SUSPECT IN CHILD MURDER CASE

I thope that (alleged) scumbag who they picked up in Thailand for the murder of Jon Benet gets his fair trial and then gets placed in the general population of some really tough prison. No solitary confinement, no special treatment.

AND BTW how does a convicted pedophile land a teaching job?

By having so many civil rights advocates, civil liberties unions and groups defend the right of a convicted pedophile to be hired for the same type of job that a law abiding citizen is entitled to.

I keep telling you over and over, sometimes these civil rights advocates and groups become our own worse enemies.

Now let's give the guy the fairest trial that he deserves and if convicted, give JonBenet's father 10 minutes alone with him.


Don Cardi

By having so many civil rights advocates, civil liberties unions and groups defend the right of a convicted pedophile to be hired for the same type of job that a law abiding citizen is entitled to.

I keep telling you over and over, sometimes these civil rights advocates and groups become our own worse enemies.

Now let's give the guy the fairest trial that he deserves and if convicted, give JonBenet's father 10 minutes alone with him.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]DC, as a life long member of the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center I have not once ever seen anything either of these organizations has done to protect pedophiles. If you can point me to something I'd be interested.

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.
The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website which is now offline incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's website shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.

"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.

According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.

At two separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river.

Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole in 23 years.

The Curleys last week were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari.

Copyright (c) 2000 The Associated Press

June 01, 2006
ACLU Demands Perverts Get Sporting Chance at Kids

The ACLU reports on the latest ACLU pro-pedophile lawsuit, this one aimed at an Indianapolis city ordinance that requires convicted sex offenders to stay at least 1,000 feet from facilities like playgrounds and swimming pools when children are present.

The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work, but kiddy molesters are allowed to approach closer if accompanied by a non-molesting adult.

And don't even get me started on Morris Dees and his "noble" SPLC. :rolleyes:

Careful what you ask for...

As far as the Jon Benet thing goes, I think I'll reserve judgment 'til the smoke clears. This guy may be full of crap.

It looks like this guy could be a total nutcase! They won't know until the DNA tests come in. Did anyone notice, besides me, that this guy looks like Lee Harvey Oswald? I hope for the family's sake that this is the guy. If it isn't, it has awakened the nation and the world's interest in this case. This is such a tragedy for all concerned.

He does look like Lee Harvey Oswald. He also looks like Ned LaMont.

Snake you are way off base. the protection of speech in cyberspace has nothing to do with endorsing or promoting pedophilia. It is a speech issue pure and simple. These things are nuanced, so you may wish to take some time to reflect on it.

As for the sex offender statutes, I believe they are overbroad. Let me give you a real life example. An 18 year old kid in the town where I live did it with a girl who was 14 (under the age of consent). It was widely known among a large group of kids that this girl was experienced well beyond her years, and basically a slut. She is also the daughter of a very prominent person who persuaded the State Attorney to press statutory rape charges against this kid. Facing a horrific sentence, he copped a plea, and stayed out of jail. When the sex offender law passed, however, he had to register. It has destroyed his chances for college and a decent life, and it is what happens when overzealous wingholes like Jeb Bush pass legislation that sounds good but has mixed effects. I have no problem with paople conviced of rape, child molestation etc having to register, and I have no problem with sterilizing repeat offenders. I do have a problem with people who want to gut the United States Constitution to achieve an end, no matter how worthy the end appears to be.

"the protection of speech in cyberspace has nothing to do with endorsing or promoting pedophilia. It is a speech issue pure and simple."

Now, how did I know that that's what you'd say?
Paint it with whatever colors you like. It still boiled down to the ACLU protecting pedophilia. Had it been a group of white, Christian, heterosexual males and a matter of Christianity instead of pedophilia, I guarantee you that you wouldn't see the ACLU anywhere within five hundred miles.

Regarding your second set of comments and the example, I'd wager that's the exception rather than the rule. And I'd also wager that the ACLU still would step in even if it was a pervert who was a serial rapist of young boys. They'd just do the same thing you just did and fly some other banner over it. It's still the same animal: they're protecting pedophiles. But keep calling it something else and perhaps one day it will transform into that something else for you.

BTW, I hate to be the one make the obervation, but dude's picture looks a lot like a young Fred Rogers!

Protecting speech and protecting pedophiles are not the same thing.
The ACLU once filed a lawsuit on behalf of the American Nzai Party which wanted to march through a predominantly jewish neiborhood in Illinois. The concept of such a march is reprehensible, but it does not mean these Nazis dont have the right to do it. It also does not mean the ACLU is pro Nazi.

....blah blah blah blah blah.

We've had this discussion before about these type of cases. No one is saying that the ACLU, as a whole, does not, at times, rightfully help people or protect the civil rights of people or organizations. But I will say that they've been guilty of not using due dilligence when picking and choosing some of their battles. Especially when it comes to convicted felons who have sexually attacked children.

But let's get back on track here. A 6 year old being sexually molested and then murdered, and then the accused getting a job as a teacher is what is in question here.

You asked how a convicted felon pedophile gets a job as a teacher with children. I replied that some of the civil liberties unions and advocates are the reason that these sickos sometimes are allowed back into a position where they have access to children.

You disputed my claim and told me to prove it. Snake just gave yopu not one but TWO examples of the ACLU defending a convicted pedophile and advocating his right to be back around children.

Your analogy is not an analogy at all. As a matter of fact it has no bearing or similarities in any way to this debate.

You said : I have not once ever seen anything either of these organizations has done to protect pedophiles. If you can point me to something I'd be interested.

Well here are two cases of the ACLU protecting convicted pedophiles :


8/10/2005 The ACLU has announced that it plans to challenge Florida laws requiring sexual predators to steer clear of schools, parks, day-care centers, libraries, and playgrounds.


And to add more detail to what Snake already posted above:


The Indiana branch of the ACLU, is suing on behalf of a convicted child molester. A Michigan City, Indiana ordinance bans convicted child molesters from visiting city parks.

In 1995, Robert Brown was convicted of child molesting. According to police, he routinely stalked children, peering at them through binoculars and taking their pictures while driving slowly past the park in his motor home.

Now that Brown is out of jail, he apparently thinks he should still have the right to go to the city park. So he contacted the ICLU , who took his case .

ICLU director Ken Falk said the law unfairly targets one group of people: child molesters.


There you have it Don T. You asked for it and both Snake and I provided it for you.


Again, in some cases, the civil liberties unions can turn out to be our own worse enemies.


Don Cardi

Don C with all due respect I stand corrected.

Great job Snake, too bad he won't listen.

Again, I'm flabbergasted when liberals cheer for all these rights and protections for criminals (rather than the victim, who is now ignored), and then wonder why they are allowed back into society.

Either way, this guy sounds a bit nutty, and some speculate he's a whacko who confessed for some perverted need for attention.

Let's relocate him, give him a new name and identity, and move him in (all at taxpayer expense) next to an elementary school! :rolleyes:

Cheers,
DJ

Don T -- you're my older brother, and I like you. But don't ever take sides with the ACLU against the GangsterBB Family again. Ever.






Don Cardi

We had a child molester across the street from us here in our community in Maryland. Our neighbor, who had moved in around five years ago, was living with his girlfriend and her twelve year old daugher. We interacted with them all the time, they swam in our pool, we never knew anything was going on. When they arrested him for child molestation, we were all in a state of shock. He served over three years in prison and he is now still living across the street from us after getting out of prison.

Do I forgive him? He told me when he got out of prison that he was dropped on his head when he was a baby and that's why he was a molester.

This was a crime that affected all of us in this community. Hopefully, he will move on with his life, but how can he?

Wasn't this guy a teacher when there was no suspect in the case? Didn't he skip his trial and move to Thailand after child porn was found on him?

Let's not even mention the fact that he landed the teaching job in

BANGKOK, THAILAND

Excellent point!


Don Cardi

I hate to think it, but I think we've all been duped by some nut job seeking fame by admitting to a crime he didn't commit. All the stuff he's "admitted" to are starting to fall apart. He said he drugged her, her autopsy showed no drugs in her system. He said he raped her, there was no evidence of rape. He said it was an accident, but she was garroted and had an 8 inch gash in her head. His ex wife says he was with her that Christmas with family. His brother says he's never been to Colorado. Karr said he picked JonBenet up at school. Only problem is there is no school on Christmas day. He's a sick guy alright if he admitted to this and didn't do it. And the weird press conference the DA had emphasizing the fact he has the prosumption of innocence and making it seem like she doesn't have an airtight case.

Beth, I also just saw this on the news. What a sicko. Weird thing though was that in my moring newspaper, one story reported that this guy had contacted a reporter from a Colorado newspaper and was talking with him through e-mails. According to this story this guy told the reporter details about JonBenet's murder that the Police never released to the public and that only the killer himself would know.

Don't know where my morning newspaper got it's information from, but now it looks as though the morning newspaper report was very inaccurate. The press just keeps getting worse and worse with their false stories..


Don Cardi

Although I don't know as much about this case as I would like, it is starting to sound like this guy may be just a weirdo that was WAY too interested in this little girl. But I also read, DC, that he had confessed to things that had never been public. I think we'll just have to wait and see.

Given that his ex-wife had three sons with him, she may be lying to protect her children. Would you want to be known as the sons of such a notorious murderer??

Keep your 12-gauge loaded at all times, and watch your kids. That's about all you can do.

Its looking like this pencil necked geek is some kind of nut seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. Seems to me if you want to get away with murder the best place to do it is in Boulder, Colorado.

Ranked #1 is Los Angeles.

John Mark Karr was arrested in 2001 for possession of child pornography, He's a sick freak...



" I love JonBenet and I was with JonBenet when she died...
she died accidentally . "

accidentally?!!

JonBenet Ramsey was found beaten and strangled in the basement of the family's home...

Don't say that.

He can be "rehabilitated" and moved in right next to Howard Dean! :p

Don't say that.

He can be "rehabilitated" and moved in right next to Howard Dean! :p [/b][/quote]

If ANY male who uses the internet tells you that he never looks at pornography, I will tell you that I don't believe him.

Just like a male who swears that he never masturbates.

And I'd be very curious to know what type of porn some of the guys here look at.

Point being that looking at porn doesn't make someone a sicko.

As far as having a convicted child molester living next door or across the street for me, that's a tricky one.

Since most of those convicted of any crime wind up being paroled, I have no problem with them registering as sex offenders upon release being condition of their release or parole.

The problem is, as I understand it, is that few (if even any) of these "registires" are accurate or up-to-date, nor are the offenders closely monitored to make sure that they do whatever it is that they're supposed to do to comply.

Also, these people have to live somewhere.

I saw a piece on TV where they interviewed a DA or law enforcement official from some city or town somewhere, who said that if they fulfilled all of the conditions with respect to where they were allowed to live (can't be within two blocks of a school, can't be within 3 blocks of a park or playground, etc.), that there wouldn't be anyplace where they could live in that twon that fulfilled all of the requirements, except in the industrial area.

Which would be fine with me if there was housing available in those areas.

So child porn is okay?

Let's get your kids involved, right?

Then again, your buddies at the ACLU did defend NAMBLA. :rolleyes:

Best,
DJ

If I missed something in one of the posts above, then I stand corrected. But from what I've seen here NO ONE has said that looking at porn makes one a sicko.

I believe that what is being discussed here is CHILD porn. An as far as I'm concerned ANYONE who looks at or even thinks about looking at child porn is a sicko who has absolutely no place in society.

If it turns out that this scumbag is NOT Jonbenet's killer, the freaky perverted bastard still should be kept away from society, especially from children.

We've debated this many many times in the past and I still stand by my feeling that any adult who desires sex with a child cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated.

Sick f**ks!


Don Cardi

Again, don't say that.

We should just relocate them next door to policitcians like Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. :p

Yes, because we've all forgotten to dust off that part in the constitution that says, "The right to consensual sex between adults and minors shall not be prohibited." :rolleyes:

First of all, what a legal diatribe. Such evidence. "it is widely known that this girl was experienced beyond her years, and basically a slut."

Well, wow, open and shut case! Heresay as solid evidence, what an amazing system you've got down there.

Or did you forget those rape shield laws which prevent the previous sexual history of the victim to be admitted as evidence?

Sorry. A 18-year-old who is no longer a minor banging a 14-year-old girl who just barely started high school still constitutes as statutory rape. Nothing in the Constitution (the sacred document you libbies love to use when its in your favor but is expendable when it isn't) says otherwise.

No, this is what happens when liberals with a penchant for defending criminals and turning victims into an afterthought blame conservatives for laws designed to prevent rape.

But then again, with such great evidence ("everyone knows," "basically a slut,"), it's no surprise your response, Dontomasso.

"We're talking about S-E-X in front of the C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N."

"Sex Cauldron? I thought they closed that place down?!?"

Best,
DJ

DJ do you ever have original ideas or do you just copy this drivel you foist on us from Bill Orielly's talking points?

Here…..

I don’t make such a tremendous distinction between “adult porn” and child porn.

And I certainly don’t think that someone who "even thinks about looking at child pornography a ‘sicko’ who has no place in society"

As long as he doesn't act on his feelings or impulses or whatever, keeps it private where it belongs, and minds his own business.

What you’re doing here, I think, is arguing that child porn is a far worse form of pornography –which it is.

But the factors which make it worse – the abuse of children who are incapable of consenting and the psychological damage it does to them – are not components of what makes that form of pornography more sexually stimulating to the viewer.

So on that basis, I can’t say that a person who enjoys child porn is necessarily that much “sicker” than someone who enjoys what?

Regular porn?

Like I said, if someone doesn’t act on whatever it is that excites them, how do you rate them on a sicko scale?

Child porn is terrible.

Maybe a hundred times worse than regular porn.

But that doesn’t make the viewer all that much worse..
Does the fact that an individual can be sexually aroused by child porn make him "sicker" than someone who enjoys only regular porn?

If there was no place in society for everyone who enjoyed adult, well gee.....I don't think there'd be very many of us left.

The point is that whatever the factors are which make child porn worse than adult porn, those factors in and of themeselves do not necessarily make the person who derives excitement from one any sicker than someone who derives excitement from the other.


Of course it's not OK

Where did I say it was?

Do you think that regular porn is OK?

I think people watch porn everyday without realising it.

Don't be indignant just because you're wrong.

Just listen to DC: "Please spare me your bullshit," and the world will be a better place.

Best,
DJ

Stay on topic! Sheesh!

My question is, to cop and legal minded folks, why was he arrested after the suspect confessed, but before any DNA tests came back?

Because...he confessed?

DJ, if a crazy homeless drunk funk on the street corner told you that he was the real assassin behind JFK's murder, would you believe him?

Besides, I think the DA arrested him only because the news broke out of Thailand, and the DA basically was forced in their hand, and had to arrest him, or possibly appear weak on crime.

Thoughts folks?

Plaw, first you write :

Then, several paragraphs below, you write :


Well which is it?


You're going to sit there and tell me that someone who gets excited watching an eight year old pose naked to arouse themselves, or having sex with a 7 year old to get themselves off is not a sicko?

Your going to tell me that an adult who watches a fully grown adult woman or man pose naked to arouse themselves or has sex with a fully developed adult female or male to get themselves off may be in the same category as a child porn lover?

My friend, I just don't know where your logic is sometimes. You scare me with this one.


Don Cardi

Actually, the D.A. did not want to make any arrests until she was able to find out more information and hopefully mount more evidence. But according to her something was found out, information given, that this guy was about to do something, or move on something that could have possibly jeapordized the well being of some other children. So in order to protect those children from him possibly putting them in danger, she had no choice but to move in and make an arrest. She herself, admitted that she did not want to arrest him as fast as they did, but with the new information provided to her, she knew that she could not jeaprodize the well being of these other children, who were about to come into contact with him, just to hopefully make her case against him stronger.


Don Cardi

Thanks DC!

Well, it's more plausible than the Warren Commission. :p

I really wish you would stay on topic, DJ.

Besides, has anyone else heard anything new on the case?

New question....who here always figured the family had always been somehow behind the murder itself?

Oh, you mean, like:

---

As for the family being involved, I think that almost anyone had some sort of inclination they did, though I remember watching a documentary that used auditory research and a cold case expert to determine the Ramseys didn't do it. It was awhile ago.

Then again, it could have been one of those Connie Chung "AIDS threatens everyone" documentaries, it was so long ago.

I feel sorry for Jonbenet's parents, John and Patsy they have been defending themselves against the allegations of murdering their daughter for ten years.
The mother passed away two months ago.

Oh, you mean, like:

---

Didn't we move away from this already? Stay on topic dude.

Any other updates folks? Anyone here actually live in Colorado?

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.

I admit DJ, I'm wrong. At least I see that at least you keep things out of left field.

Anyway, I had figured for years that somehow the family had been involved with the murder, in one form or another. Not that I was certainly sure, but the possibility wasn't impossible.

Plaw, this seems to have turned into another who can post the better cartoon/pictures topic. :rolleyes: So we'll continue our discussion through the PM.

See ya there.


Don Cardi

Didn't people suspect her brother for awhile?

Yes many people suspect including the media, but I didn't.

When the police arrived at the Ramsey house, Jon Benet's brother Burke, who was 10 at the time, was supposedly sleeping and had to be awakened by cops. When they did wake him, he seemed to be unaware that his sister was dead. Yet when replaying a 911 tape of Patsy Ramsey reporting the crime, she didn't hang up the phone in her distress, and Burke can clearly be heard in the background. The theory was that Burke had murdered his sister, and that the parents were covering for him.

Regular porn is ok, if that's the kind've thing you're into. Personally, I always found it boring.

As for this fellow taken in on the JonBenet case, it's becoming more & more apparent that he didn't do it and is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. Not to mention king prawns and champagne during the flight home.

Apple

I'm sorry, but I don't think he did it. He was just looking for his 15 minutes of fame and a free plane ride home. There's, in my opinion, more to this than meeys the eye. I still think it was an inside job. When something like this happens (this kind of murder) in the end one of the family did it. I'll be very surprised if DNA proves he did it.

If I missed something in one of the posts above, then I stand corrected. But from what I've seen here NO ONE has said that looking at porn makes one a sicko.

I believe that what is being discussed here is CHILD porn. An as far as I'm concerned ANYONE who looks at or even thinks about looking at child porn is a sicko who has absolutely no place in society.

If it turns out that this scumbag is NOT Jonbenet's killer, the freaky perverted bastard still should be kept away from society, especially from children.

We've debated this many many times in the past and I still stand by my feeling that any adult who desires sex with a child cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated.

Sick f**ks!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Very Much Agree With You DC..
You Took The Word's Right Out Of My Mouth!..END OF STORY!

There was a warrant for this guy's arrest on charges of child porn and that's why he skipped the country and that's probably why he's been arrested (that and he confessed)

However, the media storm is saying that he was in Thailand to get a sex change... because, duh, transgender people must be kiddy porn loving freaks like this guy :rolleyes: Seriously though, what ever happened to journalistic integrity? Fact checking instead of pure speculation?

The guy's a freakin' nut and if he wants to die, by all means let him.

The media reported speculation instead of Fact?

OH MY GOD!

I AM SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED!!!

Fox News or the New York Times would never do such thing!

I'M PISSED!

Apparently the DNA evidence is ruling out this nutjob as the killer. It looks like his "admission" was fake.

Didn't I hear something about his possibly being involved in some other kind of case that was being investigated involving another child?


Don Cardi

So he's not the killer of JonBenet Ramsey.

The guy is still a sicko...he has a sick fascination with children (bordering on pedophilia)...not to mention the son of a bitch is (was) a school teacher.

I say extradite his ass back to Thailand and let them deal with him. I'm sure they'd punish him in a manner fitting for a person like him.

What I find fascinating is now his lawyers are taking the public stage crying about how disgusted they are by the fact that their client was brought back to face these charges. They're crying that there was no physical evidence to support expediting their client.

You know what I say to these lawyers? "FUCK YOU, ASSHOLES! Your client lead the authorities to believe he did it!!!"

This publicity seeking Bozo should be forced to reimburse the government for all the expenses paid out to bring him back!

The guy is a nut case. He is going to be extradited to Calif. to face charges there (hopefully). Only in America, folks. I'm sure he's guilty of something, but the Ramsey murder wasn't it. How about being stupid in a no-stupid zone? Send him to Chino or Folsom and let the population there deal with him. Maybe he could be a cellie with Scott Peterson.

Then again, he was fine and dandy in Thailand until he confessed this.

The biggest non-surprise of the month.

What a whack-job this Jon Mark Karr is!

From CNN.com

I'm really surprised they aren't going after him for obstruction and such, since he basically was the attention-whore whacko that we'd suspected.

Obstruction of justice wouldn't apply. most jurisdictions have an offense of false reports to a law enforcement officer, but one of the elements of the offense is that the defendant knowingly make a false report. If the D.A. feels that Karr believes he killed the girl, he can't charge him.

If they did charge him with false reports, it would be an ironic trial in that Karr's defense would be that DNA notwithstanding, he was, in fact, responsible for the girl's death. The prosecution would have to establish his innocense on the murder claims to succeed on the false report charge.

Kind of reminds me of Ted Kennedy. He really believed Mary Jo Kopechne was alive, too. :p

It shouldn't matter if he believes he did it, holy shit, either he did it or he didn't. And the proof says he didn't, so 1.) he's either insane or 2.) he's an attention whore. Probably a little of both. Either way, I still think they should prosecute him.

Kind of reminds me of Ted Kennedy. He really believed Mary Jo Kopechne was alive, too. :p

It shouldn't matter if he believes he did it, holy shit, either he did it or he didn't. And the proof says he didn't, so 1.) he's either insane or 2.) he's an attention whore. Probably a little of both. Either way, I still think they should prosecute him. [/quote]He's definitely a guy we should keep on a leash. Ted Kennedy too.