Members' Theories

[WHITEFANG]

I see yor point Whitefang, but running over the family dog would not have sent her to prison.

She acknowledges taking medication for a frightening experience with panic disorder on two occasions. If you can find the information where John refers to her RX for this mild tranquilizer, please let us know. Is there evidence she combined it with alcohol?

If she snapped due to a paradoxical reaction to this RX coursing through her body, it seems unlikely that she would be able to regain her composure so quickly and then concoct a multifaceted scheme to conceal what she did. The power and the presence of a medication which would cause such impulsive rage doesn't vanish instantaneously.

If we agree on this, that mom and dad loved this little kid with all their hearts, and it seems as if we do, then her fear of incarceration is not top of the mind awareness. Crushing grief is all there is. Has anyone seen the made for television movie starring Danny Travanti, Adam, the true story of the murder of Adam Walsh? His, John Walsh's, reaction to the news of his boy's death, as portrayed by Travanti, is an extremely powerful and (to me) highly realistic account of a parent just learning of his child's murder. We all respond differently to tragedy. Yet, I think it is safe to say that the death of our own six year old child would render us in such deep shock and emotional pain, plotting a cover-up to protect us from a jail sentence is inconceivable. I realize that some parents are capable of such depravity. I believe that America is haunted and fascinated by the news of such horrors. Many of us have become open to the myth, even persuaded, that these kinds of behaviors are not that uncommon anymore. With a population of 300,000,000 people, the tiniest fraction of these unspeakable evils, plastered across our media, insidiously form the perception they occur frequently. They don't. Additionally, upon close inspection, tell-tale signs litter the family's landscape. They are conspicuously conspicuously absent here.

True, a dog's death will not send you to jail. I mention it is as hyperbole. I cannot visualize Patsy doing something so sick, even to a dog, you know?

 

[WHITEFANG]

So, to make it look like a murder she strangled her daughter? Preposterous. Absurd. Beyond the realm of possibility. Ridiculous.

Sometimes people snap, sure. But JR and PR are two as you said intelligent, educated people. In a moment of rage you accidentally crack your loved, wanted, child's head. What is your response?

You're saying this is a snap of rage, not a methodical psychopathic killer.

This is the key to the entire case. This is the answer. This says it all. Think about it. If Patsy made a mistake in a split second of time, a "snap of rage" (and who hasn't been there/done that?) she would deal with it as the rational, good, decent person and wonderful mother she was. She was not and did not become instantaneously a psychopathic, deranged hideous murderer and monster like Gacy, Dahmer and Bundy.

So you accidentally seriously injure your child: You are in denial, you call 911 because she might or might not still be breathing, you try CPR like you've seen it on TV, if you are desperate and afraid you'll be charged with a crime you "stage" the bathroom to make it look like she fell and hit her head hard on the tub.

 

[BOESP]

Sometimes people snap, sure. But JR and PR are two as you said intelligent, educated people. In a moment of rage you accidentally crack your loved, wanted, child's head. What is your response?

You're saying this is a snap of rage, not a methodical psychopathic killer.

This is the key to the entire case. This is the answer. This says it all. Think about it. If Patsy made a mistake in a split second of time, a "snap of rage" (and who hasn't been there/done that?) she would deal with it as the rational, good, decent person and wonderful mother she was. She was not and did not become instantaneously a psychopathic, deranged hideous murderer and monster like Gacy, Dahmer and Bundy.

So you accidentally seriously injure your child: You are in denial, you call 911 because she might or might not still be breathing, you try CPR like you've seen it on TV, if you are desperate and afraid you'll be charged with a crime you "stage" the bathroom to make it look like she fell and hit her head hard on the tub.

I don't think the bathroom scene was staged. And how would Patsy have explained all this to medical personnel who would have called child protective services and police? Intent goes a long way and an out-of-control 40-year-old parent that accidentally looses it with a six-year-old to the extent that her head is split in two is going to be reported to the police.

You can not explain away a moment of rage that rendered JonBenet, in effect, lifeless just by praising what you see as Patsy's "good points."

 

[WHITEFANG]

ami is correct

Sometimes people snap, sure. But JR and PR are two as you said intelligent, educated people. In a moment of rage you accidentally crack your loved, wanted, child's head. What is your response?

You're saying this is a snap of rage, not a methodical psychopathic killer.

This is the key to the entire case. ami made this point This is the answer. This says it all. Think about it. If Patsy made a mistake in a split second of time, a "snap of rage" (and who hasn't been there/done that?) she would deal with it as the rational, good, decent person and wonderful mother she was. She was not and did not become instantaneously a psychopathic, deranged hideous murderer and monster like Gacy, Dahmer and Bundy.

So you accidentally seriously injure your child: You are in denial, you call 911 because she might or might not still be breathing, you try CPR like you've seen it on TV, if you are desperate and afraid you'll be charged with a crime you "stage" the bathroom to make it look like she fell and hit her head hard on the tub.

 

[BBB167893]

You can not explain away a moment of rage that rendered JonBenet, in effect, lifeless just by praising what you see as Patsy's "good points."

No mask is as dangerous as the mask of virtue.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No mask is as dangerous as the mask of virtue.

First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

[BBB167893]

First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

My point exactly.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy was supposedly on Klonopin before she killed. Proof?
(John was taking Klonopin.)

Chemo permanently altered her personality. Proof?

John didn't want to lose another member. (Are you sure? JonBenet's death apparently was too difficult to take.)

Patsy probably smashed her head so hard, it caused the damage. Proof?

Patsy was a phony and wore a mask of self-righteousness, which is the most dangerous mask of all. Proof Patsy wore this mask?

How would Patsy explain the injuries? How would she, if she knew nothing about them?

She was 40. Your point? And out-of-control. Proof?

If you have ever looked into the eyes of a person who is brain dead, you will know that from all appearances, they are dead.
Proof she was brain dead? Proof they looked into her eyes? Proof they saw nothing? Proof they thought she was dead?

If you wouldn't mind, may we see your proofs?

 

[DeeDee249]

What part of OPINION do you not understand, Whitefang? JR discusses Patsy's Klonipin use before JB's death in one of his interviews.
IDI theories have no PROOF either.

 

[WHITEFANG]

You can not explain away a moment of rage that rendered JonBenet, in effect, lifeless just by praising what you see as Patsy's "good points."[/QUOTE]

Where's the proof that she rendered Joni lifeless from a moment of rage?

What if you start with all her good points and go from there?

 

[WHITEFANG]

What part of OPINION do you not understand, Whitefang? JR discusses Patsy's Klonipin use before JB's death in one of his interviews.
IDI theories have no PROOF either.

Well, let's see. Nope, that's true. No proof. Haven't named anyone as the perp, either.

To say that the content of one of my previous posts was not funny, are you suggesting that my opinions were not funny? Perfectly acceptable though, right? After all, they were just opinions. But, why bother to mention that? Distasteful? Crude? Vulgar? Making light of a tragedy? Yet, they were just opinions, isn't that correct? No proof. Just opinions.

I haven't found proof that John said Patsy was taking Klonopin before the murder. If you have, wonderful.

Well, since I OBVIOUSLY DON'T know which PART OF THE WORD OPINION I don't understand, WHY WOULD YOU ASK ME, WHICH PART OF THE WORD OPINION DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? IF I KNEW, i wouldn't make comments that prove i DON'T KNOW what part i don't know.
BTW, what part of Klonopin can't you spell?

 

[BBB167893]

EASY, everybody. Let's all take a breath, here. Okay?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Were the incessant insults of P and J merely your opinions? Licking his lips was directly related to evidence in this case? The leis they wore and the size of their shirt buttons were pertinent? DeeDee is guaranteed the right to express herself, so let her respond.

 

[DeeDee249]

Were the incessant insults of P and J merely your opinions? Licking his lips was directly related to evidence in this case? The leis they wore and the size of their shirt buttons were pertinent? DeeDee is guaranteed the right to express herself, so let her respond.

I don't care about JR licking his lips at all. I have a lot of sympathy for Patsy, regardless of how she may or may not be a part of this crime. I have always felt she was a doting mother. I never commented about their leis or shirt buttons either, neither have anything to do with the crime. When I make a comment, it is usually relevant to the crime. I don't make any comment for the purpose of being insulting. If someone doesn't like my opinions or comments, they are free to place me on "ignore". I don't give a sweet rat's a$$ how anyone feels about this case, either. We all have our own council to keep. I don't begrudge anyone, RDI or IDI, their own theories about what happened that night. I have always felt that with all the different theories, ONE of them is bound to be right- and that has always been comforting. I don't care which one it is, either. I'd be THRILLED to have it proven that it was NOT a loved one's face that was the last thing JB saw. Bet many IDI's can't say the same about the other side.
I could not care less about how much money the Rs had, how they lived their lives, how Patsy decorated her house and how they raised their kids. I could not care less about Patsy's past with the exception of how it may have played a part in her relationship with both her mother and her daughter.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, let's see. Nope, that's true. No proof. Haven't named anyone as the perp, either.

To say that the content of one of my previous posts was not funny, are you suggesting that my opinions were not funny? Perfectly acceptable though, right? After all, they were just opinions. But, why bother to mention that? Distasteful? Crude? Vulgar? Making light of a tragedy? Yet, they were just opinions, isn't that correct? No proof. Just opinions.

Right. I found them all of the above. So what? I also said that I got the point you were trying to make. The more dreadful the imagined scene, the more difficult it is to picture a loving mother doing it.

And I can spell Klonopin just fine, thanks. I don't take the drug, so it's not like I can look at the label to see how it is spelled. And if it soothes you to criticize my spelling, go right ahead. Childish, though.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Your sympathy for Patsy is overwhelming.
If you don't know how to spell Klonopin, I suggest you look it up.
If you don't like what I have to say in response to your comments, press the ignore button. If you understood what I was trying to say, say so. If you think my comments weren't funny, take a look at the accusations you have made against two innocent, loving parents who were cleared as suspects in the horrible murder of their child. If you state that Patsy could not have seen Joni's hands, back it up with something substantial. Your statement that since the average size Afghan would cover most of her body as the basis for your theory is precisely how some of the ridiculous, harmful, horrible, disgusting, not-funny rumors about people begin, perpetuate and do real harm to others.

 

[DeeDee249]

Your sympathy for Patsy is overwhelming.
If you don't know how to spell Klonopin, I suggest you look it up.
If you don't like what I have to say in response to your comments, press the ignore button. If you understood what I was trying to say, say so. If you think my comments weren't funny, take a look at the accusations you have made against two innocent, loving parents who were cleared as suspects in the horrible murder of their child. If you state that Patsy could not have seen Joni's hands, back it up with something substantial. Your statement that since the average size Afghan would cover most of her body as the basis for your theory is precisely how some of the ridiculous, harmful, horrible, disgusting, not-funny rumors about people begin, perpetuate and do real harm to others.

Not a rumor. It WAS an afghan. That was a statement made by LE and the coroner. If her arms were covered, no one that was upstairs would have seen her hands. Both parents were under that "umbrella of suspicion" for a long time. That wasn't rumor either. I don't doubt the parents were loving. And this wasn't Murder One. But something happened that night that many people feel the parents are aware of, myself included.
You weren't there (or were you?) so you don't know if her hands were visible for a fact either. We are BOTH forming an opinion.
Check my post- I spelled Klonopin perfectly. Didn't need to look it up. You need to back off with the nasty attitude- you haven't been treated that way. I am not the only one here with that theory, so you are specifically targeting me. This is a forum where there are differing opinions on this case. I am sure every forum on this site is the same. So dialog of this nature is expected.
The ignore button doesn't work all that well- you can still see "ignored" posts in other people's posts when quoted.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Let's try to be perfectly clear. (Big Dick Nixon) I didn't question the size of the Afghan. I said Patsy may have seen her hands when she held her daughter when she found her body under the Christmas tree. The Afghan may have covered most of her body, but that does not mean her hands were covered. You said she did not see her hands. You said her hands were covered.

You said I had been told repeatedly what the term "consistent with" meant. I asked you to show me the "repeated" occasions this occurred. I haven't seen your answer.

Why don't you address these two issues, first?

Yes, I was there and everything I say is beyond reproach and may be viewed as Gospel. It may be reproduced only with written permission from yours truly.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well I'll try one at a time.

I haven't seen Nixon's Dick in person, so I can't comment on whether it is big or not.

I had mentioned a few times that it was Dr. Lee, a forensic specialist who has been consulted on this case (he was the one who made the "rice already cooked" comment, referring to the mistakes made at the beginning of the investigation) who discussed the fiber evidence. He explained that when sourcing any fiber evidence, you can only say that a fiber is "consistent with" or "identical to" because the fiber in your evidence, even if it came from a suspected item, is one of many fibers that make up that item. By the very nature of having it in your possession to be tested means that it is no longer presently a part of the suspected item. There may also have been many, many items made from the same fibers, and this is true even in a one-of-a-kind item, because even then it is still one (or a few) of many. And because of that, it can't be said that it IS the same fiber. Only that it is identical to it, or consistent with the fibers that comprise it. But this type of classification has been used in other cases, for example when carpet fibers are found on a body that are consistent with carpet found in the trunk of a suspect's car or home.
As far as the afghan goes, it is my belief that if JB was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt, as had been reported by Detective Arndt, her hands would have been covered because they were shown in a photo (described below) as being held up in front of JB, bent at the elbows, like a boxer almost- and no one would have seen her palms.
In the autopsy photos available to us, her hands are partially seen in paper bags (standard procedure) on the living room rug, with the coroner's ruler over her, so this was after her coverings were removed. It's the position of her hands in that photo that leads me to believe her hands were not exposed.
The other photos of her hands were taken at the autopsy. Rigor was subsiding at that point, or the coroner may have broken rigor himself, though he did not mention this. Her hands are palms down and appear to be at her sides, or at least they are not bent up in the position they were in on the rug the day before.
There is a drawing out there, too, which I feel is misleading. It shows her arms straight over her head, and this is not the way they are shown in the photo of her on the rug. By that time, rigor mortis has reached its full effect, and no one there could (or would) have been able to pull her arms straight up like in the drawing. I have never seen it reported who made that drawing, so I can't say if it was someone who actually saw her or was drawing from a description.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Well I'll try one at a time.

I haven't seen Nixon's Dick in person, so I can't comment on whether it is big or not.

You're a riot, Alice.

I had mentioned a few times that it was Dr. Lee, a forensic specialist who has been consulted on this case

I asked you to point out where I was told this? Not where you mentioned it. You did not tell me and that is what I asked you to show me. What kind of reasoning supports the idea that since you mentioned it, not to me, but somewhere, sometime and to who knows who, that you told me several times?

he was the one who made the "rice already cooked" comment, referring to the mistakes made at the beginning of the investigation) who discussed the fiber evidence. He explained that when sourcing any fiber evidence, you can only say that a fiber is "consistent with" or "identical to" because the fiber in your evidence, even if it came from a suspected item, is one of many fibers that make up that item. By the very nature of having it in your possession to be tested means that it is no longer presently a part of the suspected item. There may also have been many, many items made from the same fibers, and this is true even in a one-of-a-kind item, because even then it is still one (or a few) of many. And because of that, it can't be said that it IS the same fiber. Only that it is identical to it, or consistent with the fibers that comprise it. But this type of classification has been used in other cases, for example when carpet fibers are found on a body that are consistent with carpet found in the trunk of a suspect's car or home.
As far as the afghan goes, it is my belief that if JB was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt, as had been reported by Detective Arndt, her hands would have been covered because they were shown in a photo (described below) as being held up in front of JB, bent at the elbows, like a boxer almost- and no one would have seen her palms.
In the autopsy photos available to us, her hands are partially seen in paper bags (standard procedure) on the living room rug, with the coroner's ruler over her, so this was after her coverings were removed. It's the position of her hands in that photo that leads me to believe her hands were not exposed.
The other photos of her hands were taken at the autopsy. Rigor was subsiding at that point, or the coroner may have broken rigor himself, though he did not mention this. Her hands are palms down and appear to be at her sides, or at least they are not bent up in the position they were in on the rug the day before.
There is a drawing out there, too, which I feel is misleading. It shows her arms straight over her head, and this is not the way they are shown in the photo of her on the rug. By that time, rigor mortis has reached its full effect, and no one there could (or would) have been able to pull her arms straight up like in the drawing. I have never seen it reported who made that drawing, so I can't say if it was someone who actually saw her or was drawing from a description.

DeeDee249, you have added more ideas that you believe prove Patsy did not see Joni's hands when she dropped down on her body (as the police report says.) Nothing you offer proves that or comes anywhere close to being able to draw that conclusion. Don't you understand that?