This ALL bears repeating. It seems that far too many FReepers are falling for the snow job being done by CNN and MSNBC...and sorry to say, FOX also.
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.
1,001 posted on 08/23/2006 8:12:14 AM EDT by Rte66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]