Surely the truth must be this...

[SewingDeb]

Sewing Deb, I recall a connection to a cousin. Didn't Patsy buy them in NY for the cousin, but for some reason, they were still in the Ramsey house? Or was it JonBenet wanted the panties just her cousins, even tho they were not the right size?

A better memory than mine will know :banghead: lol

Thanks LaMer. Someone else had said perhaps they were JonBenet's, to be worn over Pull-ups. I'm sure someone knows what the Ramseys claim about the panties.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

FWIW, I don't think she could get peoples' DNA from sitting on them at a party, since she was fully clothed at the party, size 6 panties, probably, and street pants over that, maybe even long johns too.

Eagle, I think most six-year-old children use the bathroom, crawl on the floor and in the dirt and then they do not wash their hands. It is my understanding that JBR did not have a bath for a couple of days prior to Christmas.

Also, little girls scratch themselves on their bottom without thinking and frequently with dirty fingernails. This is how I believe the DNA was transfered to JBR's body - from fingernails to bottom and then to undies with the blood.

Or, backwards, JBR may have used a toilet at the White's which was not entirely clean. Then, she had some DNA on her bottom which transfered to her fingernails when she scratched or wiped.

Very easy, IMO.

...He was shot from the left, though he was right-handed, remember. And that crime scene was also "staged" with the stun gun and boots, and I forget what else...

So, maybe Helgoth's mother killed him too... :innocent:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yes, but it will have to be later because I'm going on a date! :blushing: :dance:

I'll try to get together a posting about what I think is clear in this case. My process with this case has been very similar to my process with the Routier case - which I know you know well - I have read many of your postings in connection with Darlie's case. I was on the fence there for a long long time!

Have a great evening.

Thanks!!! Have a great date.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

...Still can't get from where I am to anyone in the family doing this. I need some motive.

Someone mentioned the Routier case. I keep thinking about the Deanna Laney case.

Laney decided one night to send her three boys back to God. So, she started with her infant. She bashed him in the head with a stone while he was in his crib. He did not die. But, he cried out. Laney's husband approached Laney from outside the darkened room. She lied and told hubby that the baby needed his diaper changed. So, the husband believed her and went back to bed.

Laney proceeded to kill her two older sons, while husband was asleep, and left the infant for dead (he survived).

My thoughts are these: What would have happened if Laney's husband stopped Laney from killing the baby? What if he realized what she was doing and put a stop to it? What if he then said, "Ok, Deanna. You made this mess, now you cover it up...And, by the way, I am not going to let you kill our other two kids...," or something equally ridiculous like that.

If Laney had the sweet southern charm and the creativity to do so, she too could have come to her senses and covered up her crime with a ransom note and a staged crime-scene.

Of course, her husband would have had to have a huge ego that outweighed his grief over the loss of his kid. He would have also had to have been more concerned about appearances than about doing what was actually right...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Someone mentioned the Routier case. I keep thinking about the Deanna Laney case.

Laney decided one night to send her three boys back to God. So, she started with her infant. She bashed him in the head with a stone while he was in his crib. He did not die. But, he cried out. Laney's husband approached Laney from outside the darkened room. She lied and told hubby that the baby needed his diaper changed. So, the husband believed her and went back to bed.

Laney proceeded to kill her two older sons, while husband was asleep, and left the infant for dead (he survived).

My thoughts are these: What would have happened if Laney's husband stopped Laney from killing the baby? What if he realized what she was doing and put a stop to it? What if he then said, "Ok, Deanna. You made this mess, now you cover it up...And, by the way, I am not going to let you kill our other two kids...," or something equally ridiculous like that.

If Laney had the sweet southern charm and the creativity to do so, she too could have come to her senses and covered up her crime with a ransom note and a staged crime-scene.

Of course, her husband would have had to have a huge ego that outweighed his grief over the loss of his kid. He would have also had to have been more concerned about appearances than about doing what was actually right...

Thanks. I see what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with it.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Thanks. I see what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with it.

Why not? I don't really don't agree with this scenario either - it is just a possibility.

You see, you have to think that Patsy always did everything above and beyond what other people would do. She was creative and pretty and bright, so she had an edge and she took advantage of it. In all instances in Patsy's life, people said, "wow, I can't believe she did that...Who but Patsy would have thought to do that...and did it so much better than I could have done..."

She continued to do these things in order to get and keep other people's attention.

That is why I see Patsy all over the staging. It almost feels like a PTA mom trying to put on a stage play...if that makes any sense...for lack of a better way to describe the cover-up.

If John did not step in while she was killing JBR, then I think the child's death was an accident. In fact, that is what I believe more than any other theory. The staging was intentional and done by Patsy because no one else would think to do that and so no one would suspect her.

 

[WhiteWolf]

I agree with your entirely Bronte. There really isn't any proof of an intruder. But I still don't feel that anyone has offered a plausible reason why any of the Ramsey's would have killed her. I know that you don't always need a motive for a death, but I just cannot see how:

a) Patsy could have killed her by accident and then covered it up, because I can't see why would she'd put a garotte around her neck and put a broken paintbrush in her vagina UNLESS it was to cover up that Patsy was the one molesting her
b) John could have been molesting her, otherwise Patsy would have left him and NO WAY would she have defended him over JBR's death.

The only thing that makes any sense to me, is if Patsy was molesting her, killed her by accident/fit of rage, did broken paint brush, garotte, ransom note staging, all while John was alseep, called police. Then when everything was in motion she told John, showed him JBR's body, convinced him it was accident (didnt' mention anything about molesting, however) and he went along with it.

That is the ONLY thing that makes any plausible sense. arrgghh this whole thing is bothering me so much. I'm SOOO dying to know what happened.

Actually, it does make some sense that Patsy did everything while John slept. She would have had to have something pretty big to hold over his head (JonBenet's prior molestation or something equally bad), and the confidence John would pick up the clues from the ransom note. Maybe the dictionary with the page corner turned up to the word incest?

 

[WhiteWolf]

What doesn't make sense to me is that the DA said that the DNA might be an artifact. But when asked if John Ramsey was still being considered a suspect, she said that he wasn't because his DNA didn't match. She also didn't charge Karr because his DNA didn't match. The DNA could be from the person who handled the panties at the factory in Thailand. If Lacy refuses to arrest someone unless his/her DNA matches, nobody will ever be charged with JonBenet's murder.

This is so true! I think the journalists did a good job of cornering Mary Lacy about the DNA and why she eliminated Karr. Obviously, it should have been apparent that if Karr really could provide other confirming evidence he was in the Ramsey house on 12-25-96 such as a souvenier (JonBenet's hair, the missing piece of the paint brush, missing pages from the ransom note pad), Karr would have been arrested. The DNA could be the killer's, but it may not be, so how could it eliminate anyone?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Why not? I don't really don't agree with this scenario either - it is just a possibility.

You see, you have to think that Patsy always did everything above and beyond what other people would do. She was creative and pretty and bright, so she had an edge and she took advantage of it. In all instances in Patsy's life, people said, "wow, I can't believe she did that...Who but Patsy would have thought to do that...and did it so much better than I could have done..."

She continued to do these things in order to get and keep other people's attention.

That is why I see Patsy all over the staging. It almost feels like a PTA mom trying to put on a stage play...if that makes any sense...for lack of a better way to describe the cover-up.

If John did not step in while she was killing JBR, then I think the child's death was an accident. In fact, that is what I believe more than any other theory. The staging was intentional and done by Patsy because no one else would think to do that and so no one would suspect her.

BINGO

It's my opinion that she had some serious mental health issues long BEFORE her daughter was murdered.

A motive isn't necessary for a conviction.

Pick up a newspaper and explain to me what motivates all the twisted sick things people do. Normal people can not imagine or comprehend how a sick mind works.

 

[canny]

Where all JonBenet's panties tested for this bogus DNA evidence, or just the one she was found wearing ?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Why not? I don't really don't agree with this scenario either - it is just a possibility.

You see, you have to think that Patsy always did everything above and beyond what other people would do. She was creative and pretty and bright, so she had an edge and she took advantage of it. In all instances in Patsy's life, people said, "wow, I can't believe she did that...Who but Patsy would have thought to do that...and did it so much better than I could have done..."

She continued to do these things in order to get and keep other people's attention.

That is why I see Patsy all over the staging. It almost feels like a PTA mom trying to put on a stage play...if that makes any sense...for lack of a better way to describe the cover-up.

If John did not step in while she was killing JBR, then I think the child's death was an accident. In fact, that is what I believe more than any other theory. The staging was intentional and done by Patsy because no one else would think to do that and so no one would suspect her.

Well in the first place, Deanna Lacey is a certified lunatic and while you may not think Patsy's lifestyle was "normal," she was far from being crazy. I can't fathom any sort of "accident" that could have occurred where a need for a "coverup" would be necessary.

 

[BBB167893]

"I can't fathom any sort of "accident" that could have occurred where a need for a "coverup" would be necessary."

Yeah? Jeana, you're obviously intelligent. You must know what people are like. Not everyone comes clean. It happens all the time.

Wolfsmargirl, you're not the only one who made the comparison to Deana Laney. And believe me: Jeana's response was a LOT friendlier than the one I got!

"I can deal with that!!"

Glad to hear it! Okay, and keep in mind, this is only spitballing, but the one my gut won't let me come away from is the "Snow White." I'm sure you know the story: when the Queen finds out she's not the fairest anymore, she tries to kill Snow White. Well, who knows? Maybe JB said something about being prettier than her mom and how "Daddy says" such and such about it, she KNOWS John cheated on his first wife, and that's what led up to it. Can I prove it? No, but motive is a funny thing. It wouldn't be the first time a wife swung at her husband in her mind and hit her child.

Then, of course, there's the sex abuse angle. But that one tends to get emotions riding high, so I'll ease off for now.

"That is why I see Patsy all over the staging. It almost feels like a PTA mom trying to put on a stage play...if that makes any sense...for lack of a better way to describe the cover-up."

Michael Kane said virtually the same thing!

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Well in the first place, Deanna Lacey is a certified lunatic and while you may not think Patsy's lifestyle was "normal," she was far from being crazy. I can't fathom any sort of "accident" that could have occurred where a need for a "coverup" would be necessary.

I am sorry, but, we know Deanna Laney is a 'certified lunatic' because she confessed to her crimes and did not get the chance to, or have the drive, need, ability, know-how, encouragement, (insert any number of terms here), to cover up her deeds.

If she had not confessed. If her husband had stopped her and said, "No confessing, sweetie; you've got to cover it up instead," then THEN we would have no way of knowing that Laney was a Loonie.

We know what she is because she told us. Period.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

...Michael Kane said virtually the same thing!

Wow. I did not know that. It was always just the way I saw things...being a PTA-mom myself, lol.

If you told me to write a ransom note and make it sound 'real mean,' I would come up with just about the same type of note Patsy did...

Thanks for your support, by the way.

It is weird how we just talk about our theories about who killed this poor little girl and people actually get mad at each other...I never understood that...

I mean, heck, take the Adam Walsh case, for instance. I think John Walsh has done an awesome job avenging his son's murder and making the world a safer place for all of our kids. But, if evidence comes out tomorrow indicating Walsh abducted and killed his own kid, then I would say, "Well, I guess I was wrong about that guy..."

I just don't get it...why people are so weird when it comes to the Ramsey case...??

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Well in the first place, Deanna Lacey is a certified lunatic and while you may not think Patsy's lifestyle was "normal," she was far from being crazy. I can't fathom any sort of "accident" that could have occurred where a need for a "coverup" would be necessary.

Oh, and for the record, I think Patsy's 'lifestyle' was perfectly 'normal.'

I think JB looked cute in her pageants. And if that is what the kid wanted to do, then I am happy she was allowed to do it.

The Ramsey's seemed to live a pretty-darned-normal life, to tell you the truth.

I think Patsy seemed a little loopy in interviews and a little too religious, but those traits have nothing to do with her 'lifestyle.'

Oh, yeah, and she was married to an old guy...I forgot that part... :innocent: .

Other than those issues, where do you see me thinking her lifestyle was anything other than normal?

 

[narlacat]

Well, I don't know if weird is the right word , but you're right people's emotions do get the better of them on this board, mine included!
I guess alot of people are passionate about finding justice for JonBenet.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

BINGO

It's my opinion that she had some serious mental health issues long BEFORE her daughter was murdered.

A motive isn't necessary for a conviction.

Pick up a newspaper and explain to me what motivates all the twisted sick things people do. Normal people can not imagine or comprehend how a sick mind works.

I agree. I think a hysterectomy, alone, can cause a lot of emotional problems. I don't know what other internal demons she was facing. No one knows, except for her family and friends and they are not talking...

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Well, I don't know if wierd is the right word , but you're right people's emotions do get the better of them on this board, mine included!
I guess alot of people are passionate about finding justice for JonBenet.

No, it is weird. I like that word.

I mean, all I want is to find out who killed this baby. I think her mother did it. If another poster thinks her mother did not do it, then I want to hear what they think...

Our common goal is to find out who killed a child. Why does anyone care about anything else?

 

[narlacat]

No, it is weird. I like that word.

I mean, all I want is to find out who killed this baby. I think her mother did it. If another poster thinks her mother did not do it, then I want to hear what they think...

Our common goal is to find out who killed a child. Why does anyone care about anything else?

What do you mean 'anything else'?

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

What do you mean 'anything else'?

I mean, I don't care if I (or you) insult the feelings of any of Jonbenet's family members, neigbors, friends, enemies, my feelings, your feelings, etc., etc., as long as we eventually figure out who killed her.

They can take it. We can take it.

Jonbenet is the only human I care about in the discussion of this case.