Talk:John Mark Karr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:
John Mark Karr was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 28, 2006
John Mark Karr was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 16, 2006


Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Celebrity Status

According to dictionary.com, a celebrity is defined as: 1. a famous or well-known person.

To suggest that JMK is not well known is utterly stupid. Being a celebrity has nothing to do with being an actor or singer. It's about being widely known and nothing more.

Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't a celebrity. Let's be realistic here.

About four different editors (myself, KnoxSGT, Sarah_Ewart, Angr) have removed the "celebrity" reference. Please let the majority rule here. Not every well known person is a celebrity. Is George Washington a celebrity? He's famous and well-known. -- Mapetite526 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You have also added it three times today. Please see Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule and stop.-- Mapetite526 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

George Washington is a dead celebrity. Celebrity simply means the person is well known. I don't see much room for argument here. Karr is a celebrity because he's extremely well known as evidenced by his 1 million+ Google hits

[edit] Other Confession

Okay, if you look in the archives under the hoax section, you'll see that I mentioned that John Mark Karr also confessed to 9/11, The JFK assassination, and also the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. As reported by CNN, John Mark Karr DID in fact confess to the assassination of JFK! "Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News immediately called for the death penalty. Told that karr was born the year after Kennedy was killed, Grace Snapped. " I don't care. He's guilty of something. Everyone is." This NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE BECAUSE it is relevent to his false confession as he resumed to make ANOTHER one. [1]

That's the second time you mentioned this "rumor" (your words) of such a false confession, and so I also ask the second time: Got a ref? the ref you gave above is ambiguous; give a complete ref with URL. Mdoc7 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. confessed to "9/11, The JFK assassination, and also the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby"? In that order? I can't help noticing that that order is identical to the order here, where a reader gives his opinion that "[Karr] probably would have confessed to masterminding 9/11, the Kennedy assassination and abducting the Lindbergh baby, so long as it meant staying out of a foreign jail cell." (emphasis added) Obviously, that is a reader opinion, and does not become a reliable source merely because CNN printed it as an opinion. As for the other, this appears to be the Des Moines Register piece in question. Is it a reliable source? I think I can let the headline of the column speak for itself: "Fuson: This just in: Fake news probably easier to believe". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that all charges have been dropped, John Mark Carr is now an unremarkable person, and not worthy of any encyclopedic content. This article should be deleted.

[edit] falsely confessed

Now that it's a fact that Karr did not kill JonBenet, why doesn't the opening sentence of the article say "falsely confessed" instead of "confessed"??? Confessed was great BEFORE we knew that it wasn't true. But now that we know, it should be changed. Think about it... if someone years from now asks you to sum up in one sentence who John Mark Karr was, the answer will be, "He's the guy who falsely confessed to murdering JonBenet Ramsey." Thanks! (I'm not sure if this is where my comment should go.)

Karr only confessed to the murder so he can avoid spending time in a Thai jail. I personally cannot compare US jails to Thai jails (or any jails for that matter) but I have heard that Thai jails are unusually brutal. The thing I dont understand is why Karr isn't being expedited back to Thailand to be charged with the crime he committed over there, or why no D.A. has put him in a mental institution yet.
Thailand said that he never offically commited a crime. That is why he was not extridited back to Thailand.ShadowWriter 05:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Mug-shot photo

I checked the website for the Boulder County Sheriff office, and they are selling mugshot photos for Karr for 5 USD. Because of this, it would not be fair use to upload his CO mugshot photo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can still sell something even if it's public domain. --W.marsh 05:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not PD according to their website: http://www.co.boulder.co.us/sheriff/johnkarr.htm. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the LA mugshot I uploaded was deleted? Yesyoudid 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Check the article history. it seems that the pix you posted was retrieved from news source who paid for it, rather than directly from the office that was still selling pictures to the press. Mdoc7 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the Colorado mugshot fair use? I hate to keep bugging people about this, but it really hurts the article to have no image. Yesyoudid 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It hurts Wikipedia as a whole to have a pirated illegal photograph. And you could personally be sued for giving away someones private property for free. Be careful, know what your doing, and know how to create a legal fair use rationale (the one you had was not appropriate). -- Stbalbach 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No, since the department who issued the image is selling them and if we put it on our website for free for anyone to take, it will be hurting the profits of the police deparment, so it fails the US fair rules test. Plus, the other news agencies are buying the pic, so they will also lose out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Although, where is Reuters alone charging for this? The Boulder Sheriff's department charges a $5 fee for it, per their webpage... this is standard for any government agency, and it's for an official copy. I'm not sure that should interfere with fair use. --W.marsh 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a police mugshot, it's public record. They can charge a nominal copying fee, but they have no cause to prevent reproduction by any third parties. In other words, if a cop took that photo (or used public funds to commission it), there's no reason not to put it here.
and who pays the taxes!? hehe Mdoc7 12:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)I think John Mark Karr did Kill someone he thought was JonB
Mugshots are public domain per the Freedom of Information Act (federal level) and similiar legislature that has been passed in every state. As for the police losing money, even if they were, which they're not, who cares? They already wasted enough money on this guy do you really think a couple of five dollar photos are going to make a difference?

[edit] cleaned up arrest/unsolicited comments

Before I made a few minor corrections, it appeared from the article that Karr had made the unsolicited comments to the LACSD officers while he was being transported from LAX to the Twin Towers facility. (see history) He made the comments after his extradition hearing. I cleaned it up and put the events in chronological order. Michaelh2001 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates removed from article preamble

In the interest of article clarity and structuring, I removed references to dates from the preamble. Those dates are already in the body of the article (redundant). I also truncated detailed statements and moved the detailed ones into the body. This makes for a good preamble that give general milestones, the details of which are in the article body. Sound good? Mdoc7 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The preamble does look incomplete, but that's because the events are still unfolding. Mdoc7 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

DATES DON'T ADD UP

 1958 + 11 = 1969. But article says "1973". I don't know which number is correct.

His father, Wexford Karr, married Patricia Elaine Adcock on August 21, 1958, when he was 37 and she was 18, according to court documents. Wexford filed for divorce in 1973 eleven years after the marriage

[edit] Scope

This article has (understandably) grown beyond its scope. Shouldn't this just be about Karr? I think it could use a spinout article about the murder investigation, arrest, etc. Just a thought. Thoughts? --Elliskev 00:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

uh, yes, i agree; I think the "Evidence cited by the media" should be moved out because it's nothing but comparison of conjecture by the media. The rest of the stuff is pertinent to Karr. On the other hand, as long as the Karr case is on-going, this article will never be complete. I do think the immediate need is to delete the talk page contents (and save the important parts) and start over. Mdoc7 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
or rather, archive the talk page contents. Dunno how to do that. Mdoc7 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just archived a big part of it. Mdoc7 02:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So, can we justify a spinout article about the crime and investigation? Or, are we not there yet? --Elliskev 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can spin out the "Evidence cited by the media" portion because that's beyond the scope of the article, which is about John Karr. There's not enough material for a separate article for any of the other stuff by itself, but yeah, I'm open to it. But I'd keep related stuff together because it's still early and they're relevant. The newest section added is the court- that could be separated, but it's still not enough material. That could be the point of demarcation of the article, plus spin the speculation section out into a separate article. Mdoc7 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I made the entry above before I even found out about the charges being dropped... so, moot, now. Mdoc7 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence questions

Has anyone here seen anything in the media about the following factors (i.e. whether they were being investigated, not being investigated, have been investigated, etc.)

  • Credit card records of Karr from December 1996 - where he spent his money around that time
  • Phone call records to the old Karr house in December of 1996 (or to his father's house) - from Colorado, that is
  • Motel records in Bolder, Colorado
  • Plane records
  • Heck, even postings on his website or forum around the right date

Thanks. I'm not sure if these are even available in 2006, but someone in the media or police ought to have tried looking some of these up - good old fashioned pre-DNA police work Mad Jack 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That information would be stuff that law enforcement could get if still available, but would be hard for the media to get. I imagine at least the credit card records would still be around for the most part... especially if he ever missed a payment. Plane records too. But the media can't just call up and ask for the stuff, it's held by private companies. You can't just call up Visa and see what your neighbor charges, to put it in perspective. The information will likely come out at trial, if there is one. --W.marsh 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I was just wondering because no one in the media ever mentioned this or speculated about it, and I thought they were missing a beat. Mad Jack 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No such word?

If you think a word is invalid, but you're not sure, either look it up in dictionary or leave it alone. Presupposition and presumption do not pay. There is an online dictionary, a very effective one because it is a dictionary search engine which searches all online dictionaries: http://www.onelook.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdoc7 (talk • contribs)

There's no need to use a dictionary. I doubt the word exists. If it does, it isn't used often and therefore isn't a good word for us to use. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to use a dictionary? I thought the whole anti-expert vibe some articles tend towards was bad enough, but that's a bit out there. The word's real, and while burden of proof issues usually fall on the other guy, it wouldn't be real hard to check, seeing as you're the one removing it. And it, uh, is used more often than you might think; additionally, I'm not sure how you're measuring frequency of use and why that dictates whether or not it's a good word for use. The header's more accurate with initiatory than without, even if it does sound a little clunky. --r. 09:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

*lol* Mdoc7 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
initiatory? What a stupid word. Do you even realize what you are saying? God, what an idiot!


Still a real word, fellow. --r. 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would this be allegedly incriminating?

I like how Rocky Mountain News is pretty up to date on this deal. Their articles have been cited quite often on this article. Anyway, this could be something to add under "Allegedly Incriminating": http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4946895,00.html Blueag9 05:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by Lara and Her Lawyer

These two statements strike me as contradictory (italics added by me):

1. Under Allegedly Incriminating:

Michael Rains, lawyer for Lara Karr, said that Lara found her ex-husband "emotionally abusive" to their children, and that she was checking to see if she could determine Karr’s whereabouts at the time Ramsey was killed.

2. Under Allegedly Exculpatory:

Karr's ex-wife, Lara, has stated that Karr was in Alabama with her during the entire 1996 Christmas season when Ramsey was killed. Her attorney, Michael Rains, said that furthermore "she sincerely believes that there was no Christmas anytime between approximately 1989 when they were married and the year 2000 when her husband was not with her and her family at Christmas." Dynzmoar 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No DNA Match

Does anybody have anymore info on this 2001 case? Did he plead guilty? Yesyoudid 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The kiddy porn case? He jumped bail on that one. He's still going to be facing charges on it. dposse 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, he left the country before his hearing. He did spend 6 months in jail, which may be "time served" enough already for that type of crime. --Dan East 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, he's gonna need to go into hiding. I imagine that not many people want him in their neighborhood now. Yesyoudid 21:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time zones.

Should we stay with one time zone for this article? We have PT, MT, and EST in this one article. Should all that be converted to one unified time zone? If so, which time zone? dposse 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

UTC seems like the best for a "standard" timezone. I know its a bit confusing, but thats my two cents. Yesyoudid 21:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about UTC. I vote for EST, but thats just my opinion. Unless you know how to convert things to UTC and want to do it... dposse 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to do either. I can convert to any timezone, except with UTC certain times could be the next day ex: 9:00pm could be 4am the next day and that might be confusing. EST is fine with me if that will make the article less confusing. Yesyoudid 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks. dposse 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we can probably drop most of the times out of this article. In the long run, I doubt they matter now that Karr is not being charged with murder. However, according to the Manual of Style we should use times that reflect where the event happened. When Karr arrived or departed airports in California, that would be Pacific Time, not Eastern Time. And if we had to choose one time zone to use in this article other than UTC, it would probably be Mountain Time since the events described have a closer connection to Colorado than anywhere else. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cnn says

Cnn's saying he won't be charged with murder. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/28/ramsey.arrest/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk • contribs)

This is true.--Chili14 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA

The article (and for that manor the main wiki current events page) say the charges were dropped because of DNA. That is not true and it is implied after reading this article that it is the only reason.

Numerous family members, who do not talk to each other anymore, have the same allobys. They all say that they do not remember John missing any Christmas' and in '96 a baby was born and he was present. That more then likely the main reason why charges were dropped.

Its probably both. DNA is much more reliable that human testimony, especially 10 year old memories. Yesyoudid 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you can pin someone without a DNA match if you can place them on the scene. DNA can be obtained accidently. Karr may not had been alone. Them not having any witness that could place him in Boulder, let alone Colorado, prevents them from having a case, not the DNA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebird2k6 (talk • contribs)

I think we should wait until the DA releases their information before deciding what they did and did not have. The DA says they will be releasing a lot of information including Karr's book transcript. [1]
We can only report what verifiable and reliable sources support, so whether you think it was DNA or family alibis is beside the point. Currently they are reporting DNA as the primary reason and the alibis as circumstantial.
Also, please sign your messages. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What is an alloby? Anyway, yes it is possible to get a conviction without DNA, but it's still far better evidence than human memory, which is notoriously and verifiably unreliable24.131.12.228 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs major cleanup

A lot of this stuff is no longer relevant now that he's no longer a suspect in the Ramsey case. What should stay and what should go? heavensblade23 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why i put the {{update}} tag on the article. I'm pretty sure there isn't much that needs to go. We just need to keep things up to date and past tense nearly everything. dposse 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The evidence section almost certainly needs to be trimmed out. heavensblade23 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? It's still true that that is what was reported to be evidence against him. Like i said, just put nearly everything in the past tense. dposse 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Because the article is nearly ten pages long and we don't need that much information about someone that's only notable for making a false confession. He's not the first person to make a false confession, nor the first person to make a false confession of killing JonBenet Ramsey. By friday Karr will have been forgotten about by the media and not long after that, the public. heavensblade23 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too long. I think we can summarize the facts in a way that will keep the article informative, but not a million pages long. One thought I had: Do we still need the family's reaction to the arrest? Since Karr has nothing to do with the death, their reaction is outdated. Any thoughts? Yesyoudid 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The family reaction could probably be merged with the JonBenét Ramsey article, if its not already there. We can keep the Evidence cited by the Media section as long as we put a sentence or two explaining that this is evidence that was reported before the DNA results came in. What do you think? dposse 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

do we really need that email in there? can't we just link to it? it really takes up a lot of room and given the DNA results, it seems a lot less relevant. Yesyoudid 00:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made the first edit. I removed some of the more extraneous details in the early life section. heavensblade23 01:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed wholesale, most of the background text on the wonderful Mr. Karr. Now that it is certain that he was lying, and has nothing to do with the murder of JbR, all the minutia about his childhood, marriages and divorces etc. lose any significance. He is simply no longer notable enough to have a his life story told on Wikipedia. He may not even merit his own article here under wikis guidelines fornotability. A sub-section on the JonBenét Ramsey page may suffice Mytwocents 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update needed

this article needs a major update

could you please be a little more constructive? Yesyoudid 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment but I did observe something odd in the article. Part reads "saying the marriage was "irretrievably broken," and that the boys were in his custody." What boys? 24.131.12.228 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KUSA.

“ But CNN's Denver affiliate, KUSA, reported that the DNA sample taken from Karr does not match DNA found on JonBenet's body. KUSA quoted two sources in a bulletin on its Web site.[2] ”

I'm the "bonehead" that wrote that. Either wikipedia is wrong, or CNN is wrong. dposse 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any idea what you mean. CNN doesn't have "affiliates" (unless you count, perhaps, its international channels, broadcast only outside of the U.S., which you shouldn't). CNN is a cable network that broadcasts the same shows to the entire country. KUSA is the NBC affiliate in Denver; that's as simple as it gets. Any U.S. city of substantial size has affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, UPN, and the WB, and KUSA is the station that is Denver's NBC affiliate. Voila. Look at the article here about it -- KUSA -- or KUSA's own website: http://kusa.com/ . Moncrief 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant

Here's the document summarizing the evidence they had against Karr, including the statements he made that led them to believe he knew "inside" information. Also, it says that he was already in some way involved with a young girl in Thailand, and that "he expressed a preference for girls about six years of age." It said that the DNA sample they obtained in Thailand couldn't be used because they didn't have the proper collection equipment available when he decided to allow a sample (he declined the first two times they asked). It also said they collected DNA before he was apprehended but it also could not be used. Anyways, there's a great deal of information in here on Karr for the article. [3] Can documents of this sort be upload to Wikipedia, similar to how images are uploaded? Just in case CNN pulls the document from their server in the future. --Dan East 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

link to smoking gun. they keep stuff. Scarykitty 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new article

I spent several hours contributing to this article, so I too hate to see the work all for naught. However Karr is really a nothing - one of many people who falsely confess to high-profile cases. The only thing that makes him unique is the massive media interest in the JonBenét case, which resulted in massive, massive publicity. The only one thing he could have hoped to gain from his "confession" is publicity, which he certainly achieved. We don't have to exacerbate the problem by consorting with the media. I think a very simple, to-the-point article would suffice.

So. here's my proposal for this article (in its entirety):

John Mark Karr (born December 11, 1964) is an American teacher who falsely confessed to the long-unsolved murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey.[2] Karr was extradited from Thailand to the United States, where tests showed that his DNA did not match samples taken from JonBenét's body and clothing. The charges were dropped, but he was quickly apprehended again to face child pornography charges in California, from which he fled the United States in 2001 after spending 6 months in jail.

Someone stick another citation or two on there and we're golden. --Dan East 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't "apprehended again"; he never left custody of Boulder County authorities. As for my opinion, I think Wikipedia editors should base the length and detail of the article on the public interest in him, and not be trying to dictate in one way or another how much attention he should get from the public. NPOV. — Walloon 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As with everything else to do with Karr, that depends on what source you decide to believe. "Karr, 41, was released from custody Monday by the Boulder County sheriff, who said California authorities had not asked for him to be detained to face child pornography charges" [4] However, at this time I'm inclined to agree with you that he never was really released. --Dan East 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to shorten it that much, you might as well make it a reidrect. Hbdragon88 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, reduced to just a few sentences in the JonBenét article. I like that even better. --Dan East 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this plan. I also spent hours on this article, and i think it would be a shame to waste to lost all this infomation. Sure, he was a false confesser, but that doesn't mean that this entire article should be shortened to a few sentences! I think this article is fine the way it is. A little cleanup is needed, but not in the extreme as you are suggesting. dposse 01:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I also worked on this article. I agree he's essentially a nobody and most of the article is irrelevant at this point since he's been cleared of any involvement. My personal feeling is that the article should be shortened to maybe 10-20% of its current length, leaving it at maybe a page or two, and not truncated to a few sentences or removed entirely. I still think he's notable enough for an article, just not a long article. Let's not get too personally attached to the length of the article just because it took a lot of work to compile the information. What's important here is how much information should be included in an article about a person that's likely to disappear from the public eye entirely inside of a month and not be heard from ever again. heavensblade23 02:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, I partially agree maybe we could eventually redirect to the JonBenet article, but not at this time. Maybe after a period of months. There's likely to be continuing public interest in Karr for at least the next few weeks.heavensblade23 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I may have been trying to make a point with such a short proposal. I do agree that there is a lot of good information here. I went back and forth with a few people related to some of my submissions to get it accurate enough, and NPOV enough, to keep. I just a) don't like feeling I've been had, and b) don't want to make Wikipedia have to follow every unfounded lead news sources dig up to make headlines. To me, this type of article was very valuable during the last week. I was interested in Karr, and trying to wade through 3,000 stories on the topic on Google News was a bit extreme. This nicely condensed all the leading views down to one concise source. That is a valuable thing. However, given the speculative nature of the article (justly so due to the sources we had to make use of), combined with the "breaking news" feel of the article, I don't think it is appropriate as-is in a historic kind of way. One year from now this will be nothing more than a trivial footnote in the JonBenét case. So I concede - let just prune it down over time as interest dwindles. If anything, this article could perhaps serve as a study of how the media can distort (or at least amplify) facts to keep a story in the news. --Dan East 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is messed up. This is wikipedia, folks. We have tons of weird articles on here that many people wouldn't find to be notable. For example, does anyone here listen to Noisegrind? No? Niether do i. John Mark Karr is notable just because of the media attention he's gained, and i think it's a real disgrace to get rid of everything! What if someone wants to look up John Mark Karr for something? This article VERY clearly explains not only his past, but his present situation and its all here in one neat package. Removing all of this is just plain wrong. dposse 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have too much of a personal attachment to the article content. Noisegrind isn't that notable, but the article on it isn't ten pages long either. Explain why John Mark Karr is notable enough to have a ten page article considering the only notable thing he ever did was make a false confession. He's certainly not the first person to make a false confession, and he's not the first person to make a false confession of killing JonBenet either. He's essentially just a nobody who happened to become a celebrity for a week. A page or two is enough information about him. heavensblade23 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support cutting this article down a lot, but I think Dan's version is on the extreme side (and I don't like the last sentence). I agree with Heavensblade23, a page, two at the most, is long enough. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I basically took an axe to the article and chopped out all of the bits I think are irrelevant. I left in the basic bio information and the summaries of his arrests and recent events. The way the article is right now is more-or-less the length I think it should be, with the information that I think should be in it. It's not pretty, and still needs more cleanup, but it's no longer the ten page monstrosity that it was. If anyone wants to add anything back in that they think shouldn't have been cut, or wants to make further edits for brevity, feel free. I'm fairly certain the references need cleaned up, and we need a better title for the "notoriety" section.heavensblade23 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I may have overstepped. I just did a pretty thorough chop on this article. Please see my notes above in 'Article needs major cleanup'. I didn't see this thread before I did my cleanup. I do like the idea of just having a paragraph or two on the JonBenet page. Mytwocents 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is a pretty good chop-up as it is, I'm ok with it. I won't be spending any time on it anymore, except where warranted. (I've spent more than several hours on it, too.) Mdoc7 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone update his current location?

[edit] Disambiguation

I'm aware there is an archived conversation of the disambiguation of the John Karr page, but I've noticed that recently a disambiguation page KARR has been created. Quite honestly since it seems like there is, for the moment, going to be this article, the John Karr (author) page, the Seattle radio station KARR (AM), and the television character KARR (Knight Rider) I personally think a Karr (not KARR) disambiguation page should be set up so to encompass all of these items and have redirects to that page, Of course this is just my thoughts/opinion. Since obviously I'm not a key contributor to this article I don't want to just butt in and do this, especially since there's already been conversations over this particular topic. Heck I don't really want anything to do with this article besides the edits I've made to the KARR disambiguous since I'm on vacation, I just stumbled upon it and thought I would mention it. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PowerWurks

http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&rls=en&q=PowerWurks&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&filter=0

The usenet postings have made the news in reputable papers, like the Sunday Herald, Rocky Mountain News, even Time Magazine Canada. Can we now mention them? -- Zanimum 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Powerwurks was already mention before charges were dropped; it's not worth putting back in now. Mdoc7 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Unrelated crime

thie first part of the article says Karr is being held etc. on "unrelated misdemeanor child pornography charges". Didn't he get arrested in CA because he told someone (wendy something) he murdered/molested/something that made wendy go to the police/ Jonbenet? the police searched his house, discovered child porn and arrested him for that. That's not unrelated to me. I would propose removing the word "unrelated" and explaining the circumstances of the CA arrest in another section (this may be done already) Scarykitty 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated charge means that the actual alleged offences are not related. However, the circumstances under which a person is arrested and/or charged may be connected in some way. In this case, Karr's outstanding alleged pornography offences and the JonBenet murder charges were unrelated. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it warrants at least a mention somewhere in the article of what went down in CA if we are to leave in "unrelated" - it's misleading otherwise. Scarykitty 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting by "mention somewhere in the article," but i personally don't think it needs any explanation at all. The term "unrelated charges" is very commonly used in the media, books and any other form of reporting of true crime. There is already a paragraph ("2001 arrest") which explains what he was arrested for in California. The article has been cut down a lot since it became evident there was no evidence linking him to the JonBenet murder. I really don't think it needs to be expanded again. As I've explained, the term "unrelated charges" is very commonly used and in this article it is being used appropriately and correctly. I don't understand how it may be interpreted as "misleading." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] johnmarkkarrblog.com

ok, i'm kinda new here, but how many reverts til this dude gets banned? Scarykitty 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Change Info

I think the part about the possible sex change should be deleted. I do not see its relevence or how it contributes to the overall article.ShadowWriter 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's more of a footnote. heavensblade23 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karr now in Sonoma County

On September 12, he was sent back to California to face the kiddie porn charges. BobbyLee 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will he also be charged with fleeing before trial? What's the sentence for that?ShadowWriter 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted from GA

This article is delisted from GA list because of the image license problem. See WP:WIAGA, standard #6. It is apparently that the image was taken from a copyrighted website [5] and no fair use rationale in the image description. Also that this article was not promoted through normal GA nomination, as no reviewer, not a major contributor of this article, has reviewed this article. When this matter has been resolved, this article can be renominated again in Good Article Candidate page. — Indon (reply) — 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Prawns

Where are the King Prawns? 68.0.116.200 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was not relevant to the article.ShadowWriter 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Evidence

I read on Yahoo News that there was evidence lost in his child porn case. Should this be added or should we wait and see on this?ShadowWriter 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

'1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Fail (see below)
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

Lincher 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is actually a very major concern. I have the same feeling - this article is just an extension of a case or event that is going on, it does not actually explore the subject far beyond that. I think that this artile requires a rather major rewrite (along with expansion) in order to pass 3, so I guess putting it on hold is not the right thing to do. I would simply fail it, as it turns up at GA anytime a change is made anyway. Bravada, talk - 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a ton of information about this man's life before this incident, however after the charges were dropped, all of it was removed (see here for an older version). A decision was made to remove the info by some who felt that his notability was seriously diminished after having the charges dropped, though I don't think the info should have been removed. --MZMcBride 02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just skimmed through the older version and it seemed much better with regard to 3, though I have immediately found a few other things that I would fail that version of the article for. Anyway, I believe you have to settle that matter with other editors (I understand you have taken the decision to throw out the non-JonBenet info by means of discussion on this talk page), and try to rewrite the article, keeping all the WP:WIAGA criteria in mind. I believe it might be not be too tough, as I think you are pretty close. That said, I am failing this article for now not to create a bad precedent. Bravada, talk - 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free to teach?

So, since he's basically a free man who has never been convicted of a crime, is he free to teach again in this country? I'm gonna guess that wouldn't go over too well with parents. 67.162.94.102 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that no school district will hire him based on the allegations that he's a sex offender. Even if he's never been convicted of a sex crime.ShadowWriter 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charges dropped

He has the child porn charges dropped aginst him as well. I just read it on Yahoo! news.ShadowWriter 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The investigators really bungled this one. How do you lose the computer? Mapetite526 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good qeustion. I do have a conspiracy theory regarding the computer but I don't think it's suitable for the article.ShadowWriter 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Album?

CNN said he made an album under the name Damon Karr in the 80s. Someone should add that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.150.158 (talk • contribs) .

It would be helpful if you could provide a link to a source when making such suggestions. I just put the name "Damon Karr" through Google News but it came back with nothing. [6] We need to verify the information, so if you have a more specific source, please post it. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That rumor was going around when he frist got arrested. I have never seen anything to back it up.ShadowWriter 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Now that all charges have been dropped, John Mark Carr is now an unremarkable person, not worthy of encyclopedic content. This article should be either deleted or made into a one paragraph stub.

He's still in the news. And historically he's still notable. -- Mapetite526 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
All the information in the article should stay. As long has hehas some small claim to fame. Yes I did say small claim.ShadowWriter 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that the child porn charges were only dismissed because the investigators lost the evidence, not because he didn't do it. -- Mapetite526 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this guy got a beatdown yet from a random citizen yet?

No. But he did get trown out of an Alanta neighborhood. He went to live with his father there and his father's house is three blocks away from a public park. When some of the parents found out they went to the Homeowners Assicotiaon and threw a fit.ShadowWriter 23:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I digress. But I don't think this worm deserves any spotlight just because he admitted to killing a child when he didn't do it. Anybody can admit to a crime they didn't commit. I don't see why they should be famous because of it.

It's because of who he said he killed. If it wasn't JonBenet Ramsey he would of never gotten media attention in the first place. ShadowWriter 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, he undeniably got the massive media attention, and therefore he meets our inclusion guideline WP:BIO. --W.marsh 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can we protect this article please? I've noticed that it keeps getting vandalised. ShadowWriter 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I geuss noone else sees the need to protect the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowWriter (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] CNN Interview

Karr was interviewed by CNN. Video is here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/08/16/intv.hill.karr.cnn

Can someone summarize and add to the article?

[edit] WP:UNDUE

I know that the high number of sources in this article is due to WP:BLP which basically tells us to source everything regarding living people. I'm okay with that. But it seems to me that the amount of detail and the length of this article is far more than he actually deserves in retrospect. Any thoughts on this now that the media frenzy has cooled down? EconomicsGuy 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)