What Kind of Parents WOULD STOP SEARCHING FOR THEIR CHILD'S KILLER? GUILTY ONES.

Jayelles

I went back over there, Jay, and I think those posts I mentioned have been deleted. I'm sure it was in the thread "Replies to posts elsewhere." I saw one of my posts from this thread in there, but I think everyone has made it over there, so I'm just one of the gang. I've been in there a few times

 

hmmm... "decides to tell some of what she knows." I'm going to have to go along with Barbara here; my first thought was a BOOK!! Could she be promoting her book - getting your interest and intrigue up??!! So you all will read WHAT SHE KNOWS??!!
:book:

but then again - who the heck knows... but that's my guess!!

 

perhaps-

Steve Thomas knows the statistics on children killed over bedwetting accidents. I was appalled when I saw them awhile back. You might want to check it out. It happens more often than you might think.

 

I repeat: there was NO evidence that JonBenet was killed over bedwetting. Similarly there was NO evidence she was attacked with a stun gun. Both accusations are similarly motivated. If you must see Patsy as the accidental killer of her daughter, then you need to find a reason why. If you must see an intruder as the killer, then you need to come up with some piece of evidence originating outside the house. Desperation city. The case will NOT be solved by stretching credibility to such absurd lengths.

There is not one eye witness account of Patsy ever striking JonBenet. Not even a spanking! Sure, there's all sorts of evidence telling us the child was a bedwetter. So what? A great many kids her age are. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way. Anything is possible. There could have been a stun gun too. No way to prove there wasn't. But there is no EVIDENCE for either scenario. And no good reason to think it could have happened either way. So why belabor the points?

If you insist on arguing for bedwetting as the motive then you are going to have a hard time arguing against the absurd stun gun attack. Both look very much like the products of wishful thinking.

 

not so

There are more children killed over bedwetting accidents than you may suppose - there are very few children stun-gunned. They are not equal. Jonbenet did wet her bed, according to the former housekeeper there was increased activity of bedwetting over the 2 1/2 years she worked there. If someone were to do a crime analysis I would guess they would say JBR was at low risk to be a victim of homicide. What would be any risk factors for her? I know the risks of her being stun-gunned would be very small indeed.

You can claim over and over that simply because no one saw Patsy hit her that she wouldn't/didn't hit her that night. I sincerely doubt that Patsy would ever let anyone see her hit her daughter. Maybe she never raised a hand in anger against her before, my bet would be that she is the type of mother that would take her child out of sight or wait until she got home before she paddled her kids. That doesn't mean she couldn't lose it some night and hit her.

 

I guess I'm going to have to post again what I posted at WS a long time ago ... that my maternal grandmother NEVER hit, slapped or spanked her children in front of ANYONE. She was thought of as a sweet person who did for others ... always making quilts, and taking food to the sick and shut-ins. She was in church every time the doors were open. But at home was a different story. She would sometimes fly into a rage and whip her children without mercy. One time, the oldest girl hid their mother's wooden paddle because she could not stand to see the little ones beaten with it anymore. She would not tell where she had hidden it, and for that, she received a severe beating with another object.

The children never told anyone, and no one was ever around when it happened. Grandmother "loved" her children, and would have defended them to the death ... but there were times when she "lost it." I have said it before, and I will say it again. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Patsy may have never spanked or beaten JonBenet before that night, but that does not mean she couldn't have lashed out in anger. There is always a first time ... especially if the person is under enough internal and external stressors.

Once again, I'm not saying that is what happened. But it is naive to think it could not be a possibility. Children die every day from parental abuse, and sometimes, it happens with the first incident.

As for the bedwetting ... it is NOT common for a six-year-old GIRL to have a bedwetting problem that requires pull-ups every night.


IMO

 

Do you have the source for this information Texan? I was looking for it today and didn't have any luck? There is other information on the net which confirms what you're saying.

 

Sorry about your grandmother, Cherokee. I'm sure there are many out there like her.

No evidence of Patsy spanking her children confirms that she doesn't lose her temper now and then. Patsy displayed anger during her interview, when she told Det. Haney "Don't go there pal!" Words to that effect, when he brought Burke into the picture. This tells me she's capable of building up anger.

 

clap clap clap

Texan--I think your ability to cut through cliched thinking is second to none. I think you are awesome. If you were here right now I'd give you a big smooch.

Bedwetting is the number one trigger of parental rage killing in this nation. Number ONE. How sad, how dreary, that something so mundane is so often a deadly trigger in child homicides and yet there it is.

People want to make this case into something extraordinary--they want to make the story more interesting than it really is. Even Patsy Ramsey wanted this when she wrote that theatrical note to cover whatever occured that night. Meanwhile, back on the planet earth, the truth about what happened is probably very simple and very sad.

 

Hi Niner, long time no see! Has there been any mention that Jameson was considering a book, prior to her latest statement?

 

Yes, Bob, the truth probably is very simple as you say. For me the simple bed wetting scene fits. It was good to see Texan's post stating:

Steve Thomas knows the statistics on children killed over bedwetting accidents. I was appalled when I saw them awhile back. You might want to check it out. It happens more often than you might think.

.... when DocG is telling all of us to put it to rest.
.
1. Patsy tells the BoulderPolice she put on a red top when JonBenét was put to bed.

2. A red top is found "balled up" on JB's bathroom counter, as if it had been wrung out by hand, and this could have been because it was soiled at the midnight check.

3. JonBenét had been washed down according to the autopsy. This fits in with the red top being removed and rinsed out.

4. Patsy changes her testimony to the white top with the sequined star, the one JonBenét is found dead in.

5. Was JonBenét thrown into the tub in anger and washed down because she was in a mess? Could the head injury have happened while JonBenét may have been objecting and yelling back at Patsy?

I think so!

 

can't find it yet

I have been looking for those stats. Someone posted them on this forum in the past. I will keep looking.

Ah, a kiss from bobc! You made my day and I will just take it as a cyber kiss 'til we meet again. (maybe in another Texas Do?)

 

Texan, et al.

(While you're at it, check out the stats for father-daughter incest.)

Sure it could have happened as the result of bedwetting. It could have happened as the result of a botched kidnapping. Maybe she fell, hit her head, went into convulsions and they decided to strangle her because she was in such distress, as a mercy killing. Realizing they'd just murdered her, maybe they decided to stage a kidnapping. Maybe someone who resented John decided to concoct an elaborate murder complete with faked staging, to make it look like the father did it. Maybe a crazed pedophile used a stun gun on her and then strangled her.

All these scenarios are possible. It COULD have happened in ANY of these ways. But there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever, to back any of it up.

There IS evidence of incest, however, in the form of chronic injuries to the vagina. Dr. Wecht, probably the most experienced and respected pathologist in the world, is convinced of that. But as I've said before, all eyes are averted from John Ramsey. If the bedwetting scenario makes you feel better then by all means stick to it. If you want to follow the evidence, I suggest you take a harder look at JR.

 

Thank you, Elle ... yes, there are many out there like Grandmother ... and that is exactly my point. Good people are capable of extreme anger if enough stressors are present, along with a trigger event.

Frequently, the trigger is something small and mundane, as evidenced by the fact that people will often fight about the "little things" in a relationship. Many times, there is a build up of internal pressure until one person explodes over something the other person sees as trivial. The same dynamic happens in child abuse.

Often, the rage incident is not about the child, and what they've done, it's about the abuser, and what's inside.

 

All the arguments I'm seeing here are for the POSSIBILITY that Patsy MIGHT have killed JonBenet because of bedwetting. I have no problem with that -- as a POSSIBILITY. Just as I have no problem with the stun gun as a POSSIBILITY. There are MANY possibles in this case. The EVIDENCE, however, points elsewhere. If it's important to you to see Patsy as the killer, then I suppose the bedwetting possibility will also be important to you. If it's important to you to see justice done, then no, bedwetting as the trigger for murder is ONLY a possibility, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And by the way, the fact that other women have attacked their children over bedwetting is NOT evidence in the Ramsey case. Neither are reports of a smell of urine. Evidence that JonBenet may have wet the bed is NOT evidence she was killed because of it.

 

evidence of prior sexual abuse

well, if you're going to argue that there is no evidence of bedwetting that night (i'm not even sure whether LE would admit it if they did have that evidence) you are also going to have to face it that there are conflicting opinions on whether there is evidence of sexual abuse prior to that night. There are some experts claiming that the damage to JBR's private parts are part of the staging. The crime classification manual says that in staged homicides there is sometimes the appearance of sexual molestation but it isn't really sexually motivated - just staged. How often do dads that sexually abuse their daughter also kill them. I think there are far more moms or dads killing their kids over bedwetting than dads killing their daughters after sexually molesting them.

 

Chronic damage to the vagina is NOT something that could be staged. "Chronic" means continual, as opposed to "acute" which means recent. The possibility of staging doesn't enter into the question of whether or not there was chronic, i.e, long term, damage. Some "experts" have suggested this damage could have been due to the use of harsh bubble bath soaps. A portion of the hymen was worn away. Maybe those soaps did that as well?

As far as the tie-in between sexual abuse and murder, it's not very difficult to see that is it? Do you really need to consult an almanac to figure that one out? If John was abusing JonBenet and she'd threatened to "tell" during their upcoming visit to relatives, that would have been a powerful motive for murder, regardless of any statistics you might find or not find. Far more powerful than bedwetting it seems to me.

 

I think

The experts that think the bubble bath could be a factor are referring to the "chronic intersticial inflamation" and not the hymen. The inflamation mentioned is the only mention of chronic I saw in the autopsy report. Certainly the hymen being incomplete indicates something was inserted in her vagina. Which is something her mom could have done. Initially I thought her dad had to be involved some way when I read about the whole thing way back when, years ago. I am not stuck on any theory too much, although it may seem so. It is very frustrating because there is no clear-cut obvious evidence in any aspect of the crime.

I'm not really trying to push any one theory but looking at the whole thing from a simple perspective a person does need to consider the most likely scenario first. Which is what ST did. I just have a problem when people put down a former LE officer who had access to alot more info and met with the FBI and was given the benefit of their expertise. Where we differ is over the "ransom" note. I think it has been profiled as being written by a woman and it has Patsy's personality stamped all over it. There is overwhelming evidence that JBR did wet the bed on many nights. Parents don't put kids in pull-ups at night because their kid wet the bed one time. The housekeeper has said that it was a semi-regular occurence. National statistics say that kids are killed over bedwetting accidents. The theory that she was killed over bedwetting has just as much validity as any other theory.

Whether LE has evidence the sheets were wet on that night or not I just don't know. I have heard that they did find some evidence of that but if the sheets were washed it may be difficult to prove. I just wish I could have a shower vision or something and know what the heck went on in the Ramsey's house that night!

 

Texan

"Initially I thought her dad had to be involved some way when I read about the whole thing way back when, years ago."

Yes, and your mind was changed, when? When it was reported that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note. That's what shifted the whole focus of the case from John to Patsy. A few "experts" spent maybe an hour each examining the note and some exemplars and came to that conclusion as a result. What was their hurry? The note was about to be destroyed forever by a method of fingerprint detection. IMO that decision was a huge blunder. You don't rule out your prime suspect on the basis of a superficial examination of a few exemplars.

"I am not stuck on any theory too much, although it may seem so. It is very frustrating because there is no clear-cut obvious evidence in any aspect of the crime."

The evidence is certainly inconclusive. But the reason for the note is not. If we assume no intruder the note could only have been written by John with the intention of scaring Patsy into not calling the police. I've never seen any other interpretation of that note which makes sense.

"I'm not really trying to push any one theory but looking at the whole thing from a simple perspective a person does need to consider the most likely scenario first. Which is what ST did. I just have a problem when people put down a former LE officer who had access to alot more info and met with the FBI and was given the benefit of their expertise."

I am critical of ST for very good reasons. Not only did he engage in some incredibly naive wishful thinking, he went off in exactly the wrong direction, making the case a matter of Patsy vs. intruder and giving the most likely suspect a "pass."

 

Hi Elle - long time no see BUT I do read here EVERY day - just don't post as much!
Yes - to your question - I have seen posts of some that have mentioned hir writing a book - like that "timeline" of hirs!

Cherokee - so sorry to hear that you had a mean Grandmother! Boy, I must be one lucky person (and my sisters & brothers!) - we had what I would call a very nice childhood. I could NEVER imagine my mother or my father abusing us in any way - it's NOT supposed to be like that!!

:hug: and a :wave: to everyone!