You bring up a lot to consider!
Chrishope, JMO, DocG's theory is inconsistent and untestable since it relies on future events, and the 911 call scenario must be false since BR was present.
I've read his blog, and many believe in his theory. You bring up an interesting point regarding Burke being awake and how that does/doesn't fit into the scenario. I'm not sure I've ever seen him address that. I do know he doesn't believe BR was involved as he seems to be relying on the "he was only 9 at the time" argument.
An issue I have with his theory is his belief that PR was unaware of the abuse which he attributes to John. His theory goes on to assume that once she realized he had been abusing JRB, she had motivation to "stand by her man." Unwillingness to loose her social standing, coupled with the notion that as the perceived author of the note, she ultimately had no choice but to protect John. This never made sense to me. First IMO, it's hard to believe she would protect John b/c of worry over social standing, when one considers that if she threw him under the bus she would have been perceived as a true victim along with JRB. Poor devoted wife...her husband was a abusing their daughter, and then he killed her. That had the potential to garner a huge amount of sympathy with little to no downside for Patsy. Instead, if we believe DocGs theory, she will forever be known as the mother of a murdered child beauty queen, who just might be guilty of the crime. Also, being beholden to John b/c of the note doesn't make sense to me either, as any good lawyer could have created reasonable doubt at trial. It would have been a battle of conflicting experts. A jury would likely believe Patsy's experts when faced with evidence of sexual abuse perpetrated by John.
I wonder if James Kolar's BDI theory has any legs, even why he might promote it since either of the parents appear stronger candidates?What if JonBenet went to bed first even in BR's room, i.e. she was wearing assymetric ponytails, where she was promised a pineapple snack in exchange for being assaulted? Did BR whack JonBenet on the head as she was sitting snacking on her pineapple? James Kolar suggests BR moved JonBenet down to the basement, later PR and JR can clean this crime-scene up. This BDI explains away both the pineapple snack and the assymetric ponytails, both items missed by the parents, it also factors in the flashlight. PR denied the pineapple snack completely, even saying some of the tableware did not belong to her!Did one of the parents fake a sexual assault on JonBenet by using the paintbrush handle, or did BR do this as part of some kind of childish ritual assault. Bear in mind the R's were a dysfunctional family, where PR described JonBenet's pageant appearances as part of PR's Project, maybe the alleged paintbrush assault reflects months of jealousy built up in BR due to percieved neglect by PR?
Steve Thomas did a great deal in advancing this case, however, leaving when he did meant he was out of the loop for later developments. Given this IMO, Kolar's theory makes a hell of a lot of sense. Key points in favor of his theory:
*The stats regarding sibling incest are very compelling. And despite the shocking statistics, the actual numbers are likely much higher given how often such behavior goes unreported.
*he is privy to ALL the evidence (we on the other hand, know very little), including not only the GJ testimonies, but also the fact that the public was misled about the conclusions of the GJ, and that somehow, somewhere, signed TBs were rotting away in some sort of secret vault *rage*
*both parents covering for their child makes a lot more sense than one spouse covering for another, especially if john was both the perpetrator in JBs murderer and her abuser.
Kolar offers many other clues to support his theory, but these are the main ones. And although I don't agree with DocGs theory, I respect his efforts and dedication to the case
![Smile :) :)]()