To Understand Patsy We Must Understand Kiddie Pageants

Princessmer

If JonBenet were alive today, Patsy woiuld be hauling her all over the country to the American Idol auditions. Despite the poor singing voice. Poor JBR would be like that girl last night in the cowgirl outfit who sang "Viva Las Vegas".

 

LOL!!!
If JBR wasn't picked Patsy would have probably sued the show. Wait, isn't American Idol on FOX???

 

Patsy was the first Desperate Housewife.

 

Actually, American Idol is a great example, but I don't know if we can entirely blame the parents in that case.

My daughter at the cop shop takes her lunch hour at the time AI comes on, just so she can watch it with me. I guess it's akin to watching a car wreck - we sit there with our mouths open, unbelieving of what we are hearing. It's worse than just a couple of giggles over the terrible singing attempts - it's enough to render one speechless.

Are all these people tone deaf? Do they really believe they can sing? Or are they just smart as$es wanting to get on TV for 45 seconds? I can't figure it out - no one can be that stupid, can they?

And, then I pull myself out of it. Of course the answer is yes, people can be that stupid. Just look at Candy and jameson.

 

It's all about the money, imho, and using people.

Love people; use things. I saw that on a poster in a teacher's classroom years and years ago; it made an impression on me.

 

If Patsy had been involved in this crime:

1. She would not have been dumb enough to write a phoney kidnapping note for no reason. If the child's body had been planted outside the house that might have been a reason. But it wasn't. So why go to all that trouble to hand the cops a patently phoney note IN YOUR OWN HAND????

2. She would have been sure to shower and change the next morning.

3. She would not have called the cops before getting rid of the body. And if she couldn't get rid of the body then she wouldn't have handed the note to the cops, she'd have destrohyed it.

 

Nope, I don't believe that..

why should Patsy have showered. She knew it was ok to have DNA on her.

Also, she got dramatic...that is the reason for the note. She knew most kidnappers leave notes. I just think she got carrried away with it.

Hiding the body never works..people would see...car would have to leave, etc.

 

RiverRat, I plead guilty to colouring my hair. At my age, I should be growing old gracefully, but I can't, and I've given up having it done at the hairdressers. It's convenient to do it myself, but, some products do have a strong chemical smell. It's bad enough for an adult to put up with this, let alone a little girl of six. JonBenét probably had this done when she was even younger. Unbelievable, to put a little girl through this procedure, plus the manicures, the mascara etc., Jeesh, she never got the chance to be a little ordinary girl, did she? Although Patsy will sw-e-a-ah that JonBenét j-u-s-t l-o-v-e-d the pageants.

 

It only makes sense to me that she would be involved in covering up.

 

"why should Patsy have showered. She knew it was ok to have DNA on her."

How about blood under her fingernails for starters? How about sweat from being up all night running around like a maniac? And why would she want to invite suspicion by wearing the same outfit as the night before? She had all the time in the world to change. No need to call the police as early as she did.

"Also, she got dramatic...that is the reason for the note. She knew most kidnappers leave notes. I just think she got carrried away with it.

Hiding the body never works..people would see...car would have to leave, etc."

IMO most of the posters on this list are the ones who "got dramatic." Is that the best you can do, the "drama queen" bit? Sure most kidnappers leave notes, but there was NO kidnapping, not even a faked kidnapping. The note did nothing for Patsy except invite suspicion. So why would she have written it? Just because YOU think she'd be that dumb simply as a way of acting out some nutty "drama" in her own head doesn't mean a jury would buy it. In fact most prosecutors would be embarrassed by such an argument, it would be laughed out of court.

And if hiding the body outside the house wouldn't have worked then clearly neither would the note. With the body in the house the note simply casts suspicion on those inside the house. If she was afraid to dump the body then she certainly would NOT have handed that note over to the police.

And JC, even if she was covering for John it still makes no sense for her to do any of these things. If John is the guilty party, then lets look at HIM. I see no evidence that Patsy was involved in any way, either in the murder or coverup.

 

I CAN NOT BELIEVE YOU THINK THAT WAY. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LED A SHELTERED LIFE TO THINK THERE IS no evidence thta Patsy was involved....

This whole post of yours is a joke, right? It has to be.

 

DocG

You sound as though you are trying to tell us that You Must Have Been there when the murder and cover-up occurred.

You Want Drama?

RR

 

"And JC, even if she was covering for John it still makes no sense for her to do any of these things. If John is the guilty party, then lets look at HIM. I see no evidence that Patsy was involved in any way, either in the murder or coverup."

I don't mind looking at HIM. Let's do look at the deacon.

 

Getting back to JonBenét's hair being lightened, I came across this new section at ACandyRose. Looks like ACR has been very busy.

http://www.acandyrose.com/magazines1.htm

After the murder, Patsy agrees to have JonBenét's photos in the February issue.

Thank you ACR!

 

1000 sparks et al

WHAT BLOOD? SWEAT DOESN'T SHOW AND DOESN'T ALWAYS STINK.

You are forgetting the vaglinal penetration, perhaps? And the resulting blood on her panties. Conventional wisdom on this forum is that Patsy tried to make it look like an attack by a pedophile.


NO, YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW MANY WOMEN. MEN ARE MORE BLUNT (USUALLY). PATSY WASN'T ACTING OUT...THAT IS HER PERSONA. YOU MUST KNOW THAT. AND WHO ARE THE DRAMATIC POSTERS????

All of you, YOU are the drama queens, ladies, hatching an incredibly lame "coverup plot" that wouldn't even make a halfway decent b-list murder mystery. I probably know a lot more women than you do, 1000 sparks. And in my experience women are a lot more honest with men than with other women, so I probably know a lot more about women than you, as a matter of fact.

HOW IN THE SAM HEELL WAS SHE GONNA TELL THE COPS THEIR WAS A KIDNAPPPING IF THERE WASN'T A NOTE??????? She HAD to write SOMETHING.

Why would she have WANTED to tell the cops there was a kidnapping if she knew the body was still in the house? Either get the body OUT of the house, or forget kidnapping, just claim you heard a noise and when you investigated you found your child's body and an open basement window.

"I CAN NOT BELIEVE YOU THINK THAT WAY. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LED A SHELTERED LIFE TO THINK THERE IS no evidence thta Patsy was involved....

This whole post of yours is a joke, right? It has to be."

Ladies, ladies, ladies, you haven't thought the case through. You've accused Patsy of everything under the sun because you think you know something about women but in fact all you know, if anything, is yourselves. This stuff has been fixed in your minds so long you actually think it's crazy for someone to question it. The best (and worst) minds in law enforcement have been puzzling over this case for years, but you folks truly believe you know what it's all about. YOU are the ones who act as though you were there when it happened and can follow every nuance.

The case is a true mystery. No one knows what really happened, but I'll tell you one thing for sure: only an idiot would write a phoney ransom note in her own hand knowing that the body was in the house, and that the police would eventually find it and see right through the phoney note.

Who would dream up such a totally lame "coverup"? And what sort of person could possibly believe it happened that way?

 

Hey, what about deacon John, aka lizzard lips?

"I probably know a lot more women than you do, 1000 sparks. And in my experience women are a lot more honest with men than with other women, so I probably know a lot more about women than you, as a matter of fact."

Okay, something is just wrong with that.

 

"Understanding the Ramsey note"

Hi DocG,

I can't help but wonder what your position or theory is in this case now. You seem to be arguing that no family member would be so stupid as to leave both a body and a "ransom note" in the home.

However, last September 12th you started a thread titled "Understanding the Ramsey note" whereby you presented a well thought through position that John wrote the note and had an elaborate plan to remove the body from the home. (see http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5380)

In several posts in that thread, you were critical of your fellow posters who refused to see that John wrote the note and that no intruder was involved. Is your position now that an intruder, not a Ramsey, was responsible for the events of Dec. 25-26?

My impression last September was that you believed John was responsible for "such a totally lame coverup... that wouldn't even make a halfway decent b-list murder mystery."

What is your position now?

 

Catfish

My position hasn't changed. I certainly don't buy any intruder theory, least of all the totally lame one floated by Lou Smit.

The only explanation of the note which makes any sense to me is that it was 1. written by an insider, NOT an intruder; 2. written as part of a plan that called for dumping the body BEFORE calling the police -- a plan that obviously went wrong, because the police WERE in fact called with the body still in the house. Patsy made that call. Therefore I see no alternative but to assume she must be innocent. Burke certainly didn't write the note. So that leaves - - - well figure it out for yourself.

If you're tempted to assume Patsy made the call only because John insisted on it, then you have to assume JOHN must be the one who is innocent and Patsy must have done it totally on her own. If that's the case, however, then why does the ransom note put JOHN in total control of the situation? Why was JOHN and not Patsy the one who went AWOL for almost an hour? Why was it JOHN who claims he noticed the basement window open, closed it and told NO ONE? Why did JOHN claim to be insulted at the suggestion of a polygraph while Patsy offered to take ten of them? Why was it JOHN who made sure to shower and change that AM and NOT Patsy? Why was it JOHN who lawyered up so soon and JOHN who stonewalled the police for so long? Why was it JOHN who came up with the VERY odd story of having broken the window months earlier while stripped to his underwear after climbing down into that filthy window well?

Patsy peeked from between her fingers at the policeman, you say? She overdid her Christmas decorations? She got Cancer too many times? Sorry, my vote is for JOHN.

 

Deacon John

I vote guilty. (May I have three votes? I vote guilty on all three.)