Details About Burke's 1/8/97 Interview

[KATKAT19691]

Social services had to make a determination after the murder to satisfy Colorado law, to insure this home was a safe place for this child.
They decided it was safe after Burke's interview.( Jan.8,1997) If you are suggesting there was involvement with this agency before the murder, I will suggest your information is wrong. IMO

Edit to add..the information you have concerning bedwetting, did it come straight from the "bonita" papers?

It would have had to be that social services was involved before the murder. social services would have not been involved after the fact because the sister was murdered. social services has nothing to do with coming into your home just because there was a murder to make sure the other children were safe unless it was reported to them that burke was being abused. They do not go just because someone has been murdered. Got that information from my cousin who works for social services in bolder co. Also, from same source, Burke did have a previous history before the murder with social services.

Kat
IMO

 

[Jayelles]

Suzanne Laurion did not say Burke was cleared. She said Burke was not a suspect. The NEWSPAPER said Burke was cleared. Besides, Laurion doesn't have the authority to clear anyone.

Burke has never been cleared.

JMO

Yes it seems as though PRIMARY sources are mandatory only if the evidence points to a Ramsey, but secondary/tertiary sources are adequate otherwise!

Just an observation (LOL)

 

[sissi]

No, that really isn't true, I will question the sources pointing toward Ramsey guilt, as I hope others will question mine ,that I choose, to suggest their innocence. Sometimes it's interesting to find something that I was certain was a fact and find it was french to trujillo to steve to whomever..then yes, I will doubt it made that route intact.

from cnn:
..... on January 8, by a psychologist appointed by the Boulder police. Glick said the nearly two-hour, videotaped session was observed through a two-way mirror by police detectives, district attorney's representatives, and social service professionals.

 

[BlueCrab]

I will question the sources pointing toward Ramsey guilt, as I hope others will question mine ...

Sissi,

Dr.Suzanne Bernhard, a professional, questioned Burke for 2 hours on January 8, 1997. During the interview she was apprehensive about many of Burke's responses, including the apparent lie about not wetting the bed since he was a little kid. She determined that Burke lied about his current bedwetting based on the information she had obtained from Social Services. Dr. Bernhard was wondering why Burke would lie when most kids being interviewed would tell the truth about such things.

This is a credible source. Why do you question Dr. Bernhard's findings? In such areas as this I would think that Social Services and Dr. Bernhard's observations carry a lot more credibility, for example, than the fact that LHP apparently didn't publicly reveal Burke's bedwetting problem.

JMO

 

[sissi]

If you like your source, the "bonita" papers, that is up to you and those that feel it is credible. I could very well be wrong, but since this information is not consistent with information given by friends, neighbors ,babysitters and others that had Burke in their company for sleep overs and such, I can't buy it. LHP would have loved to say she changed Burkes sheet...cha ching..IMO

 

[Jayelles]

I haven't read all of the Bonita papers, but what I have read corroborates what is written in ST's book - suggesting they came from the same source.... which of course they did.

 

[sissi]

I would not discount anything Dr.Bernhard had to say.

 

[K777angel]

Got that information from my cousin who works for social services in bolder co. Also, from same source, Burke did have a previous history before the murder with social services.

Kat
IMO

I knew it! I'd mentioned before that on the first crock at one point when the topic is about Burke being involved or not - you can see on the screen a document and if you pause the tape and look carefully you can SEE that there had been a report about him before.

Now WHO would report Burke and why? What happened that raised red flags to someone who knew him and was concerned about him?
You don't just call social services on a child because he sticks his tongue out at you. It must have been quite a large concern. And think about how many incidents were NOT reported then.
Very interesting....

 

[Jayelles]

Well we were able to capture and analyse the documents in the third Tracey documentary and wasily find out who Mr X was. No reason why the same can't be done for documents in the first one. At what point in the documenary is it shown?

 

[K777angel]

Well we were able to capture and analyse the documents in the third Tracey documentary and wasily find out who Mr X was. No reason why the same can't be done for documents in the first one. At what point in the documenary is it shown?

I would say it is maybe half way through the crock. Maybe a little further even.
It's during the part where the question of Burke being involved is raised.
It shows a picture of he and JonBenet in Christmas outfits with a white background just before I think.
Check it out.
A brief shot of a document is shown and it is at this point you must put your tape on pause and read the fine print carefully. You will see Burke's name on the report. It's been awhile since I watched it but I'll try and watch it again today and write down what I see. You might do the same.
~Angel~

 

[Jayelles]

I would say it is maybe half way through the crock. Maybe a little further even.
It's during the part where the question of Burke being involved is raised.
It shows a picture of he and JonBenet in Christmas outfits with a white background just before I think.
Check it out.
A brief shot of a document is shown and it is at this point you must put your tape on pause and read the fine print carefully. You will see Burke's name on the report. It's been awhile since I watched it but I'll try and watch it again today and write down what I see. You might do the same.
~Angel~

I will do that right now. If I can capture it, I will.

 

[Nehemiah]

from cnn:
..... on January 8, by a psychologist appointed by the Boulder police. Glick said the nearly two-hour, videotaped session was observed through a two-way mirror by police detectives, district attorney's representatives, and social service professionals.

I have worked for Social Services before in my state, investigating child abuse, to include sexual abuse. States do things differently, so I am unfamiliar with Colorado's procedures. However, the mere presence of Social Services at the interview says to me either: 1. Burke already had a case worker with Social Services who was called in; or, 2. a juvenile judge sent a case worker to the interview for a future determinant.

If Kat's personal source is correct, and he had a history with SS, then his case worker attending the interview would be a natural and normal thing.

Guess the question still remains, though, why was SS really present?

 

[sissi]

Court TV:While the testimony of his family can be discounted as biased, their comments are supported by Boulder's Family Services department. After the murder, they videotaped a long interview with JonBenet's nine-year-old brother, Burke, while the police watched from behind a two-way mirror. Social Services later reported that there was"No indication of either physical or sexual abuse." In addition, the official police inquiry, conducted over several months, yielded, as one law enforcement official put it,n"Zero, f_ _ _ ing zero."

Boulder News:After the murder, authorities with the Boulder Department of Social Services interviewed JonBenet's 10-year-old brother, Burke, and her half-siblings. In a separate incident, a social services technician recently discovered a possible unauthorized access of computer files within the department detailing those discussions as well as other observations about the homicide. Boulder police are investigating that possible theft


My comment, was this theft ever resolved, or could it be the source of the "bonita" papers?

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

In a separate incident, a social services technician recently discovered a possible unauthorized access of computer files within the department detailing those discussions as well as other observations about the homicide.


My comment, was this theft ever resolved, or could it be the source of the "bonita" papers?

IMO

Sissi,

The Bonita Papers were not just a recap of what Social Sevices reported about Burke Ramsey. The Bonita Papers were written by scanning ALL of the BPD's stolen police reports and writing a book manuscript directly from the information in the police reports. I doubt if the computer breach experienced by Social Services had anything to do with the Bonita Papers.

The Bonita Papers were secretly sold to the tabloids and were the basis of many of the tab's "uncanningly accurate" expose stories on the JonBenet investigation.

JMO

 

[sissi]

Social Services later reported that there was"No indication of either physical or sexual abuse." In addition, the official police inquiry, conducted over several months, yielded, as one law enforcement official put it,n"Zero, f_ _ _ ing zero."

I can't understand why you can't put a little more faith in mainstream news reports such as the one above from Court TV. Social services reported....
and of course you do remember Steve was the source of "Zero ,f...."

Anyone who was willing to remain anonymous and steal information to sell to the National Enquirer should not be considered IMO a reliable source.IMO
If the name "Bonita" is her name, would you not expect her to be handled through the system...an arrest..a conviction..for this theft?" Everyone else, who stole photographs, morgue logs, etc., was arrested and punished, which seriously makes me doubt there is a "bonita".

 

[sissi]

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1999-BonitaPapers.pdf

 

[BlueCrab]

Social Services later reported that there was"No indication of either physical or sexual abuse." In addition, the official police inquiry, conducted over several months, yielded, as one law enforcement official put it,n"Zero, f_ _ _ ing zero."

I can't understand why you can't put a little more faith in mainstream news reports such as the one above from Court TV. Social services reported....
and of course you do remember Steve was the source of "Zero ,f...."

Anyone who was willing to remain anonymous and steal information to sell to the National Enquirer should not be considered IMO a reliable source.IMO
If the name "Bonita" is her name, would you not expect her to be handled through the system...an arrest..a conviction..for this theft?" Everyone else, who stole photographs, morgue logs, etc., was arrested and punished, which seriously makes me doubt there is a "bonita".

Sissi,

Her name is Bonita Sauer and she worked as a legal analyst for some high-powered attorneys in Denver (where the BPD police reports on the case were kept). There ARE people who want her arrested. I think she lives in California now.

JMO

 

[Camper]

Thank you Bluecrab! Great info - goes into more detail than Schiller did.
Although his account in his book is obviously gleaned from this report as parts of it are almost exact wording.

Sissi - perhaps you are just a bit upset because this information on Burke is not what you wanted to hear?

This again reminds me of Linda Arndt's statement of how families of incest have a certain dysfunction and that ALL the member have a "role."

I found something interesting in that report. Burke mentions as the one thing that makes him mad as his parents not buying him "expensive toys."
This murder happened on Christmas. A day when for children the main focus is getting new TOYS.
I am wondering if Burke was disappointed on Christmas and did not get something he really wanted - but saw that JonBenet did. And it festered in him. An already present jealousy of her always getting more attention and "everything she wants" (as kids like to say).
Could this have precipitated Burke lashing out in a rage at her?
He certainly wasn't afraid after the murder and certainly had no real emotion regarding his sister being murdered either.
And it is just curious to me that his parents not getting him expensive toys is on his mind just 13 days after Christmas.....

If you have never read the book, "High Risk: Children Without a Conscience" I would recommend it. It is very sad and very scary. But we unfortunately see it alot today. And it is not just underpriveleged kids - it is often kids who are "indulged." An insidious form of child abuse. And more common today with families only having one or two children as opposed to years ago having larger families with less opportunity (or money) to spoil.

-------------
This could possibly be the reason for the MISSING TRADITIONAL 'RAMSEY' CHRISTMAS HOME MOVIES OF EVERYONE OPENING 'THEIR' GIFTS. FIGHT ON MOVIE VIDEO, Hmmm, or>>>



.

 

[sissi]

She was working for a lawyer, Dan Hoffman I believe, ,who was hired some eight months after the crime by the City of Boulder. Much of the details included in these papers are fictitious which leaves me to believe they were "third hand" (or worse) police accounts. (which again leaves much up to Arndt and Thomas)
Concerning Burke, he wanted a nintendo 64 , and he got it, he was not the neglected child when it came to distributing time and gifts.
There was a report of one video camera being stolen from the house, in November ,probably by a worker, and the other one wasn't charged. I do believe Burke could accurately relate to the police the details of that morning,and would have told if a family video was taken. Instead they took "stills" which were turned over to the police.

 

[Nehemiah]

Thread from 2004...Interesting read in light of what we now know.