Skip to comments.JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case SuspectFR Thread Roundup
Posted on 08/20/2006 5:37:25 AM PDT by Rte66
For your bookmarking assistance, this is a reference list of links to the Aug 2006 or newer Free Republic threads on the topic of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case and the possible arrest of John Mark Karr as a suspect in her murder.
The party should be easy, as it's a complete fabrication. Just about everything else is the entire intruder theory espoused by Lou Smit.
Karr took every little item that couldn't be directly attributed to someone specific and made himself that person. For example, Joe Barnhill across the street had said at one time he saw someone walking across the Ramseys' front yard that late afternoon, but he thought it was John Andrew.
Karr then says he "parked" (parked what?) down the street and that the person Barnhill saw was he.
Then he makes up the story about sitting on the butler pantry stoop with JonBenet and talking to her alone during the party.
He got that from a report (former Det.) Steve Thomas told about JonBenet the night of the 12/23/96 party sitting by herself on the step of the butler pantry (behind the kitchen) and telling one of her mother's friends, who was unnamed in Thomas's account of it, that she "didn't feel pretty."
So, Karr places himself on that stoop, sitting and talking with JonBenet.
Then there's the advance planning of going down to the basement (yeah, right) and undoing the latch of the window. As everyone knows, one pane was broken out - the one where you reach in and unlock the window.
If he had done this, he would've seen there was no need to unlatch the window from the inside. That window was another Smit favorite.
So was the "disturbed" dust ruffle on the guest room bed. Smit believed the perp hid under that bed and messed up the ruffle. He totally ignored the fact that Patsy had been standing right over that bed, packing. Obviously, her feet were brushing the dust ruffle while she did that.
Karr puts himself under that bed, waiting for the Ramseys to come home from the Whites and then go to bed.
And obviously, one or the other of his brothers did not work for John Ramsey "for years" and was not invited to the small get-together. No one from the company was.
There has been much debate about the "pay check stub" and whether there was one in the house which had John's 1995 bonus from February printed on it, as each one through the year did. I've never seen it, but then there hasn't been a trial, so we haven't actually seen any evidence or potential evidence in the public domain except the stuff from Smit's PowerPoint presentation of reasonable doubt to exonerate the Ramseys.
The defense has been able to play the media, but the real meat of the case has only been gleaned indirectly through documents, partial leaks, books written - but nothing more than depositions in civil trials for just hints at the overall picture.
As lopsided as it has been for direct public consumption, seeing only the defense's case, the perception persists that the family never came clean with law enforcement, because they didn't.
John Ramsey spent beaucoup money to hire people simply to come up with anything that would've swayed just one jury member to a "not guilty" vote - and apparently, it worked. Keenan quotes him as some ethics guru in her own presser.
At least one of his investigators quit in disgust because the Ramseys didn't give a rat's azz about leads or tips (non-working website, non-working phone number, non-working JBR Foundation) or actually solving the case - the directive was simply to keep them out of jail. Now it has trickled down to Karr, from Lou Smit to Michael Tracey to John Mark Karr.
They didn't use their alarm system because it was "too loud."
I kid you not. The noise disturbed them the first time it went off, so they turned it off when they first moved on and never used it again.
They ARE loud....earsplitting. You know they've spent the last 10 years kicking themselves.
Every single person who was in that house on 12/23 has been questioned and DNA-sampled. They are ALL known to LE. *None* were under the umbrella of suspicion except the immediate family, because they could never be cleared.
The only reason we can't say the other party attendees have ALL been cleared is because no one has been cleared in the murder case - with the exception of Burke Ramsey. Maybe Fleet White, but the wording was murky. He requested it of LE, who said it didn't matter because if he came under suspicion he would be "uncleared."
Ok......how about he snuck in one of the entrances during the party? Poked around and if seen, everyone just assumed he was a guest?
I'm reaching....I know!
Like I said, slam dunk, right?
We have prosecutors and trials and judges and defense lawyers and endless investigative reports and on and on...
Must be SOME reason for that...
Everyone in that house knew everyone else. Everyone was known to the Ramseys or to their closest friends. There were no strangers there.
Should be interesting for the DA to separate fact from fiction in Karr's mind.
No need to bother, bonfire...Rte66 has every base covered. Already said that everyone there was known by the others. The prosecutor needs Rte66 and it will all be over...like yesterday.
Seriously, I'm not naysaying what has been presented here, but I can't accept there's nothing there against Karr for the murder until I get it from a shall-we-say more official source, after every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed.
Hopefully it will be done that carefully.
An in-house homicide is the toughest to investigate and even tougher to prosecute.
All the forensic evidence to be gathered belongs there. It's nearly impossible to find what's different or out of place if someone wants to hide it.
I can't accept it either. I have to believe the DA has other info that they haven't shared with the public.
If he's not the murderer, he has pertinent info that set off alarm bells.
I'm only saying things that are very commonly known. Hundreds of us spent years and years combing over all of it and I've forgotten most of it.
The things I posted about are just the very glaringly obvious things. Many people know much more about the case than I do - I'm really just painting in broad brush strokes, because if *I* know the answers, surely the BDA does, too - but then, so does Karr if he's been in the forums as well.
It seems like they are just operating on the assumption that no one else knows all those details - when there are books, documents, millions of discussions, all at the fingertips of someone like Karr who would want to make a name for himself in his own sick way.
The things we've heard would be very easy to impeach in court. I'm just wondering "why bother?" If he lies about such blatantly false info, the only thing that could be true would be a DNA match.
You would think the prosecutor has her reasons.
However, you will be told here that there's nothing, nothing pertinent that he could not have found out in some way...and I'm talking about his knowledge of the case when I say that. But I don't know for a fact that there's not a single thing he could know only because he's the murderer.
I'm waiting and watching.
The other point is that there's independent facts and evidence to prove or disprove things he claims. Such as the party. And many others. Where's the brother? (He claims both of them went to the party. And that's where he spent time with JonBenet, did coin tricks for her and gained her trust.)
All of this will go into whether charges are pursued against him for murder or whether they arent.
I checked out the photos from your link. The housekeepers husband sure resembles the one from the psychic.
From what I recall, she died in 1980, but of course databases can be wrong, or just my damn memory in that regards. Either way, it's certainly more accurate than 2000 and I know the boys were teens when she died.
It *could* be the wrong one. It's entirely possible she never had a Social Security number, so her death wasn't registered.
Since there was an age discrepancy from the marriage certificate age that was reported, it's entirely possible it isn't she. Typically, back then, women didn't take their maiden names back after a divorce, especially if they had children who carried the marital surname - but I do understand her circumstances weren't typical. Very sad.
*oh, well, I tried* That's the closest I could come to putting some facts to the person.
"How is it that matching DNA not belonging to a family member came to be under her finger nails and on her underwear on the same night that she just happened to be murdered?"
Agreed but we don't know when that DNA got there. It was only found at the time of her murder b/c of an autopsy. Pathologists described it as "old and degraded", so, it would seem to me, the only way to know if it was deposited the night of the murder would be if a DNA match to an intruder is found. Some, and I emphasize some, pathologists have said that the DNA under the fingernails, b/c of it's age and degradation, did not appear to be the result of a struggle.
>>>Remember Sandbar, the dude from the Colorado newspaper. He passed Karr on to...(I forgot)....a professor?, a writer?? Sandbar had better things to do than become John's victim.>>>
You mean Sandrock. The person who first posted that here said "Sandbar" incorrectly and when I asked he corrected to Sandrock. I was laughing because what a HUGE coincidence THAT would have been, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.