Why didn't Patsy confess on her deathbed?

[gumshoe1]

I've read more than one websleuth's member (most notably @CloudedTruth ) opine that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet, and Patsy swung a weapon at John to try to hit John and missed and hit JonBenet on the head instead, causing JonBenet's skull fracture. If this is how JonBenet received her skull fracture, Patsy should have been extremely angry at John for two reasons: 1# for molesting JonBenet and 2# causing Patsy to accidentally kill JonBenet when Patsy was trying to stop the molestation.

In all states of America, if a person dies while a criminal is committing a felony, and if the person dies directly or indirectly because of the felony, the criminal is charged with first degree murder. For example, let's say two armed robbers team up together to rob a gas station, and the clerk of the gas station shoots robber #2 in self-defense during the robbery. The police would arrest robber #1 for first degree murder of robber #2 even though robber #1 did not kill robber #2.

Child molestation is a felony. So if it could be proven that Patsy accidentally caused JonBenet's skull fracture while trying to strike John with a blunt object while John was molesting JonBenet, the authorities would arrest John for first degree murder, and Patsy probably would not be arrested since Patsy's hitting JonBenet was 100% accidental. Let's just say that Patsy went along with the coverup because Patsy wrongly thought that she would be arrested if the authorities found out what really happened. It's not like Patsy died suddenly and without warning of a heart attack or in a car wreck or something. Patsy died slowly of cancer. In the last few days of Patsy's life, she had to have known that she was about to die within days. So why didn't Patsy confess to the authorities that Patsy accidentally whacked JonBenet while trying to whack John to stop John from molesting JonBenet? This confession could have gotten justice for both Patsy and JonBenet. It could have led to John being arrested for first degree murder. Why the heck would Patsy want to protect the scum that was both molesting her daughter AND caused Patsy to accidentally kill her daughter?

 

[doublestop]

She might not do a deathbed confession if it were her son she was protecting.

 

[gumshoe1]

She might not do a deathbed confession if it were her son she was protecting.

I agree.

But why do people who think that PDI by trying to hit JR but accidentally hitting JB think that Patsy did not give a deathbed confession?

 

[Lebowski]

without assuming your specific scenario, i do agree the "why didn't they turn on each other?" problem is interesting and significant.

stepping back, if we only assume RDI, it follows almost immediately that at least one parent was involved in the murder and/or coverup. (even if you think BDI, he certainly didn't write that note). if it was only one parent, how come neither of them ever pointed fingers at each other? marriages often break up over the accidental death of a child, due to the pain and often also blame. here, we're hypothetically talking about a murder where one parent was involved if not the murderer. and neither one ever implicated the other? they didn't even quietly divorce?

this problem has the following solutions AFAICS:

1) the innocent parent was honestly duped, and never caught on in the years after
2) the innocent parent suspected but was in denial, and never snapped out of it
3) the innocent parent knows what happened, but has never said so for some reason
3a) ...for some non-legal reason like protecting career or family image, or preserving a normal-ish life for the child they had left
3b) ...for some legal reason, like believing they themselves would get implicated too regardless of innocence, or they had other crimes to hide
4) ...neither parent was involved and they were both covering for someone else they equally and deeply cared about
5) both parents were involved in the murder and/or coverup

--------------------------
personally...

i find #1 (never even suspecting the other parent) very hard to believe. i mean think about it. your child is murdered in your house. no evidence of an intruder is found (beyond a ransom note everyone agrees is BS), indeed there's a decent body of evidence that an intruder couldn't have done it. only 2 other people known to have been in the house, and your other child isn't capable of all parts of the crime, maybe not any. neither PR or JR was stupid. in denial, maybe. but never even suspecting? nah. hell, even if it really was an intruder, i can't believe an innocent JR or PR would never even suspect the other.

#2 i find more believable, though i still tend to doubt it. i think more evidence points to PR than to JR, and, for reasons i can't articulate, i can't see JR living in denial. he strikes me as savvier and more rational than that. or something.

#5 i tend to doubt based on evidence. iirc, the 6 AM responders thought john had slept through the night. several things he did, like telling the police the doors were all locked and handing them the notepad with the practice note inside, are hard to reconcile with the theory he was involved and trying to deflect suspicion outside of the house. also, why not give PR the chance to shower and put on a fresh outfit before calling 9/11? some post i read around here convinced me specifically that JR waking up interrupted PR before she was ready, and forced the 9/11 call.

IMO 3a, 3b, and 4 are the most compelling of all six options, and of the three, 3b is the best. i don't dismiss 3a -- but i can't decide how likely it is. #4 is obviously BDI theory, and indeed i think it's fair to say it's often the thing that leads people to believe BDI. i went through a BDI phase, but it's no longer my top theory. for 3b, i think a popular variant is "PDI, but JR had been SA'ing JBR (either that night or earlier or both)", and either he feared a murder investigation focusing on the ramseys themselves would bring that to light or there was a sort of mutual blackmail situation ("if i go down, so do you."). both "3b - PDI with JR molesting JBR" and #4 have a symmetry to them that IMO convincingly answers "why didn't they turn on each other?" but other variants like 3b - "worried i'd get implicated too despite my innocence" are quite possible.

one 3a variant i sometimes think of but haven't made up my mind is PDI, but JR decided to stand by her because he didn't think she was going to live long anyway. even if she did it, he knew it, and he viscerally hated her for it, why put himself and burke through the ordeal, let burke know the terrible truth, and permanently stain the family image, etc., if he figured she wasn't going to live long enough going to see the inside of a jail cell? justice wasn't in the cards.

 

[gumshoe1]

without assuming your specific scenario, i do agree the "why didn't they turn on each other?" problem is interesting and significant.

stepping back, if we only assume RDI, it follows almost immediately that at least one parent was involved in the murder and/or coverup. (even if you think BDI, he certainly didn't write that note). if it was only one parent, how come neither of them ever pointed fingers at each other? marriages often break up over the accidental death of a child, due to the pain and often also blame. here, we're hypothetically talking about a murder where one parent was involved if not the murderer. and neither one ever implicated the other? they didn't even quietly divorce?

this problem has the following solutions AFAICS:

1) the innocent parent was honestly duped, and never caught on in the years after
2) the innocent parent suspected but was in denial, and never snapped out of it
3) the innocent parent knows what happened, but has never said so for some reason
3a) ...for some non-legal reason like protecting career or family image, or preserving a normal-ish life for the child they had left
3b) ...for some legal reason, like believing they themselves would get implicated too regardless of innocence, or they had other crimes to hide
4) ...neither parent was involved and they were both covering for someone else they equally and deeply cared about
5) both parents were involved in the murder and/or coverup

--------------------------
personally...

i find #1 (never even suspecting the other parent) very hard to believe. i mean think about it. your child is murdered in your house. no evidence of an intruder is found (beyond a ransom note everyone agrees is BS), indeed there's a decent body of evidence that an intruder couldn't have done it. only 2 other people known to have been in the house, and your other child isn't capable of all parts of the crime, maybe not any. neither PR or JR was stupid. in denial, maybe. but never even suspecting? nah. hell, even if it really was an intruder, i can't believe an innocent JR or PR would never even suspect the other.

#2 i find more believable, though i still tend to doubt it. i think more evidence points to PR than to JR, and, for reasons i can't articulate, i can't see JR living in denial. he strikes me as savvier and more rational than that. or something.

#5 i tend to doubt based on evidence. iirc, the 6 AM responders thought john had slept through the night. several things he did, like telling the police the doors were all locked and handing them the notepad with the practice note inside, are hard to reconcile with the theory he was involved and trying to deflect suspicion outside of the house. also, why not give PR the chance to shower and put on a fresh outfit before calling 9/11? some post i read around here convinced me specifically that JR waking up interrupted PR before she was ready, and forced the 9/11 call.

IMO 3a, 3b, and 4 are the most compelling of all six options, and of the three, 3b is the best. i don't dismiss 3a -- but i can't decide how likely it is. #4 is obviously BDI theory, and indeed i think it's fair to say it's often the thing that leads people to believe BDI. i went through a BDI phase, but it's no longer my top theory. for 3b, i think a popular variant is "PDI, but JR had been SA'ing JBR (either that night or earlier or both)", and either he feared a murder investigation focusing on the ramseys themselves would bring that to light or there was a sort of mutual blackmail situation ("if i go down, so do you."). both "3b - PDI with JR molesting JBR" and #4 have a symmetry to them that IMO convincingly answers "why didn't they turn on each other?" but other variants like 3b - "worried i'd get implicated too despite my innocence" are quite possible.

I agree with everything you say above this sentence.

one 3a variant i sometimes think of but haven't made up my mind is PDI, but JR decided to stand by her because he didn't think she was going to live long anyway. even if she did it, he knew it, and he viscerally hated her for it, why put himself and burke through the ordeal, let burke know the terrible truth, and permanently stain the family image, etc., if he figured she wasn't going to live long enough going to see the inside of a jail cell? justice wasn't in the cards.

In December 1996 and 1997, why would John decide to stand by Patsy because he didn't think that she would live long anyway? Patsy cancer was in remission in December 1996. In December 1996, for all John knew, Patsy might still be alive in 2026.

 

[Mauig’ma]

Why admit to something you didn’t do. That’s crazy to me. Moo

 

[Lebowski]

I agree with everything you say above this sentence.





In December 1996 and 1997, why would John decide to stand by Patsy because he didn't think that she would live long anyway? Patsy cancer was in remission in December 1996. In December 1996, for all John knew, Patsy might still be alive in 2026.

cancer tends to come back. it depends on the type, and how far along it got, and i don't know the numbers for ovarian, so it's possible this is all a dumb theory on my part. but for cancer in general, AIUI, it's hard to completely put out the fire. remission doesn't mean your life expectancy is all the way back to normal now. sometimes, not even close. people talk in terms of 5-year survival rates.

there's also the fact that the treatments and surgeries themselves have negative health effects. radiation, chemo, having parts of you taken out... they all impact your health. ........ i don't want anyone to misunderstand this -- i am NOT saying not to get treated for cancer. if you don't get it treated, you will die sooner, often much sooner. that's why you get the surgeries and treatments. but you are choosing the lesser of two evils. there's no silver bullet option that makes you 100% cancer free and good as new. not for most cancers most of the time.

i don't want to be discouraging to people dealing with cancer themselves or in their family. treatments are getting more advanced all the time. all the progress with immunotherapy is particularly encouraging.

but i digress. i think JR is the kind of person who, when PR first got diagnosed in 93, would have read up on the statistics, and would have understood them. he would have known what her life expectancy curve looked like, given her specific type, the effectiveness of available treatments at the time, etc. i don't know, but am guessing the number of years she could be expected to survive was not multiple decades.

 

[AuDHD]

I agree with everything you say above this sentence.





In December 1996 and 1997, why would John decide to stand by Patsy because he didn't think that she would live long anyway? Patsy cancer was in remission in December 1996. In December 1996, for all John knew, Patsy might still be alive in 2026.

nah, she was already on borrowed time bc she had come back from stage 4 breast ovarian cancer. No one expected her to live as long as she did - doctors etc. would tell you prognosis is not so good with stage 4 bc. Here’s a link from national bc society where even in 2026, only 32% survive 5 years after.


edited to correct myself thanks yall!! , she had stage 4 ovarian cancer, but there would be a similar prognosis.

screen grab from link above:

 

[Lebowski]

thought it was ovarian, but similar comments still apply

 

[gumshoe1]

nah, she was already on borrowed time bc she had come back from stage 4 breast cancer. No one expected her to live as long as she did - doctors etc. would tell you prognosis is not so good with stage 4 bc. Here’s a link from national bc society where even in 2026, only 32% survive 5 years after.

screen grab from link above:
View attachment 634518

Patsy had ovarian cancer, not breast cancer.

 

[tlcya]

I do not believe Patsy is responsible for JonBenet's death. MOO too much of her own identity was wrapped up in her daughter. IF she knew, the only reason I could see for her to withhold that information while on her deathbed would be to protect someone nearer or dearer to her than her daughter. And I am not sure who I feel that could be. I think she prized her daughter above all others. Also Patsy seems to have been very invested in appearances, so maybe even on her deathbed, she was more worried about them than setting the record straight before going to meet her maker.

 

[AuDHD]

Patsy had ovarian cancer, not breast cancer.

oops noted & updated my post

 

[Kakidoll]

Also, wasn't John the only breadwinner, and funded her lifestyle?