When Parents Kill..

[BBB167893]

Ha ha, okay SD...forgotten.

This case, after all these years, definitely gets folks riled up...and for good reason, no doubt. I do know, however, that the ones who get so riled up are the ones who want justice served the most and the ones who feel the most passionate about this. Whether IDI, RDI or NRKFSWDI (Nobody Really Knows For Sure Who Did It) the frequent posters and commentators on this subject are folks with a soft heart and an incredible desire for this little girl to have justice....and I hope that one day she gets it. Whether that "justice" supports my theory, your theory, or anyone else's theory, well, none of that matters as long as the justice does get served.

I respect EVERYONE here and for the most part, I think everyone else does too.

That's how I feel. I've felt for a long time that this case is indicative of the general direction the legal system is taking, and it's a direction I just flat-out do not like.

Have a beautiful night, SD.

I wish, but thank you.

 

[Sophie]

On April 16th...my baby daughter will be the same age as this little boy was, when he died...that just breaks my heart. Poor little guy!

It's hard to believe the cruelty. I generally don't support the restoration of the death penalty over here but I think I could have carried out the sentence myself in this case. I bet your little one is the happiest little soul ever, though

 

[Ames]

It's hard to believe the cruelty. I generally don't support the restoration of the death penalty over here but I think I could have carried out the sentence myself in this case. I bet your little one is the happiest little soul ever, though

I cried so hard, when I read that he had a broken back, and cracked ribs, and about how the abuser would sit the baby in a chair that spins, and spin him around and around, until he fell out onto the floor. How could anybody be so mean?? I couldn't believe all of the different articles of clothing with blood on them. My guess is, as nasty as the house was, some of those clothes had been from PREVIOUS abuse, and just hadn't been washed yet. I had to go upstairs and wake my baby up, so that I could give her a big ole hug and a bunch of kisses.

 

[JMO8778]

It's hard to believe the cruelty. I generally don't support the restoration of the death penalty over here but I think I could have carried out the sentence myself in this case.

me too! the guy is a monster!

 

[Sophie]

Yet more evidence of where a liberal criminal justice system and too munificent a welfare state will get you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8024215.stm

 

[Sophie]

I cried so hard, when I read that he had a broken back, and cracked ribs, and about how the abuser would sit the baby in a chair that spins, and spin him around and around, until he fell out onto the floor. How could anybody be so mean?? I couldn't believe all of the different articles of clothing with blood on them. My guess is, as nasty as the house was, some of those clothes had been from PREVIOUS abuse, and just hadn't been washed yet. I had to go upstairs and wake my baby up, so that I could give her a big ole hug and a bunch of kisses.

Not wanting to bore you, Ames, but this vile monster was today found guilty in a separate trial of raping a two year-old girl. You can hardly believe so much evil could exist in one person.

 

[Tadpole12]

Not wanting to bore you, Ames, but this vile monster was today found guilty in a separate trial of raping a two year-old girl. You can hardly believe so much evil could exist in one person.

Hi Sophie.

"Not wanting to bore you" - Sophie

nah, you never bore ....

well I didn't read much of the link you provided because it upset me so. I couldn't even stomach it, past a few lines

But I'm glad that justice was served, for the sake of that little girl, her family

and for you as well, Sophie.

 

[Ames]

Not wanting to bore you, Ames, but this vile monster was today found guilty in a separate trial of raping a two year-old girl. You can hardly believe so much evil could exist in one person.

Nah, your post didn't BORE me at all...it just pi$$ed me off. I hope he goes to prison, and never gets out...and I also hope that he becomes the "wife" of a big guy named Bruno, while he is there.

 

[Sophie]

Nah, your post didn't BORE me at all...it just pi$$ed me off. I hope he goes to prison, and never gets out...and I also hope that he becomes the "wife" of a big guy named Bruno, while he is there.

I know what you mean, Ames. What is driving me loopy is that the media are essentially blaming social services. Ok, there was obviously a tragic misjudgement but when did we stop holding people responsible for their own actions? Presumably, social services are to blame for not removing temptation from this guy's line of vision. Grrrrrr!

 

[Ames]

I know what you mean, Ames. What is driving me loopy is that the media are essentially blaming social services. Ok, there was obviously a tragic misjudgement but when did we stop holding people responsible for their own actions? Presumably, social services are to blame for not removing temptation from this guy's line of vision. Grrrrrr!

Right, the guy that did that to the baby is an adult...he should be accountable for his actions. Social Services isn't to blame....well, maybe just partly. BUT...the adult living in the house that did this to that little boy, is 99.9 percent responsible. I did notice that there were more than one article of clothing with blood on it, so my guess is that he was abused to the point of bleeding on more than one occasion..and the clothes just hadn't been washed yet, at the time the investigators came in and carted away evidence. Poor little guy!

 

[madeleine]

Was just reading something John Douglas wrote about this case and first I thought wow,this guy really makes sense with his IDI argument.He says that one of the reasons why he thinks the R's are innocent is that it was an overkill and not an overstaging.

But then again ,even if it was an overkill and not an overstaging that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been a parent,we've had enough examples of that.

Now I am wondering how on earth can a fbi profiler say someone's innocent only because the crime was really brutal and "parents don't kill like that".

Yep,the overkill theory makes more sense to me than the overstaging one but this has nothing to do with who did it IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

Now I am wondering how on earth can a fbi profiler say someone's innocent only because the crime was really brutal and "parents don't kill like that".

They CAN'T! That, among other reasons, is why his collegues hammered him so hard on this case.

 

[Sophie]

Was just reading something John Douglas wrote about this case and first I thought wow,this guy really makes sense with his IDI argument.He says that one of the reasons why he thinks the R's are innocent is that it was an overkill and not an overstaging.

But then again ,even if it was an overkill and not an overstaging that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been a parent,we've had enough examples of that.

Now I am wondering how on earth can a fbi profiler say someone's innocent only because the crime was really brutal and "parents don't kill like that".

Yep,the overkill theory makes more sense to me than the overstaging one but this has nothing to do with who did it IMO.

Thing about overkill is that an inexperienced criminal with little knowledge of infant anatomy probably would over-estimate the amount of violence needed to harm a child so the crime could presumably have been committed by any adult amateur crim - including parents. There are a couple of books which discuss in some detail the small amount of violence needed to harm a child (From Cradle to Grave - Joyce Eggington (Marybeth Tinning murders) and the Case of Mary Bell by Gitta Sereny (about a ten year-old murdering some toddlers).

 

[madeleine]

Thing about overkill is that an inexperienced criminal with little knowledge of infant anatomy probably would over-estimate the amount of violence needed to harm a child so the crime could presumably have been committed by any adult amateur crim - including parents. There are a couple of books which discuss in some detail the small amount of violence needed to harm a child (From Cradle to Grave - Joyce Eggington (Marybeth Tinning murders) and the Case of Mary Bell by Gitta Sereny (about a ten year-old murdering some toddlers).

The more I think about this case the more I believe that something more sinister went on in that family than just Patsy being mad about JB's bedwetting.

Most people think it was accidental death+cover up.To me that cover up is way more sinister than the head bash (or whatver it was that caused accidental death).Dunno how to explain it.

Take domestic violence for example.Some just can't stop after the first hit,they just hit and hit and hit and can't stop.Maybe that's what happened here.She/he didn't even realize that she's already dead,he/she just couldn't stop.Reminds me of that woman(don't recall her name now) who stabbed her husband like 200 times even if maybe 3 times would have been enough.

Patsy had a quick temper IMO.I don't trust such calm people like JR(the dog who doesn't bark,bites).

It doesn't take a sadic for a brutal crime to happen.

And this:

"It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take here there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."

Linda Hoffmann-Pugh

Dunno how credible the woman is but let's say she's right........I don't think I like this family.They give me the creeps.(And NO IDI"s that doesn't mean they're guilty,just sayin')

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't like that family either- for a variety of reasons.
It was alleged among PR's circle that she used to douche JBR. Not as true punishment for wetting and soiling, but as a rather harsh consequence -to try to break her of that habit. I feel that putting ANYTHING in the vagina of a 6-year old girl unless it is prescribed by a doctor as a medical treatment is abusive.
There is some thought that this COULD have been the source of some of the older vaginal injuries, as well as the hymenal erosion. Possibly the injuries, but the douche wand would be more likely to break, rather than erode the hymen. I still stand by my theory of intentional sexual contact.

 

[ziggy]

http://www.slate.com/id/2063086/


Although I believe that JB was ACCIDENTLY injured, and her parents thought she was dead..so they staged a cover-up...and unknowingly finshed her off with the garotte...I found this article interesting.

It is devoted to all of the IDI's that believe that Patsy is innocent, just because a parent wouldn't kill their own child.

According to the article regarding motives...

"Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be "erased" in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the reasons men kill their children: Most frequently—like Garcia or Soltys—they kill because they feel they have lost control over their finances, or their families, or the relationship, or out of revenge for a perceived slight or infidelity. The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their children to get back at a woman—to take away what she most cherishes."

None of this fits in the Ramsey case.

No one is suggesting mothers don't kill, we are suggesting that the motives, the way in which they are killed and the hindsight that reveals behavior of the perp. parent that should have been more of a concern are factors that are present in every case. The patterns do not fit this case.

Mothers kill their children. Not all children killed are killed by their mothers.

 

[eleven]

Ziggy -

I just have to say that you are a breath of fresh air on the JBR forums. I enjoy your posts and your thought process.

 

[ziggy]

Why thank you eleven. (breath of fresh air for you, hot old windbag for others, lol.) I originally came here for JonBenet, like, 8 years ago probably maybe 9. I took a break because there was nothing new and I needed one.

I've continued to follow other cases and I love Websleuths overall.

Can't say what prompted me to click on the JBR forum again after all this time. I see some great new posters on both sides here and that is refeshing for me as well.

 

[icedtea4me]

According to the article regarding motives...

"Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be "erased" in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the reasons men kill their children: Most frequently—like Garcia or Soltys—they kill because they feel they have lost control over their finances, or their families, or the relationship, or out of revenge for a perceived slight or infidelity. The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their children to get back at a woman—to take away what she most cherishes."

None of this fits in the Ramsey case.

No one is suggesting mothers don't kill, we are suggesting that the motives, the way in which they are killed and the hindsight that reveals behavior of the perp. parent that should have been more of a concern are factors that are present in every case. The patterns do not fit this case.

Mothers kill their children. Not all children killed are killed by their mothers.

What do you think of Patsy's need in her January 1, 1997 CNN interview to allude to Susan Smith, a woman who killed her children because she felt they stood in the way of a relationship she wanted?

 

[ziggy]

I don't make anything of it specifically. What do you?

Are you inferring from ONE interview that you can relate this to motive as described in the article? Please share.