Patsy Ramsey

[2 percent]

One last thing about the pineapple, a contextual thing...
While fresh pineapple peeled and (possibly) cored is fairly common in stores now, it was actually pretty scarce in the Midwest 20 years ago. You mostly only found it in high end stores and it was very expensive. Even a millionaire would remember laying out that kind of money for a delicacy like that on a regular basis. And if it was only occasionally, she would have recalled.

 

[Meara]

Lanning (retired-FBI) describes one offender type as a “molester who happens to kill,” and another as a “killer who happens to molest.” I think that in this case we are likely dealing with the latter, but the atypical killer as described by Schiller could fit the former. A molester who did not intend to, but happened to, kill. But, once the deed is done, “the situation is so horrifying to the killer,” etc.

Or, it could apply to a killer who planned to kill but for whom the reality was overwhelming and not as expected or anticipated.
...

AK

This doesn't make sense. The atypical killer is described as a normal person who suddenly and inexplicably commits an act wholely antithetical to his personality, values, history, and self-understanding. A molester isn't a normal person.

 

[Anti-K]

This doesn't make sense. The atypical killer is described as a normal person who suddenly and inexplicably commits an act wholely antithetical to his personality, values, history, and self-understanding. A molester isn't a normal person.

I’m not sure what “normal” is. I just don’t live in that b&w world. And, I think “normal” and “atypical” can be somewhat contradictory. At any rate, I think Schiller was referring to persons who would not normally kill, or who do not consider themselves capable of killing. I think that most molesters do fit into this category.
...

AK

 

[Orsen]

Did Patsy, like Oswald, act alone. Lets marry an international tragedy with a regional one and see what happens.

First we need to think of John Ramsey as the grassy knoll and his actions as the puff of smoke coming from behind the white, picket fence at Dealey Plaza. John's demeaner and activity always seem to be under suspicion, his accounts and recollections at times vague, cagey and cautious. He always seems stiff and deviod of emotion, like an Ed Sullivan cyborg. A clear, concise picture has yet to emerge of what he was doing, saying or thinking during the first 24 hours. About half way through, John's grassy knoll persona morphs into LBJ as he orders a plane readied for a quick departure out of town, then refuses to leave without a body, exactly what Johnson did. Like the knoll John's name will always come to mind when we're thinking about conspiracies and cover-ups. And like the grassy knoll John is well manicured on the outside but alittle dirty underneath.

Fleet White is the Jack Ruby of this entire thing. At first moving around the periphery of events while slowly being drawn closer to the center until he is given the same microscopic observation the main participants are receiving. He soon lawyers up and never gives a straight forward account of what transpired at his house before, during or after so his participation is forever clouded in suspicion and scepticism. At first Fleet enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame but when the Ramsey's gave his name to detectives as a possible suspect this turned into 15 minutes of framed and the battle begun between the Hadfields and the Decoys. Like Ruby to Oswald, White will be forever linked to this case and suffer the humiliation of having his name on web site threads such as "Were Fleet White and John Ramsey Lovers"? This is obsurd of course as Fleet, like Ruby, enjoyed the company of strippers.

Steve Thomas is Chief Justice Warren Burger. He welds himself to Patsy's guilt and refuses to budge. He interviews but quickly eliminates a list of possible suspects including a housekeeper, a Santa, an older son, an Acess Graphics ex employee and Clay Bertrand. According to Steve Mrs. Ramsey had motive, opportunity and the War and Peace of ransom notes in her own handwriting. Steve's Warren Commission Report? It was called "Jon Benet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation". Just like the Warren report most of us say we've read it but really we haven't.

Now Patsy. The patsy? Paughswald? Now there is no Zapruder film in this case, the closest we have is that clip of Jon Benet doing her cowboy sweetheart routine. Like Zapruder's, this film is played endlessly everytime this story goes media giving JB an infinite loop of youth and innocence. Replacing Aberham's 8MM evidence is Linda Arndt's testimony, at times just as grainy and controversial. According to Arndt while entering the living room she takes a mental picture of Patsy, hands covering her face but peering through splayed fingers wailing and talking to the heavens as she sways her body in full christian mode........back and to the left.....back and to the left....back and to the left.

The magic bullet of this case is Patsy's statements as to what did or didn't happen that night. Her explanation enters the public consciousness then weaves, swerves, bends, careens, deviates, stops in mid-air during a Larry King commercial break, then, illogically, lodges in the left thigh of the intruder theory. She then, like Oswald, passes away before we get a chance to get the facts and we are left with only theories about both JBR and JFK.

 

[TaylurRose02]

This is slightly off topic, but because this thread is about PR I felt it was worth the share. The other day I came upon something interesting, both Russia and France have set motions forth to make child beauty pageants illegal. Now I have come across commercials for "Toddlers in Tiara's" and even had the displeasure of watching a good 10 minutes of an episode before becoming so disgusted I had to turn it off. But watching the mothers basically abuse their children got me thinking about JB. I can't say whether or not she enjoyed them, but I know children crave attention and it seemed that doing pageants fed her craving. Personally, I know that up until I was moved out of the house I did many things which I did not enjoy simply because I knew my parents did such as soccer, piano, etc... Anyways, after doing some research I've found an incredibly interesting article about this very subject and the mothers who subject their children into the dangerous industry. I'm not sure if we're allowed to post links on here, but if you have the time just google "Princess by Proxy." The article screams Patsy's very character, IMO.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

This is slightly off topic, but because this thread is about PR I felt it was worth the share. The other day I came upon something interesting, both Russia and France have set motions forth to make child beauty pageants illegal. Now I have come across commercials for "Toddlers in Tiara's" and even had the displeasure of watching a good 10 minutes of an episode before becoming so disgusted I had to turn it off. But watching the mothers basically abuse their children got me thinking about JB. I can't say whether or not she enjoyed them, but I know children crave attention and it seemed that doing pageants fed her craving. Personally, I know that up until I was moved out of the house I did many things which I did not enjoy simply because I knew my parents did such as soccer, piano, etc... Anyways, after doing some research I've found an incredibly interesting article about this very subject and the mothers who subject their children into the dangerous industry. I'm not sure if we're allowed to post links on here, but if you have the time just google "Princess by Proxy." The article screams Patsy's very character, IMO.

The title of such an article about Patsy would be; Life after death in a heaven with a God by proxy

 

[Meara]

I’m not sure what “normal” is. I just don’t live in that b&w world. And, I think “normal” and “atypical” can be somewhat contradictory. At any rate, I think Schiller was referring to persons who would not normally kill, or who do not consider themselves capable of killing. I think that most molesters do fit into this category.

AK, I understand what you're saying, and it's a misreading of what Schiller reports. Normal in this context means free of serious psychopathology, as demonstrated by personality, values, history, and self-understanding that are coherent, effective, and conducive to well being. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this means molesters aren't getting the name tag and the party hat. These fellows are talking about ordinary people who kill out of the blue for no apparent reason, and who are so shocked by this that the psyche goes into total denial to preserve itself. These aren't people who are shocked because they do other disordered things but find murder a step too far. These are people who are shocked because they've suddenly killed someone, this action is antithetical to the whole of the life they're living, and they find both the murder and the self who committed it incomprehensible. These aspects of the atypical killer, in addition to the reaction of total denial (as an unconscious psychic defense), are of interest to me as a possible explanation for JBR's murder and PR's behavior afterward, so that's what I'm hoping to discuss with others on this thread.

 

[THE BUNK]

AK, I understand what you're saying, and it's a misreading of what Schiller reports. Normal in this context means free of serious psychopathology, as demonstrated by personality, values, history, and self-understanding that are coherent, effective, and conducive to well being. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this means molesters aren't getting the name tag and the party hat. These fellows are talking about ordinary people who kill out of the blue for no apparent reason, and who are so shocked by this that the psyche goes into total denial to preserve itself. These aren't people who are shocked because they do other disordered things but find murder a step too far. These are people who are shocked because they've suddenly killed someone, this action is antithetical to the whole of the life they're living, and they find both the murder and the self who committed it incomprehensible. These aspects of the atypical killer, in addition to the reaction of total denial (as an unconscious psychic defense), are of interest to me as a possible explanation for JBR's murder and PR's behavior afterward, so that's what I'm hoping to discuss with others on this thread.

I have a feeling quite a few people don't understand what a "crime of passion" is. Crimes of passion are the most common murder you will come across. Anyone can commit such a murder under any circumstance.

 

[THE BUNK]

I will say this.

Much like the JFK assassination, what side you believe in the Jonbenet Ramsey case has little to do with facts and more to do with the answer that your are most comfortable and willing to believe.

The same can be said for the Jeffrey MacDonald Murder case.

All three illicit the same amount of passion and strong beliefs that there side is right. Yet the reasons why they believe their side is right has little to do with facts, logic or justice.

 

[lawstudent]

I have a feeling quite a few people don't understand what a "crime of passion" is. Crimes of passion are the most common murder you will come across. Anyone can commit such a murder under any circumstance.

The media often refers to such people as "cold-blooded killers", so I've come to the conclusion many people do not understand these terms and it causes a lot of confusion.

 

[THE BUNK]

This all goes to whether you belief that anyone can kill once. I do believe that in the right circumstances and situations any human being can commit an impromptu murder.

It takes a cold blooded killer to kill more than one person and do it repeatedly. Those people I believe are few and far between.

 

[Meara]

I have a feeling quite a few people don't understand what a "crime of passion" is. Crimes of passion are the most common murder you will come across. Anyone can commit such a murder under any circumstance.

According to Yudowitz/Schiller, people who kill spontaneously in response to circumstances (the other guy drew a knife, I thought it was a burglar, etc.) actually account for 80% of murders. There's a distinction made between this type and the ones you mention, ordinary people who kill spontaneously in a moment of passion. I didn't go into detail earlier, but Yudowitz notes that this type of killer gives up on himself. He realizes that in one impassioned moment he not only took a life but also forfeited the life he himself had; there's no going back. Though both act spontaneously, the difference is that the first type feels compelled by circumstances (external cause), while the second type feels overwhelmed by emotion (internal cause). You're right that virtually anyone can commit murder. While most of us aren't killers, we recognize that we have the capacity to be and might act on it in certain situations (I've imagined having to protect my children.). Thanks for your comment and the opportunity to clarify a couple of things.

The book doesn't say what motivates atypical killers because, as far as they know, they didn't kill anyone. This complicates probing for motive but does provide a key point of disambiguation. The first two types know they killed someone. For the atypical killer, it's as though the murder never happened. Where's Grandma? I don't know.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, I understand what you're saying, and it's a misreading of what Schiller reports. Normal in this context means free of serious psychopathology, as demonstrated by personality, values, history, and self-understanding that are coherent, effective, and conducive to well being. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this means molesters aren't getting the name tag and the party hat. These fellows are talking about ordinary people who kill out of the blue for no apparent reason, and who are so shocked by this that the psyche goes into total denial to preserve itself. These aren't people who are shocked because they do other disordered things but find murder a step too far. These are people who are shocked because they've suddenly killed someone, this action is antithetical to the whole of the life they're living, and they find both the murder and the self who committed it incomprehensible. These aspects of the atypical killer, in addition to the reaction of total denial (as an unconscious psychic defense), are of interest to me as a possible explanation for JBR's murder and PR's behavior afterward, so that's what I'm hoping to discuss with others on this thread.

I’ve only read the quotes you used, and, as I noted, was reacting to those.

While it may be true that ordinary or normal people can unexpectedly kill and that they can be devastated by their act, I am hesitant to accept that less ordinary or abnormal people cannot suffer the same consequence in similar circumstance.

I think that there are a lot of killers, normal folks and otherwise, who could fit this description, as quoted by you: They want nothing around to trigger memories of what they have done. Not because they are trying to evade the police... [omitted* by me] They simply cannot bear any reminder of the evil they believe they could not possibly have committed.

I realize that Schiller is describing a type who (supposedly) actually “forgets” their act of murder, but the process, etc that he describes (just going by the passages you’ve quoted!) is going to be essentially the same for someone who can’t “forget,” but really wants to, tries to, prays to.

I think it’s nice and can be quite handy to come up with these categories and types and imagine that everything and everyone fits into them all nice and pretty; but as I said before, I just don’t live in that b&w world. Even a deviant, a molester, a beggar, a liar, a thief, can be detrimentally affected to varying degree by the taking of a life. Denial I suspect is common amongst such, but do any of them ever truly, really, actually “forget?”

Anyway, I know you’re trying to tie this all into a PDI discussion, and you think that maybe Mrs Ramsey was of that type and that she slides into that category. So, I’ll just bow out of this conversation. No worries.
.

*Omitted: ...such consequences never enter their minds.
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

having trouble digesting the report that PR chose a 'pineapple' wallpaper/border in her new home. that is beyond my comprehension

 

[Mama2JML]

having trouble digesting the report that PR chose a 'pineapple' wallpaper/border in her new home. that is beyond my comprehension

Yes, that's strange. IMO. Where has this been reported?

 

[otg]

having trouble digesting the report that PR chose a 'pineapple' wallpaper/border in her new home. that is beyond my comprehension

When I first saw the reference to the Ramseys’ pineapple wallpaper, I was a little shocked too (considering the particular significance of it in the death of their daughter). But pineapple has a symbolic meaning recognized all over Europe and particularly in the US. On a historic homes tour in the French Quarter of New Orleans, there were pineapple decorations in several wrought-iron fences that I hadn’t even noticed until the tour guide pointed them out and explained that the pineapple is a symbol of welcome and hospitality. Rather than go into a long explanation here, just Google the phrase “pineapple symbolism” to learn why. Once you know to look for it, you’ll notice it being used in all sorts of motifs.

 

[otg]

More:

 

[bettybaby00]

When I first saw the reference to the Ramseys’ pineapple wallpaper, I was a little shocked too (considering the particular significance of it in the death of their daughter). But pineapple has a symbolic meaning recognized all over Europe and particularly in the US. On a historic homes tour in the French Quarter of New Orleans, there were pineapple decorations in several wrought-iron fences that I hadn’t even noticed until the tour guide pointed them out and explained that the pineapple is a symbol of welcome and hospitality. Rather than go into a long explanation here, just Google the phrase “pineapple symbolism” to learn why. Once you know to look for it, you’ll notice it being used in all sorts of motifs.

View attachment 54407View attachment 54408View attachment 54409View attachment 54410View attachment 54411

Where I live it's a motif you see on a good number of homes. I wouldn't have chosen it I were in her shoes, and if a home I bought had it, I'd remove it. But that's just me.

 

[chlban]

I will say this.

Much like the JFK assassination, what side you believe in the Jonbenet Ramsey case has little to do with facts and more to do with the answer that your are most comfortable and willing to believe.

The same can be said for the Jeffrey MacDonald Murder case.

All three illicit the same amount of passion and strong beliefs that there side is right. Yet the reasons why they believe their side is right has little to do with facts, logic or justice.

I think that is probably true of the "average" Amercian. I do not believe it is true of many of us who have researched these various cases. I was a young child when JFK was shot and soon became obsessed with the Assasination. I read virtually every conspiracy book on the subject. I was definitely, like most Americans, most comfortable and willing to believe that it had to be a conspiracy. Surely the course of history was not changed by some pathetic lone nut.

Problem was, no matter how many books I read with however many in depth and well argued theories, there was some niggling issue that kept me researching until I had to finally accept what I absolutely, 100% did not want to accept. LHO, IMO, acted alone.

I actually met Jeffrey MacDonald in the 70's when I was dating a Long Beach, CA. Arson Investigator. Like almost the entire L.B. Police force and Fire Dept. he loved "Dr. Jeff" who had made it his mission to win over the departments. Whenever an officer was injured or wounded, MacDonald had standing orders that he was to be called, no matter when, where or what. He was handsome, funny and charming. I "should" have believed him innocent. I wanted to believe him innocent. Then, after he was finally tried and convicted I read "Fatal Vision". He was guilty as hell and the evidence was, and remains, overwhelming.

So, yes, I agree these cases create storng emotions. Most people are not versed in these cases the way many of us here are. Shockingly, not everyone is a true crime fanatic, like us:

So, I while I agree that facts, logic or justice may have little to do with some people's opinions, I do believe there are plenty of us that have formed our opinions based on all three.

It just happened that you named three of the cases I have always been most fascinated with. Others are Darlie Routier, the Marilyn Shepppard Murder, and the Boston Strangler. I have recently completely changed my opinion on The Strangler (I never believed it was Albert DeSalvo, I now believe I was wrong and he was) , re -enforced my position on Marilyn Sheppard (Sam did it, I always knew it, and now believe it more than ever). Darlie is such a ridiculous slam dunk that I cannot even pretend to need to reconsider that. Just waiting anxiously for the needle in her arm.

However, I am taking a fresh look at this case. I want to try to review it as objectively as I can and try to look at possibilities other than RDI. After all, I was once 100% convinced of a conspiracy with JFK and that DeSalvo never killed anyone.

I could be wrong on this one too.

 

[Meara]

I will say this.

Much like the JFK assassination, what side you believe in the Jonbenet Ramsey case has little to do with facts and more to do with the answer that your are most comfortable and willing to believe.

The same can be said for the Jeffrey MacDonald Murder case.

All three illicit the same amount of passion and strong beliefs that there side is right. Yet the reasons why they believe their side is right has little to do with facts, logic or justice.

Curious to know ... What do you think prompts some IDIs to become RDIs and some RDIs to become IDIs?