Kolar's Book -- Part 2: Burke

The obvious suspect from the beginning was John Ramsey. This was especially true after it had been determined that prior sexual molestation seemed likely. World renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht became convinced, very early on, that the physical evidence pointed to John as both molester and murderer. And as I was recently reminded, the original theory of the original investigation team was apparently very similar to mine, i.e., John killed his daughter and wrote the note to stage a phoney kidnapping, of which Patsy knew nothing. Patsy foiled his plan by calling in the cops, and he was left with egg on his face, in the form of a very incriminating note and a body hidden in the basement. Pretty much open and shut, I'd say.

But then the investigation took a surprising turn: John Ramsey was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a blue ribbon panel of six handwriting "experts," two hired by him (amazingly enough, this was permitted) and four representing law enforcement. Incredibly, no one challenged such a patently questionable and in my view outrageous conclusion, which threw a monkey wrench into the investigation and became the source of so much confusion from then till now. 



With John "home free," and an intruder unlikely, everyone puzzling out this case had no choice but to consider scenarios that were truly bizarre. I won't list them here as they are already very well known. What they all have in common is a tendency to turn away from John and focus either on a very strange intruder with incomprehensible motives or an "over the top" Patsy Ramsey, flying into a rage, killing her daughter, and writing an equally "over the top" ransom note, for some odd reason that no one can fathom, since she then called the police on herself first thing in the morning.

Kolar's notion that Burke Ramsey must have been sexually molesting his sister and for some reason flew into a rage and killed her, is only the latest of these many fantastic ideas. Just as the various theories about Patsy have been bolstered by books and studies of all sorts on the psychology of stage mothers, narcissistic mothers, mothers who control their children, mothers who fall into uncontrollable rages over bedwetting, etc., Kolar dredges up all sorts of materials in the psychological literature pertaining to the perverse tendencies of young children. What all this "evidence" has in common is, of course, a complete lack of any direct relevance to the actual case at hand.

Of course, Kolar doesn't see it that way. Looking into the family history, he dredges up all sorts of "behavioral clues," suggesting that Burke may have had some serious emotional problems. He apparently smeared the walls with feces at one point, while his mother was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. And feces were apparently found in some odd places during the investigation, e.g., smeared on a box of chocolates in JonBenet's bedroom. The possibility that Burke's problems, assuming he actually had any, might have been prompted by suspicions that his father was molesting his sister, never occurs to Kolar. John is simply off his radar.

Instead he bends himself into a pretzel attempting to demonstrate that yes someone as apparently as frail as the nine year old Burke could indeed have slammed his sister over the head with such force that her skull was cracked from end to end. And, yes, a boy as young as Burke might in fact have been sexually active, which would make him responsible for both the acute and chronic damage to his sister's vagina. While such a possibility might seem utterly fantastic to you or me, Kolar manages to find "studies" that appear to support it.

All sorts of "red flags" are raised regarding Patsy and John's reluctance to allow Burke to be questioned, and some of things he ultimately said that seem suspicious, and in fact there is good reason to believe Burke was not being completely honest about what he knew. Rather than consider the possibility that the young boy might have been convinced or even coerced to keep silent regarding certain details that might make "the family" look bad, Kolar sees this as strong evidence that Burke must be responsible for his sister's death, with Patsy and John covering for him by writing the note, staging the "garotte" attack and protecting him from the curious probings of the investigators.

For Kolar, everything hinges on motive, and since he can find no motive for either John or Patsy to kill their daughter, then he has no choice but to fixate on Burke. After all, sibling rivalry can be a powerful motive, no question. What his theory lacks, however, is a motive for John and Patsy to then stage such an elaborate kidnapping scenario, complete with the War and Peace of ransom notes, not to mention the staging of a particularly violent and disgusting "garotte attack," simply to bolster the illusion of a violent pedophile intruder -- for the sake of "family honor"????? How does this gibe with his view of them as a good Christian couple? And what might have been their motive for calling the police on themselves first thing in the morning, so their elaborate staging could be undone and all suspicion focused on them. As a nine year old, Burke could not be indicted in the state of Colorado -- but they certainly could.

Kolar's scenario is, very simply, an act of desperation. And I must say, despite my skepticism, I can understand why he might have felt driven to take such an extreme and in fact outlandish position. Once John is taken out of the picture as writer of the note, then, very simply, there is no longer any theory of the case that does not require some very strange and indeed twisted thinking. Kolar's theory is definitely one of the more off-the-wall, but there is no lack of others, all, in one way or another, bizarre.

The ultimate irony is that Kolar, after excoriating the "good Christians" John and Patsy for their nefarious efforts in covering up the murder of their daughter, and claiming to have solved it by pointing to Burke as the perpetrator, throws up his hands to explain how the case is in fact beyond the reach of any future prosecution:

I am sure it has become apparent that I believe each member of the Ramsey family, home on the night of the murder, may have been involved at least as an accessory after the fact.

Nevertheless,

Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. The statutes of limitation for the crime of accessory after the fact have long since expired. (p. 428.)

Say what???? Why do I feel at this point that I've been subject to some sort of hocus pocus in which three people supposedly guilty of a horrendous crime suddenly disappear before my very eyes? Presto Chango! The case Kolar has been at such pains to make cannot be prosecuted because the murderer was too young and the conspirators responsible for staging the coverup are protected by the statute of limitations!!!!!

I would never accuse Kolar of conspiring with team Ramsey to get John off the hook. He destroys the intruder theory and reveals far too many examples of John's dishonesty and duplicity. All the same, what his book amounts to in the end is a very bizzare and surprising whitewash in which all three perpetrators, regardless of their guilt, are solemnly issued "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

What a strange strange case this has become!!!!!