Incompetent Investigation

I am sick of the Ramsey investigation and here's why.

John Mark Karr confessed to the murder and I'd be one of the first people to say that I had doubts about him as a suspect. HOWEVER..... the charges against him were dropped - officially because his DNA didn't match and .... (this was almost an aside) because they couldn't place him in Boulder at the time of the killing.

Now, Mary Lacy stood up at that press conference and said that the DNA might not be the killer's but that according to Karr's story, if he was the killer, it "had to be his". This is what frustrates me - since WHEN was the word of a perp taken as gospel? Is this what is wrong with the Ramsey investigation? Are the investigators simply taking suspects at their word?

Call me cynical, but I just think that Mary Lacy is being less than truthful when she says Karr was exonerted because his DNA didn't match and that *in fact* the strength of his alibis was the stronger reason why the charges were dropped against him.

And the bottom line is this - supposing the DNA really isn't the intruders? i.e. that it is in fact an artefact and will never be matched to a likely perp. All the real perp has to say now is that he did what John Mark Karr did to JonBenet - so that according to ANY perp's story, the DNA would "have to be his" and Mary Lacy will simply let him free....

This case has become a joke.

Yes, and California I believe has also let him go.

What is going on?

Jayelles said:

I am sick of the Ramsey investigation and here's why.

John Mark Karr confessed to the murder and I'd be one of the first people to say that I had doubts about him as a suspect. HOWEVER..... the charges against him were dropped - officially because his DNA didn't match and .... (this was almost an aside) because they couldn't place him in Boulder at the time of the killing.

Now, Mary Lacy stood up at that press conference and said that the DNA might not be the killer's but that according to Karr's story, if he was the killer, it "had to be his". This is what frustrates me - since WHEN was the word of a perp taken as gospel? Is this what is wrong with the Ramsey investigation? Are the investigators simply taking suspects at their word?

Call me cynical, but I just think that Mary Lacy is being less than truthful when she says Karr was exonerted because his DNA didn't match and that *in fact* the strength of his alibis was the stronger reason why the charges were dropped against him.

And the bottom line is this - supposing the DNA really isn't the intruders? i.e. that it is in fact an artefact and will never be matched to a likely perp. All the real perp has to say now is that he did what John Mark Karr did to JonBenet - so that according to ANY perp's story, the DNA would "have to be his" and Mary Lacy will simply let him free....

This case has become a joke.

Click to expand...

You make a great point. I agree that it makes no sense to exonerate someone who has admitted to a crime based on his own words. Lacy was TRYING to save face, but the reality of the situation is, IMO, that the BPD had no grounds whatsoever to arrest Karr. Had they done their homework they would have known that he is a nutcase and was nowhere near Boulder in December 1996. The great tragedy of the Karr case is that he is now in the US and free to do as he pleases. I hope for everyone's sake that he will seek therapy. One good thing to come out of it is that he is now recognized worldwide and, hopefully, will never again get a job that involves children.

I think that the dna exonerated JMK because, by the time they had him in Co., they knew his story was weak, their case was weak, he had a probable alibi, and their LAST HOPE of pinning it on Karr was the DNA. Their LAST HOPE.

Lacy: "Well, JMK's story is fishy, his facts are inaccurate, his wife and family members remember he was not missing from Christmas '96 celebrations, there is no evidence of him being here in '96, he did not have the financial resources to travel here and back home in '96, but gosh, we have gone to all this trouble, what the heck! Let's test that dna, maybe we will win the lottery and by some miracle, the dna will match. A dna match plus a confession can still salvage this mess!"

Or, another way of describing it - "let's throw chit against the wall and see if it sticks..."

imho

"One good thing to come out of it is that he is now recognized worldwide and, hopefully, will never again get a job that involves children." -- Cypros

-----------

I wonder if he will ever be able to gain any sort of employment, what he will do now to support himself/his family? Surely all of the stories about various media outlets wanting to buy the rights to his story for books/tv shows will not pan out at this point, beyond a sense of pity and disgust is anyone really interested in his life?

Yes, I agree he's definately got problems, but I do hope someone will pick up the ball and not just let him roam around aimlessly -- both for his sake and society in general. He has an intense and desparate desire for infamy, hopefully he will not act upon such desires in order to get the attention he seeks.

Also, everyone has made a big fuss about all of the money spent on Karr's arrest, but I don't see that as any real tragedy. As far as I am concerned money comes and goes, and, even at the risk of being wrong/failing, resources being spent on apprehending people like Karr (or worse) are necessary: LE sometimes has to act immediately, or else risk flight/the suspect harming someone.
----------------

With regards to the original post, yes, it is so frustrating that the DA states on one hand that the DNA evidence is probably artifact, but then later relies on the fact that it does not match Karr in order say he was not the perpetrator. The perpetuation of the DNA and stun gun myths is what keeps the IDI theories going.

I won't call you cynical, but I will call you literal.

I think what Lacey meant was that if Karr's stroy had been true, the DNA would have to be his. The DNA wasn't his, so the story he told didn't make sense. I don't think Lacy was taking Karr's word that the DNA had to be his.

If I fault Lacy for anyting it's listening to that nutberger of a journalism professor.

Chrishope said:

........
If I fault Lacy for anyting it's listening to that nutberger of a journalism professor.

Click to expand...

This may be a reach, but if they investigated whether all of the little girls in a pageant with JonBenet were given "shabby" santa bears in their package of gift's, and found that JonBenet was the only one, wouldn't it be an indication that Karr may indeed have been there and sneaked his childhood bear into her package? Those who feel they saw him at such and such a place way back then could be mistaken, but I don't know how else they could investigate that. I said, fwiw, it's a long shot.

Just a thought.

I've tried for a while to edit the above post and the page won't open, so corrections/additions here.

The fact that the santa bear appeared in JonBenet's room at the time of the murder and hadn't been noticed by any of the family before seems to say maybe it wasn't really awarded to JonBenet at a pageant. Maybe those who testified to that were mistaken, because after all, those gifts should be sparkling brand new.

And the fact that it disappeared seems to say it was important, no matter who took it. RDI's I guess will feel the family disappeared it, and the IDI's will say whoever did that snapshot of the open dictionary which I believe ST says wasn't there when the crime scene was processed, probably took it.
I'm an FS, don't know. (Just checking if this one can be edited. )

There were numerous known faults in Karr's confession. The DA's office had the e-mails since May and were able to study them for many weeks before they took him into custody.

Why did they overlook all the other inconsistencies in his story before they arrested him, yet released him on the basis of his story being inconsistent regarding the DNA? ESPECIALLY since they also acknowledged that the DNA might not be related to the crime?

My guess is that they played down the alibi because it made them look more foolish since it could have been checked out before they brought him back to the states.

The whole situation is ridiculous.

1) No-one should be cleared on DNA if the DNA might not be the killers.
2) No suspect should be taken at their word.
3) Suspects should only be cleared if they have a cast iron alibi.
4) The case should be taken from Mary Lacy. She clearly lacks the integrity, competency and neutrality required to investigate this case.

Jayelles said:

My guess is that they played down the alibi because it made them look more foolish since it could have been checked out before they brought him back to the states.

Click to expand...

They couldn't check his alibi first though, for the chance that he would be alerted by a family member and relocate before LE could arrest him

Jayelles said:

The whole situation is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I agree

"This case has become a joke."

Click to expand...

And it's not funny.

I think that the dna exonerated JMK because, by the time they had him in Co., they knew his story was weak, their case was weak, he had a probable alibi, and their LAST HOPE of pinning it on Karr was the DNA. Their LAST HOPE.

Click to expand...

From what Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman have uncovered, that was the case before they even got him back into the States.