Am I the only one who has this guy’s C.V? He seems to have never worked in Colorado, but claims a great deal of experience teaching young girls.
(Yes, I got it off an ELT site.)
It’s the silly season. Congess is still on vacation, there is a tenuous peace in Lebanon, we haven’t lost any major cities to the weather (I guess that was really closer to Labor Day anyway), the latest terrorist “threats” appear to have had no legs, the Security Council hasn’t released the resolution on Iran yet, Iraq and Afghanistan have just gone on too long for more than a mention of casualities in the news, and the media will take anything and run it into the ground right now. I mean, who really gives a fuck? The girl is dead. She’s been dead for a decade. I don’t need 24 hour coverage every time I switch to one of the news channels TRYING to get USEFUL updates instead of dead white girl hysteria. I think The Daily Show explains my feelings perfectly.
Anybody think Karr has a history of being competent enough to murder someone and avoid detection? He doesn’t seem highly adequate.
[psychologist]
This is not a diagnosis–I haven’t evaluated him. It’s speculation.
[/psychologist]
I wonder if he has something like mild Fragile X Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Effects (face shape), or schizophrenia. I wonder if he was looking into gender reassignment in order to become JBR. The idea floated in the press yesterday that he has Factitious Disorder doesn’t cover the whole picture for me, nor does pedophilia.
My wife said she heard on the news (or maybe read on a news site, I don’t recall) that the Boulder DA said that they don’t really have any evidence that indicates his guilt, but that they ordered his arrest because he was a huge flight risk and they didn’t want him to disappear before they could figure out if he’s telling the truth or not. Did anybody see anything like that anywhere, or is my wife mistaken?
I believe one of the articles I linked says just that, if not one of mine, then shoshana’s links. I read it in a news story yesterday in any case, I think it is posted here.
You will find it in greater detail in Ludovic Kennedy’s The Airman and the Carpenter, a respected book on the case. On the net, my brief search came up with these right off the bat (not that I necessarily agree with the contents of the sites in question): Another Prank? (once there, click on “Another Prank?” You may wish to follow that with a record of Betty Gow’s suggestive testimony at: Gow’s Statement (she was well aware of Lindbergh’s faux-kidnapping hoax). I quote from the former link:
And there’s Lindberg Baby Kidnapping, from which I quote:
The reader must understand that Charles Lindbergh was a complete and total asshole; a loathsome man with an incredibly cruel whim and sense of humor. For example, when a friend was out on some long-distance run, he replaced the water in his canteen with kerosene and thought it was hilarious. He thought of his marriage with the truly wonderful Anne Morrow in strictly racial and genetic terms. Anne, for her part, stoically endured emotional abuse from her husband, many acts of which were more cruel “jokes” played by Lindbergh for his amusement.
I see. So you’re equating a little girl playing soccer or bowling with dressing up like a hypersexual fuck dolly? Yep, you live in Wonderland, all right. Oh, no, there couldn’t possibly be any connection. :smack: It’s not directly on point, but you might want to take a look at: With Child Sex Sites on the Run, Nearly Nude Photos Hit the Web
No one said that, so stop playing straw man games. But how can you deny that dressing your kiddy like a pretty little fucktease at least poses some risk that children who do not dress that way do not face?
As others have already pointed out, your assertion that there is/was NO evidence against the Ramseys is pure, unmitigated bullshit. In fact, most of the evidence did indeed point in their direction, and much of it still does. I am definitely not trying to argue that the Ramseys are guilty, but I’m simply providing a list of highly suspicious evidence which tends to point to them and in any case most emphatically makes them main suspects. For a random list, consider:
– John Ramsey tried the first day to arrange at short notice to leave Boulder on business, even after finding his daughter dead.
– The ostensible ransom note was similar in its style and orthography to Patsy Ramsey’s, and an expert insists she may well be the author and cannot be ruled out, although no one claims a perfect match. However, Patsy reportedly changed her handwriting after the murder (I don’t know how much credence to give this last claim).
– The Ramseys agreed to take polygraphs, which indicates that they thought they were reliable, but they refused to take the most objectively administered polygraphs by the FBI.
– There was no reasonably suggestive sign of an intruder’s entry, and the lack of footprints in the snow around the house (which I discuss below), while a long way from conclusive, were at least suspicious enough to warrant noting by the police. Now, Mr. Hyde claims that this has been debunked, but he’s dead wrong. It’s inconclusive in fact and under law, but it’s damned suspicious anyway. How could an intruder have known in advance that he would have not made a trail in the snow?
– The ransom note is very bizarre and reads far more like a bogus note written under the pressure of trying to escape blame for an accidental killing, which meshes with the Ramsey’s as the guilty party (but of course it also meshes with an intruder’s accidental murder as well). (1) But what about the respect it shows for John and his business acumen? Why would an intruder praise his victim’s father like that? (2) And then there is the much-commented-upon weird amount asked for: $118,000. This is a truly trivial amount of money, especially since there was no kidnapping and the murderer would have known damn well the Ramsey’s wouldn’t have paid once they found their dead daughter anyway. (3) And of course it’s ridiculously, stupidly speculative to think someone other than the Ramseys would have both known the exact amount of John’s bonus and have access to the house. (4) And what of the strong sense of femininity in the wording and style? What other woman had a link to the case but Patsy? And why keep referring to Ramsey as “John” so personally and friendly-like when the note starts off referring to “Mr. Ramsey”? (5) The note was written on Patsy’s personal stationery. Why not just write it on the first thing that came to hand? (6) The note contains unusual wording that was also used by the Ramseys, and in the same manner.
But the main point is that an intruder simply would NOT have written ANY note, so the mere existence of the note is more evidence of the likely involvement of Patsy Ramsey.
– The Ramseys behaved extremely suspiciously everywhere I saw them, and justified or not, they vehemently refused to cooperate very much with investigators.
Hell, even the evidence that points away from them is of remarkably poor quality:
(1) I could go on in some length, but let’s just say that Karr is a very long way away from a solid suspect, so he doesn’t count (yet).
(2) The DNA in JB’s panties is too degraded for a 100% certain match with anyone. I would assume that this means that it cannot be matched to Karr with certainty, and perhaps not even with a mere likelihood. Much, much more importantly, it has been said by at least one person involved in the case (Tom Bennett) that the amount of DNA was so tiny and so degraded that it might even have come from the sneeze of a worker at the manufacturing plant!
(3) The claim (repeated here by Martin Hyde) that there was no or insufficient snow for an intruder to disturb is worthless, since by the time anyone got around to investigating this possibility and taking photographs, the ground around the home was thoroughly trampled (not to mention that the snow might have melted).
Look, it’s way, way too late to continue, but there’s lots more evidence to suggest their involvement. All I want is for those who insist there was NO evidence against the Ramseys, like Dio, to accept that they overreached and that there was and is good reason to suspect them. And since my WAG is that this Karr thing isn’t going to pan out, we have to get used to the fact that they will remain the prime suspects.
This isn’t handwriting analysis in the sense you mean it, i.e., reading personal information such as character and personallity from handwriting. I’m surprised you didn’t know this.
Wrong. They were both.
So in other words, you don’t have a cite.
I watched a program on A&E just tonight made a few days ago wherein the narrator talks about at least one expert’s view that there was strong similarity in letter formation between the note’s author and Patsy Ramsey. He didn’t say anything about Patsy being eliminated as the note’s author as you seemed to have claimed previously; in fact, he said she still hadn’t been excluded.
Here I am enjoying your interesting posts and you suddenly turn into an uber-macho vigilante. Feel good about yourself now?
By that logic, no one could ever commit a first such crime! History – and prison – is replete with people who killed only once or raped only once or molested only once.
I am sorry but this is stupid. Yah, they dress the kids up, but really it seems more playing dolls than sexual. I don’t think there is anyone who has a little girl that hasn’t played doll with them at some point or another. God knows the clothes are substantially less provocative than anything you can buy at Walmart, where slut wear for kids is almost all you can get. It also seems to me that the pagents are no worse than skating or gymnastics, where parents get equally carried away. As has been pointed out thousands of little girls do this every year. I only know of one that was murdered.
I don’t know that this is necessarily an indicator of guilt. Grief does funny things to people. Trying to get away from the horror may have his way of coping. (The day my best friend died. I left her house and went to go see a movie. I just didn’t want to think about it for a while.)
Again, not something I would take as a certain sign of guilt. Once I knew I was under suspicion, there’s no way in hell I would agree to take a lie detector. Likely, they agreed and then gave it some thought and realized it wasn’t that great of an idea. There are a lot of factors which can make the results unreliable.
It’s not that hard. If you’re planning a crime, you try to think of things like this if you’re smart. There have been a lot of dumb criminals who have been tracked by footprints right back to their own houses.
Not on the spot, no, but it may have been written beforehand and left in the house before the crime was even finished. Hell, it’s remotely possible that the killer intended for the note to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. He would have had to know details about the family, but isn’t it possible that he could have been going through their trash while he was planning the crime?
Yes, it looks suspicious to “lawyer up”, but that’s actually what smart people do when suspicion falls on them-- get a lawyer and shut the fuck up.
I agree, there is always a “first time” for any sexual offender, or any criminal for that matter, so the father isn’t automatically not guilty b/c there were no signs of previous sexual abuse. And, to state the obvious, there are a lot of things you can do with a child that constitute abuse with intercourse. And as for Karr, he loves young girls, but he wants to be a woman- how weird is that (assuming its true)?
And on a side note, how much more damning is it for Wacko Jacko, that Kerr, an admitted paedophile, expresses understanding and empathy for MJ’s whole “Peter Pan I love the innocences of kids” bit?
from here the note was written on paper from the house, therefore, not done ahead of time and brought to the house.
whoever it was spent a substantial amount of time in the house, apparently w/o fear of discovery by the rest of the people there.
I just mean that usually crimes like this escalate. I have a hard time believing he would be happy and fine and totally normal, never having touched his daughter or anyone else, and suddenly snap in this way. Every time I have read about someone raping and killing a child, with some investigation they find evidence of previous behavior, like child porn or family members who come forward who say there was something funny going on even if he was never actually convicted of anything before. So I don’t mean there are no first crimes, only that usually once one looks back at the suspect they can find a “trail” escalating to the crime. AFAIK no one has ever found anything like this on Mr. Ramsey and no one has ever come forward to say he tried anything funny with them.
I don’t know about the ransom note, I agree that the money amount is suspicious but I don’t know how hard it would be to find out the amount of one’s bonus so I can’t say how suspicious. From what it appears, the current suspect is not all there mentally and so if he did actually write the note, especially under stress after having “accidentally” killing JonBenet, (this guy seems cuckoo enough to think he was just being friends with her or something, and if he was that obsessed with her he could be in real distress when she was dead) it could very well be one bizarro note and not what we all would think a smart premeditated killer would do. The familiarity with the family could just be a result of his obsession with JonBenet and therefore her family. He maybe saw himself as part of her family and followed them for a long time. The feminine quality could be a feminine aspect of his personality, if he was obsessed with little girls he maybe took on a feminine persona.
Either way he is obsessed with the case for some reason and with the family too, he was writing Patsy Ramsey letters before she died. So if we are going to look at the crime we can’t look at it from a perspective of “what would a sane and rational planned out murder look like” but instead “what would it look like if an obsessed and delusional person did this” and then you get something closer to the current suspect, IMO.
Of course it is all speculation - I am just putting a theory out there and will wait to see what the police come up with. Also I think the police were correct to at least question the parents and go that route, but to me this is at least an equally possible suspect. If not this guy, someone like him. There are going to be problems and questions no matter who did it, you only get neat and perfect crime scenarios in movies.
I don’t think the police are incompetent to arrest this guy, I mean after all he did confess so they have reason to hold him in custody and see if they have a real case. If they try him with no evidence then that’s another story.
To slap a tinfoil hat on for a moment, here’s a possibility. Ramsey’s a pedophile who molested JonBenet frequently, but something happened on Christmas Eve and he accidentally killed/injured her, so to cover things up, he did kill her (if she was merely injured), then did all the other things to her body to make it look like a serial killer did her in.
Wow, why did nobody think of that before? :rolleyes:
That’s the strange part. What would be Ramsey’s motive for killing JonBenet? If there any other evidence of him being a pedophile or molester? I haven’t heard a good theory for motive yet when the parents are blamed. The suspect in custody now is known to be obsessed with JonBenet and has previous behavior to consider. Again, I’m not saying that automatically means he did it, but you need motive and opportunity. This case is so strange because it looks like one of the Ramsey’s had the opportunity but not the motive, and this guy has motive but maybe not opportunity (if the ex-wife’s alibi can be proven.)