John Mark Karr (and other suspects)

Although I am 99.99% convinced that Patsy was responsible for the death of JonBenet (or at least involved in the cover-up), I came across a comment that said if John Mark Karr couldn't be considered guilty because his DNA didn't match, then the Ramsey's couldn't be considered guilty, either.

My question is: Was there any other evidence about Karr that proved he wasn't guilty of JonBenet's murder?

Comments?

whocares811 wrote:

Although I am 99.99% convinced that Patsy was responsible for the death of JonBenet (or at least involved in the cover-up), I came across a comment that said if John Mark Karr couldn't be considered guilty because his DNA didn't match, then the Ramsey's couldn't be considered guilty, either.
My question is: Was there any other evidence about Karr that proved he wasn't guilty of JonBenet's murder?
Comments?

This question will undoubtedly open the flood gates.

I believe that to be technically correct, the answer is NO.

Lacy depended entirely upon the DNA being a match before she would actually charge him with the crime. Had the DNA matched, I believe it would have been a slam dunk.

Many posters will say first this and then that wasn't proven, but IMO none of those things were DISPROVEN either.

Way, way back in the index is a thread called, "Old South's Proof that Karr was involved" (might not be exact, but close). I believe you might glean a lot of info from the thread.

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
This question will undoubtedly open the flood gates.
I believe that to be technically correct, the answer is NO.
Lacy depended entirely upon the DNA being a match before she would actually charge him with the crime. Had the DNA matched, I believe it would have been a slam dunk.
Many posters will say first this and then that wasn't proven, but IMO none of those things were DISPROVEN either.
Way, way back in the index is a thread called, "Old South's Proof that Karr was involved" (might not be exact, but close). I believe you might glean a lot of info from the thread.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

From Mary Lacy's affidavit dropping all charges against Karr:

"Wherefore, because NO EVIDENCE HAS DEVELOPED, other than his own repeated admissions, to place Mr. Karr at the scene of the crime and, in particular, because his DNA does not match that found in the victim's blood in her underwear, the People would not be able to establish that Mr. Karr committed this crime despite his repeated insistence that he did."

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
This question will undoubtedly open the flood gates.
I believe that to be technically correct, the answer is NO.
Lacy depended entirely upon the DNA being a match before she would actually charge him with the crime. Had the DNA matched, I believe it would have been a slam dunk.
Many posters will say first this and then that wasn't proven, but IMO none of those things were DISPROVEN either.
Way, way back in the index is a thread called, "Old South's Proof that Karr was involved" (might not be exact, but close). I believe you might glean a lot of info from the thread.

Hi OS,
I would have to disagree about the "slam dunk". IF the DNA matched. With his confession, they MIGHT have gotten a conviction, but without the confession, while it would be difficult to explain how his DNA got there, they still would have to prove him to be in Boulder at the time of the crime.

Also, while JMK was a proven pedophile, his phony confession was full of holes, especially on him finding a bank slip showing the $118,000.00, when the check was awarded to JR in April of that year.
CC

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi OS,
I would have to disagree about the "slam dunk". IF the DNA matched. With his confession, they MIGHT have gotten a conviction, but without the confession, while it would be difficult to explain how his DNA got there, they still would have to prove him to be in Boulder at the time of the crime.
Also, while JMK was a proven pedophile, his phony confession was full of holes, especially on him finding a bank slip showing the $118,000.00, when the check was awarded to JR in April of that year.
CC

Good morning, CC. You are entitled to disagree with the "slam dunk", but you'll have to give better reasons if the above is all you have.

In the first place, if his DNA had matched, I would say that alone would be proof that he had not only been in Boulder but also at the scene of the crime. And he has already explained how his DNA would have gotten where they would have found it.

And you will need to provide a source for your statement that he claimed in his confession that he found a bank slip showing the $118,000. IIRC, he made no such claim at all. Also, IIRC, John Ramsey did not even get a check for his bonus, he received it via an electronic deposit to his bank account. Although I don't know how his bank operates, here, we don't (or, at least I don't) get a deposit slip for any electronic deposits. If I'm wrong about how JR was awarded his bonus, I don't mind your providing a source to prove it.

Are there any other "holes" you know of contained in his confession? Thanks.

Mary Lacy said "no evidence has developed" however they didn't bother to go looking for any evidence either. They wanted it to be handed to them on a silver platter. Even Lacy's assistant Trip Demuth said Karr was not investigated thoroughly enough. He knew information that was not released to the public. He fit the profile to the T IMO. He is an odd duck but whoever did this is a sick odd duck. I think he could have done it with an accomplice. In fact before and immediately after he was arrested he implied he was not the only one there. That could have explained the DNA.

Biz wrote:

Mary Lacy said "no evidence has developed" however they didn't bother to go looking for any evidence either. They wanted it to be handed to them on a silver platter. Even Lacy's assistant Trip Demuth said Karr was not investigated thoroughly enough. He knew information that was not released to the public. He fit the profile to the T IMO. He is an odd duck but whoever did this is a sick odd duck. I think he could have done it with an accomplice. In fact before and immediately after he was arrested he implied he was not the only one there. That could have explained the DNA.

If that is the case biz, they certainly could have continued the investigation on their own, or the Ramsey investigators, or Lou Smit or any number of people, could have taken it further. Either they didn't believe that he needed further investigation, or they did in fact, investigate it and didn't find what they wanted or needed

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning, CC. You are entitled to disagree with the "slam dunk", but you'll have to give better reasons if the above is all you have.
In the first place, if his DNA had matched, I would say that alone would be proof that he had not only been in Boulder but also at the scene of the crime. And he has already explained how his DNA would have gotten where they would have found it.
And you will need to provide a source for your statement that he claimed in his confession that he found a bank slip showing the $118,000. IIRC, he made no such claim at all. Also, IIRC, John Ramsey did not even get a check for his bonus, he received it via an electronic deposit to his bank account. Although I don't know how his bank operates, here, we don't (or, at least I don't) get a deposit slip for any electronic deposits. If I'm wrong about how JR was awarded his bonus, I don't mind your providing a source to prove it.
Are there any other "holes" you know of contained in his confession? Thanks.

Good morning to you OS,
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If JMK's DNA did match, the prosecution's argument as far as his guilt would be his confession which was full of holes and inaccuracies, along with the match. The argument might have been strong, but if JMK retracted his confession, the prosecution would have to prove that JMK was in Colorado at the time of the crime, which I don't think they could, plus, they would have to create a workable theory as to how he entered the home, exited the home, stayed in the home for a few hours, and link him with the murder weapon(s)

This is the reason I insisted on IF they got Touch DNA from the long johns, why didn't they get it from the garrote? We don't know if the killer ever touched the long johns, but we DO know he/she touched the cord of the garrote.

We also can establish by the victim's hair being entwined in the knots, that the garrote was made after the strangulation. It would be unreasonable to reason that the killer, knowing nothing about touch DNA, would take off his gloves (if he wore any) to remove the long johns, then put them back on to make the garrote.

If the DNA matched JMK, it would prove that some time in history, he touched the long johns. It would not prove that he killed JB, nor would it prove that he was at the scene of the crime during the crime or ever.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
If that is the case biz, they certainly could have continued the investigation on their own, or the Ramsey investigators, or Lou Smit or any number of people, could have taken it further. Either they didn't believe that he needed further investigation, or they did in fact, investigate it and didn't find what they wanted or needed

Hi Capricorn,
I think the reason for the JMK arrest, was to establish that a DNA mismatch would exonerate him from the crime, with the microscopic possibility that it could have linked him with the crime. When they could exonerate JMK from the crime because of the DNA evidence, which is still questionable to me, they used the same "evidence" to clear the Ramsey family.

I would like to see an attorney comment on IF the DNA matched JMK, if they could get a conviction without a confession. As I see it, even with a DNA match, the prosecution would have a very long uphill climb to establish the DNA contributor being at the scene of the crime, or even in Colorado at the time of the crime.
cc

Biz wrote:

Mary Lacy said "no evidence has developed" however they didn't bother to go looking for any evidence either. They wanted it to be handed to them on a silver platter. Even Lacy's assistant Trip Demuth said Karr was not investigated thoroughly enough. He knew information that was not released to the public. He fit the profile to the T IMO. He is an odd duck but whoever did this is a sick odd duck. I think he could have done it with an accomplice. In fact before and immediately after he was arrested he implied he was not the only one there. That could have explained the DNA.

Biz, although I agree with most of your comments, I think that Lacy was more than content to let the Karr incident die and fade away. As shown by her later "pardoning" the Ramseys, I believe that was her goal and therefore the reason there was no further investigation.

IMO, since Smit did not work for her and of course, neither did Tracey, she wanted to distance herself from them both. And since neither Smit nor Tracey worked in any official capacity, it's also my opinion that no one really knows their beliefs concerning Karr -- whether they still felt he was good for the crime, although it IS known that Smit kept Karr on his suspect list.

And Tripp DeMuth did make the statement that Karr was not investigated enough, in his opinion. So that should tell us something about the investigation they did on him. Also, when it was revealed on CNN by Ted Rowlands that Karr was aware of the extreme brutality of the crime and THAT PART HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN MADE PUBLIC, that was proof that he DID know specifics of the crime that he could not have known had he not been the killer or at least have been on the scene. I remember that until that time, no one in the public was aware of the horror of the crime committed upon this child. Even though crime scene photos were available, I don't think it had ever been stated in specifics how brutal the murder was. And I believe that this had a lot to do with Lacy's reasons for arresting him before he had a chance to do the same to the child he was eyeing at the time.

Lastly, you say you think Karr could have had an accomplice. While I agree he very well could have, I also believe the evidentiary DNA was completely unreliable. Or, that the DNA they DID find on her that constituted the TouchDNA as well as the other DNA that matched it, I believe was put there innocently by someone who had been around her body at the morgue or the crime scene. Although they claim to have tested everyone who had occasion to be around her, I think they just overlooked that person. No matter, I just think there is something amiss about the entire DNA issue.

jWe know that Ollie Gray still has Karr high on HIS list. So IMO he is not off the hook entirely. There are still far too many unanswered questions concerning Karr.

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning to you OS,
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If JMK's DNA did match, the prosecution's argument as far as his guilt would be his confession which was full of holes and inaccuracies, along with the match. The argument might have been strong, but if JMK retracted his confession, the prosecution would have to prove that JMK was in Colorado at the time of the crime, which I don't think they could, plus, they would have to create a workable theory as to how he entered the home, exited the home, stayed in the home for a few hours, and link him with the murder weapon(s)

Hi, Charlie: I am going to address only the first part of your post since the remainder relates only to the DNA, which I, like you, don't place a lot of credence. Putting it in a nutshell, I believe the entire DNA issue can be compared to the way the BPD handled the investigation from the time the first scout car pulled up in front of the house. In short, mistakes were made at every conceivable level.

So, concerning the confession, I would find it hard to believe that he would be allowed to retract his confession since it was made voluntarily and is caught on camera.

As for the alleged holes and inaccuracies in his confession, if you will be more specific and tell us exactly what holes and inaccuracies to which you refer, then I could possibly address each claim. But I cannot remember finding any such holes and discrepancies in his confession or the explanation he gave of his involvement in the crime. In fact, IMO his explanation fit what is known about the crime to a T. I'd really be interested to know exactly what it is that you claim to be "holes and inaccuracies". Thanks.

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
I think the reason for the JMK arrest, was to establish that a DNA mismatch would exonerate him from the crime, with the microscopic possibility that it could have linked him with the crime. When they could exonerate JMK from the crime because of the DNA evidence, which is still questionable to me, they used the same "evidence" to clear the Ramsey family....

Hi CC,

That's an excellent theory and one I had not thought of before. I put nothing past Lacy and her associates, as well as Smit and the others.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi CC,
That's an excellent theory and one I had not thought of before. I put nothing past Lacy and her associates, as well as Smit and the others.

Hi Cap:D How did MTracey find JMK? Or was it visa versa?

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi CC,
That's an excellent theory and one I had not thought of before. I put nothing past Lacy and her associates, as well as Smit and the others.

nevermind...found it;)

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi CC,
That's an excellent theory and one I had not thought of before. I put nothing past Lacy and her associates, as well as Smit and the others.

Hi Capricorn,
Because of my theory, I would love to see Lacy take a polygraph on this issue, which I don't think would ever happen. The same goes with Smit, who is deceased. I really don't think Lacy and Smit are stupid. I think they made their stupid blunders with a reason.
CC

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi, Charlie: I am going to address only the first part of your post since the remainder relates only to the DNA, which I, like you, don't place a lot of credence. Putting it in a nutshell, I believe the entire DNA issue can be compared to the way the BPD handled the investigation from the time the first scout car pulled up in front of the house. In short, mistakes were made at every conceivable level.
So, concerning the confession, I would find it hard to believe that he would be allowed to retract his confession since it was made voluntarily and is caught on camera.
As for the alleged holes and inaccuracies in his confession, if you will be more specific and tell us exactly what holes and inaccuracies to which you refer, then I could possibly address each claim. But I cannot remember finding any such holes and discrepancies in his confession or the explanation he gave of his involvement in the crime. In fact, IMO his explanation fit what is known about the crime to a T. I'd really be interested to know exactly what it is that you claim to be "holes and inaccuracies". Thanks.

Hi OS,
Among the inaccuracies in JMK's confession:
1. He claims that drugged her. The autopsy reports show no drug influence in JB's body.
2. He claimed he saw her at school. It was Christmas Holidays. No school then.
3. His ex-wife said he was home for Christmas in 1996. NO ONE, and NOTHING can place him in the state of Colorado even the month of the murder.

CC

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi OS,
Among the inaccuracies in JMK's confession:
1. He claims that drugged her. The autopsy reports show no drug influence in JB's body.
2. He claimed he saw her at school. It was Christmas Holidays. No school then.
3. His ex-wife said he was home for Christmas in 1996. NO ONE, and NOTHING can place him in the state of Colorado even the month of the murder.
CC

1.) At the time Rohibnol was just becoming popular as a date rape drug and standard autopsy drug tests would not have found it. Karr had a history in drugging his first wife.
2.) There were many errors in the Thai translation. Karr claims he did not say this to Boulder PD.
3.) I personally spoke to his ex wife Lara and she told me that she did not know where he was. Her testimony to the FBI was that she could not remember a Christmas when they weren't together, "however WHEN PRESSED SHE COULD NOT BE SURE". She did NOT give him an alibi, contrary to popular belief. I think she was encouraged by the Karr family to give him an alibi. I don't think she wanted to. She told me that she believes he should be in prison. However, she did not say that she believed he killed Jonbenet. She hired a CRIMINAL attorney. What does that say? What was she afraid of? Was she afraid she could be charged with hiding evidence? She deposited all of his belongings into his beloved car and left it on the street to be towed away and likely destroyed when he was arrested in Sonoma. She hasn't spoken to him since.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
If that is the case biz, they certainly could have continued the investigation on their own, or the Ramsey investigators, or Lou Smit or any number of people, could have taken it further. Either they didn't believe that he needed further investigation, or they did in fact, investigate it and didn't find what they wanted or needed

I am told that they are not investigating. They are waiting for evidence to be handed to them. In other words they aren't going to go out of their way to find the answer. In a way I understand. They spent millions on this particular case and other crime victims want money spent on their cases. I don't think Lacy could do anything more to go after Karr. She was already persecuted for bringing him back from Thailand. To further investigate Karr could only result in more embarrassment if he was not the culprit. She had to wait for someone to come forward and prove it to her. She couldn't pursue it for political reasons.

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
1.) At the time Rohibnol was just becoming popular as a date rape drug and standard autopsy drug tests would not have found it. Karr had a history in drugging his first wife.
2.) There were many errors in the Thai translation. Karr claims he did not say this to Boulder PD.
3.) I personally spoke to his ex wife Lara and she told me that she did not know where he was. Her testimony to the FBI was that she could not remember a Christmas when they weren't together, "however WHEN PRESSED SHE COULD NOT BE SURE". She did NOT give him an alibi, contrary to popular belief. I think she was encouraged by the Karr family to give him an alibi. I don't think she wanted to. She told me that she believes he should be in prison. However, she did not say that she believed he killed Jonbenet. She hired a CRIMINAL attorney. What does that say? What was she afraid of? Was she afraid she could be charged with hiding evidence? She deposited all of his belongings into his beloved car and left it on the street to be towed away and likely destroyed when he was arrested in Sonoma. She hasn't spoken to him since.

john ramsey hired criminal attys for his whole family...what does THAT say?