I agree with your interpretation,
CorallaroC, but I can see where
AK might mistakenly think otherwise. Since he's been around so long (like others of us here), he should remember the early news reports that often repeated
the parents' claim that a sleeping JonBenet was carried up the stairs to bed without ever having been wakened. This was not a claim ever reported as having been confirmed or stated by Burke. His first interview was with a child psychologist who had been tasked with determining if he (a minor child) was in danger living with his parents. This was required by CPS. It was not an investigative interview. Even so, some things came out that had bearing on what many now feel was knowledge about what happened. His next interview was actually his first with investigators asking about the events of that day. It was that interview in which he first revealed that JonBenet was awake at both the Stines' and then when they all arrived home and she walked up the stairs on her own.
As for Steve Thomas' expressed opinion that Burke was "confused", I think he was simply mistaken. Not unlike his being mistaken when he essentially gave John Ramsey "a pass" (on LKL) as far as his alleged involvement. Thomas bought into the "bedwetting scenario" presented by Dr. Krugman (who just happened to be an expert in -- guess what -- "toilet rage") and (IMO) he never seriously considered possible involvement by John or Burke. Burke's saying that JonBenet had walked up the stairs was a contradiction of the story presented by his parents and therefore wasn't important to his theory. In their attempt to tell him what to say and what
not to say, the Ramseys probably didn't think to mention that he was to stick with the story that she was asleep when they got home.
Burke was the elephant in the room that most investigators didn't notice. If they even considered at first that he might be involved, they most likely dismissed it for the same reasons so many even here on this forum still continue to dismiss the idea. The other reason for not considering Burke's involvement is his legal status. I'm not trying to turn this into a post about Burke, but it's worth looking at whether or not Thomas simply dismissed him and therefore gave no credence to his contradiction. With that said, here's a Michael Kane quote from a CNN program:
KANE: Well I think that there’s-maybe we’re playing semantics here, but if there’s asuggestion that someone was targeted to the exclusion of anybody else, that’s what Itake exception to. The police investigation, contrary to what Mr. Wood said in the littleclip you just showed, the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case. And so I don’t think that youcan say that the police investigation was just solely looking at the- at Mr. and Mrs.Ramsey.