Interesting insight on "who done it"

Well there you have it!

All things that "couldn't be found" at the Ramsey house....and I'm sure just so much more

The passports were always a curiosity for me: Am I hallucinating or do I remember at some point they were going to take Burke to Europe so as to avoid his being questioned or something???

So many years ago....so few memory cells left

 

Patsy had two personalities. The one we know was constructed largely to please her mother and then society in general. The other was latent, having been left behind in childhood. This split was due to the fact that her mother would not recognize and reinforce who Patsy was naturally. Nedra had an idea of who Patsy should be that differed with who she was. Nedra, in effect, said you are this, not that. Patsy complied, she put on her personlaity, she acted the parts. She did not develop herself based on her instinctual sense of self.

The result is an adult whose moral sense is based on rules and regulations accumulted from outside rather than based on experience and handled from inside. The latent personality in these cases often rises late in life with the urge to live and develop. But it comes up with the moral development of a child.

Patsy felt the pressure of her fortieth birthday with all the judgement themes accompanying the number 40 according to Judeao/Christian myths.

Unable to resolve the conflict in the real world, Patsy created a fantasy and attempted to live out the conflict resolution in her mind. But as psychotics often do she crossed over into the real world and began to manipulate objects in the real world to manifest her fantasy. The main object was JonBenet. Not only did Patsy live through JonBenet but so did her latent personality.

The use of the object in conflict resolution finally expanded into the theme of infantile parental recognition and adult fear of death. Both of those conflicts were resolved by making JonBenet into an angel and sending her to heaven where she was with a God. Thus Patsy assured herself of safe passage to the afterlife and recognition by the ultimate parental figure.

This is really basic stuff; the projection of psychotic fantasy onto objects outside the psychotics mind.

 

Thanks Paradox.....
Interesting indeed.

 

But "making JonBenet into an angel and sending her to heaven" is murder. Patsy knew that, and she also believed in the Judeo-Christian moral authority that says premeditated murder of an innocent sends you to Hell, not "safe passage to an afterlife and recognition by the ultimate parental figure." Patsy believed in a God who would punish murderers, not reward them.

People experiencing psychosis often think they hear God telling them to do something or kill someone. I can understand a psychotic Patsy thinking God wanted her to send JonBenet to heaven for any number of reasons, including Patsy's oft-quoted phrase "so she wouldn't have to experience cancer or the death of a child." I can see a psychotic Patsy sending JonBenet to God, but according to Patsy's beliefs, by doing so, she was condeming herself to Hell.

Or do you believe Patsy's moral code was suspended/reversed for herself because of the psychosis?

 

Yes, I think that's exactly what Paradox believes - that the "infantile ego" Patsy did not operate under the same moral code that the outer Patsy used. The "split personality" theory is a very large parachute to use to explain all of Patsy's behavior, motivation, etc. IMO.

 

What a powerful couple of paragraphs. :reporter:
On one of the previous pages of this thread, there's a discussion about most LE officers agreeing that the Ramsey's were involved with their daughter's murder. Why LE thought that way is as plain as the crown on Patsy's head, imo. The cops (and most logical thinking people who read about this case) felt that the Ram's were acting suspecious from the get go. A perfect example is the quote taken from the above article.

The second paragraph in a sense screams that the Ram's were hiding something.

Why wouldn't JR talk to LE alone??? ANY loving, caring, innocent father would have pleaded to talk to LE at every chance. An innocent father would beg the cops to find the person who murdered his child.
I tell ya, it's a crime that in this country, a country that I love and adore, that people like John and Patsy Ramsey can kill and cover up the murder of their child and get away with it---- simply due to the fact that they had lots of money. :devil: :devil:

 

I can't see any logic in why an adult would try to conquer her own fear by of death by killing her child.
Also, by killing JonBenet, Patsy would not have assured herself a passage to heaven but more in the opposite direction, to hell . In her Christian religion, murder is regarded as a capital sin, a gross violation of the fifth commandment. So instead of "recognition by the ultimate parental figure" (I assume you mean the god in the Bible), she would have received damnation.

 

Rash, Jungian psychoanalysis isn't logical at all. In many ways it is opposed to logic. These are ideas about our psychology, that underlies our conscious minds. The belief is that many things we do in our outer lives are not driven by our minds, but by our inner selves, our ids and egos, our shadow selves, which are supposedly operating alongside our conscious minds.

So Paradox believes that there was an outer Patsy, the one who was trained up by Nedra, and an inner Patsy, the one who was trying to redeem herself by killing JonBenet. What I don't understand is if the inner Patsy, or the shadow Patsy, was conscious of what SHE was doing, or if SHE was also operating in the dark, so to speak.

Is the shadow self aware of itself? Like holding up a mirror to a mirror, isn't it?

 

I'm familiar with Freudian as well as Jungian thought and categories, and can see where where Paradox is coming from. It is true that we are far more determined by our subconscious drives and emotions than our conscious selves would like to admit. And no doubt defense mechanisms like 'identification' and 'projection' play a major role when it comes to discussing Patsy Ramsey's personality.

I would agree with Paradox's analysis of Patsy adapting to standards imposed on her by her dominant mother Nedra. Psychoanalytically speaking, this would be Patsy's super ego overly controlling her ego. Patsy never really freed herself from Nedra's influence, and so she repeated with her own daughter JonBenet what had been done to her.
There is no doubt in my mind either that Patsy vicariously tried to live through JonBenet, i. e. she saw her as an extension of her own ego. JonBenet's beauty and success was to reflect back on her beautiful mother who had produced such a perfect little princess. With Jonbenet in the limelight, she could relive what she had experienced years before, and JonBenet maybe becoming Miss America would be the ultimate triumph for Patsy.

But what I'm having problems with is Paradox's 'sacrifice' theory. He said Patsy feared eternal judgment. Judgement on what? Are there any indicators that Patsy was so guilt-ridden over anything she had done that she felt it necessary to 'sacrifice' her daughter to appease god? Jmpo, but Patsy strikes me as exactly the opposite type: a person who felt very little guilt over anything she did. Did she ever feel guilty about dressing up her little daughter like a hooker? I doubt it. Or when for example, she and Susan Stine decided they would tell the globe reporter's wife the disgusting lie about Stine being his mistress, Patsy laughed hersef sick and thought it was all very funny. This doesn't indicate a lot of conscience on her part.

I see Patsy far more as a narcissist than as someone plagued by a guilty conscience. And I believe the tragic events on that night occurred because Patsy the narcissist felt provoked by something JonBenet had done to insult that narcissism. Maybe JonBenet was beginning to struggle free from her mother, doing what Patsy had never achieved in her own life: opposing her mother. And tragically, this cost JonBenet her life.

I don't think Patsy the narcissist would have sacrificed her living doll JonBenet to anyone - not even to god.
Also, the sacrifice issue doesn't mesh with the whole setting. So between packing suitcases for tomorrow's flight and going to bed, Patsy inserts 'sacrifing' JonBenet into her crammed schedule, and as instrument for that sacrifice, she uses an old and brittle paintbrush and then places Jonbenet in the dingiest room of the whole house, the wine cellar? It just doesn't add up. Jmpo though.

 

I agree with you on all points, Rash. I think Patsy was, and John still is, a narcissist. JonBenet was an object to both of them, although each had a different reason for making her into an object. Just naming her after her father, and making it a weird, French-sounding name because it was a fad at the time, is a narcissistic thing to do. It's not like you look down at that little baby and say, "She looks like a Jane," or "Let's name her Alice." It's as if the child is doomed from the beginning to be nothing but what the parents want it to be, like a little puppet. I feel the same way about "Junior" and "Trey" kinds of names, too.

But I digress. Paradox should explain his own theories, I suppose. I can't really understand where he's getting it all from, either.

 

Pammy was given a list, well of course she was...a very LONG list. Good grief!!! Why would they need their bathrobes, or her cashmere coat...or their passports...or....(theres way too many things that I could insert here). What gets me is John is so worried about those darn golf clubs...and in Patsy's interview...she says that she can't even remember the last time that he played golf. But yet...right after his daughter's death...he is worried about those clubs! Golfing would be the LAST thing on my mind, if my daughter had just been murdered. (OJ Simpson vowed that he would find Nicole's killer, and was out on the golf course the NEXT DAY!). I am quite positive that the golf club bag contained evidence. Maybe the size 6 panties, that JB wore to bed that night...and the rest of the size 12 panties....?

 

Oh AMES, I think there's more to the golf bag than anyone knows too. It's just way too strange for him to request that at that time. It's not like he was going to need it immediately or that he wouldn't be able to eventually recover it. So like him to have someone else take the risk if there was something in it that implicated him. Who knows though, maybe that's where he kept his little black book.

Little

 

There were alot of really other strange things that she took out of that house...even besides the golf clubs. Baby teeth? PASSPORTS? Why would they need their PASSPORTS? Were they planning on skipping the country?? I wonder if Patsy's cashmere coat that Pam took out of the home, may have also had some evidence hidden in the pockets. I can't believe that Patsy had her thoughts together, at that particular time....after her daughter had been found murdered in her own home....to be able to compile a list of crap for Pam to retrieve from that house. Funny how, she can compile a detailed list that is a mile long....BUT....she cannot talk to the police, and be interviewed...because she is just too distraught. She even remembered to put BATHROBES on the list. Who the hell would be thinking about bathrobes after finding their child dead in their home? Its just SO weird. And its weird to me that the list was so detailed...baby teeth? What made her think of THOSE? It's just bizarre.

 

I didn't think John Ramsey and Susan Bennett were still on speaking terms. Susan Bennett posted, "No, Karen. He did not say that. Not according to John Ramsey."

 

I believe absolutely that they had flight in mind if they felt a need to. I believe also that John aided and abetted Patsy. How long he was aware of the murder I am not sure. I still hold that he was not sexually abusing her, but there is that miniscule thought that he may have been. I think it was more corporal punishment and douching. I think that JB wet her bed so much that night that even her shirt got wet and Patsy was infuriated. I also think that Burke has to know more than he is saying - in that I mean, he had to have heard their voices - madness abounds that night - there is no way they were quiet - he did say he heard noises and creaking - and I do believe that it is going to effect him more than he realizes when he reaches, say 40. John is just selfish enough to let him go through this. But that is not a surprise because John is willing to let Tracy implicate innocent people in his quest for fame and fortune. Lou Smit is willing to go along also. He is not innocent in Tracy's documentaries. If he is in them, he is aware of his lying. I have never heard Smit say anything at all about his not agreeing with Tracy. So Smit has lost my respect also. There was not too much there to begin with though.

 

I don't think she knows. I think she burned that bridge for the almighty $$ long ago and she just wants to give the impression that she's someone who still might know some things. This is what doing what she did gets her, a total loss of credibility. So still searching for the answer..........

 

I'd bet jameson doesn't know. Judging by the way he spoke about her in his police interviews, he regarded her with a degree of contempt. Remember he agreed to do a Q&A session for her forum and they all submitted their questions? Time passed by and no answers - then they were asked to resubmit them and he didn't answer them either. jameson eventually answered them in a thread called "Anticipating John's answers".

There is no way John Ramsey would open up and bare his soul to jameson. I don't think he'd give her the time of day if it hadn't been for the fact that she was one their only supporter on the Internet in the beginning.

Apart from anything, John Ramsey isn't a credible witness - he simply denies whatever he doesn't want to elaborate upon. I imagine that IF jameson did ask him the above question, (big IF), he'd probably consider it none of her business and simply deny it happened.

 

Here ya' go, thanks to ACR, as per....

http://www.acandyrose.com/0408199948hrs1.htm

 

I thought she would be blond. I know not why. She looks fairly normal which brings me back to what I always say, you can never tell, which brings me back to what I often say about Patsy, she just does not seem like she would do this. I have seen some interviews with her, e.g. Barbara Walters and I thought, you know Patsy, you are just excellent, but then i realized, well you have had considerable time. Actually, Patsy looks to me like she could get very very angry. There I go judging by looks. See with me it does not appear to work both ways. Anway, thank you for the picture. She gives me the creeps.