JonBenet Ramsey Murder Solved
Finally, this horrible crime has been solved. It is amazing that someone can get away with such a high profile murder for so long. While the Fox News article below mentions how her parents had to live with the false accusations that they had killed their daughter, what is upon on websites such as the New York Times ignores this important part of the story. Could one imagine what it must have been like for her parents to live with the horrible stigma of killing one of their children? Possibly that was related to Patsy's getting cancer and dying this past June, just months before her daughter's killer was caught.
A former schoolteacher has been arrested in Thailand in the slaying of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey — a surprise breakthrough in a lurid, decade-old murder mystery that had cast a cloud of suspicion over her parents. . . . .
UPDATE: It is too early to tell what is going on here. There is too much second hand information that is unreliable. We will just have to wait and see what really happened here.
UPDATE: It is too early to tell what is going on here. There is too much second hand information that is unreliable. We will just have to wait and see what really happened here.
posted by John Lott at 5:19 AM
6 Comments:
So you're saying stigma causes cancer—but secondhand smoke doesnt?
:)
I don't think this case is "solved" yet, by a long measure. There are still many inconsistencies in this guy's story and it is still entirely possible that he is just another publicity hound. For example, his ex-wife claims he could not have committed the crime because he was with her in Alabama; he claims to have drugged JB, but the autopsy report revealed no drugs; etc. And accounts are indicating that this guy did substantial research into this case and the case of Polly Klaas, which may well account for his ability to give at least some obscure details.
I hope the case is solved and justice ends up being served. But for now, I think we need to not jump to conclusions.
OK, I concede that I may have jumped the gun on this. We will have to see how the evidence shakes out.
Dear Guav:
Stress can affect our immune system and that is important for fighting all sorts of disease including cancer. I am willing to stand corrected on this.
John Lott,
this is another story story; you're a get the facts type of person. why print all this gossip ? this one reminds me of the joel henry hinrich suicide which also included excessive amounts of hearsay. the hinrich suicide wasted my time; it delivered gossip that made me waste time reviewing it. there are millions of americans that want us to believe thousands of stories.
This one, and the Hinrich story, are made for Enquiring minds.
Thousands of sky-high IQ detectives and promotion-seeking police are trying to crack cases; they get educated by watching all the bubble-gum police shows on the tv. Millions of Americans are now 'bone' experts; more know more on CSI than ever imagined. Every e-mail, letter, every paragraph contains clues to 'un-solved murders'; and millions and billions of people are murderd or disappear mysteriously in America. Millions of taxdollars are now wasted on police who spend all their days monitoring internet forums (including this one) searching for the next bacon-lettuce-tomatoe serial killer. Every person is now suspect for the rest of their lives; in every community lives the next famous case to crack. Young, underaged girls are now trained to glean into the eyes of every middle aged male in the hope of catching the next famous pedophile. And every pig seeks promotion (and profit and power) by suspecting everyone.
Average IQ'd police are ruining America by training it to spy and suspect everyone. It's a modern version of the worst type of Salem witch hunt. The government is our worst enemy.
John, it's not that I disagree with the idea that stress can certainly effect our health in an adverse fashion. I think your contention is entirely plausible.
I just find it odd that you'd embrace that concept while simultaneously being a person who poo-poos the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.
It seems a rather inconsistent stance to me, and appears to be born of ideology instead of reason?
I think that the overwhelming evidence is that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. I used to follow this much more closely a few years ago, but I don't believe that the underlying results have changed that much. However, I am not sure what ideology has to do with it because I don't think that it would change my position on what laws make sense. THe point is that businesses would still internalize the benefits and costs of letting people smoke on their premises.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home