Do you mean how family members who commit child murders are female? In the study I cited, it found that 42.6% of the 500 child murders per year were committed by the mothers. That's a lot. Alarmingly so.
Yes, millions of women have a lot of stress in their lives and of course the majority of them do not resort to murdering their children if they have families. Everyone is different, everyone has varying levels of support. One woman's breaking point is different from another's. There are many factors that go into considering anyone's emotional or mental health, and if their circumstances might present a danger for themselves or their children. Sadly, there are quite a few cases that can be pointed to where a mother has for whatever reason, done the unthinkable. Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, Diane Downs, Michelle Kehoe, Casey Anthony are just a few of the most notorious cases that come to mind because they made national news. As statistics show, filicide is more common than is comfortable to realize or admit. So I would argue that it sadly is not extremely rare.
I don't think most people want to go first to the idea that a parent killed their child. That's a hard concept for most of us to grasp yet alone understand. However in cases such as this where the evidence of whatever initial story is told simply is insufficient or not credible or starts to fall apart upon closer examination, it has to be looked at with careful scrutiny. The evidence in this case simply does not support the story of an intruder beyond enough reasonable doubt to take suspicion unequivocally off of the parents or family members. There is really only one outstanding issue as to why the DA chose not to sign the true bills (two for each parent), and that is the foreign DNA that was found. However, that is in no way a slam dunk that proves the intruder theory. Far from it. There is such a small amount and it could've come from anywhere, anyone at any time.
And on the other side of the coin, there is no concrete evidence that has ever been produced to prove Ramsey innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. While guilt should not be presumed, and cannot be concluded based solely upon how people act that many consider to be "off", it also cannot be dismissed. Going back to the experience and expertise of FBI profiler Gregg McCrary, he noted that a good profiler looks not to what a suspect says, but how he acts and behaves. The facts in this case reveal that the Ramseys kept changing their stories whenever presented with evidence that made earlier stories questionable. They chose to go on national tv and give an interview within days of the murder instead of sitting down with police, and then waited months before actually sitting for police interviews while their attorneys negotiated favorable terms for them. They started throwing out the claim that they were being targeted literally within hours of finding the body, when in fact police hierarchy had given the order that they be treated with kid gloves and as victims. They claimed to know that they had to be looked at and ruled out first, all the while complaining about why police were looking at them.....it was insulting they said. Yes, it is. But parents who are truly interested in uncovering the truth endure whatever is necessary to that end.
Mark Klaas, father of murder victim Polly Klaas on the Ramsey case: And I understand [John] Ramsey's situation, and only wish he'd been more cooperative up front so that all of us, including law enforcement, could have gotten past looking at him and his wife. Because quite frankly, if you look at the evidence made available to the public, as well as the conduct of the parents, i.e. refusing in most respects to cooperate with the cops, not give independent interviews with law enforcement, not take polygraphs, to hire a PR firm to handle your image, it seems self-serving. It doesn't seem to me that that helps JonBenet, or it doesn't help find who killed JonBenet.
The Ramseys unfortunately did nothing to help anyone look elsewhere. Their own behavior made them look guilty. One can argue looking at the family should not be the first place we go, but in cases like this it has to be. They were in the house that night. They need to be the first to be ruled out, and then the circle widens. That didn't really happen in this case and the main reason for that was the Ramseys themselves.
I appreciate the comment about what I experienced, I am ok, thank you.
— but I mention it for others who are new to the case.
