Carr claims that he didn’t confess to anything. Nor, is he apparently wanted for anything in Thailand. I imagine that he’s going to wind up tutoring Michael jackson’s kids before it’s all over.
According to our local paper the judge’s decision had nothing to do with the lost computer.
From here.
And there’s more in this earlier article from before the dismissal which also includes a box of links to previous articles.
You are kidding, right? Neighbors should be notified of someone’s fanatsies? Please say it ain’t so. I really really really really don’t care to know what my neighbor’s fantasize about, thank you very much.
Just as a range finder, how exactly do intend to determine what a person’s fantasies are? What they say they are? If that is the case, why can’t they say they don’t fantasize about it?
The USA has an extradition treaty with Thailand (obviously), and it works both ways. If they find evidence that he has done something really bad in Thailand, their authorities can just extradite him back. (Given the comparative poverty of Thailand, their authorities would probably make real sure they actually have evidence against him before doing this.)
How do I clarify this?
Have all the fantasies you like. Beat goats, smear yourself with peanut butter, sodomize commemorative statuettes of Liberty, dress up as Al Franken, or give oral sex to a three year old. It’s all the same to me - the TMI category.
BUT
Throw that in with a bunch of other traits like:
-
advertising these predilictions to others (John Mark Carr sought out the email relationship with that professor and made up a detailed “confession” about raping and strangling a six year old girl, and he didn’t do it because he was looking for help.)
-
seeking out access to those you fantasize about when they are incapable of giving consent (John Mark Carr sought and got employment as a teacher, and he did it in a country that does not have the resources to check employee backgrounds like the US does.)
-
showing no ability to empathize with those you wish to harm and no awareness of why others find these actions objectionable.
And you have someone who looks like they stand an astronomically high probability of hurting another person. Not a chance. A likelihood.
Should he be thrown in prison on that basis? NO.
Should he be evaluated as a potential danger to others and considered for civil commitment to a mental health facility? Hell, YES.
Had John Mark Carr kept his trap shut and wanked off to fake kiddie porn on his computer, I would personally avoid his company, but leave him to enjoy the civil liberties granted to him by the US Constitution. While I am not a mental health professional, his behavior to this point, leads me to believe that he poses a substantial, frightening risk of hurting another person against their will.
Should a mental health professional examine him and say “Meh, he’s a creepy exhibitionist moron, but he’s not a danger,” I will shrug and move on. Until then, I say “he’s a danger. Check him out.”
Is that so very hard to understand?
I have edited the thread title to spell Karr’s name correctly.
My working theory for John Mark Karr has always been that he was caught doing something hinky in Thailand, and rather than stay in prison there, he copped to a bigger crime in the U.S. in order to get sent home.
Looks like his plan worked.
Well, your theory seems to be wrong.
-
He was not in a prison there; living in a hotel or lodging house I believe.
-
Thailand has stated that they have no charges of any kind pending against him.
So unless some new information comes out, your theory is way off.
And yet, I bet his resume will cross my desk in the next twelve months. Sometimes I am so proud to be an English language teacher.
>We were expecting so much from him. How disappointing.
Yes, this is really a sad turn. With those eyes and that slight build and lilting walk, he’d have been a major fave in the Big House.