Is it curious to anyone else that this arrest is 10 years later (Ramsey)

[cascadiance]

I know that there is no statute of limitations for murder and that they can arrest him now as they could have many years ago. But does it seem weird to anyone else that this is 10 years later? I'm wondering if there was intentional waiting 10 years when there might have been other crimes involved leading up to the murder (such as Jon Benet Ramsey being given "access" to this killer), etc. that might have had a 10 year statute of limitations on those crimes, and that this was one way of trying to assure others that they wouldn't also get nailed potentially other crimes. If it is the parents (who might have had this guy over to their house or something like that), then if their involvement comes out in the trial, they might claim that they've been "punished enough" all of these years in being suspected as the murderers themselves and therefore no criminal charges will be made against them now (or perhaps can be made against them now anyway).

It's still probably way to early to speculate too much, as we don't know the details of the information that lead to this guys' arrest just yet, but it seems that unless some evidence comes forward that excludes this possibility, we should wonder about this.

[sgxnk]

1. it's not curious at all to me

i've seen (supposedly) cold cases solved after MUCH longer than 10 years. i have personal experience with some

there was also the skakel case, which is a classic cold case

we also had one in seattle where the murder of a punk rock singer (zapata iirc) was solved like 20 yrs later due to dna

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Seems as though they arrested this guy just to get him to stop confessing

all the time. Apparently he was getting to be a big nuisance.

[ugarte]

9. My thoughts exactly

I hope they have some physical evidence, because this guy could just be a wannabe.

[angstlessk]

3. Ya, know, there is GD-Politics, and GD. We need GD-Pop News

You know all about lost blondes and dead white babies and shark attacks. They seem to overtake the GD room when they appear. Even when people DON'T like it, they post about how they don't like it. Too much!

[Kolesar]

7. Eight stories overtook the GD forum

Including one called "why I don't care about Jon-Benet..."

[marions ghost]

10. It's important to review

the phenomenon of media bludgeoning and brainwashing about this JonBenet case.

The public (and JonBenet) were abused by the media, much like what has been done with more political topics such as Terra.

There is a connection.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Except this happened 10 years ago...

which means we would have to admit that Clinton's administration used the very same tactics that Bush's does. I am not willing to do that.

[marions ghost]

18. THE MEDIA

was the same 10 years ago...is my point. Monica & Bill, OJ, JonBenet, Diana, Michael, oh yeah and don't forget Natalie. That is WHY we're talking about this now. Because the MEDIA has hijacked our brains and injected these selected stories of failures and tragedies.

What I'm saying is the MEDIA uses this exact same kind of sensationalism and hyperfocus in their preferred POLITICAL stories--eg. what they did to (both) Clintons, 9-11, Osama, Saddam, Terra.

Sorry to be unclear about that...no, I am NOT drawing a similarity with the 2 administrations (god, no!)
Compared to the current ride on the Hindenberg, we were on the Galactica with Clinton.

[Kolesar]

14. Ask Gary Condit

[marions ghost]

19. not sure of your point

Are you referring to the selective hyperfocusing on certain stories and not others? One dead white woman or girl over others? Is that it?
If so, I'm with you on that.

[Kolesar]

22. I'm with you 101% ... eom

[LoZoccolo]

11. There is a hide thread button if you'd like to use it. n/t

[angstlessk]

15. If I hid all the JonBenet threads from yesterday and today my GD would

be shorter than my attention span! }(

Edit: discovered yester is not a word!

[SmokingJacket]

13. This is a good idea, imho.

GD is big and fast enough as it is...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. I suspect...

...that this was timed to distract us from Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut.

[pushycat]

5. I suspect it has to do with Judge Taylor's decision on NSA pgm.

Another DU thread discusses MSNBC breaking news on this topic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

<snip>DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.<snip>

[AX10]

6. It doesn't help Bush because this takes the media's attention...

off of the "terrorism".

[marions ghost]

8. I don't think it's so unusual

...esp considering the obvious official cover-ups and legal deflections that were going on in this case, not to mention the sensationalism. There are unsolved murders in my area dating further back than 10 years. There are more of these cases than most people like to think about.

If the parents had the guy over to their house, does this make them an accessory to murder? Let's say they did that, but had no idea of his intentions. Does that make them accomplices? While stranger things have happened, it does seem very far-fetched to me.

[cascadiance]

16. The arrest happening many years later doesn't surprise me either...

What does seem curious though is that it is almost 10 years later, and not 9 or 11, etc.

I think it might be interesting to look up various crimes in Utah (or other states where the crime touched) to see what crimes have statute of limitations of 10 years. Then we might look to see if there are any of those crimes that might fit other parties' participation in this crime, and that perhaps the arrest was delayed so that a certain someone didn't get charged with this lesser crime. Then again, it might be completely coincidental too that it is almost exactly 10 years later too. And I wouldn't be assuming that it's Jon Benet's parents that would be the guilty parties in this instance. It might be someone else that's influential that's involved too. Who knows? But I think it bears trying to look at, since I think there's still a lot we don't know.

Then again, I guess we shouldn't get too obsessed with one case too at the expense of all of the other even more consequential and worse news that's happening today.

[whatelseisnew]

17. It also occurs soon after the mother's death

which some have suggested could result in the confession by the killer and final corroboration by the father that it was the mother who was involved with the killer and conspired with him against the father. The father financed the killer over the past 10 years, allowing him to travel as he did. After the mother's death, there was no one to protect, including the killer.

(sorry, i had to do it)

(edit: sp)

[marions ghost]

21. If this mother had her child killed

and conspired with him against the father, and then was protected by the father for 10 solid years...I will eat my socks :)

[marions ghost]

20. well the way it's presented

as a detective story in installments by the media certainly inhances the urge to speculation. Nothing wrong with discussing this in my opinion. There are insights to be gained by understanding the workings of the case. I agree there's a lot we don't know. And it's still very open as to what actually happened.

The way this is presented by the media is of just as much interest to me as the actual story. Yes, interesting how it knocks other news of at least equal or greater importance off the radar screen. Makes a good distraction, but still keeps the fear level up.

I guess that's why it pays to visit DU... :)