Burke Ramsey REFUSED to be interviewe...
Eva

AOL

#21 Sep 28, 2010
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
Biz, after giving your statement much, much DEEP thought, I believe I WOULD let him be interviewed. I say this because I would have confidence in my child's integrity and truthfulness as well as belief in his complete innocence.
Also, I would think that by his free cooperation with LE, he would demonstrate his willingness and desire to cooperate, despite what everyone has said of him.
I would stress that he insist the interview be videotaped and most important of all, just to guard against what IDI's claim would happen -- that he would be coerced in some way -- I would impress upon him that he would have the right to END the interview at any time.
Mainly, I think it all boils down to what I said at first, and that is, "confidence in my child's integrity and truthfulness as well as belief in his complete innocence."
However, if I knew differently.....
I completely agree! If it were my son I'd expect him to cooperate without an atty. Like you've all pointed out, if the DNA is legitimate he has no worries. He shouldn't worry even if he did do it since he was under age and now they can only close the books if he's their man. Get 'er done!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#22 Sep 28, 2010
Quote: even if he did do it since he was under age and now they can only close the books if he's their man.

No, that's NOT all he could be charged with. Not if he's been involved in conspiracy to cover up murder for years on end, aiding and abetting, you bet he could be charged.
Henri McPhee

Leeds, UK

#23 Sep 28, 2010
candy wrote:
Quote: even if he did do it since he was under age and now they can only close the books if he's their man.
No, that's NOT all he could be charged with. Not if he's been involved in conspiracy to cover up murder for years on end, aiding and abetting, you bet he could be charged.
I can't believe it.
Eva

AOL

#24 Sep 28, 2010
candy wrote:
Quote: even if he did do it since he was under age and now they can only close the books if he's their man.
No, that's NOT all he could be charged with. Not if he's been involved in conspiracy to cover up murder for years on end, aiding and abetting, you bet he could be charged.
I think his parent/s could be charged, but he was a child and his parents made the decisions Candy. He's home free as far as I can tell. The conspiracy wasn't his choice or doing, he was made to join the conspiracy.
Just imagine the lawsuits that would come if he turns out to be the perp! Starting with Stephen Miles and ending with the National Enquirer.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#25 Sep 28, 2010
Quote: The conspiracy wasn't his choice or doing, he was made to join the conspiracy.

He's an ADULT. No one "made" him do anything, if they did, he could have told THE POLICE. If he's involved in a conspiracy, he is/was WILLING. He KNOWS the difference between right and wrong.

Burke had a cushy life all through college. He NEVER had a job during the school year, he had the money to travel, go to concerts, go to clubs, go out to eat. HE chose that life, and HE'S NEVER LIFTED A FINGER to help cops, except now that THEY HAVE GONE TO HIM.
Eva

AOL

#26 Sep 28, 2010
candy wrote:
Quote: The conspiracy wasn't his choice or doing, he was made to join the conspiracy.
He's an ADULT. No one "made" him do anything, if they did, he could have told THE POLICE. If he's involved in a conspiracy, he is/was WILLING. He KNOWS the difference between right and wrong.
Burke had a cushy life all through college. He NEVER had a job during the school year, he had the money to travel, go to concerts, go to clubs, go out to eat. HE chose that life, and HE'S NEVER LIFTED A FINGER to help cops, except now that THEY HAVE GONE TO HIM.
I guess your right about his being an adult now and having an obligation to tell the truth. But I still think he was powerless as a child to say or do anything his parents told him not to. I wouldn't defy my parents so I understand why he wouldn't either. But yes, he's an adult now and on his own.
Eva

AOL

#28 Sep 28, 2010
Moon Jack wrote:
Of course the cops want to keep a Ramsey in the spot light... Their holding the light... The cops that is.... Now let's let let the Ramseys hold the light on the cops,,, while each one of them sits down and gives the R's their hand writing, starting with Jane Harmer... And then right on down the line... This way, their will be no respect of persons... Hal will sit in with ST... Diane Sawyer will sit in with Jane, John Douglas with LS... Etc., Moon Jack
That's pretty silly. That's like saying "let's have Fuhrman, Van Atter, Judge Ito, etc. try on OJ's glove". Those you mentioned had nothing to do with the murder and you know it so why would they play with the suspects and worry about respect? You talk like the Ramseys are the best, most important people on this planet and we must bow to them before all else! Ridiculous.
Nanc

Montpelier, VT

#29 Sep 28, 2010
I guess I feel different about this..if your dna has been cleared, and you have been 100% honest about everything..WHY wouldn't you WANT to help the police however you could? Makes me wonder..
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#32 Sep 28, 2010
Capricorn wrote:
By the way Biz, you keep referring to him as a "child" and he is a full grown adult now; no longer nine years old
My daughter is almost 21, about the same age. I still consider her a kid. I still consider them kids while their in school, even graduate school. He may be a man now, but fresh out of college, ah, he's just a kid in my mind.
But TECHNICALLY, you are Right.
And thanks for explaining the other post. Apology accepted.:)
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#33 Sep 28, 2010
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
Biz, after giving your statement much, much DEEP thought, I believe I WOULD let him be interviewed. I say this because I would have confidence in my child's integrity and truthfulness as well as belief in his complete innocence.
Also, I would think that by his free cooperation with LE, he would demonstrate his willingness and desire to cooperate, despite what everyone has said of him.
I would stress that he insist the interview be videotaped and most important of all, just to guard against what IDI's claim would happen -- that he would be coerced in some way -- I would impress upon him that he would have the right to END the interview at any time.
Mainly, I think it all boils down to what I said at first, and that is, "confidence in my child's integrity and truthfulness as well as belief in his complete innocence."
However, if I knew differently.....
I probably shouldn't judge all detectives by some I have seen who are experts at manipulation and confusion with an inexperienced interviewee. I have seen the way detectives can twist everything around and make an innocent person look guilty. One can even start doubting themselves they are so good at it. Depending on the circumstances I would probably encourage my child to cooperate and answer all questions unless the attorney felt the interview was going wrong or that a certain question was not appropriate but I would definately have an seasoned attorney who was experienced with police interrogation on sight during the interview though.
So I am not in favor or "lawyering up" and not answering anything. I am just saying "be smart about it and protect yourself or your child" by having an attorney present during the interview.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#34 Sep 29, 2010
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
My daughter is almost 21, about the same age. I still consider her a kid. I still consider them kids while their in school, even graduate school. He may be a man now, but fresh out of college, ah, he's just a kid in my mind.
But TECHNICALLY, you are Right.
And thanks for explaining the other post. Apology accepted.:)
Thanks Biz

I still consider my adult daughter a kid as well, but MY kid. As for your point, it's well taken, but the truth is that he is a legal adult and as such, doesn't need to be treated like he's nine years old anymore.

I have no objection to anyone having an attorney. I hope he gets whatever he needs and goes and speaks with the police to answer whatever questions they have to possibly further the investigation.

However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that needing a lawyer just to talk to the police about a murder that you supposedly have no recollection of 14 + years later is a bit suspicious if there is nothing to hide

It remains to be seen if he EVER goes to speak with them. Hopefully he won't lawyer up just to refuse answering questions like his parents.....hopefully
Lynette

Alberton, South Africa

#35 Sep 29, 2010
Nanc wrote:
I guess I feel different about this..if your dna has been cleared, and you have been 100% honest about everything..WHY wouldn't you WANT to help the police however you could? Makes me wonder..
Possibly because there is nothing you can help them with? Remember, Burke was questioned by the police for forty minutes on the morning of the 26th December. Illegally. Without a lawyer or his parents present. If he had anything of significance to tell, that is when he would have told it, IMO, as it shouldn't have been difficult for a crafty, manipulative cop to extract information from a nine-year-old. If he had nothing to tell then, why would he have anything to tell now, nearly fourteen years later?
WV Sleuth

Washington, DC

#36 Sep 29, 2010
Lynette wrote:
<quoted text> Possibly because there is nothing you can help them with? Remember, Burke was questioned by the police for forty minutes on the morning of the 26th December. Illegally. Without a lawyer or his parents present. If he had anything of significance to tell, that is when he would have told it, IMO, as it shouldn't have been difficult for a crafty, manipulative cop to extract information from a nine-year-old. If he had nothing to tell then, why would he have anything to tell now, nearly fourteen years later?
Reported.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#37 Sep 29, 2010
Lynette wrote:
<quoted text> Possibly because there is nothing you can help them with? Remember, Burke was questioned by the police for forty minutes on the morning of the 26th December. Illegally. Without a lawyer or his parents present. If he had anything of significance to tell, that is when he would have told it, IMO, as it shouldn't have been difficult for a crafty, manipulative cop to extract information from a nine-year-old. If he had nothing to tell then, why would he have anything to tell now, nearly fourteen years later?
So, what's the big deal of telling the police today in 2010 that he has nothing to add to the investigation?

All he has to do is tell them he remembers nothing and has nothing to add to what they know.

If that were true, he'd have spoken with them already. The fact that he has refused shows us that there is more that can be told.
Something insignificant at that time to a 9 year old, may hold significance now.

I guess it would be too much to ask one of JBR's LOVED ONES (gag) to do their best, even if they have nothing to contribute, to come in and talk to them

For all anyone knows, Burke may have made comments or said things to any number of people in college that triggered something and they went to the Boulder authorities to report it. Maybe that's what they want to talk to him about.

You have no idea why, if or what they want to discuss with him.

Why not consult Moon Jack and get back to us with your opinion that he dictates to you?
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#38 Sep 29, 2010
The interview of 12/26 was expunged. It no longer exists. That interview had questions concerning the hoaxed kidnapping of his sister not questions about the reality of her dead body found hours later in the basement. And he certainly has never been asked questions about evidence that developed well after he appeared for the grand jury. What a nine year old would understand is different than what a 23 year old would.

I can't imagine specific questions the BPD would have had for Burke but chances are they knew he would not cooperate and it was a formality that had to be carried out to further the case. Chances are Colorado is ready and willing to bring charges against the family for a conspiracy to cover up the accidental death of Jonbenet. Any money Burke received in the libel suits his parentís initiated would need to be returned.

Did they finally test the cord for DNA and his showed up? Was the unknown DNA sourced? Did new technology pick up his voice in the background of the 911 call? Something did happen and there is more to come.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#39 Sep 29, 2010
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what's the big deal of telling the police today in 2010 that he has nothing to add to the investigation?
All he has to do is tell them he remembers nothing and has nothing to add to what they know.
If that were true, he'd have spoken with them already. The fact that he has refused shows us that there is more that can be told.
Something insignificant at that time to a 9 year old, may hold significance now.
I guess it would be too much to ask one of JBR's LOVED ONES (gag) to do their best, even if they have nothing to contribute, to come in and talk to them
For all anyone knows, Burke may have made comments or said things to any number of people in college that triggered something and they went to the Boulder authorities to report it. Maybe that's what they want to talk to him about.
You have no idea why, if or what they want to discuss with him.
Why not consult Moon Jack and get back to us with your opinion that he dictates to you?
I don't really think the issue here is whether or not he will talk to the investigators as much as why the investigators want to talk to him right now. They could have pressed to talk to him when he was 18 but they didn't. I know the BPD recently took back the case and this could be a formality but I'm also thinking that they may have overlooked something in the past and need some clarification from him. But if this is strictly a DNA case as most IDI's suggest there would be no reason to talk to him. Something would have had to happen recently to trigger this sort of attention 5 years after they could have legally questioned him. Should be interesting if he chooses to go through with the questioning but unfortunately I don't think its going to happen.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#40 Sep 29, 2010
JimmyWells wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really think the issue here is whether or not he will talk to the investigators as much as why the investigators want to talk to him right now. They could have pressed to talk to him when he was 18 but they didn't. I know the BPD recently took back the case and this could be a formality but I'm also thinking that they may have overlooked something in the past and need some clarification from him. But if this is strictly a DNA case as most IDI's suggest there would be no reason to talk to him. Something would have had to happen recently to trigger this sort of attention 5 years after they could have legally questioned him. Should be interesting if he chooses to go through with the questioning but unfortunately I don't think its going to happen.
Good points, but I think it is more coincidental that they came forward now to talk to him right after Smit passed. Of course, all we can do is speculate, but it's truly a coincidence.

I think everyone is watching and waiting to see whether he cooperates or will follow in his parents' footsteps and refuse to speak to them.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#41 Sep 29, 2010
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good points, but I think it is more coincidental that they came forward now to talk to him right after Smit passed. Of course, all we can do is speculate, but it's truly a coincidence.
I think everyone is watching and waiting to see whether he cooperates or will follow in his parents' footsteps and refuse to speak to them.
Oh there's no doubt that he will follow in his parents footsteps. If he was involved or he implicates his parents he would be essentially tarnished forever. He has nothing to gain by talking to them.
Old South

AOL

#42 Sep 29, 2010
pinker wrote:
The interview of 12/26 was expunged. It no longer exists. That interview had questions concerning the hoaxed kidnapping of his sister not questions about the reality of her dead body found hours later in the basement. And he certainly has never been asked questions about evidence that developed well after he appeared for the grand jury.
It really amazes me how some people pick certain events and turn them around to suit their agenda.

When Burke was questioned on the morning of the 26th, his sister was supposedly a kidnap victim. LE was logically trying to find her and since Burke was one of the five people in the home and time was critical, LE did question him. But if they had NOT questioned him to try to learn if he knew anything that could help them find her, they would have been severely criticized for not doing everything in their power to locate her. So, then when her body was found and it turned out there was no kidnapping, but most of all because people are nit-picking at actions taken by LE that morning, they are being accused of questioning Burke illegally! These posters know that time was of the essence that morning in trying to find JB. Yet, they would have officers wait till a lawyer or a parent who was busy with their own grief could come baby sit him, just to make the questioning "legal"?

Like I said, anything to suit their agenda!!

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#43 Sep 29, 2010
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
It really amazes me how some people pick certain events and turn them around to suit their agenda.
When Burke was questioned on the morning of the 26th, his sister was supposedly a kidnap victim. LE was logically trying to find her and since Burke was one of the five people in the home and time was critical, LE did question him. But if they had NOT questioned him to try to learn if he knew anything that could help them find her, they would have been severely criticized for not doing everything in their power to locate her. So, then when her body was found and it turned out there was no kidnapping, but most of all because people are nit-picking at actions taken by LE that morning, they are being accused of questioning Burke illegally! These posters know that time was of the essence that morning in trying to find JB. Yet, they would have officers wait till a lawyer or a parent who was busy with their own grief could come baby sit him, just to make the questioning "legal"?
Like I said, anything to suit their agenda!!
The other thing that is so suspicious: Before they found the body and believed it was a kidnapping, wouldn't normal, innocent parents do their own interrogation of the one person who slept on the same floor as JBR? Wouldn't THEY be the ones to interrogate him in the quest to possibly save their daughters' life. No, never happened

Wouldn't they be the ones to beg the cops to question him in case they had better techniques to question a 9 year old about what he saw and heard? What normal parents would be upset about the questioning rather than grateful? None that I know of

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
history of abuse... or her story of abuse 13 min berrytea333 3
Possible clue to John's initial lack of involve... 11 hr rainbow 114
small or sma4 19 hr Blue Sage 44
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 23 hr ICU2 237
Laurence Smith book on JonBenet's murder Fri candy 116
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Fri JTF 7,589
News Laurence L Smith Releases Updated Version of 'T... Jul 30 candy 1
More from around the web