Wow, it looks like they may have caught the JonBenet killer!

I have to admit that I suspected the parents.

Imagine the horror of finding your daughter brutally assaulted and killed, then being the primary suspects in public opinion for a decade!

It definitely refreshes in my mind why "innocent until proven guilty" is such an important concept, despite the outcrys when likely killers get away due to lack of evidence or due process.

I guess I should keep an open mind about O.J. Simpson too ...

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:33 am Wow, it looks like they may have caught the JonBenet killer!

I have to admit that I suspected the parents.

Imagine the horror of finding your daughter brutally assaulted and killed, then being the primary suspects in public opinion for a decade!

It definitely refreshes in my mind why "innocent until proven guilty" is such an important concept, despite the outcrys when likely killers get away due to lack of evidence or due process.

I guess I should keep an open mind about O.J. Simpson too ...

I did not think that parents killed her. A couple of criminologists I have met did consider the parents or her brother. The odds were in favor of the view the criminologists held.

Assuming the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the case is indeed a good reminder of the need not to rush to judgment. Of course the same applies to the current suspect. What is sad is that violence against children, including murderous violence, by their parents is so incredibly common that the assumption that JonBenet's parents may well have done it was a completely reasonable hypothesis. I thought they were guilty because I regarded -- and still do regard -- the child beauty contest business as creepy and a form of child abuse (think of the self esteem of the losers!)

Agreed. This guy could be just some nut that may end up having nothing to do with the case.

I don't believe for a second that it was a kidnapping. There are so many problems with the case that continue to nag at me. Why was the "ransom note" in the mother's handwriting? How did the kidnapper know to ask for the exact amount of a bonus that the father just received?

I think I'll wait for some of the media frenzy to blow over and for more solid evidence to come out.

Taylor (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:56 am Agreed. This guy could be just some nut that may end up having nothing to do with the case.

I don't believe for a second that it was a kidnapping. There are so many problems with the case that continue to nag at me. Why was the "ransom note" in the mother's handwriting? How did the kidnapper know to ask for the exact amount of a bonus that the father just received?

I think I'll wait for some of the media frenzy to blow over and for more solid evidence to come out.

The note was not in Patsy's handwriting according to a recent documentary that I watched on the History Channel. Also, they had DNA connected with the crime that belonged to nobody in the family or associated with the family. I suspect that this was how the suspect was caught. It is the best way to open up cold case files.

There was so much hype around this one that it is hard to tell the facts from the fictions.

Another tragedy is that Patsy Ramsey died of breast cancer about 2 months ago. I imagine that she died thinking that the case would never be solved.

Taylor, you have to realize that usually, but not always, is the most obvious suspect the perpetrator.

A-1

The news report is that the defendant confessed to killing the little girl. The news report is that Mrs. Ramsey did know that the police had a prime suspect. The reporting about this case is still lurid. We live in a society that destroys children. We get little coverage of their pain.

UPDATE: The guy did not kill her, did he?

Blaise (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:05 am The news report is that the defendant confessed to killing the little girl. The news report is that Mrs. Ramsey did know that the police had a prime suspect. The reporting about this case is still lurid. We live in a society that destroys children. We get little coverage of their pain.

UPDATE: The guy did not kill her, did he?

Yeah, there are definitely a lot of "expert" followers of the case that are expressing doubt that Karr was the real killer. His public statements contradict some conclusions by forensic investigators.

He does seem to be a creep though -- wanted on child pornography, married two child brides, etc.

It is weird/sad though that people seem to have an urge to falsely confess to heinous crimes.

One forensic expert indicated that the case may hinge on something like handwriting analysis, since there apparently is little DNA to work with.

As reminded by strassenbahn, I will keep an open mind about his innocence until the proof of his guilt is revealed.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:04 am Yeah, there are definitely a lot of "expert" followers of the case that are expressing doubt that Karr was the real killer. His public statements contradict some conclusions by forensic investigators.

He does seem to be a creep though -- wanted on child pornography, married two child brides, etc.

It is weird/sad though that people seem to have an urge to falsely confess to heinous crimes.

One forensic expert indicated that the case may hinge on something like handwriting analysis, since there apparently is little DNA to work with.

As reminded by strassenbahn, I will keep an open mind about his innocence until the proof of his guilt is revealed.

I am open to being convinced on this one. I will wait to see what develops.

Mr. Karr appears to be a brutal man. He might also be quite clever.

A-1 - I didn't see that History Channel show (over 11 years TV free!). So I will concede that Patsy may not have written the note.

This jerk that has confessed is looking more and more like a media whore. A very sick twisted media whore. Part of my initial gut feeling was that he confessed to the killing to keep his narrow ass out of a Thi prison and knowing that once he's in the US it will be quickly sorted out.

There is something tawdry about the Ramsey's that I just can't put my finger on. Whenever I've had an intuitive leap like this one it's never been wrong.

The best approach is to let the authorities complete their investigation.

If it turns out that he is innocent, he's still enough of a monster to deserve a .38 in the back of his head. There should be only one sentence for a child molester - execution.

Taylor (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:06 am A-1 - I didn't see that History Channel show (over 11 years TV free!). So I will concede that Patsy may not have written the note.

This jerk that has confessed is looking more and more like a media whore. A very sick twisted media whore. Part of my initial gut feeling was that he confessed to the killing to keep his narrow ass out of a Thi prison and knowing that once he's in the US it will be quickly sorted out.

There is something tawdry about the Ramsey's that I just can't put my finger on. Whenever I've had an intuitive leap like this one it's never been wrong.

The best approach is to let the authorities complete their investigation.

If it turns out that he is innocent, he's still enough of a monster to deserve a .38 in the back of his head. There should be only one sentence for a child molester - execution.

An excellent criminologist I met and two good psychologists I know think it mostly likely someone in the family killed the little girl. Something about the family bothers me. Still, I don't know.