bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
No kidding!!
IKR?
Why is it that many of the creepiest movies involve twins????
Now I wanna watch it :lol:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No kidding!!
IKR?
Why is it that many of the creepiest movies involve twins????
Now I wanna watch it :lol:
All I ever wanted to know about trifurcated cervixes, I learned in Dead Ringers :facepalm:
The Shining had twins
And then there's Star Wars and Game of Thrones...but their twins are creepy for a different reason ew ew ew
:notgood:otg........what have we done?
:ghost: :noooo: :help: :Banane18: :ghost: :hills: :mummy: :help: :noooo: :ghost: :Banane18:
Okay back to Patsy.
It's been suggested that since there were no reports of abuse EVER coming from the R household, that there was no way one of them could snap and even accidentally kill JB.
Things I've heard and seen in fine upstanding households with no record of abuse...
1. My son is an a-hole. And she proceeded to call him that over and over.
2. A wife who paid a credit card bill 3 days late and her husband laid into her asked me if I carried a gun because she wanted her husband dead.
3. I accidentally vacuumed up a customer's son's bag of heroin or cocaine that was under their bed. It clogged my vacuum. When it came to the attention of the Mom, she begged me not to mention it to the Dad and gave me a really nice Christmas bonus.
4. When the parents were "forced" to spend a lot of time with the children, they didn't handle it very well.
5. I am honor bound not to tell you the worst of what I've witnessed, but suffice it to say...
Just because there are no "reports" of wrongdoing, doesn't mean anything.
I think it's suffice to say that NO ONE knows what went on behind the R's closed doors. Or any other home.
That is completely true. So to assume the worst or crazy scenarios without any proof is just wrong.
In any other case we are not allowed to make accusations about people without proof or them being charged or evidence of abuse.. But in this case people have made patsy out to be a monster and there is just nothing to support it but rhetoric and fantasy.
It is a shame.
I think she was an odd duck. I think she was a southern lady who was steeped in custom and formality. But I don't see anything that points to someone who led a perfectly normal existence and then a horrific murder.
That is completely true. So to assume the worst or crazy scenarios without any proof is just wrong.
In any other case we are not allowed to make accusations about people without proof or them being charged or evidence of abuse. But in this case people have made patsy out to be a monster and there is just nothing to support it but rhetoric and fantasy.
I think she was an odd duck. I think she was a southern lady who was steeped in custom and formality. But I don't see anything that points to someone who led a perfectly normal existence and then a horrific murder.
What weight do you give to the Grand Jury indictment?
Hold on. While I agree speculation can get wild (I'm not necessarily referring to this case or this site), there are some things we know. No one is looking at a random woman with a bruise on her arm and stating it's a result of spousal abuse with no knowledge.
We're talking about a woman whose behavior has been observed and documented in police reports and other official capacity. Whose behavior was witnessed on several occasions before and after. Direct evidence of her behavior, if you will
Then we have the absolute reality of the prior molestation. While discussion of who did it remains speculative, the reality is that someone did it. In most cases of a child this young, it is family or friend. Statistically, the speculation that it was someone in the house who sexually assaulted her both prior and that evening is on firm ground - access, timing (very late at night), etc.
Patsy is still a POI in this case.
A case has been made for her guilt that is no more based on rhetoric and fantasy than any other theory. And there is slightly more evidence against her than others.
The entire point of this leg of the discussion is that we don't really know Patsy did have a "normal existence". For all we know this was a long time coming.
Behavior is nothing more than an observation and someone's interpretation of that observation. Nothing more. It does not mean guilt. Nothing she did points to guilt. just oddness.
She was normal. She was never arrested, never charged with any crime. Never accused of child abuse, well except online.
That DNA proves it was not her there that night nor anyone she was related to.
Behavior means nothing. Really. Unless it is being observed burning clothes, or dumping bodies in a lake it means nothing.
Im sorry but in this case the only evidence against patsy comes from people not liking her. IMO