely no chance that could happen in the absence of an indictable suspect. I really wonder what was going through this guy's mind, because when all is said and done his approach to the case makes no sense.

To assume the cases of young children molesting younger children are few is simply wrong.

The question as to who had been molesting her is still open for me. Any one of them seems possible. As far as who bashed her in the head and who strangled her... it again, could have been any one of them or in any combination. IMO.
I am completely comfortable in my belief. It was pasty who wrote the note and patsy that covered her with the blanket. So....patsy is still at the top of my list as the number one suspect in the whole thing & every aspect of the crime.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txsvicki]

There are 10 year olds locked up in juvie all over this country on sexual charges. I saw some out at juvie a couple of years ago when visiting a teen relative in for marijuana use. It was one of the most awful things I've ever seen, seeing them crying to their mammas. These boys were in for trying something with a 15 year old, and they only admitting to trying to kiss her because they'd seen her with a boyfriend. It can happen. And probably usually in families and done to younger kids after being molested and sexualized by an adult.

 

[Linda7NJ]

There are 10 year olds locked up in juvie all over this country on sexual charges. I saw some out at juvie a couple of years ago when visiting a teen relative in for marijuana use. It was one of the most awful things I've ever seen, seeing them crying to their mammas. These boys were in for trying something with a 15 year old, and they only admitting to trying to kiss her because they'd seen her with a boyfriend. It can happen. And probably usually in families and done to younger kids after being molested and sexualized by an adult.

I've also witnessed young children in treatment facilities for stupid reasons like bra strap snapping. It's my belief they are there to inflate the success statics of treating juvenile sex offenders, but that's another topic all together.

There is no shortage of very young, sadistic, violent, sexual predators.

I would say its rare one murders so young. It is however threatened quite often.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, and as I'm sure you're aware, such children usually have long records of problem behavior in many aspects of their lives, and in most cases come from obviously dysfunctional family environments. There are no such records of problem behavior for Burke and no reason, until the night of the murder, to suspect that the Ramsey family was dysfunctional in any typical manner. I'll challenge you also to come up with a single case of parents going to such extreme lengths to cover for a child who attacks and kills his sister.

In any case, what I'm referring to is not Burke or his culpability, but Kolar's theory and its bearing on the possibility of John being prosecuted. If Burke in fact is the one who molested and killed his sister, and John was only covering for him, and the authorities are ever convinced of Kolar's arguments in favor of this theory, then John is home free and will never be indicted. That's the point I was making to mm.

BBM
I disagree. In my experience problem behaviors are typically ignored, minimized and chalked up to normal sexual curiosity. This staement is also untrue, " most cases come from obviously dysfunctional family environments" childhood sexual abuse is not limited to obviously dysfuctional families. It can happen in any family. That would be nice though. Then we could just look at a family and know.
IIRC Burke and JonBenet were caught often under blankets doing things they shouldn't. Burke's reaction to being caught, if indeed true, is very troublesome on so many levels.

I haven't one, haven't spent any time looking for one either. There is no shortage of examples of parents of a child that has committed murdered, raped etc.. that have fabricated false alibis for their children, rationalized, denied. Just how far a parent would be willing to go in order to protect their offspring remains debatable. There is also no shortage of examples where one parent covers for another when one murders a child.

IMO The fact is... John is home free and will never be indicted. EVER.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

It is a total certainty. Colorado law is pretty plain. NO CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF TEN may be charged in a crime. Any crime. They cannot even be publicly suspected. And this is the case no matter how serious the crime. Even if it was the day before his 10th birthday.

I can see some lawyers (Jose Baez and Cheny Mason come to mind) making a argument about any crime being done up to the time of birth and not the day. Just to be nit picking and they'd most likely win.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Yes, and as I'm sure you're aware, such children usually have long records of problem behavior in many aspects of their lives, and in most cases come from obviously disfunctional family environments. There are no such records of problem behavior for Burke and no reason, until the night of the murder, to suspect that the Ramsey family was disfunctional in any typical manner. I'll challenge you also to come up with a single case of parents going to such extreme lengths to cover for a child who attacks and kills his sister.

Hmm,, George and Cindy Anthony do come to mind even though it was their grandchild and they knew their daughter was not only capable, but did kill Caylee.

Pasty's friends had plans to speak with after Christmas, about what was happening to JonBenet. I would consider friends feeling the need to intervene on JonBenet's half a hint of dysfunction in that family. But maybe that's just me.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

Yes, and as I'm sure you're aware, such children usually have long records of problem behavior in many aspects of their lives, and in most cases come from obviously disfunctional family environments. There are no such records of problem behavior for Burke and no reason, until the night of the murder, to suspect that the Ramsey family was disfunctional in any typical manner. I'll challenge you also to come up with a single case of parents going to such extreme lengths to cover for a child who attacks and kills his sister.

Hmm,, George and Cindy Anthony do come to mind even though it was their grandchild and they knew their daughter was not only capable, but did kill Caylee.

I see you have edited your post - please - don't even get me started - her work proved she was there when the chloroform search was made on the shared computer at home and cadaver dogs responded in the parent's garden in the July - after the parents (gransparents that is) had made the call about the smell in the car etc which had been impounded - sorry - not even going there on this one... who moved the body then? very dodgy and the kid was not convicted - wonder why the parents were never charged - oh yeah - apparently there was no crime... ???? or whatever

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

Excuse me, but you know this how? And what exactly did the grandparents do to cover for their daughter? Did they strangle their grandchild with a garotte, or stage a phoney kidnapping? What are you alleging, exactly?

In a sense - they almost made it look as though their daughter had carried out some sort of kidnapping... pretty harsh - going out of their way in some attempt to actually blame their child!!!

 

[rashomon]

The evidence points to Patsy being involved as well.
The fiber evidence implicates her as the stager of the 'garrote' scene:
Fibers from the jacket she had been wearing to the Whites' party were found in in locations directly associated with JonBenet's death: in the paint tray, in the neck ligature, on the duct tape, and on the blanket covering the dead body.

I've just read in Kolar's book (p. 228) that trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature and from the wine cellar floor also matched the fibers from Patsy's jacket.

 

[rashomon]

... see my analysis of John's broken window story.

Has it ever been examined whether the window had been broken from inside the train room?

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

Has it ever been examined whether the window had been broken from inside the train room?

which reminds me - if you were going to stage a break-in - wouldn't you force a point of entry? The basement window is dubious apparently because of intact spiders webs.... if you were going to fit up the occupants - you would use your own key....

 

[rashomon]

If you read my latest blog post you'll see that, as far as establishing probable cause to indict John, this doesn't matter. What matters is that John's lies tell us there was no intruder. That's all we need. His lawyers are NOT going to argue they were in on it together, believe me. All the prosecution needs to argue is that John, as the sole mature male in the house was the most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim. THAT constitutes probable cause.

Coming up with 'most likely" without being able to provide evidence that John was the offender wouldn't get the prosecution anywhere.
For John could have lied and helped with the staging of the scene to cover up for a family member.

 

[redheadedgal]

I've just read in Kolar's book (p. 228) that trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature and from the wine cellar floor also matched the fibers from Patsy's jacket.

this info bolsters the FBI analysis of fiber evidence i posted earlier:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8322419&postcount=207"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The "war",what was it all about[/ame]


kolar writes that the lab techs' experiments and conclusions (pgs. 228-229) support this as well:

... but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn't think that this type of transfer (secondary) accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and the tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence... The collection of jacket fibers from all these different locations raised strong suspicions about her involvement in the crime.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

James Bulger was a two year old little boy that was taken by two ten year old boys from a shopping mall and brutally beat him to death.


Kansas City 2011, a 18 month old boy was drowned by his five year old cousin because he wouldn't stop crying. She took him to the tub where there was water from a previous bath and held him under. There are many more kids under ten that have killed.

Then you have sexual assaults by children under ten.

A ten year old boy charged with sexual assault at day care in yesterday. A five year old boy also sexually assaulted a five year old girl.

There are many many children who kill and sexually abuse other children. Most have been victims of being sexually assualt themselves.

I think Burke very well of been the one who was molesting JonBenet. There are books in the Ramesy bedroom that indicate some one was interested in what incest was, and why a child does not knowing right from wrong, and that does say dysfunction in that family.

It's not beyond reason to think that Burke was being abused by someone in that house and he was acting out what was happening to him on JonBenet. JonBenet's bedwetting with JonBenet going to the school nurse mostly after the weekends, Pasty's many calls to JonBenet dr. after hours on December 17th says something was going on, and if you add the opened dictionary, and previous molestation of JonBenet it's not hard to imagine. Where would of Burkes "knowledge" of sexual behavior come from?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't doubt that such cases exist. Kolar provides reasonable documentation on a generic level. But I wonder if you could document a single specific case in which a 9 year old with no history of violence or behavioral problems in school suddenly turns out to be a sexual molester, not to mention a murderer. Or whether you could document a single case in which parents go to such extreme lengths to protect their child, especially when the child has both sexually violated and murdered his own sister. I can't think of any such case, oddly enough. Except, of course, the Ramsey case.

I must ask you also why it is that you are so bent on Burke as the perpetrator, and why you fail to consider even the possibility that John did all these things? I asked the same question of Kolar, but he never responded.

Not only do I not see it likely that a nine year old child could have committed these crimes, nor likely that his parents would have covered for him in such an extreme manner, I also see not one single shred of evidence linking him to the crime. Which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why so many feel so sure he's the one.

There is documented violence, remember the golf club to the face? Not all children act out in school. Do you recall the case in AZ where an 8 year old planned and carried out a double murder? He had no problems to speak of in school. There were reports he tried to drown his half sister once. I would say most 8 year olds don't try to murder their younger siblings via golf clubs or drownings.

Denial is a powerful and natural response.

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not bent on anything. If you read my posts you'll see that I have repeatedly and recently refused to rule any Ramsey out.

IMO if I were to argue Burke did it, some of the strongest evidence is the crime itself. Its almost juvenile in nature.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

James Bulger was a two year old little boy that was taken by two ten year old boys from a shopping mall and brutally beat him to death.


Kansas City 2011, a 18 month old boy was drowned by his five year old cousin because he wouldn't stop crying. She took him to the tub where there was water from a previous bath and held him under. There are many more kids under ten that have killed.

Then you have sexual assaults by children under ten.

A ten year old boy charged with sexual assault at day care in yesterday. A five year old boy also sexually assaulted a five year old girl.

There are many many children who kill and sexually abuse other children. Most have been victims of being sexually assualt themselves.

I think Burke very well of been the one who was molesting JonBenet. There are books in the Ramesy bedroom that indicate some one was interested in what incest was, and why a child does not knowing right from wrong, and that does say dysfunction in that family.

It's not beyond reason to think that Burke was being abused by someone in that house and he was acting out what was happening to him on JonBenet. JonBenet's bedwetting with JonBenet going to the school nurse mostly after the weekends, Pasty's many calls to JonBenet dr. after hours on December 17th says something was going on, and if you add the opened dictionary, and previous molestation of JonBenet it's not hard to imagine. Where would of Burkes "knowledge" of sexual behavior come from?

It's a misconception that all children that sexually assault were themselves sexually abused. It simply isn't true. There have been studies of polygraphed juvenile sex offenders that prove the opposite it true. The ones that claim they were abused typically are lying and the ones that do not self report more often were. Less than half were ever abused. These same studies yielded the same results when applied to adult offenders.

I am gonna say IMO because I am not hunting down those studies on my phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whaleshark]

Despite the fact that there have literally been thousands of cases of sexual molestation by a parent, almost always a male, and hardly any cases, if any at all, of sexual molestation by a nine year old, he fixates on Burke and nothing will deter him.

I'm sorry, but I can't keep reading this misinformation anymore without correcting it. You may refuse to believe it, but it's just not true that there are 'hardly any cases, if at all, of sexual molestation by a nine year old' -- you can scoff at the statistics if you want, but these are the cold hard facts:

A THIRD OF CHILD SEX OFFENDERS ARE CHILDREN THEMSELVES
http://blog.chron.com/momhouston/2012/01/a-third-of-child-sex-offenders-are-children-themselves/

“…Last week two 10-year-old boys were charged with sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy on a school bus. According to reports, the two older boys would open their pants and force the younger boy to perform sex acts. The boys were charged after officials with Houston Independent School District discovered the assault while reviewing bus surveillance video”.

That young children can be charged with such a heinous crime is shocking, but possibly because we rarely hear about such cases. According to a new study of crime data, roughly a third of child sex offenders are children themselves.

Basic data about child-on-child sex abuse is detailed in an authoritative, Justice Department-sponsored analysis of crime data from 29 states. Conducted by three prominent researchers, the 2009 analysis found that juveniles accounted for 35.6 percent of the people identified by police as having committed sex offenses against minors. Of these young offenders, 93 percent were male, and the peak ages for offending were 12 through 14, the researchers found. Of the victims, 59 percent were younger than 12, and 75 percent were female.

The report referred to a popular misconception that juvenile sex offenders are likely to reoffend, and said numerous studies over the years have shown the opposite — that 85 to 95 percent of offending youth are never again arrested for sex crimes.

CHILD ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE RESEARCH STUDY[
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/initiatives/GMWorkgroup/docs/meeting121709/GabrielMyersWorkGroupPresentation.pdf

- In FY 2008-09, 619 youths (1,264 referrals) were referred to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice for a sexual offense
- It is estimated that over 3,000 felony sexual assaults by juveniles occur in Florida per year and that there may be close to 1,500 juvenile felony sexual offenders.

- In FY 2008-09, 8,321 children were identified as being either alleged perpetrators, or victims, of child on child (COC) sexual abuse by the Florida Department of Children and Families.

- Approximately 700 youths were found to be verified victims of child on child sexual abuse by DCF in fiscal year 2007, with 88 were victims in more than one Child On Child referral.

- Children who engage in child on child sexual abuse, as well as their victims, are diverse and not easily classified into typologies.

- Child On Child sexual abuse may involve children of similar or divergent ages; may involve aggression, coercion, or force; may involve harm or potential for harm; may occur once or may occur often; and may include minor or advanced sexual behaviors.

From The Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000 –

Of offenders who victimized children under age 6, 40% were UNDER age 18.

STUDY: Many Sex Offenders Are Kids Themselves -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-03-kid-sex-offenders_N.htm

Juveniles are 36% of all sex offenders who victimize children.

JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS – MANAGING and PREVENTING FUTURE OFFENSES -
http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DQFmaQxqltU%3d&tabid=392

Juveniles commit a significant portion of the sex offenses that occur in the United States each year.
They account for up to one‐fifth of rapes and one‐half of ALL cases of child molestation committed annually.

In 2005, 18 percent of all arrests of persons under age 18 were for sexual offenses.

http://www.childluresprevention.com/research/profile.asp

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report* found that:

- 23% of all sexual offenders were under the age of 18
- 40% of offenders of victims under age 6 were themselves juveniles
- 13% were 7-11 years old; 27% were 12-17 years old
- 39% of the offenders of victims ages 7-11 were juveniles
- 27% of the offenders of victims ages 12 -17 were juveniles

Juvenile offenders under the age of 12 were responsible for:

- 23% of forcible sodomies
- 19% of forcible fondlings
- 17% of sexual assaults with an object
- 7% of forcible rapes

When and where did these assaults usually happen?
The peak time for juvenile assaults was 3 pm, after school. Other spikes in the number of incidents were at the traditional meal times of 8 am, noon and 6 pm. Most of these assaults happened in the home of the victim, the home of the offender, or another residence.

How many of these assaults were by family members?

- 49% of offenders of victims under age 6 were family members
- 42% of offenders of victims ages 7-11 were family members
- 24% of offenders of victims ages 12 - 17 were family members
__

Whether you think Burke was the ‘most likely’ to sexually assault or not, as you can easily see, “there have ALSO literally been thousands of cases of sexual molestation” and assault by juveniles as well.

Children under 12 are not only capable of sexual assault, but of carrying out other horrendous, unspeakable acts:

Don’t believe me? Here’s more:

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both 10 years old, sexually assaulted & MURDERED 2 yr. old James Bulgar
http://listverse.com/2007/11/23/top-10-evil-children/

Child, 9 yrs old, carries out sexual assault -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-nine-carried-out-sexual-assault-1776667.html

JESSE POMEROY – Began at age 11 - sexual torture of seven other boys. Mutilated and killed a 10-yr old girl, and arrested at age 14 for horrific murder of 4-year old boy.

Mary Bell -- convicted of strangling a young boy, Martin Brown, on May 25, 1968, the day before her 11th birthday. She also used a pair of scissors to cut off bits of Brian Howe’s hair and part of his genitals.

__

Based on reality of the facts, I would say that Burke, or any other child, whether completely sexually mature or not, is JUST AS LIKELY to have been a part of this crime as sexually mature, male adult father, John Ramsey.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

It's a misconception that all children that sexually assault were themselves sexually abused. It simply isn't true. There have been studies of polygraphed juvenile sex offenders that prove the opposite it true. The ones that claim they were abused typically are lying and the ones that do not self report more often were. Less than half were ever abused. These same studies yielded the same results when applied to adult offenders.

I am gonna say IMO because I am not hunting down those studies on my phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pasty sexualized JonBenet with the pageants and costumes (she was acting out by being "too friendly" and "flirty" and being in bed with Burke) so do you think Burke was also sexualzied by someone in that family? Either by books or movies? Could it of been by him and JAR watching movies together? I'm more him than John or Pasty, but I could be wrong.

JAR was there during the weekends and it seems Pasty didn't keep a real close eye on either of her kids, so it would give who ever was doing it plenty of time and opportunities to get close to both of them.

Why didn't JonBenet feel pretty on the 23rd? Did Pasty say something during the fight over the over the blue dress to make her feel that way? Brothers can be mean little snots at times and I wonder if Burke would pick on her because of the beauty pageant and the attention, calling her names and telling her she wasn't pretty.

 

[BOESP]

I see no reason to exclude Patsy as the molester or killer, especially in view of Steve Thomas's published views and televised interviews.

There is no way for anyone to know what a jury would decide and who they would or would not agree with.