Why do we NEED to have a group activity? I see no reason for that to be needed. If you believe that they did some part of this all together, then you need it to have been a group activity. If you believe that all three were not part of all the aspects of this case, you do not need all three of them to be involved.
And of letting him being interviewed - all who have followed this case closely and know the facts know that a statement "parents agreeing to allow him, with their consent, to speak to investigators without an attorney present" is not really as simple as you make it sound.
They tried to stop it any way they could.
Thomas' book: "So when Officer Rick French saw [Burke] being taken away, he went over to talk to the boy. But John Ramsey intervened. The father told the policeman that Burke didn’t know anything and had slept through it all, and he hustled the boy to a waiting vehicle."
He did speak to detective in the afternoon of 26th. The questions presented were about JB’s disappearance, not the murder itself.
The first interview was a child services interview conducted at a child advocacy center by Dr. Bernhardt. It was not a police interview. Of course you, as a parent, have to cooperate with CPS. They would have risked with CPS taken Burke away if they hadn't allowed a child psychologist to talk to him. They really had no choice here that would not have incriminated them even more. And, let's not forget that the child psychologist recommended a follow up and there wasn't one.
Dr. Bernhard “had a difficult time drawing information out of [Burke]. He seemed reticent to talk about his family, and she thought him very protective of them. It was her experience that kids usually talked more about their family relationships, and Burke was not displaying attachment to either his sister or parents” (Kolar).
Thomas' book: "We got very little from an interview with nine-year-old Burke Ramsey, for whom Team Ramsey had dictated stringent terms to an agreeable district attorney’s office: No police could be in the room, the questioning would be by child psychologist Suzanne Bernhard, and the session would not be held in a police building. Any possible police leverage was bargained away before the session began … Detectives Jane Harmer and Ron Gosage, a group of social workers, and Burke’s lawyer, Patrick Burke, watched from behind a two-way mirror. The detectives were able to make suggestions to Bernhard, but the psychologist asked shrink questions, and the interview became an entirely different sort than one to solicit evidentiary information … More than a year and a half would pass before Burke was allowed to be interviewed again."
The second interview was by Detective Schuler, and the only reason they agreed to that one was to try and prevent a grand jury subpoena. It was in Summer of 98, 18 months after the killing. A lot of this interview remains unreleased and confidential and there were restrictions of what they could ask him about.
Thomas' book: “Now eleven years old, Burke would be interviewed alone by Schuller while Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. The arrangement seemed designed more to make the boy comfortable than to elicit information.”
He was also interviewed by the Grand Jury. This testimony is not released and remains confidential to this day. We have only seen the charges that the GJ wanted to proceed with.
So, actually, he has only been interviewed by the police only once, and that was on the afternoon of the 26th, 1996 by Det. Patterson that John has actually claimed that he never knew out about until years later. So they did actually not give their permission here. It turned out that a relative of the Whites gave the permission instead by lying that she was his grandmother (or something like that). I'd bet that if they had known they would not have allowed it. IMO
There is also information that Boulder Police had tried to speak with Burke in 2010, but he did not agree with that. Wood then called BPD later with an objection of course, and informed them that Burke has no interest in answering questions.
And finally from Beckners' AMA: “Yes, we had two detectives fly out to meet with him at his residence to see if he would sit down and talk to us. He refused and later his lawyer told us not to contact him again.”
IMO, the only time they all actually let Burke be interviewed was the Dr. Phil show that was orchestrated and organized and scripted by them. And, IMO, it did not serve its purpose of proving his innocence in any way.
Now why all this if Burke was not at all involved in any way?
AND, IMO, you do not need to conceal any records of an innocent child from the police if there is nothing there to be kept secret.
These are all acts of protection. All this only indicates to me, that they had reasons to protect Burke. If Burke did not have anything to do with the crime there would be no reason to protect him. As a parent myself, I wouldn't have any reasons to stop police interviewing my child after my other child was kidnapped from my house at night - they use their tactics and could be able to get some info from him that I as a parent would not. I would pray that they could, so that it would help the case. UNLESS I knew the child was somehow guilty.
IMO
