Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 107

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    65

    Why was Karr so important to Lacy??

    Ok so we know that JMK was/is the resident nutter on the JBR case, but why was he so important to ML and why did she feel the need to go the lenghts of getting him from Thailand to US? And whay was she so desperate to exhonerate the Ramsey's?

    Right off the bat i would like to say that from all the transcripts and interviews i have seen including the highly publicesed return the the US he NEVER actually admited to murdering JBR; he said he was with her when she died and that her death was an accident. It was one of the Thai officials that said Karr had stated that he had attempted to kidnap her then strangled her when it all went wrong and as far as i am aware there is no official confirmation that Karr said this.


    Mary Lacey's relentless pursuit of Karr was a way to claw back some of the reputation that was so severly damaged by this case through media leaks and other things, that the Boulder DA needed a 'scape goat' to clear the family and put this awful crime to bed once and for all her downfall was none of the evidence matched Karr and his supposed confession that by rights isn't a confession at all. I asked a police friend of my grandmothers if what Karr said was deemed a confession and he told me that it would be classified as a partial disclosure that needed futher investigation.

    I started looking into Karr's background to try and create a better picture of who this man is and why he would try to tie himself to one of the most notorious crimes of our time.

    There was a significantly large age gap between Karr's mother and father and was the same large gap between the father and his second wife both marriges broke down and Karr's early life was somewhat turbulant as his mother believed that Karr was possesed by deamons and tried to burn him alive as an infant she was subesquently sectioned. Karr moved around quite a bit as a child also. Karr was twice married once to a 13 year old girl whom he took out of state to marry her and lied about her age, the girls sister said Karr abused her sister in everyway possible; the girl applied to the courts for an annulmet of said marrige on the grounds she feared for her life at the time of the wedding. Karr's second marrige was to a 16 year old girl whom he had gotten pregnant ( twin girls were born in the september after the marrige but died the same day).

    Karr and his second wife had three boys in quick succession but divorced in 2001 after Karr was arrested for 5 misdemeanour counts of possesing child pornography, for which he recieved probation and the court records were sealed. Karr had a job as a teacher in 14 different schools some of which he was accused of molestation and impropriety with minors. He also had a licence for daycare with up to 6 childre at a time ranging in age from birth to 14, Karr eventually relocated to Thailand where he taught at a school and did daycare for a family and was eventually arrested for child abuse by the Thai authorities it was then he instigated he was linked to the death of Jonbenet and the information filtered back to Lacey who had Karr extradited back to the US, Karr had also been corresponding for 4 years with Michael Tracey the U of C proffessor about his involvement with the emails becoming more and more graphic. Karr is currently living as the trams-gender woman named Alexis.

    Sorry for rehasing most of the stuff we already know but it is nessasary i promise.

    Karr , being raised in a family where the dominat male is undertaking relationships with girls significantly younger thatn him taught Karr that this was acceptable behaviour. He has an extroverted personality so he craves attention and needs to be recognised for anything he does no matter how grotesque the act is and so would not have kept quiet about being involved in JBRs death for so long he wouldn't have been able to keep a lid on it and the more media intrest grew the more difficult he would have found it to contain himself. For someone with his personality type any attention is good attention.

    Karr driven by an all consuming obsession felt the compulsion to be connected with JBR and possibly PR too as in his emails he never wanted to conversate with John just Patsy possibly becsause it would have been easier to taunt the emotional Patsy where as john would have been a tougher nut to crack. Karr's obsession with her ran so deep he fabricated a relationship between him and Jonbenet to the point where he truly believed he was an importand part of her life, Jonbenet consumed Karr to the point where he lived and breathed JBR.

    Even now as people discuss this case over the net or in person Karr's name is mentioned so he forever immoralized as the crackpot wierdo that claimed to kill JBR and has a perchant for little girls.

    If anyone has been able to stomach reading his trash or watching his interviews you will see that he never says "yep i'm your guy i killed her i did this, this and this" him knowing details of the murder are irrelevant as most of us know the same if not more that he does, he skirts invasive questions with "i'm not answering that" or " i can't say" he just repetes that he was with her when she died and thes is the most important line in his whole vile speech because being with some one when they die doesn't make you a killer it means that you were witness to them dying, and when he says it was an accident well that is the general consensus between RDI and even some IDI say gthe same.

    Karr was asked if he was innocent and he said no, but as he said he was only with her when she died the only thing he is guilty of is failing to report an accident.

    Getting back to ML she was one contradiction after another riding the coat tails of AH. Hunters preformance on this case is laughable his unethical and unprofessionl demeanour futher damaged a botched case and Lacy just picked up where he left off, Karr was a damage limitation excersise at the expence of the tax payer to put this case to bed and forget about it. She took a gamble on Karr and it was an epic backfire and was on show for the whole world to see because by then the whole world wanted answers.

    Undoubtely Karr is an active predatiry pedophile regsrdless of his/her sex and should never be let within spitting distance of a child of any age but the point id that a district attorneys office were praying that DNA was a match or his writing matched the ransome note so that they could scapegoat an innocent man ( I know he didd't do much to discoursge them); But the sheer eagerness of a DA to extradite someone who gave no confession or DNA, handwrting to make her self look good and clear a family of suspicion was stupidity at it greatest; she went on to say that unless you were there at the time no one can be cleared beyond reasonable doubt forgive me if the quote isn't 100% accurate.

    There seemed to be an element of point scoring because the BPD had no suspects except the Ramsey's and the DAs office had seemingly caught the perfect perp. Bottom line, Lacy needed Karr to be the perp for a bucket load of reasons such as; the image of the big bad bogey man was real and he killed JBR, to put the case to bed once and for all and to possibly futher Lacy's political career. Karr was too good to be true, since when does the culprit of the most publicized murder fall into the lap of the authorities? THEY DON'T!! Lacy tried to pull the wool over the worlds eyes and failed.
    I say what i mean please or offend


  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to smurf86 For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Maikai For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.
    The DNA was a huge issue for them.
    For who? Are you speaking of the "touch dna" ?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    For who? Are you speaking of the "touch dna" ?
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.

    the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails.
    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .


  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.


    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .
    No Sir or Maam,

    You have the burden of proof, not IDI. We have a sample in CODIS that meets the strict guidelines. Whatever the source of the DNA, it was found to be pertinent by The DA and Boulder LE. I know you guys don't want to believe it.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet


  11. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.


    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .
    <modsnip> There was dna mixed in blood found on JBR's panties. The same DNA was found under her fingernails, although I believe it was degraded.

    You can't explain away the touch DNA. It was found in pertinent locations on her underwear---areas where the perp would have used pressure. The DNA was a problem with the Grand Jury and I think it was an issue with Scheck---he was totally silent about his opinion, but it stands to reason that his whole innocence project is based on DNA, so I doubt he would have been a good witness. Besides which, both him and Lee were primarily hired so the Ramseys couldn't hire them. Neither one did that much in the case. After the Grand Jury raised the issue, the police were running around collecting DNA--trying to explain it away---they were not successful.

    The Grand Jury did not have expertise in DNA....but several were educated and were in fields where analytical research was required. This wasn't a dum dum redneck jury that would convict a ham sandwich. I would expect that in Boulder---they have a higher education rate than many cities.
    Last edited by Kimster; 04-25-2012 at 12:47 AM. Reason: don't get personal


  12. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  13. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    Lou Smit said there was DNA under her nails, and on her panties, mixed with her blood. I believe him---I don't know where the DNA came from....but I doubt Lou Smit would make a statement like that if it wasn't true.


  15. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    188

    spot on ligature

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    DeeDee,
    Did you find anything more about the spot of possible blood you noticed on the ligature? You did an awesome job there by the way! I thought more about it and the location of that spot which looks like blood couldn't have been fluid from her mouth as it was on the left side of her neck.

    The neg. shows that the ligature was cut close to the knot in the back. Great work.


  16. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    Too bad they didn't have common sense backgrounds!
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  18. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post

    [snip]

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    I'm breathless wondering just how you have knowledge of what the grand jurors struggled with, thought, or "was a huge issue for them."

    In fact, I've only ever seen one grand juror speak on camera or anywhere else about what happened during the grand jury hearing. Admittedly it has been a long time since I saw that program, so is that where you're drawing your conclusion? A source would be much appreciated.

    I agree the grand jury was bogus, but for an entirely different reason, which also leaves me wondering why you'd think so: clearly Hunter never meant to call a grand jury and never would have except for the governor, as you pointed out. Since it was Hunter's decision alone whether to indict anyone, which he could have done without a grand jury hearing, it's obvious to me it was a waste of time and money because Hunter obstructed LE's investigation from early on, IMO, by refusing subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records, refusing to arrest the Ramseys when they wouldn't come in for formal interviews with LE for months, and by sharing the case evidence reports with the Ramseys' lawyers--absolutely unacceptable and obstruction of justice in a child murder case which any DA would have been investigated for in any other case...but this one.

    As for Thomas, he did NOTHING that Lou Smit didn't do times one hundred, but you never complain about Smit's betrayal of the DA, the case, and the murdered child, all to support the prime suspects and get his own fame and glory, IMO.
    Last edited by KoldKase; 04-18-2012 at 02:50 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.


  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  20. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  21. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  22. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    DeeDee249,
    Such an apt phrase.


    .


  23. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  24. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    Everything I read was circumstantial. The handwriting experts could be refuted by the defense...then there was "Foster" who would have been torn apart by the defense. Lou Smit came up with several pieces of intruder evidence--and then you have which one do you charge? This was not a winning case.

    I read some cases several years ago, where an arrest warrant was issued based on DNA. They didn't have a name---just the profile. I believe the reason was if there was ever a match, they could arrest the person on the spot. I would have liked to see that happen in the Ramsey case. Lacy was not a Ramsey lover in the beginning.


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 03:42 AM
  2. In Defense of Mary Lacy
    By FactorFiction in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 11:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •