Why did IDI experts focus on JDI?

[BBB167893]

I agree, Madeleine. I don't imagine the Ramseys condoning anyone outside the family using JonBenet for sexual purposes or anything of that ilk but, and God forgive me since it's not a pleasant notion, I can see Patsy and A.N.Other orchestrating a fake kidnapping to get some sort of attention or even as some sort of mad jape and that this went horribly wrong. I can even imagine a non-Ramsey candidate who might be part of such a scheme, too. On one of the forums, someone or other was adamant in her theory that Patsy thought that JBR surviving a 'kidnapping' would give her a leg up in the pageants as well as giving Patsy the attention she needed since the cancer sympathy had dried up. Sounds mad, but that's often how Munchausen's by proxy type things start....

I know that's way out there and I don't really believe it but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it happened, either.

I ran that one by my brother a while ago. He jumped on it. He said, "Guv, that's it. That's how it all fits together."

 

[JMO8778]

It's not just that, Sophie. As I mention in the book, as far as I know, Pam never got married or had children. And it's not just Hodges who says that. He's in good company, psychologically.

Let's take it a step further. It's said that women marry their fathers. Not literally, but in the sense that they marry men who remind them of their fathers. Maybe JR was like her dad in all the wrong ways. Just spitballing.

she certainly already knew he was a cheat,and apparently that didn't bother her.

 

[Sophie]

It was only a matter of time before that came up.



It's not just that, Sophie. As I mention in the book, as far as I know, Pam never got married or had children. And it's not just Hodges who says that. He's in good company, psychologically.

Let's take it a step further. It's said that women marry their fathers. Not literally, but in the sense that they marry men who remind them of their fathers. Maybe JR was like her dad in all the wrong ways. Just spitballing.

Interesting stuff, Dave. I gather that many women who have been abused enable their partners in some way to abuse their offspring - by ignoring it or whatever. I think you may have hit on something there, Dave.

This is mainly from a media composite, the Hodges book and comments from her friends but Patsy was very flirtatious but as a way of getting what she wanted rather than from genuine enjoyment of men. We'll leave LHP's contribution out of the debate for present purposes. This could also be consistent with her having suffered abuse.

I have never really subscribed to the Miss Jean Brodie/Sandy Stranger murdered JBR theory but that Patsy enjoyed this book so much always strikes me as interesting with its young heroine having an affair with the arts master
and the layer of the sapphic that underlies the book. There again, Miss Brodie was also a fearful, overdramatic show-off so Patsy's enjoyment of the book could be simpler than I'm suggesting!

As you say, just spitballing.....

 

[Sophie]

she certainly already knew he was a cheat,and apparently that didn't bother her.

Another little weirdness of this case. We know from her 'blonde ***** down the street' comments that she was insecure so how does that tally with her having no views on John's previous infidelities? Odd.

 

[JMO8778]

Another little weirdness of this case. We know from her 'blonde ***** down the street' comments that she was insecure so how does that tally with her having no views on John's previous infidelities? Odd.

I don't know,I'm guessing women like that tend to think they are SO much better than the woman the guy cheated on,that he would never do that to *her,because she's just so 'special'?? I guess that the same attributes that made the guy cheat in the first place,she thought don't exist in herself? like how many former beauty queens/miss WV did JR date before her??
..taking a guess here,I have no idea...any thoughts out there?

 

[BBB167893]

she certainly already knew he was a cheat,and apparently that didn't bother her.

Maybe she figured she didn't deserve any better. Or that she could keep the dog under the porch.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting stuff, Dave. I gather that many women who have been abused enable their partners in some way to abuse their offspring - by ignoring it or whatever. I think you may have hit on something there, Dave.

Whether I have or not, it's worth consideration.

 

[Sophie]

A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)

["Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73]


I'm only posting this to point out that while a lot of people looked at the Ramseys being church people to eliminate the possibility of there being any abuse in the family. This piece of research is no doubt controversial and I am sure its findings are subject to debate. What it does, though, is chip away at the notion that is so routinely peddled in this case - namely that they 'didn't fit the profile' for abusers (or murderers).

 

[DeeDee249]

A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)

["Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73]


I'm only posting this to point out that while a lot of people looked at the Ramseys being church people to eliminate the possibility of there being any abuse in the family. This piece of research is no doubt controversial and I am sure its findings are subject to debate. What it does, though, is chip away at the notion that is so routinely peddled in this case - namely that they 'didn't fit the profile' for abusers (or murderers).

One needs only to look at the very high-profile instances of sex scandals in the news over the years involving well-known religious leaders. I am not speaking only of abuse of children by clergy, but also of the scandals involving well-known evangelists and church figures. They didn't "fit the profile" of abusers either.

 

[Sophie]

One needs only to look at the very high-profile instances of sex scandals in the news over the years involving well-known religious leaders. I am not speaking only of abuse of children by clergy, but also of the scandals involving well-known evangelists and church figures. They didn't "fit the profile" of abusers either.

It's scary when you think of it...