JR & PR's behavior immediately afterward

First of all, hi everyone! I've been lurking on a daily basis but have been spending my time reading instead of posting.

Anyhoo, I've also been reading the Bonita Papers. One of the [many] things that have me going "hmmmmm" is the way JR & PR basically avoided each other. I'm wondering why. To me, this behavior alone blows any IDI or even BDI theories because wouldn't they be united if it were either of these scenarios? If an IDI, wouldn't they be comforting each other? Even if BDI, wouldn't they still be comforting each other (even though guilty of staging an alternate crime in order to shield Burke) and be united to ensure their stories stayed straight? Also, wouldn't it be highly unlikely Burke would have been shipped off to the White's if that were the case (even if an IDI...wouldn't they be afraid of him getting kidnapped as well?). Then there's the R's-didn't-do-it-but-know-who-did theory. Wouldn't they have still been comforting each other and remained united to keep the story straight as well? The above rambling is neither here nor there...just sorting some things out. But their avoidance of each other.......why? Was John avoiding Patsy or was Patsy avoiding John?

In one room, you have John nervously pacing around but still able to think, speak and act somewhat coherently and even take care of business like getting the mail, etc. In another room, there's Patsy going into a meltdown and extremely interested in what the police are doing and grieving while watching through splayed fingers. I've tried hard to decipher these things but still can't draw a conclusion. The two things I've come up with are:

1) JR didn't kill JBR (I don't think either of them thought she was still alive when the garrote was placed around her neck.). Therefore, that's why he's able to be somewhat function as the only guilt he carries is staging the crime. His avoidance of Patsy could be that he's totally p.o.'d at her for losing control and killing his daughter and ruining the family holiday plans and putting him in that kind of position. He just doesn't want to be around her because of what she did to him, JBR, and the "good name" of Ramsey.

2) PR didn't kill JBR. JR did. JR doesn't strike me as being a real feeling type of person so that could be why he was so able to function on a semi-normal basis after the murder. He was in survival mode. Patsy went along with covering for him because she's dependent (and maybe fearful of) on him, his money, etc. and perhaps he didn't tell her the truth as to why or how JBR was killed. Perhaps he was the one who suggested staging a molestation to try to cover up evidence of actual ongoing molestation (I'm not a mom but even I have a hard time understanding, if this were the case, why PR would be willing to cover for JR if she knew he had been molesting JBR...I'd want the s.o.b. prosecuted and sentenced to death!). JR could have been avoiding Patsy out of guilt. Patsy's meltdown could have been the real deal. Histrionics and all.

Of course, there's always #3....they both played a part in it and were avoiding each other just because they both felt guilt. And I'm sure there's #4, 5, 6, 7, etc. as far as this goes.

Sorry for the rambling....just thinking out loud here. I don't know if there's a thread somewhere in the depths of this forum dealing with this but, if so, please direct me to it. If not, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it!

You can interpret it any way you want.

Your daughter is kidnapped - not normal everyday living.
Your daughter is dead - not normal everyday living.

I didn't see them hugging each other on TV. Wouldn't that be a simple thing to stage? John was known not to show affection in public.

I look for facts that present a conflict and see if that can tell us anything.

If you want to apply a behaviourial interpretation to the Ramsays, then you really should try it on others as well.

Rupert said:

You can interpret it any way you want.

Your daughter is kidnapped - not normal everyday living.
Your daughter is dead - not normal everyday living.

I didn't see them hugging each other on TV. Wouldn't that be a simple thing to stage? John was known not to show affection in public.

I look for facts that present a conflict and see if that can tell us anything.

If you want to apply a behaviourial interpretation to the Ramsays, then you really should try it on others as well.

Click to expand...

Behaviourial interpretation has been tried on others....namely Scott Peterson (didn't his behavior weigh in a bit with the jury?), Diane Downs (read "Small Sacrifices" and see what weight her behavior had), Darlie Routier, and on and on and on. Rupert, while I don't want to believe the Ramsey's did this, that's what I do believe because that's the direction that everything seems to point to.....and not just including behavior.

Edited to add: As for facts that present a conflict, the Ramsey's statements conflict themselves. For instance, first Burke was awake. Then Burke wasn't awake. Which one is it?

Daisy said:

Behaviourial interpretation has been tried on others....namely Scott Peterson (didn't his behavior weigh in a bit with the jury?), Diane Downs (read "Small Sacrifices" and see what weight her behavior had), Darlie Routier, and on and on and on. Rupert, while I don't want to believe the Ramsey's did this, that's what I do believe because that's the direction that everything seems to point to.....and not just including behavior.

Edited to add: As for facts that present a conflict, the Ramsey's statements conflict themselves. For instance, first Burke was awake. Then Burke wasn't awake. Which one is it?

Click to expand...

Ramsays say they later learned that Burke was awake in his bed from his testiminony. Alot was going. Sure there's some suspicion, but that's not a strong enough conflict for me.

You can apply Oxzam's razor in various ways to this case. No evidence of intruder, except what has been pointed out by Smit. Very smart intruder. Is an intruder that smart? He must have been planning it. I don't know.

I am not just trying to argue one side or another. I really want to solve this case. I am quite aware of slanted views on both sides of the fence.

What I won't settle for is to fit the facts to Oxzam's Razor. If the R's did it, I want to see clear evidence and understand why. If they didn't, I want to find the perp.

I meant to do a behavioural analysis on other suspects in the JonBenet case.

This case would have been a circumstantial case had it gone to court...would have been along the lines of the Scott Peterson case. Some evidence but mostly circumstantial. This case will probably never go to court. JR has nothing to worry about now.

I think so too Daisy.I believe they were distancing themselves from each other due to one blaming the other,and so of course they would find no comfort in each other's arms,and didn't cling to each other as parents of a missing child tend to do.
And as in Martha Moxley's murder,if you want to figure who did it,then looking at suspects after a murder,which ones are stable and show normal grief,and which ones fall apart?I think PR was the one who fell apart.

JMO8778 said:

I think so too Daisy.I believe they were distancing themselves from each other due to one blaming the other,and so of course they would find no comfort in each other's arms,and didn't cling to each other as parents of a missing child tend to do.
And as in Martha Moxley's murder,if you want to figure who did it,then looking at suspects after a murder,which ones are stable and show normal grief,and which ones fall apart?I think PR was the one who fell apart.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly! Nice to hear from ya!

Daisy said:

This case would have been a circumstantial case had it gone to court...would have been along the lines of the Scott Peterson case. Some evidence but mostly circumstantial. This case will probably never go to court. JR has nothing to worry about now.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because of Patsy Ramseys passing, that may be the exact reason why John may have something to worry about now. Why JMK was seen as a potential patsy to parade before the media again to once again cast a reasonable doubt. Do you honestly think that JMK was accidently found. What if he was groomed and even developed across the years to become that reasonable doubt. Getting back to John and Patsy. Together it was unlikely either could be prosecuted successfully. One could not be succesfully prosecuted because the other could not be compelled to testify against the other. You couldn't compell John to testify against Patsy....or visa versa. Note things started poppin all over the place once Patsy passed away.

IMO, John distanced himself from Patsy that morning so he could leave the room unnoticed to take care of unfinished buisness. It was part of their plan.

I don't want for Burke to have killed his little sister, but why else would the parents have created such an elaborate cover-up? Burke is the only reason. From what I read, the Ramsey's relationship was strained. I doubt enough love was there for them to want to protect each other, but it makes perfect sense that they would want to protect their child.

From reading the interviews with Burke, he seems a little unusual to me. I think the kids were playing and somehow JonBenet got seriously hurt.

What puzzles me the most, is the way John handled JonBenet's death. It is a complete about face from what we have learned of his reaction to Beth's death.

I think John and Patsy had specific roles in their relationship. I think he brought home the money and she had to take care of making sure he was happy. Even when she had chemo he was off to work and she went to chemo alone. He doesn't seem to be an emotionally giving person. So even though I believe they are responsible for the murder, I think John would have taken the role of comand and left Patsy to fend alone.

Daisy said:

My sentiments exactly! Nice to hear from ya!

Click to expand...

great post !

Rupert said:

Ramsays say they later learned that Burke was awake in his bed from his testiminony. Alot was going. Sure there's some suspicion, but that's not a strong enough conflict for me.

You can apply Oxzam's razor in various ways to this case. No evidence of intruder, except what has been pointed out by Smit. Very smart intruder. Is an intruder that smart? He must have been planning it. I don't know.

I am not just trying to argue one side or another. I really want to solve this case. I am quite aware of slanted views on both sides of the fence.

What I won't settle for is to fit the facts to Oxzam's Razor. If the R's did it, I want to see clear evidence and understand why. If they didn't, I want to find the perp.

I meant to do a behavioural analysis on other suspects in the JonBenet case.

Click to expand...

Short of a confession, you've got all the evidence you're ever going to have. Maybe in the future some records will be unsealed, but we'll be very old by then.

So, if you want to figure out what happened, you'll have to work with what there is. If you don't find the evidence clear now, you never will. It may never be possibly to understand why it was done.