JMO8778,
This is all based on interpretating Patsy's behaviour, there can be inumerable reasons why she said that, this is simply circumstantial evidence. But more likely than not, this is her subconscious mind telling the truth. And if one does not want that to happen, than they have to be extremely aware of how they are answering questions and at that point in the interview, Patsy was speaking fast and not thinking. She told the truth.
So does John and Burke, and to pronounce Patsy guilty on the basis of behaviour such as corporal punishment or corporal cleaning, which have absolutely no evidence to back them up, seems rather arbitrary to me.
Sure and there may be thousands of parents across the USofA disciplining their children for lax toilet hygiene, but they do not go on to kill them, this aspect was obviously a theory considered by the investigators, but then given low priority due to the lack of any supporting evidence, while all the indicators pointed towards an incest theory, even if the latter is false. Curiously on this topic, there is more of a case to be made for someone disciplining JonBenet for soiling her underwear, since stained underwear was removed from JonBenet's underwear drawer, but then what has douching to do with soiling your underwear. According to Steve Thomas and other detectives on the case, they have seen parents kill their children for just such a reason as bedwetting. What has douching to do with soiling underwear - I will explain. Patsy in her warped thinking had just gone through Stage IV cancer and was concerned about the ongoing rashes and damp underwear and was concerned about infections and she thought she was cleaning her and probably teaching her a lesson, but rather she was drying her out and not letting the natural fluids take over.
Anyway some people consider JonBenet's lax toilet hygiene to be a consequence of sexual abuse, so her disciplining, if any at all, may have its origins elsewhere, and be incidental as a motive for her death. Some people may consider that, but he overwhelming evidence points to the fact that while Patsy was very sick, Neddie did NOT teach JonBenet hygiene and when Patsy got her, she was well into wetting her bed and not cleaning properly resulting in damp underwear.
We know the two things that killed JonBenet e.g. strangulation and head injury, both are itemised on the autopsy report as causing death by asphyxia, anyone care to disagree with those findings?
JonBenet has multiple markings or abrasions on her neck e.g. lower ones and and an upper ligature abrasion, these patently result from an attempt at asphyxiation on either or both locations, then there is her head injury which split her skull open, which on its own would probably have resulted in her death. Now neglecting the other abrasions and assault markings on JonBenet's body, the former abrasions and head injury tell you this was no accident, someone deliberately and calculatingly strangled and bludgeoned JonBenet to death, they did not want her to wake up, that is why there is apparent overkill. OR she was dragged from her bed with the person doing the dragging twisting her her shirt and digging in with their THUMB, which marking is plainly seen on JonBenet's neck. This person is in a violent rage and not completely aware of the gravity of her actions? She is in the throws of a violent rage and proceeds to throw JB against the bathtup. Jb would have landed with the back of her head hitting the bathtub first, hence the rectangular wound on the back of her head. So there we have the strangulation and the blow happening in one fell swoop. And then we have a shaking of JB by someone who then realized the damage she had done. There is bruising to prove there was shaking.
Now if you consider JonBenet's sexual injuries and the coroners comments about sexual activity prior to JonBenet's death, along with the evidence of prior chronic sexual abuse, and factor in that JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then there is prima facea evidence that we are dealing with a sexually motivated homicide. For those that say she was abused, there are those who say she was not.
This is before we consider if it was an intruder, or incest, a friend of burke, someone from the white's party etc, or Patsy losing it etc?
So I would suggest to you that its not, quoting you, hard to know what for sure was going on, actually proving something is a different ball game? This wold have been proven had Detective Idiot, or should I say Detective Arndt and Eller done what was needed and separated the parents at the outset.
.
.
