August 17, 2006
Police in Thailand have arrested John Mark Karr a 42-year-old American teacher who has allegedly confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey 10 years ago.
I have received a lot of emails from people asking me what I think of this new development in the case. The first thing that comes to mind is over
the past ten years, there have been other suspects taken into custody and there have been other individuals who have confessed to this murder.
The police must have some strong evidence for them to extradite Karr back to the U.S. However, nobody has been convicted of killing JonBenet so
lets wait and see how things turn out.
In light of these new developments some have questioned my analysis of this case. Probably 75% of the time when the police ask me to get involved in a case,
and I was not asked to get involved in this case, I will show them areas within a suspect's statement that indicate deception. I will tell the
investigators they need to re-interview the suspect and ask certain questions or explore certain areas within the statement. This usually leads to
a confession or clarification as to why the subject used deceptive language. Only about 25% of the time after analyzing a statement will I tell the
police this is the person who committed the crime. Here is where he unknowingly confessed in his statement. Or, I see no deception in this statement
and I believe the person to be truthful.
The JonBenet Ramsey murder falls into the 75 percentile. In my book, on my website, in my public speaking I have never said that John and Patsy Ramsey
killed their daughter. I have said they have shown signs of deception in some of their statements and they cannot be excluded as suspects. If I had the
chance to interview them, I would have explored these areas of possible deception. On my website I only talk about the ransom note. Even if Karr did
commit this murder, I still stand by my analysis of the ransom note. It was not written by a group or terrorist group. It was written by an educated person.
It was written as a ruse after JonBenet was killed. There are certain things about the ransom note that link John and Patsy to the ransom note. And I
still stick to my statement "possible but not probable." As I said lets see how this all plays out.
August 20, 2006
Here is analysis of the statements that I have heard John Karr make and those printed in the press.
From CNN.com, a video titled "In Karr's own words." These questions were asked while the Thailand authorities were parading Karr in front of the cameras.
Karr was surrounded by a lot of people. It sounds as if two different reporters asked him questions.
Reporter: "I am with the Associated Press. Can you give us a brief statement?"
Karr: "I, I love JonBenet and she died accidentally."
Reporter: "Are you an innocent man?"
Reporter: "Are you an innocent man?"
Karr: "No."
Reporter: "What happened?"
Karr: "Um....Her death was, was an accident."
Reporter: "So you were in the basement?"
Karr: "Yes."
Reporter: "Can you tell us about your connection to the Ramsey family?"
Karr: "Ah, no comment on that."
Reporter: "How did you, how did you get into the basement?"
Karr: "No comment on that."
Reporter: "And how, how do you feel now? How have you been treated?"
Karr: "Ah, I'm being treated ok."
Reporter: "How long had you known JonBenet?"
Karr: "Ah, I have no comment on that."
Reporter: "I am with the Associated Press. Can you give us a brief statement?"
Karr: "I, I love JonBenet and she died accidentally."
The reporter got exactly what she asked for; a brief statement. As an interviewer never place a limitation on what the subject may tell you. The more he
talks the more information we have to analyze. Karr repeats the word "I" which is an indication he is thinking about what to say. He may be thinking of
a lie to tell or if he is being truthful he may be thinking how much should I tell.
He then states "I love JonBenet." Since JonBenet died nearly ten years ago, Karr should have spoken in the past tense "I loved JonBenet." Deceptive people
will sometimes use the wrong tense. For example, "I was in my car stopped at a red light. A man approached my car and points a gun at me." If you quickly
read this statement, it may sound ok. The statement starts out using past tense language. However, the last verb is in the present tense. The subject
should have said "pointed" if he was speaking from his memory about what happened. This statement turned out to be false.
Karr finishes the sentence by saying "she died accidentally." This is an admission but not a confession. An admission is a statement that indicates the
person may be involved. Stating that she died accidentally ties Karr to the crime scene if his statement is true. Perhaps he didn't kill her he but
witnessed her death. In a confession, the person will take responsibility for what happened. In all of the statements that I have heard and read, Karr
never takes responsibility for JonBenet's death. He did not say "I accidentally killed her" but instead he leaves himself out and says "she died
accidentally." A confession will also include details which Karr refuses to give to the press.
Reporter: "Are you an innocent man?"
Reporter: "Are you an innocent man?"
Karr: "No."
Karr was asked this question twice before he gave an answer. It is possible he did not hear the question the first time. It is also possible he heard
the question but did not want to answer it or was not sure how to answer it.
The question is a terrible question. Even if Karr did not kill JonBenet, his answer of "no" could still be a truthful answer. Karr is probably guilty
of something which allows him to say "No, I am not innocent." A better direct question would have been "Did you kill JonBenet?"
Reporter: "What happened?"
Karr: "Um....Her death was, was an accident."
Twice Karr hesitates ("um" and "was, was") when giving his answer. This means he is stalling for time to think about his answer. This is not a confession
because he did not say "I accidentially killed her." Again he leaves himself out of the statement. This answer also lacks details.
Reporter: "So you were in the basement?"
Karr: "Yes."
This is a poorly worded question. A better question would have been "Were you in the basement?" The reporter was not asking him if he was in the basement.
The reporter was telling him "so you were in the basement." This makes it very easy for a person to say "yes." The question implies that the subject was
in the basement. I will bet you if Karr was asked "Were in you the Ramsey's basement?" he would have replied "I have no comment on that."
The other thing I noticed about this answer was Karr's nonverbs. Your focus should always be on a person's language rather than their nonverbs. However,
you should always take advantage of any obvious nonverbal cues as long as you don't compromise your listening skills. A one word answer does not require
much concentration. Therefore, you can then look for any nonverbal signals. When Karr was asked this question he looked directly at the reporter. After
she asked the question, he turned his head away, looked up and to the right and said "yes." This is an indication that he gave a deceptive answer. When a
truthful person is attempting to recall information from his memory, he will usually look to his left. Since the right side of our brains is the creative
part of the brain, deceptive people will often look to their right. The problem is this is only true of a right handed person. For a left handed person,
it would be the opposite. I don't know if Karr is right or left handed.
Reporter: "Can you tell us about your connection to the Ramsey family?"
Karr: "Ah, no comment on that."
Reporter: "How did you, how did you get into the basement?"
Karr: "No comment on that."
Reporter: "And how, how do you feel now? How have you been treated?"
Karr: "Ah, I'm being treated ok."
Reporter: "How long had you known JonBenet?"
Karr: "Ah, I have no comment on that."
Again, we have a lack of details. He is consistent in that he always states "no comment on that."
Here are some statements made by Karr that I have seen in the press.
"I was with JonBenet when she died."
The first that I want to point out is that this is not a confession but an admission. He did not say "I killed JonBenet." We cannot believe that he killed
her unless he tells us he killed her.
The second thing is that people do not want to lie and if possible they will avoid telling lies. Karr is obviously seeking some publicity. Maybe he was
not looking for it but upon his arrest he has been talking to the press and law enforcement authorities. If he did not kill JonBenet then the biggest
lie he could probably tell is stating that he killed her. It may be that is too big of a lie to tell so he tells an easier lie; "I was with JonBenet when
she died."
"It's very important for me that everyone knows that I love her very much, that her death was unintentional,
that it was an accident."
Again this is an admission and not a confession. He also uses present tense language when he says "I love her very much."
When asked what happened to JonBenet, Karr responded,
"It would take several hours to describe that. It's a very involved series of events that would involve a lot
of time. It's very painful for me to talk about it."
Again he chooses not to give us any details about the killing by saying it would take too long to describe it. His statement that it is very painful for
him to talk about it is probably a truthful statement.
It has been reported that John Karr may be able to shed some light on what S.B.T.C. means. The ransom note was signed "Victory! S.B.T.C." In a classmate's
1982 highschool yearbook, John Karr wrote "Though, deep in the future, MAYBE I SHALL BE THE CONQUERER AND LIVE IN MULTIPLE PEACE." It is possible
S.B.T.C. stands for "Shall Be The Conqueror." This means the writer of the ransom note ended the note with "Victory! Shall Be The Conqueror." Victory
and conqueror go together but it still does not make much sense. The letters "I.S.B.T.C. - I Shall Be The Conqueror" makes more sense. Based on
everything I have seen so far I would say this is a coincidence.
August 27, 2006
The September 4, 2006 issue of "People" magazine claims they have an exclusive jailhouse interview with John Karr. The problem is "People" did not
personally interview John Karr. Instead, "People" interviewed the Thailand authorities who told them what Karr said. When it comes to reporting
accurately what transpired, I have about as much faith in the Thailand authorities as I do in "The National Inquirer." So, the statements we are about
to analyze are from a second hand source. "People" reports that Karr made the following statement.
On JonBenet's death:
"(The Ramseys) feel their daughter was brutally murdered, and she wasn't. It looks like that but she wasn't. I want them
to hear the truth...I need closure and her family needs closure...all of us have gone through enough pain."
First recognize Karr does not confess to the murder. He states that JonBenet was not brutally murdered but he does not tell us who killed her.
The autopsy, which showed signs she was brutally murdered, would seem to contradict his statement.
Karr states he wants the Ramseys to hear the truth but he has yet to tell us the truth about what he knows. The fact that he needs closure still does
make him a killer. A lot of people following this case would like some closer.
On the DNA test:
"The DNA might not match, but you can't trust the test."
Now we have John Karr starting to back away from his admission that he killed JonBenet. DNA is one of the most accurate forensic tools that we have.
If John Karr left DNA at the crime scene, we should be able to match it to him. However, if he was not in the Ramsey house then his DNA is not at the
crime scene. Karr has probably heard that the authorities have unidentified DNA from the crime scene. He knows it is not his so he comes out with the
statement this DNA might not match because the test is not reliable.
On JonBenet:
"Worse than anything, JonBenet is gone. She is here only in spirit."
It would appear the Karr does accept the fact that JonBenet is dead. He is not living in a fantasy world in which he thinks she is still alive.
Therefore, when he talks about her it should be in the past tense (I loved JonBenet and not I love JonBenet). On the other hand, he does believe she
is here spiritually. Perhaps when he uses present tense language he is referring to her spiritually. This is something the investigators would have
to explore with additional questions. Most people are going to refer to JonBenet in the past tense.
On his ex-wife giving him an alibi:
"It's normal that people in a family protect you."
While this is a truthful statement Karr does not provide any information to dispute the alibi. He does not state, "She is forgetting that I had business
in Colorado that Christmas season." Or, "She knows that I was not at home that Christmas." Confessions have details and Karr is not giving us any.
On how he is misunderstood:
"People say I am a monster and a horrible person. They don't know me ...
they won't approve of what happened. (But) I don't approve of what happened."
On people who doubt his guilt:
"(The media) is beginning to shut up about me being crazy and all that stuff. This is
not a laughing matter, it's something serious. ... The world is not laughing as much now."
On why he confessed:
"We all need to put this chapter in place, which is a conclusion, and then start the healing.
The healing is what I want to start happening. To heal and feel better about what happened."
These last three statements may all be true but they are not a confession.
From what I have seen and heard so far, John Karr is a person who is infatuated with JonBenet's murder. He was infatuated with murder of 12-year-old
Polly Klass to the point that he moved his family to her hometown. He also had communications with Richard Davis the convicted killer of Polly Klass.
Some authorities have suggested that Karr wanted to be like Richard Davis so he killed JonBenet. If true, they need to tie Karr to JonBenet before her
death. It appears to me that once JonBenet's murder was in the news, Karr became interested in her. In a effort to be like Davis, he is now alluding
that he killed JonBenet.
August 28, 2006
Today the Boulder District Attorney announced they were dropping the charges against John Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey murder. It turns out the DNA did
not match Karr's DNA. We knew that was going to happen because of Karr's own words "The DNA might not match, but you can't trust the test." Karr knew
it would not match because he was never in the Ramsey house. This was his way of explaining it so people would keep believing his story.
There are two things that bother me. First is that the Boulder DA did not listen to what Karr was saying. He absolutely needed to be checked out. However,
when he does not confess to the killing and only alludes that he might have done it, don't be so quick to bring him back to Boulder. They could have sent
him to California to face charges there while they gathered more evidence.
Secondly, one of the best defenses a defendant can have is an alibi. While the crime was being committed the defendant shows evidence he was somewhere
else and not at the crime scene. It has been reported that the police never interviewed Karr's family prior to his arrest and extradition to the U.S.
Most people know where they were during the Christmas season. Karr's family has always maintained that John Karr was with them when JonBenet was killed.
Basic police work would be to anticipate an alibi and interview the family before charging someone with a crime.
July 9, 2008
On July 9, 2008, Mary Lacy, the Boulder District Attorney, announced that recently developed "touch DNA" technology had cleared all members of JonBenet
Ramsey's family of her slaying. DNA from an unknown male was found on JonBenet's long johns, underwear and under her fingernails. I am puzzled as to
how Mary Lacy can come to the conclusion that this evidence exonerates the Ramsey family. The new DNA evidence only proves two things; that an unknown male
was present at the crime scene and that the DNA does not belong to any members of the Ramsey family. Based on the type of DNA and the location where
it was found, there is a high probability the unknown male was involved in her death. However, this new evidence does not exonerate the Ramseys.
It does not prove they were not present or were not involved or do not know who killed JonBenet.
