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

Perhaps this new judge is capable of growing a brain when he/she hears about the evidence.

Is "Rene Chouteau" a man or a woman?

 

Enter the FBI

FBI Enter Karr Probe; Lawyers Again Seek Dismissal

SANTA ROSA Lawyers for John Mark Karr are renewing their efforts to get his child pornography case dismissed, filing a motion Monday seeking to have newly discovered computer evidence excluded in the case.

This latest request for a dismissal comes as the FBI is reviewing pornography found on the computer equipment of the former JonBenet Ramsey slaying suspect for comparison to a national database of child porn victims.

Deputy Sonoma County Counsel Anne Keck said the digital files were unrelated to the current child porn possession case against Karr, but contain pornographic images of teenagers.

The FBI is trying to determine whether underage victims appear in the photos, Keck said.

Defense lawyers did not comment on the new twist in the case, but renewed efforts to get child pornography charges dismissed and filed their motion to exclude newly discovered computer evidence from his case.

"They don't know how the images got there," defense lawyer Robert Amparan said. "They don't know whether Mr. Karr knew they were there. They don't know when if ever they were viewed."

Investigators conceded they lost Karr's computer, but claim to have found copies of the data. It was not immediately clear what files the FBI was reviewing.

Karr's trial was originally scheduled Monday, but it was postponed for further hearings Tuesday on defense motions to dismiss the case or throw out newly revealed computer data.

Full Article: http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_275142848.html

 

Once again, Lori A. Carter of The Press Democrat is doing the best reporting on the Karr child porn case. Among the new wrinklers:

- At least 4 harddrives were seized in 2001 ... at least TWO were NOT examined for child porn. Those are apparently now being examined (KK and I had assumed that it was the Thailand harddrives being examined). The statute of limitations (SOL) may come into play here (IMO)

- Apparently, the FBI is ONLY looking at the 5 images related to original charges in order to authenticate those images

- In an apparent conflict, Sonoma claims that the FBI is looking at images OTHER THAN the 5 related to the charges ... The FBI DENIES this!!!
#####################################################

Here's trhe URL and the Article by Lori Carter (my comments in BLUE):

http://www.pressdemo.com/EarlyEdition/article_view.cfm?recordID=5147&publishdate=10/03/2006

Judge keeps Karr documents secret

By Lori A. Carter
The Press Democrat
Tuesday, October 3, 2006

A Sonoma County judge Monday for a second time refused to unseal investigative documents used to arrest John Mark Karr in 2001 on child pornography charges, saying she believes a detective didn't intentionally mislead her last month when he told her the investigation was ongoing.


At the time, the only computer known to contain any possibly illegal photographs was missing. Sheriff's detectives say they have since recovered a copy of the computer hard drive, though the original hasn't been located.

In another twist Monday, a lawyer representing the Sheriff's Department said in court that the FBI is investigating "computer media" that deputies seized from Karr five years ago but never processed. The FBI disputes this further down in this article ... this seems to be a partial basis for Sonoma's argument to keep the records sealed)

Judge Cerena Wong made her ruling Monday as trial was scheduled to begin for Karr, 41, a onetime substitute teacher in Petaluma who gained worldwide notoriety in August when he claimed involvement in the 1996 JonBenet Ramsey murder in Boulder, Colo.

After Colorado authorities extradited Karr from Thailand, they cleared him in the Ramsey murder and Sonoma County prosecutors brought him to Santa Rosa to face the 5-year-old misdemeanor case.

He has pleaded not guilty.

Wong also transferred the case to another judge, who is scheduled to begin hearing pretrial motions today.

The Press Democrat was seeking to have the Karr documents opened to public inspection, arguing that the public has a right to evaluate the evidence used to arrest Karr.

Wong's ruling to seal the documents was based in part on her understanding that detectives were reviewing the computer on which they said they found the five images charged in the complaint.

Wong said she doesn't believe anymore that she was lied to by Sheriff's Lt. Rob Giordano at the Aug. 29 hearing in which she affirmed that the documents would be sealed. She said she doesn't believe his statement was intentionally misleading because he believed the missing computer would be found.

"This statement is misleading, that's all there is to it, because it says the computer.' I know now the computer' was missing," she said. "I don't believe it rises to the level the court would exercise sanctions of dismissing the case."

Sheriff's deputies arrested Karr five years ago and seized four computer hard drives, according to court documents and detectives' testimony.

Besides the missing hard drive, deputies said another hard drive was too damaged to examine and two others were still being examined. It was unclear why the two other hard drives, in a laptop and a computer tower, weren't examined in 2001 during the six months Karr spent in jail as his trial approached.

Also, a high-capacity Zip disk and Zip drive that deputies say was found just last month in an archive box from the Karr case is believed to contain 1,600 images, some of which detectives have said are child porn. That drive and disk were never logged into evidence and no criminal charges have been filed related to those images.

In court Monday, a Sheriff's Department lawyer argued the documents should remain under seal because federal authorities were examining images seized from Karr's computers.

"At this moment, the FBI does have that file, those photographs, and are comparing them to a national database" of potential child-porn victims, said Anne Keck, who represents the Sheriff's Department.

She said the images are unrelated to the current case and that "charges could be brought on those photos." (SOL issue?) She said the ages of some of the people in the photos couldn't be determined.

An FBI spokesman said the agency isn't investigating anything new in the Karr case.

"We are not doing any - nor did we do any - forensic work," said Joseph Schadler of the FBI's San Francisco office. "We're not doing any further investigation. We are simply authenticating the images with which he's been charged."

He said FBI agents may provide expert testimony at trial regarding the ages of the people in the photos. (I take that to mean on the original FIVE images)

Karr's attorneys didn't comment on Keck's statements.

They did, however, file motions to exclude the newly discovered "mirror image" of the missing hard drive that detectives said they found last week.

Other defense motions include another request to dismiss the case and one to exclude copies of the five images that were retained from the lost hard drive.

Karr appeared in court Monday only long enough to waive his right to be present at further hearings. He probably will be required to be present during testimony. He remains in custody on $200,000 bail.

Prosecutors have conceded he probably won't serve more time if convicted but say he would have to register as a sex offender.

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

####################################################


...YumYum

 

How do they determine ages of girls in photos?

Would an FBI agent be able to determine that JonBenet was 6 years old in some of her pageant photos?

 

Sabrina, I can only assume that PREPUBESCENT children's ages are not the issue, because that would CLEARLY be pics of minors. So I am assuming they are trying to determine if these images are of FULLY DEVELOPED FEMALES under the age of 18. That's what it sounds like to me, anyway. So I guess the issue is can they PROVE these females were under 18 BY FINDING OUT WHO THEY ARE AND GETTING THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE INFO.

It seems logical to me that if they can't get proof positive the females were UNDER 18, then they ALSO don't have a case. That has to be the reason the FBI is trying to make that determination. What else could it be? A child who has not gone through puberty is clearly an underage child and that's easy enough to figure out, isn't it?

And I can only believe that the judge and the prosecutor and the detectives are hoping that the images are so explicit, the jurors will want to hang Karr just because the nice little old ladies they're going to stack the jury with will be repulsed enough to not care about a few years one way or the other. What will they care that the evidence chain of custody was lost, that the defendant can't prove he is innocent based on evidence that is missing? The logic of this whole case is so absurd now, the judge looks like she is without the ability to even fathom how ridiculous she sounds making the absurd rulings SHE is making in court. The detective didn't LIE TO HER? Right. And she believes that because he believed after a month of searching they STILL might find that computer/those images SOMEWHERE. Until the next day, when he said, oh...maybe I better tell the prosecutor now that we have a teeeeensy problem...and then they NEVER tell the judge until 12 days later when the judge READS IT IN THE PRESS. Oh, yeah, American justice at its finest.

I tell you, I was thinking about this last night, and I'm just too disgusted to even care anymore. I think they should just take Karr out behind the jail and shoot him in the head. If you're going to play nazi, why mess around? Obviously they want Karr bad enough that they're willing to lie, subvert the law, plant evidence, make it up as they go, to get him. Even the judge is now talking like she has never heard of the law. Why bother holding a kangaroo court? (No slight to you, kangatruth. hahaha)

 

The whole point here is that they arrested him way back in April 2001 and he was in jail from that point until they let him out on supervised release in October 2001, even though he took off before his December 2001 court date.

So if these FIVE porn images were in fact porn of underage children and were SO GOOD TO CONVICT him back in 2001, then why are they just now trying to determine if they are good again? And if they had three hard drives of his back in 2001 then how come they didn't check ALL of those hard drives, zip discs, floppies, CD's or whatever other medium he had that they grabbed during the searches of his homes? I mean they found five and they said that's good enough back in 2001? They had over SIX MONTHS back in 2001 to get their chit together to either convict him or let him go.

AND THEN they had another 5 years after he took off to finish their investigation of the other murder cases to see if he was connected or not. They had 5 years to check if there was any other porn on any of his other hard drives.

Karr repeatedly stated to Tracey in his e-mails that he took off because they (Sonoma LE) was trying to investigate him on other things, murder cases in other areas, of which Karr again repeatedly told Tracey he didn't do. Of course the problem with the Tracey/Karr e-mails is what portion do we believe. Since his DNA didn't match the JonBenet case then we have to believe he was totally delusional about his confession but then does that make him totally delusional on other statements he made to Tracey? Can Karr believe he in his own mind that he killed JonBenet even though he didn't but be telling the truth on other statements he made in the e-mails? Or if he's delusional in one statement then is he delusional in all statements?

And again, he could be responsible for other crimes but we have NO victims who have come forward to accuse him of those crimes. Yeah, he's left a "verbal" paper trail of people who said he got fired for this and that, people who said he wasn't acting appropiate or that he was saying things that were not appropiate but NOBODY charged him with any crimes, not in this country or any other country he was flitting around in.

I mean it's sort of like seeing some seedy character standing on a corner and somebody says they overheard him say a town bank looked like it was easy to rob so they ran him out of town. If we are going to convict people on what they THINK then we could have a lot of people in prison. There are people who want to scream that guys like John Karr are sliding through the system but in fact people are helping to slide somebody like him through the system by not filing charges "if he did in fact commit a crime."

I mean the Karr e-mails to Tracey are disturbing to say the least and it's a serious study into the mind of a person who obviously needs some serious mental health but if he is convicted in Sonoma it should be for the 5 porn pics, if they are underage children, and not because he's a wierdo who wrote a bunch of delusional crap in e-mails to Tracey.

08-29-06 Press Conference: Mary Lacy: "Now it is not a crime, let me emphasise, he did not say…touched an intimate part of this child. It was grooming behaviour and it raised our level of concern to a very high level."

Boulder District Attorney didn't personally convict John Karr of anything ILLEGAL but she did convict him in the eyes of the world by making her further comment at the same press conference, "yes, but at least I know that every parent in this country will have seen his picture and knows his name so we have some ability to protect yourself against him."

And then Mary passed him onto Sonoma who had settled 5 years ago of only charging him with 5 porn pics on one of three computer hard drives but today they are now looking for anything they can find to convict this man so what does that tell you? It tells me that those 5 porn pics don't mean chit or they wouldn't be looking for more stuff 5 years later. I mean the 5 porn pics, if legit, could get him five years in prison BUT the prosecutor was willing to let him out of any jail time just to be listed as a registered sex offender?

Sonoma is looking for more STUFF because Boulder DA Mary Lacy has already convicted him in the eyes of the world, the media convicted him through the printed paper trail of "verbal" comments others made about Karr, and Tracey, Lou and Ollie convicted him through his e-mail communication by believing his delusional crap and jumping the gun to produce an intruder in the JonBenet murder case and now Sonoma County, California is left holding the bag and THEY need to find PROOF, to justify their actions based on all these unconvicted convictions, beyond the 5 porn pics, to put him in jail. That's the bottom line.

 

Good grief, this case has more twists and turns than Boulder politics.

It sounds as if the FBI is only authenticating the original mirror images from the 2001 case that are the basis of the misdemeanor charges and nothing more; no zip disk, zip drive, etc. images. The purpose for doing this is to legitimize those images since the actual computer they were taken from is now lost. Judge Wong denied defense motions to dismiss the charges and the case is proceeding to trial. Therefore, the prosecution will put the FBI authenticator on the stand to testify that the mirror images are indeed authentic and whatever other facts he can offer as an expert on the subject. This is for the purpose of bridging the gap in chain of custody of those images to diminish or eliminate any room for defense to raise reasonable doubt as to that chain of custody. The FBI, according to their own statement, is not investigating any other images including any that Karr may have downloaded while in Thailand.

Double Yum, to answer your question as best I can, yes. The FBI has jurisdiction over any internet crimes Karr may have committed while in Thailand or anywhere else. Karr is a US citizen which gives the FBI jurisdiction and the internet use in this case does not have a jurisdiction so is subject to international authority. Since Karr is a US citizen and the FBI has jurisdiction in the US over all internet activity, it would be proper for the FBI to file charges for any alleged internet crime Karr committed out of the country.

As to how the FBI determines age of victim in these kinds of photos, it is only necessary to determine that the victim is under the age of 18. It is obvious in some photos that the children being victimized are babies, toddlers, and prepubscent age. The problem is identifying adolescents who may be made up to appear much older than they actually are. The FBI maintains a database of KNOWN victims, that is, ones they have positively identified as under the age of 18 during commission of the crimes, and that is what they are comparing the 2001 Karr images to according to these articles. Unless I'm senile, Karr's Thai computer has also gone missing, and before any data could be examined by any authority. So my best guess is any images that are under FBI scrutiny would be those from Karr's Sonoma County computer in 2001.

As to identifying any adolescent victims in any photos that are not in the FBI's database of known victims, the FBI examiner can testify as an expert witness as to his best guess of their ages. What criteria that examiner uses to derive his best guess is unknown to me.

 

AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT COULDN'T GET ANY WORSE:

Defense: Prosecutor Kept Evidence Clearing Karr
Oct 3, 2006 2:53 pm US/Mountain

(AP) SANTA ROSA, Calif. The ex-wife of former JonBenet Ramsey slaying suspect John Mark Karr provided evidence of his innocence in a child pornography case more than a month ago, defense lawyers said Tuesday as they sought to dismiss the charges.

Lara Knutsen, who divorced Karr after he was charged with possessing child porn in 2001, told investigators in early September the computer on which five alleged illegal images were found was not working at the time of his arrest.

His lawyers said prosecutors cannot prove that Karr knowingly possessed the images. They also claimed the original warrant to search his house was based on a less-than-reliable informant.

Arguments over the new defense claims were delayed Tuesday while Karr's lawyers asked a judge to order prosecutors to turn over more evidence.

Karr's lawyers said a prosecutor deliberately withheld a transcript of an interview with Knutsen until last week, when other arguments to dismiss the charges already were under way.

On Friday, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Cerena Wong refused to dismiss charges against Karr, even though authorities conceded losing his computer.

According to an excerpt of the prosecutor's interview with Knutsen, the couple had one computer in their bedroom at their Petaluma residence and "other computer parts and computers" in storage underneath the stairs. Knutsen said the only working computer in their home was the one in the bedroom.

Defense lawyers said the working computer was not the one where the images were recovered.

Karr's defense team also is seeking to invalidate the search warrant that led to the seizure of the computer, claiming a detective failed to disclose that his confidential informant suffered from mental illness.

In a separate motion filed Monday, Karr's lawyers alleged the informant told Sonoma County Sheriff's Detective Beau Martin she suffered from bipolar disorder, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

E-mails from the informant also revealed she stopped taking medication for her "mental health condition" for nine months, according to the defense motion.

The defense argued the warrant would not have been issued if the judge "was aware of the mental health, honesty and veracity, and bias and prejudice" of the informant.

Petaluma resident Wendy Hutchens identified herself in August as the informant. She said she recorded more than 20 hours of telephone conversations and exchanged e-mails with Karr in the months before his 2001 arrest.

The defense also questioned the reliability of the informant's motives, saying she tried to sell her diaries describing her communications with Karr on the online auction site eBay. It was unclear if they were ever sold.

Hutchens said in 2002 court documents that she was taking Zyprexa and lithium, drugs commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder.

 

ACR, good points, all.

I thnk it boils down to us seeing how that county LE works. If they can't make their case NOW, then they illegally incarcerated a man for six months, to start with, performed a very shoddy investigation, and are miffed that their true methods of jackboot **** law are being exposed and might be impeded because of the infamy and publicity of the JB case link.

The sad thing is it seems that, like Boulder, Sonoma County LE and judges are so corrupt, they're willing to continue with their corruption with everyone watching.

 

More excellent reporting from Laori A. Carter of The Press Democrat:

********************************************************

http://www.pressdemo.com/EarlyEdition/article_view.cfm?recordID=5150&publishdate=10/04/2006

Defense to attack search of Karr's computer

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Wednesday, October 4, 2006

John Mark Karr's lawyers again asked to have the case dismissed, this time saying deputies didn't have a search warrant to seize the computer upon which they say they found child pornography.


Karr's trial began Tuesday with motions argued before a new judge, René Chouteau.

Several minor matters were sorted out, but two bigger issues remain for a hearing today.

Karr, who didn't attend Tuesday's hearing, has pleaded not guilty. Jury selection could begin next week.

Karr, 41, a former substitute teacher in Petaluma and Napa, gained worldwide notoriety after saying he was present when JonBenet Ramsey was killed in Colorado in 1996. After Colorado authorities cleared him, he was extradited to Sonoma County to face the 5-year-old misdemeanor case.

His lawyers plan to argue that Karr's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a warrantless search of his Petaluma home in 2001, during which deputies seized a computer hard drive containing five images described as child pornography.

Deputies did have a warrant to search another house where Karr had lived.

While a different judge ruled in 2001 that the warrantless search was legal, Karr's attorneys argue that law enforcement should have gotten a warrant to search any computers taken in the search.

"Even if Mr. Karr consented to the search of his home, the search of the computer hard drive far exceeded the scope of that consent," a defense motion reads.

Without a warrant, defense lawyers say, prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use the evidence at trial.

Prosecutor Joan Risse argued that the issue was properly litigated five years ago and that it is too late for defense attorneys to renew the argument.

Chouteau held off on ruling on other motions, saying the entire case could be dismissed after arguments on the hard drive's admissibility.

(Prosecutor) Risse seemed to agree the hard drive warrant issue is critical, saying she would research the question.

"I will look at the case law and see if we can survive," she said in court. "Certainly we should have another warrant."

Karr's attorneys also are asking Chouteau to toss out the case based on the prosecution's failure to turn over evidence favorable to Karr.

Defense attorney Rob Amparán said Karr's ex-wife told investigators that the hard drive upon which the images were found may have been inoperable when they moved to California, raising questions about whether any crime was committed in this state.

Detectives said they recovered the images from unallocated space in the hard drive, meaning they had been deleted. The hard drive, Amparán said, was found in a closet under the stairs in the Karrs' home.

"They were double-deleted files in a part of the hard drive that he could not even access without special equipment," Amparán said. "They can't even prove the computer was ever working in the state of California."

No pornographic images were found in the home's main computer, which Karr's wife said he worked on primarily.

Prosecutors have said they believe a printed table of contents of the hard drive will prove Karr possessed the images.

Each misdemeanor count carries a one-year jail term. But prosecutors concede that even if convicted, Karr probably won't be required to spend any more time in jail than the seven months he has served in 2001 and this year.

Prosecutors have said they are pursuing the case because they want Karr to be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

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

*********************************************************


...YumYum

 

Today's the day?

 

Judge Refuses To Bar Evidence From Karr's Computer

 

Now is looks like the harddrive with the 5 images in question had NOT BEEN ACCESSED since 1998! That's at LEAST 2 1/4 years before the original charges were made against Karr. That clearly means that the Statute of Limitations (SOL in 12 months) had run out.

Here's more fine reporting from Lori A. Carter of The Press Democrat. Feel free to email her commending her for her fine work (contact info at end of article).

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

Judge again denies Karr dismissal

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Thursday, October 5, 2006

A judge denied renewed defense requests to dismiss the child pornography case against John Mark Karr and exclude key evidence Wednesday, while raising questions about possible statute of limitations problems.


Karr's attorneys argued that evidence from a computer hard drive on which investigators said they'd found five images of children in sexual situations should be suppressed because Sonoma County sheriff's detectives didn't have a search warrant to examine it.

Judge René Chouteau ruled that the issue was dealt with in 2001 when another judge determined police would have discovered the evidence anyway, despite not having a warrant to search the house in which it was seized. The detectives had a warrant for a house Karr and his family were moving into, but not for the one from which they were moving.

"If I were addressing this without a prior ruling, it would be a very close call," Chouteau said. "It's not being relitigated at this time."

The hard drive, which detectives say contains the images that are the basis for the charges against Karr, is crucial evidence, prosecutor Joan Risse said.

A former substitute teacher, Karr, 41, was arrested in 2001, but failed to appear in court as his trial approached and an arrest warrant was issued.

In August, he was arrested in Thailand in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey slaying in Colorado in 1996. After Colorado authorities cleared Karr, he was extradited to Sonoma County to face the 5-year-old misdemeanor charges.

As trial approaches again, Karr's attorneys have filed several motions challenging evidence in the case.

Chouteau on Wednesday denied a second defense effort in as many weeks to have the entire case tossed out.

Karr lawyer Rob Amparán argued that the prosecution has failed to disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to Karr, including a statement from his ex-wife to a district attorney's investigator.

In that interview, Lara Knutson said there was only one working computer in their house, and it was in the bedroom. The hard drive on which the alleged pornographic images were found was recovered from a storage closet under the stairs, Amparán said.

Knutson said she wasn't sure if the hard drive was operational when they moved from Alabama to California. She said one hard drive had been damaged by a lightning strike.

Amparán said the sheriff's computer examination showed the documents on the hard drive hadn't been accessed since 1998, two years before the Karrs moved to Petaluma.

"How do you charge someone with possession of child pornography when the images have been deleted multiple times, on a computer that's broken, a computer that's never been operational in California, that's not been operational since 1998, when they didn't move here until 2000?" Amparán asked in court.

Chouteau declined to dismiss the case because of a three-week delay in the prosecution's delivering the interview tapes to the defense.

"I think that your client should have had knowledge of the state of the computers," he said.

But arguments on the issue prompted questions about whether the criminal case was filed before a legal deadline.

"There may be statute of limitation issues if the computer wasn't functional and no one looked in it for five years," Chouteau said.

He will hear more defense motions today, including efforts to invalidate two search warrants detectives used to gather evidence against Karr and arguments about the reliability of a sheriff's forensic computer exam of the copy of Karr's hard drive.

The Sheriff's Department says it lost a hard drive seized from Karr's home that contained the images. Detectives last month said they'd recovered a "mirror image" copy of the drive made in 2001.

Defense attorneys are challenging the admissibility of the copy because its whereabouts between 2001 and this year are undocumented.

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

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


...YumYum

 

So how does this work--the Judge is psychic and knows that Karr would have taken the computer to his new house, and wouldn't have thrown it out because it didn't work?

This justice system makes me want to beat my head on my keyboard...

 

Unbelievable !!!! These Judges DO know that they are supposed to APPLY the law.....not make it up as they go along !!

Judges must be on good money !!!!!! ( not necessarily anything that comes in the front door either !!)

 

Not only that Dim but since Karr and his family didn't move to California until the summer 2000 that makes that old non-operationing hard drive out of Sonoma's jurisdiction. Geeze, somebody in LE didn't do their homework back in 2001. I sure would like to read those original search warrants.

Maybe that's why they conveniently misplaced the original hard drive hoping their was no way to show the actual date of the file on the computer.

And thank you for keeping us informed with these articles.

 

Yeah, like WY, I don't believe computers and hard drives just up and walk out the door all by themselves. Whatever showed up in the sheriff's lab, someone put it there. Someone KNOWS where that computer went and why it went there. But they're not telling. There's a big reason for that.

As far as I can see, Karr had a rotten attorney way back in 2001. LE was able to keep Karr in JAIL for SIX MONTHS without a reasonable bail, apparently. REMEMBER, THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR CRIME. FIRST OFFENSE. How Karr ended up in jail for six months WITH NO TRIAL NOR REASONABLE BAIL HE COULD MEET IS VERY STRANGE. Bail is not supposed to keep a person incarcerated, but to ensure he shows up on court dates. In cases of violent crimes, "no bail" is an option for the judge. Karr was actually not a flight risk, as far as I can see, back in 2001. That he fled says more to me about how he was treated by the justice system than about Karr at this point. Remember, he was investigated for several child murders, etc. IMO, THAT'S why he was kept in jail. They wanted to keep him incarcerated while they investigated him.

THAT'S CALLED FACISM.

Well, now they want to keep him, as well, and seems nothing in the law is going to stop them.

Nice. I wonder if the man is going to get out alive at this point.

 

What all this is about folks is a desperate attempt by Sonoma County authorities to force Karr to have to register as a sex offender, and they are trying to accomplish that goal with this misdemeanor case. The effort, while a very noble one in my opinion, takes a very slippery slope to the goal.

What is greatly concerning me is how TWO crucial computers Karr worked on could go missing. I could sort of believe one, but both???? Something's very fishy here..... :winko:

 

Just heard on the radio that the judge in Sonoma County says there is not enough evidence to prosecute JMK...

Yahoo story 15 min. ago

Heymom, who still can't figure out how to cut and paste into this box...