I've had it!

[Nuisanceposter]

I don't subscribe to the pedo ring theory, but I have given it consideration. I just don't believe that Patsy was desperate enough for social acceptance to allow her daughter to be sexually abused in this manner. I suspect the sexual abuse was perpetrated by a Ramsey, possibly even Patsy herself, but I cannot believe she was not only allowing but helping anyone else molest JonBenet, and I do not believe she would cover up for someone other than a Ramsey.

How would she be unaware that the molesters were allowing others to get their hands on JonBenet too, unless she was allowing them to take JonBenet somewhere else to molest her? Why would she allow molesters to show up that late on Christmas night for any session of abuse or photos or whatever? I can't see it, especially when they needed to get up early to make the flight for Michigan the next morning.

 

[Brefie]

OK Linda7NJ, perhaps you believe it was John, but I'll ignore that for the moment because I most definitely do not.

What if I said maybe Patsy only suspected two people were abusing JonBenet, one of them being a close relative of hers, one a close friend of both hers and John's and she was only turning a blind eye to the abuse she suspected they were perpetrating. Now two is probably not enough to qualify as a 'ring'.

What if I theorised that also Patsy had no idea that a wider circle of associates of these two pedophiles were actually involved in the prior abuse of JonBenet? And that Patsy had no idea at all of this larger group of pedophiles that could be categorised as a ring? Could you believe that?

NO.

This just gets weirder. Patsy ships off JB with God knows who to do God knows what with her? Just to be invited to dinner with the right people??

Seemingly they were exactly the right kind of people. They had a home the whole town wanted to get a look at, a child so beautiful she won pageants and a husband who was so successful he was written up in the paper.

Why not wait for the 'right' friends to come to you? Why pimp out your baby?

 

[sandraladeda]

NO.

This just gets weirder. Patsy ships off JB with God knows who to do God knows what with her? Just to be invited to dinner with the right people??

Seemingly they were exactly the right kind of people. They had a home the whole town wanted to get a look at, a child so beautiful she won pageants and a husband who was so successful he was written up in the paper.

Why not wait for the 'right' friends to come to you? Why pimp out your baby?

Bang on Brefie. The Ramsey's had piles of social standing. The "pedophile ring/Patsy seeking social standing/failing to face the fact that her friends were abusing her daughter" theory has no foundation in fact.

It's great to come up with theories. It's great to brainstorm ideas to solve this mystery. But there has to be a foundation in fact, otherwise, it's just an ugly fantasy, and contributes nothing to rational discussion of the case.

imo

 

[rashomon]

Bang on Brefie. The Ramsey's had piles of social standing. The "pedophile ring/Patsy seeking social standing/failing to face the fact that her friends were abusing her daughter" theory has no foundation in fact.

It's great to come up with theories. It's great to brainstorm ideas to solve this mystery. But there has to be a foundation in fact, otherwise, it's just an ugly fantasy, and contributes nothing to rational discussion of the case.

imo

Excellent points sandraladeda and Brefie. The very wealthy Ramseys were already the cream of the crop socially in Boulder, so there was no need for them to 'seek social standing' among their Boulder friends. They were no social climbers seeking room at the top - they were at the top.

Therefore the "pedophile-friends" theory is based on a wrong assumption.

 

[narlacat]

QUOTE>>What if I said maybe Patsy only suspected two people were abusing JonBenet, one of them being a close relative of hers<<

Sorry if I've missed this somewhere, which close relative Aussie??

 

[aussiesheila]

is the one I mean, Narlacat

 

[narlacat]

Yeah, I thought so.
I am sus on him too.
There's not much to find about him, though I did find something last night about him, but bloody hell I can't remember what it was right now, had lots going on this morning...school's back!!
Did he have a nurse at some stage?? Something about an incident with a nurse, maybe Patsy's? Did she have a nurse when she was sick at any stage?

 

[ellen13]

Yeah, I thought so.
I am sus on him too.
There's not much to find about him, though I did find something last night about him, but bloody hell I can't remember what it was right now, had lots going on this morning...school's back!!
Did he have a nurse at some stage?? Something about an incident with a nurse, maybe Patsy's? Did she have a nurse when she was sick at any stage?

Narla,
Hi there. I wanted to send a pm, but it wouldn't go through. Do you feel
like chatting?
Ellen13

 

[narlacat]

Ellen hi
I'm not sure why my inbox won't accept your pm. I got an email saying you tried to send one and checked to see if my inbox was full, but it wasn't, so......maybe try once more, otherwise I'll ms'g someone about it.

 

[Camper]

The missing period, hmmm.

Yoo Hoo Blue Crab, the missing period fits right in with one of your/our prime suspects, Mr. X the live in tutor, who was of asian descent.

HOW would he IF he wrote or composed the note, know of the Ramsey bonus amount, in order to include it in the ransom note/letter/tome?

Then WE have the quote of Patsy in PMPT, saying "We didn't mean for this to happen".

Was our Mr. X fluent in French ? for the attache case with the hyphen?

How fluent do you have to be to mispell business ? and include such special traits of two other ethnic languages? :liar:

.

 

[aussiesheila]

Excellent points sandraladeda and Brefie. The very wealthy Ramseys were already the cream of the crop socially in Boulder, so there was no need for them to 'seek social standing' among their Boulder friends. They were no social climbers seeking room at the top - they were at the top.

Therefore the "pedophile-friends" theory is based on a wrong assumption.

No rashomon, you can’t dismiss my theory that easily. Even if I have been unable to explain the phenomenon of mother’s turning a ‘blind eye’ to their daughter’s abuse, the fact is it does happen.

Asking why is much the same as asking why battered wives stay with their husbands. People not in the same position as them simply cannot understand why they don’t leave them. But they don’t. I think it has something to do with the way they were treated as children, maybe they watched their own mothers being battered by their fathers. Some girls growing up in a family where this happens accept battering as normal and what a woman deserves. I think it is much the same thing with women who are sexually abused as children who go on to let their own children be abused because they feel it is 'normal'. I think there is some evidence to suggest that Patsy was herself, sexually abused as a child.

 

[BlueCrab]

Yoo Hoo Blue Crab, the missing period fits right in with one of your/our prime suspects, Mr. X the live in tutor, who was of asian descent.

Was our Mr. X fluent in French ? for the attache case with the hyphen?

Camper,

Yes, the missing period could be an important clue. It can link APAC's signature to the ransom note's signature.

Incidentally, there is no hyphen over the "e" in attache. What looks like a hyphen is simply the tail end of the "y" in the line above. There are several other y's in the note that duplicate the y that looks like a hyphen.

BlueCrab

 

[aussiesheila]

I don't suspect John more than I suspect any other Ramsey of sexually abusing Jon Benet. I just don't think, even a small ring, had anything to do with it.

I think the sexual abuse as well as the murder were committed by a Ramsey or two..or three..

I suppose I could possibly, if pushed, believe the theory that some young males had been sexually abusing JonBenet and ended up killing her and that Patsy went along with the coverup.

There is no way though that I could believe that John would have allowed such an absurd ransom note to be concocted, Patsy yes but John - most emphatically - no.

But the weakest part of this theory is why has there been nothing untoward come out in the 10 years since the murder in relation to their behaviour. I mean that, if they were so disturbed and so perverted at ages 10 to 20, that they were constructing neck ligatures, handling stunguns and smashing a little girl's skull in, over the ensuing years they would have continued in that mode of behaviour and probably become even more disturbed and perverted. Yet absolutely nothing has ever been reported along those lines. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this is IMO that they were not so disturbed and perverted at 10 to 20 that they could have committed this murder.