Charles Soukup's theory
He wrote and article accusing Patsy and wanted people to read it.  I doubt many did but I will today and will make my comments here and on Facebook.

To start, he said he felt John was probably the guilty then he switched to Patsy.

He cited the Seraph report and noted .. "That small group of investigators was commissioned by the Boulder police for an assessment of the ransom note and crime. They concluded Patsy Ramsey had sacrificed her daughter."

What he didn't say was that they had been hired to write a very specific report tying Patsy to Psalm 118.  Why?  So that "expert report" could be referred to in an interrogation - - to upset Patsy and hopefully cause her to break down and say something incriminating.  That was revealed in a radio program by none other than Dale Yeager of Seraph.  
He wrote, "the Ramsey family Bible (NIV study version) was open to a passage that has four lines beginning with the letters C, T, B, S—the reverse of the cryptic ransom note sign-off: S.B.T.C."

I know Don Foster (a real con man as far as I am concerned) is the one who found the backwards SBTC - - but I don't believe it was ever reported to be on the open page in the Ramsey family bible.

Charles, can you show proof it was on the open page?

Even if it was, I think that is a far stretch to say that is what S.B.T.C stood for. I have heard more interesting theories on that one.
He wrote, "Further reading of the Psalms revealed a repeated use of words, phrases, and ideas that are common to the crime and to mother Patsy Ramsey's life in general."

Ever hear of "verification bias"? That is when you have formed a conclusion and then look for evidence to support the conclusion. It is the opposite of following the evidence to come to a conclusion.
He wrote, "I went back to the trail of literature left by Patsy herself and fixed on Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie since Patsy had chosen to perform a soliloquy from the novel/play in the talent portions of her pageants. Again, I was looking for an indication of a complex. I started with the movie and found three uses of the word "sacrifice" by Jean Brodie (in film still, above). I thought sacrifice was the centering theme in Patsy's psychosis, which she found unavoidably attractive in Spark's work."

See, he has diagnosed Patsy as having a "psychosis" and he is setting out to prove not only that she did this but because she killed JBR as a "sacrifice".

Patsy died in 2006 - she was never diagnosed as being mentally ill. But in Charles' mind, she was not only mentally ill, she had a full blown psychosis and acted on it.

To hell with the intruder evidence.

Can I say now I am willing to bet he doesn't explain the missing stun gun, cord, tape, boots, the unsourced prints, hair, fibers, handwriting and DNA?
Charles wrote, "A few pages more and the question of the spelling of "possession" came up in the novel. The misspelling of possession in the ransom note was part of the heated conversation of the case on the radio and Internet."

I have never read the book and will say that is interesting - - but I will also say I have issues with spelling that word and a few others, I bet many do, and odds are few of us have read that book or had issues with spelling because of that book - - especially tot he point where that would be on our mind if we had just murdered our child and was writing a fake ransom note. Sorry, this is not evidence against Patsy, it is looking at something she did and cutting it into a thousand pieces and picking one to give inflated importance. I just don't see it.
Charles wrote, "A person in psychosis often sees themselves as either a mythic figure or related to one in some way."
and "It is my opinion that the death of JonBenét Ramsey is the result of just such a psychosis and the evidence for it can be found in the products of the creative life of Patsy Ramsey—her writing, her artwork, her correspondences, her pageant performances, the ransom note and even what was done to the body of JonBenét."

Again, I find it pretty irresponsible for this man to diagnose Patsy without spending time with her when he knows NO ONE has taken that position - - and the definition simply doesn't fit! Patsy spent years under intense pressure and never lost touch with reality. I met her, spent time with her - - she was perfectly sane, always in touch with reality.

But I will read all of Charles' article and see if he can prove me wrong and share any true evidence proving PDI.
LOL - I went back to keep working on this - - - and I had reached the end of the article!


Is that making a case against Patsy Ramsey?

What a joke, typical BORG garbage, a waste of time.

But I went into this knowing Charles is BORG - - I should have known.
Hi Jams,

Is the Charles Soukup being discussed the same as Charles Soukup, professor of Communication Studies at University of Northern Colorado in Greeley? 

If so, perhaps current and prospective students would be interested to know that he watches movies to look for words that could provide mothers who MAY have seen these movies a motive to murder their children.  In other words, this guy investigates fantasy to provide information, in the form of a second-level fantasy, that is purported to be a truth about the real world.  Scientists investigate the real world to find out about it as it really is.  Some of it may sound fantastic, for example cosmology and particle physics, but there is a BIG difference. 

Good homicide investigators also investigate the real world, not fantasy, to find out about it as it really is.  Speculation that arises from fantasy is light years away from facts established by evidence obtained from the real world.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)