Paradox, Steve, and John

[DeeDee249]

I don't think the Rs were monsters before JBR's death. Annoying, self-centered show-offs. Not people I'd like to be friends with, but not monsters. But I think they were monsters after. The way they coldly staged the crime, the way they coldly offered up nearly everyone they ever knew to police as the possible killer, the way they walked out of that house leaving their daughter's dead body, yet making sure Aunt P got JR's GOLF BAG out of the house (yeah, THAT was SO much more important. Leave the dead kid, but make sure we get that golf bag). The way they stonewalled the investigation through the years. All of that was monstrous. Oh, and lets not forget the way they got away with murder.

 

[coloradokares]

I don't think the Rs were monsters before JBR's death. Annoying, self-centered show-offs. Not people I'd like to be friends with, but not monsters. But I think they were monsters after. The way they coldly staged the crime, the way they coldly offered up nearly everyone they ever knew to police as the possible killer, the way they walked out of that house leaving their daughter's dead body, yet making sure Aunt P got JR's GOLF BAG out of the house (yeah, THAT was SO much more important. Leave the dead kid, but make sure we get that golf bag). The way they stonewalled the investigation through the years. All of that was monstrous. Oh, and lets not forget the way they got away with murder.

Exactly, you rightly completed my thoughts.

 

[rashomon]

What could John say? Ask Patsy!

There is a huge, huge, huge difference between participating with someone in a crime and running interference.

I can see one person losing it that night, but two? Not likely. I do not subscribe to the idea that the Ramsey's were evil people.

A person losing it is not automatically an evil person.
Aside from that: if Patsy lost it and John covered up for her, John has not 'lost it' too, but made a calculated decision.

If Patsy runs to John immediately why wouldn't an ambulance be called?

Being JonBenet's chronic sexual abuser may have been the reason for John not to call an ambulance.

Managing the head injury was doable. John could have managed that without getting out of a chair.

What exactly do you mean by "mananging the head injury was doable"?

Managing the cord around the neck and her faked sexual attack was not doable. If you are going to throw John in before these happened then you need a motive. Prior sexual abuse isn't a motive.

But of course it could be a motive. Imo it could be THE motive not to take Jonbenet to the hospital, for fear of chronic sexual abuse being discoverd during the examination. Instead a sexual predator scene was staged, suggesting a 'tortured and killed' scenario. It could have been John himself who suggested this to Patsy (who may not have known anything about the chronic abuse. For the sexual chronic abuse and the rage attack could have occurred independently of each other - another variable to be considered).

We aren't talking about tearing up a traffic ticket here. One of two things happened after the head injury. JonBenet had the cord put around her neck while it was known she was still alive or it was thought she was already dead. So you are either killing your child or you are defiling her dead body. Society kind of frowns on these two things. IDI's are correct on this being a huge point. You don't go down this road for giggles.

Of course it is a huge point. But what does this have to do with your claim that John was not involved?
So John knew that Patsy either murdered their daughter or defiled her dead body, even if he may not have not participated in the staging of the scene. But still he chose to cover up for her by lying to the public.

There is no motive.

John lied to the public, covering up for Patsy. He must have had a reason for doing so. Why do you think he lied?

If he became aware with enough time before the 911 call, why didn't he lose the ransom note or have her write a different one?

What do you think would have happened if the police had discovered the dead body in the home without the ransom note to misdirect the attention to an alleged 'outside' element? The Ramseys would have been arrested on the spot imo.
And the Ramseys may well have tried to write several ransom note versions, since nine pages had been torn out from the pad. It seems this final version was the best they could come up with, absurd as it sounds.

He could have figured this is your mess, you suffer the consequences.

If Patsy wrote the note without help from John, this may indeed have been his motive: not to get involved in the staging so that in case the police should not buy it, LE could not implicate him as abettor.

 

[BBB167893]

A person losing it is not automatically an evil person.
Aside from that: if Patsy lost it and John covered up for her, John has not 'lost it' too, but made a calculated decision.

Even so, rashomon, that doesn't make him evil. Bear with me on this. He knew his wife was fragile, health-wise. She'd probably die in prison. Maybe John blamed himself for JB's death for not spotting the warning signs in time. In his mind, he had killed JB. And if he sent Patsy to prison, he would have killed her too. He would have left his son with no sister and no mother. Burke would likely grow up to hate his father if he'd done that.

No, as much as he loved JB, and I've NEVER doubted that he did, it was too late to help her. But he COULD save Patsy. He COULD save Burke. I can't even imagine what that must be like. And, if the Gods will it, I'll never HAVE to find out.

 

[rashomon]

Even so, rashomon, that doesn't make him evil. Bear with me on this. He knew his wife was fragile, health-wise. She'd probably die in prison. Maybe John blamed himself for JB's death for not spotting the warning signs in time. In his mind, he had killed JB. And if he sent Patsy to prison, he would have killed her too. He would have left his son with no sister and no mother. Burke would likely grow up to hate his father if he'd done that.

No, as much as he loved JB, and I've NEVER doubted that he did, it was too late to help her. But he COULD save Patsy. He COULD save Burke. I can't even imagine what that must be like. And, if the Gods will it, I'll never HAVE to find out.

Dave, how would you interpret Dr. McCann's findings which point to possible chronic sexual abuse?
Do you believe JonBenet had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse?
If yes, who do you think was her abuser?

Another question: you mentioned Kim Ballard on another thread. Is this the woman John Ramsey allegedly had an affair with?

 

[RiverRat]

Even so, rashomon, that doesn't make him evil. Bear with me on this. He knew his wife was fragile, health-wise. She'd probably die in prison. Maybe John blamed himself for JB's death for not spotting the warning signs in time. In his mind, he had killed JB. And if he sent Patsy to prison, he would have killed her too. He would have left his son with no sister and no mother. Burke would likely grow up to hate his father if he'd done that.

No, as much as he loved JB, and I've NEVER doubted that he did, it was too late to help her. But he COULD save Patsy. He COULD save Burke. I can't even imagine what that must be like. And, if the Gods will it, I'll never HAVE to find out.

Sheer perfection posting, right there! :clap:

 

[coloradokares]

Even so, rashomon, that doesn't make him evil. Bear with me on this. He knew his wife was fragile, health-wise. She'd probably die in prison. Maybe John blamed himself for JB's death for not spotting the warning signs in time. In his mind, he had killed JB. And if he sent Patsy to prison, he would have killed her too. He would have left his son with no sister and no mother. Burke would likely grow up to hate his father if he'd done that.

No, as much as he loved JB, and I've NEVER doubted that he did, it was too late to help her. But he COULD save Patsy. He COULD save Burke. I can't even imagine what that must be like. And, if the Gods will it, I'll never HAVE to find out.

I have said this too SD. :clap:

 

[rashomon]

I have said this too SD. :clap:

But still imo it shows a considerable amount of callousness on John's part to agree to his wife tying a rope around his little daughter's neck and jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina. This is defiling of a dead body.
I'm also not at all sure if the Ramseys really believed that she was already dead.
Maybe they thought she was "as good as dead".
I do understand the point about Burke - but still, how many husbands would cover up for their wives in such a situation and help her stage such a cruel scene?

jmo

 

[coloradokares]

But still imo it shows an incredible amount of callousness on John's part to agree to his wife tying a rope around his little daughter's neck and jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina. This is defiling of a dead body.
I'm also not at all sure if the Ramseys really believed that she was already dead.
Maybe they thought she was "as good as dead". jmo

Would you or I have covered for a spouse in equal circumstances. I can answer for myself NO!! But the issue is not what we would have done but rather what would John have done. He tried everything he could to get out of Dodge and had the plane ready. He had ALOT to lose. Wealth,power, were only a very small part of what he stood to loose. What if he knew of highly suspected that Patsy was not just physically ill. That was demonstrated every time she opend her mouth he was pedaling as fast as he could to hush her up. Patsy said it in her last interveiw she ever participated in. From that moment everything became about Burke. I think the Ramseys realized that JonBenet was beyond physical pain and suffering and that at all costs they had to escape murder charges. But do I think this was premeditated and carried out like some sick execution. NO!

 

[JMO8778]

But still imo it shows a considerable amount of callousness on John's part to agree to his wife tying a rope around his little daughter's neck and jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina. This is defiling of a dead body.
I'm also not at all sure if the Ramseys really believed that she was already dead.
Maybe they thought she was "as good as dead".
I do understand the point about Burke - but still, how many husbands would cover up for their wives in such a situation and help her stage such a cruel scene?

jmo

..it's also possible that he didn't know until all was said and done,and he only participated in the underwear staging,as the last part of staging (cleaning her up),to be sure no R dna was on her there.That was critical.The opened boxes and too large underwear tend to indicate that,IMO.It's as if he asked Patsy for some brand new underwear for the staging,and she said the only thing in the house is wrapped down there,and he looked for,found,and used it.
Patsy's comment that 'she was screaming and JR was screaming when he came up from the basement' lead me to believe that was when she told him.It appears she did confess,just as she said the 'killer' did.What choice did she have?

I tend to think the murder brought out their true colors.Either they were good ppl or not ..how many ppl would throw their own dear former friends under the bus? Not to mention,the sickly Santa Bill,and total strangers who's lives got ruined.They seem to have thought nothing of letting some poor innocent person go down for it.
I tend to think JR was all about reputation,and didn't want the outside word to know the truth,in the name of keeping clean his 'family name'.That,and for Burke's sake.I suspect Patsy pleaded w. him not to turn her in,and he went along with it,thinking she wouldn't get away with it anyway.So at the least,it could appear to the outside world he didn't know what happened,and therefore couldn't have been involved in it.

 

[Ames]

..it's also possible that he didn't know until all was said and done,and he only participated in the underwear staging,as the last part of staging (cleaning her up),to be sure no R dna was on her there.That was critical.The opened boxes and too large underwear tend to indicate that,IMO.It's as if he asked Patsy for some brand new underwear for the staging,and she said the only thing in the house is wrapped down there,and he looked for,found,and used it.
Patsy's comment that 'she was screaming and JR was screaming when he came up from the basement' lead me to believe that was when she told him.It appears she did confess,just as she said the 'killer' did.What choice did she have?

I tend to think the murder brought out their true colors.Either they were good ppl or not ..how many ppl would throw their own dear former friends under the bus? Not to mention,the sickly Santa Bill,and total strangers who's lives got ruined.They seem to have thought nothing of letting some poor innocent person go down for it.
I tend to think JR was all about reputation,and didn't want the outside word to know the truth,in the name of keeping clean his 'family name'.That,and for Burke's sake.I suspect Patsy pleaded w. him not to turn her in,and he went along with it,thinking she wouldn't get away with it anyway.So at the least,it could appear to the outside world he didn't know what happened,and therefore couldn't have been involved in it.

I agree with you, in Patsy's interview...she starts out by saying that after she found the note that she screamed for John and that he CAME DOWN, etc. Then she says that she was screaming, and he was screaming as he CAME UP from the basement. I believe that after she delivered the accidental blow, and believed that JB was dead...(or wanted to put her out of her misery)....she panicked (BIG TIME) and placed JB down at the bottom of the basement stairs. I believe that John was already IN the bed when she screamed for him. He CAME DOWN....she told him what happened and where to find JB...he went down the stairs of the basement, found JB...checked her pulse, and probably tried to revive her...and then he came SCREAMING back up the stairs.

I also believe that Burke really had been asleep...until John and Patsy started screaming. I believe that he walked in on his mom, during the 911 call (which we all know is a fact)...but I believe that when he said..."What did you find"? He was referring to Patsy talking about the RN. Now if a child REALLY was missing..and a REAL ransom note had of been found...and while one of the parents were on the phone with 911, telling them about the RN... and the chld's sibling came in and said..."What did you find"? That would be a clue for the other parent...that is NOT on the phone to pull him aside and tell him what had happened....not say..."WE ARE NOT SPEAKING TO YOU".

BTW...I have heard this audiotape on TV, and it was quite clear to me what was said in the background.

 

[Solace]

There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.


Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.

Albert,

Just what did Steve ask John to clarify. I saw the show and I am not following you at all. Thanks, Solace

 

[rashomon]

..it's also possible that he didn't know until all was said and done,and he only participated in the underwear staging,as the last part of staging (cleaning her up),to be sure no R dna was on her there.That was critical.The opened boxes and too large underwear tend to indicate that,IMO.It's as if he asked Patsy for some brand new underwear for the staging,and she said the only thing in the house is wrapped down there,and he looked for,found,and used it.

This scenario is possible, and the autopsy findings evidence seem to support it.
For not much time elapsed between the head blow and the asphyxiation (there only was mild brain swellling, and had she lived longer, the brain would have swollen far more).
So maybe the thought to stage a scene rushed through Patsy's mind even before John knew what had happened, and she carried it out immediately by tying the cord around the neck and inflicting the genital wound?
And when John finally became aware of what she had done, taking the child to the hospital with a concocted story was no option anymore because the furrow around her neck and the vaginal wound couldn't be explained away by a fall down the stairs.

Patsy's comment that 'she was screaming and JR was screaming when he came up from the basement' lead me to believe that was when she told him. It appears she did confess,just as she said the 'killer' did.What choice did she have?

I tend to think the murder brought out their true colors.Either they were good ppl or not ..how many ppl would throw their own dear former friends under the bus? Not to mention,the sickly Santa Bill,and total strangers who's lives got ruined.They seem to have thought nothing of letting some poor innocent person go down for it.

That's what meant by them both being callous and calculating when it came to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

I tend to think JR was all about reputation,and didn't want the outside word to know the truth,in the name of keeping clean his 'family name'.That,and for Burke's sake.I suspect Patsy pleaded w. him not to turn her in,and he went along with it,thinking she wouldn't get away with it anyway.So at the least,it could appear to the outside world he didn't know what happened,and therefore couldn't have been involved in it

Just my opinion too.

 

[Solace]

This scenario is possible, and the autopsy findings evidence seem to support it.
For not much time elapsed between the head blow and the asphyxiation (there only was mild brain swellling, and had she lived longer, the brain would have swollen far more).
So maybe the thought to stage a scene rushed through Patsy's mind even before John knew what had happened, and she carried it out immediately by tying the cord around the neck and inflicting the genital wound?
And when John finally became aware of what she had done, taking the child to the hospital with a concocted story was no option anymore because the furrow around her neck and the vaginal wound couldn't be explained away by a fall down the stairs.

That's what meant by them both being callous and calculating when it came to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

Just my opinion too.

It really is amazing to me that Patsy could go on without becoming a full fledged drug addict. She probably was seriously addicted to pain killers - same thing.

 

[coloradokares]

This scenario is possible, and the autopsy findings evidence seem to support it.
For not much time elapsed between the head blow and the asphyxiation (there only was mild brain swellling, and had she lived longer, the brain would have swollen far more).
So maybe the thought to stage a scene rushed through Patsy's mind even before John knew what had happened, and she carried it out immediately by tying the cord around the neck and inflicting the genital wound?
And when John finally became aware of what she had done, taking the child to the hospital with a concocted story was no option anymore because the furrow around her neck and the vaginal wound couldn't be explained away by a fall down the stairs.

That's what meant by them both being callous and calculating when it came to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

Just my opinion too.

..

I still dont know how to do the highlighted quotes (sorry) I reference your statement That's What is meant by them both being callous and calculating when it comes to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

You will get NO argument from me on that at all. Do I think they wilfully murdered JonBenet...... NO! Do I think that was over in a split second of anger, yes and I dont think that was intentional. However in order to save their own skin and lifestyle do I think they did whatever they had to do up to and including lie and destroy other peoples lives. Yes they did .... collateral damage is how they would have had to look at that. Is that calculating vile and without redemption. OH YEA.... Bigtime. JMHO Sorry for the slight misunderstanding Rashomon. Hope my clarification on where I was coming from helps you to see what I meant. CK

 

[rashomon]

..

I still dont know how to do the highlighted quotes (sorry) I reference your statement That's What is meant by them both being callous and calculating when it comes to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

You will get NO argument from me on that at all. Do I think they wilfully murdered JonBenet...... NO! Do I think that was over in a split second of anger, yes and I dont think that was intentional. However in order to save their own skin and lifestyle do I think they did whatever they had to do up to and including lie and destroy other peoples lives. Yes they did .... collateral damage is how they would have had to look at that. Is that calculating vile and without redemption. OH YEA.... Bigtime. JMHO Sorry for the slight misunderstanding Rashomon. Hope my clarification on where I was coming from helps you to see what I meant. CK

CK, just my opinion too - nothing about this crime points to it having been a planned murder.
I believe something happened in that home which escalated to the point of a violent blow being struck to JonBenet's head, and subsequently everything was done by the Ramseys to direct the attention away from the true reason of that head blow.

What I keep wavering back and forth on is whether sexual abuse played a role in the tragic events on that night or not.

 

[coloradokares]

CK, just my opinion too - nothing about this crime points to it having been a planned murder.
I believe something happened in that home which escalated to the point of a violent blow being struck to JonBenet's head, and subsequently everything was done by the Ramseys to direct the attention away from the true reason of that head blow.

What I keep wavering back and forth on is whether sexual abuse played a role in the tragic events on that night or not.

That is the point where most of the knowledgable waver. The evidence would suggest it was possible as something sure left that poor baby noticably different in that regard than the normal child her age. Was it sexual or some sick corporal cleaning. Or both. What I know is no child should have to suffer . If only it was a perfect world

 

[JMO8778]

This scenario is possible, and the autopsy findings evidence seem to support it.
For not much time elapsed between the head blow and the asphyxiation (there only was mild brain swellling, and had she lived longer, the brain would have swollen far more).
So maybe the thought to stage a scene rushed through Patsy's mind even before John knew what had happened, and she carried it out immediately by tying the cord around the neck and inflicting the genital wound?
And when John finally became aware of what she had done, taking the child to the hospital with a concocted story was no option anymore because the furrow around her neck and the vaginal wound couldn't be explained away by a fall down the stairs.

That's what meant by them both being callous and calculating when it came to saving their hide. They were prepared to destroy innocent people's lives in order to evade justice themselves.

Just my opinion too.

oh absolutely ! I wasn't disagreeing w. you.

 

[UKGuy]

There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.

Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.

When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.

Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.


Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.

And what about John's fibers?

If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.

If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?

Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.

If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.

Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.

Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.

Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.

Albert18,

There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.

So was Paradox's theory shown to be sound and testable?

I also think JonBenet was intentionally killed, and that this may have been the consequence of a sexual molestation gone wrong?

I also think a well planned conspiracy involving a network of Ramsey cohorts was designed to prevent the case ever appearing in court, in this they succeeded.

The fibers are important because they place John at the scene of the crime. Remember in the Atlanta 2000 interview Patsy Ramsey stated:

12 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you help

13 JonBenet get dressed for the Whites'

14 Christmas Day '96?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you do this by yourself or

17 did John help you too?

18 A. No, John did not help me.

19 Q. You told us that you changed

20 JonBenet's clothing when she came home to put

21 her in clothes to sleep?

22 A. Correct.

So John's fibers should be nowhere near JonBenet's genital region, particularly after she had been wiped down. Consider some of the Autopsy observations:

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

So the Coroner is stating that someone inserted a finger inside JonBenet and that this was sexual contact! This is in distinction to any other evidence he discovered e.g. cellulose splinter indicating use of a paintbrush, which can have no sexual contact connotations.

Further :

Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

In this instance its difficult not to conclude that the cloth was John's Israeli black woolen shirt? And since Patsy has stated that John never assisted in helping dress JonBenet for the White's, and that at most he took her shoes and coat off, after returning from the White's. Then how did his fibers arrive on a pair of recently purchased size-12 bloomingdale panties?

Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.

Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.

Ignoring evidence when it conflicts with a popular theory will not make the theory any stronger, it will simply mean people will be walking in circles.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, how would you interpret Dr. McCann's findings which point to possible chronic sexual abuse?
Do you believe JonBenet had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse?
If yes, who do you think was her abuser?

Another question: you mentioned Kim Ballard on another thread. Is this the woman John Ramsey allegedly had an affair with?

Well, I say he's right on. But the fact that it wasn't done with a penis means it could have been done by anybody. And for some reason, I'm not totally sold on John as being "it." He certainly gives good reason.

I will say this: a lot of people have said and will say that it couldn't be John, because he was already in his fifties and people don't just become pedophiles out of the blue, especially when they've shown interest in full-grown women.
Well, that's the key: no one becomes a PEDOPHILE out of the blue. But there's a difference between a pedophile, who is drawn sexually to children by some miswiring (whatever term you use) and a SITUATIONAL MOLESTER, who chooses his child victim because they are "available."

Listen, my brother usually doesn't know shineola about this case, but he said to me, "Guv'nor, think about this: John had lost his daughter Beth and his wife didn't look like she'd make it. JB was safe."

I said, "what do you mean?"

He said, "well, JB was six years old, right? How many six-year-olds get ovarian cancer or wreck their cars? I mean, JB wasn't going to leave him any time soon. He'd have plenty of time with her, when he might not have with a full-grown woman."

Well, even a blind squirrel will find a nut.

If memory serves, Kim Ballard claimed she was his mistress. I'm pretty sure she was a fraud.

A lot of people think Patsy was "the other woman" in his first marriage, but that's way off.

But still imo it shows a considerable amount of callousness on John's part to agree to his wife tying a rope around his little daughter's neck and jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina. This is defiling of a dead body.
I'm also not at all sure if the Ramseys really believed that she was already dead.
Maybe they thought she was "as good as dead".
I do understand the point about Burke - but still, how many husbands would cover up for their wives in such a situation and help her stage such a cruel scene?

Callousness? Well, the religious people always say that it's just a body. The soul is with God now. It can't be hurt.

How many husbands? Rashomon, that's like skydiving: you won't know how you'll react until it actually happens.