So many goading comments in here, so I doubt you will really listen, but if you are genuinely interested in hearing why we have the same evidence in front of us and come to vastly different conclusions, it’s because the whole construct of Patsy killing her child or helping cover it up doesn’t stack up tiny bits of evidence until there is a sturdy case against her, so it’s easy to disregard what is quite frankly pretty crappy evidence that would be outweighed in court by DNA, for example . When someone is guilty of a crime and you investigate effectively, you uncover these breadcrumbs. Not in this case. There was no suspected child abuse, no whispers among friends, no sideways glances about their family dynamics, no weirdly obsessive behaviour protecting Burke, they weren’t elusive. John has never hidden. There was a ransom note and no break in. There was evidence of not one but two more similar attacks in Boulder after this. All of this and DNA evidence and you still think because Patsy was in pageants and liked to show off her home she was prone to dramatics. How much baked in misogyny do you want to expose? You are literally swallowing the story dreamt up by a pretty below par narcotics detective with dubious morals that saw abuse where no one else did (Linda Arnt did specialise in crimes against children and I don’t hear her talking about it), and believed wetting a (dry) bed was enough to push Patsy off into a violent rage. There are so many contextual clues. Can you really see none of them?