The following are the various points on which highly-respected criminal defense attorney, Darren Kavinoky, based in Los Angeles, CA, can speak to regarding the latest developments in the JonBenet Ramsey case:

"Karr had confessed to elements of the crime that were unknown to the general public."

* The notion that there is information that "only law enforcement and the killer would know" is a fallacy best exploited by John Grisham and other fiction writers. Police officers investigating the Ramsey case didn't come home to their spouses and say "just another day at the office." If law enforcement knows, other people know. Leaks abound, especially in high profile cases.

* Example: the news stories being generated tonight routinely include statements from people in law enforcement speaking on condition on anonymity -- these same people gossiped at and around the time of the crime.

"Karr was in the Boulder area at the time of the killing."

* If it is true that Karr was in the Boulder area at the time of the killing, it would possibly explain his legitimate knowledge of this supposedly secret info. This is a true double-edged sword for the prosecution, because it puts Karr legitimately into the circle of people that may have information about the case.


Issue: will Karr's admissions (or "confessions about some elements of the crime") be admissible? What about other evidence gathered in Thailand?

* Generally, Karr's admissions won't be admissible unless there is some evidence, independent of the admission itself, which links the person to the crime. This is known as the "Corpus Delicti Rule" or, among defense lawyers, the "Corpus Cop-Out Rule". Historically, as unlikely as it sounds, many people have confessed to crimes they did not commit. Therefore, the Corpus Delicti rule evolved to protect people from themselves, or protect people from police misconduct (such as the type of law enforcement misconduct that routinely takes place in Bangkok jails).

* An additional rationale for American law enforcement presence in Bangkok may be to ensure that admissions made or evidence obtained there would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, where Karr is to be prosecuted.

"Today is vindication for the Ramsey family."

* Not really. As sure as people are that Karr is guilty, only mere hours after his arrest, that's how sure people were that a member of the Ramsey family was guilty. If you would have put 12 jurors in a box around the time of JonBenet's murder, it is highly likely that a conviction would have resulted. The people now celebrating that the "murderer" has been caught were the same people who were celebrating the same thing a decade ago, except the murderer was variously Patsy, John, or JonBenet's brother.


"A law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP that Karr had been communicating periodically with somebody in Boulder who had been following the case and cooperating with law enforcement officials."

* What is motivation of this informant? Where there is an informant, that person's identity will ultimately be revealed. One of the people who would be happy to convey information that inculpates Karr would be the real killer. This is certainly an avenue the defense attorney is going to explore relating to this "informant".

Karr's arrest in Thailand suggests he was involved in pedophilia, or the multi-billion dollar sex or sex tourism industries.


* The location of the arrest being Thailand is likely irrelevant, unless Karr is also accused of a sex crime there (which, although initially reported by some media, is denied in later reports). Teaching English or translating in English is a legitimate and popular way to make money. Being in Thailand is not sinister in and of itself, and is certainly more prejudicial than probative on any legitimate issue in the case.

"DNA evidence will be a major factor in the case."

* If there was compelling DNA evidence gathered it would have immediately turned the spotlight away from the Ramseys, which didn't happen.

* The reports relating to "unidentified" DNA indicates that there were two small samples, with the possibility of an innocent explanation as to its presence in the Ramsey home (i.e., may be from the manufacturer, etc.).

The Ramsey family may file lawsuits against various organizations that pointed the accusatory finger years ago. One such suit was brought against a detective, who wrote a book accusing the Ramseys in the crime.

* The previous certainty of John and Patsy's guilt could be the undoing of the Karr case. The title of the detective's book accusing the Ramseys should be changed to: "Reasonable Doubt about the Guilt of Anyone Else" since it so effectively outlines why the Ramseys were guilty.

* Guilt is subjective. It can be defined as what a police officer believes at the time he or she writes their police report. Once law enforcement believes they have the person, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who reads the report then takes it as fact, but it begins with one officer's myopic view.


"Over the years, some experts suggested that investigators had botched the case so thoroughly that it might never be solved."


* What has changed? The defense lawyer will simply call the suspicion of Karr's guilt "theory number 7".

* The forensic concerns relating to the lack of integrity of the crime scene may also prove to be a significant challenge for the prosecution. The forensic evidence was botched in a way reminiscent of O.J. Simpson.

Jury selection
* Tough in a case with this kind of media coverage. A Change of Venue Motion is a near certainty.

Punishment
* The death penalty was reinstated in Colorado in 1984. Given the possible manner of death, theories for capital murder could include torture murder, as well as a sexual assault (though the evidence was never quite clear as to whether or not a sexual assault took place).