Psalms

Or, like D. England said: "A paradox is a contradiction denied."

 

Your post makes it seem like "god" has been replaced by the "collective unconscious". We no longer should bow to god but bow to the collective unconscious. Is that what you're trying to convey?
But I think C. G. Jung was basically a religious person, as opposed to S. Freud, who was a confirmed atheist.

I would put it like that: the ego must be aware of the power of the collective unconscious, or like Freudians would say: aware of the power of one's subconscious mind.
I have found Jungian psychology very helpful when it comes to the interpration of dream symbols (a topic I'm very interested in). The powerful "archetypes" showing up in one's dreams can be very impressive and have often shown me the way.

But when it comes to studying criminal cases, it is the hard evidence which has to lead the way. Like Elle said, Occam's razor should apply.

I is true that religion seems to have played a certain part in Patsy's life, but to infer from the fact that she attended church reguarly that she in any way 'sacrificed' JonBenet is stretching it beyond credibililty imo, and not even 150 Biblical psalms quoted will convince me of the contrary.

What I also miss in your theory is John's role in all this.

 

A paradox is a contradiction denied.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it is the evidence found at the crime scene which leads the way in this case. And imo this evidence is as far removed from any 'sacrificing' scenario as the sun is from the earth.

jmo

 

Or as far as the sun is from Uranus.
:lame:

 

The Sun is far removed from the Earth? Hm. I don't think so. Without the Sun, the Earth would not exist, nor us. We live by the Sun. At the mercy of the Sun, really. We are entirely dependent upon it. Just an observation about your simile. :tsmile:

Not that I'm disagreeing, or agreeing, with either you or Paradox. Peanut gallery, here. :beagle:

But just for Paradox's efforts, which are admirable in his Jungian way: :bow:

 

My simile was was merely referring to the physical distance, not to our being dependent on he sun.

 

paradox 1. a statement or propostion seemingly self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expressing a possible truth.

 

I understand that, but the physical distance vs total reliance regardless of distance is the point of this debate, after all. Paradox is seeing the reliance of Patsy's psyche on the profound influences in her life, the effects of those influences and how they played into the events of Dec. 25th, 1996. You are seeing the physical realm which we can objectify: evidence A, B, C, etc. Both are good to ponder, IMO. Only one is tangible, but the crime didn't happen without mental processes causing the events. We just can't measure the mind in a scientific parameter like blood gases or cell structures.

I think Paradox's scripture comparisons are quite valid in looking at the ransom note, how Patsy's mind worked, what her spiritual guidelines were. I don't think Patsy thought for one minute she was living under the ordinary rules of the beer can collectors. She excelled her whole life. People were drawn to her, catered to her, cheered her on, supported her. She was a winner, plain and simple. Patsy believed for years that she was HEALED OF CANCER BY GOD, remember, after healing sessions in her home. It doesn't get much grander than that. Think of all the women in Patsy's cancer group at the NIH who died long before she did. Patsy WAS "special", to herself, and to her friends and family.

So on the night in question, whatever sickness was griping that family broke loose, and it spun out of control. Patsy was NOT going to lose this time, either. She had beat CANCER, she had GOD on her side, and she was a WINNER. So as she always did, she TOOK CONTROL. A lifetime of knowing how to manipulate people, what they expected of you and how to deliver it, paid off big.

I don't think she planned it, no. How can we know what was going on, though? We weren't there, and we really, truly do not know them. But I do believe whatever happened, she and John worked it together. If phone calls were made that night on the Ramsey cell phone that got the record wiped blank for December 1996, before LE got the record a year later, then John was in on it. If John deliberately let LE think for four months the basement window had been broken by an intruder, until his dream team asked him and Patsy where was the glass from the window being broken that night, then John was in on it.

 

good post kk.
Maybe the "sacrifice" by Patsy did not begin until after she caught John molesting and ultimately killing JonBenet, even if initially the death was an accident.
We all know she wrote the note. Funny about the "incest" word being marked. If Patsy was allowing John to do things to JonBenet, then she was just as guilty.
She could later look back and see the My twinn doll and the color purple weaving death in to her Christmas.

 

Good points, KK.
The main reason why I don't think it was a planned crime is the ransom note. It is very chaotic and full of redundant nonsense.
According to the FBI CASKU experts' assessment, the note was written after the fact and indicated panic. Imo that panic is very palpable in the nervous babble of the note.

CASKU also said that the ransom note was a cathartic act which allowed to undo the offender the crime in her own mind. That's where I think Patsy's psyche comes in as a pivotal factor in the staging of this crime. For very few people in the same situation would have had the nerve to stage a scene at all, let alone stage it the way Patsy did.
I think she dissociated herself instantly from her deed (not much time evolved between the head blow and the strangulation, one hour at most, according to forensic expert Dr. Wright), which enabled her to carry out the staging to the point of defiling her daughter's body with a genital wound and tying a ligature around her neck.

No indeed, "Patsy was NOT going to lose this time either", you said that so well, KK. She was used to being a winner - she would not let "this" ruin her life. She would allow nothing to destroy the perfect picture she had always presented to the world. It had got to be preserved at all costs, even if this implied doing those terrible things to her daughter's body who lay on the floor nearing death.

"I know in my heart I didn't do it" - didn't Patsy say that once ?

Translation: "It wasn't really ME who did this to JonBenet, for I loved that child with all my heart."

Imo no "Sandy Stranger" in Patsy's psyche killed JonBenet. Patsy simply refused to accept that she, like it can happen to all of us, snapped and lost it in one tragic brief moment, and refused to take responsibility for the consequences.
Instead she chose to live a lie, but it sure took its toll on her. Lies of such magnitude always do.

 

This is exactly how I see it, rashomon. The ransom note is the answer to it not being a planned crime. I agree with what CASKU has to say.

KK does have Patsy pinned when it comes to Patsy being a winner. Patsy certainly did put up a good fight with her cancer. No way do I think this was premeditated.

One thing does trouble me, and that is would John Ramsey be so stupid to start molesting JonBenét on Christmas night, with the following morning being an early rise for all of them flying first to Minneapolis to pick up his son and daughter, John Andrew and Melinda, plus her fiance Stewart, and then to Charlevoix? To me, this doesn't add up.

I also think Patsy Ramsey was a planner, and even if she had it in her head to sacrifice her own daughter for whatever reason, she would have planned it much better than this, and chosen a different time other than Christmas night, to do it, with this early flight the next morning(?).

 

Does anyone here believe this was premediated? Even Paradox? I think Paradox feels it was the small foreign faction inside Patsy's mind that took advantage of events to carry out the sacrifice, not as though Patsy in her conscious mind planned to kill JonBenet. The faction was ripe and ready and things happened that night so that they (it) could carry out the action.

At least, that is the way I understand Paradoxical thinking...

Paradox doesn't believe that Patsy WAS Patsy, the way we think of a personality, but a dissociated personality with no one united personality. The mind is a strange thing...

Maybe Patsy's diagnosis was Narcissim with Borderline Personality Disorder. She certainly merged herself with JonBenet, didn't she? Or, more accurately, absorbed JonBenet into herself.

 

It sure would make a lot of sense, heymom if Patsy Ramsey did have a Borderline Personality Disorder, but I would have thought this would have been discovered a long time ago (?).

 

That's what has always been bothering me too. No, it doesn't add up.
This non-adding up even led me to theorize once that maybe the Patsy's rage attack was not connected to sexual abuse issues, but still John could have been his daughter's chronic sexual abuser with Patsy being unaware of it. Maybe when Patsy ran to him for help, it was he who suggested she stage a sexual predator scene because he wanted the signs of chronic abuse to be covered up.

For once you take possible chronic sexual abuse into account, this case becomes complicated because there are so many variables.

If JonBenet was the victim of chronic sexual abuse, then

- who was her abuser?
- was the abuser also the killer? (not necessarily)
- was her death connected to the sexual abuse? (again, not necessarily)

It can really make one's head spin.

Just my opinon too. A planned sacrifice does not fit into the Ramseys' schedule for the following day.
Aside from that, why on earth should Patsy get the idea to sacrifice her daughter? What was she to gain from that? We don't live in archaic times anymore where human beings were sacrificed to appease the gods.

 

But still this would also require planning on Patsy's side to a carry it out.

I think Patsy had the ability to dissociate herself from certain elements in her psyche she could not bare to be confronted with.

Which is why she also dissociated herself from her rage attack on her daughter, going right into staging a bizarre intruder scene.
But I don't think her ability to dissociate went so far as her having multiple personality disorder, and I get the impression from Paradox's posts that he thinks she suffered from that. Like the Small Foreign Faction taking over, whispering into Patsy's ear "This is the day and you've got to kill her".
Imo what did take over for a short moment was Pastys rage, making her lose control with tragic results.

It was certainly a mother-daughter relationship in which the daughter was manipulated to serve her mother's egoistic interests.
The beautiful daughter was paraded around in pageants as an 'extension' of her beautiful mother, as the perfect 'product' of her mother. But it was all done for show. Warning signs of chronic wetting and soiling were ignored by the ambitious stage mother Patsy, and instead of taking care that JonBenet's chronic painful vaginitis was healed, Patsy scheduled her little daughter for yet another pageant she was to attend in January. All this shows how little empathy Patsy had for her child.
The Ramseys tried to play itdown, claiming those pageants were "just a few Sundays". Yeah, right. They were far more than that - they were an integral part of Patsy's life. She needed them for herself.

 

Rash, we're on the same page when it comes to John. Although I do think Patsy knew about the molestation, from her reaction when she was told that JonBenet had been molested. But on that night, she might not have been aware, if John hadn't been actively molesting JonBenet that night (and I'm not sure he was, I only speculate that he HAD at some point before).

I think JonBenet's death was due to SOMEONE'S rage at her. Whether it was her father's or her mother's, we may never know. It would shock me if it had been Burke, but we just don't know, do we? We don't know WHO was angry at JonBenet, and we don't know WHY he or she was angry. Was it because JonBenet wet the bed, refused an advance, just got a bit too assertive on her own behalf, or ????

I really enjoy reading your posts. You are very logical and rational and you bring up some good points.
:sleuth:

 

Very well said, very well indeed.

 

But it did fit into the group of individuals schedule. THAT'S the point.

Good question: the same thing people got when they marched their perfect little girls and boys up the Andes mountains and clubbed them on the head and planted them there; an imagined connection to an imagined supernatural being.

But the archaic times live in us.

 

With all due respect, I think this is a self serving determination. The note has quite a lot of form and pattern to it; firstly it is journalistically/linguistically accurate for the most part. Secondly, the content is obviously not rational but quite recognizable and acceptable as literary fiction.

The form and pattern that so many miss in this case is further deliniated when one knows about a major influence in Patsy's life: the great writer of fiction Muriel Spark.

 

And that other great writer of myth, "God".