Karr--what to say? Karr's Lawyers: Porn Case Can't Go on - No Evidence

I'm not shocked KK. My eyebrow was raising back when Karr arrived in Los Angeles and Sonoma didn't grab him on the warrant they already had out on him and theirs was five years ahead of Boulder.

Oh sure, yeah, Karr wanted to get to Boulder to live his pedo dream and yeah, Lacy (Tracey, Smit and Ollie) wanted to get him there too. They were all looking for their ticker parade, awards, balloons, Smit's coronation ball into the detective of the century hall of fame sponsored, no doubt by the RMN and Hartman family.

And a BIG party would have been going on in Atlanta, that already started with notes on the grave the day Karr was arrested, even though it was only on suspicion. Mr. "civil case, I'm gonna sue ya" attorney Wood was exonerating his clients DAY ONE even before the suspect had been officially charged or convicted.

And although Karr may not have been able to pen a book if convicted of the Boulder murder but he thought he secured that option well in advance by feeding his story to Tracey, who would make sure THAT story got told one way or another either in a book or YET another documentary. And Karr had his e-mail proof that a book deal had been cut with Tracey to write his story including sending Tracey his entire "Daxis" manuscript, and Lacy conveniently allowed the whole world to read and hear that deal by releasing those files. Was Tracey going to say later that he lied to Karr and admit that he, along with Smit, Ollie, Bennett and Lacy goated Karr into confessing to a murder on the false ruse of a promised book deal?

Oh yeah, there were BIG plans in the works in ALL theaters.

I would bet that when Karr arrived back in the US that Sonoma realized THEY were s-c-r-e-w-e-d on the five year missing evidence so THEY were hoping that Karr would get convicted on the murder case in Boulder THEN THEY could go to Boulder later and act like THEY were doing Karr a favor and cut a deal that THEY would either drop the charges in Sonoma or allow him to plea the deal to probation, which wouldn't mean a diddly crap since he would be in prison for the murder rap anyway but THEY would have covered THEIR BUTTS and nobody would have known THEY really lost the evidence to convict Karr.

Remember, that after Karr wasn't charged in Boulder that Sonoma did not rush right over to Boulder to grab John Mark Karr. They literally waited until the last day with some media blitz about them wanting to check out more stuff on Karr's Sonoma computer(S). Right, and I got some swamp land to sell. THEY had FIVE YEARS to check out stuff on Karr's computer with the new technology and if they didn't want to do that during the five years then they should have been doing it the day Karr landed in Los Angeles. And let's see, the Feds didn't grab Karr either so there must not have been too much on his Thailand laptop. So I would say Sonoma was sweatin' it and now it's "D" day or to John Mark Karr, it's "Daxis Day."

Oh yeah, there WERE people early on with "kiss my butt" signs taped to their hind ends while others were making invisable "cover my butt" signs. So if Karr gets off the Sonoma case then what? I smell some civil cases.

 

I believe that the Sonoma Prosecutor's actions may well be CRIMINAL ... maybe DejaNu could chime in.

Here's why: The prosecutor KNEW that the evidence was missing (and hence they had NO CASE against Karr), yet they attempted to get Karr to plea to lesser charges. Don't prosecutors have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to inform the Defense about the evidence that they have against a defendant? Certainly, that's gotta be criminal.

I would think that Karr also has civil possibilities here ... for something like "false imprisonment" perhaps? Weeks in jail without a shred of evidence strikes me as something that could make Karr a rich man. No?

...YumYum

 

I agree, ACR. I'm sure that the DA in Sonoma has been scrambling trying desperately to find "other child porn" on the 1600 images ALLEGEDLY FOUND on that zip drive/disk/whatever. Now I've seen TWICE that she claimed in court Wednesday there were MORE CHILD PORN IMAGES on that zip drive, but if that's so, why didn't she just drop the old charges and charge Karr with the NEW ONES?

Only two reasons I can think of: one, there are NO child porn images on that zip drive or among those 1600 images; two, if there ARE child porn images on the zip drive/disk, the prosecutor can't prove to a jury that those images actually CAME from Karr's computer now, since the computer is LOST, and/or that they belonged to Karr, he solicited them, viewed them, or that they didn't belong to SOMEONE ELSE...or that he's NOT being framed with them because IT'S SURE STARTING TO LOOK SUSPICIOUS ALL THE WAY ROUND.

Laughing at your description of the RST VICTORY LAP, ACR. Very funny:

:floor:

 

Yeah, I think it's very possible that John Karr might end up a very wealthy man before this is over. Maybe he can buy his own ticket back to Thailand, and they'll get the chance to arrest him that Lacy subverted by simply not investigating him thoroughly before she kidnapped him. If only she'd have let the BPD in on the investigation, who actually KNOW the case, she'd have figured out that Karr was no "intruder" in the Ramsey case and then turned Karr's email claims that he was going after some child there over to the Thai police, who would have arrested him and no one would have ever heard of John Karr again outside of a Thai hole in the ground.

Oh, by the way, Yummie...welcome back.

:rs:

 

It turns out that the zip disk was NOT catalogued as one of the items seized from Karr's home after the search warrant was issued. How could they POSSIBLY admit that stuff as evidence when there is nothing to indicate that it was Karr's zip disk?

This is CRIMINAL!!!

Also ... it appears that much of the info related to the 5 pieces of child porn allegedly found on Karr's hard drive is unavailable. From the article below:

Under cross-examination from defense attorney Rob Amparán, Eubanks said the printed contents of the hard drive do not contain data showing how or when the alleged child porn images arrived in the computer, how they were accessed or the last date they were viewed.

Here's the full artical and it's URL:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/EarlyEdition/article_view.cfm?recordID=5117&publishdate=09/28/2006


12-day lag in reporting loss of Karr evidence

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Thursday, September 28, 2006

Sonoma County sheriff's officials testified in court Wednesday that they knew two days after John Mark Karr's arrest in Thailand that crucial evidence was missing.


Investigators couldn't find the memory system from one of Karr's computers that allegedly contained five pornographic images of children.

The timeline offered in court Wednesday shows investigators knew there was a problem 12 days before they alerted prosecutors, on Aug. 30.

On Aug. 29, a prosecutor told the judge handling the case that sheriff's investigators were re-examining the computer hard drive, seeking additional evidence.

A ranking sheriff's detective testified behind closed doors during the Aug. 29 hearing, which was held to determine whether court documents in the 6-year-old case should be restored to the public record.

It would be five weeks before the judge was officially notified of the missing hard drive.

Karr's attorneys want the case dismissed, citing the failure to preserve evidence.

A hearing before Judge Cerena Wong began Wednesday and is scheduled to continue Friday. If she dismisses the case, Karr could be released from jail within hours.

Karr, who didn't attend Wednesday's hearing,whose trial is scheduled for Oct. 2, has pleaded not guilty to five misdemeanor counts of possessing child pornography. His trial is set for Monday.

In court Monday, an angry Wong ordered sworn testimony from sheriff's detectives about the missing evidence.

She said she first learned of the problem from a Sept. 20 article in The Press Democrat. Prosecutors later confirmed the computer hard drive had been lost.

Wong said she was "very concerned" about possible misrepresentations prosecutor Joan Risse and Sheriff's Lt. Rob Giordano made to her Aug. 29 about the status of the prosecution's evidence.

Sheriff Bill Cogbill has opened an inquiry into the investigation of the Karr case.

Wong also is expected to reconsider her Aug. 29 decision to bar public review of certain court records in the Karr case.

Risse said she wasn't told the hard drive was conclusively missing until Sept. 6. She believed printouts of the photographs and the hard drive's contents would support her case.

On Sept. 19, more than a month after investigators knew the hard drive was missing, prosecutors offered a plea bargain to Karr, a move defense attorneys have called unethical.

Karr, 41, rejected the offer to drop three charges in return for a guilty plea to two others.

Conviction on any of the charges requires him to register as a sex offender for life.

A one-time substitute teacher in Napa and Petaluma, he was arrested in 2001. After six months in jail, he was released without bail but failed to appear in court for a hearing.

Karr had been a fugitive for five years when he was arrested in Thailand and gained worldwide notoriety by saying he was with 6-year-old beauty queenJonBenet Ramsey when she was killed in 1996 in Boulder, Colo.

Murder charges against Karr were dropped when evidence from the scene failed to match his DNA, and he was extradited to Sonoma County to face the misdemeanor case.

District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua said he pursued the case because a conviction would require Karr to register as a sex offender.

On Wednesday, Wong heard testimony from two Sheriff's Department employees about when they learned the hard drive was missing and who they notified.

Evidence room supervisor Helga Ritter testified that on Aug. 17, the day after Karr's arrest in Bangkok, she began gathering evidence from his 2001 case. The following day, she said she couldn't locate a hard drive and notified her boss, Giordano.

Ritter and an intern searched the evidence room Aug. 19 and still couldn't locate it, she testified. Checks with additional evidence technicians Aug. 29, Aug. 31 and Sept. 9 also failed to turn up the hard drive.

Contrary to previous suggestions by sheriff's officials, she said it didn't appear the hard drive was lost in the department's 2002 move to a new building, or that it was purged with outdated evidence.

"This is the first time this had ever happened" in her 18 years in evidence control, she said.

Sheriff's Detective Wade Eubanks testified Wednesday that he knew in mid-August that one of three hard drives seized in 2001 was missing.

He said testified thathe spent nearly every waking hour over the weekend of Aug. 19-21 examining 40 diskettes and a larger-capacity Zip disk that had never been analyzed.

He testified that his investigation found 1,600 images of child pornography on the Zip disk.

The Zip disk and its drive were not cataloged as evidence seized in searches at Karr's homes, court documents show.

In a written declaration to Wong on Wednesday, Giordano said the Zip disk may have been wrongly categorized as one of the nearly 130 floppy disks taken in the searches.

Neither sheriff's officials nor prosecutors explained when the Zip drive surfaced or why it wasn't examined in 2001.

Questions about the evidentiary value of the data retained from the now-missing hard drive also were raised during Eubanks' testimony.

Under cross-examination from defense attorney Rob Amparán, Eubanks said the printed contents of the hard drive do not contain data showing how or when the alleged child porn images arrived in the computer, how they were accessed or the last date they were viewed.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 568-5312 or lcarter@pressdemocrat.com.

 

Thanks, Yum Yum. I believe you're right. Seems there was some conspiring and illegal activity going on in the DA's Office to falsely convict an innocent man, or at least convict one they couldn't PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT was guilty.

OK, bear with me here, because I have LOTS of questions....

Just WHAT is the "MEMORY SYSTEM" of which they speak? Hard drive? Programming?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, how does this timeline go? The detectives knew by Aug. 18 critical case evidence was missing, but they didn't tell the prosecutor until Aug. 30, one day AFTER the prosecutor told the judge they were still going over THE HARD DRIVE? But the HARD DRIVE WAS MISSING? Or not?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So the JUDGE RULED in the prosecution's favor ON Aug. 29th, when the prosecutor requested the judge seal case documents so that THE PRESS not be allowed to view said CASE DOCUMENTS, based on INCORRECT INFORMATION told to the judge BY THE PROSECUTOR on Aug. 29. This was CONVENIENTLY ONE DAY BEFORE Aug. 30th, when the detectives thought it MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA to let the PROSECUTOR KNOW that in fact THE EVIDENCE WAS LOST/MISSING?

But wait. A "RANKING DETECTIVE" TOLD JUDGE WONG IN THAT SAME CLOSED DOOR MEETING ON AUG. 29 THAT THEY WERE STILL SEARCHING THE HARD DRIVE. So the DETECTIVE lied to the judge, but the prosecutor seems to be covered for THAT lie, anyway, if the detective will take the fall:

So for five more weeks, Judge Wong is being MISLED by the prosecutor, as the prosecutor learned THE NEXT DAY, Aug. 30, by this account, that Judge Wong had already been lied to by the detective?

And it took a news article in a publication for the Judge TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH?

So the judge learned that ONE hard drive/the computer was missing from a newspaper? THEN the prosecutor admitted it on Monday, Sept. 25, in court?

HOooookey dokey. Guess they have no problem with a lawyer's appearance of impropriety, obstruction of justice, nor lying to a judge in the California Bar, either. No wonder they got on so well with the BDA.

But maybe I should give the judge a break, as she is CONCERNED, and "an inquiry" is being made:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

continued in next post

 

Continuing from the article:

Now I'm having trouble keeping up with the HARD DRIVES/FLOPPY DISKS/ZIP DRIVE/ZIP DISKS...so many falling out of the mouths of lying detectives and prosecutors who don't mind bending the law until it cracks....

HOW MANY hard drives are we talking about here? HOW MANY ARE MISSING?

HOW MANY floppy disks? ZIP DRIVE or ZIP DISK?

Anybody around here who can do the math with 1600 pictures vs one zip disk? I know there's a variable, but that's a whole lot of kbytes, isn't it? Does it wash? Remember that zip disks in 2001 didn't have but 100 MB space on them, right? I have a zip drive, as well, from that period and my old zips have only 100 somethings. Plus, do images get "captured" on those zip drives, or do they just read images from the disks? I have no idea....

Look at the numbers and unanswered questions here:

See, this just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. They go through 130 FLOPPY DISKS in 2001, and all they come up with are 5 MISDEMEANOR CHILD PORN POSSESSION CHARGES? But they manage to MISS A ZIP DRIVE WITH 1600 SUCH IMAGES ON IT UNTIL THEY LOSE THE ORIGINAL 5 CHILD PORN PICTURES PLUS THE ENTIRE COMPUTER/HARD DRIVE IN 2006?

NO...I'm not buying it. Something is VERY wrong here. If they are not trying to frame Karr, I want to hear EXACTLY how all this happened.

 

OK, Ritter says that the hard drive wasn't LOST, nor was it DELIBERATELY PURGED with old evidence. What's left? Theft or sabotage.

Why would the Sonoma DA/detectives/sheriff sabotage this case?

When did they learn Karr was coming back? The BDA found out Karr's name when? At least a few weeks or so before this hit the news, when Karr was arrested, right? Lacy had to coordinate ICE and the other agencies. Also, that Boulder detective watched Karr for a couple of weeks, they said, when he collected Karr's DNA in Thailand and had it tested.

So you KNOW that even the BDA knew to CHECK FOR OUTSTANDING WARRANTS against Karr. So surely they told Sonoma County at SOME POINT before Aug. 17th they had Karr and were bringing him in.

So...why would someone in Sonoma Co. LE then decide it's time to "lose" that computer and those pictures? If they did, of course, and it wasn't just innocent. heh

Karr was locked up for six months on these charges. Few misdemeanors get locked up for six months WITHOUT A TRIAL.

You know, I hate to say this, but looking at how the prosecutor and detectives lied to the judge, how they have acted surreptitiously about this Karr case from the minute they were supposed to pick him up in Boulder, how they have kept Karr's defense lawyers in the dark all along...people, we may be seeing yet another DA's Office who practices vigilante justice and has no respect for the law.

 

OK, I'm sorry, you know me, got a bone and I'm chewing it up good. So just scroll if you're bored.

Going back to the article I posted last night, here is the report that the copies of the porn images were lost, as well:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/15624040.htm

Now notice that here, we have a report that THREE HARD DRIVES were confiscated, PLUS a zip drive, etc., in 2001, but it doesn't say that they weren't all CATALOGUED at the time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now HERE we have another IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE in these reports. Notice in THIS one, the reporter says "he recently found more child porn among 1,600 pornographic images" on various computer media, including now CDs. A couple of KEY WORDS in this sentence are RECENTLY and AMONG. "Recently" is obvious as to its importance, but it's the OTHER distinctive qualifier that interests me: AMONG. To find 1600 CHILD PORN IMAGES, as has been stated in a couple of articles and on TV, is very different than finding MORE child porn images AMONG 1600 other images. Of course you can see that could mean the detective found two MORE child porn images, using the plural. We don't know really if he found any, or if he or someone else put them there, either, but using the number 1600 is inflamatory if the truth of WHAT IS NOW CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE ZIP DISK by the detective is very few in number, if in fact they found any at all and if in fact this came from KARR'S ZIP DISK, etc.

Yet the crucial question revolves around the chain of custody and the credibility of the investigators now. Whether or not they found anything worthy of prosecution, we can't know now, and I'm inclined not to believe they did at this point because they've destroyed their own credibility by lying to the judge, OF ALL PEOPLE. I'm seriously thinking Sonoma County may not be picky about how they convict people they want convicted.

Also, this article's description tells us that those 1600 images were on MORE THAN ONE COMPUTER MEDIA DATA STORAGE SYSTEM. This makes more sense than 1600 images found on ONE ZIP DISK if it's not possible to put 1600 images on one zip disk. I'm just guessing though, as I have no idea personally. But I'm hoping someone will tell me.... :baby:

 

And finally, this same article tells me that the COPIES of the alleged child pornography pictures supporting the original charges ARE missing:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/15624040.htm

So the prosecutor is saying, TRUST US, convict on POLICE REPORTS.

Yeah. Right.

I agree with what Greta said about this last night: with no evidence, the right thing for the judge to have done was let John Karr go yesterday. As much as I hate to see it happen, we're a nation of laws, and we can't arrest and incarcerate people just because we find them repugnant. The idea that we should lock Karr up because of what he MIGHT DO or what we fear he MIGHT HAVE DONE, without evidence to prove it, is not based in Constitutional law. They're holding him illegally, without enough evidence NOW to even meet probable cause.

And I'll give them thismuch wiggle room: show me or a judge or jury the evidence, with proper chain of custody. I hope they can.

 

Ya nailed it, KK. BeOOtifully done!

Quite an important article, eh?

...YumYum

 

Somebody hasn't got their story straight:

So was it 1600 images, or 1600 child porn images?

 

From the Smoking Gun

Some more to chew on while were waiting....

On this site link below from the Smoking Gun are the four copies of the ORIGINAL September 28, 2001 "People's Opposition to Defendants Motion to Suppress Evidence." that completely shows the information Karr's original lawyer had listed to be suppressed. There's a transcript as part of the document.

=================================================
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0817062karr1.html

JonBenet Suspect's Polly Klaas Obsession

Karr had girl's death certificate, letter from her killer in home

AUGUST 17--During a 2001 raid at the California home of John Karr, who was charged yesterday with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, police discovered a copy of the death certificate of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped and brutally murdered in 1993, and a letter from the girl's killer, court records show. Karr, 41, was charged in April 2001 with five misdemeanor charges after investigators discovered five images on his computer that were deemed to be child pornography.

In a response to a defense motion to suppress evidence seized during the 2001 search, Sonoma County prosecutors noted that Karr told cops that he was researching a book on Richard Allen Davis, Klaas's killer. He also claimed to have a "great affinity" for law enforcement and "repeatedly emphasized his desire to be of help to law enforcement." Karr also said that while he was researching his book, he came into contact with a third party whom he suspected of sexually assaulting a child and was trying to "dupe" her into a full confession.

In the original suppression motion, Karr's lawyer noted that he had only given investigators consent to search a "maroon binder which contained the Polly Klaas death certificate and the letter from Richard Allen Davis." Following his 2001 arrest, Karr spent six months in jail before being released on bail. Shortly after being sprung, he disappeared and a warrant was issued for his arrest. (4 pages) (they are in .GIF format)

=================================================

2001-04-03 Acting on information received from a confidential informant,the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department got a warrant to search Karr's Petaluma home and vehicle on April 3, 2001. At the time, Karr was employed as a substitute schoolteacher in Napa County.

When Karr was taken in for questioning at the Napa County Sheriff's office, he was told that certain e-mails that he had sent to a third party involved children, and that Sonoma County Sheriff's investigators were concerned because of Karr's employment as a teacher. Karr began by telling the detective that he had a great affinity for law enforcement, and repeatedly expressed his desire to be of help to law enforcement.

Karr said that he had made contact with a woman while researching a book on Davis. Karr also said that he believed the woman had sexually assaulted a child and he had e-mailed her "prompts" to gain her confidence and dupe her into a full confession. Karr spoke, with virtually no further questioning from the detective, for about an hour.

Karr was then informed that a search warrant had been obtained and that Sonoma County officers had gone to his house and seized his computer. Karr denied the possibility that his computer contained any incriminating material including child pornography. Court files show Karr had no prior criminal history.

Karr told a sherrif's deputy that he had a letter at home from Davis, an habitual offender who is on death row for Klaas' abduction and murder. The detective also found a copy of Klaas' death certificate. Another search of Karr's previous residence, which he was in the process of moving from, was made without a warrant. There, investigators seized a computer with a hard drive that contained five images of child pornography, according to court records. A taped interview between the detective and Karr was turned over to the FBI.

Although records show Karr had given consent to a search of his former address, his attorney challenged the search as unconstitutional and asked that the evidence seizedbe suppressed. The court denied the motion.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4926234,00.html

=================================================

I don't remember where I got this quote but it was from a news media and states that it was Karr's landlord that gave permission to search the house so there could be some issue on the search and siezure beyond what was actually in the original search warrant.

2001-04-03 "For two years, Dennis Riley rented a house in Petaluma to Karr, his wife and their three sons. "To me, he was a normal person," Riley said. But when Riley sold the house the Karrs were renting, police told Riley they had been watching Karr for some time and wanted the landlord's permission to look through Karr's belongings before the family moved. Riley agreed, and said police confiscated a computer. "

=================================================

 

Yeah, Yum, I hope these reporters are keeping true to the Fourth Estate, because seems in Sonoma County and Boulder County, freedom of the press is all that keeps these awful prosecutors from completely forgetting they're not running a facist system of injustice and actually have LAWS to uphold.

BlueS, it's very confusing whether they found 1600 ADDITIONAL child porn images or SOME UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT of child porn images among the 1600 ALLEGEDLY found on the zip disk. I think there is a big question in my mind if you could get 1600 images on a zip disk, unless you count the teensy little icons like those you find in your temp images, etc., from web surfing. For example, right now, there are over 20 smilie images on this message posting page I'm looking at. But full blown PICTURES, like photos? I'm thinking that each would be like gifs or jpegs? Those take a lot of storage space, don't they? So the article saying that these images were on the zip disk and cds makes more sense.

But HOW MANY of those "newly discovered" images are child porn is not said, because the judge stopped the detective's testimony Wednesday cold when he started on the "newly found" images. She's only concerned with THE CHARGES AGAINST KARR AND THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEM which is before her court in the current indictment (or what's called "the information," which is the list of charges filed with the court if there was no grand jury held in this case to bring a true bill of indictment, and I can't remember if we know which one happened here). But Karr is NOT charged with OTHER child porn images, only the five...yet. And since it's very hard to believe the original investigators never looked at EVERYTHING THEY COLLECTED FROM KARR'S HOUSE, BACK IN 2001 when they were making their case against Karr, and since NOW they say ooops, we goofed and didn't CATALOGUE these in the list of items taken from Karr's home, I'm VERY SKEPTICAL about the "magical appearance" of this zip disk and cds with newly discovered images.

You know, that's a question that might give us some answers. Did a grand jury see those original five images and vote to indict? That might tell us if there was anything to them at all. If no grand jury was called and charges were brought solely by the DA, no help. For some reason, I'm thinking I remembered reading there was a grand jury in the 2001 case. But I may be very wrong, as I was reading so much and hearing so much when all this first broke, I don't even remember where I read about Karr's California charges now. Might have been on the Smoking Gun website ACR is talking about.

I'll see if I can find that out if no one else remembers.

Fast forward: I googled a bit but can't find anything but this warrant for Karr's arrest with all five counts on it, signed by the Sonoma County sheriff:

http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/californiacomplaint.html

Also I read a number of old articles on Karr and didn't find any that mentioned a grand jury. I'll try again later.

 

Here's the whole four pages typed out of what they were charging his with and where Karr is saying he didn't give permission for them to search his house.


========================================
Filed September 28, 2001

J. Michael Mullins, District Attorney
County of Sonoma
Hall of Justice, Room 212-J
600 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 565-2311
Julia Freis
Deputy District Attorney
Attorney for the People

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs JOHN MARK KARR

Court No. MCR-375385
D.A. No. 423939
Courtroom No. 7

PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION OT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant JOHN MARK KARR has been charged with 5 counts of violating Penal Code section 311.11(a), a misdemeanor, in that he did unlawfully and knowingly possess and control matter depicting a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in and simulating sexual conduct as defined in Penal Code section 311.4(d). These offenses, all of them, occurred on or about April 3, 2001, in the County of Sonoma.

II STATEMENT OF FACTS

Acting on information received from a confidential informant, Detective Beau Martin of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department applied for search warrant to search defendant's resident at 2004 Chetwood Avenue, Petaluma, California. On April 2, 2001, a warrant authorizing the search of that

Page 1

address, and defendant's vehicle, was signed by the Honorable James Bertolli, Judge of the Superior Court, Sonoma County, California.

Officers of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department executed the warrant on April 3, 2001. Defendant was at that time employed in the County of Napa. Officer Martin contacted the Napa County and requested that defendant be interviewed and that his vehicle be searched pursuant to the warrant. Detective Martin Frey of the Napa County Sheriff's Department made contact with defendant and requested that he come to the Sheriff's office. Detective Frey made it clear that defendant was not under arrest, and that he was free to refuse the request. Defendant voluntarily complied with Detective Fry's request, and spoke with the detective at the Napa County Sheriff's office. During the interview, defendant expressly consented to a search of the residence of 1041 Addison Circle.

Detective Frey began the interview by reiterating that defendant was present at the interview freely and voluntarily:

Detective Frey (hereafter "F"): First of all, I just want to clarify, you came here on your own, we didn't like force you to come, right?
Defendant (Hereafter "D"): Right
F: You agreed to talk to us, you're not under arrest
D. Okay
F: Right? Do you agree with that?
D: I agree that I came here without being forced and I am not under arrest."

The officer told defendant that the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department had requested that Napa County interview defendant concerning certain e-mails that defendant had sent to a third party. Detective Frey stated that the e-mails concerned children, and that the Sonoma County Sheriffs were concerned because of defendant's employment as a teacher. Detective Frey asked "Do you know anything about that?"

Defendant responded by beginning an extended narrative, with virtually no further questioning from Detective Frey. He began by telling the detective that he had a great affinity for law enforcement, and repeatedly emphasized his desire to be of help to law enforcement. He explained that he had made contact with the third party while he was researching a book on convicted child-murderer Richard Alan Davis. Defendant explained that he believed that the third part was sexually assaulting a child and had e-mailed her "prompts" in order to gain her confidence and dupe her into a full confession. Defendant

Page 2

spoke, with virtually no further questioning by Detective Frey, for approximately an hour. At that point the detective left the room briefly to determine if Sonoma County had any further information.

After he returned, Detective Frey informed defendant that, based on the information gained from the aforementioned e-mails, a search warrant for his residence at 2004 Chetwood Drive, Petaluma, had been obtained, and that Sonoma County officers had gone to his house and seized his computer. Defendant responded, "OK" Defendant categorically denied the possibility that his computer contained any incriminating statements or child pornography.

Defendant discussed his correspondence with Richard Alan Davis, telling Detective Frey that he had received one letter from Davis. The following collogue took place:

F: Where is this letter at?
D: The letter he has?
F: The letter that he sent.
D: I have it - it's, it's between houses. It's either at my new house, I think its at my new house, but if its not, you know I have it, it's somewhere. I can get it to you. I can get the information I've got, my letter from Lt. Blanson, my letter to Lt. Blanson, the one from and the one to.
F: And that's at your new house?
D: One letter from - No, that's at my old house, one letter from, but you know, you'd have to let me go get it with you.F: So you're all the way moved out of your old house?
D: No, no.
F: Can I get the address of your... (as he asked this question, Detective Frey picked up a pen and prepared to write the address down)
D: So now you're going to go search my old house, that's fine, there's not much left, there's just a pile of rubble.
F: What's the address of your old house?
D: 1041 Addison Circle.
F: A-D..?
D: D-I-S-O-N. So now I assume my wife knows and she's not upset because someone's coming to the house and retrieving the computer.
F: Well, that's already a done deal - they've already done that.
D: I know.

Pursuant to that consent to search the residence at 1041 Addison Circle, officers of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department searched that address and recovered various items.

Defendant was arrested on the charges set forth above on April 18, 2001. He now brings this motion to suppress the evidence seized from the residence at 1041 Addision Circle.

III ARGUMENT

A. Defendant Consented To The Search.

Defendant consented to the search of the residence at 1041 Addison Circle. His consent was

Page 3


permission, nor did the detective obtain written consent.

2. If Consent is Found, it Was Nevertheless Limited in Scope.

Arguendo, even if the statement by Mr. Karr is found to be consent, such consent was limited in scope to a search for the maroon binder which contained the Polly Klass death certificate and the letter from Richard Allen Davis and Lt. Blansom. Mr. Karr specifically and adamantly stated that "you're" going to have to let me go with you and see for certain where it is" and that they were welcome to see these letters and the death certificate. Mr. Karr never consented to a search of his entire residence at 1041 Addison.

Warrantless police activity justified solely under the consent exception is limited in scope by terms of the consent. A party who has granted the police permission to enter for a specific purpose retains the right to object to any authorized actions. See People v Harwood (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 460, 466-468.

"A suspect may of course delimit as he chooses this scope of the search to which he consents." Florida vs Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. 248,252 "When an official search is properly authorized - whether by consent or by the issuance of a valid warrant - the scope of the search is limited by the terms of its authorization. Consent to search a garage would not implicitly authorize a search of an adjoining house." Walter vs United States (1980) 447 U.S. 649, 656,57.

If the person who gives consent specifically places limitations on the consent to search a place or a vehicle, those limitations will govern. See e.g. People vs Dickey (1994) 21 Cal. App 4th 952,955-956. Here, Mr. Karr placed limitations, he specifically indicated that the police were welcome to look in the maroon binder for the death certificate and letter from Richard Allen Davis. Mr. Karr never expressed consent to a search of the entire residence.

3 The Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery Does Not Apply

The People claim that the doctrine of inevitable discovery applies in the instant case, in that "had defendant not given consent, Sonoma County officers would have applied for a search warrant to search that address. The probable cause to search 1041 Addison was the same as that a magistrate (The rest of the document is missing from here)

Page 4

========================================

 

KK ... I agree ... the nature of the 1600 images is very much unclear. I have seen them reported as "child pornography", "pornography", and simply as "images". Shoddy reporting. This needs to be nailed down before they can be discussed with any authority.

As for the capacity of the zip and other storage: I had a 100 meg Zip drive at one point. That suggests that the average image size for 1600 images would need to be 62K or smaller. That seems possible. However, some reporting suggests that the images might have been distributed over ALL of the storage media seized (floppies, CD(s), and Zip). More shoddy reporting and/or shoddy LE descriptions). 1600 would definitely be possible.

But here's something to ponder ... When was the CD seized? Writeable CD drives are relatively NEW ... and IF they were available before April 2001, they would have been both RARE, and EXPENSIVE!



ACR ... GREAT STUFF! There's much to contemplate here, but here's one off the top o' me skull ...

... a portion of the transcript that you posted said:

"F: Can I get the address of your... (as he asked this question, Detective Frey picked up a pen and prepared to write the address down)
D: So now you're going to go search my old house, that's fine, there's not much left, there's just a pile of rubble.
F: What's the address of your old house?
D: 1041 Addison Circle.
F: A-D..?
D: D-I-S-O-N. So now I assume my wife knows and she's not upset because someone's coming to the house and retrieving the computer.
F: Well, that's already a done deal - they've already done that.
D: I know.

Pursuant to that consent to search the residence at 1041 Addison Circle, officers of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department searched that address and recovered various items."


Please note that this seems to indicate that the old house may have been searched PRIOR to Karr giving permission! Frey said "Well, that's already a done deal - they've already done that." Does this mean that the house had already been searched, or simply that Karr's wife had been contacted. My first assumption was that it was in reference to searching the house. However, that statement also seems to be contradicted by the next statement saying:

"Pursuant to that consent to search the residence at 1041 Addison Circle, officers of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department searched that address and recovered various items."

Which is it? Was the 'old home' searched BEFORE or AFTER Karr gave his implied limited permission? This is a critical point.


BTW ... I assume that the 'old house' is where his wife and kids were still living. AND, I would think that Karr's wife could have given permission to LE to search her home ... but I've never heard anyone suggest that that was the case.


Lastly ... concerning the emails that Karr exchanged with someone that Karr claims may have been a pedophile prior to April 2001. Could the email exchanges have included Tracey? I seem to remember that Tracey claims that he didn't get involved until 2002 ... but now I'm wondering whether Tracey had contact BEFORE April of 2001.

KK & ACR ... OUTSTANDING stuff!

Something STINKS in Sonoma Co!

1. Records of contacts with Boulderistan LE ... MISSING
2. Computer and other evidence ... MISSING
3. Home (possibly) searched, and evidence seized WITHOUT valid warrant or permission
4. Evidence (or LACK of evidence) withheld from Defense
5. Unethical (possibly CRIMINAL) deception in attempting to obtain a guilty plea from Karr (and thus no trial or examination of ANY of the above) after evidence went missing.

This REEKS!!!

GAWD only knows what we will discover when Karr has a chance to speak freely.



...YumYum

 

Here's the latest from Lori Carter at The Press Democrat in Santa Rosa, Ca ... I can't wait to see her followup after today's dismissal hearing. BTW ... her email and phone number are at the bottom of the piece:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/EarlyEdition/article_view.cfm?recordID=5123&publishdate=09/29/2006

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Admissibility of Karr evidence debated

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Friday, September 29, 2006

The value of newly found evidence in the John Mark Karr case is stirring legal debate about whether any of it could be used in court.


But before that decision can be made, Judge Cerena Wong is expected to rule today on a defense request to dismiss the charges and free Karr based on the loss of evidence seized by authorities five years ago.

Karr, 41, is set to begin trial Monday.

The one-time JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect faces five misdemeanor counts of possessing child pornography based on a 2001 Sonoma County sheriff's investigation.

The Sheriff's Department lost the computer hard drive that contained the images.

A detective testifying in court this week said a high-capacity disk and Zip drive that contain 1,600 pornographic images were found during a search for the lost evidence.

Prosecutors haven't said what, if anything, they intend to do with the new images, and District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua didn't respond to two interview requests regarding the Karr case Thursday.

Defense attorneys, including Karr's, have said the loss of the original hard drive could prove troublesome for prosecutors.

Prosecutors have printouts of the images and other contents of the computer's memory, which they say will be enough to convict Karr.

The newly discovered evidence may not be admissible at trial because there doesn't appear to be a documented "chain of custody" to show where it came from and where it has been since 2001, according to defense attorneys. Prosecutors also may have missed a deadline to file charges relating to those images, some lawyers said.

Karr, briefly a substitute teacher in Petaluma and Napa, was arrested in 2001 after detectives said they found five images of children in sexual situations on one of his computers.

After serving nearly six months in jail, he was released without bail but failed to show up for a hearing, and an arrest warrant was issued.

He was arrested in Thailand in August at the request of Colorado prosecutors investigating the Ramsey slaying. After Colorado authorities cleared Karr in that case, he was extradited to Sonoma County to face the five-year-old misdemeanors.

Passalacqua has said he opted to pursue the case because a conviction would require Karr to register as a sex offender.

He has pleaded not guilty and is being held on $200,000 bail.

Karr's attorneys are seeking to have the case dismissed because of the failure to preserve the evidence.

Before issuing a ruling today, Wong is expected to hear further testimony from sheriff's officials about when the evidence went missing and when prosecutors knew about it.

Wong said she was "very concerned about representations" a sheriff's detective and a prosecutor made to her Aug. 29. Sheriff's officials knew the computer containing the evidence was missing then, but prosecutor Joan Risse said she didn't find out until the following day.

"The only way to overcome some of these problems is if there is something on the Zip drive that is a felony," defense attorney Richard Ingram said. "Even that may be beyond the statute of limitations. It's so problematic."

The statute of limitations, the time limit for filing charges after a crime, is generally one year on misdemeanors, Sonoma County Public Defender John Abrahams said.

"There can be issues around the fact that he fled, but that would be mostly around speedy trial issues, not statute of limitations," he said. "I'm not saying he'd prevail in a legal argument, but there sure as heck would be a legal argument."

Defense attorney Jamie Thistlethwaite said because Karr absconded, the legal clock stopped, and the new Zip disk photos may be admissible.

She said the greater problems in admitting evidence would be the apparently incomplete chain of custody for the computer hard drives.

"Without a documented chain of custody, this Zip drive is worthless and the pictures are worthless," she said. "There are serious issues with the evidence-handling process. I think they're gone."

Prosecutors say copies of the photos and a printout of the lost hard drive's contents can carry as much weight as the originals.

Many states have a "best evidence rule," requiring the source of the evidence to be used in a trial. But California courts have ruled that secondary evidence - copies of source evidence - is admissible if the originals are unavailable.

If convicted of all five charges, Karr would be unlikely to serve any more jail time, attorneys on both sides have said. He would be required to register as a sex offender.

Wong also may rule today on a news media request to unseal police reports and a search warrant used to seize evidence, including the missing computer hard drive, from Karr.

Wong ordered the documents sealed after prosecutors and investigators said opening them would hinder an ongoing investigation.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 568-5312 or lcarter@pressdemocrat.com.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


...YumYum

 

My gosh, it's lost, it's found, no it's lost again, who does this belong to, what are the images, how many are there - my head is spinning! :wtf: :hypno:

I hope Karr's attorney is onto all this insanity. Even if he is a pervert, he deserves the same justice as jonbenet got...oops, I guess that's not the best treatment... :did:

Heymom
:verdict:

 

You know, really, how does LE "lose" a computer from the evidence room? Computers don't just grow legs, get up and walk out of a building, nor do they hide themselves. Someone with legs and arms had to physically move the computer.

The problem here isn't that they "lost" the computer. The problem is, who's going to own up to scarfing the computer, because someone did.

 

Looks like somebody got a free luxury flight home from Thailand at tax-payer expense. THANK YOU MIZZ LACY!!! WELL DONE