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.
Yet what does this have to do with JonBenet's death?
I was replying to someone CA4now- and JB being sexualised at such a young age does certainly have bearing on this case.
and Pats was the one that taught all her moves- showing us Pats had no problem with the sexualisation of her daughter. at all.
To answer the earlier question- Patsy had a Bachelor's in Journalism. It is noted that the "ransom" note utilized proper proofreading marks. Of course these are not uncommon but it's still interesting. Would a 19-yr old have bothered with carets, etc?
IMO, the fact that Pasty and JonBenet did pageants and provocative little dance moves doesn't prove a damn thing.
Thousands of little girls and their mothers do the exact same things.......that doesn't mean all of those mothers are deviants, pimping out their daughters to sex rings....and it doesn't mean Patsy did either.
I see it as a mother daughter thing to do......something Patsy used to enjoy doing and thought her daughter might enjoy too.
No different than a mom who used to be a figure skater wanting to teach her daughter to skate because she wants her daughter to love it as much as she did.
......or a father that wants his son to play football because he played it .....or gets his son a dirt bike because he had one when he was a kid.
The case has fascinated me since day one. The answer is not a cut and dried one, with so many strange, conflicting pieces of evidence. I've read PTPM, Steve Thomas' book, John Douglas' version.. I still veer between views. I've wondered why Stephen Singular's ideas haven't been entertained more avidly. His views are similar to what others posited here (and not really any other forums), that there is some kind of child-pornography connection. I have not read his book but he apparently feels this connection is through John. I disagree since so many pieces of evidence (hard evidence, such as the fibers and the note) point to Patsy. Could Patsy have been trading her daughter to someone or several someones in a privileged position in return for...something? The pageant connection is certainly compelling. It seems insane to most parents/moral humans, but it's not impossible. Not impossible at all.
I hate to try these people but the mind goes to places far removed from the norm. If this case were the norm it would have been solved by now. There's so much more than meets the eye.
I don't believe John had any knowledge of what happened...and may still not. I think he blindly stood by Patsy believing until the day she died that they were unfairly targeted. His reactions seem mostly normal to me. He may not socially be the warmest person but far removed from a sociopathic killer/conspirator, I think. The only oddity is the fact that he, along with Patsy, failed to see the necessity of a thorough interview process with the police once JB's body was found. They answered some questions throughout the morning of the 26th, but basically didn't see the need to go and sit down and share every little thing they knew, on the chance it could possible lead to the apprehension of the vicious killer of their child? As a parent that is a red flag and a half.
Patsy on the other hand.. watching her in old interview clips now still gives me the strangest, most uncomfortable vibe. If she is stone cold innocent I think there is something "off" about her regardless. Her affect is stilted. I also hate how she says, "that child." But these are my personal perceptions, and of course unrelated to actual guilt or innocence.
The note is so similar in syntax and style to her own writing and the fact that it was found in her own house.. and written in such a way, that appears to be forcefully pointing the blame in a certain direction (because a real kidnapper wants to be caught, so they leave all kinds of hints to their identity.. right) and therefore away from the occupants of the house that night. Patsy might have written it, not only to protect someone else (person in position of power), but of course herself. "Pimping out" your child, if that's indeed what happened, is not going to win anyone any popularity contests.
Patsy could have used pineapple as treat to soften the deal... like, "Come down and have a snack Jon Benet," and then whatever perp was allowed to do whatever to her would take her to a "secret" place (ie basement). Maybe this person impersonated Santa, who knows. This is where the theory gets muddy, because the death appears to be very deliberate. But things may have gotten out of hand..in the heat of the moment the offender may have thought he strangled her too tight, she may have screamed, scratched, etc. Tried to run. So he struck her, hard. (I wonder if there was indication she walked in the basement? Any dust or debris on the soles of her feet from the basement? Would be interesting to know.) After this of course Patsy is completely freaked out, she can't implicate her "friend in high places" nor herself so she has to tuck the body away and devise the cover up: the ransom note in her handwriting, using her pen, on her pad of paper. She's so freaked out she doesn't bother or remember to change out of her clothing... sounds legitimately stressed on the 9-1-1 tape... is physically sick and distraught.
As she later would say, "we never meant for this to happen."
The note is so similar in syntax and style to her own writing and the fact that it was found in her own house.. and written in such a way, that appears to be forcefully pointing the blame in a certain direction..
The note also could have been written to frame Patsy. Possibly explains the many revisions from the notepad. I read somewhere that the Sharpie with which h/she wrote the note was wiped of fingerprints...
To answer the earlier question- Patsy had a Bachelor's in Journalism. It is noted that the "ransom" note utilized proper proofreading marks. Of course these are not uncommon but it's still interesting. Would a 19-yr old have bothered with carets, etc?
Thanks. Patsy really carried herself in an uneducated manner.
IMO, the fact that Pasty and JonBenet did pageants and provocative little dance moves doesn't prove a damn thing.
Thousands of little girls and their mothers do the exact same things.......that doesn't mean all of those mothers are deviants, pimping out their daughters to sex rings....and it doesn't mean Patsy did either.
I see it as a mother daughter thing to do......something Patsy used to enjoy doing and thought her daughter might enjoy too.
No different than a mom who used to be a figure skater wanting to teach her daughter to skate because she wants her daughter to love it as much as she did.
......or a father that wants his son to play football because he played it .....or gets his son a dirt bike because he had one when he was a kid.
My theory might be wrong, but I think Patsy went way too far with the pageants. I mean, she dressed a little girl like a show girl. Yes, children can bond with a parent via their interests, but there's a point when it's weird. You don't sexualize children. I think all children's pageants are disgusting and teach really bad messages. The former dance coach basically said Patsy was living through Jonbenet. I still stand by my opinion that John and Patsy had strange relationships with their children. Patsy wasn't even dead that long before John began dating. When I look at the pieces of the puzzle and compare them to other parents, I wonder if their children really mean that much to them. Could they be bought? People abuse their children all the time or let others do it. I really think if they were poor and everything was the same, we have found out who the killer was and it wasn't a stranger. I could be wrong, but we really do have to ask ourselves did the Rasmey's wealth help keep this case unsolved.
The case has fascinated me since day one. The answer is not a cut and dried one, with so many strange, conflicting pieces of evidence. I've read PTPM, Steve Thomas' book, John Douglas' version.. I still veer between views. I've wondered why Stephen Singular's ideas haven't been entertained more avidly. His views are similar to what others posited here (and not really any other forums), that there is some kind of child-pornography connection. I have not read his book but he apparently feels this connection is through John. I disagree since so many pieces of evidence (hard evidence, such as the fibers and the note) point to Patsy. Could Patsy have been trading her daughter to someone or several someones in a privileged position in return for...something? The pageant connection is certainly compelling. It seems insane to most parents/moral humans, but it's not impossible. Not impossible at all.
I hate to try these people but the mind goes to places far removed from the norm. If this case were the norm it would have been solved by now. There's so much more than meets the eye.
I don't believe John had any knowledge of what happened...and may still not. I think he blindly stood by Patsy believing until the day she died that they were unfairly targeted. His reactions seem mostly normal to me. He may not socially be the warmest person but far removed from a sociopathic killer/conspirator, I think. The only oddity is the fact that he, along with Patsy, failed to see the necessity of a thorough interview process with the police once JB's body was found. They answered some questions throughout the morning of the 26th, but basically didn't see the need to go and sit down and share every little thing they knew, on the chance it could possible lead to the apprehension of the vicious killer of their child? As a parent that is a red flag and a half.
Patsy on the other hand.. watching her in old interview clips now still gives me the strangest, most uncomfortable vibe. If she is stone cold innocent I think there is something "off" about her regardless. Her affect is stilted. I also hate how she says, "that child." But these are my personal perceptions, and of course unrelated to actual guilt or innocence.
The note is so similar in syntax and style to her own writing and the fact that it was found in her own house.. and written in such a way, that appears to be forcefully pointing the blame in a certain direction (because a real kidnapper wants to be caught, so they leave all kinds of hints to their identity.. right) and therefore away from the occupants of the house that night. Patsy might have written it, not only to protect someone else (person in position of power), but of course herself. "Pimping out" your child, if that's indeed what happened, is not going to win anyone any popularity contests.
Patsy could have used pineapple as treat to soften the deal... like, "Come down and have a snack Jon Benet," and then whatever perp was allowed to do whatever to her would take her to a "secret" place (ie basement). Maybe this person impersonated Santa, who knows. This is where the theory gets muddy, because the death appears to be very deliberate. But things may have gotten out of hand..in the heat of the moment the offender may have thought he strangled her too tight, she may have screamed, scratched, etc. Tried to run. So he struck her, hard. (I wonder if there was indication she walked in the basement? Any dust or debris on the soles of her feet from the basement? Would be interesting to know.) After this of course Patsy is completely freaked out, she can't implicate her "friend in high places" nor herself so she has to tuck the body away and devise the cover up: the ransom note in her handwriting, using her pen, on her pad of paper. She's so freaked out she doesn't bother or remember to change out of her clothing... sounds legitimately stressed on the 9-1-1 tape... is physically sick and distraught.
As she later would say, "we never meant for this to happen."
I agree with a lot of what you said. To the bold, I think John was the one doing the dealing. I.e. finding the pedophiles. It wasn't get any old prevert. It had to be someone with money and/or power (i.e. politics). John had all sorts of contacts. I think he found the people (and imo I think it happened more than once ) and I Patsy groomed. Hair, make up, and how to interact.
I don't think the killer meant to kill her. I think it just went to far and he bolted. Think about it, if it was a pedophile, he had a victim that was being given to him. I would think a deviant would keep going back to an easy target.
I agreed with most you said and have pointed out a couple of the same things.
I believe there was a third person there that night, that both Patsy and John knew.
Someone with power, and someone who they needed to protect to save their own arses.
I know a lot of people can't fathom the idea of a parent allowing their child to be sexually abused, but it happens. and more often than not, within the ranks of the wealthy and powerful.
The ligature around her neck was imo a sexual device designed to simulate orgasm, and for whatever reason (some think maybe JBs hair got caught up in it) the safety cord didn't work and she died accidently.
Pats and John called Jonbenet 'that child' because that is what you do to distance yourself away from the reality of the situation, known as 'distancing', it can indicate lying.
Thanks. Patsy really carried herself in an uneducated manner.
What do you mean by that?
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.
) and I Patsy groomed. Hair, make up, and how to interact. 