Guess He Didn't Do It

Even though I think this JonBenet Ramsey case has way too much media exposure, the whole ordeal with John Karr does raise some interesting questions. You have a man with obvious psychological issues confessing to killing JonBenet in 1996. He questioned and tested for several days when authorities find that Karr's story does not match their records of how JonBenet was murdered. Then just as he's about to make his court appearance prosecutors drop the charges against him stating his DNA does not match that which was found on her body. Those are the facts, but how do we react to it? Or do we even need to react?

Before I get into that I want to bring to light a quote from Karr's lawyer, Seth Temin: "We’re deeply distressed by the fact that they took this man and dragged him here from Bangkok with no forensic evidence confirming the allegations against him and no independent factors leading to a presumption that he did anything wrong.”

He said, his team was "distressed" that they "dragged" him Bangkok! First of all he wasn't dragged anywhere, if we recall he was treated rather royally flying him First Class and feeding him whatever he wanted. He wasn't treated like a murderer at all. Secondly, how could he be distressed about anything when his client confessed to killing the little girl! Imagine if you will that Mr. Temin's daughter, God forbid, was murdered years ago and someone confessed to killing her. Does he seriously believe that he would react similarly had authorities treated the confessed killer as they did with Karr? How would you react if you were in the same situation? Not sure why he made those comments because it clearly does not make any sense whatsoever.

My knowledge of the court system and its procedures are based on one Business Law class I took in college, so clearly I'm no authority on the subject. But like anything else, I go with logic, but forgive me if my questions are naive in any way. So I ask you this. If someone confesses to a crime is there a need to continue with the case? What would be the purpose of a defense team if their client has already confessed to a crime, a murder nonetheless? Charges were dropped against a man, John Karr, who confessed to murdering a 6 year old girl, stating there was not enough evidence to support his claim. In that case, is his confession enough evidence? Would you still want to see him put away based on his confession alone, just to put closure to this case? How would you react if you were her parent? What are your thoughts, if any, about this whole case?

I think these are interesting questions that test not only the judicial system but our character. As an outsider I'm not sure how I would react because either way this case does not affect me. If our laws weren’t' set up the way they were Karr would have no doubt paid the price. Therefore, on the one hand you have a crime that has gone punished, closure enough for some...possibly. On the other hand you still have the real killer at large.

I'm curious what you think about all of this and of the questions I raised. Email me your thoughts or feel free to comment below.