Posted on 08/20/2006 5:37:25 AM PDT by Rte66
No. Am at work. No access to radio or TV until about 8:00pm Pacific time.
She claims that there is nothing wrong with Karr and that he is not insane, nor is he seeking out attention.
That's what attorneys do, represent their clients. If Karr wants to hang for this murder, whether or not he actually did it, he will instruct his attorneys to say such things. If he wants to hang for it, he will plead guilty whether or not he actually did the crime. Then there will be no trial, and the state will not have to prove its case.
Furthermore, the attorney, I take it, is not also a psychiatrist or psychologist, and so is not qualified to make such judgements on her own.
She also refused to comment when she was asked if she thought he did it. Remember she is his defense attorney.
I may be mistaken, but I believe this woman is not his defense attorney, only a public defender who represented him in the extradition matter. If so, she would appropriately have no comment about the criminal case. Furthermore, she has had zero time to investigate her client's involvement in the case as good criminal defense attorneys do, so again, it is appropriate for her to avoid saying anything more than whatever he authorized her to say.
He may or may not be guilty. (I'm not sure we ever will know the truth unless hard physical evidence ties him to the murder.) But everything about what has happened from the moment his name first surfaced suggests to me that he is being railroaded by the Boulder DA. If he's guilty, he deserves everything that will come to him. However, I still think that what the Boulder DA has allowed to happen as regards Karr is appalling.
I think it said "Shall Be The Coquette" (after the operation).
;-)
exactly - they spent many many hours with him yesterday and now she and the firm she belongs to is representing him.
Now she is making the media interview rounds toda. She was on CourtTV and I heard she was also on MSNBC already today.
Jamie Harmon is her name.
You make an excellent point. If the indictment is sealed maybe they DO know he was in Boulder. I'm just skeptical as to what, if anything, is really 'sealed' in this case. But you may well be right. We may find that they have all that already.
Agreed.
I hate to say this, but with this guy's weird and somewhat dark past, I wouldn't put it past some in law enforcement to say that the DNA marched even if it actually does not.
Who would know?
What indictment? There has never been an indictment in the Ramsey case.
I hate to say this, but with this guy's weird and somewhat dark past, I wouldn't put it past some in law enforcement to say that the DNA matched even if it actually does not.
Who would know?
see post 820...
If you can make sure you try and catch one of her interviews after you get home.
She clearly said they spent some 7 to 8 hours with him yesterday and that she and the firm she belongs to is representing him. One of the gals in the firm (not Jamie though) did represent Karr on his CA charges before he skipped out on them.
I was quite puzzled by her interview, it seems to me that they are not going to be seeking a defense of insanity or mental illiness for him. But that may all change if his DNA does come back as a match.
Only the lab that runs the tests. They would have to go along with the lie, because it would have to be confirmed by their report. Some might think this unlikely or even impossible, but it's been done before. Remember a few years ago when the FBI crime lab was shown to have lied about lab results in dozens of cases, including high-profile cases?
So I think your point is very well taken.
Indictment for JMK
How were the lies about lab results in those FBI cases you referred to proven/shown? By the lab reports themselves? Just curious.
At this point, the man has not been charged with the crime, so any idea of how to defend him, should it be necessary, is still way too premature.
Regarding the DNA, several of the nation's most knowledgeable people on the subject have said they would not be surprised if the results are inconclusive. Three who come to mind are Barry Scheck, Michael Baden and Dr. Henry Lee. So brace yourself for that possibility.
Again, if he's guilty, he deserves what's coming to him. But all of us who cherish the Bill of Rights should be disgusted at the way the Boulder DA has handled the matter of Mr. Karr to date. That is an issues separate and distinct from whether or not this particular man is or is not guilty of this particular crime.
As I understand it, Karr has neither been indicted nor charged with the crime, yet. To be indicted, the DA in Boulder would had to have been conducting a grand jury investigation into him. As far as I know, that is not the case.
Then, in that case, and in the context of my discussion with Sacajaweau, nothing (no information) is really 'sealed' in a formal sense. I had been suggesting earlier that locating someone in Boulder would be easy if they had used the usual things, like credit cards, reservations, etc. If he didn't it would be hard to pin him there (maybe a witness?). I'm wondering if the DA hasn't found something in the commercial records that shows he was there? Maybe he used a target card, or maybe some security camera caught him. Of course, being as old as the case is, not all these records will survive. But the cc and bank records would and I don't know how smart he was about NOT using them.
Come to think of it, I remember that. There was a Grand Jury hearing but they returned no indictment. The housekeeper was called in and tried to write a book on it but they said she couldn't talk about what she said to the GJ b/c no indictment was returned.
Testimony of Frederic Whitehurst at the (1st) World Trade Center Bombing Trial, August 14, 1995
Tainting Evidence, a book by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, about the FBI lab scandal
1997 news summary: News reports in late January about possible taints in laboratory work done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation provide additional grounds for skepticism about law enforcement scientific evidence. Justice Department officials have told prosecutors and defense lawyers around the nation about potential flaws in evidence handled by the lab. According to the Albany Times-Union on January 31, there have been allegations not only of sloppy procedures, but of pressure brought on lab employees to alter conclusions and of changes made by supervisors to lab findings for the purpose of supporting criminal prosecutions. As of February 14th, fifty prosecutors had been notified of cases in which problems might be raised by the defense, according to The New York Times.
A link to a 1997 article about the impact the FBI scandal might have on the McVeigh case, pending at that time.
I thoroughly understand how many people love a good mystery. But at this point, I personally refuse to speculate as to what evidence the Boulder authorities may or may not have against Mr Karr other than his own statements. At the moment, this whole thing has more than a faint stink of railroading about it. So for me, I'll wait until hard evidence becomes public. Again, he may have done it. I'm just not up for leaping to conclusions.
That GJ was investigating the Ramseys, not Karr. All public indications are that Karr did not come to the Boulder DA's attention until that Colorado professor contacted them. BTW, that professor certainly also seems obsessed with the Ramsey case and is a weird duck, himself.
I've been thinking the same thing. I wonder if he is trying to sell another documentary to somebody with one more new suspect but the suspect decided to take it a step further for publicity/attention/whatever. The prof seems to be another that has turned a tragedy into some sort of profit center.
Point well taken. Wouldn't the fact that prosecutors have relied on these labs for evidence in a process that we now know is tainted be legal grounds for someone to argue that all testing for their case must be done by a third party?
It seems that if I could show the process to be tainted that I would have legal cause to demand an alternate process (private labs other than those implicated and chosen by a third party with a double-blind process?) in order to receive a fair trial?
Just a thought. Yes, I agree that he may get railroaded. What scares me is how deeply the DA and others have put their reputations, careers and public image on the line for this guys arrest. If they're wrong about this guy they're going to take a lot of heat. So, I don't see them backing down from this guy very easily. They're invested in making him hang.
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.