James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[Intriguing]

MidWest Mama - yep my Act 1 is a little shaky. It's coloured a touch by not wanting to think that a child could deliberately enact harm upon their sibling - much as Patsy commented 'what child could to this to another child!' However, I'll try and grasp the nettle in due course - still think it involved Burke though.

KoldKase, I fully appreciate what you say about the legal system and your sense of inequality it creates, predicated by financial resources, as well as others' feelings of integrity etc. I felt the same way for a long period. However, as all those cop movies trot out time after time, once you make it personal your judgement can become clouded...or something like that!

I thought the same way about the Madeleine McCann case - indeed it appears to me to be very similar. Yet, here's my take on it. IF Burke did it, accidentally or otherwise, during those first few frantic hours, I doubt they would have been questioning his intent. They would have assumed a terrible accident. If that was the case, then any lawyer advising the Ramseys would be 'ethically' motivated, as well as financially, to go into damage limitation. Sure, the Ramseys were financially fortunate to be able to afford such assistance but what parent wouldn't exhaust every avenue to protect a child, even in a circumstance so extreme that another child has died.

What if someone high up in the local DA's office had been aware and convinced that it was an accident? Surely, the ethical decision some individuals would take would be to cover it up. One child is dead, why destroy another child's life?

No one could have predicted that the media would have entered the fray with such ferocity and from there on in, it is impossible to balance or counter the prevailing, sensationalist tone.

A very mild analogy - I have, on occasion, made the decision to lie to someone solely for the purpose of protecting them (mainly from themselves!). An instinctual reaction made at source. Consequently, the person I have tried to protect from themselves has gone on to villify me under different circumstances. Even then, I smiled sweetly and thought their wellbeing more important than my character assassination as I knew untruths couldn't systemically hurt me whereas the awful truth would wound them. And so, the first lie is compounded with another lie to keep the first well-meaning lie intact and so it goes on. Eventually, you are boxed into a corner by a tissue of ever-more ridiculous subterfuge, all designed to protect someone. By that stage, it's impossible to retract or explain your innocent reasoning, as you would be branded a liar and anything you say deemed untrustworthy. That might have happened in this case to either the Ramseys, their legal team, the investigating officers, Fleet White etc etc.

 

[midwest mama]

TY, mwmm, for all the effort you put in to answering me (I’ve gotta get my own book soon.), and for your passion.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the past between different posters on that very point. There is even disagreement between some so-called "experts" as to which came first. But most seemed to agree, as I recall, that the two were at least fairly close in time to one another. So the idea that such a long period of time could have passed between the two events is somewhat of a headline-grabber, and it brings in a lot more possibilities that I hadn't even considered before. Of course, you probably know all this; I’m simply stating it so we all understand how much everything changes if the time between head blow and strangulation is even more than 30-minutes.

I don’t have a medical background, which is why I have to depend on others to explain things to a dummy like me ( :dunno: ). But I think if it is simply the opinion of one more expert (Dr. Rorke, or Rorke-Adams now), no matter how eminent she is (and she is), I’m gonna have to put that down as a possibility -- but not a confirmed fact. Looks like I’ll be doing some research on my own again, like I did to try and understand the mark on JonBenet’s throat -- the “CTE” :wink:.
.

Guess it's my turn to be a dummy - about your "CTE" comment. :dunno: just too new at looking more in-depth into this case and I'm already finding out that having enough lifetime left for my quest could be a challenge. You've tweaked my curiosity way too much with the "CTE" comment. Share, please!

I was pretty satisfied with the description of a natural pooling of blood just under the skin that would go to a certain type of area once the blood flow was stopping due to death - which would give the "parchment" appearance of the mark on JB's neck.

Otherwise, I can consider that if JB were on her stomach when the chord around her neck was pulled tight enough to strangle her, the strangler could have grabbed her around the neck with a left hand to get a firm grip, while pulling the cord with the right hand.

If the "garrote" handle had not been attached to the end of the cord as of yet, the strangler could have wrapped the end of the cord a time or two around his right hand (especially if it was a smaller hand) so the cord didn't slip, held onto JB at the neck, and gave it a good tight pull until the breathing stopped.

A small hand would have accounted for a smaller and lighter squeeze mark around on the front of her neck. I don't know how thoroughly the scalp under her hair would have been examined for scalp wounds/bruises of any sort, but the thumb might have left a smaller, similar light mark on her scalp just above the hairline on the back of her neck which might have been covered up very easily with hair. The grasp of JB's neck with the right hand wouldn't have had to be very forceful - just firm enough to hold her steady while the cord was being pulled. :sigh:

 

[Intriguing]

Another thought - were electricity meter readings ever done on the house? Reason I ask is because I wonder about the significance of the wine cellar. Being windowless, would it not be somewhere a young boy, stealthily operating under flashlight, could go and safely turn on a light without fear of discovery? Would one lightbulb going on and off even register on a voltage load?

 

[Unreals]

It also irritated me that nothing sinister on the Ramseys' behalf eventuated as that was the theory I had from the get-go but the few extracts I've read from Kolar's book reproduced by other members made everything click into place - for me anyway.

I think this was an event with four acts. Act 1 - Burke accidentally kills JB (with or without sexual abuse). Act 2 - both parents discover the horrific accident and cook up and stage a somewhat ludicrous murder (although not so ludicrous if they had managed to get the body out of the house as initially planned). Act 3 - having spent the early hours concocting and executing their plan, it is finally a semi-decent hour to phone a friend. Patsy hears from the pediatrician that Burke is too young to be prosecuted. Immediately after this relieving advice, Patsy phones the police, meanwhile John has been receiving initial crisis management instructions from a lawyer. Act 4 - John manages to slip away from the group mid-morning, again speaks to a lawyer in a lengthier and detailed conversation and is advised to 'find' the body.

Yes, maybe or totally wrong?

Sounds "intriguing." However, even as cynical as I am, I would be dubious about any doctor patiently giving someone advice about how to explain the death of their child. Of course, this same doctor did innocently (and inexplicably) explain away JBR's alarming number of visits to his office. Also, your scenario seems to imply that JR's lawyer knew what really happened that night, and was giving him advice on that basis. Again, no one is more cynical than me, but that has to be unethical, if not illegal. He would basically be assisting JR in covering up a crime, wouldn't he?

However, considering how powerful the Ramseys appear to have been, who knows? Corruption is everywhere, so you could easily be right.

 

[txsvicki]

I still don't understand the knot and how it stayed tight on the neck, or if the stick end even had to be used.

 

[Chrishope]

Hey Chrishope! Ironically, after I posted it was your contributions that I've been most struck by mainly because, in my mind, you have been on exactly the right track and then, at the last minute, veered off into precisely the opposite conclusion - with all due deference!

I'll tackle the pediatrician issue in a bit - I was using shorthand and conflated a couple of things which you rightly saw as unconvincing. First I want to react to your main point of conjecture which has consistently stated that the staging, by definition, precludes an accident and Burke's involvement. Au contraire! IMO, that is the element which specifically shouts out that the parents didn't do it.

It doesn't preclude an accident, and it doesn't really preclude Burkes involvement, though I think BR being involved is EXTREMELY unlikely. It does preclude PR/JR working together.

The weakness with this supposition (again please imply 'with respect' in all I say!), is that it relies on two humans behaving perfectly rationally and logically in the midst of terrifying, extreme circumstances, overcome with grief yet having to operate on autopilot to protect their one surviving child.

If they had enough wits between them to cover up at all (e.g. were able to do some planning and carry it out) then they had enough wits to try to make it look convincing.

The RN along with a body is unconvincing. The Rs are not stupid people. If the staging is unconvincing, then it could not have been the plan.

If they didn't do it, why would they stage? To cover up for their son. Why? There had been some sexual activity going on - not sexual to a child's mind but certainly something that complicated the simple accident scenario. Without going into details, Burke might have accidentally bashed JB on the head and THEN gone about stabbing her with a paintbrush - or else he had inserted the paintbrush, then she screamed because it hurt; he bashed her to shut her up for fear of discovery out of bed after lights out by his parents. Either way, Burke would have been in shock and, again, his actions not subject to the rationale and lucidity we wrongly presume.

BR couldn't be prosecuted. So there is no need to cover for him. If BR did the prior molestation, that means both parents are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing, at any time, as far as harming JBR goes. That being the case, we'd expect an ambulance call. Why would two clear consciences consider anything other than calling an ambulance? Saving their daughters life would be the primary concern.

'But the parents must have known they would have been implicated?' Nope - exactly the opposite. They are in shock, terror and John goes into crisis management mode. The one thing they do not give a second thought to is their own implication (it may steadily dawn on them a few hours later). As they HADN'T committed the 'murder' they would have been convinced that the police couldn't implicate them. They wouldn't have had to give this a second thought, even if their state of mind had been calm enough to consider it. They did not do it therefore they wouldn't be in the frame. This seems exactly the reasoning (or lack of objective logic) a traumatised parent might experience whilst unwillingly trying to cover up and protect another child. A Sophie's Choice moment if you will. They were thinking of anything BUT themselves as they weren't the main protagonist.

Respectfully, not buying it. If they had enough of their wits about them to stage, they'd have enough wits to realize they were implicating themselves in murder.

The staging, whether it was violent or not, occurred BEFORE the Ramseys had sought professional advice. What was the parents' motive to stage as they knew Burke would not be held criminally responsible. THEY HAD NO IDEA he wouldn't be deemed culpable. Why on earth would they know? Child accidentally kills sister. Child complicates the situation by having obviously been 'exploring' his sister's genitalia. Parents stumble into this horror.

Almost everyone knows that there is a separate juvenile justice system for kids. They may not have known the age at which a child could be charged with a crime, but they certainly knew that at 9 (and he was 9, not almost ten. The law doesn't recognize "almost 10) he was not facing life in prison.

Why was the dictionary opened at the entry 'incest'? Was it because Patsy had never heard of it before? A morbid fascination from a predatory paedophile father wanting to relish his evil deeds in a lexical context? No. Surely the action of a grief and horror-stricken mother whose fevered mind is desperately trying to figure out the ramifications of the situation. Maybe their might be some legal viewpoint in the dictionary? If John had perpetrated the crime I hardly think Patsy would need to reassure herself of the consequences of such actions by an adult.

I'd look to the family pediatrician for legal advise before I'd look to the dictionary.

Back to the pediatrician. Yes Chrishope, the legal culpability would not have been her first line of enquiry with him. If, in the week or months preceding this tragedy, there had been irregularities in Burke's behaviour with his sister, it would have been something she would have discussed with the doctor. On the 17th December she had phoned him three times. A pediatrician can not only consult on his patient - he would also be the best person to appraise and consult on the actions of another child i.e. Burke.

Perhaps, the Ramseys had spoken to a lawyer BEFORE the call to the doctor. The lawyer might reasonably have asked, 'does anyone else know about this irregularity between brother and sister?' Patsy would have mentioned the doctor. A good lawyer would then say, temporarily in a crisis, that the next step is to ensure that the doctor would keep the information CONFIDENTIAL. Hence, Patsy makes the call and receives that assurance. If that was a green light the LAWYER might have instructed Patsy to call the police.

There is no question as to doctor patient confidentiality. It would take a subpoena to get the medical records. Surely people with the Rs education would know that much. No need for them to call their lawyer on such a simple point.

So, accident, autonomous staging by parents, phonecalls for professional advice, plan changed subsequent to this advice. Surely this is the only sequence that would explain all the inconsistencies, confusion and silence from the parents. It wasn't a linear trajectory. It was rushed, misguided and aborted - hence erratic at first.

I can't see a lawyer giving advice on how to obstruct justice, if that's what you're getting at.

 

[Intriguing]

OK I think we both inherently disagree on the conclusion of the staging - and that's fine! I still feel, placed in that situation, an educated person wouldn't know the precise age of culpability. It differs from state to state and country to country. Secondly, she looked in the dictionary in the very early hours of the morning BEFORE she could speak to the pediatrician/lawyer/whomever. Furthermore, I had no idea that patient confidentiality extended to cases involving murder. Priests, yep I know they are bound but I has presumed that medical professionals became accomplices if they withheld substantive information in an investigation. Why did I presume that? From all those hospital dramas where the A&E departments are always duty bound to call the police. I reckon others may have the same impression.

Lastly, the comments on lawyers advising on how to obstruct justice don't always hold true. Here's a personal experience that might illustrate the point:

I was once told by a High Court judge, alongside his son and just at the age we had both got our driving licenses yet were obviously still operating under the foolish excesses of youth, of the sacrosanct procedure to be followed to the letter should we be involved in an accident having been over the drink drive limit. He stated simply and unequivocably – get out of the car, leave the scene and do not return. Go to ground for 24 hours. It doesn’t matter how or where.

Being so young we didn’t question his inviolate authority. It wasn’t until years later that I pressed him upon the underlying reason for his advice. He judicially stated, “if you leave the scene you buy yourself time. The prosecution has to prove you were inebriated. It doesn’t matter if the car was littered with empty spirit bottles, if you are off the scene by the time you return 24 hours later any breath test will not detect alcohol in your system.”

So far, so logical. But how on earth can you justify disappearing for 24 hours?

Here was the genius.

“You knocked your head on the steering wheel or your head was whipped forward during the impact. You were disorientated and had no idea where you were. You had concussion. No one can ever prove different.”

Exceptional! From the lips of a man who has to impartially rule in all manner of exculpatory circumstances daily. For a more current example of lawyers deliberately and serially obstructing justice on behalf of a client, watch the ongoing Leveson Inquiry in the UK and see how many of Murdoch's legal teams have had, so far, had to apologise in open court for 'oversights'.

 

[Intriguing]

Just one other thing Chrishope - you observe that -
'If they had enough wits between them to cover up at all (e.g. were able to do some planning and carry it out) then they had enough wits to try to make it look convincing.
The RN along with a body is unconvincing. The Rs are not stupid people. If the staging is unconvincing, then it could not have been the plan.'

Yet, another pair of eyes could easily say 'because the staging was unconvincing it proves they didn't have their wits about them.' I really don't think intellect or education have much involvement in extreme situations, possibly they might even have an adverse effect, over-thinking and being overly elaborate. When soldiers are caught behind enemy lines, it tends to be the grunts who manage to survive not the officers...

 

[hetty]

For the BDI's -

what exactly was the parents motive to the motive to stage and cover?

Why would they do that? As Burke was a minor, he would not be held criminally responsible.

If BDI, and I know it is an if, but if he did, imagine the shame and guilt of living with the knowledge that your child did that..now try and imagine the shame and guilt of everyone else knowing they did it too.

It's one thing to live with it yourself, in secret, but it's quite another to have to face people every single day you have left on this earth knowing that they know every sordid detail of what happened in your family.

Now add the potential sexual abuse element on top of that..doesn't matter if there will be criminal responsibility or not..imagine the post man, the chemist, the nice lady at the corner shop, the librarian, your childs teacher, the congregation at church.. the people you have to face every day, wherever you go, all knowing exactly what happened.

And all that is before you even consider your child having to live with the above for the next 60 or 70 years.

All things considered, those look like pretty powerful motives to try and cover up the truth to me.

 

[SyraKelly]

Well said.

However, this is why we have laws written by elected law-makers, government investigative agencies held to a reasonable standard of competence and lack of bias in conducting investigations, and a court system which is supposed to apply the laws without prejudice.

When the social and financial status of suspects in any case subverts those laws, then the system breaks down.

The Ramseys did what they did. Why they did it is simply a matter of human curiosity.

What followed after is no less than the result of the corruption in the system in Boulder and Colorado. How many innocent people have been victims of that system because of the privileges afforded the Ramseys by: currently, three Boulder DAs; how many judges; how many governors and Colorado State Attorneys General; and how many U.S. Attorneys General? (It's not like this is some case nobody ever heard of outside of Colorado, after all.)

If the Ramseys are to be given a pass because of the stress of the situation they found themselves in, no matter which one of them did what to JonBenet, not to mention the countless individuals and agencies the Ramseys attacked and brought every evil thing upon they could devise with their money, lawyers, and powerful political and media influence to keep up the subversion, then the system itself cannot be defended.

Until our government, whether at the state or federal level, investigates these suspected crimes of conspiracy like any other RICO case, including investigating Lin Wood and the Ramsey's for their SLAPP suits, Boulder stands as a cancer in the U.S. Justice System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket...izations_Act#Where_RICO_laws_might_be_applied

I'm no lawyer, but this isn't rocket science and there are plenty of precedents.

This went way beyond the crimes against JonBenet Ramsey the moment the Boulder DAs decided to conspire with the Ramseys' lawyers to obstruct the investigation. There is sufficient evidence now that three DAs have and are openly refusing to investigate the plethora of crimes committed in this case and in its wake. Organized crime ain't got nothing on Team Ramsey.

It speaks to the branch of our government responsible for creating and enforcing laws. It's no less than this: if our justice system is so corrupt that the initial acts of investigating and prosecuting crimes are based on the financial resources and connections of the suspects, who can defend it?

If the horrible abuse and death of JonBenet Ramsey can't be reasonably adjudicated with all the evidence collected, with two million dollars spent to build the case file, what's wrong with this picture?

When the prime suspects are not only able to slip through the system because of their legal and personal firepower, but are then aided by the same DAs in attacking companies and individuals, even financially benefiting from that aid with a ruthless, vindictive, and greedy streak of legal threats and actions against every vulnerable victim they choose to exploit for those purposes...well, what are we playing at? This makes O.J. look like a good guy.

I may be over-reacting, but I've watched this epic unfolding of the hijacking of our justice system for 15 years and it only gets worse. We now have had two highly competent, decorated, dedicated police officers throw down the gauntlet, writing entire books listing the facts of this case and how it was deliberately derailed, not only by the prime suspects, but by the very DAs who took an oath to be officers of the court and to represent the People.

There is no competent, unbiased lawyer in the land who didn't marvel at the transparent shenanigans of Hunter and Lacy for 12 years.

Yet not one government agency, not one law bar, not one elected official has come forward to investigate this abuse of power.

If our government has become callous and indifferent to such blatant and historic corruption within, because clearly the so-called officers of the court are unwilling and unable to police themselves, then in fact the Ramseys, Hunter, and Lacy don't live by the same laws as we beer can collectors: they are above it.

That means our U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

As I see it now, the lawyers of Oz have destroyed the system because finally we've seen behind the curtain.

Only there is no benevolent wizard there; just greedy opportunists without any scruples at all.

This is the best post I have seen written about this case in 15yrs-It really is the heart of why JB did not get the justice-she so deserved!!! MOO

 

[otg]

Guess it's my turn to be a dummy - about your "CTE" comment. :dunno: just too new at looking more in-depth into this case and I'm already finding out that having enough lifetime left for my quest could be a challenge. You've tweaked my curiosity way too much with the "CTE" comment. Share, please!

I was pretty satisfied with the description of a natural pooling of blood just under the skin that would go to a certain type of area once the blood flow was stopping due to death - which would give the "parchment" appearance of the mark on JB's neck.

Otherwise, I can consider that if JB were on her stomach when the chord around her neck was pulled tight enough to strangle her, the strangler could have grabbed her around the neck with a left hand to get a firm grip, while pulling the cord with the right hand.

If the "garrote" handle had not been attached to the end of the cord as of yet, the strangler could have wrapped the end of the cord a time or two around his right hand (especially if it was a smaller hand) so the cord didn't slip, held onto JB at the neck, and gave it a good tight pull until the breathing stopped.

A small hand would have accounted for a smaller and lighter squeeze mark around on the front of her neck. I don't know how thoroughly the scalp under her hair would have been examined for scalp wounds/bruises of any sort, but the thumb might have left a smaller, similar light mark on her scalp just above the hairline on the back of her neck which might have been covered up very easily with hair. The grasp of JB's neck with the right hand wouldn't have had to be very forceful - just firm enough to hold her steady while the cord was being pulled. :sigh:

(BBM)
I think you pretty much nailed it as far as what the mark on the neck was, mw mm. My problem is that I have to understand why, and I don't have the medical background to give me the answers. To understand it, I have to start at the beginning and learn even the basics. That's what I did with the large mark on JonBenet's neck. I don't start many threads, but I wanted to share with everyone what I found.

I want to do the same thing with the skull fractures and the timing between that and the strangulation. I really find the minimum 45-minutes hard to grasp when others have said the amount of swelling and bleeding meant it had to be a short time.

Here's the info on the "CTE":
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123333"]The “roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion” - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
.

 

[midwest mama]

Is there a movie in the works based on Kolar's book?

http://player.vimeo.com/video/36008498?title=0
.

Thanks for the link! Very intriguing - keep us posted as to your findings about a release of a possible documentary/movie.

 

[otg]

Thanks for the link! Very intriguing - keep us posted as to your findings about a release of a possible documentary/movie.

Oh! Glad you mentioned it. I checked my email after I saw your note. He just wrote back and here is what he said:

Hi :shush: otg,

I shot that teaser/trailer with a Director I work with and it was used to pitch the idea to some networks but didn't go anywhere. Doubtful that it will get produced.


Trent



Trent Wittenbach
email: trent@trentwittenbach.com
phone: 832-643-9020
web: TRENTWITTENBACH.COM

 

[rpgman]

This is the best post I have seen written about this case in 15yrs-It really is the heart of why JB did not get the justice-she so deserved!!! MOO

Agreed
KoldKase is awesome!


Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[midwest mama]

I'll repeat what I've said in another post. It is MY OPINION that JR is an (PR was) a Narcissist.

There are a couple of forms(categories) of this disorder, and I am not qualified to make an educated statement as into which category either of them could be placed. But, based on my opinion of them both being narcissistic, the Ramseys would have naturally (without even having to think about it) done whatever they needed to do to place themselves in the most perfectly presentable limelight.

Typical narcissist people standing in the Ramseys shoes probably would have perceived themselves to be: wealthly, educated, socially credible, loving "Christian" parents who had a beautiful, perfectly structured, healthy family who were considered to be junior copies of who the Sr. Ramseys were and wanted their children to be. These three aspects are the most valued by narcissists: (1)their belief in their own beauty, (2)their desire for perfection in themselves and in their "possessions" (even people - and yes, they consider people as 'belonging' to them), and (3)the top tangible commodity they value is money.

The Ramseys, IMHO, could have done nothing else but execute a cover-up if they believed their son had murdered their daughter.

 

[midwest mama]

Oh! Glad you mentioned it. I checked my email after I saw your note. He just wrote back and here is what he said:

(I had to copy and paste this myself, otg, 'cause there must have been a glitch on my end picking up your complete post):
Hi otg,

I shot that teaser/trailer with a Director I work with and it was used to pitch the idea to some networks but didn't go anywhere. Doubtful that it will get produced.

Trent

Trent Wittenbach
email: trent@trentwittenbach.com
phone: 832-643-9020
web: TRENTWITTENBACH.COM


My response to otg's post:

Da - da - dum, dum, dum, dum "another one bites the dust" (are you humming the tune?) going down the road leading to final justice for JB.

 

[Britt]

Typical narcissist people standing in the Ramseys shoes probably would have perceived themselves to be: wealthly, educated, socially credible, loving "Christian" parents who had a beautiful, perfectly structured, healthy family who were considered to be junior copies of who the Sr. Ramseys were and wanted their children to be.

Midwest Mama, you took the thought right out of my head! I agree with your assessment.

The children of narcissists are extensions of them. Therefore, covering for the child is the same as covering for themselves. IMO

 

[Thorkim]

This is the best post I have seen written about this case in 15yrs-It really is the heart of why JB did not get the justice-she so deserved!!! MOO

I agree. KK is one smart cookie and I always stop and read her posts.

 

[ozazure]

I don't think legalities came into the decision one iota, it was their own shame and need for denial that would have spurred them on.

I am starting to wonder if JR was involved in the clean-up. I presumed because his fibres were on her he perhaps cleaned up her body. But a black shirt already down the laundry chute would be the obvious choice for hiding any traces of blood on whatever cleans her. I couldn't see him being involved in that note, thinking it was in any way convincing. But I also think it'd take such a spine of steel to go about covering up by yourself, did Patsy have it in her?

I know the chances are high they have personality disorders, and god knows what Burke is like as an adult behind closed doors. But I must admit since coming to a place where this feels like the most likely scenario, I have some compassion for the three of them for the first time. Maybe that is overstating it. Their actions have baffled me even when I was willing to entertain an IDI. But parents whom are both protecting their son and accepting that they'd be held responsible morally if not legally, and a child who potentially knew his actions were wrong but not necessarily how fatal and permanent they would be - it is a more human picture than any other possible truth.

 

[SapphireSteel]

If BDI, and I know it is an if, but if he did, imagine the shame and guilt of living with the knowledge that your child did that..now try and imagine the shame and guilt of everyone else knowing they did it too.

It's one thing to live with it yourself, in secret, but it's quite another to have to face people every single day you have left on this earth knowing that they know every sordid detail of what happened in your family.

Now add the potential sexual abuse element on top of that..doesn't matter if there will be criminal responsibility or not..imagine the post man, the chemist, the nice lady at the corner shop, the librarian, your childs teacher, the congregation at church.. the people you have to face every day, wherever you go, all knowing exactly what happened.

And all that is before you even consider your child having to live with the above for the next 60 or 70 years.

All things considered, those look like pretty powerful motives to try and cover up the truth to me.

I appreciate this line of thought BUT -

Normal, caring parents would be devastated and incapable of dealing with this issue by the elaborate staging we have seen, also, would be extremely concerned about the mental health of the offending sibling.

They would not just cover up and hope for the best in my opinion...apart from anything else, Burke as offender would require extensive therapy and treatment to stop him repeating the behaviour thereby undoing all of their hard work.

The fact that they did cover up speaks to me of -

A lack of horror at what had happened to JBR
A callousness in planning to maintain the facade that is completely incomprehensible if your remaining child is mentally deranged

You are suggesting that these caring presumably horrified parents actually strangled their own baby, to cover up for another child?

Ordinary, horrified parents would call 911 in the hope that their daughter could be saved, NOT fashion a garrote and finish the job.

The coverup itself reveals a damaged psyche.

My opinion only of course.