Michael Barrymore and the Tragic Death of Stuart Lubbock Part 1: The 999 Call

Stuart Lubbock

Published to coincide with the anniversary of Stuart Lubbock's death. Let's find out the truth.

This blog series was prompted by the recent Channel 4 documentary Michael Barrymore: The Body in the Pool. First of all I'm a little appalled by the title. It uses the TV star's name (to draw viewers, that's acceptable) but the victim is just 'the body'. This is disrespectful and callous. Stuart Lubbock was a person. He mattered and he had a name. It diminishes him to call him ‘the body’. At least have the courtesy to use his name as well as Michael Barrymore's. As in my previous crime blogs, it analyses the language used by those connected in some way to Stuart's death.

My intention with this blog is to analyse some of the statements made by those involved in the incident, starting with the 999 call. I'm not apportioning blame, just pointing out how what people say (and the words they use) and choose not to say can reveal underlying attitudes and intentions. As so much has been published, said and broadcast on this case, I have a lot to consider so will publish the blog in sections. The second part is mainly background, who was there, etc. and you can find it here. The third part covers the four post-mortems and can be read here.

Justin Merritt

The 999 call 31 March 2001 5.48 a.m.

The caller, Justin Merritt's words are in blue, any other quotes in purple.

When the caller is asked for the address, he has to be prompted by someone else (but who? Michael Barrymore?) on every line, from the house number to the town, which suggests that he either doesn’t know the place well or is unsure what he’s allowed to say and is waiting for a cue. Perhaps he's more biddable than the other guests. This kind of prompting puts me in mind of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call over JonBenet.*

*If you haven't heard of the JonBenet Ramsey case, See my blog for more on the strange words of John and Patsy Ramsey.

The Barrymore 999 call goes like this. Asked for the address:

Someone in the background says Number 4.

Number 4

Someone in the background says Beaumont Park Drive.

Beaumont Park Drive

Someone in the background says Roydon.

Roydon

Someone in the background says Essex.
Essex

This begins with an attempt to establish a narrative, similar to Kate McCann’s cry on the night Madeleine disappeared. She is variously described as saying: Someone’s taken her! They've taken Madeleine! and The fucking bastards have taken her!

What this does is put into everyone's minds the idea that a) Madeleine's been abducted b) A third party is involved in the abduction, perhaps more than one person c) Kate and Gerry are not involved. 

It's also similar to Patsy Ramsey's assertion, the first thing she says on her 911 call:

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 'Well, what shall we tell them?' and he said: 'That it's a kidnapping'.

The pool at Barrymore's property, hot tub in foreground

Back to Barrymore, the call continues.

A geezer’s drowned in the pool.

This sentence has several effects:

1. It sets up the drowning/accident idea, so establishing the narrative as mentioned above, what the caller/prompter wants us to believe.
2. It distances the caller from the person in the pool. He doesn’t name the victim (a bit like the Channel 4 documentary) and acts like it’s someone random, whom no one there knows, who's turned up and drowned in the pool although by the time the call was made, you'd have to assume that the caller and the rest of the group know it's Stuart Lubbock but possibly I'm doing them a disservice, perhaps they didn't know his name at this stage.
3. The use of ‘geezer’ is almost derogatory, akin to ‘Oh no! Some geezer’s only gone and drowned in the pool!’ Plus it has the effect of making light of the rest of the sentence.
4. From this and the sentence that follows we know that the person in the pool is already dead, has died before this call was made. Why? Because you wouldn't use 'drowned' of someone who was still alive. Drowned is an ending, it's final. We don't know whether he was dead when he was put in the pool. 

When the emergency operator questions him, the caller rephrases the statement slightly.

A fella’s drowned in the pool?

He uses ‘fella’ instead of ‘geezer’, but the word has the same connotations though is perhaps slightly less dismissive. This time, however, his intonation goes up at the end; it’s said as a question, as if now the caller himself doesn’t really believe what he’s saying.

Asked: Are they still in the water?

No. We've got them out.
We're not told who the 'We' is.

Not sure of the order here but we hear at one point:
Fucking hell.
Asked: Have you done resuscitation?
Did resuscitation. It ain't workin'. Don't know how long he's been there.
And the tone of that last sentence also implies that he doesn't care. The caller's affect is distinctly matter-of-fact, unbothered. This account is at odds with that of James Futers in which he claims Stuart was still breathing when pulled out of the pool. And it suggests that Stuart could have been in the pool, unconscious or dead for a while without anyone noticing.

Then he adds information, an attempt to insert at least something that's actually true.

There’s a party going on and someone’s just gone out and found him.

Again, the victim is still not named although by this time you would have hoped/expected that they'd worked out who it was. The mysterious ‘someone’ we now know was Michael Barrymore and you'd have to assume that the caller knows it was Barrymore but opts not to name him but for a different reason: to try to keep him out of the picture for as long as possible.

Jonathan Kenney

In relation to this, I've just learnt that in Jonathan Kenney's first statement to police, he lied, saying that Michael Barrymore wasn't at the house on the night Stuart Lubbock died, presumably in an attempt to protect Barrymore. But it also reveals that the truth is not an imperative here.

Then the caller ad-libs with extraneous information that has no bearing on the situation at all. As before, this unwarranted outburst of information is possibly something that the caller knows is true so he wants to get it in, to prove himself reliable, normal, straight. 

I tell you what, mate, the first time I’ve been out in four f****** years, I have me kids every weekend, and f****** hell.

Who cares? How is this relevant? And the expletives make it even less appropriate.

So, let's break it down as Peter Hyatt might.

I tell you what, mate.

The purpose of the language used in this diatribe is to align the caller with the operator and establish a rapport, a chumminess. The 'I tell you what' is informal and invites the operator to listen to him as he relates a 'story' and trust what he says because we're all mates here, the same sort of people.

The first time I’ve been out in four f****** years.

This is said to alert the operator to the fact that the caller is not at a party every night, that this is unusual for him. It shows a callous disregard for the victim and even an unspoken attempt to blame him for the fact that the caller’s night out has been ruined and thus also reveals a disturbing lack of perspective. The person in the pool is dead.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

I have me kids every weekend.

This is an attempt to ensure that the emergency operator realises that the caller is a family man, he has children, who he cares about so has with him every weekend but it also implies that he expects kudos for this. What he's trying to say is: if there was a gay orgy, he wasn’t involved. And moreover, we have to assume that the caller was chosen to make the call because he was married and had children, to steer the emergency services away from the idea that there was anything untoward going on. What we see is that the caller has no sympathy for the dead ‘geezer’. Even if you didn’t know him well, you would have to think this was a tragic end to his night, that perhaps should take precedence over your momentary disappointment. 

... and f****** hell.
More of the same. Said to show shock but comes across as self-involved somehow.

You don’t expect it, do you?

No you wouldn't. Unfortunately this still comes across as uncaring, just a casual aside. There's no empathy.

F****** hell. I think the geezer’s dead, mate.

The inclusion of 'Fucking hell' is supposed to imply surprise although we already know that Stuart is dead and so does the caller. We know this from his first sentence: 'A geezer's drowned in the pool'. The inclusion of ‘mate’ is another attempt to involve the operator in the situation, to make it seem like we're all in the same boat. Still, it’s just a ‘geezer’ to him, no one worth naming. He's a bit like Channel 4 in this.

Along with this, we need to consider:

1. The decidedly offhand tone of the caller throughout. He doesn't sound in a panic or overly concerned, only rising to annoyance when talking about himself and his night out. He positions Stuart as a bit of party pooper whose death is only significant to him inasmuch as it's ruined his fun. This doesn't mean he's necessarily guilty of anything but it also demonstrates how little he cares. He is later reported as being in the jacuzzi with Jonathan Kenney while Stuart was dive-bombing into the pool. This puts them both at the scene at one point, if we're to believe Stuart really drowned. Did no one notice that Stuart was in trouble?
2. What is missing from the content of this call. He hasn't panicked. He hasn't asked for advice on what to do. He hasn't said anyone is attempting CPR. To me, this means that Stuart is dead and beyond advice or resuscitation.

Michael Barrymore

Conclusion

So, we gather from the 999 call that the caller drew the short straw (no one could have wanted to perform this difficult task), probably because he was a family man. His statements show that he doesn't really feel any responsibility himself for what happened.

What we also know is that Michael Barrymore is not mentioned at all, probably because it was hoped that he could be spirited away without anyone knowing.

Later it becomes apparent that Barrymore's PA, Michael Browne, was called after Barrymore had fled the scene. It would be interesting to find out whether he was called before or after the 999 call. Did Barrymore consider his own career and reputation ahead of the need to involve the emergency services? I'm told he did call afterwards. If not, it would be similar to when Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp and called his estate manager and friend, Johan Stander, before calling for an ambulance. See my blog on the Pistorius trial. Damage limitation has to be achieved before the police arrive. I will consider further echoes of the Pistorius case and the JonBenet Ramsey case in the blogs that follow.

And of course, most importantly, it has accomplished its prime goal of establishing the narrative: A man has drowned in the swimming pool.

Justice4Stuart
Always remember the victim.

Stuart Lubbock, Rest in Peace.

Stuart Lubbock, also a father

Judge Judy: Lost in Translation?

Starts off smiling

This is a humorous look at the way the plaintiffs and defendants on Judge Judy (Judge Judy Sheindlin) continually rewrite the English language. I sometimes wonder how she keeps a straight face. I know the English education system is in freefall but this is proof that the American one is just as bad.

Transportation

But I have to give them some kudos for the initiative they show when they don't know a word, creating their own vocabulary on the fly, something that Americans have always excelled at hence burglarise instead of burgle, transportation for transport. Transportation is when we sent convicts to Australia. The words existed but someone didn’t know them so instead of investing in a dictionary, they made up their own which tended to mean making the word longer so I imagine that the next generation might come up with 'transportationalization'. Another good one is we have Worcester sauce but the Americans have Worcestershire sauce.

This strange hybrid tongue often emerges when people try to sound more intelligent than they are in an effort to plead their case articulately and often involves them introducing phrases such as 'At that point', 'I proceeded to', 'basically', etc, sure signs that they're hiding something. I think I've said this before but the opposite of the desired effect almost always results. Judy unlike the judge in the Pistorius trial, Judge Thokozile Masipa, sees through lies, prevarications and exaggerated attention to unnecessary details immediately, catching the defendants/plaintiffs in a lie as soon as they open their mouths.

Gratuitous image of Louis

Like the writers of Versailles (beautifully made but the would-be portentous dialogue lets it down) and Jessie Burton's various felonies in The Miniaturist, they are guilty of common assault on the English language.

Here are some examples that made me chuckle. 

Someone is in trouble … 'due to failure not to pay'. If you failed not to pay, you paid. It's a bit like when a friend of mine apologised for her daughter by saying 'she's very bad at being late', which she failed to see meant that she was usually on time.

'Careful now'

'He said he was commandating my vehicle. 'Commandeering is the word they're searching for.

'He sent messages sexually expliciting me.' Not sure here. I’ve never been sexually explicited in a message or anywhere else.

'The dog was malnutritioned.' Ok I can see how they got to this but the word is malnourished.

Officer Byrd
keeps his own counsel

'My probation was revocated.' Or even revoked.

'She used a bunch of profound words.' Going by his speech, I doubt it but there’s no crime in that, however unusual it might be in his milieu. He meant profane.

'My dog needed to be feeded.' It rhymes at least but in English we say fed.

'Because I’d been in a domestic situation myself.' We’ve all been in domestic situations. Having a cup of tea in the kitchen is a domestic situation. It’s evident that some people think ‘domestic’ means violent. Hence: 'He domestically assaulted me.'

What? Hit you with an oven glove? 

Judy asks one woman why she moved out and is told: 'Several abusive mentally domestic disputes.' Huh? 

A man says 'She implicated every inch of my life.' What?

'He’s a compulsory liar.' That means he's forced to lie. They mean compulsive, he can't help lying.

'I was the benefactor of the annuity'. Beneficiary is what they meant but well done for getting annuity right!

Horrified

'He works with his father, carpenting.' That's 'in carpentry' to the rest of us.

I'm amused that when asked who they live with, they often reply: 'With myself.'

'She read my text messages and found them appropriate'.So what's the problem? He meant inappropriate.

Often they've said something that makes sense but is evidently not what they meant: 'I asked her to use her car', which implies he told her to use her car not what he meant, which was: 'I asked her if I could use her car'.

A girl, asked why she was in trouble with the police: 'I got an under the influence … pretty much that I was in public'.

Now a few translations of the 'new' words that'll help you to decode the language and enjoy Judge Judy.

An agreeance is an agreement. They've broughten (brought) their paperwork or boughten (bought) a ring. People frequently conversate with others. We would say converse but to them, this is a brand of sneakers ('trainers' to you and I, a word that cracks Americans up). Occasionally someone suffers from hystericalness. That's hysteria to you and me. Reminds me of Peter Andre's version of insanity, insania. Sentences often start Otherly. Your guess is as good as mine. Some people use their physicalness rather than their physicality. And something might have been tooken (taken).

Curious odds and ends:

'She's become not the person I brought up.'

'I believe in hair extensions.' Well it's nice to believe in something I suppose. 

And how’s this for an understatement? 'He bit my roommate’s ear off. It just didn’t work out.'

Pretty angry

Anyway, this type of assault on English is not restricted to Judge Judy but occurs in many other contexts. Here are a few of my favourites.

'We did not say them anything.' Huh? 

As evidence that the world is now full of snowflakes these days. One man whines:  'They were yelling obscene things like "Stop crying, you crybaby"'. I'm not sure in what universe, crybaby would be considered an obscenity.

A shopworker had to leave his retail job because of abuse. Asked what kind of things people said to him, he replies: 'Why is it taking so long?' 'Why's it so slow?' That's not abuse, mate! That's a reasonable question.

Late contender: priorly. Judy picks up on this: 'Priorly is not a word, sir'.

For more on language in different contexts, see my blog on the words the Ramseys use when talking about the murder of their daughter, JonBenet. Or those used by Oscar Pistorius in his trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. But always #rememberthevictims.

For failed attempts to be clever, please see Do You Speak Olde Worlde? Versailles, and The Miniaturist by Jessie Burton.

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.