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

[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.

[kamy]

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!

[DarkDante]

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.

[Thiussat]

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.

[DarkDante]

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.

[kadrmas15]

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.

[Thiussat]

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.

[kadrmas15]

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?

[joshypiano]

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.

[Corky Kneivel]

Originally Posted by joshypiano

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!!!

[Allierain]

Originally Posted by Corky Kneivel

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.

[HyeTev]

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...

[peachysquirt21]

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.

[Kane]

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

[Thiussat]

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.