Burke comes across as perfectly believable to me in these responses. I guess YMMV depending on what you think of him, I just think people wrongly try to read too much into what "normal" behavior is.
Burke told Dr. Phil that he didn't react much when he was initially told that his sister was missing. "I guess I kind of liked to avoid conflict," he said (via ABC News), "I guess part of me doesn't want to know what's going on."
As chaos erupted around him, Burke said he remained in bed. "The first thing I remember is my mom bursting into my room really frantic saying 'Oh my gosh, oh my gosh,' running around my room," he said (via Time). "I remember her saying, 'Where's my baby? Where's my baby?' I just laid there and didn't really know what else to do."
Eventually, John broke the terrible news to his son. Burke recalled that moment too. "My dad told me JonBenét is in heaven now, and he started crying, then I started crying."
Patsy and John railed against the absurdity of accusing—or even submitting for questioning—their son over the murder of his sister. In a 2016 A&E documentary called The Killing of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered, John said (via People), "The accusation that Burke somehow was this violent 9-year-old, 60-pound child and he bashed in JonBenét's head and that Patsy and I staged the whole thing to protect him is laughable."
"I know people think I did it; that my parents did it," Burke told Dr. Phil (via E! News). "I know that we were suspects."
That theory, "blows my mind," he said (via Bustle). "You won't find any evidence because that's not what happened." Burke noted, "There's been a few people who've said it's not even physically possible for a nine-year-old to do that."
https://www.nickiswift.com/24575/things-didnt-know-jonbenet-ramseys-brother/?utm_campaign=clip
reply
share
andreaahr (2334)
6 years ago
You should watch the three part mini series on CBS. The investigation was analyzed by a team of FBI agents. The amount of evidence against Burke is overwhelming. I can't possibly argue with the FBI agents. They are experts after all. They all think Burke did it. This investigative show totally convinced me that Burke is guilty. He didn't intentionally want to kill her; he was only mad and hit her on the head with a flashlight. He couldn't have possibly have known that a blow to the head with a flashlight would kill somebody. This was purely an accident and being that John and Patsy were prominent and important people in society, they did everything they could to cover up this crime and protect Burke. I strongly urge to watch this show. It came out I think in the year 2016.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
The Burke theory is not new. It's been done to death. What kills it is the strength of the DNA evidence.
DNA was found on at least two separate garments. It's a major reach to claim both of these garments were packaged at the same time, same factory, and same exact person. C'mon. That's already making the assumption that both of these garments were brand new, never washed, just out of the package that day. The DNA in the panties had a mixture of DNA from an unknown male AND Jon Benet that also matched the unknown male DNA found on the leggings. Do you really think this unknown DNA mixed with Jon Benets found in at least two separate garments was the result of the manufacturing process? That's what the theory would force you to believe if you think the parents did it, and it just defies belief.
What I really don't like, and I've seen this a lot on these crime shows, is how once cops decide they think someone is guilty everything they do is confirmation bias that just confirms their conclusion. If they hire a lawyer they must be guilty; but if they cooperate, they must be trying to convince the police they are innocent when they are really guilty! If they don't cry, sign of guilt but if they cry too much, they're acting because they're guilty. It's insane.
So I tend to disregard whatever is said on how they think a 9 year old should act. There is no one set way on how people react to trauma. What's most important is the hard evidence, and in this case the attempts to discredit the same male DNA on two articles of clothing just aren't believable.
reply
share
andreaahr (2334)
6 years ago
Do you have ideas of who killed her? The only one other person I can think of is that Santa Clause guy who visited the children when the Ramseys had a party for all the kids in the neighborhood. He gave JonBenet a note (that was found in her bedroom) that was written to JonBenet. It said that he was going to give her a special gift the night of Christmas. Every time I think about it, it just seems creepy and suspicious to me. The police questioned him but he had an alibi that night; of course maybe the alibi lied to protect him??? Who knows???? The documentary I watched was very convincing that Burke committed the crime but I wasn't there so I can only theorize about what happened. These are the only two people I have suspected. Burke more than the Santa Clause guy though....
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
The police were so hyper-focused on the Ramseys that it's impossible to know. The fact that they knew the DNA evidence cleared them after two weeks but didn't forward that report to the DA for seven months speaks for itself. When the Ramsey attorney threatened to sue the city of Boulder, only then did the DA meet and admit that it was true. Boulder police were out of control trying to target the Ramseys and issued a public apology.
It could have been Santa Claus, but based on what we know of the Boulder police, they never followed up on the alibi to ensure it was solid.
reply
share
andreaahr (2334)
6 years ago
Figures. Like you said, the police totally screwed up the case.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
My best guess, is that none of the 3-4 immediate non-family suspects like Santa Claus did it because they were all cleared by DNA. But one of them might have known who had done it in some type of deliberate collaboration or even just incidentally.
The housekeeper had a key and immediately fingered Patsy in testimony as to who she suspected did it. She asked for a loan a couple days before the murder that Patsy turned down. She and her husband were cleared by the DNA, but perhaps she knew the bonus figure John was due to receive from seeing the letter while cleaning, and recruited an accomplice to extort the Ramseys. Say the accomplice was an ex-con and pedophile while the housekeeper had no idea of his past history and had no intention of anything more than blackmail in mind. But maybe that accomplice took things too far.
The electrician in a dispute with the Ramseys was pretty sketchy too but he killed himself two days after police announced they had zeroed in on a new suspect. Even though he was cleared by DNA, maybe he had known or collaborated with the person who did do it. Unfortunately it's hard to have any faith in the Boulder police to know how deeply they explored these leads when they bungled so much from the start.
reply
share