Just Patsy, only Patsy

[Linda7NJ]

Just throwing this out there... What if the murder and ALL the staging was Patsy? Perhaps John figured it out at some point and decided he wasn't single dad material and his business would suffer,so he shut up.. Perhaps it was simply denial.

 

[bettybaby00]

Just throwing this out there... What if the murder and ALL the staging was Patsy? Perhaps John figured it out at some point and decided he wasn't single dad material and his business would suffer,so he shut up.. Perhaps it was simply denial.

:seeya: I can't buy any of the Rs did it ALL alone. I just can't believe that either John or patsy would "cover" for the other for nearly 10 years. It's all about the prior sexual abuse for me, once that comes out post autopsy it would change everything!!!! Just my opinion of course.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:seeya: I can't buy any of the Rs did it ALL alone. I just can't believe that either John or patsy would "cover" for the other for nearly 10 years. It's all about the prior sexual abuse for me.

IMO the prior sexual abuse certainly doesn't exclude Patsy. no reason to believe she wasn't capable. Her acting alone would explain everything.

The phrase " little bit molested" keeps nagging me.

 

[bettybaby00]

IMO the prior sexual abuse certainly doesn't exclude Patsy. no reason to believe she wasn't capable. Her acting alone would explain everything.

The phrase " little bit molested" keeps nagging me.

That wasn't what I meant. I didn't explain myself very well. IA that prior abuse doesn't exclude PR. I probably shouldn't have chimed in when I know my own bias clouds my judgement on single RDI theories. it's just very hard for me to accept that when sexual abuse is revealed that its "accepted" by the non abusing spouse. However, i know it does happen. I've tried to put my thoughts in order for myself many times, but I just keep confusing myself :lol:

The quote above is beyond disturbing to be sure, but so is this entire case. There are so many aspects of the case where I become hopelessly muddled. It can't be approach rationally b/c nothing about this case is rational. The only conviction I feel certain of is that Ramsey involvement is evident.

 

[BOESP]

Just thro wing this out there... What if the murder and ALL the staging was Patsy? Perhaps John figured it out at some point and decided he wasn't single dad material and his business would suffer,so he shut up.. Perhaps it was simply denial.

BBM. That's still my preferred theory based on information in the public domain except I don't see any angle with him being a single dad.

I'd speculate John was more apt to not want the responsibility of putting his cancer-striken wife through a trial accompanied by a prison sentence. Whatever happened may have had reckless but accidental intent (with the exception of the staging and possibly the ligature strangulation). Plus he might not have wanted Burke to have that albatross to carry through life (a mother who died in prison).

It seems John's first statements inadvertently pointed toward Patsy and when he finally figured out he might be correct he changed his stance. I think his slip-ups about finding JonBenet "late that morning" or "about 11:00 AM" (or words to that effect) point to him finding the body and figuring out what happened. In turn, that suggests he initially had no idea what happened until whoever did it "confided in one other person" as Patsy said on television.

The Grand Jury findings included a true bill against both parents. John could have failed to take steps to insure that his child or children were protected from a mother who was out of control. Who he should have/could have protected them from is the $64,000 question (in my mind).

As I've said before, I still haven't seen or read anything that convinces me that, for the most part, Steve Thomas was not correct. I could be wrong. But maybe not.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM. That's still my preferred theory based on information in the public domain except I don't see any angle with him being a single dad.

I'd speculate John was more apt to not want the responsibility of putting his cancer-striken wife through a trial accompanied by a prison sentence when whatever it was that happened may have been an accident (with the exception of the staging). Plus he might not have wanted Burke to have that albatross to carry through life.

It seems John's first statements inadvertently pointed toward Patsy and when he finally figured out he might be correct he changed his stance. I think his slip-ups about finding JonBenet "late that morning" or "about 11:00 AM" (or words to that effect) point to him finding the body and figuring out what happened. In turn, that suggests he initially no idea what happened until whoever did it "confided in one other person" as Patsy said on television.

The Grand Jury findings included a true bill against both parents. John could have failed to take steps to insure that his child or children were protected from a mother who was out of control. Who he should have/could have protected them from is the $64,000 question (in my mind).

As I've said before, I still haven't seen or read anything that convinces me that, for the most part, Steve Thomas was not correct. I could be wrong. But maybe not.

BOESP,
PDI it definitely could be. But not ST's version which I reckon was a litigation proof version of PDI. All that stuff about Vaginal Trauma etc, contrast Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks which conclude Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration, i.e. not penetration via foreign object!

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet the night of 12/25/1996. This is what was being covered up, not any prior Corporal Punishment.

So the question is did Patsy sexually assault JonBenet then whack her on the head then ligature asphyxiate her?

Missing from the R's version that night is Patsy's true role. I think JonBenet was wide awake and as BR stated, she walked into the house. Did Patsy help prepare the pineapple snack, did Patsy ask JonBenet to dress for bed before the snack or after, if no to both questions, who tied JonBenet's hair using the hair ties and why? Why did Patsy not clear the breakfast bar so to make the R's version consistent, or again was she ignorant?

Also if its PDI why does Patsy know nothing about the size-12's, a piece of major crime-scene evidence, about which Patsy offers an incoherent narrative, resulting in the size-12's being found at a later date in a packing crate.

I reckon Patsy knows little about certain events because its not PDI. Yet I also think Patsy helped with the staging, possibly ligature strangling JonBenet?

.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
PDI it definitely could be. But not ST's version which I reckon was a litigation proof version of PDI. All that stuff about Vaginal Trauma etc, contrast Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks which conclude Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration, i.e. not penetration via foreign object!

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet the night of 12/25/1996. This is what was being covered up, not any prior Corporal Punishment.

So the question is did Patsy sexually assault JonBenet then whack her on the head then ligature asphyxiate her?

Missing from the R's version that night is Patsy's true role. I think JonBenet was wide awake and as BR stated, she walked into the house. Did Patsy help prepare the pineapple snack, did Patsy ask JonBenet to dress for bed before the snack or after, if no to both questions, who tied JonBenet's hair using the hair ties and why? Why did Patsy not clear the breakfast bar so to make the R's version consistent, or again was she ignorant?

Also if its PDI why does Patsy know nothing about the size-12's, a piece of major crime-scene evidence, about which Patsy offers an incoherent narrative, resulting in the size-12's being found at a later date in a packing crate.

I reckon Patsy knows little about certain events because its not PDI. Yet I also think Patsy helped with the staging, possibly ligature strangling JonBenet?

.

BBM. Patsy has eight fingers and two thumbs. We know she was questioned about Desitin use. In my mind, digital penetration could/would be a part of "corporal cleansing." I don't recall Thomas mentioning penetration with a foreign object being a part of his theory but maybe I don't remember.

Patsy told lies. That's clear to anyone whose read her statements and "Death of Innocence." Patsy's numerous "I don't remember" comments are a statement to me. Trying to determine which were lies and which weren't is an interesting study -- to me her videos are easy reading.

It's not clear the ligature strangulation's purpose was to kill JonBenet. Maybe whoever did it thought she was already dead. Maybe it was to cover a different method of strangulation. Maybe it was to stop JonBenet's suffering. Maybe Patsy tied JonBenet to keep her still while she cleaned up a giant mess or maybe it was for other purposes.

I think Kolar and Thomas, plus the edited/transcribed interviews are the public's best windows into what happened. Why would Thomas exonerate John Ramsey in his book and not Patsy if John were also guilty? The only reason I can think of is Thomas hoped to get Patsy or John to spill the beans out of guilt for Patsy being accused when she didn't really do it but to me that's not a likely reason.

 

[bettybaby00]

BBM. Patsy has eight fingers and two thumbs. We know she was questioned about Desitin use. In my mind, digital penetration could/would be a part of "corporal cleansing." I don't recall Thomas mentioning penetration with a foreign object being a part of his theory but maybe I don't remember.

Patsy told lies. That's clear to anyone whose read her statements and "Death of Innocence." Patsy's numerous "I don't remember" comments are a statement to me. Trying to determine which were lies and which weren't is an interesting study -- to me her videos are easy reading.

It's not clear the ligature strangulation's purpose was to kill JonBenet. Maybe whoever did it thought she was already dead. Maybe it was to cover a different method of strangulation. Maybe it was to stop JonBenet's suffering. Maybe Patsy tied JonBenet to keep her still while she cleaned up a giant mess or maybe it was for other purposes.

I think Kolar and Thomas, plus the edited/transcribed interviews are the public's best windows into what happened. Why would Thomas exonerate John Ramsey in his book and not Patsy if John were also guilty? The only reason I can think of is Thomas hoped to get Patsy or John to spill the beans out of guilt for Patsy being accused when she didn't really do it but to me that's not a likely reason.

BBM

The lying, obfuscation, and legal maneuvering is the giveaway for me. I get it that parents (or anyone) can be falsely suspected of a crime they didn't commit...but they didn't even give LE the chance to openly suspect or challenge their story!!! The fact that JR was trying to make plans to get out of Dodge HOURS after her body was "discovered," while at the same time lawyering up speaks volumes IMO.

 

[BOESP]

BBM

The lying, obfuscation, and legal maneuvering is the giveaway for me. I get it that parents (or anyone) can be falsely suspected of a crime they didn't commit...but they didn't even give LE the chance to openly suspect or challenge their story!!! The fact that JR was trying to make plans to get out of Dodge HOURS after her body was "discovered," while at the same time lawyering up speaks volumes IMO.

Yep and BBM: that is a real kicker for me.

I've always thought they made donkey butts out of themselves with the preposterous story that LE was going to hold JonBenet's body for ransom yet the Ramseys were ready to leave Boulder ASAP without her.

Where I live, in a homicide, you were lucky to have gotten the body back within six weeks in 1996. I think they've cut it back to 3-5 days now, depending on caseload, but what parent would question how long it took if evidence could be gathered that pointed to who killed the victim? Maybe a Ramsey parent? :maddening:

 

[UKGuy]

BBM. Patsy has eight fingers and two thumbs. We know she was questioned about Desitin use. In my mind, digital penetration could/would be a part of "corporal cleansing." I don't recall Thomas mentioning penetration with a foreign object being a part of his theory but maybe I don't remember.

Patsy told lies. That's clear to anyone whose read her statements and "Death of Innocence." Patsy's numerous "I don't remember" comments are a statement to me. Trying to determine which were lies and which weren't is an interesting study -- to me her videos are easy reading.

It's not clear the ligature strangulation's purpose was to kill JonBenet. Maybe whoever did it thought she was already dead. Maybe it was to cover a different method of strangulation. Maybe it was to stop JonBenet's suffering. Maybe Patsy tied JonBenet to keep her still while she cleaned up a giant mess or maybe it was for other purposes.

I think Kolar and Thomas, plus the edited/transcribed interviews are the public's best windows into what happened. Why would Thomas exonerate John Ramsey in his book and not Patsy if John were also guilty? The only reason I can think of is Thomas hoped to get Patsy or John to spill the beans out of guilt for Patsy being accused when she didn't really do it but to me that's not a likely reason.

BOESP,
Well I reckon the "corporal cleansing" motive is simply ST's way of accusing PR, because he cannot pin down JR, possibly because his involvement is minimal. ST would not have been allowed to publish his book if he printed who the BPD really thought killed JonBenet, never mind any allegations regarding sexual assault, which trained officers had briefed ST about. The editor would have redacted it all, on the grounds the R's would aggressively litigate.

Thomas hoped to get Patsy or John to spill the beans out of guilt for Patsy being accused

More likely a guilt trip for Patsy with ST hoping she might break and rope in JR?

It could be a lone PDI, a sort of reverse DocG theory, but one that is inherently more consistent.

Rather than "corporal cleansing" being the focus in this PDI it would be more consistent to assume Patsy sexually assaulted JonBenet, for whatever reason, maybe she had one drink too many, or too many tranquilisers, or she is carrying baggage over from her childhood via pageants, all of which she projected onto JonBenet, resulting in the death of JonBenet. With PR's forensic evidence all over the wine-cellar and the paint-tote that aspect seems self evident?

.

 

[txsvicki]

Didn't Linda Pugh claim to regularly hear screams from the bathroom? JonBenet crying and not feeling pretty on a dress up party day seems like a big issue.

 

[UKGuy]

Didn't Linda Pugh claim to regularly hear screams from the bathroom? JonBenet crying and not feeling pretty on a dress up party day seems like a big issue.

txsvicki,
So maybe all the R's were involved at some stage, i.e. the family was so dysfunctional they visited different trauma on each other.

Maybe PR was engaged in some questionable practise with JonBenet?

Maybe BR was playing doctors with JonBenet?

Maybe JR turned to JonBenet, since PR was absent due to chemotherapy?

And it all converged with the death of JonBenet just before midnight on 12/26/1996, because all the R's were holding secrets from each other, hence the need for amnesia?

.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yep and BBM: that is a real kicker for me.

I've always thought they made donkey butts out of themselves with the preposterous story that LE was going to hold JonBenet's body for ransom yet the Ramseys were ready to leave Boulder ASAP without her.

Where I live, in a homicide, you were lucky to have gotten the body back within six weeks in 1996. I think they've cut it back to 3-5 days now, depending on caseload, but what parent would question how long it took if evidence could be gathered that pointed to who killed the victim? Maybe a Ramsey parent? :maddening:

The"holding the body for ransom" was a complete spin created by team R as a way to justify bringing in lawyers. As you state, it was more about wanting to do additional forensic work rather than trying to hold her body captive in exchange for the Rs submitting to questioning. Which by the way, would have been a normal part of the process. 1st rule: rule out family first so that the focus can shift elsewhere, and this process also allows the family to become proactive participants in the investigation rather than an obstacle that LE must overcome.

According to Kolar, JR stated that they idea of getting legal representation was first introduced by a friend on Friday evening after the murder when LE stopped by FWs to try and schedule an interview with the Rs. His friend interrupts, calling a 'time out,' b/c LE were trying to 'haul him down to the station'. (321) However, and not surprisingly, this statement is later revealed to be false..

"This statement clearly does not account for the FACT that Rs attorneys had actually been attempting to reach FW on the very afternoon after the discovery of JBs body, and were seeking to interview him first thing Friday morning." (321)

Again, not only does JR lie about the chain of events, they then use the lie to further a false narrative which bolsters their claims that BPD were erroneously focusing on them while holding JBs body for ransom.

Also of note is more evidence of JRs ever evolving statements which attempt to show their lack of duplicity.

In his new book, "the other side of innocence," his latest version recounts these events as follows: "JR states that he received a phone call from a friend the day after the murder. This person told him that they had been asked to get a message to him, and the message was, 'the police are out to get you...the police think you murdered JonBenet.'" (322)

How can anyone not question their innocence with this type of behavior??????

 

[RiverRat]

We can't have a Patsy thread without my Avatar & the Ransom Note/Patsy IDENTICAL Freaky Q Sample!

Carry on, Soldiers ~ :seeya:
RR

 

[KoldKase]

We can't have a Patsy thread without my Avatar & the Ransom Note/Patsy IDENTICAL Freaky Q Sample!

Carry on, Soldiers ~ :seeya:
RR

If people saw evidence Team Ramsey has managed to keep hidden all these years, like charts and notes from professional handwriting analysts who did them, they'd have no doubt who wrote that ransom note.

[Where you been, Rat?! Good to see you, as always. :blowkiss:]

 

[KoldKase]

txsvicki,
So maybe all the R's were involved at some stage, i.e. the family was so dysfunctional they visited different trauma on each other.

Maybe PR was engaged in some questionable practise with JonBenet?

Maybe BR was playing doctors with JonBenet?

Maybe JR turned to JonBenet, since PR was absent due to chemotherapy?

And it all converged with the death of JonBenet just before midnight on 12/26/1996, because all the R's were holding secrets from each other, hence the need for amnesia?

.

I've always suspected this crime was so convoluted because it was committed with contributions from all those in the house that night.

The family that slays together stays together?

 

[Chelly]

If people saw evidence Team Ramsey has managed to keep hidden all these years, like charts and notes from professional handwriting analysts who did them, they'd have no doubt who wrote that ransom note.

[Where you been, Rat?! Good to see you, as always. :blowkiss:]

And if we saw all that hidden evidence, we'd have no doubt who committed the murder. Where is all that evidence stashed anyway? In some warehouse?
Good to see you back KK. (I was a shy lurker during most of your posting here.)

 

[KoldKase]

And if we saw all that hidden evidence, we'd have no doubt who committed the murder. Where is all that evidence stashed anyway? In some warehouse?
Good to see you back KK. (I was a shy lurker during most of your posting here.)

Thanks, Chelly. Glad you came out of the shadows to join the discussion. An old cold case like this one needs all the help it can get.

Best guess about all that evidence? File 13...with a match. :stormingmad:

 

[bettybaby00]

And if we saw all that hidden evidence, we'd have no doubt who committed the murder. Where is all that evidence stashed anyway? In some warehouse?
Good to see you back KK. (I was a shy lurker during most of your posting here.)

Also jumping off KKs post

Even if we attribute the Rs lawyering up as normal, their efforts to IMPEDE the investigation was not, and can't be rationalized away. If they had nothing to hide, their money and cadre of lawyers would have provided ample "protection" while still allowing the investigation to move forward.

 

[DeeDee249]

Glad to see you back, Rat! And glad you decided to join in, Chelly.