gaia227
I have never taken any exercise except sleeping an
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,739
- Reaction score
- 343
I have a question. Obviously I am familiar with JonBenet and have weeded through some info but there is SO much is gets overwhelming. I have always had the feeling John killed JonBenet. From what I understand the household was ran around John and his emotional whims. Patsy seems to be the dutiful wife who was trying to portray the image of the all american happy family. She strikes me as someone VERY concerned and preoccupied with how they are viewed in society and would go to many lengths to keep that image. The Ramsey marriage seemed to be one of convenience. A business relationship. They tolerated eachother, they needed eachother for different reasons; Patsy needed John's financial support, John needed Patsy to raise the kids, run the household, and organize they social life. I think espeically Patsy was dependent on John. She needed his financial support and she was used to living a certain lifestyle and maintaining a certain societal standing and that was very important to her.
I have always entertained the option that John killed JonBenet in a fit of anger. John strikes me as a very stoic and even emotionally detached person so it would not be hard for him to grit his teeth and do what he had to do to make sure this did not ruin his life. Patsy, terrified of losing her husband and terrified of what people would think if they found out went to great lengths to cover-up what happened. She wrote the ransom note, called 911, stuck to the story of the intruder, bore the brunt of speculation from the media and public that SHE was the killer and ultimately stood by her husbands side out of fear and selfishness.
And John Ramsey let her. I think he knew well what he was doing. By stepping back and letting Patsy make the 911 call and write the RN he knew the speculation would fall on her and not him. Like I said before I think their marriage was one of convenience and ultimately John would survive just fine without Patsy and was willing to let her take the fall in order to save himself. He was a wealthy man and if she went to prison he would have no problem finding another wife.
Finally - my question to you guys who have undoubtedly researched the evidence, the interviews, the actions of the Ramsey much more than I is, why do so many people count John out as the murderer? What has he said, done, or how has he acted that leads people to believe his innocence? Please do not take this as a challenge - it's not. I am genuinely curious because I believe there must be legitimate, logical reasons why John is not widely considered a suspect.
Thanks for reading.
I have always entertained the option that John killed JonBenet in a fit of anger. John strikes me as a very stoic and even emotionally detached person so it would not be hard for him to grit his teeth and do what he had to do to make sure this did not ruin his life. Patsy, terrified of losing her husband and terrified of what people would think if they found out went to great lengths to cover-up what happened. She wrote the ransom note, called 911, stuck to the story of the intruder, bore the brunt of speculation from the media and public that SHE was the killer and ultimately stood by her husbands side out of fear and selfishness.
And John Ramsey let her. I think he knew well what he was doing. By stepping back and letting Patsy make the 911 call and write the RN he knew the speculation would fall on her and not him. Like I said before I think their marriage was one of convenience and ultimately John would survive just fine without Patsy and was willing to let her take the fall in order to save himself. He was a wealthy man and if she went to prison he would have no problem finding another wife.
Finally - my question to you guys who have undoubtedly researched the evidence, the interviews, the actions of the Ramsey much more than I is, why do so many people count John out as the murderer? What has he said, done, or how has he acted that leads people to believe his innocence? Please do not take this as a challenge - it's not. I am genuinely curious because I believe there must be legitimate, logical reasons why John is not widely considered a suspect.
Thanks for reading.
