On Bob Enyart's Condemnation of John & Patsy Ramsey

[hitek357]

... he's a lesbian.

I never thought ... the mind boggles.

It's as unlikely as hearing the expression, "Would you please hand me that piano?"

Can that actually be said???

 

[aharvey]

:yawn:
This is a public forum. He would publish an apology but as he said, it would look more like an advertisement. Had he taken the route you're pushing for from the beginning you'd be singing the same tune.

How can you say "I'm not surprised at Bob's hesitancy"? Am I taking crazy pills??? Minimize the damage? Offering a public, genuine apology and a monetary act of contrition isn't enough for you, I'm sure nothing would be.

Declined to step up to the plate :rotfl: you really have lost it haven't you.

I'm not actually taking the position that Bob's apology is insincere. My original point was nothing more or less than if you're going to attack someone publicly, then if you think that was a mistake you should make sure that same public should hear your apology. What's wrong with that again? (By the way, believe it or not, it is possible to apologize without it sounding like a threat or an advertisement!)

Now I must confess I've never heard of the man until a couple of years ago, and don't pay too much attention to him even now, but from what little I know I just assumed that his public trashing of the Ramseys was rather more public than just this forum. If that's not the case, then his apology here is indeed completely appropriate, and it's my turn to apologize. To be perfectly frank, I think that arguing about the best way to public apologize for a public attack is fairly silly, and that the problem could largely be avoided by being a bit more, shall we say, conservative with our public attacks. But that bird ain't gonna fly, is it?

 

[Granite]

Uh... did you forget Karr was planning on getting a sex change operation? Thus making his homosexuality not only "likely" but positively real.

Considering that most of the claims we've heard about the man have turned out to be half truths, bogus, questionable, unverified, or simple lies, I'll wait for the "truth" of this report to shake out.

 

[Freedom Train]

Yes, but I'm anxious, and the wheels of American "justice" are square, and and we stopped using axles over the last few decades.

Then, yo, take a chill pill.

 

[CabinetMaker]

John and Patsy are still on the hook...

DNA results came in just before the arraignment hearing. It didn't match. No charges will be filed against Karr. 8/28/06 4:00pm

 

[aharvey]

John and Patsy are still on the hook...

DNA results came in just before the arraignment hearing. It didn't match. No charges will be filed against Karr. 8/28/06 4:00pm

Interesting logic. The DNA didn't match Karr's, therefore he's off the hook, and the parents are therefore on the hook, even though the same DNA that cleared Karr doesn't match them either?

 

[jeremiah]

Interesting logic. The DNA didn't match Karr's, therefore he's off the hook, and the parents are therefore on the hook, even though the same DNA that cleared Karr doesn't match them either?

It is not that illogical. It is mostly believed that someone else killed their daughter, but that they were somehow involved in a sex act that turned into murder. It seems very likely that they were involved in some type of coverup, for whatever their role was.

The ransom note and their controlled lie detector tests and their very controlled cooperation with the police, seem to strongly indicate some kind of guilt. The "almost self administered" tests showed and proclaimed they did not kill their own daughter.
I tend to believe that. A professional tests would have asked questions like.

Were you asleep at the time of your child's death?
When you found her body, was that the first time you realized, that your daughter was dead?
Did you have anything at all to do with your daughter's death?
There are dozens of other questions, regarding the evidence, that could have been asked in such a test.

I think they would have failed carefully worded questions such as these, if they were professionally asked. Assuming of course one puts much stock in such testing.

Certainly Karr's confession and how he did it would completely have taken them off the hook. Since it was a phony confession, they are back on the hook for the same reasons that they have always been.

 

[aharvey]

It is not that illogical. It is mostly believed that someone else killed their daughter, but that they were somehow involved in a sex act that turned into murder. It seems very likely that they were involved in some type of coverup, for whatever their role was.

The ransom note and their controlled lie detector tests and their very controlled cooperation with the police, seem to strongly indicate some kind of guilt. The "almost self administered" tests showed and proclaimed they did not kill their own daughter.
I tend to believe that. A professional tests would have asked questions like.

Were you asleep at the time of your child's death?
When you found her body, was that the first time you realized, that your daughter was dead?
Did you have anything at all to do with your daughter's death?
There are dozens of other questions, regarding the evidence, that could have been asked in such a test.

I think they would have failed carefully worded questions such as these, if they were professionally asked. Assuming of course one puts much stock in such testing.

Certainly Karr's confession and how he did it would completely have taken them off the hook. Since it was a phony confession, they are back on the hook for the same reasons that they have always been.

See, Clete, that wasn't so hard, was it (inside "joke," with apologies to the rest)?

Not being fully up to speed on the details of the Ramsey case (did you know there were 2000 other children murdered that same year?), I can't really comment on the details of the case. As the father of two daughters, I confess to being disturbed to appalled at the apparent sexualization of these six-year old girls in these beauty pageants, or whatever they're called. On the other hand, it was also quite disturbing how so many folks considered it their inalienable right to loudly and publicly convict and condemn the Ramseys based on what by definition had to be an incomplete accounting of the facts. And how so many that did so seemed to be in a position to benefit themselves from loudly taking such a stand. I also can't quite buy into the idea that everyone should respond to a hypertraumatic situation in the same way ("if they were innocent, they would have done this, and acted that way," etc.). Which doesn't mean these folks were innocent, it simply makes me wonder why someone not fully in the know would publically condemn someone else.

(Incidentally, I put essentially about as much stock in polygraph tests as I do in dream analysis, which is not much at all.)

By the way, jeremiah, thanks for a well thought out reply. Your points make a lot of sense.