SisterSocks
What a wild and crazy trip its been
Imon128 said:
No Way Imon --- this is plain silly. I don't think John molested JB even reading your opinion makes me ill :razz: No offence !!!
Socks
JonBenet's bond with Patsy
- Thread starter why_nutt
- Start date
No Way Imon --- this is plain silly. I don't think John molested JB even reading your opinion makes me ill :razz: No offence !!!
SocksSeeker
Former Member
FWIW, no matter how anyone wants to intepret Patsy's words, I believe she really did love her daughter. No doubt in my mind. I recently reviewd that interview when she said "I loved that child with the whole of my heart." Unlike us, she did not place any emphasis on the word "that".
I take it as a simple sentance, a normal way some mothers talk when refering to their children. I don't know how many times I had said to my friend, "sometimes I'd like to send that child to his dad" about my son. It didn't mean I didn't love my son with my entire being, it was just a figure of speach.
Yes, I too loved that child with the whole of my heart....I still do.
I believe in other matters Patsy knew everything and anything she said about JonBenet would be scrutinized and made out to be something much more than it was intended.
You simply cannot know if what you percieve in her writings was meant the way she said/thought it.
Making it fit your perception of her guilt is not proving anything to anyone other than yourselves.
Now if you want to talk about John Ramsey and the things he said....that's a whole different ballgame!
I take it as a simple sentance, a normal way some mothers talk when refering to their children. I don't know how many times I had said to my friend, "sometimes I'd like to send that child to his dad" about my son. It didn't mean I didn't love my son with my entire being, it was just a figure of speach.
Yes, I too loved that child with the whole of my heart....I still do.
I believe in other matters Patsy knew everything and anything she said about JonBenet would be scrutinized and made out to be something much more than it was intended.
You simply cannot know if what you percieve in her writings was meant the way she said/thought it.
Making it fit your perception of her guilt is not proving anything to anyone other than yourselves.
Now if you want to talk about John Ramsey and the things he said....that's a whole different ballgame!
Seeker
Former Member
sissi said:
Sisi, I think it was one of those 1 hour photo labs that you can drive up to.
If you have PMPT I'm sure it's in there.
Can Patsy love her child so much that she feels that she has to end her agony by killing her? Did Patsy believe in the whole of her heart that JonBenet would not be able to cope with the sexual abuse she has experienced?
If playing Doctor with Burke is the issue here, I do not believe that Patsy would be thinking that JonBenet could be traumatized. If John were the culprit...then I can picture Patsy believing that JonBenet would be better off with God than a perverted father.
This is my opinion only.
If playing Doctor with Burke is the issue here, I do not believe that Patsy would be thinking that JonBenet could be traumatized. If John were the culprit...then I can picture Patsy believing that JonBenet would be better off with God than a perverted father.
This is my opinion only.
K777angel
Member
Toltec said:
And then STAY with John???
No way.
It makes no sense that Patsy would discover John molesting JonBenet and then KILL JonBenet cuz of it!
She'd KILL John!
No, this crime, when considering ALL of the pieces from the note to re-dressing and bundling up of JonBenet to the way they treated Burke that day - IMO points in one logical direction. And that is that Burke Ramsey is the one who harmed his sister in a rage and his parents - particularly his mother - staged the scene and covered it up.
No other suspect or "theory" has been more vehemently denied and fought and sued by the Ramseys than this one.
It explains alot of things.
Nehemiah
Well-Known Member
K777angel said:
Makes sense, Angel. And Wood is oh so happy to sue because he knows that the minor(s) are protected by court order, and no one can challenge him on that. Pretty good set up, I'd say, for a civil attorney.
cookie
New Member
Since Burke is a minor, and by the Colorado laws, is safe no matter what, why wouldn't the courts just throw out all of their cases? Since the defendants wouldn't have any chance of proving their side of the case, the courts could just deem it as having no real grounds and toss it. If the speculation about Burke being the culprit is correct, and nothing can be revealed due to the state laws, it's an unwinnable case from day one on any suit filed.
BlueCrab
New Member
cookie said:
Everyone is entitled to due process, including both the defendant and the plaintiff. If the Ramseys sue they are entitled to try to get relief, so the case must go forward. The defendant can't settle unless the plaintiff agrees. Therefore the case will proceed until the court says it can't go any further without violating the Boulder court's protective order, and the court will force a settlement and seal the terms of the settlement.
If the case is thrown out up front, what reason could it give for the dismissal without revealing the involvement of children in the murder? It can't. IMO the court must come up with another reason (settlement) to maintain the coverup.
JMO
sissi
Former Member
IMO it is absolutely impossible for Burke to have committed this crime for many reasons,one being that no one,not even the Boulderites would continue this charade ,"sitting on the egg" as some have said.
There is dna,this dna does not belong to a Ramsey,it clears Burke . The discussion of,'if it was from two donors" should be moot by this point,as it has markers of high enough standard to be submitted and banked as dna from one individual. We can't blend the old news with the new.
There are those that suggest this dna is from a factory worker,I am not among those,but I believe we all have the right to take from available information what we choose. To believe it is dna from the packaging plant,is to then have to consider an entire group of suspects as not being cleared. Wolf ,Santa,Fleet,and on and on. Not one of these people has been cleared through any method other than dna.
I would love an honest discussion of the methods we have used as individuals to clear all of the others in our personal ways of thinking.
Santa and Fleet were high on my suspect list,I let them go,because of the dna.
IMO JMO
There is dna,this dna does not belong to a Ramsey,it clears Burke . The discussion of,'if it was from two donors" should be moot by this point,as it has markers of high enough standard to be submitted and banked as dna from one individual. We can't blend the old news with the new.
There are those that suggest this dna is from a factory worker,I am not among those,but I believe we all have the right to take from available information what we choose. To believe it is dna from the packaging plant,is to then have to consider an entire group of suspects as not being cleared. Wolf ,Santa,Fleet,and on and on. Not one of these people has been cleared through any method other than dna.
I would love an honest discussion of the methods we have used as individuals to clear all of the others in our personal ways of thinking.
Santa and Fleet were high on my suspect list,I let them go,because of the dna.
IMO JMO
K777angel
Member
sissi said:
You have effectively swallowed what the RST set out to do.
Get the public to - not look very deep - but believe that because
"there is DNA" at a crime scene then it HAS to be the killer's.
NOT TRUE!! And even IF there should be a piece of DNA or evidence at a crime scene that does not "fit" the rest of the evidence - that does NOT mean that that piece of evidence or DNA is even RELATED to the crime itself.
ALL crimes have evidence at the scene that has nothing to do with the crime itself. This one is NO different.
First of all, we don't even know the REAL truth about this "DNA" reportedly found on JonBenet's underwear and possibly under her fingernails.
We do not "know" for a fact just what the tests results showed on these
teeny specks of DNA.
There has been no public announcement on it one way or another.
So let's take a look at what the SCIENTISTS who DID see it and test it have said.
Dr. Lee said this is NOT a DNA case.
He cannot tell you why due to the case still being "open" - but he gave us an important clue.
Not only that, you can NEVER take just one piece of a crime and crime scene and make a judgement on that alone. You MUST take the crime and ALL circumstances and evidence surrounding it to come to a sound conclusion.
NOTHING in this crime points to an intruder. NOTHING.
It is all smoke and mirrors or fantasy (like with Lou Smit).
It points instead right back to her family. And the on-going steady rumor for 7 years has been that this death was due to an accident that was staged and covered up.
All the elements of this crime FIT that scenario.
Not "pre-meditated murder."
Not a kidnapping.
Not a sex crime by pedophile.
NOT an intruder.
But someone from that home.
There is nothing in this crime that rules out the scenario that Burke Ramsey was the instigator and abuser in his sister's death and once his parents walked in on the horror - they took over from there.
And continue to this day.
Money can buy a great many things.
Except a clear conscience.
BlueCrab
New Member
sissi said:
Burke Ramsey may have or may not have killed JonBenet, but he's certainly deeply involved somehow. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for all of the lying and covering up going on to protect him.
JMO
Shylock
Former Member
sissi said:
Sissi, it's obvious you really don't understand the DNA in this case. The DNA has not "cleared" the Ramseys, they remain under the umbrella of suspecion and always will. So how could it clear Santa and Fleet? It hasn't cleared them and it hasn't cleared Burke.
Figure it out - You can't clear suspects with evidence that can't be proven to even be related to the crime. Get it?...sheeesh.
K777angel
Member
BlueCrab said:
Hey Bluecrab - can you identify some of the lying and covering up that has gone on to protect Burke? I believe there has been too - but perhaps you could elaborate.
Thanks.
BrotherMoon
Former Member
:razz:
That is a logic fallacy typical of UFO aficionados; there is no evidence of alien craft therefore there is a cover-up that proves the existence of alien craft. :razz:BlueCrab said:
Ivy
Inactive
Oh, come on, BrotherMoon. Just because Maxi's not here anymore doesn't mean you should feel free to ridicule other posters. Disagreeing is one thing, but ridiculing is another. Do you want the JBR forum to end up a war zone like some other forums here at WS? I don't.
IMO
IMO
Shylock
Former Member
Sounds like Christian logic to me...BrotherMoon said:
Eagle1
Former Member
Didn't I just read that there have been some on Mars?
2-13-04
2-13-04
Eagle1
Former Member
Anyone remember anything about this? Has it been replaced in psychology by something newer?
I may know another "youngest born" who's a "Daddy's Girl" to the point of not speaking to her mother, though she doesn't kick her either. An adult now, kindergarten teacher w/ a masters degree.
What's the deal?
I may know another "youngest born" who's a "Daddy's Girl" to the point of not speaking to her mother, though she doesn't kick her either. An adult now, kindergarten teacher w/ a masters degree.
What's the deal?
sissi
Former Member
Shylock said:
Oh I do understand,that was my point,it can't go both ways. Either it's a dna case or it isn't,either Burke and the entire list of suspects that offered dna are cleared or none of them are.
JMO
vicktor
New Member
Well, in answer to the oedipus question, I don't think you'll find very many psychologists using the idea in helping people. It probably hasn't so much been replaced by something else, but rather ignored because it doesn't have much revelance to fixing people's here and now conditions. As far as the Ramsey case, or the example you stated, the idea in point would be the Electra complex, I believe. I can't remember exactly what the Electra complex involved, but I don't think it was the exact analog of oedipus.
As far as Patsy and JB, mothers tend to raise daughters pretty much like themselves, and were raised to be similar to their mother. So Patsy grew up to do some pageants, get a degree, get married, help in a business, move, live the life of the wife of a wealthy CEO. She did this without a lot of meddling or influence from her mother apparently. Although Jb probably threw tantrums or didn't want to do some things Patsy wanted her to, if she had grown up, I imagine her life would have had characteristics like Patsy's.
As far as Patsy and JB, mothers tend to raise daughters pretty much like themselves, and were raised to be similar to their mother. So Patsy grew up to do some pageants, get a degree, get married, help in a business, move, live the life of the wife of a wealthy CEO. She did this without a lot of meddling or influence from her mother apparently. Although Jb probably threw tantrums or didn't want to do some things Patsy wanted her to, if she had grown up, I imagine her life would have had characteristics like Patsy's.