Burke: the final answer?

What Burke Knows

Ginja,
I believe Burke indicated he thought he heard noises in the middle of the night but there was no identification of what those noises were or who was making them. As for his parents looking in on him and his feigning sleep, I believe that occurred after the ransom note was found and the house was being searched.

Assuming Burke was not involved in the murder, he had to have been an exhausted kid following a long Christmas day. Therefore, it's not a stretch to assume he mostly slept thru the night, possibly awakening briefly and hearing some noises while still being half asleep. It would be wonderful if he in fact was wide awake, knows exactly what happened, and will one day blurt it out, but I certainly wouldn't be betting the farm on that.

If Burke has anything to offer, I would think it would be in his observations of his parents in the days/weeks/months that followed the murder, within the home, when their guard might have been down. I believe knowing exactly what he witnessed during that time frame following the murder could be more useful than anything he knows from the night of the murder.

 

Facts have a way

of getting jumbled in 7+ years, and there have been many erroneous things posted on all the forums. Ginja could have picked this up anywhere.

Frankg remembers what I remember, but I do not remember where I read it - maybe in PMPT or IRMI (or both). That was that Burke reported hearing some noises during the night. I do not recall that he said anyone came in his room except for when he claimed to have been pretending to sleep the next morning.

 

Yeah, I don't remember more than that either, but then, I'm on heavy pain meds so sometimes I don't even remember my own name! LOL

As for any reliability of info coming from the Swamp, we have to remember that this is a woman who has shower visions and close encounters with snakes of the weird kind. Years of commentary should suffice. Jameson = Bad dog! No biscuit

 

Yes, facts do get jumbled WY. No doubt about that!

Sincerely hope you're feeling better, DejaNu. We all go through bad spells from time-to-time.

 

Autism

Over yonder, jameson is discussing (read as "dismissing") what Judith Philips said about Burke.

Judith Philips had been asked whether Burke was autistic and she had said no because:-

There are different forms of autism and not all are completely anti-social. Asperger's Syndrome is a form of high-functioning autism and it affects sufferers (mostly boys) in varying degrees. I teach a boy with Asperger's - my fourth encounter over the years. In my experience, the boys have been delightful characters in their own different ways. Not all are withdrawn. Our school has one who is a leading light in school drama - and he is GOOD! There are situations that they struggle to cope with but they wouldn't always stand out in a crowd. My current pupil is obsessed with Lord of the Rings and I mean obsessed. I have found it necessary to incorporate Lord of the Rings into his classwork in order to get him to follow the syllabus!

Aspergers don't like change. This can mean that they always need to sit at the same desk and always get the same textbook for classwork (my textbooks are numbered). Some of them dislike noise and they cannot empathise with others to any great extent. This can make group work difficult - but not impossible. When things don't go their way, they can have outbursts and these can range from screaming and kicking to running off and hiding in a cupboard.

This need for a comfort zone may involve defining their space and getting the other kids to respect it. I heard about an Asperger's kid in a boarding school who had to sleep in a dormitory. This was problematic until a teacher had the idea of marking off a zone around the kid's bed with tape on the floor. It worked. This need to have their own space can also result in the classic symptom of them not liking physical contact or being unable to make eye contact.

When they are operating in an environment that suits them, they are just normal kids.

I have no idea whether Burke Ramsey has Aspergers or not, but if he does, then it wouldn't surprise me. There is really no reason why anyone, outside of his school, medical folks and family would necessarily need to know.

 

Very interesting Jayelles!

I find this information on Autistic children very interesting, Jayelles. Thank you for posting this.

As for Burke, when I first read in Steve Thomas' book that Burke made beeping sounds during his interview, my first thoughts were "Tourette's Syndrome." I have experienced this closeup with my brother's grandson who is the same age as Burke. I was in his company when he was ten years old, and he hated his younger sister aged 6. The whole family had to keep their eye on him, or he would have physically hurt her. He made these beeping sounds while talking to you.

At that time, I couldn't stop myself from thinking that Burke Ramsey had Tourette's. Like, Burke, this young boy was obsessed with his Gameboy, and it was very difficult to have patience with him. He was very possessive with his mother. We were walking along the promenade, and he came up behind us and bulldozed me into an iron railguard because I was talking to his mother. I haven't seen him since that episode. I just couldn't handle it. He is on medication and doing quite well, I hear.

 

Re: Facts have a way

WY, I just wanted you to know I copied the following to reply to another post on Crime and Justice, because what you had posted here stayed with me. The mind is a funny thing, isn't it?
I'm just hoping that all the intelligent posts I'm reading here will stand me in good stead wherever I go (?).

Just recently I came across a post from "Watching You" on Forums for Justice, and I don't think I could say it any better than her ...Facts have a way of getting jumbled in 7+ years, and there have been many erroneous things posted on all the forums.

Right on WY!

P.S. I wouldn't do a Jammy deal on you!

 

They can't be very happy with the situation they have on hand at the moment, Tricia. A good percentage of the public think it's possible Burke may have been involved, with many others thinking it was them. The Ramseys have brought all this attention on their son, Burke, themselves.

It seems ironic to me that although the Ramseys avoided the official investigation, under the "Colorado Victims' Rights Bill" ... they were entitled to see all the police reports from it. Is it any wonder Steve Thomas was ticked off.? Steve Thomas "JonBenét" page 119.

 

BDI theories

JonBenet isn't reported in the UK - we've had Tracey I and Tracey II and even those don't get rerun.

Almost everyone I have spoken to that has seen those two documentaries thinks Burke did it and his parents are covering for him. It surprises me because having seen those documentaries, I really don't know where that is coming from.

People think what they think and lawsuits cannot force them to think otherwise. It's a bit like a parent slapping a child and saying "You WILL respect me".

 

Sourcing

I'd forgotten about this thread...my apologies for the late response to the questions on sourcing.

As WY notes, we're going into the eighth year of this. The voices in the middle of the night has been written about, but as to where, I couldn't say at this point. But I do remember reading and discussing it.

As to the the parents coming in to see Burke, again, this was written somewhere and has been discussed.

Thomas' book is a good source of info, as well as PMPT...but I'm also thinking along the lines of other reports -- police, psychologist, investigators...and loose lips as regards grand jury testimony. But there were other sources that backed up the gj testimony...I just can't put my finger on any of this right now because all my files are packed up and put away as I'm having my entire house redone. I can't even get on the internet from home anymore! That's why I was hoping there were other posters whose memories were better than mine.

A note on the sourcing -- I'd bet my life that it all comes from "official" sources, that is, police docs and the like. This isn't info that was picked up from the tabs or tv pundits.

 

Found the information in PMPT

Ginja and WY,

I found the information in an updated paperback version "Perfect Murder Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller

Here is a brief account.

Burke Ramsey is interviewed in Atlanta for three consecutive days 10, 11 and 12 June, 1998

In Atlanta, Attorney Jim Jenkins received written consent from John and Patsy Ramsey and made sure they understood that they would not be allowed near the interview room.

Page 675

Burke is interviewed on June 10, 1998 by Detective Dan Schuler, a police officer with a gift for talking to kids. He didn't like guns and didn't carry one.

Page 676

Burke was polite and bright, but it was understandably difficult for him, because he didn't want to talk about the death of his sister.
Like any child he was defensive, which indicated he wanted to forget the past. Within a short period of time he developed a rapport with Schuler who sensed that Burke was adjusting to the loss of his sister, had made new friends and was doing well in school.

page 677

The most delicate part of the interview was getting Burke to answer questions without revealing what the police knew.
He didn't remember eating any pineapple and what time he went to bed.

Schuler asked him what happened after he went to bed. Did he have any dreams? Did he hear anything in his sleep. Burke said he had heard voices, in the distance. Maybe it was a dream; maybe not. It was so long ago, he said.

Without mentioning the 911 tape, Schuler asked Burke when he got up that morning and how he wakened. He did not want the Ramseys to know what the police knew. The plan was to confront them about the tape during their own interviews which would probably take place later in the month.

Burke said he remembered wakening up and hearing a loud conversation from down the hall or on the front stairs, Maybe his mother had come into his room but he was sure he stayed in his bed and pretended to sleep. Even when his Dad came in, he pretended to be asleep. He was concerned while he pretended, he said. Burke told Schuler he was awake when his mother made the phone call. His parents might have thought he was asleep, but he wasn't he said. When he was asked if he spoke to his parents that morning before being awakened at seven to be taken to the White's' home, he said no. He said that
he had stayed in his room the whole time.

page 678

The 911 tape seemed to say otherwise. Had Burke been coached, or had his thinking changed independently since his January 1997 interview? The detectives wondered.

On the third day. Schuler asked Burke if he had any questions, anything he wanted to know. By the way, that Rolex watch you have on, Burke asked, how much did it cost?

 

Being misquoted

jameson has copied bits of my above post for comment on her "Libelling Burke" thread. She admits that what I posted isn't libel but she has copied it anyway so that she can have a b*tch about me. Clearly, I hit a nerve with my comments about her "Fair Use" malpractice.

Seemingly, she thinks my truthful statements about my conversations with other British people who have heard of the case and seen the Tracey documentaries were "cruel and unnecessary". Cattily, she added :-

Well, jameson may not like it, but it isn't crap, it's the truth even if it isn’t my opinion. I don't think Burke had anything to do with JonBenet's death and I have said so a great many times. I have also said WHY I don't think he was involved and I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with the BDI posters. I have nothing to gain by stating that others don't agree with my POV! However, the bottom line is that I do not believe in suppressing information just because it doesn't support my own views and we all know jameson does just that!

In fact, that people would think BDI after seeing the Tracey documentaries is something that has genuinely puzzled me - others will know this because it's something I have also posted about on a number of occasions. Tracey Doc #1 was my first real information about the Ramseys case. I did eventually follow it up by going online and buying the books. I no longer have a copy of Tracey I on tape, but as I recall, Burke was barely even mentioned in the documentaries.

Also, for the record, I have discussed the BDI theory with those that I spoke to and told them why I didn't think Burke was involved. (Not that I expect jameson to acknowledge this!)

Basically, I don't know who killed JonBenet. I don't think the Ramseys did it but I believe she knew her killer and I think the motive was jealousy for Patsy. I have posted this many times. It’s what I tell people when I’m speaking to them and there are a significant number of forum posters who can back me up on this if necessary. I have posted my full theory elsewhere but I will not post it on a public forum. However, I am not so arrogant as to think that my theory is the only one which has any merit. I don’t have a need to make the facts fit my theory. When I discuss the case with anyone (and by this I mean another British person face-to-face), I always tend to tell both sides of the story – yadda, yadda yadda BUT yadda, yadda yadda. I am interested to know what others think given ALL the facts. It’s easy to present one side and to lead people to a particular conclusion. If it transpired that the Ramseys were guilty of murder, then I would be much more surprised than if an intruder were caught and incriminated, but I don’t have a burning NEED to be right about this. I am extremely interested in the discussions and the different interpretations of the evidence.

 

You're keeping Jams happy!

I never saw the Tracey documentaries Jayelles. I just checked DOI, and John Ramsey states it was aired in Denver on August 5, 1998. I didn't get involved in this case until 2001. I did see the Perfect Murder Perfect Town video, and Burke was hardly mentioned in this one either.

I never thought Burke was involved either, but I do think Patsy Ramsey caused the death of her daughter due to an accidental death, with John helping in the cover-up. jmo of course! Having said that, I would still like to see Burke questioned again, now that he is much older at 16.

The Tracey documentaries may be shown again over this way. Hope I see them!

I see Michael Tracey hired a former colleague, David Mills, in London. By any chance, is he the son of John Mills, the late actor?

As for Jameson, Jayelles, you're keeping her happy!

 

Jayelles

do you mean a friend or family member who was jealous of Patsy because of her wealth/status or someone who was jealous because he was in love with Patsy? You don't have to say your theory here, I'm just a little confused by your meaning. I have always had difficulty in understanding how anyone would kill a child out of jealousy or hatred of an adult. Why not just kill the object of the jealousy or hatred? I know the death of a child would be the ultimate revenge for a sick mind, but anyone who hated that much or was jealous to that extent surely would have given some indication of it prior to then.

So, you're not supposed to comment on innocuous things like the responses of your peers to the Tracey documentaries because it was cruel and unnecessary? I fail to see anything cruel about stating the truth. If the truth annoys jameson, and it is obvious it does, oh well. She's right, there is nothing libelous about making a statement of truth. So why does she make an issue of it?

I've been meaning to mention to you, Jayelles, that I've noted with some hillarity the vitriol directed at you, not only from the dunce at the swamp but also from the dunces at Purgatory. I assume you already know this, but just in case you ever wonder if it's you, it isn't. What has happened is you have struck at the heart of some truths certain people don't want advertised. As if that weren't bad enough, you are also a credible and unshakeable poster. They hate that about you and they will do whatever they can to belittle you as well as anyone else whom they can't discredit any other way. But, I suspect you already know this.

 

LOL

I spent all of two minutes at the swamp reading the tail end of that dopey thread. Jammy Sue is getting really desperate if that is the only thing she can come up with to talk about. It's plain stupid.

But, then, all one needs to do is check out the number of posts the last couple of weeks. The forum is dying a slow, painful death. The ones left there wouldn't last five minutes on a real forum with intelligent debate. Being witness to the death throes of the swamp is an arduous task, but someone's gotta do it. Or not.

 

WY

I know that it doesn't seem to make sense to say "jealous FOR Patsy" so I think this is a bad choice of words. I believe that someone had an obsession for Patsy. I don't think it was anything to do with John. What was John Ramsey? A successful businessman and not very much else. I see him as a 'grey man'. He was described by friends as the kind of man who disappeared into the wallpaper. I cannot imagine anyone killing JonBenet to get at John. That just doesn't make any sense to me. There were plenty of ways to destroy John Ramsey without harming an innocent child in the process.

Regarding Purgatory - I have several posters there on ignore. I'd rather watch paint dry.

 

What are your thoughts

on someone who would go to the extreme of killing a little girl because of an obsession with Patsy? So you have someone in mind, or is it a generic someone? It just seems to me that kind of extreme obsession would have manifested itself in other ways before taking the final cruel route of killing her daughter. Say, for instance, letters or stalking.

Remember the cheerleader's mother who either killed or had killed another girl to assure her daughter won a cheerleading spot? That is an example of getting rid of the competition and could be a form of jealousy.

It's a fascinating concept, one I've not read before. The question remains, though, as with any intruder theory, where is the evidence that would indicate anyone else but the Ramseys were there? I can't see where anything that the RST has offered as evidence of an intruder can specifically be linked to anyone outside the family. The alleged DNA is, to me, not evidence of an intruder at all because it can't be specifically linked to the time of the crime and could have come from other sources.

I really wish someone could give me something viable to point to someone other than the immediate family's being in the house that night. Then, I would seriously consider someone other than the Ramseys. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me...

 

hey

Maybe the swamp is slow because they are all at the funeral.

 

Oh crap

I just broke my arm when I fell out of my chair, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.