Questions about the ability of the Ramseys to maintain a lie.
- Thread starter leighl
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3
- Latest: Janitor101
Peter Hamilton
New Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,374
- Reaction score
- 12
hey,where are the moderators--This is not the Political Pavilion thread
---anyway,I agree with GuyinGeorgia--Patsy is in hell right now--No God would ever forgive a murderer--If there is a hell,Patsy got dragged down there real quick just like those killers in that Patrick Swayze movie "Ghost".
---anyway,I agree with GuyinGeorgia--Patsy is in hell right now--No God would ever forgive a murderer--If there is a hell,Patsy got dragged down there real quick just like those killers in that Patrick Swayze movie "Ghost".sandraladeda
Inactive
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,588
- Reaction score
- 9
I have more of a Catholic perspective, but have a few ideas about the Ramseys and their take on the crime as pertains to their religious faith.
I lean towards an accidental death, as opposed to premeditated, and thus, I could see Patsy feeling that the cover up is necessary. Easy to understand if it is protecting BR. But also, if she is protecting JR, I could see her viewing her marriage as a promise before God, which she must honor at all costs. By the same token, I can see John standing by PR's side for the same reason. In marriage, they became "one" before God, and they should do nothing to "cast that asunder", as the wedding vows go. JR might have felt particularly strong about it, as he may have felt he'd already blown it once, with his first marriage.
Also, many (maybe most?) Christians believe they can be "saved" by faith alone. Catholics believe in faith and good works, along with confessing our sin. Maybe in her/his prayer life, they asked for forgiveness, and felt that was enough.
I think their religious faith was a very big part of the R's lives, and I don't think it was just a front. I think they truly are believers. That is not to be confused with saying they were perfect or that they lived their faith perfectly!
I think this is where Lou Smit made his mistake - he recognized that they were Chrstians, and he made the leap that it must mean they were "perfect", or incapable of evil or something.... he gave them an immediate, unconditional pass....and defends them to this day. I wonder what he would think if somehow, irrefutable proof of the R's guilt were to surface?
imho
I lean towards an accidental death, as opposed to premeditated, and thus, I could see Patsy feeling that the cover up is necessary. Easy to understand if it is protecting BR. But also, if she is protecting JR, I could see her viewing her marriage as a promise before God, which she must honor at all costs. By the same token, I can see John standing by PR's side for the same reason. In marriage, they became "one" before God, and they should do nothing to "cast that asunder", as the wedding vows go. JR might have felt particularly strong about it, as he may have felt he'd already blown it once, with his first marriage.
Also, many (maybe most?) Christians believe they can be "saved" by faith alone. Catholics believe in faith and good works, along with confessing our sin. Maybe in her/his prayer life, they asked for forgiveness, and felt that was enough.
I think their religious faith was a very big part of the R's lives, and I don't think it was just a front. I think they truly are believers. That is not to be confused with saying they were perfect or that they lived their faith perfectly!
I think this is where Lou Smit made his mistake - he recognized that they were Chrstians, and he made the leap that it must mean they were "perfect", or incapable of evil or something.... he gave them an immediate, unconditional pass....and defends them to this day. I wonder what he would think if somehow, irrefutable proof of the R's guilt were to surface?
imho
the Ramseys had convinced themselves that a "monster" had committed this crime. They can't even bring themselves to admit that a human being did this. I'm sure that PR was absolutely convinced that the person who did this was not him/herself and thus was not responsible for it.
Thank you sandraladela, Bev and others for your insightful opinions. The issues you brought up in your replies were exactly the kind of things I was trying to understand through my original post.
J&PR have repeatedly been portrayed by friends and indeed have presented themselves as God-fearing Christians. Patsy was asked many times how she kept on living after the horrendous suffering and death of her daughter, repeatedly she stated that her faith carried her through.
One of the main reasons why many IDI theorists (Lou Smit included) cannot see the RDI perspective is because J&PR's faith. It is hard to separate the idea that 1) Any human being, Christian or not, with the slightest bit of conscience would commit such an act, and 2) If they did, why would anyone with any sense of conscience continue to perpetuate the lie of being innocent, especially with all the outpouring of attention this case has received.
People who believe the Rs would not continue to maintain their innocence over the long term if they were not truly innocent are not naive, stupid, or unaware of all of the facts, as many others have implied. But it is not a bad thing to look for the good in other people, give others the benefit of doubt, etc., especially in this case when we, the general public, do not know all of the facts and there are serious questions about the integrity of the police investigation.
Yes, with such intense scrutiny, the Rs have been deemed as acting guilty, weird, perverted, not normal in their reactions/behaviours after JB's death, etc. But look at anyone with as much scrutiny and intense focus as that which the Ramseys have endured, every moment, day in and day out, especially after losing a child in this way and being told they were suspects in her murder, and you will find that everyone acts erratically at one time or the other, that inconsistencies can be found in everyones behaviour, that rumour and mere coincidence can attributed to extensive and often outlandish evidence, etc.
With all the outpouring of love, compassion, and general concern for what happened to/finding justice for JonBenet, it is hard to understand why, if the Rs are guilty, would they continue to lie. One would assume as Christians, if they had killed JonBenet, eventually they would confess. Even if they were of a different faith, or of no faith at all, how would any human being harbour such guilt in their heart for so long. I am no great theologian or Bible-beater, but I have sat through my fair share of sermons growing up, and, even in those times when I was young and my mind might have been somewhere else, I heard loud and clear the importance of confessing/turning from ones sin. I have also experienced first hand the value of making amends for any wrong doing. Regardless of ones faith, there is much growth and healing through a clear conscience.
Sure we can all think of weird cases throughout history of people murdering their children and events of mass violence in the name of God, but there has been no confession of guilt by the Rs, not the slightest history of violence, abuse, etc. in their past, and we are talking about two regular people, not masses influenced by a charismatic leader, brainwashing, mob mentality, etc. Of the specific cases named above, there was often a clear history of Psychological illness, violence, sexual abuse, etc. and all eventually confessed.
Like sandraladela, I have always viewed the Rs faith in God as a very big part in their lives, both before and after JBs death, I dont believe their behaviour is/was just a front. I think where a lot of RDI theorists come to think the Ramseys religion is a façade is in the idea that if they were Christian, then they would have never committed such a brutal act. We hear this kind of talk/prejudice in everyday life all of the time, if so and so is such a perfect Christian, then why do they do X behaviour. But being a Christian does not imply perfection in ones life or faith. This is a point lots of IDI theorists get stuck on as well, i.e., because the Rs are Christian, a lot of assumptions are made about what they would/should do and not do. Both RDI and IDIs presumption that a good Christian would never do X clouds their perceptions of the crime and the Rs guilt or innocence.
Maybe this discussion is not important to you, maybe you are only concerned about who did it. But just looking for the who without other details has not solved this almost 10 year old case. I often wonder if this line of thought, along with insufficient evidence, was what prevented the Grand Jury from going forward in this case. It is human to make assumptions as a way of ordering our world, certain assumptions are made about persons who so blatantly profess their Christianity, and questions arise about how, if someone is a Christian, would they continue to profess their innocence if they were indeed guilty.
As I have stated previously, I do not adhere strictly to any RDI or IDI theory, I dont feel I know enough about the case to make such assertions. However, this line of inquiry has helped me better understand the possibility of a RDI theory.
First, there is the recognition that many Christians feel they can be saved by faith alone. (See sandraladela reply above.) If the Rs are guilty, then perhaps it is not imperative to their faith that they admit any wrong doing. Hence, SBTC, Saved By The Cross, the idea that Jesus paid the price for our sin, Victory (!). Second, and perhaps most important, is the recognition that perhaps other promises made before God (i.e., ones duty to protect ones children, wedding vows, etc., again see sandraladela above) take paramount over/would conflict with an admission. The love for ones child and/or spouse is profound, and I imagine any of us can think of going through any necessary means to protect our children and/or spouse. Along this line of thought is the idea that the law of man does not always follow the law of God. If JBs death was seen as accidental, then perhaps the Rs felt personal repentance was enough, that there was no need to pay the price for their sins as set out by the laws of our justice system, again, SBTC, Jesus already paid the ultimate price, all we (they) need do is confess
So before any of us judge the Rs faith as a front because we think they are guilty, perhaps we should acknowledge that no one is infallible, being a Christian does not imply perfection. And before any of us discount a RDI theory because we think the Rs would not continue to say they are innocent unless they truly were, perhaps we should acknowledge the idea that someone who professes to be a Christian may still (and more than likely) do wrong, and they may lie repeatedly in order to honour a commitment deemed paramount to a public confession, i.e., promises made to their children and/or spouse.
And yes, I too wonder what LS and other strict IDI would do/think in light of some irrefutable proof/admission that the Rs did it likewise, what strict RDI theorist would do in light of irrefutable proof (and admission) that an IDI. Even before all the details were out on Karr, many refused to even entertain the possibility that he might indeed be guilty.
J&PR have repeatedly been portrayed by friends and indeed have presented themselves as God-fearing Christians. Patsy was asked many times how she kept on living after the horrendous suffering and death of her daughter, repeatedly she stated that her faith carried her through.
One of the main reasons why many IDI theorists (Lou Smit included) cannot see the RDI perspective is because J&PR's faith. It is hard to separate the idea that 1) Any human being, Christian or not, with the slightest bit of conscience would commit such an act, and 2) If they did, why would anyone with any sense of conscience continue to perpetuate the lie of being innocent, especially with all the outpouring of attention this case has received.
People who believe the Rs would not continue to maintain their innocence over the long term if they were not truly innocent are not naive, stupid, or unaware of all of the facts, as many others have implied. But it is not a bad thing to look for the good in other people, give others the benefit of doubt, etc., especially in this case when we, the general public, do not know all of the facts and there are serious questions about the integrity of the police investigation.
Yes, with such intense scrutiny, the Rs have been deemed as acting guilty, weird, perverted, not normal in their reactions/behaviours after JB's death, etc. But look at anyone with as much scrutiny and intense focus as that which the Ramseys have endured, every moment, day in and day out, especially after losing a child in this way and being told they were suspects in her murder, and you will find that everyone acts erratically at one time or the other, that inconsistencies can be found in everyones behaviour, that rumour and mere coincidence can attributed to extensive and often outlandish evidence, etc.
With all the outpouring of love, compassion, and general concern for what happened to/finding justice for JonBenet, it is hard to understand why, if the Rs are guilty, would they continue to lie. One would assume as Christians, if they had killed JonBenet, eventually they would confess. Even if they were of a different faith, or of no faith at all, how would any human being harbour such guilt in their heart for so long. I am no great theologian or Bible-beater, but I have sat through my fair share of sermons growing up, and, even in those times when I was young and my mind might have been somewhere else, I heard loud and clear the importance of confessing/turning from ones sin. I have also experienced first hand the value of making amends for any wrong doing. Regardless of ones faith, there is much growth and healing through a clear conscience.
Sure we can all think of weird cases throughout history of people murdering their children and events of mass violence in the name of God, but there has been no confession of guilt by the Rs, not the slightest history of violence, abuse, etc. in their past, and we are talking about two regular people, not masses influenced by a charismatic leader, brainwashing, mob mentality, etc. Of the specific cases named above, there was often a clear history of Psychological illness, violence, sexual abuse, etc. and all eventually confessed.
Like sandraladela, I have always viewed the Rs faith in God as a very big part in their lives, both before and after JBs death, I dont believe their behaviour is/was just a front. I think where a lot of RDI theorists come to think the Ramseys religion is a façade is in the idea that if they were Christian, then they would have never committed such a brutal act. We hear this kind of talk/prejudice in everyday life all of the time, if so and so is such a perfect Christian, then why do they do X behaviour. But being a Christian does not imply perfection in ones life or faith. This is a point lots of IDI theorists get stuck on as well, i.e., because the Rs are Christian, a lot of assumptions are made about what they would/should do and not do. Both RDI and IDIs presumption that a good Christian would never do X clouds their perceptions of the crime and the Rs guilt or innocence.
Maybe this discussion is not important to you, maybe you are only concerned about who did it. But just looking for the who without other details has not solved this almost 10 year old case. I often wonder if this line of thought, along with insufficient evidence, was what prevented the Grand Jury from going forward in this case. It is human to make assumptions as a way of ordering our world, certain assumptions are made about persons who so blatantly profess their Christianity, and questions arise about how, if someone is a Christian, would they continue to profess their innocence if they were indeed guilty.
As I have stated previously, I do not adhere strictly to any RDI or IDI theory, I dont feel I know enough about the case to make such assertions. However, this line of inquiry has helped me better understand the possibility of a RDI theory.
First, there is the recognition that many Christians feel they can be saved by faith alone. (See sandraladela reply above.) If the Rs are guilty, then perhaps it is not imperative to their faith that they admit any wrong doing. Hence, SBTC, Saved By The Cross, the idea that Jesus paid the price for our sin, Victory (!). Second, and perhaps most important, is the recognition that perhaps other promises made before God (i.e., ones duty to protect ones children, wedding vows, etc., again see sandraladela above) take paramount over/would conflict with an admission. The love for ones child and/or spouse is profound, and I imagine any of us can think of going through any necessary means to protect our children and/or spouse. Along this line of thought is the idea that the law of man does not always follow the law of God. If JBs death was seen as accidental, then perhaps the Rs felt personal repentance was enough, that there was no need to pay the price for their sins as set out by the laws of our justice system, again, SBTC, Jesus already paid the ultimate price, all we (they) need do is confess
So before any of us judge the Rs faith as a front because we think they are guilty, perhaps we should acknowledge that no one is infallible, being a Christian does not imply perfection. And before any of us discount a RDI theory because we think the Rs would not continue to say they are innocent unless they truly were, perhaps we should acknowledge the idea that someone who professes to be a Christian may still (and more than likely) do wrong, and they may lie repeatedly in order to honour a commitment deemed paramount to a public confession, i.e., promises made to their children and/or spouse.
And yes, I too wonder what LS and other strict IDI would do/think in light of some irrefutable proof/admission that the Rs did it likewise, what strict RDI theorist would do in light of irrefutable proof (and admission) that an IDI. Even before all the details were out on Karr, many refused to even entertain the possibility that he might indeed be guilty.
Nedthan Johns
New Member
I havent read all the posts above except for the first one. First of all I dont know how devoted the Ramsey were to their religion. I know they gave an interview to the 777club. But as far as it being hard to maintain the lie? Thats EXACTLY why the Ramseys stayed out of the spotlight and John Ramsey did most of the talking in interviews. They hired people to take their OWN lie detector tests.
I have to respectfully disagree. God can forgive anything when forgiveness is earnestly asked for, that's why He's God.Peter Hamilton said:hey,where are the moderators--This is not the Political Pavilion thread
"I wonder what he would think if somehow, irrefutable proof of the R's guilt were to surface?"
ha! He's already made that CLEAR! Every time it DOES, he pooh-poohs it like it means nothing.
(As Smit): "Pay no attention to phrases like 'chronic inflammation' or 'epithelial erosion.' Those are terms cooked up to frame innocent folks."
"With all the outpouring of love, compassion, and general concern for what happened to/finding justice for JonBenet, it is hard to understand why, if the R's are guilty, would they continue to lie."
I'll tell you why: the love the fame. Michael Kane agrees with me. To paraphrase him:
Patsy loves being the mother of a murdered beauty queen.
Strong language, I know.
ha! He's already made that CLEAR! Every time it DOES, he pooh-poohs it like it means nothing.
(As Smit): "Pay no attention to phrases like 'chronic inflammation' or 'epithelial erosion.' Those are terms cooked up to frame innocent folks."
"With all the outpouring of love, compassion, and general concern for what happened to/finding justice for JonBenet, it is hard to understand why, if the R's are guilty, would they continue to lie."
I'll tell you why: the love the fame. Michael Kane agrees with me. To paraphrase him:
Patsy loves being the mother of a murdered beauty queen.
Strong language, I know.
I can see how JR and PR could make a pact and keep up the lie - the consequences would be so severe - maybe in their mind, they excuse themselves for dodging justice because the death was (in their minds) an accident.
But I don't think that it would be so easy to keep Burke in the loop of a lie - so I don't think he had anything to do with it. He may sell a book someday of his vague childhood memories, but that's all he can contribute I think.
I read that Patsy called the pastor over that day and she asked him to lead the people there in the Lord's Prayer which is kinda different - like a contrivance, a show for everyone's benefit -- felt to me like she was wrapping things up so they could get out of there to Atlanta.
If she really said that stuff about sacrifice and shooting stars, she WAS out there - most people who claim God or the devil told them to do something are clinically mentally ill, not normal people - putting the blame for their own actions on a higher power, or they may be schizophrenic and hallucinating. If Patsy had this going on when not sufficiently drugged for police interviews (she makes no sense at all, at least in print - maybe when you hear her she doesn't sound so scattered?) - anyway, if she was seriously mentally out there, she could certainly have created the wacky garotte and committed the murder, IMO - who knows what was spinning in her head.
I hadn't imagined her as so seriously
crazy before... I figured she just snapped...
Their book, IMO, doesn't shed light on a darn thing, because it musta been ghostwritten, carefully, checked for any mistakes that would lead to more questions - all to exonerate them.
But I don't think that it would be so easy to keep Burke in the loop of a lie - so I don't think he had anything to do with it. He may sell a book someday of his vague childhood memories, but that's all he can contribute I think.
I read that Patsy called the pastor over that day and she asked him to lead the people there in the Lord's Prayer which is kinda different - like a contrivance, a show for everyone's benefit -- felt to me like she was wrapping things up so they could get out of there to Atlanta.
If she really said that stuff about sacrifice and shooting stars, she WAS out there - most people who claim God or the devil told them to do something are clinically mentally ill, not normal people - putting the blame for their own actions on a higher power, or they may be schizophrenic and hallucinating. If Patsy had this going on when not sufficiently drugged for police interviews (she makes no sense at all, at least in print - maybe when you hear her she doesn't sound so scattered?) - anyway, if she was seriously mentally out there, she could certainly have created the wacky garotte and committed the murder, IMO - who knows what was spinning in her head.
I hadn't imagined her as so seriously
crazy before... I figured she just snapped...
Their book, IMO, doesn't shed light on a darn thing, because it musta been ghostwritten, carefully, checked for any mistakes that would lead to more questions - all to exonerate them.
The Ramseys, IMO, believe they did nothing wrong with respect to the death of JB. I think they believe they performed euthanasia. They put JB to rest thinking that if she were to live given the severe head trauma that she would live as a vegetable.
I think the head injury was an accident; the parents were present with JB at the time of the accident. JB fell unconscious, still breathing. I think she was in a coma and the parents tried unsuccessfully to bring her out of it.
They could have taken her to a hospital but they did not want to risk being put in jail for either sexual or physical abuse of their child. The scandal of being put in jail would seriously jeopardize their wealth and social position. They would also be separated from their other children including Burke if they were put in jailed.
As far as Patsy´s Christian beliefs being in conflict with what she did to JB, IMO Patsy did not believe she murdered her daughter. They both believe they were humane in commiting euthanasia on JB. They had the right to choose how JB died simply because JB was their child and because they did not want to see her live as a vegetable. They basically believe that it was their business and their business alone to choose how their child dies given the circumstances.
Just my opinion
I think the head injury was an accident; the parents were present with JB at the time of the accident. JB fell unconscious, still breathing. I think she was in a coma and the parents tried unsuccessfully to bring her out of it.
They could have taken her to a hospital but they did not want to risk being put in jail for either sexual or physical abuse of their child. The scandal of being put in jail would seriously jeopardize their wealth and social position. They would also be separated from their other children including Burke if they were put in jailed.
As far as Patsy´s Christian beliefs being in conflict with what she did to JB, IMO Patsy did not believe she murdered her daughter. They both believe they were humane in commiting euthanasia on JB. They had the right to choose how JB died simply because JB was their child and because they did not want to see her live as a vegetable. They basically believe that it was their business and their business alone to choose how their child dies given the circumstances.
Just my opinion