Members' Theories

[IvyLew]

Strange that the word possession is misspelled. Makes me wonder if it hints to a different type of possession. The word business is misspelled too, I believe. Perhaps the author just has trouble with multiple SS's. Somehow I doubt that. Is the word possession misspelled in one of PR's favorite books? Is that what I'm reading? The creepy Santa Clause and FW are enough for me to second guess any well thought out theory blaming the Ramseys. Could this case be any more complicated? Santa, I find the creepiest of them all and FW, he really bothers me. Though I'm not sure why. I will have to think on that.

 

[InvSmith]

Yes, her favorite novels had these misspellings and pineapple. A terrorist group plot that was the teacher of young girls. Just all really brizzare. I have to agree with the police and detectives that the initial behaviors were so off.

 

[joeysta1]

I’ve always thought this case was clear. There was no real evidence of someone from outside the house. no evidence of sexual assault which would be the only feasible reason to break in. And it would have to be the first time in history someone broke in following a sexual fantasy but didn’t take her away but killed in the house instead. If it don’t make sense . . . And inside the house, only real one person who would have a reasonable motive and that the facts and following action make sense. The evidence points to a piece of the toy railroad track used as a weapon, easy to understand who might have played with that. And was quickly whisked away never to be adequately followed up. Actions seem reasonable to protect the one they had left. Just seems to be so clear.

 

[InvSmith]

I’ve always thought this case was clear. There was no real evidence of someone from outside the house. no evidence of sexual assault which would be the only feasible reason to break in. And it would have to be the first time in history someone broke in following a sexual fantasy but didn’t take her away but killed in the house instead. If it don’t make sense . . . And inside the house, only real one person who would have a reasonable motive and that the facts and following action make sense. The evidence points to a piece of the toy railroad track used as a weapon, easy to understand who might have played with that. And was quickly whisked away never to be adequately followed up. Actions seem reasonable to protect the one they had left. Just seems to be so clear.

I just researched the 911 call again and I agree.

 

[joeysta1]

Here is a link that analyzes the 911 call JonBenet Ramsey Murder - The 911 Call - Statement Analysis®
The note seems very contrived. But good strategy to redirect and buy time. Again, all seems to fit. By the way, a sexual predator does not leave a note, would not be in their fantasy. And of course interesting that three people could be heard on the phone at the end when their statement was their son was always upstairs in his room (which also makes no sense if family frantic).

 

[joeysta1]

Another reason this case is so clear is the ransom note left yet the body was left in the basement. It would be the first time a ransom note was left but the body was also left! As soon as the body was found, the only reasonable explanation for the ransom note was contrived to buy time by the family. So then, why buy time? Only one reason . . .
I'm sure the father was able to legally tie up any chance of adequate investigation . . . which is what occurred.

 

[JaneAusten]

Good day, I have a theory to run by you WSers.

I have almost always believed in PR’s guilt in the death of JBR, and that JR was only involved in the cover up. Recently, I began to consider, what if JR is the killer, and PR merely an accomplice in the cover up? I came up with a theory featuring JR as killer.

Either IDI or RDI. I do not think IDI. There is no evidence, and for a killer to remain in the house that long, there had to be some forensic evidence left behind. The degraded dna does not count to me as evidence. I am sure RDI. But which RDI? I do not believe that BR did it. I do believe that both parents participated in the cover up. In order to believe the Rs both participated in JBR’s death, I would have to believe that they (1) premeditated it, which makes no sense to me that they would do that on Christmas of all days, and on the eve of a planned early morning flight to Michigan, or (2) that they accidentally killed her; either innocently, ie. in an innocent accident, or else in the course of doing something evil to her that would come to light if they called 911. Again, if she was killed by accident, say dropped on her head coming in from the garage, it’s an obvious accident, and a parent would call 911. On the other hand, if she was killed accidentally in the middle of a sexual abuse session, again, I just don’t think JR and PR would together decide to get their jollies with JBR late on the eve of an early flight. For these reasons, I do not think JR and PR both participated in the death of JBR.

I remember not long after JBR’s death, seeing an interview with Linda Arndt, in which she described looking into JR’s eyes moments after the body had been discovered, and believing with certainty that she was looking into the cold calculating eyes of the killer (I forget her exact words)

There is evidence that JBR had been sexually abused, and I believe it was at the hands of someone in her household. It makes the most sense to me that it was someone with regular access to her, and who she is more likely to obey and “keep the secret”. My theory is that it was her father, JR. I think she was too feisty to put up with abuse by BR, and in any event, I find the notion of a 9 year old sexually abusing his sister to be highly unlikely. PR was not the abuser because if she was, she would never have taken the risk of taking JBR to the doctor so many times for irritations to her genital region. No way.

This murder was not premeditated, it just happened, and the subsequent staging was necessary to save the killer from blame.

The pineapple she consumed before her death could only have been served to her by JR, PR, or BR. I think BR would be the least likely to be able to sustain a lie about pineapple (or anything else) in the long run. The parents remained so adamant about no pineapple having been consumed, that I conclude that one was genuinely at a loss as to explain the pineapple snack, while the other was simply lying. I believe it was JR who knew JBR had eaten the pineapple. He may have allowed her to help herself, which is why the leftover dishes may have looked like a child had laid them out – the too large spoon, the mess not put away. PR would have tidied the mess up – they were leaving early the next morning, and would not have time to clean up later.

Somehow, there is either an altercation between JR and JBR, or he puts her to bed and begins some sort of sexual abuse of her. Perhaps JBR expresses a determination to stop keeping the secret, or a defiance about any continued fondling/sex play. The panty switch makes me think his escalating contact with JBR has drawn blood this time, or has caused an injury he’ll never be able to keep hidden. Maybe she calls out for mommy. Something happens which causes JR to react – either out of anger, or to silence her. I envision him angrily tossing her across the room, or onto her bed. Perhaps she lands headfirst on the flashlight, or on a dumbbell (there was discussion of dumbbells in JBR’s room on a recent thread….) and she appears either dead or at least to have a grievous head injury. What to do now? How does JR explain this? This is a moment where he has to make a choice – her or me.

He comes up with a plan to save himself from blame, and for his family to come out of this without being fingered as child abusers/murderers.

I don’t believe that JR could risk PR finding any sign of life in JBR because she would have called 911 immediately. He needed PR to believe BR had accidentally killed JBR. He finishes JBR off with strangulation, either using cords found in their home and which are later found on the body, or he strangles her then substitutes the cords later as part of the staging. There is a small amount of blood on her from the assault. He must remove the evidence, and so wipes her down and takes her soiled panties off and discards them (down the toilet? Cut into bits? Burns them to ash? Hides them in golf bag?) Being a grown man with not much insight into little girls and their panty wearing habits, he feels a need only to replace the Wednesday panties with an identical Wednesday pair, for PR’s benefit, as she may have noticed if JBR turned up in the wrong panties. He does not clue in that size 12 bloomies would be huge on little JBR. 9 year old BR would not have been detail oriented enough to take this care in changing the panties. PR would not have made this mistake. I used to think the “Potty Rage” theory had merit, but I now believe PR would not substitute the size 12s – if it really mattered to her, she would simply wash and dry the correct size 6 Wednesday pair and put them back on JBR. I also found it a stretch to fathom the degree of frustration or rage over wet pants that would compel her to snap so severely as to cause death.

JR concocts a story for Patsy that implicates BR, and suggests that, whatever has happened to JBR, she’s gone, it was an accident, and they must now do everything in their power to protect their remaining child. BR has already once been implicated in an assault on JBR (with a golf club), and who will believe that this was just another accident? JR explains to PR that BR is not fully aware of the extent to which he has harmed his sister, and therefore, they need to shield him from the knowledge of his own actions. BR cannot be implicated because he will be taken away from his parents, he didn’t mean to do it and he will be scarred for life by guilt and by any experience of the criminal justice system. With Patsy’s failing health, she could lose out on the chance to spend time with her last remaining child. PR unwittingly becomes JR’s accomplice; partly out of the shock of her angel JBR’s death, partly out of a mother’s fierce need to protect her son from accusation. She needs to depend on JR directing her actions; she surrenders her will, so to speak.

My theory is that JR intended originally to remove JBR’s body from the home, but later, either PR could not bear it, or he felt it was too great a risk to drive out of his house – what if he was seen by a neighbour? How could he explain away a nocturnal outing? Perhaps the ransom note took too long, and they felt they were out of time. He had to turn to setting up a staged sexual assault, tied hands. With rigor mortis setting in, he was not able to tie the hands in a manner that provided any true restraint, and this is why there was so much slack in the cords.

I believe JR oversaw the staging, thinking that any redirection of the police attention was helpful to their cause – to point every finger away from them. Stage a sexual assault, suggesting a sexual deviant is on the loose. Probably the staged sexual assault was done in the hopes it would also help cover his tracks from any evidence of previous sexual contact he’d had with JBR. Stage a ransom note, with clues leading to possible business related motives, and a hint of terrorism added for flavour. I think JBR’s body was stowed as far away as possible from where she really died, partly as a complete redirection of attention from the site of her death, and probably in PR’s mind, as physically far as possible away from any hint of an association with BR.

In the morning, the Rs knew they had to act as though the original plan to rise early and fly to Michigan was interrupted by the discovery of a ransom note. This is why the 911 call was placed when it was – they could not have delayed any longer without arousing suspicion.

Even in the (disputed enhanced tape) 911 recording, at the point in which JR is heard in the background saying “we are not talking to YOU!” , this angry comment, imo, is made for PR’s benefit –to demonstrate to her JR’s stress towards BR, for whom they have worked under great duress all night to protect from implication. This is why PR goes along with the lie later on that BR was still in bed at the time of the 911 call – anything said to protect BR.

PR goes along with all the lies, because she has participated all night long – in writing a ransom note, in staging a sexual crime scene. My theory is that JR made PR do the truly awful stuff – the staged penetration with her paintbrush (this is why, when interviewed later, PR has such a hard time “remembering” if this is indeed her paintbrush – she remembers all too well) and the ransom note (which really, who would it implicate in the long run of PR fails to adequately disguise her handwriting? Not JR!) PR accumulates so much after the fact guilt; she can never second guess their actions without admitting to the unimaginable. She has to entrench herself in their lies forever, relying on 2 things – the knowledge that she did it to save BR, and her belief that God forgives and her faith will sustain her.

This is another point – I cannot see JR ever going through any of this at PR’s urging. If PR had somehow killed JBR, I see JR asking 1,000 questions of PR about what happened, and I don’t think he would ever believe her that BR harmed JBR and they need to cover it up. She would never be able to convince him of the lie.

Many posters here at WS comment on the crime, stating that parents would only lie and cover up in order to protect their child, in this case, BR. I agree that the Rs appeared to be united in their stand. But I believe only one parent believed the child had committed the crime, because the other parent had told her so.

BR could not have written the ransom note – no 9 year old could. I don’t think my 14 year old could. BR would not have cared to swap in Wednesday panties. He is unlikely to have been involved in any sexual play with JBR at age 9. He did not, imo, have the strength to inflict the head bash. He could not, imo, have kept up a secret of this magnitude for all these years.

That is the theory. Your feedback is most welcome.

I think the dad doing the crime and pinning it on his son to the mom would explain EVERYTHING. Best theory I've read in all these years. It takes into account a lot of the case's apparent discrepancies.

 

[joeysta1]

I think the dad doing the crime and pinning it on his son to the mom would explain EVERYTHING. Best theory I've read in all these years. It takes into account a lot of the case's apparent discrepancies.

Interesting. I’d be interested what apparent discrepancies you believe are answered if dad vs son. Dad is a smart, stable guy likely very involved with job and showed he was very capable pulling strings in the aftermath. He doesn’t strike me as unstable or has a motive but I understand they don’t always make sense. Son seems obvious so interested what are the discrepancies if son complicit.

 

[Beltonian]

Sandraladeda, this is a good theory.
But sure PR would question BR really hard ( I dont believe she just trusted blindly in what JR told her about Burke), and Burke absolutely would confess crying to his mother about what happened after being interrogated ( they were fighting and he hit her or something like that), I don't think 9 yo would stubbornly lie about something that horrid or most likely he would call his parents right away after he realized he badly hurt JB. So PR reaction and her full cooperation without Burke confession does not seem to be plausible.
I am totally with you though that IMO John is the main person who did it and who knows everything. Burke is innocent...

 

[southernmimi]

I never thought Burke had anything to do with JBR's death...had to be one of the parents. Everything you've written makes sense to me except the severity of the head wound. I've read it did damage similar to falling from a third floor window. What in her room could have caused so much damage, and why would JR have that much anger towards her?

 

[Beltonian]

Another thing - PR was loving and caring mother for Burke after tragedy , what makes no sense assuming that he killed her beloved daughter. Another point against Burke involvement.

Most likely JR had to kill her (he did not plan it) with baseball bat or something like that after she said that she would tell about molesting her ...It totally makes sense...But how he did make PR to be on board with cover up, I have no idea...

 

[UKGuy]

I think the dad doing the crime and pinning it on his son to the mom would explain EVERYTHING. Best theory I've read in all these years. It takes into account a lot of the case's apparent discrepancies.

JaneAusten,
So if the case is JDI why did the Grand Jury not level True Bills against John for Sexual Assault and Murder In The First Degree?

John was charged with child abuse by neglect and assisting a suspect who he knew had killed JonBenet.

.

 

[elannia]

Hello all... I haven’t posted on here in a very long time, kinda got busy and didn’t have much time
But I am wondering, did patsy wake up or was still awake the morning JB was murdered and hear BR and JB? Could it be possible she came to the rescue and started the staging or perhaps was up and couldn’t find JB so when she went to look for her she found her after the fatal head blow but then staged the garrote, maybe JR had nothing to do with this, not defending him at all but I think she did write the RN

 

[BelleinDixie]

For me the entire case hinges on the pineapple. Patsy appeared to be quite confident that Jon Benet did not have pineapple. It's sitting on the counter, and it's in her stomach so we know she did. Who else had pineapple that night? BR. It's my belief that something happened between them, while their parents slept. Perhaps ongoing "game"? It is also his voice saying something to the effect of "what did I do"? In their minds they had no choice but to save the surviving child. IMHOO.

 

[joeysta1]

I had the opportunity to see an interview with Burke that was done a few years ago, so much after this case. Not sure what show that was. It was evident, at least in that interview, that he was more than a bit "off". He did not appear to have any empathy to his sister's death but just smirked at the any notion he might have been involved. For me, another piece pointing to what likely occurred. It seemed he was knew and was pleased he was pulling one over on everyone. Not conclusive of course but just another indication that adds up.

 

[grillin]

Hi everyone. I've been reading here for quite some time, and have read up on the Jon Benet case for many years.

I'm new here, but it's been my belief for many years that young Burke did it out of rage and on accident, and it was covered up. I think once they got home from the party, the kids were having pineapple at the table....Jon Benet was being an annoying little sister. Burke had enough of her, grabbed the flashlight on the counter, smacked her in the head, and once John and Patsy realized what had happened, they needed to create a cover up to save their only remaining child.

No way will I ever believe there was an "intruder", or that John or Patsy intentionally murdered their child.

 

[joeysta1]

Hi everyone. I've been reading here for quite some time, and have read up on the Jon Benet case for many years.

I'm new here, but it's been my belief for many years that young Burke did it out of rage and on accident, and it was covered up. I think once they got home from the party, the kids were having pineapple at the table....Jon Benet was being an annoying little sister. Burke had enough of her, grabbed the flashlight on the counter, smacked her in the head, and once John and Patsy realized what had happened, they needed to create a cover up to save their only remaining child.

No way will I ever believe there was an "intruder", or that John or Patsy intentionally murdered their child.

Agree. The theory of John doing it doesn't pan out in the aftermath. Patsy would not have reacted as she did or defended him. However, if Burke did, their reactions afterward make much more sense. They didn't defend Burke, they just took him completely out of the picture. Patsy seemed doped up afterwards which is somewhat understandable if the theory is correct. And again, John just managed the situation with his lawyers very well afterwards to not allow or at least, impede, certain avenues of investigation.

I do believe the evidence of the use of the toy train track was strong.

 

[Ringu217]

Firstly I just want to say that it's frightening on a bit of a personal level for me with this case because if Jon Benet were still alive today, we would be the same age roughly and while I was obviously very young when this first occurred, I did read into it quite a lot later on and now I'm hooked on it.

My theory is the parents. It sounds cliche but after seeing the Dr. Phil interview with Burke, I have to say that he's too socially awkward and nervous acting to be the killer. I believe Patsy woke up to Jon Benet saying she had wet her bed again and Patsy lost her s**t. She got mad at her and changed her clothes that she had worn that night to the Christmas party into dry clothes and maybe attempted to grab the child in frustration to give her one of those diapers/pull-up training pads/pants to prevent soiling the bed again (explaining why they were hanging halfway out of a drawer or closet at the scene) and Jon Benet perhaps complained of being hungry and wanting a snack, seeing as most little kids don't care for the food at adult parties because they lack the pallet and think Lunchables are a food group. Anywho -

Patsy was frustrated but didn't want to deny the child a snack so she took her down to the kitchen to eat some of her favorite fruit, pineapple. This explains why John Ramsey told police that the party they attended did not serve pineapple but pineapple was found in Jon Benet's stomach.

At some point, Patsy maybe wanted to get her daughter back to bed and also to go back to sleep after being woken up so rudely in the middle of the night but Jon Benet protested and may have smarted off.

This caused Patsy to lash out and physically strike her in the head with the heavy flashlight found in the home that matched the skull fractures later found in autopsy. Jon Benet collapsed to the floor and looked dead and was possibly dying and Patsy panicked, thinking she had killed her daughter by accident. She knew she had to cover it up - the family was too well known and too high up in society to be the poster children of baby killers.

I think she took Jon Benet downstairs to the basement and began staging the entire kidnapping scene. This further explains why all of the tools used for the murder weapon were part of Patsy's arts and crafts materials collection. Her mouth was ducktaped to throw off cops into believing that Jon Benet had been alive at the time of the crime, which turned out to be false as there were no resistance marks or tongue impressions on the ducktape. Patsy arranged the suitcase in the basement under the window and broke the glass outward to stage a speedy escape which brings me to question that if it had been an intruder, why didn't they just leave the same way they got in?

Patsy then ran to the kitchen after covering up her now dead daughter with a blanket in an effort to avoid feelings of guilt (something a lot of female murderers do to their victims) and began her "War and Peace" of a fraudulent ransom note. She used her own paper and pen and ended up starting the note over again a few times in an attempt to make it sound more believable and get it just right. Patsy attempts to hide her intelligence to throw off investigators by misspelling certain words on purpose which John later claims is the reason why he believed his wife did not write the note. She was too smart to misspell grade school words.

Before heading back to bed to plan out the morning, she leaves the ransom note in a very specific and somewhat private area of the house - the winding staircase in the back of the house (something an intruder wouldn't know existed unless they were already familiar with the layout).

Later, Patsy finds the ransom note and later tells police that she only read about 2 or 3 lines, the part that said "We have your daughter", before crying out for John and soon calling 911 along with several family friends. Patsy was definitely intelligent - she knew exactly how to screw up the crime scene by inviting random people over and allowing them to search her home before the police could arrive.

Sometime between reading the ransom note and the arrival of the police, John realizes Patsy seems to know more than she says and recognizes her handwriting to be the same as the writing on the ransom note - explaining why he adamantly denies the note was written by her despite several handwriting analysts finding obvious similarities. He had 2 choices: point the finger at his beloved wife or protect her.

After scouring the home and finding no new clues as to where Jon Benet could be, John is asked to go around the house and search it for anything unusual top to bottom. He does the opposite and makes a bee line for the basement to discover his daughter's body, which he wraps in yet another blanket before taking her upstairs, further contaminating the crime scene and body.

I believe Lou Schmitt made some decent points in his intruder argument and theory but the weight of the technically circumstantial evidence that points to Patsy is overwhelming. The partial boot impression found outside the home that matched the boots belonging to the loner neighbor down the street who commited suicide oddly right after the sheriff's press conference don't convince me of his participation due to him having been at the Ramsey home in the earlier weeks working on some yardwork and gardening.

Point blank: Patsy lost her temper, struck her child out of anger, rendering her unconscious and possibly dying if not leaving her dead already and panicked due to her socialite status.

 

[joeysta1]

Firstly I just want to say that it's frightening on a bit of a personal level for me with this case because if Jon Benet were still alive today, we would be the same age roughly and while I was obviously very young when this first occurred, I did read into it quite a lot later on and now I'm hooked on it.

My theory is the parents. It sounds cliche but after seeing the Dr. Phil interview with Burke, I have to say that he's too socially awkward and nervous acting to be the killer. I believe Patsy woke up to Jon Benet saying she had wet her bed again and Patsy lost her s**t. She got mad at her and changed her clothes that she had worn that night to the Christmas party into dry clothes and maybe attempted to grab the child in frustration to give her one of those diapers/pull-up training pads/pants to prevent soiling the bed again (explaining why they were hanging halfway out of a drawer or closet at the scene) and Jon Benet perhaps complained of being hungry and wanting a snack, seeing as most little kids don't care for the food at adult parties because they lack the pallet and think Lunchables are a food group. Anywho -

Patsy was frustrated but didn't want to deny the child a snack so she took her down to the kitchen to eat some of her favorite fruit, pineapple. This explains why John Ramsey told police that the party they attended did not serve pineapple but pineapple was found in Jon Benet's stomach.

At some point, Patsy maybe wanted to get her daughter back to bed and also to go back to sleep after being woken up so rudely in the middle of the night but Jon Benet protested and may have smarted off.

This caused Patsy to lash out and physically strike her in the head with the heavy flashlight found in the home that matched the skull fractures later found in autopsy. Jon Benet collapsed to the floor and looked dead and was possibly dying and Patsy panicked, thinking she had killed her daughter by accident. She knew she had to cover it up - the family was too well known and too high up in society to be the poster children of baby killers.

I think she took Jon Benet downstairs to the basement and began staging the entire kidnapping scene. This further explains why all of the tools used for the murder weapon were part of Patsy's arts and crafts materials collection. Her mouth was ducktaped to throw off cops into believing that Jon Benet had been alive at the time of the crime, which turned out to be false as there were no resistance marks or tongue impressions on the ducktape. Patsy arranged the suitcase in the basement under the window and broke the glass outward to stage a speedy escape which brings me to question that if it had been an intruder, why didn't they just leave the same way they got in?

Patsy then ran to the kitchen after covering up her now dead daughter with a blanket in an effort to avoid feelings of guilt (something a lot of female murderers do to their victims) and began her "War and Peace" of a fraudulent ransom note. She used her own paper and pen and ended up starting the note over again a few times in an attempt to make it sound more believable and get it just right. Patsy attempts to hide her intelligence to throw off investigators by misspelling certain words on purpose which John later claims is the reason why he believed his wife did not write the note. She was too smart to misspell grade school words.

Before heading back to bed to plan out the morning, she leaves the ransom note in a very specific and somewhat private area of the house - the winding staircase in the back of the house (something an intruder wouldn't know existed unless they were already familiar with the layout).

Later, Patsy finds the ransom note and later tells police that she only read about 2 or 3 lines, the part that said "We have your daughter", before crying out for John and soon calling 911 along with several family friends. Patsy was definitely intelligent - she knew exactly how to screw up the crime scene by inviting random people over and allowing them to search her home before the police could arrive.

Sometime between reading the ransom note and the arrival of the police, John realizes Patsy seems to know more than she says and recognizes her handwriting to be the same as the writing on the ransom note - explaining why he adamantly denies the note was written by her despite several handwriting analysts finding obvious similarities. He had 2 choices: point the finger at his beloved wife or protect her.

After scouring the home and finding no new clues as to where Jon Benet could be, John is asked to go around the house and search it for anything unusual top to bottom. He does the opposite and makes a bee line for the basement to discover his daughter's body, which he wraps in yet another blanket before taking her upstairs, further contaminating the crime scene and body.

I believe Lou Schmitt made some decent points in his intruder argument and theory but the weight of the technically circumstantial evidence that points to Patsy is overwhelming. The partial boot impression found outside the home that matched the boots belonging to the loner neighbor down the street who commited suicide oddly right after the sheriff's press conference don't convince me of his participation due to him having been at the Ramsey home in the earlier weeks working on some yardwork and gardening.

Point blank: Patsy lost her temper, struck her child out of anger, rendering her unconscious and possibly dying if not leaving her dead already and panicked due to her socialite status.

My opinion of Burke’s interview is that his answers indicate a very confident person and what appears as awkwardness is his inability to connect emotionally. Markers of a potentially dangerous person. I also believe this case could be solved if two things had been carefully reviewed: the phone calls John made (and to whom) from the evening before until Burke is whisked away, and exactly what happened to Burke in the years after. I’ve never heard facts of either which seems very odd to me as they would be crucial in any comprehensive investigation. It’s likely tracking what happened to Burke would be difficult.

 

[Beltonian]

I also believe this case could be solved if two things had been carefully reviewed: the phone calls John made (and to whom) from the evening before until Burke is whisked away, and exactly what happened to Burke in the years after. bbm

What phone call are you talking about? TIA

It seems from what is known Burke had a pretty good normal life at home till PR died in 2004.