The Press and the Establishment versus Brexit and Democracy

Boris and the Brexit bus

I have to confess, come clean, own up, at the risk of alienating all my friends … I voted to leave the EU. But, you know, I object to the fact that this is something I have to admit to (that I have to use the language of blame and apology), as if anyone in favour of Brexit must be right-wing, bigoted, racist or worse. I'm angry that people are getting ostracised or attacked in the workplace as if they've committed some terrible sin rather than merely exercised their right to vote or dared to have an opinion. 

Voting for Brexit doesn't mean I've turned against my many European friends. It doesn't mean I no longer want to travel to Europe. It just means I'm rejecting an institution that point-blank refuses to compromise or reform.

Some people rejoiced

It’s pathetic that the politicians (from all the major parties), the BBC, the papers (the broadsheets rather than the tabloids), the youth, the woolly liberals on Facebook, are still angsting about this and bleating on about having another referendum. And why? Because the powers-that-be thought they had presented such a totally biased view of the outcome if we left that there was no way the nation wouldn't do as it had been told. We voted. We're out. Get over it. I would say that that's the beauty of a democracy but this remains to be seen as at the moment, everyone from is trying to ensure the democratic process is voided.

It's incredibly patronising, even insulting, when the politicians and pundits (does anyone really trust Tony Blair?) pushing for another referendum imply that the result would be different if it were done over because the idiots who voted to leave (that's me and statistically probably you) didn't know what they were doing, hadn't really thought it through. Why can't they accept that we thought long and hard and made a considered decision? It just wasn't the decision they desired or expected. In fact, what's happening now is that this liberal elite, from the upper middle to upper classes, are realising that they can't control the rest of us, the proletariat, the people they think of as plebs.

The BBC votes Remain

The BBC and the government worked hand in hand to prevent Brexit. Let's not forget that, in the run-up to the vote, the government was debating  whether it should renew the BBC's charter and ergo the corporation's right to charge a licence fee (for non-Brits, that's a fee we pay to the BBC for the privilege of owning a television). Can anybody calculate how much this is worth to them? At the time of the vote, it was £145.50 per household per year (with an agreement to increase it to £147.00, now done). There are approximately 27 million households in the UK. The maths is beyond me. With the EU referendum date announced in February and scheduled for June, and the charter ratified for another 11 years in May 2016, it is hard not to suspect that there was some quid pro quo, perhaps reflected in the BBC's almost unanimously pro-Remain coverage of the referendum.

Nigel Farage returns to sender

Even though the press was so pro the Remain camp in the lead-up to the referendum, sinking to the absolute nadir of implying that the killing of Jo Cox had something to do with Brexiteers, even though the financial institutions (or government tools) predicted doom, even though the government spent our money (£9 million) on producing and sending us (the 27 million again) their propaganda (a nice little full-colour booklet) before the campaign officially began (the only way they could get around the rules – I loved Nigel Farage's visit to Downing Street to return his to sender – he really came out of this as intelligent, committed and able to leaven his message with humour), even though the government acted as if our being in the EU was the only reason there wasn't a war in Europe (as if all EU nations were naturally belligerent) and maybe in fact because of all this prejudiced rubbish, the majority of us voted out. Press coverage in the aftermath of the vote has also been vituperative and extremely biased. The BBC as national broadcaster should be objective but instead it broadcasts one viewpoint only, over and over. Now BBC stalwart, David Attenborough, has jumped on board, crying woe and destruction. He has no vested interest whatsoever of course (coincidentally, his new series Planet Earth 2 is being broadcast on the BBC as I write). 

That booklet - fact or fiction?

Oh and then the BBC treated said booklet as the truth, waving it at Brexiteers, saying 'How do you get away from the facts here?' This is simply poor reporting. Since when have we taken any politician's word as gospel, let alone in the midst of an emotive campaign?

Just before the vote, the politicians and the establishment started to get anxious so they pushed through emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline by two days during which time over 430,000 more people applied. In other words, people who hadn't cared enough to bother to register till the last minute were given another chance. But this ploy didn't work either.

The people who voted out were not afraid to try something new. Some of them remembered that it wasn't so bad being on our own. After all, we signed up to a nine-nation EU in the distant past. Now it's a megalithic structure of 27 countries (since Brexit: 28) that's impossible to control, absurdly bureaucratic and rule-bound, with however many would-be members on the waiting list, all of whom will be entitled to a say once they're accepted.

It is quite widely known that I like shoes ...

I was pleased that Boris Johnson was involved with Brexit as I respect him as someone who has the courage of his convictions, is sensible, forthright and doesn't always toe the party line. I read an interesting piece that compared him with David Cameron at school and at university. While Boris was actively involved in politics, 'Dave' merely studied the subject and kept his head down. Boris was memorable, Dave forgettable. Of course some people will say that this was because Boris was larger than life (and mean that in a bad way). What I see is focus, commitment, someone who cares, someone who isn't at all interested in what he wears.

Airheads

I like my politicians like this. It shows that they're not influenced by the superficial or swayed by appearances, that they have different values, common sense and intelligence, unlike Theresa May, who was able to bond with Holly Willoughby, you know the total airhead from This Morning (she and Philip Schofield have turned what was previously a respected magazine format into a Saturday morning children's show) over their mutual passion for shoes. She, Theresa not Holly, said 'Birth should not be a barrier to an education'. I agree. Surely it should be a prerequisite. I'm dismayed that a PM can come up with such a sentence.

Those of us who voted to leave are being accused of letting down the 'young people', many of whom we're told didn’t get around to voting. That's not their fault though. Some of them, their Mums didn’t get them up on time. Some, they were up but no one would tell them where to go to vote. Some, they knew where to go but no one could give them a lift. Others thought they’d already voted by filling in a poll on Facebook.  We're told the issues were too difficult for them to understand and it should have all been made simpler for them. I'm sorry, if they didn't understand the issues, they should have tried harder. If they were eligible to vote and didn't, that's not our lookout.They evidently didn't care enough. Although I also think it's irritating that the press almost universally believe that they would have voted to remain, if they could have been bothered.

The Camerons make their escape

It is disappointing that, after the campaign and the win, the politicians let us down, with David Cameron stepping down as leader although he'd promised to stay on and see it through whatever the decision and Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage backing out of the fray when we needed them, needed a strong, enthusiastic Brexit leader instead of someone who appeared to have no opinion either way, was happy to sit on the fence, but who now gives the impression that she's willing to make the best of a bad job.

Now there's talk not only of another referendum but of wholesale changes to the EU monolith (which remember, wouldn't budge one iota when we were still part of it) so that no one else leaves, and a delayed two-year exit period. It's irritating that when people need to work together, they decide to rip each other to shreds, with Michael Gove betraying Boris, thus ensuring that we didn't get that forceful, committed leader. It's a pity that politicians by their very nature seem incapable of putting the nation's needs above their own.

Philippe Juncker - the pose says it all

The reaction of the EU President, Philippe Juncker should only confirm to those who voted out that we/they made the right decision. He had a hissy fit when we voted to leave, and is still acting like a toddler having a tantrum, trying to ensure that the Brexit negotiations are handled in a spirit of resentment and rancour and insisting that the EU remain 'intransigent'. That's a good starting point for a negotiation, Philippe, intransigence. He needs to grow up and stop taking a nation's decision as a personal insult. All this talk of a payment is appalling. We don't owe the EU anything. Many of us feel it's been bleeding us dry for years. Juncker himself has decried the low turnout at the European Parliament after only 30 out of 750 MEPs deigned to attend for an important vote. EU business mainly takes place in Brussels but the Parliament meets in Strasbourg, resulting in travel costs of 200 million euros per year.

Gina Miller

Here we go again. The High Court has ruled that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without the approval of Parliament after a court case brought by Gina Miller. Does anyone think that if Brexit had lost, it would still be in the news every day? No.
 

Tony Blair

Tony Blair, ever a media w***e, is bleating on and on about how, if only the common people (think Pulp), the young, were bright enough, or had had the whole thing explained to them in words of one syllable, they wouldn't have voted to leave the EU. It's not their fault – they were just too dim to understand all the issues and ramifications or the vote-registration procedure. Think about what he's saying here. And why should we trust someone who's partly responsible for the problems the UK now has, whom history has proven to be a liar?

Now it's the European Courts of Justice. This is getting ridiculous. Next stop, the Supreme Court. All because they can't accept that things didn't go their way. Last time I checked we had a democracy. This is a battle to ensure those that think they know better get the result they want. It's opposed to the very spirit of democracy.

Then there's the question of national identity, an emotive topic. On this, I would say that there's a reason why we never stopped thinking of Europe as separate to us. We're not European. We've never felt European. Here's a quote from The Times war correspondent, Anthony Lloyd, 'the UK suffered expensive strategic consequences after its hostages were publicly beheaded … while captives from European countries walked free after the payment of ransom'. I'm sure he meant to say 'other European countries' but to me, it proves that most of us don't think of ourselves as 'European'. Europe is somewhere we go for our holidays. The vote doesn't mean we hate Europeans. We just want to get off the train as we don't like where it's headed.

As for immigration, someone said that each country should take in immigrants/asylum seekers according to their capacity. Many of us living in the London suburbs feel that we reached our capacity some time ago. The disgruntled Remain voters in the posh parts of London aren’t the ones getting shoved out of the way in the pound shop and probably have private health care so will still be able to get a doctor’s appointment while the receptionist at my surgery was heard suggesting an appointment time to one caller with the words 'You'd better take it as I'll be selling it on eBay later for £200'.

One of the parks the council plans to 'dispose of'
- Old Farm Park

The character of the place I live, the sort of place where two elderly ladies reach the bank at the same time and then try to give way to each other - 'After you', 'No, after you', is already being changed by the influx of incomers, who arrive with their own codes of conduct, value systems, languages and religions. I'm not opposed to change but I want it to be for the better. The streets are already at gridlock. Our council has already built on school playing fields and now plans to dispose of 23 of our parks to developers so we'll have more housing but no infrastructure to support the people who move in. The council's been told to increase supply to meet demand. As Peter Whittle said 'How about reducing demand instead?'

Then there's the question of acculturation. There are such large groups of certain nationalities that there's no pressure to assimilate or learn the language. They come with their own ready-made community. And meanwhile everyone you meet is talking a basic version of English, a kind of Pidgin that can serve for many purposes but means that our language is gradually being denuded of multisyllabic words, that any pretence at proper grammar has left the building, that in a pub in the heart of London, you can't get a shandy because the girl behind the counter doesn't know or care to know what it is.

Child asylum seekers

Postscript 1: The images of the 'child' immigrants arriving in Croydon (blurred out in The Guardian and on the BBC because they realise their appearance belies the word 'child' and think that the general public can't be trusted to react the right way, the way they want us to) should raise concerns because, if we're letting in mainly young men rather than children, a) we're being duped and b) who's helping the actual children? And who's helping the girls? Of the child migrants at Calais, 52 were female, 1,000+ male – that makes them 95 per cent male. Is that a true representation of the gender split of refugees? Of 27 EU nations, 24 age-test child asylum seekers so why is it that anyone who suggests we do the same is considered guilty of cruelty? Surely we can show compassion without being taken advantage of?

Postscript 2: As for Donald Trump's victory in the US, the most shocking thing about this is that 47 per cent of those eligible to vote couldn't be bothered. 

Aside: Tristram Hunt (Labour MP) speaking on Victoria Derbyshire, asked about the Trump win and comparisons to Brexit: 'We on the left are not speaking to the people we came into being to represent.' Condescending much? Nice of you to come into being to represent us.

In case it's important to you, I'm mixed race, the child of a first-generation immigrant and only ever considered myself British.

JonBenet Ramsey – The Ramseys 'In Their Own Words'

JonBenet Patricia Ramsey 1990–1996

Please give me an acknowledgement if you quote my blog. Thank you.

I'm going to lead with this quote from John Ramsey as I feel it's scarily indicative of the Ramsey attitude in general.

The real story here is not that a child was murdered; the real story here is the unjust way we were treated.

I still can't really believe that he said this, long after the murder of his child. Who could possibly think that her death is less important than how her family were treated? Murder pretty much trumps everything else. My latest crime blog is on the murder of Jamie Bulger.

I've been fascinated by the 1996 murder of JonBenet ever since I read a Sunday supplement on it many years ago. Over last Christmas I watched the two-part documentary 'The Case of JonBenét Ramsey' to see whether the experts would discover anything new. I thought their analysis was pretty thorough.

The Ramseys one happier Christmas

I was left convinced that there was something very wrong with the behaviour of the Ramsey family. This may not be proof of guilt but it cannot help but raise suspicions. It prompted me to analyse their actual words during and after the investigation (in red italics here) as there's something very odd about the language they use. The whole thing smacks of crisis management or damage control.

 
1. 911 call

Patsy: We have a kidnapping.

This is such a strange way to put it. It sounds as if John said to Patsy, 'We need to call the police' and Patsy asked 'What shall we tell them?' Him: 'That it's a kidnapping'. Any normal mother in this desperate position would say 'Our daughter's been kidnapped' or 'Someone's kidnapped our daughter'. It's as if they feel they (in the plural note 'We have a kidnapping' - Patsy is not going down for this alone) have to own the situation. Why? Perhaps because they do own it and/or feel the need to control it. This has been apparent in all their dealings with the police and the media. And in their almost immediate retention of counsel. Is it simply because they're used to having things their way that they want to retain the illusion of control? Or is it because they are in control?

911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?

Patsy: We have a …

Patsy is about to use the same phrase again but thinks better of it, perhaps realising how unnatural it sounds.

Patsy: There’s a note left and our daughter is gone.

Why not 'I found a note'? Patsy wants to dissociate herself from the note, possibly because she co-authored it.

Burke and JonBenet

911: How old is your daughter?

Patsy: She is six years old. She is blonde … six years old.

Why does Patsy mention that JonBenet is blonde? Is that really what's important here? What difference does this make? It's as if they had guessed what might be asked and rehearsed the answers, anticipating the next question to be 'What does she look like?'

911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you ...

Patsy: Patsy Ramsey. I'm the mother.

Again, an odd way to put it. Not 'I'm her mother'. This also has the effect of distancing her from any involvement in the incident and making her seem removed from her own daughter.

When they play the continuation of the call, you can hear voices in the background. Even before the programme enhanced this, I said to my sister that I heard someone say 'What did you do?' and it gave me a chill. That's what the team decides too. Three voices are heard:

Man: We're not speaking to you.

Woman: What did you do?

Boy: What did you find?

This could mean that Burke was around at the time of the call although the Ramseys are adamant that he didn't get up, saying:'He appeared to be asleep to us'. Again, this isn't entirely convincing as it's a very qualified statement, as if they want to protect him but not tell an outright lie. Appeared to be asleep means he might not have been, that he might have been pretending. ''To us' implies he might not have appeared asleep to someone else. So why would they say this? It might be completely innocent – they had other things to worry about and just glanced in to check Burke was there. But possibly not.

Staircase where note was found

2. Ransom note

There are several peculiar things about the note. I'll put quotes from the note in purple for ease of distinction.

a. Who has time to concoct and write a note that's three pages long and quite involved?

It certainly seems that the author was in no particular hurry and not scared of being caught. So why not? Or was it written at leisure when the murder had already occurred and without fear of the police being called?

b. Why start a written piece with the words 'Listen carefully!'?
The team believes this suggests a woman addressing a child so implicating Patsy. But who would write 'Listen' on a note?

c. Why didn't the perpetrator ask for more money, if the Ramseys were generally known to be millionaires?

Because ransom wasn't the issue and the note is a fake. Who would be bold enough to kill a child, hide the body (in the house) and still demand a ransom?

d. Why is the amount so specific – $118k – and why did this match John Ramsey's recent bonus?
It seems that only someone who knew about the bonus would ask for this exact figure. It can't be a coincidence. So who knew? The Ramseys definitely. But why cite such a specific amount? Were they trying to give us a clue that someone close at hand was involved? Or was it an embedded confession?

The most unusual ransom note ever?

e. Then, although the note says: 'Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc.. will result in your daughter being beheaded', why does Patsy apparently do so immediately and risk endangering her daughter's life?
It could be that she knows there will be no call from any kidnapper, that JonBenet has not been kidnapped and is in fact already dead. 

f. Why say 'We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction'?

It seems like an attempt to cast the net wide to include more red herrings. As with the mention of 'beheading', it's a distraction.

g. Why was Patsy asked to supply handwriting samples five times before being discounted as the author of the note?
This suggests that there were certain similarities. Perhaps Patsy attempted to disguise her writing. Certainly in the samples I've seen, her writing is almost identical to that on the note.

h. Why use quotes from movies?

I have no idea but it would be interesting to know whether these films were in the Ramseys' collection.

For another perspective and more details on the ransom note, see here.

They support each other

3. General obfuscation

a. Why do the Ramseys invite their friends over?

You assume for support but this could be just to confuse the issue. It certainly makes crime scene forensics difficult. You'd think they would want to wait till the police arrived to collect evidence.

b. Where does John Ramsey go and why is he away 1.5 hours?

This isn't explained in the programme.

c. Does he prepare their private plane? And why?

Why would you think leaving this situation could help in any way? If your daughter's been kidnapped, you'd surely want to stay put. Perhaps they hoped to spirit her body away in the plane before anyone found her.

The Ramsey house in Boulder

4. Finding JonBenet's body

But what really struck me was that once they announced they were going to search the house thoroughly John Ramsey immediately went down to the basement, took a key from above the lintel and opened the door to discover JonBenet's body. This prompts several questions.

a. Why go straight there?

Because he already knew where she was. If he got there first, he could compromise the scene - which he does by picking up the body.

b. Why would a kidnapper/killer close and lock the door and put the key back where they found it?

It would be extremely unlikely. I suppose if he'd accidentally killed JonBenet then he might want to delay the discovery of her body. But why put the key back where you found it? Why not hide the key or take it with you? That would cause more of a delay.

c. Assuming that the key was always kept in a particular place, how would the kidnapper know this? 
Unless he was a close family friend or one of the family he wouldn't. This suggests that either Patsy or John Ramsey locked JonBenet's body in this room. It doesn't make sense and if you've read my Oscar Pistorius blogs, you'll now what I'm going to say next. If it doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true. Just like Judge Judy says.

TV interview

5. More of the Ramseys in their own words

They say they want to talk to the press but ...

Not because we're angry.

Why not? Wouldn't this be a natural reaction? An innocent child was killed. Their child.

For our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.

Why this happened? Again, they're distancing themselves. And I would not be able to imagine anyone having a valid reason to murder my daughter. Plus wouldn't you want to know who did it? Unless you already knew of course.

John: JonBenet and I had a very close relationship.
Why does he need to say this? He protests too much. Plus it implies that Patsy and JonBenet were not close.

This -- we cannot go on until we know why.

Again with the why. As if the killer could say 'I hate pageant queens' or 'I don't like Mondays' and that would be sufficient. This makes me think that they feel responsible and feeling like this, they can't get angry because logically they could only be angry with themselves. But, having said that, why aren't they angry with themselves? It would be natural to feel some sort of guilt.

Asked: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?
John: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are.

Again, he protests too much and completely fails to answer the question. It's as if he can't. His statement about being a loving family, losing one child, how precious children are, etc. implies that they would do anything to protect the one child they still have.To add to this a new programme has Patsy saying: If I lost Burke I would have no reason to go on living.
But a very good reason to protect him.

Patsy: I loved that child.

Again, the use of a distancing article is strange. Why not 'I loved my daughter'?

Finally Patsy says:

For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

At least she's finally asking who but her statement implies that other children might be in danger, which wasn't proved to be the case.

Then my favourite quote and the one I started with, the most telling of all.

John: The real story story here is not that a child was murdered; the real story here is the unjust way we were treated.

This is very 'it's all about me'ish. Why are people still concerned that a child was murdered when they should be worried about how the Ramseys have been represented? Because a six-year-old girl was killed, guys.

That uneasy smile

6. Burke Ramsey
In all the interviews I've seen, Burke has displayed a very strange affect, as if he's amused by his sister's death. Even 20 years later, he's unable to stop smiling, to appear to give a damn, even for an instant. He can't even be bothered to fake it. Either he's completely dissociated from it (and always has been) or is sociopathic.

Interviewed a short while after JonBenet's death, these are his words.

On talking to the police.

You wanna find out who killed my sister.

He remembers

Mom going psycho.

And though he can't recall her ever getting angry or upset like this, it doesn't prompt him to action.

I just stayed in my room. … I thought maybe JonBenet was missing.

Why, out of every possibility, would this occur to him? As if he's just realised that the interviewer might wonder this, he adds:

But what’s the likelihood of that?

He comes across as rather snide and knowing.

Then he asserts, as if to prove his alibi.

I always sleep real deeply. I can never hear anything.

Hmm. But he heard his Mom 'going psycho', he wasn’t asleep then. Why would a curious child not investigate? Because he knew what had happened and had been told to stay in his room, that he'd done enough perhaps.

Asked about secrets, he says:

If I did remember any, I don't think I’d tell you.

No, I bet he wouldn't. He acts as if this is just a game.

Happy again?

Asked why he thinks they're talking to him:

To see if they can find who … you know what.

Although he isn't interested himself. He's not upset that his sister's been killed, not surprised either but appears amused. He laughs, saying:

I know what happened.

This is almost an admission but he doesn't follow this up because he realises that he's implicating himself. To emphasise how little affected he is, how unafraid:

I'm basically just going on with my life.

He speculates on the manner of JonBenet's death:

Or maybe with a hammer and hit in the head with it.

He simply can't resist showing off. It's unlikely that his parents would have mentioned this to him so how does he know? And when he acts it out, it's scary.

[Thought I would mention here that psychopathic traits in youth typically comprise the following: lack of empathy, narcissism, and impulsivity/irresponsibility.]

Interviewed on Dr Phil when he's an adult. The smirk is still there. However, he does say:

I don't want anybody to stop working on the case. I want them to focus on finding the real killer. And not making up bogus theories about me and my parents.

Asked about the ransom note:

I don't think I've read the whole thing.

I can understand him not reading it at the time but he evidently has never had any desire to read it, to discover what happened. He gives the impression that he doesn't care. Or that he knows there'll be no insight from the note because it was written by his parents, not by any particularly leisurely kidnapper.

He seems bemused by people's interest in the murder, as if weren't a shocking event in his life:

Apparently there’s still a lot of attention around it.

Of JonBenet, he acts as if she were a stripper rather than a six-year-old and it's plain that he blames her:

She would flaunt whatever onstage. She wasn’t shy I guess.

She was six! She didn't have anything to flaunt. This seems to be part and parcel of the Ramsey stance that the pageants attracted a pervert, who was after JonBenet.

Asks his father not what happened but where they found JonBenet’s body. So he knew she was dead.

When interviewed one hour after JonBenet’s body had been found, Burke doesn’t even ask about her. Perhaps he can't trust himself and is afraid that he might reveal something he's not supposed to know.

The first thing I heard my Mom burst into my room looking for JonBenet … at that point I was awake. I just lay there.

Why? Why wouldn't you ask her anything? And I have a theory that anyone who uses 'At that point' is trying to establish a timeline, a cause and effect narrative that usually isn't true. I know this from watching too many hours of Judge Judy. And which do we believe, this, or I always sleep real deeply.

Then he says a police officer came into his room with a flashlight but

Part of me didn’t want to know what was going on.

Why not? Because he knew very well what was going on.

At a friend’s house:

Everyone was really sad over there.

But not Burke.

At funeral:

I remember the viewing. One of her eyes was droopy. I thought that was weird.

He’s again almost laughing. It really is as if he derives pleasure from JonBenet’s death and from the fact that she no longer looks perfect. There's definitely no empathy. 

Footage from the funeral shows him smirking and chewing gum.

Did you ever feel like she got all the attention?

No. That was just normal to me.

This means yes then, i.e. he did feel like she got all the attention. Can't have been easy.

Told that Dr Phil’s going to show a video from 13 days after JonBenet’s death, Burke looks uncomfortable, almost sick.

In the interview, asked to draw a picture of his family, he leaves JonBenet out. His explanation:

She was gone so I didn’t draw her.

No tears. No hesitation. No confusion or trauma.

He completely fails to recognise what's normal and what isn't.

I was randomly crying out of nowhere.

If he was crying, he had a good reason, it wasn't 'out of nowhere'.

Asked, 'Did you murder JonBenet?'

He smiles and says no. Why smile? If you were really innocent, wouldn’t you be indignant? Upset? Angry? Outraged to even be suspected?

Look at the evidence or the lack thereof.

The evidence all points to you mate. A lack of evidence proves nothing.

Asked who he thinks did kill her:

I never really thought about it.

So, 20 years ago your sister was murdered and you say:

I never really thought about it.

It's very similar to John and Patsy Ramsey’s:

We want to find out why this happened.

They all know who did it and so they don't need or want to think about it.

We all knew in our hearts we didn’t do anything.

What’s that mean? In our hearts? That their heads told them something else?

Points to consider
Let's remember that the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys on two charges: child abuse resulting in death* and accessory to a crime,** although no one realised this at the time because the proceedings were secret. DA Alex Hunter decided not to pursue either charge and everyone assumed (wrongly) that the Jury had voted not to indict.
[*The child abuse charge stated that John and Patsy 'did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of 16.'

**The accessory charge declared that the two 'did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.']

Patsy and John did not submit to police interviews till 4 months after JonBenet's death. You would think the sooner they co-operated the more quickly they could be eliminated as suspects. 

JonBenet was strangled 45 minutes to 2 hours after she was hit on the head.

In the past Burke had struck JonBenet in the face with a golfclub, supposedly accidentally.

Fleet White was interviewed by the police 18 times. Why?

If Linda Arndt hasn’t instructed John Ramsey and Fleet White to search the house again, merely to keep John Ramsey occupied, perhaps JonBenet’s body would have remained hidden while the police focused on the elusive, imaginary kidnapper. Would her body then have been spirited away on the private plane? And why didn’t two searches of the house discover the body?

A particularly disturbing fact is that faeces had been smeared in JonBenet's bed and on some chocolates she had received for Christmas. This could only have been Burke. He must have felt pretty jealous and angry to do something so malevolent. And perhaps he was capable of doing something worse.

The programme's research suggests that JonBenet was not subdued with a taser (as previously thought) but possibly prodded with a track from Burke’s trainset. This is something a child would use not an intruder.

Has anyone looked at Burke's school records?

Was the ransom note written by someone who was lefthanded or righthanded? Has anyone checked the insert symbol used on the note against pages written by Patsy or John? It seems pretty distinctive to me.

Why would a kidnapper kill his target, unlock and open a wine cellar, put her body in it then replace the key where he found it? How did he find it? Why replace it? If you didn't want the body to be found, you would have taken the key with you.

Burke's solicitors have devised a list of 70 points that they say prove he is innocent. Almost none of them prove anything at all because they're irrelevant. No room to go into them here. 

I believe all the evidence points to Burke being the culprit. I think he was incredibly jealous of JonBenet, and very angry, possibly about something as minor as a Christmas present, and simply lashed out and killed her. I don't think that John and Patsy Ramsey are bad people. I think they found themselves in an impossible situation. JonBenet was dead and there was nothing they could do about that. They had to act quickly. They wanted to protect the child they had left. Burke was only 9 and probably wouldn't have been held criminally responsible for his actions. But would it have ruined his life? As a reflex, they went into crisis-management mode and acted accordingly to salvage what they could of their family.

JonBenet Patricia Ramsey Rest in Peace

My latest crime blog is on the murder of Jamie Bulger.