Body found

[jknowgood]

24 hours, 6 years old? My son couldn't cross the street by himself at 6 years old. My gosh.

 

[Papageorgio]

AOL.com Article - Officials: 17-year-old boy arrested in death, sexual assault of 6-year-old Washington girl

Looks like a 17 year old has been arrested for raping and killin that little girl. So I guess pervert Dad was innocent. However, he really isn't..nor is the sleazy mother for NOT reporting her missing. That child was sexually assaulted, then murdered and they were probably watching tv as it was happening.

Meanwhile...the media keeps calling the guy BOY. No. He is not a BOY. He is a man and is as much of a perv as the kids father. String them all up.

Looks like you were wrong, Gracie---duck, walk, waddle, and so forth. I hope you never have to serve on a jury. The parents should be held responsible for child neglect and endangerment, but they are not, apparently, murderers.

I guarantee that the top of the suspect list were the parents, that is the way investigations play out. As more information comes in, it changes the direction of a case. By the time it gets to court, the jury is hearing all the facts, not just bits and pieces fed by the news.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Esmeralda]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

 

[tinydancer]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

I am and I understand your point. But I also don't blame anyone for jumping to what would appear to be the obvious conclusion.

I'm a huge crime freak. I can blame it on my mom. Instead of fairy tales I got Perry Mason on tv. Nancy Drew was my first series that I got as books to read followed up by Agatha before the age of 10. Hooked.

So anyone who is seriously into crime never takes the obvious route. But others, hey it makes sense to think of these obviously derango parents as the possible perps.

 

[Esmeralda]

AOL.com Article - Officials: 17-year-old boy arrested in death, sexual assault of 6-year-old Washington girl

Looks like a 17 year old has been arrested for raping and killin that little girl. So I guess pervert Dad was innocent. However, he really isn't..nor is the sleazy mother for NOT reporting her missing. That child was sexually assaulted, then murdered and they were probably watching tv as it was happening.

Meanwhile...the media keeps calling the guy BOY. No. He is not a BOY. He is a man and is as much of a perv as the kids father. String them all up.

Looks like you were wrong, Gracie---duck, walk, waddle, and so forth. I hope you never have to serve on a jury. The parents should be held responsible for child neglect and endangerment, but they are not, apparently, murderers.

I guarantee that the top of the suspect list were the parents, that is the way investigations play out. As more information comes in, it changes the direction of a case. By the time it gets to court, the jury is hearing all the facts, not just bits and pieces fed by the news.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with conviction that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

 

[Papageorgio]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

In this case the investigators looked at all the evidence, Gracie got what came out of the media, her opinion was based on the evidence the media presented. That would not make her a bad juror as you said. That's all I am saying.

 

[Esmeralda]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

In this case the investigators looked at all the evidence, Gracie got what came out of the media, her opinion was based on the evidence the media presented. That would not make her a bad juror as you said. That's all I am saying.

I like Gracie so I'm not attacking her. You don't need to defend her from me.

I also got all the information the media provided. The same information she had. And I did not come to the instant conclusion, and strongly affirm it, that the dad was the murderer. I wanted to wait until we knew more. I don't think someone who makes instant conclusions about someone's guilt or innocence is a good choice for a jury.

AGAIN: if you were familiar with the film, you would see what I mean. Obviously, you are not, and, thus, do not get what I'm saying. Watch the film: it is an American classic and used in epistemology courses to help students understand the concept I am trying to express.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

In this case the investigators looked at all the evidence, Gracie got what came out of the media, her opinion was based on the evidence the media presented. That would not make her a bad juror as you said. That's all I am saying.

I like Gracie so I'm not attacking her. You don't need to defend her from me.

I also got all the information the media provided. The same information she had. And I did not come to the instant conclusion, and strongly affirm it, that the dad was the murderer. I wanted to wait until we knew more. I don't think someone who makes instant conclusions about someone's guilt or innocence is a good choice for a jury.

AGAIN: if you were familiar with the film, you would see what I mean. Obviously, you are not, and, thus, do not get what I'm saying. Watch the film: it is an American classic and used in epistemology courses to help students understand the concept I am trying to express.

I never said you attacked anyone. This is what you said to Gracie: "Looks like you were wrong, Gracie---duck, walk, waddle, and so forth. I hope you never have to serve on a jury."

I don't watch to many movies. I read, I don't like YouTube, I very rarely watch news, I read. And even if I had watched the movie, it doesn't mean we would come to the same conclusions.

She is not an investigator, she is not on the jury and neither am I, so I think we are all fine.

 

[westwall]

If you are familiar with the film, 12 Angry Men, you would have understood my point. When someone is killed, it is usually family and friends who are first considered, and with a father who had been in trouble for sex abuse, that would make him even more of a suspect. But suspecting someone and saying with strong affirmativeness that yep he IS the one, that's something different. All of the evidence should be carefully and looked at from all sides, instead of coming to instant conclusions. That's all I am saying. Are you familiar with the movie?

In this case the investigators looked at all the evidence, Gracie got what came out of the media, her opinion was based on the evidence the media presented. That would not make her a bad juror as you said. That's all I am saying.

I like Gracie so I'm not attacking her. You don't need to defend her from me.

I also got all the information the media provided. The same information she had. And I did not come to the instant conclusion, and strongly affirm it, that the dad was the murderer. I wanted to wait until we knew more. I don't think someone who makes instant conclusions about someone's guilt or innocence is a good choice for a jury.

AGAIN: if you were familiar with the film, you would see what I mean. Obviously, you are not, and, thus, do not get what I'm saying. Watch the film: it is an American classic and used in epistemology courses to help students understand the concept I am trying to express.

The film is FICTION, written, directed, and acted to elicit a desired response from the audience. It is not, nor should it EVER, be confused with reality.

 

[Gracie]

Well...I like ya both and I don't mind what was said. I'm old and crotchety...and when I read stories like this one, my dander gets up.
No worries I will ever serve on a jury, either. I am permanently excused. Forever. Got the paperwork ri'chere. And if I WERE on a jury, I would find the parents guilty of negligent homicide for being idiots.

Quack.

 

[Esmeralda]

In this case the investigators looked at all the evidence, Gracie got what came out of the media, her opinion was based on the evidence the media presented. That would not make her a bad juror as you said. That's all I am saying.

I like Gracie so I'm not attacking her. You don't need to defend her from me.

I also got all the information the media provided. The same information she had. And I did not come to the instant conclusion, and strongly affirm it, that the dad was the murderer. I wanted to wait until we knew more. I don't think someone who makes instant conclusions about someone's guilt or innocence is a good choice for a jury.

AGAIN: if you were familiar with the film, you would see what I mean. Obviously, you are not, and, thus, do not get what I'm saying. Watch the film: it is an American classic and used in epistemology courses to help students understand the concept I am trying to express.

The film is FICTION, written, directed, and acted to elicit a desired response from the audience. It is not, nor should it EVER, be confused with reality.

You obviously don't know or understand the film. It is used to teach epistemology. Check them both out and learn something.

 

[Papageorgio]

I remember the Ramsey case and it was always believed it was the parents.

After all these years, I now believe the Ramsey's had nothing to do with the death of their daughter.

I still thought the mother was a nut.

Of course this was real life and not a movie.

 

[Esmeralda]

I remember the Ramsey case and it was always believed it was the parents.

After all these years, I now believe the Ramsey's had nothing to do with the death of their daughter.

I still thought the mother was a nut.

Of course this was real life and not a movie.

Omg, you guys are being such simple minded idiots. The purpose of the film is not to prove something about the specific (fictional) murder in the story but to illustrate what makes people believe what they believe or know what they know. It is about perspective, about fact, about looking at an issue from different angles. It has nothing to do with what is a real life murder or not; it is about thinking processes, about fact versus opinion, about assumptions, prejudices, knowledge claims, justified true belief, etc. You keep spouting off in total ignorance and seem to be pleased with yourselves, with your ignorance. In my eyes, because I understand the message of the film and I understand what epistemology is, you look quite ridiculous.

In the most simplistic terms, it is a question of how we know what we know, and in the case of a trial, how we know if someone is guilty or not guilty. How do you know? A jury must be open minded enough to analyze how they know what is the truth of the case and not just jump to conclusions. That is what the film is about; it isn't about the fictional murder: that's just a vehicle for expressing an idea; it is about analyzing what is truth, or at least justified true belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

But, if ignorance is your thing, go for it I guess.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Mod edit: Off topic flame posts deleted.

 

[Papageorgio]

I remember the Ramsey case and it was always believed it was the parents.

After all these years, I now believe the Ramsey's had nothing to do with the death of their daughter.

I still thought the mother was a nut.

Of course this was real life and not a movie.

Omg, you guys are being such simple minded idiots. The purpose of the film is not to prove something about the specific (fictional) murder in the story but to illustrate what makes people believe what they believe or know what they know. It is about perspective, about fact, about looking at an issue from different angles. It has nothing to do with what is a real life murder or not; it is about thinking processes, about fact versus opinion, about assumptions, prejudices, knowledge claims, justified true belief, etc. You keep spouting off in total ignorance and seem to be pleased with yourselves, with your ignorance. In my eyes, because I understand the message of the film and I understand what epistemology is, you look quite ridiculous.

In the most simplistic terms, it is a question of how we know what we know, and in the case of a trial, how we know if someone is guilty or not guilty. How do you know? A jury must be open minded enough to analyze how they know what is the truth of the case and not just jump to conclusions. That is what the film is about; it isn't about the fictional murder: that's just a vehicle for expressing an idea; it is about analyzing what is truth, or at least justified true belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

But, if ignorance is your thing, go for it I guess.

What an ignorant thing to post at the end. So much for you not flaming the board.

First off, what part of your movie did I see? None of it. So, how can I relate to something I have not watched? How ignorant are you trying to be?

Secondly, I was referring to a case where public opinion was swayed greatly by the media, the police found and stuck with a suspect in spite of the evidence. The mother was a little nuts as far as I was concerned.

This case in Washington, two parents don't notify the police for 24 hours, the father's history, I can see why conclusions are drawn.

Zimmerman is another media managed case, the media pushed for a conviction, in the end a jury looked at the case openly, seeing all the facts, being open minded, found him not guilty. Still the media and others refuse to be open minded.

I tire of your arrogance, I don't care much for you because of it. Just because you have an opinion, doesn't make it any better or worse than anyone else's.

 

[Gracie]

Secondly, I was referring to a case where public opinion was swayed greatly by the media, the police found and stuck with a suspect in spite of the evidence. The mother was a little nuts as far as I was concerned.

This case in Washington, two parents don't notify the police for 24 hours, the father's history, I can see why conclusions are drawn.

~Nods head, thumbs up, applause~

Add that to being a crotchety old woman that gets pissed when kids are murdered and parents that are idiots...you get Instant Crone Opinions.

 

[Gracie]

And concerning the Ramsey case...yeah. For a long time I think Ma had something to do with it. Even now. Why? Because what sane mother dresses her kid up to look like a hooker, then parades her around all over creation when it's a fact that pervs are out there getting off on children dressed up as hookers?