LovelyPigeon said:
Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc
Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc
That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.
That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.
As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.
The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.
You are right, both of these women had a history of depression, etc, etc. However, neither one of them had a depressing past that included nearly-terminal cancer that could (and did) return at any time. We don't know about Patsy's inner-most thoughts. Some people do not seek treatment for depression until it is too late.
A few of the reports about Lemak that I read tell about how she worked at the kids' school, was always pleasant and happy, etc. Previous to the husband's departure, this was a normal, well-adjusted woman. Even as soon as a week before the murders, she was volunteering at the school and showed no signs that this horrific plot was forming in her head. No one knew.
Patsy had other stressors. I can only guess what they were beyond the cancer...I have a strange feeling that the older Ramsey children were not held as dearly by Patsy as we are made to believe, but that is just speculation and we can all speculate...
Regarding the pig/stun gun tests: Yes, the marks on the pigs do look like the marks on JB's back. However, please explain to me how the
ring marks on my hand look any
less like the marks on JBR's back.
My experiment was as scientific as the 'pig' experiment and both provide logical explanations for the abrasions. The difference is that most people
do wear rings and most people
do not carry stun guns.
Another difference is that my theory explains exactly
why the marks occur where they do, unlike the stun gun theory. In fact, an adult could probably not hold (in a rocking position) a small child
without placing their fingers on those exact spots and at the same exact angle on the child's body. A stun gun can hit anywhere.
If you have a small child, pick him or her up and try this. Try to rock the child on her back and kind of facing you. Where do your hands end up? On the child's back, where would two rings hit if they were on your middle and ring finger? Where is your other hand...On her cheek or on her neck? Check it out for yourself...It is amazing.
Also, as I mentioned in my last post, a stun gun does not, can not, leave the pattern in the large abrasion on the cheek. See it? It looks like two eyes and a nose (that is how I saw it first). What part on a stun gun could leave such a mark?
We know Patsy did and does wear rings. To me, it is clear that the pattern of one of her rings probably matches the pattern in the large abrasion. Look at my diagram in my link...
No one who believes in the stun gun theory has been able to explain the pattern in the abrasion to me yet...Can you?