RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I'm in the middle of James Kolars book. I feel priveleged to have access to the thoughts of someone so close to the case. It's a good read. Despite everything I have read on this case (a lot) I am still at a loss for certain explanations about the case. If there are avid followers of this case with opinions regarding the following questions, I'd like to hear them.

1) Why did the Ramseys call the police with their child's body still in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

2) Why did John Ramsey "find" his daughter's body in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

3) Why do at least 3 legitimate investigators support the IDI theory? I am speaking of Lou Smit (now deceased), John Douglas (FBI profiler), Lawrence Schiller. It would seem to me that one of the family members murdered the child (either one of the parents or the brother) and staged the scene to cover it up. From everything I read so far in so many books on the case, that much seems clear.
So I wonder what would cause credible professionals to draw different conclusions. In my opinion it must be one of the following reasons: 1) their reputations aren't deserved and they are mis-assessing the evidence. 2) They are biased toward the Ramseys for some reason (probably a financial one.)

Comments please.

topcop,
1.) They did stage a kidnapping. According to the Ramsey version of events JonBenet was missing from her bedroom. Hidden from view somewhere in the basement is consistent with this version of events. You know now what the police did not know at 5.50 am on 12/26/1996.

2.) Firstly because he knew where JonBenet was, secondly he was tacitly told to do so by LA, so he took the opportunity to discover JonBenet, an outcome he was resigned to, despite Fleet White looking into the wine-cellar earlier that morning. As an aside the kidnapping ruse had served its purpose, i.e. that of deflection, JR had a better handle on the outcome, so attempted to flee interstate, failing that staying with friends, rather than arrest and detention.

3.) All three reached partisan conclusions because they were fed specific information from their employers.

If as Kolar hints the case is BDI, then it follows that much of the forensic evidence has been withheld. This is what might bias the case towards a PDI or JDI, unless there has been an outright conspiracy to engineer a BDI and furnish either JR or PR with a legal defence via obscurity, all the evidence leans towards a BDI.

Some of Kolars remarks hint at him knowing that some forensic evidence carries more importance than what has been stated in public. Kolar reckons it all kicked off in the breakfast bar, but nowhere does he elaborate how it went from there to the basement?

.
 
3.) All three reached partisan conclusions because they were fed specific information from their employers.

If as Kolar hints the case is BDI, then it follows that much of the forensic evidence has been withheld. This is what might bias the case towards a PDI or JDI, unless there has been an outright conspiracy to engineer a BDI and furnish either JR or PR with a legal defence via obscurity, all the evidence leans towards a BDI.

Some of Kolars remarks hint at him knowing that some forensic evidence carries more importance than what has been stated in public. Kolar reckons it all kicked off in the breakfast bar, but nowhere does he elaborate how it went from there to the basement?

.

BBM I disagree UKGuy. If in fact there is withheld forensic evidence showing BDI, why wouldn't Thomas take that in to account? He was PDI and only considered Burke a confused little boy. I believe it was Beckner that said that there are little tidbits of evidence that haven't been released to the public, but none of it considered to be earth shattering. That said, there simply isn't enough physical evidence to put this on any of the Ramseys. Thomas' theory is just as valid as Kolar's but neither has enough fact to put in front of a jury.

IMO there is one piece of evidence that is attributable to one Ramsey that should have led to a charge. I think there was enough evidence to charge Patsy with writing the ransom note. Winnable or not, I think Patsy would have cracked, especially in those early days, and confessed to what actually happened. Forensics is fine and dandy but without eyewitness accounts it is near impossible to get full picture of what happened.
 
Thanks good points. I was speculating about a scenario like this: Burke or one of the parents accidentally killed JB. I lean towards Burke because that would likely bring both parents together to shield their son. I think they staged everything and did everything they could to ensure Burke wouldn't be questioned. They lawyered up almost immediately and in fact made arrangements to leave town - also almost immediately.
i believe they planned to stage a kidnapping but for some reason (not clear) PR called the police BEFORE John got rid of the body.
I could believe they never intended for the police to find the body and were hoping the police would leave without the body being discovered. As the day wore on and it became apparent the police were going to search the home and discover the body - that's when JR decided it would "look better" if he found the body!?
Yet even this scenario really can't explain why the parents staged the scene to look like a sex crime if they never intended for the body to be discovered in their home.

Its hard for me to believe that one of the parents was so clever, cool, and collected to dream up a scheme designed to confuse the police in the panic that most anyone would have been experiencing after a likely horrific unplanned trauma that occurred.
At the beginning of Kolars book he paints the intruder theory as ridiculous- and it is. Especially the part about a deranged pedophile's use of a stun gun to control a little girl.
As a law enforcement officer I can shed some light on this idea that a stun gun acts as a knockout weapon. I've seen a number of officers hit with it in training and I'm almost positive that everyone of them (including me) yelled out in pain. A criminal planning to use a stun gun could not know for certain that a charge from the weapon would result by instantly knocking the child out - let alone silencing her instantly.
Nevertheless, I wish Kolar or someone would re-create a plausible "Family did it" scenario (a plausible play by play) that makes sense and covers all the questions like the ones that I and others have raised.
 
Topcop: First of all, welcome to WS. You seem to have some of the same questions about things that just don't seem right as others. Try this theory on for size:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226503-Explain-BDI-to-me&p=9981961#post9981961


Thank you. I like your theory. This is what I was thinking too. The parents would do anything to protect their only child from what would be a certain stain on his very future. They pulled together to cover up for Burke, who as a curious adolescent played sex games with his sister and ended up killing her.

I'd like some more speculation or theory as to why Patsy called the cops in the first place before electing to hide the body somewhere outside the home? I'd like to hear a theory also as to why John decided to "discover" his daughter's body instead of hoping that it remained undetected until after the police left the home.
 
BBM I disagree UKGuy. If in fact there is withheld forensic evidence showing BDI, why wouldn't Thomas take that in to account? He was PDI and only considered Burke a confused little boy. I believe it was Beckner that said that there are little tidbits of evidence that haven't been released to the public, but none of it considered to be earth shattering. That said, there simply isn't enough physical evidence to put this on any of the Ramseys. Thomas' theory is just as valid as Kolar's but neither has enough fact to put in front of a jury.

IMO there is one piece of evidence that is attributable to one Ramsey that should have led to a charge. I think there was enough evidence to charge Patsy with writing the ransom note. Winnable or not, I think Patsy would have cracked, especially in those early days, and confessed to what actually happened. Forensics is fine and dandy but without eyewitness accounts it is near impossible to get full picture of what happened.

andreww,
If in fact there is withheld forensic evidence showing BDI, why wouldn't Thomas take that in to account?
He is not allowed to. If the case is BDI, highly likely, then ST cannot publish evidence that links directly to BR. Similarly Kolar, this is why Kolar cites non-disclosure etc, whenever questioned in detail, ask Tricia. Similarly Alex Hunter, he cited no prosecution but failed to file the true bill, why, because it highlighted the parents as accessories to another party. ST's book is largely a footnote to his resignation rationale. Anyway out of Smit, Kolar, and Thomas somebody has called it wrong. Kolar reckons he has a prosecutable case which he has presented for evaluation, so patently there is non-public forensic evidence available!

The forensic evidence made public is capable of alternative interpretation, e.g. JonBenet's postmortem posture: her hands are outstretched but lie under her face, my interpretation, she has been dragged prior to rigor mortis setting in!

BPD's evaluation of the postmortem photographs, highlighting JonBenet's internal injuries, and the unnatural size of her hymen along with Holly Smith's observation , head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, who had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation!

Full details regarding this latter subject, i.e. JonBenet's underwear, have never been made public.

Then of course was BR's touch-dna found on JonBenet?


.
 
Thank you. I like your theory. This is what I was thinking too. The parents would do anything to protect their only child from what would be a certain stain on his very future. They pulled together to cover up for Burke, who as a curious adolescent played sex games with his sister and ended up killing her.

I'd like some more speculation or theory as to why Patsy called the cops in the first place before electing to hide the body somewhere outside the home? I'd like to hear a theory also as to why John decided to "discover" his daughter's body instead of hoping that it remained undetected until after the police left the home.

I think that after so many hours it was clear that LE was in for the long haul. Also it was so coincidental that at the moment they left the house the family members arrived from the airport.
 
I'd like some more speculation or theory as to why Patsy called the cops in the first place before electing to hide the body somewhere outside the home? I'd like to hear a theory also as to why John decided to "discover" his daughter's body instead of hoping that it remained undetected until after the police left the home.

Any answer to that question is sheer speculation. Ask yourself what evidence is there that John new anything about this crime before he woke that morning? Would super smart biz exec John sign off on that crazy ransom note? It is quite possible that John knew nothing until 10:00 AM that morning when he stumbled across JBs body. This is about the same time LA noticed that John disappeared for about an hour. Was he mulling over possible scenarios of what probably happened, having recognized Patsy's handwriting on the note? Faced with the disintegration of his family, did he make the decision to aid in the coverup? It would explain the answers that John gave police that morning before the body was found. For instance, he firmly stated that he had checked and found ALL doors locked, saying he even went out to the garage to check that door. Very detailed and specific. Why would somebody trying to perpetrate the story of an intruder killing his daughter say all the doors were locked? Why not say one was wide open? Later John recants his statement claiming that he doesn't think he checked any doors.

Then there is the window which was found closed by police. At his first interview he states that he forgot to tell them that he had found the window open and had latched it without telling anyone. I believe John came in to this late and logically he realized that if there was an intruder, there had to be an exit/entry point, so he back-pedalled. Its the only logical explanation. The rest of the coverup is so scattered, so over dramatic, that it screams Patsy.
 
andreww,

He is not allowed to. If the case is BDI, highly likely, then ST cannot publish evidence that links directly to BR.

.

If Thomas actually believed BDI he would have to be a complete idiot to go on Larry King and basically accuse Patsy of killing JBR over bedwetting issues. If there was that much evidence that BR was involved I'm sure he would have been interviewed more than he was and that his medical records have been subpoenaed. Why would LE spend so much effort trying to pin this on the parents if there was clear evidence that BDI? I thing you are reading too much in to the GJ findings. I believe they only recommended those charges against the parents is because those were the only charges that could be proved with what evidence they were presented. Its a stretch to say that because they didn't recommend murder charges for the parents, that indicates BDI.
 
Sure its all speculation. I'm interested in educated theories since that's what we're all doing here. I'm not sure what you mean regarding the question about JR signing off on the ransom note. I think most agree by now that PR wrote it so we are speculating about what part the parents played in the death of their child and what they did to cover it up. As to JR being smart, I have heard this time and again in regard to mistakes that were made at a crime as if only a dummie would forget this or do that.
JR may be a smart business man but it has nothing to do with how much experience he has in how to stage a crime scene. In terms of being a smart criminal he's probably not that experienced and there is such a thing as the "heat of battle" which happens when human beings are in a "survival mode" and their hearts are racing while the adrenalin is high. They forget things because they are human and their thinking is impaired. It happens to the most well trained law enforcement officers in the heat of battle, never mind a businessman who is ill prepared for a sudden circumstance that he's unprepared to deal with.
Why would OJ Simpson leave a bloody glove at a crime scene? Crimes and incidents like this are ripe for mistakes when humans are involved and emotions are overflowing. My bet is that the mother and father were both overwrought with fear and emotion in the hours following the death to think very clearly about how to plan the perfect crime.






Any answer to that question is sheer speculation. Ask yourself what evidence is there that John new anything about this crime before he woke that morning? Would super smart biz exec John sign off on that crazy ransom note? It is quite possible that John knew nothing until 10:00 AM that morning when he stumbled across JBs body. This is about the same time LA noticed that John disappeared for about an hour. Was he mulling over possible scenarios of what probably happened, having recognized Patsy's handwriting on the note? Faced with the disintegration of his family, did he make the decision to aid in the coverup? It would explain the answers that John gave police that morning before the body was found. For instance, he firmly stated that he had checked and found ALL doors locked, saying he even went out to the garage to check that door. Very detailed and specific. Why would somebody trying to perpetrate the story of an intruder killing his daughter say all the doors were locked? Why not say one was wide open? Later John recants his statement claiming that he doesn't think he checked any doors.

Then there is the window which was found closed by police. At his first interview he states that he forgot to tell them that he had found the window open and had latched it without telling anyone. I believe John came in to this late and logically he realized that if there was an intruder, there had to be an exit/entry point, so he back-pedalled. Its the only logical explanation. The rest of the coverup is so scattered, so over dramatic, that it screams Patsy.
 
If Thomas actually believed BDI he would have to be a complete idiot to go on Larry King and basically accuse Patsy of killing JBR over bedwetting issues. If there was that much evidence that BR was involved I'm sure he would have been interviewed more than he was and that his medical records have been subpoenaed. Why would LE spend so much effort trying to pin this on the parents if there was clear evidence that BDI? I thing you are reading too much in to the GJ findings. I believe they only recommended those charges against the parents is because those were the only charges that could be proved with what evidence they were presented. Its a stretch to say that because they didn't recommend murder charges for the parents, that indicates BDI.

andreww,
Actually he will know its BDI, so he is free to invent any RDI theory that is consistent with the evidence as long as its not a BDI!

Thats why his book is PDI, its all speculation, based on the publicly available evidence yet we know from Kolar much more is being legally held back.

They never tried that hard to pin anything on the parents, look at the interviews where, on numerous occassions, they failed to follow up on the questioning.

Its a stretch to say that because they didn't recommend murder charges for the parents, that indicates BDI.
Really, so who were the parents staging for, who was the third party?

.
 
Sure its all speculation. I'm interested in educated theories since that's what we're all doing here. ~RSBM~ . . .
JR may be a smart business man but it has nothing to do with how much experience he has in how to stage a crime scene. In terms of being a smart criminal he's probably not that experienced and there is such a thing as the "heat of battle" which happens when human beings are in a "survival mode" and their hearts are racing while the adrenalin is high. They forget things because they are human and their thinking is impaired. It happens to the most well trained law enforcement officers in the heat of battle, never mind a businessman who is ill prepared for a sudden circumstance that he's unprepared to deal with.
Why would OJ Simpson leave a bloody glove at a crime scene? Crimes and incidents like this are ripe for mistakes when humans are involved and emotions are overflowing. My bet is that the mother and father were both overwrought with fear and emotion in the hours following the death to think very clearly about how to plan the perfect crime.

Topcop, I once participated in a Citizens Police Academy. One of the weeks we sat in a conference room and listened to domestic violence calls. One call was so upsetting I couldn’t eat dinner that evening. As I’m sure you know, when domestic events occur, tempers and actions can spiral out of control and take a horrible turn. This is one of the reasons I’ve always made allowance for other RDI theories. Usually I believe BR struck her. However, I’ve always considered other scenarios, that possibility someone could have flung JB or struck her as well. If only we knew the trigger for the event. . .

Unless it were only PR who was hiding her actions from her spouse, and BR weren’t involved, I believe JR was involved as early as PR. For example, I cannot imagine Patsy saying to BR, “Hon, go to bed, let me try to help JB. Don’t wake your father.” Or, if she alone found JB, and JB seemed deceased, I believe she would still call on JR to figure out if JB was beyond saving or if there was some way to help her? Perhaps you remember the story of the bathroom flood from Linda Wilcox.

"When John and Patsy showed up, they went straight upstairs. We were all standing in the bathroom. There was water everywhere. John was in his stocking feet; he always took his shoes off when he came into the house. He slammed the window shut. Then he realized his socks were wet. That made him furious. He was more mad about his socks being wet than about the house being ruined. I looked into his eyes and they’d almost changed color. He was so angry. Really angry. I don’t know how to explain it. It was like this light switch had come on behind his eyes. It was the last straw.

JR didn’t freak out, didn’t throw things. It wasn’t even in his voice. But you could see the rage. You could feel it. I mean, it was powerful. I wanted to get out of the room, but Patsy was standing between me and the door. I’m not saying he didn’t have a right to be angry. I’m just saying I saw him angry. I saw the coldest eyes. He never said a word, but it was right there in his face. It was palpable. You could cut it with a knife. Patsy was freaking out. It was, “What are we going to do? We’re having the Christmas house tour…” He was angry, but she was in a total panic. The flood had ruined Patsy’s image of what her perfect house should look like."


PR was panicked by the flood. Not JR, he was thinking about how to sue the workman who left the window unlatched. Patsy would have needed JR to help if BR had done this.

Also, as to JR and his participation, one of the interviewing attorneys asked him about the presence of his Israeli wool shirt fibers in the crotch of the brand new Bloomies panties. His reaction was one of angry bluster.

Next I considered the household habits of JR and PR. PR was notorious for being an absolute disaster as a housekeeper. JR would usually hang up his clothes or place them in the laundry drop. But both PR and the kids would just drop their dirty clothing on the floor, never picking them up. Personally, I don’t believe that PR would have had the presence of mind to clean up the crime scene alone, to dispose of evidence like gloves, rags or tissues used to clean JB.

Further on the strangulation: It certainly could have happened the way otg describes in his theory. My own theory differs a little in that I believe JB may still have been alive at the point that the parents went into action, but they thought she was gone. I say parents because of fiber evidence in the paintbrush tray, on the wrist cords, the ligature knot, duct tape, ligature cord and - could be wrong here, been wrong before - I’m also basing this speculation on the estimated time between head blow and strangulation.

Here is what Kolar said in his Reddit: “I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR.”

I interpreted that to mean that Kolar believes someone (BR) used that cord to control JB. If so, it accounts for some of our conjecture that she may have been restrained by a cord, before being strangled by it.
 
andreww,
Actually he will know its BDI, so he is free to invent any RDI theory that is consistent with the evidence as long as its not a BDI!

Thats why his book is PDI, its all speculation, based on the publicly available evidence yet we know from Kolar much more is being legally held back.

They never tried that hard to pin anything on the parents, look at the interviews where, on numerous occassions, they failed to follow up on the questioning.


Really, so who were the parents staging for, who was the third party?

.

I find it hard to believe that a professional like Thomas would publicly accuse Patsy of a crime he knows she didn't commit. I'm not saying he is right, but I think he believes he is.

As to the staging, it could have been to cover her own *advertiser censored*. This case will always be theory because there isn't evidence to pin it on any of them. If they do have evidence against Burke, why not act on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I find it hard to believe that a professional like Thomas would publicly accuse Patsy of a crime he knows she didn't commit. I'm not saying he is right, but I think he believes he is.

As to the staging, it could have been to cover her own *advertiser censored*. This case will always be theory because there isn't evidence to pin it on any of them. If they do have evidence against Burke, why not act on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
Well maybe he does believe, who knows? Politicians will tell you they believe their particular political doctrine, be it republican or democrat, they want your vote. Privately they might not care about overreaching federal laws, or gay marriage, but they will tell you they do because they wish to exercise power.

Steve Thomas left plenty out of his book, Kolar tells us there is more evidence available, enough to make a prosecutable case, so why did ST not publish some of this evidence, e.g. precise details about the contents of JonBenet's underwear drawer?

Patsy staging: more than likely she fabricated some fake crime-scene which JR dismantled in favor of the Kidnapping Crime-Scene. If its PDI then its a conspiracy at the expense of BR's reputation.

If they do have evidence against Burke, why not act on it?
Because Colorado statute mandates against it. This is why Hunter never filed the true bill, and neither Kolar or Thomas will expand upon BR's involvement. Its all legal and above board, BR simply cannot be referred to as participating in the homicide of JonBenet.


.
 
.


Because Colorado statute mandates against it. This is why Hunter never filed the true bill, and neither Kolar or Thomas will expand upon BR's involvement. Its all legal and above board, BR simply cannot be referred to as participating in the homicide of JonBenet.


.

Im not familiar with Colorado law, but I find it very hard to believe that there is absolutely nothing in there that would allow them to deal with a nine year old murderer. I know he couldn't be charged, but surely there is some kind of procedure to deal with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Im not familiar with Colorado law, but I find it very hard to believe that there is absolutely nothing in there that would allow them to deal with a nine year old murderer. I know he couldn't be charged, but surely there is some kind of procedure to deal with him.

Hi all,

Long, LONGtime lurker, first time poster. Andreww (big fan btw!) - this is one of the million things I find baffling. What *would* the procedure have been if LE had moved forward with a BDI theory of the case? It's not as if LE can shrug and say, "Welp, the suspected killer is nine, so I guess we can just call it a day." And yet that's what it almost seems that's what we arrive at at the end of the BDI tunnel. Burke would certainly not have been the first child killer (whether intentional or accidental) on the books. Was it just more legally feasible to focus instead on John & Patsy, as surely they were involved? Do you think a BDI theory was abandoned because a) it was next to impossible to decide/prove which of the three was responsible for the act that caused her death and/or b) because the fact that he was a minor complicated a hopelessly complicated case even further? It's just that the sentiment of "Burke = not prosecutable" seems like such a false dead end to me.
 
Hi all,

Long, LONGtime lurker, first time poster. Andreww (big fan btw!) - this is one of the million things I find baffling. What *would* the procedure have been if LE had moved forward with a BDI theory of the case? It's not as if LE can shrug and say, "Welp, the suspected killer is nine, so I guess we can just call it a day." And yet that's what it almost seems that's what we arrive at at the end of the BDI tunnel. Burke would certainly not have been the first child killer (whether intentional or accidental) on the books. Was it just more legally feasible to focus instead on John & Patsy, as surely they were involved? Do you think a BDI theory was abandoned because a) it was next to impossible to decide/prove which of the three was responsible for the act that caused her death and/or b) because the fact that he was a minor complicated a hopelessly complicated case even further? It's just that the sentiment of "Burke = not prosecutable" seems like such a false dead end to me.

Not sure what the procedure would be in the case where someone under the age of 10 committed a crime of this nature, but obviously some kind of action would have been taken. Most jurisdictions have different laws for juvenile offenders. If there was a case against him it probably would be heard by a judge and a sentence probably would have included time in a juvenile home, Psychiatric help, etc. I really think in this case that there simply wasn't enough tangible evidence to say that any of the three people in the house were specifically responsible. My take on this case is that Burke likely precipitated the chain of events by striking JB over the head. I say that for two reasons, the parents had no record of being physically abusive, and Burke had a history of hitting JB over the head (golf club incident). I believe Patsy, thinking JB was dead, took over from there and staged the scene. John may or may not have been involved. If he wasn't, I believe he figured out what was happening quite quickly and went along with the charade. The reasoning being that John and Patsy didn't seem all that close at that point in time, and they'd just lost their daughter. Admitting what had happened likely meant losing Burke as well, leaving the tow of them alone together. I don't think either wanted that, so the charade began.

Whatever happened I certainly don't think detectives would focus their investigation on the parents simply because the could not extract any form of justice from Burke. They aren't blood thirsty dogs, at least I hope not.
 
I feel I pretty much know (as much as anyone can know) what happened in this case now. IMO based upon the totality of information I've read, I'm going with Kolar's theory that Burke did it and his parents covered for him. Is there anyone who could be any more qualified to have an opinion on the case than Kolar, btw? I mean, there are a lot of us amateur crime sleuths but then here we have an experienced, highly trained investigator that was privy to the most sensitive information on the case...one has to acknowledge this in an objective way. That said, I only have one more question. Let me hear your opinion, if you have one. From what I have read about the DA's, Alex Hunter and now Mary Lacy; they both have really gone out of their way to protect or clear the Ramsey's name. Why? I have a theory that seems to fit my BDI belief. I'd like to hear other's theories regarding why the DA's behaved the way they have in this case.
 
I feel I pretty much know (as much as anyone can know) what happened in this case now. IMO based upon the totality of information I've read, I'm going with Kolar's theory that Burke did it and his parents covered for him. Is there anyone who could be any more qualified to have an opinion on the case than Kolar, btw? I mean, there are a lot of us amateur crime sleuths but then here we have an experienced, highly trained investigator that was privy to the most sensitive information on the case...one has to acknowledge this in an objective way. That said, I only have one more question. Let me hear your opinion, if you have one. From what I have read about the DA's, Alex Hunter and now Mary Lacy; they both have really gone out of their way to protect or clear the Ramsey's name. Why? I have a theory that seems to fit my BDI belief. I'd like to hear other's theories regarding why the DA's behaved the way they have in this case.

Well, topcop, my brother has one. He thinks that the DA was involved in something very bad (whatever that might be) and were afraid that the defense or the governor's office would stumble upon it if they pursued a case.
 
I feel I pretty much know (as much as anyone can know) what happened in this case now. IMO based upon the totality of information I've read, I'm going with Kolar's theory that Burke did it and his parents covered for him. Is there anyone who could be any more qualified to have an opinion on the case than Kolar, btw? I mean, there are a lot of us amateur crime sleuths but then here we have an experienced, highly trained investigator that was privy to the most sensitive information on the case...one has to acknowledge this in an objective way. That said, I only have one more question. Let me hear your opinion, if you have one. From what I have read about the DA's, Alex Hunter and now Mary Lacy; they both have really gone out of their way to protect or clear the Ramsey's name. Why? I have a theory that seems to fit my BDI belief. I'd like to hear other's theories regarding why the DA's behaved the way they have in this case.

That is an interesting question, topcop.

Here is my theory of the crime, which proposes that BR staged the wrist and neck ligatures by himself:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20426-Members-Theories&p=11899603#post11899603

My theory of events supposes that a coverup by BR to avoid punishment was not only possible, it was within the expected framework of moral development for a child his age - see work by Lawrence Kohlberg, good short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.htm

I am not sure most adults understand or recall the very different moral code of children. We tend to underestimate children's desire to avoid punishment and their egotistical reasoning. We romanticize them, forgetting their capacity for cruelty via self preservation. Sure, some children develop higher level moral reasoning early, but most move through the stages at the expected rate. The important point is this: Immature moral reasoning is NORMAL in children. So though this may have been an extreme case of a child avoiding punishment, morally it must be forgiven. And legally, it must be forgotten.

In my theory there is no legal case to be found, and there hasn't been for many years. If the DA had any inkling of the actual innocence of this boy's actions (i.e. he was covering up the head bash by himself), he might have been more inclined to shield him. A case against the parents was destroyed in the first hours at the scene and thus their lawyers could argue IDI in court forever. If the DA knew that the preponderance of evidence was BDI and it was an accident, then why bring the circus to town? Why try the case? To accuse the mom with ovarian cancer of writing a fake note? The Grand Jury returned the exact indictments needed for a case against the parents as accessories after the fact, but the only way to prosecute was to name the underage son as the "killer" by accusing his sick mom of writing the note, and still probably lose. There was nothing to gain. It was all the more tragic that a child apparently killed his sister trying to save himself from punishment, thinking she was already dead. If true, it is heart breaking.

This DA theory, by the way, applies to Alex Hunter. I think Mary Lacy drank the IDI Kool-aid.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
3,840
Total visitors
3,998

Forum statistics

Threads
603,122
Messages
18,152,539
Members
231,655
Latest member
lindzk86
Back
Top