Coincidences

[DeeDee249]

They did take possession of the computers, but were searching for or evidence that had been accessed. Was it common knowledge in 1996 that pedophiles would 'groom' children by pretending to be children themselves? In fact, it's the very thing that tricks the kids into giving information about themselves. Unless LE was specifically looking for it, I doubt it would have rung alarm bells with them if Burke had an 'online' friend.

Just from what I have read about BR, he was a bit immature for his age. In 1996 I don't think kids that age were as computer-savvy, nor did they usually have their own laptops or computers. I have a hard time envisioning him having cyber-friends. He was said to like video games, Nintendo and such, and that seems more likely. I am sure LE searched the computers for emails and chat rooms as well.

 

[MurriFlower]

Just from what I have read about BR, he was a bit immature for his age. In 1996 I don't think kids that age were as computer-savvy, nor did they usually have their own laptops or computers. I have a hard time envisioning him having cyber-friends. He was said to like video games, Nintendo and such, and that seems more likely. I am sure LE searched the computers for emails and chat rooms as well.

Maybe that is true of most kids, but this one had a Daddy with a computer business. Apparently he was a studious, quiet, clever kid. I've heard him referred to as a 'gamer', which makes me think of the on line games, not the hand held variety.

 

[Zak]

Maybe that is true of most kids, but this one had a Daddy with a computer business. Apparently he was a studious, quiet, clever kid. I've heard him referred to as a 'gamer', which makes me think of the on line games, not the hand held variety.

I may be wrong about this and if I am please forgive me, but back in 96 I think everyone was still on dial-up internet connections. I thought that I had read that the R's used Compuserve (sp?) to access the internet. Anyway, my point is that back then there was not the online gaming that there is today. My own boy's were into the game systems and believe me they had each system when it came out, but I don't remember them playing any games online. One thing that I do remember is that the internet at that time was not as cheap as it is today. I remember going over our allotted time for the month and getting an AOL bill of like $150 several times. So I think that if BR was referred to as a "gamer" that meant that he played all the games/systems of that time period (Nintendo, Sega Saturn, Nintendo 64, etc.) and not that he was playing games online.

 

[MurriFlower]

I may be wrong about this and if I am please forgive me, but back in 96 I think everyone was still on dial-up internet connections. I thought that I had read that the R's used Compuserve (sp?) to access the internet. Anyway, my point is that back then there was not the online gaming that there is today. My own boy's were into the game systems and believe me they had each system when it came out, but I don't remember them playing any games online. One thing that I do remember is that the internet at that time was not as cheap as it is today. I remember going over our allotted time for the month and getting an AOL bill of like $150 several times. So I think that if BR was referred to as a "gamer" that meant that he played all the games/systems of that time period (Nintendo, Sega Saturn, Nintendo 64, etc.) and not that he was playing games online.

WarCraft:Orcs & Humans came out in 1994. Is that exclusively on line or played off line too?

 

[madeleine]

WarCraft:Orcs & Humans came out in 1994. Is that exclusively on line or played off line too?

Dunno about warcraft 1 but you can play warcraft 2 and 3 both offline-single player and multiplayer (online)

 

[madeleine]

Of course, we all know he was not able to be shown to be in Boulder when JB was killed. NOTHING links him to this crime. Even Mary Lacy knows his "confession" was a pathetic attempt by a sick pervert obsessed with JB to make himself famous at her expense and link their names forever. He was successful at that, anyway.

I know this has been discussed before but it still bothers me.In the beginning they said JMK told LE details that were never made public.Was that media spin,did ML lie or is this true?They never said anything about it after his DNA didn't match but I think it's important.
Did he know something only the killer/s would know or NOT?
It's important to me because even if he wasn't in Boulder and even if there is no evidence that he had anything to do with the crime,this doesn't mean he never met the real killer or talked to him/her online.These creeps love to brag about their crimes.

 

[claudicici]

In 1996 the online chat rooms were HUGE...there were some fantasy role playing games even on AOL chat....

 

[DeeDee249]

I know this has been discussed before but it still bothers me.In the beginning they said JMK told LE details that were never made public.Was that media spin,did ML lie or is this true?They never said anything about it after his DNA didn't match but I think it's important.
Did he know something only the killer/s would know or NOT?
It's important to me because even if he wasn't in Boulder and even if there is no evidence that he had anything to do with the crime,this doesn't mean he never met the real killer or talked to him/her online.These creeps love to brag about their crimes.

He did NOT. That was media spin. And Lacy/Smit/Tracy spin. They made that comment when JMK was first arrested, and, like the case against him, was found to have no merit. If there had been anything at all that JMK knew that had not been made public (either deliberately or not, as a lot of info, like the autopsy photos, was leaked and not officially "released") JMK would not have been cleared/released.
This is graphic (and disgusting) but JMK talked about having oral sex with JB. Had that been the case, his saliva would have been in her or on her or her clothes. Now, there is a lot of speculation that the male DNA on JB's panties was saliva. That has not been confirmed by LE. The swabs of her thighs and pubic area, at first thought to be semen or saliva, turned out to be JB's own blood, and no one else's DNA was mixed with that.
When the male DNA was NOT matched to JMK, he was quickly seen for what he was- a pathetic pervert, obsessed with very young girls and JB particularly, but who had NO ties to her death. The sick fantasies he spun in his cesspool of a mind, to me, are enough to lock him away forever so he can't get to some innocent child. But our laws say he must actually abuse a child before that can happen. And even then, they aren't locked up forever. I am sure he hurt more than one little girl in Thailand. Thanks to Lacy and her crew for bringing him back to the USA to prey on little girls here. Talk about "catch and release".
And we ALL know how these sick perverts operate. They tend to escalate from fantasy to reality. One day he WILL have his "JonBenet". And he'll kill her, too. If that happens, if only ML could be prosecuted along with him.

 

[MurriFlower]

In 1996 the online chat rooms were HUGE...there were some fantasy role playing games even on AOL chat....

And perhaps people were still innocent enough not to realise the dangers, especially to children.

 

[claudicici]

I completely agree with that Murry,I do think it's possible that "inside" R information could have been innocently passed on that way.Maybe BR even heard the parents talk about the bonus amount and mentioned it in a chat ....

 

[MurriFlower]

He did NOT. That was media spin. And Lacy/Smit/Tracy spin. They made that comment when JMK was first arrested, and, like the case against him, was found to have no merit. If there had been anything at all that JMK knew that had not been made public (either deliberately or not, as a lot of info, like the autopsy photos, was leaked and not officially "released") JMK would not have been cleared/released.
This is graphic (and disgusting) but JMK talked about having oral sex with JB. Had that been the case, his saliva would have been in her or on her or her clothes. Now, there is a lot of speculation that the male DNA on JB's panties was saliva. That has not been confirmed by LE. The swabs of her thighs and pubic area, at first thought to be semen or saliva, turned out to be JB's own blood, and no one else's DNA was mixed with that.
When the male DNA was NOT matched to JMK, he was quickly seen for what he was- a pathetic pervert, obsessed with very young girls and JB particularly, but who had NO ties to her death. The sick fantasies he spun in his cesspool of a mind, to me, are enough to lock him away forever so he can't get to some innocent child. But our laws say he must actually abuse a child before that can happen. And even then, they aren't locked up forever. I am sure he hurt more than one little girl in Thailand. Thanks to Lacy and her crew for bringing him back to the USA to prey on little girls here. Talk about "catch and release".
And we ALL know how these sick perverts operate. They tend to escalate from fantasy to reality. One day he WILL have his "JonBenet". And he'll kill her, too. If that happens, if only ML could be prosecuted along with him.

So do you think they should have just ignored JMK's confession and left him to persue his 'interests' in Thailand or wherever he was?

I think they were really between a rock and a hard place. He was obviously not someone that should have been let loose with children, either in his own country or anywhere else in the world. They followed him and when they saw him 'grooming' other children, and there was concern that he was too close to causing harm, he was stopped. Should they have waited until a child was abused?

The fact that he managed to secure a teaching position overseas is a worry in itself, but unless he had some sort of conviction against him, there is nothing to stop him from being employed in this type of position.

You guys are very hard on people, without knowing or taking into account all the facts.

 

[BBB167893]

I believe staging means: arranged: deliberately arranged for effect only...it's meant to be a deceptive practice to fool someone into thinking something other than what happened, happened.

Right. It goes to intent.

I keep hearing people say the garotte was "staging" but JonBenet was strangled with that cord enough to cause a deep furrow that encircled her entire neck and cause petechial hemorrhaging and enough for the coroner to rule her death as caused by strangulation.

It's still staging if they thought she was dead. IOWs, they lacked the mens rea to murder her.

So if you believe PR did it, then you must follow that JB was either bashed in the skull hard and then while she lay possibly dying, instead of calling 911, she got John, they wrote a lengthy note, gathered up some tape and cord, got a paintbrush from the paint box, broke it, tied some fancy knots and then strangled their daughter, sexually violated her, and disposed of the other end of the paintbrush, the rest of the tape, the rest of the cord, but left a practice note.

Yeah, that's about it, with a few quibbles.

The fibers from PR's clothing being in her things, on JB and in the house in general is not unusual because she lived there.

Ah, and that's the key! The fibers were not "in the house in general." They were on things that they should NOT have been near. PR said she never wore those clothes while painting and the claim has always been that the tape and the cord were not in the house before that night. To say nothing of PR's own attempts to explain the fibers which are just another glaring inconsistency.

 

[BBB167893]

"24 Q. How about brown cotton fibers that
25 were found on the duct tape, the cord and
416
1 her body that were consistent but no source
2 found? Is that accurate?
3 A. That were consistent with what?
4 Q. They were consistent with each
5 other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers
6 that were consistent with fibers found on
7 duct tape, cords and her body?
8 A. That's beyond the scope of what I
9 know and just to educate you, if you allow
10 me.
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. Anything hair and fiber related,
13 Trujillo knows.
14 Q. I think we've already talked about
15 it was a large number of fibers that were
16 never sourced, right, while you were there?
17 A. In the house, yes.
18 Q. There was a pubic hair, or what
19 was believed to be a pubic hair, that may
20 have turned out to be an ancillary hair, but
21 that hair has never been sourced, as you know
22 it?
23 A. As far as I know.


25 Q. And, you know, without going and I
246
1 guess we could do it if we need to, maybe
2 we'll do it later but let's just for a
3 moment see if we can't generally agree, that
4 there were a considerable number of fibers
5 found on JonBenet Ramsey's body and articles
6 of clothing that were not in fact sourced by
7 the investigation, true?
8 A. Whether artifact or evidence, yeah,
9 there were a number of hair and fiber pieces
10 in this case that I know they, Trujillo and
11 CBI, were trying to source.
12 Q. And as of August of '98 had not
13 been able to do so, true?
14 A. That's my understanding.
"

I see. Using outdated information that was not challenged.

 

[BBB167893]

So do you think they should have just ignored JMK's confession and left him to persue his 'interests' in Thailand or wherever he was?

Ignored it? Certainly not. That's NOT what anyone is suggesting. What we're saying is that there were better ways to handle it, instead of charging like a bull at a flag. It's that kind of foolish action that makes people like me wonder just what ML was out to do: solve the case? Or give a gift to the Rs?

I think they were really between a rock and a hard place. He was obviously not someone that should have been let loose with children, either in his own country or anywhere else in the world. They followed him and when they saw him 'grooming' other children, and there was concern that he was too close to causing harm, he was stopped. Should they have waited until a child was abused?

What they SHOULD have done was quietly brought him back for what they KNEW he had done and conducted an investigation behind the scenes instead of shouting from the rooftops that they had their man. My digital watch is smarter than that!

 

[cynic]

So do you think they should have just ignored JMK's confession and left him to persue his 'interests' in Thailand or wherever he was?
The fact that he managed to secure a teaching position overseas is a worry in itself, but unless he had some sort of conviction against him, there is nothing to stop him from being employed in this type of position.

Why don’t you look at his “confession?”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/karr-case-collapses

He waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenet’s bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.

Near the mid portion of the E-mail, the writer explains the duct tape covering the mouth of JonBenet, was "part of the kidnapping diversion that would coincide with the note." The writer also mentions, the duct tape was "placed on her mouth just prior to the fatal blow" to prevent blood from escaping from her mouth." The tape was not in place during the sexual encounter, according to the writer.

Are you going to believe that he just simply picked JBR out her bed, and carried her all the way downstairs, completely unrestrained, to the wine cellar where he claims to have had a prolonged sexual encounter without her struggling or screaming extensively? Seriously??????
Additionally, ML’s reason that he had to be brought back for a more pristine DNA sample is pure nonsense and a number of DNA experts have said as much.
So the thing that shocks me, Nancy, is simply that the DA had him arrested without having any tangible evidence. And I still think that there should have been, surreptitiously, DNA taken and tested before this whole rigmarole. And I do not buy the excuse that they needed a pure exemplar, cheek cells. It just doesn`t make any sense because there have been cases that have been decided on DNA obtained through surreptitious means. The cases were adjudicated and the individual was convicted. So I don`t buy it. This is a poor excuse by the DA, I`m afraid.
-Larry Kobilinsky
Nancy Grace, September 4, 2006

I think they were really between a rock and a hard place.

No, they were not.

He was obviously not someone that should have been let loose with children, either in his own country or anywhere else in the world. They followed him and when they saw him 'grooming' other children, and there was concern that he was too close to causing harm, he was stopped. Should they have waited until a child was abused?

So it’s the Boulder DA’s job to pursue errant pedophiles all over the globe and fly them first class back to the USA? Are they continuing to follow him to make sure he is not "grooming" children in the USA?
The JMK case is truly a testament to the incredible incompetence of ML and an even greater testament to her desperation to find someone, anyone, guilty in the JBR case as long as it’s not a Ramsey.

You guys are very hard on people, without knowing or taking into account all the facts.

In Mary Lacy’s case, not hard enough. (And the facts have been taken into account.)

 

[MurriFlower]

Why don’t you look at his “confession?”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/karr-case-collapses

He waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenet’s bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.

Near the mid portion of the E-mail, the writer explains the duct tape covering the mouth of JonBenet, was "part of the kidnapping diversion that would coincide with the note." The writer also mentions, the duct tape was "placed on her mouth just prior to the fatal blow" to prevent blood from escaping from her mouth." The tape was not in place during the sexual encounter, according to the writer.

Are you going to believe that he just simply picked JBR out her bed, and carried her all the way downstairs, completely unrestrained, to the wine cellar where he claims to have had a prolonged sexual encounter without her struggling or screaming extensively? Seriously??????
Additionally, ML’s reason that he had to be brought back for a more pristine DNA sample is pure nonsense and a number of DNA experts have said as much.
So the thing that shocks me, Nancy, is simply that the DA had him arrested without having any tangible evidence. And I still think that there should have been, surreptitiously, DNA taken and tested before this whole rigmarole. And I do not buy the excuse that they needed a pure exemplar, cheek cells. It just doesn`t make any sense because there have been cases that have been decided on DNA obtained through surreptitious means. The cases were adjudicated and the individual was convicted. So I don`t buy it. This is a poor excuse by the DA, I`m afraid.
-Larry Kobilinsky
Nancy Grace, September 4, 2006
No, they were not.
So it’s the Boulder DA’s job to pursue errant pedophiles all over the globe and fly them first class back to the USA? Are they continuing to follow him to make sure he is not "grooming" children in the USA?
The JMK case is truly a testament to the incredible incompetence of ML and an even greater testament to her desperation to find someone, anyone, guilty in the JBR case as long as it’s not a Ramsey.
In Mary Lacy’s case, not hard enough. (And the facts have been taken into account.)

You guys, completely without evidence, but based on an assumption that when a child is killed and found in her own home, that overwhelmingly the parents are found to be the killers, would have 'thrown the Rs into jail until one of them confessed'.

However, when a known pedophile confesses to her murder (following a long dialogue with someone on the subject), you would have just left him in a foreign country (where he could have disappeared), tested him for DNA and then dismissed him as a kook? You think this is reasonable? Seriously???????

 

[cynic]

You guys, completely without evidence, but based on an assumption that when a child is killed and found in her own home, that overwhelmingly the parents are found to be the killers, would have 'thrown the Rs into jail until one of them confessed'.

However, when a known pedophile confesses to her murder (following a long dialogue with someone on the subject), you would have just left him in a foreign country (where he could have disappeared), tested him for DNA and then dismissed him as a kook? You think this is reasonable? Seriously???????

Completely without evidence
Sure.

I ask again, have you read his "confession?"
There is no evidence there or anywhere that warranted ML's actions.
He is free to "disappear" from the USA as we speak, how has anything changed?

 

[MurriFlower]

I ask again, have you read his "confession?"

No, and I cannot find it in the link you provided.

There is no evidence there or anywhere that warranted ML's actions.

Her actions, as I understand them, were to keep him under surveillance in Thailand and when they believed he was about to molest another child, he was arrested there on the basis of his correspondence with Tracey and suspicion that he was involved. I'm thinking the confession would have come when he returned to USA?

He is free to "disappear" from the USA as we speak, how has anything changed?

Well, aside from being a kook, has he actually every been charged and convicted of any crime?

 

[cynic]

No, and I cannot find it in the link you provided.

It's there, but this is direct:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/newworld/johnkarr.pdf

Her actions, as I understand them, were to keep him under surveillance in Thailand and when they believed he was about to molest another child, he was arrested there on the basis of his correspondence with Tracey and suspicion that he was involved. I'm thinking the confession would have come when he returned to USA?

Who is keeping him under surveillance in the USA, where he is now free to molest at will, thanks to ML.

Well, aside from being a kook, has he actually every been charged and convicted of any crime?

No.

 

[MurriFlower]

It's there, but this is direct:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/newworld/johnkarr.pdf

Sorry, no time to read 98 pages today!

Who is keeping him under surveillance in the USA, where he is now free to molest at will, thanks to ML.

No.

How is she to stop him if as you agree, he has never 'done' anything? Surely that's what you criticised her for when he was brought back to USA? Or would you have rathered he stayed in Thailand and molested kids there?