Skip to comments.Prosecutor Defends Karr Arrest
Posted on 08/29/2006 10:56:34 AM PDT by OldCorps
BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy defended her decision to bring John Mark Karr back from Thailand to be investigated in the 1996 slaying of JonBenet Ramsey. "The decisions were mine," Lacy said, one day after she dropped the case against the 41-year-old schoolteacher. "I should be held accountable." Just as she began taking questions, a fire alarm disrupted the news conference, but it resumed a few minutes later. JonBenet's father found the little girl's body in the basement of their Boulder home on the day after Christmas 1996. For years, suspicion has focused on either an intruder or the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. Karr, a 41-year-old schoolteacher fascinated with JonBenet and Polly Klaas, a murdered California girl, said after his arrest in Thailand this month that he was with JonBenet at the time of her slaying, which he called an accident. But DNA tests did not match Karr to material found on the girl's body. Prosecutors suggested in court papers that Karr was just a man with a twisted obsession who confessed to a crime he didn't commit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Seems like she could have cleared this guy without bringing him back to this country. And you know they aren't going to keep him in jail long on those pornography charges.
Competent? No way.
Don't they have any other charges on which they can lock up this pervert? Why has he been out on the street?
As compared to Nifong she does.
As far as I know, he hasn't been convicted of any crime yet, and may well not be.
I think he has child porn charges pending in California.
Do you get the impression that our entire criminal justice system is run by complete idiots from the guys who sweep the floors all the way up to the United States Supreme Court?
"Do you get the impression that our entire criminal justice system is run by complete idiots from the guys who sweep the floors all the way up to the United States Supreme Court?
No, I do not.
In fact, I just got home from jury duty, and was very favorably impressed by the competence and professionalism of the judge, the attorneys, and the court officers.
Of course, they do work within severe legal constraints. Proving criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is a difficult operation.
I am sure if California has sufficient evidence against this man, they will proceed.
As for the police in Boulder, that may well be a different matter. But they were probably not very experienced in serious cases compared to, say, the homicide detectives in a large city.
You beat me to it when it came to a reply. I was hoping to jump in on that one. Anyway, anyone disappointed that it wasn't Karr? I mean, really, it would have been nice to have finally had some closure, especially for the Ramseys, even if I do think that parading around their six-year-old daughter like an adult trollope was repulsive.
As for John Mark Karr, well, he faces misdemeanour charges related to his child pornography arrest back in California. The fact that his crime is legally on the same level as possession of marijuana disturbs me greatly. After hearing about this guy's fantasies regarding JonBenet Ramsey, it is terrifying to think that this guy will be out on the streets. Call me judgmental, but I sense a ticking time bomb.
I really hope that he didn't interfere with children whilst overseas, but if he didn't, there's no charge by which they can keep him in prison.
Also, what about obstruction of justice? This pervert cost taxpayers a lot of money and wasted time and resources. Surely there must be some justice. One big waste of time and effort. Sickening.
Not true. The Ramsey's DNA might be all over the house but I can't imagine why it would be found in areas where only someone like an attacking sex pervert might leave it - for example, in her panties/private areas or under her fingernails etc. I think the answer would depend on where the DNA was found and the amount etc. If the investigators are now saying 'the DNA is not a match', that statement implies to me that they have other DNA that they compared it against - and that DNA is not any of the Ramseys. And if that is the case, I ask my original question - why didn't it clear the Ramseys as potential suspects just as quickly?
Actually, I believe that the State of CA tried Karr in absentia for the child porn charges, and they still want him for that as well as "fugitive from justice" type charges.
I do not believe this is correct.
Usually, when a misdemeanor suspect doesn't show up, they just issue a bench warrant.
He was convicted in absentia, after his failure to appear, which followed 6 months in jail without raising bail.
He was finally let out on a PR bond shortly before the trial and he took off for parts unknown. He has not returned to US soil since then, not even for Patsy's funeral. (He said he wanted to go, but mourned at his home, instead.)
She couldn't even answer one reporter's question about the legality of DNA tests, so, no way.
That disaster of a press conference clearly put her incompetence on display.
I'm glad she's not the DA in my town.
Another competent DA
I watched her press conference today and was very impressed with them. They were very honest and answered questions lobbed at them very professionally.
They had some very darn good reasons for taking the approach they did.
And, it wasn't the DA that made this the show it was, it was the media. If anyone is to blame for this, it is them.
Because apparently the DNA could have been from a factory worker where the panties were made.
So they have unidentified male DNA, but no proof it was from the killer only that it may be.
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.