So is assuming that they’re all innocent.
Missed body aside, fuck that. The parents are always the first suspects. Any smart lawyer would tell you to keep your mouth shut, and it’s probably the best advice you’ll ever get.
You can un-pit the media on this one. Almost everyone I talk to occasionally sticks on a judgmental adjective to dramatize what they are saying. In this particular case, it was a poster on a web board, not someone angling for a job with an affiliate.
I commonly hear “innocent” used by conservative types to deplore things like abortion. They’re not media, they’re salt-of-the-earth churchgoing Americans.
Pit me, pit the OP, pit yourself for adding “value” words or spin or whatever term you favor – this is one problem vastly larger than “the media”, however much fun it is to demonize them.
Sailboat, innocently
Yes, but assuming that the parents are innocent, I’d think they would want to provide any information (noises they heard that night, names of anyone with a grudge against the family, names of those who have been in the house recently, etc) that might lead to the suspect. My impression at the time was that they said almost nothing to the police.
It’s been just long enough since I thought about this to have it take a second before I recalled who JBR even was.
NOTHING without an ok from the attorneys. You need to resist heartfelt urges and use your head.
If you’d ever been a suspect in a serious criminal investigation, which I have, I think you would see things differently. Too often police conclude that they have the perpetrator and then work at making a case, rather than conducting an objective investigation. While most homicides are solved quickly and the offender is obvious, it isn’t always the case and a good investigator doesn’t jump to conclusions, but considers all the evidence and follows where it leads.
This case, and many others like it in recent American history only show how hypocritical and ridiculous the outcry against Aruba is for their “failure” to solve their high profile case. Sometimes you just don’t find the killer.
Not to mention that there are plenty of unsolved murders of black women and children which don’t get that kind of outcry.
What are any of them they guilty of?
Being a sociopath. 
Regardless of the existence of “evil children”, the point I was making is that the word “innocent” serves no legitimate purpose in the OP’s sentence because it has nothing to do with the crime.
Suppose the crime had been armed robbery, and the victim a corrupt Senator’s aide. The lack of overall pristine innocence of the Senator’s aide has no bearing on the armed robbery (or so we shall assume in this example, at any rate). One would not say “The non-innocent Senator’s aide Joe Blow was a victim of armed robbery last night”, nor would one speak of a different victim, let’s say the non-corrupt aide to the Senator next door, as “Innocent Jack Smith, aide to Senator Smith, was a victim of armed robbery last night”.
Now, if corrupt Senator’s aide Joe Blow gets whacked by Tony Soprano for trying to double-dip into the proceeds of the corrpution in which he was engaged, then I suppose a comment on his innocence (or, rather, lack thereof) might be apropos. But minus insinuations to the contrary, we don’t say a crime victim is “innocent” because it’s the default assumption.
Insofar as no one is alleging that Jon Benet Ramsey was offing Boulderites as a bloody hobby and perhaps had her knives out for her killer when the tables were turned upon her, no one without serious personality disorders is claiming “she had it comin’, she did”.
And the obsession with the “innocence and purity of children”, if that’s the intended implication here, is indeed creepy. It superficially values children but it does so by putting them on a purity pedestal, imposing on them the expectation and implicit demand that they be and remain pure and different from non-innocents (adults). And the thing about pedestals of that nature is that individuals can fall from them. For failing to meet a standard of “innocence” that adults are not held to, individual kids may be subject to scorn, disgust, and worse things. And for failure to embody the “innocent” ideal that some innocent-child fetishist expects of kids — umm, perhaps for dressing in sexualized clothes and makeup for instance? —perhaps a kid gets to experience some very much off-the-pedestal hateful mistreatment. I said creepy and I meant it. I said lascivious and I meant that, too. I would not be at all surprised if the person who killed her did not ascribe to the belief that children were innocents. Or supposed to be.
My usage of the word “innocent” was for purposes to describe the lack of guilt of the individual, with respect to a crime.
If the word “innocent” does not apply then it would imply she was guilty of something. Children by nature are innocent. Does it have anything to do with the crime? I think being innocent makes the crime all the more heinous. If the murder would had happened to a serial killer such has John Wayne Gasey I don’t think it would of received near the publicity or attention.
I “innocently” see nothing with the usage of the word “innocent” describing the child.
The Denver police have no interest in the case whatsoever because JonBenet Ramsey was killed in her home in Boulder, about 30 miles northeast of Denver. I was a reporter with the Longmont, Colo., Times-Call at the time (Longmont is only 12 miles from Boulder, and in Boulder County) and as I understand it, the Boulder P.D. used the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab for all forensic work.
The Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Boulder Daily Camera have worked as hard on covering the case as the Boulder PD and DA’s office did in trying to solve it, and overall come to two conclusions:
-
Someone in the Ramsey household or closely connected to it killed JonBenet, and her parents know who that someone is but are protecting the killer because, well, loyalty to loved ones is greater than loyalty to the local law enforcement establishment.
-
The Boulder PD and DA’s office not only didn’t follow the nearly impossible crime scene investigation protocols portrayed nowadays on crime shows, they didn’t even follow their own protocols at the time. Police detectives working the case in the first few hours came to immediate and opposing conclusions and worked at cross purposes trying to prove their own theories and disprove each other’s.
JonBenet’s murder will never be solved, but look at the bright side – the weekly tabloids will have their second-rate writers employed for decades to come trying to solve the case!
Well, it is a little redundant, if nothing else.
Northwest.
(Ah, I feel better. The interns did everything right today - I’ve been craving something to nit-pick.)
Which is, as I’m sure you’re aware, a mental disorder known as Anti-social Personality Disorder.
I’m also pretty sure it can’t be diagnosed in a six-year old. Not that a diagnosis, in itself, would make somebody evil. A lot of socipothaths can be perfectly functional. law abiding people. Look at Congress.
I still say it’s ridiculous to call a six year old “evil.” They simply don’t have the cognitive or emotional faculties to appreciate the consequences of their actions.
It may not be the most reliable source, but Wiki said someone has to be at least fifteen to be diagnosed.
AHunter3, it is like you are in my head, putting into word things I cannot…now **that ** is creepy 
Doesn’t Wacko Jacko always refer to children as “pure” and “innocent”? And isn’t it creepy when he does?