John Mark Karr and the JonBenet Ramsey Murder
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.
August 20, 2006
Here is my 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."
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. He may also be using the present tense because he is living in a fantasy world. In his mind, she is still alive.
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 accidentally 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" because the question implies that the subject was in the basement.
The question did not specify which basement he was in. However, it is presumed the reporter is talking about the Ramsey's basement. In an open statement, people will rarely lie. When asked specific questions a deceptive person may lie. It is easier to lie when a person is asked a "yes" or "no" question. When Karr is asked a question that requires him to explain something he states, "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 take advantage of any obvious nonverbal cues as long as you don't compromise your listening skills. 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 he gave a deceptive answer. When people look up and to the right they are using the creative part of their brain. When a person is attempting to recall information from his memory, he will usually look up and to his left. This is only true if the person is right handed person. For a left handed person, it would be the opposite. I don't know if Karr is right or left handed.
Here are some statements made by Karr that I have seen in the press.
"I was with JonBenet when she died."
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 word "with" always indicates distance. Why does he use language that distances himself from JonBenet if the two of them were together? He could have said, "I saw JonBenet die." In that sentence, we do not know if he was close to her or at a distance. He could have said, "We were together when she died" which would show they were very close.
People do not want to lie and if possible they will avoid telling lies. It may be hard to Karr to state, "I killed JonBenet" because that is too big of a lie to tell. Therefore, 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 high school 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 statements.
On JonBenet's death:
"(The Ramsey's) 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 not 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 talked about her earlier he should have used 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.
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 the 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 will believe 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 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.