Seriously, though. Some places, the stereotype is all that’s needed to ruin someone’s life and career–or someone else’s, a whole lot of someone elses. Not so long in Korea, many of us White guys got a talking-to about how wrong it is to molest girls in our classes. This was prompted by a case where two girls apparently falsely accused a Canadian male teacher of molesting them. Guess where he immigrated to Canada from? That’s right. Korea!
Back to the case at hand. If the dude was a teacher in Georgia and “has never been in Colorado” (according to his pop), how’d he kill her?
I will publically apologise, only I never thought the parents killed her, I always suspected they were covering up for her brother. I didn’t attribute evilness to any of the three, but rather a terrible, terrible mistake?/experimentation?/accident?, then the covering up by the parents out of love for the boy.
Either you’re trying to woosh us or you’re totally full of shit. No precedent at all? In all of recorded human history?
Hell, there’s more than ample reason to suspect (not prove) that Lindbergh killed his own “kidnapped” baby. Did you know that just a short time prior to this, the great hero Lucky Lindy snuck up into the baby’s room, snuck him out of bed, hid him in a trash can in a closet, and pretended that the baby had been kidnapped just for the sheer “fun” of it? How hard is it to imagine that he tried again only this time dropped the baby, killing him?
Oh, and by the way, Jonbenet was not their only child, so that doesn’t mesh with the facts either. Period.
What does “convincing suggestive” mean? If you mean there was no hard, compelling proof, of course you are right. But if you mean there wasn’t any extremely suggestive evidence against the Ramseys, you’re dead wrong. It was the ONLY theory that made sense – and it made a hell of a LOT of sense --until the DNA evidence came along much later. What about that supremely weird letter in what looked even to experts like Patsy’s handwriting? The letter that did little but praise the holy shit out of John Ramsey like he was the second coming? And why should anyone other than the Ramseys write such a letter? And with no persuasive evidence of a break-in? Anyone who excluded the parents from top consideration as suspects until the DNA evidence came in was a complete, fucking idiot. And that doesn’t change even if this Karr guy is guilty.
No one’s blaming the victim, but we are criticising the perversity of any parent who would make their young child appear to be a hypersexual strumpet or male hustler. Despite Dio’s silly demand for cites proving that pageant participants are more likely to be targets for sexual abuse (can we never apply common sense and intuition?), psychologists and others have long known that the hypersexualization of our children has many harmful effects.
Now, that’s certainly not to say the Ramsey’s had it coming, but it does explain why most people found it harder to sympathize with them.
And even if you did, who’s to say you’re a representative sample? I mean, I’ve seen documentaries of these pageants, and those mothers are sick, sick freaks.
The case against Bruno Hauptmann was pretty strong.
I’m not an expert on filicide, but I would guess that in situations where parents murder their children, there is usually a lot of evidence of prior abuse and neglect. In situations where somebody murders their child out of the clear blue sky, it is usually a single mother who is trying to unburden herself (I would guess).
So I think that the “precedent” argument is a decent one. Certainly sufficient reason to withold judgment against the parents in the absence of solid evidence against them.
As other people have said, the main reason that the parents were convicted in the media was the whole pageant thing.
