Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Bobbarita, Oct 11, 2010.
If they confronted him like you said then it would make #2 much more believable.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
1. You think it's normal not to question your child when the other child has been kidnapped? Or you think it's abnormal?
2. You think it's normal not to question, or talk to your child after they've killed your other child? Or you think it's abnormal?
I can't imagine not talking to the remaining child in either circumstance! :waitasec:
I think 1 and 2 are abnormal and I don't believe they happened. 3 on the other hand I can see.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying! I wasn't sure. Yes, 1 & 2 would be even more abnormal than everything else they did & didn't do! LOL
deleting double post
Our colleague, otg, proposed a question recently. Did PR report to 911 that "we had a kidnapping or we have a kidnapping"?
Our language usage tells or reveals truths about our chosen words.
During the 911 call, Patsy reveals this:
Dispatch: Okay, whats your name? Are you Kath...?
PR: Patsy Ramsey, Im the mother. Oh my God! Please!
Dispatch: Okay, Im sending an officer over OK?
PR gives her daughter's address, her age, possibly her hair color, but not once does she say her daughter's name is JonBenet Ramsey.
Really, Patsy? She compared dressing her young daughter with red lipstick, platinum blonde dyed hair, in shiny tight costumes to resemble burlesque attire complete with feather boas to being along the same line as a father who teaches his son to play ball.
Then, she blames us, the public, for viewing the photographs as near pornographic in nature. She does not acknowledge any control over the Sexy Witch she taught her daughter to be.
She does not holster any of the blame for the central mental and emotional abuse of her own child that we have seen displayed time and time again in images of a pouty little girl highlighted by red lipstick.
This is, perhaps, just one motive for the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Remember the autopsy images we hate so much? JonBenet was murdered while in the home with her parents and 9yo brother. These are her parents.
Do not judge this couple, nor be fooled by their perfectly groomed appearance, nor misled by the impeccably custom tailored suit with coordinating tie nor by the lovely coiffed hairstyle, white pearls, sweet voice, gold bracelet and sparkling rings. Wealthy attractive people sometimes, unfortunately, do, in fact, kill their little children. Money does bring privilege. And affords a better opportunity to escape punishment.
Hope no one minds me joining in? Just wanted to add a few of my jumbled thoughts about John and Patsy! In no particular order...
I do believe in the significance of Statement Analysis with things like the 911 call, and in fact any of the Ramsey's statements- I think that people do give themselves away subconsciously, even when they're being deceptive and trying not to. To me, both Patsy and John show through their wording choices that they had distanced themselves emotionally from Jon Benet, by not referring to her directly by name, and calling her "that child", and so on.
Patsy comes across to me as capable of being very cold, manipulative and controlling, plus strangely over-involved and interfering with both her children. I wonder if they were subjected to a bewildering mixture of over-stepping boundaries and also, paradoxically, coldness bordering on emotional neglect at times? Personally, I think that she did love her children intensely in her own way! but it was a conditional love! based upon both of them doing what she wanted them to do, and "performing" to her expectations. But, maybe, if either of them stopped delivering what was expected of them in any way, she was equally capable of abruptly cutting off her love, and mentally "moving on"?
John seems more distant, but I can also imagine him being capable of calculating coldness, cruelty and ruthlessness, when he deemed it necessary. Perhaps the apparent coldness between both Ramsey's when the police arrived, was agreed between them, in an over-compensating attempt to appear as if they couldn't possibly have been involved together?
I agree that it's a confusing mystery why Patsy remained dressed in the day's clothes and perfectly "made up" all night, whilst John allegedly had a shower. If true, John could possibly have been showering away evidence? Patsy's perfect make up and lack of tears could possibly indicate two things-either she really genuinely had no knowledge or involvement in either her daughter's murder or cover-up (possible, but highly unlikely!), or maybe she had other "guests" present in her home during that night? Only a possibility, but I know that after a long and tiring day, I can't wait to change and remove my day's make up when I shut the front door, and there's only my hubby and the cats at home... But, I would keep my make up on if there were other people visiting, however late, unless we all went to bed for the night. Probably most women would? And I'm sure we're not as vain and image-conscious as Patsy?!
Only speculation, of course, just thought I'd throw in my thoughts.
I think this description of Patsy is pretty spot on, although I don't know that I agree she ever "loved her children instensely". I realize you added "in her own way" so maybe we actually are on the same page and it's just wording.
I definitely think she was a narcissist and probably had a number of other personality disorders blended in. Perhaps even sociopathy.
I think she "thought" she loved her children. I agree that as long as they projected the image she wanted them to project and acted like the good little "accessories" they were, to her she would have showered them with her version of "love" I can also see not only indifference when they "failed" her, but a deep rage.
I think Patsy's rage showed more than once during the various interviews.
Stangely, I don't think it ever showed where it should have though. It should have been directed at the horrible "intruder" that violated and murdered her child. Instead it tended to show most when anyone dared to question her.
I think these are all part of the reason I have never had a bit of trouble viewing Patsy as the one. I realize the Steve Thomas theory is now old news and has been discarded by many in favor of newer ideas. However, I still think Patsy killing her in a rage, has a lot of merit. Maybe it wasn't the bedwetting that prompted it as he thought, maybe it was something else. But the basic premise still has merit to me.
As I have said many times, I am not married to a particular theory. I go back and forth between PDI and BDI and can find merit in both. I just don't see John as the killer. Maybe it is because I see him as so detached. I don't really see him "losing it" the way I can so easily envision her doing.
I think Patsy was one very sick lady and I am not referring to the Cancer. Not so much that I believe she premeditated the murder of her daughter, but I can
absolutely see her raging enough to have caused JB's death. I can also see her then being cold and calculating enough to "stage" the death. Up to and including the garotte. I am 100% convinced she wrote the RN, the basic craziness of the RN screams Patsy, IMO.
It was all about appearances to Patsy. The "perfect" little family she created could not be marred a murder, or child abuse from within it's ranks.
Much better to make yourself into the vicitim and soak up all the sympathy.
Not that that part worked out quite like I think she envisioned.....
We also have only JR and Patsy's word that JR took a shower that day. We really do not know for sure.
This is absolutely correct. The entire account from both JR and PR about what happened that morning after they "woke up" may be nothing but fiction and IMO very likely is. All of that should be dismissed when searching for the truth.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts! I agree with everything you've said. I'm not married to a particular theory, either- just trying to consider all possibilities. I've gone back and forth between PDI and JDI, and recently even been wondering if there might even have been a wider group involved, not directly, but indirectly surrounding the Ramsey's, or somehow in the background to circumstances leading to JB's death.
I agree about Patsy's rage, and it not being directed at the killer, and can also imagine her committing the murder through an intense, emotional rage. Or perhaps because JB was becoming less willing to co operate with her wishes, or even because JB was becoming a threat to her- either with regard to John's "affections", or because she was starting to show signs of her abuse (in whatever forms that took) to outsiders?
This is partly where my recent wonderings about a wider group comes in. Were the 911 call at the party on 23rd, and the rumours of friends getting ready to "confront" Patsy and stage an intervention somehow a final catalyst for the killing? Either friends were beginning to notice signs of JB's abuse, or at least, emotional disturbances, or even that friends may have been knowingly complicit in a culture of abuse in some way? This is really sounding far fetched, I know, but I've even considered whether certain people around the Ramsey's (not necessarily any of those called to the house afterwards), may have known or been involved in JB's abuse and presented some sort of ultimatum to the Ramsey's, along the lines of: "She's becoming a problem, starting to talk to people and not co operating, and must be dealt with". I don't know, it's just the description of people allegedly wiping down kitchen surfaces after the police arrived, and forming a sort of protective shield around the Ramsey's... Maybe this was entirely innocent, or were people deliberately helping to contaminate the crime scene and destroy evidence?
Forgive me if this is a step too far! Just that it has actually crossed my mind, in a muddled and vague sort of way.
I'm open to exploring that, whether any group were hanging in the background or not, and even if it was purely between the Ramsey's only, that JB's murder may have been pre meditated (perhaps a topic for a separate thread). I know a lot of people don't think it was, and I really don't know either... Just open to exploring the possibility, and discussing if anything might indicate that, or not.
I think both Ramsey's probably had some form of undiagnosed personality disorders. Can anyone also see John being capable of murder in a different way to Patsy, because I can. Whereas Patsy would be led by intense rage, I could imagine John acting purely in a cold, calculated "This has become necessary" kind of way?
It's true that it would be unwise to trust any Ramsey description of what happened that night, and we have no way of knowing if John did take a shower or not. There must be a reason why Patsy remained so groomed that night, though- perhaps this could be quite a key thing to determine what happened?
I am not much into conspiracies. I realize they exist, The Lincoln assasination, various attempts to assasinate Hitler, etc. But I find the idea of the whole "larger group" theory preposterous in this case.
IMO, if there was abuse, it was from someone within the family. Personally I think Burke is the most likely, mainly based on access. I realize it could have also been John, but I don't really think it was. I could be wrong about that.
However the idea that they were somehow pimping JB out to friends and then that somehow her death was directed by some pedophile version of Don Corleone? Just absurd, IMO.
I don't think anyone outside of the immediate family caused her death and/or participated in the initial cover up. I doubt anyone outside of the immediate family knows to this day what actually happened with two possible exceptions;
1. Patsy, being in her own mind a good christian, and facing death may have confessed it all to members of the extended family who were with her near death. Although, I remember when my MIL was dying of Cancer she was comatose for a few days and wasn't talking to anyone, so that may never have been possible.
2. They might have told their attorney's the truth, although I highly doubt that.
There are enough inconsistencies and wierd sort of "trails" to follow in this case without going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, IMO.
OTOH, I acutally think Oswald acted alone, so maybe it just isn't my thing. :blushing:
Thanks again for your reply. I do realise that I'm in danger of going down the conspiracy theory route, which I really don't want to do, as it's important to remain as realistic as possible, even within such a strange case!
Sometimes the truth can be stranger than fiction, but I agree that there's been no real indications of anyone else being involved and if so, surely something would have come to light by now. My musings were very vague, just based upon possibilities of why Patsy might have remained so groomed that night, plus the strange aspect of their friends arriving the next morning and cleaning the kitchen... But, they were most likely innocently responding to Patsy's distresses calls for them to come round, and trying to help out by wiping surfaces down.
Part of the problem with this case is that there are so many bizarre elements, it makes you feel suspicious of everyone and every little thing! It's hard to know which details are necessarily relevant directly to the crime itself, even when proven as facts, such as the pineapple, isn't it?!
I wasn't thinking so much of a proper porn ring, or actively pimping out JB to their friends... I wasn't necessarily meaning that their friends were directly involved in the murder itself, or even in abusing JB themselves in any way... I was thinking more about the possibility that some of the friends might have begun to suspect, or even become aware, that JB was being molested/abuses in some way by one or more of her own family members. And that, possibly, those friends had either tried initially to overlook it, or perhaps even begun to voice their concern to John or Patsy, which may have brought an internal family situation "to a head"?
But, even this is wild speculation, and I'm probably going down a path full of red herrings! I can see why you think Burke may be involved. I certainly think it's very likely that he was molesting JB, but I'm not convinced he actually killed her. I can consider either PDI, JDI or BDI though, as yet! :banghead:
I remember reading an interesting quote from Linda Arndt's deposition, I think it was on A Candy Rose. Regarding her opinion that JB had been the victim of iciest within her own family, Linda didn't say who she thought the culprit(s) were, but insisted that every family "had a role" to play. I wonder if she meant that Patsy was aware of JB being molested by one (or even more than one) male family member? Linda Arndt wasn't necessarily correct in whatever she thought, either!
Just so difficult to pin point who actually did what within the family!
I read that Arndt interview a while back. I think she was being very cautious- and obviously the specter of the R's defense lawyers were looming. I know she had, from the first moments, suspected JR. As a rape victim specialist, she was trained to see women as victims of men, and was sympathetic to Patsy from the first. I know she planned a book, which never came to be. She sued the BPD and if there was any kind of settlement of that suit, the book may have been a consequence of that, as is her ongoing silence over he years. Especially in light of the new GJ revelations and Kolar's book, I wonder whether she was contacted for a statement on either. She may be legally bound by any settlement to keep silent on the case.
I also wonder whether she may have changed her opinion on JR as killer and now sees him as co-conspiriter with Patsy to obstruct justice and protect the perp from prosecution. I know the GJ indictments ad Kolar's book cemented my own theories.
Her comments about JB being a victim of incest indicate she thought someone in the family was molesting JB. Her comment about "family dynamics and every family member has a role to play" when there is abuse in a family, while true, are deliberately vague. Incest implies CLOSE blood familial sexual activity. It means father, mother, sibling, half-sibling. It does NOT mean family friend, stranger, teacher, housekeeper, stranger. There were three family members living with JB, four if you count half-brother JAR who was there on weekends.
Hi DeeDee249, thanks for responding! It's frustrating that Linda Arndt was being deliberately vague, but you're right that incest means a blood family member (or even possibly more than one), and not anyone outside the family. I think I was more wondering if any of the Ramsey's friends had begun to suspect something going on with JB within her own family, or if the Ramsey's had started to feel the threat of that possibly happening, and a reason like that might maybe have led to things coming to some sort of explosive head that night? Could be completely wrong, of course, but just sharing thoughts and possibilities. I certainly think that JB was being molested and maybe/maybe not being abused in other ways, too, by her own family member(s). Just not sure who, though! Either the abuse started around December time, or if much earlier, was escalating and maybe spiralling out of control by then?
Linda A's fascinating comments (more like hints!) about every family member having a role could mean that some family members were aware and even condoning/facilitating it, even if not actively taking part themselves? Just thinking about the GJ indictment wordings, about each parent allowing JB robe in a harmful situation?
Did you also read anywhere that Linda A met up with Patsy before her death, and again, dropped vague hints that Patsy passes on information which would "lead to" the killer? Hmmm, what could that mean, if anything? Always endless questions and few answers!
I agree, it would be very interesting to know if Linda A still believes that JR is the killer! Whether she does or not, she was consistent in seeming to feel very threatened and scared of him!
I had been wondering about tha issue of the Ramsey's friends, because all the descriptions of them arriving the next morning and maintaining a presence at the house gives me quite a sinister feeling- but that's probably generated more by the Ramsey's odd behaviour themselves, and the whole mystery surrounding the case!
Sorry to have strayed off the topic of the 911 call, and I promise to stick to it from now on- it's a fascinating thread!
I was aware of Patsy's meeting with Arndt just before her death. But I was not aware that any hint of insider information was discussed. Arndt was likely familiar with families where sexual abuse has been ongoing and perhaps she had her suspicions here. Mothers in such high-stress situations often "look the other way" or are in denial. They simply cannot face confronting the abuser or if that abuser is another child, may not want to be the cause of that child being publicly identified, punished, etc. They also sometimes hope it will just
"go away" or the kids will outgrow it.
I DO know that one of Patsy's friends, PW, confronted Patsy, saying she wanted to talk to her about "what was really going on".
Patsy rebuffed her completely by saying to her something like "I am the mother- how could you possibly know something that I don't"
Odd reaction, ya'think? If a friend of mine had said that to me and I truly did not know what she was talking about I think I would WANT her to tell me what she thought.
But of course, Patsy knew or suspected.
I agree with you, that if any of my friends had said that to me, too, and I was genuinely clueless, I would insist that they fully explained to me! But, then, every single reaction of both Ramsey's was odd, from start to finish!
I'm considering whether there was more than one family member molesting/abusing JB, and if there was a private "culture" of it within that family- part of how they lived their lives? And Patsy definately knew about it, in my opinion. This leads me back to the Original Post of this thread, about the 911 call...
I've tried thinking about DocG's JDI acting entirely alone theory... I can really imagine John possibly being the killer, for example, but the problem is, I just can't accept that Patsy was unsuspecting or innocent, or somehow duped or manipulated whilst being innocent, by John. I see her, at the very least, having full knowledge, even if she didn't actually kill JB herself.
I believe in Statement Analysis, just from a purely logical, instinctive, point of view, and I just feel convinced that the 911 call was deliberately deceptive. I know some people disagree, but it's just my instinct. Linked to what you've said about Patsy's strange reactions, I feel her choices of wording are very telling. I think her statement: "We have a kidnapping", was an opener, meant to "get this show on the road"' and set the agenda, as has already been said.
Never calling JB by her name, only "that child", indicates to me that she had emotionally distanced herself already from her daughter. And the "She's blonde" statement could mean a subconscious give away that JB was more of a doll-like object to her, rather than a real little person to be genuinely grieved over. This kind of cold reaction does make me feel that what happened wasn't a spur of the moment "accident"' as I don't know any "normal" mother who would already be so detached from a truly unexpected situation? Unless, possibly, she was in shock? Somehow, I don't get that impression, but could be wrong, of course!
For the same reasons, personally, I can't see either parents covering for a BDI situation, either- not in that particular way, and with such lack of emotion for the victim. Surely, if one of your children had killed the other, even if you were in a state of extreme shock, you would show more immediate distress/grief/concern, and at the very least, you wouldn't be distancing yourself so quickly from the poor victim, your supposedly much-loved other child? To me, personally, for that reason alone, it just doesn't add up.
Also, do any of us honestly know any parent who could imagine, even in a state of panic and distress, making such a quick mental leap to decide to stage their daughter's brutal murder, even to protect their other child, by dreaming up a garrotte etc?! I can't think of any "ordinary" parents I know, where that would even enter their heads! I think, purely personally, that if parents did decide to cover for and protect their remaining child, they wouldn't choose that particular way to do it. I mean, you must surely have a much darker side to you in the first place, to be thinking of any such things? My own instincts tell me that there's a more complex explanation for it all, involving one or both parents.
I know many disagree on these points, and may hear the 911 call as being genuine, and also have strong reasons to believe in BDI, and I really respect that. I'm open-minded! Just purely wanted to share my own thoughts, that's all.
Like you, from the very first time I heard the 911 call I thought it was the most fake call Id ever heard (nearly as fake as the RN). Its her choice of words.
So entertaining that PR knew JB was lying dead downstairs, her 911 act was triggered by one or more of the many motivations weve discussed on other threads. How can someone go from being a loving mother to being so calculating about the whole thing is an excellent question. Its not simply panic; is it something more a dark rage coupled with self-preservation which is still not resolved the next day? It seems ST picked up on that dark rage and came up with a theory.
According to LA, all of child protective services believed that JB had been molested chronically. Many of the posters here want to attribute the molestation to one or the other of the household males this is a discussion for the molestation forum, so I wont elaborate why I believe there was more than one molester in the household. But given that PR has gone from loving mother on Christmas Day, to calculating cover-up player/or actor in this, one has to look at how the molestation (and I do think that is at the heart of the cover-up) involved her, if she had not been molesting JB herself. (Her molesting JB is not my top theory, but possible.)
LA also states in her interview, that each family member plays a role. Well, first of all we know that many victims of child abuse are blamed for the abuse. Abhorently sad, but the case in many instances. Did PR blame JB or even feel some jealously at JBs success in drawing attention?
Regarding the behavior of the 911 call - what role is PR playing in this family. PR had a devastating disease, affecting her own sexuality and marriage. She had the opportunity, however, to live out her dreams of star beauty queen/princess through her daughter. And its not a fabrication to say that she sexualized JB in this endeavor not my interpretation only, but concluded by several forensic psychologist/psychiatrists notably Judith Densen-Gerber. PR didnt necessarily want to see JB molested, but she created an image of an unattainable sexual beauty in JB. And someone(s) in PRs own home reacted to this, either to the attention JB received as family golden child, or to the childs seductive image itself. So if youre inside the mind or feelings of PR, knowing, or sensing that this is going on, how does one respond?
Did PR make an attempt to face this by having BR in therapy? Does the molestation continue (if the December 23 party 911 call is any indication, something was still continuing)? Well, one can go into denial, blot it out by constant hyper- activity, not taking time to reflect on how the household is responding. But as is proven countless times with abuse, the affects linger beneath the surface even if one attempts to forget about it.
Does PR have suppressed anger taken out on the victim, who by all reports was not just continuing the bedwetting, soiling behavior, but also had a history of some defiant behavior with her mother? (There was one question in an interview by ST that once when Nedra woke JB up, JB was angry about being woken up to be taken to the bathroom and kicked Nedra in the chin.)
IMO, PR knew about incest activity in the home and for whatever reason, wasnt able to really deal with it. Nonetheless, PR cannot stand the idea that anyone outside her family, her audience so to speak, would guess what was going on and blame her for refusing to address it, indeed, leaving JB in a bedroom far away from her own. Guess this is a long-winded response to your post, Scandi. Denial, anger, jealousy, pride, frustration all might be in play in PRs role as mother. I mention this because PR did not go from loving mother to calculating 911 caller in an instant. All of this had been building for a very long time. MHO, of course.
(snipped for space, linked for reference):
Very insightful post, qft, and I agree with all of YHO. It can't all be based on one single emotion/event. There were a lot of different dynamics going on at the same time, and it all culminated in one single, very tragic event (for each person involved) which glued them together for the rest of their lives.
Thanks questfortrue and otg, for sharing your interesting thoughts. I agree with you both. Just a few more thoughts- I think that Patsy's agenda for the 911 call was to get across what she wanted to be noted the most, as quickly as possible. For example, as well as the "we have a kidnapping", which she almost repeated twice, she also mentioned the ransom note before what should surely have been the most important thing, which is that her daughter was "gone"!
She was then, in my view, clearly thrown and irritated to have her "script" interrupted when she was asked (damned annoying details!) what did the note say? After answering, she seemed to quickly return to getting across information she wanted people to believe, which was that she "just got up" and her daughter was gone.
Is it a coincidence that she referred to JonBenet as her "daughter", but never directly by name during the 911 call, just the same as in the ransom note?
My gut instinct tells me that "the mother" is distancing language, and almost playing a role. I agree with questfortrue's point about Patsy knowingly sexualising her daughter, and then not handling the consequences- JonBenet was an object to her, to be coldly discarded when necessary?
I might be wrong, of course, just sharing my thoughts...