I imagine that perverse acts with Ken ‘n’ Barbie is its own thread.
In defense of the New York Daily News (words not often strung together, oh, anywhere), either guilty or innocent, Karr is a creep.
Under the bed is a presumed place to hide and doing so has been a cliched dramatic device for hundreds of years. It’s not the sort of thing only the perpetrator would’ve thought of.
Oh, and in response to the thoughts that an intruder didn’t leave footprints because the yard wasn’t covered with snow, if the temperature is above freezing melted snow creates mud and even below freezing you can usually find a trace, especially where a person milled around for a moment removing and replacing the grate over the open window. If the grass were frost covered a track would be clearly visible at 6AM. All of that presumes the police were looking.
In that case he would still have to be a sick person to do what he did to his daughter’s body, even if the death was purely accidental. If my child is killed by my hand accidentally I surely wouldn’t then sexually assault it! I think it was lieu way back in the thread who had a quote explaining what was done to her, to me that description rules out any accidental death theories. Any parent with a shred of sanity or love for their child wouldn’t abuse her dead or dying body in that way. There is no evidence (AFAIK) that shows Ramsey was disturbed or abusive to his children.
I am not certain that Karr did it of course, but he seems to be the kind of individual who could do something like that as he is obviously very disturbed. I think he was obsessed with JonBenet before the murder and could very well have had his own created relationship with her in his mind, and think that he was friends with her or something. Maybe he just thinks he picked her up from school or visited the house because he fantasized about it. Then again maybe he just is fantasizing now about being the one who killed her, time will tell. Either way he is a creepy guy, normal people don’t confess to killing little girls.
Hey, I said it was a tinfoil hat theory, not that it was what I thought happened.
so did my ultra conservative sister and I.
re: Originally Posted by Velma
In that case he would still have to be a sick person to do what he did to his daughter’s body, even if the death was purely accidental. If my child is killed by my hand accidentally I surely wouldn’t then sexually assault it!
I thought the sexual assault evidence was inconclusive (ie some vaginal bruising, but not elsewhere - vaginal bruising can occur in many ways,
it seemed as though COD was the strangulation, vs the head injury. I could see something like accidental head injury causing panic, thinking child was dead and the staging thereafter; Doesn’t require anything more ‘evil based’ than fear of going to prison.
what always gave me a chill was when they (mostly mom) referred to her as “That child”. but that’s me.
Here are the charges.
Now handcuff him and feed him balogna.
if all they have on him is the reported statements he made in Thailand, I think filing of charges is waaaaaaaay out of line.
Both first- AND second-degree kidnapping? Why?
This is info from lieu’s post earlier in the thread. I don’t know the source so it’s still up in the air, but if this info is true I don’t see how accidental death could be a possibility. I would think it would be fairly easy to tell if the paintbrush was used as a sex weapon, and the scratchmarks show she struggled which does not imply an accident. But like I said, if this info is wrong then all my assumptions are off.
I am not sure if this is a highjack or not - but this firestorm over Karr is strange to me given the relative silence surrounding the Ramseys Boulder December 1996 Housekeeper Hoffman-Pugh’s lawsuit. That was when i thought the case had burst wide open.
You may recall John and Patsy (despite John’s more-tempered-than-many-on-the-SD’s take on Karr) basically flat-out single their former housekeeper out as a suspect in their book and in interviews to promote the book. The Housekeeper says flat-out that is a lie and Patsy made the whole thing up en toto. The Housekeeper’s lawsuit vs. the Ramseys was dismissed on a technicality - but this always struck me:
**
EITHER ** The Ramseys** or ** the Housekeeper is *lying * here and even though there are mercenary and mundane explanations less than murder as to why, it is still telling on someone
From FindLaw
In March 2000, the Ramseys published a book about the investigation into their daughter’s murder, entitled The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet’s Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth (Thomas Nelson Publishers 2000).
Hoffmann-Pugh’s complaint alleges that the Ramseys libeled her in particular in the following passage from their book, describing the Ramseys interactions with the police after JonBenet was discovered missing but before her body was found in the Ramseys’ house:
*The police ask Patsy these same questions about who might have been angry or acting strangely, and she begins to think about our cleaning lady. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had called Patsy a couple of days before Christmas, very distraught and in tears. Linda said her sister, who was also her landlord, was going to evict her if she didn’t come up with the past- due rent. She asked Patsy if she could borrow twenty-five hundred dollars to cover it. Patsy had consoled Linda and agreed to lend her the money. In fact, Patsy had intended to leave the check for Linda on the kitchen counter before leaving for Michigan; Linda would let herself in the house and pick it up while we were gone for the holidays.
Patsy remembers that her mother, Nedra Paugh, had said that Linda had remarked to her at one time, “JonBenet is so pretty; aren’t you afraid that someone might kidnap her?” Now those comments seem strangely menacing.
Finding the phone number in her digital Rolodex, Patsy tells a police officer where Linda lives in Ft. Lupton, Colorado. Patsy later tells me she was thinking, If it’s Linda, it’s okay, because she is a good, sweet person. She is just upset. She may need the money, but she won’t hurt JonBenet.
The police tell us they will arrange for the Ft. Lupton police to drive by Linda’s house to see if they notice anything unusual, but they don’t want to alert anyone there that they are being watched.*
The Death of Innocence, supra, 19-20.
Hoffmann-Pugh alleges in her complaint that the statements in this passage are false, that the Ramseys know that they are false, and that they were made with the intent to create an impression that Hoffmann-Pugh is a suspect in the murder. Hoffmann-Pugh claims that her sister was not going to evict her and that she did not make the above statement to Nedra Paugh or anyone else. She also claims that the statement “If it’s Linda, it’s okay, because she is a good, sweet person. She is just upset. She may need the money, but she won’t hurt JonBenet” is a deliberate falsehood because Hoffmann-Pugh did not murder JonBenet. Hoffmann-Pugh claims she knows that this passage is a deliberate falsehood because Patricia Ramsey killed her daughter and wrote a ransom note to cover it up and John Ramsey knew this and helped his wife in the coverup. Both John and Patricia Ramsey deny any involvement in the murder of their daughter.
The complaint alleges that the Ramseys repeated the false allegation that Hoffmann-Pugh was a murder suspect in television interviews promoting their book and in the print media. It identifies no specific statements outside the book, but alleges that the unidentified statements constitute libel and slander per se. The complaint also alleges that as a result of those statements and the book Hoffmann-Pugh has been the subject of heightened, unwelcome, and unflattering media scrutiny, and has been exposed to hatred, contempt, and ridicule in her small community.
Just FWIW to fellow Dopers interested in this crime - I don’t get why this isn’t much more an item of “interest” than it is. Someone is lying thier ass off here.
Well, he was arrested in Thailand on the warrant from Boulder before he made his statements. One must assume that the fact the Boulder County DA issued an arrest warrant indicates some evidence. One could, of course, be wrong, and the warrant is sealed.
I’ve seen absolutely nothing that addresses my concerns: does his DNA match, and can they place him in Boulder?
past experience w/BCDA suggests otherwise.
bingo.
I believe the sum & total is from the emails & his statements.
what wine goes best w/crow?
White, usually, but it depends on the sauce, really.
IIRC, there was evidence of blunt force trauma as well. The question is: Did the blunt force trauma occur before death (which was caused by the garrote)? That information would be contained in the autopsy report (and I believe that the medical examiner would be able to tell if the trauma occured simultainously with the strangulation).
Evidently, you did not fully read this article and the decision denying the appeal of the dismissal. The judge noted that the complaint did not state how the Ramsey’s concusion that they did not think Hoffmann-Pugh did it could be interpreted to mean that they are accusing her of doing it. 
Well I don’t really care what the matter of law was here – I was using FindLaw as the most unbiased source I could find. Of course, since they are flat out offering “opinion” (legal and binding that it is) that may have been a dopey & a confusing thing to do. (It obviously was to ouryL -as you make clear)
This is what I think was significant to the thread :
The Police asked Patsy who could have kidnapped JonBenet and Patsy, right off the bat now, first words out of her mouth at the question, says (paraphrasing) Well my Housekeeper told my Mother that we should be afraid that someone will kidnap JonBenet and that the housekeeper was in desperate financial straights being kicked out of her house and all – but oh she is so sweet she would never do such a thing. Oh did I mention she had a key that she would soon be using to let herself in our house to get the check that she needed to save her from eviction? But she is such a sweety I am not worried if she has JonBenet
Then Patsy repeats this in a book designed to show the innocence of herself and her husband, including her inner feeling that the words were “strangely menacing”.
The Housekeeper says (paraphrased):* It is not true that I ever said/worried that anyone would kidnap Jon Benet. It is not true that I was being kicked out of my house.*
I think that is a significant discrepancy in those two recollections. If two Courts say the Ramsey’s finger point doesn’t rise to the legal level of libel under Georgia Law – OK. Also, as I said there are reasons short of murder for this discrepancy.
Still, it seems to me when getting into the minutiae of this case and rehashing it as we often do (and do here in this thread) this episode is often ignored or given short shrift if recollected at all.
If the cops are pumping her for information and asking questions about anyone who might have said the word “kidnap,” then what’s the problem with informing them that the nutty housekeeper had given a weird warning about not letting the child get “kidnapped.” AND she was also someone who needed money BUT that she (PR) still didn’t the housekeeper was the culprit.
If somebody has said something strange or might have had motive, it only makes sense to tell the cops about it when they ask. They press for all kinds of seeing irrelevant or trivial information. It’s they’re job to decide if the information is worthy of investigation. If the housekeeper had really used the “k” word, that’s something the ramseys needed to tell investigators about, whether they though she was a real suspect or not.
DtC I agree. Do you agree that the Housekeeper saying “I never said any of that” and to a lesser extent throwing up a lawsuit over it is isgnificant?
Because if you do we are in total agreement.
Because I guess, for me, this episode is less about the correctness of Patsy saying this to police (assuming it is true) – nor as I say to ouryL is it important as what Georgia law considers technical libel:
To me the episode is important that at last in this case we have a place where we can say with certainty ‘one party here is lying’ – not mistaken or pushed by bumbling cops or interfering prosecutors or silenced by defense Lawyers or Department Policy or Testimony embargoes or cast in the worst/best possible light by the media or speculated about on a message board … somebody here close to the heart of the case is telling a fib
The grate may not have been next to ground, it could be there was concrete cover there, I for one do not know.
I also do not know that the conditions of the yard were such that a fairly inexperienced police department (when it comes to murder investigations) would be able to detect clear footprints, or even go over the yard in a way that would allow them to search for them without destroying the evidence in the process. We also do not know that the yard was in such a condition that there was any mud to take a meaningful impression. And finally, even if all the above were true we also do not know that the police made a serious search for footprints before the crime scene had already been thoroughly contaminated, again, the whole footprints angle comes from a statement that a uniformed police officer made, not one of the police officers who was responsible or even especially trained at investigating a crime scene. His remarks being, “strange, no footprints” or something to that effect.