As for the vaginal injuries, both acute and chronic, Kolar managed to find all sorts of books and studies suggesting that yes, nine year old boys can be sexually active and also violent and also incest-prone, etc. For him, this is the only scenario that makes sense, and I can understand that, because based on his assumptions, no other alternative seems possible. Quoting Sherlock Holmes, he says "Once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Of course, this is complete nonsense, because he never even attempts to eliminate John, never even considers him as the possible cause of JonBenet's vaginal injuries. (And by the way, there is no evidence she was penetrated by a paintbrush handle, that's a myth. The medical examiner's report says "digital penetration.") And, like so many others, he assumes the decision to rule John out as writer of the note is written on stone tablets emanating from On High.
Let's try to put Kolar's allegations in perspective. As we now know, John and Patsy could not have collaborated on the "ransom" note. If that had been the case, there would have been no 911 call so early on the morning of the 26th. (See my second post, "Case Solved," for the details of this argument.) Nor is there any reason to suspect Patsy of having written it. She was the one who made that call, which could not have been made by the writer of the note (again see "Case Solved"). Clearly John wrote the note. And just as clearly, he saw no reason to share this information with Patsy, who must have been completely in the dark. (I realize this sort of thing is heresy to a great many following the case, but if you read here carefully you might change your mind. Others have.)
Does this mean John had been molesting his daughter? Does this mean he also murdered her? Or could Burke have been responsible for one or both acts, with John covering for him? Strictly speaking, we have no way of knowing. There is no direct evidence linking either John or Burke to the physical assault on JonBenet. Well, that isn't completely true, because fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch. For the sake of argument, I'll pass on that for now.
Now let's suppose Burke had been molesting JonBenet and let's suppose he flew into a rage for some reason and slammed her over the head with that Maglite. And let's suppose John caught him in the act, and, moreover, discovered the vaginal injuries. What to do? If it were simply a matter of the head injury, the thing to do would be to call 911 then and there, get her to the hospital and hope she'd recover. It could easily have been explained as an accident. Or a fight between two children that got out of hand. But what if the doctors noticed her vaginal injuries, what then? Would they believe him if he said they were caused by his nine year old son? Would they even believe Burke if he confessed? Not likely. Because c'mon, what would YOU believe? HE, the innocent John Ramsey, would have been accused of molestation and murder, and could have wound up in jail or worse. Can we see this as a motive for a coverup? Yes indeed.
So yes, if we want to strictly limit ourselves to the realm of the possible, I suppose it is possible Burke could be the guilty party with John staging a phoney kidnapping out of sheer self defense. As far as the "garotte" is concerned, that's a bit harder to explain, but again I'll let it pass for the sake of argument.
With regard to the above scenario there are two points to be made right off the bat. First, whether Burke or John was responsible for the physical injuries has no bearing on any other aspect of the case. Strictly speaking, there is no way to prove beyond doubt that one or the other killed her. So, while I feel confident I can prove John wrote the note, and staged all other aspects of the coverup, I must confess I cannot prove beyond doubt that he and not Burke is the killer. Second, it's important to remember that our legal system is based not on any doubt whatsoever, but on "reasonable doubt," so the question is not one of absolute proof, but of what seems reasonable and what does not.
So. I ask you. If you are on a jury in a case where a young girl was sexually molested and murdered, and the only possible suspects are her mother, her nine year old brother and her middle aged father, which would you say was the most likely culprit? Forget about Patsy, Burke and John, just imagine yourself in the courtroom considering three people about whom you have no preconceptions. What would you think of a defense that went as follows?
Yes, I know this looks bad for me, but hey, you may not realize it but there's all sorts of literature proving that nine year old boys can be sexually active, so you have to believe me when I say my son did it and not me. When I saw what he'd done I panicked because I was sure I was going to be blamed. So I made it look like an intruder did it. I confess to the coverup but not the murder.Of course the nine year old could not be prosecuted, so he'd have been in no danger. What would YOU think of such a defense?
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Yes. However, it is most certainly not impossible that John Ramsey both molested his daughter and then killed her out of fear she was going to expose him. This is not an uncommon sequence of events. And in this case, the most likely by far. Moreover, it is certainly highly improbable that an obviously frail nine year old boy would have been sexually molesting his sister. Improbable also that this same frail boy could have cracked her skull open with a single blow. Improbable also that his father would have gone to such lengths, and taken such huge risks, to cover for him. And at this point we must consider the "garotte" strangulation, which is in fact what killed her, which means that even if he were covering for Burke, he would still be culpable for murder.
So I'm sorry, but John Ramsey has to be brought before a court of law, regardless. And if he chooses to argue that he was only covering for his son, fine, he'll be free to make that argument. And let a jury decide if they believe him. I certainly wouldn't.
So much for Burke-did-it. In my opinion this is a truly unlikely off the wall theory, but strictly speaking there is no way to prove otherwise, so I'll leave it at that.
But this is not the only thing to consider with respect to Burke. As Kolar argues, his parents' efforts to "protect" him are indeed very suspicious and do in fact raise many red flags. Kolar quickly jumps to the conclusion that they're protecting him because he's guilty and might confess, which would disgrace their "family honor." But there are other reasons they might not have wanted him questioned and these are not difficult to guess. He is one of only three potential witnesses and there is no way for anyone, including Patsy and John, to know for sure what he might or might not have seen and heard that night. If John is our murderer and I don't doubt for a minute that he is, then he'd be scared stiff that Burke might know more than he's letting on. When he was nine, he'd have been easy to intimidate and possibly also even threaten. But an aggressive interrogator might have pulled some things out of him anyhow, so best to make sure that type of questioning never takes place.
Burke is now much older and one thing I've become aware of in all that time is how quiet he's been. Not only has he been unwilling to testify to the police, he's never once to my knowledge come forward in defense of his parents, which strikes me as very unusual. If he truly believes both parents are innocent, why hasn't he been willing to come out in public and defend them? If he knows something that might not look so good when brought to light, then his silence is understandable. Let's hope that eventually his sense of justice will prevail and he'll finally come forward with what he knows.