Why did this guy get so much publicity? It seems to me that the media judged him guilty before all the facts came out. Yeah, the guy's weird, but lets not jump the gun and accuse a person of murder before the facts come out. The media catches on certain stories and don't let go. The Ramsey murder was tragic, but how many times does a family lose a child each year to murder or other accidents. Why not cover those stories? What distinguished this 10 year old murder story from others?

I think we hit rock bottom when FOX news and other outlets started to intensely cover this Karr guy's flight back to the United States. Why did he fly on first class? Did he order lobster for dinner? When did he use the bathroom and did someone go with him? Really, when is the media going to start covering real stories: nuclear proliferation, Iraq, terrorism...name it, there's plenty to cover. I think that news departments are just becoming too lazy to run things that require significant research. Heck, even sports and pop culture deserves to be covered, but not this stuff.

So the DNA shows that John Karr did not kill JonBenet Ramsey, but that doesn't make me feel any better about him. He still has a history of deviant behavior with adolescent women, which is troubling enough. However, admitting to being a violent sexual offender with children and a killer when you had nothing to do with it is completely insane. I'm glad the media attention has gone away, and this guy no longer gets to revel in the chaos he created.

Add me to the list of those people wondering why only attractive, wealthy WASPy types and/or their progeny receive such intense media coverage when they become the victims of foul play? What does that say about our so-called "reverence" for human life? Not much. Basically, it says that the murder of a pretty WASP princess is far more important than the murder of a poor black girl in Philadelphia, or the murder of a "white-trash" runaway in Houston, or...etc. etc. Too, with all the problems in the world currently facing us, why are we still so obsessed with a 10-year old murder case? Good question. Instead of a photo of another dead American soldier, or a dead Iraqi civilian, or a dead Lebanese child, we have on the cover of major publications across the country the ubiquitous image of JonBenet in her "cowboy sweetheart" get-up. Still, having stated all that, I was as happy as anyone when the news broke and it appeared as if this case might actually have been solved. As I mentioned in another post, it is extremely troublesome, even enraging, when someone gets away with cold-blooded murder, whether that someone is Jack the Ripper, Zodiac, O.J. Simpson, or the person responsible for murdering JonBenet Ramsey. Initially, I took grim satisfaction that they had finally caught the guy. Like with the Green River case, another murderous predator had been brought to justice, albeit belatedly. Or so it seemed, at first. Rather quickly, though, doubts began to trouble me. Anyone familiar with the notorious "Black Dahlia" case of 1947 knows that numerous people turned themselves in to the police and "confessed" to having murdered and butchered Elizabeth Short. All of them were revealed to be troubled, pathetic publicity-seekers. I couldn't say that Karr fell into the same category, but he seemed too appreciative of the hysterical media attention accorded him, convicting himself out of his own mouth with great alacrity. The murderer of poor, doomed Elizabeth Short was never captured and now it appears that the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey never will either. That's what's distressing about the whole situation...somewhere out there, a murderer continues to walk around free. The question of who John Karr is, what motivates him, pales in comparison with that sad, infuriating fact. Someone responsible for deliberately taking another human life...whether said life is that of JonBenet Ramsey, or a poor black girl in Philadelphia, or a jewelry owner in NY, or an elderly pensioner in Atlanta, or whomever...should answer for his or her crimes at the bar of justice. At least, that's the way it's supposed to be.

May not be a murderer (well, so says the DNA evidence), but he's still unsettlingly creepy. Either way, he's still nuts: what kind of creep says stuff like that? I mean, if he did it (which I guess isn't the case), then he's insane and sick; if he didn't do it, and he thinks he did, he's insane and delusional, and if he didn't do it and he knows he didn't, then he's insane and starved for attention. No matter how you slice this one, he's still a fruitcake.

this guy is creepy. he is claiming that he murdered this darling little girl. but others claim he did not. this is weird. if he DID do this, I hope he is locked away forever. If he did not, why is he confessing? will be curious to see what the outcome will be.