Pictures of the Karr Family Christmas of 1996 Have Been Found

[Eagle1]

For some reason, I don't think he wanted to be female, I think he wanted to be like a child without facial hair, an adam's apple or anything else that made him appear as an adult. I think he was fascinated with little girls and wanted to appear attractive and youthful to them. I think he was hostile to little boys, making them upset in class, because he was competing with them for the attention of little girls.

I think this guy has stunted emotional growth somewhere around the age of 6 or 10.

His mother died in some kind of accident, reason Karr and his siblings went to live with grandparents. I have no idea what accident. He stopped growing mentally?

He'd evidently been raised Catholic till then, and his grandfather was a Baptist preacher, correct?

 

[Eagle1]

It is very possible he was taking the pictures therefore could not be in them. However, I wonder if he spent Christmas morning with them and then took off and returned the following day.

My idea exactly.

Passenger lists may have been checked already (?) He usually uses his real name, but maybe he had some pal with a private plane or something like that. And maybe he was so not there for his family all the time his absence wasn't even noticed.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hiya Otto,

You wrote:
"I think this guy has stunted emotional growth somewhere around the age of 6 or 10."

I think so too. Is he really a pedophile? I'm just not sure that he is in the sense that he would harm any of them. I just don't have that proof yet. There is definitely something wrong here...but I'm just not sure what the "real evidence" and "real result" is.

Thanks for writing what you did.

W

 

[otto]

Years ago, my partner and I spent 6 weeks in Europe. When we returned with hundreds of photos, people asked why there were so many pictures of me and no pictures of him.

The answer was that he is the photographer in the family. Taking pictures doesn't interest me.

But I can promise you he wasn't in Colorado during those 6 weeks.

Sure, but if your partner notified the press that they were sure of something and could produce photos, wouldn't you expect them? It's not up to the prosecution to prove alibi, it's up to the suspect to prove that they were in another place at the time of the crime. So far, John Karr wants to place himself at the scene of the crime and a lot of people want to believe he wasn't there. His ex-wife wants to believe that he wasn't there and is desperately searching for photos so she can breath clear and reassure her children that their dad is a pedophile, but not an obsessed child sex murderer.

I don't think there are any photos because I don't think he was there ... going out on a limb here ... but I think that he was wrecking everyone's Christmas.

 

[otto]

Hiya Otto,

You wrote:
"I think this guy has stunted emotional growth somewhere around the age of 6 or 10."

I think so too. Is he really a pedophile? I'm just not sure that he is in the sense that he would harm any of them. I just don't have that proof yet. There is definitely something wrong here...but I'm just not sure what the "real evidence" and "real result" is.

Thanks for writing what you did.

W

I would like to hear from the children in Germany. Although they would not speak out for fear of being stigmatized as sexually abused children, they are the people that could verify whether he just likes to look or there is more to it.

 

[otto]

Why would he have picked the most noticeable day to be gone out of the entire YEAR (Christmas), to take off and commit a murder so far away?

It wasn't as if this was the only day available.

Christmas is special. Ask Jackie Peterson about her father, Scott Peterson about his wife and I'm sure the list goes on. I stand by my analysis that abusive, controlling people don't want anyone to be happy unless the focus is on them so if birthdays and Christmas are not about the "control freak", they want to do whatever they can to make other people; especially people they admire, to be unhappy on special days ... just like them. I have also come to the conclusion that people with this defect had problems in early childhood (0 - 6 years of age) from which they never recovered.
Just a theory

 

[otto]

Actually the Prosecution and the Courts have an obligation to make sure nutballs are not confessing to crimes they didnt commit. They are responsible to determine they have the guilty person. If they neglect that responsibility that allows actual perps to run free comitting more crimes while nutballs serve their time.

The prosecution won't run with a theory unless they think they can win. You're only as good as your last conviction, after all. Prosecutors will tell you that "it's more fun to convict the innocent." (close_enough ... I can't explain why I'm so cynical, but I am).

 

[dottierainbow]

There have been many prosecuted that were totally innocent. You hear it all the time. BIG notch on the belt for every win.
Amy

 

[otto]

There have been many prosecuted that were totally innocent. You hear it all the time. BIG notch on the belt for every win.
Amy

The fact that families are being convicted in the media should be a concern to everyone. The Ramsays were convicted in the media, but in a court of law they are innocent and no prosecutor will touch it ... cuz there's no evidence.

Many are defending the rights of this poor sap ... not a celebrity ... that has just been thrust into celebrity status and the American LE is wining and dining him (unlike how Aruban LE treat suspects). The poor guy. He's a confessed lunatic and perhaps a confess murderer ... why is the public so protective of him if not to justify their persecution of the Ramsays?

 

[tumble]

why is the public so protective of him if not to justify their persecution of the Ramsays

They are not protective over him. They want to jail him for what he has done, but not for something he didn't do.

 

[otto]

why is the public so protective of him if not to justify their persecution of the Ramsays

They are not protective over him. They want to jail him for what he has done, but not for something he didn't do.

So he should be jailed for skipping town on a child computer violation. Okay. I suppose he's just a good guy with an obsession about a couple of crimes ... not unlike everyone here.

 

[tumble]

So he should be jailed for skipping town on a child computer violation. Okay. I suppose he's just a good guy with an obsession about a couple of crimes ... not unlike everyone here.

No not everyone,

I think many people here at this time are not obsessed by any crime but found recent interest in this crime as it has been reported heavily in the media.

Just look at the number of posts people have made and you will see that many are quite new to the case.

 

[Chrishope]

I think that JonBenet (not "the girl") was murdered by a stranger. This has nothing to do with whether parents murder, this is because there is no conclusive evidence of who caused the murder. The family, police, district attorney and friends all messed up but there is still no suspect better than John Karr.

People that believe the Ramsays are innocent understand that fruitcakes like Andrea Yates and Susan Smith murder their children, but to put the Ramsays in that category is an insult one's intelligence.

Why is it an insult to one's intelligence? In most cases where a child is murdered in the home, the parents were involved. The police found no evidence of intruders at 6am when there was frost on the ground. The grate had a spider web over it. OTOH neighbors saw strange cars in the area (though not an unusual thing at Christmas with people attending parties and out of state relatives visiting). It seems to me intelligent detectives have chosen RDI or IDI, which isn't suprising. Economists disagree with one another, as do physicists, etc., etc., so no suprise detectives disagree. I don't see anything insulting to the intelligence about thinking the Ramseys may have been involved.

 

[otto]

No not everyone,

I think many people here at this time are not obsessed by any crime but found recent interest in this crime as it has been reported heavily in the media.

Just look at the number of posts people have made and you will see that many are quite new to the case.

People did find a recent interest in this crime and have all returned to the 'scene of the crime' ... where they met on the Laci board or elsewhere on this forum. They're not obsessed with any particular crime, but they are singular in their interpretation.

New to the case, new hats old names, lurkers with new names, and a lot of familiar and welcome voices. New to the JonBenet (not "the girl!) case should be born in about 1990, I figure.

 

[Jayelles]

There are lots of issues here but I have to agree with Tybee regarding the amount of time he would have to have been away.

If he drove, Tybee reckons he would have been away from home 50-60 hours - that's over 2 days and would have to have left Alabama on either Christmas Eve or early Christmas morning - returning late on 26th. I'm sure his wife and other relatives would have remembered that.

If he flew, he could have done it there and back in a day. I've checked that it's a 3 hour direct flight PLUS time to drive to the airport PLUS he would have to get from Denver airport to the Ramsey house so that might have involved a hire car. Now here's the crunch - we know that Grampa Paugh flew home on standby/apex tickets that Christmas. It's really hard to get last minute flights here at Christmas (last minute rail tickets are hard to get too). So he might have had to plan this well in advance in order to assured of flights.

It just isn't adding up.

 

[Mygirlsadie]

You know what is sad is that I can't even remember if my hubby spent Christmas of 96 with us or not due to the fact that he is in the Army and he misses alot of holidays birthdays etc..1996 I don't remember. 2004 he was in Iraq but then again I have a bad memory.

 

[Mygirlsadie]

Was it ever said yet where in Germany he worked? Was it a German school or an American school in Germany? I went to school (american) in Germany from 1989-1993.

I would like to hear from the children in Germany. Although they would not speak out for fear of being stigmatized as sexually abused children, they are the people that could verify whether he just likes to look or there is more to it.

 

[tumble]

otto:
but they are singular in their interpretation.

Respect to everyone trying to interprete the facts in this case.
And it seems everyone who actually does some interpretation ends up singular at least regardning the question of an intruder or not.

 

[otto]

Why is it an insult to one's intelligence? In most cases where a child is murdered in the home, the parents were involved. The police found no evidence of intruders at 6am when there was frost on the ground. The grate had a spider web over it. OTOH neighbors saw strange cars in the area (though not an unusual thing at Christmas with people attending parties and out of state relatives visiting). It seems to me intelligent detectives have chosen RDI or IDI, which isn't suprising. Economists disagree with one another, as do physicists, etc., etc., so no suprise detectives disagree. I don't see anything insulting to the intelligence about thinking the Ramseys may have been involved.

What is an insult to one's intelligence? That the Ramsays murdered their own child? Other than the fact that after 3 extensive independent investigations there is no evidence, there's nothing wrong with having suspicions ... but it's odd to have suspicions without evidence. I don't mean "people kill their offspring and stuff feces in their mouths as they lay dying" odd, I just mean wing nuts.

In most cases that a child is murderered it is random and until you provide links to your stats, mine are equally valid.

The grate had been moved. There was evidence of that. The window is big enough for anyone to climb through. There is also information that the window was open. Initially there was concern that there were no footprints in the snow until it was realized that there was no snow on that part of the yard.

"Economists, physicists etcetera disagree with one another so it's no surprise that detectives disagree?" No connection. Economists and physicists are using mathematics as their foundation, detectives are not even in the same league.

 

[tumble]

What is an insult to one's intelligence? That the Ramsays murdered their own child? Other than the fact that after 3 extensive independent investigations there is no evidence, there's nothing wrong with having suspicions ... but it's odd to have suspicions without evidence. I don't mean "people kill their offspring and stuff feces in their mouths as they lay dying" odd, I just mean wing nuts.

In most cases that a child is murderered it is random and until you provide links to your stats, mine are equally valid.

The grate had been moved. There was evidence of that. The window is big enough for anyone to climb through. There is also information that the window was open. Initially there was concern that there were no footprints in the snow until it was realized that there was no snow on that part of the yard.

"Economists, physicists etcetera disagree with one another so it's no surprise that detectives disagree?" No connection. Economists and physicists are using mathematics as their foundation, detectives are not even in the same league.

Where does this no evidence notion come from. Just because evidence has not been put forward at a trial does not mean it is not evidence.

There are a huge amount of circumstancial evidence together with fiber&hair evidence.

There are thousands of post on just this forum that discusses the evidence. Why don't you just enter those posts and refute them?