Was the press coverage fair to the ramseys?

[BBB167893]

That's what I thought. Must have been painful, though.

I can remember a time when it wasn't with you.

Dual instantaneous simultaneous symbiotic Dissociation! Who'd have thunk it.

You're twisting everything.

So, when the Ramsey's realized J was gone, they figured, what the heck? Let's do this right. And these loving people, for whom you suffer daily, added the finishing touches to her corpse to create a media sensation, all the while being careful not to ruin her appearance to such an extent that she wouldn't be beautiful at her funeral?

More like one of them.

Does it give you some relief from your misery to know that the Butchers from Boulder were inspired by the great icon of sex appeal and beauty, the Marilyn Monroe?

No, I can't say it does.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I can remember a time when it wasn't with you.
You're twisting everything.

ie., ?

At least you can find some relief knowing they completely forgot everything they just did involving crushing their daughter's head, staging the deep furrow in her tiny neck to appear like they actually strangled her.

jesus loves them more than will know

 

[BBB167893]

At least you can find some relief knowing they completely forgot everything they just did involving crushing their daughter's head, staging the deep furrow in her tiny neck to appear like they actually strangled her.

Relief, my Irish butt. And I'm sure they TRIED to forget, or at least to rationalize it as "God's will" or whatever darn thing.

jesus loves them more than will know

Maybe so.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey, everybody. I know some of you will think I'm either crazy or just a glutton for punishment for digging this thread back up, but as I see it, you can't stake a vampire without opening up the coffin first.

Clearly, the intent of the thread starter was to show that the Ramseys were the victims of a "high-tech lynch mob," I believe is the popular phrase. Well, and keep in mind that this is merely my own unscientific recollection, I seem to recall several high-profile crimes where the accused could only WISH that the media had been as "unfair" to them as they were to the Ramseys!

Just to list a few of them: OJ Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, Louise Woodward (the British au pair), ALL of whom were labeled guilty by the media without even a token attempt at "balance" right from the get-go. Not only were they labeled as guilty, their very names became a malediction, something you didn't speak out loud in polite circles.

By contrast, the media (at least what is considered the "legitimate" part of it) constantly warned us in this case to avoid "a rush to judgment." They gave ample time and column space to people on the Ramseys' payroll, as though those people were objective. And I could go on and on. John and Patsy Ramsey were never made into symbols of evil, at least not on the scale of the people mentioned above.

In fact, to go even further, the question we SHOULD be asking is, why does the media in this country get so squeamish about people who hurt children? Will somebody tell me that, please? I mean, everyone remembers Woody Allen's romance with Soon-yi Previn, but the charge that he molested his seven-year-old stepdaughter seems to have gone down the memory hole in record time. Susan Smith's father admitted that her claims that he molested her were true (that doesn't excuse what she did), and I don't think he ever spent a day in jail. That's not even mentioning the never-ending saga of Michael Jackson. Even though a lot of people, if not most people, believed the accusations against him were true, it was treated as little more than joke material for the late-night comedians.

To sum up, whether or not any of us think the Rs are guilty or not guilty, they were handled much more delicately than many of their contemporaries, who WERE guilty. That's how I see it. Am I wrong? If you think I am, let's have at it.

 

[UKGuy]

SuperDave,

To sum up, whether or not any of us think the Rs are guilty or not guilty, they were handled much more delicately than many of their contemporaries, who WERE guilty. That's how I see it. Am I wrong? If you think I am, let's have at it.

ITA, and would suggest this might be because the case is really BDI, so nobody involved can talk in depth regarding public accusations, Colorado statute bars any linking of underage children to serious crimes, so everyone , wink, wink, gives the parents an easy time, that includes scoping interviews where the parents are let off from follow up questioning, and leads are well, simply dropped.

Two things which seem to point to the case being BDI is no serious media discussion regarding BR, and AH not filing the true bills, which patently leave BR in the frame as the parents are cited as accessories to a crime and did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person.

em, cough, cough, which person is that?

So the primary difference given the examples you cite is that they are all adults, yet these cases could act as control samples in that the adults involved had a lot of money.

.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,

ITA, and would suggest this might be because the case is really BDI, so nobody involved can talk in depth regarding public accusations, Colorado statute bars any linking of underage children to serious crimes, so everyone , wink, wink, gives the parents an easy time, that includes scoping interviews where the parents are let off from follow up questioning, and leads are well, simply dropped.

Two things which seem to point to the case being BDI is no serious media discussion regarding BR, and AH not filing the true bills, which patently leave BR in the frame as the parents are cited as accessories to a crime and did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person.

em, cough, cough, which person is that?

So the primary difference given the examples you cite is that they are all adults, yet these cases could act as control samples in that the adults involved had a lot of money.

.

BBM Like I said before: money didn't talk, it YELLED.