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

.

I found quotes about the seaches by good ole Karr himself from the Tracey/Daxis e-mail collection. I wonder why he thought they would search his house in Alabama?

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

page 346

From: Michael Tracey [MichaeI.Tracey@colorado.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 31,2006 7:46 AM
To: Bennett, Tom; Andrew Smit

Excerpt below of quote by Daxis from full e-mail forwarded to above:

"Why would the police take your photo collection? vias this in relation to the investigation of the 12 year old?"

"Again, Michael, I was investigated in several states for several alleged crimes ranging from the murder of a 12 year old to child Molestation. The investigations were conducted simultaneously. At least two of my homes were turned upside down. I believe one other home I left behind was also searched but I cannot confirm that as I did not return to it prior to leaving the U.S. This home was 3,000 miles from my departure point at the time. I say police but it was not police - they were sheriff detectives and people from the district attorney's office with a squad of searchers, I assumed due the enormity of the mess they left. I was not even present at the time. I returned home to find my house in shambles. They took everything. They took undeveloped film as well. On those rolls, I had taken photos of 755 though I think they were too stupid to recognize where the photos were taken. They even took my music CDS. They seized my computers. It was a nightmare. I can understand why Michael Jackson did not want to live on his Neverland Ranch again after his house there was invaded by law enforcement."

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

page 333

From: : Michael Tracey [MichaeI.Tracey@colorado.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 28,2006 10:56 AM
To: Bennett, Tom; Andrew Smit

Excerpt below of quote by Daxis from full e-mail forwarded to above:

"I will get a collection of photos together and choose the ones I want. I once had my own beautiful collection of photos of her grave that I took myself but they were seized in the F***ing police raid of one of my houses.

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

There were news reports that Karr was in Boulder in the summer of 2000 when he and his family were moving to California from Alabama and the reports were that they went through Colorado and he had his wife and kids stay in a motel while he claimed he was driving around town doing research on the JonBenet case.

So I assume that we should assume that is when he took the pictures of the house at 755. Now, for somebody who was so obsessed with JonBenet, is he trying to say he never got that film developed that was taken in a search in the spring of 2001, almost a year later ? I find that real hard to believe.

From reading his e-mails, he's very detailed, everything has to be done right, and things kept in order and everything has a place and a place for everything type guy so no, I don't believe he would not have gotten that film developed. Too bad we can't see those pictures as we could probably date them.

And then this below:

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

page 89

From: Michael Tracey [MichaeI.Tracey@colorado.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:10 AM
To: Bennett, Tom; Andrew Smit

Excerpt below of quote by Daxis from full e-mail forwarded to above:

"I'M ASSUMING THAT IT IS WTH YOU ALWAYS (things taken), POSSIBLY ALONG WITH HER PANTIES AND THE CUTTING OF HER HAIR. THOSE AS YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE WOULD BE SO MUCH MORE EROTICALLY POTENT THAN THE END OF THE PAINT BRUSH."

"It is in a safe place never to be found. My homes were turned inside out during the law enforcement search surrounding the investigation. I had to take care of things I wanted to save. I knew it was coming, the search. I had a few days to get my houses in order. That was one thing I retrieved though some of the things I had collected from the house after that night upon my returns to it, were taken. No one knew what they meant or where they came from."

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

 

mirror mirror on the wall !! lol

well I certainly never would have thought that a knowledge of network/systems technologies would have a use in this forum !!

such is life..
Now firstly igoing to cut some idiot a bit of slack as the description of a 'mirrored" drive begs a few questions..I willassume someone has plucked the nearest usable term and run with it..

Mirroring drives is SERVER topography...its a method used in the data setup of file servers to create an automated mirror image of the dedicated ( or dfault ) drive...it looks just like the other one ( in a multidrive setup )..any user on the server or looking at it will see only one drive...butin fact theres two..or naymultiple thereof.....files are writeen to both...so if one curupts ( crashes) the server will switch over on the fly to the other...no one knows.. all is well data is safe!!....you dont use this on a home pc!!.

they may have ghosted a complete copy of one drives contents onto another.. ( in case they lost one !! lol )..but..and its a BIG BUT !! you may have trouble validating the chain of custody re the evidence... its inly an image...and not the original...( if had been a mirrored drive in a server...it would be exactly the same, as good as other for ALL intentions )

anyone still awake now ??? lol

so essentiall a mirror drive is used to carbon copy ( as such ) in real time all events on a drive...anything made later is a copy!! ( of how it was a THAT time...be different time stamping ) and may not be valid as evidence ( and especially if you havent logged it anyhows !! lol )

you can go get your Tylenols now !!

 

That's great info. Kanga, thanks! Not difficult at all. The media is just throwing stuff at us, maybe it's the officials trying to obfuscate the whole thing, but some of us know too much!! I try not to pay too much attention to it because it makes me insane if I do. First one thing, then the next, they blow with the wind and print everything. Anything to get a story in print or on TV. Anyway that's another rant for later.

I think that ghosting a drive is not a common procedure, after all, it's for back-up and no one backs up anyway. If this was supposedly done recently, maybe, but before a couple of years ago this didn't even exist.

Heymom

 

:banghead: Good Lord! What a mess this is, eh?

Ok, here's the deal. There are only 3 issues to be decided in this situation.

1. Whether whatever material they have collected in this case can be used to prosecute Karr. The material, whatever it is/was/forever shall be developed in 2001, as well as the "recent" crap allegedly retrieved from a zip drive, zip disc, mirrored image, whatthephluck ever, cannot be used unless a clear chain of custody, i.e., where they originated, can be demonstrated by the prosecution. Without the actual computer, there is no way that chain of custody can be proven. So all that evidence is irrelevant on that basis alone.

2. The second issue to be decided is, if the newly developed evidence CAN be proven via perfected chain of custody, has the statute of limitations on those charges expired, making it useless as well? Some would argue that the statute of limitations for charging Karr stalled when he fled the country on the original charges, and resumed when he arrived in L.A. from Thailand for the JB case. That is a very common argument for "staying" an SOL, and a relatively sound argument for the prosecution and, if the evidence has integrity as mentioned in point 1 above, the judge may well agree that the original complaint against Karr be amended or a totally separate complaint be filed.

3. The third issue to be decided outside the Karr case entirely is whether there was gross negligence/malfeasance by LE and/or the prosecutor in all this. Certainly the circus going on, as reported by media, reflects at least some degree of negligence, but there must be an "intent" component to prove malfeasance. Did LE intentionally screw up this case? Did the prosecutor intentionally lie to the court about these issues? My guess is no, there is no intent to defraud or obfuscate here. It's simple negligence, incompetence in laymen's terms, and that's probably how it'll go down. No, no criminal prosecution can be had on LE or the prosecutor for it unless, in the sheriff's inquiry, some clear infraction of criminal statutes, like conspiracy to defraud for example, can be developed. My guess is no sheriff in any jurisdiction would develop that kind of case against their own kind unless there's some financial or political motivation to do so.

But in this whole mess, I'm wondering if anyone has consulted the FBI, who had their hands all over the Karr evidence. Why isn't the FBI weighing in on all this?????? :fingers:

Oh, and I forgot to answer dear Double Yum's question from many posts ago. Can Karr sue Sonoma County now? My answer would be yes. He can't sue them for charging him, as they did have legitimate evidence to do so. But if it's determined by Judge Wong that there was some kind of malfeasance or negligence of any degree in handling/preserving the evidence, AND that they knew they had major problems with it prior to extradicting Karr back to Sonoma County from good ole Boulder, then he has grounds for suit for false imprisonment and emotional distress, plus any loss of financial gain he can prove he suffered because of it. This would be a civil lawsuit.

 

Once again, Lori Carter of The Press Democrat is providing the BEST reporting of the Sonoma Karr case. Here's her report regarding Friday's dismissal hearing ... a MUST READ (btw ... I had to register to read the article, so the URL may not work for you unless you are registered):

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060930/NEWS/609300305/1033/NEWS01

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Karr to stand trial in 2001 child porn case
Judge won't dismiss charges, decides jury should weigh importance of missing computer

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A Sonoma County judge Friday refused to toss out child pornography charges against John Mark Karr, saying a jury should determine the importance of missing computer evidence.


A trial is set to begin Monday with further legal arguments. A jury isn't likely to be impaneled nor testimony heard until later in the week.

After a day of unusual testimony in which a prosecutor was cross-examined by her boss, Judge Cerena Wong ruled that the Sheriff's Department loss of a computer hard drive that may have contained five images of child porn wasn't done in bad faith.

"I don't believe it rises to the level to dismiss the charges," said Wong, who on Monday had invited the defense to file a dismissal motion after she had learned of the disappearance of the hard drive .

Karr, who gained worldwide notoriety last month for claiming he was present at 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey's slaying in Colorado in 1996, is facing five misdemeanor counts of possessing photos in 2001 of children in sexual situations. He was brought back to Sonoma County this month after Boulder authorities cleared Karr in the Ramsey murder.

In court Friday, Wong absolved prosecutor Joan Risse and Sheriff's Lt. Rob Giordano of wrongdoing, saying she didn't believe they intended to mislead her when they made statements in court about an "ongoing investigation" involving "the computer," when in fact the key hard drive had been lost.

An evidence technician testified Wednesday that paperwork documenting the Sheriff's Department's move to a new building in 2002 doesn't show loss of evidence, but Sheriff Bill Cogbill has said it is believed that's when the original hard drive was misplaced .

Both Risse and Giordano testified that investigators were continuing to look for the missing hard drive and were examining other evidence connected to the case when they told Wong on Aug. 29 about the continuing investigation. Giordano said he didn't learn the digital copy of the hard drive also was missing until the first week of September.

"We're pleased with the judge's ruling," District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua said. "I knew all along that our prosecutor made no misrepresentations to the court."

The testimony came in a hearing sought by Karr's lawyers asking for a dismissal of the case based on the county's failure to preserve the evidence.

Risse was cross-examined by Assistant District Attorney Larry Scoufos after defense attorney Rob Amparán called her to the stand. To justify dismissal, she said, the defense must show that the missing evidence pointed to Karr's innocence. She said the value of the "exculpatory evidence" must be known by the prosecution at the time it was lost and that the defense must show how it will be hurt by the loss.

"I haven't heard how the defense is prejudiced in this case," she said.

Amparán said the crux of the defense case has been badly hobbled by the loss of the original hard drive. "We are unable to tell how the images were obtained, whether or not this was a functional computer or whether the computer was ever functional in California," he said. "There is no evidence that indicates Mr. Karr ever viewed these materials."

Detectives testified earlier Friday they had recovered the missing "mirror image" hard drive that contains copies of child pornography believed to have been on one of Karr's computers seized in 2001. Wong said she would allow the copy and other computer evidence to be used by prosecutors during the trial.

The copy was found in the sheriff's computer lab among other hard drives used to store data from other ongoing criminal cases, Giordano said. He said there is no record of how the drive got there, nor any documentation of where it has been for the past five years.

Risse handed a copy of the drive to Karr's defense attorneys in court Friday morning.

Detective Wade Eubanks and Giordano testified that computer data from at least two other cases had been rewritten onto the same hard drive and it had been reformatted at least once before detectives discovered what they said were images from the Karr case .

It was the Sheriff's Department policy in 2001 to copy seized hard drives onto another drive, from which they would examine potential evidence. Because of the expense of hard drives at the time, the department then reformatted and reused the hard drives for other cases.

A forensic computer expert for the defense said there was significant potential for contamination from other cases' data recorded to the same disk. He also said that because the data were recovered from a portion of computer memory for deleted data, crucial time and date information from the computer files would be lost.

Prosecutors have argued that even without the original hard drive, they would have enough evidence for trial.

"Just because a piece of evidence is missing doesn't mean we don't have a case to present," Giordano said. "This case has a lot of evidence. That one piece we couldn't find was not the whole case."

Some legal observers say it will be an uphill battle to convince jurors that the computer evidence is credible. Defense lawyer Joe Stogner said the prosecutor will have to prove that Karr intentionally possessed the pictures during the one-year statute of limitations for filing a case.

"If we don't know when the pictures went into the unallocated space (on the computer), there may be no evidence of knowing, intentional possession within one year of commencement of prosecution," he said. "Maybe he looked at the pictures, then hit delete, believing them gone forever - back in 1999."

Roy Miller, a former prosecutor and now a defense attorney, said the fact that the copy has data from two other cases on it will prove troubling for the prosecution. "This was a community hard drive," he said. "You have a mixing and matching of different cases onto the same hard drive. You now have contamination."

Passalacqua said he feels it's important to pursue the case because it involves child pornography, "exploitation of the most vulnerable members of our society."

Karr, briefly a substitute teacher in Petaluma and Napa, was arrested in 2001 after detectives said they'd 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 issue d.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


I can't see how this data could be admissible. A jury should NOT even have an opportunity to convict ANYONE based upon such smitty data.


...YumYum

 

Thank YOU for your knowledgable input to this issue. Strangely enough I do understand what you're saying.

I *think* there are a lot of LE who are just LE, and not to downplay that profession (----rolling eyes with some communities----) but that is their job and they are not necessarily knowledgeable with computers or servers or online anything other than it's a way to send e-mail.

So I *think* some people in LE who grab the terminology or their understanding of the process may be that somebody said we got a copy of the hard drive and somebody else asked, "is it a mirror image?" and somebody said yes and therefore it becomes, "we got a mirror image of the hard drive."

So thank you for excellent explanation.

 

What the judge is basically saying is that she wants twelve other people (The Jury) to make the decision rather than the decision being from just one JUDGE. This way she is covering her butt also that she's not taking sides on the issue of whether the evidence is really there or not.

 

I think you're right ACR, because this judge is an IDIOT. The defense has the right to take evidence to be examined by their own experts, and that can't happen now since the hard drive is lost. It's the JUDGE who has to rule on that, NOT a jury.

Since WHEN does a jury rule on whether evidence is admissable or not!

 

I have my migraine medication close at hand Kanga. All I have to say here is what a lot of crafty bastids are out there. The mirror image could not be used in a court of law. Repeat - crafty bastids.

 

Thank you very much for your explanation. I actually understand this!!!! And I didn't even need the Tylenol or a bottle of Jack Daniels!!!!

DeJaNuBee, thank you for explaining the law, even though I am just as cornfused as I was before. I do understand the SOL stuff, but I don't understand why the judge doesn't throw the case out based on the questionable chain of custody issues.

Yum Yum, thank you for posting all of the great articles. I am going to focus on the bolded parts and see if I can make heads or tails of what I need to know!

 

Kanga, thanks...

...for the explanation of mirroring and ghosting re: computer copies.

I did not know that. It seems important in this case.

 

OH come ono!

Why don't they just take Karr out and HANG HIM AT SUNRISE? What's the point of PRETENDING to hold a fair trial?

Like for instance, this quote from the article (thanks Yum, we couldn't do without you):

If this isn't BACKWARDS LOGIC I don't know what is. How in HE!! is a defendant supposed to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE with MISSING EVIDENCE?

Somebody just knock me out and wake me up when the next AMERICAN INSURGENCY WINS, wrenching our CONSTITUTION out of the hands of the ELITIST PARTY THAT NOW RUNS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. What they want, THEY GET, the ACTUAL law be damned!

Yeah, at what point did the judge become foggy as to her duties to RULE not to allow CORRUPTED EVIDENCE into a trial?

All I can think is the jury will convict based on the inflamatory nature of the pictures they're about to view, the NOW HIGHLY PUBLICIZED, CO-AUTHORED writings of Karr, thanks to Michael Tracey and Mary Lacy, and the FACT that they don't want to let even a POTENTIALLY dangerous child predator lose on their community. Too bad THAT'S NOT THE LAW. It SHOULD be turned over in appeal and the judge KNOWS this. But Karr will NOT have the money to appeal, and appeals take YEARS AND YEARS.

So basically, what we have going on in Sonoma County is THEY ARE CONSPIRING TO IMPRISON A MAN BASED ON CORRUPTED EVIDENCE AND KNOWING IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF "THE BEST EVIDENCE" RULE in California. Karr can't get a fair trial, and they KNOW it, with this evidence. They don't care. Their goal is to save face by locking him up, no matter HOW they have to do it. Karr will never get his appeal because HE CAN'T AFFORD IT, so he'll be on the sex offender registry, which is what they want. That they're getting him there ILLEGALLY means NOTHING to them.

It's a damn shame that once again, linked to the murder of JonBenet, we see prosecutors and the judge acting with EXTREME MALFEASANCE, DISREGARDING ANY ETHICS OF THEIR PROFESSION, and throwing THEIR OATHS TO UPHOLD THE LAW OUT THE WINDOW.

i care not for Karr nor his sorrows. But I am deeply offended and profoundly disappointed in the BLATANT CORRUPTION OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM once again.

I hope he sues the he!! out of all of them. I just wish THEY could be arrested and tried for TREASON!

 

well well well..

seems judge julie has a sista !! lol... you have stange justice in America !!!! ..or it would seem Sonoma is actually in france...as you now have to qualify that evidence "lost" ( or never exisitng ) would prove or suggest innocence !! did this judge actually go to a US Law School ??

if data had come from various sources....ina word its USELESS !!.. an alert defence would tear this to shreads...and deservedly so..

KK is right...start selling the tickets to the hanging....this is all a sham!!

please...not Yankee bashing here...but does ANYONE in US Law enforcement and Prosecution actually know what they are doing...?? might stay home next holidays !! lol

its way over time some federal folk looked into all of this case...ALL of IT !!

 

Maybe the FBI can put this in some sort of sane context.

Thanks to ACR I "might" have some understanding of just what a mirror image is now too.

 

So it looks like just what we wondered about: images of "teens," which the FBI hasn't even established they are actually "underage" yet, on the laptop they're investigating.

Does anyone even know if those images were put on Karr's computer in the US? If they were downloaded in another country, how can the US prosecute him for that? If he was in custody being forced to return here, they can hardly then charge him with "bringing" those images into the U.S. Plus, did that laptop get confiscated in Thailand, anyway?

I love how the judge said that the jury has to decide if MISSING EVIDENCE is important in finding guilt. How can they POSSIBLY do that? :help:

 

New judge

Well, this should be interesting.

 

KK ... That's a REALLY good question ... and one I never woulda thunk of!

DejaNu ... We NEED you! Can USA LE prosecute Karr for crimes such as possessing child porn when committed in a foreign counrty? Wouldn't Thailand be responsible for that? And IF the USA has jurisdiction, then it certainly would have to be under Federal Jurisdiction ... right?


BTW ... I believe that data stored on a PC is generally date-stamped, so it should be possible to tell when the images were loaded to the computer, and determine whether or not Karr was inside or outside of the USA at the time. In fact, that's why the loss of Karr's harddrive is so important. The date-stamps identifying when the 5 images were loaded and deleted has been lost (the copy apparently doesn't include the date data). That's critical in determining whether or not Karr possessed (had access to) the images within the statute of limitations time period.

This case just reeks!


...YumYum

 

"This case just reeks!"
...YumYum

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."
...Sir Walter Scott

 

Just a thought ...

... does anyone else think it strange that there has been no discussion of image exchanges between Karr and Tracey? One would certainly think that, given Karr's child porn woes, that Tracey and his BDA & Ramsey co-conspirators would have requested that Karr email an image or three. Right? Yet not a peep on that issue.

I wanna see ALL of the email exhanges twixt Tracey and Karr!!!


...YumYum

 

Oh, they're burying so much in these witch hunts, it's horrifying. The rich can get away with child murder, but a financially destitute, demented nut job is being buried under the jail, with possibly manufactured evidence. :yow: