John Mark Karr has made several self-incriminating statements regarding his alleged involvement in the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado back in 1996. He claims Jon Benet's death at his hands was accidental, and when asked if he is an innocent man, he replied, "No".
But when asked for specific details as to how he gained access to the Ramsey home and similar detail-oriented questions, he replied, "No comment".
Most laymen have no idea how many people come forward to make false confessions in unsolved, high-profile murders and other crimes, but let me assure you, they seem to come out of the woodwork like cockroaches. You just never read about them all. They can derail an investigation if the frustrated investigating officers are looking for a resolution first, over their duty to determine the truth of a matter.
Now I'm not suggesting this guy didn't commit the murder, but when asked for details only the true murderer would have direct knowledge of, this Karr fellow wouldn't and probably couldn't provide them.
It is now common knowledge that un-identified DNA was found on the victim's panties, and if it is later determined the DNA belonged to John Mark Karr, then the case is solved as far as I am concerned - and I happen to be a very good investigator. But if that DNA does not match the confessor, then he is probably a red-herring with some severe mental problems, unless he can provide details only the murderer would know.
For some reason, the Boulder DA held a news conference to discuss the arrest, and the reporters came away empty-handed in every way. I'm wondering why the Boulder County DA held the news conference at all, since she was unwilling to discuss or reveal any of the evidence her office holds. We have now learned that Karr was arrested for fear he might run and be a threat to young children in his care as a teacher in Bangkok, so the arrest was based more on that possibility than on hard evidence or Karr's "confession".
Personally, I think Karr is a nut-case who had nothing to do with the murder, but was so obsessed with the case he wanted to bring closure to the family. In the televised interview held in Bangkok, Karr's demeanor told me he was either under the influence of some substance, or he is a mental screwball relishing his 15 minutes of fame. Either way, Karr is highly suspect as to his credibility.
Unless and until Karr can divulge details of the crime only the murderer would know, and/or unless the DNA on Jon Benet's undies matches that of Karr, I remain unconvinced Karr is the actual murderer.
This written, I do not believe the parents had anything to do with Jon Benet's murder. I sincerely do believe the true killer was familiar with the family and details of the family only a close family friend or acquaintance could know.
For example, the so-called "ransom note" asked for $118,000.00 - the exact amount Mr. Ramsey had earned as a bonus from his company that year. That coincidence is just too pat, and it serves to exclude most of the public, while at the same time, includes anyone in the public arena closely familiar with that bonus amount, or able to discover it, since publicly-traded companies must reveal such compensation to their stockholders.
Personally, the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey appears to be the work of someone who dearly resented or hated the Ramsey family. The murderer's familiarity with the Ramsey home is of less import than the knowledge of the exact amount of Mr. Ramsey's bonus pay that year. My first effort would be to exclude stockholders and employees, past & present. I'd then expand that investigation to vendors of the company Mr. Ramsey directed, both past & present.
Little Jon Benet was strangled to death by a garrote, presumably fashioned by a killer with premeditated and explicit plans to carry out the murder or abduction. But we now learn little Jon Benet also had an eight-inch fracture to the skull as well. That takes a hard blow with a blunt object, or it can also be the result of trying to push Jon Benet out of a window, and her body falling head-first to the hard, concrete floor.
But one thing that stands out so clearly in the Jon Benet murder, separate from so many others where children are randomly abducted and murdered, is that Jon Benet Ramsey was publicly paraded and sexualized repeatedly by her parents in child beauty and talent pageants. She had make-up applied to make her appear more adult and sexually available. She was dressed in these pageants in such a way that any random pedophile could conceivably become so obsessed with her that they began to stalk her. Such a person might very well be so obsessed as to look into publicly available information on the family - including Mr. Ramsey's bonus compensation.
I really don't understand parents who willingly sexualize their underage daughters - or who allow their underage daughters to sexualize themselves in public. When a parent allows her daughter to attend school dressed like a street whore, what does the parent expect? Even around this little berg of mine called Eagle Point, Oregon, the high school kids routinely raise money for school projects by setting up car washes. In every case, the little girls are dressed in skimpy clothing, often in small bikinis. Don't the parents know what the Hell is going on? Clearly, these scantily clad jail-bait girls are being used for their sexuality to attract customers to their respective car washes - and nobody says a thing about it. If they think it is all "innocent" fun, they should think again about the transaction they are allowing their underage daughters to engage in. In the final analysis, it comes down to a form of prostitution, whether a sex act is being negotiated for, or the inference of it - for MONEY. What's the diff???
It is very possible John Mark Karr became obsessed with Jon Benet Ramsey from viewing these children's pageants. He had an established record for possession of child porn in a case stemming from Petaluma, California which remains unresolved because of his failure to appear in court there. Personally, I would rather have root canal work performed than make the effort to attend one of those ridiculous talent and beauty pageants for little girl children, but if a guy is a heterosexual pedophile, he'd be first in line for every one of them. That is why I think the whole concept is unhealthy, ill-advised and downright stupid. In point of fact, I think subjecting your underage daughter to such sexual scrutiny in the public arena is tantamount to child abuse. Call me crazy.
I would NEVER allow my underage daughter to perform in such an event, but I'm Old School. These modern parents all know better than me, of course. They are so damned set upon being friends to their underage daughters that they forgot their first duty under God is to be parents to them. While I believe Patsy Ramsey had all the best intentions for parading her daughter as a semi-sexual object in those pageants, I also believe that history will prove Patsy's naiveté killed her daughter.
Carl F. Worden