RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[andreww]

BBM: IMO, not waking BR up and assuming he didn't see or hear anything because he appeared to be sleeping at the moment is still very strange behavior whether JR thought his wife was involved or not.

I see JR breaking the news to BR in front of FW as a ruse to show FW and any police officer that may have been near that this kidnapping (or so police thought it was at the time, anyway) was real. Otherwise, why tell BR his sister was missing when he heard the 9-1-1 call and most likely pieced that together himself by then?

I'm not sure if I were in Johns shoes at that point I would have wanted to wake and have to deal with a 9 year old either. Remember, at the point he checks on Burke he still hasn't read the note as I recall, and certainly hasn't even called police. IMO, at that point it was best to leave Burke sleeping, if by chance he saw or heard anything, it could wait for a few minutes.

As to Johns explaining what happened in front of Fleet? What is commonly suggested to be heard at the end of the 911 call?

Burke "what did you find"

John "it's none of your business, go to your room"

If this in fact is what is on the tape then it clearly shows that Burke may not have known, or was playing stupid about what had happened, and that John gave no details. So it kind of would make sense for John to give an explanation to Burke the next time he saw him (with Fleet).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

~RBBM~

I agree with you about Kolar perhaps needing to be intentionally vague (lawsuit avoidance). I still am unsure how he views JR in the context of the crime. He certainly spent some time in FF reviewing JR’s actions. While considering his Reddit comments, I’ve been thinking about a question which has been raised frequently: What did JR know and when did he know it.

Whoever thinks that JR only figured out what happened that morning, not even participating in the staging, is actually in good company. ST and Kolar aren’t sure that he was involved until after the police arrived. Kolar references JR’s statement to his future son in law that he found JB at 11 am, and because it was a spontaneous utterance, the statement was considered true.

Of course, there are things like the fibers from the new Israeli shirt found in the crotch of JB’s new Bloomies, a statement from an attorney which has been strongly denied by IDI.

But aside from fibers, there is an idea in criminal profiling that behavior is more telling than words. What is thought-provoking in terms of JR is that he is always able to come up with an explanation, which might seem very believable, even if he has to deny what he originally said. Here’s what Gregg McCrary, FBI profiler, said about criminals and their verbal statements, "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it."

Former FBI profiler, Douglas, who interviewed JR with PR by his side, alleged “if JR was lying, he was one of the best.” He came away believing JR was an 'innocent' in the crime. And perhaps he was.

But if one thinks the 'Intruder' is a mirage, as I do, it’s also useful to look at this from a behavioral standpoint.

From a ‘normal’ family standpoint, it stretches credibility that PR would fail to awaken JR if she found that BR had mortally wounded their daughter. It also is hardly credible that, if reviewing the ransom note for the first time, JR wouldn’t wake up his son and ask what BR may have heard (or done).

And then that same morning JR hustles BR out of the home at about 8 am, telling police who wished to question BR, that he was asleep the whole time and hadn’t heard anything. JR claimed to have let him sleep, never questioning him if he heard anything. Well, based on the 911 call, with his and BR’s voices heard, we know this was not true. He even admits this in an interview with a tabloid. Moreover, others have heard the anger in JR’s voice towards BR and a natural question one would ask is whether that anger was because BR was interrupting a conversation, or because of what he knew BR had done.

What about JR’s attorneys, what did they think about JR’s guilt or innocence in the crime? In August 1997, JR’s attorney went through the full autopsy report with JR . The attorney went through every detail of the coroner’s findings with JR, who became despondent and broke down. Attorney M, who was likely to have had his doubts about R’s innocence, watched his client closely. That was when the attorney discovered that JR did not even know how JonBenét had died. PMPT

But JR would certainly have known details in January, By now (January ‘97), the press had reported that JonBenét’s skull had been fractured, that she’d been garroted, that the ransom amount was an odd figure, and that the paper used for the note had come from inside the house. PMPT

JR also addressed JonBenét’s sexual injuries in May 1997 at the Rs’ own press conference: “There have also been innuendoes that she had been or was sexually molested. I can tell you that those were the most hurtful innuendoes to us as a family.”

My problem is what triggers JR’s behavior in the attorney’s office, breaking down as though he hadn’t even known how JonBenét had been killed? At least that was his attorney’s interpretation.

A few reasonable questions might be: Was JR equal to PR in ‘acting’ ability, maybe an even better actor than PR? And would some of his actions be behavioral indices someone like Gregg McCrary would look at really closely for determining when he knew something about the crime? If he were not involved in her injuries, does his behavior reinforce lack of knowledge before the morning of the police arrival?

Just some thoughts and, as past poster Gramcracker used to say, YMMV.

questfortrue,

Whoever thinks that JR only figured out what happened that morning, not even participating in the staging, is actually in good company. ST and Kolar aren’t sure that he was involved until after the police arrived. Kolar references JR’s statement to his future son in law that he found JB at 11 am, and because it was a spontaneous utterance, the statement was considered true.

How could JR figure out what took place, if we and LE cannot? JR was never going to spontaneously tell anyone I found JonBenet at 3:00 AM, note he never said where!

At a minimum, JR most likely knew whatever Patsy chose to tell him, assuming she arrived first at the primary crime-scene, PDI or BDI?

The primary crime-scene was probably cleaned up by whomever sexually assaulted JonBenet, but possibly not to the extent that it could be described as staged?

JR and PR's fibers place them at the wine-cellar crime-scene, this we can assume was staged and that their version of events was fabricatd to match this.

With BR present during the 911 call, something which contradicts the R's original version of events, BR colludes with his parents in offering a bogus version of events. JR relocates BR, separating him from the crime-scene and avoiding any difficult questions that might have been put to BR.

JR breaking the news to BR in front of FW, simply reinforces what the R's version of events are to be, and BTW you can leave with FW.

My problem is what triggers JR’s behavior in the attorney’s office, breaking down as though he hadn’t even known how JonBenét had been killed? At least that was his attorney’s interpretation.

His attorney is there to tell you what JR says, and JR is there to defend his position, and “There have also been innuendoes that she had been or was sexually molested. I can tell you that those were the most hurtful innuendoes to us as a family.”, note JR cites had been or was, past or present tense, so he knows, yet what might be hurtful is his knowledge that the innuendoe does not apply to him? JonBenet was ligature asphyxiated and JR knew this by the time he had brought her body upstairs! Also Cranberry cites PMPT Page 376 Months later, Bryan Morgan told a British documentary filmmaker that after the release of the autopsy report he sat down with Ramsey to explain its contents....

If he were not involved in her injuries, does his behavior reinforce lack of knowledge before the morning of the police arrival?

No, because he knows how to answer questions that impact on the consistency of the R's version of events, e.g. the broken window, suitcase, BR sleeping on, the chair replaced by the Intruder. Its actually Patsy who offers inconsistent answers, e.g. blanket denial regarding the pineapple snack, and a patently invented legend regarding the size-12's, i.e. somebody never told PR that the pack of size-12's had been removed from the immediate crime-scene.


JR has made sure he was written out of any prior involvement whilst simultaneously rearranging the current forensic evidence, possibly including JonBenet's body, e.g. wrist restraints, consider how he kneels down in his underwear to read the ransom note, does this mean he sleeps in yesterdays underwear?


.

 

[questfortrue]

WARNING: This subject matter may distress. This is a really tough topic, it was hard for me even to research, so read only if interested in the psychology of incest.

I’m placing this post here, in so much as it is predicated on an RDI theory. This post isn’t meant to lead anyone to any conclusions about who was molesting JonBenet. I usually choose to respect everyone’s RDI theory and am able to believe any of the Rs are responsible for any of it, except for having a personal belief in Patsy having physically written the note with input from JR. (Jmho. Obviously, I’m not an IDI theorist.) What has always been difficult for me to understand is the idea of sexual abuse in association with JonBenet’s death. It would appear on the surface to be something which would occur in lower socioeconomic families.

Also, I’m not repeating any material from Kolar’s book about SBP here; discussions about SBP are scattered throughout ws and FFJ forums. Primarily I was most interested in the profile of families with incidence of incest. Again, these are generalizations, but they are derived from actual cases over decades.

From the studies I’ve read, young children rarely tell, even if there is a good touch/bad touch message delivered in school. There is too much weight upon a child to keep secrets out of loyalty to the family. So I’ve never been led to conclude she was killed to keep a secret.

But in light of some IDI suggestions that there had been no “history of abuse” and the statement about prevalence of abuse from a father, I thought I’d mention some of what I’ve learned from those in the field. What I present here is primarily from Christine Courtois who has treated adult survivors of abuse (physical, emotional, sexual) for more than 35 years. She’s won many awards in this field, and teaches other therapists how to treat adult victims of abuse, who frequently begin to manifest symptoms years or decades after its occurrence. In many respects the psychological harm reveals in the same manner as post-traumatic stress syndrome.

About the frequency of sibling incidence vs. older relative incidence, Marilyn Van Derber Atkins tells her experience of meeting so many who were molested by their brothers, and concludes that the statistics do support that this type of situation is more frequent than any other. Also, from recent studies older brothers have been found to molest coercively in greater numbers than fathers, and mothers. (Interesting side note Wikipedia -Sibling abusive incest is most prevalent in families where one or both parents are often absent or emotionally unavailable, with the abusive siblings using incest as a way to assert their power over a weaker sibling. Absence of the father in particular has been found to be a significant element of most cases of sexual abuse of female children by a brother.)

Next a few facts disputing common myths about incest in reference to adult or older perpetrators, from Dr. Susan Forward in Toxic Parents –

Incest cuts across all socioeconomic levels. There isn’t a common profile for adults. They may be respectable, churchgoing, seemingly average. The traits they possess are psychological rather than social, cultural, racial, or economic.

Adult perpetrators may have active sex lives within marriage and even through extramarital affairs as well. They turn to children or a child for a variety of reasons - feelings of power and control or for the unconditional, non-threatening love that only children can provide. Sexual deprivation is rarely the trigger.

The majority of sexual crimes committed against children are perpetrated by members of the family.

Dr. Forward’s bottom line: Controversial theories abound about the family climate and the role that other family members play. In my experience, however, one factor always holds true: incest simply doesn't happen in open, loving, communicative families.

From Christine Courtois in Healing the Incest Wound more details in the profile of families where incest is occurring -

The "normal-appearing" family, as the name implies, is just that. From the outside, the family appears to be solid and well-functioning. The parents are usually established in a long-term marriage, are socially and financially stable, and seem well-integrated in the community.

However, the family is not as stable internally as it appears on the outside. The parents often lack the emotional energy to adequately nurture one another, much less their children. Both are affectionally needy as a result of their own emotionally impoverished and/or abusive upbringings. Over time, they become estranged from one another, emotionally and sexually. Not infrequently, they have developed work and social schedules which allow them to avoid interacting with one another on much more than a superficial level. Children are left to cope as they can and over time both parents engage them in caretaking functions. The mother may turn to her daughter for help in running the household and the father may turn to her for emotional and sexual sustenance. Children often turn to one another to meet emotional or other needs and, not infrequently, their relationship becomes sexual. Another sibling variation is the brother who becomes sexually predatory towards his sister in direct modeling of his father's incestuous behavior. (ABM -This is not the only reason for a sibling to develop SBP though, as Sharon Aranji explains its development.)

In another chapter Courtois discusses that incest can be limited to one perpetrator and one victim as a rather self-contained phenomenon but that in other situations multiple incest in one family may be the norm. It appears that in such families there is a breakdown in boundaries (the incest taboo) and this may perpetuate its continuance within one generation or across generations.

It is also reportedly [Cooper and Cormier, 1982] not unusual for one or both parents to have either been molested or to have been emotionally deprived or physically abused during childhood. If a mother has an unresolved history of incest, she may be effectually unable to prevent an incestuous relationship within her family. For some such a history even impedes some women from functioning as a mother.
These are some of the characteristics commonly found in such families:

- Duplicity and deceit between family members. The family goes to great lengths to protect itself and develops protective myths as defense mechanisms.

- Parents who are expert at manipulating the context of a situation and shifting reality. Family problems are denied.

- Role confusion and boundary diffusion both within and outside of the family.

- Poor tolerance for differences from the family norm and for anger and conflict.

- Being abused may come to be equated with love.

- Inadequate parenting.

- Dead, missing or part-time parent(s). The job of parenting may be abandoned in favor of other activities (work, drinking, social engagements, etc.).

-Unpredictability and intermittent reinforcement. Family life may be chaotic.

According to Courtois, the family functions in such a way that its reality is distorted. Although incest occurs, it is largely denied and unacknowledged by all family members. This “disconfirmation” allows for its continuance while communicating to the victim that it is something that is not to be discussed.

Finally, it’s important to avoid accepting the oft touted stereotype of a molested child. There were some subtle changes in JonBenet in December 1996, and her toiletting issues were also a flag, but the experts note that not all molested children have behavioral problems like sulking, crying, acting up for no reason.

Over and over the message from the Rs was that they were a normal Christian family. When people claim that this family had no ‘history’, well in my view they are overlooking the proverbial elephant in the room, what was happening to JonBenet. This is the ‘history’ which the family has always gone out of their way to deny.

 

[AndHence]

I've read a lot on here regarding the Ramseys' treatment of Burke on the morning of the murder. Regardless of where you stand, it is odd that the Ramseys didn't wake Burke to see if he heard anything or to keep him close. Their daughter had ostensibly just been kidnapped and there could have been an intruder still in the house for all they knew. One of the Fernies remarked that she found it odd Burke wasn't awake after they'd gotten there because he was an early riser like their son. John would tell the officers that Burke knew nothing and they whisked him about to Fleet White's house. It seems preposterous to assume Burke can be of no assistance to the investigation. He was one of at least three people in the house and sleeping on the same floor as the victim. While I can understand the desire to not worry Burke, leaving him up in bed unattended seems like curious behavior. Given what Burke did and didn't say in his subsequent interviews and coupled with the possibility that his voice might on the 911 tape, we would have to characterize the Ramseys behavior as 'evasive' at the very least.

 

[Occams Razor]

Yeah, if my daughter had just been kidnapped/murdered, the LAST thing I'd do is send my surviving child over to a friend's house. For all you know, that friend could've kidnapped your missing child! Nobody can be trusted when your child is missing. Everyone is a suspect (unless you know who did it, that is).

For that matter, inviting multiple friends into your house (i.e. a crime scene) during such a traumatic time is pretty odd IMO. I can't think of any other cases where this has happened. Family, sure. But friends? They say it was an "instinctive" move to call them in for support, but it just seems...abnormal.

 

[midwest mama]

Yeah, if my daughter had just been kidnapped/murdered, the LAST thing I'd do is send my surviving child over to a friend's house. For all you know, that friend could've kidnapped your missing child! Nobody can be trusted when your child is missing. Everyone is a suspect (unless you know who did it, that is).

For that matter, inviting multiple friends into your house (i.e. a crime scene) during such a traumatic time is pretty odd IMO. I can't think of any other cases where this has happened. Family, sure. But friends? They say it was an "instinctive" move to call them in for support, but it just seems...abnormal.

JR made the decision to send Burke to the White's. IMO, he DID know who did it.

PR called her friends, who, without family in the area, probably thought of them as her only support net. She was reportedly a vomiting wreck. No surprise she would have been desperate for more comfort than she might have been used to from her "cordial" husband, who wasn't at her side during a good deal of her cancer treatment due to business obligations.

JR probably didn't mind that the crime scene had been contaminated and more chaos was injected.

 

[andreww]

Too much made of sending Burke to the White's IMO. This was not a place for children. John was obviously busy at that point, getting money ready and preparing to receive the call from the kidnappers, and Patsy was already a wreck. The kidnapper had taken JB in the night whilst everyone slept, there is no reason to believe he is now going to walk in to a house full of people in broad daylight looking for Burke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

Too much made of sending Burke to the White's IMO. This was not a place for children. John was obviously busy at that point, getting money ready and preparing to receive the call from the kidnappers, and Patsy was already a wreck. The kidnapper had taken JB in the night whilst everyone slept, there is no reason to believe he is now going to walk in to a house full of people in broad daylight looking for Burke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not? Why would the Ramsey's assume that this is even a kidnapper. This could be a cult of ax-murders for all they know. They could try to come back and kill everyone else. That's the thing in this case, the Ramseys should have no idea what to expect next. There should be a level of paranoia at EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Heck the people I would think they would want to trust most is the cops. That's why there actions are so odd. They considered the police more of a threat than the mass serial killing clan that could be looking to destroy everything they know.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Why not? Why would the Ramsey's assume that this is even a kidnapper. This could be a cult of ax-murders for all they know. They could try to come back and kill everyone else. That's the thing in this case, the Ramseys should have no idea what to expect next. There should be a level of paranoia at EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Heck the people I would think they would want to trust most is the cops. That's why there actions are so odd. They considered the police more of a threat than the mass serial killing clan that could be looking to destroy everything they know.

And if they did, we would be talking about how unrealistic and far-fetched that would be, and how no parents whose child is actually murdered would think that.

 

[andreww]

Why not? Why would the Ramsey's assume that this is even a kidnapper. This could be a cult of ax-murders for all they know. They could try to come back and kill everyone else. That's the thing in this case, the Ramseys should have no idea what to expect next. There should be a level of paranoia at EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Heck the people I would think they would want to trust most is the cops. That's why there actions are so odd. They considered the police more of a threat than the mass serial killing clan that could be looking to destroy everything they know.

If this case were IDI the Ramsey's would have no reason to believe that this was anything but a kidnapping. They would have been focused on getting the ransom and the attache case together, as well as preparing for the incoming call. If these people had wanted Burke they would have taken him too, they wouldn't burst in to a home full of adults in the middle of the day.

Nonetheless, the Ramsey's sent Burke away because they wrote the note and knew they had not to fear. But its just not so unbelievable that they would have done the same if they were innocent.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No one with a working brain reads that note and thinks it real imo...!

I think one of two things happened

1. JR instructed PR to write it - perhaps by force
2. JR had NO IDEA PR wrote it - see: insults to JR in text

 

[DatelineFan]

For what it's worth, I'm new to the Ramsey case. Over the last several days, I've read Thomas' book and some threads and articles. I went into it objectively, and within a day, I was certain that RDI. I honestly don't know how a logical person could come to any other conclusion.

 

[Annapurna]

Sapphire, I've been fond of the "JR dictating" theory. Maybe not so much direct dictation, but rather some ideas.

"Listen Carefully!" he says etc.

Then perhaps he continued to stage, and eventually went off to shower to remove any forensic evidence. PR was still writing, unsatisfied with the penmanship or something. Then she ran out of time to shower herself.

I'm not particularly married to any one RDI theory however.

 

[AndHence]

Sapphire, I've been fond of the "JR dictating" theory. Maybe not so much direct dictation, but rather some ideas.

"Listen Carefully!" he says etc.

Then perhaps he continued to stage, and eventually went off to shower to remove any forensic evidence. PR was still writing, unsatisfied with the penmanship or something. Then she ran out of time to shower herself.

I'm not particularly married to any one RDI theory however.

I'm not sure John would dictate a note as outlandish and film quote-laden as Patsy would. He'd have the sense to know that ransom notes are short and to the point. As for calling the cops that morning, we know they had to phone 911 early because they were due to fly out by 730am to Michigan. If they cancelled this flight without first calling 911 it would bring immediate suspicion on them. I think it's possible Patsy called 911 as soon as she showed the note to John to avoid him figuring anything out beforehand (e.g., "Why does this look and sound like my wife's writing?"). Patsy also abruptly hung up on the operator and would shortly call her friends to the house. This seems like the actions of someone looking to avoid suspicion and circle the wagons. Remember, if she or John took the note at face value they'd be reluctant to call anyone to the house since the note mentions that their house is being monitored.

 

[Annapurna]

I agree about the time of the call. Some people try to say "well they should have waited to call the cops, it would have given them more time to stage" or whatever (also frequently hear this from IDIs as to why its illogical). I think that it was a psychological deadline. They would not have even considered that they could have waited until 10am probably. Also they couldn't bear the anticipation most likely.

I don't think JR dictated the note per-se, but I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility that they "collaborated" in some way. Perhaps this was further embellished with every practice note. Who knows how many there were. Something like this:

JR: Alright, fine we will go with your idea of a kidnapping. I need you to write the note, disguise your writing well.
PR: But John what do I--
JR: Listen carefully! You need to make a convincing ransom note. You need to make sure it is very threatening.
PR: John I don't know how to do that!
JR: Yes you do, remember that movie we saw?

JR goes off to do whatever he did, PR sits writing the note. She's not satisfied with the first one. She keeps making it sound more and more scary.

Anyway, enough with the screenplay. I think the psychology of the note is fascinating. I personally give significance to the phrase "she will be beheaded". I think that is related to the ligature's appearance on her neck, so deeply embedded.
The last paragraph is pretty bizarre. Someone more qualified than I am could probably make more of it. I think its strange because it gives like "funny little clues" as JR would say.

A little note on the "hang up". So as we know the phone did not go onto its cradle all the way, leaving the line open a bit longer. PR can be heard saying "Help me Jesus!", and less distinctly other voices (I do believe I hear BR, but no idea what is said.) The phone off the R kitchen, where the phone call is said to have been made, is wall mounted. If a phone is not properly in its cradle, wouldn't it be likely to fall off? These were not cordless phones. In the crime scene photos, I've noticed one other phone. It's in the basement. It's on a table. Could the call have been placed in the basement?

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

A little note on the "hang up". So as we know the phone did not go onto its cradle all the way, leaving the line open a bit longer. PR can be heard saying "Help me Jesus!", and less distinctly other voices (I do believe I hear BR, but no idea what is said.) The phone off the R kitchen, where the phone call is said to have been made, is wall mounted. If a phone is not properly in its cradle, wouldn't it be likely to fall off? These were not cordless phones. In the crime scene photos, I've noticed one other phone. It's in the basement. It's on a table. Could the call have been placed in the basement?

In a word, Annapurna: YES! I've been trying for five years to get others to realize what this would mean:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...s-Voice-on-The-911-Tape&p=5893658#post5893658
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Did-JR-Go-To-Check-Mail&p=8186666#post8186666

If it could have been proven (too late now, of course) that this is where the 911 call was made from, it would have removed any doubt about the involvement of all three remaining Ramseys.

 

[otg]

Too much made of sending Burke to the White's IMO. This was not a place for children. John was obviously busy at that point, getting money ready and preparing to receive the call from the kidnappers, and Patsy was already a wreck. The kidnapper had taken JB in the night whilst everyone slept, there is no reason to believe he is now going to walk in to a house full of people in broad daylight looking for Burke.

I don't think it can be said that there is "Too much made of sending Burke to the White's." At that point he wasn't in the way, he wasn't wandering around the house, he wasn't asking what was going on. He was out of the way sound asleep (supposedly) on another floor of the house. He was pretty much forgotten about by John and Patsy (some might say like he was since JonBenet was born). It wasn't until Barbara Fernie made the comment about it being strange that an early-riser like Burke was still asleep that John decided to send him off with Fleet White, away from LE. And when a policeman tried to question him, John said he knew nothing and slept through the entire night -- even though he later stated that they didn't even wake him to ask if he had heard anything. And did Burke think it odd that the house was filled with the police and all these other people when they were supposed to be going to their vacation home? Did he ask what was going on? Did he ask Fleet White about it when he was alone in the car?

No, andreww, I don't think "too much" is made of this. Unfortunately, it's just not proof of anything.

 

[andreww]

I don't think it can be said that there is "Too much made of sending Burke to the White's." At that point he wasn't in the way, he wasn't wandering around the house, he wasn't asking what was going on. He was out of the way sound asleep (supposedly) on another floor of the house. He was pretty much forgotten about by John and Patsy (some might say like he was since JonBenet was born). It wasn't until Barbara Fernie made the comment about it being strange that an early-riser like Burke was still asleep that John decided to send him off with Fleet White, away from LE. And when a policeman tried to question him, John said he knew nothing and slept through the entire night -- even though he later stated that they didn't even wake him to ask if he had heard anything. And did Burke think it odd that the house was filled with the police and all these other people when they were supposed to be going to their vacation home? Did he ask what was going on? Did he ask Fleet White about it when he was alone in the car?

No, andreww, I don't think "too much" is made of this. Unfortunately, it's just not proof of anything.

Unfortunately your last sentence says exactly what I meant. The action of sending Burke away means or proves absolutely nothing. Some interpret it to mean something funny was happening, but that is just conjecture and it always will be. For the record, I agree that you are probably right, but as a piece of evidence its meaningless.

 

[otg]

Maybe Kolar theorizes that BR strangled JBR with the cord and then later, after JR/PR/both found her unconscious, they decided to tie a stick to the cord, hence the "garotte"?

Excellent, Olivia! We don't know exactly what Kolar's sequence of events is in his theory. He has been deliberately vague in his public statements -- and understandably so. Unfortunately, I think he has placed too much confidence in some of the opinions of so-called medical experts who see certain things and interpret them according to their own beliefs. The most blatant of these undeserved (IMO) confidences is his buying into Dr. Spitz' ideas. Spitz has said things that are demonstrably wrong, and yet some of his thoughts are given credit by Kolar as being correct. I understand the desire of a non-medical person like Kolar to trust the opinion of someone who has extensive medical training, but I've seen too many medical mistakes in my own lifetime to have that much confidence in any single "expert".

If (as you suggest, Olivia) Kolar thinks the paintbrush was added after JonBenet had already been strangled, I agree completely with him on that. This has been part of my theory since I first started reading the details about this. If that part is true, I believe it was done to accomplish two things: (1) it changes the appearance of the way the cord was actually used to strangle her, and (2) it masks how the paintbrush was actually used during the crime. This completely obfuscates a major portion of the evidence that could not be completely covered up.

If this is true, and Alex Hunter knew BR had killed JBR intentionally, why did BR receive no punishment whatsoever? Or maybe he did, and it was kept from the public. Money does talk.

Exactly! There may very well have been some sort of backroom deal that the Ramseys agreed to place Burke in therapy in return for no charges against anyone and no public announcements about what really happened. Does anyone know if Burke did indeed continue seeing a psychologist/psychiatrist after they moved to Atlanta? (I do.)

 

[otg]

I finally re-read the AMA with Kolar, I skimmed it the first time and missed some good parts. I found this quote most interesting:

Based upon my review of those theories, it is my belief that the fingernail marks on JBR’s throat were created when the collar of her shirt was pulled tight around her neck, at the same time that the triangular shaped bruise was formed on the front her neck. Next came the blow to her head that rendered her unconscious.
The garrote could not have been responsible for the triangular bruising, and was applied some period of time later, when JBR was unconscious and unable to struggle against the placement of the cord.
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 was wondering if anyone had thoughts on this? If the cord was not staging (which I've always been iffy on anyways, its so dark & brutal) then what could it be for?

Kolar mentions that the bruise could not have been caused by the cord. That's huge! However it raises some questions for me:

If her shirt had been pulled, was this for control? If that is the case what of the cord? The cord seems to be a "control device" (perhaps a leash, remember on one pageant app PR wrote JB liked to "play kitty")
So I guess in a convoluted way I'm asking where people think this fits in.

By the way otg, I have read your theory on the BDI angle, and I thought your theory is the most cogent so far. I believe that everyone in the house had a part in her death though.

Kolar is wrong about the cord not being able to cause the triangular bruise on her neck. This same thing has been documented in other cases. I believe (and I don't claim to know without question) it happens because of subcutaneous blood pooling within the confines of the carotid triangle. I started a thread explaining this several years back because I wanted to understand what caused it.