What nine year old Burke says is mind-blowing. He tells the doctor he knows what happened to his sister. He says she was hit on the head, and that’s how she died.
But why is that missing from the Ramseys’ book, and why did 29 year old Burke not mention this at all on Dr. Phil?
In Death of Innocence, when John discusses how Burke found out JonBenet was dead, he says:
Burke essentially tells the same story when he talks to Dr. Phil in September 2016, as well as when he talked to Detective Schuler in 1998. The only difference between his story and his dad’s is who told him the news. Here’s what Burke says to Dr. Phil:
BERNHARD: So what do you think happened?
BURKE: [Taking a game board and rubbing it against his head and face]:
I know what happened. [He laughs].
BERNHARD: You mean when she got killed? How do you think that happened?
BURKE [Still covering face with board.]: Um, I think…well I…I asked my dad where
did they find her body and my, my dad said ‘I found it down in the
basement,’ and so…I, I think that someone took her very quietly and…
Took her down to the basement… [Burke is sitting back now and puts his game board on the table]
Curious that Burke says “they” when referring to his inquiry about where JonBenet’s body was found. Who’s they? And in a completely detached manor, he also refers to his sister’s body as “it”.
BERNHARD: Mhmm.
BURKE:…and he, and he took a knife out and he went whoops like that… I really… [making an overhanded punching motion with his right fist. He then puts his two fists under his neck and rests his elbows on the table].
Whacking somebody over the head is hardly a “whoops” but it’s fascinating that Burke adds that word in there to suggest the murder was probably some type of accident. Is it normal to assume that somebody who broke into your home and killed your family member did it by accident?
BERNHARD [Interrupting Burke]: Mm-hmmm. Do you think that’s how she died?
BURKE: Or maybe a hammer, he hit her in the head with it. [Burke repeats the same hitting motion with his right hand, then resumes putting his fists under his chin.]
How did Burke know on January 8, 1997, that his sister had died from a head blow? He certainly didn’t hear it from the news because the autopsy report wasn’t made public until July 14, 1997.
I didn’t have much hope for the CNN special, to be honest. With the usual suspects like Pam Barday, Bob Whitson and clips of Lou Smit talking about the broken window that John could care less about on December 26th, you can expect Apologia. At least in their marketing efforts they didn’t hoodwink us like the 20/20 special did. We’ll get to that program in our next blog.
If you want a sense of how fluffy this “special report” really is, just visit Jean Casarez’s Twitter feed where you’ll find a picture of her and John together draped by a beautiful, sweeping background. Doesn’t exactly look like a murder interrogation; more like somebody who’s awe-struck and didn’t do their homework.
Jean sends out another tweet that says: “It was really amazing to learn so much more about this case…” Whatever she learned, she must have learned it off camera, because from what I saw, it was rehash and nonsense. She mostly sat doe-eyed through the interview with John, never once challenging him on things like why his and Patsy’s fingerprints are absent from the ransom note that they were man-handling on the morning of December 26th.
How about this gem:
When John is asked about being indicted for abuse/neglect, he admits, he should have been better about locking the doors and checking the alarm. Does John really think we’re that dumb? Do people really get indicted for feloniously neglecting their children to the point they die because they didn’t lock their door?
Even better, when asked how he felt about being labeled an “accessory,” John doesn’t know what that means. Not only that, he doesn’t seem to remember that particular indictment at all.
While we’re being frank, let’s take a look at what John has to say about the indictments in their book Death of Innocence [originally published in 2000, excerpts in green].
“After thirteen long months of looking at all the evidence presented by the special prosecutors and police, the Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment.
It takes a mountain of evidence to convict, but only a paltry amount of evidence to indict. Yet in the eyes of the grand jurors, even that did not exist.”
Hmm. Did his lawyers fail to mention to him and Patsy in 1999: Oh by the way, you dodged a bullet? Are we really to believe they had no clue? Or, is it more likely they knew that we’d have no clue, since everything was sealed?
Perhaps we’ll cut Jean Casarez some slack, and assume she hasn’t read their book.
“Of course, in the months that followed the grand jury’s secret decision, there was much speculation by the media on what the grand jury did conclude. To suggest that it voted to indict and that the D.A. refused to go along, as some of the media speculated, is pure folly.”
Pure folly, indeed. 
The “special report” ends with John and his new wife, Jan, taking a leisurely stroll through the red rocks of the Southwest. I guess the paid-for PR message of the month is if they can move on, why can’t we? I guess the joke’s on us.
#SHAKEDOWN 