Why I Don't Think Tommy Burkett Was Murdered (Long)

[88keys]

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.

[CowboyStudTied]

Originally Posted by Thiussat

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..

[silverstang84]

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....

[saywhat]

[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.

[ontarioboi]

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by ontarioboi

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[ontarioboi]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[peachysquirt21]

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.

[Drakken]

Originally Posted by CowboyStudTied

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.

[Drakken]

Originally Posted by ontarioboi

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Drakken

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.

[badcompany]

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.