The stakes have gotten higher in the JonBenet Ramsey case. John Karr has made a public “confession” in a press conference, and it’s left many scratching their heads. The audio was often bad in the clips so I couldn’t glean much information from them. I’m relying a little on statements of his that others have repeated on talk radio and such.
He’s said that he picked JonBenet up from school. Nothing in the evidence suggests that’s true. He said he drugged her, intended to kidnap her, but something went awry, and that’s when she died. He’s also said he had “sex” with her. The coroner’s report said there was no evidence of drugs, or semen. He said her death was an “accident”. I’ve heard some forensic analysts go off on this, saying “No way was it an accident”. Well, let’s just cool our jets a little. I mean, just listening to the guy, you can tell there’s something wrong with him mentally. So in his own delusional way he can say it was an “accident”, but that doesn’t mean we have to take him at his word. Even if he were a more solid suspect, should we take him seriously if he said it was an accident? No, not necessarily.
I wonder if the reason people are getting thrown off is that they’re taking Karr’s words at face value, when they should not. He does sound delusional. It’s possible that his perceptions of what happened do not square with reality. I’m just supposing. I’m no psychologist, so I’m not making a professional determination in any way. But I had the thought, that maybe what he’s saying has some relation to reality, just not totally.
Something I wondered yesterday is if the prosecutors got “seduced” by Karr. Apparently Karr had done a lot of research into this case. Maybe the things that he’s said that prosecutors think “only the murderer would know” were just lucky guesses based on a foundation of real knowledge of the case.
Every legal analyst I heard on this yesterday said that the prosecutors have got to have some forensic evidence to go with Karr’s confession. If all they have is his word their case is going to fall apart quickly. I agree. Boulder DA Mary Lacy’s reputation is on the line, as is the reputation of those working on the case with her. She already has a bad reputation among some Boulderites for some past legal actions she took years ago, especially in relation to sexual abuse cases. Mary Lacy was formerly known as Mary Keenan. She got married recently.
I think the ex-wife’s alibi for Karr will hold some weight. She divorced him in 2001 because he was charged with possessing child porn. This is interesting, because the child porn charge would point to him being a legitimate suspect. Yet her statement is that to the best of her recollection he was with her and their kids every Christmas while they were married. She did say she was going to have to check old photos and the dates on them to make sure. The fact that she divorced him over child porn lends weight to her claim as well. Any sane wife would find her husband dabbling in child porn revolting. So at this point I don’t see a reason for her to lie for Karr.
Another thing legal analysts have said is the prosecutors are going to have to show that John Karr was actually in or around Boulder at the time of the murder.
I was watching Fox News last night, particularly Greta van Susteren. Her off-the-cuff feeling about the guy is that he’s faking this. She had a discussion with Bill O’Reilly on his show, saying that it’s common in murder cases, and perhaps other types, for people to come forward and “confess” to the crime, who are not real suspects. It’s strange, but true. O’Reilly remembered that back in 1997, after the murder, people came forward to the police “confessing” to the crime, but were disregarded as suspects because what they said didn’t add up.
A wrinkle I heard from a friend last night (I think she heard it on a radio talk show) is that John Karr sent a childhood photo of himself holding a doll, to Patsy Ramsey. The story goes he included a note with it saying that the doll he was holding in the picture was his favorite growing up. The doll is the exact same doll that was found
at the scene of the crime inside the home after the murder. Apparently the doll was a mystery at the time, because the Ramseys said they did not get it for JonBenet and did not know how it ended up there. Coincidence? Could be, but it’s interesting nonetheless. I wonder if, in light of this new information, there would be a way to conclusively link the doll that was at the crime scene to the suspect. I’ve heard in the past that forensic scientists can look for small microscopic things like pollen, fibers, etc. that can link objects to suspects and locations. DNA analysis on the doll might be asking too much.
Ollie Gray, the Ramsey family’s private investigator for the case said on the O’Reilly factor last night that analysis of the crime scene found two different shoe prints in the carpeting, and that more than one person may have been involved. The problem with this is that John Ramsey contaminated the crime scene by entering the room and picking up JonBenet’s body. Like I’ve said before, I don’t blame him for this, but rather the Boulder police, who should have been the ones doing the searching, with John Ramsey assisting. In any case, one of the shoe prints may have been John Ramsey’s. That’s a possibility that would have to be eliminated in order for this theory to stick.