Any DNA samples taken from JonBenét Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr were taken without his consent and without a judge's order, Colorado attorneys for the 41-year-old schoolteacher claim.
Seth Temin, head of the Boulder Public Defender's Office, said in a motion filed late Friday that before any DNA testing is done by authorities, he wants a hearing in which he will seek to block testing of the biological samples.
...Authorities reportedly took DNA from Karr in Thailand after he was arrested. Experts believe that samples taken overseas could cause prosecutors various legal and technical problems if they attempt to introduce the samples at trial in Colorado.
Yeah, I though of that before I posted.
I though Karr was cooperating with authorities and would not object about giving DNA. Sticking with that premise of cooperation, going to Thailand and obtaining a DNA sample would have been cost effective.
If the DNA sample matched, you would then extradite Karr back to Colorado, and then use that DNA evidence to present before a judge to obtain a search warrant for DNA evidence that could be used in the court of law.
Ideally , the first DNA sample from Karr or his admittance of the crime, would be kept out of the press if at all possible. Alas, as we know, it did not go down that way.
They did get surreptitious DNA samples, because they did not want to alert the guy to their presence yet and have him flee before they could further investigate him.
The problem was that they needed buccal samples, straight from inside his mouth, not contaminated from a paper cup or something, to compare with the limited amount of DNA they had been able to derive from the mixed sample they had from JonBenet's underwear.
It was commingled with her own blood and had to be separated to ID it. Lacy said that was why they had to bring him to Boulder to get that non-contaminated saliva sample from inside his mouth.
The DNA coaxed apart from JonBenet's was said to be from male Caucasian saliva.
Yeah, I though of that before I posted.
And, I should add, the truth of it is that defense lawyers are going to howl no matter what. And esp. in high profile cases that have the potential to turn an obscure atty into a mega-bucks star defender.
Ideally , the first DNA sample from Karr or his admittance of the crime, would be kept out of the press if at all possible.
From what I've read, there have been other false confessions to this crime (that didn't turn into a media circus). As to Karr, specifically, on the first go (five years ago), apparently it was kept out of the press. Looking at it from a political perspective, there was little downside to going public--here was a creepy, shadowy character who was (already) a fugitive from (CA) justice. If it turned out (as it did) that he wasn't 'the guy', there is always the possibility that all the media attn. & renewed public interest might flush out new leads. Add in that Lacey is midterm, any negatives will mostly evaporate before she faces a 2008 election.
Ideally, Karr as a suspect, should have been definatively ruled out back 5 years ago--and apparently was (ruled out) then. But that was back when the BPD was running the investigation and before the DA's office took over in late 2002 and may have been before more DNA results were teased out of the samples. Least ways, that makes for a good excuse. ;)