See this is the type of conversation I was looking for. I can see where Karr is more than likely delusional, just how delusional is anyones guess. I knew he didn't live in Colorado but I remember hearing that he lived in Gerogia at the same time as the Ramseys. What I didn't know was the Ramseys moved to Colorado when JBR was only a year old. He wouldn't have been obsessed with and followed the family over a 1 year old so that's one less part of the equation. Karr being in the garage asking questions wasn't real clear in the documentary, maybe I misheard this but I'm pretty sure John Ramsey said "he was in the garage "last summer" the summer before we lost JB" but again maybe I heard that wrong. I did know it was the house in Michigan but it wasn't real clear on when the incident in the garage took place.
In any case Karr was a child predator and that was why he was wanted at the time he was in Thailand right? It definitely doesn't help his case. What I didn't know was they were able to prove he wasn't in Colorado at the time. I don't remember that being stated in the documentary but in my defense I did binge watch it and I haven't had the chance to watch it again, nor have I done a deep dive on the case. Everything I've said thus far is based off watching the documentary and what I remember in the media. Doing a binge watch I may have missed certain things. I have to ask, how were they able to prove he wasn't in Colorado? This was the 90s so tracking someone wasn't as easy then as it is now. Are we going off an alibi provided by a friend or family member? Or is there concrete can't be disputed proof he could not have been in Colorado at the time? If so then absolutely he can be eliminated. What I meant before was if we're not excluding the Ramseys even though the DNA didn't match anyone in the family then we can't exclude any other potential suspects based on the DNA either. That's going strictly off the idea that there could be an issue with the DNA. The only other issue I have with Karr is how did he know the grandmothers nickname? That wasn't public and I doubt it was ever mentioned publicly before Karr came up with his story. I still have questions but before reading your post and finding out some things that I either missed or just weren't in the documentary I'm sure you can see why Karr was a likely suspect in my view. As for Mike Tracey I don't know much about the guy so I can't comment on that. My theories all came from watching the documentary and what I remember seeing in the media over the years.
I probably should have worded that better, at the beginning it didn't seem like they were looking at other suspects. I'm sure they did as time went on. They did kind of have tunnel vision on the Ramseys in the beginning and it does seem like they tried to bury the Ramseys. Why did they keep going after the Ramseys after the DNA came back, why didn't they tell anyone right away when the DNA came back? You are right though, at the beginning the ball was dropped. Not just by treating the Ramseys as victims but also by allowing others in the house and having the Ramseys search again.
I have no one single theory at this point so I'm kind of on the same page as John Ramsey. Disregarding Karr I think it definitely was a pedophile wether someone random that was possibly at the pagents or someone who was close with the Ramseys. What I'd like to know is did Boulder PD test everyone's DNA who was at the house for support the day of the incident? It would've been an opportunity for the killer to come back and keep an eye on things, tie up loose ends, make sure they didn't miss anything. It could be someone random or it could be a friend or family member, both ideas make sense. The Ramseys were gone for hours the night of the murder so someone could have did as Karr described and waited and hung around the house learning the lay out. Also, who's to say someone couldn't have been in the home previously. Maybe while the Ramseys were on vacation, maybe it was someone who did work for the Ramseys, possibly a plumber or repairman. They could have saw pictures or interacted with JBR while working in the home, they already knew the lay out to some extent from being there, just had to wait for the opportunity to present itself. If it was a friend or outside family member then they'd already know the lay out. If it was someone close there's also a chance they could have known the Ramseys were going to the Christmas party and likely would've known the amount of John's bonus too.
As for the grand jury I'm not really putting a lot of stock into that. Yes they voted to indict the Ramseys, but the DA also said they did not have the evidence to bring charges. The grand jury was presented a case against the Ramseys, Boulder PD had tunnel vision with the Ramseys at the time, the media was all but saying they were guilty, so of course the grand jury probably thought they did it cause it was being painted that way for them. We have to keep in mind with a grand jury you don't really get to defend yourself, it's the prosecution presenting their case. Is there evidence we don't know about, I hope so cause that might help if a new suspect comes to light. The issue is we don't know if this was circumstantial evidence or physical evidence. If it's circumstantial so what, if it's physical there's a reason they "didn't have the evidence to bring charges".
According to the documentary Lou Smit did find a match when he tested various tasers on pork skin, they even showed photos of the marks on the pork skin compared to the marks on JBR and they were definitely close if not identical, that I remember specifically cause I thought it was insane that Boulder PD said it wasn't relevant. Not saying I don't believe the coroner but coroner's do disagree from time to time. They tried to say it was abrasions from the train tracks or something far fetched like that. The train tracks wouldn't have made perfect squares identical or nearly identical to the taser burns on the pork skin. I was just saying in my above post that there is science behind why Smit used pork skin, Porcine gelatin is used for ballistics testing because it's the closest to human skin. I'm a nerd when it comes to ballistics and one thing I can say for certain is the FBI really took things seriously when coming up with their ballistics testing protocol. Projectiles that meet the FBI criteria generally have really good street performance so they definitely got it right with the 10% gel testing. I have no idea if the FBI or other LE agencies ever used pork skin to match taser burns or any other kinds of marks or lacerations but I have to believe that a taser would make the same marks on a pig that it would on a human, even if the color is different the shapes and sizes would have to be the same. To me it seems like the PD and Coroner kind of brushed it off where Smit actually went and tried to prove his theory. Sure Smit wasn't able to solve this one but the guy solved a lot of cases, the Boulder detectives didn't really have homicide experience. I have to side with Smit on that one.
Obviously there are things about this case that I don't know yet and if I'm wrong on something I'm certainly open to correction. In any case I just can't believe at this point in time that it was the Ramseys or that it was Burke and the Ramseys covered it up. If there was any way possible that Boulder PD could have proved it was the Ramseys they would have, they left no stone unturned when it came to the Ramseys. If it was anyone in the Ramsey family there's no way John would publicly campaign to have the DNA retested with modern technology and genealogy. That's just not the behavior of someone involved in a crime. Before seeing the documentary I believed it was the Ramseys because that's how it was painted in the media. After seeing the documentary and getting at least some parts of both sides it just doesn't add up that the Ramseys were involved.
JMK was born in Conyers, Georgia in 1964, and spent his childhood years in the Atlanta area. In 1976 he moved to Alabama to be raised by his grandparents. JR moved to Atlanta in 1973 with his first family. He and his first wife divorced in 1978, and he married PR in 1980. Reportedly, JMK lived again near Atlanta for a short period of time in 1992. The Ramseys were already in Colorado by that time. Very doubtful that their paths would've crossed in Georgia, as JMK was in Alabama by the time JR and PR were together.
JMK was being investigated on possession of child
in 2001. He was ultimately charged with five misdemeanor counts. He was jailed for 5 months but was eventually released under a program of supervision. He skipped a court appearance prior to trial and bolted out of the country country. He spent time in various countries according to his resume, which included the Honduras, Costa Rica, South Korea and the Netherlands before landing in Thailand.
There was the claim of the maid at their home in Charlevoix that she saw JMK in the garage there the summer before the murder. She apparently made this claim after seeing him on tv arriving back in Colorado under arrest in 2006. I don't question her intentions, however that's a full 10 years later. She is the only person to claim to have seen him there.
The woman JMK was married to at the time (1996) told police that he was at home in Alabama with her and their children on Christmas that year. IIRC she was able to produce some photographs which proved that he was indeed there in Alabama with his family and not in Colorado.
The only thing JMK supposedly knew that was not widely known publicly was Nedra's supposed nickname. IMO I don't think that's much of a stretch to guess that "Neddie" was the nickname, it's a common nickname for Nedra. The name Nedra is a feminine version of the name Edward, often shortened to "Ned". Is there evidence though that JB with regularity called her grandmother by her nickname? Not much that I am aware of.
I am assuming that the documentary you are referring to is the one airing on Netflix. That really needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. It was done with the cooperation of JR and is essentially Ramsey propaganda. It does not present a balanced view of the case at all. There were a lot of facts left out, and bringing up JMK AGAIN is misleading. He was taken seriously as a suspect when they extradited him from Thailand, but the lack of evidence of his claims was clear, which is why he was never charged and released. He's a creepy guy, no doubt.
Michael Tracey is an interesting guy, for sure. Depending on who you ask, he's either great or just an opportunist who likes the spotlight. IMO, he falls into the category of Ramsey sycophant. Convinced of the Ramseys innocence, he like others in this case (Lou Smit, John Douglas) tends to ignore or overlook evidence that puts their innocence in question. He has produced more than one documentary of the Ramsey case, however he has a tendency to glom onto false leads and promote them as being legitimate. He has claimed to have evidence that no one else does, but at the end of the day he fails to produce anything of value.
In answer to your question about providing DNA samples, it is my understanding that yes, everyone who was present in the Ramsey home on the morning of 12/26 did indeed provide whatever the police asked for. And I do think that it's noteworthy to mention that all those folks cooperated fully and immediately when asked, unlike the Ramseys themselves.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that the BPD had tunnel vision about the Ramseys. The FBI was there that first day too, and they felt strongly that a body would be found and that it was likely that someone in the family was involved in whatever had happened. Evidence of an intruder was scant at best, it mostly comes down to that foreign DNA. But there wasn't much and little there was, was found to be a mixture of at least two or more people. The facts are that DNA could've come from anyone, anywhere and at anytime. It is far from being conclusive evidence of an intruder or intruders. As the years have gone by and more information becomes known about the Ramseys, we know that hygiene was not something being taught or focused on. When asked when JB's last bath was, PR couldn't say but she was pretty sure she had not taken a bath on Christmas day. She had been riding around on her new bike. At the White's Christmas party she interacted with the other guests, she played with Dafne White and it was specifically mentioned that they were playing on the floor with some toys. Both PR and JR were asked if they asked JB to wash her hands before dinner, neither thought that they did.
By the time the DNA evidence had been tested, the BPD and the DA's office were at serious odds. DA Alex Hunter did everything he could to meddle in and obstruct the police's investigation. By his own admission, he was speaking on a daily basis with a tabloid reporter (Jeff Shapiro) and feeding him stories to print. He actively worked to ensure that negative stories were printed about the BPD that pained them in a bad light and bolstered the Ramseys' claim of their incompetence. Hunter refused to sign off on subpoenas (most notably the phone records), gave special concessions to the Ramsey defense team like allowing them to see their previous statements and divulging evidence that had been uncovered. So it's no surprise to me that the police did not want to share what the DNA evidence was.
The Ramseys were present in the house that night when the murder occurred. There were not obvious signs of an intruder. The family is always going to be the first focus. Once they are ruled out, the circle widens. If you are not cooperating, it's kind of hard to be ruled out. The Ramseys chose to give a nationally televised interview on CNN instead of sitting for interview with police. They immediately lawyered up (not arguing that wasn't smart) and waited four months before agreeing to interviews and only after their lawyers had negotiated unprecedented terms that favored the Ramseys. They hired PR people to spin the story with their narrative, accusing the BPD of targeting them which they had decided was happening beginning on the 26th. They made sure to say they understood that they would need to be investigated and ruled out, while at the same time complaining they were being treated unfairly and targeted and not cooperating with the investigation so that they could be ruled out.
We must also remember that the Grand Jury evidence has been kept secret from the public. There is evidence that the public does not know about. In another unprecedented move, Lou Smit was able to present his intruder theory to the GJ. They didn't buy it. What evidence they saw and testimony they heard which the public is not privy to, convinced them enough to return two true bills for each parent. I don't think we can be dismissive of that. What is concerning is why Alex Hunter felt the need to hide from the public that there were indeed indictments handed down for years. The public has a right to know, which is what a judge found 13 years later when he ruled that the truth of the true bills be made public. The rest is still under seal.
From what we do know, a couple GJ members who have spoken out revealed that they felt the Ramseys were guilty, that they had an idea of who "did it", but were unclear on exactly who did what. There is more than just one element to this case. As such, they were looking to a trial to make that clear....exactly who did what. From what I understand, this case is largely circumstantial so without a smoking gun, it probably would be hard to meet the criteria of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don't dispute that Hunter didn't feel he could get a conviction, but his meddling and lack of transparency are concerning. If you know his record, his reputation was as a prosecutor who rarely prosecuted. He preferred to plea bargain. His trial skills were weak and he liked to say he was saving taxpayers money by not taking cases to trial. On the other side of that coin though, is a track record of letting offender off easy and putting them back on the street to re-offend. The most egregious of some of those cases involved child
and abuse. As a result, more children were harmed instead of protected by his decisions. When there is evidence to prosecute child abusers, why would you let them off easy to put more children in danger? Alex Hunter was far too wrapped up in the numbers game of wanting positive percentages. And his connections with the Ramsey defense team should've been a cause of concern.
Lou Smit did not find a match. And while he chose the right subject to test on (pigs) because of there similarities with human skin, it also needs to be noted that when they were testing the pigs were anesthetized. They were out cold. A knocked out pig is not the same as a child who may or may not have been asleep. Once tased, if she was asleep she would've woken up screaming and writhing. But there is also the question of her being asleep. We know she ate pineapple after arriving home that night. JR's first story on the morning of the 26th, as told to two separate police officers was that she was awake and that he read to her before going to bed. Burke has admitted she was awake, helped bring presents to the doors of their friends on the way home, got out of the car on her own steam after arriving home and walked up the stairs by herself followed by PR. The story only changed 4 months later after they realized they all needed to be asleep and in bed for the intruder theory to be believed. And then we also have the admission of Burke that he went downstairs to play with his toy after thinking that everyone else was asleep. Guess it was pure luck he didn't run into the "intruder".
I don't think the coroner or the BPD brushed off the stun gun theory, Lou simply couldn't prove it. Another point that many do not realize is that all we have really seen is the concise, short version of the autopsy report. There are extensive notes that the coroner made that are still sealed. And he has not spoken publicly about the extensive findings. He found the marks to be abrasions, not burn marks that a stun gun would leave. The head of the company that manufactured the stun gun that Lou Smith thought might be "the one", and who provided stun guns for LS to use in his tests has said he has never seen marks like were found to have been made by a stun gun. Experts have debunked the stun gun theory. Lou wanted to go as far as having the body exhumed to prove his theory, which of course would've gone a long way in exonerating the Ramseys. They refused.
