"5 reasons why mothers kill their children" Patsy Ramsey vs. Andrea Yates

[DeeDee249]

PR firmly believed that she had been miraculously cured of ovarian cancer. And actually, she lived many years longer than anyone I have ever heard that was diagnosed at stage 4. Ovarian cancer is usually not diagnosed until at least stage 3 or 4- there are few early symptoms and until recently, no blood test. The usual survival following a stage 4 diagnosis is 6 months to a year. I lost a cousin in October at age 22 to ovarian cancer. Diagnosed at stage 4, she lived 6 months.
So the precedence was there for PR to expect a miracle then, too.

 

[icedtea4me]

Or John could have been molesting JonBenet and Patsy seen it as "You took my husband away from me, now I'm going to take your life away from you."

In that case, Patsy probably wouldn't have seen her as her daughter JonBenet, but instead as the "other woman", or a prostitute/pick-up.


-Tea

 

[DeeDee249]

In that case, Patsy probably wouldn't have seen her as her daughter JonBenet, but instead as the "other woman", or a prostitute/pick-up.


-Tea

More like a rival in the house. That does happen, and not only in cases of abuse by the father. Some fathers and daughters share a close bond, and some daughters play this against their moms. JBR was probably a bit manipulative, but at 6 years old, I doubt she played the coquette.

 

[JMO8778]

I think about where and how JonBenet was when she was "found" and see an eerie similarity to Lazarus- the wine cellar/tomb, the white blanket/shroud. Is it remotely possible that Patsy thought or maybe even prayed that she could be raised from the dead even before she cried out "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead! Please raise my baby!" I mean, there was an automatic acceptance from Patsy that she was dead instead of a denial of it, which I think would come first.


-Tea

good point !!
And the fact she was garroted so quickly after the head bash..10-60 mins...meant someone wanted her dead,IMO.Otherwise,I would think there would have been some denial,had it truly been an accident..and the garroting wouldn't have occurred until HOURS later..when all hope was lost..not just minutes,even if they didn't want to call 911.(marks on her neck,vag. trauma or both could have prevented that).

 

[coloradokares]

I can see Patsy as schizophrenic with bipolar. Throw in personality disorder and the match is complete. IMO. Mental illness along with nurtured personality disorders make a complete mess of people. That I have seen and add to it physical ailments and there is no win situation. Unfortunately there are those who suffer along the way. The fact that so many victims are the result of these types of people and most of the time the family is in denial about the process. I have seen that to.

Just read Crimes in the News to get an inkling of all the cases where someone goes off on a relative. Whether it is a child,an elderly grandparent or even a mother. It happens every single day in America.

I can really see it as my DIL off meds can be truly Jekyle / Hyde I agree and it is as you say a complete mess. That is not saying that John did not have his own reasons to assist in the staging.

 

[Ames]

I think about where and how JonBenet was when she was "found" and see an eerie similarity to Lazarus- the wine cellar/tomb, the white blanket/shroud. Is it remotely possible that Patsy thought or maybe even prayed that she could be raised from the dead even before she cried out "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead! Please raise my baby!" I mean, there was an automatic acceptance from Patsy that she was dead instead of a denial of it, which I think would come first.


-Tea

Hi Tea,
I agree with you. I believe that she actually thought that Jesus WOULD raise JB from the dead. I think that she thought that if she believed hard enough...that He would.

 

[coloradokares]

I think about where and how JonBenet was when she was "found" and see an eerie similarity to Lazarus- the wine cellar/tomb, the white blanket/shroud. Is it remotely possible that Patsy thought or maybe even prayed that she could be raised from the dead even before she cried out "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead! Please raise my baby!" I mean, there was an automatic acceptance from Patsy that she was dead instead of a denial of it, which I think would come first.


-Tea

You are so right Denial would come first in a natural chain of events. Good catch Tea!!

 

[rashomon]

Imo Patsy snapped and lost it in a brief moment of uncontrollable rage and on seeing that she had done irreparable damage, went right into 'denying' her involvelment by staging a scene intended to point away from her.

Her dramatic Lazarus scene was part of the stage performance.

Her whole life, Patsy had been trained to play the role of the perfect woman. Forty years of training had not prepared her for the 'fall from grace' which would have occurred had she admitted her involvement in JonBenet's violent death.

 

[michelle]

:truce:I dont think PR killed Jon benet.

 

[rashomon]

:truce:I dont think PR killed Jon benet.

The evidence strongly implicates Patsy. Even a layperson can see she wrote the ransom note, and fibers from her jacket were found in incriminating locations at the crime scene.

 

[michelle]

The evidence strongly implicates Patsy. Even a layperson can see she wrote the ransom note, and fibers from her jacket were found in incriminating locations at the crime scene.

I guess I am not a "layperson" . I am just stating my opinion.

 

[JMO8778]

I see it as murderous rage without intent. Call it blind fury whatever I keep going back to the bipolar thing as I they simply go off POW later when they have me back to their level of reality really have this I didnt mean to do it and it was their fault attitudes.

that too,I agree,whatever happens happens,their thinking is that they'll just deal w. the consequences of their actions later,and they usually expect help from others to clean up the messes they made.In that case JR would have been the enabler.And I don't think he did it out of sympathy for Patsy.He was worried about his own reputation,and that of his family.

 

[DeeDee249]

Regardless of which parent actually killed her, they are both complicit in the crime. As is BR, IF he knows what happened. Even if he was just under 10 when it happened, if he knows and keeps silent, he is committing a crime as far as I am concerned. I know he is probably still dependent on his father. We'll see what happens when he becomes self-sufficient.
I have never understood the rational for having to prove exactly who did what when it comes to murder. I have always understood (at least in some states) that when several people are involved, as in a robbery, and someone is killed, that it doesn't matter who actually pulled the trigger; all who took part in the robbery are guilty of the murder. I don't see why this should be different. One of them killed her, one or both covered it up, and they both know exactly what happened. I know spouses can't be forced to testify against each other, but I thought that didn't apply when it came to the murder of their child. I am sure that is why the police wanted to separate them for questioning. And I am also sure that is why the R lawyers refused to allow it.

 

[coloradokares]

Regardless of which parent actually killed her, they are both complicit in the crime. As is BR, IF he knows what happened. Even if he was just under 10 when it happened, if he knows and keeps silent, he is committing a crime as far as I am concerned. I know he is probably still dependent on his father. We'll see what happens when he becomes self-sufficient.
I have never understood the rational for having to prove exactly who did what when it comes to murder. I have always understood (at least in some states) that when several people are involved, as in a robbery, and someone is killed, that it doesn't matter who actually pulled the trigger; all who took part in the robbery are guilty of the murder. I don't see why this should be different. One of them killed her, one or both covered it up, and they both know exactly what happened. I know spouses can't be forced to testify against each other, but I thought that didn't apply when it came to the murder of their child. I am sure that is why the police wanted to separate them for questioning. And I am also sure that is why the R lawyers refused to allow it.

The age controlled law bothers me I know that an almost 10 year old would know the difference between right and wrong. It should be by circumstance not age limitation. However it is pure speculation that Burkes testimony at the Grand Jury had anything to do with everything getting dropped like a hot tater. I am not saying the law is just or right only what it was and for that matter still is.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes that is ridiculous that they both couldn't be charged,regardless of proving who did exactly what,they were both complicit in the crime. I saw on tv the other day,on one of those police shows,a guy had some crack on him,claiming it wasn't his,saying it belonged to his girlfriend,(which she denied),and they were both arrested.And this was just a piece of crack,not murder! But still they both were held responsible,just on the basis of the guy saying it belonged to his gf.As far as I'm concerned,in that case,it was found on *him,so *he should have been the one charged with possession,and leave it at that.

 

[coloradokares]

Yes that is ridiculous that they both couldn't be charged,regardless of proving who did exactly what,they were both complicit in the crime. I saw on tv the other day,on one of those police shows,a guy had some crack on him,claiming it wasn't his,saying it belonged to his girlfriend,(which she denied),and they were both arrested.And this was just a piece of crack,not murder! But still they both were held responsible,just on the basis of the guy saying it belonged to his gf.As far as I'm concerned,in that case,it was found on *him,so *he should have been the one charged with possession,and leave it at that.

I am getting ready to be boo'd for this but as far as I am concerned at least one of the parents had to be covering for the actual act. That makes them as guilty. I would never have covered for my husband no matter what the circumstance. Maybe they one or both had their justification for doing so but JonBenet was still dead. Both should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to have no trial you tell me me how any decent human being can justify that.

 

[Blondieskatz]

I believe that if LE had arrested both of them~ one of them would have done some serious talking!

 

[JMO8778]

I believe that if LE had arrested both of them~ one of them would have done some serious talking!

no doubt! and even if they were hurling out lies and accusations against each other...which would be likely...I believe it would still have been easy to fit together the real truth of what happened that night.

 

[JMO8778]

I am getting ready to be boo'd for this but as far as I am concerned at least one of the parents had to be covering for the actual act. That makes them as guilty. I would never have covered for my husband no matter what the circumstance. Maybe they one or both had their justification for doing so but JonBenet was still dead. Both should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to have no trial you tell me me how any decent human being can justify that.

you won't get boo'd from me,right on!

 

[coloradokares]

I believe that if LE had arrested both of them~ one of them would have done some serious talking!

I believe you are right!!:clap: