An interesting view on a BDI theory

[Maryam]

I see only two possibilities ...

Either BR slept through the whole thing as the parents claim

or

He knows a lot about what happened or what his parents did in the aftermath.

And if he does know something ... it is absolutely amazing that he could be so calm , cool , and "normal" about it and not reveal the slightest thing.

I doubt the parents could have "conditioned him" to act that way .... they only had a couple of hours .... besides he was only 9 so I think it is highly improbable .

Hi everyone, I'm a first time poster on this board, though I have been following this case for a long time.

I totally agree with the above post. I do think that BDI makes sense, but I just can't get past the fact that Burke could keep a secret like that for himself, for all these years.

There has been a lot of speculation over the years that Burke has some form of autism. If that is correct, I think keeping a secret is even harder for him: People with Aspergers are generally considered very "straight forward",and not too good on being manipulative and secretive.

I just can't believe that the R's would have sent Burke away that morning if he was somehow involved in any of this. You just can't trust a 10-year old to not spill the beans.

 

[cubbeegirl]

Hi everyone, I'm a first time poster on this board, though I have been following this case for a long time.

I totally agree with the above post. I do think that BDI makes sense, but I just can't get past the fact that Burke could keep a secret like that for himself, for all these years.

There has been a lot of speculation over the years that Burke has some form of autism. If that is correct, I think keeping a secret is even harder for him: People with Aspergers are generally considered very "straight forward",and not too good on being manipulative and secretive.

I just can't believe that the R's would have sent Burke away that morning if he was somehow involved in any of this. You just can't trust a 10-year old to not spill the beans.

Hi! And welcome ... I still go back and forth on this, I have always been Patsy did it, but Chief Kolar's book has opened up a whole new can of worms for me !

 

[lawstudent]

I agree, I think a 9 year old would crack under questioning. Maybe it was not intense enough, and maybe Burke was that conditioned, but slip-ups are so easy at that age. Especially since whatever happened seemed so horrific - it's the type of thing a kid that age would keep bringing up details of because he couldn't get it out of his mind. It's not like the type of thing that a kid may not immediately realize is serious - for example, molestation at a young age by someone they trust may be more confusing to a kid than anything - they don't necessarily know something wrong has happened. Or drug use in the home. But seeing the emotions of his parents and seeing them discuss staging her and putting a rope around her neck and presumably seeing the injury - it doesn't seem like he could remain calm about that.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree, I think a 9 year old would crack under questioning. Maybe it was not intense enough, and maybe Burke was that conditioned, but slip-ups are so easy at that age. Especially since whatever happened seemed so horrific - it's the type of thing a kid that age would keep bringing up details of because he couldn't get it out of his mind. It's not like the type of thing that a kid may not immediately realize is serious - for example, molestation at a young age by someone they trust may be more confusing to a kid than anything - they don't necessarily know something wrong has happened. Or drug use in the home. But seeing the emotions of his parents and seeing them discuss staging her and putting a rope around her neck and presumably seeing the injury - it doesn't seem like he could remain calm about that.

I have always felt BR had nothing to do with the staging. He may never have seen the garrote or the photos of it, nor heard his parents discuss it. The said they never discussed the death of JB with him, though we of course do not know if that is the truth.
I can totally see how someone who was involved, even at that age, could keep silent. I mean, why would he ever admit to doing this? But one day, he will marry. He'll tell his wife, and if they ever divorce, she'll write a tell-all book. MOO.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

We must remember, to everyone around the R's that fateful day, they were all looking for and believing a crazed kidnapper/murderer/lunatic was on the loose.

No one was focusing on BR. And the parents made sure of it by tucking him out of sight, out of mind. Anything BR might've said when he was with FW could not be used against him and afterall, no one was immediately questioning this child during this sad, sad time. Certainly the neighbors weren't going to---they were more in a protective mode of the child.

It's only in great and lengthy hindsight that we know who we now suspect.

Additionally, if BR did it, and the parents were still enraged yet covering for him, it may have been easier to deal with if they did not have to look at his face for a while.

Perhaps.......

 

[Arnie M]

When a young child is interviewed it is not an interrogation , it is often a very relaxed and pleasant situation for the child , they are never put under pressure or forced to answer questions.

A good interviewer will get on the same level as the child and talk about fun and natural things .... so what all did you get for Christmas Burke .... did you get to play with all your new toys Christmas morning .... did you get to play with them when you got home ..... what is your favorite midnight snack ..... etc etc.

During such a conversation the child is relaxed and enjoying the conversation yet the interviewer is building a timeline of events based on the casual answers.

From what I understand Burke was "interviewed" for many hours with child social workers monitoring everything .

The same approach is used with children who have been abused , the trained social worker will spend days and days with the child in an "enjoyable" setting ..... and once in a while the child will (inadvertently) let abuse comments slip out.

With all that in mind , Burke maybe did let a few comments slip out .... but that alone would not make a case , nor do I think his comments could be used in court .... but it could have kept the fingers pointing toward the family ... and I think that is what Chief Kolar was hinting at.

For what its worth , those same "interview tactics" work on adults too.

 

[Nova]

We must remember, to everyone around the R's that fateful day, they were all looking for and believing a crazed kidnapper/murderer/lunatic was on the loose.

No one was focusing on BR. And the parents made sure of it by tucking him out of sight, out of mind. Anything BR might've said when he was with FW could not be used against him and afterall, no one was immediately questioning this child during this sad, sad time. Certainly the neighbors weren't going to---they were more in a protective mode of the child.

It's only in great and lengthy hindsight that we know who we now suspect.

Additionally, if BR did it, and the parents were still enraged yet covering for him, it may have been easier to deal with if they did not have to look at his face for a while.

Perhaps.......

BBM: I'm not sure the Rs would have known that. Given his age, nothing BR said to ANYONE could have been used against him. But even if the Rs knew BR was immune, anything he said could have been used against his parents.

Why go to so much trouble doing so much staging and then blow it by letting an unsupervised kid leave with (and perhaps speak to) trusted, family friends?

***

ETA I now see in another thread that the issue is the sealing of BR's 12/26 statement because police had not obtained the necessary permission from his parents. Perhaps that does make the entire statement unusable, as you suggest. My bad.

 

[Linda7NJ]

When a young child is interviewed it is not an interrogation , it is often a very relaxed and pleasant situation for the child , they are never put under pressure or forced to answer questions.

A good interviewer will get on the same level as the child and talk about fun and natural things .... so what all did you get for Christmas Burke .... did you get to play with all your new toys Christmas morning .... did you get to play with them when you got home ..... what is your favorite midnight snack ..... etc etc.

During such a conversation the child is relaxed and enjoying the conversation yet the interviewer is building a timeline of events based on the casual answers.

From what I understand Burke was "interviewed" for many hours with child social workers monitoring everything .

The same approach is used with children who have been abused , the trained social worker will spend days and days with the child in an "enjoyable" setting ..... and once in a while the child will (inadvertently) let abuse comments slip out.

With all that in mind , Burke maybe did let a few comments slip out .... but that alone would not make a case , nor do I think his comments could be used in court .... but it could have kept the fingers pointing toward the family ... and I think that is what Chief Kolar was hinting at.

For what its worth , those same "interview tactics" work on adults too.

And he was interviewed as a witness not a perp imo

 

[Nova]

And he was interviewed as a witness not a perp imo

I know that matters when it comes to Miranda, but does it affect the rule against interviewing minors without a guardian's permission?

 

[Chelly]

I believe it's been proven that the R's didn't know juveniles couldn't be charged until later on.

How was it proved that, at the time of JBR's murder, the R's didn't know juveniles could not be charged?

 

[greenpalm]

(RS BBM)

With all that in mind , Burke maybe did let a few comments slip out .... but that alone would not make a case , nor do I think his comments could be used in court .... but it could have kept the fingers pointing toward the family ... and I think that is what Chief Kolar was hinting at.

For what its worth , those same "interview tactics" work on adults too.

I read the Kolar book, but it's been a couple of months, and I'm getting old. My memory blurs. Do you mean he hinted that there is Grand Jury testimony like these slip ups Burke might have made to the social worker to which we don't have access? Among other things?

And he was interviewed as a witness not a perp imo

Help me with my memory on this one too. Was Burke interviewed after JBR's body was found? Because that would really change the nature of the interview too.

Also, we know that the White's opinion of the Ramsey's changed over time. There's no telling what Burke may have said to them that day that we don't know. Would that not also be in the Grand Jury Testimony? Again, little slips not an out and out confession?

Again, I'm asking for a refresher. To whom did Burke say the quote about the perp with a hammer? I can go search for that one.

Also: Linda7NJ do you post on every thread here on Webslueth's? Or do you and I just read the same ones? I have a couple of favorites and you're mostly here! :seeya:

 

[greenpalm]

The same approach is used with children who have been abused , the trained social worker will spend days and days with the child in an "enjoyable" setting ..... and once in a while the child will (inadvertently) let abuse comments slip out.

With all that in mind , Burke maybe did let a few comments slip out .... but that alone would not make a case , nor do I think his comments could be used in court .... but it could have kept the fingers pointing toward the family ... and I think that is what Chief Kolar was hinting at.

For what its worth , those same "interview tactics" work on adults too.

I read the Kolar book, but it's been a couple of months, and I'm getting old. My memory blurs. Do you mean he hinted that there is Grand Jury testimony like these slip ups Burke might have made to the social worker to which we don't have access? Among other things?


Help me with my memory on this one too. Was Burke interviewed after JBR's body was found? Because that would really change the nature of the interview too.…

Okay, I'm answering my own question, the quote below is from another thread in this forum, the one about the Beth Karas/Kolar interview. So it's not up thread here, if you click the arrow on it, it should jump you back to the thread where I grabbed it.

An interesting thing Chief Kolar mentioned that I’ve only heard speculation about previously occurs at about 1:03. He is explaining to Karas the things that made him suspicious of Burke. His quote is:

“There were other things that came up during Det. Patterson’s interview with Burke on the afternoon of the discovery JonBenet’s body.”

Okay, we (I, at least) always thought Det. Patterson spoke with Burke when he first went over to the Whites’ house (while it was still being considered a kidnapping) in the morning, and was therefore only being asked if he saw or heard anything that might help out in the investigation. But if this “interview” happened after her body was discovered, it gives a different perspective on what might have been discussed. I had thought that probably nothing of any value had come from this interview because nothing was ever mentioned about it other than how mad the Ramseys were that the BPD had “illegally questioned a minor” (No charges were ever pursued though, were they?). But there must have been something said by Burke that caught the attention of Kolar for him to even mention it -- something that might not have made sense or even stood out when looking at him as a possible witness. But from Kolar’s perspective of looking at him as a possible suspect, it was something that added to his suspicions.

Of course, we’ll never know what that might have been, because it would only show up in Det. Patterson’s report (and that will never be released), and Kolar will not tell us what it was (unless maybe someone presses him for an answer in some future webcast, hint, hint).

(And thank you, Tad, for the transcripts.)

So, I'm now realizing that Burke was interviewed during the time that this was still being handled as a kidnapping and that Kolar's hinting was probably in the interview to which I haven't yet listened. Of to listen now. Thanks.

 

[bettybaby00]

For me the Rs sending B to the White's doesn't point toward his innocence or the perception that he had no idea what happened. I mentioned in another thread that I believe this "plan" wasn't fully thought out, and that many circumstances unfolded in ways the Rs didn't anticipate. I think the idea that the Rs would have known B couldn't have been held responsible (allegedly) is very unlikely. But for me the most significant example of things not going according to plan was the misinterpretation of the ransom note.

One thing I've learned by following trials is that there is often pieces of the puzzle that are forever conflicting/confusing/contrary. I feel some of the decisions that were made were based on "the lesser of 2 evils" approach. If the R household was as dysfunctional and crazy as it appears, both kids wold have already learned to keep secrets. Other factors to consider:

*the Ws are/have been close friends for years, and were trusted
*wanted to sheld B from the body being discovered
*B and the Rs showed NO fear whatsoever about him leaving the protection of his parents, which contradicts Ps assertion "you need to keep your babies close."
*by this point they know he can't be questioned without parental permission
*the plan was to leave Co. immediately after the body was discovered, further removing themselves from scrutiny
*initial LE search does not turn up the body, nor does the search conducted by FW
*before leaving for the White's, the officer asks B if he heard anything during the night, John immediately interjects that "his son was asleep." FW is surprised by this display
*FW also notices B shows ZERO interest, fear, or confusion regarding the chaos he finds in the house after "waking" up that morning. He poses no questions or comments during the drive to the Ws house
*if any abuse was going on in the house, B already knew how to keep quiet

IMO the main objective after JRB was found was to stall and delay until they could get out of the house, and subsequently under the protection of lawyers.

All :moo: of course

 

[Linda7NJ]

I read the Kolar book, but it's been a couple of months, and I'm getting old. My memory blurs. Do you mean he hinted that there is Grand Jury testimony like these slip ups Burke might have made to the social worker to which we don't have access? Among other things?



Help me with my memory on this one too. Was Burke interviewed after JBR's body was found? Because that would really change the nature of the interview too.

Also, we know that the White's opinion of the Ramsey's changed over time. There's no telling what Burke may have said to them that day that we don't know. Would that not also be in the Grand Jury Testimony? Again, little slips not an out and out confession?

Again, I'm asking for a refresher. To whom did Burke say the quote about the perp with a hammer? I can go search for that one.

Also: Linda7NJ do you post on every thread here on Webslueth's? Or do you and I just read the same ones? I have a couple of favorites and you're mostly here! :seeya:

I think we just have the same taste


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

At the time BR went to the White's it was still thought to be a kidnapping. I think the parents wanted him out of the house so that when it changed to a murder (which they knew was going to happen at some point that day) he would not be there to be questioned or see the (considerably more gruesome than it had been) body of his sister.
Everyone else thought it had been a kidnapping, too, so if FW had anything to say to BR it was along the lines of him seeing or hearing anything unusual. And BR knew what to say- he had been asleep.

 

[Eldee]

Didn't anyone find it interesting that the R's made certain that they would only let themselves be interviewed if all medical records remained sealed. I wondered when I read that, why would that be a deal breaker regarding an interview and who in their right mind would allow suspects to set the terms of an interview?
I am three quarters of the way through Kolar's book already wondering about medical records and then out of nowhere Kolar says he thought that BR's psychiatric records should be examined. So...I am thinking that those medical records are obviously the ones the R's are desperately trying to keep sealed.
Which begs the question... Why is a young child seeing a psychiatrist?
What sort of behaviour leads parents to believe their child needs psychiatric help?
That in of itself does not incriminate someone, however, it certainly got the hairs on the back of my neck standing up and my compass pointing right at BR for some reason.
The only way in my opinion, the parents could stage their daughter in such a degrading way, was to protect their son, perhaps out of guilt for not seeing what he was capable of and blaming themselves, and continue to cover it up all of these years. In my own opinion.

 

[madeleine]

13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, Dr. Sheevy, Catherine

14 Sheevy, is who I saw in Boulder. Well I haven't

15 seen her in a while. Steven Jaffee, Dr. Steven

16 Jaffee in Atlanta, prescribed the Prozac for me.

17 LOU SMIT: Okay.

18 JOHN RAMSEY: He's actually Burke's

19 psychiatrist.


-------------

11 THOMAS HANEY: Has that -- is that

12 something that you have asked the -- Dr. Jaffe

13 to explore?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know if I

15 have directly asked him that. I don't --

16 THOMAS HANEY: And you know that's

17 a thought?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, I knew

19 that's -- I was presuming that's what they were

20 doing last week, kind of seeing if he remembered

21 anything.

22 THOMAS HANEY: And they were, yeah,

23 but you know Dr. Jaffe and he works with him on

24 a fairly regular basis?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0299

1 THOMAS HANEY: How often?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, every three

3 weeks, maybe.

4 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. But a lot

5 more than --

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Sure, yes. Quite --

7 sure. I am sure he is alert to that. You know.

8 If the thing would come up --

------------------


Dr. Jaffe's Background
Research training, expertise and qualifications
Specialties

Adolescent Psychiatry & Pediatric Psychiatry - Board Certified
Psychiatry - Board Certified

-----------------


THE thing?hmmm

 

[CircuitGuy]

We must remember, to everyone around the R's that fateful day, they were all looking for and believing a crazed kidnapper/murderer/lunatic was on the loose.

No one was focusing on BR. And the parents made sure of it by tucking him out of sight, out of mind. Anything BR might've said when he was with FW could not be used against him and afterall, no one was immediately questioning this child during this sad, sad time. Certainly the neighbors weren't going to---they were more in a protective mode of the child.

If the R's didn't know who did it and believed a crazed lunatic was on the loose, I don't see them letting BR out of their sight for even a second.

If the did know who did it, getting him out of the house does put them at risk he may yak. But that risk may be even greater if he stays at the house. The only advantage to the coverup of keeping him present is they know what he has said.

 

[dodie20]

If the R's didn't know who did it and believed a crazed lunatic was on the loose, I don't see them letting BR out of their sight for even a second.

If the did know who did it, getting him out of the house does put them at risk he may yak. But that risk may be even greater if he stays at the house. The only advantage to the coverup of keeping him present is they know what he has said.

JR was quick to point out that this was an inside job and he was quick to turn on the Ws, especially FW, so obviously not much love lost there. In a situation like this, how could he trust anybody to take his kid off? I've always wondered if BR said something to or in front of the Ws, that JR didn't want made public...so in an effort to discredit anything they had to say, he got FW before they could get them. moo