UHHHHHHH, do you wash all of your family members cloths in a different washer,dryer and then scour the lent traps afterwards? You can find any fiber from any person anywhere in a house they live in. You people are grasping at straws. She had DNa in her panties in a spot of blood, DNA that didn't match her dad....in her genital area.....DNA!!!!! YOu want him hung on some fibers...:doh:LinasK said:
Marc Klass on CTV
- Thread starter gaia
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
luvbeaches
New Member
Wudge said:
I just think we're going to hear something. This guy confessed, and I'd like to think that if he really did it, they'd need more evidence to support his confession. I predict that we're going to see a change of heart with him. He has an agenda...not sure what it is, but I think it will come out eventually, that is, if he's really not guilty. If the ex can document the alibi, and they can't tie him to the crime scene, I think it's over. Back to square one.
I'll bet there are defense lawyers lining up to represent this guy. Talk about a lot of free publicity!
Wudge
New Member
luvbeaches said:
I agree, his former wife can exonerate him if she truly has photos on Xmas day, 1996, and he will become a wealthy author.
If his x-wife does not have photos and the D.A. can't produce clear corroboration to support Karr's confession, things will become very intriguing.
luvbeaches
New Member
Wudge said:
It will be quite intriguing.
What I'd like to know is how he came across JonBenet in the first place? Did he find her at the pagents? There's been no mention of how he found her in the first place, only the fact that he was obsessed with her (and Polly). Is there any evidence that he had contact with her prior to her death (or the Ramsey's)? He didn't just show up Xmas Eve and kill her. But I do find the handwriting comparisons interesting. Well, I suspect that what we will definately hear about is the ex and what she has to say. If she has video or pictures, I'll bet that infomation is all over the media. Since this happened during Xmas, I think his whereabouts will be fairly easy to document. Now had it been the second week of September, it might not be as easy. If he was with his family at Xmas, there will most likely be at least one picture of him.
I wonder who will buy his book (and who would publish it) if he is exonerated. If he is (exonerated), then he'll just be another nutball, which I think he is. I do hope he's the guy, but I don't know...it's just not adding up...for me, anyway.
Wudge
New Member
luvbeaches said:
If it were ever to get published, I think Buzz nailed the likely book hawk ... Gloria. (per JBean, the G word...lol)
Karr's former wife, however, has had three days to locate any exonerating Xmas photo or video, and her attorney did not give the slightest inkling yesterday that any such trinket had yet been found.
"Well not to pick on you Linask,but you must not have read "Actual Innocence".This type of one sighted police work happens far more than we think."
Against wealthy, white people?
"No evidence!!! I've been posting here about this case clearly alot longer than you have. For starters, how do you explain John's shirt fibers in JB's genital area???"
yes, we've been over this many times.
"My God If thats all you need to convict them i dont want you on my jury.Seriously,fiber evidence of a family member could happen all kinds of ways.Fiber evidence is only convincing to me when it is from a source that shouldn't be there."
But it's NOT all, paperhanger. I could give you a list if you like.
"A Grand Jury did, and it could not even reach a finding that probable cause existed much less the existence of evidence that could support proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
But Wudge, number one, they had to decide which parent did what. Second, we KNOW now, thanks to Mr. Schiller, that those Grand Jurors were in EXTREME denial about how parents could do this to their child. Have you read what FBI agent Walker said about it? He said he's known cases where parents DECAPITATED their kids.
"Likewise, a Federal Judge, Judith Carnes, thought the same thing. She drafted a niney-three page report that, fundamentally, exonerated the Ramseys as best as one could expect from a bench report. Though she did say some rather poor (I'm saying it nicely) things about the BPD and some of its people."
Wudge, none of the police evidence was introduced into that case. Everyone knows that.
"Because they are in denial, they don't want to believe that a parent would do such horrific things to their own child- yet some do. Some parents are monsters like Susan Smith for starters."
There's a lot of that in this case.
"I think there are as many experts saying she wasnt as there are saying she was."
No. The great majority say there was. I can even name them for you.
"You are still not convincing me with the fiber evidence though.Example:Your husband comes home from work.You are folding laundry.He hugs you.A fiber attaches to you You fold her undergarment.It falls to it.She puts it on.she goes to the bathroom later ,There it is.See totally innocent.Like I said fibers mean more when its someone who should never have been there leaves them."
But that didn't happen here. PLUS, fibers from Patsy's jacket were tied into the rope. Figure that one. She says she never went to the basement. She says she never saw that rope. Hmm.
That said, I'd like this guy to be the guy. But, as criminal profiler Pat Browne said yesterday, if this isn't the guy, she's right back to suspecting the Ramseys because, and I quote, "most of the evidence points to them."
"Still waiting for links to this strong evidence."
You got it! The doctors who said there was abuse over time were:
John McCann
David Jones
Virginia Rau
James Monteleone
Richard Krugman
Ronald Wright
Robert Kirschner
Cyril Wecht
"i have no doubt that most of us do believe parents are killers-that doesnt mean we have to think patsy and john are?"
You and I have to agree, newtv. Statistics are to be used the way a drunk uses a lamppost: support, not illumination. But if that was all it was, I could follow you the rest of the way.
"Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?"
Those cases bear NO resemblance to this one! Those killers got in, grabbed the kids, got out, took them to where THEY felt safe, did the deed and dumped the body. None of that happened in this case.
"UHHHHHHH, do you wash all of your family members cloths in a different washer,dryer and then scour the lent traps afterwards? You can find any fiber from any person anywhere in a house they live in. You people are grasping at straws."
Those panties were completely new. She'd never worn them before.
"She had DNa in her panties in a spot of blood, DNA that didn't match her dad....in her genital area.....DNA!!!!!"
Which the forensics people said was too old to have been from the crime.
All I know is, I would convict in a trial. You can say ANYTHING you want about that statement. You can HANG my butt from a flagpole, but I will have my say.
Against wealthy, white people?
"No evidence!!! I've been posting here about this case clearly alot longer than you have. For starters, how do you explain John's shirt fibers in JB's genital area???"
yes, we've been over this many times.
"My God If thats all you need to convict them i dont want you on my jury.Seriously,fiber evidence of a family member could happen all kinds of ways.Fiber evidence is only convincing to me when it is from a source that shouldn't be there."
But it's NOT all, paperhanger. I could give you a list if you like.
"A Grand Jury did, and it could not even reach a finding that probable cause existed much less the existence of evidence that could support proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
But Wudge, number one, they had to decide which parent did what. Second, we KNOW now, thanks to Mr. Schiller, that those Grand Jurors were in EXTREME denial about how parents could do this to their child. Have you read what FBI agent Walker said about it? He said he's known cases where parents DECAPITATED their kids.
"Likewise, a Federal Judge, Judith Carnes, thought the same thing. She drafted a niney-three page report that, fundamentally, exonerated the Ramseys as best as one could expect from a bench report. Though she did say some rather poor (I'm saying it nicely) things about the BPD and some of its people."
Wudge, none of the police evidence was introduced into that case. Everyone knows that.
"Because they are in denial, they don't want to believe that a parent would do such horrific things to their own child- yet some do. Some parents are monsters like Susan Smith for starters."
There's a lot of that in this case.
"I think there are as many experts saying she wasnt as there are saying she was."
No. The great majority say there was. I can even name them for you.
"You are still not convincing me with the fiber evidence though.Example:Your husband comes home from work.You are folding laundry.He hugs you.A fiber attaches to you You fold her undergarment.It falls to it.She puts it on.she goes to the bathroom later ,There it is.See totally innocent.Like I said fibers mean more when its someone who should never have been there leaves them."
But that didn't happen here. PLUS, fibers from Patsy's jacket were tied into the rope. Figure that one. She says she never went to the basement. She says she never saw that rope. Hmm.
That said, I'd like this guy to be the guy. But, as criminal profiler Pat Browne said yesterday, if this isn't the guy, she's right back to suspecting the Ramseys because, and I quote, "most of the evidence points to them."
"Still waiting for links to this strong evidence."
You got it! The doctors who said there was abuse over time were:
John McCann
David Jones
Virginia Rau
James Monteleone
Richard Krugman
Ronald Wright
Robert Kirschner
Cyril Wecht
"i have no doubt that most of us do believe parents are killers-that doesnt mean we have to think patsy and john are?"
You and I have to agree, newtv. Statistics are to be used the way a drunk uses a lamppost: support, not illumination. But if that was all it was, I could follow you the rest of the way.
"Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?"
Those cases bear NO resemblance to this one! Those killers got in, grabbed the kids, got out, took them to where THEY felt safe, did the deed and dumped the body. None of that happened in this case.
"UHHHHHHH, do you wash all of your family members cloths in a different washer,dryer and then scour the lent traps afterwards? You can find any fiber from any person anywhere in a house they live in. You people are grasping at straws."
Those panties were completely new. She'd never worn them before.
"She had DNa in her panties in a spot of blood, DNA that didn't match her dad....in her genital area.....DNA!!!!!"
Which the forensics people said was too old to have been from the crime.
All I know is, I would convict in a trial. You can say ANYTHING you want about that statement. You can HANG my butt from a flagpole, but I will have my say.
Wudge
New Member
SuperDave said:
My point remains, I have a Grand Jury and a Federal Judge who support my assessment of the evidence, which is that even a probable cause case could not be made against the Ramseys.
After weighing all of the evidence, you have a right to form your opinion, as do others. But since you would "convict in a trial", please cite who you would convict and on what charge?
"My point remains, I have a Grand Jury and a Federal Court Judge who support my assessment of the evidence, which is that even a probable cause case could not be made against the Ramseys."
Well, I'm just reminding you why these shouldn't be taken at face value. That Grand Jury was run so sloppily that it was doomed to fail, Wudge.
"After weighing all of the evidence, you have a right to form your opinion, as do others."
And don't you forget it!
"But since you would 'convict in a trial,' please cite who you would convict and on what charge?"
I get the feeling this is a set-up. But whether it is or not:
Patsy on:
Second-degree murder
Evidence tampering
Hindering an investigation
John:
Evidence tampering
Hindering an investigation
Anything you need?
Well, I'm just reminding you why these shouldn't be taken at face value. That Grand Jury was run so sloppily that it was doomed to fail, Wudge.
"After weighing all of the evidence, you have a right to form your opinion, as do others."
And don't you forget it!
"But since you would 'convict in a trial,' please cite who you would convict and on what charge?"
I get the feeling this is a set-up. But whether it is or not:
Patsy on:
Second-degree murder
Evidence tampering
Hindering an investigation
John:
Evidence tampering
Hindering an investigation
Anything you need?
Wudge
New Member
SuperDave said:
Thank you. Now, make your case for conviction on each charge.
bulletgirl2002
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 2
This is something I have never been able to understand either. Until I have other proof, the Ramsey family are victims. I just don' t think they would have stood by the other one if one had murdered their child.kcksum said:
sandraladeda
Inactive
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,588
- Reaction score
- 9
i would depend on her memory more than her ability to find photos.Wudge said:
If I were required to furnish my hubby with a christmas day alibi using photos, he would be out of luck. We are the worst for remembering to take photos, or to find the camera, or to have film on hand, etc. we have gone entire vacations without photos!
furthermore, the photos we have have not been sorted into albums since 1993 (been a little busy....
) so it would be a tough slog to work my way through the piles and boxes and drawers and bags in which they are stored.How much proof do you need?bulletgirl2002 said:
Most of the evidence points straight to a Ramsey, in particular Patsy Ramsey.
And for good reason, because she is the one responsiible for her daughter's death.
Karr is a wannabe, his DNA won't match, this was never a DNA case anyway.
His story will fall apart on closer investigation, in fact it already is falling apart.
( re G word shhhh don't say it ...)Wudge said:
I was just contemplating the whereabouts of the exonerating photos. She went from absolutely positive, to probably,to she thinks so,to nothing.
They may exist, but it is curious that they have not surfaced as of yet.
I think she was a total stand- by - your - man type of chick also.LinasK said:
I also think what was on show to the public was not really the way she was.
It was all a big act to keep distance between her and the media. Whether this 'act' was a good thing or a bad thing depends on whether people bought it or not.How we are publically perceived is a very interesting thing. Add the media into that mix and it really does become very volatile. I see her as someone who always got her way, especially with John. I think he is more easy going but a control freak also.
Wudge
New Member
sandraladeda said:i would depend on her memory more than her ability to find photos.
If I were required to furnish my hubby with a christmas day alibi using photos, he would be out of luck. We are the worst for remembering to take photos, or to find the camera, or to have film on hand, etc. we have gone entire vacations without photos!
furthermore, the photos we have have not been sorted into albums since 1993 (been a little busy....
Even if Karr turns out to be but a stalker, I feel sorry for his former wife. She had told Karr's Dad that the name Karr had ruined her life, and that was before he confessed on TV to murdering Jon Benet.
This has to be a living nightmare for her.
bulletgirl2002 said:
The R's have been considered suspects (By LE for a long time too)
Unlike the Natalie case where it is very clear her family had nothing to do with her death.
A suspect is permitted speculation. I personally agree with Wudge.
A grand Jury and a judge say the R's could not have done it. (or not enough evidence to prove it)
Certainly they were privvy to info we are not?
Despite claims to the contrary IMO the police are well aware of what has been discussed online and what has been kept quiet.