No, I have not charted them. That would be a good task for the psych 301 class. Good question. I have barely approached it.
I have thought the one that did the killing/staging wrote the note as well and could be responsible for the messages ratting out the vaginal penetration. I really don't see that (the vaginal manipulation) being done by a developed persona, in fact I don't see an extensive, intricate development, iow, with segregated identities and names etc. as in other documented cases. All I see is one major split with potential for subsets emerging.
I think the vaginal manipulation was done by Patsy, the host, compulsively. This moral conflict within the host may be the trigger for the whole episode. I think this moral conflict associated with sex acts runs back through her marriage to John when she dutifully engaged in expected sex activity without a mature, knowing awareness of sex based on a natural, developed, authentic urge. She may well have been latent in those regards to the point that she engaged connublially in the mental state of a twenty something but emotionally as a pre-adolescent resulting in a sense of shame and resentment.
Blue Bottle, thank you for your many recent posts and for this one in particular.
To me, there were two very striking things about this case from the beginning. One was the sheer weirdness of it. Whether family did it, intruder did it, friend/acquaintace did it -- there seemed to be another element not wholely accounted for. The other was that, in their early public interviews and appearances, John and Patsy seemed relieved in some way. Despite their distress, they gave off a vibe of people who had been delivered from something. But what? What ended when JonBenet died, bringing that strange solace? Though I've pondered the question over the years, no answer has ever brought the shift inside that said,
Yes. That's it.
Until now. Almost. I've always found your explanation of events compelling, but could not completely assent. This post brings me a step closer because it explains the oppression and relief. And yours is the only explanation that explains them. It was relief from Patsy's compulsive use of JonBenet and the moral conflict - the constant stress of it, the behaviors associated with it. Whether experienced immediately or sensed in the background, the internal tensions of a Borderline personality ensnare everyone in the home. Resolving the relationship with JonBenet (for lack of a better phrase) freed up John and Burke as well as Patsy - and JonBenet - albeit at a ghastly cost.
Back to the sheer weirdness -- The other factor I'm finding very persuasive is this (if I can articulate it): Other theories explore Patsy's psyche while leaving us firmly planted in ordinary life (Maybe she just lost it over the bedwetting. Maybe she was having a meltdown over all the Christmas pressure and turning 40. Extreme behavior, but we can understand it). Yours does the opposite. It takes us inside Patsy's fractured psyche, and from there we look out on a very altered world where ordinary things (pineapple, Christmas decorations, a daughter, e.g.) both are and aren't what they appear to be, and affect us in ways we both can and can't process. Reading your posts over the years, I would make that trip and say,
Yes, this explanation makes a lot of sense. But when I "came back" to other posts and ideas, it seemed a fantasy, a provisional reality, something true only while I was in it. And therefore it probably wasn't the actual explanation. Well, I've been missing the point. None of the explanations grounded in ordinary life account for the sheer weirdness, only this one. If all the pieces fit when I'm "in" the distorted reality, then the distorted reality is the explanation.
