Posted on 08/20/2006 5:37:25 AM PDT by Rte66
For your bookmarking assistance, this is a reference list of links to the Aug 2006 or newer Free Republic threads on the topic of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case and the possible arrest of John Mark Karr as a suspect in her murder.
How long does it take to check DNA? Wouldn't this be a "priority" case?
I agree. Its hard to understand how anyone could do ANY of this. I'm still struggling with that.
could be
Right. That's what I said. The topic of exhumation came up years later in the *context* of the stun gun theory and he described how he decided early on not to exhume.
Yes, I do think some of their behavior was odd, just like some of JMK's behavior was odd. It's just an observation and you're right, it could mean nothing at all.
I bet they already have some taken and have the answer back at this point. So we will see for sure in the next few days if charges will be filed or not.
Some people think the DNA has already been matched.
That they already had his DNA gotten off of some mail he supposedly sent to Patsy Ramsey or the CU professor, and that they know it at least doesn't exclude him. But that they had more work to do to prove for court purposes that he was the one who sent the letter, and that it was his DNA, etc. Sort of a chain of custody type thing.
I don't know.
Others have speculated that whatever DNA they have from him doesn't match and if so, they won't file charges.
I don't know.
What I do know is, I see no reason to think that there's any kind of big delay here, bonfire. Things are moving quite quickly, in whatever direction that turns out to be.
To your technical question about how long it takes for the DNA...actually not long to do some preliminary testing to see if this person is a possible.
DNA is great for ruling people out, or at least that's its strongest point.
It's a little more complex and time consuming to establish that there's only one in a billion chance that the DNA belongs to someone other than Mr. X.
In between those two extremes you've got some possibles...as in, this DNA could possibly be so and so's...he cannot be excluded, or this DNA is rather likely to be his because there's enough similarity there, short of a totally conclusive match.
Then, for trial purposes you put that evidence together with other incriminating evidence. You don't let it stand or fall on its on.
That is what I think also. I wish they would END the speculation and just let the rest of us know! :)
Thanks. Other than DNA, I pray they have a "smoking gun".
Haven't heard much from Karr's family this weekend. Be interesting to see if they came up with PROOF he was with them on Xmas.
No kidding, lol! fact is today's court date is a preliminary thing and from the time the court date ends I think today the DA has 72 hrs told hold Karr and file charges. If she doesn't than we know she doesn't have enough to prove he did it, or we will no she does and he will go to trial. I just hate waiting as well!!!
Patience was never one of my virtues :)
Thanks for adding the words I didn't hear./Sac
It seems from your posts that you simply can't or don't want to imagine the *possibility* that the parents could be involved in a horrendous crime like this. That's understandable and I won't criticize that. What many people (and many here, I think) find when they discuss a horrific crime like this is that discussing the evidence requires entertaining all *possibilities*. That's all we're doing here. To conclude that this consititutes indicting or "pinning" it on any particular person doesn't follow from the premise.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that we don't know who committed this crime and it may well have been JMK or some other intruder. But to ignore any and all evidence implicating the parents would amount to doing the very thing you lament.
I was pretty tired when I posted that and I see how it was confusing. Yes, I should have said that years later after discussing the stun gun theory, JR referred *back* to the early stages of the investigation and said he declined the exhumation.
Now, that quote I read could be false, but that is what I read in any case. Have you heard about those comments before?
What wouldn't be unusual for Karr? Transporting Southern Cars?? Going to pick up a "snappy, high speed car"? That's under the table money.
The TIME of the pending phone call in the ransom note becomes more important....8-10 AM on the 27th. He would place himself neither home nor in Colorado but half way between and he'll have a receipt to prove it.
Scott Peterson did that with a phone call and remember, he kept the fishing place receipt. He also returned to the scene several times. Did I hear that the Karrs' car broke down in Boulder on the way to California?? And he wanted a poem read at the Ramsey house??
>>>a school bus had a conversation with JMK>>>
Well now I KNOW he's crazy if he's having conversations with school buses. ;o)
IMO, but what's the point of endlessly discussing the parents when it is JMK that is the current focus? I am interested in following the current investigation, not the historical witch hunt on the parents, that culminated in nothing a grand jury would even act on.
The parents as perps angle was exhausted years ago. Currently there is a new suspect and I am not in the least interested in rehashing what has been rehashed a million times before to no purpose.
I'm interested in what information is known about the current suspect and what publicly known evidence fits with this arrest. JMO, but at every turn your posts seem to do nothing but turn back to the parents as perps, ad nauseum.
You seem to be uninterested in the current suspect or any evidence that points to an intruder that the current investigation may be using.
He told someone that he visited Ramsey's house while he left his family at a hotel/motel. (maybe that Wendy chick....who's another fruit-loop)
I see your point. Do you believe that the physical and forensic evidence that has, as you noted, been "rehashed" over the years, have any bearing on JMK's guilt or innocence? Could it?
Let's look at JMK specifically. Since he has been charged (or will be) could the evidence that has necessarily already been discussed aid in a conviction? I would think so. Is it not important then, to learn something about what that evidence is? I would think so.
If that evidence exculpates JMK would that be relevant? I would think so. I understand what you're saying, I just don't think there is any way to dodge all that stuff, despite how much it has already been discussed, if we're talking about JMK's possible role in this crime. It is, after all, the very evidence of the crime he's accused of!
So, you're right, my posts do keep going back to the parents. But that, unfortunately, is b/c the evidence we know about has a unique nexus with them that doesn't appear, so far, with JMK. When and if it does I'll be all over it.
IIRC, it was a man that he met at some church related thing in Sonoma County and not Wendy Hutchens. Apparently the visit to the Ramsey home was research for JMK's book and happend on the way during their move from Alabama to California.
Yes, that is right according to the article linked in post # 2569
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.