Breaking News Archive - 20th - 26th Aug

[lighthouselover]

waive, deferred, dismissed not the same.

True, but she said DISMISSED. Earlier she said they were WAIVED.

 

[CaliKid]

I don't think CA would do that. It makes more sense that Colorado's charges, whatever they may be, have precedence and would be handled first.

 

[Buzz Mills]

True, but she said DISMISSED. Earlier she said they were WAIVED.

I don't believe the CA charges were dismissed. Not until I see news to this effect, attributed to the Sonoma DA, will I believe this. The statements the Sonoma officials previously made said CA would defer to the CO charges.

 

[lighthouselover]

I don't believe the CA charges were dismissed. Not until I see news to this effect, attributed to the Sonoma DA, will I believe this. The statements the Sonoma officials previously made said CA would defer to the CO charges.

Hey, I'm just reporting what I heard. I'm taking nothing from this as "gospel". I'm just saying that CO better have more than suspicions from Michael Tracey that this is their man, wouldn't you agree?

 

[dragonfly707]

MSNBC - Interviewing Vanzandt his defense attorney here in California, says that he does not desire a CA defense atty for the charges in COL. Says that he is anxious to get to COL to answer the charges there.


Also just thought I would add that as far as the Sonoma County charges here, our news printed that the Judge here put all of the Sonoma Co charges on "hold" not dismissed, but on hold in deference to the CO charges.

 

[JBean]

MSNBC - Interviewing Vanzandt his defense attorney here in California, says that he does not desire a CA defense atty for the charges in COL. Says that he is anxious to get to COL to answer the charges there.


Also just thought I would add that as far as the Sonoma County charges here, our news printed that the Judge here put all of the Sonoma Co charges on "hold" not dismissed, but on hold in deference to the CO charges.

THAT makes sense.

 

[englishleigh]

MSNBC - Interviewing Vanzandt his defense attorney here in California, says that he does not desire a CA defense atty for the charges in COL. Says that he is anxious to get to COL to answer the charges there.


Also just thought I would add that as far as the Sonoma County charges here, our news printed that the Judge here put all of the Sonoma Co charges on "hold" not dismissed, but on hold in deference to the CO charges.

Patience Van Zandt also would not answer a question about how Karr slept last night or what he ate for breakfast...she said Karr has asked that no personal info be released about himself.
Maybe he is getting tired of the media circus? I noticed last night that he looked uncomfortable on the plane with all the cameras in his face. If he is lying, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, if he's getting sick of the media.

 

[tybee204]

Maybe reality is setting in and the thought of spending the rest of his life in prison isnt what he wants afterall.

 

[Buzz Mills]

Hey, I'm just reporting what I heard. I'm taking nothing from this as "gospel". I'm just saying that CO better have more than suspicions from Michael Tracey that this is their man, wouldn't you agree?

THe CO situation is what it is. We only hope CO has something conclusive on the suspect, but to most of us, it appears they are pretty far out on the limb, on this one.

If the CO escapade falls apart, which it could easily do, from surface appearances, then the CA charges will be pursued.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

Patience Van Zandt also would not answer a question about how Karr slept last night or what he ate for breakfast...she said Karr has asked that no personal info be released about himself.
Maybe he is getting tired of the media circus? I noticed last night that he looked uncomfortable on the plane with all the cameras in his face. If he is lying, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, if he's getting sick of the media.

Well, he certainly has been quiet, I'd say.

But he was pretty quiet when he did talk to the press in Thailand. When being asked two pretty straightforward questions all he could manage was a couple of "No comments." On the 2nd question he even seemed to pause as if puzzled before answering.

He claims it would take too much time to answer things...that they're too involved...weird.

Sure would be a kicker for him to change his story either some or entirely once he's in Colorado...he's anxious to go there for some reason.

 

[englishleigh]

Maybe reality is setting in and the thought of spending the rest of his life in prison isnt what he wants afterall.

Maybe one night in a holding cell in Los Angeles has dashed any fantasies or happy thoughts about prison he may have had.

 

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by englishleigh
JBean, can't get your link to work, Hon.

"Waived charges" mean they no longer exist, correct? If CO ends up releasing him, CA cannot reinstate charges for the child , or can they?

Karr was convicted of the possession charges in CA in absentia. From what I recall from the Ira Eikhorn case, once the person is held back in the jurisdiction where they were convicted in absentia, it can be determined by a judge whether or not to waive the in absentia conviction and start over with a new trial IF that's what the convicted person wants. If Karr or the judge decided to waive the CA charges, then the conviction in absentia still stands and all that remains is sentencing. I believe that saying the CA charges have been waived/dismissed means that the conviction in absentia will stand.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4204465
In California, Karr was charged with five counts of possession of child and released from jail. He fled and was convicted in absentia.

I find it kind of confusing as it doesn't often happen that someone convicted in absentia is found and held over again. Eikhorn's case was pretty unusual also as French law prohibits someone tried and found guilty in absentia... but Eikhorn was a citizen of France whereas Karr wasn't a citizen of Thailand - he was a foreigner with a work visa - (and Thailand may be ok with convictions in absentia anyway). Anyway... I think once the person is found, they can fight the conviction in absentia if they want to. Still, if the charges are waived/dismissed it just means that the conviction in absentia still stands.

To further confuse things, some states require a re-trial of someone previously convicted in absentia, and I have no idea if CO is one of them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia
Some state laws provide for automatic retrial of fugitives who are arrested after being convicted in absentia.

It would be nice if the media would get an attorney on the tube to explain all this in layman's terms... I think the TH's are just as confused as the rest of us (or they've just forgotten that Karr was convicted of these charges in absentia).

Incidently, in absentia means "in the absence of"... in other words, in the absence of the defendant.

I think I might have just confused people even more. Oooops. :silenced:

 

[dragonfly707]

THe CO situation is what it is. We only hope CO has something conclusive on the suspect, but to most of us, it appears they are pretty far out on the limb, on this one.

If the CO escapade falls apart, which it could easily do, from surface appearances, then the CA charges will be pursued.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_theme=sa&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date&p_product=SA&p_text_direct-0=document_id=(%20113A09829A7B4430%20)&&s_dlid=DL0106082118271113859&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa

Sonoma County's child charges pending against John Mark Karr will wait while Colorado authorities pursue their case, authorities said Friday.


Karr, arrested Wednesday in Thailand, could face murder charges in the 1996 slaying of JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder, Colo.

Karr has been a fugitive from Sonoma County since 2001, when he failed to appear for a court hearing after being charged with five misdemeanor counts of possessing child .


Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua has ``no intention to proceed on the misdemeanor charge at this time. The priority is the homicide case.''


But, he added, ``if for some reason that doesn't materialize, then we'll revisit the issue and make an appropriate decision at the time.''


Karr spent about six months in jail before being released without bail.


A warrant was issued when he missed a court hearing in December 2001.


A misdemeanor conviction typically results in no more than a one-year jail sentence. With credit for time served and good behavior, Passalacqua said Karr wouldn't spend much more time in jail if he is convicted in Sonoma County.


One reason to pursue the case anyway, he said, is that a conviction would require Karr to register as a sex offender.


Passalacqua said local authorities were contacted by counterparts in Colorado before Karr was arrested.


``I can say this: There have been ongoing conversations with authorities in California and Colorado,'' he said.


He declined to offer details or say when the contacts began.

 

[lighthouselover]

I just wish they would get the deferred/waived/dismissed thing straightened out before they tell me one more time what he had to eat on the plane.

 

[Buzz Mills]

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_theme=sa&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date&p_product=SA&p_text_direct-0=document_id=(%20113A09829A7B4430%20)&&s_dlid=DL0106082118271113859&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa

Sonoma County's child charges pending against John Mark Karr will wait while Colorado authorities pursue their case, authorities said Friday.


Karr, arrested Wednesday in Thailand, could face murder charges in the 1996 slaying of JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder, Colo.

Karr has been a fugitive from Sonoma County since 2001, when he failed to appear for a court hearing after being charged with five misdemeanor counts of possessing child .


Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua has ``no intention to proceed on the misdemeanor charge at this time. The priority is the homicide case.''


But, he added, ``if for some reason that doesn't materialize, then we'll revisit the issue and make an appropriate decision at the time.''


Karr spent about six months in jail before being released without bail.


A warrant was issued when he missed a court hearing in December 2001.


A misdemeanor conviction typically results in no more than a one-year jail sentence. With credit for time served and good behavior, Passalacqua said Karr wouldn't spend much more time in jail if he is convicted in Sonoma County.


One reason to pursue the case anyway, he said, is that a conviction would require Karr to register as a sex offender.


Passalacqua said local authorities were contacted by counterparts in Colorado before Karr was arrested.


``I can say this: There have been ongoing conversations with authorities in California and Colorado,'' he said.


He declined to offer details or say when the contacts began.

Thanks for posting this dragonfly. I have posted numerous news articles with these statements from Sonama County officials, over the past few days, but the subject keeps coming back up. I wish the news people, CourtTV, or whoever, would choose their words a little more carefully. The charges are on hold, or deferred to the CO charges. CA could probably easily add a little to the charges against Karr, being that he violated not only his release agreement, but also restraining orders, and also failed to appear for his court case.

 

[dragonfly707]

Thanks for posting this dragonfly. I have posted numerous news articles with these statements from Sonama County officials, over the past few days, but the subject keeps coming back up. I wish the news people, CourtTV, or whoever, would choose their words a little more carefully. The charges are on hold, or deferred to the CO charges. CA could probably easily add a little to the charges against Karr, being that he violated not only his release agreement, but also restraining orders, and also failed to appear for his court case.

Unfortunately Sonoma County is pretty well versed in handling major crime issues within its courts here. They are probably trying to play things smart, in that if the confession to the murder in Boulder does not pan out they really want to be next in line at prosecuting this guy for the charges which are outstanding here, including the non appearance, and possible flight charges (he left the state while having been released on his own recog. (that is a big no no here).
Our DA Passalaqua has been around for a long time, even has a family member here who is or was a judge. They are known for fairly ruthless pursuit and prosecution of people here.

 

[JBean]

KFI just reported that the hearing tomorrow is only a formality. That if he waives, then CO can come and pick him up. If he wants a hearing only identity has to be established to complete the hearing and then he will be extradited.Sounded like they were only expecting him for one more day.



Stan Goldman said something. he said that since he is under arrest by CO, they could have just come and picked him up. but the person that authorizes this is out of the office(?) on family business or something. . It was an odd statement, but makes me wonder why he couldn't have gone straight to CO last night. Is it because he landed in another state, simply because there was not a direct flight? Would it have been the same if he had flown into NY? Or is it because there are charges here and they needed that to hold him overnnight because thereis no direct flight to Boulder?

 

[Buzz Mills]

JonBenet Mentioned In '01 Probe Of Suspect
Inkling in Case Was Not Pursued

By Amy Goldstein and Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 19, 2006; Page A01

Five years before John Mark Karr was arrested this week as a suspect in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey, law enforcement officials in California investigating him on child charges suspected he may have been involved in the death of the 6-year-old girl, according to a former attorney for the suspect.

Marie Case, who represented Karr on the 2001 misdemeanor charges, said yesterday that members of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department mentioned to her at the time that "there was possibly some involvement" in the Ramsey slaying 1,200 miles away in Boulder, Colo. -- "just saying, 'Hey, we're looking at this guy.' "

The old suspicions about Karr, 41, emerged yesterday as one of his former wives combed through old family photos, mementos and financial records to establish whether Karr was with his family on Dec. 26, 1996, the day the girl's battered body was discovered. Karr told reporters this week that he was with JonBenet when she died.

Michael L. Rains, an attorney for Lara Knutson, who was married to Karr for a dozen years until late 2001, said yesterday that she is looking for tangible evidence to reinforce -- or perhaps refute -- her memory that her then-husband spent that day after Christmas with her and their three sons in Alabama, where they lived at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801412.html?nav=rss_nation

 

[dragonfly707]

KFI just reported that the hearing tomorrow is only a formality. That if he waives, then CO can come and pick him up. If he wants a hearing only identity has to be established to complete the hearing and then he will be extradited.Sounded like they were only expecting him for one more day.



Stan Goldman said something. he said that since he is under arrest by CO, they could have just come and picked him up. but the person that authorizes this is out of the office(?) on family business or something. . It was an odd statement, but makes me wonder why he couldn't have gone straight to CO last night. Is it because he landed in another state, simply because there was not a direct flight? Would it have been the same if he had flown into NY? Or is it because there are charges here and they needed that to hold him overnnight because thereis no direct flight to Boulder?

I never heard of a suspect being arrested in one state to answer charges in another state without some sort of formal extradition hearing, even if it is only to formally waive extradition.
This does not mean that it has not happened, just means I have never heard of it.
I also think that DA Mary Lacy is wanting all formalities to be followed regarding this person at least from the standpoint to get him there. Imagine something being done wrong and then causing an issue that prohibits CO from following through with their charges/investigation.

 

[JBean]

I never heard of a suspect being arrested in one state to answer charges in another state without some sort of formal extradition hearing, even if it is only to formally waive extradition.
This does not mean that it has not happened, just means I have never heard of it.
I also think that DA Mary Lacy is wanting all formalities to be followed regarding this person at least from the standpoint to get him there. Imagine something being done wrong and then causing an issue that prohibits CO from following through with their charges/investigation.

But what I am saying is :
the arresting agency is CO. Is the only reason he has to go through extradition is because there was not a direct flight to CO? If he had landed in New York, would they have been able to hold him? he is not wanted there on any charges, so could they arrest him?
Did he have to come here so he could be arrested and then open the door for extradition?
CO had as much right to take him out of Thailand as CA did...see what I mean? If there had been a direct flight to CO last night could he have gone straight there and avoided the extradition from state to state?I think that is what Stan was saying?