I love debate and discussion. I love analyzing cold, active and even supposedly solved cases. I am going to state some things pretty forcefully because that is the person that I am. You don't know me but I have a hide like a rhino and it takes a lot to insult or even annoy me, so don't feel like you have to tiptoe around my feelings if you know or think I'm wrong about certain facts. However I do ask that the correction be based on actual, cited fact and not opinion masquerading as fact. I believe there was chronic molestation but I lean more toward weeks and days rather than months. I believe one of the family murdered JB, specifically one of the parents. I lean toward John, not Patsy. I lean that way because of the mood of this crime. Patsy seems to me to be less methodical, more panicky under stress. Although the coverup was sloppy in some ways, it was still methodical. So John gets his freak on and JB dies during the process. What does he do? He builds an entire kidnapping scenario and is able to persuade Patsy to help him. He limits forensics either by careful handling of things associated with the coverup or he wipes things down. I think if this were an angry or panicked murder (meaning Patsy), the house would look very different and the clean up be different. Another thing, and this is pure opinion...I think Pasty would help John cover up but I don't think John would help Patsy. And I don't think she's methodical enough to set up the whole kidnapping scene nor have the presence of mind to think up that ransom note. I don't think Burke had anything to do with it but I do think he saw or heard some things John and Patsy didn't want revealed. I don't believe for a moment that Burke was sexually curious to the extent he'd abuse his sister. 9 year old children just do not become that sexually aggressive with a family member in a vacuum. He wasn't an adult, he wouldn't know how to cover up his curiosity and most likely wouldn't be able to limit that curiosity to his sister. There would have been other signs with other girls either at school or in the neighborhood. But the most compelling evidence he had nothing to do with it was that his parents let him leave their sphere of influence so quickly after the murder. There is no way parents would let a child they suspected of murder, who they covered up for by the way, get out of their supervision where he could talk. No way. Further, on a practical note, Burke by reason of his age just does not fit. Pedophiles entice children into sexual acts with charm and favors. Once they get the children to perform/submit, they use threats, coercion, etc to keep them quiet and comply. JB did not fight. She would have fought her brother not only because he was a sibling but because he wouldn't bother wooing her into the acts. He just does not fit. I believe there was molestation that night and that there was at least one other instance. I don't believe it was months but perhaps weeks or days before. Not only does the forensics prove this to my satisfaction, but her behavior in some ways is classic molested child. However...it was Christmas and children are excited and happy during that time of year. I've seen claims that JB wasn't acting "different" enough to suggest molestation, but the time of year has to be considered. Speaking of... Right after hearing about this case I noted that December 25/26 is a very strange time for an intruder to commit a murder. Mainly because there is no routine during the holidays. Most people do not go to work or at least they don't work normal hours, so no predator could guarantee they could get a child alone without being observed by neighbors or other children out of school. Why take such an unnecessary risk? I don't believe a predator would. I've been around criminal cases enough to know that logic isn't always a part of the plan. However I'm not going to stretch the bounds of logic by believing JB was an exception to cold logic. The intruder did it theory....I'm supposed to believe that JB was molested probably days before the murder, that she exhibited behavioral signs and allude to a few things but never once said anything. Okay, so say I believe she hadn't gotten to the point where she could talk. The intruder would choose a day you can guarantee family will be together, sneaking into a house where the routine of the neighborhood could not be predicted (say it happened at midnight, how can you guarantee someone won't be coming home from their merriment at that time? You can't!). And beyond that you would be able to come into the house, grab the child, feed her pineapple or not, take her to the basement and configure a contraption for sexual gratification. All the while invading her comfort zone of her own house with her parents not far away and being confident she will be compliant and quiet. Then when the molestation went south you actually felt the need to cover it up and concoct a kidnapping scenario to explain it which would require that you remain in the house for several minutes/hours, increasing your likelihood of being discovered?!?!?! Not only that but the intruder was able to find all implements for the ransom note without leaving evidence behind. Nope. Burke was not sexually interested in his sister. If the theory is that he just killed her out of rage, how was his mouth kept shut? And if the Ramseys did cover it up why in the name of God would one of them molest her, desecrating her in such an unnecessary way? Kidnapping cover up would be enough, the theory being she was accidentally killed while being abducted. Period. An intruder would not break into a house on the day after Christmas, molest a child in her own home and then, when things turned to murder, concoct a kidnapping scenario which would take several minutes or more to set up when getting the heck out would be just as easy and far safer (timewise and with the evidence you would leave behind). I believe it was the parents....don't know which.