A Question

I apologize if there is a better place to put this question, or if it has been asked before (I havent had time to read everything) but here goes....

If the Boulder DA's office wants to charge or feels they have enough to charge Karr, and Karr wants to plead guilty, what happens then? I thought if you pleaded guilty to something then it didnt go to a trial, you were just sentenced and that was that. I realize if it is a death sentence there is an automatic appeal, but what if it is just life or some variation on that?

If the client isnt contesting anything, does the DA have to show what evidence they have?

I know he's a nut, and I realize he is dangerous and belongs at the very least in a treatment facility, but I would hate to see this pinned on him if he didnt do it. It means the real culprit is still out there.
TIA

I don't believe the court (judge) will accept a guilty plea without evidence he was involved in the crime.

I also have a question for anybody that can answer.

Usually when we follow cases like this and there is an arrest, within a few hours of the perp's name being known, the media has already dug up every arrest and/or conviction on the person for the last umpteen years. Also, if the "alleged" perp is a child killer, you will see other victims, past acts, similar accusations...what have you.

We have seen nothing like that here. In fact we see just the opposite. This guy gets good teaching jobs (can't keep them, but that's a whole other issue) and even clears a background check to open a day care center and receives zero complaints from any of the parents. We haven't seen any arrest records other than the misdemeanor child *advertiser censored*, which according to his attorney were five long deleted images on his hard drive.

Is there any evidence where he ever acted on any of his, despicable as they were, fantasies? Are we seeing not only a "killer wannabe", but a "molester wannabe" too?

So far we haven't heard from any of the parents of kids he taught or was a manny to.

Of a nanny job in Germany, he wrote, "I helped the 8-year-old girl with her homework each day. I took the children outside for play. At days end, I made sure the children had their evening bath, then put them to bed and read to them before they went to sleep."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/17/MNGAOKKD7S59.DTL

If he was writting a book about child killers, isn't it possible the child *advertiser censored* on his PC was in connection with researching the book. Is that why it had been deleted long before - because he was only interested in it's research value?

The courts don't accept confessions as the sole evidence in determining guilt. Far too many people have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. In high profile cases, the police often receive dozens of false confessions (some say hundreds of false confessions). It's a shame because they waste precious man hours investigating these spurious claims that could be better spent tracking down the real criminal.

If he was writting a book about child killers, isn't it possible the child *advertiser censored* on his PC was in connection with researching the book. Is that why it had been deleted long before - because he was only interested in it's research value?

Click to expand...

I agree and I was also predicting (not in here) last week, we would have heard that scenario directly from JMK or his attorneys by now. It would be his most logical explanation for the *advertiser censored*, but the other side stories coming out of left field in different countries are not exactly helping his research excuse at this point.

shoe_horn said:

I agree and I was also predicting (not in here) last week, we would have heard that scenario directly from JMK or his attorneys by now. It would be his most logical explanation for the *advertiser censored*, but the other side stories coming out of left field in different countries are not exactly helping his research excuse at this point.

Click to expand...

Right after this broke, his brother (Nate) was on the phone with Greta and he specifically said the last he'd heard, his brother (JMK) was in the process of writing some sort of manuscript about child killers. That's the last I heard about it.

But it seems to me that he would have had way more than 5 or 6 misdemeanor photos on his hard drive. Wouldn't you think he'd have dozens?

And the other question I would have is on Wendy Hutchens website, she lists her correspondence with him and there is a section of emails and there's about five photos that were either emailed to her by JMK or were emailed to JMK from her. I know that she told Larry King that she had to pretend to be a child molester to get him to open up to her so could she have sent him the photos as some sort of "proof"? And are those the same photos he was charged with having? Would that have been his defense had he stayed to be tried?