Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[BBB167893]

As a mother, I can tell you no flippin' way would I have reacted like Patsy did. They would have had to call in someone to give me a sedative if I had been told that not only had someone murdered my daughter but that she had been sexually molested as well.

Thanks, jujube. Just to show it's not all hot air when one of us says that.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

FairM,
As DeeDee249 suggests it was in general. JonBenet alike Burke had periods of bedwetting. Which I reckon was an emotional response to the then current situation.

*rest of quote respectfully snipped by me for space*
.

Thank you to whoever first pointed out that former housekeeper Linda Wilcox had said that Burke had had a period of bed-wetting prior to JonBenet's issue of soiling (what Nedra Paugh referred to as "dirtying"), which cleared up when Patsy began focusing her attention on JonBenet and the pageant world rather than on Burke...I don't recall if it was you, UKGuy, or someone else, but thanks - I had forgotten about that, and I think it's an important aspect to consider.




From PMPT, page 258:

"I was working for them when Patsy got sick with cancer and after she recovered. During that time, Nedra moved in and was caring for the children. Then Patsy had what she called her divine intervention and was cured of her cancer. After Patsy finished decorating the house, Burke became her favorite child. She spent all of her time at his school. He was her first project.

At that time JonBenet was too young to do anything spectacular. She hardly got Patsy's attention. Suzanne Savage was in charge of her. JonBenet wasn't in school yet, and her world revolved around adults, whereas Burke's life revolved around his friends.

Then, when JonBenet started school, she became Patsy's second project. The children really were like projects to her. I'm afraid that after JonBenet became Patsy's focus, she also became her obsession.

I think that to Patsy, nothing and no one had the right to be imperfect. Everything had to fit Patsy's image of what it should be. So JonBenet was under immense pressure to fit the image Patsy had of her new project.

When the police interviewed me, they asked if the kids wet the bed a lot. I said yes. Detective Harmer asked if I thought that was unusual, and I had to say, "Not really. Not at that age." Burke wore Pull-Ups until he was six, and JonBenet always wore them. But I also told 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."

- Linda Wilcox



It seems to me that perhaps this was in the period of time when JonBenet was first potty-trained, with her regularly using the toilet - between when LW ended her stint as housekeeper and when LHP was hired to take over the job, with Nedra and Suzanna Savage filling in for Patsy between housekeepers when Patsy was so ill she needed help with daily care for the children.



From PMPT, page 181:

"In the summer of '96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper-type underpants, Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenet started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed. Patsy said she wasn't going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I'd come in the morning, Patsy would have all of the sheets off the bed and in the laundry. JonBenet's white blanket would be in the dryer. The Ramseys had two washer-dryers - one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenet's room."

- LHP



IIRC, wasn't this the same closet that the Pull-Ups were kept in?


The issue appears to be bed wetting, according to the housekeepers, but on page 94 of PMPT, Patsy's friend Pam Griffin describes how Patsy told her that JonBenet was suffering from "frequent infections that were hard to clear up from always being in wet underpants."

That is not the result of mere bed wetting. JonBenet was not only wetting herself during the night, she was always wet during the day, to the point of having frequent infections - and that's according to Patsy herself.


Then there's Nedra's use of the word "dirtying"...it implies more than just wetting oneself. She meant JonBenet had an issue with fecal matter, not just urine.



From ST's book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (ST describing an interview with NP):

"She revealed a bit more about JonBenet messing her pants and bed, a subject she minimized in our previous interview. Now, however, she said that the child did not wipe properly after a bowel movement, and quite often an adult would have to wash her bottom and change her undies. They called it "dirtying." The grandmother also mentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to play with her best friend, Daphne White, and had come home with Fleet White carrying her soiled underwear, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties. That made me think of another alternative to the foreign DNA found in her clothing."



Just bed wetting? Nothing of the kind. An emotional response? IMO, absolutely.


In DOI, the Rs claim that all of John's kids, not just with Patsy but also with his first wife, Lucinda, were afflicted with a period of bed-wetting while still small children - which implies to the reader that the reason is not whether Patsy was focusing attention on the child, but a matter of genetics or biology.

I seriously doubt that any of the Ramsey children, whether mothered by JR's first or second wife, were experiencing the same level of "bed wetting" that JonBenet was having to endure. None of them are said to have ever "dirtied" themselves as was said of JonBenet.

In Burke's case, IMO, it sounds pretty clear (and from the people who were there interacting with the kids on a daily basis), that his experience was more or less limited to wetting the bed, and did not include "dirtying" as JonBenet's experience did.

Like LW, I find extremely curious that Burke's issue more or less stopped when Patsy shifted her focus from Burke to JonBenet. An emotional response. That JonBenet began being a chronic wetter at the same time. Emotional response.

I also find it extremely curious that Patsy seemingly was not all that interested in her children until she decided to make "projects" of them, as if they were possessions to be renovated for display, just like any random inanimate object in the Ramsey home.

I like how LW says that Patsy made Burke her first project, right after decorating her home. IMO, sounds like the home decor was the first project, then Burke, then JonBenet...

...and that before she made the children her projects, she wasn't that interested in them, leaving them to be cared for by others, pretty much kinda ignoring them. I understand she was fighting cancer, but LW relates an incident where JR is dressing JB, and becomes frustrated with how he can't find matching clothes, because JB is wearing Burke's hand-me-downs and doesn't really have her own clothes. Obviously, this was prior to Patsy making JonBenet her pet project.

As I've said before, Patsy's priorities were seriously out of balance.

IMO or as I recall if not linked.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you to whoever first pointed out that former housekeeper Linda Wilcox had said that Burke had had a period of bed-wetting prior to JonBenet's issue of soiling (what Nedra Paugh referred to as "dirtying"), which cleared up when Patsy began focusing her attention on JonBenet and the pageant world rather than on Burke...I don't recall if it was you, UKGuy, or someone else, but thanks - I had forgotten about that, and I think it's an important aspect to consider.




From PMPT, page 258:

"I was working for them when Patsy got sick with cancer and after she recovered. During that time, Nedra moved in and was caring for the children. Then Patsy had what she called her divine intervention and was cured of her cancer. After Patsy finished decorating the house, Burke became her favorite child. She spent all of her time at his school. He was her first project.

At that time JonBenet was too young to do anything spectacular. She hardly got Patsy's attention. Suzanne Savage was in charge of her. JonBenet wasn't in school yet, and her world revolved around adults, whereas Burke's life revolved around his friends.

Then, when JonBenet started school, she became Patsy's second project. The children really were like projects to her. I'm afraid that after JonBenet became Patsy's focus, she also became her obsession.

I think that to Patsy, nothing and no one had the right to be imperfect. Everything had to fit Patsy's image of what it should be. So JonBenet was under immense pressure to fit the image Patsy had of her new project.

When the police interviewed me, they asked if the kids wet the bed a lot. I said yes. Detective Harmer asked if I thought that was unusual, and I had to say, "Not really. Not at that age." Burke wore Pull-Ups until he was six, and JonBenet always wore them. But I also told 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."

- Linda Wilcox



It seems to me that perhaps this was in the period of time when JonBenet was first potty-trained, with her regularly using the toilet - between when LW ended her stint as housekeeper and when LHP was hired to take over the job, with Nedra and Suzanna Savage filling in for Patsy between housekeepers when Patsy was so ill she needed help with daily care for the children.



From PMPT, page 181:

"In the summer of '96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper-type underpants, Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenet started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed. Patsy said she wasn't going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I'd come in the morning, Patsy would have all of the sheets off the bed and in the laundry. JonBenet's white blanket would be in the dryer. The Ramseys had two washer-dryers - one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenet's room."

- LHP



IIRC, wasn't this the same closet that the Pull-Ups were kept in?


The issue appears to be bed wetting, according to the housekeepers, but on page 94 of PMPT, Patsy's friend Pam Griffin describes how Patsy told her that JonBenet was suffering from "frequent infections that were hard to clear up from always being in wet underpants."

That is not the result of mere bed wetting. JonBenet was not only wetting herself during the night, she was always wet during the day, to the point of having frequent infections - and that's according to Patsy herself.


Then there's Nedra's use of the word "dirtying"...it implies more than just wetting oneself. She meant JonBenet had an issue with fecal matter, not just urine.



From ST's book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (ST describing an interview with NP):

"She revealed a bit more about JonBenet messing her pants and bed, a subject she minimized in our previous interview. Now, however, she said that the child did not wipe properly after a bowel movement, and quite often an adult would have to wash her bottom and change her undies. They called it "dirtying." The grandmother also mentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to play with her best friend, Daphne White, and had come home with Fleet White carrying her soiled underwear, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties. That made me think of another alternative to the foreign DNA found in her clothing."



Just bed wetting? Nothing of the kind. An emotional response? IMO, absolutely.


In DOI, the Rs claim that all of John's kids, not just with Patsy but also with his first wife, Lucinda, were afflicted with a period of bed-wetting while still small children - which implies to the reader that the reason is not whether Patsy was focusing attention on the child, but a matter of genetics or biology.

I seriously doubt that any of the Ramsey children, whether mothered by JR's first or second wife, were experiencing the same level of "bed wetting" that JonBenet was having to endure. None of them are said to have ever "dirtied" themselves as was said of JonBenet.

In Burke's case, IMO, it sounds pretty clear (and from the people who were there interacting with the kids on a daily basis), that his experience was more or less limited to wetting the bed, and did not include "dirtying" as JonBenet's experience did.

Like LW, I find extremely curious that Burke's issue more or less stopped when Patsy shifted her focus from Burke to JonBenet. An emotional response. That JonBenet began being a chronic wetter at the same time. Emotional response.

I also find it extremely curious that Patsy seemingly was not all that interested in her children until she decided to make "projects" of them, as if they were possessions to be renovated for display, just like any random inanimate object in the Ramsey home.

I like how LW says that Patsy made Burke her first project, right after decorating her home. IMO, sounds like the home decor was the first project, then Burke, then JonBenet...

...and that before she made the children her projects, she wasn't that interested in them, leaving them to be cared for by others, pretty much kinda ignoring them. I understand she was fighting cancer, but LW relates an incident where JR is dressing JB, and becomes frustrated with how he can't find matching clothes, because JB is wearing Burke's hand-me-downs and doesn't really have her own clothes. Obviously, this was prior to Patsy making JonBenet her pet project.

As I've said before, Patsy's priorities were seriously out of balance.

IMO or as I recall if not linked.

Nuisanceposter,
Yes I've always thought it significant that both Burke and JonBenet wore the pull-ups long after they should have. Thanks for the quotes and timeline.

There is no question about JonBenet soiling herself, she left a pair of soiled jeans and underwear lying on her bathroom floor, and Holly Smith itemized many fecal stained pairs of underwear!

Holly Smith suggested one cause could be sexual abuse, and given the circumstances it is difficult to ignore this.

I have the impression that Patsy was not a very loving mother, not nurturing, prone to periods of neglect e.g. farming the children out to others. IMO the project approach is indicative of the lack of nurturing.

Patsy may have been strict and disciplinarian in her project approach and this likely brought on the bed-wetting, alternatively she may have been
emotionally neglectful with the children responding emotionally by bed-wetting. IMO , lacking any bladder disease or illness, bed-wetting is an emotional response to some current underlying isue that has not been resolved?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy wouldn't inherit anything from JR unless he was dead. When a husband goes to prison, his wife is left with paying all the bills and running the house, taxes, etc. Whether she has a job or not is not a factor. JR being in prison does not mean he forfeits his bank accounts- though they may be drained to pay his legal fees. I assume the Rs had enough money for Patsy to continue to live some semblance of her normal life even if JR was imprisoned.
Assets only become an "estate" when someone dies, so in this case there is nothing to inherit. All assets that were in JR's name remain that way, even if he is in prison. Only in cases of financial fraud, tax fraud, profits from drugs or racketeering, etc. are assets confiscated when someone is imprisoned. (as in the Bernie Madoff case).

DeeDee249,
Sure, but if John actually had went to prison, I was assuming Patsy would divorce and sue him for a share of his estate?


.

 

[runsdeep]

Nuisanceposter,
Yes I've always thought it significant that both Burke and JonBenet wore the pull-ups long after they should have. Thanks for the quotes and timeline.

There is no question about JonBenet soiling herself, she left a pair of soiled jeans and underwear lying on her bathroom floor, and Holly Smith itemized many fecal stained pairs of underwear!

Holly Smith suggested one cause could be sexual abuse, and given the circumstances it is difficult to ignore this.

I have the impression that Patsy was not a very loving mother, not nurturing, prone to periods of neglect e.g. farming the children out to others. IMO the project approach is indicative of the lack of nurturing.

Patsy may have been strict and disciplinarian in her project approach and this likely brought on the bed-wetting, alternatively she may have been
emotionally neglectful with the children responding emotionally by bed-wetting. IMO , lacking any bladder disease or illness, bed-wetting is an emotional response to some current underlying isue that has not been resolved?


.

i can see that reasoning

 

[runsdeep]

DeeDee249,
Sure, but if John actually had went to prison, I was assuming Patsy would divorce and sue him for a share of his estate?


.

i lean towards they were better off financially for him to continue to bring in the bucks.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Nuisanceposter,
Yes I've always thought it significant that both Burke and JonBenet wore the pull-ups long after they should have. Thanks for the quotes and timeline.

I agree. Both of them were still wearing them at age six? I don't know about others here, but my kids had pretty much stopped wetting the bed, even by accident, like just not really fully waking up when their bladders may have been full during the night, by the time they were four or five years old. I realize not every child is the same, but it seems significant that both Burke and JB still wore them at age 6 - and in the interview with Peter Boyles, LW states that Burke still wore them at age 7.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-wilcox.htm


You are very welcome on the quotes and timeline. Thanks again for reminding me of Burke's bed wetting. It seems like the more we discuss in this case, the more we find that we need to discuss - know what I mean?

There is no question about JonBenet soiling herself, she left a pair of soiled jeans and underwear lying on her bathroom floor, and Holly Smith itemized many fecal stained pairs of underwear!

Holly Smith suggested one cause could be sexual abuse, and given the circumstances it is difficult to ignore this.

Again, I agree. There was something very wrong in JonBenet's life for her to have suffered the toilet regressions issues she had to endure. Sexual abuse seems like the most obvious answer, regarding the findings of chronic as well as acute abuse at autopsy...but it also seems to me like JonBenet wasn't just the victim of sexual abuse, but also of neglect, which is also a form of abuse.

I have long made my opinion that JonBenet was being worked as hard as an adult at being a child beauty pageant winner known. I think part of her issue wasn't just that she was being molested/sexually abused/touched inappropriately (whether by JR as abuse or by PR as corporal punishment or for cleaning purposes)...but that she was also desperately trying to convey to either of her parents through toilet regression that she was under WAY too much pressure and responsibility, and that her child's brain could NOT cope with the adult demands she was forced into.

I have the impression that Patsy was not a very loving mother, not nurturing, prone to periods of neglect e.g. farming the children out to others. IMO the project approach is indicative of the lack of nurturing.

Argh, I could not agree more. You are reading my mind, my friend.

It appears to me that JonBenet was Patsy's possession more so than her daughter, and maybe even that the relationship they shared could have been more akin to one that sisters share, rather than a healthy mother/daughter relationship with appropriate boundaries.

The fact that PW and BF planned to sit Patsy down to discuss the "mega JonBenet thing" just blows me away. Her best friends thought they needed to intervene on JonBenet's behalf! I would love to know what the two of them had discussed as being what they needed to say to Patsy about her treatment of JonBenet.

A project, indeed. She was a child, an individual person, a human being who had rights and deserved to have those rights upheld by her own family...not a toy or a trophy or a doll to dress up and display as a credit to what an outstanding mother she had.

Sexy witch at four years old, OMG.

Patsy may have been strict and disciplinarian in her project approach and this likely brought on the bed-wetting, alternatively she may have been
emotionally neglectful with the children responding emotionally by bed-wetting. IMO , lacking any bladder disease or illness, bed-wetting is an emotional response to some current underlying isue that has not been resolved?


.

We'll never know if JonBenet had a bladder disease or an illness, because Dr. Beuf told Patsy to ignore it and let it go away on its own, and Patsy accepted that and dropped the ball, IMO. I think Patsy should have had JonBenet to get a second opinion, or to visit a specialist, if she was suffering from infections that were not only frequent but hard to clear up from her always being in wet underwear.

Although...I suspect Patsy herself had a very good idea of exactly what was causing the wetness/soiling problem, and that idea of what it could have been did NOT fit in with her plans to groom JonBenet into the next Miss America.

I think she neglected JonBenet's health in regards to the soiling in order to focus on the very same superficial, materialistic activity that was making the soiling an issue - the pageantry.

I think Patsy also knew that JonBenet was being molested/sexually abused/touched inappropriately. I am not entirely certain that Patsy was not the one responsible for that very thing, either through cleaning after "dirtying" or through corproal punishment for the 'dirtying." But when I really consider it, I think JR was the one responsible for the evidence of chronic abuse, because it seems to me that both he and Patsy had something to hide in deciding to stage the murder scene and lie to investigators about what really happened. otherwise, I can't see why they would cover for each other and I believe they are. They had to have something over on each other, and I think that something is that both of them knew the other was guilty of abusing JonBenet in their own fashion.

IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Sure, but if John actually had went to prison, I was assuming Patsy would divorce and sue him for a share of his estate?


.

It doesn't work quite that way in the US. Certainly, anyone can sue their spouse for divorce at any time, imprisoned or not, but a wife sues for divorce, not exactly for a share of the "estate". It isn't an "estate" unless the person is dead, and then there is no need for a divorce, is there? But when you sue for divorce, you sue for a share of the marital ASSETS. There are two types of marital "laws" in the US- Separate property and community property. In a community property state (NJ and California are two that I know of), a spouse is entitled to half of all marital assets, even those that were acquired before the marriage. In a separate property state (like NY) a spouse is only entitled to half the assets that were acquired DURING the marriage. I am not sure what type of law was in place where the R got married. It is based on where the marriage took place and not where the couple lives.
If Patsy had decided to sue JR for divorce while he was in prison, she would have gotten a settlement, possibly been allowed to remain in the family home until the children were 18, and child support or alimony. JR may have had to provide spousal support for a period of time. Or if it goes to a judge (instead of being settled by lawyers alone), a judge can rule that the house be sold and profits split. But usually when there are school-age children the custodial spouse can remain in the home providing the other spouse has the ability to support the family. If not, then the custodial parent often has to go to work and/or downsize to a less expensive living situation.
In Patsy's case, they probably had enough money to stay where they were as long as Patsy wanted to. But I'd bet she would have gone back to Atlanta near her parents if she divorced JR.

 

[FairM]

It doesn't work quite that way in the US. Certainly, anyone can sue their spouse for divorce at any time, imprisoned or not, but a wife sues for divorce, not exactly for a share of the "estate". It isn't an "estate" unless the person is dead, and then there is no need for a divorce, is there? But when you sue for divorce, you sue for a share of the marital ASSETS. There are two types of marital "laws" in the US- Separate property and community property. In a community property state (NJ and California are two that I know of), a spouse is entitled to half of all marital assets, even those that were acquired before the marriage. In a separate property state (like NY) a spouse is only entitled to half the assets that were acquired DURING the marriage. I am not sure what type of law was in place where the R got married. It is based on where the marriage took place and not where the couple lives.
If Patsy had decided to sue JR for divorce while he was in prison, she would have gotten a settlement, possibly been allowed to remain in the family home until the children were 18, and child support or alimony. JR may have had to provide spousal support for a period of time. Or if it goes to a judge (instead of being settled by lawyers alone), a judge can rule that the house be sold and profits split. But usually when there are school-age children the custodial spouse can remain in the home providing the other spouse has the ability to support the family. If not, then the custodial parent often has to go to work and/or downsize to a less expensive living situation.
In Patsy's case, they probably had enough money to stay where they were as long as Patsy wanted to. But I'd bet she would have gone back to Atlanta near her parents if she divorced JR.

Just to clarify it isn't "estate" here in the UK either it is marital assets , like in the US estate refers to the deceased's property. I think UKGuy was mistaken.

 

[Alix]

I can't figure out how to multi-quote, but in response to the posts that talk about Patsy's professional neglect of her children, I'm absolutely disgusted that this millionaire's wife would make her daughter wear panties that were stained of feces.

I don't give a rip if they were constantly washed. They were stained, and she could have gone down to Walmart every single week and bought a package of brand-new undies for $6.

This woman was disgusting, greedy, lazy. I would croak before I forced my little girl to wear feces-stained underwear.

And infections caused by being in wet underpants?? Is she kidding? If this is diaper rash, then it's because she forced her child to walk and sit in filthy, soaked underwear. Again, a disgusting, lazy mother.

I'm just sick to death of hearing oh poor Patsy, she obviously loved her daughter, she adored her, yadda, yadda.

No, she didn't. Her daughter was not a child. She was just a big doll that was pissing Princess Patsy off because she crapped her pants all the time.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I can't figure out how to multi-quote,

It's easier than you might think and it really does help clarify different points in replies - I'll be happy to message you some simple instructions if you'd like.

but in response to the posts that talk about Patsy's professional neglect of her children, I'm absolutely disgusted that this millionaire's wife would make her daughter wear panties that were stained of feces.

I don't give a rip if they were constantly washed. They were stained, and she could have gone down to Walmart every single week and bought a package of brand-new undies for $6.

Patsy could have afforded to go out and spend $60 a week to provide her daughter with a daily pair of clean, brand-new, and unstained underwear...they could have afforded $600 a week, according to how they go on and on in DOI....but when does JonBenet actually get those clean, brand-new, unstained underwear?

The night she dies. She finally gets to wear clean, brand-new, and unstained underwear when she's dead. And they're not even the correct size.

That is so pathetically tragic and even worse, UNNECESSARY.

Just being washed was obviously not enough, since Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, stated that every pair of undies in JonBenet's drawer had feces stains in them. How are you supposed to feel good about yourself in you have to step into a pair of stained undies every day? I seriously doubt Patsy would have tolerated this for herself - but it's just fine for JonBenet?

Yes, Patsy thought it was just fine for JonBenet, as long as it didn't show on the outside where anybody else can see it.

This woman was disgusting, greedy, lazy. I would croak before I forced my little girl to wear feces-stained underwear.

I would not allow it, either. I toss out my children's undies and buy them new ones if they have a rip in the material or weak spot in the elastic on them. I wouldn't feel good about my kids having to wear underwear you couldn't even bleach clean. It sounds silly, but having nice underwear on under your clothes really does go a long way towards feeling good about how you look.

Patsy does come across as a lazy and greedy person, even when she's trying to wage damage control as hard as possible by outright lying through her teeth about herself in DOI.

I really laugh at how she tries desperately to convince the reader that her obsession with making JonBenet train for pageants was some sort of proof of her being a devoted and dedicated mother who did more than the average mom to help her child succeed.

Here's her rationalization, in her own words (DOI, page 59):

"As I watched her perform, I thought of the hours these contestants' parents had devoted to driving them to dancing and music lessons. It takes the support of good parents for children to perform that well. We read too often about kids and the malicious activities that occupy them. Instead, these girls were spending their afternoons and weekends developing a hobby that built confidence and poise and talent for their future. I knew JonBenet had found an activity that would benefit her throughout her life."

Really, Patsy? Devoted? More like obsessed. Good parents? Good parents don't let their daughters sit around in stained underwear until infections get so bad they're difficult to clear up. Afternoons and weekends? Yes, every spare minute of the day in the afternoons and on the weekends will be spent obsessing over the next pageant, training for it, practicing, rehearsing, clothes fittings, make up, spray tan, fake teeth, hair extensions, etc. All on winning some meaningless title and adding another useless crown and tacky trophy to Patsy's display cabinets all over the Ramsey house. Benefit her throughout her life? More like lead directly to her untimely death in a dank, dark, scary basement on the cold, hard floor.

I also find her laziness and greediness to be unbecoming to the point of disgusting, especially in consideration of how she made her daughter live in the brief six years she was alive. Her obsession with JonBenet being a tiny sex symbol pageant winner. I can sympathize with Patsy a bit and give her some leeway for her having to fight cancer. That alone shows she is a resilient woman. But the "only focus on what I want to focus on and deny all else" approach to parenting she exhibits - just disgusting.

I'm also disgusted that JR was as hands-off with his family, specifically his youngest daughter, as he was. I have a theory about this - I think he may have been as detached and distant as he was with the second family because he had a bad experince with the first. Yeah, I know he cheated and that is his fault, but IMO he's a very selfish man and I'm not sure he's truly owned his role in that, but...I theorize that maybe his hurt over the break-up of the first marriage and later deep mourning over the loss of Beth may have caused him to be less attentive and less emotionally-involved with his second family.

And you know what really offends me? Their book title. Death of Innocence. One may be led to believe the death of innocence they are referring to in the title is JonBenet, but no. It's their own innocence, about how the police, the media, the public, society and the world in general would treat them when they were cast as suspects in their daughter's murder.


From DOI, page 370:

"During these last days, I realized how the entire process had squeezed the innocence out of me. On the morning of December 26, 1996, we were typical Americans who believed that America was a great country, and we had been blessed by its bounty. In our view, the guilty always went to jail and the innocent didn't. How naive we were! The song that JonBenet used to sing, "God Bless America," was now forever tainted and overshadowed by what we had learned about the potential injustice in this land. When an innocent child is killed in her own home and the response of the justice system is as defective as it had been in JonBenet's case, hope dies as well. A killer, compounded by a defective police department, a rampant Internet gossip system, and an irresponsible news industry willing to print and say anything that makes a story, had destroyed our dreams for the future. Our innocence had died."

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.

And infections caused by being in wet underpants?? Is she kidding? If this is diaper rash, then it's because she forced her child to walk and sit in filthy, soaked underwear. Again, a disgusting, lazy mother.

The exact quote from page 94 of PMPT is:

"Patsy complained that JonBenet had frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her underpants were always wet."

OMG....what???

And she just dismissed it as nothing. It was no big deal to her. She didn't seem to really care all that much if her daughter couldn't even stay dry long enough to not be suffering from infection.

And not just a random thing, but Patsy says they were frequent, and hard to clear up. Again, I truly doubt that Patsy would have tolerated a situation like this happening to her own body - but she'll just go ahead and let it happen to JonBenet, not doing anything about it other than complain.

And she told LHP that she was just gonna let JonBenet be wet, rather than dress her in the pull-ups they already had. Just going to let her wet the bed night after night, going to let her sit in her own urine and feces until she's got a real good infection going.

Can you possibly imagine how horrible that must have been for JonBenet? She had no control over her bladder/bowels, her mother ignored it to let her sit in it, and she had to deal with infections on a very delicate and private part of her body. I can NOT understand why Patsy didn't take her to a specialist, unless it was because Patsy preferred to ignore it and hope it'd magically disappear on its own.

I'm just sick to death of hearing oh poor Patsy, she obviously loved her daughter, she adored her, yadda, yadda.

No, she didn't. Her daughter was not a child. She was just a big doll that was pissing Princess Patsy off because she crapped her pants all the time.

Patsy's the queen of "poor, poor me." It's so bizarre...it's like she lived in some weird little bubble and didn't quite have a firm grip on reality, between her grandiose narcissist lifestyle and her disturbing self-centered religious fervor that was a bit like IMO a parody of Christianity.

I do think she obviously did love her daughter, but not in the way that a healthy mother/daughter relationship is supposed to work. Patsy was in love with the idea of having her own little beauty pageant winner that she could shape and mold into whatever she wanted that daughter to be, but did not seem to comprehend that JonBenet was an individual, and not an extension of Patsy herself.

Yeah, I think Patsy had some serious unhealthy mental issues that were completely undiagnosed or totally overlooked. She mentions taking anti-anxiety medication. Anti-anxiety meds are excellent to help you get a foothold on controlling the anxiety, but you have to actually address the issues causing it and not just treat the symptoms of it. I don't see that she ever sought any treatment for her issues, either pre-murder or post-, and I don't see that she really ever acknowledged she might have some...other than to take pills to numb her up so she didn't have to be truly cognizant of what a disaster her life had become (or to try and finally pass a polygraph.)

And I don't believe for a second that JonBenet's wetness and soiling issues were no big deal to Patsy. I think she wanted other people to think that, but she was intelligent enough and well-educated enough to realize JonBenet's issue was not just physical in origin, but also must have had some roots psychologically. She KNEW it wasn't just a phase, a period of bed wetting all of JR's kids went through. She KNEW it wasn't just bed wetting.

I think that's why she never followed up on a second opinion or took JB to a specialist as I believe she would have done for herself...because she knew what was causing it was directly related to her own parenting and the life she had her daughter living. I'm not even sure that she was completely honest with Dr. Beuf about JB having these frequent infections, because she said his advice was that it was nothing and would clear up in time.

Did he know she was suffering from frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her undies were always wet? If so, what kind of a doctor is he? What kind of pediatrician wouldn't think frequent infections or always being wet in a 6 yr old that had previously been toilet-trained is something to show a little concern over? I wouldn't take any child to see a doctor with such a lax attitude about something that must have very difficult for the child affected to have to live with. Unbelievable.

The worst thing, though, in my opinion, is the pack of lies the Ramseys have told to anyone who will listen about everything. The very obvious and transparent lies they insist on. JonBenet was reduced to nothing but a lie in her own family.

IMO to all of that except the book text passages quoted above.

 

[UKGuy]

Just to clarify it isn't "estate" here in the UK either it is marital assets , like in the US estate refers to the deceased's property. I think UKGuy was mistaken.

FairM,
Well I'm bemused. It must be loony tunes time. I've voiced the same opinion before, on the same subject!

I was using estate in generic terms to suggest Patsy would not be left on the street if she divorced John after reporting him to the police for alleged child abuse.

But, terminologically, I guess am mistaken, and wrong to have used the word estate.

So why not sue me for having a bad hair day? :great:


.

 

[DeeDee249]

FairM,
Well I'm bemused. It must be loony tunes time. I've voiced the same opinion before, on the same subject!

I was using estate in generic terms to suggest Patsy would not be left on the street if she divorced John after reporting him to the police for alleged child abuse.

But, terminologically, I guess am mistaken, and wrong to have used the word estate.

So why not sue me for having a bad hair day? :great:


.

Patsy wouldn't have been on the street, for sure. I am sure they had a significant "safety net" in case JR's company went belly up while he was in prison. He had employees to keep it running, but the infamy of being imprisoned for what happened to JB might have doomed it anyway. If they did go through their assets for legal fees, etc., Patsy could always have gone home to Nedra. I don't think she'd have been worried about not blowing the whistle on JR because of money. It was more about reputation, and appearances for her.
Of course, this is assuming it was her blowing the whistle on JR and not the other way around. In the end, they covered for each other or other family members and that was that. JB was gone forever and they had to make sure NO one ever found out how.

 

[BBB167893]

And you know what really offends me? Their book title. Death of Innocence. One may be led to believe the death of innocence they are referring to in the title is JonBenet, but no. It's their own innocence, about how the police, the media, the public, society and the world in general would treat them when they were cast as suspects in their daughter's murder.


From DOI, page 370:

"During these last days, I realized how the entire process had squeezed the innocence out of me. On the morning of December 26, 1996, we were typical Americans who believed that America was a great country, and we had been blessed by its bounty. In our view, the guilty always went to jail and the innocent didn't. How naive we were! The song that JonBenet used to sing, "God Bless America," was now forever tainted and overshadowed by what we had learned about the potential injustice in this land. When an innocent child is killed in her own home and the response of the justice system is as defective as it had been in JonBenet's case, hope dies as well. A killer, compounded by a defective police department, a rampant Internet gossip system, and an irresponsible news industry willing to print and say anything that makes a story, had destroyed our dreams for the future. Our innocence had died."

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.

IDI to parrot that John Douglas BS about how these were good people. Maybe he'd like to see some EXAMPLES of how "good" they were!

It's just like I said after the radio broadcast: those who are most in need of the truth are the least likely to listen to it!

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy wouldn't have been on the street, for sure. I am sure they had a significant "safety net" in case JR's company went belly up while he was in prison. He had employees to keep it running, but the infamy of being imprisoned for what happened to JB might have doomed it anyway. If they did go through their assets for legal fees, etc., Patsy could always have gone home to Nedra. I don't think she'd have been worried about not blowing the whistle on JR because of money. It was more about reputation, and appearances for her.
Of course, this is assuming it was her blowing the whistle on JR and not the other way around. In the end, they covered for each other or other family members and that was that. JB was gone forever and they had to make sure NO one ever found out how.

DeeDee249,
ITA she would not have ended up in the poorhouse. Maybe they were both culpable in different ways. And when either of them found out it was too late to do anything, they were both in deep, very deep.

They did cover for each other, remember Patsy's public statements about JonBenet being safe when she was in the clinic, because Nedra was always there? I have not looked but I wonder did John ever make similar exculpatory statements about Patsy?

.

 

[eve314]

So far, most feel strongly that the Ramsey's did it. After reading the media reports, comments by investigators and so on, I have much reasonable doubt. I really cannot shake off the unidentified DNA, palm print, and footprint issues.

JR and PR seem like two very intelligent people, surely, if they killed their child and attempted a cover-up, they would know that LE would very likely search the home, first. Leaving a ransom note would not deter LE from doing so.

I wonder if JBR was molested at the party. Has anyone or any theory been made about this possibility?

Can anyone enlighten me about the bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter - did either parent admit to feeding her?

 

[DeeDee249]

So far, most feel strongly that the Ramsey's did it. After reading the media reports, comments by investigators and so on, I have much reasonable doubt. I really cannot shake off the unidentified DNA, palm print, and footprint issues.

JR and PR seem like two very intelligent people, surely, if they killed their child and attempted a cover-up, they would know that LE would very likely search the home, first. Leaving a ransom note would not deter LE from doing so.

I wonder if JBR was molested at the party. Has anyone or any theory been made about this possibility?

Can anyone enlighten me about the bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter - did either parent admit to feeding her?

The matter of the palm print was solved years ago. It was proven to belong to JR's older daughter Melinda. It had nothing to do with the crime, and was left at a previous time. The thing with prints (palm, finger and foot) is that they cannot be DATED. There is no way to tell when they were left.
As far as the footprint- that may or may not have been left at the time of the crime (for the same reason- no way to prove when it was left). JB's brother BR admitted to police that he did own a pair of Hi-Tec shoes (his were sneakers) though his parents denied it. The Hi-Tec brand is popular and worn by many repairmen, LE, etc. The Rs had people in there just a month before, bringing out the artificial trees stored in there. The print may have had nothing to do with the death of JB.
The pineapple in JB's digestive tract was tested and found to match the pineapple in the bowl. Her parents never admitted feeding her the pineapple, though Patsy's prints were found on the bowl. JB's prints were NOT found on the bowl, and no strange prints were found there either. It is ridiculous to suggest a kidnapper would stop to feed his victim pineapple (and even sillier to think that his victim would sit at the table and eat it with a kidnapper). Patsy tried to deny she even owned the bowl until it was shown in a photo taken at the R's Christmas party three days before.

 

[vlpate]

So far, most feel strongly that the Ramsey's did it. After reading the media reports, comments by investigators and so on, I have much reasonable doubt. I really cannot shake off the unidentified DNA, palm print, and footprint issues.

JR and PR seem like two very intelligent people, surely, if they killed their child and attempted a cover-up, they would know that LE would very likely search the home, first. Leaving a ransom note would not deter LE from doing so.

I wonder if JBR was molested at the party. Has anyone or any theory been made about this possibility?

Can anyone enlighten me about the bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter - did either parent admit to feeding her?[/[/B]

I'm not sure what you are reading on the media sites or which investigators you've read, but there is A LOT of information, including all the interviews by the Ramseys. acandyrose.com has everything there is archived - whether IDI or RDI, the information is not biased.

The PBworks site quotes Internet posters a lot, and I don't find that to be of much help in fact finding.

Lawrence Schiller and Steve Thomas both wrote very informative books on the case, but both were written early on - much has happened since then.

Good luck.

 

[BBB167893]

So far, most feel strongly that the Ramsey's did it. After reading the media reports, comments by investigators and so on, I have much reasonable doubt. I really cannot shake off the unidentified DNA, palm print, and footprint issues.

Hi, eve314. I understand you. We'll be more than happy to talk anything over with you. You have to be careful WHICH media reports and investigators you listen to, though.

JR and PR seem like two very intelligent people, surely, if they killed their child and attempted a cover-up, they would know that LE would very likely search the home, first. Leaving a ransom note would not deter LE from doing so.

Perhaps that's what they were counting on, eve314. But when the police didn't find the body, it was time for Plan B.

I'm not even sure that they WOULD know that for sure, though. Yes, they were intelligent, but as I always say, there's a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

I wonder if JBR was molested at the party. Has anyone or any theory been made about this possibility?

I've heard a few.

Can anyone enlighten me about the bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter - did either parent admit to feeding her?

No, both claimed that they did not feed it to her. That's a problem, because it sure didn't get there on its own!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

On another thread, we discussed possible reasons why the Ramseys didn't dump JBR's body outside. By deciding to leave the body in the house, the Ramseys had 6800 square feet to choose from. The basement was the most logical choice, because there was no way the R's could stumble upon it during the morning frenzy, and it was the farthest from the bedrooms.