I haven't watched any of the specials and haven't read articles about the murder for a long time. In the back of my mind, at the time, I couldn't help but wonder if it had something to do with the pageants JonBonet participated in. Was the mother so determined to have her little girl win, was a judge involved, or someone affiliated with the pageants? Did things get out of hand? Altho I guess I really never understood that the parents were away at the time of the murder. Plus I remember reading once that JonBonet was sent to the basement as punishment for "wetting her pants". Is that mentioned in the documentaries?

The parents were not away, they were upstairs in a third floor bedroom sleeping. They were away at a Christmas party during the day before the murder happened. Burke says that they were never punished for wetting the bed. He said that if they wet the bed, their mother would just wash the sheets. He says that his mother never hit them either. He says he never witnessed her flying off into a fit of rage as some investigators implied was what had happened.

Burke has a strange affect, but seems like a nice guy. I was glad to see that he's living his life and is happy.

I hope that he and his father get to see the murderer brougth to justice.

Cindy, I really really don't like him, if he was fair for once, that's great.

JoAnn, I don't watch him EVER. I avoid him like the plague because I hate the way he exploits and treats people. I saw a clip of the interview while watching the news. Sometimes unfortunately, he can't be avoided. LOL

I stopped watch Dr. Shill awhile ago. I couldn't stand his smug arrogance, and how he exploits people and their illnesses/weaknesses/personality disorders.

Some time ago, he had a woman on who was a pretty severe alcoholic. She walked up to the stage sans shoes, and blotto. It was painful and pitiful. Dr. Phil in all his ethic-ness asked this inebriated woman if he had her consent to show and discuss her brain scan.

Uh, yeah, that's not consent.

I agree mimi, IMO, the way he treats people is actually very cruel. I know he no longer has his license but that's probably a good thing.

Lukkiirish, he didn't lose his license. He retired it because he is no longer practicing psychology. From Wikipedia: After starting CSI, McGraw ceased the practice of psychology. He kept his license current and in good standing until he elected to retire it 15 years later in 2006.[21] Appearing on the Today Show in January 2008, McGraw said that he has made it "very clear" that his current work does not involve the practice of psychology. He also said that he had "retired from psychology".[22] According to the Today Show, the California Board of Psychology determined in 2002 that he did not require a license because his show involves "entertainment" rather than psychology.

I've seen McGraw say the production company sets everything up, he gets handed a description of who is coming on and what their problem is right before he goes out. All he does is interview them, decide what the deal is and then offer them help.

Ever read his best-selling book with the red cover? The first half is about how to not make a fool of or endanger yourself on the internet, the second about how to recognize and avoid what he calls "baiters" (thieves who butter you up and then take your money).

Yes, the show is promoted like it was Jerry Springer but that isn't what Phil does with it. When he is on he works on getting to the bottom of the guest's issue and what will make it better for them. When they are full of denial or other self limitations he may have to point out the folly of it ("What were you thinkin'?") in order to get them started on any kind of improvement - same as anyone else would have to.

'Before you condemn Dr. Phil you should watch
the question and answer program I linked above where he defended Burke every
step of the way.'

Poor Dr. Phil. Yaaawwnnn.

MOO....my opinion only:

Dr. Phil - doctor - condemn

Dr. Phil - entertainer - applaude

^^^^^ yes, Poor Dr. Phil. Yaaawwnn.

What Snookums2 said!! I watched the 2 shows where Burke and the father were interviewed. Found Burke a bit off the creepy scale!?! Didn't realize there was going to be a third show last week... the one where Dr. Phil was practically YELLING his defense of Burke?? So WHY skewer him for 2 days?

Is Dr. Phil getting ready to join Fonzie and "jump the shark"?? After the 2 days on Jon-Benet, he gave some bratty, wanna-be ghetto, 13 year old and her mother their apparently required ME ME ME time. He better watch out or his credibility rating will be on a level of the Kardashians and those housewives from everywhere.

I saw those previews for the next show about that disgustingly nasty 13 year old...that's right up there with Jerry Springer. There's no way I could watch more than 15 seconds of that! I'd be ready to bust someone's chops!

Found Burke a bit off the creepy scale!?! Didn't realize there was going to be a third show last week... the one where Dr. Phil was practically YELLING his defense of Burke?? So WHY skewer him for 2 days?

He didn't "skewer him", but sounds like you did ... "a bit off the creepy scale!?!"

I didn't find Burke to be creepy. He seemed maybe a little odd acting but I cannot imagine how nerve wracking being interviewed by Dr. Phil would be. Ask yourself "how would I act on TV?" We would probably come across a lot more strange than we think we are. LOL! It didn't seem to me that Dr. Phil was being hard on him. There are a ton of questions that have come up over the 20 years, he's just trying to ask them. I mean he just came out and asked the guy, "did you hit your sister with a baseball bat? Did you sexually abuse your sister?" Isn't that what everyone is wanting to know?

It surprised me JonBennet's brother and father would do press and tv again, in particular, Dr. Phil.

The parents and even brother-only 9 at the time of his sister's murder-were subject to national scrutiny, derision and even cruelty. Many in the media made fortunes from the circus they created.

With nothing new in the case, I find it amazing they would put themselves "out there" again.

I know, that's true. Maybe they just figured since it's the 20 year anniversary then everyone would be bringing it back up again so maybe they think they can finally put it to rest. Or maybe they want it brought up so the killer can finally be found? I know if this had happened to my family, I would never want to see another reporter again as long as I lived. I saw something the other day about a DNA expert wanted to reexamine the DNA but the authorities in charge won't let him do anything with it. To me, that sounds suspicious. I don't think they want it to be proven that someone in the family did NOT do this and they went after the family instead of finding the real criminal.

CBS is airing the first of a 3 part series tonight. I'm wondering if it is the same series that JoAnn mentioned in another post. I will be watching.

Rusty

LIndy, ummm, maybe you should reread my post, I didn't say he lost his license, nor did I even imply it. I just said he no longer has it, geeze...thanks for sharing the information but the last thing I'm interested in it his wiki notes. bleh!

'He didn't "skewer him", but sounds like you did ... "a bit off the creepy scale!?!"'

Which is exactly why I 'condemn' Dr. Phil for airing the interviews. He knew full well how the public would react but subjected him to it anyway. He's a cruel, heartless individual who, as a sad statement of our society, has a lot of appeal to too many people.

"It surprised me JonBennet's brother and father would do press and tv again"

"Or maybe they want it brought up so the killer can finally be found"

If a child of mine had been so brutally murdered, I would be making all the noise I could for as long as I lived, to keep the case alive and under investigation.

Rusty

My DH wanted to watch, so I did as well. I used to think it was a stranger that did it...."now"....she might have been killed with a flashlight and the rest was set up? Looks like it might have been an accident....her and her brother were playing....he bonked her on the head with a flashlight....and dead!

I missed the end of last night's show. Did they come to any conclusion? Do they think the brother did it? I saw the part where they had some young kid bonk a fake skull with a flashlight. What a strange show. I admire the people who would not be interviewed.

Last night was the first of a 3 part series. The second part will be aired tonight. I really don't think they are trying to blame anyone. They are thoroughly re-examining all the evidence, and proving that there were a lot of things that were handled very badly at the time. And they did prove that a child could easily have administered the blow that killed her. (At the time, it was said that that would be impossible.) I think it does raise a lot of questions. The Ramsey's behavior was certainly strange and atypical. Makes me wonder why. The Boulder police obviously had no idea how to handle a crime of this nature, and a lot of their actions are very questionable, too.

Forensics and DNA testing have progressed a lot in the last 20 years, so hopefully this investigation will turn up some evidence that will lead to the killer. I wonder if the DNA has ever been entered into the national database. If they've said, I missed it. But I think it's been said that the Boulder police refuse to let them have any of the DNA. Why? Don't they want to killer to be found? And if it was an accident, wouldn't it have been much better to admit it right from the start? Doesn't all the cover-up just make it so much worse?

This whole case seems to get more bizarre all the time.

Rusty

The cover up just about always makes it worse and Jonbenet's parents had very good reason to do so, if in fact one of the family killed her.

The specific ransom of 118K points to someone panicking and making a really stupid mistake (a "tell") in haste. Someone who would have been plotting that murder, to me, wouldn't have done that, imo.

I watched that boy not sure.Im leaning towards dad he seems too calm.Im thinking they hurt her, bad then decided to hide the death ?I don't think it was intentional..poor kid

I've already answered a question that's being asked again, so I'll repeat it. the DNA is now in the National Database and does NOT match anyone in the family. Not Burke, not the mom, not the dad. Furthermore, it was found in two places on her body. It's how the family was exonerated.

Question from someone who's not followed this case all that closely.

Regarding the DNA not being any of the family- How does this exonerate them exactly?

I would presume there is semen and I think I heard she had some dna under her fingernails. If not from the family, then also presumably from the killer. It can't exonerate complicity.

Regarding the DNA not being any of the family- How does this exonerate them exactly?

There's no DNA match. She was sexually assaulted. It's just a matter of time before they match the DNA with her killer.

Thanks Cindy. What was the dna from? Semen? Transfer dna?

Could this unknown person's dna have nothing to do with her murder?

This CBS show is now saying she was not sexually assaulted. As a matter of fact, they are claiming anything in the Ramsey's favor is false or questionable. They seem to be convinced they know what happened and are trying to prove that and that the family is not what it appeared to be, approaching the investigation from their theory rather than objectively or fairly.

They are clearly trying to paint a specific picture rather than present 'facts'. I find it distracting and not a credible show.

I watched the first cbs episode and didn't care for how it was produced. It seemed to promote the personalities of the investigators, treating them as more important than the people involved with the crime. When I hear strong opinions like that, the show loses credibility.

We are at the mercy of what they want to show us and lead us to believe.

I agree. Not a good investigation or presentation. No credibility, imo.

At the end it was noted how JonBenet has become a footnote in all of this. Sad but true.

I watched the CBS special tonight. It was led to believe that they would come to a conclusion, which they didn't exactly present.

But, I did find it interesting how they dissected all the evidence. The crime scene photos of the broken window with the old cobwebs clearly showed that that could not have been a point of entry for an intruder.

Why can't the evidence be retested with the todays new technology?

I think they think it was Burke. He was a very strange child in the interviews and acted nothing like my son would've at that age.

I don't know any kid who would have been as unemotional and cold as Burke. He was more interested in his video games and laughing, and 'just going on with my life.' He certainly looks guilty at this point.

I've not read the answers inbetween mimi, but the DNA has been determined to be of an "unknown male". Since they have the family's DNA, they can compare it, and it isn't the family members at all. It's under her fingernails from the struggle, for instance.

For those of you trying Burke and analyzing him, do you not think this media circus since a young age alone wouldn't make him act oddly? Or that his sister's face is plastered all over the media would affect him? Or that he suffered losing her? I don't understand how you can judge someone you've never met either? But that's just me.

I can see Burke hitting his sister with the flashlight, but tying her up would have been beyond his capabilities.

It is clear to me that Burke has a mental disability and to say he is just awkward is an under statement.

I can understand wanting to protect Burke if indeed accidentally killed his sister. But why not just leave JonBenet where she was, even if they took her to the basement to pretend there was a break in. Why tie her up?

Personally, I think the investigators did a very good job of examining the evidence professionally, and presenting it. They were all well educated, and had a lot of experience in their fields. This was stressed in the show, not their personalities, in my opinion, anyway.

The original investigation was botched, to say the least. This investigation brought forth a lot of things that were originally either overlooked, ignored or hidden. Why that was, why all the evidence wasn't shown right away, I don't know. The only theory that makes sense is that it was done as part of a cover-up.

Rusty

A hole the size of a golf ball in the childs head and NO one mentions seeing any blood. Someone cleaned up a TON of blood. Head wounds bleed....a LOT! Saying there was a cover up is just a statement of fact. Saying it was an accident....is the conclusion I think everyone came to. It was a sad loss of a sweet life, but accidents happen.

If the hole in her head was postmortem, then it wouldn't have bled much. She died from either strangulation or asphyxiation, I can't remember which. She didn't die from a blow to the head, at least that's how I remember it.

I think it's hard to put together all the pieces because we are hearing a bunch of stuff that's not true. Unless there is an actual trial, then all this supposed evidence isn't really worth a darn. I don't really know how much of what we are hearing is believable.

There definitely was a cover up by the family. My theory for what's it's worth is Burke killed her in a fit of rage because she stole a piece of pineapple from him. He had hit her on the head with a golf club the year before according to records. It wasn't planned and when it was found out by the parents, they covered it up.

Seriously????? ----->>>all you armchair detectives<<<<---- Seriously????

justlinda...this is aaaaaaaaaaaall about a TV show with experts we all watched. The experts told us what conclusions we should all come to believe.

I have followed this case so very closely since day one. I believed then as I still do now that JonBenet was killed (unintentionally) by her brother Burke and the parents went to great lengths to cover up the crime. In my opinion there were too many red flags. My heart kept wanting it not to be the family, but my brain couldn't/can't see otherwise.

SERIOUSLY ....... TV show experts........SERIOUSLY DON'T THINK SO! lol

Justlinda, did you watch the show?

Rusty

Why would the family do all that horrible stuff to the little girl just to "cover up for Burke"? OK say the kid hit her in the head, wouldn't it be a lot more logical to make up some sort of an accident like she fell down some stairs instead of coming up with a kidnapping and a sexual assault and tying her all up into some contraption that the rope was embedded into the child's neck. I mean, they'd have to be crazy to do all that. And if they were crazy people, wouldn't someone have ever come forward and said that those people were crazy nuts? I don't recall anyone saying the family was a bunch of bat sh*t crazy loonies! Another thing, if Burke did kill her, he was NINE YEARS OLD, it's not like he would have gone to prison!

I agree with matti5 and arkansas girl. I cannot wrap my head around it.

It's neither here nor there whether or not I watched the program, and I'm not telling. But, then again, I'm not offering any speculations, assumptions or inane drivel. This is better than reading a True Detective or True Confession magazine....very entertaining. Thanks LOL