John Mark Karr Info from Candy

The National Enquirer, February 5, 2007, John Mark Karr's Bizarre New Romance

Synopsis:

John Mark Karr, the creepy former suspect in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, has a new girlfriend who is 21 years old, and has a three year old daughter, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Brook Simmons, an attractive brunette, became infatuated with the 42 year old Karr after she saw him on TV, according to sources."Brook spent two weeks in mid-December living with John and his father in Atlanta, said the insider...

:censored: :censored: :censored:

IF IF IF IF this story is true - I am once again reminded just how blessed my children are.

Child PROTECTION Services had best not be asleep at the wheel as this baby's so called mother is feeding the beast.

 

If the story is true can't child protection services remove the child from the home? Is'nt Karr a danger to children?

The mother seems unbalanced to me....falling in love with a pedo.

 

By all that is good and holy, CPS should step in and remove this little girl from her mother's custody.

However....Karr has not been convicted of any crime, so I don't know how the laws read on that. I've seen CPS step in and take kids away based only on suspicion. Maybe that will happen in this case. Maybe we could make it happen sooner?

 

I'm sure that children's services MAY step in and keep an eye on things, but like WY said, he has technically broken no laws and is not considered a criminal.

Perhaps the father of this little girl or other family member could intervene and file for custody, but we don't know the circumstances.

For all we know, this could be just another attention getter; albeit in poor and scary taste, but for Karr, it's still publicity

 

I think Karr's emails and phone calls to Michael Tracey should suffice to keep him away from a little girl whose mother is too STUPID to see the dangers involved.

 

The Karr tapes played on tv ought to be enough IMO!

 

I hope someone talks some sense into that girl soon.

 

There are no grounds for CPS to take the kid away. Karr has been convicted of nothing. Karr hasn't even been accused of any crimes by anyone.All those kids he was a nanny, tutor and teacher to-- no one.

The mother has done nothing wrong but display bad judgement. It's the same type of syndrome (which we see on these forums) of people trying to insert themselves into high profile cases, to be a part of the "celebrity" , and I also suppose it's not unlike those women who are writing love letters to Scott Peterson and David Westerfield.

 

Watching You,
What you said is true. Karr hasn't been convicted of any crime but by all that is just and right and holy, anyone who read about this man's infatuation with JBR and anyone who read his despicable emails should keep the child out of his reach. He is a sick **** that lust after little girls.

 

There are no grounds for taking the kid away?! If you are basing that on the lack of conviction with the child pornography charges, I'd say that you are grasping at straws here in order to justify this little girls endangerment while the world watches and does nothing because the Creep prevailed over justice?!

Bad judgement by the mother?! I would hardly label this as a bad judgement call any more than I would put Suma or jameson in that category when the term Evil Enablers applies far more appropriately.

 

Sorry, I assumed you saw the story.

According to the article, the mother visited Karr and she did not bring the child who remained home where they live in Nevada.

CPS can do nothing. The mother did not endanger the child. The mother did not break the law. IF the mother would have had the child with her while visiting a potential child abuser, then yes, CPS should have investigated. But it said the kid was 3000 miles away.

I think CPS would be better off paying a visit to mothers writing and visiting David Westerfield and Scott Peterson, convicted baby killers.

 

IF the child is ever around John Mark Karr, there are grounds to have the mothers parental rights terminated for allowing such an unsavory person access to the child.

I have nothing in my heart for those in love with Scott or David - but I do hear that children are not allowed in their jail cells, so that drops them down on my list of high priorities.

 

Let's hope the CPS monitor the situation! And the relatives of the mother.

 

Mawmaw's been tricked?

Compassion posts this:

"To mawmaw,
I think you are really wrong about Brooke she IS planning to live with Mr. Karr very soon with Natalie,I know for a fact Mr Karr recently sent a Valentine's card to your granddaughter and your daughter is making future plans to h be a family with Mr. Karr.I was told she has told him numerous occasions that she loves him and wants them to be a family and vise versa...I be VERY careful cause you defintely are not getting whole truth.She knows that you dont want her near Mr karr but she is NOT going to let that stop her....Be careful of Natalie....she is most important and I dont think Brooke is taking her best interests to heart. "

And

"I dont LOVE drama I just know this because of my coonection to a family in atlants thats all i will say,you dont understand it you dont hve to Brooke is not your daughter,brooke is just "playing" her supposed adopted mom "mawmaw"making her think she is "just a friend" to john and that john has not been conversing with brooke's daugther which he has you can believe or not its up to you....I just hate to see a 3yr old get sucked in by some mom that cant get her hormones in check and be hurt by some ciruc freak."

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TEP9IR3EAKVTHOT1O/p2#lastPost

 

More from Compassion....

"to detroit you werent in this conversation so just see your way out,you can believe or not but eventually you will see and some little girl will have fallen through the cracks. to riverrat i willl go to that website you suggested I also went to pervertedjustice dot com and gave them john's addy i dont know if anything will come of it but i am trying ALL avenues,to candy i will be trying child protection services hopefully they can find Brooke and "scare" her at least into not moving her and her child in with Karr and his dad,I dont get it why any woman wants to take the chance,but maybe she is lonely or something.As far as her supposed adopted mom obviously she is not too concerned about Natlaie and Brooke.

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TEP9IR3EAKVTHOT1O/p2#lastPost

RR Post -

Please mention that I (RiverRat)asked you to make contact there at ForumsforJustice. We have a membership devoted to protect all innocent victims as well as preventing those that have potential victim written all over them. We are a more proactive group rather than strictly a discussion forum.

 

I just went and read the whole topix thread, so I see what you mean. I apologize to all whom I misled and/or insulted with my misunderstanding of the situation. I am now donning my hair shirt and getting out my cat-o-nine tails for a little self-flagellation. :whipit:

But I do have some questions...and you knew that, didn't you?

The grandmother of the 3 year old says the mother is not going to let Karr near the child. The post from Compassion says that the mother is going after being "a family" with Karr? And she knows this from a Valentine's card? The implication is that Compassion also knows the mother who has the child, as she's saying that the child's mother is lying to her mother.

Now, mawmaw, the poster who says she's the adoptive mother of Karr's "friend" who is the mom of a little girl, and Compassion are anonymous posters, neither of whom will name sources to back up what they say at topix. So there's that.

As for any steps Compassion can take, assuming any of this is true, all I can think of is once the woman moves in with Karr, call Social Services in the county in which they live and report suspicion of Karr. They'll open a file, as has been said, and then they'll have to follow up on it.

But if the mother of the child isn't worried about Karr, if she's so self-centered as to think it's worth the risk to her little girl, if she's so naive to think he's someone she can trust her child with, if she's so ignorant she won't even bother to read Karr's own vile, sickening pedophile's rants or investigate what he said about the sheer joy of molesting little girls, in hundreds of emails, phone calls, and with a camera taping him, then there's nothing that anyone can do until Karr makes a move on the child, unless Social Services finds some other issue with the safety of the trial which gives them legal rights to remove the child from the mother.

I do think that Social Services would have standing to keep a check on the child from time to time, with Karr's history and the evidence of his pedophilia tendencies. But it sounds to me like yeah, this little girl is in trouble and like many little girls, if her moma won't protect her, the law only steps in when it's too late.

Sorry, but that's all I can think of. Maybe someone else has better information, though. I hope so.

 

The state cannot just step in and take a child away from a mother because her boyfriend is infamous for talking dirty about children. At least, if they can, I never heard of it. It's not uncommon for children who have been molested by a parent to be returned to the family and home, with supervision and family counseling, believe it or not. The court tries to "preserve" the family, because no matter how awful we think it is, the child loves the parent and that is the child's family and home. It depends on the level of abuse, of course, but it's not black and white. Forcing a family to break apart can be a terrible hardship on all. The victim inevitably ends up feeling guilty for that, as well. Add in financial considerations in families that have limited resources, and it's really just heartbreak all around. This is why so many families collude to hide child abuse and domestic abuse.

Which I'm only touching on the issues here, because I believe the court must have some kind of legal grounds to remove the child. Karr has not been convicted of anything, no matter what he's said. He can have sick thoughts in his head all day, but if he doesn't act on them and they don't have a measurable negative influence on the child, then if the mother chooses to live with him, I don't see how a court could remove the child.

But again, I'm just speculating, I'm not an expert in the field, and maybe someone who does work in it can enlighten us. I do believe any report of abuse of a child, by anyone, has to be looked into by SServices in Georgia. So if they're called, then at least Karr will know he's being watched like a hawk and keep his sick thoughts in check.

I think River from WS used to work in SServices, and maybe Barbara is in a related field. Anyone?

 

"It's not uncommon for children who have been molested by a parent to be returned to the family and home, with supervision and family counseling, believe it or not. The court tries to "preserve" the family, because no matter how awful we think it is, the child loves the parent and that is the child's family and home."

I just cannot imagine when a child's mental and physical health would benefit from staying with an abusive family. Most reports on child abuse that I've seen indicate the abuser does not change. A few years ago Fairfax country VA CPS reviewed a case where neighbors complained that a 4 year old child's father was abusing her - CPS recomended she be taken from the home. The judge ruled that the "child is better off with her family" and told CPS to "closely monitor the family." Three weeks later, the father killed her. A judge in Washington, DC put a 5 year old boy back with his drug addicted, abusive mother against the wishes of CPS, the woman's mother and a police officer who had cared for the child for two years. The mother's boyfriend killed him a few weeks later. I find it very hard to believe "preserving the family" is more important than protecting the child. While the child probably does love the abusive parent, I'm sure he/she doesn't love the abuse.

 

I agree with you, Shadow, but was just stating the fact that it's not uncommon for a judge to do just that. It does backfire. By the time that happens, it's too late, one way or another, for the victim.

The harsh truth about abuse victims is they are often targeted by OTHER members of the family when a money-making member is removed from the home, family, etc. Often, there is much pressure WITHIN THE FAMILY put upon abuse victims NOT TO TELL. Even if money is not a factor, like in the Ramsey case, PUBLIC STANDING AND SCANDAL is.

I don't understand it. I truly don't. But them's the facts.

 

Bumping up for the new domestic violence disturbance at the Karr home.