John Mark Karr: Another Wrong Turn

As illustrated in my 1998 resignation letter, I previously had little confidence (now, none) in the Boulder DA’s office ever resolving the Ramsey homicide. If there were any lingering question as to why I departed, I believe the events of the thirteen days in August concerning John Mark Karr simply add an exclamation point to that resignation.

For the past five years, I have not remarked publicly on the case, and for those recent thirteen days, I refrained from commenting on the sensational capture of Karr. After a very public press conference announcing the arrest, District Attorney Mary Lacy deserved the opportunity to proceed judicially with the State’s case against Karr. However skeptical I may have been, I continued to keep an open mind, without comment, to allow her to make her case.

Nevertheless, I fully believed that Lacy had arrested the wrong person. It took only a matter of days for it all to fall apart, very publicly.

I found it entirely inconceivable, however, that the DA would have acted in such a fashion, creating such a global media event, risking such professional embarrassment to herself and her law enforcement colleagues (many with outstanding reputations), only to have returned a suspect from the other side of the planet, without a very persuasive reason for doing so.

I also assumed that Lacy, undoubtedly, must have possessed direct and unassailable evidence connecting Karr to the crime. An arrest of such magnitude would presumably be subsequent to an exhaustive investigative process, in which every aspect of the case is tacked down and then double tacked down. As any investigator knows, there are only three ways to solve a crime: through witnesses, evidence, or confession. Statements are corroborated or contradicted with physical evidence. A nexus is shown between suspect and victim. Timelines and alibis and paper trails are substantiated. Evidence is tested and considered. Incriminating and conflicting statements are catalogued and dissected.

In the end, Mr. Karr couldn’t be placed within missile distance of Boulder that Christmas night. There were no airline manifests showing Karr in-and-out of Colorado, no alibi witnesses contacted, no rental car or credit card receipts, nor was there any evidence suggesting he even knew the victim in 1996 (a video of Karr at the victim’s funeral or a pageant, for example). As it turns out, there was not a single piece of evidence putting Karr inside the Ramsey house that night. Perhaps it would have been prudent for the DA to have obtained a sterile DNA sample from Karr in Thailand through legal channels, before parading him back to the United States.

More significantly, why weren’t more substantive and logistical details surrounding the crime asked -- and discussed in specifics -- with Karr, and then independently substantiated, during the ongoing series of dialogue which was being monitored and scripted by the DA’s office?

Undeniably, Karr squarely placed himself as the straw man in the crosshairs of a District Attorney intent on finding an intruder. However, with nothing more than the wildly improbable ramblings of this obviously disturbed individual, the DA acted on an insufficient and incomplete investigation that lacked substance, in extraditing Karr back to America.

More importantly, why didn’t the DA probe harder -- some have questioned Lacy’s grasp of the particulars of the case, as well as her motivations -- as Karr’s story seemed to defy the tenets of time, space, and logic. International exigency and flight-risk can be debated, but this entire scenario has left many in law enforcement collectively shaking their heads. I wonder what the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security are thinking about the actions of the Boulder DA’s office.

I certainly do not fault Lacy for acting on the information. During my tenure in the investigation, detectives ran down many bizarre characters and potential suspects. However, we did it quietly, under the radar, and behind the scenes. I remember investigating one such dangerous, and very sick, pedophile sexual predator in this case, and had he indeed been the killer, then the congratulatory phone calls and press conference could have come after his return to a Boulder jail cell.

The Boulder Police Department, rather blindsided by all of these recent events after being removed from the case in 2002, was not pleased with the DA’s arrest of the wrong person. None of this embarrassment lies at the BPD doorstep, who were neither invited, nor involved, until after-the-fact.

It does, however, leave detectives puzzled as to why the DA chose to act with such a terribly "thin" probable-cause affidavit, given that historically this DA’s office (and Boulder judges) have been quite demanding in their scrutiny of BPD warrants for thoroughness, investigative completeness, and yes, corroboration.

Unfortunately, the DA arrested Karr without first doing the requisite police work. The proverbial cart-before-the-horse resulted in the chaotic wild-goose-chase on an international stage. Many have suggested, myself included, that the DA continues to ill-serve the investigation, and that Lacy’s actions have resulted in her credibility and objectivity being questioned within the law enforcement community.

At the end of this tragic episode, Karr may have strangely gotten what he wanted out of all this. Lacy did not. And the case is no better for it.

---

As the 10th anniversary of this tragic and poignant case approaches in December 2006, the death of this child remains yet another unresolved homicide in which the administration of justice is left to God. At least there is consolation in that end.

As many of you may know, I have returned to a much-sought private life. I remain truly grateful and appreciative for all of the public support I have received the past many years regarding this case. Thank you.


Sincerely,

Steve Thomas