Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the sounds of it, both types of schooling could have been possible. In the article that talks about being home schooled it also mentions a church pre school. So that might have been early on. Maybe she went to a regular school later.
By the sounds of it, both types of schooling could have been possible. In the article that talks about being home schooled it also mentions a church pre school. So that might have been early on. Maybe she went to a regular school later.
She wasn't home schooled.
As someone already pointed out- she went to High Peaks Elementary School.
JonBenet's schooling had nothing whatever to do with this crime. Whether she was home schooled or attended public school, or attended private school, or attended internet school. The issue is tertiary and distractive. Indeed, it is the sort of petty, desultory sort of cattiness one typically sees amongst the RDI cult at WS. Try not to be drawn into it and be wary of those who introduce such subject matter into the discussion.
Who are you to tell us what to discuss? First someone said she was home schooled, then someone else said she was not, then I said maybe it was both. Now you come along (again) telling us what we should be discussing. Cattiness? RDI at WS means.....what?
No, I will not be wary of someone who introduces ideas. This is a discussion of ideas and we are making up our own minds, exploring different ideas, and we probably will never solve the mystery. We're thrashing ideas around.
Your mind is already made up so if things that we say don't fit your solution you come on here and chastise the rest of us. Since your mind is already made up, why are you on here? Freedom of speech, for us, please.
Who are you to tell us what to discuss? First someone said she was home schooled, then someone else said she was not, then I said maybe it was both. Now you come along (again) telling us what we should be discussing. Cattiness? RDI at WS means.....what?
No, I will not be wary of someone who introduces ideas. This is a discussion of ideas and we are making up our own minds, exploring different ideas, and we probably will never solve the mystery. We're thrashing ideas around.
Your mind is already made up so if things that we say don't fit your solution you come on here and chastise the rest of us. Since your mind is already made up, why are you on here? Freedom of speech, for us, please.
I'm not telling you what to discuss. It's a free country (or at least it's supposed to be).
Just so you know, RDI is term they use over at web sleuths forum meaning "Ramseys Did It," as opposed to IDI, meaning "Intruder Did It." WS is an unabashed beehive of RDI fanatics who have merely a token degree of tolerance for IDI proponents, and only recently because of embarrassing criticism of the forum which found its way to mainstream news media. Before that, anyone who even suggested that the Ramseys might be innocent had the life expectancy of a fruit fly at WS. They would be banned within a week.
Due to the unabashed bias of its owner and administrator (an RDI fanatic if there ever was one) WS became a breeding ground for RDI zealotry. However, it was not enough for WS alone to be so one-sided on the JonBenet debate. These fanatics thought it necessary to evangelize. They soon began appearing at every JonBenet forum on the internet, attempting to disrupt any discussion which was at all supportive of the Ramseys being innocent of the crime and JonBenet being murdered by an intruder. They come out in swarms just to make inane, inflammatory remarks like:
"The Ramseys just don't seem like they were emotionally invested in their children. With Patsy, it makes more sense that she did it because she thought she was dying and was perhaps jealous of Jonbenet."
…or they will throw in some completely unsupported assertion about JonBenet being home schooled along with a weird insinuation suggesting it is evidence of the Ramseys being dysfunctional and depraved. They do this just to derail the discussion.
If this sounds utterly insane to you, it's because it is. As incredible and silly as it seems, it appears that an actual cult of Ramsey-bashing zealots has been established at WS, and has, quite literally, branched out and infested just about every JonBenet discussion forum on the internet. They're like the People's Temple in the world of internet forums. They even go as far as to obtain positions as moderators at JonBenet forums just to squelch IDI opinion.
I'm sure you are sitting agape at your computer thinking "This is the nuttiness thing I've ever heard!" Unfortunately, it is all true. If you want to see just how fanatically insane these people are, take a ten-minute visit to WS. You will not believe your eyes.
Anyway, I've been seeing at this forum a lot of the same sort of familiar petty, inflammatory distractions thrown into the discussion like a monkey wrench as I have seen at other JonBenet forums. I just wanted you to be aware of it so you can see it for what it is. I'm not trying tell you what you can or cannot discuss. I would never do that.
I'm not telling you what to discuss. It's a free country (or at least it's supposed to be).
Just so you know, RDI is term they use over at web sleuths forum meaning "Ramseys Did It," as opposed to IDI, meaning "Intruder Did It." WS is an unabashed beehive of RDI fanatics who have merely a token degree of tolerance for IDI proponents, and only recently because of embarrassing criticism of the forum which found its way to mainstream news media. Before that, anyone who even suggested that the Ramseys might be innocent had the life expectancy of a fruit fly at WS. They would be banned within a week.
Due to the unabashed bias of its owner and administrator (an RDI fanatic if there ever was one) WS became a breeding ground for RDI zealotry. However, it was not enough for WS alone to be so one-sided on the JonBenet debate. These fanatics thought it necessary to evangelize. They soon began appearing at every JonBenet forum on the internet, attempting to disrupt any discussion which was at all supportive of the Ramseys being innocent of the crime and JonBenet being murdered by an intruder. They come out in swarms just to make inane, inflammatory remarks like:
"The Ramseys just don't seem like they were emotionally invested in their children. With Patsy, it makes more sense that she did it because she thought she was dying and was perhaps jealous of Jonbenet."
…or they will throw in some completely unsupported assertion about JonBenet being home schooled along with a weird insinuation suggesting it is evidence of the Ramseys being dysfunctional and depraved. They do this just to derail the discussion.
If this sounds utterly insane to you, it's because it is. As incredible and silly as it seems, it appears that an actual cult of Ramsey-bashing zealots has been established at WS, and has, quite literally, branched out and infested just about every JonBenet discussion forum on the internet. They're like the People's Temple in the world of internet forums. They even go as far as to obtain positions as moderators at JonBenet forums just to squelch IDI opinion.
I'm sure you are sitting agape at your computer thinking "This is the nuttiness thing I've ever heard!" Unfortunately, it is all true. If you want to see just how fanatically insane these people are, take a ten-minute visit to WS. You will not believe your eyes.
Anyway, I've been seeing at this forum a lot of the same sort of familiar petty, inflammatory distractions thrown into the discussion like a monkey wrench as I have seen at other JonBenet forums. I just wanted you to be aware of it so you can see it for what it is. I'm not trying tell you what you can or cannot discuss. I would never do that.
To the bold, you seem to be the one always derailing the thread.
I'm not apart of any true crime sites. Nice try. Honestly, for someone who talks about being petty and catty, YOU'RE the petty one here. I let it go when you called me dingbat, I'm getting really tired of your rude behavior. Please DON'T misquote me. I never said Patsy did IT. Here is what I said, "I don't think either of them spend too much time with Jonbenet or Burke. They had a nanny. They just don't seem like they were emotionally invested in their children. With Patsy it makes more sense, she thought she was dying. Perhaps, jealousy too with Jonbenet." It meaning, emotional investment. I.e. She wasn't attached emotionally, and according to my THEORY, allowed Jonbenet to be abused. What was John's excuse for not being emotionally invested? As I said, please don't misquote me. In fact, please don't quote me or respond to me. You're the one who's PETTY since you like to accuse others of being petty and catty.
So did the rest of America. That means absolutely nothing.
Quote:
And I never said she was a criminal mastermind, but both her and John were smart people, and I believe in the hours that ensued, they had time to think about what had to be done to cover theirs, and someone elses arse.
Neither John nor Patsy had any training in forensic science. End of story.
Quote:
That girl was moved around the house, and tampered with to cover up whatever happened.
What are you talking about? Be specific.
Quote:
This case smacks of child sex abuse- from the way JB was sexualised to perform at pageants,
She was not sexualized. Pageantry was a part Patsy's life which she wished to share with her daughter. It in no way amounts to evidence that either John or Patsy brutally murdered JonBenet.
Quote:
to the ligature around her neck. It has a sole purpose of simulating orgasm.
No, it has the sole purpose of cutting off the air supply and causing asphyxiation.
Quote:
Some theorise the safety mechanism got caught in her hair, therefore accidently strangling her. lending credence to Pats's comment 'we didnt mean for this to happen'.
And this happened before or after her skull was fractured with appears to have been either a tire iron or a crowbar? Whoever murdered JonBenet definitely meant for it to happen.
Quote:
and then there's the 30 odd trips to the doctor? experts saying there was prior abuse.
JonBenet's trips to the doctor had nothing to do with child abuse. Where do you get this stuff?
I think that earlier on this thread people discussed that the reason Patsy entered JonBenet in beauty pageants was because she herself participated in them when she was young and thought it was something that she and her daughter could share and enjoy together.
People have also said Pats was living vicariously through JonBenet and the pageants, pushing her to do better than she herself did in her pageant days.
Remember Kit Andre, the dance instructor- she said:
'The pageants were Patsy's gig, JonBenet was her alter ego. Patsy had the money, she had the costumes, and she had the kid. She could relive her own pageant thing. You got the picture right there. Patsy didn't have a sense of proportion about how this should fit into her child's life. What I saw on the pageant video - you don't do that to a six-year-old.'
In what way does any of this amount to evidence of her having murdered JonBenet?
Lots of parents live vicariously through their children without ever cracking their skull open like a walnut and garroting them to death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
