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.
33 visits to JBR's pediatrician in 2 years...imo that is suspicious and excessive.
They were friends with Dr. ___, he would treat the patient, doesnt mean it would ever be reported to authorities.
I need to read more, but Dr. Wecht's medical facts really point to some sort of ongoing molestation.
Even if this was an accident, I was imagining a scenario where possibly PR found someone again molesting the child, and then lost it. Just an opinion, and she did seem prone to "rage attacks" .
Also the floor plan of that house was complex, highly dubious for any random stranger/neighbor to know where the disused wine cellar/dirty storage room even was. The scuff marks outside the cellar window were apparently staged also.
Last edited by dreamofmonterey; 06-22-2012 at 03:34 PM..
Reason: add
I still think Patsy did it...I am going with the abuse, and possible Munchousen Syndrome, or maybe a new syndrome...I have seen those pagent Mom's on that reality tv show...and really, I know it is reality TV...but really, those Mom's are over the top on control. I watched one poor little girl, cry, and her Mother told her she had to sit and have her hair curled or else...and that kid stopped crying...which makes me think that she was afraid of "or else"...Patsy looks pretty controllling, and quite the perfectionist...having a daughter with a potty issue, at age 6...probably not fitting into her plan of perfection...and all those medical appointments? If they were trying to cover up abuse, there would not have been all those medical appointments....so...I am thinking the Munchousen...who knows...
I did find a good PDF on Munchausens to read, children are ususally under the age of 4 when problems begin. Sexual abuse ranks around 25% of the cases. MSPS (according to the site), rare. Have recently experienced the death of a close friend or family member, husbands usually distant, and preoccupied....so, it does fit. I can't understand why an insurance company wouldn't see the red flag and keep paying out. IDK, maybe enough wasn't known about the illness at the time.
Urinary trac, and bedwetting isn't a conclusive sign of sexual abuse, but if this were my child, I'd be alarmed too. I don't believe JB ever had a proper examination to conclude there was sexual abuse. Some sites quote the number of appointments with reason for visits, wouldn't count on accuracy. I think that was prior to HIPAA though.
With all the time Patsy and JB were occupied with pagents (Patsy and her sister were pagent girls when young), I don't know why she'd still need an attention fix, it makes no sense and reason I said John and the son Burke stand out in my mind. Maybe yet another person..2am was when it snowed, I would assume if an outsider, this occurred before the snowfall, and would account for not finding footprints.
I playing sleuth here. I'm certain J & P know how their daughter died. A lot of ppl were happy when case reopened, it won't be resolved, it'll remain a mystery for at least 20 more yrs, perhaps never solved.
Re: Patsy and why she maybe needed an attention fix...
regardless of everything else, (John being financially successful, etc)
He was most likely an emotionally negligent husband, at the very least. Sometimes its worse if there is money because she may have still found herself in an emotional "void", and so turned the attention to her daughter. (Not justifying any behavior at all here, just an idea).
I agree that they both know exactly what happened.
The "Munchousen" theory...I found it intriguing that many of the abusers were victims of sexual abuse themselves. This would explain the fibers from Patsy's sweater in the garrote. Maybe there was some sort of sexual, eroticism going on...and the child was accidently choked...I don't rule it out....it is difficult to wrap our heads around this...but I have seen some folks do some strange stuff...who knows....but whatever....I agree...this was a family conspiracy.
I did find a good PDF on Munchausens to read, children are ususally under the age of 4 when problems begin.
Patsy Ramsey did not have Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a different disorder than Munchausen syndrome). She doesn't fit the criteria.
Quote:
Some sites quote the number of appointments with reason for visits, wouldn't count on accuracy. I think that was prior to HIPAA though.
Yes, it was prior to HIPAA. I don't find 36 doctor visits in 3 years unusual at all (although that number has been contested). Anyone here raise children? When our kids were little, I could have called the pediatrician's office my second home. We were there at least once a month for ear infections, skin rashes, immunizations, chicken pox, etc, etc, etc, up until the age of about four or five.
Quote:
With all the time Patsy and JB were occupied with pagents (Patsy and her sister were pagent girls when young), I don't know why she'd still need an attention fix, it makes no sense and reason...
Right; it doesn't.
Quote:
Maybe yet another person..2am was when it snowed, I would assume if an outsider, this occurred before the snowfall, and would account for not finding footprints.
[quote=CA4Now;24869115]Patsy Ramsey did not have Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a different disorder than Munchausen syndrome).
She doesn't fit the criteria.
Which is?
Here's what I found -
they are usually the child's primary caregiver; (
they often present initially as 'good' carers;
they are usually accomplished liars and manipulators;
they are usually the only ones consistently present or associated with the onset of the child's symptoms (when the carers are absent, symptoms or illnesses are not reported or may begin to improve);
they may have a history of self-induced symptom/illness exaggeration, falsification or induction;
they may have mental health evaluations indicating they are 'normal';
they may have no prior involvement with child protection services:
they may appear to be overanxious, overprotective, mistaken or deluded;
they may have a background in the health profession or an unusual degree of knowledge about health; and they may seek publicity or attention from a variety of people. *beauty pageants, anyone? msann
These parents or carers do not necessarily stop their behaviour towards the child when under suspicion or caught, but may change tactics by:
changing health professionals;
denying all or part of what they have done, even when there is overwhelming evidence; and
accusing their accusers, and shifting blame onto those who are aware of their behaviour (Lasher and Sheridan 2004; Dr Arnold Smith, personal communication, 24 May 2005).
Yes, it was prior to HIPAA. I don't find 36 doctor visits in 3 years unusual at all (although that number has been contested). Anyone here raise children? When our kids were little, I could have called the pediatrician's office my second home. We were there at least once a month for ear infections, skin rashes, immunizations, chicken pox, etc, etc, etc, up until the age of about four or five.
How many kids were these visits spread across?
36 doctor visits equals one per month over 3 years, all for one physically healthy child. Further, most immunisations are completed by the time a child is 18 months, so you can knock those visits out of the equation.
PR fits the above profile to a T, right down to the excessive knowlege of medical procedure, via her own cancer battle. MOO.
Patsy Ramsey did not have Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a different disorder than Munchausen syndrome). She doesn't fit the criteria.
Yes, it was prior to HIPAA. I don't find 36 doctor visits in 3 years unusual at all (although that number has been contested). Anyone here raise children? When our kids were little, I could have called the pediatrician's office my second home. We were there at least once a month for ear infections, skin rashes, immunizations, chicken pox, etc, etc, etc, up until the age of about four or five.
Right; it doesn't.
That's most likely the case.
Sadly, she does fit the criteria for MSPS, this isn't to armchair diagnose Patsy.
I'd be alarmed as well if my daughter had chronic urinary trac infections and bedwetting, said it in an earlier post.
If other than the family, this wasn't an intruder. They knew this person, and let them in their home.
Your free to hold any beliefs you wish, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise further.
The "Munchousen" theory...I found it intriguing that many of the abusers were victims of sexual abuse themselves. This would explain the fibers from Patsy's sweater in the garrote. Maybe there was some sort of sexual, eroticism going on...and the child was accidently choked...I don't rule it out....it is difficult to wrap our heads around this...but I have seen some folks do some strange stuff...who knows....but whatever....I agree...this was a family conspiracy.
I do not feel this has to be is a sexually motivated crime especially if Munchausen is involved.
JBR went repeatedly to a paediatrician (not just a GP), presenting with repeated, severe issues involving her urinary tract. The quickest and easiest way to interfere with a urinary tract would be physical manipulation, which could easily leave behind injuries such as the vaginal trauma seen on JBR. Bear in mind that she was physically perfectly normal, aside from genital trauma. Her urinary tract appeared normal in autopsy, yet indications are she had worn nappies to bed that night and bed-wetting was an issue.
Perhaps JBR was tired of being abused in this way, and got big enough and bold enough to try to resist for once...and paid with her life. Personally I believe that our wee angel was becoming a feisty little rebel and she did try to fight back, heroically...and that couldn't be tolerated.
I believe it was Munchousen. And that Patsy was the abuser. She molested her child, and killed her. Patsy fits criteria...the medical history fits...even the crime scene and evidence.
I've had that suspicion, too, virgode. That JonBenet had pineapple in her stomach and the parents deny that she had eaten pineapple the night before indicates, to me, that she could have known her attacker. I have never thought that the parents had anything to do with her murder but I can see how/why their actions after-the-fact would arouse suspicions e.g.. refusing to take polygraphs, getting their own lawyer immediately.
I don't know too much about this case or the evidence about the parents but refusing to take polygraphs and getting a lawyer immediately do not make them suspicious to me. That is what any smart person would do. Police say polygraphs are to "eliminate you as a suspect" but they really just use them to build their cases. Plus polygraphs are not admissible in court so what is the point of taking them? Plus the parents ALWAYS end up as suspects so lawyering up immediately is the smart thing to do. I would never speak to the police about anything without a lawyer present even if I knew I was 100% innocent.
Again I have no opinion on whether they did it or not because I don't know enough about the case but refusing a polygraph and lawyering up immediately are just what an affluent couple would obviously do.
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.
