He will tape on Oprah in a month. It'll be canned under the pretext of "criminal investigation" and run in early fall for ratings.

Doesn't pass the God-given, common sense test. Hard to stop that momentum, though. Looks like this fellow; but without the background cred:


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156205161.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: What a child murderer does on his transcontinental flight from Bangko
 

CSI Pelican OT -- hokay...

If the trial is in Texas they will adjust that for him.

Hehehehe....:D :D

Re: Re: What a child murderer does on his transcontinental flight from Bangkok to L.A.
 

That's about all you said in as far as Carr's guilt or lack thereof. Others on this thread stated their doubts much more clearly as in "He didn't do it." (sic).

So no olive tree branch crown for you...

Yep. Because of...
1) perjuring yourself as what's above wasn't your exact quote from days earlier.

2) Lack of clarity/lack of proof.

Clarity is key when making definitive statements. So is evidence. At best, yours was just a guess that Karr was not guilty because you never cited substantiated proof into your supposed belief that Karr did not do it. All you said when I asked if you have insight was "Yes."

Before jumping the gun and writing "but this poster said 'this' w/o showing proof," yes, they did. But they clearly stated the perp did not do it, which you failed to do. You only said "Show me a photo of one..." as I (already) had.

Besides which, there is, as of yet, no definitive proof Karr is not a child murderer. He may not be the murderer in the Ramsey case, but in others...

1) I only say "perjure" as in running the risk of - at least that's what I meant. Not that the quote was that much different.

2) "Yes" as you gave it was an answer. But I asked whether or not you had "insight" which means I'd like to read the insight you have, if any.

3) Karr might have murdered children - or might have planned to murder Jon Benet, however that would take a lot of digging around into who he is. Given illuminations about the ineptitude of the Boulder County investigators since Jon Benet's death, I would hope these guys are at least conducting adequate background checks on Karr.

Okay, I'll explain it once more. Obviously we have different arguing styles, whereas I choose to argue through a topic, and not attach simplified "yes" or "no" answers to it.

1) Perjure as a fine line because, simply, you did not use the same quote you gave several days ago - you filled it in with other words. Just read through your response then of "Dunno. If you have a picture of one, post it!" and your response today of "Dunno. If you have a picture of a child murderer on a transcon flight from Bang. to LA, post it!" stating that to be your initial response, which it wasn't.

2) When I ask for insight, and you state you have insight, you need to explain what that insight is. Your answer of "Yes," when I asked if you had insight seemed, at the least, pretentious, while being anything but informative.

3) Any person standing on the street may also be God. The point of the thread was what a child murderer (not the child murderer) does on his flight from Bangkok to L.A. In fact, never in the language I wrote, did I say he murdered Jon Benet. I eluded to the fact the treatment he was given during his flight was designed to "loosen him up" so that he would talk about her murder. Never once was it mentioned that he was the murderer. Whether he was or was not came from your own inferences.

4) You need to reread your responses to mine, and state clearly where I suggest this man is anything more than what he says he is: and that is a child murderer of Jon Benet Ramsey. I maintain that Karr could be a child murderer, but I always doubted he was Jon Benet's murderer, and what I wrote reflected as much.

I think the problem you're having is you can't decipher a murderer from the murderer. That's why "Dunno. If you have a picture of one, post it!" holds no validation toward what was your presumed guess that Karr is or is not the murderer of Jon Benet, particularly when you answered "Yes," to whether or not you had insight into the case. You were, in short, knotted up in your own affirmation of what you did not know about Karr.

Unless you do know something. And if so, how about some that insight you answered "yes" as to having? Care to share it? Or is that too much of a "yes" or "no" question as well?

How about this one?

"is the guy" refers to the killer of JBR, since that is what he had supposedly confessed to, (in a convoluted way). My post was a pretty straight-forward statement that the guy is nuttier than a squirrel turd and no more the killer of JBR than the man on the moon.

I took SoCal's remark to mean exactly the same thing, that you, (and a lot of other people), had been suckered by this kook. :cool:

He's guilty of 1st degree attention-whoring and being a creepy pedophile, but that's about it.

Uh huh. Well, the point was the poster's inability to produce evidence this person was or was not her murderer, not simply give a "yes" to my question as to whether or not he had input to Karr being her murderer. The inadequacy of his knowledge as to who Karr is and if he committed the murder doesn't substantiate posting, "I told ya so" when today's revelation of Karr not being charged was announced.

Personally, at the point Bangkok police paraded Karr out, and he began giving intimate knowledge of Jon Benet's murder to the media, I thought this guy was up to something. Call it jaded or cynnical, but rarely does a person who so readily confesses so-called "details" of such high profile crimes the true murderer. True confessions are truly rare these days when there might be a buck to be made from the buying public.

"Suckered by this kook"?
As Karr's apparent intent was to call attention to himself, by replying to this thread, you're doing as fine a job of being a john to this attention whore as anyone else.