Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[BBB167893]

I'll bet justice for JBR probably doesn't require insults and accusations to those nearest to her,

Look, Holdon, I'm not unsympathetic. I realize this is a terrifying prospect. But do you really think I'd be saying this if I didn't believe it?

More importantly, do you think I WANT to believe that JB was abused in any way?

But that still does not address the points.

1) I think Tadpole answered you quite well. There are plenty of reasons. And it's not just JB. How many people do you think COULD have prevented a child's murder and did nothing? Ask Hedda Nusbaum if you don't believe me.

2) I know an RDI who IS experienced with abuse, Holdon. She knows what it's like. She knows the signs. She knows the damage it does. And she knows that it's damn HARD to get people to notice it and even harder to admit it. If I'm lucky, maybe, just maybe, I can convince her to answer any questions you might have. You may find it interesting.

But just in case I can't pull it off, let me give you a few pointers. Do you know what the average is on this, Holdon? Some estimates say that 90% of child abuse goes undetected. That is staggering. Here's a few words you might want to type into a search engine:

"Child Abuse Accomodation Syndrome." While you do that, if you choose to do so, keep in mind what I said about how hard it is to get adult women to report rape, and how much harder it must be for a little child.

3) it's a question of personal bias. My best advice to you is to track down a copy of Marilyn Van Derbur's book "Miss America by Day." It tells how Marilyn was molested as a child by her father, and how the whole city of Denver, including her own mother, looked the other way because of the father's standing in the community. Because he "wasn't the type" to do it. Marilyn has commented on this case in the past, Holdon. I think it's pretty clear what she had to say.

Let me lay it on the line. You take a GOOD look at those pictures and remember a few things:

--The bruises on JB were not random. They appear over and over in the same place over a fair amount of time, a place we KNOW PR was known to grab her with great pressure. Seems straightforward to me.

as it appears her assailant is not among them.

Does it?

That claim has support in recent media reports which refer to unknown male DNA.

The claim that Iraq has WMDs was supported in the media not too long ago, too.

These media reports do not refer to abuse of any kind by anyone close to JBR. What about that?

Holdon, you just seized on the main reason I decided to write the book in the first place: to make sure people don't forget. I'll be more than happy to go down the list with you.

They might not know. 12 years is a long time, and I seriously doubt most of the media talking heads retain much of what they report. The abuse wasn't that widely reported to begin with in the MSM. It got a brief mention in "Vanity Fair." That of course assumes that the same people are working the story. But I don't forget.

That's not even mentioning how the Ramseys' hired goons have conducted what can only be called a campaign of legal terrorism against anyone who TRIES to mention it. And as I said before, don't take my word for it. Ask Tricia yourself. But you won't have to wait that long. I'll be happy to give you an example myself.

In 2006, Wood called former Boston prosecutor Wendy Murphy to threaten her as well. In her book, And Justice For Some, she talks about the experience. I should point out that Wendy Murphy OFTEN talks about the abuse when asked to weigh in on this case. And to answer your earlier question about abuse expertise, she's primarily a sex-crimes prosecutor. If anyone WOULD know...

 

[Tadpole12]

I believe you're missing the point.

What makes RDI armchair experts superior to all those people who actually knew and had contact with JBR, and did not report signs of abuse "in the right number, and in the right places'??

Are RDI enthusiasts here better than they are? More experienced with abuse? What makes a third party group (us) better able to judge or recognize abuse? On what grounds do we claim JBR's close associates were unable to recognize abuse?

I believe it is because they had no murder to raise suspicion, and RDI uses the murder to raise suspicion of abuse. Circular reasoning at its finest.

Really, those closer to JBR were the ones in position to recognize abuse, while we are not in ANY position to recognize it.

Hi Hotyh!

I believe you're missing the point.

Yes, I can see you believe that, whereas, that is not so. Is that not reflected by my post? (Oh, t'was early morn?)

Umhmm ... no.

"Rough play or rough parent? Who's to say? Speculation either way?" - Tad

No I had thought, in my ever 'wishy washy way' that my statement was kinda in agreement with your points.

Oh, see ... now there,

That JUST what I was trying to say in the first place, Tadpole12!

we are rather ..... in agreement?

Circular, linear, sporadic logic, I do believe the impetus for all abuse scenarios are the experts in forensic science who examined the autopsy results.

Elitisms of thought, enthusiastic experts, yep. = message board.

On what grounds do we claim JBR's close associates were unable to recognize abuse?

Reality. If it had occured, that likelyhood would be great.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hey Tad,

Some of the stuff you've got me saying in the preceding post, I never said.

Creative quoting, I guess.

Meanwhile, the question is: How is it that some of us, who never knew or observed JBR in life, have a greater advantage of recognizing abuse than JBR's closest associates? Why do we claim to be the only ones capable of recognizing 'the right number of bruises in just the right places?'


JBR's close associates before the murder: "That bruise is normal for a kid," or "I've never seen abuse before, I'm new at this."

Armchair experts 100's of miles away, after the murder: "Those parents had to be abusing that kid, just look at that bruise!"


If the only reason you see abuse is because JBR was murdered, and that allows us to believe we have special 'hindsight' powers into what really happened, is really application of flawed circular reasoning. AKA a lynch-mob mentality.

 

[JMO8778]

Holdon,If you think that's what it is,and you don't like what we RDI's have to say,then why do you keep reading the posts?

Just curious....

 

[GingBreade]

Hey Tad,

Some of the stuff you've got me saying in the preceding post, I never said.

Creative quoting, I guess.

Meanwhile, the question is: How is it that some of us, who never knew or observed JBR in life, have a greater advantage of recognizing abuse than JBR's closest associates? Why do we claim to be the only ones capable of recognizing 'the right number of bruises in just the right places?'


JBR's close associates before the murder: "That bruise is normal for a kid," or "I've never seen abuse before, I'm new at this."

Armchair experts 100's of miles away, after the murder: "Those parents had to be abusing that kid, just look at that bruise!"


If the only reason you see abuse is because JBR was murdered, and that allows us to believe we have special 'hindsight' powers into what really happened, is really application of flawed circular reasoning. AKA a lynch-mob mentality.

Lynch-mob mentality? Have you read all the interviews, all the statements, all the posts here? Nobody claims to have hindsight - we have facts.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Who thinks JR or PR physically abused JBR because of the bruise photos?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Lynch-mob mentality? Have you read all the interviews, all the statements, all the posts here? Nobody claims to have hindsight - we have facts.

What facts, like chronic abuse? Thats no fact. That PR wrote the note? Thats no fact. That PR was alcohol/drug incited? Thats no fact. Oft quoted here as fact, but not in reality.

In reality, they're looking for the owner of certain DNA found in multiple places on the victim, that has yet to be matched to anyone.

You know about the DNA evidence, as an actual, real fact, correct? We've been all over that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,If you think that's what it is,and you don't like what we RDI's have to say,then why do you keep reading the posts?

Just curious....

Ohhh, I've learned a LOT here at websleuths. Facts that I never knew before. My facts not the same as your facts.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Hotyh!
we are rather ..... in agreement?

That was a quote from me, Tadpole!

Circular, linear, sporadic logic, I do believe the impetus for all abuse scenarios are the experts in forensic science who examined the autopsy results.

Precisely!

Reality. If it had occured, that likelyhood would be great.

Sad, isn't it, Tadpole?

 

[JMO8778]

Hold,well,that makes me wonder about your interpretation of the facts,and what personal gain you have from twisting and ignoring them.JMO.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey Tad,

Some of the stuff you've got me saying in the preceding post, I never said.

Creative quoting, I guess.

I took care of that for you, Holdon.

Meanwhile, the question is: How is it that some of us, who never knew or observed JBR in life, have a greater advantage of recognizing abuse than JBR's closest associates? Why do we claim to be the only ones capable of recognizing 'the right number of bruises in just the right places?'


JBR's close associates before the murder: "That bruise is normal for a kid," or "I've never seen abuse before, I'm new at this."

Armchair experts 100's of miles away, after the murder: "Those parents had to be abusing that kid, just look at that bruise!"

Your illustration is the perfect answer to your own question, Holdon. We have the benefit of 10+ years of child abuse research. And apparently, we're not alone. Are you familiar with the names Richard Krugman and Andrew Sirotnak? They were two of the experts who postulated the possibility of abuse, and they believed in it enough to write a medical treatise about it.

http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today011224.html

And the whole point of the essay is the one I've been making--that all too often the signs of abuse are overlooked, ignored and just flat-out denied. You might find it interesting.

If not, try this:
during an evidence presentation in June 1998, Det. Jane Harmer gave the gathered group an anatomy lesson. She showed side-by-side photographs of JonBenet's vagina and that of a normal six-year-old girl. "Even to the uninitiated, the visual difference was apparent."

If the only reason you see abuse is because JBR was murdered, and that allows us to believe we have special 'hindsight' powers into what really happened, is really application of flawed circular reasoning. AKA a lynch-mob mentality.

That does not merit a response.

 

[BBB167893]

Hold,well,that makes me wonder about your interpretation of the facts,and what personal gain you have from twisting and ignoring them.JMO.

Well said, JMO!

On another note, I think we've all learned a lot here.

 

[BBB167893]

Who thinks JR or PR physically abused JBR because of the bruise photos?

Not me.

Bet that's not what you expected from me, is it?

But that's just what I've been trying to say, Holdon: if it were JUST the bruises, it wouldn't raise too many red flags for me. As I've said many times, kids get into all kinds of trouble. (Goodness knows I did!). But it's NOT just the bruises. It's the fact that they show up in the same places over a period of time and that PR was KNOWN (photographic evidence does exist for this) to hold JB like a manacle.

Page 660 of PMPT (paperback) describes this:

"The second [photo], which Thomas kept on the screen for five minutes, was Patsy holding her daughter's arm, the pressure of her fingers evident on the child's skin."

As with so many things in this case, it's not a question of this thing or that thing being the clincher; it's a combination of forces. You just have to put the pieces together. That's how it works with these circumstantial cases (as I was telling you before you went on hiatus).

You seem to think that every case involves a smoking gun. Well, all I can say is good luck, because you will need it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

OK then, have you decided that the bruise in the photo is the consequence of PR's physical abuse of JBR?

 

[BBB167893]

OK then, have you decided that the bruise in the photo is the consequence of PR's physical abuse of JBR?

I've decided that's likely what caused it. There are other possibilities, but I gravitate towards it, yes.

 

[LinasK]

Hey Tad,

Some of the stuff you've got me saying in the preceding post, I never said.

Creative quoting, I guess.

Meanwhile, the question is: How is it that some of us, who never knew or observed JBR in life, have a greater advantage of recognizing abuse than JBR's closest associates? Why do we claim to be the only ones capable of recognizing 'the right number of bruises in just the right places?'


JBR's close associates before the murder: "That bruise is normal for a kid," or "I've never seen abuse before, I'm new at this."

Armchair experts 100's of miles away, after the murder: "Those parents had to be abusing that kid, just look at that bruise!"


If the only reason you see abuse is because JBR was murdered, and that allows us to believe we have special 'hindsight' powers into what really happened, is really application of flawed circular reasoning. AKA a lynch-mob mentality.

Because HOH, some of us have experienced it firsthand, that's how! Are you aware that most child abuse takes place behind closed doors? The perps get away with it because they can, they are opportunists. The same parents that might be pillars of society- the BTK killer for example was high up in his church. The victims are often not believed. It could just be a bruise, but when you put the pieces together with a dysfunctional family, chances are it's alot more than just normal bruising.

 

[JMO8778]

Thank you, SD.I just have to wonder why Hold would keep torturing him/herself by reading our apparently oh-so-awful posts (in hir opinion).if RDI's are that bad,then one would think it would be a real drain on oneself.

 

[JMO8778]

Because HOH, some of us have experienced it firsthand, that's how! Are you aware that most child abuse takes place behind closed doors? The perps get away with it because they can, they are opportunists. The same parents that might be pillars of society- the BTK killer for example was high up in his church. The victims are often not believed. It could just be a bruise, but when you put the pieces together with a dysfunctional family, chances are it's alot more than just normal bruising.

for sure, like Dr Beuf would really want to go up against the wealthy R family,who went to church at that?? obviously he didn't.and JB went to a private school,too.would anyone there have wanted to risk turning them in? who would want to challenge the R's,and risk being raked over the coals,reputations ruined if nothing came of it?? they'd be accused of making false allegations and who knows what else.Remember the motto for Boulder : 'forty sq miles, surrounded by reality'.I imagine most folks there knew what would happen if they dared go up against a wealthy family with connections.

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you, SD.I just have to wonder why Hold would keep torturing him/herself by reading our apparently oh-so-awful posts (in hir opinion).if RDI's are that bad,then one would think it would be a real drain on oneself.

Maybe he finds us interesting.

As Sun Tzu said, "know thine enemy."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I've decided that's likely what caused it. There are other possibilities, but I gravitate towards it, yes.

I think that if there was no murder, and all I had were the bruise and the arm-gripping photos, I wouldn't make any decision without first interviewing people to find out what they claimed happened.

Deciding without even hearing the other argument.

Hmm...

Its a little bit like skipping a trial and going straight to judgement, if you know what I mean.

Now if you want to simply claim that the bruising, gripping, and strangling to death all simply fall within the 'big picture,' then I suppose you've got Carte Blanche on any claim you wish to make. Of course, the 'big picture' is a concept that only exists in your mind.