What do Burke's interviews tell us?

[ispywithmylittleeye]

This has been discussed in prior threads. I never, until Agatha said it, thought about patient client confidentiality. My understanding is this woman has exclusive information due to the position she held.

If this is accurate, there are several things that stand out.

First and foremost the line about secrets. What secret is he unwilling to talk about? I have not heard too many lines like this from a 10 year old boy. Mostly, I think they would either tell a secret or be savvy enough not to say anything to even elude to the idea of a secret.

Second, he obviously knows enough of what happened to NOT be fearful, not be concerned for his own safety and not be curious about what happened to JonBenet or by whom. All highly unusual since Patsy said

Throughout the interview, I got the impression that Burke was terrified to let any information about his sister's death out. His answers are very short; he seemed to be very cautious to not say anything wrong.

One answer that stands out to me is when Burke is asked, "What is the one thing you like best about your mom?" He replies, "She gives me hugs and kisses." Does anyone else find this a strange answer for an (almost) 10-year-old boy? Hugs and kisses are a huge contrast from going into a rage and killing your 6-year-old daughter.



Why does Burke show no emotions until he asked, "What do you think happened to JonBenet?"

The "took a knife out or hit her on the head" is very interesting...

"Where did you find her body?" is a strange question. Why not ask, "Who did it?" Unless you already know.

-----

Burke's behavior when he is asked about molestation is also very interesting. His behavior doesn't seem like the behavior a child who doesn't have past experiences with sexual abuse would display.

I feel BR was old enough to lock down what his responses were. The repurcussions were enormous. I think his 10 year old ego got away from him a few times but his answer regarding not telling her his secrets because then they wouldn't be secrets displays a level of caginess and quick thinking on his feet. He knew the assignment and did very well. As for the touching question, I see the box top as a way to hide. To me that is shame. From someone else's actions or his own. His body language shows discomfort.

 

[mzmarymac]

I'm glad to see this thread, as I have had a lot of questions about Burke's interviews. My question is if the parent(s) were involved, then why on earth would they EVER request he speak with a child therapist and have it recorded?

 

[australianwebsleuth]

I'm glad to see this thread, as I have had a lot of questions about Burke's interviews. My question is if the parent(s) were involved, then why on earth would they EVER request he speak with a child therapist and have it recorded?

My understanding that as a minor there was no right of refusal on behalf of BR. Where both JR and PR had lawyered up and did not allow the police to interview them until April the next year, BR was not in a position to refuse.

Happily be corrected if wrong.

 

[Angeline]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't see proof of guilt here. He's a 9yo kid who's sister was just sadistically murdered. Not to mention there was an enormous media frenzy around the case. I can't even begin to imagine how I would respond. I don't know if the psychologist has ever interviewed a child who lost a sibling in that way, or a child who's parents are caught up in a media storm. It makes sense that he would be guarded.

And of course a young boy is going to be awkward when asked about uncomfortable touching.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I'm glad to see this thread, as I have had a lot of questions about Burke's interviews. My question is if the parent(s) were involved, then why on earth would they EVER request he speak with a child therapist and have it recorded?

It’s my understanding that they had no choice on that. Because of the circumstances the coroner convened the Child Fatality Review Team and one of their recommendations was having Burke interviewed by the Department of Social Services. Likely because of DSS protocol requiring the removal of siblings from the home in the event of a child’s death. So it’s very probable that the Ramseys agreed because they were afraid of having to give up temporary custody of Burke to DSS had they not agreed.

What they did insist upon was that the interview be conducted only by DDS personnel (no police presence).

 

[CloudedTruth]

My understanding that as a minor there was no right of refusal on behalf of BR. Where both JR and PR had lawyered up and did not allow the police to interview them until April the next year, BR was not in a position to refuse.

Happily be corrected if wrong.

As a minor, Burke could not be interviewed without approval from a family member.

The brief interview conducted with Burke by Officer Patterson at the White’s on the afternoon of the 26th was done without the Ramseys knowledge and was only allowed to happen because Priscilla’s sister told Officer Patterson she was Burke’s grandmother. Other than the interview conducted by DSS on January 8, I don’t think there were any more police interviews allowed with Burke until June of ‘98

 

[docyabut]

If Burke was covered up by his parents for slamming his sister in the head and killing her ? To By using all the items in their house even covering her with a blanket ? but why that part of the straulation ? is there is a intruder in the house?

 

[bumped41075]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't see proof of guilt here. He's a 9yo kid who's sister was just sadistically murdered. Not to mention there was an enormous media frenzy around the case. I can't even begin to imagine how I would respond. I don't know if the psychologist has ever interviewed a child who lost a sibling in that way, or a child who's parents are caught up in a media storm. It makes sense that he would be guarded.

And of course a young boy is going to be awkward when asked about uncomfortable touching.

I am in agreement with you. I have always followed this case closely. Also, I am under the impression that a few years back they tested the DNA found on JB's undergarments and the DNA didn't match ANY of the family's. At that point the DA said the family are no longer suspects.

 

[Mandala]

Are the young BR interviews available on any website to watch in full? I’ve only ever seen snippets in documentaries.

The bowl of pineapple and tea glass in the kitchen have always been strong evidence to me. IMOO

Thinking of JonBenet on this Christmas night, I hope justice is found one day.

 

[callmehenry]

I am in agreement with you. I have always followed this case closely. Also, I am under the impression that a few years back they tested the DNA found on JB's undergarments and the DNA didn't match ANY of the family's. At that point the DA said the family are no longer suspects.

You’re right, it didn’t match any of the family’s DNA. It could have come from a factory worker or a random person who touched them in the store before they were bought. JR’s stance now is he wants the police to release the dna so it can be tested again but Colorado police are refusing to do so which I find so odd

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

You’re right, it didn’t match any of the family’s DNA. It could have come from a factory worker or a random person who touched them in the store before they were bought. JR’s stance now is he wants the police to release the dna so it can be tested again but Colorado police are refusing to do so which I find so odd

The police do not release DNA to potential suspects or families of potential suspects. He thinks he makes the rules for LE to observe.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

You’re right, it didn’t match any of the family’s DNA. It could have come from a factory worker or a random person who touched them in the store before they were bought.

The DNA in the underwear wasn't from touch, it was a bodily fluid - likely saliva due to the presence of amylase - and of it was from a factory worker, it wouldn't have matched the touch DNA on the longjohns. The fact that they matched means the factory worker theory is pretty much discredited.

 

[callmehenry]

The DNA in the underwear wasn't from touch, it was a bodily fluid - likely saliva due to the presence of amylase - and of it was from a factory worker, it wouldn't have matched the touch DNA on the longjohns. The fact that they matched means the factory worker theory is pretty much discredited.

Then consider me corrected!

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The DNA in the underwear wasn't from touch, it was a bodily fluid - likely saliva due to the presence of amylase - and of it was from a factory worker, it wouldn't have matched the touch DNA on the longjohns. The fact that they matched means the factory worker theory is pretty much discredited.

Amylase is found in urine also. There is no ŵay to know when the bloomies were put on. Therefore urine could have been up on a number of toilets or flooring near the toilet when she pulled her pants down to toilet. You keep saying likely saliva but amylase can come from several different fluids.How are you determining saliva? If saliva, it doesn't hold the same significance as blood or semen and would not hold up in court as the smoking gun unless the jury were ignorant to all the ways DNA can transfer and withstand preservation.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Amylase is found in urine also. There is no ŵay to know when the bloomies were put on. Therefore urine could have been up on a number of toilets or flooring near the toilet when she pulled her pants down to toilet. You keep saying likely saliva but amylase can come from several different fluids.How are you determining saliva? If saliva, it doesn't hold the same significance as blood or semen and would not hold up in court as the smoking gun unless the jury were ignorant to all the ways DNA can transfer and withstand preservation.

Amylase exists in saliva at a concentration of a thousand times more than any other bodily fluid. That's why saliva is the most likely source.

And if that fluid came from bathroom urine at their home or at the Whites, there wouldn't be matching touch DNA on her longjohns.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Amylase exists in saliva at a concentration of a thousand times more than any other bodily fluid. That's why saliva is the most likely source.

And if that fluid came from bathroom urine at their home or at the Whites, there wouldn't be matching touch DNA on her longjohns.

If it was on the underpants it most certainly could transfer to another piece of clothing. I would expect many different sources of DNA in a bathroom. People bath , towel off and loose hundreds of cells, they splash urine, they blow their nose, they brush their teeth all in one tiny room. To pick up several types of DNA from the same person in a bathroom would not be complicated to do.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

If it was on the underpants it most certainly could transfer to another piece of clothing. I would expect many different sources of DNA in a bathroom. People bath , towel off and loose hundreds of cells, they splash urine, they blow their nose, they brush their teeth all in one tiny room. To pick up several types of DNA from the same person in a bathroom would not be complicated to do.

Yet the sources are different, bodily fluid vs touch. So it can't be from the Whites' bathroom, since she didn't wear her longjohns there, and it can't be from anywhere else outside their home since no one wore those underwear before that day. That leaves someone who visited the Ramsey home, somehow got his saliva in JonBenet's underwear, managing to only hit those places where she would later bleed, and get touch DNA on her longjohns that she didn't wear until she was tucked into her bed.

I've seen DNA contamination in other cases, and this one does not even come near that. The fact is that the profile of UM1 is the only profile besides JonBenet's found on her. There are no others (except a profile on the ligature that also has never been identified), not her family, not their guests. With contamination you don't get the same profile from different sources on different garments.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Yet the sources are different, bodily fluid vs touch. So it can't be from the Whites' bathroom, since she didn't wear her longjohns there, and it can't be from anywhere else outside their home since no one wore those underwear before that day. That leaves someone who visited the Ramsey home, somehow got his saliva in JonBenet's underwear, managing to only hit those places where she would later bleed, and get touch DNA on her longjohns that she didn't wear until she was tucked into her bed.

I've seen DNA contamination in other cases, and this one does not even come near that. The fact is that the profile of UM1 is the only profile besides JonBenet's found on her. There are no others (except a profile on the ligature that also has never been identified), not her family, not their guests. With contamination you don't get the same profile from different sources on different garments.

Your theory only holds true if you can prove what underpants she was wearing that day. Unless someone at the party helped her toilet, we only have

Amylase exists in saliva at a concentration of a thousand times more than any other bodily fluid. That's why saliva is the most likely source.

And if that fluid came from bathroom urine at their home or at the Whites, there wouldn't be matching touch DNA on her longjohns.

You really do not think that skin cells are on a bathroom floor? I would venture to say other than ones bed, a bathroom floor, where people scrub their bodies with towels after showering has one of the highest concentrations of touch DNA in a home along with bodily fluids.
Serum Amylase levels can increase due to several medical conditions. Here is a list.

• Sudden swelling of the pancreas (acute pancreatitis)
• Chronic pancreatitis that suddenly gets worse
• Cancers of the pancreas, breast, colon, ovary, or lung
• A sore in the pancreas
• A type of cyst in the pancreas (pancreatic pseudocysts)
• Swelling in your abdomen (ascites)
• Macroamylasemia. This is a noncancer (benign) condition marked by having a substance called macroamylase in your blood.
• Peptic ulcer that has a hole in it (perforated ulcer)
• Death of tissue in your intestine (intestinal infarction)
• Blockage in your intestines
• Appendicitis
• Sudden swelling of the gallbladder (acute cholecystitis)
• Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
• Salivary gland swelling
• Swelling of the lining of your abdomen (peritonitis)
• Burns
• Diabetic ketoacidosis
• Kidney problems
• Use of certain medicines such as morphine
• Alcohol use
• Mumps
• Tumors in the prostate
• Eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa
• Inflammatory bowel disease
• Higher levels of triglycerides (hypertriglyceridemia)

If I drop my under pants on a bathroom floor are you trying to convince me that there would be zero touch DNA transferred to my outer clothing?
The one thing we will agree on is the miniscule amount.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Your theory only holds true if you can prove what underpants she was wearing that day. Unless someone at the party helped her toilet, we only have

If anything that just narrows the window. These were new underwear. She either put them on before the White party, or sometime after. Either way, the only places she would have worn them is at home and at the White party.

You really do not think that skin cells are on a bathroom floor? I would venture to say other than ones bed, a bathroom floor, where people scrub their bodies with towels after showering has one of the highest concentrations of touch DNA in a home along with bodily fluids.

So there was an unknown man using JonBenet's bathroom during the day? Unrelated to the Ramseys?

Serum Amylase levels can increase due to several medical conditions. Here is a list.

• Sudden swelling of the pancreas (acute pancreatitis)
• Chronic pancreatitis that suddenly gets worse
• Cancers of the pancreas, breast, colon, ovary, or lung
• A sore in the pancreas
• A type of cyst in the pancreas (pancreatic pseudocysts)
• Swelling in your abdomen (ascites)
• Macroamylasemia. This is a noncancer (benign) condition marked by having a substance called macroamylase in your blood.
• Peptic ulcer that has a hole in it (perforated ulcer)
• Death of tissue in your intestine (intestinal infarction)
• Blockage in your intestines
• Appendicitis
• Sudden swelling of the gallbladder (acute cholecystitis)
• Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
• Salivary gland swelling
• Swelling of the lining of your abdomen (peritonitis)
• Burns
• Diabetic ketoacidosis
• Kidney problems
• Use of certain medicines such as morphine
• Alcohol use
• Mumps
• Tumors in the prostate
• Eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa
• Inflammatory bowel disease
• Higher levels of triglycerides (hypertriglyceridemia)

And how many of those increases the amount of amylase a thousandfold? Saliva remains the most likely source. 100% certain? No, it could possibly be another bodily fluid. But saliva is by far the best candidate.

If I drop my under pants on a bathroom floor are you trying to convince me that there would be zero touch DNA transferred to my outer clothing?

There could possibly be that. But from the same person whose spit mixed with my blood before it hit the inside of my underwear? That means there's something more to that tale.

 

[FMB]

If anything that just narrows the window. These were new underwear. She either put them on before the White party, or sometime after. Either way, the only places she would have worn them is at home and at the White party.



So there was an unknown man using JonBenet's bathroom during the day? Unrelated to the Ramseys?



And how many of those increases the amount of amylase a thousandfold? Saliva remains the most likely source. 100% certain? No, it could possibly be another bodily fluid. But saliva is by far the best candidate.



There could possibly be that. But from the same person whose spit mixed with my blood before it hit the inside of my underwear? That means there's something more to that tale.

The Ramseys have received preferential treatment from the DA's in Boulder since day one. Its seems like with this abundance of viable, testable DNA available that could be matched to someone that the current DA would be anxious to test and solve this case. It would certainly be a feather in his cap!!

John Ramsey has threatened and brought lawsuits against anyone and everyone challenging the intruder theory or implying the Ramseys had something to do with the murder.....I wonder why he doesnt sue the Boulder police/ or DA to compel them to have the DNA tested. Seems like it would be a more effective approach than doing his media tour.

What do you attribute the reluctance to test the DNA to?