Question for Debate?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Aloysius1, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:

    Hey All,

    I am a newbie to posting here, but have read the forums for years. You guys are simply awesome! Cherokee, your analysis of the ransom letter blows me away every time I read it and Tricia your sleuthing ability and unwavering quest for justice is to be applauded! I am an unabashed member of "the Rams were involved" camp and the surfacing of this goober Karr has rekindled my thoughts on the case, but I find myself caught in a strange paradox. Hence, the reason for posing the question to the rest of the forum. Do I/we want Karr to be charged and convicted of the crime if the DNA match is inconclusive and they have to rely on other evidence or do I/ we want the case against him dismissed for lack of hard evidence and the case then remains unsolved? I truly believe this guy is lying, but is it because I have convinced myself beyond any doubt that the Rams were involved? What do you all think?
     
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I think we all want the truth. Wherever the truth leads.

    The problem is because Lacy is already convinced (from 9 years ago no less) that it was an intruder we can't depend on her to do the right thing.

    The only right thing in my opinon is the honest to God's truth. The only way we will get to the truth is to keep looking.

    We can't depend on the Boulder D.A.

    To me, the truth is there was no intruder and until we exonerate the Ramseys we can't move forward with anything.

    The Ramseys can't be exonerated because nothing leads away from them.
     
  3. amster

    amster Member

    Seems Pam is now saying that it's entirely possible that Karr was at the Christmas party....he sister and John couldn't possibly know all the people that were there.

    And, Karr knows things that nobody else knows....wow....nobody?
     
  4. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:


    I agree Tricia. By the way, great job on MSNBC today! What scares me to death is if the Boulder DA/PD successfully pens this case on him to "save face" and the real killer walks. I am with many on this forum who do truly believe that the Rams either committed or were complicit somehow in JBR's death.
     
  5. tylin

    tylin Banned

    Again, I can't wait to hear what Karr knows that no one else knows! :wtf:
    I say nothing!
     
  6. Tril

    Tril Member

    I myself would prefer the case against Karr dropped for lack of evidence. No way do I want him to be railroaded into a conviction, or see him be his own defense attorney and cop a plea. Even if the JonBenet case is never solved, I don't want the wrong person to go down for this ... and I feel very strongly that Karr the wrong person.
     
  7. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:


    Amster,

    This actually opens up another angle on my question. Would Pam lie about remembering Karr being at the house on the 23rd just to finally clear John and Patsy's name. I would ask Pam this question. What possible relation ship would exist between the high society Ramseys and a lowly (no slam intended. I have teachers in my family) school teacher from Alabama sporting a bad mullet that he would have been invited? Another thing. How did Karr know that JBR existed on the face of the earth in 1996 before she became public knowledge?
     
  8. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:

    I agree Tril. I was on vacation when the news broke and I turned to my family and said: "No way this guy did it." Of course that was after I picked myself up off the floor!
     
  9. Vic

    Vic Active Member

    Pam wasn't at the Christmas party.
     
  10. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    EXACTLY!!! Karr's family says they were dirt poor at in 1996. Why would an Alabama nobody be invited to a Christmas party for wealthy Boulder socialites? And how DID Karr know JonBenet existed before December 1996.

    The answers lie in Karr's obsessive fantasy. He was willing to "confess" to JonBenet's murder but had "no comment" when asked how he knew the Ramseys.

    Every time Karr was asked a question that was NOT provided by case evidence available online or in print, he could not give an answer. His fantasy is scripted based on what he knows about the case. He doesn't have answers for anything not in that script.

    By the way, welcome to FFJ, Aloysius! Glad you're here.
     
  11. amster

    amster Member

    I think she was saying....on LKL tonight....that friends that were invited brought their friends and so on.....would she lie? Well..I've always thought she was a few fries short of a Happy Meal and just generally odd. The day all this broke, she was giving tours at Patsy and JonBenets graves. In my opinion, she would definitely lie.
     
  12. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:


    True, but what if she is saying that the possibility exists at the behest of JR and John comes forth and bogusly confirms it. Would they conspire to lie to clear the Ramsey name? Yes he would if he was complcit in the murder. But, would he do it even if he did not do it and the killer remains at large merely to take advantage of a golden oppotunity? This thing can get so weird that it is scary!
     
  13. Aloysius1

    Aloysius1 Member

    :rs:


    Thanks Cherokee for the warm welcome. I will try not be the "annoying new kid on the block" rehashing everything that has been discussed here for ten years. By the way, I was reading your analysis of the ransom letter again the other day and a thought occurred to me. When the note writer refers to "two gentlemen" watching over JB, could that be a Freudian slip of sorts that refers to her two gentlemen- John and Burke? Just a thought.
     
  14. sue

    sue Member

    I think you are exactly right. I worked at one time as an RN (Registered Nurse, for those who are not in the US) in an inpatient Psych unit.
    My take on it is that the things like how he knew the Ramseys or how he got to Boulder are not important parts of his fantasy. Those things have meaning to us because we are living in a real world where those things are necessary for the other things to happen that we know did happen. We're taking the pieces of reality we know about and trying to make sense of it.

    He's not concerned about reality or sense. He's taking little snippets of reality and adding them to his fantasy to make his fantasy more full and realistic. If he can find a piece here or there that makes his fantasy more satisfactory to him, he will use it. If he can find pieces that make his fantasy more realistic to him, he will use them. But, the focus is on his internal reality and his connection to Jonbenet.
     
  15. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    alledgedly

    JMK said his brother worked for JR and that is how he got into the party. I would think that would be easy enough to prove or disprove. That would probably be the only way he could know of the Ramseys.

    I don't think the prosecution should have any trouble figuring out that that is the first thing to verify because if that is a lie his whole story falls apart. Also, if they can prove this brother went home for Christmas that would blow it out of the water too. I think if his brother worked for John Ramsey it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops by now.
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Exactly!!! Great post, Sue. I'm glad you're back posting with us. :)
     
  17. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Yeah, Texan, I've wondered why the media hasn't jumped on this aspect, too.
     
  18. sue

    sue Member

    Thank you. From someone who knows as much as you do, that praise means a lot.
    I may not post a lot, but you can count on me to be lurking and to start up posting again when anything comes up that I think I can add to the discussion.
     
  19. sue

    sue Member

    Me too.
    Silence on that subject has really puzzled me. It should be easy to check.
     
  20. VP

    VP Member

    Morning;)

    The talking head on MSNBC this morning said that Karr's family in Georgia are saying Karr was with them in Georgia on Xmas '96, and his ex-wife is saying Karr was with her in Alabama.....good grief, what a cluster.

    Murphy's law at work again in the Ramsey case.

    .
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice