Was Burke Involved? # 4

[otg]

Would I be right in thinking everyone in the BDI camp thinks there's nothing strange about parents sending a child off to school, knowing he's strangled and beaten his sister to death?

I don't remember exactly how long after Christmas it was before Burke returned to school, but I remember that while he was still not going, there was speculation in the press about how long it would be before he was allowed to return. Still under scrutiny for anything out of the ordinary, the Ramseys probably felt pressured to return him as soon as possible. Even then it was under the watchful eye of Susan Stine and (we can only speculate) constant reminders of how important it was for him not to talk about anything surrounding his sister's death.

As far as those who are "in the BDI camp" thinking alike, I can assure you (as one of those campers) we do not. My personal belief is that Burke did not intend to kill his sister. I don't think he did it out of jealousy over the attention she got, or anger that she took a piece of pineapple, or resentment that he didn't get a bicycle for Christmas. Accidents happen all the time between siblings -- not always with such devastating results as happened in this case, but often because one of them is doing something they shouldn't. Regardless, I don't think he was ever a threat to any other children he went to school with.

Burke may come across a little strange today, and he may have been a little "different" back in 1996. But I can't help but wonder how much of his demeanor today is the result of the way he was brought up as a result of what happened when his parents decided to make it look like JonBenet was killed by someone else. I can only imagine how tough it was on him afterwards, and I have nothing but sympathy for him. I still maintain that no matter what he did, it is ultimately the fault of his parents that it happened. And that's somewhat like what the RGJ's decision on true bills tells us they thought after seeing much more than we know.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

WOW! Thanks kanzz.

I'd also forgotten about those books you mentioned in your earlier post, the ones given to Patsy and John by her family; books about helping a troubled child.

Which means, if my amateur sleuthing can be relied upon, (and I'm not saying that it can) that BR wasn't angry and aggressive at school because of his memories of that night. He was already angry and aggressive, which leads me believe that he probably did kill his sister.

And this may sound a bit off the wall but I have often wondered if some kind of deal was made between the R's lawyers and AH, who (I think) must have known that BR was the culprit......that BR undergoes intensive therapy and must be supervised at all times, especially around other children. Maybe that was the deal.

Bingo.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't remember exactly how long after Christmas it was before Burke returned to school, but I remember that while he was still not going, there was speculation in the press about how long it would be before he was allowed to return. Still under scrutiny for anything out of the ordinary, the Ramseys probably felt pressured to return him as soon as possible. Even then it was under the watchful eye of Susan Stine and (we can only speculate) constant reminders of how important it was for him not to talk about anything surrounding his sister's death.

As far as those who are "in the BDI camp" thinking alike, I can assure you (as one of those campers) we do not. My personal belief is that Burke did not intend to kill his sister. I don't think he did it out of jealousy over the attention she got, or anger that she took a piece of pineapple, or resentment that he didn't get a bicycle for Christmas. Accidents happen all the time between siblings -- not always with such devastating results as happened in this case, but often because one of them is doing something they shouldn't. Regardless, I don't think he was ever a threat to any other children he went to school with.

Burke may come across a little strange today, and he may have been a little "different" back in 1996. But I can't help but wonder how much of his demeanor today is the result of the way he was brought up as a result of what happened when his parents decided to make it look like JonBenet was killed by someone else. I can only imagine how tough it was on him afterwards, and I have nothing but sympathy for him. I still maintain that no matter what he did, it is ultimately the fault of his parents that it happened. And that's somewhat like what the RGJ's decision on true bills tells us they thought after seeing much more than we know.

Yes, my point wasn't that all BDI think alike, it was to try to elicit opinions from BDIers on specifically whether it was odd or not that his parents sent him back to school.

I really can't see how you arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't ever a threat to anyone else, adult or child, having bludgeoned, sexually interfered with and strangled another, let alone one he had some form of a bond with, be that a loving or unloving bond. I can't see any of the acts as accidental.

 

[Tortoise]

And how exactly were they saving him, if he was too young to be prosecuted anyway?

He would have had therapy and they would have been in the clear for murder themselves. They could very easily have said since that night we have discovered what he did, and he is receiving treatment. How is that 'losing their one remaining son' to use the phrase often used?

 

[Miz Adventure]

And how exactly were they saving him, if he was too young to be prosecuted anyway?

He would have had therapy and they would have been in the clear for murder themselves. They could very easily have said since that night we have discovered what he did, and he is receiving treatment. How is that 'losing their one remaining son' to use the phrase often used?

They were trying to save themselves as well. How would it look to friends, family, the church - and most of all - the police - if their 6 year old child was found garrotted in a locked house with only the family present?

The world would hear that their 10 year old son was responsible. Once those pageant videos leaked out it would be world news. The family could never hope to have any kind of normal life after that. BR would be under the microscope...and so would his strange family.

This is why they had to lie....and keep on lying.

 

[Tortoise]

They were trying to save themselves as well. How would it look to friends, family, the church - and most of all - the police - if their 6 year old child was found garrotted in a locked house with only the family present?

The world would hear that their 10 year old son was responsible. Once those pageant videos leaked out it would be world news. The family could never hope to have any kind of normal life after that. BR would be under the microscope...and so would his strange family.

This is why they had to lie....and keep on lying.

That is exactly what happened, they didn't change that by their actions.

They have always been suspected. It's not like they got to have a respected reputation with the world is it? It was world news, the pageant videos were leaked, they didn't have a normal life again etc.

 

[kanzz]

Yes, my point wasn't that all BDI think alike, it was to try to elicit opinions from BDIers on specifically whether it was odd or not that his parents sent him back to school.

I really can't see how you arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't ever a threat to anyone else, adult or child, having bludgeoned, sexually interfered with and strangled another, let alone one he had some form of a bond with, be that a loving or unloving bond. I can't see any of the acts as accidental.

Originally Posted by Tortoise
Would I be right in thinking everyone in the BDI camp thinks there's nothing strange about parents sending a child off to school, knowing he's strangled and beaten his sister to death?

BBM

Your questions somewhat imply that all BDI people think alike to some extent - because not all BDI folks think BR did all of it, for one thing. My guess is that most in the BDI camp think there was at least some act of violence, if not all of it. Some might think the death was accidental, others do not.

It was possibly his therapist who helped determine that he wasn't a risk to anyone else. JBR was his adversary and the object of his frustration. His father was away from home most of the time and JBR was getting most of his mother's attention. I doubt that he was a particular risk to anyone else. I don't see it as additionally peculiar that these peculiar parents eventually sent him back to school. He needed to be in school and they obviously weren't fit to home school him, imo.

 

[kanzz]

And how exactly were they saving him, if he was too young to be prosecuted anyway?

He would have had therapy and they would have been in the clear for murder themselves. They could very easily have said since that night we have discovered what he did, and he is receiving treatment. How is that 'losing their one remaining son' to use the phrase often used?

What is the likelihood that they actually knew during that night that the age of innocence in Colorado was 10 and that BR could not be prosecuted for this crime? Slim, imo.

And by the time they learned about that law, it was too late. They had already committed the crimes of false report of a kidnapping (a federal offense, as the FBI was involved) and accessory after the fact. They dug themselves in deep the moment PR made that 911 call.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

I don't remember exactly how long after Christmas it was before Burke returned to school, but I remember that while he was still not going, there was speculation in the press about how long it would be before he was allowed to return. Still under scrutiny for anything out of the ordinary, the Ramseys probably felt pressured to return him as soon as possible. Even then it was under the watchful eye of Susan Stine and (we can only speculate) constant reminders of how important it was for him not to talk about anything surrounding his sister's death.

As far as those who are "in the BDI camp" thinking alike, I can assure you (as one of those campers) we do not. My personal belief is that Burke did not intend to kill his sister. I don't think he did it out of jealousy over the attention she got, or anger that she took a piece of pineapple, or resentment that he didn't get a bicycle for Christmas. Accidents happen all the time between siblings -- not always with such devastating results as happened in this case, but often because one of them is doing something they shouldn't. Regardless, I don't think he was ever a threat to any other children he went to school with.

Burke may come across a little strange today, and he may have been a little "different" back in 1996. But I can't help but wonder how much of his demeanor today is the result of the way he was brought up as a result of what happened when his parents decided to make it look like JonBenet was killed by someone else. I can only imagine how tough it was on him afterwards, and I have nothing but sympathy for him. I still maintain that no matter what he did, it is ultimately the fault of his parents that it happened. And that's somewhat like what the RGJ's decision on true bills tells us they thought after seeing much more than we know.

Good post.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[InstantProof]

And how exactly were they saving him, if he was too young to be prosecuted anyway?

He would have had therapy and they would have been in the clear for murder themselves. They could very easily have said since that night we have discovered what he did, and he is receiving treatment. How is that 'losing their one remaining son' to use the phrase often used?

I think they must have felt some guilt for the situation. Patsy obsessed with JB and John busy with work. Their reputation was also clearly important to them. They would not want to be seen as parents that raised a killer. There's also possibly other family dysfunction that played a part in this that they wanted to keep hidden.

 

[Miz Adventure]

That is exactly what happened, they didn't change that by their actions.

They have always been suspected. It's not like they got to have a respected reputation with the world is it? It was world news, the pageant videos were leaked, they didn't have a normal life again etc.

Yes but what I am saying is they may have thought that if the police took their 'intruder' story at face value and didn't look at the family as being responsible then they would get away scot-free. They may have hoped the story would not be big news. Maybe the world would never know about her death or the fact she was in beauty pageants?

Then when the kidnapper failed to call, and the investigations proved fruitless, then the case could be wound down and forgotten and become a cold case and the R's could return to their lifestyle, and so could BR.

The videos of JBR in her pageants only became known when the death started to look suspicious and the news hounds started snooping and finding evidence that the family may be responsible.

 

[Ambitioned]

BBM

Your questions somewhat imply that all BDI people think alike to some extent - because not all BDI folks think BR did all of it, for one thing. My guess is that most in the BDI camp think there was at least some act of violence, if not all of it. Some might think the death was accidental, others do not.

BBM = 'Aint that the truth!!! There are some BDI in my family and none of us agree on HOW Burke did it or at which point PR or PR/JR stepped in. I would nothing more than a real life roundtable of all BDI in here. It would be most fascinating!

 

[otg]

Yes, my point wasn't that all BDI think alike, it was to try to elicit opinions from BDIers on specifically whether it was odd or not that his parents sent him back to school.

I knew it wasn't the main point of what you were asking, but because of how you worded the question:

Would I be right in thinking everyone in the BDI camp thinks there's nothing strange about parents sending a child off to school, knowing he's strangled and beaten his sister to death?

...I had to begin answering you by pointing out that I was speaking only for myself and not "everyone in the BDI camp."

I really can't see how you arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't ever a threat to anyone else, adult or child, having bludgeoned, sexually interfered with and strangled another, let alone one he had some form of a bond with, be that a loving or unloving bond.

I didn't say (and I don't think) he was no threat to anyone else. I simply don't feel that, as closely as he was being watched, the therapy he was being given, and my belief that he caused her death unintentionally, he was that much of a threat to others. All things are relative. Do I think under the circumstances I mentioned it was likely to happen again. (No.) Would I have wanted my daughter around him after that happened? (Hell, no.) Was he more likely than some other child in his school to do something like that again if given the opportunity? (IMO, yes.)

I can't see any of the acts as accidental.

Neither can I see everything as a complete accident. But neither do I think he intended for her to die. Somewhere between intentional and accidental, there can be an act that is deliberate with unintended consequences. That is what I believe happened even though not everyone agrees with me on how it happened.

 

[kanzz]

BBM = 'Aint that the truth!!! There are some BDI in my family and none of us agree on HOW Burke did it or at which point PR or PR/JR stepped in. I would nothing more than a real life roundtable of all BDI in here. It would be most fascinating!

Right?! Fascinating and Fun! I might not agree with the theories of others, but I defend their right to their theories. They are all any of us have, after all. It's not much fun to argue about it.

 

[kanzz]

I knew it wasn't the main point of what you were asking, but because of how you worded the question:...I had to begin answering you by pointing out that I was speaking only for myself and not "everyone in the BDI camp."

I didn't say (and I don't think) he was no threat to anyone else. I simply don't feel that, as closely as he was being watched, the therapy he was being given, and my belief that he caused her death unintentionally, he was that much of a threat to others. All things are relative. Do I think under the circumstances I mentioned it was likely to happen again. (No.) Would I have wanted my daughter around him after that happened? (Hell, no.) Was he more likely than some other child in his school to do something like that again if given the opportunity? (IMO, yes.)

Neither can I see everything as a complete accident. But neither do I think he intended for her to die. Somewhere between intentional and accidental, there can be an act that is deliberate with unintended consequences. That is what I believe happened even though not everyone agrees with me on how it happened.

BBM

Good points, otg. And now that you mention it, I think I was giving BR far too much credit. And you're right - All things are relative.

 

[Tortoise]

I knew it wasn't the main point of what you were asking, but because of how you worded the question:...I had to begin answering you by pointing out that I was speaking only for myself and not "everyone in the BDI camp."



I didn't say (and I don't think) he was no threat to anyone else. I simply don't feel that, as closely as he was being watched, the therapy he was being given, and my belief that he caused her death unintentionally, he was that much of a threat to others. All things are relative. Do I think under the circumstances I mentioned it was likely to happen again. (No.) Would I have wanted my daughter around him after that happened? (Hell, no.) Was he more likely than some other child in his school to do something like that again if given the opportunity? (IMO, yes.)


Neither can I see everything as a complete accident. But neither do I think he intended for her to die. Somewhere between intentional and accidental, there can be an act that is deliberate with unintended consequences. That is what I believe happened even though not everyone agrees with me on how it happened.

I'm wondering about professional ethics now, and if anyone working with a child comes to know they've done such things is duty bound to share information with police agencies?

 

[kanzz]

I'm wondering about professional ethics now, and if anyone working with a child comes to know they've done such things is duty bound to share information with police agencies?

It's the law. Unfortunately, people will sometimes turn a blind eye, mostly out of fear of retribution. I know this. I've witnessed it first hand.

It's a "duty to report". Many people fall under "mandated reporter".
"All states require that if certain defined persons know or suspect that child abuse is going on, they report the abuse to the authorities. These mandatory reporting laws were instituted to help promote awareness of child abuse and early intervention, if possible. To that effect, the laws make reporting quite straightforward.
...anyone and everyone who knows or suspects that child abuse has occurred is required by law to make a report."
underlined by me
source:
http://family.findlaw.com/child-abuse/checklist-are-you-a-mandatory-reporter-of-child-abuse.html

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I'm not necessarily BDI but if that is the case, I agree mostly with otg. I don't see much of an issue with Burke being sent to school. He was 9, almost 10 at the time and his parents gave him the easiest alibi: I was asleep, I didn't hear anything, I don't know anything. They completely took him out of the equation that morning so he wouldn't have to remember a complicated lie. Immediately sending him out of the house was risky (but imo better than keeping him on the scene) but once the police and psych interviews were over, all he had to do was not deviate from the story and not confess. Kids can keep secrets very well if necessary. As for being a danger to other kids at school, who knows. If BDI, clearly it wasn't enough of a concern to his parents that it kept him out of school and they were in a better position to judge than we are.

The thing for me is, all three of them are lying therefore all three of them are implicated. Burke's voice can be heard on the tape. Even Burke admitted that he heard what sounded like his voice on the tape to the grand jury, though he denied actually being in the room. That doesn't add up. He denied having anything to do with the pineapple bowl with his fingerprints on it. Burke has been removed from the timeline that night and morning for a reason, either because he did it or he knows too much. But he's been part of the deception since minute one when he pretended to be asleep for the police despite being downstairs when the 911 call was made minutes before.

Maybe a good question would be, if he has nothing to do with it and no knowledge of the crime would his parents put him in the position of having to lie about being awake that morning? Maybe they would. I'm leaning towards wouldn't, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not necessarily BDI but if that is the case, I agree mostly with otg. I don't see much of an issue with Burke being sent to school. He was 9, almost 10 at the time and his parents gave him the easiest alibi: I was asleep, I didn't hear anything, I don't know anything. They completely took him out of the equation that morning so he wouldn't have to remember a complicated lie. Immediately sending him out of the house was risky (but imo better than keeping him on the scene) but once the police and psych interviews were over, all he had to do was not deviate from the story and not confess. Kids can keep secrets very well if necessary. As for being a danger to other kids at school, who knows. If BDI, clearly it wasn't enough of a concern to his parents that it kept him out of school and they were in a better position to judge than we are.

The thing for me is, all three of them are lying therefore all three of them are implicated. Burke's voice can be heard on the tape. Even Burke admitted that he heard what sounded like his voice on the tape to the grand jury, though he denied actually being in the room. That doesn't add up. He denied having anything to do with the pineapple bowl with his fingerprints on it. Burke has been removed from the timeline that night and morning for a reason, either because he did it or he knows too much. But he's been part of the deception since minute one when he pretended to be asleep for the police despite being downstairs when the 911 call was made minutes before.

Maybe a good question would be, if he has nothing to do with it and no knowledge of the crime would his parents put him in the position of having to lie about being awake that morning? Maybe they would. I'm leaning towards wouldn't, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware he lied about being asleep during the 911 call. When did he say that?

 

[Tortoise]

It's the law. Unfortunately, people will sometimes turn a blind eye, mostly out of fear of retribution. I know this. I've witnessed it first hand.

It's a "duty to report". Many people fall under "mandated reporter".
"All states require that if certain defined persons know or suspect that child abuse is going on, they report the abuse to the authorities. These mandatory reporting laws were instituted to help promote awareness of child abuse and early intervention, if possible. To that effect, the laws make reporting quite straightforward.
...anyone and everyone who knows or suspects that child abuse has occurred is required by law to make a report."
underlined by me
source:
http://family.findlaw.com/child-abuse/checklist-are-you-a-mandatory-reporter-of-child-abuse.html

Do you know who was Burke's counsellor/therapist and if he or she testified to the Grand Jury?