First Hand Knowledge Of What It Feels Like To Be Strangled!!

[Solace]

Solace,


She had bruising on the side of her head e.g. temple region, this excludes what some have conjectured is a stun-gun mark. It could have been anyone, in particular Burke, or as BlueCrab has speculated a family friend?
UK, I mean the bruising on the "inside" of her head, the inside, which resulted from her brain rocking back forth from the violent shaking. Shaking as if someone is trying to wake her, but cannot anymore.

I understand that absence of evidence does not mean it was never there.


If it is an accident then only the forensic evidence consistent with this will be evident. This is why it makes more sense to stage an accidental death as an accident, this was my first take on JonBenet's death, I assumed a staged accident would minimise the forensic evidence transfer and merge with the then current accidental death? Patsy did not think so. Someone is frantic and we can see that from the bruising on each side of JB's head. Someone is frantically trying to revive her.


Was the paintbrush inserted, this is yet to be verified. (You may be right, I will verify; I thought splinters were found and I will check) Coroner Meyer is on record as stating JonBenet's genital pathology was consistent with digital penetration, bear in mind, he was present at the autopsy and is a qualified medical examiner. I understand that. I also understand that JonBenet is a very very tiny little girl and you can see that from the autopsy pictures. Her hands almost look like a todlers. Corporal douching could cause this especially if Patsy were not thinking and was careless and rough. she said she was concerned about it and that Jon Benet's underwear were always wet and it is very interesting that she goes out of her way to say it was no big deal to her. UK, it is a big deal when a 6 year old has chronic infections. It is a big deal and it is painful and if she were cleaning her in this manner, it would be painful and she would be squirming around.

JonBenet was wiped down, any semen may have been removed early in her staging. If there were semen on her legs, there is going to be semen other places. We are going to find something. There is nothing at all.

Absence of evidence does not demonstrate it never existed or the lack of guilt! I agree.

Yes it may be a rage killing, specifically a sexual rage killing! Nope, there is no sex going on here. It is a rage killing by a mother who is exhausted, been up since 6:00 a.m., probably up late the night before getting everything ready, Christmas day, opening presents, breakfast, having other children over all day, dyes her hair, has lunch (she thinks, does not remember - that is interesting, why does she not remember, (probably because she doesn't remember or she is taking xanax and her memory is pretty much gone). Visits friends, has dinner with them, but before that rides up the mountain to see the cross (or whatever) and then a little more visiting.

No she is exhausted and she lost it and JonBenet in the process.


.

See my responses above.

 

[BBB167893]

If you take into account the possible chronic sexual abuse of JonBenet, and that during his examination of JonBenet Coroner Meyer opined that JonBenet had been Digitally Penetrated then a motive for her death may simply be that a dead pageant princess cannot talk!

That just gives all the more reason.

There is one thing wrong with the Muchausen's Syndrome - Patsy really did have Ovarian cancer, Stage IV and she was getting quite a bit of attention from it for several years.

True, but that was starting to die down. For all I know, it whetted her appetite even more.

 

[Solace]

That just gives all the more reason.



True, but that was starting to die down. For all I know, it whetted her appetite even more.

I don't know SD. I think Patsy had problems. Had could she not. She was living with the prospect of dying every day. I just see her as stronger than that. As horrible as this sounds, oh God, I am going to get killed for this one, you have to be pretty strong to do what I believe they did to JonBenet and be able to live through it. I wouldn't make it. I would be in a drug induced coma before you could say "you are guilty".

 

[JMO8778]

:waitasec: I also have wondered about the Muchausens by Proxy element. But I wondered the same thing when Patsy realized that JonBenet was dying Did the super Mega JonBenet thing that friends wanted to speak to her about following the Disney Crusie psycologically morph into the drama that followed JonBenets death ... Patsy was nothing if not what they call a drama queen. I never even gave a second thought to premeditated vs accidental, accidental meaning a moment of extreme rage that left JonBenet mortally wounded. The rest being staging. I have spent a lot of years excusing the purchases at McGuckins as proof of acqusition not intent....But now you got me really thinking

yes,I have to wonder..why did she (very likely,IMO!!) buy the rope????
And did she purposely wait until CHRISTMAS DAY to do it,for added effect??And only after JB had won a few pageants??Remember that PR would have JB go thru the pageants again if she lost,not hand out prizes like the other kids did.

 

[Dru]

SD, your post interests me.

I've come to the opinion that JR was responsible, that he was both the abuser and the killer, and that the motive of this crime was fear of exposure.

One of my reasons for thinking JR did it instead of PR is that PR was taking JBR to the doctor very regularly (nearly 30 times in three years, if I remember correctly.) One of the problems for which JBR visited the pediatrician was chronic vaginitis. But whoever was abusing JBR would hardly do this, unless we accept a Munchausen theory--which I thought about before, but rejected.

In a Munchausen theory, PR causes the vaginitis (by douching or some other method) and then insists on taking the child to the doctor for the problem. But there are, to me, a few arguments against the Munchausen theory:

1. PR has had stage IV ovarian cancer, as was already said. Though the cancer was in remission, there will still be lots of 'attention': checkups, blood tests, etc. If PR suffered from Munchausen syndrome, all she has to do is call her oncologist with vague, worrying symptoms, and she's guaranteed an appointment with all the attention anyone could crave.

2. Infliction of genital injury to cause vaginitis is risky at best; it might not work! Even if it does, a competent doctor will discover it quickly, and 'attention' will become 'prison.' (True, JBR's doctor never did discover it, but JBR's abuser couldn't count on that.)

3. Thirty pediatric visits in three years, or ten a year, may seem like a lot. But routine checkups aside, many normal visits for some illness or problem will cause two or three office visits; one for diagnosis, one to see how the child is tolerating the treatment or prescription, and one follow-up when the child is better. So without more information, an average of ten visits a year over a three-year period might mean one routine checkup and three or four illnesses, not unheard of in the preschool-early school crowd. This hardly seems like enough, on its own, to satisfy a true Munchausen-by-proxy person.

4. Munchausen cases usually do escalate, but not from the "minor slightly worrying problem" (i.e., vaginitis) to the "fatal injury" (murder) stage with no in between stages. If PR were suffering from M-by-P, you'd expect a possible broken arm or concussion in between those extremes (and I can't believe PR was trying to give JBR a concussion and just hit way too hard; it borders on the absurd).

5. Finally, PR was basking in all the attention and reflected glory of her daughter's pageant appearances. Let's face it, at that young age the parents (and in this case the mom in particular) are going to get the lion's share of the attention! "Your daughter is so lovely--she looks just like you--how lucky she is to have a mom with 'pageant experience' to learn from--you must have worked really hard with her on that routine--I love the costume you chose for her--etc." So with all this attention, why would she need the extra attention from doctors and nurses attending to JBR? That would be a far less pleasant kind of attention, IMHO.

I agree that PR had a love of drama that quite possibly bordered on histrionic personality disorder, and that quite a lot of that ends up reflected in the staging. But I think the crime itself was rather 'businesslike' in execution: a fatal head blow which, though unpremeditated, solves a problem a particular person has been mulling over; a slight lapse of time while this person considers the best way to 'finish' things; the deliberate and calculating infliction of the sexual wound to hopelessly confuse the evidence of the prior abuse which underlies the motive of this crime; and finally, the cold-blooded, deliberate strangling of the unconscious and dying child, done so neatly that the rope's marks on the neck are a near perfect circumference. Is that really PR? Or is it her husband?

 

[UKGuy]

yes,I have to wonder..why did she (very likely,IMO!!) buy the rope????
And did she purposely wait until CHRISTMAS DAY to do it,for added effect??And only after JB had won a few pageants??Remember that PR would have JB go thru the pageants again if she lost,not hand out prizes like the other kids did.

JMO8778,

Maybe, why not, lets anoint this as the Muchausen Did It (MDI) theory since it gives expression to the dark side of Patsy's personality, I recognize its there, her encouragement in the sexualization of JonBenet, teaching JonBenet to wear makeup, adult clothes, and adult posing etc, all suggest a persona that does not bask in the reflective halo of the madonna.

But if she waited until Xmas day, incrementally making purchases to assist in JonBenet's death why did it end up such a disaster?

.

 

[Ames]

Okay, here goes.

And keep in mind I am just spitballing.

I've expanded at some length on my "Snow White" theory in the past, and I've cited several psychoanalysts to support me, such as Jamie Turndorf, et al. "Who's the fairest of them all?" "Not you."

I told my brother the only reason she fed JB pineapple was because there were no poisoned apples around. It was a bad joke, I admit. I wasn't in a very good mood at the time.

But the one I've been struck with only came on recently. I was reading three quotes. Two by Michael Kane, one by a Dr. Rusty Morris. Morris believes Patsy suffered from Munchausen-by-Proxy. Munchausen'S Syndrome is where a person feigns misfortune, most often illnesses, to attain sympathy. The Proxt kind is where they attain sympathy through other people. And who's more sympathetic than a child in pain. The most notable cases of this disorder are the ones where parents harm their children, even kill them. Morris points to the many doctor visits JonBenet made in her life.

Leading from there, I read the two quotes from Kane. He said in one interview that the biggest thing that leapt out at him was how overdone the staging was, almost to the point of being ridiculous. It was a theatrical production and Patsy was a theatrical person.

Not much change for a dollar there. But the clincher was where Kane actually said that Patsy enjoyed being known as the mother of a dead beauty queen. Wow. That got me to thinking. At first, I went down that path to explain why she chose to stage a horrific crime rather than call for help: she knew JB would die, no matter what anyone did, and since JB had been so spectacular in life, she HAD to be spectacular in death.

Everyone still following me?

But then, I started wondering if maybe it was a premeditated killing for that reason. It started to fall into place. The only thing that kept me in the "accident" camp was that I've always maintained that the staging was so sloppy is because it was such a spur-of-the-moment panic deal. But now I wonder if it wasn't just the works of a delusional person.

You folks get all of that?

You could be right. In our old neighborhood, our neighbor across the street had two sons. She had Munchausen-by-proxy too...she used her two sons to gain sympathy. I don't have the space here to tell you what a whack job she was. But, she was on all sorts of medication...and she would medicate her boys with HER medicine. They were sick ALL the time. It was ALWAYS something with them...one of them actually made it to school for 90 days...(NOT in a row though)...thats only three months of school, out of a school year. She used to call me at 7:30 in the morning, while I was getting my daughter dressed for school, just to tell me that one of her kids were sick. She delighted in telling people, because she was trying to get sympathy....and wanted to be noticed. She and her sons have been to all sorts of doctors, for all sorts of tests...and she would tell anyone that is willing to listen ALL about it. She was the talk of the neighborhood and the school. I am surprised that she hasn't killed one of her boys by now...by doping them up with her medicine. Which, by the way...included...but not limited to....Oxycontin.

 

[Ames]

Okay, here goes.

And keep in mind I am just spitballing.

I've expanded at some length on my "Snow White" theory in the past, and I've cited several psychoanalysts to support me, such as Jamie Turndorf, et al. "Who's the fairest of them all?" "Not you."

I told my brother the only reason she fed JB pineapple was because there were no poisoned apples around. It was a bad joke, I admit. I wasn't in a very good mood at the time.

But the one I've been struck with only came on recently. I was reading three quotes. Two by Michael Kane, one by a Dr. Rusty Morris. Morris believes Patsy suffered from Munchausen-by-Proxy. Munchausen'S Syndrome is where a person feigns misfortune, most often illnesses, to attain sympathy. The Proxt kind is where they attain sympathy through other people. And who's more sympathetic than a child in pain. The most notable cases of this disorder are the ones where parents harm their children, even kill them. Morris points to the many doctor visits JonBenet made in her life.

There is one thing wrong with the Muchausen's Syndrome - Patsy really did have Ovarian cancer, Stage IV and she was getting quite a bit of attention from it for several years.

She could have enjoyed the attention so much, that she craved even more.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,


But if she waited until Xmas day, incrementally making purchases to assist in JonBenet's death why did it end up such a disaster?

.

maybe in her mental mind,it wasn't a disaster.perhaps she'd read crime books (that were found in the house??)and had a general idea of what she wanted to do,along with the general wording of the RN.

 

[JMO8778]

She could have enjoyed the attention so much, that she craved even more.

I was thinking that as well.Maybe she thought she was pretty much cured,and the attention was waning.

 

[BBB167893]

I was thinking that as well.Maybe she thought she was pretty much cured,and the attention was waning.

I thought I said that.

In a Munchausen theory, PR causes the vaginitis (by douching or some other method) and then insists on taking the child to the doctor for the problem. But there are, to me, a few arguments against the Munchausen theory:

1. PR has had stage IV ovarian cancer, as was already said. Though the cancer was in remission, there will still be lots of 'attention': checkups, blood tests, etc. If PR suffered from Munchausen syndrome, all she has to do is call her oncologist with vague, worrying symptoms, and she's guaranteed an appointment with all the attention anyone could crave.

2. Infliction of genital injury to cause vaginitis is risky at best; it might not work! Even if it does, a competent doctor will discover it quickly, and 'attention' will become 'prison.' (True, JBR's doctor never did discover it, but JBR's abuser couldn't count on that.)

3. Thirty pediatric visits in three years, or ten a year, may seem like a lot. But routine checkups aside, many normal visits for some illness or problem will cause two or three office visits; one for diagnosis, one to see how the child is tolerating the treatment or prescription, and one follow-up when the child is better. So without more information, an average of ten visits a year over a three-year period might mean one routine checkup and three or four illnesses, not unheard of in the preschool-early school crowd. This hardly seems like enough, on its own, to satisfy a true Munchausen-by-proxy person.

You're thinking too narrowly. MbP doesn't necessarily result in the kind of symptoms-for-sympathy deal you're talking. I just used that as an example. The pageants themselves might have been a sufficient outlet for that kind of attention.

 

[Dru]

SuperDave, how am I thinking too narrowly here? I respect your opinion and your expertise on this case.

I mentioned the pageants satisfying PR's need for attention in my post, so I'm not sure what I've missed.

I've been doing a little more reading on the MbP stuff, and the one feature that seems to be agreed on is that the person abusing the child specifically wants attention from medical professionals; they're happiest if they can get the child admitted to the hospital for tests and things, they either hover by the child's bedside and ask questions not only about the child's care, but about other patients as well and seem to have lots of medical information, or on the other side they may be combative and hostile, questioning every medical professional who comes near the child, insisting on second or third opinions, and frequently threatening to call in specialists or move the child to another facility.

So, if PR were abusing JBR, including a kind of 'sexual' abuse that was physical, not sexual, in motive, it seems as though she would have been far more concerned about JBR's health than she appears to have been, possibly even taking JBR out of Boulder to consult with experts in other places. Instead, she seems to have been willing to take Dr. B?'s advice and opinion and to accept that JBR's symptoms might have been caused by too many bubble baths etc.

Now, I know we can't take PR's word for anything at this point, but if she did exhibit signs of MbP, someone would have noticed, even if the person noticing didn't understand what he/she was seeing. The whole point of MbP is to be noticed! But no one that I can think of ever seems to have said anything like, PR was a wonderful mother, always concerned about JBR's health, or PR was not abusive, you should have seen how she fussed if the child had a cold, or PR was so overprotective of JBR, she made her take medicine every day for her allergies, or something like that.

I read about a mother who did have MbP, and who smothered all five of her children to death, all but one before each child's first birthday. Everyone who met this woman thought her stories of the rare family illness that had claimed all her previous children were tragic and sad, and when her last child was a baby a neighbor who didn't know this woman at all well thought it extremely odd how much the woman fussed over this five-month-old baby, to the point of asking, in tears, for advice over good, safe presents to give the child for Christmas. The neighbor just thought that since the woman had lost her other children she was terribly concerned over this one's health and survival, and even when this baby died the neighbor didn't doubt the woman's sobbing stories of the 'curse' of her family's bad health problems. Now I know that PR could have had MbP and not been of the same 'type' as this woman, but I don't think she could have had MbP and hidden it so successfully that no one in her life thought she was unusually concerned about JBR.

But if I've missed something, or if there's evidence out there that lots of people who knew PR thought she was unduly concerned about JBR's health,
please let me know. I have a theory about this crime, but I'm not the type to hold to my theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

 

[julianne]

Dru....very good points! I respect your ability to think outside the box and really examine this closely, because you are right about people who suffer from MBP---it is to gain attention. Everything I have read about it indicates that this attention and sympathy seeking behavior is played out in the medical arena only.

You're also right about it being extremely difficult for Patsy to be plagued by MBP & yet exhibit no outward symptoms to a degree that it would be noted by her friends and others close to her. The obsession with medical problems, unhappiness with diagnosises that aren't "serious" enough and with doctors who aren't willing to perfrom tests that are evasive enough, is carried out to such a degree in MBP's that it becomes glaringly obvious to those close to them.

Point is, there really isn't anything to support a diagnosis of MBP for Patsy Ramsey while she was alive, and I don't think there's anything to support a MBP post-mortem either. I think it's pure message board speculation, and although it's good speculation and makes for good conversation....unless something concrete were to suddenly show up giving some sort of support to it, it goes in the "wacky internet theories" file in my brain - - and I'll admit I've done my fair share of entertaining some of those notions.
Anyway, I like your posts--very articulate, open and refreshing.

 

[coloradokares]

Dru....very good points! I respect your ability to think outside the box and really examine this closely, because you are right about people who suffer from MBP---it is to gain attention. Everything I have read about it indicates that this attention and sympathy seeking behavior is played out in the medical arena only.

You're also right about it being extremely difficult for Patsy to be plagued by MBP & yet exhibit no outward symptoms to a degree that it would be noted by her friends and others close to her. The obsession with medical problems, unhappiness with diagnosises that aren't "serious" enough and with doctors who aren't willing to perfrom tests that are evasive enough, is carried out to such a degree in MBP's that it becomes glaringly obvious to those close to them.

Point is, there really isn't anything to support a diagnosis of MBP for Patsy Ramsey while she was alive, and I don't think there's anything to support a MBP post-mortem either. I think it's pure message board speculation, and although it's good speculation and makes for good conversation....unless something concrete were to suddenly show up giving some sort of support to it, it goes in the "wacky internet theories" file in my brain - - and I'll admit I've done my fair share of entertaining some of those notions.
Anyway, I like your posts--very articulate, open and refreshing.

The problem is if you take your children in 30 times for the same issues repeatedly....perhaps there is more than message board speculation. And as for attention getting. If you look in a dictionary for a picture representation of attention seeking. I wonder whose picture would have been in it. Don't underestimate the pagents, the home tours, appearances were her thing yet in one wel known event she set appearance aside to show her bald head to children for show and tell. It was like a heat seeking missle landed that says here I am and I am larger than life the Ramseys have arrived and I'll take care of everything. Charming yes. I don't know if Munchausen is accurate. But you got to say it wasn't a moot observation. JMHO

 

[JMO8778]

I don't rule anything out;I suspect the 3 phone calls (within a few minutes I think?) in one day to the ped. Dr resulted from PR getting angry and wiping JB violently,and causing her a lot of pain and inflammation.It sounds like PR was out of control and it was an ongoing thing,esp since I read your prior posts,CK.That's why I don't rule out toilet rage or the corporal punishment;I think ST had info he couldn't reveal,likely some of it from talking to ppl that knew about it and had inner info on they told him about.Esp. now that you posted that,it reinforces what I thought might be the case,CK.So thanks for letting us know that;I don't even have to know what was said to be able to see that it's very likely she did abuse JB in that way.

 

[julianne]

The problem is if you take your children in 30 times for the same issues repeatedly....perhaps there is more than message board speculation. And as for attention getting. If you look in a dictionary for a picture representation of attention seeking. I wonder whose picture would have been in it. Don't underestimate the pagents, the home tours, appearances were her thing yet in one wel known event she set appearance aside to show her bald head to children for show and tell. It was like a heat seeking missle landed that says here I am and I am larger than life the Ramseys have arrived and I'll take care of everything. Charming yes. I don't know if Munchausen is accurate. But you got to say it wasn't a moot observation. JMHO

We don't know all the reasons that JonBenet was taken to the doctor, though. We know there were some repeated issues of vaginitis--but we also know that doesn't prove anything. True, it is alot of doctor visits--but it's also not very indicative of someone who was trying to hide any evidence of any physical or sexual abuse. To me, if someone wanted to keep something of that magnitude a "secret", they wouldn't be going to the doctor too much.

As far as her appearance showing her bald head---I don't get why that is looked down upon. The common theme among the Patsy-Did-Its mindset is that she was too shallow, too materialistic, had no real "substance", too concerned about appearances, yada yada yada, and just about every negative attribute that one could place upon a person. Yet, when it emerges that she does something that is completely opposite from the shallowness that she is perceived to have, to leave vanity behind by showing her bald head, and in front of a group of children in show and tell no less---then that, too, is looked upon as a negative behavior. How does her discusing cancer and showing her hair loss get turned into "I'll take care of everything" and "The Ramseys are here"??? How was her show and tell attendance like a "heat sinking missile"? I think clearly in this case she was damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. I mean, she is condemned for being too shallow and into appearances, yet when she does something that displays a little depth and no concern for outward appearances, she is condemned again. There are many people who have suffered from cancer and it's negative effects who have also done the same exact thing, yet they are applauded (as they should be) for their bravery and willingness to educate others.

Don't get me wrong....there are certainly things I don't agree with personally about Patsy--namely the whole pageant thing and dolling up a little 6 year old girl to look like an adult. I don't get that, never have and would never put my daughter on display like that---BUT there are thousands of people who do it to a much greater degree than Patsy ever did. It's a way of life for many moms who are getting something out of it that they never got in their own childhood, IMO----BUT it's their choice, and it was Patsys choice.

I think that Dru's theory is really more plausible than any of the other theories out there. Out of ANY theory or crazy speculation I have read in the last decade, Dru's really just seems so much more plausible. I know there are people who are hell bent on the "Patsy Did It" theory, and Dru's theory dispels that ---but it seems to me that the Patsy theories always includes crazy, way out there and totally unsubstantiated rumors and/or innuendo. Dru's theory just seems much more realistic. It is posted earlier in this thread--with some great answers to questions. I would be interested if any Patsy-Did-Its could dispel that theory, or provide information that would make it unrealistic or disprove it in any way.

I definitely think this case needs some "fresh eyes" and it just may be those "fresh eyes" with fresh opinions and viewpoints that could possibly solve this case.....IF it ever were to get solved.

 

[coloradokares]

We don't know all the reasons that JonBenet was taken to the doctor, though.

I think that Dru's theory is really more plausible than any of the other theories out there. Out of ANY theory or crazy speculation I have read in the last decade, Dru's really just seems so much more plausible. I know there are people who are hell bent on the "Patsy Did It" theory, and Dru's theory dispels that ---but it seems to me that the Patsy theories always includes crazy, way out there and totally unsubstantiated rumors and/or innuendo. Dru's theory just seems much more realistic.

I definitely think this case needs some "fresh eyes" and it just may be those "fresh eyes" with fresh opinions and viewpoints that could possibly solve this case.

What you consider rumor or inuendo could well be facts that were uncovered in interveiw after interview. In the end does it even matter why JonBenet had to be seen 30 times at the doctors. That is alot for any child that age if they don't have a chronic or serious illness. When its soiling or wetting related it triggers most doctors to find out why. It is known in the medical as well as LE community that is a sign that should throw up red flag. And I was told that by a sexual abuse expert. JMHO again. I am not in any way trying to spread any further rumor or speculation You believe Thomas and his supporters or you believe Lou's intruder theory...just saying don't ignore facts. Alot was uncovered in interviews that kept the Ramseys to this day the focus of the investigation and to think it was simple persecution is as ludicrous and without sense as anything else. Remember they have given this case alot of fresh eyes..... Nothing yet has produced enough evidence to warrant removing the Ramseys from the suspect list. Well that is deceptive ... actually they are the suspect list unless you really want to keep riding the Michael Tracy Train. JMK.

 

[JMO8778]

I thought I said that.

right,you did,I guess wasn't thinking at the time.

 

[julianne]

What you consider rumor or inuendo could well be facts that were uncovered in interveiw after interview. In the end does it even matter why JonBenet had to be seen 30 times at the doctors. That is alot for any child that age if they don't have a chronic or serious illness. When its soiling or wetting related it triggers most doctors to find out why. It is known in the medical as well as LE community that is a sign that should throw up red flag. And I was told that by a sexual abuse expert. JMHO again. I am not in any way trying to spread any further rumor or speculation You believe Thomas and his supporters or you believe Lou's intruder theory...just saying don't ignore facts. Alot was uncovered in interviews that kept the Ramseys to this day the focus of the investigation and to think it was simple persecution is as ludicrous and without sense as anything else. Remember they have given this case alot of fresh eyes..... Nothing yet has produced enough evidence to warrant removing the Ramseys from the suspect list. Well that is deceptive ... actually they are the suspect list unless you really want to keep riding the Michael Tracy Train. JMK.

I'm not disputing any known facts that have come out of the investigation. Not at all. I didn't say that anywherein my post. I think it's highly probable she was being abused. I just don't think it was a result of excessive and rough douching---which, by the way, IS nothing but speculation & there were no facts uncovered that supports that. I also don't think it was a result of excess or rough wiping by Patsy, which is more speculation. Speculation is good and answers can come about because of it, but when nothing supports that speculation, then nothing supports it and it's time to move on to the next item.

I think it's important to keep an open mind (I am not at all implying that you're not--I'm speaking in general terms) and it seems to me that many times people who are convinced that Patsy did it seem to bend otherwise normal issues or information into something sinister and dark when it relates to Patsy, as if to add to the list of negatives about her and if the list gets long enough then she had to do it. Almost as if there is such a deep-seated, personal hatred of Patsy (from complete strangers, no less-but I can understand that hatred if one thinks she is guilty of murder) that it's like trying to fit a big square box into a little circular hole---- Personally, I am still a fence sitter, but I must admit that Dru's posts and her (or his) theory is the most logical theory based upon the facts of the case that I have ever read anywhere.

 

[JMO8778]

but I must admit that Dru's posts and her (or his) theory is the most logical theory based upon the facts of the case that I have ever read anywhere.

that's true,I don't rule out JR;he has a huge need to appear extremely EASY-GOING and not an angry type person at all..even though he knows he SHOULD appear angry at the 'killer'...but that need outweighs the latter..so...why is that?? He doesn't want to appear to be the type of person who could commit this crime,although that of course doesn't mean he did do it.But it's very suspect to me,esp when he talked about JMK,and him being just a 'regular guy'.HUH???