Would you pull a cord

[FairM]

I wouldn't want to compare this case to other well known ones, but sometimes people do an unthinkable thing. 99.99999% people would never harm their child - but theirs always the odd few that do/have done

Of course there is but most parents don't and those that do have a history of neglect or bad parenting.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting that the overwhelming majority would not pull a cord round their own child's neck, yet those who are RDI are quite prepared to accept that these parents did it to their child.it's more likely to be an intruder than a parent.

FairM, I put absolutely NO store in this thread or poll whatsoever. And frankly, I can't see as any intelligent person would either. It's an obvious attempt to play on peoples emotions and then use that as if it were some sort of evidence.

As I've said many times, most people are in denial about these types of things. They don't WANT to believe that such things could happen, and they don't want to think about it happening to them. As such, it is impossible to answer the question with 100% truthfulness. A person sitting comfortably at their computer cannot know if they are capable of doing such a thing. That's the whole point: people often don't know what they are capable of until their backs are actually up against the wall.

The whole point of this thread is to reinforce an important element of Ramsey propaganda: that this was too brutal to have been done by a parent. But we ARE quite prepared to accept that these parents did this, and for a couple of reasons. The pathologists said that this little girl was close to death from the head wound when the cord was applied to the neck. Couple that with HOW it was done: a single, neat line with no signs of resistance (despite the ridiculous claims of Ramsey spin artists) and the only reasonable explanation for doing it was STAGING. And while I'm aware that same said spin artists would have us believe that many criminals stage crime scenes, it helps to ask the question that Sherlock Holmes postulated: "cui bono?" "Who benefits?" The only people who draw any obvious benefit from making this look like the work of a sexual psychopath are the Ramseys. Or, to put it in the words of former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who knows about such things, "if it were an intruder, they wouldn't have staged it to LOOK like an intruder." (Emphasis is hers, not mine.)

And if THAT's not enough for you, DD was kind enough to provide this:

The FBI, there early that morning, said it first and so simply. "Look to the parents. You're going to be finding her body".

The FBI DD refers to is agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning, a man with many years experience in this sort of thing. And he was asked flat-out if parents like the Ramseys could have done this sort of thing. This was his response:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes. I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

(I give my oath that I have not edited or altered this man's statements in any way.)

 

[BBB167893]

Of course there is but most parents don't and those that do have a history of neglect or bad parenting.

That's pretty much the cornerstone of the IDI edifice, and every day it gets a little more worn. Seems like every week, we hear about someone with no history of any kind killing a loved one.

Remind me again, exactly WHAT "history" of abuse did Casey Anthony have?

 

[Alix]

Interesting that the overwhelming majority would not pull a cord round their own child's neck, yet those who are RDI are quite prepared to accept that these parents did it to their child. it's more likely to be an intruder than a parent.

That is because the majority do not have the kind of diseased minds that PR and JR have.

 

[Alix]

I can answer this easily. No effing way would I wrap a cord around my baby's neck and strangle her, dead or not.

If I killed my child(for any reason), I'm not promising that I would bravely call the police. I might very well call 911, drop the phone and then run down the street peeing myself.

But it's more likely I would be holding the child I murdered until the cops came and got me.

 

[KarenUK]

FairM, I put absolutely NO store in this thread or poll whatsoever. And frankly, I can't see as any intelligent person would either. It's an obvious attempt to play on peoples emotions and then use that as if it were some sort of evidence.

As I've said many times, most people are in denial about these types of things. They don't WANT to believe that such things could happen, and they don't want to think about it happening to them. As such, it is impossible to answer the question with 100% truthfulness. A person sitting comfortably at their computer cannot know if they are capable of doing such a thing. That's the whole point: people often don't know what they are capable of until their backs are actually up against the wall.

The whole point of this thread is to reinforce an important element of Ramsey propaganda: that this was too brutal to have been done by a parent. But we ARE quite prepared to accept that these parents did this, and for a couple of reasons. The pathologists said that this little girl was close to death from the head wound when the cord was applied to the neck. Couple that with HOW it was done: a single, neat line with no signs of resistance (despite the ridiculous claims of Ramsey spin artists) and the only reasonable explanation for doing it was STAGING. And while I'm aware that same said spin artists would have us believe that many criminals stage crime scenes, it helps to ask the question that Sherlock Holmes postulated: "cui bono?" "Who benefits?" The only people who draw any obvious benefit from making this look like the work of a sexual psychopath are the Ramseys. Or, to put it in the words of former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who knows about such things, "if it were an intruder, they wouldn't have staged it to LOOK like an intruder." (Emphasis is hers, not mine.)

And if THAT's not enough for you, DD was kind enough to provide this:



The FBI DD refers to is agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning, a man with many years experience in this sort of thing. And he was asked flat-out if parents like the Ramseys could have done this sort of thing. This was his response:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes. I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

(I give my oath that I have not edited or altered this man's statements in any way.)

I agree wholeheartedly, I think that a person pushed to that extreme can do all kinds of unbelievable things that would never normally enter their heads.

I'm also glad Ron Walkers quote was mentioned - it's been stuck in my head from the first time I heard it [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxDMJUDgPkw&feature=related"]JonBenet Investigation Part 5 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FairM]

That's pretty much the cornerstone of the IDI edifice, and every day it gets a little more worn. Seems like every week, we hear about someone with no history of any kind killing a loved one.

Remind me again, exactly WHAT "history" of abuse did Casey Anthony have?

did you follow the case?? there was plenty of evidence of emotional neglect, the signs were there, she didnt want that kid, she wanted to party.

 

[BBB167893]

That is because the majority do not have the kind of diseased minds that PR and JR have.

Not quite how I would have worded it, but for my money, anyone who would dress their kid up like THAT and parade her about in those pedophilic livestock shows, I wouldn't put anything past.

 

[BBB167893]

did you follow the case?? there was plenty of evidence of emotional neglect, the signs were there, she didnt want that kid, she wanted to party.

I followed the acquittal sure as hell! And the similarities are striking.

The Ramsey propaganda line created by John Douglas and built upon by their spin artists does not speak of emotional neglect or even verbal abuse. No--it focuses on abuse of a physical nature. In both cases, none was proven to have existed, thus some people can't believe that they did it, and that's nonsense.

See, when I went on my rampage about how IDI propaganda was leading to other murdering parents walking free, THIS is exactly what I was talking about! Jose Baez took the Ramsey playbook and ran with it step-by-step, and the jury was stupid enough to believe it!

How many MORE little children will have to be sacrificed on the alter of denial?

 

[FairM]

I followed the acquittal sure as hell! And the similarities are striking.

The Ramsey propaganda line created by John Douglas and built upon by their spin artists does not speak of emotional neglect or even verbal abuse. No--it focuses on abuse of a physical nature. In both cases, none was proven to have existed, thus some people can't believe that they did it, and that's nonsense.

See, when I went on my rampage about how IDI propaganda was leading to other murdering parents walking free, THIS is exactly what I was talking about! Jose Baez took the Ramsey playbook and ran with it step-by-step, and the jury was stupid enough to believe it!

How many MORE little children will have to be sacrificed on the alter of denial?

the point is there was evidence of emotional neglect by CA. your question was whether there was evidence of prior neglect and there was,

 

[BBB167893]

I agree wholeheartedly, I think that a person pushed to that extreme can do all kinds of unbelievable things that would never normally enter their heads.

I'm also glad Ron Walkers quote was mentioned - it's been stuck in my head from the first time I heard it JonBenet Investigation Part 5 - YouTube

You and me both!

People just don't want to face up to the idea that they could do something horrible if all the right elements came together.

 

[BBB167893]

the point is there was evidence of emotional neglect by CA. your question was whether there was evidence of prior neglect and there was,

No, I did NOT ask that. Look again:

Remind me again, exactly WHAT "history" of abuse did Casey Anthony have?

I said "abuse." As in physical and/or sexual. I don't remember anyone claiming that Casey struck Caylee. I don't remember any suspicious doctor reports, etc. THAT's what I was asking.

And that's how her jury interpreted it, too. I WATCHED those interviews. They didn't even believe that she was EMOTIONALLY distant. They said that they thought she was a "good, attentive mother."

 

[FairM]

No, I did NOT ask that. Look again:



I said "abuse." As in physical and/or sexual. I don't remember anyone claiming that Casey struck Caylee. I don't remember any suspicious doctor reports, etc. THAT's what I was asking.

And that's how her jury interpreted it, too. I WATCHED those interviews. They didn't even believe that she was EMOTIONALLY distant. They said that they thought she was a "good, attentive mother."

ok you said what history of "abuse" was there - emotional neglect falls into that cateogory does it not? my point was there is usually some form of abuse/neglect call it what you will but there is usually some thing there!:banghead:

 

[smurf86]

I answered no but in the scheme of things desperate people will do desperate things.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No.

This is semi off-topic... and everyone can take this for what it's worth... which given my post count and history here is perhaps nothing... but I live in Colorado and have met and spoken with Pamela Mackey a few times. I don't remember the exact details as this was a few years ago... but in a conversation that had nothing to do with the JonBenet case (i.e. I didn't ask), we were just discussing public perception and it's importance in cases and whatnot, and she was talking about how frustrating the JonBenet case was because the Ramsey's absolutely had nothing to do with what happened to her. She said it with complete confidence and sincerity, and as I said before, I didn't ask about it at all. That conversation was enough for me to completely throw out the idea that they were involved.

:waitasec: Huh? Your formulated an opinion on the case based solely on that??

 

[BBB167893]

ok you said what history of "abuse" was there - emotional neglect falls into that cateogory does it not?

I think I've made myself plain, have I not? To me, it's not an issue. Casey Anthony had no history of physical or sexual abuse toward her daughter and no known mental problems. But she still KILLED the little one. That flies DIRECTLY in the face of the propaganda assault the Ramseys and their collaborators have stuffed down our throats for the last 15 years. They've claimed that nobody could go from totally law-abiding citizen to child-killer.

Not only does Casey Anthony (among OTHER--seems like every WEEK we hear about something like this) explode that founding myth of IDI, but it confirms my worst fears. Ever since I defect to the RDI side, I've worried that the kind of arguments IDI relies on would lead to OTHER child-killers going free. But I tried to convince myself that such foolishness was limited to the thin-aired climate of Boulder, and that most people are intelligent enough to understand that ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING.

Boy, was I wrong! I meant what I said about Baez. He took hold of the John Douglas-Lou Smit-Mary Lacy playbook and he ran with it every step of the way! His arguments were CLASSIC IDI huff:

--Casey didn't fit the profile of a child-killer; she had no mental issues; no record of child abuse with police or social services.

--Casey had no "real" evidence against her: no DNA or even eyewitnesses, just circumstantial stuff and maybes.

And a jury bought it, by their own admission.

I feared that IDI arguments would rot our justice system. I was right, and I'd give my arms to be wrong!

my point was there is usually some form of abuse/neglect call it what you will but there is usually some thing there!:banghead:

I noticed you used the word "usually." I don't know if you'd like to rephrase before we continue, so I'll give you the chance.

To paraphrase Condi Rice, this case represents a failure of imagination. People just flat don't want to imagine the circumstances that might lead to something like this. They don't want to open that door. But, to take another page out of Sherlock Holmes, it is imagination which solved crimes, because it is in the imagination of the perp that crime is formed, and it is imagination that allows us to construct the facts in a coherent way.

 

[FairM]

I think I've made myself plain, have I not? To me, it's not an issue. Casey Anthony had no history of physical or sexual abuse toward her daughter and no known mental problems. But she still KILLED the little one. That flies DIRECTLY in the face of the propaganda assault the Ramseys and their collaborators have stuffed down our throats for the last 15 years. They've claimed that nobody could go from totally law-abiding citizen to child-killer.

Not only does Casey Anthony (among OTHER--seems like every WEEK we hear about something like this) explode that founding myth of IDI, but it confirms my worst fears. Ever since I defect to the RDI side, I've worried that the kind of arguments IDI relies on would lead to OTHER child-killers going free. But I tried to convince myself that such foolishness was limited to the thin-aired climate of Boulder, and that most people are intelligent enough to understand that ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING.

Boy, was I wrong! I meant what I said about Baez. He took hold of the John Douglas-Lou Smit-Mary Lacy playbook and he ran with it every step of the way! His arguments were CLASSIC IDI huff:

--Casey didn't fit the profile of a child-killer; she had no mental issues; no record of child abuse with police or social services.

--Casey had no "real" evidence against her: no DNA or even eyewitnesses, just circumstantial stuff and maybes.

And a jury bought it, by their own admission.

I feared that IDI arguments would rot our justice system. I was right, and I'd give my arms to be wrong!



I noticed you used the word "usually." I don't know if you'd like to rephrase before we continue, so I'll give you the chance.

To paraphrase Condi Rice, this case represents a failure of imagination. People just flat don't want to imagine the circumstances that might lead to something like this. They don't want to open that door. But, to take another page out of Sherlock Holmes, it is imagination which solved crimes, because it is in the imagination of the perp that crime is formed, and it is imagination that allows us to construct the facts in a coherent way.

In the CA case the signs were there people just chose to ignore them.

I'm not even going to get into that debate with you about it all being IDIs fault.

No I don't wish to rephrase thank you very much. I meant usually not in all cases I never said in all cases but usually there is.
You said that the IDI propoganda says nobody could go from totally law abiding citizen to child killer , that's not what I said , you keep attributing atypical IDI comments to me just because I don't think the Ramseys did it.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

In the CA case the signs were there people just chose to ignore them.

There is quite a population of people who have studied the Ramsey case that also see this dynamic in the overall picture.

Not everyone in the Rs lives ignored it, though. Two of Patsy's closest friends, Priscilla White and Barbara Fernie, were planning to sit Patsy down after the holidays to have a serious discussion with her about "the mega JonBenet thing."

They knew Patsy in person on a daily basis, they saw her relationship with her children in full swing in a way that the members of this board will never know...and they were concerned enough with Patsy's parenting choices that they felt the need to confront her about her behavior, to advocate for JonBenet.

That really says a LOT about the kinds of choices that Patsy was making as JonBenet's mother, IMO.

Incidentally, both PW and BF originally believed the Rs innocent of any hand at all in JonBenet's murder. Later, though, as details surfaced and they watched how the Rs behaved, they changed their minds completely.

That says even more to me than their desire to have a discussion with Patsy where they addressed "the mega JonBenet thing" and how it was affecting JonBenet.

JonBenet is the ONLY victim in this murder, despite what the Rs say in DOI.

I'm not even going to get into that debate with you about it all being IDIs fault.

No I don't wish to rephrase thank you very much. I meant usually not in all cases I never said in all cases but usually there is.
You said that the IDI propoganda says nobody could go from totally law abiding citizen to child killer , that's not what I said , you keep attributing atypical IDI comments to me just because I don't think the Ramseys did it.

I really hate to repeat myself, but:

I believe there is evidence of prior neglect towards JonBenet in the Ramsey house well before Christmas of 1996.

Patsy talked about how JonBenet both wet and soiled herself at age 6, after a period of time where she'd been successfully toilet-trained.

First off, why is there such a regression in toileting skills, and at such a late age?

Patsy said that she took JB to Dr. Beuf, and he said that it was nothing and would eventually figure itself out.

I'm not entirely sure Beuf knew that JonBenet's issue was way more than just wetting the bed every now and then - something one can expect with a younger child, even at age 6. JonBenet's issue was not just mere bed-wetting.

She wasn't just wet, she was dealing with what Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh referred to as "dirtying" - she failed to wipe correctly after bowel movements, and needed someone to wash her bottom off for her. Nedra also said that JonBenet was in the practice of asking just anyone to help her, as if she did not comprehend certain boundaries. (She also said JonBenet had NO choice whatsoever in whether she participated in pageants or not. She said that JonBenet was told "You will do it. You will be a Little Miss.")

Patsy herself said that the situation was so bad that JonBenet was suffering from frequent infections that were hard to clear up from always being in wet underwear.

Infections. That are hard to clear up. From ALWAYS being in wet underwear.

All of the pairs of undies from her underwear drawer, when examined by a sex abuse expert, showed fecal staining. Stains. From fecal matter. Dirtying. Undies aren't just wet, they're being stained by fecal matter.

Patsy's just gonna let her sit in it. Not even gonna give her Pull-Ups to wear, just going to let her sit in it - so she can feel when she's wet.

She was suffering from INFECTIONS on her private area, because Patsy NEGLECTED to take the situation seriously and have it addressed by a doctor other than the one who said to neglect it. I do not believe Patsy would have tolerated such a situation if it was affecting her personal body, but she thinks it's fine to ignore it happening to JonBenet, to neglect the situation until it magically goes away on its own.

And to address the boundary situation again, I believe that Patsy failed to recognize proper boundaries to the relationship she had with her daughter, and also failed to teach them to JonBenet. Patsy seems to have seen JonBenet as an extension of herself, a mini adult.

According to former housekeeper Linda Wilcox, Patsy said that JonBenet was dressing as a "sexy witch" for Halloween...when she was only 4 years old.

Dance instructor Kit Andre, who taught JonBenet for pageants, said that Patsy had no sense of proportion as to how pageants should factor into her child's life. Andre was shocked and appalled at the video she saw of JonBenet in a pageant. She said the child had been taught to dance in a sexualized manner, something she had not taught JonBenet - and she said that "you don't do that to a 6 year old."

If Kit Andre, the only dance teacher JonBenet had, didn't teach her to shimmy and slink on stage like she was 26 instead of 6, who did? Patsy.

Sexy witch, indeed.



It's not rational or reasonable to think that the Ramseys could not have neglected their children, or, specifically, JonBenet, because they had a certain amount of money in the bank, or lived in a certain part of town, or owned two houses, a plane, a boat, and whatever else. Neither is it rational or reasonable to think the Ramseys could not have neglected JonBenet because they had really good health insurance, or because they attended church on a regular basis and talked and acted as good, God-fearing Christians.

Even people who look like the best parents ever can be capable of abusing or neglecting their children...even if it isn't all that obvious to people who know them well and see them every day. Secrets are secrets for a reason. And...there's always a first time for everything.

One cannot assume the Rs incapable of abuse or neglect of their kids just because they do not see any prior evidence of it before the night JonBenet was murdered (especially when it's there like it is in the Ramsey case - PW and BF weren't planning to talk to Patsy about nothing, and Patsy herself admits she's neglecting JonBenet's toileting regression issues - after admitting it's so bad JonBenet suffers from FREQUENT INFECTIONS!) Sometimes it's there and people don't want to see it, and sometimes the first time something happens is the only time it needs to happen, and it's too late the second it happens. IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

In the CA case the signs were there people just chose to ignore them.

Now that's one thing you won't get ANY argument from me on. Of course, that opens up an avenue of discussion on this case, as well.

I'm not even going to get into that debate with you about it all being IDIs fault.

A very wise decision.

I will say this though: I'm not trying to claim that it's "all" IDIs fault. When it comes to explaining why the American system of justice has rotted so badly, you can spread the blame around pretty well among unscrupulous lawyers who don't give a damn about truth, idiot judges who make bad decisions that affect how LE does its work, politicians only concerned about maintaining their gravy train, spineless prosecutors who care more about the rights of the criminals than the victims they are supposed to speak for, to say nothing about the populace at large.

The problem as I see it is, the IDIs have thrown their lot in with this sorry bunch.

No I don't wish to rephrase thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I meant usually not in all cases I never said in all cases but usually there is.

Very good.

You said that the IDI propaganda says nobody could go from totally law abiding citizen to child killer, that's not what I said, you keep attributing atypical IDI comments to me just because I don't think the Ramseys did it.

As I see it, FairM, that's three separate issues you just conflated.

1) IDI propaganda does say that. Or perhaps more accurately, Ramsey propaganda says that (every chance it gets!:crazy. It's just that most IDIs go along with it. Having BEEN an IDI myself, I can understand why. Surely, I made myself plain when I said:

As I've said many times, most people are in denial about these types of things. They don't WANT to believe that such things could happen, and they don't want to think about it happening to them. As such, it is impossible to answer the question with 100% truthfulness. A person sitting comfortably at their computer cannot know if they are capable of doing such a thing. That's the whole point: people often don't know what they are capable of until their backs are actually up against the wall.

And I'm holding firm on that until the day I die.

2) I know it's not what you said, but I see no evidence so far that you disagree or have any problems with it.

3) They are HARDLY "atypical" comments among IDI. Indeed, it's more surprising to find an IDI who DOESN'T go along with it.

 

[2 percent]

You didn't cite sources, you just copy and pasted the text from that website, which itself wasn't sourced as far as I could tell.

What source were you looking for? Courts don't publish transcripts. Some years ago, after being frustrated by the lack of information on a dp case, some of us sought to get access to the transcripts. Come to find out, there was a cost per page. The transcript was 20,000 pages. We pooled our money, purchased them and then, since sending each of us a copy was out of the question, I created a website for everyone to access.
So, I'm not sure why the website with the transcripts matter to you. Transcripts purchased and published by a website will never have a reachback, telltale watermark saying "This Is Genuinely From The Courthouse".
Of course logically you should assume that no one will take the time to fake this stuff