Everyonbe had their own opinion on Patsy...

[sharkeyes]

At one time, I was sure they were innocent. Not now, obviously.

Any idea as to why they'd cover for this killer?

I'm leaning toward the possibility that one (or more) of their friends was a little freaky-deaky, and that PR and JR suspected it but maybe played it off as "oh, that's just (fill in name) being (fill in name). But then when I think about it I ask myself - on Christmas?! What the flip is going on in that family? I've also considered the possibility of the whole thing having something to do with JR's business, his affluence/wealth and the power that comes with it...I don't know, it's sick really, and while I do not think Patsy killed JonBenet, I do think both she and John are involved, there's more to it and we'll probably never find out...maybe when Burke is older and his conscience eats at him like crazy (because he WAS awake and he CAN be heard at the end of that 911 call asking "what did you find?")

I know there have been cases where an intruder has come in and abducted/assaulted/murdered a child (i.e. Polly Klaas), but there's something about the JBR murder that just does not point toward that happening. Then again, I could be totally off the mark, maybe PR did bash her head in and strangle her...but for what reason?, because she wet the bed? (I used to think that was why, but not now), because PR went into some kind of rage over JB refusing to go to bed or wear what PR wanted her to?

I do believe now that PR has passed more info will surface little by little.

 

[BBB167893]

I know there have been cases where an intruder has come in and abducted/assaulted/murdered a child (i.e. Polly Klaas), but there's something about the JBR murder that just does not point toward that happening. Then again, I could be totally off the mark, maybe PR did bash her head in and strangle her...but for what reason?, because she wet the bed? (I used to think that was why, but not now), because PR went into some kind of rage over JB refusing to go to bed or wear what PR wanted her to?

I do believe now that PR has passed more info will surface little by little.

You're right: the Klass, Van Dam, Runnion cases bear no resemblance to this one.

What reason? Could have been a combination of many things, sharkeyes.

 

[Linda7NJ]

You're not "getting in the middle" at all--your help in responding to Wenchie is appreciated as I wasn't on the boards this afternoon to answer. And you're right, this board does focus on JBR, not other cases, so I won't dig through old files to pull up all old evidence against Ricci, but will add to what you've posted just off the top of my head.

In addition to the several hundred miles Ricci couldn't account for on his vehicle, there was also supposedly mud/dirt matching some remote location in the Utah mountains he couldn't account for on the vehicle undercarriage. Additionally, eyewitnesses said they saw him taking things out of the vehicle and putting those things into bags before returning the vehicle to the mechanic's garage, and if I recall correctly, some of those items were believed to be interior floor mats from the vehicle which couldn't be accounted for.

Furthermore, and very critical, Mary Katherine Smart's original description of the man she saw take Elizabeth in the middle of the night was specific as to type and color of clothing and specific as to type and color of hat the man was wearing. Items matching those descriptions were found, if I recall correctly, in the home of Ricci's father and belonged to Richard Ricci. The hat was of an unusual type (i.e., not your typical ball cap or something like that) and because the type and color matched the description Mary Katherine had given, this really tipped the scales and brought the cries of "slam dunk, he done it" down upon the head of Richard Ricci.

It's funny (funny sad) that I got resistance to my original post on this thread at all, though, when all I asked was that 100% Patsy-did-it believers reserve one measly percent possibility that she might NOT have done it, based on cases like Ricci's. That's the kind of thing that drove me away from JBR boards some years ago after spending so many years discussing the case.

Having strong conviction that one's theory is correct is one thing. Blindly refusing to admit that no one is 100% certain of what happened in the case is another thing altogether.

Just my humble opinion . . .

Thanks again, DW, for your response to Wenchie in my absence.

Personally, I am willing to say ....... I am 99% positive a Ramsey did it. Can't decide which one or why, I have a few favorite theories rolling around in my head.

 

[Linda7NJ]

i think it is absolutely morally apparent that if patsy accidentally killed JB, or killed her in a fit of insane rage, she does NOT deserve to "burn in hell". I dont believe in hell or heaven but if i take the meaning of "hell" to be "everlasting punishment" then OBVIOUSLY the punishment would not fit the crime in this case.

burn in hell because she suffered a psychotic episode, or burn in hell because she made a stupid decision that she later couldn't retract? (a lie?) Don't be ridiculous. Burn in hell for a coverup?

patsy ramsey was not a homicidal vicious killer. Burke had no fear, John stuck with her. An accidental killer, maybe. but choose your terms carefully. Murder is not the same as accidental death. And a coverup does not warrant punishment in hell.

Honestly, people!

I disagree.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:laugh: :laugh:

Can I get your contact info just in case I'm ever accused of a crime and sent to trial? I want you on my jury.
I've already got 3 of the OJ jurors on standby.

 

[dingo]

Personally, I am willing to say ....... I am 99% positive a Ramsey did it. Can't decide which one or why, I have a few favorite theories rolling around in my head.

Im up to the stage Linda where I dont care...why ...what.. where or when..I just want to know who.

 

[narlacat]

Personally, I am willing to say ....... I am 99% positive a Ramsey did it. Can't decide which one or why, I have a few favorite theories rolling around in my head.

Yep.
More than likely a Ramsey did it.
I wouldn't bet my life on that though.
But I would bet my life on both JR and PR knowing what happened that night and knowing who killed JonBenet.

 

[narlacat]

Im up to the stage Linda where I dont care...why ...what.. where or when..I just want to know who.

Yeah I just want to know who too, but I'd really like to know why as well.

 

[dingo]

Yeah I just want to know who too, but I'd really like to know why as well.

Youre right Narla.I suppose I want to know why too...but whatever reason is given for JBs death will never make sense to me...thats why I would be happy with who.

 

[BBB167893]

The who would come first, then the why and how.

You know, sometimes I talk to people about this. One of my friends said to me that bedwetting was a stupid reason to kill your daughter. I asked him flat-out: "Can you think of a GOOD reason?" And I HAD him there!

 

[rashomon]

The who would come first, then the why and how.

You know, sometimes I talk to people about this. One of my friends said to me that bedwetting was a stupid reason to kill your daughter. I asked him flat-out: "Can you think of a GOOD reason?" And I HAD him there!

LOL, SuperDave - that was a quick-witted reply to your friend, which I hope had him thinking a little bit.

Rage killings don't require a specific 'motive'. All that is needed is some kind of trigger which pushes a stressed-out parent over the edge. There are children who have been killed by an enraged parent over as little as spilling milk at the breakfast table.

I'm equally interested in the 'who' as well as the 'why'. Who killed JonBenet and why?
Another question which interests me immensely: did the perp believe JB was already dead from the head bash when she (I think it was Patsy) tied the knot around her neck? For if the perp knew JB was still alive then, this would be a first-degree murder.

 

[BBB167893]

LOL, SuperDave - that was a quick-witted reply to your friend, which I hope had him thinking a little bit.

Rage killings don't require a specific 'motive'. All that is needed is some kind of trigger which pushes a stressed-out parent over the edge. There are children who have been killed by an enraged parent over as little as spilling milk at the breakfast table.

I'm equally interested in the 'who' as well as the 'why'. Who killed JonBenet and why?
Another question which interests me immensely: did the perp believe JB was already dead from the head bash when she (I think it was Patsy) tied the knot around her neck? For if the perp knew JB was still alive then, this would be a first-degree murder.

it DID, rashomon!

You raise a good point. A kid in JB's shape would probably not have displayed any life signs unless you knew what to look for. You can't murder someone if you think they're dead.