New Dr. Bea thread. Post your questions here.

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Apr 16, 2002.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread with questions for Dr. Bea. If Dr. Bea did not answer your question on the last thread (it became a bit convoluted at times) then post it again here. Or any new questions you might have.

    Dr. Bea is quite busy for the next few weeks but she is going to try and check in between Wed. April 17th and Friday April 19th.

    I have tried to explain to Dr. Bea that real life is no excuse. We should be top priority gosh darnit. After all that's why she has a big waiting room right? Patients ENJOY waiting I explained to her.

    Dr. Bea keeps threatening to have me committed so it's best if I keep my mouth closed :)
    ``````````````````````````````````````````````````
    ``
    Dr. Bea,

    Please check out the other thread with questions on it first. Read pages 7 and 8. Dunvegan posted a couple of great pictures. One of Patsy from her childhood. Also a couple of responses to your questions can be found on the last pages of that thread.

    Dr. Bea I will repost what Cookie had to say about Patsy and her childhood.
    `````````````````````````````````````````````````
    Cookie's post from first Dr. Bea thead.

    Thanks for those photos. The likeness of PR and JBR is incredible!

    I am really not that familiar with PR's childhood, but what I do know is that initially, the Poughs lived in a simple middle class house until PR's dad transferred jobs and they moved into a more upper middle class environment.

    PR said that she met an older girl from her high school, that had won the Miss WV pageant. She was fascinated with the idea and decided to get involved, as well as her mother, Nedra. PR became very successful in the pageant system, along with the continued coaching and involvement of her mother.

    Jane Stobie has an interesting view of Nedra and I would encourage Dr. Bea to read her book. Yes, Nedra was pushy, opinionated and controlling. She was, indeed, the HEAD of the household, even after her daughters got married. She was a force to contend with! She was a short woman, and frail in her elder years, and stayed extremely involved in all of her daughter's lives.

    She would say the darnest things:

    At PR's house, she showed me a small antique chair that JBR had selected and they bought. It was beautiful and looked very expensive. She then said to me, "If John keeps making the money, Patsy will spend it and now JBR will too!"

    I was at one of the Christmas parties and a bunch of us girlfriends of PR were gathered around the dining room table eating, when Nedra came up to us and said, "Be careful ladies that you don't eat too much. After all, our figures is all us women have to keep a man."

    When she showed me JBR's pink cowgirl outfit, that JBR wore in a pageant, I asked her what would happened if JBR eventually tired of the pageants. What would they do? She casually replied, "We would tell JBR, you WILL do it!"

    These a few encounters that I remember off the top of my head.

    Yes, Nedra liked wealth and the prestige that came with it. She wanted it for her daughters. She wanted her daughters to live the comfortable life, and her eldest, PR, had the ability to make it happen. I believe that Nedra saw the pageant system as a way for her daughters and other women to break out of the middle class life. "To be somebody!"

    Nedra hated Boulder. She would often refer to the 15th Street as the "hell-hole!" She felt that Boulder was unsophisticated, full of hippies and low-lifes. She much preferred that PR move back to Atlanta, where life was more refined.

    She did have a BIG heart for her daughters. She supervised PR's life when she was battling cancer. She completely took over the household duties and the children, which probably was not easy, and nursed PR during her illness. Can you imagine the strength of character, that it took, to see her daughter in that condition, and manage EVERYTHING! Amazing!

    What else, DR,. Bea?
    ``````````````````````````````````````````````````
    ``

    Thanks everyone for your great response to Dr. Bea. She is finding all of this quite interesting.

    Dr Bea please extend our invitation to Dr. Cynical to post with you.

    Tricia
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2002
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I have a ton of questions

    about housewives who start forums, distort the truth (oh, that is such an understatement, let's try "lie," there, that's better), take up for murderers, insert themselves into cases such as JBR and Danielle van Dam.

    But, help me, Jesus, I don't know where to start. Oh yes, I know, I sound flippant, but I am serious. I am serious about learning about the pathology of a late-middle-aged woman who is obsessed with these cases and who will do whatever is necessary, including lying, to try to destroy others' characters in order to draw attention to herself.

    I'm not going to mention any hats, ahem, but I could use some help, here. Without mentioning anyone specifically, because there are a couple I can think of who are greedy attention-seekers. Since there is so much pathology involved with them, especially the one forum owner, and in order to keep our shrinks honest and neutral, we need to keep it generic. Say everything without saying the names.

    Who would like to start. Hard as it may be, try to stick to the facts, of which there are zillions, involving "posters like this."

    I guess my first question, then, would be - what kind of personality will do whatever it takes to insert him/herself in a murder case, whether it involves pretending to be the authority on the case, claiming inside knowledge, sending "evidence" to authorities....

    There's so much... what kind of personality would write outlandish sexual things about herself only to claim at a later date she never wrote them, that the posts had been altered (when several other posters had copies of the original posts that proved her to be lying).

    I think I know, from a layman's POV, some of what makes this person tick, but there is so much - so many layers of this person.

    Why do some people feel it is necessary to start threads that are intended to attempt to discredit those who have other opinions that they do - especially when it comes to the ones they continue to defend against murder? I mean, vile, vicious, and unsubstantiated statements that border on libel and even venture inside the line.

    I'll stop now. I just KNOW there are others who will also have input on this one.
     
  3. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    Let us add, at least one of these un-named persons represented herself to be a male then when caught in a web of deceit admitted to lying when it was convenient for her.

    This person used her male persona to trick a hand-writing expert and now claims to have discredited him because he didn't recognize (through email and posts no less) that she was in fact not a male.

    This person frequently posts a sick picture of a lynch mob on her web site stating anyone who might believe the Ramseys are guilty have a lynch mob mentality.

    This person does not have a protected site and has posted links to an unprotected porn site on her forum where any minor who might have an interest in true crime could stumble across it and access the link.

    This person invites members of the van Dam family to post free of charge on her forum and once they have been lured to said forum, deletes her invitation, says there is a $50.00 per year charge to post on the forum and insists she never posted the original invitation.

    This same person steals posts from other forums, spins and twists them to her taste and then insists the original poster is of one mind-set because they don't agree with her theory. Additionally, this poster either posts on her own forum using "hats" from other forums or allows her members to do so.

    This person supposedly home schools her child yet if one looks at the amount of time she spends on the Internet, it is clearly impossible for this child to be getting needed parental attention much less schooling.

    Add in the fact that this person who is supposedly home-schooling a child doesn't know simple proper grammer rules such as i before e except after c...

    This person decided that the parents of a murdered child had no right to insist that a memorial not be placed at the site where the child's body was found and had angels sent/hung in the tree in that area because she had a right to grieve for an unknown (to her) child in her own way.

    Next....
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2002
  4. Dr. Bea

    Dr. Bea FFJ Senior Member

    the Family First

    Hi

    Wow, this forum stuff is truly interesting. I have never been exposed to any sort of information forum because I am a workaholic weenie who likes to play the odd computer game when I get home from work, and that's about it.

    I appreciated the information presented by Cookie about Nedra. It appears that Cookie presented a pretty balanced picture in terms of Nedra's capacity to be selfless and caretaking. It is not unusual for parents to push their children, sometimes inappropriately so, in order for their children to succeed, do better in life than they did, and so forth. Unhealed childhood wounds of a parent, IN GENERAL, are usually expressed somehow in the parenting of their own children. Just as a child who was abused might act out the abuse in play, while completely denying that it occurred, all of us (in my humble opinion and it's just one psychologist) will create situations that allow us to somehow mimic feelings or even experiences that we had as children, IF WE ARE NOT CONSCIOUS OF THESE EXPERIENCES AND HOW THEY ARE PLAYING OUT TODAY. That's the point of therapy - to help people see the ways in which they repeat childhood wounds, all without knowing it. For example, when a nurse came to see me and said "I've been married three times and all of my husbands turned out to be alcoholic and I didn't know it when I married them, honest I didn't" I said "Which one of your parents had a drinking problem?" and she looked at me as if I were a swami. Plus I saw some research somewhere that showed that nurses had, as a profession, a higher preponderance (sp) of alcoholic parents.

    So, I am a believer that we can understand people if we understand their childhoods. However, I don't think we can convict them of murder based solely on that information.

    As I read a little bit about this family and sift through things, I keep coming back to the sense that this was initially a horrible accident, which then was terribly covered up. I cannot say why I think this, but I do. I think it's because none of these players that you have described thus far seem capable of murder in a cold-blooded, plan it out sense, or even in the "I'll drive my kids in the lake" sense - which had a modicum of planning to it.

    That there seems to be a lack of ability to empathize with other people, adults or children, and a sense of entitlement (e.g. we don't have to be treated as others in society are treated because we are special and different) which I would find deeply troubling as a psychologist working with this family.

    Now more questions. What about Patsy's father, her sisters, and what about John, and his family? John seems much less fleshed out than Patsy does, in my mind. I am curious about how that marital unit functioned/functions.

    Also, did these parents ever express worry or concern about this soiling of clothes, in the night or day, to any friends or professionals? Psychologists see this all the time.
     
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    uhhhhh

    The Ramseys have been lynched? The last I knew they were still alive and living in Atlanta. Has anyone alerted the bPD?
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    That has been my

    belief from the very beginning - that it began as an accident, only I think it was an accident that happened during the commission of a crime. The accident was JBR's death - no one meant for that to happen. The crime was strangling her during a kinky sex game - a game that went too far (and hence the accident); or, a sudden flash of uncontrollable anger, lashing out at JB, swinging her against a hard object or hitting her with something - a criminal act to be sure but not intended to do major harm to JB, again, the accident was that she died. Whichever way it went, the coverup was to hide the original cause of death, which could point to the identity of the killer.

    Whichever injury was the cause of death, the other injury was staging meant to confuse, throw investigators off. MO
     
  7. Dunvegan

    Dunvegan Guest

    Dr. Bea...Here are the two pictures of Patsy and JonBenet..

    ...at approximately the same age, both dressed for competition:

    <b>Patsy as a child in costume for recital</b>
    <img src="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/images/patsy_recital.jpg">

    <b>JonBenet as a 1996 America's Royal Miss contestant</b>
    <img src="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/images/jonbenet_royalmiss.jpg">
     
  8. Toltec56

    Toltec56 New Member

    Dr. Bea

    Can Patsy have some sort of dissociative disorder? Could she have suffered some type of sexual abuse as a child, and when she witnessed her precious daughter sufferering the same fate, she lashed out at her, accidently killing her while in some sort of dissociate state?

    Is it true that women who have been sexually abused as children are overprotective of their own daughters? Or are women who have been sexually abused as children subconsciously invite their spouse, or another male to do the same to their own daughter?

    I'm just rambling, forgive me.
     
  9. fly

    fly Member

    Dr. Bea

    Dr. Bea - I think a lot of folks here have at one time or another tossed around the idea of this beginning as an accident (with or without a concurrent crime involved), and have used the same sort of reasons you cite. I sure have. However, the stumbling block for me has always been the multiple assaults, all done while she was alive. It's awfully hard to come up with an accident scenario when you have that massive a blow to the head (take a look at the skull picture available at jameson's forum), lethal strangulation, and sexual assault.

    Better watch it, or you'll get hooked on the forums (and this case) like most of us are. As a psychologist, you'll especially appreciate some of what goes on.
     
  10. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks all for your great response. I know Dr. Bea is up to her elbows in alligators right now. I think she is going to try and get to the forum sometime over the weekend.

    WY and JR,
    Dr. Bea asked me to ask you to put together a bit clearer picture of the behaviors you are describing. Perhaps a bullet point type presentation. I know it's hard because it is so unbelievable.

    FLY...I had the same problem as you did for quite a while. How could this be an accident with all these other injuries.

    Fly I have your answer. This will be a bit long but it will be worth it I promise.

    I went to a 2 day seminar headed up by John Douglas. The FBI profiler the Ramsey's hired. Douglas had been on the case a few months when he held the seminar.

    I asked Douglas if he had ever been wrong. He said yes one time. He was wrong because what he was asked to profile HAD NEVER BEEN PROFILED BEFORE. Remember that. The case was the Bernardo (sp?) case in Canada. Women were getting raped and eventually began disappearing only to show up later, dead.

    Douglas set to work on his profile. Here is what he came up with.

    * this was a pair of serial killers

    * describe the car they drove

    *kept women alive in their home.

    * one person was the dominant one.

    *this person had a bad relationship with his mother

    * the pair was made up of two men.


    The list is much longer but you get the picture. Douglas was right on with everything he came up with EXCEPT *the pair was made up of two males. This was not true. The pair was a husband and wife serial killing team.

    Douglas said he was wrong because never before had anyone tried to profile a husband and wife serial killing team. They didn't exist at the time therefore there was nothing to go on when profiling. Remember profiling is only as good as past information. Past behaviors of crimes that are similar. If the past behavior has never existed then there is no way to profile that person.

    Later in the evening at a banquet Douglas was giving a talk about the Ramsey case. Nothing exciting. Stuff I already knew.
    Douglas then said something that shocked me. I remember it to this day.

    "Somebody asked me today if I have ever been wrong well maybe I am wrong about the this case I don't now"...

    Not an exact quote but close to what he said. "Maybe I am wrong about this case"...


    Fly is it such a stretch that the reason we can't understand all the injuries is because it has never happened before? Is that why Patsy doesn't fit any profile? Remember Fly she is a big time Drama Queen. Over produces everything. Over stages.

    Fly we are trying to put logic into the crime scene. Is it possible there is no logic because Patsy was illogical when staging the scene?

    Fly this has never happened before.

    *Strangled

    *skull fracture

    *sexual abuse

    *all occurred in the home while parents were supposedly sleeping

    *Ransom note.

    There is a never ending argument as to what came first. The skull fracture or strangulation. If the strangulation came first it's not a stretch to think that Patsy, fearing she had killed her, cracked her head on a hard surface. Experts have said the strangulation was first caused by the twisting of a shirt around her throat right? Not to hard to imagine the garrote coming in later as part of the staging. If the head injury came first then it's not hard to imagine the staged garrote.

    Fly IMO Patsy accomplished what she set out to do. Make it look like someone else did it. Her mistake was she over did it. Over staged it. To me that points right to Patsy. It makes perfect sense that someone who over does her Christmas decorating, over does her child's pageant life, over does a company party, over does gifts to JBR's teacher, over does EVERYTHING would over do a crime scene thinking that's what a criminal would do.

    That's why everything points to an over dramatic staged crime scene. It is just that. It is so Patsy.

    Remember we can't put logic into something when logic wasn't used to create it in the first place.

    Tricia
     
  11. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    What about this?

    Christmas morning, JonBenet, age 6, received a doll that was to be looked at, not played with.

    She also received a bike that was off-limits for whatever many excuses.......for the day.

    What else did she get? Anyone know? Those are the only two that I am aware of, but I'm sure that there were tons of clothes/and or jewelry for the little sweetie.

    Her 9 year old brother is given a brand new Nintendo 64!!! And back in 1996, that was New and Exciting! Especially for a young boy, maybe even more so for a little girl that, as far as I've heard, did not have a whole lot of cool toys to keep her occupied on Christmas day.

    Kids are kids and it wouldn't matter much to me if I had not previously heard tales of them basically acting like kids/and or siblings, spoiled or not, but speaking as a Mom, I already know that my little one will be bugging my older one until she gets to sample her big sister's new toy. Maybe the older one is not in the mood to share her new stuff quite yet. But see............As A Smart Mom, I head that battle off at the pass and not even go there, but other Mom's (gone bad?) might be too busy to deal with the kids - as John described Patsy that day in DOI - juggling several balls at once - since he chose to spend his day at the airport instead of helping out around the house with the kids and preparations for the next day's trip to Michigan....

    Maybe this is nothing but those gifts have been mentioned too many times to not consider their importance in the dynamics of that day.
     
  12. fly

    fly Member

    Tricia

    Tricia - I don't have any major problems with what you're saying (except that there would be no reason for PR to fracture JBR's skull if she thought she'd strangled her to death).

    Sure, it is quite possible that there is something truly unique that occurred, making the improbable actually what happened. It's also possible that there is some bit of information that we don't have (or haven't interpreted correctly) that will make things fit together or at least seem somewhat more sensible.

    However, to accept that zebra without seeing at least a flash of black and white stripes, is risky. I'll accept the possibility of a zebra, but I'm not going to ignore the odds against it.

    It is extremely difficult to find any Ramsey did it scenario that doesn't require the "absurd." Similarly, it is extremely difficult to find an intruder did it scenario that also doesn't have some significant holes. The zebra you think might be grazing nearby might be on the intruder side of the fence, too. Right?
     
  13. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Fly I see what you are saying as well.

    However I see the flashes of black and white stripes only because we have eliminated any other type of animal in my opinion.

    The intruder theory is less likely, even down right absured.

    Is it possible an intruder came in and did this? Of course just like it's possible that aliens will land in my back yard. I can't say with 100 percent certainty they won't right? Although the odds are in my favor.

    What the evidence does point to is someone in the home.

    Therefore who would put on such an over the top performance?

    Patsy of course.

    As far as Patsy cracking her skull if she thought she had already killed her with the strangulation, well who's to say what exactly Patsy did and why? Could it be it all happened so quickly. Everything. The strangulation followed by the skull injury. If you believe the strangulation came first that is. You can say the same thing about an intruder. Why the cracking of the skull if she was already dead?

    Fly I think you are absolutely right in saying we don't have all the evidence. Something is missing. We are reading something wrong.

    That is why we keep discussing this right? To see if we can fit the pieces together.

    Tricia
     
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Okay, oh Forum Goddess

    I'll do it your way, LOL.

    ** I am interested in the pathology of a late-middle-aged woman who is obsessed with child murder cases and who will do whatever is necessary, including lying, to try to destroy others' characters in order to draw attention to herself.

    What kind of personality:

    *will do whatever it takes to insert him/herself in a murder case, whether it involves pretending to be the authority on the case, claiming inside knowledge, sending "evidence" to authorities....

    *writes outlandish sexual things about herself (brother rapes her in the hayloft, throws snakes on her) only to claim at a later date she never wrote them, that the posts had been altered (when several other posters had copies of the original posts that proved her to be lying). Writes inflammatory posts, then deletes them and says she didn't write them.

    *starts threads that are intended to attempt to discredit those who have other opinions that she does - especially when it comes to the ones she continues to defend against murder? I mean, vile, vicious, and unsubstantiated statements that border on libel and even venture inside the line.

    *states she allows all opinions on her forums, but if someone goes against her opinion, she deletes the post because it is "misinformation."

    *copies posts from other forums (forums she has been banned from) and takes them to her forum to rip apart and insert her own propaganda?

    *calls police departments, lawyers, neighbors, anyone associated with high-profile cases such as JBR and Danielle van Dam, to try to solicit information.

    *makes unsubstantiated statements and calls it evidence, and if anyone tries to correct her, she bans them and says it's misinformation.

    *puts links to porn sites on her forum, delights in showing autopsy photos (which have "evidence photos - not for publication" written right on them) that are inflammatory, sickening, brutal, and absolutely not necessary to discussion, under the guise that it's her right to do so and people need to see what happened to this child, and does so over and over again.

    *disregards obvious evidence that implicates a defendent in one case while inventing "evidence" that has no basis in fact in another case, in both instances defending the suspected killers.

    *can on any given day be found trying to discredit anyone who has dared speak out against her cause, not only on her forum but going so far as to get herself on a weekly TV show to publically discredit a handwriting expert who identified her idol as the writer of a ransom note.

    *claims to have never known these people before the murder but travels to another state to meet the parents of a dead child, parents who are the main suspects in the murder of that child - decorates a tree with angels at that child's grave, plants flowers at the grave.

    *sends angels to hang in a tree where Danielle van Dam's body was found and solicits others to do the same, defiantly going against the expressed wishes of Danielle's parents.

    *tries to insert herself in the Danielle case, welcoming members of the charged and alleged killer's family and giving them privileges paying members of her forum do not enjoy.

    *carries on a so-called inside relationship with a detective who is pro-Ramsey and their civil lawyer, claiming inside information...

    *has several hats and carries on conversations with herself - all meant to appear there are several posters at her forum when it seems there are not.

    *deliberately tries to **** everyone off, LOL.

    *writes gloating posts that are untrue and inflated.

    *had a falling out with the owner of another forum, left the forum and stole the forum's name for herself, changing one letter.

    *has made enemies of nearly everyone on these forums.

    *charges members to post at her forum, demands personal phone numbers, addresses, names, claims to keep this information confidential - unless you cross her (meaning members get sick of her deleting their posts) - then she plasters it out there for public information.

    *is referred to as a "Code 6 Wingnut" by members of law enforcement.

    Trying to describe all the above (and tons more) is a daunting proposition. To be believed, one would have to read the thousands of posts attributed to posters like this over the past five years, because it's not to be believed unless seen. There is simply no way to drive home the vitriol, the obvious lying, the scheming, the destruction caused.

    Hey, if you don't believe me, ask Tricia, LOL. Better yet, ask the BPD.
     
  15. fly

    fly Member

    Tricia

    Tricia - An intruder would want to make absolutely, 100% sure JBR was dead, so the overkill makes some sense. Unless PR WANTED JBR to be dead from the first (and that's not what I think you're saying), she'd be more likely to do whatever she could to save her, and less likely to do the overkill. It doesn't matter a lot which assault came first. The basic concept is the same.

    I think the reason I don't think the intruder scenario is absurd and you do is that I have not dismissed the DNA evidence or the bootprint. I realize that neither necessarily is from the time of the murder, but until I see a thorough description of exactly what the DNA involved, I cannot dismiss DNA found in her panties - and reportedly under her nails. I also realize that the ransom note and the fact that JBR was assaulted in the home are the zebras of the intruder scenario. I just don't see them as any bigger zebras than a parent, of reasonably normal mental status and no known previous violent or abusive tendencies, who accidentally assaults her child three horrendous ways.
     
  16. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Excuse me, Fly

    An intruder would want her "100% dead?" Huh? There WAS A RANSOM NOTE AT THE CRIME SCENE. Hello! Yeah that makes sense! Let's kill the kid! Let's use some overkill! Then let's leave the body so we have no chance of ever seeing the money! Come on, girl!





    I'm chuckling. Fly let's not forget the biggest hunk of evidence, the ransom note, --it is quite clear that this was a kidnapping for money.

    See--this is why, in five years, nobody's come close to persuading me that the Ramseys are innocent. Their defenders want to isolate each piece of evidence, come up with "good reason" why this or that occured, but the various pieces never fit together. Never.

    Fly this is a staged crime scene. Kidnappers don't sexually assault victims. Kidnappers don't kill kids in the kids' own home. Nor do they fail to attempt to collect money. Pedophiles don't ask for money. Predators don't stage crime scenes in other peoples' homes.
     
  17. fly

    fly Member

    BobC

    BobC - Actually, I agree that the ransom note but leaving the kid behind is hard to fit to an intruder. Like you, I have that as the #1 reason I won't let go of the parent did it scenario. The ransom note is one of those "can't be" sorts of things, similar to some of the "can't be" things in a parent as perp scenario.

    However, the 100% dead wish of an intruder isn't quite so illogical as you imply. Sure, if you write a ransom note, you'd generally want to take the kid (or body) with you. However, if for some reason you found you couldn't grab her and run, killing her and leaving the body hidden would still afford at least a small chance of carrying out the ransom demand. If an intruder were not going to take her along, the intruder sure as heck would want to make sure she was dead. Leaving the note behind would be stupid in terms of evidence, no doubt about it, but might have benefits: delay discovering the body because the focus would be outside the house, possibly allow the intruder some satisfaction of dragging out the Ramsey anguish, and possibly even a chance to go through with a ransom demand.

    There's no question that there are holes in the idea an intruder would leave the kid behind, but if an intruder is not going to remove the child, s/he would definitely want that child dead before leaving her, IMO.
     
  18. Harley

    Harley Member

    The Intruder

    might want her to be definitely dead and maybe even hidden but I don't think the intruder would make sure she was wrapped in a blanket with her favorite nightgown nearby.
     
  19. fly

    fly Member

    wrapped?

    I thought the description as "wrapped" was an error. I thought the situation was that the blanket was thrown partly over her, with her feet left exposed. Hardly the caring concern you're implying.
     
  20. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Gregg McCrarey and Robert Ressler disagree, Fly. Finding the Barbie nightgown wrapped with the blanket was one of the main reasons they suspected parental involvement. That nightgown had NO BUSINESS being in that basement room. It was put there intentionally.

    I still keep waiting for your list of "holes" in the "parents did it" theory. Granted the flashpoint of anger trigger is completely unknown at this point, but all of the remaining evidence is TEXTBOOK staging. Robert Ressler said so.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice