Ablow nails it? JMK and PR

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCent...page=1&gma=true

This might be all we need to know.
JMK's mother tried to kill him, abused him.
JonBenet's mother abused her, killed her. (in his opinion)
A mother murdering a child does not compute. He will make it not so. Mothers are supposed to be perfect - love their children.
He'll take the rap for Patsy because psychically, it's unbearable to know that a mother could abuse and kill their own child.

Explains JMK but not the murder.

"Explains JMK but not the murder."

There are several explanations about why this child was killed floating about.

One is that the pedephile JK saw JonBenet at a pageant and fell in love, then tracked her down and murdered her. Another is that one of the parents had a temper tantrum that got out of control. Although most people seem reluctant to believe that any parent would do that kind of harm to their own child.

To those that believe that neither of the parents is guilty for this reason, you need to consider ONLY the evidence. Instead of drawing from YOUR life experience and what you THINK every mother is like.

Anyone who has ever been abused as a child can describe knowing when their parent has lost control and remember the horrific fear that maybe sometime they would be so bad that they would cause their parent to lose it and that things could go too far.

Even when the mother is young, slender, soft spoken, seemingly sweet and beautiful and there is no known history of anything amiss with the family, behind closed doors the mother the child adores can keep that child on pins and needles afraid to displease.

And if you think that child is gonna talk about it later when she is safe and grown up...nope...think again. That child is too ashamed to talk about what happened. Because she would rather blame herself than a parent she still adores.

Do not tell me that a mother would never hurt her own flesh and blood through pain. I have looked into my own mother's eyes, seen the rage and known that there was always a possibility that she could lose it.

Just maybe Karr did it. He at least seems convinced of his guilt.

To those who say that NO mother could put her child through pain and inflict visable wounds, I gotta say, take off your rose-colored glasses. It happens. Even in "nice" families.

blonde1 said:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCent...page=1&gma=true

This might be all we need to know.
JMK's mother tried to kill him, abused him.
JonBenet's mother abused her, killed her. (in his opinion)
A mother murdering a child does not compute. He will make it not so. Mothers are supposed to be perfect - love their children.
He'll take the rap for Patsy because psychically, it's unbearable to know that a mother could abuse and kill their own child.

Explains JMK but not the murder.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The psychological profile on Wendy Hutchens' site explains it well, how he could become a child lover/molester/killer, because of the way his mother molested him; it has nothing to do with Patsy Ramsey.

Before y'all decide I am thinking Patsy did it because of my own life experience, I have to add that right now I am leaning toward Karr doing it because the tone of some of the media (Nancy Grace comes to mind) has changed from shock that the DA would arrest with such flimsy evidence into showing clips of JonBenet with sad music intertwined with pictures of John Karr. And last night Nancy kept playing the sickest of the JK tapes over and over.

I think the media is getting wind of something they can't talk about. At least their attitude toward this case seems to be changing. But, that is the only reason at this point I am leaning in that direction. So far, I do not think anything concrete really points to Karr as the little girl's killer.

Anyway, I pointed out my own life experience because I have seen firsthand how different life can be behind closed doors. That no mother could do ANYTHING like that to her own child is simply not so. And it is no reason to exclude a suspect when the evidence points toward them.

I wish I could make up my opinion if he did it. One minute I don't think he did, the next I am sure of it. I think I should be on the jury. I can't seem to get an opinion that I can stick with. I will wait for all the dna, prints, and if they can place Mr. High Pants there.

Great posts Jollynna,

Your statement "I think the media is getting wind of something they can't talk about. At least their attitude toward this case seems to be changing." is something I have noticed too. Most encouraging!

Three nights ago I was lost, not knowing what fit with what, and the night before that I was sure Karr was the killer. Up and down, that is how I go in trying to figure this out. It is almost a brand new case, ezcept we are so fortunate to have all the work the oldsters in the case have left for us to utilize.

Euff Ta Meta! It is a most complicated case.


Scandi

Jolynna said:

Before y'all decide I am thinking Patsy did it because of my own life experience, I have to add that right now I am leaning toward Karr doing it because the tone of some of the media (Nancy Grace comes to mind) has changed from shock that the DA would arrest with such flimsy evidence into showing clips of JonBenet with sad music intertwined with pictures of John Karr. And last night Nancy kept playing the sickest of the JK tapes over and over.

I think the media is getting wind of something they can't talk about. At least their attitude toward this case seems to be changing. But, that is the only reason at this point I am leaning in that direction. So far, I do not think anything concrete really points to Karr as the little girl's killer.

Anyway, I pointed out my own life experience because I have seen firsthand how different life can be behind closed doors. That no mother could do ANYTHING like that to her own child is simply not so. And it is no reason to exclude a suspect when the evidence points toward them.

Click to expand...

Jolynna,

I am sorry to hear about the experiences you suffered with your mother.

I don't think anyone here on WS is naive enough to take the stance that "no mother could do anything to hurt her child.", and I don't believe that statement has been made, IMO. This site gives a grim look into the underbelly of society, cruel and sick crimes, and the worst of the worst. I could use alot of adjectives to describe what I think the typical WS poster is, and naivete is not one of them. We know all too well that horrible things happen to children, sometimes at the hands of strangers, and sometimes at the hands of those who are supposed to love, nurture and protect them the most--their parents.

Jolynna posted:
"To those that believe that neither of the parents is guilty for this reason, you need to consider ONLY the evidence. Instead of drawing from YOUR life experience and what you THINK every mother is like"

I don't think neither parent is guilty, and I have considered only the evidence. I have arrived at my opinion in this without ANY inference from my own life experience, nor how I view any other mother.

Hundreds of highly talented and experienced (and yes, definately some real knuckleheaded LE, also) LE have spent the last 10 years considering the evidence and have tried in vain to pin this on the Ramseys, and they haven't been able to do it yet. 10 years. That's gotta say something.

As far as the media's "tone" changing your mind---although the IDI could use more supporters--the media is just a bunch of talking heads, and they do whatever they can to garner ratings. Don't let the simple fact of them showing JonBenets photo intertwined with sad music & JMK's photos influence you. Like you say....you need to consider the evidence only. The media will do whatever they can to get that "shock value", and this past week, they have driven me crazy.

It is not that I don't believe parents, specifically a mother, would do harm to their own child. It happens so often that no one can really claim that. I just don't believe the staging scenario fits. I just don't see Patsy or John causing the severe head injury to Jon Benet, & rather than seeking help, breaking off a paint brush, sticking it inside her vagina & creating a garrote ligature to protect their all-important reputation. How could they stay married carrying such a huge burdensome secret between them? He was at her side when she passed so don't give me the marriage for appearance's sake crap. RE: The ransom note...who could try to disguise their handwriting for 3 pages? I could do it for 2-3 sentences at most. It would take all night just to get that RN right let alone the other staging. Why would John Ramsey casually say on 12/26 the window had been broken previously instead of pointing & shouting OMG the window is broken the abductors must have come in that way?

Where is there another instance of a parent going this far, not just taking the body out of the house & dumping it elsewhere? If they had money to buy off all the experts & DA to keep them out of prison for murder, they would have had it to get JB the best medical assistance possible &, whether she recovered or not, to silence inquiries into the source of the injury.

I watch a lot of forensic files shows, & read a lot of true crime books, but I have not deluded myself into thinking I could commit the perfect crime & get away with it. I don't think the Ramseys could either.

I am 100% with you. That's exactly what I think. Well said!

Jolynna said:

Although most people seem reluctant to believe that any parent would do that kind of harm to their own child.

To those that believe that neither of the parents is guilty for this reason, you need to consider ONLY the evidence. Instead of drawing from YOUR life experience and what you THINK every mother is like.

Click to expand...

Yeesh - this nonsense again! Most people on websleuths have seen far too many court cases to believe that a mother won't harm a child, even in the most violent and vile ways - nor to believe that a pretty face, a pretty house, nice stories from relatives and neighbors proves anything.

Before y'all decide I am thinking Patsy did it because of my own life experience

Click to expand...

We're not donig that to you - please don't do that to us. Each person is an individual, and you never know what life experience isn't yet being talked about... If and when someone says "Patsy couldn't have done it - a mother just wouldn't!" - address them - I've given a few of them some info to explain why I just can't believe that - even if I tend to lean IDI, not RDI.

Details said:

Yeesh - this nonsense again! Most people on websleuths have seen far too many court cases to believe that a mother won't harm a child, even in the most violent and vile ways - nor to believe that a pretty face, a pretty house, nice stories from relatives and neighbors proves anything. We're not donig that to you - please don't do that to us. Each person is an individual, and you never know what life experience isn't yet being talked about... If and when someone says "Patsy couldn't have done it - a mother just wouldn't!" - address them - I've given a few of them some info to explain why I just can't believe that - even if I tend to lean IDI, not RDI.

Click to expand...

You're right, there are far, far, too many cases where a mother has done horrible things to her child. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

Without discussing Patsy as a mother at all, we have an example of a mother who sexually molested and tried to kill her own son, namely, John Karr's mother, Patricia Adcock Karr. This reminded me of the true story Sybil which was a book and a tv movie, of a mother who sexually abused her own daughter, who devloped multiple personalities as a way of protecting herself from the horror. Mothers definitely can do these things and no one is saying they don't.

What I am saying though, is that Patsy does not fit the profile of this kind of psychopathic woman. And there's no sign that she abused either of her children. There is a lot of proof that abuse begets abuse, and it is going to be a field day for psychologists to analyze the tragic story of two generations of incest which caused John Karr to become so confused about who he was , and what was right or wrong.

It's possible to be horribly abused and not grow up to be a pervert or a killer, of course. We know that too, but the thing is that it did happen to John Karr, who stands out with every single thing we hear about him, as a very typical victim of severely traumatic childhood abuse, who went on to do the same to other children, despite being an intelligent, handsome, and sensitive young man. He had the demons within him from childhood.

I know that parents can be as brutal as any killer, and sometimes are even more brutal than any serial killer. But I still haven't seen anything that completely convinces me that PR and JR did it. The theories of everything that was done in the staging is one of the things that is keeping me from believing that parents did it. First they kill their daughter- then they think to write a ransom note, change her underwear to a size twelve, lets wash her up, make a garrotte and put it around her neck and tighten it tight, and oh yeah, while I am thinking about it- give me that paintbrush to put up in her. Lets leave her in the basement so she can be found inside the house.
It is just too complicated for parents who have just killed their daughter. Parents who kill usually either call 911 or do their best to get the kid away from the house so they can claim that it is missing and not have the kid where it can point the finger at them. So if they took the time to do staging at the home, I think they would have taken the body and dumped it somewhere. And PR sure as heck would not have admitted any knowlege of those size 12's. After all, LE didn't get the package with the rest of them.
But likewise I have a lot of questions about JMK. Though I don't have too much of a problem with the inconsistencies. If he did it, he has fanatasied about it for 10 years. But not about the details of how to get in, or how to stage the crime.....he would only be fantasizing about they time that he was actually with her. Some of the other details would get fuzzy over the years. You see it all the time in serial killers. They can tell you some things about the murders they did.....but many of the details they don't think is important they won't remember or will get wrong.
The only thing I am sure of is that you never know what LE has tucked away in their files. They tell somethings, some things get leaked (purposely or without authorization) but some of what they had probably didn't get out. And what did get out, could be incomplete or skewed in some way by the retelling.
Also don't discount the fact that media is changing their tone about JMK. Many times media will get info that is not released for publication or that they can't verify and so won't print. I think the fact that their tone is changing is telling.

scandi said:

Great posts Jollynna,

Your statement "I think the media is getting wind of something they can't talk about. At least their attitude toward this case seems to be changing." is something I have noticed too. Most encouraging!

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, as well, and it is encouraging from the standpoint that maybe, maybe, this hasn't been a huge waste of time and money, but it is discouraging to think that the media isn't talking about something they know. That is their whole purpose for being.

absolut_alexis said:

I was thinking about this, as well, and it is encouraging from the standpoint that maybe, maybe, this hasn't been a huge waste of time and money, but it is discouraging to think that the media isn't talking about something they know. That is their whole purpose for being.

Click to expand...

yes, but sometimes there are things they CANNOT talk about publicly, for the public good. Especially in a high profile case like this one where so many people are watching. If it can be unmistakably proven that JMK did it, they can't risk tainting a possible future jury by releasing the "key" evidence that may convict him. Or by releasing evidence publicly that only the killer would know.

blonde1 said:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCent...page=1&gma=true

This might be all we need to know.
JMK's mother tried to kill him, abused him.
JonBenet's mother abused her, killed her. (in his opinion)
A mother murdering a child does not compute. He will make it not so. Mothers are supposed to be perfect - love their children.
He'll take the rap for Patsy because psychically, it's unbearable to know that a mother could abuse and kill their own child.

Explains JMK but not the murder.

Click to expand...

This is plausible to me. I also think it's kinda interesting to see how many of us like to make a pronouncement we're worldy, saavy, aware of sickos and how the act and what they do...as well as accept the fact mothers kill their children, etc., YET, some of us then say in the next breath AIN'T NO WAY PATSY COULD HAVE KILLED HER CHILD...she's just not the type. Oh, please. We don't know WHO Patsy Ramsey was inside the confines of her intimate world. We'll probably never know unless Burke or somebody like that writes a book someday. Oh, we do have some evidence she was extremely narcissistic, messy, directed outwardly - caring about what the world thinks of her. We know she went to great lengths to CREATE a beauty queen out of her little girl. We know she threw money around in wild attempts to be admired and accepted.

I can't remember anyone talking about what she and JonBenet, or Burke for that matter, ever DID together...besides this pageant stuff. I've wondered about that quite a lot over the years. I mean, I had a boy and a girl and I can tell you lots of things we did and shared. I've always been very curious about Patsy's upbringing. Let's face it, her mom and dad are two pieces of work in my book.

Now, John is yet another piece of work. I remember reading a bit about his relationship with his father, but not much else. Anyone recall stuff about John's life as a kid?

OK, the sum-up is I think Ablow is a professional and can link things and understand that linkage in ways the rest of us don't - that's why he has all the degrees on the wall and big fees for service rendered! We're armchair psychologists around here and you guys know what THAT means! He could be waaay off track but I doubt it. His assessment speaks volumes to me. Gotta talk to my psychologist next week and get her "take" on this.

"Although most people seem reluctant to believe that any parent would do that kind of harm to their own child."

Yeah, I get that a lot. Well, it happens, and we had all better face it.

"I don't think anyone here on WS is naive enough to take the stance that "no mother could do anything to hurt her child.","

Oh, YEAH?! I've heard that from PLENTY of people.

"Hundreds of highly talented and experienced (and yes, definately some real knuckleheaded LE, also) LE have spent the last 10 years considering the evidence and have tried in vain to pin this on the Ramseys, and they haven't been able to do it yet. 10 years. That's gotta say something."

Actually, the DA wouldn't do it. That's the reason, not because of lack of evidence. And I'd say that the PMPT and ITRMI books proved that sufficiently.
They might as well have been talking to a brick wall. The DA's office did NOT want this case.

Recorded voice purported to be John Karr: I do, I fall in love with them. I think it's a throwback to my own mom. … It's my desire that my own mom would have been more perfect. When I run to the one who is like — I'll call her Mrs. Ramsey, you know — who's perfect … I'm the type of person where if I knew that that mom had killed her daughter and had sex with her and was sexually attracted to her, I would love to just tell her, "Please just let this go and forgive yourself, because your daughter's forgiven you."

Ablow: John Karr's lead theory. Not my lead theory. I don't need a call from Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney. John Karr's lead theory is that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. That's what he's alluding to there. He's saying that, "I would want that mother to have peace and be forgiven." And, remember, his mother tried to kill him. And he's saying moms are perfect.

Snow: You think he might be covering for Patsy Ramsey?

Ablow: I think that one logical conclusion, psychologically, that comes out of listening to those audiotapes, is that he wishes to take the rap for the person he believes did this, Patsy Ramsey.

Click to expand...

I guess Woody BULLIED him, too. But, yes. This man HAS to believe that all mothers are great and wonderful and innocent, and I believe he does see himself as her White Knight. I think Ablow might have it.

"How could they stay married carrying such a huge burdensome secret between them?"

Because if one goes down, so does the other. It's not that hard.

"Where is there another instance of a parent going this far, not just taking the body out of the house & dumping it elsewhere?"

Does Susan Smith do anything for you?

"Patsy does not fit the profile of this kind of psychopathic woman."

Timothy McVeigh didn't fit the profile of a mad bomber, either! The DC Snipers didn't fit the profile of serial killers. Every rule has exceptions.

"And there's no sign that she abused either of her children."

I don't know. Richard Krugman said that JB had old vaginal injuries from physical abuse over bedwetting and the housekeeper said that Patsy used the bathroom as a punishment room. You could hear JB screaming.

"But I still haven't seen anything that completely convinces me that PR and JR did it."

What do you need?

Jolynna, you and I are together. Most people can't face the idea. It rocks the comfort zone too much. But you know better.

SuperDave posted:
"I don't know. Richard Krugman said that JB had old vaginal injuries from physical abuse over bedwetting and the housekeeper said that Patsy used the bathroom as a punishment room. You could hear JB screaming."

There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that JB had old vaginal injuries from abuse over bedwetting. None. Zip.

And the housekeeper said a LOT of stuff. Doesn't make it so.

Julianne are you as confused as I am that so much gets posted as Facts when it is speculation? You even have so called experts disagree on certain things. Its either black or white it can't be both.
Amy

julianne said:

There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that JB had old vaginal injuries from abuse over bedwetting. None. Zip.

Click to expand...

julianne, I was just wondering.
What makes you post the above? Have you read the autopsy and being an expert can say we have misunderstood it?
In that case please explain what chronic inflammation does mean to you as an expert, and why dr spitz who also is an expert in the field thought otherwise.