Was Burke Involved ? # 3

[Roxye]

No, this was a group of highly-specialized investigators who consulted with the folks who had the applicable technology and training to enhance the recording. You may not want to believe what you don't want to believe, but do not insult these professionals by comparing them to paranormal wackadoos.

Sorry, I was not comparing them to wackadoos. I was saying it was still subjective. 6 seconds. And even those highly trained folks couldn't totally agree on what they heard.

 

[txsvicki]

Burke seemed very bright during the interviews when a child. Smart enough to stage a kidnapping if he'd seen that scenario in the movies. I'm wondering if a child who knew how to tie knots and sail would be capable of making a garrotte then saying a kidnapper must have gotten in. One might if he thought a Nintendo game system would be taken away. Then, if one of the parents came along and staged some more, that would be staging by two people as the experts said during the program.

 

[akh]

But there is no legal reason for him to talk to the police.

There's no reason that they would risk it.

(Assuming it's true that the state couldn't require an interview via some dept).... One reason could be that in the court of public opinion, not allowing him to talk to police or some entity of the state would be a giant redflag and all but guarantee (looking like) they have something to hide, if not point the finger directly at BR. Since most theories about him being involved and a coverup all point to the family protecting him and their family from being torn apart further with the burden of guilt, legal ramifications, and losing the veneer of the perfect family (with a possibility the family had no idea BR would've been protected due to his age under the CO law), then that would all go out the window if they refuse to let him speak to police.

It would be hard to spin not allowing an innocent kid from an innocent family not to speak to authorities, even if you could legitimately argue how easily something he could say would be twisted against them. Because it would also be just as easily argued, not allowing him to talk shows the family is hiding something, potentially the BDI, and that the family isn't trying to see the crime solved.

It could have been a PR (public relations) gamble. Which makes sense if the entire point of any coverup, or a large portion of it, was public relations.

Plus, didn't the CBS show say that there were some controls put on the interview in either questions or who would be doing the interview? I can't recall exactly on that part. It might've not been a no holds barred interview...

 

[Ellie9]

Ever since the CBS show and Dr. Phil, I'm wondering if something actually happened in Burke's bedroom. The following reasons give me pause:

1. Burke said his father used the flashlight to put him to bed. They placed the flashlight in the bedroom, for some reason. Their story is bunk, so why are they needing to put the flashlight there (for allegedly innocent reasons)? They were afraid someone (CBS documentary most likely) would find out something involving Burke's bedroom and the flashlight.

2. Burke placed himself OUT of the bedroom, on Dr. Phil. That was risky. A lot of the "intruder" theorists need Burke to stay put in his room, so it's just as he said. But now he's out and about, narrowing a time-frame for the "intruder" to show up, and also making it odd that the intruder didn't just "kidnap" him, kidnap the both of them, or get seen by Burke at the very least. So he took a risk removing himself from the bedroom. Why? I think the bedroom was a scene of a crime. Maybe not THE crime, but a crime. He's distancing himself.

3. They said those train tracks that are a likely match for the marks on JBR were in the basement AND in Burke's bedroom on the CBS special. I never realized some tracks were also in his room.

4. This is more based on past knowledge, but the wine cellar is more a place to hide than to kill. I'm pretty sure she was hidden there, and/or things were staged there, but she was hit with the flashlight somewhere else.

So there you have it. I am not sure what part of this took place in the bedroom, but I can't shake the feeling that Burke removed himself from the bedroom in his "official narrative" for a reason.

 

[ThinkHard]

Please. He knows good-and-well the significance of the pineapple. This young man is not an idiot.

I agree. There was definitely an "oh" and then after he squeezed his upper right arm with his left hand, twice and then started getting real fidgety as he tried to basically deny recognizing it.

However I think the "oh" was when the memory of that night came back to him, that it wasn't just A bowl of pineapples but THE bowl of pineapples from the night his sister died....that btw he shouldn't know about because he was supposedly sleeping.

For me the "oh" and then fidgeting read as a boy who both recognized when he saw, then similatabeously remembered he had to stick to the script that he was sleeping.

 

[ThinkHard]

Burke seemed very bright during the interviews when a child. Smart enough to stage a kidnapping if he'd seen that scenario in the movies. I'm wondering if a child who knew how to tie knots and sail would be capable of making a garrotte then saying a kidnapper must have gotten in. One might if he thought a Nintendo game system would be taken away. Then, if one of the parents came along and staged some more, that would be staging by two people as the experts said during the program.

Smart yes, but also acts way younger then he is from a maturity and cognition perspective.

Regarding can a 9 year old sailor or boyscout tie knots like that? I'd say it's definelty possible. I don't think all sailors or boyscout could per se. But if you have a kid who takes a keen interest in tying knots they can teach themselves just about anything. As a former Girl Scout and a lifelong sailor I was always the type of kid who loved tying knots, eyes closed, behind my back, fancy knots....everything. But not all my peers where as good at knots as I was. But I can see Burke taking a special interest in knots.
And I've often wondered if he at any point in time owned a knot tying book. Or earned a knot tying badge with boyscout a, or advanced a level in sailing that would require knowing hitch knots to advance?

Though a garrot wouldn't be a standard sailing knot, from crime scene photos it appears to be mostly half hitches or clove hitches from what I can tell....which would definelty not be beyond the capability of a almost 10 year old boy. The garrot definetly looks like something made by a boy rather then a parent, given then seemingly hodge podge of materials.

I even wonder if perhaps BR had made the garrote previously either that exact one or another one and had experience making them. It seems like a toy a boy would craft after he saw something like it on a "cool" movie.

 

[johnjay]

Where was it said that this interview was mandatory?

I'm guessing I read that in Kolar's book, but I no longer have a copy to check. But a quick google search of "Burke mandatory social service interview" shows that Paula Woodward also mentions it in her book. I'd give a link but this forum software doesn't work too good on my computer for some strange reason. It's easy to find with the google search.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I agree. There was definitely an "oh" and then after he squeezed his upper right arm with his left hand, twice and then started getting real fidgety as he tried to basically deny recognizing it.

However I think the "oh" was when the memory of that night came back to him, that it wasn't just A bowl of pineapples but THE bowl of pineapples from the night his sister died....that btw he shouldn't know about because he was supposedly sleeping.

For me the "oh" and then fidgeting read as a boy who both recognized when he saw, then similatabeously remembered he had to stick to the script that he was sleeping.

Agree. I don't think Burke knew about or if the did, fully grasped the forensic meaning of the pineapple. But it clearly triggered a strong memory and subsequent reaction of "oh, no". Whether it was the fact that he knew the truth would force him off-script or if the fight with his sister that night really did begin with that pineapple, we may never know.

 

[hot cawfeee]

I think he was thinking #what the hell is the pineapple to do with my sister dying#

Weren't Burke's fingerprints found on the bowl as well as a glass of iced tea next to the bowl ? Iced tea is B's drink of choice.

 

[johnjay]

Weren't Burke's fingerprints found on the bowl as well as a glass of iced tea next to the bowl ? Iced tea is B's drink of choice.

Yes, Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl.

 

[hot cawfeee]

Only speculation but maybe because it was overseas and in another country?
Besides, powerful influential people (like John Ramsey) can often buy unlawful privileges (why aren't half our politicians locked up? just sayin')

Or that "anyone and everyone" in the office had access to the computers.

 

[Chewy]

(Assuming it's true that the state couldn't require an interview via some dept).... One reason could be that in the court of public opinion, not allowing him to talk to police or some entity of the state would be a giant redflag and all but guarantee (looking like) they have something to hide, if not point the finger directly at BR. Since most theories about him being involved and a coverup all point to the family protecting him and their family from being torn apart further with the burden of guilt, legal ramifications, and losing the veneer of the perfect family (with a possibility the family had no idea BR would've been protected due to his age under the CO law), then that would all go out the window if they refuse to let him speak to police.

It would be hard to spin not allowing an innocent kid from an innocent family not to speak to authorities, even if you could legitimately argue how easily something he could say would be twisted against them. Because it would also be just as easily argued, not allowing him to talk shows the family is hiding something, potentially the BDI, and that the family isn't trying to see the crime solved.

It could have been a PR (public relations) gamble. Which makes sense if the entire point of any coverup, or a large portion of it, was public relations.

Plus, didn't the CBS show say that there were some controls put on the interview in either questions or who would be doing the interview? I can't recall exactly on that part. It might've not been a no holds barred interview...

Everyone already thought they did it by the time they let him talk to the police. They already thought Patsy wrote the Ransom note and they were lying. So what did they have to lose by saying No? Not to mention that most people would understand not wanting to put an 11 year old child under police interrogation.

Again, all they had to say was "We'd prefer for his psychologist to interview him, Give us the questions and we'll have the psychologist interview him." That's actually what most parents would do anyway.

The argument people keep making is completely illogical. If they threw it together as a cover up there is no way they would let him talk to the police. ANY discrepancy could land them all in the hotseat. And their lawyers would have come down hard not to anyway.

 

[elmomom]

Everyone already thought they did it by the time they let him talk to the police. They already thought Patsy wrote the Ransom note and they were lying. So what did they have to lose by saying No? Not to mention that most people would understand not wanting to put an 11 year old child under police interrogation.

Again, all they had to say was "We'd prefer for his psychologist to interview him, Give us the questions and we'll have the psychologist interview him." That's actually what most parents would do anyway.

The argument people keep making is completely illogical. If they threw it together as a cover up there is no way they would let him talk to the police. ANY discrepancy could land them all in the hotseat. And their lawyers would have come down hard not to anyway.

I thought the interview WAS with a psychologist and not a police officer. That's what I heard anyhow.

 

[apabld]

I thought the interview WAS with a psychologist and not a police officer. That's what I heard anyhow.

I could be wrong, but I believe he was interviewed by a psychologist when he was 9, and then by a police officer at 11?

 

[Chewy]

http://www.people.com/article/burke-ramsey-1998-interview-from-jonbenet-ramsey-ae-documentary

Newly released footage from a 1998 police interview with Burke Ramsey, the older brother of JonBenét Ramsey, reveals the boy's actions the day his sister was discovered slain in the family's Boulder, Colorado, home.

The never-before-seen police interview, conducted two years after JonBenét's death, will air in a new A&E documentary about the 6-year-old's 1996 death, The Killing of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered.

In the interview, young Burke, then 9 years old, was questioned by a detective about the child pageant queen's death.

The interview was arranged by the district attorney's office and covered the events leading up to – and after – the moment JonBenét's body was discovered in the family's basement, having been strangled with a cord around her neck and duct tape over her mouth.

Sorry I got the age wrong. Even more of a reason why they wouldn't. He was 9 years old. The odds of him being 'coached" to the point that detectives wouldn't be able to see it is very small. The risk would be tremendous if he truly killed her.

 

[SecretaryGal]

What if the "intruder" was already IN the house when the family got home that night? What IF the note was written while the family was at the White's? What IF it was a person who already knew Jonbenet? So when this person appeared beside her bed, she willing went with them. JR readily admitted that sometimes doors weren't locked or doors were open when he woke in the morning. So staging did happen. By the person who was there for several hours before the family even got home did it...... Just adding something different... The basement window was just a stage. The luggage was just a stage. The intruders left by the front door after he/she accomplished what they came to accomplish. Killing that beautiful baby girl. Not committing to this, just asking how this wasn't considered?

Hey Roxye,
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am playing devil's advocate for your theory when I ask:
Why would the kidnapper write the RN in the house and not bring it with him/her?
If kidnapping, why not just leave out the front door? Why go down to the basement?
Why double-kill her and make such an elaborate crime scene - that takes the $118 K off the table.....

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Everyone already thought they did it by the time they let him talk to the police. They already thought Patsy wrote the Ransom note and they were lying. So what did they have to lose by saying No? Not to mention that most people would understand not wanting to put an 11 year old child under police interrogation.

Again, all they had to say was "We'd prefer for his psychologist to interview him, Give us the questions and we'll have the psychologist interview him." That's actually what most parents would do anyway.

The argument people keep making is completely illogical. If they threw it together as a cover up there is no way they would let him talk to the police. ANY discrepancy could land them all in the hotseat. And their lawyers would have come down hard not to anyway.

BBM

I think Kolar covered this in his book. When a child is killed in their home, it is mandatory that social services interview any other children still living in that home. The Ramsey's only choice here was to allow social services to interview Burke, or social services would have petitioned to have Burke removed from the home.

The reason the Ramsey's "allowed" this interview was because they basically didn't have a choice.

 

[otg]

Some posters here have repeated that Burke was “interrogated” by police twice within the first few weeks after JonBenet was killed. To understand why that is just not correct, the context has to be understood on each of the interactions.

When first interviewed at the Whites’ house, Patterson was trying to find out if Burke had heard or seen anything during the night that might help. Earlier in the day, John had prevented police talking to him and hurried him out of the house to White’s car. Patterson took it upon himself to discreetly ask Burke questions thinking he may have witnessed something that would help with the investigation. Any possible involvement by him in the death was not even considered at that point, so his questions didn’t delve into that. He was only trying to find out if he had heard or witnessed something that would help.

The second interview was required by DSS (Department of Social Services) because of the death of a child in her home. They wanted to make sure there was no threat to any other children in the home. The Ramseys had no choice in the matter unless they wanted to have him removed from their custody. But even at that, they (through their attorneys) negotiated with the DA to have the interview conducted only by a psychologist with no police present or allowed to directly ask questions. Here is what Kolar wrote about that interview:

The day after JonBenét’s murder, the coroner’s office spent most of the day performing the autopsy on her body. A break in the autopsy protocol took place that afternoon when Dr. Meyer called together the Boulder County Child Fatality Review Team. As noted in a previous chapter, the team had collectively established a list of things for Boulder Police and DSS investigators to pursue in their search for possible explanations of the evidence that suggested prior sexual abuse.
​

Again, like the first instance, this was not an “interrogation” and it was not something the parents “allowed” to happen (without the threat of loss of custody). By the time he was interviewed (January 8, 1997), the parents had had plenty of opportunity to coach him on what to say, what not to say. Still, as a 10 year-old, he let a few things slip that in hindsight should have given investigators reason to look closer at him even though he could never be considered a suspect due to his age.

Again, from Kolar:

At one point during the interview, Dr. Bernhard asked Burke if he felt safe in his home. There was no hesitation when he responded that, yes, he felt safe at home and was not worried about an intruder returning.

I thought it unusual that he would feel safe about his circumstances following the death of his sister. Here he was, probably 30 feet down the hall from her bedroom, when an intruder silently crept into his home and snatched his sister from her own bed and brutally tortured and murdered her within earshot of his family. There were other children and families in Boulder who were terribly afraid that they could be the next target of this monster, and Burke seemed not to give it a second thought.




​

ETA: Oops! After posting I see that Mountain_Kat has also responded.

 

[johnjay]

BBM

I think Kolar covered this in his book. When a child is killed in their home, it is mandatory that social services interview any other children still living in that home. The Ramsey's only choice here was to allow social services to interview Burke, or social services would have petitioned to have Burke removed from the home.

The reason the Ramsey's "allowed" this interview was because they basically didn't have a choice.

Yes. Paula Woodward also mentions that the social worker interview was mandatory in her book.

 

[SecretaryGal]

(bbm)The GJ's term was for 12 months. Before it ended, since they hadn't completed their investigation, it was extended for (I think) another 6 months. I believe Burke was the last (or at least one of the last) "witnesses" called to testify right after the extension began. It was right after his testimony (I'd have to look up how long) that they wrapped it up and had several short intermittent sessions, presumably to vote on the true bills prepared by Mike Kane and complete their work.

I can't say these circumstances are proof of their conclusions, but I've often wondered (even before we knew about the true bills) if what you suggest was actually what happened.

OTG, do you (or anyone else here) know if anyone who testifies for before the GJ is compelled by law to not discuss anything they said, heard, etc. during the proceedings as long as the case remains "open"?