Do you support the death penalty?

[War Lord]

If Cifford Olson was abused, why did his brothers and sisters turn out normal? They even said he wasn't abused, I think they know Clifford better then you do.

I'm not saying Olson was or wasn't abused, because I couldn't really say that. However sometimes in families, one child is targeted for some reason, whether he was the result of an affair or something, and he is abused while the rest are treated normally.

 

[redmarvel]

ooh, what sauce!

Hey, a little gravy makes it go down easier...

 

[Addendum]

the guy was still a pedophile. He was previously married to a little girl and fired from his teaching job for fondling students in India.

and I personally don't believe the confession was false. it was his handwriting on the ransom note with the same T.B.T.C signature he had been using since high school. that's pretty strong evidence.

the DNA didn't match the DNA found on the underwear but as the detectives stated, the DNA found probably didn't belong to the attacker, since when you buy a brand of that underwear you find DNA that gets there during the packaging process.

If not for the media scrutiny he'd have been tried and convicted. Handwriting is as uniqe as fingerprints.

Now you claim to know more about the case than the District Attorney?

Just stop. Please. Unless you enjoy coming across as a moron

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not saying Olson was or wasn't abused, because I couldn't really say that. However sometimes in families, one child is targeted for some reason, whether he was the result of an affair or something, and he is abused while the rest are treated normally.

But the fact is every expert, every article, every bit of info says he wasn't abused, so unless there is anything to counter all that, I won't beleve he was abused.

 

[War Lord]

But the fact is every expert, every article, every bit of info says he wasn't abused, so unless there is anything to counter all that, I won't beleve he was abused.

And I'm saying that I don't know if he was abused, but merely explaining that there are families out there who will pick on one child and abuse him, but treat the other children well.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Now you claim to know more about the case than the District Attorney?

Just stop. Please. Unless you enjoy coming across as a moron

I believe the DA was the moron. I also know how to better run this country than the president.

 

[Spider-Bite]

But the fact is every expert, every article, every bit of info says he wasn't abused, so unless there is anything to counter all that, I won't beleve he was abused.

those were primitive experts. yeah articles written back then say he wans't abused, but all of the info in the articles suggests he was abused. I pointed out about 10 distinctive indicators of abuse. you pointed out zero indicators he wasn't abused.

you refuse to believe he was abused because you don't want to admit you lost the debate.

 

[Spider-Bite]

And I'm saying that I don't know if he was abused, but merely explaining that there are families out there who will pick on one child and abuse him, but treat the other children well.

this is very true, and at the time of the arrest of Olsen most phsycholgoists didn't know that back then like they do now.

These guys are saying they value the opinion of scientists from decades ago over those of scientists of today. That's absurd and ridiculous. Next they will be telling us the earth is flat.

 

[The Overlord]

those were primitive experts. yeah articles written back then say he wans't abused, but all of the info in the articles suggests he was abused. I pointed out about 10 distinctive indicators of abuse. you pointed out zero indicators he wasn't abused.

you refuse to believe he was abused because you don't want to admit you lost the debate.

Admit I lost? Your not dealing with reality. You have presented no evidence that says Clifford Olson was abused, all you present is hearsay. Present some facts instead of hearsay, than you would have a solid agruement, all the articles and experts say he was not abused and they know more about this case then you do, you know nothing about this case. All have done is presneted your opinion with no evidence to back it up. Why should take your opinion over the accounts of the experts, investigaters and witinesses involved in the case ?

 

[The Overlord]

this is very true, and at the time of the arrest of Olsen most phsycholgoists didn't know that back then like they do now.

These guys are saying they value the opinion of scientists from decades ago over those of scientists of today. That's absurd and ridiculous. Next they will be telling us the earth is flat.

Are there any mental health professionals today that say dircetly that Olson was abused?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Are there any mental health professionals today that say dircetly that Olson was abused?

I imagine they are looking at more rescent cases and focusing on the future.

 

[The Overlord]

I imagine they are looking at more rescent cases and focusing on the future.

So you have no real evidence beyond hearsay?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Admit I lost? Your not dealing with reality. You have presented no evidence that says Clifford Olson was abused, all you present is hearsay. Present some facts instead of hearsay, than you would have a solid agruement, all the articles and experts say he was not abused and they know more about this case then you do, you know nothing about this case. All have done is presneted your opinion with no evidence to back it up. Why should take your opinion over the accounts of the experts, investigaters and witinesses involved in the case ?

I presented overwhelming evidence he was abused and you know it. you never even tried to refute the evidence. you just keep falling back on "they said he wasn't abused" All you have done is presented their opinion without backing it up. I presented 10 indicators of abuse taken directly from those reports, and you never even attempted to refute those indicators. You simply put faith in primitive outdated science.

why should you take my opinion? I am using the opinions of modern phsychologists of what is and isn't evidence of abuse. you are ignoring modern phychology, because it proves your argument wrong. you and I both know science has come a long way since then.

 

[Spider-Bite]

So you have no real evidence beyond hearsay?

I would like you to directly refute these indicators of abuse. I provided a link a while back showing you a list of indicators and they were all present in the report on Olsen. but back then people didn't know these were indicators. you keep ignoring that too, and refusing to directly refute that.


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10393297&postcount=306

refute the individual indicators of abuse. I doubt you will. You will simply say "I trust outdated primitive phychologists who got their training in the 60's and 70's over some guy on a message board"

do you not trust the modern phychologists who say these are indicators of abuse? do you not trust them?

do you not ever answer questions in a debate?

 

[Grim Goblin]

Spider-Bite, you have no clue just how many profiles I've been found to fit in over the years. And yet, none of them ever actually got it right when it came to me. "They" (those that rely on profiles) always added the sum of infos they had on me and judged that I should be a certain way. And THEY WERE ALWAYS COMPLETELY WRONG!

I can't believe I'm the only one to whom this happened.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Are there any mental health professionals today that say dircetly that Olson was abused?

you might have a point if modern health professionals were today saying he wasn't.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Spider-Bite, you have no clue just how many profiles I've been found to fit in over the years. And yet, none of them ever actually got it right when it came to me. "They" (those that rely on profiles) always added the sum of infos they had on me and judged that I should be a certain way. And THEY WERE ALWAYS COMPLETELY WRONG!

I can't believe I'm the only one to whom this happened.

they are statisicial chances of how you will turn out. not everybody turns out exactly the same. if they say 90% will turn out this way, that means 10% wont. That doesn't mean the 10% proves the other 90% argument wrong.

 

[Grim Goblin]

they are statisicial chances of how you will turn out. not everybody turns out exactly the same. if they say 90% will turn out this way, that means 10% wont. That doesn't mean the 10% proves the other 90% argument wrong.

it means that while you insist that the person obviously was abused because he fits the profile... IT DOESN'T MEAN ****!!!

now quit insisting that we're ignoring your so called "proofs" because you're the one who has yet to bring anything close regarding that example and it's not helping your position at all.

 

[The Overlord]

I would like you to directly refute these indicators of abuse. I provided a link a while back showing you a list of indicators and they were all present in the report on Olsen. but back then people didn't know these were indicators. you keep ignoring that too, and refusing to directly refute that.


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10393297&postcount=306

refute the individual indicators of abuse. I doubt you will. You will simply say "I trust outdated primitive phychologists who got their training in the 60's and 70's over some guy on a message board"

do you not trust the modern phychologists who say these are indicators of abuse? do you not trust them?

do you not ever answer questions in a debate?

All your arguements are based on hearsay, not facts.

Olson's father may suffered from mental problems due to combat in WWII-hearsay, not facts.

Olson's bad behaviour as child is evidence that he was aused- again hearsay, not facts, there are kids who engage in bad behaviour who are not abused, it is silly to suggest that all kids who engage in bad behaviour are abused. Almost all psychopaths are problem children, that doesn't prove that all psychopaths are abused.

The mental experts who investigated the case were too "primative" to handle it correctly- hearsay and do you have any modern mental expert that will testify otherwise?

Also look at this quote:

"His parents had simply become inured to the regular visits from police officers, the shame of the newspaper reports and the continued disruptions their son’s behavior caused in their lives. They tried to help him out when they could, but they had long since given up hope of rehabilitating him. They aimed only to limit the damage he did to their lives.”

can you say neglect?"

If his parents were trying to help him out how were they neglectiful? They likely gave up on because he was irredemmable psychopath who didn't want help, not because they were secretly abusing him. They likely did everything they could think of to help him, before realizing it was hopeless.

In our justice system one is found guilty once all reasonable doubt has been removed. In this case there is no reasonable doubt, Olson wasn't abused, you engaging in unreasonable doubt.

 

[deemar325]

Yes to a certain degree, but I feel it's unfairly setup to condemn minorities.

 

[The Overlord]

And I'm saying that I don't know if he was abused, but merely explaining that there are families out there who will pick on one child and abuse him, but treat the other children well.

The sibbings say he wasn't abused, why would they lie? I'm surprised your trying to cast doubts on whether Olson abused or not, considering your harder on criminals then I am. Olson wasn't abused, all the evidence says that are no reasonable doubts on whether Olson was abused or not, he wasn't. He deserved to be put in Gen Pop and suffer a gruesome death at the hands of his fellow cons.

 

[Spider-Bite]

All your arguements are based on hearsay, not facts.

Olson's father may suffered from mental problems due to combat in WWII-hearsay, not facts.

that was just a possible root of the cause.

Olson's bad behaviour as child is evidence that he was aused- again hearsay, not facts, there are kids who engage in bad behaviour who are not abused, it is silly to suggest that all kids who engage in bad behaviour are abused. Almost all psychopaths are problem children, that doesn't prove that all psychopaths are abused.

it's not hearsay to say those indicators of abuse. It's medically scienfically accepted fact in today's world. Taht doens't mean they were abused for a fact, it means it's an inidicator. Hearsay means he said she said he said.

The mental experts who investigated the case were too "primative" to handle it correctly- hearsay and do you have any modern mental expert that will testify otherwise?

I'm sure all scientists refer to the previous generation of scientists as primitive. you call that hearsay, but it's really common sense.

Also look at this quote:

"His parents had simply become inured to the regular visits from police officers, the shame of the newspaper reports and the continued disruptions their son’s behavior caused in their lives. They tried to help him out when they could, but they had long since given up hope of rehabilitating him. They aimed only to limit the damage he did to their lives.”

can you say neglect?"

If his parents were trying to help him out how were they neglectiful? They likely gave up on because he was irredemmable psychopath who didn't want help, not because they were secretly abusing him. They likely did everything they could think of to help him, before realizing it was hopeless.

maybe the part where it said they gave up on him. maybe that's the neglect I was referring to.

 

[The Overlord]

that was just a possible root of the cause.

You can't prove it, so its irrelevant.

it's not hearsay to say those indicators of abuse. It's medically scienfically accepted fact in today's world. Taht doens't mean they were abused for a fact, it means it's an inidicator. Hearsay means he said she said he said.

So what? Bad behaviour is also an indicator that he could have been a born psychopath and not have been abused. Can prove he ahs abused and not just a psychopath from day one.

I'm sure all scientists refer to the previous generation of scientists as primitive. you call that hearsay, but it's really common sense.

Do you have any modern experts that refutes the old experts and proves he was abused? He can't throw the opinions of the experts in the case, unless you can provide other experts to refute them.

maybe the part where it said they gave up on him. maybe that's the neglect I was referring to.

Why would they try and help him the first place if they were abusing him? Maybe they gave up on him because they realized he was irredeemable psychopath who didn't help, they were only human and there was limit to do what they could do. Care to post some real evidence?

 

[Wolverine Fan]

I agree with the death penalty.

 

[Kmack]

Death only relieves someone of suffering. If a person has committed a crime bad enough that death is speculated, I say they should rot in prison and have a loooong time to think about their crimes.