THIS article says what I believe about the motive for the murder and who the perp was

[BBB167893]

there it is. and that's what the ramseys were banking on anyway, right?
..and lou smit as well:

"We think we are a normal American family that loves and values their children..."

"We are a normal family. We love our children dearly."


..well, who can argue with that, right?

I'm SURE they were banking on that, Whaleshark. Look, John Ramsey made millions as a salesman, nd in that line of work, you have to have your finger on the pulse of the average person. He knew that there is a strong perception among the people that only certain "types" of people do these kinds of things: the "skanky" people, the "trailer-park" people.

There's one other thing I'd say. Ramsey-supporters make a big deal about the assertion (I'm loathe to say fact--far as I go, it's far from FACT) that the Ramseys had no history of violence. I think Maikai said it: the method of the killing and other acts are not the acts of doting, loving parents with no history of child abuse whatsoever

Well, no, I suppose they are not. I'm sure that's WHY it was staged that way! But perhaps more importantly than that, that's probably WHY the staging was done so amateurish and unconvincing. I'm kind of surprised that no one else has seized upon this idea: a person who had a history of violence would very likely have more knowledge and expertise to draw from, and would have done a better job of it!

 

[BBB167893]

I think Shapiro is right on about the religious references in this crime. The point is not why the religious references are there; the point is that they are there and one of the main suspects was a fundamentally religious person so much so that she pleaded for Jesus to raise her daughter.

Well said. I suppose if you subscribe to that idea, there's no need to make more of it.

If PR was responsible for her daughter's death, I believe it might have been triggered by her discovering the fact that her daughter had been abused and maybe this is why JR did not blow the whistle......he, or one of his sons, could have been involved.

At any rate, the religious overtones permeate this whole tragedy...body cleaned, dressed in white, buried in white etc.etc.etc.

There are two things that come to my mind in this regard. One is when police overheard JR, the night the body was found, saying: "I'm sorry....I'm so sorry..."

Secondly. In a LKL interview with ST, PR and JR, ST states that there will be no forgiveness for the perp unless the perp confesses. JR, immediately, replies that this is false because one does not have to confess..... Sounds, to me, that JR had given some thought to this.

I'm sure he'll think about it even more in the coming years, as old age does more damage...

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks. Yes, it makes sense, especially The Pad, and the time it took to write the letter. I mean, wouldn't you get out as fast as possible? Especially since the ransom demand was pointless as the body was bound to be found in the house eventually. So the letter would only have muddied the water for the family. It wouldn't have helped a stranger at all.

Sabot, that's precisely what the FBI experts assisting the police said. Almost those exact words.

Wendy Murphy, a Boston-area prosecutor with a fair deal of experience, said it best, I think: "if it had been an intruder, they wouldn't have staged it to LOOK like an intruder." (Emphasis is hers.)

I guess I just can't bring myself to believe that Patsy Ramsey would do such a thing.

I run into that a LOT, Sabot. And like I said, I can sympathize with it. For a long time, I couldn't believe it either.

 

[BBB167893]

I meant actual evidence, although don't ask me what.

That's a bit of a problem. If you don't know what actual evidence is, how am I supposed to give you any?

In a Case like this I guess Circumstantial is all you are going to get.

It's all you get in MOST cases, Sabot. About 95%. It's not like you see on TV. Most cases don't have that magical, lead-pipe cinch match. In most cases, the prosecutor has to do more than present cold facts. They have to WORK for it. They have to use imagination and common sense to lead the jury from Point A to Point B. Sadly, as the Casey Anthony acquittal proves, modern juries have become lazy. And so have some prosecutors. More on that in a minute, because there is a point to this.

Obviously, The Ramsey's DNA won't count, seeing as how it was their house.

You're right about that, to a degree. I think if their semen or even blood were found, they might have some explaining to do, but none was found, so no point arguing about it.

I can only suppose that The DA didn't feel that he could prove anything.

Well, when you say that, Sabot, it helps to keep one very important thing in mind: this DA was not like most. He had no courtroom skill. At the time JB was killed, he hadn't taken a case before a judge and jury for TEN YEARS. Not only did he not know how to argue circumstantial evidence into a coherent case, he had a notoriously high standard of what he considered evidence. I forget who it was, but someone said that Alex Hunter would not even consider charging for a plea-bargain unless he had a DNA match, a signed confession, and videotape of the crime happening. (And Mary Lacy made HIM look like Rudy Giuliani! That's not really germaine to the issue, I just like to remind people!)

But I do agree that DNA is not a lot of use, except perhaps, in cases of the perpetrator's blood or sperm. But even those could be debatable.

Now you're getting it! I don't know how debatable. I guess you'd have to take it case by case.

I have been watching 48 Hours on Project Free on Line, and there have been a couple of very dodgy convictions on that show. But then there have been a couple of Cases that I thought they had enough to convict but didn't pursue.

I'm not saying that the system is perfect outside of Boulder, Sabot. Everyone makes mistakes now and then. But, despite the ramblings of some, they try not to make a habit out of it.

I'm not sure that it relates to the issue directly, Sabot, but you have to be careful with shows like that, especially the defense lawyers who are interviewed. Their duty is to their clients, not to the truth, and some of them are not above spinning elaborate conspiracies to do it. One of the sad facts about American justice is that, no matter how clearly your guilt is established, there will always be some people out there who will believe in you, for reasons which are often not good. Maikai mentioned Project Innocence. That's ONE example.

So Lawyer Up and keep your mouth shut is the order of the present day. But people do have a right to do this.

Absolutely. I can't speak for other people, Sabot, but for my part, the fact that the Ramseys got lawyers and kept quiet is not what bothers me. It's a lot of the other stuff they and their lawyers tried to pull. I forget who said it on the anniversary show, but "goon squad" was a good term.

I think Mrs Murphy said it best: There is a Constitutional right to remain silent. There is no Constitutional right to lie. So there's a difference. They can shut up and we shouldn't judge them, but when they lie, we should judge them.

 

[BBB167893]

yep,to me that sounded like "it's not you ordinary people who have the right to judge us,only God is allowed,it's between us and God and God doesn't tell us to confess anything,only you want us to"... = with "I am getting away with it" cause religion is a delicate thing but you can so easily spin around it,see above

I always said that I don't like how they use religion in their favor...they use it like an excuse for everything they do or don't....and maybe it's even a way to lie to themselves and live in denial....."God will punish and judge us after we'll die...enough time till that happens so I got a break for now...."

Way I see it, that's between them and God.

Speaking of which, I don't remember who said it, and God knows I'm not trying to beat up on anybody, but when someone on the anniversary show said that Patsy was being "fricasseed," I flinched visibly. My brother said, "Hey, Guv'nor, you okay?"

IMO they used religion not only to convince others (L.SMit?) but also to convince themselves that what happened is not that bad!she's in a better place??she's safe now??denial,excuses.

I have a good mind to use that as a signature! It's a classic tactic, though. Plenty of people have used that to justify it.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, in this particular instance, it really doesn't matter if you think I'm wrong, because I'm not. The DNA database specificially requires a sample to have 13 full markers for inclusion, because partial DNA profiles are notoriously unreliable. Well, the sample submitted by the DA's office in 2003 did NOT have 13 markers. It had 9-1/2, and they had to amplify it artificially to get THAT many. As for the last DNA they found, I never heard that it was a complete sample, either. But even assuming that it was, it's helpful to remember what an FBI criminologist and a forensice expert said about the DNA in this case: that the TESTS have gotten better, not necessarily the DNA itself.

You're welcome to read the articles yourself. I'm sure someone around here would have them. Probably cynic. He's a wealth of information. I'd suggest talking to him about this. He has more expertise than I do.

Cynic, I BEG your indulgence on this one. If anyone will have them, you will. I'm just too upset to go hunting for them.

 

[Tessa2009]

I run into that a LOT, Sabot. And like I said, I can sympathize with it. For a long time, I couldn't believe it either.

Respectfully snipped by me

I was living in Colorado when this happened, my first thought was that Patsy did it.....and I've never looked back. There is something about a "mother" who gets angry over their daughter not wanting to wear the same outfit as her...or for dying their 6 year old daughter's hair....I didn't like PR from the first time I laid eyes on her.....

Ps. I'm always just jumping into conversations.....sorry!

 

[cynic]

Cynic, I BEG your indulgence on this one. If anyone will have them, you will. I'm just too upset to go hunting for them.

Hey Dave, sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

If I read your post correctly, you will find most of what you are after in this particular post in the Aphrodite Jones rebuttal section:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332780&postcount=76"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
(If this doesn't have what you're after let me know.)

With respect to CODIS and requirements for inclusion see below:
The Convicted Offender Index requires all 13 CODIS markers to be present for a profile upload.
Forensic profiles require 10 markers to be present for an upload.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

 

[Sabot]

That's a bit of a problem. If you don't know what actual evidence is, how am I supposed to give you any?



It's all you get in MOST cases, Sabot. About 95%. It's not like you see on TV. Most cases don't have that magical, lead-pipe cinch match. In most cases, the prosecutor has to do more than present cold facts. They have to WORK for it. They have to use imagination and common sense to lead the jury from Point A to Point B. Sadly, as the Casey Anthony acquittal proves, modern juries have become lazy. And so have some prosecutors. More on that in a minute, because there is a point to this.



You're right about that, to a degree. I think if their semen or even blood were found, they might have some explaining to do, but none was found, so no point arguing about it.



Well, when you say that, Sabot, it helps to keep one very important thing in mind: this DA was not like most. He had no courtroom skill. At the time JB was killed, he hadn't taken a case before a judge and jury for TEN YEARS. Not only did he not know how to argue circumstantial evidence into a coherent case, he had a notoriously high standard of what he considered evidence. I forget who it was, but someone said that Alex Hunter would not even consider charging for a plea-bargain unless he had a DNA match, a signed confession, and videotape of the crime happening. (And Mary Lacy made HIM look like Rudy Giuliani! That's not really germaine to the issue, I just like to remind people!)



Now you're getting it! I don't know how debatable. I guess you'd have to take it case by case.



I'm not saying that the system is perfect outside of Boulder, Sabot. Everyone makes mistakes now and then. But, despite the ramblings of some, they try not to make a habit out of it.

I'm not sure that it relates to the issue directly, Sabot, but you have to be careful with shows like that, especially the defense lawyers who are interviewed. Their duty is to their clients, not to the truth, and some of them are not above spinning elaborate conspiracies to do it. One of the sad facts about American justice is that, no matter how clearly your guilt is established, there will always be some people out there who will believe in you, for reasons which are often not good. Maikai mentioned Project Innocence. That's ONE example.



Absolutely. I can't speak for other people, Sabot, but for my part, the fact that the Ramseys got lawyers and kept quiet is not what bothers me. It's a lot of the other stuff they and their lawyers tried to pull. I forget who said it on the anniversary show, but "goon squad" was a good term.

I think Mrs Murphy said it best: There is a Constitutional right to remain silent. There is no Constitutional right to lie. So there's a difference. They can shut up and we shouldn't judge them, but when they lie, we should judge them.

I don't have huge knowledge of this case so I'm not sure if they lied or not, but even I can see some oddities, which is why I am discussing it. And it has been a big help in understanding what went on. So thanks for the replies.

The other thing that bothers me is how a stranger managed to do all of those things without being heard. Why not just take the child out and kill her somewhere else? In fact, why kill her at all since there doesn't appear to have been any sexual assault?
But the one thing I am pretty certain of is that it wasn't a Ransom thing. So what was the motive?

 

[BBB167893]

Hey Dave, sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

If I read your post correctly, you will find most of what you are after in this particular post in the Aphrodite Jones rebuttal section:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)
(If this doesn't have what you're after let me know.)

With respect to CODIS and requirements for inclusion see below:
The Convicted Offender Index requires all 13 CODIS markers to be present for a profile upload.
Forensic profiles require 10 markers to be present for an upload.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

It's as good a place to start as any!

 

[BBB167893]

I don't have huge knowledge of this case so I'm not sure if they lied or not, but even I can see some oddities, which is why I am discussing it.

Any of you folks want to help him out?:innocent:

Actually, before we get into that, the Ramseys said they wouldn't talk to the cops. But they had NO trouble going on TV! That's not really a lie, but it is damned peculiar.

And it has been a big help in understanding what went on. So thanks for the replies.

It's a pleasure.

The other thing that bothers me is how a stranger managed to do all of those things without being heard. Why not just take the child out and kill her somewhere else? In fact, why kill her at all since there doesn't appear to have been any sexual assault?

Those would be the basic questions! Sabot, if you take a look at the kind of cases the Ramseys try to liken this to, such as Danielle Van Dam and the rest, you'll notice that not ONE of them even REMOTELY resembles this one.

But the one thing I am pretty certain of is that it wasn't a Ransom thing. So what was the motive?

Motive for an intruder, or for an inside job? Or both?

 

[Squishified]

Sabot, if you take a look at the kind of cases the Ramseys try to liken this to, such as Danielle Van Dam and the rest, you'll notice that not ONE of them even REMOTELY resembles this one.

Y'know SD, that's a really good case to compare this to. The VanDam's had, shall we say, some "skeletons in their closet", but completely cooperated with police and little Danielle's killer was caught. Why were the Ramsey's, who are suppposed to be perfect, not cooperating? Well, I think I already know your answer to that!

 

[Sabot]

SuperDave. Motive for an intruder. With Sex and Money out of the frame what else could there be?

She, by the way. But no problem. I am often thought of as He, although I don't know why.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't have huge knowledge of this case so I'm not sure if they lied or not, but even I can see some oddities, which is why I am discussing it. And it has been a big help in understanding what went on. So thanks for the replies.

The other thing that bothers me is how a stranger managed to do all of those things without being heard. Why not just take the child out and kill her somewhere else? In fact, why kill her at all since there doesn't appear to have been any sexual assault?
But the one thing I am pretty certain of is that it wasn't a Ransom thing. So what was the motive?

There WAS a sexual assault. Just because there was no semen doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. If you haven't read the autopsy report, you should. There was BLOOD in the vagina, as well as abrasions and bruising, a bruise on the labia, and evidence of her own blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. Blood does not belong in or on the vagina of a 6-year old girl. IN addition, the hymen was eroded in a specific area, in a way which indicated repeated rubbing or pressure on the same spot on more than one occasion. At the autopsy, the findings of blood, abrasions and bruising were noted in the written report, but the coroner also had police witnessing the autopsy as well, and he told these officers (Detective Linda Arndt and
Sgt Trujillo) that he felt what he saw was evidence of penetration with a finger. THAT is plenty of proof of sexual assault.
There does not have to BE a motive in a murder, especially if it was unintended. In this case, I highly doubt there was an actual planned motive. I feel what happened was that she screamed from whatever penetrated her with enough force to cause her to bleed (a neighbor heard the scream) and she was suddenly bashed on the head to shut her up quickly. I do not think whoever did this meant to kill her. But a head bash like that would have rendered her instantly unconscious, maybe even comatose. She may even have appeared dead because she would have gone into shock, which would cause a person's breathing, heart rate, and body temperature to plummet. To an untrained person, she may have appeared dead.
As far as the garroting- there are two theories that I consider. One is that someone was using the garrote as part of a sexual bondage activity. The other is that, having thought they killed her, and with the head bash leaving NO exterior signs (no bruising, swelling or bleeding that could be seen, though the autopsy found all of this internally), they may have staged the strangulation simply to be able to have a visible apparent cause of death. Otherwise all you have is a dead little girl with no apparent reason, and the danger that the real reason (the head bash) would be discovered. Then they'd have some explaining to do.
No doubt about it, this case is complicated and a lot of the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit. But the hardest thing for many people to accept is that sometimes there is no "WHY". And sometimes the WHO is a parent or other loved one. That is the most difficult thing.

 

[DeeDee249]

SuperDave. Motive for an intruder. With Sex and Money out of the frame what else could there be?

She, by the way. But no problem. I am often thought of as He, although I don't know why.

I am sure SD will weigh in himself on this, but this case contradicts all that an intruder crime would be. To "kidnap" a child, write a 3-page ransom note in the mother's handwriting and yet LEAVE her dead body in the house is at direct opposites. Even a dead body can effect a ransom. Why kill her at all? And if so, why leave her there? Why redress her? A killer like that wouldn't care how she was found. So the only motive that exists for a kidnapper is ransom, and they asked for a ridiculously small amount in this case, considering the parents. But then they leave the body behind, so they don't get the ransom anyway. The other motive is to silence her so she wouldn't say who was abusing her. That still may have some merit, and certainly points to the killer being someone she knew, NOT a stranger (how would she identify someone she did not know in the first place?).
Kidnappers as a rule do not kill their victims. And pedophile killers do not ask for ransom, let along assault the child in the house. I am curious as to why you do not think there was no sexual assault when this has been verified by the coroner on the case as well as by several experts, all of whom had access to ALL the autopsy photos and reports.
The thing is that so much of the staging points to the parents (the note, the fibers in the crime scene - tape, garrote and paint tote from which the broken paint brush was taken as well as JB's panty crotch) and for them to cover up this horrific crime, the perp had to be themselves or another family member.

 

[smurf86]

Respectfully snipped by me

I was living in Colorado when this happened, my first thought was that Patsy did it.....and I've never looked back. There is something about a "mother" who gets angry over their daughter not wanting to wear the same outfit as her...or for dying their 6 year old daughter's hair....I didn't like PR from the first time I laid eyes on her.....

Ps. I'm always just jumping into conversations.....sorry!

I agree Tessa, I'm flexible on what my kids ware and they are 9,6,4 and 10 months as-long as its appropriate for the season and it fits properly its cool; i would never force my child or get angry if they didn't want to ware the same stuff as me.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree Tessa. they are 9,6,4 and 10 months.

Boy-you must be TIRED.


BTW, the matching mother-daughter thing was very big when I was a child in the 1950s. There were even dolls and paper dolls that wore mother-and-daughter matching fashions. When the Mattel marketed Barbie's little sister Skipper in the early 60s, there was a whole line of little girls' outfits matched to Barbie's older look.
Maybe Nedra went this route with her daughters. But I have a feeling that this was just Patsy's way of projecting herself onto her daughter, reinforcing the "mini-me" aspect of the relationship. A future Miss America contestant- just like Mommy.
When I see moms like Patsy, and even on the MUCH worse Toddlers and Tiaras, I see mothers whose only validation is through their daughters. If the public recognizes that they have a beautiful child then they themselves can vicariously enjoy being that beauty. Not to be mean, but most of those moms are far from beautiful. So they validate their self-worth by forcing the beauty on their daughters. Take away the make-up, costumes and especially the fake hair and what you have are a bunch of spunky but decidedly ordinary little girls, and that is what these moms fear most- that their daughters will repeat their ordinary and in many cases, lower middle class lives.
JB was an exception- she was a truly pretty child, and though Shirley Temple had nothing to worry about, she could sing and dance well enough. She also had a wistful grace and poise. She looked like she deserved to win every crown.
Patsy was also the exception here. She was pretty, smart and modestly talented. She was a perfect Miss America contestant for her day, and with her Southern manners and upbringing, had a more upwardly mobile life course than these TV moms today. For her, she wanted to be sure that JB won that crown that she herself had missed. And for Nedra, she had TWO daughters miss out on that big rhinestone crown, so for her, her steely words "JonBenet, you WILL do it" rang of her determination. There WILL be a Miss America in that family, no matter what it took.

 

[smurf86]

DeeDee,
Most of the time I am but I wouldn't have it any other way they are my world

My step fathers mother always used to buy my two younger sisters the same clothes to make them look like twins even though there is over a year between them my mom hated it.

I will admit I watrched one episode of T&T and was disgusted at these women that call themselvs mothershwow: and to be fair some of the kids are pretty bratty; some of the stuff they do to those children some even babies I am sure is child abuse given the fact we live in a developed country (in the UK too) the women i noticed were primarily form the south too, now I'm not saying all southern women are raving lunatics but some of these women geez louies

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I wonder if JonBenet was a 6-year-old today, would Patsy have still entered her in pageants? Pageants for children have an almost universal negative connotation today, but they were pretty unheard of in the mid-1990's. Patsy seems to care a lot about how others see her and her family, and telling people that your daughter competes in pageants in 2011 will get you a few looks. But back in 1996, a lot of people probably had no idea what these pageants really meant, if they even knew what they were at all.

It's weird to think about how Patsy and Nedra wanted JonBenet to be Miss America, but nowadays, when JBR would be old enough to enter, Miss America is on CMT or TLC because it couldn't high enough ratings to stay on the big networks.

 

[Tessa2009]

Boy-you must be TIRED.


BTW, the matching mother-daughter thing was very big when I was a child in the 1950s. There were even dolls and paper dolls that wore mother-and-daughter matching fashions. When the Mattel marketed Barbie's little sister Skipper in the early 60s, there was a whole line of little girls' outfits matched to Barbie's older look.
Maybe Nedra went this route with her daughters. But I have a feeling that this was just Patsy's way of projecting herself onto her daughter, reinforcing the "mini-me" aspect of the relationship. A future Miss America contestant- just like Mommy.
When I see moms like Patsy, and even on the MUCH worse Toddlers and Tiaras, I see mothers whose only validation is through their daughters. If the public recognizes that they have a beautiful child then they themselves can vicariously enjoy being that beauty. Not to be mean, but most of those moms are far from beautiful. So they validate their self-worth by forcing the beauty on their daughters. Take away the make-up, costumes and especially the fake hair and what you have are a bunch of spunky but decidedly ordinary little girls, and that is what these moms fear most- that their daughters will repeat their ordinary and in many cases, lower middle class lives.
JB was an exception- she was a truly pretty child, and though Shirley Temple had nothing to worry about, she could sing and dance well enough. She also had a wistful grace and poise. She looked like she deserved to win every crown.
Patsy was also the exception here. She was pretty, smart and modestly talented. She was a perfect Miss America contestant for her day, and with her Southern manners and upbringing, had a more upwardly mobile life course than these TV moms today. For her, she wanted to be sure that JB won that crown that she herself had missed. And for Nedra, she had TWO daughters miss out on that big rhinestone crown, so for her, her steely words "JonBenet, you WILL do it" rang of her determination. There WILL be a Miss America in that family, no matter what it took.

Do we know that Patsy wan't like the freaky moms on T&T? I've never watched the show, but have seen trailers to the episodes....I so wonder why this isn't considered CHILD ABUSE??? Poor kids...