Questions from a Switcher

I'm a "switcher" because, until recently, I believed the Intruder Theory. My reason was simply that I couldn't imagine how a parent could do to a child what had been done to JonBenet. In the wake of the John Mark Karr arrest, however, I decided to review the evidence in the case. I saw Tricia's challenge, somewhere here on websleuths, to study the documents at FFJ. I also read Steve Thomas' book and found it to be the most credible thing I've ever read on the case. I now believe that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, probably in the way hypothesized by Thomas.

I still have a few nagging questions, though, and I was hoping some of you might be able to help make them nag me a bit less. Here goes.

(1) Prior abuse. JBR went to the doctor far too much, had an abnormally high number of "accidents," incontinence issues, "chronic vaginal trauma." It paints the portrait of a little girl abused by someone in her family. Thomas seemed disinclined, though I wasn't clear why, to attribute any of this to the father. Why not John Ramsey? Just because he was proper with his other children does not mean he might not have done something untoward with his youngest daughter, particularly after Patsy's cancer problems. (I have a friend who was abused by her father after her mother died. The logic of the situation almost seemed to lead to it. Mother gone, daughter becomes surrogate.)

(2) Suppose Patsy was a chronic abuser. Suppose she flipped out for whatever reasons and smashed JBR in the head. I still find it extremely difficult to believe that she could have strangled her daughter with a ligature. It's such an intimate way to kill someone. I just don't understand how a parent could do it -- particularly 45 minutes after the original outburst of rage. Wouldn't the passion have subsided? Wouldn't reason have prevailed? "My God, she's breathing... There's still hope... Call an ambulance!"

(3) Thomas theorizes that John Ramsey discovered JBR's body during that late-morning interval that Arndt lost track of him. Thomas then thinks that John understood the situation and decided to cover for his wife.

This I find to be the most perplexing point of the whole theory. Why in the world would he cover for his wife? Why would he choose to live with a psychopath? Why would he subject his son to living with someone capable of killing her own child? It makes no sense. It's difficult to believe that John was so obsessed with maintaining his lifestyle or whatever that he'd cut his losses with JonBenet and keep a pathological wife around. How could he know she wouldn't harm him or Burke? Even if he loved Patsy blindly, wouldn't it make more sense to hand her over to authorities, get her treatment? Maybe even wash his hands of her altogether? After all, no one would blame him if he divorced the killer of his daughter. John was an attractive, wealthy man. He could have found other women.

The only way I can see John covering for Patsy is if she had something on him as well. What would that be? Proof that he did abuse JonBenet? Business secrets? Something weirder or worse?

In the end, I now believe Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. But I despair of ever understanding it, and perhaps that's just the thing -- it's ipso facto incomprehensible.

Hi Keith,

I think Patsy wrote the note and participated in the cover-up. I also tend to go along with Henry Lee and some others who think Patsy may have done it accidently or been carried awaly in a fit and something happened.

But, like you, I do not understand why John would cover up for Patsy. UNLESS he had abused JonBenet. Which would explain the scene that was staged. There HAD to be a reason for the signs of sex abuse and the staged scene might and ACTUALLY DID become the explanation.

Several pathologists said they thought JonBenet was abused prior to that Christmas night. So physical evidence supports this theory.

But, trying to figure out who did what and why and coming up with reasons, I do not think can ever be done. Unless someone talks.

However, in most states, you do not need to know the motive to convict. You are supposed to follow the evidence.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the Ramseys.

Keith X,

This I find to be the most perplexing point of the whole theory. Why in the world would he cover for his wife?

Click to expand...

Because they were joint partners in JonBenet's death!

Who can contradict the notion that both parents were abusive, that JonBenet was abused by each parent to suit each of their selfish motives, that is they colluded in abuse, and when it came to a cover up, both knew they either backed up each other or faced a murder case?



.

If both parents were abusive, do you think there were different forms of abuse? Perhaps John abused her sexually and Patsy abused her physically? Again, it's tough to imagine one parent tolerating the abuse of the other. If John were molesting JBR, why would Patsy beat on her or whatever? Or if John knew Patsy were abusing JBR, why would he not intervene -- simply because he was getting off too much on molesting her? It's hard to imagine that a father could be that low...

When I look at this case, I see that the evidence points to the Ramseys but I just can't understand how (psychologically & morally) the Ramseys could have committed every action performed on that awful night.

Maybe it's good not to understand? It must mean I'm "normal?" But then again, is it "normal" to be so deeply interested in this obviously abnormal event?

Jolynna said:

Hi Keith,

I think Patsy wrote the note and participated in the cover-up. I also tend to go along with Henry Lee and some others who think Patsy may have done it accidently or been carried awaly in a fit and something happened.

But, like you, I do not understand why John would cover up for Patsy. UNLESS he had abused JonBenet. Which would explain the scene that was staged. There HAD to be a reason for the signs of sex abuse and the staged scene might and ACTUALLY DID become the explanation.

Several pathologists said they thought JonBenet was abused prior to that Christmas night. So physical evidence supports this theory.

But, trying to figure out who did what and why and coming up with reasons, I do not think can ever be done. Unless someone talks.

However, in most states, you do not need to know the motive to convict. You are supposed to follow the evidence.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

i think john was codependent with patsy. he wouldn't have blown his whole family over this. i still get back to the book patsy bought for burke about why does johnny touch his sister or something like that. patsy was worried about burke and jbr.

Jolynna said:

Hi Keith,

I think Patsy wrote the note and participated in the cover-up. I also tend to go along with Henry Lee and some others who think Patsy may have done it accidently or been carried awaly in a fit and something happened.

But, like you, I do not understand why John would cover up for Patsy. UNLESS he had abused JonBenet. Which would explain the scene that was staged. There HAD to be a reason for the signs of sex abuse and the staged scene might and ACTUALLY DID become the explanation.

Several pathologists said they thought JonBenet was abused prior to that Christmas night. So physical evidence supports this theory.

But, trying to figure out who did what and why and coming up with reasons, I do not think can ever be done. Unless someone talks.

However, in most states, you do not need to know the motive to convict. You are supposed to follow the evidence.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

He did it to save face.

Keith X said:

If both parents were abusive, do you think there were different forms of abuse? Perhaps John abused her sexually and Patsy abused her physically? Again, it's tough to imagine one parent tolerating the abuse of the other. If John were molesting JBR, why would Patsy beat on her or whatever? Or if John knew Patsy were abusing JBR, why would he not intervene -- simply because he was getting off too much on molesting her? It's hard to imagine that a father could be that low...

When I look at this case, I see that the evidence points to the Ramseys but I just can't understand how (psychologically & morally) the Ramseys could have committed every action performed on that awful night.

Maybe it's good not to understand? It must mean I'm "normal?" But then again, is it "normal" to be so deeply interested in this obviously abnormal event?

Click to expand...

What's normal anyway?

Jolynna said:

..............................................

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

That's just it! FBI said there was staging and staging-within-staging. Way overdone. They should know.

In other words, obviously the R's wouldn't have staged the scene to point to themselves as the murderers! The staging was "overkill". The fact that there was too much of it is one thing that points to staging. That and the famous dictionary picture placed loosely in the evidence envelope as an afterthought by someone who had access to police files. (One of their own was involved?)

narlacat said:

What's normal anyway?

Click to expand...

'Normal' is a term used by people in denial of their own abnormalities.

I don't think that JR found the body during that period when he disappeared that morning. I believe that JR was aware of what had happened very early that morning and that he was part of the staging and coverup from the beginning. Maybe Patsy had something on him (prior sexual abuse) or maybe in the panic of the moment he agreed to help her to cover up and once that ball started rolling he could never get out of it.

It is possible that the body was originally hidden away elsewhere and that JR realized that it had to be found. He snuck off to the basement and moved it into the wine cellar and then "found" it later. However, I think it is possible that the body was always in the wine cellar and White just didn't see it in the dark. He wasn't looking for a body then. He was looking for evidence of a break in (no window in the wine cellar) or a live JBR. I think that JR used that time around 10am to get rid of evidence. Didn't the pilot come by at some point to pick up a package? What was that about?

Did FW have vision problems, wear glasses, hmmm.

The interest in this case, most likely evolves from our legal system, and one of the ten commandments, Thou shall not kill.

The person who killed this tiny girl with such potential, should be imprisoned and made to pay for the loss. This is our legal formality.

The person who caused the death, and the people who engaged in the coverup, I do believe have lived in their own hell, for the approximate 10 years since this baby died.

IF indeed we label it as an abnormal happening, with no further 'murders' planned by the perpetrator and the 'helpy' cover up people, do we merely go forth with a 'Live and let live' mind set?

IF there ARE other non family members involved in the 'coverup' who are holding their silence, I have to wonder HOW they make it through day by day, what did they do with THEIR moral conscience for this innocent child? DID they receive "quieting money"?

.

(1) Prior abuse. JBR went to the doctor far too much, had an abnormally high number of "accidents," incontinence issues, "chronic vaginal trauma." It paints the portrait of a little girl abused by someone in her family. Thomas seemed disinclined, though I wasn't clear why, to attribute any of this to the father. Why not John Ramsey? Just because he was proper with his other children does not mean he might not have done something untoward with his youngest daughter, particularly after Patsy's cancer problems. (I have a friend who was abused by her father after her mother died. The logic of the situation almost seemed to lead to it. Mother gone, daughter becomes surrogate.)

Click to expand...

That's what they call a "situational."

(2) Suppose Patsy was a chronic abuser. Suppose she flipped out for whatever reasons and smashed JBR in the head. I still find it extremely difficult to believe that she could have strangled her daughter with a ligature. It's such an intimate way to kill someone. I just don't understand how a parent could do it -- particularly 45 minutes after the original outburst of rage. Wouldn't the passion have subsided? Wouldn't reason have prevailed? "My God, she's breathing... There's still hope... Call an ambulance!"

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that method was chosen because it WASN'T intimate (meaning that if you use a cord, you don't actually have to touch the person.)

The passion would have likely subsided, but would have been replaced by panicked self-preservation. And it's highly unlikely that she would have known JB was breathing. She was most likely in shock: shallow breathing, pulse weak, most likely undetectable by someone who was searching frantically, if at all.

(3) Thomas theorizes that John Ramsey discovered JBR's body during that late-morning interval that Arndt lost track of him. Thomas then thinks that John understood the situation and decided to cover for his wife.

Click to expand...

I don't buy that. I think he was in on it from the start.

This I find to be the most perplexing point of the whole theory. Why in the world would he cover for his wife? Why would he choose to live with a psychopath?

Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. If he turned her in, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage only to marry a monster. And if he knew about her illness and did nothing, that just adds to the shame. I call this the "Kennedy complex."

The only way I can see John covering for Patsy is if she had something on him as well. What would that be? Proof that he did abuse JonBenet? Business secrets? Something weirder or worse?

Click to expand...

I think you'll find a lot of people agree with that, Keith.

Again, it's tough to imagine one parent tolerating the abuse of the other.

Click to expand...

It's a LOT more common than you think! In fact, it's standard for one parent to look the other way. Don't take my word for it. Marilyn Van Derbur is a former beauty queen who was molested by her father as a child. She'll tell you: her mother knew and looked the other way.

If John were molesting JBR, why would Patsy beat on her or whatever?

Click to expand...

Because in those cases, it's common to blame the victim. Just spitballing: imagine this scenario:

PATSY: You little *advertiser censored*! I know what you do with your father! He's mine, not yours!

Maybe it's good not to understand? It must mean I'm "normal?" But then again, is it "normal" to be so deeply interested in this obviously abnormal event?

Click to expand...

It might be better to say that you are trying to use logic to understand something that is inherently illogical. Keith, your confusion is only natural.


"In other words, obviously the R's wouldn't have staged the scene to point to themselves as the murderers!"

Ugh! Don't waste my time with that. They didn't stage it to point to themselves. That's just how it happened. That's the rule, not the exception.

Yes, you have to wonder about those other peoples' conscience, and if they tell themselves, well we can't bring her back.

I was just googling Sociopaths before checking in here. There's a lot more pages than the last time I tried it, and a lot more classifications. Couldn't possibly sort it all out. For one example, the "Aggressive Sociopath" want power and manage to get into positions to have it, such as bureaucrats, maybe cops, etc. I didn't say it. But I keep wondering about that dictionary picture ST leaked info about, and probably would have been fired for if he hadn't quit. I give him plenty of credit. http://faculty.newc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm

One of the famous TV preachers, I haven't heard in a while, used to have a sermon title, "Nothing Just Happens". He's a motivational speaker, encouraging people how to deal with opposition or whatever in life. Doesn't use Peale's expression "Power of Positive Thinking", but it amounts to the same thing, that usually you'll reap what you sow. Right?

ellen13 said:

i think john was codependent with patsy. he wouldn't have blown his whole family over this. i still get back to the book patsy bought for burke about why does johnny touch his sister or something like that. patsy was worried about burke and jbr.

Click to expand...

Patsy received a book from her father called Why Johnny Can't Read. (This info is in the Thomas book.)


-Tea

It was Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong.

Keith X said:

(1) Prior abuse. JBR went to the doctor far too much, had an abnormally high number of "accidents," incontinence issues, "chronic vaginal trauma." It paints the portrait of a little girl abused by someone in her family. Thomas seemed disinclined, though I wasn't clear why, to attribute any of this to the father. Why not John Ramsey? Just because he was proper with his other children does not mean he might not have done something untoward with his youngest daughter, particularly after Patsy's cancer problems. (I have a friend who was abused by her father after her mother died. The logic of the situation almost seemed to lead to it. Mother gone, daughter becomes surrogate.)

Click to expand...

Glad to have you Keith, Welcome!

#1 is what I believe. I believe John accidentally killed her when he took a sex game too far.

Keith X said:

Wouldn't reason have prevailed? "My God, she's breathing... There's still hope... Call an ambulance!"

Click to expand...

No, Patsy was more interested in saving face, so prior sexual abuse wouldn't be discovered, thus JB got finished off with a head blow. I think Miss Patsy was a victim of sexual abuse by her father, so even if she knew John was doing it, she looked the other way and stood by her man.

Many thanks for everyone's thoughts on the matter. SuperDave was particularly thought provoking and, in the final analysis, maybe he's right. It's tough using logic to understand something that may be intrinsically illogical.

As to John and sexual abuse, I find it quite plausible that John was molesting JBR, and that that could have provided his motive for covering for Patsy.

However, I find it very difficult to believe that he may have accidentally killed JBR in a sex game. I've seen those EA theories about the case but it just makes no sense to play a game like that with a 6 y.o., especially if you're her parent. A kid couldn't have the self-control not to struggle as you strangled her. It would take an adult to say to himself, "Ok, I'm going to struggle for breath, but this will give me greater pleasure..." When you read Karr's descriptions of his EA fantasies, they're totally implausible. (He blathers on and on about how JBR enjoyed EA and whatnot.)

Nuisanceposter said:

It was Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong.

Click to expand...

Are you sure because I'm 99% positive I've seen the other title mentioned in print format in connection with this case.


-Tea

EDIT: You are correct about the title as I have finally found it on pg. 225 of the NE book.

Keith X said:

As to John and sexual abuse, I find it quite plausible that John was molesting JBR, and that that could have provided his motive for covering for Patsy.

However, I find it very difficult to believe that he may have accidentally killed JBR in a sex game. I've seen those EA theories about the case but it just makes no sense to play a game like that with a 6 y.o., especially if you're her parent. A kid couldn't have the self-control not to struggle as you strangled her. It would take an adult to say to himself, "Ok, I'm going to struggle for breath, but this will give me greater pleasure..." When you read Karr's descriptions of his EA fantasies, they're totally implausible. (He blathers on and on about how JBR enjoyed EA and whatnot.)

Click to expand...

I agree with you - while I could see it's possible for JR to have been sexually molesting JBR, I don't think AE is involved AT ALL. Frankly, I find all the AE theorizing quite tiresome - just not believable, imo.

I cannot believe that JR was molesting JBR that particular night. They got home kind of late, and had a very early morning. I don't think that, on that night, with about a 7 hour window of opportunity (from about 10 PM to 5 AM wakeup) that JR would decide to stay up extra late to get his kicks with JBR. I just don't think it happened that way. I find it way more easy to believe that anger out of hand caused an unplanned injury and subsequent cover up. I see PR as the more likely angry killer. My second choice would be a BR accidental hurting of his sister, and again, I do not buy the "Playing doctor" theories. jmo

imho

LinasK said:

...........
......... I think Miss Patsy was a victim of sexual abuse by her father, so even if she knew John was doing it, she looked the other way and stood by her man.

Click to expand...

I've asked this before, I think, can't remember in what thread so I don't know if there was any answer. Where did we first get the idea that PR and her sisters were molested in their childhood? Did we just jump to that conclusion because somehow it seemed like a good idea at the time?

I remember saying it was a long time after Don Paugh's helping JR and PR get their business up and running that Judith Philips commented about a dramatic change in JonBenet and PR when they returned from a trip to Texas.

Had PR sold out her daughter to someone there who could promise continued pageant success? Doesn't seem logical because she was already doing so well. Had something happened behind PR's back in Houston?

I know it's been a long time, but can you remember why we all started saying PR had been abused by her father? TIA.