Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 29, 2006 in At TMV | 7 comments

JonBenet Ramsey Case Collapses Amid Recrimination And Mystery

Once again officials investigating the JonBenet Ramsey murder case have been left with egg on their faces — omelette-sized.

Events have unfolded in rapid succession. First came the news that there was no DNA match in the case of confessed killer John Mark Karr:

The Boulder District Attorney’s office Monday dropped a case against suspect John MarkKarr in connection to the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, then released more than 400 pages of documents detailing their case against him. Earlier Monday 9News broke the story that Karr’s DNA doesn’t match DNA found on the girl’s body.

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy entered a motion to quash the case against Karr after 9NEWS reported the discrepancy in the DNA. Lacy has not commented on the developments in the case but did authorize the release of hundreds of pages of documents related to her office’s case against Karr.

Then the news that the Karr would be freed (briefly):

Prosecutors abruptly dropped their case Monday against John Mark Karr in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, saying DNA tests failed to put him at the crime scene despite his insistence he sexually assaulted and strangled the 6-year-old beauty queen.

Just a week and a half after Karr’s arrest in Thailand was seen as a remarkable break in the sensational, decade-old case, prosecutors suggested in court papers that he was just a man with a twisted fascination with JonBenet who confessed to a crime he didn’t commit.

“The people would not be able to establish that Mr. Karr committed this crime despite his repeated insistence that he did,” District Attorney Mary Lacy said in court papers.

The 41-year-old schoolteacher will be kept in jail in Boulder until he can be sent to Sonoma County, Calif., to face child pornography charges dating to 2001.

This report contained the understatement of the young 21st Century:

The district attorney vowed to keep pursuing leads in JonBenet’s death: “This case is not closed.”

But does that mean the unopened case will go anywhere? The AP:

Scott Robinson, an attorney who has been following the case, said the arrest and clearing of Karr could put the case back at “square negative one.”

….Gov. Bill Owens and legal experts criticized spending thousand of dollars extraditing Karr to Colorado when he was already wanted in California on misdemeanor child pornography charges. Karr faces an extradition hearing Tuesday to determine whether he will be sent to Sonoma County, Calif., to face charges.

“Unfortunately, the hysterics surrounding John Mark Karr served only to distract Boulder officials from doing their job, which should be solving the murder of JonBenet Ramsey,” Owens said. “I find it incredible that Boulder authorities wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring Karr to Colorado given such a lack of evidence. Mary Lacy should be held accountable for the most extravagant and expensive DNA test in Colorado history.”

A collection of quotes about the decision not to charge Karr are here.

In the end, although Karr may be extradited to California, he had a nice ride back in a first-class airplane.

He drank champagne…

And he ate shrimp…

All prosecutors were left with was egg on their faces.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • two_shoes

    If the Boulder D.A. did not run Karr’s assertions into the ground, the ensuing doubt, conspiracy theories, and tabloid covers would be haunting them and us for years. We should thank them for assuring that Karr only gets his 15+ minutes.

  • It seems to me that the folks bathing in egg aren’t the Boulder prosecutors, but the cable and network newsers that flooded the airwaves with this tripe.

    And, since the media do it because it increases ratings, those in the public that continue to watch.

  • CaliBlogger,

    AKA F*CK Nancy Grace. heheheh

    But yea, anyone with half a brain could’ve seen this one coming. He just wanted to get out of those Thai jails.

  • Kim Ritter

    I agree-the tabloid coverage has been totally excessive and obsessive. Obviously the major news outlets believe this is all people are interested in.

    But what interests me is —-what exact connection did he have with the Ramseys? And does the lack of evidence against him cloud them with suspicion again? They seemed a little to ready to embrace him as the culprit, even when all of the forensic specialists and experts on the case were doubtful of the truthfulness of his confession.???

  • Rudi

    What I found troubling is nobody looked into the journalism professor who suppoedly help break the case. Michael Tracey became involved in the case as a proponent for the Ramsey family. He had an emotional tie to the case, he made documentries and claimed that the parents were innocent. As a jounalist he made the mistake of becoming part of the story. I wonder if Tracey or Karr used the emails to manipulate the other party to gain their momemnt in the spotlight. From a Rocky Mountain News story:

    He was instrumental in flushing this person out in the sense of getting him to talk,” Stine added. “(The suspect) was in e-mail communication with Michael over a period of (time), and that helped to develop the case.”

    Tracey himself declined to comment on his role, saying only this about the suspect:

    “I do believe he has the right to be presumed innocent. I got involved in this, for 10 years, because I believe that right was never extended to the Ramseys, and that was wrong.
    Tracey hinted in his third documentary that a major break was coming in the case.

    A 2004 CU press release promoting Tracey’s third documentary said, “A new team of investigators has uncovered dramatic new evidence about the murder, resulting in the identification of a key suspect.

  • Kim Ritter

    But did Tracey use Karr and his obvious obsession with Jon Benet’s murder as a decoy? If he was biased towards the Ramseys and interested in proving their innocence, did he create a red herring in order to do that?

    The whole story is sordid and unbelievable. There was never much if any evidence of an intruder breaking in, which, together with the Ramseys’ decision to hire a lawyer and refusal to take lie detector tests, led to the suspicion surrounding them in the first place.

  • Rudi

    Tracey put forth the intruder as suspect in his 2004 schockumenty and by inuendo claimed that John Steven Gigax was the murderer. Like the Karr case, this “suspect” wasn’t even in Boulder at the time. Tracey’s obsession doesn’t pass the smell test. Here’s a link to this info, raedily available by a little Google. Nancy Grace and Rita Cosby are …

    “>Bad professor
    John Steven Gigax (Helgoth Accomplice)

    The Theory
    According to the Tracey documentary, Gigax (who was not specifically named, but whose identity was later deduced from documents shown in the documentary) was an accomplish of Helgoth’s.

    Incriminating Evidence
    Gigax’s name surfaced following the Michael Tracey documentary, which displayed his police record on air. The story of how his name was tracked down is here.

    Exculpatory Evidence

    The available evidence shows that Gigax was not even in Colorado on the night of the murder. Reportedly, “Tom Bennett of the Boulder D.A’s office told Mr. Gigax he was never a suspect and the Boulder D.A was never looking for him to question him.”
    A complete rebuttal of the Tracey documentary by Internet poster Jayelles is here.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :