Hmm I'd still be concerned he learned details from all of the alleged correspondence with the fellow who wrote about the case.
BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- John Mark Karr gave authorities graphic details about the condition of JonBenet Ramsey's body that have been kept secret for nearly a decade, a U.S. law enforcement source told CNN on Friday.
Those details were known only to the medical examiner and the investigators investigating the December 26, 1996 slaying of the 6-year-old beauty pageant competitor, the law enforcement official said.


Does anybody know this:
What was the time line that John Ramsey gave on the day of the kidnapping?
I had read that he repeatedly denied setting the burglar alarm that night.
He was reported to say that they "didn't set the alarm at night".
Last night on TV he was videotaped going over the routine he followed when entering the home that night: going , having the child in his arms, doing this and that and setting the alarm and so on.
Bingo..I sat up and thought no no that's not what he used to say.
but I dont have printouts of his interviews or books that quoted him.
Does anybody else remember his previous statements? If he did set the alarm then why didn't it trip? And certainly the window was wired..
Even my upstairs windows are secured. And after I had a repairman work under the house and he told me how easy it is to circumvent the alarms by using a small saw to go thru the floor (using my own electrical connections outdoors, then we had more advanced system installed.
And my alarm company has a record of when my system is activated and deactivated..
So did he set the alarm when he came in or did he fail to set it as he claimed in interviews in 1996?
Also was the basement heated?
Just wondering.
Posted by: farmgirl | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 06:19 PM
Half the time, I don't remember if I set my alarm or not. I don't think that implicates her dad at all. I really believe the Ramseys have been unfairly vilified to the extreme. Yes, I think it is foolish and risky to essentially "sexualize" little girls by putting them into beauty pageants. However, since moving to the Deep South four years ago, I have realized that the pageant thing is part of the southern culture, so it seems "normal" and "cute" to people here in a way that northerners cannot fathom easily.
With all that said, I am withholding judgement on this Carr fellow until I have more information. At the very least, he is a pedophile, so even if he did not kill this child, he is in custody and away from children.
Posted by: jamie | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 07:02 PM
You know Dan, LE seems to be basing so much of this case on the fact that "he knows things not released to the public", but come on- if he was writing a book (or pretending to) than through communication with people, investigating stories on it, documents released, peoples comments that were close to the investigation that have been released in books and movies, and the autopsy report, which if I recall was ordered released to the public... any half way decent writer should be able to put that together and gleam more information from it that "the general public".
Think about it, how many cases have you written about, where you were able to find a little bit more information that the rest of us knew? Any journalist, researcher, or writer worth their weight better be able to do that. And, his obsession would have made it even more likely that he closely looked into this, and attempted to piece the missing parts together.
Personally, I'm not completely sold on the idea that he did it yet... but that's just me.
Posted by: Lilo | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:37 PM
This is an interesting link. Although I'm no handwriting expert, the handwriting could be similar and the saying in the yearbook is very odd.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Posted by: GRITS | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 11:06 PM
I think this guy is a whack job whether he did this or not. He's claiming to have done it and if he did he's sick--if he did not and says he did--well, what is that? His ex is saying he was with her and the kids. From my understanding she has had nothing to do with him in years and he cannot see the kids, so she does not seem to be trying to "protect" him. What about the Christmas bonus? Exactly 118,000. Weird. How does an "accident" end up with a child tied up, beaten and sexually assaulted? Dunno, but this guy is creapy either way and who just makes a statement right off to police and the media? Have you guys seen his resume? He worked with children! Were they abused by him? Have LE been in touch with the families?
Posted by: abigail | Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:21 AM
It seems like this crazy sicko was caught molesting at a school in Thailand but it was swept under the rug.
http://www.teflwatch.org/2006/08/18/john-karr-and-teflwatch/
Posted by: Mike | Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 02:42 AM
Not too sure if this John Karr is the killer.
He certainly seems to be a pedophile, though. Evidently, he posted several creepy messages to newsgroups for kids on usenet back in 1976. Allegedly he created some sort of "counselling" organization for kids, called PowerWurks (see www.powerwurks.com), that he was touting in his postings. It seems he also used his PowerWurks email address to pose as children looking for penpals. Incidently, from the same time period there is a post in his ex-wife Lara's name from a PowerWurks email address looking for a pen-pal as well.
He also seems to have posted messages regarding PGP encryption and anonymous remailers - things pedophiles allegedly use to communicate with each other.
If I were investigating the case, I'd ask his ex-wife about this PowerWurks shennanigans. What does she know about it? Did she really post that message under her name? The computer of his they confiscated in Thailand should also be very useful.
Posted by: Philbert Desanex | Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 11:11 AM
CORRECTION
He posted to usenet in 1996, NOT 1976.
Posted by: Philbert Desanex | Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 11:12 AM
One thing I know is....that the Ramseys have won nearly every lawsuit they have filed against people and media outlets who claimed they killed JonBenet.
If they were guilty they would have never even filed the suits.....also many of the suits were settled out of court....the Boulder ex-cops who wrote books ended up settling w the Ramsey's out of court because a lot of their "inside info" was bogus.
The Ramseys would never risk being deposed if they were guilty
What scares the media the most is that Karr really was the killer. I know Fox News will be shaking in their shoes (one of the few to not lose a lawsuit to the Ramseys...yet)
The media gets it wrong on many of these legal cases. It is unfortunate that the bloggers...who can find out about doctored war photos taken in the Middle East...but cannot figure out that media coverage in high-profile legal cases is inaccurate. Why believe the media, willy-nilly, in these legal cases
Posted by: DoorMart | Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:14 AM
Guilty or not...he is proving to be interesting as to motives..
Is this the American Way to the dream?
Obsorb yourself in a quest for information on a murder
Satisfy your pedophile urges with this quest
Write a book
Discover no market for the book
Investigate a sex change procedure
Discover you need money for this proceddure
Confess to a high profile murder thru internet pal who also written about and researched same incident.
Bait the emails with tidbits causing interrest from authorities.
Bingo!
You get: Media attention out the gazoo
Business class escorted trip back to states complete with
complimentary wine service
A newly created market for your book that probably isn't even
very well written
Money from interviews and book deal
Now you can be the woman you always admired
So who the jerk here? Well the taxpayers are footing the bills for all this hoopla.
The media is simply being the media.
Me? I think its a great story. It has everything..
SO now all you have to do is follow the money.
Wonder who approved the expenses for Business class tickets and the escorts? Betcha they get a bonus.
Posted by: farmgirl | Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 10:22 AM
I feel as strongly about this now as I did 10 years ago: The Ramsey's knew who killed their daughter, and kept silent because of a "relationship" a member or members of the immediate or extended family had with the killer(s); most likely a male. John Karr traveled extensively, possibly knew the Ramsey's in Atlanta, is possibly a transexual, may have been "blackmailing" the Ramsey's, etc.. Why was Karr grabbed after Patsy dies, if Tracey had been corresponding with him for 4 years? Why did John Ramsey say he never heard of Karr, then his lawyers said that they had? My gut feeling: Karr, or someone else in the house that night killed the girl, possibly out of anger and/or revenge toward John Ramsey, knowing that the Ramsey's would not reveal the perp because of what the revealing would do to their lifestyle, his business, his reputation, possibly the reputations of others in the immediate and/or extended family. What to make of the use of the term "I shall be the conquerer" in the yearbook, and the use of the S.B.T.C in the ransom note? I strongly believe that John Karr may have been in that house on Christmas eve, but he(she) wasn't alone in the planning and commission of the crime. My guess is that, in the end, Patsy will be fingered as the killer; not because she killed her daughter, but to take the fall for a perverted lifestyle within that clan. Time will tell.
Posted by: Guy_in_Georgia | Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:23 AM
I still think John and his wife know a whole lot more than they are saying. Some people think their son killed the little girl out of jealeasy and the parents are covering for him but I think it is more sick than that. Patsy Ramsey seemed obsessed in her daughters pagents, which shows someone unstable. Watch the video with Larry King done in 2000. Jonbenet's parents cant recall have the things Larry ask them.
Posted by: brent | Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:36 AM
Well Brent, Patsy cannot be saying too much right now.
I'm not sure how this guy is involved..not much makes sense and it just seems to be getting stranger and stranger. They have DNA--it did not match family members, does it match this guy? They have to have had serious info to go to Thailand and pick his freaky butt up.
Posted by: abigail | Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Guy in GA--What perverted lifestyle? If the Ramseys were involved in anything "strange" that would have come out by now--way before now for that matter. They were under the scope for so long and nothing has come out other then their 6 year old wore makeup and had her hair and nails done for competition for who was the prettiest little girl. That itself is strange to me, but it does not implicate criminal activity on the Ramseys. I have a six year old and cannot stand the freaking lip gloss she gets as party favors!
Posted by: abigail | Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:57 PM
abigail said:
"Guy in GA--What perverted lifestyle? If the Ramseys were involved in anything "strange" that would have come out by now--way before now for that matter. They were under the scope for so long and nothing has come out other then their 6 year old wore makeup and had her hair and nails done for competition for who was the prettiest little girl. That itself is strange to me, but it does not implicate criminal activity on the Ramseys. I have a six year old and cannot stand the freaking lip gloss she gets as party favors!"
The autopsy indicates that there was evidence of "interstitial chronic inflammation", which several experts have been quoted as saying indicates penetration of the vagina prior to and unrelated to act performed by the murderer, such as penetration consistent with a finger, for example.
Posted by: Guy_in_Georgia | Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:15 PM
The autopsy indicates that there was evidence of "interstitial chronic inflammation", which several experts have been quoted as saying indicates penetration of the vagina prior to and unrelated to acts performed by the murderer, such as penetration consistent with a finger, for example.
For those not familiar with the terms:
Chronic: Marked by long duration or frequent recurrence, over a long period of time, not acute
Acute: Having a sudden onset, sharp rise, and short course, recent
Posted by: Guy_in_Georgia | Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:25 PM
By the way, the autopsy indicated NO evidence of acute inflammatory infiltrate.
Posted by: Guy_in_Georgia | Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:35 PM
as for the alarm question... it was NOT on that night. John Ramsey said he forgot to set it.
Posted by: teresa | Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 08:40 AM
So, you're saying she was abused before that night? Just curious. This guy seems to be a freak--since his family is not agreeing with anything. I know there was DNA taken from her panties. I wonder if it matched with his. I'm confused by all the info and was hoping DNA could nip it.
Posted by: abigail | Saturday, August 26, 2006 at 02:14 AM
what gets me is that why can't the boulder DA, not file on this creep of cicumstantial evidence, since he seems to know so much of the case and how come these people let him
talk the way he does or even say what this psycho says online or national t.v.
someone needs to hang him hang himn hang him
i wouldn't doublt that this guy has done some harm to someone somewhere it scares me to think he will walk on california charges and i have lots of small grandaughters and grandsons god help these creeps if anyone ever touches any of my children for anyreason.
Posted by: grace guy | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 02:29 PM