१६ ऑगस्ट, २००६
So there really was an intruder who murdered JonBenet Ramsey?
They've arrested a man who -- it's reported -- "has confessed to certain elements of the crime that are unknown to the general public." JonBenet's mother died of cancer last June, after living for a decade mourning for her daughter and enduring the suspicion that she or her husband was the murderer.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
The dad released a statement; evidently the police had briefed the Ramseys on this suspect before Patsy died. So at least (he says) she was aware they were closing in on someone.
I remember reading a Vanity Fair article at the time that sure portrayed the Ramseys as guilty, guilty, guilty.
Elizabeth Smart's family endured some suspicion as well, though to a much lesser extent.
It's a lot easier to believe the family harmed her than to know that strangers break in, kidnap and kill children.
For me, I hate to admit, the whole kiddy-beauty-pageant made me think it was more likely they'd exploit this child in another way.
I hope they got the right person. And then I hope they add 10 years to whatever sentence he might get.
All these years people have been acting like there's some connection between doing pageants with your child and murder.
The whole damn thing was just awful. I admit I was suspicious of the parents at first. But when I heard they'd hired a prominent FBI profiler who uncovered the evidence of an intruder, well, I have felt bad for them ever since. I cannot imagine their pain, first for her death, second for their unwarranted suffering from false accusations. There just aren't words to describe how sad this is.
He didn't just kill a little girl, he destroyed the whole family.
Dave:
Perhaps the handle of the paintbrush was used to strangle?
Professor A: Don't you agree though that there is a strong "ick factor" with the kiddy-beauty pageants?
A garotte involves a sticklike part to twist to tighten the ropelike part around the neck.
Dave: Most paintbrushes have holes at the end of the handles used for hanging them as on a nail. Maybe the rope was threaded through such a hole.
Picture an artist's brush with a long handle. It's just a stick. You put the stick between the neck and the rope (which is a loose, closed circle) and twist -- tourniquet-style.
As for kiddie pageants: kids have dressed up and otherwise acted like adults forever. Are you shocked when a girl plays with a baby doll and pretends to be a mother? What if she puts the doll under her clothes and pretends to be pregnant? It's just typical child behavior, part of growing up. The only thing icky is when an adult gets a sexual feeling from that. It's up to adults to do better, not to demand that children not play.
Not surprisingly, the CO media have been all over this today, and, in particular, the Caplis and Silverman radio show at 850 KOA. Caplis was a legal analyst on the case years ago, and kept up with it. They had one of the prosecutors on the show tonight for some more info.
As suggested, the paint brush handle was apparently used as part of the garrot. But, interestingly, the handle was not attached until after the rope was around her neck, because some of her hair was apparently caught between the rope and handle. They never could trace the origin of the rope.
I think the ordinary thing to do is to put the stick in after the rope is already tied around the neck. It's just a device for screwing the rope tighter. That's how you do a tourniquet. Note: do not garotte anyone.
True Justice in the Jon Benet Ramsey case:
I too remember the disgust I felt towards Vanity Fair concerning the Ramseys. What a "public service" that magazine provides (well, it IS printed on cushy paper). Vanity Fair has always been "sleaze-lite" - it's very presence debases the whole of American culture and kindness.
Imagine losing a child, then having the whole world media portray you as the killer when you had nothing to do with it.
When a suspect is convicted, Justice will be done when Vanity Fair, it's editorial staff, and others (Geraldo, et al) who were "certain" of the Ramsey's guilt, are publicly Humiliated and Shamed beyond public redemption.
If this man is convicted, it should become a public badge of perversity to ever purchase or read Vanity Fair again, causing it's very public demise (a very public good). Unless, of course, Graydon Carter and his editorial staff is Very Publicly Contrite and contributes a VERY large sum of money towards anti-child porn groups or something of similar worth.
But I'm afraid that in today's America, something righteous like that could never happen . . . .
Prediction: if the man is convicted, it will be extremely easy to find someone who says: "I always knew it wasn't the Ramseys".
11:25 PM Pacific Standard Time:
AP is reporting that Thai police say that the suspect admitted to the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.
To those who so publicly and viciously spouted off about her parents being the murderers:
Geraldo - get the kneepads.
Graydon - get down behind Geraldo.
Ann Althouse - hope you have a percentage of the disdain you feel for George Allen and Mel Gibson left for people like Geraldo and Graydon who so easily contribute to the public defamation and destruction of people's character, with no public consequence to their actions.
I also thought the parents had killed JonBenet. Why? Because parents do kill children. Absent any other evidence, it's a conclusion anyone can make. (I didn't trumpet my accusations, however)
I'm still not buying that this man was an 'intruder' in the classic breaking and entering sense, if he does turn out to be the murderer.
The (content-light) article I read lead to me infer that there is a relationship between him and the Ramsey family going back to JonBenet's birth in Atlanta. It stated that the Ramsey's had identified him to police during the investigation(though why they did wasn't provided) and indicated there was unnamed third-party who was providing information about him to the police.
There is a difference between private, conversational musings and the blaring, irresponsible public announcements that were displayed in the name of the "public's right to know".
Like most, I figured it was one of the Ramseys, and if there's a silver lining here it's that I'm very glad to find out I was wrong about that. Of course, the people telling us this is the guy are the same ones who insisted the Ramseys did it. I hope they're right this time.
His CV is quite creepy. He sure likes to babysit, doesn't he?
I call BS on this whole thing.
How would he know details only the killer could know?
From somebody who does. The parents maybe? He said he had been in touch with them.
There's more to this than meets the eye.
I thought it was David Byrne when I first saw the pic.
Well, the guy is a pervert - my guess is that he was in Thailand because he was still on the lam from a 2001 charge of possessing kiddie porn. There are also some indications that he had other sexual predation problems during that time period - he was ultimately fired from a substitute teaching post in Sonoma under such a cloud.
Nevertheless, his (former?) wife doesn't believe that he was in CO at the time of the murder. He would have had to fly here, try to kidnap JonBenet, kill her, and fly back to Atlanta, all without his wife know of it, to pull it off. Hard, but not impossible.
More information is available at both the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News. Also, I copied the Rocky Mountain News links.
Based on the ex-wife's alibi, my wild guess is that this guy is completely off his nut; that he probably is a pederast; that he is being completely honest about being infatuated with JonBenet; and that his psychosis has reached the point where he is confusing his fantasies about being with her when he died with reality.
THE *key* to answering the guilt question will be a comparison of the DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear with that of John Mark Karr. If the DNA doesn't match, he is NOT the killer. His ex-wife, Lara Karr, also gave him an alibi, saying they were in Alabama the night the murder took place. She has NO reason to even open her mouth to help the guy. After all, she divorced him after he was charged for child pornography back in 2001 (a charge that is still outstanding).
I just watched part of a news broadcast with John Mark Karr -- including his verbal statements that were quoted by the Associated Press earlier. My guess is that he's a psycho who studied the case so long he has personalized it. In his psychopathic, pedophilic mind, he's is sorry JonBenet died -- and feels guilty because he couldn't do anything to stop the murder.
It's also pretty clear to me that this guy is gay. Therefore, he wouldn't have fallen "in love" with JonBenet Ramsey, nor would he have drugged her to have sex with her -- which, btw, doesn't fit crime scene evidence at all. Karr is likely (and definitely *not* associated to his homosexuality) mentally unstable -- which is pretty clear from the video interview, too.
I'm going to go ahead and prematurely conclude that John Mark Karr is NOT JonBenet Ramsey's killer, but he is probably guilty of other crimes -- such has child molestation, being a purveyor of child pornography and possibly kidnapping of young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse.
Hillbilly, if he investigated the case to the point of interviewing JonBenet's grandparents and former detectives, he *might* know details that are NOT public knowledge. After all, it's been nearly 10 years. Lips do loosen over time -- and some people likely have forgotten what is public and what is supposed to be 100% private.
My bet is still with John Ramsey as the killer.
Charlie,
I always thought it was the son, Burke.
Doggone . . .
just when I thought we could get a good kick in at Geraldo . . . .
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा