Am I the only one who finds it rather odd that the person arrested apparently confessed to drugging Jonbonet, when toxicology reports say she was not drugged? I wonder if he’s not just a nutjob wannabe, and that the killer is still out there. This topic from this crime sleuthing message board consolidates the known facts about the case.
Meant to add, I find I agree with crime blogger Steve Huff.
Oh, new around the Pit, eh? 
Welcome!
Zabali, no, you’re not alone in noticing it. I just didn’t have time to verify my recollections.
And did mom ever produce a plausible explanation as to why that morning she was still wearing the clothes she had on the night before, if she went to bed as usual that night? Jus’ wonderin’.
Because she threw on last night’s clothes when she found her child was missing.
Hey, he had a cite in his OP. 
Not much of a cite (just a link to an early breaking story), but a cite nevertheless. More that **Diogenes the ** “my post is my cite as I am a ‘scholar’ and you are not” Cynic usually has. :rolleyes:
However, the 'fart wind school of typing" is hilarious.
First, it needs to be pointed out that handwriting analysis is bullshit anyway, but my recollection is that the so-called “similarities” were only linguistic rather than graphological. She wasn’t technically excluded as the 'author" but it was thought that if she’d been involved, she’d dictated the letter to a thid party. Her samples didn’t match and one of the detectives in the case accused her of changing her handwriting.
You know, reading these posts it suddenly dawns on me why so many innocent people have been freed from death row since DNA evidence came into play. People seem far too willing to assume the worst about an accused, even in the absence of good (or in the case of the Ramseys any) evidence.
I get the sense that a lot of posters here, were they jurors, would be perfectly happy to convict the Ramseys on a combination of innuendo and their own hunches.
As for the alleged drugging:
It would not be unusual for authorities to withhold details of the crime from the public so as to weed out false confessors. That way, if a confessor knows something about the crime that the general public does not, the police know they have their man. Wasn’t there an early report that the guy who has confessed knew details about the crime which have not been publicly revealed?
I think we have to assume that the confession is truthful until we know something more.
I dunno about Patsy Ramsey, but when I get up, I put on the clothes I wore the day before. I don’t change till I’m getting ready to go out.
Velma, a couple of the early reports stated that he had a trail of sex convictions in the South, but I’ve seen nothing to support that. He was awaiting trial in California for child porn, but had not been convicted. If it doesn’t pan out that he killed JonBenet, I expect that California will use their arrest warrant.
Weren’t the complete autopsy reports made public though? If you read the link in my second post to this thread you will see more on the allegedly confessed killer’s past.
I don’t think he was facing any charges in Thailand either, was he? He was arrested at his apartment. The suggestion that he was looking to escape Thai prison makes no sense in that case. Plus, it wasn’t like he went to the authorities himself with this stuff. The case was built from his online communications with non-law enforcement people in the states (including the ramseys, apparently).
Yes, and that seems to be accurate. However, not publicly revealed does not equal impossible to find out. I expect that many in the police department, prosecutor’s office, and even reporters know that knowledge. For someone with his level of obsession with the case, and access to some sources of information, I’d not be surprised if he’s been able to collect some secret info.
I really have two main questions. Can he be placed in Boulder? Does his DNA match? An affirmative to the former would make me less skeptical; an affirmative to the latter, I’d be convinced. Until then, this is ringing every doubtful bell in my brain.
Ooops. That last :rolleyes: was supposed to be a 
. Changes the tone quite a bit, sorry.
And at this point, lest my quasi-defense of Karr give the wrong impression, I’ll mention that I do not believe the Ramseys or their son killed JonBenet. In my opinion, the evidence points to an intruder with knowledge of the family. I’m just not sure that Karr is that intruder.
I share this opinion, as does Steve Huff.
Whatever else I think of Patsy Ramsey, I do not think she ever did that in her life. She seemed like the type to bring a change of clothes or three on a date in case she stayed all night. That said, this occasion could have been the exception.
From your link:
Sounds about what I’d say too. But it’s a very weird case, with a lot of media attention. DtC is correct in that some dudes in the Media made some pretty wild accusations/guesses.
The allegations that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note come primarily from Steve Thomas, a former lead detective in the investigation and “a narcotics detective with no experience investigating homicides”. He based his views on an analysis made by a linguistics scholar who originally wanted to exonerate Mrs. Ramsey for some personal reason of his own.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_10.html
As I asked you in another thread about this case, please read more about it. What you are remembering from past biased media reports is incorrect.
Well that appears to have been an erroneous report. Everything I can find about today says that he was arrested yesterday at his own apartment specifically for this murder. I can’t find anything now that says he was facing any charges in Thailand. I think there must have been some confusion when the story first broke. He had warrants in the US, but I can’t find a single thing he was charged with in Thailand (and he wasn’t “already being held.” He was arrested at his home and had a job.