Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[Zephyr]

I think JR feels like he's EXPECTED to do something. So write a book. It's a heck of a lot easier than doing what Marc Klaas and other fathers of abducted and or murdered children have done. Especially when you know your child was not murdered by a complete stranger.

Don't we kind of expect that men of JR's financial and social status are supposed to get involved in some way or another? (Or maybe he actually has, but I've not heard about it?)

I often wonder what Beth Holloway thinks about JR's not being persistent about trying to find JB's killer.

JMO

 

[PrincessSezMe]

On the other hand, narcissists can't shut up and are so sure of their own infallibility and superiority, they fear no one.

:sick:

That is exactly what I think. John Ramsey IS a narcissist in the true sense of the word. He has all of the character traits...self absorbed, egocentric, uncaring and unremorseful. Not to mention untruthful.

Here's hoping one day his run-off-at-the-mouth-itis will come back to bite him, and some truth will come out. lease:

 

[PrincessSezMe]

I think we are back to the cross-fingerpointing defense from a psychological viewpoint.

I still can't see him doing something to knowingly subject his son to scrutiny.

We disagree on this one.

Narcissists and psychopaths don't care about anyone but themselves. They are their first priority, and those around them are only there to serve a purpose to them. Before I get roasted, let me explain :truce: I am not saying JR is either of these things with any certainty. Absent a psychological degree, and an examination of the subject, can't say anything for sure. But his behavior is all wrong IMO. Patsy was deceptive without a doubt, and without question played a part in the staging. But JR is one cold dude IMO. He truly reminds me of Casey Anthony...pretty well unfazed by the whole thing. PR, on the other hand, reminds me of Cindy Anthony. Cover up at all costs, and tell whatever ridiculous lie you can think of to deflect blame, all while acting like a complete nutcase.

And, I'm editing to add, quite a few people made a buck off of the death of Caylee Anthony. The same thing probably applies in JonBenet's death for some...perhaps JR and his books included.

As always MOO.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hey DeeDee

If that was the case though, that it wasn't allowed nor necessary, why did both the BPD and DA make a point of issuing statements clearing BR as a suspect? How could Beckner be forced into making that statement if it wasn't determined by the evidence from their investigation and the Grand Jury findings? Are you thinking that the Ramsey defense team forced those statements? If you have a link to info on that, I would be interested in it.

I'm not arguing that BR could ever have been prosecuted for the crime, so agree he would be protected for life, given his age. What I'm getting at is that there was little to be gained by LE spending years investigating the parents if there was any evidence that BR was the guilty party. The best they could hope for, if BR was responsible, was to prosecute the parents as accessories after the fact. I personally don't think any evidence of BR's involvement ever existed. The evidence they did have told LE that one of the parents was the guilty party and, based on the ransom note, they determined that guilty party was Patsy Ramsey. Personally I think they discounted John Ramsey's involvement, (based on the note alone), in error. I do not believe he just blindly went along with the cover up without being the least bit involved in the crime.

I speculate that the sexual nature of the cover up, and the staging of abuse, was intended to cover up the prior abuse. Whoever did that knew that things would be found out through the autopsy, and they tried to cover it up as a one-time thing that was part of the attack by an outside intruder. MOO.

Chief of Police is an appointed, not elected, position. The defense team was very well connected politically. "Nuff said about that.
ST described the elimination process as a bucket. People are taken out or put in the bucket of suspicion. ALL the Rs remain under that "umbrella of suspicion" and from a legal aspect, NO ONE who was present in the house the night of the crime is cleared, including BR. But that cannot be stated in those words (including BR) publicly. ST put this squarely on Patsy. Arndt put it on JR. So to me, that tells me that they both were involved. But according to Kolar, who was there for much of the investigation, says that ALL the Rs were being considered.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think JR feels like he's EXPECTED to do something. So write a book. It's a heck of a lot easier than doing what Marc Klaas and other fathers of abducted and or murdered children have done. Especially when you know your child was not murdered by a complete stranger.

Don't we kind of expect that men of JR's financial and social status are supposed to get involved in some way or another? (Or maybe he actually has, but I've not heard about it?)

I often wonder what Beth Holloway thinks about JR's not being persistent about trying to find JB's killer.

JMO

I think it's expected that if your child's case is high-profile, you will get involved in the missing children issue. Then again, if you're considered innocent by all, no one is going to give you flack for not doing anything. For John and Patsy, we know about Patsy's personality, we know about how John put lots of $$ into the coverup, so it feels like if they were innocent, they would have a legitimate foundation or trying to pass JonBenet's Law.

John could easily get a job commenting on crime stories on TV. Can you imagine?

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Chief of Police is an appointed, not elected, position. The defense team was very well connected politically. "Nuff said about that.
ST described the elimination process as a bucket. People are taken out or put in the bucket of suspicion. ALL the Rs remain under that "umbrella of suspicion" and from a legal aspect, NO ONE who was present in the house the night of the crime is cleared, including BR. But that cannot be stated in those words (including BR) publicly. ST put this squarely on Patsy. Arndt put it on JR. So to me, that tells me that they both were involved. But according to Kolar, who was there for much of the investigation, says that ALL the Rs were being considered.

I'm a little confused by what you're saying. Are you saying that Beckner was coersed or influenced by the defense team in some way to make that statement? He was the head of the BPD and spoke on their behalf, and he without a doubt made that statement to the media at a press conference. Also, not only was BR cleared but DA Mary Lacy also cleared, in writing, JR and PR of any involvement in the crime (erroneously IMO). She ensured that the Ramsey's will likely never be held accountable for the death of JonBenet. If there is still an investigation ongoing into the death of JonBenet it's been pretty silent, so who's to say who remains in the bucket. The lack of any new information pretty well leaves us to speculate forever and a day on who was truly responsible for the death of this child.

Kolar was not there for much of the investigation. He was only assigned to the case in 2004 (already a nearly eight year old cold case), and was taken off the investigation in 2006 by the DA who claimed he was obsessed (her words, not mine). He had a lot of access to information, and formed an opinion based on that....and sold a book. To give him credit, Beckner did read Kolar's book and said he found that a lot of it was at least factual. However, his conclusions were obviously his own.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think we are back to the cross-fingerpointing defense from a psychological viewpoint.

I still can't see him doing something to knowingly subject his son to scrutiny.

The behaviour is consistent the narcissistic personality, I should have said.

I have no clue if JR is narcissistic or not, but from the way he's writing a book all about himself, essentially, it is hard to escape that conclusion. I can go the other way, leave the tech terms out completely, and just say he's a **** **** who is shamelessly profiteering off his daughters death and fame, including running for office.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...er_runs_for_election_to_michigan_state_house/

The only reason he can get a publisher at all is because of his dead daughter and his own belief in the importance of his writings. He clearly feels people want to listen to him.

To still be writing about it so many years later, especially after lawyering up and refusing to say one word at the time, indicates a very cold personality in my humble opinion.

To run for public office, despite the fact that a good number of your potential constituents think you are a child rapist at best, murderer at worst, shows an audacity that is really quite staggering when you think about it. You would think he'd had enough of public notoriety and cameras flashing but apparently he wanted more.

I don't want to get into a debate either but when someone says him writing yet another book is somehow a sign of his innocence, I have to disagree.

I am no psychologist but his behaviour reflects everything I know about narcissm, and proves exactly zero in regard to his innocence or involvement.

I continue to be absolutely staggered by the similarities between the Ramsey case and Madeleine McCanns, 15 years later. It is like the Ramseys wrote the script and the McCanns are following it to the letter.

This new emergence of parents profiting from their childrens deaths has got to stop. It's just ugly.

Of course, my opinion only.

:cow:

 

[azwriter]

Good point. I never considered the possibility that PR didn't want to die in prison. That could have been something JR considered when they collaborated in the staging.

I would like to know where the information came from that LE was not "allowed" to name BR as a suspect due to his age. Was that from Kolar's book? From what I've read Boulder authorities cleared him as a suspect after his Grand Jury testimony, claiming he was only a "witness". The DA's office was IMO pretty pro-Ramsey, but the BPD clearly felt otherwise. I don't see them clearing BR if they had any evidence to the contrary.

Like you, I also don't see that his medical records being sealed points in any way to his guilt. Maybe there was something in those records that the parents didn't want known. Perhaps some telltale signs of abuse?

If BR was guilty in any way, why is he heard in the 911 call saying "but what DID you find?". If he were responsible, he would have known what they found. I think the parents simply didn't want him involved in any way. He likely knew details about their movements that night that would have contradicted their stories, so they claimed he was sleeping to try and deflect any attention away from him. MOO.

I can guess at a reason for Burke's question: "but what DID you find?" Perhaps he heard the words ransom note during that phone call and that's what he was questioning. Either he wouldn't understand the concept of a ransom note or would wonder why there was one found by his parents. But, I'm just guessing as I stated.

As for his medical records, maybe there was information about abuse; sexual abuse that he had done to his sister and follow up information about how he was being treated in order to stop that abuse of JonBenet.
Surely Patsy would never want that information to become public. The evidence showed JonBenet was sexual abused with someone using a finger. If that information showed up in his records, that might tie him to being the abuser. But, we will never know, I'm afraid.

 

[BOESP]

The behaviour is consistent the narcissistic personality, I should have said.

I have no clue if JR is narcissistic or not, but from the way he's writing a book all about himself, essentially, it is hard to escape that conclusion. I can go the other way, leave the tech terms out completely, and just say he's a **** **** who is shamelessly profiteering off his daughters death and fame, including running for office.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...er_runs_for_election_to_michigan_state_house/

The only reason he can get a publisher at all is because of his dead daughter and his own belief in the importance of his writings. He clearly feels people want to listen to him.

To still be writing about it so many years later, especially after lawyering up and refusing to say one word at the time, indicates a very cold personality in my humble opinion.

To run for public office, despite the fact that a good number of your potential constituents think you are a child rapist at best, murderer at worst, shows an audacity that is really quite staggering when you think about it. You would think he'd had enough of public notoriety and cameras flashing but apparently he wanted more.

I don't want to get into a debate either but when someone says him writing yet another book is somehow a sign of his innocence, I have to disagree.

I am no psychologist but his behaviour reflects everything I know about narcissm, and proves exactly zero in regard to his innocence or involvement.

I continue to be absolutely staggered by the similarities between the Ramsey case and Madeleine McCanns, 15 years later. It is like the Ramseys wrote the script and the McCanns are following it to the letter.

This new emergence of parents profiting from their childrens deaths has got to stop. It's just ugly.

Of course, my opinion only.

:cow:

I agree with everything you said Sapphire. I don't for a minute believe John Ramsey knows nothing of what happened to JonBenet.

People rationalize their behavior every day. JR may be doing the same but I can't see him doing it at the expense of a living child if that child is guilty of killing JonBenet. Remember, I did say he could be using reverse psychology.

Based on what I've seen of JR on television and read about him I wouldn't classify him as a narcissist. I could be wrong. There isn't enough information available to evaluate him from where I sit.

 

[DeeDee249]

I can guess at a reason for Burke's question: "but what DID you find?" Perhaps he heard the words ransom note during that phone call and that's what he was questioning. Either he wouldn't understand the concept of a ransom note or would wonder why there was one found by his parents. But, I'm just guessing as I stated.

As for his medical records, maybe there was information about abuse; sexual abuse that he had done to his sister and follow up information about how he was being treated in order to stop that abuse of JonBenet.
Surely Patsy would never want that information to become public. The evidence showed JonBenet was sexual abused with someone using a finger. If that information showed up in his records, that might tie him to being the abuser. But, we will never know, I'm afraid.

At his age, even then, he would certainly have known what a ransom note is. Don't forget the movies and video games kids that age play.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm a little confused by what you're saying. Are you saying that Beckner was coersed or influenced by the defense team in some way to make that statement? He was the head of the BPD and spoke on their behalf, and he without a doubt made that statement to the media at a press conference. Also, not only was BR cleared but DA Mary Lacy also cleared, in writing, JR and PR of any involvement in the crime (erroneously IMO). She ensured that the Ramsey's will likely never be held accountable for the death of JonBenet. If there is still an investigation ongoing into the death of JonBenet it's been pretty silent, so who's to say who remains in the bucket. The lack of any new information pretty well leaves us to speculate forever and a day on who was truly responsible for the death of this child.

Kolar was not there for much of the investigation. He was only assigned to the case in 2004 (already a nearly eight year old cold case), and was taken off the investigation in 2006 by the DA who claimed he was obsessed (her words, not mine). He had a lot of access to information, and formed an opinion based on that....and sold a book. To give him credit, Beckner did read Kolar's book and said he found that a lot of it was at least factual. However, his conclusions were obviously his own.

I am saying there was pressure brought to bear on several people in this case. Do you think that would ever get out? The defense team defended the Clintons in the Whitewater investigation. The Rs case ain't their first Rodeo. Lacy had no right to clear anyone, legally,and frankly that could be challenged successfully in court if the Colorado laws regarding the age at which a person can be charged with a crime were different. Beckner spoke foe the BPD, sure. And some of them resigned because of how the investigation was being handled. The chief and DA acted more like defense attorneys than impartial investigators.
In an UNSOLVED murder, anyone present at the scene of the murder CANNOT be cleared until and unless the person responsible is known, and NAMED and convicted of the crime. Obviously Lacy's fiasco with Karr proves that.
Of course Kolar's conclusions are his own- so are ST's. And Arndt's. They each find a different R in the perp's seat. But what that tells me is no matter what, it is RDI. Part of AH's dilemma is that he felt he couldn't prove which R did what. I believe he was also RDI, though obviously made no public admission of that. (he did privately, though). NO one who has truly investigated the case and read ALL the files is IDI. The Judge who backed up Lacy's irresponsible comments never read all the evidence.

 

[BOESP]

I've given this issue with John Ramsey some more thought. If BDI and in the beginning JR was helping cover-up that fact why would he now bring this back up via a new book and risk exposing Burke again? If he cared enough to cover for Burke back then why not now? The narcissism theory wouldn't explain his prior actions of covering for Burke.

I can't see Patsy covering for anyone but Burke or herself.

I can see John covering for Patsy or Burke or one of his other children.

It appears, in my opinion, that Patsy is the best candidate. I could be wrong.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

I am saying there was pressure brought to bear on several people in this case. Do you think that would ever get out? The defense team defended the Clintons in the Whitewater investigation. The Rs case ain't their first Rodeo. Lacy had no right to clear anyone, legally,and frankly that could be challenged successfully in court if the Colorado laws regarding the age at which a person can be charged with a crime were different. Beckner spoke foe the BPD, sure. And some of them resigned because of how the investigation was being handled. The chief and DA acted more like defense attorneys than impartial investigators.
In an UNSOLVED murder, anyone present at the scene of the murder CANNOT be cleared until and unless the person responsible is known, and NAMED and convicted of the crime. Obviously Lacy's fiasco with Karr proves that.
Of course Kolar's conclusions are his own- so are ST's. And Arndt's. They each find a different R in the perp's seat. But what that tells me is no matter what, it is RDI. Part of AH's dilemma is that he felt he couldn't prove which R did what. I believe he was also RDI, though obviously made no public admission of that. (he did privately, though). NO one who has truly investigated the case and read ALL the files is IDI. The Judge who backed up Lacy's irresponsible comments never read all the evidence.

DeeDee

Very well said, and your points are taken. I can never give Hunter a pass though. I have never before, or since, seen a murder investigation where the suspects are allowed the kind of access the R's had to investigative evidence. Maybe Hunter sat the fence on who specifically was involved, but he sure did appear to be in bed with the defense in this case. It's my understanding that THAT was the reason ST resigned. Arndt resigned because she felt she was made a scapegoat in the investigation, and the BPD did not support her. Smit resigned because he had an unshakable belief that the R's were innocent, and felt they were being unjustly accused. He was supposed to be the DA's golden boy given his track record for getting convictions in more than 200 previous cases. He was apparently not too well received by other investigators in the case, who thought he was past his prime and should retire (they did not word it as nicely). Kolar resigned because the DA pretty well rolled her eyes at his findings. All very different reasons for these investigators to throw in the towel, and I agree that blame can be pointed at both LE and the DA's office for the fact that this case never went anywhere. They were working at odds with each other.

It's also interesting to note that ST had never before investigated a homicide. He was involved in narcotics previous to being brought in on the Ramsey case. And yet, he came to the conclusion that a RDI, while a seasoned homicide investigator came to a totally different conclusion. Why Lou Smit doggedly insisted that the R's were innocent, given the amount of evidence that there was NO intruder, is puzzling.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

I've given this issue with John Ramsey some more thought. If BDI and in the beginning JR was helping cover-up that fact why would he now bring this back up via a new book and risk exposing Burke again? If he cared enough to cover for Burke back then why not now? The narcissism theory wouldn't explain his prior actions of covering for Burke.

I can't see Patsy covering for anyone but Burke or herself.

I can see John covering for Patsy or Burke or one of his other children.

It appears, in my opinion, that Patsy is the best candidate. I could be wrong.

I agree that there are many things that point to PR's guilt in this crime. Who puts on the same black velvet pants you wore to a Christmas party the night before to go on a casual flight to the cottage? And then there's the ransom note that is supposed to point clearly to PR. I've visited a website moderated by a poster called DocG, where he is convinced he's solved the crime and that PR is completely innocent. His basis for this is the 911 call, which he claims blew the whole cover-up, and efforts at staging. Why call 911 before you have all your ducks in a row? He is CLEARLY JDI, and makes no bones about it.

My thoughts don't quite fit with that. I think that there was no sleep to be had by either parent that night, and that's why PR was found in the same clothes she was wearing the night before. I think that JR showered and cleaned up to remove evidence, and that's why he was NOT wearing the same clothes as the night before. He was unable to produce the khaki pants he was wearing to the White's the night before when LE requested them.

I believe that investigators put too much emphasis on the ridiculous ransom note, and overlooked other subtle clues that pointed to the guilty person. JR lied about a lot of things...as many or more than PR did. Plus, he was the one who miraculously discovered the body within minutes of being given the opportunity by Arndt. Why he seems to be given a pass as being innocent of the actual crime is beyond me.

 

[BOESP]

I agree that there are many things that point to PR's guilt in this crime. Who puts on the same black velvet pants you wore to a Christmas party the night before to go on a casual flight to the cottage? And then there's the ransom note that is supposed to point clearly to PR. I've visited a website moderated by a poster called DocG, where he is convinced he's solved the crime and that PR is completely innocent. His basis for this is the 911 call, which he claims blew the whole cover-up, and efforts at staging. Why call 911 before you have all your ducks in a row? He is CLEARLY JDI, and makes no bones about it.

My thoughts don't quite fit with that. I think that there was no sleep to be had by either parent that night, and that's why PR was found in the same clothes she was wearing the night before. I think that JR showered and cleaned up to remove evidence, and that's why he was NOT wearing the same clothes as the night before. He was unable to produce the khaki pants he was wearing to the White's the night before when LE requested them.

I believe that investigators put too much emphasis on the ridiculous ransom note, and overlooked other subtle clues that pointed to the guilty person. JR lied about a lot of things...as many or more than PR did. Plus, he was the one who miraculously discovered the body within minutes of being given the opportunity by Arndt. Why he seems to be given a pass as being innocent of the actual crime is beyond me.

More good points PrincessSezMe. But Patsy's fibers in the ligature and other places (and John's fibers in JonBenet's crotch area) tell me Patsy at least helped with the ligature and maybe did all of it. If she could do that .........

 

[PrincessSezMe]

More good points PrincessSezMe. But Patsy's fibers in the ligature and other places (and John's fibers in JonBenet's crotch area) tell me Patsy at least helped with the ligature and maybe did all of it. If she could do that .........

Exactly why I believe JR is NOT innocent. Why were JR's fibers there, in such a conspicuous place, given the nature of the crime? I don't disagree with you that the fiber evidence, like much else in this case, could point either way :dunno: What I haven't ever found, is any fiber evidence from BR being found on JB's body. Makes me think that BR had no contact with JB, but I'm not a CSI LoL.

I see the fiber evidence as giving an indication of who molested JB. JR's fibers were found in her underwear Yes, PR's fibers were found in the garrotte, but I believe I read it was just one fiber? There could be an innocent reason for that (fibers found from PR were found on the OUTSIDE of JB's clothing and could have been transferred there at any time through innocent contact). But JR's fibers were found INSIDE her clothing. To me that's a clue. MOO.

 

[BOESP]

Exactly why I believe JR is NOT innocent. Why were JR's fibers there, in such a conspicuous place, given the nature of the crime? I don't disagree with you that the fiber evidence, like much else in this case, could point either way :dunno: What I haven't ever found, is any fiber evidence from BR being found on JB's body. Makes me think that BR had no contact with JB, but I'm not a CSI LoL.

I see the fiber evidence as giving an indication of who molested JB. JR's fibers were found in her underwear Yes, PR's fibers were found in the garrotte, but I believe I read it was just one fiber? There could be an innocent reason for that (fibers found from PR were found on the OUTSIDE of JB's clothing and could have been transferred there at any time through innocent contact). But JR's fibers were found INSIDE her clothing. To me that's a clue. MOO.

Somewhere I read that there were several of Patsy's fibers found. It may have been in the case files library at Forums For Justice. My memory is not much anymore. :banghead:

I don't recall reading how many of John's fibers were found. If there were fibers from Burke would that information have been made public in light of Colorado juvenile offender laws? I just don't know.

That cross-finger-pointing defense sounds like a good reason Alex Hunter did not proceed, as good as a BDI-but-can't-be-prosecuted scene. One or more of the Ramseys knows what happened.

Frankly, I'd guess that the BPD and DA office in charge at the time of JonBenet's death have a pretty good idea who did what.

Regardless, I find John Ramsey totally disgusting for trying to make money off his dead daughter.

 

[DeeDee249]

Exactly why I believe JR is NOT innocent. Why were JR's fibers there, in such a conspicuous place, given the nature of the crime? I don't disagree with you that the fiber evidence, like much else in this case, could point either way :dunno: What I haven't ever found, is any fiber evidence from BR being found on JB's body. Makes me think that BR had no contact with JB, but I'm not a CSI LoL.

I see the fiber evidence as giving an indication of who molested JB. JR's fibers were found in her underwear Yes, PR's fibers were found in the garrotte, but I believe I read it was just one fiber? There could be an innocent reason for that (fibers found from PR were found on the OUTSIDE of JB's clothing and could have been transferred there at any time through innocent contact). But JR's fibers were found INSIDE her clothing. To me that's a clue. MOO.

There was more than one fiber belonging to Patsy and they were found in more than one place- the inside of the duct tape, ENTWINED in the cord knot (as opposed to merely laying on the surface- VERY different explanation as to how they might have gotten there) and in the paint tote. About that paint tote- Patsy was asked whether she ever wore that dressy jacket when painting, or in the basement. She said no. And it was LHP whom Patsy asked to move the tote to the basement a few days before, on the 23rd, the day of Patsy's Christmas party. So the discovery of Patsy's jacket fibers THERE is very incriminating. According to Patsy herself, she did not handle that paint tote when wearing that jacket.
As to JR's fibers inside the panty crotch- I have always felt that it was JR who put them on her that night AFTER her death and after she was wiped down. We have that rogue DNA SKIN CELLS on the waistband of both the panties and her longjohns. The Rs shook a lot of hands that day, touched a lot of things at that party- wine glasses, silverware, doorknobs, etc. Lots of ways to pick up the skin cells. A real intruder would have left them all over the crime scene, as well as the surfaces of the window he supposedly climbed through, the suitcase he supposedly moved, etc. Yet- nothing else was found.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Somewhere I read that there were several of Patsy's fibers found. It may have been in the case files library at Forums For Justice. My memory is not much anymore. :banghead:

I don't recall reading how many of John's fibers were found. If there were fibers from Burke would that information have been made public in light of Colorado juvenile offender laws? I just don't know.

That cross-finger-pointing defense sounds like a good reason Alex Hunter did not proceed, as good as a BDI-but-can't-be-prosecuted scene. One or more of the Ramseys knows what happened.

Frankly, I'd guess that the BPD and DA office in charge at the time of JonBenet's death have a pretty good idea who did what.

Regardless, I find John Ramsey totally disgusting for trying to make money off his dead daughter.

I did read that the fiber evidence wasn't that conclusive. I will try to go back and find where I read that. I agree that more than one of them knows what happened, but I disagree that the BPD or DA have any real idea of who did what. When the R's lawyered up it completely stymied the investigation IMO. That plus the DA's mollycoddling of the suspects resulted in a dead end investigation.

Yes, JR is disgusting for continuing to gain notoriety and monetary gain through the death of JonBenet. Speaks volumes to me about his character. MOO.

 

[azwriter]

I will never forget what he told the therapist,that once you tell a secret it's no longer a secret,it bugs me.Who taught him that (well done) and why.

madeleine, that's an excellent question. And it seems that reasoning made quite an impression on Burke.

I can only guess, but my vote would go to his grandma, Patsy's mom, as being the one to tell Burke these words of wisdom. I always figured kids his age had what I called "Mother Deafness." They would hear what mom said, but not heed it. But grandparents seem to have a way to make an impression on youngsters.

"Once you tell a secret, it's no longer a secret," sounds like an ideal code for any kid. To me it's like a get-out-of-jail-free card for children who like to grab on to a reason not to tell the truth when confronted by a parent when something wrong was done and the parent is trying to get to the bottom of it. "Who was in the cookie jar?" Can't be answered since the child has been taught secrets are to be kept. Right or wrong. To me this would be a lesson against being honest or having honor.

just my thoughts on the subject.