I get what you're trying to say and it's been a sore spot for me too. In most of the cases I've read about where a mother kills her child/ren, even if there weren't obvious signs prior to the murder, after the fact people close to the individual who look back and more closely analyze their behavior, find red flags that weren't interpreted as red flags at the time. Or perhaps in hindsight a motive (boyfriend doesn't want woman w/kids) comes to light.
In order to really believe it was Patsy, I want to hear SOMETHING ANYTHING that indicates that she was at the end of her ropes and not coping well. I want someone to come forward and say that Patsy had a hot temper, even if that person never thought it crossed the line into abuse. I want to hear SOMETHING that indicates that Patsy could be capable of defiling her daughter's poor damaged body even as a staging attempt because IMO it's one thing for a mother to shut her eyes and shoot or drive her car into a lake and another to have the capacity to savage your child's body after an accident *even to save yourself*. It's about degree not ability - she may have had the ability to kill probably accidentally, but the ability to do the multiple brutal things that were done to that little girl is a whole other realm of evil. That takes a sadist not simply someone who has the ability to fly into a momentary rage. So I do understand what you're saying. What makes it so hard to hang this on Patsy is *the degree of the brutality involved*.
I'm still so confused about this case myself. I've never thought it was the Ramsey's and after reading here, I'm now swaying from "they couldn't have" to "maybe they did". Everyone's got such valid points to make on both sides, it seems impossible to come to a firm conclusion.