More evidence of John Mark Karr's plan
It sure seems like John Mark Karr was working very hard to get out of Thailand.
From My Way News, information about what John Mark Karr, a suspect in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, said to Thailand officials:
DNA evidence, found in JonBenet's underwear and under her fingernails, is likely to prove crucial to the case.
But People Magazine on Wednesday quoted Karr as telling Thai authorities while in their custody; "The DNA might not match, but you can't trust the test."
It certainly sounds like Karr was trying to convince Thai officials to ignore evidence that would cast doubt on his guilt, and so justify turning down an extradition request from the US.
Karr, who has a previous conviction for possessing child pornography, has been obsessed by the JonBenet case for several years, according to acquaintances.
But an ex-wife has said that on the night of JonBenet's murder Karr was at home with her and their children in Alabama.
According to People, Karr dismissed the alibi, telling Thai officials: "It's normal that people in a family protect you."
I'm becoming more and more convinced that my first impression of this case was right, that Karr concocted the confession in a deliberate and rational way, with the goal of being flown out of Thailand and to freedom in the US (knowing full well he would not be convicted of the crime he did not commit).
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
John Mark Karr JonBenet Ramsey Thailand
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Then should he not be sent back to Thailand to face whatever charges they may have for him?
Posted by: at August 24, 2006 03:07 PM
Let him be convicted of the U.S. equivalent of mischief or obstruction of justice or whatever the nearest charge is for lying to the authorities about the case, serve his brief sentence in the general pop. (because he's not really a child molestor, you see, he just committed a con/mischief type offence), and then extradite him to Thailand after he's served his sentence.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at August 24, 2006 07:12 PM
Ow!! Chris! I like your thinking.
Mind you I posting with little hope of it being accepted.
Posted by: Fergy at August 24, 2006 09:59 PM
woohoo 2 days steve and I finally made it. Guess I can only blog between thhours of 11:00 pm and 5:00 am
Posted by: Fergy at August 24, 2006 10:00 PM
I've considered the possibility but I think he would be able make the plausible argument that as an American citizen on US soil, honouring an extradition request would result in him suffering cruel and unusual punishment. He would claim, and quite possible be granted, constitutional protection against extradition to Thailand.\
In any case, the Thai authorities allowed him to leave their jurisdiction. He might also make the case that they waived their right to try him by deporting him. Deportation was his ex-judicial punishment imposed by the Thai government, without even benefit of a trial.
Remember he wasn't extradited, he was deported. You can't deport someone you've arrested, then just ask for him to be sent back. You had him, you let him go, you blew your chance. Again, a valid argument, I think.
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 24, 2006 10:11 PM
In American courts, like our own, extradition courts look at whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. Unlike Canada if he puts forth the defense of threat of torture, death. Generally it doesn't wash in the US. There's a recent case for that I'm going to look for it. Later
Posted by: Fergy at August 24, 2006 10:24 PM
forget my gramma it's getting late.
Posted by: Fergy at August 24, 2006 10:25 PM
forget my grammar it's getting late.
Posted by: Fergy at August 24, 2006 10:25 PM
 
|
|
