Patsy Ramsey

[Meara]

You noticed that, huh? Ever read God's Little Acre?

Just looked it up. :giggle:

 

[2 percent]

You noticed that, huh? Ever read God's Little Acre?

:floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And you don't think a child would be up front about itching? I have a girl. At 6 yrs old she would not be shy about her symptoms.

Are you aware of where the hymen is? Also that it would not be the target "itch" area? We are talking major penetration in one area...why would only one area itch...twice!?

Ok. So the standard is that if only one person says it (even if the ickiness under the fingernails corroborates), then it is folk lore? Remember that...

Im a girl myself so yes.

I don't find any real proof. To me the erosion could have been from continued abuse that night.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So sorry, I wasn't very clear. You had said, But in this case people have made patsy out to be a monster and there is just nothing to support it but rhetoric and fantasy. And I wondered whether your criticism extended to GJ testimony -- i.e., do you believe the GJ indictment was based only on rhetoric and fantasy?

I believe the GJ was fed a bunch of lies and innuendo. I believe that the GJ was lead down a path and at that time people wanted to have the monsters locked away. I don't rally have a lot of faith in GJ's. They are laypeople and their job is not to find guilt but see if there is enough to charge. That still does not mean guilt.

GJ's indict nearly everyone and anyone. It is part of the process.

I believe that the GJ did not have all the information and so it is just not something that means much to me.

 

[BBB167893]

So sorry, I wasn't very clear. You had said, But in this case people have made patsy out to be a monster and there is just nothing to support it but rhetoric and fantasy. And I wondered whether your criticism extended to GJ testimony -- i.e., do you believe the GJ indictment was based only on rhetoric and fantasy?

I'll add this, Meara: I know that there ARE people who have tried to make Patsy out to be a monster. I think that's very unfair. Justice must have room for compassion, or it is not truly justice.

 

[DeDee]

Not if it had cleared up. And she could have not only suffered adhesions or deterioration from it but she could have also damaged herself itching it or trying to relieve the pain and itching.

No one says there was questionable hygiene except the housekeeper. And all those she told. That does not make it so. No one at the pageants have said this, her dr, the school, no one has come out with this info except the hk.. The ME did not say she was dirty and unkempt. I think this is folk lore.

The housekeeper presented sworn statements to the GJ but you imply she lied?

"No one at a pageant have said this"

~ Now, there's evidence of cleanliness right there. :facepalm:

In fact, it has been repeatedly posted that JB experienced a pageant "scrub" in the bathtub the night before attending pageants.

JBs pediatrician was an active parishioner of the same church the Rs attended. He was one of the very first contributors to Mary Lacy's campaign for DA. He threatened to never allow access to JBs records. Why would we expect him to reveal JBs state of cleanliness or lack thereof?

"And she could have not only suffered adhesions or deterioration from it but she could have also damaged herself itching it or trying to relieve the pain and itching."

Quite frankly, there were no adhesions noted in the AR.

How could a 6yo, even with untrimmed nails, damage her vaginal area by "itching it herself"? Perhaps you intended to write: by scratching the itch herself.

A six yr old does not make her vaginal opening twice the normal size for her age by scratching a temporary vaginitis itch.

Why do you insist on ignoring, time and time again, the information put forward that dispels Patsy as being a perfect mother or totally disregarding and disputing hard evidence against the Rs?

TMK, there is not a one of us here who believes PR was a monster 24-7. And, iirc, you are the only poster I have seen here who has used the term "monster" in place of Patsy's name.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

when asked about the numerous Dr visits PR said that JB's toileting hygiene was sub-par, that she wiped carelessly (if at all) and that her panties were frequently wet with urine. not damp, wet. that information was offered by the mother. no details were asked for/given re fecal debris and skid marks

JB died on the 25th/26th and had not bathed since the 24th (and maybe not then IIRC, it was all very vague) although she did dress up and appeared well-groomed at the party. PR could not identify the last time the child washed her hands, and wasn't aware if she had done it before/after dinner at the White house. it would be the most natural thing in the world for a mother to say "she's not real good about doing it so I washed her hands before she ate cracked crab for dinner and/or I washed her hands (again) after she ate dinner. and/or: I washed her hands with a wet cloth while putting her to bed that night. nope. couldn't remember the last time her child's hands were cleaned. PR's words. according to the AR JB's fingernails were dirty, there was dirt/debris beneath the little gold ring she was wearing and her feet were dirty

:notgood:

That is just normal kid stuff. Not anything else. That is what kids do. They wait to long to go and they often don't wipe well.

Oh my gosh. She had a bath on Christmas eve and then not when in 24 hours? The horror.

None of this adds up to a poorly kept child. It adds up to a child.

Kids like to play and get dirty. no smoking gun there.

 

[BBB167893]

No. I've had vaginitis.
Doesn't erode the hymen, wasn't present in the autopsy (and would have been), the doctor that actually treated her for previous complaints not only didn't diagnose vaginitis, but didn't even look for it.

Panel of named medical experts v. unsourced FBI experts...not a hard choice.

It's not just that, 2 percent. Mama2JML, like so many before her, misinterpreted what the FBI meant. They were talking about the injury that was inflicted at the time of JB's death.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's not just that, 2 percent. Mama2JML, like so many before her, misinterpreted what the FBI meant. They were talking about the injury that was inflicted at the time of JB's death.

I think that is up to interpretation. I believe they meant well that they did not believe there was any prior abuse.

 

[BBB167893]

I think that is up to interpretation. I believe they meant well that they did not believe there was any prior abuse.

Given the context in which it was said, my way is more likely.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Given the context in which it was said, my way is more likely.

I believe that it stands alone. I think it is pretty clear that they were satisfied there was none.

 

[noneareworthy]

The point of a grand jury indicting someone is so the evidence can be presented to a jury. It would've been an eye opening thing (one way or another) to have been able to have the Ramsey's testify and answer questions Too bad it never happened. A sign of disturbance in a household is two children who wet beds and leave poop here and there.

 

[TaylurRose02]

That is just normal kid stuff. Not anything else. That is what kids do. They wait to long to go and they often don't wipe well.

Oh my gosh. She had a bath on Christmas eve and then not when in 24 hours? The horror.

None of this adds up to a poorly kept child. It adds up to a child.

Kids like to play and get dirty. no smoking gun there.

No, under garments wet with urine is not something "that kids just do." Kids don't just defecate in their beds and underwear either. The inability to clean themselves you say is expected in children, but the fact that neither child properly "went to the bathroom" at different age gaps is telling IMO. The housekeeper would be in the know about the Ramsey's the most. They've seen them behind the scenes and know how the home was ran behind closed doors. Their testimonies are very important and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you can discredit them and call them liars. And for the record, I don't think PR was a monster. I think she made a poor decision and tried to cover it up in a way that made sense in her own mind.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, under garments wet with urine is not something "that kids just do." Kids don't just defecate in their beds and underwear either. The inability to clean themselves you say is expected in children, but the fact that neither child properly "went to the bathroom" at different age gaps is telling IMO. The housekeeper would be in the know about the Ramsey's the most. They've seen them behind the scenes and know how the home was ran behind closed doors. Their testimonies are very important and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you can discredit them and call them liars. And for the record, I don't think PR was a monster. I think she made a poor decision and tried to cover it up in a way that made sense in her own mind.

Yes it is. And there is no proof of any child defecating in a bed but they do that too.

It is so common it has a name. Encopresis. http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/encopresis.html

A child of JBR age who had frequent urinary issues could absolutely have issues with urinating that were not even under her control. But many many kids pee their pants when playing or waiting too long.

Kids have biological issues just as adults. Some kids bed wet until puberty.

All these things are normal for that Child. They may have medical reasons or psychological reasons but it is normal to have kids with wet pants and bathroom issues.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The point of a grand jury indicting someone is so the evidence can be presented to a jury. It would've been an eye opening thing (one way or another) to have been able to have the Ramsey's testify and answer questions Too bad it never happened. A sign of disturbance in a household is two children who wet beds and leave poop here and there.

First kids that wet beds mean nothing more than they are bedwetting. That is a common problem that many many kids have. It means NOTHING.

The fecal issue is not one that should be brought up because I see no proof of that here. Kids having accidents is common.
I know children that have issues with pooping and I provided a link that shows that there are good reasons for it that have nothing to do with anything nefarious.

You want to put someone on trial? Do it because there is evidence they murdered someone. Not because their kids wet the bed.

 

[Venom]

It has been brought up numerous times that the bed wetting and pooping issues COULD be a possible indication that something was amiss in the household. There have been different sources posted about it, it's not like it's totally out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[TaylurRose02]

Yes it is. And there is no proof of any child defecating in a bed but they do that too.

It is so common it has a name. Encopresis. http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/encopresis.html

A child of JBR age who had frequent urinary issues could absolutely have issues with urinating that were not even under her control. But many many kids pee their pants when playing or waiting too long.

Kids have biological issues just as adults. Some kids bed wet until puberty.

All these things are normal for that Child. They may have medical reasons or psychological reasons but it is normal to have kids with wet pants and bathroom issues.

In interviews with the housekeepers, PR, etc... found stains. You can say there's no proof, but PR even acknowledged the poo stains and claimed they were from not wiping. So yes, there was indication that she did defecate. Yes kids do have bathroom issues, but JB's bed-wetting incidents were becoming progressively worse at the age of 6 in comparison to incidents from when she was younger according to Wilcox. She also stated "But I also told the police it was curious to me that Burke stopped wetting the bed when he stopped being the focus of Patsy's attention. And that was when JonBenet became a chronic bed wetter. But you know if you have little kids around that age, they are bed wetters. When I left in September of 1995, they were both still wetting their beds." Yes children wet the bed, but the pattern is what is important to me. I know not every child who wets the bed is being abused. The fact that she used to at a slower rate than she did at the age of 6 shows a regression into infantile behavior which is a common symptom of sexual abuse. Teachers said JB became excessively clingy to PR in December of 1996, which is yet another symptom of sexual abuse. Unexplained personality changes or seeming insecure is also a sign. Which she displayed when she "didn't feel pretty" and couldn't eat McDonalds ("her favorite thing in the whole world") with Suzanne because "It makes you fat." The bed wetting solely doesn't mean she was being abused, but she had other symptoms sexually abused children often display. Taking the above with the autopsy results is how I came to my conclusion that the bed-wetting wasn't just kids being kids IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It has been brought up numerous times that the bed wetting and pooping issues COULD be a possible indication that something was amiss in the household. There have been different sources posted about it, it's not like it's totally out of the realm of possibilities.

Really it is an indication of nothing more than normal kids. There is no link to anything else that would make this be anything more. No abuse charges or reports. Nothing other than an ordinary household. You can not use this as indicators when the evidence does not support it. These are common issues that normal kids have EVERY.DAY.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In interviews with the housekeepers, PR, etc... found stains. You can say there's no proof, but PR even acknowledged the poo stains and claimed they were from not wiping. So yes, there was indication that she did defecate. Yes kids do have bathroom issues, but JB's bed-wetting incidents were becoming progressively worse at the age of 6 in comparison to incidents from when she was younger according to Wilcox. She also stated "But I also told the police it was curious to me that Burke stopped wetting the bed when he stopped being the focus of Patsy's attention. And that was when JonBenet became a chronic bed wetter. But you know if you have little kids around that age, they are bed wetters. When I left in September of 1995, they were both still wetting their beds." Yes children wet the bed, but the pattern is what is important to me. I know not every child who wets the bed is being abused. The fact that she used to at a slower rate than she did at the age of 6 shows a regression into infantile behavior which is a common symptom of sexual abuse. Teachers said JB became excessively clingy to PR in December of 1996, which is yet another symptom of sexual abuse. Unexplained personality changes or seeming insecure is also a sign. Which she displayed when she "didn't feel pretty" and couldn't eat McDonalds ("her favorite thing in the whole world") with Suzanne because "It makes you fat." The bed wetting solely doesn't mean she was being abused, but she had other symptoms sexually abused children often display. Taking the above with the autopsy results is how I came to my conclusion that the bed-wetting wasn't just kids being kids IMO.

Burke grew out of bedwetting. IT is not something they control.

It is not an indicator it is normal kid behavior. Bed wetting can run in families and all it means is there is a family of people who we the bed. It is not some huge indicator Or 1/3 the kids in america would have their parents investigated.

She did not have any symptoms of an abused child. None. Just as the FBI found out.

 

[Venom]

Really it is an indication of nothing more than normal kids. There is no link to anything else that would make this be anything more. No abuse charges or reports. Nothing other than an ordinary household. You can not use this as indicators when the evidence does not support it. These are common issues that normal kids have EVERY.DAY.

You must have missed the word COULD. But I'll take your word that it was an ordinary household.