That said, if the girl had been ugly and her parents had been poor, do you think the police would have kept looking for another killer for ten years? If not for the press attention, they might never have been cleared.
If not for the press attention, they might never have been considered guilty. So they wouldn't have had to spend the last decade under a shadow of public "guilt".
Maybe, but if she'd been ugly and not-famous and the parents hadn't been rich, it's quite likely people would have *cared* less, which seriously minimizes the whole "shadow of public guilt" thing.
Also, I am sure that the ten out of ten statement may be correct to within a statistical margin of error, but given that it has a very strong implication of "all of them, aabsolutely, without fail", I submit that it may be held to be inaccurate given the current breaking news.[1] This can probably be remedied if you want to preface it with "Statistically speaking".
(You're discounting situations where the rest of the immediate family isn't also murdered, right? I'm sure some of those are also due to family members, but I don't think it's still ten out of ten. And where the murder is a result of gunshots going wild and bullets going through windows or badly constructed walls? I really think those would mess up the statistics.) --- [1] Also, it is putting me horribly in mind of "Study after study has shown..."
Obviously it is not without exception, since we have an exception right here. But did the friends, neighbors, colleagues, mailman etc know of exceptions? Well, technically there are the cases where burglars find that the house is not empty after all and kill everyone. Apart from that however, if you just pick random cases, family members dominate completely. As well they should, since other people don't just walk into the house when the child is alone. Even if you leave your child alone for a while (which is rare enough), what is the chance that someone would know? And know that nobody would come to check on them? It takes an incredible nerve.
> But did the friends, neighbors, colleagues, mailman etc know of > exceptions?
See, personally, I would expect them to say yes, but I realize not everyone is as oddly intrigued by real-life crime anecdotes. So let's say no, they didn't, or if they did it had slipped their mind.
What's your point? That because guilt was assumed, the incredibly publicized guilt and trial by media should have naturally been expected to follow? That there's no reason to expect the media to behave in anything resembling a responsible fashion?
My point is still the same as when I first replied: If not for the fame of the case, it would quite likely have been shelved long ago. AND If all your friends, neighbors, colleagues and everyone you know already suspect you, it makes fine little difference what million of random people think.
Taken together, I am not convinced the media have hurt them more than they helped them, no matter how unintentionally. (Media of course have no interest in hurting, helping or finding the truth, just in earning money. This goes without saying in a capitalist society.)
On the second point; First, neither of us have established that everyone they knew suspected them (because I would expect some friends at least to believe protestations of innocence, whether or not they could point to specific exceptions and say "Well, little Martha was killed in her home by a stranger in Pawtucket, Tennessee, so I have a specific documented excuse to believe you, honey!").
Second, I think it is overstating the point to say that the opinions of personal associates completely outweigh that of strangers. I mean, if you've actually had your pictures published nationwide alongside stories about how you were (probably) guilty of raping and murdering a six-year-old, and you can tell me how you withstood the decade of hatred (during which you never felt you were in danger at all, 'cause we all know that no-one ever reacts badly when find that strangers are accused of hurting or killing children, it's why ten out of ten abortionists or priests are never attacked by strangers) because the opinions of strangers didn't matter, I will certainly listen. At the moment, though, I am inclined to suspect that the constant barrage of nigh-libel alone would get to you, forget about the more personalized reactions.
Besides, if you believe that it makes little difference, what exactly is your argument that the media did more harm than good based on? "Hey, it didn't matter when millions of strangers believed you were guilty of raping and murdering your daughter for years--but if millions of strangers *don't* believe it, it's a really cool thing and you should thank us. After all, we kept dragging it up and talking about how you were the ones who made your little girl die screaming and terrified and in pain--so you should give us credit because no-one *ever* does anything like look for a child molestor and murderer unless we do all the motivating for them. It was tough love. Really. Glad you put up with being known as your baby girl's molester for this--it didn't hurt at all, right?"
For JonBenet's parents to be blamed for a decade for their child's death is truly unfortunate. I think that when a child is so brutally slaughtered it is so shocking as to require a scapegoat for the public, ESPECIALLY when it was broadcast on such a magnitude. When one isn't so readily apparent, people will choose to go with what they THINK is the case. When police suspected the parents, it added value to their own suspicions. Then the media added its ideas, and well...I suppose it's a case of, "If you were in OUR situation, what would YOU have thought?" no consolation to JonBenet's mother, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 02:53 am (UTC)What was that production that was put outwhere the Ramseys were made to look like the killers?
God bless the folks who found this guy.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 06:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 11:03 am (UTC)That said, if the girl had been ugly and her parents had been poor, do you think the police would have kept looking for another killer for ten years? If not for the press attention, they might never have been cleared.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 01:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 01:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 01:45 pm (UTC)Also, I am sure that the ten out of ten statement may be correct to within a statistical margin of error, but given that it has a very strong implication of "all of them, aabsolutely, without fail", I submit that it may be held to be inaccurate given the current breaking news.[1] This can probably be remedied if you want to preface it with "Statistically speaking".
(You're discounting situations where the rest of the immediate family isn't also murdered, right? I'm sure some of those are also due to family members, but I don't think it's still ten out of ten. And where the murder is a result of gunshots going wild and bullets going through windows or badly constructed walls? I really think those would mess up the statistics.)
---
[1] Also, it is putting me horribly in mind of "Study after study has shown..."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 01:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 02:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 03:09 pm (UTC)> exceptions?
See, personally, I would expect them to say yes, but I realize not everyone is as oddly intrigued by real-life crime anecdotes. So let's say no, they didn't, or if they did it had slipped their mind.
What's your point? That because guilt was assumed, the incredibly publicized guilt and trial by media should have naturally been expected to follow? That there's no reason to expect the media to behave in anything resembling a responsible fashion?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 03:17 pm (UTC)AND
If all your friends, neighbors, colleagues and everyone you know already suspect you, it makes fine little difference what million of random people think.
Taken together, I am not convinced the media have hurt them more than they helped them, no matter how unintentionally. (Media of course have no interest in hurting, helping or finding the truth, just in earning money. This goes without saying in a capitalist society.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 04:35 pm (UTC)On the second point;
First, neither of us have established that everyone they knew suspected them (because I would expect some friends at least to believe protestations of innocence, whether or not they could point to specific exceptions and say "Well, little Martha was killed in her home by a stranger in Pawtucket, Tennessee, so I have a specific documented excuse to believe you, honey!").
Second, I think it is overstating the point to say that the opinions of personal associates completely outweigh that of strangers. I mean, if you've actually had your pictures published nationwide alongside stories about how you were (probably) guilty of raping and murdering a six-year-old, and you can tell me how you withstood the decade of hatred (during which you never felt you were in danger at all, 'cause we all know that no-one ever reacts badly when find that strangers are accused of hurting or killing children, it's why ten out of ten abortionists or priests are never attacked by strangers) because the opinions of strangers didn't matter, I will certainly listen. At the moment, though, I am inclined to suspect that the constant barrage of nigh-libel alone would get to you, forget about the more personalized reactions.
Besides, if you believe that it makes little difference, what exactly is your argument that the media did more harm than good based on? "Hey, it didn't matter when millions of strangers believed you were guilty of raping and murdering your daughter for years--but if millions of strangers *don't* believe it, it's a really cool thing and you should thank us. After all, we kept dragging it up and talking about how you were the ones who made your little girl die screaming and terrified and in pain--so you should give us credit because no-one *ever* does anything like look for a child molestor and murderer unless we do all the motivating for them. It was tough love. Really. Glad you put up with being known as your baby girl's molester for this--it didn't hurt at all, right?"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-23 09:45 pm (UTC)