I just watched this segment from start to finish and took notes on my computer notepad along the way. I feel I have all of the pertinent info pertaining to the case, as presented by UM, ready to be digested and criticized.

Everything I present is obviously based on UM only, as some things about the segment I feel could have been better elaborated on, and other issues UM failed to address completely. I will point these issues out as I go along.

Here is how I will post this critique: I present each pertinent assertion of the parent's theory in order of how they were presented in the segment. I will number them 1,2,3,4 etc. Underneath that I will post my critique of each claim. I will post unanswered questions I have that the segment just didn't clear up or address at all. So, each point will have 2 sections and then unanswered questions if any. I am doing it this way so that I can avoid just rambling on about disjointed aspects of the case. I am trying to make it as organized as possible for simplicity.

Let's begin:

1) The parents say they came home around 6:10 PM and found Tommy dead upstairs in an upright position with a revolver in his hand. The father claims he picked up the gun and determined it was unlatched (a revolver can't fire with an unlatched cylinder).

Critique of point #1: All we have is the father's testimony as we are lacking photos of the crime scene to back his assertion. If there are such crime scene photos, UM never mentioned them, and they certainly would have if the photos contradicted the official story. I don't think the father is lying, but I think it's possible that his details are a bit sketchy since he was emotional after just having found his son dead. Perhaps he unlatched the cylinder when he pried it out of Tommy's hands. Either way, there is nothing here anyone can prove one way or the other.

I assume the gun belonged to the Burketts but UM never addressed this, as they didn't do in several other cases like this, which is quite vexing. Since it is safe to assume it was the Burkett's gun, then how did the killers know where to find it? Did they rummage through the house looking for a gun that they have no idea even exists?

2) The parents had the body exhumed and the 2nd autopsy revealed that Tommy had a number of superficial skin wounds as well as a broken jaw.

Critique of point #2: Why did the first autopsy not catch this? Was the first medical examiner in on the conspiracy too? Was he simply a lousy doctor? I don't deny the findings of the 2nd autopsy but find the discrepancy rather interesting. My theory is that these wounds were a result of the beating Tommy took a few days before his death. By the parent's own admission, Tommy had been beaten up at an off campus function. Did it occur to them that this could be the reason for his alleged wounds? Just because Tommy was beaten up (if indeed he even was) does not equate to murder. They were two separate events.

3) The parents claim that the paramedics on the scene had told them that Tommy had been dead for hours, yet the detective said it had only been a few minutes. The father said Tommy was cold to the touch, so he thinks the detective was up to no good.

Critique of #3: This is one of the more ridiculous points the parents raise. In fact, I don't think it is worth them mentioning even if it DID happen. Why? Because it has no bearing on determining Tommy's cause of death. Even if the detective did lie about the time of death, what purpose does it serve? I don't understand how Tommy being dead for a few minutes vs. hours contributes to the effectiveness of a cover-up. IF this detective really said this, I find it likely that he was simply mistaken about his assessment. He is not a doctor, even though I admit a police detective should be able to tell the difference in a fresh death and one hours old. However, I still fail to see how him saying this would help him cover anything up.

4) The parents claim the detective brandished a suicide note that he claimed had been written by Tommy. It simply read, "I want to be cremated."

Critique of #4: Much like point #1, there is really no way to prove or disprove this. The parents claim it happened, yet they didn't produce the suicide note for the segment. Wouldn't you keep something like that around if you had questions? I am skeptical of the note, but there is no way to really argue either way.

Unanswered questions: Do the police affirm or deny the existence of this note? I don't recall the Police official on the show mentioning it.

5) The parents claim that they returned to Tommy's dorm room to clean it out a couple of weeks after his death. They say that a University official entered the room and handed them his driver's license. The official claimed that it had been turned in by a student, but the official said she couldn't divulge who this student was. The parents claim they later found out who the student was via anonymous sources. This student is one of the students they feel was involved in Tommy's death.

Critique: This is probably the most preposterous point the parents brought up. I have no way of knowing whether the license was really turned in like they said it was, but I do know that if it was turned in by the killer, then he must immediately be put on a "stupid criminals" T.V. show.

I find it odd that the killer can stage this perfect crime scene straight out of a Sherlock Holmes novel, yet is a complete moron when it comes to covering up his work of art. I think if the license scenario did occur like they claim, then it was turned in by an innocent person who just happened to find it laying on campus grounds. I think the parent's assertion that they "know who turned it in" is baseless. They never provided any evidence that their suspect turned it in other than the "claims of anonymous students."


6) The parents claim that various neighbors saw a car chasing Tommy's car through the neighborhood. Based on the segment, it is claimed that at least two neighbors witnessed this.

Critique: The neighbors who saw the actual car chase never appeared on camera to provide their story. The one neighbor that did appear on camera did not see a chase.

According to the segment, Tommy did not park in the driveway but rather somewhere else and then ran home. This brings up a major question: if so many people saw the car chase, why didn't anyone see Tommy running through the neighborhood on foot as is claimed? Why didn't anyone see the assailant's car parked in his driveway? If the assailants didn't park in the driveway, then where did they park? If they parked on the side of the street somewhere, how come no one noticed?

Secondly, the location of the neighbors who saw the chase was not mentioned. Why does this matter? If these "neighbors" lived a half mile down the street, it is completely possible that a car chase did happen, but Tommy's car was not involved as these neighbors likely would not have intimate knowledge of Tommy's car. Why should they? It's feasible that two random cars happened to be speeding by, and after Tommy's parents got the neighbors all worked up, they suddenly "remembered" a random event that had nothing to do with Tommy. I have a lot of neighbors, and I don't keep up with who drives what car. If someone were murdered on my block, I would rack my brain trying to remember details about that day. I can see how one can easily exaggerate details about a minor event because one's brain will remember otherwise forgettable details when something else important happens around the time period. This is why many studies have shown eye witnesses to be unreliable. it's similar to the power of suggestion.

So, I just covered inconsistencies with "far-away" neighbors, but what if, on the other hand, these neighbors lived directly adjacent to Tommy's home? Why didn't they continue watching the chase until it's end? Obviously it ended somewhere close by and certainly they would have seen Tommy jump out of his car and run to his house. If they were next door, they would have been in perfect position to see something happen after the chase ended. Why not stick around for it?

Unanswered questions: This is the part of the segment that UM dropped the ball on. There are many unanswered questions surrounding this supposed car chase. As I said, it is claimed that Tommy did not drive the car directly to his house during the chase, but rather parked it somewhere in the neighborhood and then hiked on foot back home. I assume he did this because he didn't want his pursuers seeing where his parents lived. Further, the segment never mentioned where Tommy's car was eventually found by police, or if it was even found. This, to me, seems paramount and I am at a loss as to why UM didn't address this. The most important thing left out, however, was where exactly the neighbors who witnessed the chase lived relative to Tommy.

7) A neighbor that did appear on the segment claims she saw Tommy's car shortly after dark driving around the cul-de-sac with its lights off. She claimed that it stopped in the cul-de-sac in front of her house and just sat there until she walked back inside.

Critique: This witness seems more credible because we know there IS a witness, unlike the other claims. However, what she saw means very little, if anything at all. Why?

First, it was dark and the car had its light off. It is more difficult to determine the make of a car when its lights are off.

Second, if it was indeed Tommy's car, then we must give this killer extra credit for being even dumber than previously thought. Why would Tommy's killer drive his car around after killing him? Why would he draw attention to himself by turning the lights off and then sitting a few yards from a neighbor when that neighbor was staring him down? Why not simply escape and leave Tommy's car where it was?

Since we know that Tommy's car was not in the driveway when the parents got home, then you can throw out the theory that the killer was simply trying to drive the car to Tommy's house so that nothing would appear out of order. We know this didn't happen. So, we are left with 3 scenarios:

1) The killer is a complete imbecile and was aimlessly driving Tommy's car around for no reason
2) The neighbor saw Tommy in his own car
3) The neighbor had the wrong car

8) The parents claim there was blood found on the stairwell a few days later that had gotten overlooked by police. This fact was confirmed by an independent investigator hired by the parents.

Critique: Because of the testimony of the scientific investigator who appeared on camera, there is no doubt that the blood did exist. However, even by his own admission, he could not identify the blood as Tommy's. He also said the bullet found had no blood or hair on it, but one must ask how long the police had the bullet before he got it? Without knowing this, his analysis doesn't mean much. The blood could have been removed via a lot of handling of the bullet. Regardless, the fact the blood could not be identified as Tommy's is damning.

Secondly, the blood was on the side of the stairwell wall, but there was no indication of it anywhere on the carpet of the stairs or anywhere between the stairs and the room Tommy was found in. If Tommy had been shot or beaten downstairs, as is postulated by the parents, then why was there absolutely no blood trail anywhere along the path?

Unanswered questions: Were the stairs carpeted as shown in the segment? If so, this is even more damning to the parents theory as it is not easy to quickly clean blood off carpet. Basically, if there was blood on the wall, it should have been elsewhere also, but it wasn't.

9) Tommy's mother claims that a few weeks after Tommy's death, she called the local 911 dispatchers to inquire about any possible 911 calls Tommy might have made. She claims the operator said he had made two calls on the day of his death. When pressed about what the calls were about, the operator said she needed to ask her supervisor. After the dispatcher came back to the phone, he/she claimed there was an error and Tommy did NOT make any such call at all. The mother seems to be insinuating that this dispatcher was told by the supervisor to lie and cover up the call records. The cop on the segment said that the tapes were checked but had been routinely deleted because the mother didn't bring this 911 thing to his attention until after the 30 days. Further, the mother claims that no police responded to Tommy's 911 calls because they obviously wanted him dead.

Critique: This one is very easy to poke holes in. Besides the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the dispatcher told the mother anything but "there were no calls," the mother seems to be implying here that not only is the DEA, police dept., and coroner's office in on the killing, but so are the dispatchers at 911! This is preposterous in itself.

As for the claim that the police didn't respond to the call, let me tell you a little story. My friend is a police dispatcher. He told me that he was working dispatch one night when he got a call from a city council woman. The woman wanted cops at her house because of a domestic dispute. About 5 minutes later she called back and said to cancel it because she had worked it out (keep in mind she didn't want this to be made public). My friend told her "sorry but we have to come out there, it's a rule." She told him she would have his job if he didn't cancel the call, but he told her to take it up with the Chief. Even when threatened with his job, he made the officers go out to her home anyway. He said he wasn't worried about her getting him fired, because he would certainly be fired if he didn't send them out there. The Chief would have fired him on the spot. That's how seriously police take 911 calls, and I live in a fairly small town.

My point is, it is doubtful the police ignored the 911 call (unless the ENTIRE police department was in on it). The truth is, the reason the police didn't come to the house is because they were NOT called in the first place.

10) Tommy called his mother from his dorm a few days prior to his death. He was frantic and told her that "they stole my paycheck from my mailbox and they found out what I am doing." She said he wouldn't elaborate on what he meant.

Critique: Besides this simply being hearsay (like almost everything else the mother says), Tommy's comments make no sense at all. I assume that he was talking about a DEA paycheck, because if he had another job, the mother would have mentioned it. Ergo, it's fair to assume Tommy was talking about his DEA check.

If he was a DEA informant, why would they send his "paycheck" to his mailbox at his dorm? Don't these guys have more clandestine ways of getting paid?

Further, if Tommy was worried about his life, then why did he not simply go to the DEA and tell them that he needed protection? If he felt the DEA was part of this vast conspiracy to kill him, then why not contact the FBI or the state police or some other agency? I just think it's ludicrous that the DEA would use him and then try to kill him. If he worked for them, then why would they want him dead? Was he a double agent? This isn't a James Bond movie. Nothing, and I mean nothing, adds up about the DEA story. It's totally ridiculous. There is no reason, based on the facts presented by UM, to believe it.

11) The mother claims she was on campus and she just happened to approach three guys and ask them if they had seen Tommy (Note: she doesn't mention if these were random people or if she knew them already). The guys responded that no they hadn't seen him but for her to let him know they were looking for him in order to "beat him up."

Critique: More hearsay. I find it very convenient that A) she just happens upon these guys and B) that they just happen to know Tommy.

Enter the stupid criminal factor again. Not only do these guys kill Tommy, turn in his driver's license, drive his car around his own neighborhood, but they also tell his mother they out to get him before they actually do go after him. Real crafty criminals!

12) The parents claim that they were told via anonymous sources that Tommy was killed by a baseball bat with phone books used as padding.

Critique: Let's assume for a moment this is true. Tell me, then, how these guys got a hold of Tommy's gun in order to stage the crime scene? If Tommy already had it in his hand for protection, why didn't he shoot them?

To accept this theory, we must accept that the killers came very unprepared. Did they have it planned to stage a suicide? If so, they must have known that they needed one of Tommy's guns to pull it off. Unless these people hung around Tommy's parent's house, how would they know where such a gun is?

Why did the killers not bring their own weapons? They had to rely on Tommy's own baseball bat in his room and had to rely on his gun. Isn't it interesting how everything the killers used to kill Tommy belonged to Tommy?

Even if they did use his baseball bat, why leave it behind? Isn't it safer to take it with you for later disposal? The mother wants us to believe that they did take the phone books with them. By her logic, they take the phone books, but leave the actual murder weapon behind. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. she says they simply tore the tape off the bat handle. Stupid criminals again. If they were smart, they would take the bat.

If we are to accept the mother's bat theory, then this means that the tearing of the tape indicates they weren't wearing gloves. This means that they didn't care about their fingerprints being anywhere else in the house, but by golly they couldn't be found on the bat -- the actual murder weapon they left behind. I suppose these guys were too stupid to realize that their fingerprints would be found all throughout the house.

Perhaps they thought the police would cover-up for them, so there was no need to wear gloves. If so, why didn't the parents hire a PI to do fingerprint dusting?

There you have it, 12 reasons why the murder theory doesn't add up. As you can see, the theory of the parents has far more holes than it does answers. I guarantee if my arguments were entered as the defense of the accused, the accused would not get convicted.

Very good post, not saying I totally agree, but very compelling in the least. I would disagree about the killers committing a "Sherlock Holmes" type of crime, though, because:
1. when you shot yourself sitting up, a body will fall back or slouch over; not remain upright.
2. if what UM depicted was correct, Tommy would not have been clutching the gun that he shot himself with; it would have dropped, more than likely on his lap or beside him.

While I believe much of the "evidence" is heresay and cannot be proven, the forensic/physical evidence (Tommy's body and his surrounding) says a lot.

C'mon people, I think I could have laid Tommy out better than that to insinuate a suicide!

Eh I don't buy it - I still feel Tommy Burkett was murdered and his parents know the individuals who killed their son just lack the evidence to prove it. I think its one of those crimes that will never be solved just because it seems to involve people on all different levels.

I don't mean to come across critical of the parents in this case who are obviously very distraught. However, I feel they would get more healing if they would accept the more obvious scenario and let themselves move on. To my knowledge they are still investigating this case today.

If you Google "Tommy Burkett murder" you will find several websites where the parents themselves have posted their accounts of this case. Some of these sites have a lot more info than what UM presented. The parents make even more hard to believe claims in their internet posts, such as claims that the medical examiner destroyed autopsy photos and never took X-rays. They claim some of the cops were laughing as they took Tommy's body out of the house. They claim they have lobbied for years to get the FBI to investigate but the FBI keeps saying there is nothing to investigate. They have written Congressmen, the DOJ, and various other agencies. An official inquiry was finally opened but nothing ever came of it. All of this, they claim, is the result of a massive cover-up.

According to the parents, the entire system is in on the conspiracy, from the local cops all the way to President George Bush 1. They somehow try to connect their son's case to Vince Foster's murder. It is interesting, though, that the man who did the first autopsy of Tommy is the same doctor who testified in Vince Foster's murder trial and claimed Foster committed suicide.

But even if all they say is true (and this is a 1 in a million chance) why would the government care so much about one 21 year old college kid? Seriously, folks. I don't mean to demean Tommy or the family, but he was not THAT important.

Anytime the DEA is involved the cover up can be massive. Obviously I don't know how high up it can go but there seems to be a lot of ass covering involved. I think thats why cases like Burketts' and Ives & Henry have yet to be resolved because they do go pretty high up in the federal government. It might not be due to the murders of these youngsters themselves but who they were involved with or in Ives & Henry's case potentially witnessed prior to their demise.

I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist (in fact out of all the suicide/murder scenerios UM has done I only think 4 or 5 are legitimate murders) but anytime the DEA is involved you have to think twice in my opinion before you just write it off. If Tommy Burkett was involved with drugs or knew about drug trafficing at a high level at Marymount perhaps involving what the Burketts allege then yes a cover up becomes a distinct possibility.

I also think that FBI agent they had on the show didn't do the feds any favours - they should've gotten someone who looked less nervous on camera, the guy really looked very suspicious to me and the way he answered the questions seemed very flippant at times.

Thissuat, I think your taking swipes at the Burkett's was rather classless and totally inappropriate. That said, you did a rather extensive, overly extensive actually, analysis of why you feel for whatever reason that Burkett committed suicide.

You took, what they said out of context, they didnt say President Bush and all these people were involved in a conspiracy. They said there was a conspiracy, they didnt say the whole government was in on it. Burkett was working for the DEA this is well known and no secret.

Burkett's father is still alive, however his mother passed away 5 or 6 years ago I believe. I dont agree with your opinion on Tommy but my little tirade I am about to go on really isnt about you thinking Tommy committed suicide, you have the right to that opinion, but it is how you came to it and your overly lengthy, overly complicated and unnecssarily personal analysis that bothered me. You taking personal swipes at Mr and the latest Mrs. Burkett were also unnessary.

Okay, you have the car chase seen in the neighboorhood the day of the murder/suicide. The cops say the neighbor must have been mistaken, oh wait, first they claimed she never said that, then they claimed that she did say it but they thought she was mistaken. Why they would think this I dont know, while witnesses get stuff wrong on a rather routine basis, I find the woman credible, because afterall, Hollywood style high speed chases hardly are a regular occurance in Fairfax County, Virginia which is the peaceful suburbs of Washington DC.

Tommy was sitting up right, the gun perfectly in his lap, the gun wasnt even in working order, explain to me how Tommy Burkett could wind up with a bullet in his brain with a gun that didnt even work? You also brought up the suicide note, what kind of person would write a one line suicide note? Why write the note at all? Even if the note was in Tommy's handwriting, he could have been forced to write the note, to give the appearance of suicide.

Basically, you assume that Tommy's parents must either be lying or greatly exaggerating what happened to Tommy in order to give the appearance of suicide instead of murder. While this is possible, I find it unlikely. You certainly have no proof to suggest that they were lying. I mean, just because someone cannot prove something on paper doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Thissuat, I think your taking swipes at the Burkett's was rather classless and totally inappropriate.

As I said in my second post, I may have come across harsh but I didn't intend to be. I am simply looking at the claims of the Burketts with skepticism. Nothing wrong with that.

Burkett was working for the DEA this is well known and no secret.

Is it? Provide me one credible source that can prove he worked for the DEA. The DEA officially denied it even after his death. The local police never said he worked for the DEA. No one did except Tommy's parents and that journalist. The journalist never said where she got the info, so it is safe to assume she got the info from the parents.

Tell me, why would the DEA, who supposedly hired him, want him dead? It just doesn't make sense.

Why would it be safe to assume that she got the info from the parents? You were not speculating about whether Burkett's parents were lying you accused them of that outright. I know you are determined to believe there is a 99.9 percent chance that Burkett did himself in and wasnt murdered and that is your right, but I cannot believe you would be so ignorant as to basically say "well if the DEA said he wasnt working for them, it must be true!" Do you think the DEA would admit that he was working for them? Especially after Burkett suddenly turns up dead? This reporter I think is a little bit smarter than you are giving her credit for, again, you are in some instances making this case much more complicated than it needs to be, yet in other instances you are making this case much more simplistic than it needs to be.

Look, you have already demonstrated that you dont feel cops and the government ever lie, that anyone that suggests that they do is a far out loon, I get that, but you take swipes at the Burkett's for wanting to find out what really happened to their son and then denying you meant offense is frankly, a bunch of crap.

You cant have it both ways, either you meant offense or you didnt, you really cant imply that the Burkett's were lying and then take it back and say, "well I didnt mean offense" so then you can let yourself off the hook and make what you said okay.

Yep, I guess the Burkett's were lying or mistaken, a bullet got into Tommy's head from a broken gun, his parents were lying or mistaken about the drivers license and a person that either was the killer or an associate of the killer, perhaps a friend that didnt know their friend was the killer, they were lying or mistaken about the paramedics saying Tommy had been dead for several hours and then the detective saying he had only been dead a few minutes, they were lying or mistaken about their son working for the DEA, that reporter was lying or mistaken about Tommy working for the DEA and was just pulling stuff out of her rear end, no way she could have been telling the truth.

That Fairfax County police spokesman was telling the truth, no way he was lying considered he was moving around nervous, being evasive and not making eye contact, which to me is odd, since this was supposedly a suicide, no question, case closed, why be all nervous and evasive? Yep, the DEA couldnt have been lying no way, I mean a government agency has never lied to cover their own a$$ before right?

I dont think Thiussat's comments are classless. He never called them names and presented his arguments in a very maticulous and well thought out manner. If we as a society can't dissagree with somebody, even in something horrible like they death of their son, without being called tasteless or classless then where has the system of free thought and critically thinking out problems to solve them rationally gone? If we can't do that then we will never be able to adequately find out what happened in any investigation or mystery.
Just my two cents.
I'm sure someone will say I'm being rude. I'm not meaning to be. I'm not mad and not trying to talk down to anyone. Just stating my point of view.

I dont think Thiussat's comments are classless. He never called them names and presented his arguments in a very maticulous and well thought out manner. If we as a society can't dissagree with somebody, even in something horrible like they death of their son, without being called tasteless or classless then where has the system of free thought and critically thinking out problems to solve them rationally gone? If we can't do that then we will never be able to adequately find out what happened in any investigation or mystery.
Just my two cents.
I'm sure someone will say I'm being rude. I'm not meaning to be. I'm not mad and not trying to talk down to anyone. Just stating my point of view.

AMEN!!!

AMEN!!!

I second that.

Thiussat, I enjoyed reading your post. You presented your arguments clearly and rationally.

Perhaps neighbors weren't interviewed on camera because they declined (and UM didn't choose to disclose that fact), or they were just unavailable for one reason or another. I am not really disagreeing with your point, I am just reiterating a point I've made here before. I have realized lately that, when it comes to "reality" shows, we are shown what the writers and producers want us to see for entertainment value above all else. Details can be left out for many reasons. Just my two cents.

I take it that you believe the Fairfax County PD's spokesman was frank and open in his UM interview?

Sorry, I don't buy any of this either. I believe Tommy was murdered and there is a cover up.

Answer this please - what was Tommy's motive for shooting himself in the head? Was he afraid of the bullies at his school or something? Did he decide to 'off' himself after he was being chased around the neighborhood? Did he shoot himself in the head on the stairwell - after all, there HAS to be a logical explanation for the blood on the walls, right? - and then make it up to his room and sit down on the couch and die while gripping the non-working gun firmly in his hands?

And so forth...

Oh there is plenty of cover up in this case & I don't see how anyone cay say this was a suicide. I don't see how the parents can be mistaken with everything or wrong.

The excuse the funeral director gave for getting rid of the clothes that Tommy was wearing when he died is pathetic.

Tommy Burkett was not murdered? If not, then nobody ever went to the moon! :rolleyes:

Answer this please - what was Tommy's motive for shooting himself in the head? Was he afraid of the bullies at his school or something? Did he decide to 'off' himself after he was being chased around the neighborhood? Did he shoot himself in the head on the stairwell - after all, there HAS to be a logical explanation for the blood on the walls, right? - and then make it up to his room and sit down on the couch and die while gripping the non-working gun firmly in his hands?

And so forth...

Why does anyone commit suicide? There are countless examples of suicides by people who did not "appear" suicidal. The truth is, it is always difficult for a family to admit their loved one committed suicide. Do you ever see in the obituray column "John Smith died of suicide?" No, there is such a stigma about it, that it is usually not even in the obituary. And the reason it is left out is that the family either doesn't accept it or is ashamed.

Second, the blood on the wall was never determined to be Tommy's.

Third, the so-called "faulty" gun was only faulty because the father claimed the cylinder was unlatched. Why the man tampered with the evidence is beyond me. Nontheless, all we have is his claim, which cannot be taken terribly seriously since he was obviously distraught when he found the body.

Second, the blood on the wall was never determined to be Tommy's.

I seriously doubt anyone would leave blood stains on their wall.

Also, do you have a possible explanation as to why Tommy was found in an upright position?

Well there you go again thissuat, if you want to claim Burkett committed suicide, fine, but when you start accusing his parents of tampering with evidence and in this case, implying his dad made the gun so it wouldnt work to give the impression it was an unworkable gun so that it would give the impression his son was murdered. I mean, that is quite the innuendo you came up with there, yet another classless swipe on your part.

Why the man tampered with the evidence is beyond me. Nontheless, all we have is his claim, which cannot be taken terribly seriously since he was obviously distraught when he found the body.

Wait a sec... what evidence do you have that proves the father tampered with the gun? You're making a rather bold assumption here.

Also, do you have a possible explanation as to why Tommy was found in an upright position?

People who are sitting and shoot themselves are not uncommonly found upright.

People who are sitting and shoot themselves are not uncommonly found upright.


Baloney! Where is your research to back that up? Simply the force of the gun firing would jolt the body into a slumped sort of position!

Sure, his father may have touched the gun being in shock over finding his son and not even thinking about it, but I'm sure he didn't "tamper" with it, as you implied. What sort of reason would he have to do this? In that tragic moment, I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "Oh geez, I've got to open this cylinder and make it look like the gun didn't work so they don't think Tommy commited suicide!"

Wait a sec... what evidence do you have that proves the father tampered with the gun? You're making a rather bold assumption here.

I think by tampering he means tainting. In others words just handling the gun before police could get there alters the natural state the gun was resting in therefore the legitamacy of the weapons final resting position and other information cannot really be ascertained with any certainty.

I know I'm starting to sound like a Thiussat apologist but I'm not. In fact I disagree with most of his conclusions however....
I think everyone is kind of missing the point. Everyone is stating he is speculating and making assumptions....well...i would say no more than any other person I have read on this board when they post an opinion about any Unsolved Mysteries case that hasn't been solved. Everyone seems to be jumping on him for making points that possibly aren't 100% foolproof or whatnot....however....if anyone could make those kind of foolproof statements about any of these Unsolved Mysteries cases they probably would be solved. Or if the obvious more likely possibilities are the answer, then why are these cases unsolved still?
However I think his point is just to point out some possible holes in one theory. And I will grant that while in my opinion its rather unlikely, some of his theories are possible, maybe not very probable. Yet I can think of several cases where something improbable or unlikely did happen.
So let's not jump too much on him for making these kind of claims. I thinks hes just looking for an open diologue about it.
I think from speculation and attempts to logically think things out you can come to a point of discovery. Think of his post as a brainstorm. A talking point....now talk amongst yourselves. But I don't understand all the hostility.

Well...I have nothing to do at work today really so here I am on the boards!

-Thuissat: Very well drawn out critique of the whole case pretty much from start to finish. I don't agree, but thats probably b/c I can be somewhat of a cynic about the government sometimes. I guess I need to look at these cases more objectivly.
Why I disagree though is because he seemingly had no motive for suicide. While it can be inferred from the panicked phone call from school etc. that he may have been extremely worried and/or anxious, I don't feel that it is concrete evidence. All we have is the word of his parents against the word of the government officials. In my legal experience, when it's Government vs. 2 ppl...the government usually wins, and usually is found to be the most credible. I'm not saying that the govt. is the telling the whole truth, but usually they are the one believed most. Also (wait...i'm adjusting my foil here) If the govt wants to cover something up, they will, and they have the resources to do so (so long as the press doesn't find out).
The other factor here that I disagree with here is the evidence. Whether or not the gun was in proper working condition doesn't matter. If it was, it could have been placed in Burkett's hand after he was murdered. If not, then obviously we have something to look at, but we just don't know. There is no reason for his father to have lied about the cylander being partially open. Yes, it could have happened when and if he handled the weapon, but if it indeed was a murder, then like I said above...he could have the gun placed in his hand postmortem.
I beleive that there is more to this story than what meets the eye, or what has been consolidated down for a UM segment, which brings me to my next point. With all the information that needs to be consolidated to make a 12-15 minute segment for UM, it is possible that some details that are important to the case and to our analysis of it were overlooked. If everything was put in, the segment might last the entire episode or longer.
Concluding, I think that its possible he committed suicide, and possible that he was killed. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories are more prevalent than ever before, and the propagation of half-baked ones has led to a damage to the credibility of good ones. I think this is a good one. There is a preconceived notion carried about conspiracy theorists (none of which ive seen here on this board) that they are a bunch of pasty, shut-in nimrods who have nothing better to do than blame the government for everything. I've done it myself with my joking about the foil hats...I don't mean it but everyone can just see the imagry.
This notion damages credibility for some theories like this one. And it is a theory, because all we can do with this case is theorize events for which we don't really know what happened. But I think that any conspiracy is borne out of one of the more baser instincts of a human being, the desire to not get in trouble for something that they did wrong, or fouled up, or let get out of hand. And not get caught trying to further their own goals at the expense of others, just at a much higher level.

P.S. Sorry for the rambling on, I just found many more trains of thought as I was writing this. Just putting out that Thiussat's argument was clear and well thought out then I come up with this gem lol. Anyways...there are two ways we can go on this segment, and while Thiussats agrument works for some, the murder angle does too. But we just don't know...but I hope someday we do.

As for those who say one can't commit suicide with a gun and remain seated in an upright position -- I don't mean to sound grotesque, but you can find crime scene photos on the Internet. While researching this subject, I saw a couple of photos where people had half their heads blown off with SHOTGUNS (much more powerful obviously than a pistol) and they were still seated upright. Granted some of these people were seated on sofas, but nonetheless they were still upright.

I think Hollywood drastically overstates the power of firearms. I saw a demonstration of this once on (Discovery I think) where they provided live demonstrations of people who would volunteer to wear flack jackets and get shot with high powered rifles. One guy stood on one foot while being shot with a large 30 caliber rifle and he didn't even flinch from the impact.

Another example would be those guys who robbed that bank in the 90's in L.A. They had automatic AK-47's and had body armor on. The news choppers captured the whole shoot-out on camera. The guys were walking the streets with dozens of cops shooting at them from just a few yards away and they did not even budge from the hail of bullets impacting them. They were finally killed with head shots. So, when Hollywood depicts people wearing flack jackets yet still getting all "busted up" from a bullet impacting them, this is not what happens in real life. The impact (when I say impact I am talking of the potential energy or "force") of a bullet just isn't that great.

Another example would be "Myth Busters" on Discovery. They get requests for firearms demonstrations quite often and have done numerous segments on whether a firearm really can knock a human through the air like in the movies. What they did in one experiment was use corpses of dead pigs from local slaughterhouses as a substitute for a 200 pound human. They hung the pigs on a horizontal bar with hooks and shot them with all kinds of weapons, from handguns to shotguns to high powered rifles. Not once were they able to knock the pig off the hook. (They also did an experiment to see if a bullet hitting the gas tank of a car could really make a car blow-up, and they showed that this doesn't happen either, though it isn't completely impossible in theory).

Really, there are so many variables in the equation of whether a body would slump over and fall out of a chair that it's really impossible to argue about it without knowing all of the physics of the environment. All we know in Burkett's case is he was seated in a chair. We don't know what kind of chair, how wide it was, what the back of the chair was like, how much incline the chair had (this is important), what position he was seated in the chair, etc.

For example, a guy shooting himself with a .357 sitting on a bar stool will invariably end up on the ground, not from the impact of the bullet, but from the force of gravity. It takes a lot more work to stay upright on a stool than in a chair. Therefore, a man in a chair may or may not fall onto the floor depending on the aforementioned variables. I am not saying it is impossible for a man in a chair to fall out of it after shooting himself, I am just saying it does not happen in every case. This is simply a fact.

Now, if the gun really WAS unlatched when Tommy's body was found and if his hands were really crossed in his lap, then I would say suicide is next to impossible. I wouldn't make this conclusion based strictly on his position in the seat, however. This is the point I am trying to make.

My argument for suicide is based largely on the theory of the parents surrounding his supposed murder. I just find their whole conspiracy theory reminiscent of the crazy 911 theories or the JFK assassination. I just see no reason that the DEA, along with the drug dealers they were trying to arrest, would want him dead. Show me the logic in that. Even if this were true, I find it even more unlikely that the FBI would cover it up, the state Congressmen would cover it up, all the way to the top. This notion is so silly, it's hardly even worth giving it the time of day.

I heard the father say he was offended by a higher-up official from within the DEA when he asked him about Tommy's death. The guy told him "we don't stand around on the street corners waiting for something to happen, you know." The father seemed offended by this, but the DEA agent made a good point. The DEA is not an agency that deals in small time college campus nickel and dime drug rings. They are concerned only with the importers and smugglers from foreign countries, namely Mexico and Columbia. Sure, they do domestic surveillance, but it's usually surrounding major operations that expand across numerous states.

There is no evidence that I have seen, based on the UM segment or from my reading online, to suggest he actually worked for the DEA. No one has shown any documents or provided any witnesses who have stated this. All we have is the testimony of the parents who said they received "anonymous calls." Sorry folks, but anonymous phone calls don't hold up in court, which is why I said I would win the case in court if I were the defender of the accused (I am not an attorney, by the way).

Silly huh? Well comparing Tommy Burkett's murder/suicide conspiracy to 9/11 or JFK is pretty silly. By the way, I happen to believe in the conspiracy behind JFK and RFK's murders but I dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. But some conspiracy's do exist, while the DEA might not have wanted Tommy dead, I dont think any of us were actually suggesting that they wanted him dead, what we were suggesting is the DEA knows who killed Tommy and is covering it up because they didnt want the top blown off drug investigations.

To me, as soon as it was revealed Tommy was involved with the DEA that made the case stink, it just seems whenever drugs are involved the whole thing just stinks. I mean, are you honestly that dense to believe that the FBI, the government and the congress have never covered up stuff or conspired to cover up or cause stuff?

I mean, are you honestly that dense to believe that the FBI, the government and the congress have never covered up stuff or conspired to cover up or cause stuff?

Yes, I do believe they cover up certain things. I think there are crooked politicians who are probably complicit in certain high level crimes. I think that if the public knew of all the happenings on the "dark side" of Washington they would be outraged. However, just because this is the case doesn't mean they are covering up the murder of Tommy.

Do I think the government covers up crimes? Yes. Do I think they did in this case? No. Why? Lack of motive. Tommy, if he did work for the DEA, was likely a very low level informant, certainly not someone that people in the high levels in government would care to silence and then cover-up.

No one seems to ask why Tommy didn't request protection from the drug dealers by asking the DEA for help. The DEA can't make him work for them, he could have said "sianora" and fled town. If he really felt his life was in danger, he would have gotten off the case and gotten out of his dorm and moved to another location. This seems to be the logical reaction, but he didn't do this. There are simply too many flaws in the conspiracy theory.

Is it possible Tommy was murdered? Yes it is. However, if he was murdered I can almost guarantee the scenario painted by the parents is vastly overblown and inaccurate.

It is incumbent upon those making the claims to provide the evidence. I am not the one making extraordinary claims. The conspiracy theorists are. I have not seen one shred of evidence to suggest there was any drug conspiracy. Not one DEA agent or local drug cop ever appeared in silhouette on camera. I highly suspect that there are at least a few good cops and good agents out there who would have been in the know and who would have come forward by now. Similarly, not one student who knows the killers has ever come forward either. We have nothing except anonymous phone calls to the parents house.

I want to say this happened in Maryland, which is very near Washington D.C.....

Silly huh? Well comparing Tommy Burkett's murder/suicide conspiracy to 9/11 or JFK is pretty silly. By the way, I happen to believe in the conspiracy behind JFK and RFK's murders but I dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. But some conspiracy's do exist...

Yes, this was my whole point on theories...there are so many that the ones that are outrageous steal credibility from the ones that make sense.

But this is not an indictment on conspiracy theories/theorists anyways. If he was murdered, I think it much more likely that it would not have been the drug dealers. When has anyone heard of drug dealers killing someone and trying to make it look like suicide??? Normally on the news I hear that they just shoot ya, and nobody talks for fear of being shot themselves. So I don't think that they would have cared how he was found.

Wiseguy, the Burkett's lived in Fairfax County, Virginia which is in suburban Washington DC. Also, Thissuat, once again swiping Tommy's parents, what is up with that? I mean, you keep implying and beating around the bush, suggesting that Tommy's parents tampered with evidence and embellished many accounts of what happened and theirs son's murder/suicide and the events leading up to them. I get the feeling you want to say they are lying but yet you dont have the balls to just get up and say it. Time to put your money where your mouth is on this one, if you want to accuse the Burkett's of lying, just do it already!

I can't imagine what the Burketts would have to gain by lying and/or just making stuff up. If the Burketts thought it was a suicide, they woud naturally grieve, and then try to resume with their lives as much as possible. But by treating it as a murder, they have their son's death on their minds a whole lot more, not to mention the resources it takes to investigate things. They would be doing a lot of damage to themselves if they were just making stuff up. that's another reason i believe he was murdered.

The only possibility i could think of is the negative stigma og having your son commit suicide. no one wants to think they would do that. we all want to think they would just want to live on. Suicide somehow taints the beautiful image of ones kin. However to disallow that thought and reason that it must be someone else who did this....ah now....we have someone to be angry at...not ones own son. It's the same stigma in every family.....about the suicide...or the gay relative...I'm sure we all have those family members who just don't want to believe.
And as I've always thought about religion....people believe what they want to believe. It's like the "holy healer who lays hands" ,then its proven he was in cahoots with those he "healed". Yet somehow there are always those die hard followers who stick around. And they reason it out somehow in their minds.
Now, after saying all of that...I have absolutely no idea whether I think he was murdered or not.

Well, if the Burkett's are Catholic, there is a slim possibility they made it look like a murder, because in Catholicism, suicide is the one unforgiveable sin. However, religion aside, that just seems incredible to me, that people on this board or anyone else would seriously suggest that the Burkett's went to such elaborate lengths, tampered with evidence, planted evidence, destroyed evidence, all in this supposedly desperate attempt to make it look like their son was murdered.

Joshypiano, I see where you are coming from, but the argument would hold more water, if the Burkett's had just said "no way Tommy killed himself" without having the evidence to show there was a good chance he was murdered.

Whereas other cases profiled on UM, some of which were suicides and the family was either unable or unwilling to accept it was suicide and would rather turn it into a crime that didnt happen and say it was murder, than admit their relative killed themselves.

I guarentee you that 99 percent of the time, if someone dies under mysterious circumstances like that and it is ruled undetermined or suicide, I can guarantee you that the relatives would say "no way this person would kill themselves".

Listening to you debunk this story is almost like listening to a conspiracy nut talking about black helicopters and Y2k. You've really gone to great lengths to prove your point. I don't know all the details that happened that night but if any of their suspicions turn out to be right then that would bother me.

I'd like to point out that the 2nd autopsy of Tommy Burkett didn't just reveal a couple of bruises from a previous fight (A fight that witnesses had said started when Tommy went to confront someone over harrassing him). It also had shown a broken jaw. His mom had been approached by students looking to beat him up. The suicide note that had been given to him just simply said "I want to be cremated." That's a strange thing to write for a suicide note. I also don't uncerstand why someone other than Tommy would have his driver's liscense with them.

Look, I don't think there's a massive conspiracy leading up to the government. At the very most, there might be a couple of cops being paid off by some drug dealers. I think that the cops automatically assumed that Tommy committed suicide and didn't want to waste anymore time with it. An experienced criminal could probably stage it to look like a suicide.

The only possibility i could think of is the negative stigma og having your son commit suicide. no one wants to think they would do that. we all want to think they would just want to live on. Suicide somehow taints the beautiful image of ones kin. However to disallow that thought and reason that it must be someone else who did this....ah now....we have someone to be angry at...not ones own son. It's the same stigma in every family.....about the suicide...or the gay relative...I'm sure we all have those family members who just don't want to believe.
And as I've always thought about religion....people believe what they want to believe. It's like the "holy healer who lays hands" ,then its proven he was in cahoots with those he "healed". Yet somehow there are always those die hard followers who stick around. And they reason it out somehow in their minds.
Now, after saying all of that...I have absolutely no idea whether I think he was murdered or not.


Hmm I used to live in Fairfax County, now one county to the west.

I also happen to work in a funeral home, I can get a copy of the DC and see what is the listed cause of death. It will take me a bit, as we are busy here where I work at. I am also certain that he did not come through this funeral home, as we are located in Alexandria VA, and we deal with mostly older people. I also happen to know the ME, of course I know him he signs our cremation certificates, I can see if he was working for the County at the time of death.

Can someone give me a time frame for the death, that will help.


TeresaB24


TeresaB24

http://www.theconspiracy.us/cati2/0034.html

Searching around the net after watching the show today I found this very interesting article on the case

--------
Beth George angrily
recalls one of the officers saying to them "...don't blame
yourselves, it's not your fault..." She now realizes that he had
already decided that Tommy had committed suicide.

Hmm I used to live in Fairfax County, now one county to the west.

I also happen to work in a funeral home, I can get a copy of the DC and see what is the listed cause of death. It will take me a bit, as we are busy here where I work at. I am also certain that he did not come through this funeral home, as we are located in Alexandria VA, and we deal with mostly older people. I also happen to know the ME, of course I know him he signs our cremation certificates, I can see if he was working for the County at the time of death.

Can someone give me a time frame for the death, that will help.


TeresaB24

I think it was around Thanksgiving or Christmas 1991. I hope you see this post and can still check the DC.

If the kid was working for the DEA, I just don't see any motive whatsoever for the DEA to cover up the fact that he was murdered. Even if they didn't want to blow some major drug investigation, it is far more likely that they would have investigated the homicide, but waited until they had what they wanted against the big fishes, to then be able to charge those folks with murder. If he was truly killed for being an informant for them, they could have sought the death penalty for his murder, and then used that to get a plea for a lot of time against whoever they were going after, if not actually going all out for the death penalty. It just does not make sense to me for the government to want to cover up the fact that he was murdered.

The other thing that has always troubled me about the murder theory is that it would go completely against the MO of drug criminals killing informants. When they kill informants, they don't stage it to look like a suicide. They typically want to send a message; they want people to know that snitching on them will get them killed. They do not stage it to look like a suicide.

Also, I am a criminal defense attorney. I am not someone who trusts cops. But, I have had a lot of experience with cops and informants. If someone is working as an informant for law enforcement, and that person is killed, the cops treat that almost as if one of their own was killed. They work tirelessly to get the people who committed the murder.

Also, on the issue of him sitting upright, it does happen. Having taken seminars in gunshot wound forensics, I have seen numerous death scene photos of people who shot themselves in the head while seated, and remained upright. As Thiussat said, some of these involved people who shot themselves with shotguns. (That's another myth out there I have seen in "was it murder or suicide?" cases, by the way. A lot of people don't believe a shooting was a suicide if it involved a shotgun because it seems so difficult or impractical, but they absolutely happen. Not that any of that applies to this case.)

I also don't believe for one second that the DEA cuts checks to informants that could, in any way, be traced to the DEA. No way.

There are two cases on UM where I firmly believe that someone was murdered and there was a cover up to some degree in their deaths. The first is the case of Ives & Henry and the second is this one.

There is something off with this case that makes me think it is very possible that Tommy Burkett did not commit suicide as the officials say but in fact was murdered possibly by some of his peers. Now the reason for the murder I can't say. Tommy's family believes it was drug related, they believe it was related to drug trafficking on the Marymount University campus.

I think that is where the focus should've been for this case. While I think there may be a handful of either corrupt cops or just plain shoddy policework in this case I think Tommy's fate lies in whatever his activities were on the Marymount campus. He had obviously agitated a number of his peers to the point where they were threatening him, stealing his stuff and beating him up.

It is very possible that if they were motivated enough to do all this then it is possible that the issues they had with TB could've escalated and resulted in his death.

So I believe that Tommy Burkett was murdered, do I think the conspiracy goes as far up the chain as his parents think? - I believe it could be possible but I also think its possible that this could be a far more simple case but in no way, shape or form do I believe TB committed suicide...there is just too many strange circumstances surrounding his death that have come out over the years for me to believe that.

The other thing that has always troubled me about the murder theory is that it would go completely against the MO of drug criminals killing informants. When they kill informants, they don't stage it to look like a suicide. They typically want to send a message; they want people to know that snitching on them will get them killed. They do not stage it to look like a suicide.

I think that's a very good point. Now, I don't believe Burkett committed suicide, but I don't think he was murdered by straight-up drug thugs, for the exact reason mentioned above. Remember the Blair Adams case, where the victim was found dead in the middle of a parking lot with his pants down? That I believe was probably an organized crime killing, an attempt to send a very pointed message. Burkett's murder just doesn't fit that mold. I think something else is going on there---drugs may be part of the picture, but I don't believe they're in the center of that picture. There's something else going on.

I think Tommy's fate lies in whatever his activities were on the Marymount campus. He had obviously agitated a number of his peers to the point where they were threatening him, stealing his stuff and beating him up.

And that's the "something else" I'm talking about. Something was going on on campus. I never fully bought the DEA informant explanation, and as DarkDante said, there's a good possibility this case is a lot simpler than what his parents think. I'm of the opinion that it is.

I think the individual(s) who murdered Tommy Burkett never meant to kill him. I think they meant to frighten him, bully him, silence him; killing him was an accident. They panicked and manipulated the scene to look like a suicide. I highly, highly doubt it was an organized crime ring. That's something I'm almost totally sure of.




The Ives/Henry murder....now that's another story.

Contrary to what Thiussat says, the suicide note, or should I say "suicide note" was actually shown on the segment. The only thing it says on it was "I want to be cremated.", and Beth notes that it was not Tommy's handwriting.

Let's analyze the "I want to be cremated" line. The parents obviously believed the note was bull, as they didn't cremate him, but rather buried him. And thank goodness for that, because if he was cremated, his body couldn't have been exhumed for the second autopsy, which is when they found the abrasions and broken jaw. the 'i want to be cremated' line is typical of murderers who stage suicides, because they want all of that evidence to be destroyed.

I think Thiussat is trying to conviently pigeonhole everything with his original post on this thread, by taking over a dozen points and placing them into two very broad categories: hearsay and no proof. But you just can't do that with this many points. There is just too much that points to murder.

As for why would the DEA be so concerned over such a small operation, perhaps Tommy found something on a congressman's son, or something to that effect.

Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any outright motive for suicide.

Hmmm... from where else have we heard the "I want to be cremated" BS... oh, yeah... Dave Davis. The same Dave Davis who thought he would get away with the murder of his wife by having her cremated to destroy the evidence of said murder. Good thing the Burketts didn't fall for that BS... the same way Shannon Mohr's parents didn't fall for it. ;)

Very interesting info from both sides of the discussion on this case, imo.

Don't miss the link on page 3 from Arnold Oldschool. I think it's a must read.

It is there that we learn Tommy's mom worked part time at the college as an instructor, so that's how she knew and came into contact with the boys who threatened tommy.

That's the article that tells us one reason that Tommy was found dead sitting up: his body was propped up with towels on purpose, apparently posed for maximum impact for when he was discovered by his parents. His hands were somewhat folded and the gun was laying on top of them, with barrel so open, that his mom could see the numbers on the back of the bullet casings from across the room.

(I wonder if his mom pissed off one of her students and this was the payback? Kill her kid and pose the body for a shocking discovery?)

This case has so much of the CRAZY. The guy who did the first autopsy and ruled tommy's death a suicide also did Vince Foster's autopsy and called him a suicide! The guy said that he didn't take Xrays in either of the cases. That's a big no-no in a gunshot death, because you have to look for pieces of the bullet. The dude is incompetent at best, imo.

Oh no! I was just re-reading the info on Tommy Burkett's case and less than a year later, the link that Arnold Oldschool gave us, that revealed a lot of info not revealed in the UM segment, is GONE!

It's just a parked GoDaddy page now, with nothing about the case there...

Go to this site http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html type in the site url & you can see the site. Now I don't know if all of the site is viewable this way but I tried it & was able to see some of the site.

Who the heck ever demands to be creameted in a sucide note, anyway?

Buried next to a pet or buried in a certain country? but cremetion?

I agree, the note a slick way of getting evidence burned.

Personally I thnk Tommy was murdered. But it was not too professional a job, IMHO. More amateur hour with an assist from the police.

Thanks, Peachy, I'll give that a try.

Mastermind, I agree about the suicide note. In the cases where people kill themselves and decide to leave a note, there's usually more info on it than how they want their body to be disposed.

When my cousin died in a car accident (not a suicide) her diary revealed that she felt her life was going to be short and that she would want to be cremated when she passed. It was just a diary entry, not a suicide note. She was 23 years old. Her mom found the diary entry and was able to fulfill her daughters final wishes.

IMO, if Tommy was going to take the time to write the "I want to be cremated" note, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that he would at least add something like, "I'm sorry, Mom and Dad. I love you." Especially because if he really did kill himself, then he KNEW that it would be his parents finding his body in that shocking scene. And also, we have no information to make us believe that he had a bad relationship with his parents, which would cause him to leave the short note, with no "goodbye" out of spite or anger toward his parents.

Here is a link I found to another message board:

http://www.alien-ufos.com/Tommy-Burkett-Quest-Justice-t3144.html

A LOT of NEW information I had never heard before, a lot of it directly from Tommy's parents. Most of the posts were written in 2004 or so. Also, it turns out that Tommy's mother passed away in 2003 and his father passed away in 2006? I was not aware of any of this. It is a very interesting and sad read. Check it out if you can.

I checked out the site that his parents had way back & after reading over the site, I just cannot understand how anyone could think this man commited suicide.

I think this is a tragic case and it is one that is really close to me. Maybe it is because I feel that I can relate to Tommy...being close to his age and kind of feeling like I was a bit like him in college. I think it is obviously an amateur hit, being that it was done in the middle of the day. Seems very strange. The things I am also wondering, from the other message board...is that a first ambulance came, but picked up something from a ditch by the house and did not even go to tommy's house. But what did they pick up? The only thing I could think of was the bloody phonebooks?

It seems as though this case is a movie...it doesn't seem that any murder case in real life would have so many people throwing obstacles in the way, so many people covering up, and so many people being uncooperative, or doing things that are blatantly lies or not proper procedure.

I wish someone's conscience would get to them and we could find out what happened in this sad case. He was such a young man with so much potential. I truly feel for the parents...they are at peace now with their son and can finally get some answers to all of those unanswered questions.

Great link, hostedbyrobertstack!

The paycheck that was stolen from Tommy's mailbox was not a DEA payment or anything. Here's what Tommy's parents said:

>>>A day or two later, Tommy told me he spoke with campus security again regarding the smashed mailbox and they told him they believed it was "an inside job." Our son died believing the theft was being investigated by the Arlington police. He also reported the theft to campus payroll, who stopped payment on the check.

A few weeks after Tommy's death, I called the Arlington police to learn the status of that investigation. There was none; Marymount never reported the "break-in in the mail room."<<<

The paycheck that was stolen from Tommy's mailbox was not a DEA payment or anything. Here's what Tommy's parents said:

I didn't think so. In most cases informants are paid under the table. The only paperwork is when they are listed as CIs (confidential informants) in the DEA database.

the guy who created this post has a right to an opinion...However, i still dont see how you can explain how a man can shoot himself, and the gun not fall to the ground! not to mention the sitting position

I just saw this segment on UM, and this case is screaming murder all over it

the car chase, the fights, the sitting position, the blood found inside the house, just too many clues that dont add up to a suicide...and maybe i just missed it but what was it that was so important from the mailbox that he dint want anyone to find out? even that is still unclear...

I think the police did a sloopy job in this case! and the call to the police dept operator who said that a call was placed by tommy and then suddenly says the call was not made seems fishy and just plain "cover-up-ish"

for people who say this was a suicide, explain to me why a man in his sitting position would shoot himself and still have the gun in his hand and sit in such an upright position...Murder all the way here!

for people who say this was a suicide, explain to me why a man in his sitting position would shoot himself and still have the gun in his hand and sit in such an upright position...Murder all the way here!

Him sitting in an upright position is actually not that strange. He was actually more leaning againts the wall when he was found.

The gun placement is more unusual and suspicious.

Was just reading about this case and I have to ask why anybody who would see this being anything other than a suicide?.

You have to ask:

1) Why would a drug gang stage a murder as an elaborate suicide when a hit or a disappearance would be far more effective?
2) Whose gun was it that was found w/ the body?
3) Although I'm surprised that gun didn't drop to the floor,anything is possible during a gunshot suicide,isn't it?
So unless the gun was far away from the body or not in the home,suicide would be the likely assumption.
4) From the little information given it appears Burkett had a number of problems prior to the day he died. Would people still consider this death "suspicious" if it turns out that Burkett had even more problems than were shown?
5) Why was the family inclined to believe that this death was not a suicide? Most people when confronted w/ a suicide would eventually accept the facts.

There are more questions but I think that I made my point:
If you find someone w/ a gun in their hand and a bullet wound in their body from that gun, wouldn't suicide be the most likely scenario?

Was just reading about this case and I have to ask why anybody who would see this being anything other than a suicide?.

You have to ask:

1) Why would a drug gang stage a murder as an elaborate suicide when a hit or a disappearance would be far more effective?
2) Whose gun was it that was found w/ the body?
3) Although I'm surprised that gun didn't drop to the floor,anything is possible during a gunshot suicide,isn't it?
So unless the gun was far away from the body or not in the home,suicide would be the likely assumption.
4) From the little information given it appears Burkett had a number of problems prior to the day he died. Would people still consider this death "suspicious" if it turns out that Burkett had even more problems than were shown?
5) Why was the family inclined to believe that this death was not a suicide? Most people when confronted w/ a suicide would eventually accept the facts.

There are more questions but I think that I made my point:
If you find someone w/ a gun in their hand and a bullet wound in their body from that gun, wouldn't suicide be the most likely scenario?

I think the broken jaw is suspicious and suicide does not explain that. Further, other things do not match up, even though they are unable to be independently verified. The tape missing from the baseball bat and the missing phone books for instance. Or the 911 call that Tommy allegedly made. I would also be curious as to whether or not the lights were off when the parents returned home which could give some indication as to when Tommy died. In the segment the detective said that Tommy died probably just prior to the parents coming home. Since they returned home at 6 pm it was already dark outside, if the lights were on it would mean that someone was in the house to turn the lights on (presumably a living Tommy Burkett) but if they were out then it would at least cast some doubt on the suicide theory at least the way the police described it. Finally, what causes a great amount of suspicion for me is the fact that the guy who did the autopsy has a somewhat controversial history with the autopsies he's performed. Burkett may have in fact committed suicide but I think it's far from a closed case in my view.

I think the broken jaw is suspicious and suicide does not explain that. Further, other things do not match up, even though they are unable to be independently verified. The tape missing from the baseball bat and the missing phone books for instance. Or the 911 call that Tommy allegedly made. I would also be curious as to whether or not the lights were off when the parents returned home which could give some indication as to when Tommy died. In the segment the detective said that Tommy died probably just prior to the parents coming home. Since they returned home at 6 pm it was already dark outside, if the lights were on it would mean that someone was in the house to turn the lights on (presumably a living Tommy Burkett) but if they were out then it would at least cast some doubt on the suicide theory at least the way the police described it. Finally, what causes a great amount of suspicion for me is the fact that the guy who did the autopsy has a somewhat controversial history with the autopsies he's performed. Burkett may have in fact committed suicide but I think it's far from a closed case in my view.

I think that Burkett may have been involved in some type of altercation prior to his death. Given that he had a raft of other personal issues and was in an unstable mental state around that time, his broken jaw may have been the final humiliation in a long string of them.

If he made a 9-1-1 call it would be on the phone records of the family or on whatever phone that Burkett had access to. Those records can be accessed by a subpoena and there would be no denying that the calls took place. It would be foolish for the police to lie about something that can be checked.

As far as the lights, were they all on or were just lights in the rooms Burkett used or was using the ones that were on?
And as far as "bad autopsies" there have been so many of them done The bad ones) that each state probably needs establish a national standard for how autopsies should be done to remove them as cause for so many controversies.

1) Why would a drug gang stage a murder as an elaborate suicide when a hit or a disappearance would be far more effective?

2) Whose gun was it that was found w/ the body?

3) Although I'm surprised that gun didn't drop to the floor,anything is possible during a gunshot suicide,isn't it? So unless the gun was far away from the body or not in the home,suicide would be the likely assumption.

4) From the little information given it appears Burkett had a number of problems prior to the day he died. Would people still consider this death "suspicious" if it turns out that Burkett had even more problems than were shown?

5) Why was the family inclined to believe that this death was not a suicide? Most people when confronted w/ a suicide would eventually accept the facts.

There are more questions but I think that I made my point:
If you find someone w/ a gun in their hand and a bullet wound in their body from that gun, wouldn't suicide be the most likely scenario?

I think that Burkett may have been involved in some type of altercation prior to his death. Given that he had a raft of other personal issues and was in an unstable mental state around that time, his broken jaw may have been the final humiliation in a long string of them.

I agree that when a person is found dead of a single gunshot wound and the gun is in the immediate vicinity, the first thing people would think is that it's a suicide. To determine that it was not, there would have to be other details that indicate other people were involved.

Tommy had a broken jaw. If this was not caused by the gunshot, he must have been punched or beaten (or suffered some other violent event like a car accident or a fall down the stairs, etc.) If Tommy was in a fight with the broken jaw being a "final humiliation", I honestly don't think he'd be in any condition to drive to his parents house, write a suicide note, prop himself up so his body wouldn't fall over after death, then shoot himself.

I don't think whoever killed him was involved in a well organized drug gang that employed people who could carry out a professional looking hit. His killers were inexeperienced idiots who were just lucky to get away with murder.

Tommy's body was propped up with towels so that he would be found in a sitting position. I don't think a suicidal person would think to stage a scene like that. But somebody did stage it.

If we believe Tommy's parents, the gun was found with the cylinder slightly open. I've shot a couple different revolvers. I've never had the cylinder open up on its own. UM used the word "unlatched". Force would have to be applied to the latch mechanism to cause the cylinder to open.

Possibly the killers were handling the gun after shooting Tommy and accidentally opened it. Maybe they were trying to place it into his hands or they were panicking because of just committing a murder and in the commotion they opened the cylinder.

IMO, it would be extremely unusual for Tommy to shoot himself, have the gun drop onto his lap, then have the cylinder flip open. Maybe if the gun had recoiled hard and hit the floor or wall, I could believe that it would accidently open but not just falling softly into his lap. I don't think there's enough force in the way it fell for it to unlatch on it's own.

Tommy's glasses and wallet were missing. Someone at his school found his driver's license and turned it in to the office.

The neighbors reported seeing Tommy's car being chased by another car through his parent's neighborhood on the day he died. At one point, he was run off the road and assaulted.

Then there's the 911 people saying that Yes, Tommy did call them, then changing their story to No, he didn't call. Plus the high impact blood spatter found later in the stairway. And the suicide note, "I want to be cremated". That's a really pathetic effort. I've seen several other cases where that's all that's written on the suicide note and then it's found to be a case of murder.

There's enough unusual stuff going on here for officials to do a little more investigating, just to make sure that the suicide finding is correct.

I also read somewhere (I can't remember where, perhaps it was here) that Tommy's parents were told that the only way they could get the evidence related to Tommy's case was to file a freedom of information act request which (as they were told) would take several years to complete. Because of this they decided not to file the request and instead tried to get Senator Orin Hatch to help them.

Unfortunately the Fairfax PD has a history of being uncooperative when it comes to issues like this. In 2008 Fairfax police shot a man 20 times after he was said to have pulled a toy gun on them. The parents have questions pertaining to the case (like why he was shot 20 times in the back instead of the front of his body) but have been treated more or less the same way the Burketts were. I'm not saying that this kid was innocent, or that Tommy Burket was definitely murdered but there should be no harm in letting the family review the evidence, or at least no harm in being open and honest about everything.

If this murder was carried out by low level inexperienced college kids, what motive would local law enforcement, investigators, paramedics, coroners, and even the FBI have in covering up the crime? And if it was the DEA, what motive would they have in killing Burkett? If those two questions can be answered without speculation, then I think the murder scenario is plausible. If Burkett was a drug informant, on what level of crimes did he inform on? You think a 21 year old college kid would be able to obtain the inside scoop on large shipments of cocaine/heroine or any other serious drug? Highly unlikely. He most likely was involved with misdemeanor-level drug information which would make him an unlikely target for murder, IMO.

I agree that when a person is found dead of a single gunshot wound and the gun is in the immediate vicinity, the first thing people would think is that it's a suicide. To determine that it was not, there would have to be other details that indicate other people were involved.

Tommy had a broken jaw. If this was not caused by the gunshot, he must have been punched or beaten (or suffered some other violent event like a car accident or a fall down the stairs, etc.) If Tommy was in a fight with the broken jaw being a "final humiliation", I honestly don't think he'd be in any condition to drive to his parents house, write a suicide note, prop himself up so his body wouldn't fall over after death, then shoot himself.

I don't think whoever killed him was involved in a well organized drug gang that employed people who could carry out a professional looking hit. His killers were inexeperienced idiots who were just lucky to get away with murder.

Tommy's body was propped up with towels so that he would be found in a sitting position. I don't think a suicidal person would think to stage a scene like that. But somebody did stage it.

If we believe Tommy's parents, the gun was found with the cylinder slightly open. I've shot a couple different revolvers. I've never had the cylinder open up on its own. UM used the word "unlatched". Force would have to be applied to the latch mechanism to cause the cylinder to open.

Possibly the killers were handling the gun after shooting Tommy and accidentally opened it. Maybe they were trying to place it into his hands or they were panicking because of just committing a murder and in the commotion they opened the cylinder.

IMO, it would be extremely unusual for Tommy to shoot himself, have the gun drop onto his lap, then have the cylinder flip open. Maybe if the gun had recoiled hard and hit the floor or wall, I could believe that it would accidently open but not just falling softly into his lap. I don't think there's enough force in the way it fell for it to unlatch on it's own.

Tommy's glasses and wallet were missing. Someone at his school found his driver's license and turned it in to the office.

The neighbors reported seeing Tommy's car being chased by another car through his parent's neighborhood on the day he died. At one point, he was run off the road and assaulted.

Then there's the 911 people saying that Yes, Tommy did call them, then changing their story to No, he didn't call. Plus the high impact blood spatter found later in the stairway. And the suicide note, "I want to be cremated". That's a really pathetic effort. I've seen several other cases where that's all that's written on the suicide note and then it's found to be a case of murder.

There's enough unusual stuff going on here for officials to do a little more investigating, just to make sure that the suicide finding is correct.

I agree w/ some your points.
However:

1) They state that his jaw was broken. I have to wonder if it simply cracked (a painful injury) or actually fractured (bone separated). The former would be manageable; the latter would have been agonizing w/o the individual taking some type of strong pain medication. Which, if they did, might affect their thinking.

2) Since they didn't show the location of the towels, it could have equally possible that Burkett himself used the towels to prevent blood from staining his surroundings. I know that sounds "crazy" or "odd", but suicide is rarely a rational act.

3) I've also fired revolvers and it is impossible to fire one w/ the cylinder not being latched. However, by handling the revolver before the police arrived, the family caused any evidence that the revolver cylinder was in that position to be tainted. It's also possible that revolver became unlatched when the family handled it during what must have been a very traumatic time.

4) If neighbors witnessed all that they said that they did, why didn't any of them call the police? There would have then been a record of these events and the police would have had to investigate this as at least being a "suspicious death."

5) The 9-1-1 call. If the call was made from the family's phone, then there would be a record on the family's LUDS (Local Usage Details). Those records are available to the customer w/o having to involve the police. If a call was made, then there would be a record that the 9-1-1 operators couldn't deny.

IMHO, the 9-1-1 call either never happened or was made by Burkett as a cry for help prior to his suicide.

You would be surprised how many things people have witnessed over the years & not bothered to call the police. Many people just do not want to get involved.

This is another case of supposed suicide that I will never believe to be the case.

Some things about this case I wonder about:

1. Whose gun was found at the scene? Was it Tommy's? Was it his parents'? This bit of information was never disclosed as far as I know.

2. Did Tommy have any friends at Marymount University? The UM segment seems to portray him as kind of a loner. The UM segment never interviewed any friends of Tommy. If they did, they chose not to show those interviews for some reason.

3. Many neighbors reported seeing Tommy being chased by two cars on the day of his death. You would think at least one of those witnesses would have noted the license plate numbers, or at the very least, the make and model of the vehicles.

4. Is it possible that Tommy's broken jaw may have been the result of being hit with the baseball bat?

5. On Tommy's parents' now defunct website documenting the case, it was their belief that multiple people were murdered in their home the same day Tommy was. Who would these other victims have been? Why would the killers bring them to the Burkett's house to murder them? If that is really true, then whoever did that had some serious guts! I cannot fathom who would be so daring to murder several people in someone else's home and remove the bodies where they could easily be seen by neighbors. That's taking a HUGE risk!


I would really love to see some Marymount University students who were going to the school at the same time as Tommy come forward with what they know or heard about the incident from word of mouth on campus. Someone who went there has to know or heard something. Why not come forward with the anonymity of the Internet and tell what you know?

I don't beileve there was an evil conspiracy on the part of the police. Atleast not right off the bat. I think as with all other cases like this they ruled it a suicide because that's what appeared to be and because that way they can take the case off their books and not have to fool with it. I know that may sound crazy but this is what police do. Any UM fan should know this by now. Charles Morgan shot in head while wearing bullet proof vest, police say suicide. Doug Jonston killed in car and no gun found at scene. Police say suicide. Danny Cassalaro, Keith Warren etc etc. Unfortunatley this is what investigators do to keep police depts from getting overwhelmed with murder investigations. I know its shocking but they actually will let murderers go free by not investigating staged suicides. It does not have to be a conspiracy against the victim it is simply a uniform act by investigators.

Now we add in that one of the suspects was an officers son. That might explain why the investigation stalled even after the parents produced evidence of murder. Another suspect was the son of a trustee at the college. This explains why the school was uncooperative with the family.

To me, aside from the blood evidence the most telling sign that foul play was involved here is that Tommy's car was not parked at his house. Why in the world would you park someplace else then walk home and kill yourself?

In regard to Tommy's jaw, some of you seem to forget the segment itself has an explanation. If you will recall, several students recall seeing Tommy get in a fight on campus a day or two before his death. I think this would explain his physical abrasions rather well.

As for the 911 calls -- no one has ever claimed those calls took place except Tommy's mother. She claims a 911 operator told her that but there is no evidence of it happening and the police deny it. As others said, it would be easy to prove whether he did or didn't call 911 by contacting the phone company. Why this wasn't done should be telling. I think Tommy's mom either made it up or she misheard the 911 operator.

Tommy's strange actions prior to his death give me the impression he was having some sort of breakdown. For instance, he called his mother and said they "stole his paycheck" without ever explaining who he was working for and who would want to steal it. (This reminds me of the Cindy James and Tammy Leppert cases where the victims never could quite articulate any details of who their tormentors were). I have already pointed out how silly this paycheck thing is: the DEA is not going to send you a paycheck in the mail, especially if you're an undercover informant working a dangerous case. And even if they did, why in the world would a drug dealer want to steal it? Moreover, why would the DEA be in on the cover-up of the death of one of its own informants? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. No matter how you spin this DEA angle, it doesn't make sense in any configuration people try to put it in.

On Tommy's parents' now defunct website documenting the case, it was their belief that multiple people were murdered in their home the same day Tommy was.

I did not know they were claiming that. This is just sad, very sad. It's hard not to feel sorry for the torment the parents went through, as they were obviously grasping at straws and concocting insane theories to deal with their son's suicide. It happens; they aren't the only parents to rationalize it or live in denial. But facts are facts.

Tommy's strange actions prior to his death give me the impression he was having some sort of breakdown. For instance, he called his mother and said they "stole his paycheck" without ever explaining who he was working for and who would want to steal it. (This reminds me of the Cindy James and Tammy Leppert cases where the victims never could quite articulate any details of who their tormentors were). I have already pointed out how silly this paycheck thing is: the DEA is not going to send you a paycheck in the mail, especially if you're an undercover informant working a dangerous case. And even if they did, why in the world would a drug dealer want to steal it? Moreover, why would the DEA be in on the cover-up of the death of one of its own informants? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. No matter how you spin this DEA angle, it doesn't make sense in any configuration people try to put it in.

Couldn't agree with you more. I could never understand why in cases like this one where the alleged victim knew of who was behind their torment, yet they never went public with the information. If you knew people were after you (especially if you were a DEA informant), wouldn't you at the very least seek help from the DEA? And I could never understand how much drug cartel a college student could expose, so I question if he ever even was an informant for the DEA.

Tommy's strange actions prior to his death give me the impression he was having some sort of breakdown. For instance, he called his mother and said they "stole his paycheck" without ever explaining who he was working for and who would want to steal it.

I've forgotten how the story about Tommy being a DEA informant and getting paid by check got started. If he was any kind of informant, I'm sure they weren't paying him by check, which is too easily traced.

As far as him telling his mom, "They stole my check" but not explaining who "they" were.... I'm almost positive that he had a job on campus (at the very least, he had some kind of a normal job) and his parents already knew who's payroll he was on, so they knew who he was working for. He didn't need to explain it. I don't know why it wasn't made clear to the UM viewers that it was a legitimate payroll check that was being stolen.

Apparently, he was harassed on campus and it was likely those people who kept messing with his mail and stealing his paycheck.

I need to do some digging around the site and web to find out where Tommy was working and who was sending him paychecks. I definitely don't want to be posting my notorious "mis-rememberings" as fact. I'll go see what I can find. Might take me a while, I've got gobs of work to do around here today.

Real quick here....

I just re-read Thiussat's originial critique in post #1. There seem to be so many discrepancies in what was portrayed in the segment, what was said, what was seen, so much pertinent info left out etc, it's got me wondering...

Did UM have any legal consultants working on the show or were they leaning more toward the mystery/entertainment value of the program? I would think that any retired cops, lawyers, investigators, etc who might consult on the show would be able to point out gaps in the story line that would muddy up the case, making it harder for the viewers to understand, and make it harder to get reliable assistance from anyone in the public who might have some info.

I've forgotten how the story about Tommy being a DEA informant and getting paid by check got started. If he was any kind of informant, I'm sure they weren't paying him by check, which is too easily traced.

As far as him telling his mom, "They stole my check" but not explaining who "they" were.... I'm almost positive that he had a job on campus (at the very least, he had some kind of a normal job) and his parents already knew who's payroll he was on, so they knew who he was working for. He didn't need to explain it. I don't know why it wasn't made clear to the UM viewers that it was a legitimate payroll check that was being stolen.

Apparently, he was harassed on campus and it was likely those people who kept messing with his mail and stealing his paycheck.

I need to do some digging around the site and web to find out where Tommy was working and who was sending him paychecks. I definitely don't want to be posting my notorious "mis-rememberings" as fact. I'll go see what I can find. Might take me a while, I've got gobs of work to do around here today.

Not sure what Tommy's job on campus was but the fact that his box was broken into to me could indicate that those who broke into it weren't merely trying to harass Tommy but to attain information about what he might have been up to.

We've all heard in the news recently about cases of campus bullying or harassment but to me this case always had an element of intrigue that went far and beyond harassment. Tommy Burkett in my opinion was involved with something that lead to this harassment from his peers. There has been speculation that what he was involved with may have had something to do with drugs although the exact particulars of his involvement have never been substantiated as far as I'm aware.

My belief has always been that Tommy Burkett was murdered by a group of his peers and the murder probably involved some degree of premeditation. In turn that would lead me to believe that the motive for Tommy's murder was something that may have been a little more complicated than not.

This thread, in post #46, hostedbyrobertstack gave a link that I followed, read and commented on in post #49. Apparently, Tommy's parents were quoted on that site. Here's what I wrote regarding who Tommy was working for (the school) that provided the payroll check that was stolen.

Quote from post #49:

The paycheck that was stolen from Tommy's mailbox was not a DEA payment or anything. Here's what Tommy's parents said:

>>>A day or two later, Tommy told me he spoke with campus security again regarding the smashed mailbox and they told him they believed it was "an inside job." Our son died believing the theft was being investigated by the Arlington police. He also reported the theft to campus payroll, who stopped payment on the check.

A few weeks after Tommy's death, I called the Arlington police to learn the status of that investigation. There was none; Marymount never reported the "break-in in the mail room."<<<

The thought of some massive conspiracy involving the DEA, the local police, medical examiner and the government seems extremely difficult to accept. I've never been one to buy into those wide-stretching conspiracy theories and frankly, that just doesn't pass the smell test.

That isn't to say he wasn't murdered, though. It's entirely possible he was being bullied by people at school and it escalated into a fight. Maybe they did chase him home (in elementary, I was chased home from school by someone - it was terrifying) and things progressively worsened once they got into the house. Maybe their intent wasn't to kill him, but one thing led to another and that's exactly what happened. In a panic, they sloppily staged a suicide. I'm not saying that happened, but if he was murdered, I think it's far more believable than something to do with the DEA.

Has anyone read up on the Jeffrey Digman case? It's eerily similar to Tommy Burkett's - right down to the parents doing their own investigation.

Digman was a Marine who worked with the San Diego Marine Drug Testing Unit - serving as chief of the unit. He had been at home in San Diego when his roommate returned that night and noticed his car in the driveway. That was suspicious because Digman was supposed to be on a flight to Puerto Rico. Upon entering the house, he found Digman dead in his room, lying back on his bed in an apparent suicide from a gunshot wound. The parents are convinced, or were convinced, he didn't commit suicide and actually had been shot, in what could have been a cover up due to his drug related career.

He died in 1989. Burkett died only two years later in a very similar situation.

Both had connections to drug use (people who used, not necessarily themselves) and both died in 'suicides'.

Not saying they're connected. It was just strange how similar these cases were to one another.

The thought of some massive conspiracy involving the DEA, the local police, medical examiner and the government seems extremely difficult to accept. I've never been one to buy into those wide-stretching conspiracy theories and frankly, that just doesn't pass the smell test.

That isn't to say he wasn't murdered, though. It's entirely possible he was being bullied by people at school and it escalated into a fight. Maybe they did chase him home (in elementary, I was chased home from school by someone - it was terrifying) and things progressively worsened once they got into the house. Maybe their intent wasn't to kill him, but one thing led to another and that's exactly what happened. In a panic, they sloppily staged a suicide. I'm not saying that happened, but if he was murdered, I think it's far more believable than something to do with the DEA.

This is exactly what I think was going on. I think he was being bullied by a group of students (the same ones who beat him up), and that may have ultimately drove him to suicide.

This is exactly what I think was going on. I think he was being bullied by a group of students (the same ones who beat him up), and that may have ultimately drove him to suicide.

I thought about that too - that he was driven to suicide.

I don't remember a lot of the details of this case, but I remember the jist of it.

And my thoughts are, bottom line is if there is any chance at all that the parents' allegations are true and he was murdered, this is an extremely disturbing case that could demonstrate a serious abuse of power by people protecting lowlifes.

I don't neccessarily buy the theory that Tommy Burkette was driven to suicide, in a case like this it seems to be if a person is pushed that far by bulllies and has got a gun and knows how to use it you'd be far more likely to go in and massacre others doing it to you than you are to kill yourself first. Look at things like the Columbine, or the Virginia Tech shootings.............

And I think the gentleman who started this thread is merely speculating that the parents' are lying about the unlatched gun cylinder. There is no way of knowing this for sure.

Its one thing to acknowledge the possibility that grieving loved ones of a deceased person can be grief-motivated to looking for someone to blame, but to brand them as liars is something else altogether.

Bottom line is, any chance at all that these thing are true has to be taken very, very seriously. Thats just how it is. Otherwise a justice system could become corrupt beyond repair.

I was going to Marymount at the time. I never knew Tommy and, if I saw him, I wasn't aware it was him or never knew of him on a personal basis. Another poster asked if he had any friends at MU and I can only say that many of these occurances made their way around campus rather quickly but I never spoke to anyone or heard anyone directly label themselves as a "friend" of Tommy. I'm sure there are many people that heard more than me (as I was a commuter) and I did later hear that he was a resident of the campus - though I think I heard he was considering moving back home for his final few semesters. The segment on UM portrayed him as somewhat of a "loner" although his Mom later said that several people that "knew Tommy" had relayed information to her. I feel like there was something more to the story than just the possibility of drug use and (not to cast stones) always felt like something was being done to get under the skin of others. I once heard some say that they believed he was gay (which was a LOT LESS ACCEPTABLE back then) and that might be leading to some of the attacks but even then, I felt like the campus was rather laid back and never felt threatened or was never even approached with drugs (again, I wasn't residential). I did hear that some of his attacks were "sexual" other than just a beatdown. One instance I heard of was that he was in the restroom when he was hit in the groin area (as he was using the bathroom) and then he approached whoever it was and was again beat up. I was told by someone that saw him after the attack (after he was already dead) that it looked like he was in a state of "shock" or "confusion" and one said he looked "out of this world bad" which could explain any injuries he may have had. He had been attacked in the groin area several times from what I later heard (he had complained about that). There was also a story about someone taking his Mustang from him (but he was in the car with the attackers which seemed even more odd) and then that major attack came later that night after they returned from wherever they had been. From the perspective of the parents, knowing that a kid has some encounter with others could provide a easy target to blame for something you did not believe to be suicide (and I'm not pointing fingers either way). It was also going around shortly after his death that he had a MAJOR ALCOHOL problem though, again, I cannot say as I didn't know him personally.

I should also mention that I also heard these attacks had been going on all Fall. I later heard from someone who worked with him on campus that he had issued several complaints dating back to shortly after school started and filed complaints on several of the matters (dating back to September). My guess is that those issues may have just been mild and they escalated into the serious beatdown by November.

Years ago, there was a website that detailed pretty much everything about this case. I think it was part of realcrimes, but I'm not sure. That's where I first heard about this case, not from UM. It always gave me the creeps.

I don't think he committed suicide, but I'm not sure if I believe there was a huge cover-up either. Maybe the truth is something totally different, like the bullying situation others have mentioned.

Or maybe there is a cover-up, but it has nothing to do with drugs. Maybe the police jumped to the wrong conclusion initially, and now they just don't want to admit that they botched things.

It seems like both sides may have tunnel vision. The police are focused on suicide, and the parents are focused on a cover-up by the DEA.

I just watched this segment from start to finish and took notes on my computer notepad along the way. I feel I have all of the pertinent info pertaining to the case, as presented by UM, ready to be digested and criticized.

Everything I present is obviously based on UM only, as some things about the segment I feel could have been better elaborated on, and other issues UM failed to address completely. I will point these issues out as I go along.

Here is how I will post this critique: I present each pertinent assertion of the parent's theory in order of how they were presented in the segment. I will number them 1,2,3,4 etc. Underneath that I will post my critique of each claim. I will post unanswered questions I have that the segment just didn't clear up or address at all. So, each point will have 2 sections and then unanswered questions if any. I am doing it this way so that I can avoid just rambling on about disjointed aspects of the case. I am trying to make it as organized as possible for simplicity.

Let's begin:

1) The parents say they came home around 6:10 PM and found Tommy dead upstairs in an upright position with a revolver in his hand. The father claims he picked up the gun and determined it was unlatched (a revolver can't fire with an unlatched cylinder).

Critique of point #1: All we have is the father's testimony as we are lacking photos of the crime scene to back his assertion. If there are such crime scene photos, UM never mentioned them, and they certainly would have if the photos contradicted the official story. I don't think the father is lying, but I think it's possible that his details are a bit sketchy since he was emotional after just having found his son dead. Perhaps he unlatched the cylinder when he pried it out of Tommy's hands. Either way, there is nothing here anyone can prove one way or the other.

I assume the gun belonged to the Burketts but UM never addressed this, as they didn't do in several other cases like this, which is quite vexing. Since it is safe to assume it was the Burkett's gun, then how did the killers know where to find it? Did they rummage through the house looking for a gun that they have no idea even exists?

2) The parents had the body exhumed and the 2nd autopsy revealed that Tommy had a number of superficial skin wounds as well as a broken jaw.

Critique of point #2: Why did the first autopsy not catch this? Was the first medical examiner in on the conspiracy too? Was he simply a lousy doctor? I don't deny the findings of the 2nd autopsy but find the discrepancy rather interesting. My theory is that these wounds were a result of the beating Tommy took a few days before his death. By the parent's own admission, Tommy had been beaten up at an off campus function. Did it occur to them that this could be the reason for his alleged wounds? Just because Tommy was beaten up (if indeed he even was) does not equate to murder. They were two separate events.

3) The parents claim that the paramedics on the scene had told them that Tommy had been dead for hours, yet the detective said it had only been a few minutes. The father said Tommy was cold to the touch, so he thinks the detective was up to no good.

Critique of #3: This is one of the more ridiculous points the parents raise. In fact, I don't think it is worth them mentioning even if it DID happen. Why? Because it has no bearing on determining Tommy's cause of death. Even if the detective did lie about the time of death, what purpose does it serve? I don't understand how Tommy being dead for a few minutes vs. hours contributes to the effectiveness of a cover-up. IF this detective really said this, I find it likely that he was simply mistaken about his assessment. He is not a doctor, even though I admit a police detective should be able to tell the difference in a fresh death and one hours old. However, I still fail to see how him saying this would help him cover anything up.

4) The parents claim the detective brandished a suicide note that he claimed had been written by Tommy. It simply read, "I want to be cremated."

Critique of #4: Much like point #1, there is really no way to prove or disprove this. The parents claim it happened, yet they didn't produce the suicide note for the segment. Wouldn't you keep something like that around if you had questions? I am skeptical of the note, but there is no way to really argue either way.

Unanswered questions: Do the police affirm or deny the existence of this note? I don't recall the Police official on the show mentioning it.

5) The parents claim that they returned to Tommy's dorm room to clean it out a couple of weeks after his death. They say that a University official entered the room and handed them his driver's license. The official claimed that it had been turned in by a student, but the official said she couldn't divulge who this student was. The parents claim they later found out who the student was via anonymous sources. This student is one of the students they feel was involved in Tommy's death.

Critique: This is probably the most preposterous point the parents brought up. I have no way of knowing whether the license was really turned in like they said it was, but I do know that if it was turned in by the killer, then he must immediately be put on a "stupid criminals" T.V. show.

I find it odd that the killer can stage this perfect crime scene straight out of a Sherlock Holmes novel, yet is a complete moron when it comes to covering up his work of art. I think if the license scenario did occur like they claim, then it was turned in by an innocent person who just happened to find it laying on campus grounds. I think the parent's assertion that they "know who turned it in" is baseless. They never provided any evidence that their suspect turned it in other than the "claims of anonymous students."


6) The parents claim that various neighbors saw a car chasing Tommy's car through the neighborhood. Based on the segment, it is claimed that at least two neighbors witnessed this.

Critique: The neighbors who saw the actual car chase never appeared on camera to provide their story. The one neighbor that did appear on camera did not see a chase.

According to the segment, Tommy did not park in the driveway but rather somewhere else and then ran home. This brings up a major question: if so many people saw the car chase, why didn't anyone see Tommy running through the neighborhood on foot as is claimed? Why didn't anyone see the assailant's car parked in his driveway? If the assailants didn't park in the driveway, then where did they park? If they parked on the side of the street somewhere, how come no one noticed?

Secondly, the location of the neighbors who saw the chase was not mentioned. Why does this matter? If these "neighbors" lived a half mile down the street, it is completely possible that a car chase did happen, but Tommy's car was not involved as these neighbors likely would not have intimate knowledge of Tommy's car. Why should they? It's feasible that two random cars happened to be speeding by, and after Tommy's parents got the neighbors all worked up, they suddenly "remembered" a random event that had nothing to do with Tommy. I have a lot of neighbors, and I don't keep up with who drives what car. If someone were murdered on my block, I would rack my brain trying to remember details about that day. I can see how one can easily exaggerate details about a minor event because one's brain will remember otherwise forgettable details when something else important happens around the time period. This is why many studies have shown eye witnesses to be unreliable. it's similar to the power of suggestion.

So, I just covered inconsistencies with "far-away" neighbors, but what if, on the other hand, these neighbors lived directly adjacent to Tommy's home? Why didn't they continue watching the chase until it's end? Obviously it ended somewhere close by and certainly they would have seen Tommy jump out of his car and run to his house. If they were next door, they would have been in perfect position to see something happen after the chase ended. Why not stick around for it?

Unanswered questions: This is the part of the segment that UM dropped the ball on. There are many unanswered questions surrounding this supposed car chase. As I said, it is claimed that Tommy did not drive the car directly to his house during the chase, but rather parked it somewhere in the neighborhood and then hiked on foot back home. I assume he did this because he didn't want his pursuers seeing where his parents lived. Further, the segment never mentioned where Tommy's car was eventually found by police, or if it was even found. This, to me, seems paramount and I am at a loss as to why UM didn't address this. The most important thing left out, however, was where exactly the neighbors who witnessed the chase lived relative to Tommy.

7) A neighbor that did appear on the segment claims she saw Tommy's car shortly after dark driving around the cul-de-sac with its lights off. She claimed that it stopped in the cul-de-sac in front of her house and just sat there until she walked back inside.

Critique: This witness seems more credible because we know there IS a witness, unlike the other claims. However, what she saw means very little, if anything at all. Why?

First, it was dark and the car had its light off. It is more difficult to determine the make of a car when its lights are off.

Second, if it was indeed Tommy's car, then we must give this killer extra credit for being even dumber than previously thought. Why would Tommy's killer drive his car around after killing him? Why would he draw attention to himself by turning the lights off and then sitting a few yards from a neighbor when that neighbor was staring him down? Why not simply escape and leave Tommy's car where it was?

Since we know that Tommy's car was not in the driveway when the parents got home, then you can throw out the theory that the killer was simply trying to drive the car to Tommy's house so that nothing would appear out of order. We know this didn't happen. So, we are left with 3 scenarios:

1) The killer is a complete imbecile and was aimlessly driving Tommy's car around for no reason
2) The neighbor saw Tommy in his own car
3) The neighbor had the wrong car

8) The parents claim there was blood found on the stairwell a few days later that had gotten overlooked by police. This fact was confirmed by an independent investigator hired by the parents.

Critique: Because of the testimony of the scientific investigator who appeared on camera, there is no doubt that the blood did exist. However, even by his own admission, he could not identify the blood as Tommy's. He also said the bullet found had no blood or hair on it, but one must ask how long the police had the bullet before he got it? Without knowing this, his analysis doesn't mean much. The blood could have been removed via a lot of handling of the bullet. Regardless, the fact the blood could not be identified as Tommy's is damning.

Secondly, the blood was on the side of the stairwell wall, but there was no indication of it anywhere on the carpet of the stairs or anywhere between the stairs and the room Tommy was found in. If Tommy had been shot or beaten downstairs, as is postulated by the parents, then why was there absolutely no blood trail anywhere along the path?

Unanswered questions: Were the stairs carpeted as shown in the segment? If so, this is even more damning to the parents theory as it is not easy to quickly clean blood off carpet. Basically, if there was blood on the wall, it should have been elsewhere also, but it wasn't.

9) Tommy's mother claims that a few weeks after Tommy's death, she called the local 911 dispatchers to inquire about any possible 911 calls Tommy might have made. She claims the operator said he had made two calls on the day of his death. When pressed about what the calls were about, the operator said she needed to ask her supervisor. After the dispatcher came back to the phone, he/she claimed there was an error and Tommy did NOT make any such call at all. The mother seems to be insinuating that this dispatcher was told by the supervisor to lie and cover up the call records. The cop on the segment said that the tapes were checked but had been routinely deleted because the mother didn't bring this 911 thing to his attention until after the 30 days. Further, the mother claims that no police responded to Tommy's 911 calls because they obviously wanted him dead.

Critique: This one is very easy to poke holes in. Besides the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the dispatcher told the mother anything but "there were no calls," the mother seems to be implying here that not only is the DEA, police dept., and coroner's office in on the killing, but so are the dispatchers at 911! This is preposterous in itself.

As for the claim that the police didn't respond to the call, let me tell you a little story. My friend is a police dispatcher. He told me that he was working dispatch one night when he got a call from a city council woman. The woman wanted cops at her house because of a domestic dispute. About 5 minutes later she called back and said to cancel it because she had worked it out (keep in mind she didn't want this to be made public). My friend told her "sorry but we have to come out there, it's a rule." She told him she would have his job if he didn't cancel the call, but he told her to take it up with the Chief. Even when threatened with his job, he made the officers go out to her home anyway. He said he wasn't worried about her getting him fired, because he would certainly be fired if he didn't send them out there. The Chief would have fired him on the spot. That's how seriously police take 911 calls, and I live in a fairly small town.

My point is, it is doubtful the police ignored the 911 call (unless the ENTIRE police department was in on it). The truth is, the reason the police didn't come to the house is because they were NOT called in the first place.

10) Tommy called his mother from his dorm a few days prior to his death. He was frantic and told her that "they stole my paycheck from my mailbox and they found out what I am doing." She said he wouldn't elaborate on what he meant.

Critique: Besides this simply being hearsay (like almost everything else the mother says), Tommy's comments make no sense at all. I assume that he was talking about a DEA paycheck, because if he had another job, the mother would have mentioned it. Ergo, it's fair to assume Tommy was talking about his DEA check.

If he was a DEA informant, why would they send his "paycheck" to his mailbox at his dorm? Don't these guys have more clandestine ways of getting paid?

Further, if Tommy was worried about his life, then why did he not simply go to the DEA and tell them that he needed protection? If he felt the DEA was part of this vast conspiracy to kill him, then why not contact the FBI or the state police or some other agency? I just think it's ludicrous that the DEA would use him and then try to kill him. If he worked for them, then why would they want him dead? Was he a double agent? This isn't a James Bond movie. Nothing, and I mean nothing, adds up about the DEA story. It's totally ridiculous. There is no reason, based on the facts presented by UM, to believe it.

11) The mother claims she was on campus and she just happened to approach three guys and ask them if they had seen Tommy (Note: she doesn't mention if these were random people or if she knew them already). The guys responded that no they hadn't seen him but for her to let him know they were looking for him in order to "beat him up."

Critique: More hearsay. I find it very convenient that A) she just happens upon these guys and B) that they just happen to know Tommy.

Enter the stupid criminal factor again. Not only do these guys kill Tommy, turn in his driver's license, drive his car around his own neighborhood, but they also tell his mother they out to get him before they actually do go after him. Real crafty criminals!

12) The parents claim that they were told via anonymous sources that Tommy was killed by a baseball bat with phone books used as padding.

Critique: Let's assume for a moment this is true. Tell me, then, how these guys got a hold of Tommy's gun in order to stage the crime scene? If Tommy already had it in his hand for protection, why didn't he shoot them?

To accept this theory, we must accept that the killers came very unprepared. Did they have it planned to stage a suicide? If so, they must have known that they needed one of Tommy's guns to pull it off. Unless these people hung around Tommy's parent's house, how would they know where such a gun is?

Why did the killers not bring their own weapons? They had to rely on Tommy's own baseball bat in his room and had to rely on his gun. Isn't it interesting how everything the killers used to kill Tommy belonged to Tommy?

Even if they did use his baseball bat, why leave it behind? Isn't it safer to take it with you for later disposal? The mother wants us to believe that they did take the phone books with them. By her logic, they take the phone books, but leave the actual murder weapon behind. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. she says they simply tore the tape off the bat handle. Stupid criminals again. If they were smart, they would take the bat.

If we are to accept the mother's bat theory, then this means that the tearing of the tape indicates they weren't wearing gloves. This means that they didn't care about their fingerprints being anywhere else in the house, but by golly they couldn't be found on the bat -- the actual murder weapon they left behind. I suppose these guys were too stupid to realize that their fingerprints would be found all throughout the house.

Perhaps they thought the police would cover-up for them, so there was no need to wear gloves. If so, why didn't the parents hire a PI to do fingerprint dusting?

There you have it, 12 reasons why the murder theory doesn't add up. As you can see, the theory of the parents has far more holes than it does answers. I guarantee if my arguments were entered as the defense of the accused, the accused would not get convicted.




YOU forgot one MAJOR detail.... when they discovered his body he was upright.. legs crossed and hands on his lap.... IF he did shoot himself.. the force and impact would've forced him to lie on the bed and his arm with the gun flung over his head (IF he was shot through the moth).... (kinda like him patting himself on the head BUt with the gun in tow)... I say it was staged...

ANother way is IF he shot himself with the gun at the side of his head... His head would've leaned in that direction the gun was shot... and his arm would've lingered to his side (the one with the gun) and he wouldve dropped the gun probably.. taken he's dead and the weight of the gun lingers as well..

I just watched this episode again.. One thing i cant understand is that there is a decrepancy on how Tommy actually died. How can that be possible?? Experts said that he shot himself in the head and it was suicide.. well, if he shot himself in the head, then where are the entrance and exit wounds?? Ive seen pictures of suicides in the same mannner and when someone shoots themselves in the mouth, there is a gaping exit wound in the back of their head... a wound that cant be confused to being beat with phonebooks. So, was he beat, then shot? not shot at all? UM didnt give much detail on that part of the death. I think thats the most obvious clue. Also, they pulled a bullet out of the wall which had no human tissue on it at all. seems like very amatureish police work if you ask me....

[Sorry to bump this thread, but I just joined the board and wanted to add my two cents].

There is, of course, the possibility that he was murdered, but to me it seems much more likely that this was, in fact, a suicide.

I really don't understand the parents' theory of the crime itself. His murderer(s) chased him into his house, went up to his room, found his baseball bat, and beat him to death? They used phone books to lessen the mess? How? Did they mop up blood with them? On that point, where was all of the blood, if he was beaten with a bat? A few specks on the wall (which apparently could not be definitively linked to Tommy) wouldn't point to a beating, in my opinion (of course they could have cleaned things up, I suppose). Then there is the gun. Since it was never mentioned, I assume that it belonged to the Burketts. So the murderers somehow got a hold of a gun within the house in order to stage the scene? Did they beat up Tommy and then ask him where his parents gun was? Or scour the house for it? Stranger things have happened, but I don't really understand the parents' proposed version of the crime.

I'm also surprised at the number of posters who say things like, "If someone was going to commit suicide, they probably would/would not do ... x, y, z ...". As another poster said, suicide is rarely (ever?) a rational act. Who is to say why people do what they do when they are so far gone that they are going to take their own life.

To me, it sounds like Tommy was essentially being bullied. We know how many teens/young adults are driven to suicide through this type of thing. It's not a stretch at all to think that this might have happened in this case. The post above from someone who apparently was at the same university that discussed rumours that Tommy was gay and possibly was being bullied for that reason are also interesting (of course this is completely unproven speculation). In any event, the parents' version of events really does sound like a Hollywood movie script. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Personally, I don't think that it's probable.

yah i dont believe the origin of the gun was ever revealed. strange strange case.

yah i dont believe the origin of the gun was ever revealed. strange strange case.

IMHO, I think UM left this detail out because the gun could have been linked to the Burkett household, making the murder theory that much less likely.

IMHO, I think UM left this detail out because the gun could have been linked to the Burkett household, making the murder theory that much less likely.

Which is exactly what I think happened in the Tony Lombardi case as well. I strongly suspect both of those weapons belonged to the respective families but that didn't "fit" UM's depiction.

suicide is very hard for parents to accept. but it makes one wonder, even if it was a suicide, how come nobody ever spoke up for tommy? no friends, classmates? We do not get enough detail about him, but are instead bombarded with a scenario of how he died.

Which is exactly what I think happened in the Tony Lombardi case as well. I strongly suspect both of those weapons belonged to the respective families but that didn't "fit" UM's depiction.

I think you could also add Danny Williams to this list of potential murders but most likely suicide cases.

I think you could also add Danny Williams to this list of potential murders but most likely suicide cases.

Yes! I fully agree. There are so many more clear-cut cases of murders staged as suicides that have been featured on UM, IMO.

A demonstration of ballistics and/or blood spattering (which is not always good science to begin with) inconsistencies by the families always makes me a little skeptical. It's different when there are straight up medical or physical improbabilities--i.e., blacking out from smoking marijuana and letting a train run over you. But just because something doesn't immediately reconcile with your conditioned wisdom, education, or "common sense" does not mean it HAD to have happened a particular way.

I do feel great sympathy for families that lose loved ones, and of course they each definitely have a right to grieve. But sometimes, things simply are what they are, and there's no further explanation beyond it. In fact, the vast majority of things tend to be that way.

Allot of the cases that was suggested was a suicide, I believe was not the case but it was murder instead. This case, Danny Williams, etc.

YOU forgot one MAJOR detail.... when they discovered his body he was upright.. legs crossed and hands on his lap.... IF he did shoot himself.. the force and impact would've forced him to lie on the bed and his arm with the gun flung over his head (IF he was shot through the moth).... (kinda like him patting himself on the head BUt with the gun in tow)... I say it was staged...

ANother way is IF he shot himself with the gun at the side of his head... His head would've leaned in that direction the gun was shot... and his arm would've lingered to his side (the one with the gun) and he wouldve dropped the gun probably.. taken he's dead and the weight of the gun lingers as well..

Remember, bodies being shot to instant death don't move or recoil meters away like in Hollywood movies. Counterintuitively, they slump down to the ground, vertically, like dropping a ragdoll. Bullets pass too fast through the flesh and muscles, with an impact too small, to pack enough kinetic force to move the body about.

In Tommy Burkett's case, obviously, the trajectory would go back and upright. The kinetic energy from a gun passing through his mouth would direct the body upward against gravity, and not sideways which obviously would have pushed the body on either side of the couch.

We do not know the caliber of the revolver and we only have a reenactment of an actor (or a mannequin) sitting upright mimicking the position of Tommy Burkett's body. Perhaps the revolver was a very small caliber, and the body was in another position than the reenactment.

As for the gun, if it was caught around his trigger finger and he was sitting on his couch it would explain why it didn't fall to the ground, but on his lap. Again, the kinetic force is too low to propulse the gun away from the body, it would fall down and slightly forward landing, you guessed it, on his lap near his fingers. It's possible that when it landed down the contact unhinged the cylinder off in a freak occurence.

suicide is very hard for parents to accept. but it makes one wonder, even if it was a suicide, how come nobody ever spoke up for tommy? no friends, classmates? We do not get enough detail about him, but are instead bombarded with a scenario of how he died.

A) Maybe some friends and classmates were interviewed, but they were not kept during the montage because UM wanted to frame the story around the conspiracy theory. Burkett was already presented as a clean, "innocent" victim, he didn't really need character witnesses.

B) If Tommy Burkett was bullied, odds are he was a unpopular kid with very few friends. Either they didn't want to appear on camera or their school gagged the students and instructed them not to give interviews.

C) Even if Tommy Burkett committed suicide, there is still a conspiracy. The school knew that Tommy Burkett was the victim of bullying and harassment on its campus, they took no action to make it stop, they refused to provide the identity of his aggressors, and they decided not to cooperate with Tommy's family and the investigation into his death. That at least would warrant considering a civil action against both the bullies and the school's adminitration for their responsability into Tommy's death.

C) Even if Tommy Burkett committed suicide, there is still a conspiracy. The school knew that Tommy Burkett was the victim of bullying and harassment on its campus, they took no action to make it stop, they refused to provide the identity of his aggressors, and they decided not to cooperate with Tommy's family and the investigation into his death. That at least would warrant considering a civil action against both the bullies and the school's adminitration for their responsability into Tommy's death.

This is an excellent point.

I've gone back and forth so many times on this case. I'm not sure if I buy the DEA/government conspiracy stuff (though I believe those things happen quite often) but I don't really buy the suicide theory either.

I went digging around the internet for information, some of it uncorroborated but all of it interesting.

Supposedly on November 30, 1991 Tommy Burkett went to visit some friends of his who lived in Centreville, Virginia seven miles away from where his parents lived. He arrived just after 8 p.m. Then, ATM cameras have him visiting an ATM at Central Fidelity Bank in Centreville (that particular location is now a Wachovia) at midnight December 1, 1991 (the day he died). In the still photos three white males are seen behind him kind of looking to the side. At 2 a.m. his parents reported that he called home to say that he was sleeping over at his friend's house and that he'd be home by noon the next day to accompany them to a poetry reading they had planned to go to. He didn't actually return home or go to the reading with them, they didn't see him until they found his body.

My question is this: who are these friends that he visited and stayed with? Were they with him at the ATM at midnight? If not, who were the men with him? Why were none of these people interviewed to provide a timeline of events?

The whole thing seems fishy to me. Like there's something missing here, some piece of the puzzle that we need to figure this out. Even if he did commit suicide (a very reasonable possibility) it's likely that something was up that factored into his decision to end his own life. There are more incidents that occurred prior to Tommy's death that make you wonder what was really going on here. Either this kid was very mentally disturbed for a long time prior to his death, or he was in some very real danger.

saw this after a long time on the Farina version


this case was eerily similar to the Keith Warren case which aired just a couple days before




One thing I wonder, could a handwriting analyst be brought in to see if that note that was left behind was written by Tommy Burkett or not? I wonder if that happened.

also could they have dusted the place for fingerprints to see if anyone else was in the house besides Tommy? Then again police didn't seem to want to cooperate with this case so I guess they couldn't get anyone to.

also I am watching the Stack version right now to compare. The Farina version edited a LOT. The whole interview with the neighbor "Debby" wasn't in it for example. You never see the moment where the witness noticed Tommy's car going in the cul de sac. Also, the moment where his mother found about the 911 calls and his complaints wasn't in it either. They also left out the part his mother encounters those students on campus. I also don't think they mentioned that Tommy's mother worked at his university.

Bump.

I watched this segment last night and again this morning. Not sure if I've ever commented on it.

I do not think this kid committed suicide. I'm not sure if there is a conspiracy, but I can certainly understand the parents wanting to explore that route.

I'm interested in the comments made by the former university student who didn't know Tommy, but knew of him. Has there been any conclusive evidence that Tommy was, in fact, gay? Could his sexual orientation have been a factor in his death?

I worry we'll never know.

One thing I do believe is that he was murdered and the persons responsible were in cahoots with the local police who did very little if anything to solve the case.

My memory is pretty fuzzy when it comes to this case because I haven't seen the segment in quiet some time. But, was it ever confirmed that Tommy was an informant? It just strikes me as odd that he knew about all these drug deals going on at the college. One poster who went to the college seemed to imply that Tommy was a loner.

As far as the mail theft, does anyone know if other boxes were hit as well? Mail theft is not an unusual crime. I don't understand why Tommy would be so freaked out over the theft. If he was working for the college he could have easily gotten a replacement.

I'm leaning more towards suicide because the conspiracy does not make sense. Why would all of these agencies get together to cover up the murder of a low level informant?

Going away to college is a very stressful event for young adults. I recently read an article about a popular young girl with good grades jumping to her death at parking garage. Suicide can come out of nowhere. My heart breaks for Tommy's family, I just don't think he was murdered.

the biggest plot hole in this case is that the UM segment never mentioned if there was an exit wound in Tommy Burkett that showed clearly that he shot himself. If there wasn't one, then it would be clear as day he didn't shoot himself but nothing about it was mentioned at all

The big problem here is that there was no serious investigation by the police. Their conclusion had been made before they had done anything: this was suicide. There are more questions than answers in this case. Many pro murder: the broken jaw, bruises and abrasions, torn shirt, he was staged in between towels. How do you explain this when it was suicide?

So sad that his parents died in young age. I guess their lives were shattered.

Still so many questions: why no interrogation of witnesses after the mother declared that he was not suicidal? Was the door locked when the parents entered the house on 18:10 hrs. If it was, then suicide is more probable. On the whole: there are so many loose ends in this case that seriously asks for a serious investigation. It must have been terrible for the parents to have this denied. They have always been standing by their declarations. So I don't think they were making things up or fabricating evidence etc. Unless they were pathological liars for which there is absolutely no proof.

An investigation should begin with the crime scene: How Tommy was staged looked more that it was not intended to suggest suicide but it seemed that it was meant as a warning. Everybody seems to think it was meant to look like suicide. No, only the police was certain of suicide. I think it was meant as a warning.

Sorry if my English is not so good.

The big problem here is that there was no serious investigation by the police. Their conclusion had been made before they had done anything: this was suicide. There are more questions than answers in this case. Many pro murder: the broken jaw, bruises and abrasions, torn shirt, he was staged in between towels. How do you explain this when it was suicide?

So sad that his parents died in young age. I guess their lives were shattered.

Still so many questions: why no interrogation of witnesses after the mother declared that he was not suicidal? Was the door locked when the parents entered the house on 18:10 hrs. If it was, then suicide is more probable. On the whole: there are so many loose ends in this case that seriously asks for a serious investigation. It must have been terrible for the parents to have this denied. They have always been standing by their declarations. So I don't think they were making things up or fabricating evidence etc. Unless they were pathological liars for which there is absolutely no proof.

An investigation should begin with the crime scene: How Tommy was staged looked more that it was not intended to suggest suicide but it seemed that it was meant as a warning. Everybody seems to think it was meant to look like suicide. No, only the police was certain of suicide. I think it was meant as a warning.

Sorry if my English is not so good.Totally agree.

All the things mentioned above about the broken jaw, bruises and abrasions, torn shirt, he was staged in between towels. That's sure a funny way to commit suicide.

The frosting on the cake was the comment made by the police chief to Tommy's father telling him "you might wanna clean this mess up" goes way beyond insensitive and is very telling of the fact that the police didn't care and was more than likely protecting somebody with a lot of clout.

There are many portions of this segment that make little sense to me (which Thuissat already hashed out in his original post).

*One of the many odd things: Tommy's mother says a group of students told her, to her face, that they were planning to beat up her son. Funny thing to do if you're planning on killing someone. Same with the surrendering of the driver's license by one of these students. We do have witnesses who claimed they saw Tommy beaten up, but it does sound like it happened before and was unrelated.

*The gun. This is key here. If the gun is the Burkett's (and I'm sure it is, otherwise you know they'd be talking about the evidence of someone else's gun being there), it is possible Tommy pulled it out to defend himself and was shot in the process after the bullies/suspects broke into his home. However, I find it really, really unlikely. Do we actually have any evidence that people broke into his house and attacked him? I don't think phone book would be enough to absorb all the blood involved in this type of attack that's being theorized.

*The unlatched cylinder. I don't know much about guns from personal experience, but I think it is possible that emotion clouded Mr. Burkett's account about it.

*The 911 center: If this really happened, couldn't this operator have been flat out wrong? She maybe misheard the name? I, too, find it hard to believe in a conspiracy that involved the 911 center.

I think suicide is likely here, but several things continue to bother me. The police seemed to really half-ass the investigation and stick on suicide from the beginning. They only spoke to the neighbors at the Burkett's insistence. They didn't really investigate to see if an altercation took place. If the investigator really said, "It probably happened while you were driving down the street" that's pretty cruel, especially because it contradicts the condition his body was in at the time according to the parents and the paramedics.

I concur with other posters about the school's responsibility. Their negligence is also pretty appalling.

I don't know if this may help, but visit archive.org . Then select Wayback Machine.

Type in www.thepacc.org (the Burkett's site before both parents died). There's a ton of additional information on there. You will need to look around 2001.

Here is a link to the ATM photos, not mentioned on UM:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010418101223/http://thepacc.org/ATMphotos.html

I wish someone could expand more on the gay angle other than the earlier poster, as it could be a missing element to both sides of the argument. I am gay, and I know that suicide risks are higher. Additionally, being the early 1990s (AIDS, homophobia), he could have been an easy target.

What I do not like about this case is that after the death of both parents, it seems that the case fizzled. I believe that Tommy did have a sister (if memory serves me correctly), and I am surprised nobody in their family kept their original website. This made me curious as to whether other family members believed he did commit suicide?

I know of someone close to me who lost their child to suicide. The mother told everyone that it was anything but a suicide. But everyone knew it was a suicide. Everyone just let the mother say what she wanted, because after all, she was this person's mother.

I know of someone close to me who lost their child to suicide. The mother told everyone that it was anything but a suicide. But everyone knew it was a suicide. Everyone just let the mother say what she wanted, because after all, she was this person's mother.
I've lost a close friend to suicide and it is very difficult to believe and accept. I can imagine that if there are elements adding any sort of suspicion to the scene/incident, it would make it all the easier for loved ones to latch onto foul play theories.

If Tommy did commit suicide, I really can't blame the Burketts for thinking it was foul play. There were numerous things that made them feel their son's life was in danger from other parties (bullying, being beaten up, threats, etc.) and the police's behavior of sweeping the case under the rug really didn't help.

Not buying suicide at all, too many things point the other way

The two parts that always got me were the supposed "i want to be cremated" note and the fact that someone else had his driver's license. Sure, he could have misplaced his driver's license, but if that were the case, I feel like it would have never been mentioned.

Considering he had a decent relationship with his family, I am certain an actual suicide letter from him would have been longer than a few words.

I am so sad that his parents have passed away without knowing what happened to their son and no one is around advocating for them.. I honestly believe he was killed.

I don't buy the parents theory about the DEA at all


accidental death and suicide being staged is most likely I am thinking

Also, was there an exit wound on his body? Was the note his handwriting?

I don't buy the parents theory about the DEA at all


accidental death and suicide being staged is most likely I am thinking

I echo you on this comment. I believe the DEA crap came from the 1980s/ 1990s drug hysteria that maybe just seemed conceivable to the parents in their own mind. I do not see how it could actually be possible.

My thoughts on this: Why would a DEA agent recruit someone at a private college to investigate drug usage? Why would the DEA risk endangering another student?

Also, was there an exit wound on his body? Was the note his handwriting?

I don't have an exact answer to that. But if you have enough time on your hand, and if you have strong research skills, you will find that there was once a pretty elaborate website dedicated to his death.

His parents started an organization named PACC, parents against crime and corruption (I believe). After the death of his parents, the domain to the website was transferred to a new organization, unrelated to the original website (I believe the newer website had to do with dogs or animals). The older website is still accessible however through archive.gov, as well as some of the original case files.

Within the last year or so I was able to find the website. I just don't remember writing down the exact information to retrieve it again. If you have trouble finding it after some time, let me know through a PM, and I may be able to find it again.

JANNTOSH, If interested, this is the website below. Please do not open if you may be sensitive to these type of cases (NSFW).

http://web.archive.org/web/19991103135054/http://www.clark.net/pub/tburkett/pacc/PACC.html

Yeah, I can't imagine anyone actually putting stock in the DEA angle. That was clearly a reach from desperate and heartbroken parents, IMO. That said, I'm not really sure what I think happened; it's a weird one, as has been discussed here ad nauseum. If it was murder, I definitely lean toward the small-scale/personal grudge/bullying/amateur side of things, and not the conspiracy stuff.

Cheers,
Matt

Yeah, I can't imagine anyone actually putting stock in the DEA angle. That was clearly a reach from desperate and heartbroken parents, IMO. That said, I'm not really sure what I think happened; it's a weird one, as has been discussed here ad nauseum. If it was murder, I definitely lean toward the small-scale/personal grudge/bullying/amateur side of things, and not the conspiracy stuff.

Cheers,
Matt

While I lean towards murder, I respect the arguments everyone has made here. I just wanted to make a point to compliment you on your avatar pic, RaidenKhan. Never ceases to crack me up when I see it.. :)

Thanks! :)

Cheers,
Matt

Why would a group of people intent on killing Tommy do the following:

-Gain access to his house and subdue him.
-Search for phone books scattered around the house.
-Use the books as padding while they beat him with a baseball bat.
-Search the house (or possibly have Tommy tell them) for the .357 magnum and ammunition.
-Find the gun and then shoot Tommy in the head, leave him seated in an upright position, and then write a haphazard suicide note and leave it in his pants.
-Then remove the cylinder from the gun before trying to clean up the scene by disposing of the telephone books as well as the gripping tape on the bat.

Without knowing the actual specifics of whether or not there was a car chase and as to whether or not Tommy's car was at a different location than his parents house, either way, these killers were leaving an awful lot up to chance. They had no idea when his parents were going to return. Are they really going to do all of the above (and possibly more) all because they wanted to murder him and make it look like a suicide? Seems like there would've been quicker and more effective ways to go about it.

RobinW's episode about this case today almost had me convinced that it was possible that he was murdered, until I heard that the parents also claimed that a 2nd person died at their house that day. I really think they were grasping at some serious straws.

For those who have never seen it, here is an old website the Burketts used to maintain about Tommy’s death which contains a ton of information not mentioned on UM…
http://web.archive.org/web/20051105020746/http://thepacc.org:80/

The website finally reveals that gun found in Tommy's hand was a .357 Magnum taken from a drawer inside a closet of the Burketts’ bedroom, which also contained a key to a safe containing ammunition. Six bullets were taken from the safe and put inside the gun. Here’s the one piece of info which caught my eye…

http://web.archive.org/web/20051110122353/http://www.thepacc.org:80/MryMntCmplt.html

16) Neglected to inform us that one of the suspects in this case, Donald Adam McEwen, the only person in the world other than our family who knew where the gun, ammunition, and keys were kept, is the grandson of a member of the board of trustees of Marymount, Elizabeth Calder--a person whom we had innocently contacted for help in dealing with the University.

Donald Adam McEwen was the roommate of Phillip Howley, the student who assaulted Tommy on campus, and the two of them were known for harassing Tommy throughout the semester. I really wish they offered an explanation for why they believed McEwen would have known about the location of the gun and ammunition. If McEwen had been in the house on a previous occasion and knew the layout, then it seems a bit more plausible they could have staged this scene.

And for the record, even though I'm 90 % certain Tommy was murdered, I also don't know what the deal is about the Burketts' claims that a second person was killed inside the house. However, I don't believe they made that claim on their actual website, but mostly in some news articles about the case during the 1990s, so maybe they changed their minds on that stance.

I really wish some former students who attended Marymount back when this happened would chime in this thread. I'd love to read first-hand accounts of what they witnessed or heard during that time. I'd like to know about the characters of the suspects named in this case. Were they bullies to other students as well?

I researched the suspects and it seems they are doing pretty well for themselves. If they really had involvement in Tommy's murder, I don't know how they can live with themselves.

Man, this case confused the hell out of me initially - was hard to go either way..........murder v. suicide. The more I think about it though, the more I think that the constant torment at school drove Tommy to kill himself (as has unfortunately happened elsewhere in recent years).

There's really nothing but supposition to support a murder theory. No motive was ever given/brought up in the segment and there's no proof that the one tormentor (mentioned in RobinW's post above) actually did know the location of the .357/ammo (I'm not going to totally discount the fact that the tormentors could've broken in, beat Tommy up and then shot him - I'm just considering it highly unlikely in the absence of any tangible proof and/or a motive).

As for the whole DEA angle, that's just about as nuts as the Ives/Henry boys stumbling onto a CIA-connected drug drop.


(quoted the below piece in another thread - this is what really made me start questioning things)

There are many portions of this segment that make little sense to me (which Thuissat already hashed out in his original post).

*One of the many odd things: Tommy's mother says a group of students told her, to her face, that they were planning to beat up her son. Funny thing to do if you're planning on killing someone. Same with the surrendering of the driver's license by one of these students. We do have witnesses who claimed they saw Tommy beaten up, but it does sound like it happened before and was unrelated.

*The gun. This is key here. If the gun is the Burkett's (and I'm sure it is, otherwise you know they'd be talking about the evidence of someone else's gun being there), it is possible Tommy pulled it out to defend himself and was shot in the process after the bullies/suspects broke into his home. However, I find it really, really unlikely. Do we actually have any evidence that people broke into his house and attacked him? I don't think phone book would be enough to absorb all the blood involved in this type of attack that's being theorized.

*The unlatched cylinder. I don't know much about guns from personal experience, but I think it is possible that emotion clouded Mr. Burkett's account about it.

*The 911 center: If this really happened, couldn't this operator have been flat out wrong? She maybe misheard the name? I, too, find it hard to believe in a conspiracy that involved the 911 center.

I think suicide is likely here, but several things continue to bother me. The police seemed to really half-ass the investigation and stick on suicide from the beginning. They only spoke to the neighbors at the Burkett's insistence. They didn't really investigate to see if an altercation took place. If the investigator really said, "It probably happened while you were driving down the street" that's pretty cruel, especially because it contradicts the condition his body was in at the time according to the parents and the paramedics.

I concur with other posters about the school's responsibility. Their negligence is also pretty appalling.

Man, this case confused the hell out of me initially - was hard to go either way..........murder v. suicide. The more I think about it though, the more I think that the constant torment at school drove Tommy to kill himself (as has unfortunately happened elsewhere in recent years).Why not just quit going to the school? It's not like there weren't other colleges.

Why not just quit going to the school? It's not like there weren't other colleges.
This is just speculation, but his tuition may have been fully covered due his mother being a professor at the school. Perhaps he didn't want to jeopardize the free ride, considering the expense.

Why not just quit going to the school? It's not like there weren't other colleges.

Tommy sounds to me like he was having a mental breakdown and the bullying may have been the final straw. People with mental illness are far more likely to commit suicide than those without (50% of bi-polar people attempt suicide). Tommy's erratic behavior and extreme paranoia in the days/weeks preceding his death makes me believe he was having a mental health crisis. I can't diagnose it from afar, but it could have been mania or a mixed state.

There are numerous cases on UM that I am certain are the result of untreated mental illness (Cindy James and Blair Adams being the obvious ones). James likely had some sort of Munchausen's syndrome and Adams was almost certainly schizophrenic. And then there's that girl who crashed her car (can't remember her name). She was most certainly bi-polar type I.

UM refused in almost every case to even speculate about mental illness, probably because they didn't want to offend the families. Plus the science wasn't as good in the 80's as it is now and the stigma was much greater back then.

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this was posted in the Chantilly Times on June 13, 2002 by Beth George Burkett, a year before she died of cancer:

Chantilly Times, June 13, 2002

By Beth George

My son, Tommy Burkett, would be thirty-two years old this Sunday, June 9. On Sunday, December 1, 1991 at 6:12 pm, we returned from a poetry reading and found Tommy’s beaten, lifeless body upstairs in his room. His body was in a state of rigor. We found blood spattered walls in the hallway, the stairwell and downstairs by the backdoor. We found broken plants, an injured dog, and lawn furniture in disarray. Tommy’s wallet, eyeglasses and jacket were missing.

There is no comfort and there is no closure in the death of a child. The most my husband and I could hope for was a thorough investigation to uncover the facts behind an obvious murder, and ultimately, justice.

So far, we have been denied an investigation and our son has been denied justice.

The Fairfax County Police Department has General Orders that must be followed during an investigation. However, these Orders were not followed in Tommy’s case. No yellow police line was erected round the crime scene. The police did not go door-to-door to determine what neighbors had seen and heard. Some neighbors who came outside to offer information were rebuffed by officers on the scene. The police did not fingerprint Tommy’s room or car (which was damaged and was seen in a chase earlier that day). They did not take blood samples from the walls and upholstery upstairs and down. They disposed of Tommy’s damaged, bloody clothing in less than a week, without forensic testing.

Ignoring Tommy’s fractures, abrasions and bruises and signs of a struggle, the police ruled the death a “suicide” by gunshot within minutes of entering our home. They did not remove the alleged fatal bullet from our wall for testing. They did not test our son’s hands for gunpowder. They did not do any ballistics tests on the alleged fatal weapon. The lead investigator, Tom Lyons, disputed the Fire and Rescue official’s statement that Tommy had been dead for several hours when we found his body. Lyons insisted that the death “just happened” and listed time of injury as 6:00 pm. (Remember, Tommy was in a state of rigor when we found him at 6:12. See Fire and Rescue Report on our Website.) Neighbors saw someone driving Tommy’s car up to our house at exactly 5:10 pm, a time when Tommy was already dead.

By 7:05 pm, less than an hour after we found him, Tommy’s body had been removed from our home, and all police vehicles, except one which was parked way down the street, were gone. Neighbors’ statements document this. (Investigator Lyons suggested that we “clean up” the mess. We didn’t. We preserved several areas of the house and paid for the crime scene investigation the police would not give us. The PD has expressed no interest in the information generated.)

In the days that followed, we learned that the night Tommy died, his driver’s license, slit open, was found in the possession of a Marymount University student. According to several witnesses, that student assaulted and threatened Tommy on November 16, 1991 at the Marymount campus in Arlington. Marymount officials did not contact the Arlington police, although the school’s literature states that police must be contacted when an assault occurs on campus. We also learned that some persons at Marymount were aware of Tommy’s death before we found his body. The Fire and Rescue report listed our son as an “unknown” white male, aged 21. The Medical Examiner report was signed under a forged signature, according to a handwriting analyst. The ME report, which stated cause of death and manner of death, was dated December 1, 1991, with a “2” handwritten over the “1”; however, an autopsy was not done on until December 3.

A Fairfax County police officer and other personnel told me their computers showed that Tommy had called 911 twice on December 1, and another person had also called, giving our address and asking for assistance. The Department has stated (on tape and in writing) that these 911 tapes were erased.

For eighteen months, the FCPD refused to tell us the names of the officers who came to our home on December 1, 1991. We eventually learned their names, and we have posted them, along with documentation of the above statements, on our Website for public reference. We posted the names because the way Tommy’s case was handled is not a reflection on the many fine officers in FCPD. It is a reflection on the officers involved in the case. We want the public to know exactly which officers are responsible.

We filed fifteen formal complaints against those officers for not following the Department’s General Orders. In addition, we submitted supporting evidence, including notarized statements by neighbors attesting to the fact that the police had not gone door-to-door and had not taken statements, even though Tom Lyons told his superiors that he had.

The Department “investigated” our complaints by sending Officer William Whildin, who had only a few weeks left to serve before retiring, into our community. He knocked on doors and stated emphatically that he was not investigating Tommy’s death; he was there only to determine whether the neighbors had actually signed the notarized statements we submitted. We were never contacted by Officer Whildin. Oddly, the FCPD has repeatedly tried to call Whildin’s two-hour neighborhood visit two years after Tommy was killed, a “thorough” death investigation.

The Department’s written policy is that persons submitting formal complaints will receive written responses. We are still waiting.

In 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno, after receiving a petition with over 4,000 signatures, plus letters from concerned legislators, directed the FBI to investigate the way Tommy’s case was handled. Months passed, and we heard nothing. I called and left a message. A week later, the investigating agent returned the call. He was so hostile, I decided to tape him. He stated as many as a dozen times that he would not investigate my son’s death. Portions of the audiotape are posted on our Website. He dragged the investigation out for 20 months, never once talking to the alleged subject of the investigation, Officer Tom Lyons of FCPD. The FBI never examined the alleged fatal bullet or the alleged fatal weapon. The FBI did not dispute the handwriting analysis indicating that someone other than the Medical Examiner signed the ME Report, but a Supervisory agent informed us that the forgery did not matter. Oddly, the FBI has frequently cited their “investigation,” which was not a death investigation, as support of the FCPD’s suicide ruling. Even more odd is the fact that the FBI told my husband and me that way the FCPD investigation handled the case was fine.

When a national police force says it is okay for public officials to ignore evidence, dispose of and destroy evidence, erase 911 tapes in cases where a death occurred, fabricate interviews which never occurred, put false information on official documents, forge signatures on official documents, refuse to gather evidence and refuse to follow their own written General Orders for processing a crime scene, we have a serious problem. My husband and I were not surprised by the recent revelations by FBI whistleblower, Colleen Rowley. We’ve seen the FBI look the other way and ignore evidence before.

We are still waiting for an investigation and we are still waiting for justice for Tommy. There is plenty of evidence. As one Marymount student told Unsolved Mysteries, “Everyone knows who killed him.”

Makes you wonder how many obviously botched cases are really conspiracies and how many are coverups by departments attempting to hide their own incompetence of a mass of screwups. A lot of what looks suspicious in things such as the John F. Kennedy assassination are attempted coverups of blunders, not guilt.

Very good post and I agree.

By the way, does anybody know why Tommy was being bullied/harrassed by other students?

Very good post and I agree.

By the way, does anybody know why Tommy was being bullied/harrassed by other students?Not 100% sure but I believe the other students thought he was a narc.

Not 100% sure but I believe the other students thought he was a narc.

Whatever made them think he was? And were these college kids hardcore drug dealers or something? Otherwise I find it hard to imagine a bunch of college kids would even care that much.

Whatever made them think he was? And were these college kids hardcore drug dealers or something? Otherwise I find it hard to imagine a bunch of college kids would even care that much.You got any better explanation?

You got any better explanation?

I read somewhere he might've been harassed because he was possibly gay. But my intention was not to make up possible explanations. I wanted to know if someone actually knows what it was really about.

Beth George was a greiving distraught mother. Taking that into account there is still a lot wrong with how the case was handled. When a case appears to be deliberate mishandled in a manner that LE are protectecting someone In my opinion it may an informant. For example the Whitey Bulger case. Or if LE thinks they have a big case in works victims like her son are collateral damage. Just a possibility.

I haven't given this case much thought in a few years. And temporarily putting aside all other aspects of it or the pros and cons of suicide or murder, I've concluded that that alleged suicide note all but does it for me that this was murder.

I honestly don't give a flip what anyone says, no matter how down in the dumps or messed up someone is no one bothering to write a suicide note would only say they want to be cremated and nothing else. No good byes, no final wishes, no explanation, nothing. Tommy's only priority here was making sure his body was wiped out? That might be the single biggest insult to anyone's intelligence I ever heard of.

Why are you so sure about that? Have you read every single suicide note in the world? Just because you imagine you would leave a special message for your loved ones, doesn't mean everybody else does. Let's say Tommy felt he was absolutely worthless, with that kind of mindset it makes perfect sense he didn't think anyone would even care about his final words and his only desire was to be completely removed from this world.

Why are you so sure about that? Have you read every single suicide note in the world? Just because you imagine you would leave a special message for your loved ones, doesn't mean everybody else does. Let's say Tommy felt he was absolutely worthless, with that kind of mindset it makes perfect sense he didn't think anyone would even care about his final words and his only desire was to be completely removed from this world.

I don't buy it sorry. I just don't. Some things just stink so badly your brain just can't accept them. And to me that just stinks to high heaven.

Obviously I wasn't there, neither were you. There is no way to know for sure. I can't say for certain he didn't commit suicide. Maybe he did. Maybe its just the way my brain is wired, maybe it was because I was bullied as a kid myself and sympathize with Tommy a little more than others might, maybe it was because i was raised in a somewhat Conservative and anti government household and it taught me to distrust authority, but its difficult for me to accept that.

Although I have seen many people particularly in recent years who seem to have a passionate and dogged determination to believe the authorities and that there is nothing nefarious ever going on. And to portray anyone who doesn't as a tinfoil hat kind of guy. Its a point of view I never really understood. I suppose maybe for some people they want to believe everything is all sunshine and rainbows all the time and everyone always tells the truth. I think i can somewhat understand that we all want to live in a peaceful and just society where nothing bad ever happens and the authorities are always good truth tellers and defenders of justice.

But I must admit I don't quite get the absolute determination to not even consider the possibility of corruption in many cases no matter what. I will admit it is foreign and disturbing to me.

But I must admit I don't quite get the absolute determination to not even consider the possibility of corruption in many cases no matter what. I will admit it is foreign and disturbing to me.

I think it's unlikely to find any people around here who feel that way. You're sure you haven't gone off too far into the opposite direction where you believe there must be corruption just because someone says so? That idea seems at least as disturbing to me.

I honestly don't think there's much that stinks about this case. Most of it is hearsay that needs more clarification.

Why does anyone commit suicide? There are countless examples of suicides by people who did not "appear" suicidal. The truth is, it is always difficult for a family to admit their loved one committed suicide. Do you ever see in the obituray column "John Smith died of suicide?" No, there is such a stigma about it, that it is usually not even in the obituary. And the reason it is left out is that the family either doesn't accept it or is ashamed.

I am bumping this thread.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on Tommy Burkett as I barely remember the case, but I can confirm that people often will not admit their loved one committed suicide.

I don't buy it sorry. I just don't. Some things just stink so badly your brain just can't accept them. And to me that just stinks to high heaven.

Obviously I wasn't there, neither were you. There is no way to know for sure. I can't say for certain he didn't commit suicide. Maybe he did. Maybe its just the way my brain is wired, maybe it was because I was bullied as a kid myself and sympathize with Tommy a little more than others might, maybe it was because i was raised in a somewhat Conservative and anti government household and it taught me to distrust authority, but its difficult for me to accept that.

Although I have seen many people particularly in recent years who seem to have a passionate and dogged determination to believe the authorities and that there is nothing nefarious ever going on. And to portray anyone who doesn't as a tinfoil hat kind of guy. Its a point of view I never really understood. I suppose maybe for some people they want to believe everything is all sunshine and rainbows all the time and everyone always tells the truth. I think i can somewhat understand that we all want to live in a peaceful and just society where nothing bad ever happens and the authorities are always good truth tellers and defenders of justice.

But I must admit I don't quite get the absolute determination to not even consider the possibility of corruption in many cases no matter what. I will admit it is foreign and disturbing to me.

You don't have to be a tinfoil hat to realize that there is corruption in this world and officials lie. You need a healthy skepticism about authority. I am as pro-police as anyone, but there are bad cops. Look at the Duke Lacrosse Players who got railroaded because of corrupt Ray Nagin and a so-called victim who wasn't credible. Those three young men had their lives ruined by a corrupt system in Louisiana.

The older I get the more I realize just how laughable massive conspiracies are. People are stupid. The more people a conspiracy involves, the less believable it becomes. In this case, an unnamed student who was in possession of Tommy's driver's license, officials at Marymount University, a 911 dispatcher, and the DEA all conspired to cover up a murder. It makes absolutely no sense. His mother, without providing any credible evidence, asserts that Tommy was a paid DEA informant. A paid informant for the DEA was murdered and they shrug their collective shoulders and say, "nope, didn't know him"...not happening.

That's not to say that murder should be ruled out completely. But I would love to know who owned the gun that was found resting in Tommy's hands. Bullies chasing you through the streets trying to beat you to death with baseball bats probably wouldn't know the location of said gun if it belonged to the Burkett's.

Beth George was a greiving distraught mother. Taking that into account there is still a lot wrong with how the case was handled. When a case appears to be deliberate mishandled in a manner that LE are protectecting someone In my opinion it may an informant. For example the Whitey Bulger case. Or if LE thinks they have a big case in works victims like her son are collateral damage. Just a possibility.

I want to say thank you for being unbiased in your opinion and looking at the possibilities of both sides to a story. Its unfortunate when the family members of the loved one which are the topic of discussion on this forum cannot provide their point of view and present arguments to support their argument.

I respect and appreciate posters like yourself who provide an unbiased and one-sided opinion and try to provide it as fact.

I'm feeling this might have been a beat down that went too far and resulted in death. One of the two suspects allegedly knew where the gun was, so that could explain the staged suicide. Check below "16)" to see what I mean. I don't feel if phone books were used were to prevent blood. If you get hit by a bat, you won't bleed unless your skin is broken. You will get bruises though. If the phonebook stuff is true, it may have been to prevent breaking bones and to feel the pain with less injury.

The police officer found a suicide note, yet the parents who were in the room did not while he made it a suicide before he went up the stairs? Suicide notes would normally be near the body. I'm starting to think it was the cop's kid and the alumnus' grandson for sure and they got preferential treatment. It was not a suicide. The DEA thing I think can only work if that the DEA would not want people knowing they were at the school and had to worry about other informants or agents. If you are not on someone's radar, they won't go looking for you. He was murdered, but I'm thinking not intentionally.

Could it have been hazing?

One thing that puzzles me is that witnesses saw the cars chasing, but no one saw anyone going into their house or leaving it?

16) Neglected to inform us that one of the suspects in this case, Donald Adam McEwen, the only person in the world other than our family who knew where the gun, ammunition, and keys were kept, is the grandson of a member of the board of trustees of Marymount, Elizabeth Calder--a person whom we had innocently contacted for help in dealing with the University.

If this McEwen thing is true, that supports the DEA theory. Maybe they were supposed friends or whatever, or else why would they tell him where the gun and the rest are? That is if the mother was telling the truth. Maybe when they found out he was working with the DEA as an informant, they started bullying him and then killed him. They, along with the cop father could have been involved with drugs. Maybe the father got tipped off by DEA about his being an informant and the DEA did not realize he was dealing drugs. Remember that lowlife father who drove his 12-year-old son to the store to shoot those kids and kill them in the convenience store? There are some messed up fathers out there that think the family that slays together, stays together.

The cop spokesperson was lying through the entire segment. If he lied any more he could have been used as a rug.

I've read all of this thread and cannot make up my mind whether the DEA angle is viable or whether Tommy Burkett committed suicide related to bullying (bullycide) or if it was a bullying gone wrong. Two questions:

1) Does anyone know if his parents are still alive and if they ever stopped believing that their son was murdered? It's been many years, they may be keeping a low profile out of grief if they are still alive.

2) Has no one ever dug into the school's role in covering up the bullying/hazing? Schools still do that today, and it was even more rampant back then.

I've read all of this thread and cannot make up my mind whether the DEA angle is viable or whether Tommy Burkett committed suicide related to bullying (bullycide) or if it was a bullying gone wrong. Two questions:

1) Does anyone know if his parents are still alive and if they ever stopped believing that their son was murdered? It's been many years, they may be keeping a low profile out of grief if they are still alive.

2) Has no one ever dug into the school's role in covering up the bullying/hazing? Schools still do that today, and it was even more rampant back then.

Sadly, Tommy's parents passed away in the early 2000's. Its unclear if he has any other relatives left, and if they are left if they are trying to find the truth.

I don't think people realize what a disturbing case this is. The way Tommy's folks were treated and the road blocks put up to them trying to find the truth is beyond disgusting. And how many people seemed to be involved. Its borderline terrifying. And that suicide note was an insult to anyone with a half a brain. Those people are the reason there is a hell make no mistake.

This was in Fairfax County, VA, which is one of the most corrupt stinkholes in the country. If you are going to take on that den of pit vipers, you better either be ready to be pushing up daisies or have a lot of power and resources behind you. I think Tommy was in way over his head, snitched on a few of the wrong people and opened up a hellhole.

That whole area around DC is a hive of corruption, couldn't pay me to live within a 100 miles of there.

Sadly, Tommy's parents passed away in the early 2000's. Its unclear if he has any other relatives left, and if they are left if they are trying to find the truth.

I don't think people realize what a disturbing case this is. The way Tommy's folks were treated and the road blocks put up to them trying to find the truth is beyond disgusting. And how many people seemed to be involved. Its borderline terrifying. And that suicide note was an insult to anyone with a half a brain. Those people are the reason there is a hell make no mistake.

This was in Fairfax County, VA, which is one of the most corrupt stinkholes in the country. If you are going to take on that den of pit vipers, you better either be ready to be pushing up daisies or have a lot of power and resources behind you. I think Tommy was in way over his head, snitched on a few of the wrong people and opened up a hellhole.

That whole area around DC is a hive of corruption, couldn't pay me to live within a 100 miles of there.

D.C. should stand for District of Corruption. I can't imagine how much worse New York City would be than it already is had it stayed the Federal capital and the financial capital of the country.

Sadly, Tommy's parents passed away in the early 2000's. Its unclear if he has any other relatives left, and if they are left if they are trying to find the truth.

I don't think people realize what a disturbing case this is. The way Tommy's folks were treated and the road blocks put up to them trying to find the truth is beyond disgusting. And how many people seemed to be involved. Its borderline terrifying. And that suicide note was an insult to anyone with a half a brain. Those people are the reason there is a hell make no mistake.

This was in Fairfax County, VA, which is one of the most corrupt stinkholes in the country. If you are going to take on that den of pit vipers, you better either be ready to be pushing up daisies or have a lot of power and resources behind you. I think Tommy was in way over his head, snitched on a few of the wrong people and opened up a hellhole.

That whole area around DC is a hive of corruption, couldn't pay me to live within a 100 miles of there.

Fairfax County has definitely gotten the spotlight in recent years. There's a LOT going on there.

Fairfax County has definitely gotten the spotlight in recent years. There's a LOT going on there.

Yeah, and Tommy Burkett's murder happened in 1991. Its probably five times worse today.

I think he was just a regular naive guy who thought he was doing the right thing trying to right some wrongs and was just in way over his head. He opened up a proverbial hellhole and got swallowed up by it sadly.