Posted on 08/28/2006 12:37:23 PM PDT by Fawn
Schnitt just announced the breaking news. The DNA for JM Karr is NOT a match for Jon Benet evidence.
because.
Thanks again, FRiend.
:)
No, child pornography is a thing.
Apparently, what the California authorities found was files on his computer containing pornographic images. Apparently, possessing such computer files is a misdemeanor in California.
We're all aware that we're not jurors and just weighing the possibilites of what we know, lacking hard evidence.
So, is anybody (news agency) working on gettng the sealed arrest affadavit unsealed and posted on the internet?
It's not a "catch". He didn't do it. He will be back on OUR streets in a very short time... instead of in Thailand.
That is such a common point of view here. Why? Other than the misdemeanor possession of child porm charges in California, what crime has this man committed? It isn't a crime to be odd, or to want a sex change operation, or to be mentally ill, or even to have pedophilic tendencies as long as he never acted on them.
So why should he be "put away?" Do our Constitutional rights only apply to "normal" people?
No kidding!
-- FreeRepublic motto
Hey, and I miss those American Idol live threads :)
sw
For some people, that's true. Many others are not so benign, however.
But why should that matter? If I just found my dead daughter in my basement and a police person was looking at me like I did it, I'd tell her.
"Look, you turn this place upside down and you get all the evidence you need. I know I didn't do it and I want to do everything in my power to help you find out who did."
I don't blame the cops at all for being suspicious. If for nothing else:
1) The police were called out to a child kidnapping.
2) The parents hand you a ransom note that addresses a parent by name and probably took at least 15 minutes to write - something a real kidnapper probably won't do.
3) The child turns out to be dead and still in the house.
Any cop with half a brain is going to think something is very fishy about the whole scenario. The BPD may have gotten a lot of things wrong that day but suspecting the parents was not one of them.
What obstruction and false statements? He wasn't ever under oath and he didn't *exactly* foist himself off on Lacy - he manipulated Tracey to do that. No sale.
Why this woman still has a job related to any sort of law enforcement anywhere baffles me.
Mary Lacy actually posts a chart on her website showing that felony indictments has risen almost 100% under her tenure, as if that was something to brag about, but the Boulder CO conviction rate has been spiraling down by a greater percentage than the increase in cases she's taken on.
I suspect that the liberal hairstyle she wears has something to do with it.
Now, how many times are we going to give up?
*That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.*
Not at all.
His own words put him there, and not only his public words, but private ones as well...while he was being checked out for whether there was enough evidence to press charges.
He was held in CA a short while until CO could receive him. Then over a weekend it was decided in CO he shouldn't be prosecuted for JonBenet's murder.
Why are you accusing FReepers of wanting him held on nothing and of ignoring the Constitution?
I'm extremely disappointed. That's putting it mildly, but I'll try to stay more mild than I really feel about it.
I won't go into the Pedophilia. I don't trust what I would say, although it would be based on the facts as I know them...just feel too strongly about it to trust ME.
John Ramsey isn't a lawyer! She had the nonverbal exchange - I promise you John Ramsey was oblivious at that time.
Only for probably 4-5 months at most - then he'll be back at it.
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.