I don't understand this Topic what so ever ase .Has this case fizzled a bit well lets see it happend like 15 years ago and no one is in jail and were still talking about the same stuff that we were since the first year lol I mean that's like asking do you think bell bottoms have lost thier appeal since they stopped making them 20 years ago. LoL i don't to sound rude but doesn;t commen sence play a roll here somewhere...
When I first posted this topic, it was sort of hot off the back of the Kolar book and John Ramsey releasing his book and no analysis seemed to be happening in the media (aside from a series of soft interviews with Mr Ramsey and some articles on Kolar's book).
But that was it.
Nothing else was happening.
Now I know it's been 15 years and people move on (except here clearly
) but consider a few things.
Jack the Ripper was 120 years ago, yet there is a seemingly continuous re-examination of the facts, broader search for evidence, constant speculation and conversation. Occasional movies and tv shows etc.
Same with several other unsolved cases from a long time ago - speculation continues on these. We have a number here in Australia that continue to play out in the media, cold cases from the 1960s and 1970s which benefit from advances in evidence examination and the like.
What makes this case different from my point of view is that people seem to take their point of view personally, and the problem with that is that it actually stifles a lot of the debate as well as the potential for clear and rational debate AWAY from a forum such as Websleuths.
Sure, the Casey Anthony case had a feeling of being personal to a lot of people, but the majority of the general public thought she did it, there wasn't a different split in beliefs
away from the forums as there was
in the forums - something very different to the JonBenet case.
I'll give you (cos you didn't ask) my reasons for the wider split in the JBR case as opposed to other cases, including those mentioned above.
1.
First Impressions - The Ramsey's played it well at the start and got people on side - and once you pick a side, it's very hard to let go and change.
2.
Ignorance - Joe Public doesn't go into depth with crime information, they go by what they hear, and initially (and pretty much ever since) they've heard "intruder this, intruder that". It's like my first point, but reinforced over the last 15 years with not one single program outright saying "it wasn't an intruder"
3.
Religion - Religious folks, especially people as religious/righteous as the Ramsey family don't kill people, so I support them, and any attack on them is an attack on God-fearing folks everywhere (this seems to be a US thing, we aren't as forgiving or faith-oriented in Australia)
4.
Patsy's dead - If one of the suspects is dead, the public lose interest.
5.
Time - If they've gone 15 years without a conviction, then surely it's not the parents, so it must be an intruder - and they've probably died or got away.
So yes, the case HAS fizzled - not because we here in Websleuths, a fantastic place, but not exactly a snapshot of the general public's views or comprehension of the case, have lost interest, but because people in the real world think of the case in the way I detailed above.
I know no offence was meant, but I don't think you thought about the point before you answered. And don't pick on my bell bottoms!
