I know this is all old hat by now, but after reviewing this again I noticed how much the poor little boy was just a constant play doll to this psycho mom.
He had a pacifier and pull-up diapers past the age where it would be normal. Even a sickly child could be toilet trained and weaned off a pacifier if a mother was dedicated to encouraging normal development despite sickness. He was not bedridden, there are plenty of photos of him out and about. He seemed like a boy who tried to do the things any boy his age wanted to do. He went through a stage with long blond hair done up in pony tails and barrettes like a little girl, like mom was playing "I wish you were a girl this year". He was breast fed beyond the normal age.
One could say that each of these items was an incident in a life of illness and tragedy, but taken all together it's all creepy playtime.
She not only kept him sick and needy, she tried to keep him backward.
Then she killed him off at an age when he reached school age and needed to attend school.
And after she killed him off, she would have had another baby and started again.
Of course, I am no expert... but I am completely wrong?
I don't think you're "completely wrong" at all.... I concur with pretty much all you stated. That she killed him just before it was time for him to begin school was (in my opinion) no accident. A previous poster mentioned the fact that she called her blog (not much of a blog, but whatever) "Garnett's Journey." I enjoy writing, and had the Internet been this popular when I began having children, I may have devoted an hour or two a week to posting pictures and anecdotes about them, but I cannot imagine calling it, "K_____ and K_____'s Journey" (my first were twins.) A "journey" indicates a tale with a beginning and an end. I wouldn't have known (and don't know now, thankfully) how their "journey" will end, so I just... it wouldn't have "fit" in my opinion. Unless, of course, I knew that I'd still be blogging when said journey came to it's end, and I believe she knew very well that she'd be doing exactly that.
I also agree with the poster(s) who questioned "JonJon"s biological mother regarding her attempts at bashing Spears by saying she never paid her or supplied her with baby supplies or food, etc. and that Spears would even take Jonathan to work with her when she "had to be out of town." What a complete piece of shit of a mother THAT was! I'm no expert, but off hand, I'd say that one way to not have a friend become overly "motherly" or bond too closely with your own child would be, oh I don't know, to TAKE CARE OF HIM YOURSELF from time to time. In attempting to talk dirt on Spears, she kind of called herself out on being a completely absent mother who gave neither material things nor her time to her own child. And if she "realized" how dangerous Spears was, why didn't she voice that concern when little Garnett came along? Nothing pisses me off more than these people that say, "Oh I knew she was batshit crazy" after a child has been buried. Then why didn't you say anything .... ANYTHING... to ANYONE? And her answer to why Spears wanted to practically raise her child as her own was about as ridiculous as I've ever heard. "People are always giving teen moms so much attention..." On what planet does THAT happen? Also, I took a glance at the GAZILLION pictures of JonJon on Spears' MySpace and this mother is insulting everyone's intelligence by feigning ignorance of Spears' unnatural bonding with her child. She had no idea? Like hell. She knew, she just didn't care. Had to shake my head at "when I had to be out of town on weekends, she'd just take him to work with her." Yeah because SO many 15-year-old moms are called out of town on business and such... get outta here. I get it: 15 is young to be a mother. But that's what she was, so how 'bout she woman up and use the instincts we're born with to raise that child who didn't ask to be a product of her bad decisions and not hand him out to anyone who'll take him.
I'm glad Munchausen by proxy wasn't brought up at the trial, because (I believe) it's used far too often in defending simple child murderers. It is said that one "suffers from Munchausen...." -- indicating that the violator is or has "suffered." No. The dead child is the one who's suffered. It should be called "Attention Whore's Syndrome" because it's nothing more than that. A teenage kid is jealous of a toddler who seems to have a good life, so he murders him (Eric Smith, 13, murdering Derrick Roby, 4.... that's who I was thinking of, but pretty much anyone who kills someone for ANY reason was my point) -- well what's HIS "condition?" He wanted a child to be dead and now he is. He will likely never get out of prison because of it, as it should be. A mother who wants her child to be sick (and then dead, as often is the result) shouldn't get a pass because someone made a name for the condition that caused her to want a child dead and then make it happen. In my opinion, a mother who kills her child who is determined "to have been suffering from Munchausen by Proxy" is no different than a mother who kills her child for any other reason. (I'm sorry to go off on that so much, but it just pisses me off.)
Anyway, I completely agree -- couldn't put my finger on it until you mentioned it, but breastfeeding until age five, the keeping him in diapers and his mouth plugged with a pacifier as well as the other examples you gave... not so much individually, but together they paint a very disturbing picture. This grinch-looking "mother" was intent on making this child into what she wanted him to be (a baby girl, in my opinion) -- damn the torpedoes and ponytails.
I believe this woman very much wanted a baby, but she definitely did NOT want a child.