You don't need to watch any television news tonight, as I will summarize what the talking heads have said, and what they will say:
When Karr initially made his confession, defense-orientated commentators said: "This is proof that JonBenet's parents were wrongly tried in the media!" In light of Karr's confession being disproven, they will say: "This is proof that false confessions occur!"
Prosecution-minded folks, when Karr was initially arrested, complained of the yummy food and decent treatment he received on his return flight from Thailand. Now they will say: "This pervert, who was previously prosecuted for child pornograhy and likely molested little girls in Thailand, has used the criminal justice system for his own sick gain!" All that really means is this: Karr is, and always was, innocent of killing JonBenet. I guess he wasn't treated so unfairly good, after all.
I don't care for television-legal "analysis" precisely because it's all spin. If false confessions are such a problem, then why, when Karr's confession was initially made public, was the focus on JonBenet's parents unfair media treatment? Why didn't defense commentators say, "This confession means nothing." Instead, the commentators used Karr's confession as a way to score points in the did-JonBenet's-parents-kill-her debate. Now that the confession has been invalided, defense commentators will use this as a way to score points in the false-confession debate.
Ultimately, that's all legal analysts seek to do: score points. And if the truth has to be substituted out to score a point, well then, they will bench the truth.