1375 users online (305 members and 1070 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914

    Boulder DA-A Profile in Incompetence

    Hey, everybody. I thought that since we're all talking about profiles and perceptions and backgrounds, I figured I'd do one on a subject that really needs it.

    I apologize if any of you find the title to be harsh. After I'm done, you will understand it.

    During my tenure with this case, I can't help but notice how differently the DA in Boulder does things from other jurisdictions. I'm not the only one, but we'll get to that. And the reason this should be analyzed is because it goes right to the heart of why no action was taken in this case.

    This thread is meant as a challenge to all who say that there wasn't enough evidence to take the Rs to trial. I mean to demonstrate my often-repeated assertion that the good prosecutor could have made a case by showing what a good prosecutor is NOT.

    Alex Hunter was elected DA in 1972 and was never voted out until his retirement in 2000. This case was his downfall because he was not able to do what he had done in the past: sweep his failings under the rug. He was a product of the 60s, that terrible and terribly romanticized era when cops were "pigs," drugs were "in," and big government was the solution to every problem. He was a defense lawyer who felt that winning wasn't everything when it came to trying criminals. And he certainly practiced what he preached. By Christmas of 1996, Alex Hunter had not taken a single case to trial in almost a decade. To say he was not an aggressive prosecutor is like saying water is wet. He spent most of his time offering plea bargains. With such a dismal record, his thirty year tenure is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't understand the Boulder political climate, but simple once you do. And that long tenure led to inertia and complaceny. To those who claim that since he was never voted out, he couldn't have been that bad, I say this: there's an old saying in American politics that says "you get the government you deserve." Boulder deserved Alex Hunter. JonBenet certainly did not.

    But these are all generalizations. Let's look at some hard specifics. Many sources have spoken of Hunter's lousy record, so let's have a look:

    --1981: In a highly publicized case, Hunter charged Christopher Courtney with second-degree murder after Courtney shot two people dead at the Longmont Civic Center. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, Hunter reduced the charge to criminally negligent homicide and Courtney walked away with a two-year sentence in the county jail. That generated cries of dismay from the mayor and city council.

    --1982: Kirk Long resigned as undersheriff. Long penned a letter at that time that sounds strikingly reminiscent of that written in 1998 by Steve Thomas. The letter said, in part: "We in America have a legal system that is designed to be adversarial. It is apparent to me that the only adversary relationships within the legal system of the 20th Judicial District are the relationships between law enforcement agencies and the office of the District Attorney. The ignoring of compelling physical evidence, the artificial bolstering of conviction statistics through plea bargaining, deferred prosecutions, and deferred sentences speaks loudly of incompetence and political maneuvering. The essence of my belief is that the citizens of Boulder County do not have an advocate in the judicial system."

    --1985: In a case of foot-dragging, it took Hunter more than two years to charge Mike Grainger with a crime, even though Grainger's obese wife was found laying in bed with a massive head wound, and there was no evidence of an intruder. Grainger got three years.

    --1986: In his last major case, Hunter was named special prosecutor in neighboring Adams County to try the sheriff there, Bert Johnson. The sheriff was charged with extortion, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Hunter offered to dismiss all charges if Johnson would resign from office, but the judge rejected the deal. Hunter lost the case at trial. He decided never to try another case.

    And it should come as no surprise that the Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the JB case went nowhere, because none of the DAs, including Hunter himself, had any real experience with handling them. He and his staff didn't WANT a GJ in the first place, and only did so because Gov. Romer was feeling the heat from ST's resignation letter and wanted to cover his own butt. Once he was bricked into that corner, at least he had the sense to call in outside help. Specifically, he brought on Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey, experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to handle Grand Juries. But, as with the GJ itself--which I have aptly described as a dog and pony show, which the doberman no-showed--the three specialists were essentially window-dressing, which they themselves have said. To paraphrase Henry Lee, the egg was already scrambled. I should point out that there is only one instance where a Grand Jury was used by Hunter, and it was a debacle just like this case. I'll let ST tell it:

    I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in 1983 for the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, becasue Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the GJ hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of this deal.

    With this in mind, the various sources--both RDI and IDI--who claimed that Hunter dismissed the Ramsey GJ before they could vote become even more credible.

    Then there's Hunter's mindset, which I have often talked about. It's been said that Hunter had a definition of reasonable doubt that no one could meet, and that he'd require a videotape of the crime, a signed confession and a DNA match just to issue an arrest warrant. He would often defend this inflexibility by saying that he wanted to get all of his ducks in order. During the A&E documentary "Anatomy of a Murder," Hunter said, incredibly, that Johnnie Cocharan rushed the LA DA into prosecuting OJ Simpson before they were ready, even though they had a mountain of evidence against him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I have no doubt that the Simpson case scared the brown stuff out of Hunter. It's implication was clear: if a powerful, aggressive team of prosecutors with a mountain of evidence couldn't convict OJ--even though the only thing they were missing was the proverbial busload of nuns--what chance did Hunter have against lawyers from one of the most powerful law firms in the country?

    He claimed that the police didn't have enough evidence to bring charges, but he himself could have done the required things to GET evidence. He did none of them. Hrefused to grant search warrants. He refused to countenance the idea of throwing the Rs into separate holding cells until one confessed, even though it worked like a charm in the Lisa Steinberg case. He gave away tons of evidence to the defense.

    That's not to say that he doesn't have his fans. Problem is, they're all far-left, "cops-are-pigs" defense attorneys. One is Alan Dershowitz, who defended OJ. Here's an exchange between him and ST:

    DERSHOWITZ: I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized, I think he's a constitutional hero. He's a man who has made a decision to take the barbs and the slings, and there are going to be many, because it's much easier to bring the case. It would take no courage to bring the prosecution, and then if the jury acquitted, blame it on the jury. But it takes a lot of courage for a district attorney to bite the bullet and take the hard decision, and say there was a murder, maybe it's even likely certain people did it, but likely isn't enough.

    THOMAS: Well, let me make one comment. Mr. Dershowitz is with all due respect, a notorious criminal defense attorney. Where is a Vincent Bugliosi or a Rudy Giuliani sitting next to Mr. Hunter, these guys, who I consider hero prosecutors making that argument.


    REAL prosecutors have no trouble calling it like it is. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Vincent Bugliosi:

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI I'm sure he's an honorable person and he's interested in seeking justice in this case. But he's certainly not the stereotypical DA who's tough and hard—nosed. And you need an aggressive DA in a situation like this. And he apparently is not that type of person.

    ELIZABETH VARGAS (VO) Which, perhaps, is why his critics say it took public protest to get the Ramsey case to a grand jury after nearly two years. Remember, a grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify. (interviewing) How unusual is it to wait that long to impanel a grand jury to investigate that?

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI It's highly unusual, particularly when you have two suspects and they're not cooperating with you I mean, it's DA 101 that when you have two suspects, you do everything possible immediately to separate those two and not give them time for their stories to harden and to reconcile with each other. It's being done now, a year and a half later. But it's a little late in the day. Incompetence.


    And that's not even the worst of it. When he left, Mary Lacy took over, and she was even worse. At least--according to Henry Lee and ST--Hunter would hear all sides. Lacy was like Paul Simon's Boxer: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. She refused to even SPEAK to the investigators who worked on the case during Hunter's tenure. She made up her mind from Day One that since the Rs didn't fit the standard profile, they couldn't have done this. She let her feminist beliefs cloud her judgment. She pegged Bill McReynolds as the killer and would not let go until his 2002 death of heart failure. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

    Another incident came in 2006 when a ten-month-old boy named Jason Midyette was beaten to death and she wouldn't take any action because the grandfather owns half of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. Lacy only filed charges after Bill O'Reilly's people hounded her in her own driveway for weeks.

    There are many reasons why Patsy Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. The DA's office is one of the big ones. When ST talks about the people in this case who will have to beg their way into heaven, you KNOW who he's talking about.

    I've laid down the challenge. Defend them if you can!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Hey, everybody. I thought that since we're all talking about profiles and perceptions and backgrounds, I figured I'd do one on a subject that really needs it.

    I apologize if any of you find the title to be harsh. After I'm done, you will understand it.

    During my tenure with this case, I can't help but notice how differently the DA in Boulder does things from other jurisdictions. I'm not the only one, but we'll get to that. And the reason this should be analyzed is because it goes right to the heart of why no action was taken in this case.

    This thread is meant as a challenge to all who say that there wasn't enough evidence to take the Rs to trial. I mean to demonstrate my often-repeated assertion that the good prosecutor could have made a case by showing what a good prosecutor is NOT.

    Alex Hunter was elected DA in 1972 and was never voted out until his retirement in 2000. This case was his downfall because he was not able to do what he had done in the past: sweep his failings under the rug. He was a product of the 60s, that terrible and terribly romanticized era when cops were "pigs," drugs were "in," and big government was the solution to every problem. He was a defense lawyer who felt that winning wasn't everything when it came to trying criminals. And he certainly practiced what he preached. By Christmas of 1996, Alex Hunter had not taken a single case to trial in almost a decade. To say he was not an aggressive prosecutor is like saying water is wet. He spent most of his time offering plea bargains. With such a dismal record, his thirty year tenure is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't understand the Boulder political climate, but simple once you do. And that long tenure led to inertia and complaceny. To those who claim that since he was never voted out, he couldn't have been that bad, I say this: there's an old saying in American politics that says "you get the government you deserve." Boulder deserved Alex Hunter. JonBenet certainly did not.

    But these are all generalizations. Let's look at some hard specifics. Many sources have spoken of Hunter's lousy record, so let's have a look:

    --1981: In a highly publicized case, Hunter charged Christopher Courtney with second-degree murder after Courtney shot two people dead at the Longmont Civic Center. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, Hunter reduced the charge to criminally negligent homicide and Courtney walked away with a two-year sentence in the county jail. That generated cries of dismay from the mayor and city council.

    --1982: Kirk Long resigned as undersheriff. Long penned a letter at that time that sounds strikingly reminiscent of that written in 1998 by Steve Thomas. The letter said, in part: "We in America have a legal system that is designed to be adversarial. It is apparent to me that the only adversary relationships within the legal system of the 20th Judicial District are the relationships between law enforcement agencies and the office of the District Attorney. The ignoring of compelling physical evidence, the artificial bolstering of conviction statistics through plea bargaining, deferred prosecutions, and deferred sentences speaks loudly of incompetence and political maneuvering. The essence of my belief is that the citizens of Boulder County do not have an advocate in the judicial system."

    --1985: In a case of foot-dragging, it took Hunter more than two years to charge Mike Grainger with a crime, even though Grainger's obese wife was found laying in bed with a massive head wound, and there was no evidence of an intruder. Grainger got three years.

    --1986: In his last major case, Hunter was named special prosecutor in neighboring Adams County to try the sheriff there, Bert Johnson. The sheriff was charged with extortion, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Hunter offered to dismiss all charges if Johnson would resign from office, but the judge rejected the deal. Hunter lost the case at trial. He decided never to try another case.

    And it should come as no surprise that the Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the JB case went nowhere, because none of the DAs, including Hunter himself, had any real experience with handling them. He and his staff didn't WANT a GJ in the first place, and only did so because Gov. Romer was feeling the heat from ST's resignation letter and wanted to cover his own butt. Once he was bricked into that corner, at least he had the sense to call in outside help. Specifically, he brought on Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey, experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to handle Grand Juries. But, as with the GJ itself--which I have aptly described as a dog and pony show, which the doberman no-showed--the three specialists were essentially window-dressing, which they themselves have said. To paraphrase Henry Lee, the egg was already scrambled. I should point out that there is only one instance where a Grand Jury was used by Hunter, and it was a debacle just like this case. I'll let ST tell it:

    I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in 1983 for the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, becasue Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the GJ hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of this deal.

    With this in mind, the various sources--both RDI and IDI--who claimed that Hunter dismissed the Ramsey GJ before they could vote become even more credible.

    Then there's Hunter's mindset, which I have often talked about. It's been said that Hunter had a definition of reasonable doubt that no one could meet, and that he'd require a videotape of the crime, a signed confession and a DNA match just to issue an arrest warrant. He would often defend this inflexibility by saying that he wanted to get all of his ducks in order. During the A&E documentary "Anatomy of a Murder," Hunter said, incredibly, that Johnnie Cocharan rushed the LA DA into prosecuting OJ Simpson before they were ready, even though they had a mountain of evidence against him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I have no doubt that the Simpson case scared the brown stuff out of Hunter. It's implication was clear: if a powerful, aggressive team of prosecutors with a mountain of evidence couldn't convict OJ--even though the only thing they were missing was the proverbial busload of nuns--what chance did Hunter have against lawyers from one of the most powerful law firms in the country?

    He claimed that the police didn't have enough evidence to bring charges, but he himself could have done the required things to GET evidence. He did none of them. Hrefused to grant search warrants. He refused to countenance the idea of throwing the Rs into separate holding cells until one confessed, even though it worked like a charm in the Lisa Steinberg case. He gave away tons of evidence to the defense.

    That's not to say that he doesn't have his fans. Problem is, they're all far-left, "cops-are-pigs" defense attorneys. One is Alan Dershowitz, who defended OJ. Here's an exchange between him and ST:

    DERSHOWITZ: I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized, I think he's a constitutional hero. He's a man who has made a decision to take the barbs and the slings, and there are going to be many, because it's much easier to bring the case. It would take no courage to bring the prosecution, and then if the jury acquitted, blame it on the jury. But it takes a lot of courage for a district attorney to bite the bullet and take the hard decision, and say there was a murder, maybe it's even likely certain people did it, but likely isn't enough.

    THOMAS: Well, let me make one comment. Mr. Dershowitz is with all due respect, a notorious criminal defense attorney. Where is a Vincent Bugliosi or a Rudy Giuliani sitting next to Mr. Hunter, these guys, who I consider hero prosecutors making that argument.


    REAL prosecutors have no trouble calling it like it is. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Vincent Bugliosi:

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI I'm sure he's an honorable person and he's interested in seeking justice in this case. But he's certainly not the stereotypical DA who's tough and hard—nosed. And you need an aggressive DA in a situation like this. And he apparently is not that type of person.

    ELIZABETH VARGAS (VO) Which, perhaps, is why his critics say it took public protest to get the Ramsey case to a grand jury after nearly two years. Remember, a grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify. (interviewing) How unusual is it to wait that long to impanel a grand jury to investigate that?

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI It's highly unusual, particularly when you have two suspects and they're not cooperating with you I mean, it's DA 101 that when you have two suspects, you do everything possible immediately to separate those two and not give them time for their stories to harden and to reconcile with each other. It's being done now, a year and a half later. But it's a little late in the day. Incompetence.


    And that's not even the worst of it. When he left, Mary Lacy took over, and she was even worse. At least--according to Henry Lee and ST--Hunter would hear all sides. Lacy was like Paul Simon's Boxer: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. She refused to even SPEAK to the investigators who worked on the case during Hunter's tenure. She made up her mind from Day One that since the Rs didn't fit the standard profile, they couldn't have done this. She let her feminist beliefs cloud her judgment. She pegged Bill McReynolds as the killer and would not let go until his 2002 death of heart failure. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

    Another incident came in 2006 when a ten-month-old boy named Jason Midyette was beaten to death and she wouldn't take any action because the grandfather owns half of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. Lacy only filed charges after Bill O'Reilly's people hounded her in her own driveway for weeks.

    There are many reasons why Patsy Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. The DA's office is one of the big ones. When ST talks about the people in this case who will have to beg their way into heaven, you KNOW who he's talking about.

    I've laid down the challenge. Defend them if you can!
    A couple a things immediately spring to mind, BUT, I need to undersand this more. I wonder if you'd indulge me (as a SFF) by explaining how things work. I've watched the TV cop shows, but your system is SOOO different to ours.

    This DA is elected by who, based on what? Politics - is this party based? What is the relationship between DA and PD? I think that PD do the investigations and present evidence to DA who then decides what to do with it, but is DA PD's boss? Is PD elected too? What is the relationship between DA and city officials (mayor and councillors), is city or DA boss? Grand Jury is different how to normal jury/trial? That's all at present, I'd appreciate the instruction.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    A couple a things immediately spring to mind, BUT, I need to understand this more. I wonder if you'd indulge me (as a SFF) by explaining how things work. I've watched the TV cop shows, but your system is SOOO different to ours.
    I know. So yes, I'll be happy to answer your questions.

    This DA is elected by who, based on what?
    The DA is elected by the people, that is the popular vote, on the county level, based on who the public thinks will serve their interests best. This is a foregone conclusion if one candidate runs unopposed.

    Politics - is this party based?
    Yes, it is. For example, Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy were Democrats, the same party as President Obama. Ben Thompson, the man who ran against Mary Lacy in the 2000 primary, was also a Democrat. There aren't too many non-Democratic politicians in Boulder. Stan Garnett, the current DA, ran virtually unopposed.

    What is the relationship between DA and PD? I think that PD do the investigations and present evidence to DA who then decides what to do with it,
    That's the way it's supposed to go.

    but is DA PD's boss?
    DA does exert some authority over PD. It's a limited basis.

    Is PD elected too?
    Only the county sheriff is elected. All other ranking police officals are appointed by the civilian review board. Regular cops are those who graduate from the police academy.

    What is the relationship between DA and city officials (mayor and councillors), is city or DA boss?
    Well, at that level, they're about even. The DA has a fair amount of autonomy from the city. For one thing, prosecutors have absolute discretion over who they do and don't press charges against. The mayor cannot "boss" the DA around. Checks and balances.

    The Governor and the State Attorney General exert more influence. They are within their rights, if they feel the need, to remove a DA from a case and appoint a special, independent prosecutor. This person would wield considerable power and would report only to the person who appointed them.

    Grand Jury is different how to normal jury/trial?
    A Grand Jury is different from a trial jury in several major ways. One, a trial jury only comprises of 12 people; a Grand Jury has 24. Two, a trial jury has to hear both the prosecution's case and the defense's case. A Grand Jury does not have to hear both sides. Often, it is a way for prosecutors to force testimony from uncooperative witnesses and gain access that other law enforcement officials cannot get. Three, a Grand Jury can choose to indict or not to indict, but double jeopardy does not apply. A Grand Jury can be recalled at any time.

    That's all at present, I'd appreciate the instruction.
    I hope this helps.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    A couple a things immediately spring to mind, BUT, I need to undersand this more. I wonder if you'd indulge me (as a SFF) by explaining how things work. I've watched the TV cop shows, but your system is SOOO different to ours.

    This DA is elected by who, based on what? Politics - is this party based? What is the relationship between DA and PD? I think that PD do the investigations and present evidence to DA who then decides what to do with it, but is DA PD's boss? Is PD elected too? What is the relationship between DA and city officials (mayor and councillors), is city or DA boss? Grand Jury is different how to normal jury/trial? That's all at present, I'd appreciate the instruction.
    I'll try. A DA is either elected or appointed depending on the district. If elected, it is the local populace in the district that elects the DA. He "runs" for the office, the way a mayor would. It is party based, for the most part. The DA in most cases (NOT in this case) has a smooth relationship with the PD, with the DA facilitating the PD's investigation. In THIS case, the DA did all it could to obstruct the investigation, denying warrants that the PD needed to do a thorough job and sharing evidence with the defense attorneys.(This last item is unprecedented in a criminal investigation) Evidence IS given to the defense, but only AFTER an indictment. It is a "lay the cards on the table" thing, and unlike situations where police can tell a suspect things that are not actually factual, the disclosure MUST be 100% accurate and truthful.
    PDs are never elected. The police force in any district is hired. Promotions are supposed to be based on performance and seniority, but political pressures and favoritism play a part too.
    The DA is not the "boss" of the PD, but without cooperation from the DA, cases can't move toward prosecution properly. The DA is always a lawyer. PD are not lawyers as a rule.
    Mayors and other city officials all play a part in the political party "machine" but officials like mayors and city councils really do not involved in criminal cases (unless they are defendants).
    A Grand Jury is different from a trial jury in many ways. One way is that when a suspect is questioned by a Grand Jury, the suspect may NOT have their attorneys present. A suspect must either answer all questions under oath (and threat of perjury charges if they lie) OR they can invoke the 5th Amendment (to our Constitution), which states that a person cannot be forced to make statements that incriminate themselves. By "taking the Fifth", a suspect avoids answering the question, but in doing so, is actually admitting that to answer the question would implicate themselves as being involved in the crime they are accused of. In a way, it is an indirect admission of guilt or of involvement in the crime.
    Once a GJ returns an indictment, the jury trial begins unless the suspect and his attorneys plea bargain. With DA in this case, he was well known to never want to go to trial in case he lost. He preferred plea bargains to prosecuting a trial. If a GJ recommends indictment and the case goes to trial, the trial jury will be convened made up of people who are supposedly free of knowledge or prejudices about the crime or accused person. Now is where the defense attorneys have their day. Even if there is sufficient evidence of guilt submitted to a GJ, it does not always mean that a defendant will actually be found guilty.
    I am not a lawyer or LE, so any of you who are, please correct me if I am wrong.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    And you laugh most ruthlessly as you tell us what not to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Hey, everybody. I thought that since we're all talking about profiles and perceptions and backgrounds, I figured I'd do one on a subject that really needs it.

    I apologize if any of you find the title to be harsh. After I'm done, you will understand it.

    During my tenure with this case, I can't help but notice how differently the DA in Boulder does things from other jurisdictions. I'm not the only one, but we'll get to that. And the reason this should be analyzed is because it goes right to the heart of why no action was taken in this case.

    This thread is meant as a challenge to all who say that there wasn't enough evidence to take the Rs to trial. I mean to demonstrate my often-repeated assertion that the good prosecutor could have made a case by showing what a good prosecutor is NOT.

    Alex Hunter was elected DA in 1972 and was never voted out until his retirement in 2000. This case was his downfall because he was not able to do what he had done in the past: sweep his failings under the rug. He was a product of the 60s, that terrible and terribly romanticized era when cops were "pigs," drugs were "in," and big government was the solution to every problem. He was a defense lawyer who felt that winning wasn't everything when it came to trying criminals. And he certainly practiced what he preached. By Christmas of 1996, Alex Hunter had not taken a single case to trial in almost a decade. To say he was not an aggressive prosecutor is like saying water is wet. He spent most of his time offering plea bargains. With such a dismal record, his thirty year tenure is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't understand the Boulder political climate, but simple once you do. And that long tenure led to inertia and complaceny. To those who claim that since he was never voted out, he couldn't have been that bad, I say this: there's an old saying in American politics that says "you get the government you deserve." Boulder deserved Alex Hunter. JonBenet certainly did not.

    But these are all generalizations. Let's look at some hard specifics. Many sources have spoken of Hunter's lousy record, so let's have a look:

    --1981: In a highly publicized case, Hunter charged Christopher Courtney with second-degree murder after Courtney shot two people dead at the Longmont Civic Center. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, Hunter reduced the charge to criminally negligent homicide and Courtney walked away with a two-year sentence in the county jail. That generated cries of dismay from the mayor and city council.

    --1982: Kirk Long resigned as undersheriff. Long penned a letter at that time that sounds strikingly reminiscent of that written in 1998 by Steve Thomas. The letter said, in part: "We in America have a legal system that is designed to be adversarial. It is apparent to me that the only adversary relationships within the legal system of the 20th Judicial District are the relationships between law enforcement agencies and the office of the District Attorney. The ignoring of compelling physical evidence, the artificial bolstering of conviction statistics through plea bargaining, deferred prosecutions, and deferred sentences speaks loudly of incompetence and political maneuvering. The essence of my belief is that the citizens of Boulder County do not have an advocate in the judicial system."

    --1985: In a case of foot-dragging, it took Hunter more than two years to charge Mike Grainger with a crime, even though Grainger's obese wife was found laying in bed with a massive head wound, and there was no evidence of an intruder. Grainger got three years.

    --1986: In his last major case, Hunter was named special prosecutor in neighboring Adams County to try the sheriff there, Bert Johnson. The sheriff was charged with extortion, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Hunter offered to dismiss all charges if Johnson would resign from office, but the judge rejected the deal. Hunter lost the case at trial. He decided never to try another case.

    And it should come as no surprise that the Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the JB case went nowhere, because none of the DAs, including Hunter himself, had any real experience with handling them. He and his staff didn't WANT a GJ in the first place, and only did so because Gov. Romer was feeling the heat from ST's resignation letter and wanted to cover his own butt. Once he was bricked into that corner, at least he had the sense to call in outside help. Specifically, he brought on Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey, experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to handle Grand Juries. But, as with the GJ itself--which I have aptly described as a dog and pony show, which the doberman no-showed--the three specialists were essentially window-dressing, which they themselves have said. To paraphrase Henry Lee, the egg was already scrambled. I should point out that there is only one instance where a Grand Jury was used by Hunter, and it was a debacle just like this case. I'll let ST tell it:

    I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in 1983 for the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, becasue Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the GJ hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of this deal.

    With this in mind, the various sources--both RDI and IDI--who claimed that Hunter dismissed the Ramsey GJ before they could vote become even more credible.

    Then there's Hunter's mindset, which I have often talked about. It's been said that Hunter had a definition of reasonable doubt that no one could meet, and that he'd require a videotape of the crime, a signed confession and a DNA match just to issue an arrest warrant. He would often defend this inflexibility by saying that he wanted to get all of his ducks in order. During the A&E documentary "Anatomy of a Murder," Hunter said, incredibly, that Johnnie Cocharan rushed the LA DA into prosecuting OJ Simpson before they were ready, even though they had a mountain of evidence against him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I have no doubt that the Simpson case scared the brown stuff out of Hunter. It's implication was clear: if a powerful, aggressive team of prosecutors with a mountain of evidence couldn't convict OJ--even though the only thing they were missing was the proverbial busload of nuns--what chance did Hunter have against lawyers from one of the most powerful law firms in the country?

    He claimed that the police didn't have enough evidence to bring charges, but he himself could have done the required things to GET evidence. He did none of them. Hrefused to grant search warrants. He refused to countenance the idea of throwing the Rs into separate holding cells until one confessed, even though it worked like a charm in the Lisa Steinberg case. He gave away tons of evidence to the defense.

    That's not to say that he doesn't have his fans. Problem is, they're all far-left, "cops-are-pigs" defense attorneys. One is Alan Dershowitz, who defended OJ. Here's an exchange between him and ST:

    DERSHOWITZ: I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized, I think he's a constitutional hero. He's a man who has made a decision to take the barbs and the slings, and there are going to be many, because it's much easier to bring the case. It would take no courage to bring the prosecution, and then if the jury acquitted, blame it on the jury. But it takes a lot of courage for a district attorney to bite the bullet and take the hard decision, and say there was a murder, maybe it's even likely certain people did it, but likely isn't enough.

    THOMAS: Well, let me make one comment. Mr. Dershowitz is with all due respect, a notorious criminal defense attorney. Where is a Vincent Bugliosi or a Rudy Giuliani sitting next to Mr. Hunter, these guys, who I consider hero prosecutors making that argument.


    REAL prosecutors have no trouble calling it like it is. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Vincent Bugliosi:

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI I'm sure he's an honorable person and he's interested in seeking justice in this case. But he's certainly not the stereotypical DA who's tough and hard—nosed. And you need an aggressive DA in a situation like this. And he apparently is not that type of person.

    ELIZABETH VARGAS (VO) Which, perhaps, is why his critics say it took public protest to get the Ramsey case to a grand jury after nearly two years. Remember, a grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify. (interviewing) How unusual is it to wait that long to impanel a grand jury to investigate that?

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI It's highly unusual, particularly when you have two suspects and they're not cooperating with you I mean, it's DA 101 that when you have two suspects, you do everything possible immediately to separate those two and not give them time for their stories to harden and to reconcile with each other. It's being done now, a year and a half later. But it's a little late in the day. Incompetence.


    And that's not even the worst of it. When he left, Mary Lacy took over, and she was even worse. At least--according to Henry Lee and ST--Hunter would hear all sides. Lacy was like Paul Simon's Boxer: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. She refused to even SPEAK to the investigators who worked on the case during Hunter's tenure. She made up her mind from Day One that since the Rs didn't fit the standard profile, they couldn't have done this. She let her feminist beliefs cloud her judgment. She pegged Bill McReynolds as the killer and would not let go until his 2002 death of heart failure. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

    Another incident came in 2006 when a ten-month-old boy named Jason Midyette was beaten to death and she wouldn't take any action because the grandfather owns half of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. Lacy only filed charges after Bill O'Reilly's people hounded her in her own driveway for weeks.

    There are many reasons why Patsy Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. The DA's office is one of the big ones. When ST talks about the people in this case who will have to beg their way into heaven, you KNOW who he's talking about.

    I've laid down the challenge. Defend them if you can!
    Doesn't mean they were guilty.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Hey, everybody. I thought that since we're all talking about profiles and perceptions and backgrounds, I figured I'd do one on a subject that really needs it.

    I apologize if any of you find the title to be harsh. After I'm done, you will understand it.

    During my tenure with this case, I can't help but notice how differently the DA in Boulder does things from other jurisdictions. I'm not the only one, but we'll get to that. And the reason this should be analyzed is because it goes right to the heart of why no action was taken in this case.

    This thread is meant as a challenge to all who say that there wasn't enough evidence to take the Rs to trial. I mean to demonstrate my often-repeated assertion that the good prosecutor could have made a case by showing what a good prosecutor is NOT.

    Alex Hunter was elected DA in 1972 and was never voted out until his retirement in 2000. This case was his downfall because he was not able to do what he had done in the past: sweep his failings under the rug. He was a product of the 60s, that terrible and terribly romanticized era when cops were "pigs," drugs were "in," and big government was the solution to every problem. He was a defense lawyer who felt that winning wasn't everything when it came to trying criminals. And he certainly practiced what he preached. By Christmas of 1996, Alex Hunter had not taken a single case to trial in almost a decade. To say he was not an aggressive prosecutor is like saying water is wet. He spent most of his time offering plea bargains. With such a dismal record, his thirty year tenure is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't understand the Boulder political climate, but simple once you do. And that long tenure led to inertia and complaceny. To those who claim that since he was never voted out, he couldn't have been that bad, I say this: there's an old saying in American politics that says "you get the government you deserve." Boulder deserved Alex Hunter. JonBenet certainly did not.

    But these are all generalizations. Let's look at some hard specifics. Many sources have spoken of Hunter's lousy record, so let's have a look:

    --1981: In a highly publicized case, Hunter charged Christopher Courtney with second-degree murder after Courtney shot two people dead at the Longmont Civic Center. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, Hunter reduced the charge to criminally negligent homicide and Courtney walked away with a two-year sentence in the county jail. That generated cries of dismay from the mayor and city council.

    --1982: Kirk Long resigned as undersheriff. Long penned a letter at that time that sounds strikingly reminiscent of that written in 1998 by Steve Thomas. The letter said, in part: "We in America have a legal system that is designed to be adversarial. It is apparent to me that the only adversary relationships within the legal system of the 20th Judicial District are the relationships between law enforcement agencies and the office of the District Attorney. The ignoring of compelling physical evidence, the artificial bolstering of conviction statistics through plea bargaining, deferred prosecutions, and deferred sentences speaks loudly of incompetence and political maneuvering. The essence of my belief is that the citizens of Boulder County do not have an advocate in the judicial system."

    --1985: In a case of foot-dragging, it took Hunter more than two years to charge Mike Grainger with a crime, even though Grainger's obese wife was found laying in bed with a massive head wound, and there was no evidence of an intruder. Grainger got three years.

    --1986: In his last major case, Hunter was named special prosecutor in neighboring Adams County to try the sheriff there, Bert Johnson. The sheriff was charged with extortion, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Hunter offered to dismiss all charges if Johnson would resign from office, but the judge rejected the deal. Hunter lost the case at trial. He decided never to try another case.

    And it should come as no surprise that the Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the JB case went nowhere, because none of the DAs, including Hunter himself, had any real experience with handling them. He and his staff didn't WANT a GJ in the first place, and only did so because Gov. Romer was feeling the heat from ST's resignation letter and wanted to cover his own butt. Once he was bricked into that corner, at least he had the sense to call in outside help. Specifically, he brought on Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey, experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to handle Grand Juries. But, as with the GJ itself--which I have aptly described as a dog and pony show, which the doberman no-showed--the three specialists were essentially window-dressing, which they themselves have said. To paraphrase Henry Lee, the egg was already scrambled. I should point out that there is only one instance where a Grand Jury was used by Hunter, and it was a debacle just like this case. I'll let ST tell it:

    I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in 1983 for the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, becasue Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the GJ hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of this deal.

    With this in mind, the various sources--both RDI and IDI--who claimed that Hunter dismissed the Ramsey GJ before they could vote become even more credible.

    Then there's Hunter's mindset, which I have often talked about. It's been said that Hunter had a definition of reasonable doubt that no one could meet, and that he'd require a videotape of the crime, a signed confession and a DNA match just to issue an arrest warrant. He would often defend this inflexibility by saying that he wanted to get all of his ducks in order. During the A&E documentary "Anatomy of a Murder," Hunter said, incredibly, that Johnnie Cocharan rushed the LA DA into prosecuting OJ Simpson before they were ready, even though they had a mountain of evidence against him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I have no doubt that the Simpson case scared the brown stuff out of Hunter. It's implication was clear: if a powerful, aggressive team of prosecutors with a mountain of evidence couldn't convict OJ--even though the only thing they were missing was the proverbial busload of nuns--what chance did Hunter have against lawyers from one of the most powerful law firms in the country?

    He claimed that the police didn't have enough evidence to bring charges, but he himself could have done the required things to GET evidence. He did none of them. Hrefused to grant search warrants. He refused to countenance the idea of throwing the Rs into separate holding cells until one confessed, even though it worked like a charm in the Lisa Steinberg case. He gave away tons of evidence to the defense.

    That's not to say that he doesn't have his fans. Problem is, they're all far-left, "cops-are-pigs" defense attorneys. One is Alan Dershowitz, who defended OJ. Here's an exchange between him and ST:

    DERSHOWITZ: I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized, I think he's a constitutional hero. He's a man who has made a decision to take the barbs and the slings, and there are going to be many, because it's much easier to bring the case. It would take no courage to bring the prosecution, and then if the jury acquitted, blame it on the jury. But it takes a lot of courage for a district attorney to bite the bullet and take the hard decision, and say there was a murder, maybe it's even likely certain people did it, but likely isn't enough.

    THOMAS: Well, let me make one comment. Mr. Dershowitz is with all due respect, a notorious criminal defense attorney. Where is a Vincent Bugliosi or a Rudy Giuliani sitting next to Mr. Hunter, these guys, who I consider hero prosecutors making that argument.


    REAL prosecutors have no trouble calling it like it is. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Vincent Bugliosi:

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI I'm sure he's an honorable person and he's interested in seeking justice in this case. But he's certainly not the stereotypical DA who's tough and hard—nosed. And you need an aggressive DA in a situation like this. And he apparently is not that type of person.

    ELIZABETH VARGAS (VO) Which, perhaps, is why his critics say it took public protest to get the Ramsey case to a grand jury after nearly two years. Remember, a grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify. (interviewing) How unusual is it to wait that long to impanel a grand jury to investigate that?

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI It's highly unusual, particularly when you have two suspects and they're not cooperating with you I mean, it's DA 101 that when you have two suspects, you do everything possible immediately to separate those two and not give them time for their stories to harden and to reconcile with each other. It's being done now, a year and a half later. But it's a little late in the day. Incompetence.


    And that's not even the worst of it. When he left, Mary Lacy took over, and she was even worse. At least--according to Henry Lee and ST--Hunter would hear all sides. Lacy was like Paul Simon's Boxer: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. She refused to even SPEAK to the investigators who worked on the case during Hunter's tenure. She made up her mind from Day One that since the Rs didn't fit the standard profile, they couldn't have done this. She let her feminist beliefs cloud her judgment. She pegged Bill McReynolds as the killer and would not let go until his 2002 death of heart failure. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

    Another incident came in 2006 when a ten-month-old boy named Jason Midyette was beaten to death and she wouldn't take any action because the grandfather owns half of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. Lacy only filed charges after Bill O'Reilly's people hounded her in her own driveway for weeks.

    There are many reasons why Patsy Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. The DA's office is one of the big ones. When ST talks about the people in this case who will have to beg their way into heaven, you KNOW who he's talking about.

    I've laid down the challenge. Defend them if you can!
    Needless to say, it's not possible for me to comment in depth on your legal system, so I'll try to keep to general observations.

    While you have given us a few examples of what you believe was wrong with the way the DA in Boulder did things, you did not present any evidence that this jurisdiction did/does things any differently than any other.

    You have presented three cases where you believe the DA's actions may have led to reduced punishment

    1981 - Christopher Courtney - 2 years
    1985 - Mike Grainger - 3 years
    1986 - Bert Johnson - jury found not guilty

    I'm assuming you are one of the people who are authors of this article, as you did not credit it as the source, although some of it was quoted word for word?

    The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey
    by J. J. Maloney & J. Patrick O'Connor
    Related Story: Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross. (04/14/03)

    http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

    Interesting that you omitted some of the article, so here it is, and I quote:

    "While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

    In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

    His actions as prosecutor have often caused criticism to rain down on him."


    and inexplicably, this part of the article was also omitted from the list of his inactions,

    "1992: The Rape Crisis Team, part of the Mental Health Center of Boulder County, penned a report, "Sexual Assault in Boulder County: The Crimes and Their Consequences." The report showed that, in 1990, of 60 cases involving children, 42 abusers avoided serving any time at all, three went to a halfway house, 13 served county jail time (half of those with work-release) and only one was sentenced to state prison."

    So, can I assume you prefer that the forum does not know the number of sexual assualts on children in Boulder County?? Perhaps you find this irrelevant to your argument?

    Then this paragraph, also omitted, which is almost a backhanded compliment of Hunter

    "Hunter, who did not seek re-election in 2000, made a lot of enemies over the years, but they were never able to do him in politically. Ordinarily, in a case such as JonBenet's, the danger to a prosecutor perceived as shirking his duty comes from the parents. In the Ramsey case everything is twisted. The parents – who have considerable power – have showered praise on the "professionalism" of Hunter's office and scorn on the Boulder Police Department. According to Det. Thomas, Hunter and his staff are the only reason the Ramseys have avoided indictment"

    One paragraph from the conclusion is very telling.

    "Time is on the Ramseys side. When the grand jury failed to indict them, they passed their gravest test. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, they describe in great detail the fear they had of the grand jury and how they expected an indictment against both of them. They were so sure they would be indicted that they returned to Boulder in the days before the grand jury was mandated to finish its deliberations. They wanted desperately to avoid the ignominy of being arrested in Atlanta and forced to spend several days in the Fulton County Jail before being extradited to Colorado. Both had a deep revulsion to the image of their being arrested and handcuffed. Above all, they did not want to be handcuffed. They wanted to be able to just turn themselves in to the district attorney's office and have bond posted immediately for their release."

    There are many reasons why Patsy Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. The DA's office is one of the big ones. When ST talks about the people in this case who will have to beg their way into heaven, you KNOW who he's talking about.
    Now, instead of blaming the problem on the DA, perhaps you should instead place the blame squarely at the feet of the BPD. The fact that they had decided early on that they already had JBR's killers is well documented, and neither is it denied by the BPD themslelves.

    Det. Arndt 'knew' it was JR as soon as he found JBR's body and she saw the "look in his eyes". ST was convinced it was PR who did it. They were determinded to find one of the R's guilty.

    They tried and tried to find enough evidence, but there was and is not enough to convince a reasonable person, let alone for a jury to convict. I believe it is the DA's duty NOT to take such weak cases to trial. The strategy is to wait until they have evidence that they believe will lead to a conviction. If I understand correctly, you cannot be tried again if you are found not guilty of a crime, unless there is new evidence so strong that it would result in the reversal of the original decision? So, if that evidence actually exists, then it MUST be found before ANYONE could be charged, stand trial and have a reasonable chance of being found guilty by a jury.

    For PR to have been prosecuted, she first needs to be guilty and then following this, the evidence of this guilt presented. Having a 'gut feeling' someone is guilty is not enough.

    The behaviour of the BPD in this investigation appears not to have only been incompetent, but they displayed an arrogance that seems intrinsic to their attitude (the screensaver one of the officers had on his computer for example "Ramseys are Killers") and demonstrates a total lack of discipline and effective leadership. To treat the parents of a child killed in such an horrific fashion in her own home on Christmas night in such an appalling manner, speaks volumes about their own prejudices and an inability to correctly assess a situation, again pointing to sloppy, shabby police work.
    Last edited by MurriFlower; 06-09-2010 at 08:52 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    And you wonder who to call on.

    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    Needless to say, it's not possible for me to comment in depth on your legal system, so I'll try to keep to general observations.

    While you have given us a few examples of what you believe was wrong with the way the DA in Boulder did things, you did not present any evidence that this jurisdiction did/does things any differently than any other.

    You have presented three cases where you believe the DA's actions may have led to reduced punishment

    1981 - Christopher Courtney - 2 years
    1985 - Mike Grainger - 3 years
    1986 - Bert Johnson - jury found not guilty

    I'm assuming you are one of the people who are authors of this article, as you did not credit it as the source, although some of it was quoted word for word?

    The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey
    by J. J. Maloney & J. Patrick O'Connor
    Related Story: Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross. (04/14/03)

    http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

    Interesting that you omitted some of the article, so here it is, and I quote:

    "While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

    In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

    His actions as prosecutor have often caused criticism to rain down on him."


    and inexplicably, this part of the article was also omitted from the list of his inactions,

    "1992: The Rape Crisis Team, part of the Mental Health Center of Boulder County, penned a report, "Sexual Assault in Boulder County: The Crimes and Their Consequences." The report showed that, in 1990, of 60 cases involving children, 42 abusers avoided serving any time at all, three went to a halfway house, 13 served county jail time (half of those with work-release) and only one was sentenced to state prison."

    So, can I assume you prefer that the forum does not know the number of sexual assualts on children in Boulder County?? Perhaps you find this irrelevant to your argument?

    Then this paragraph, also omitted, which is almost a backhanded compliment of Hunter

    "Hunter, who did not seek re-election in 2000, made a lot of enemies over the years, but they were never able to do him in politically. Ordinarily, in a case such as JonBenet's, the danger to a prosecutor perceived as shirking his duty comes from the parents. In the Ramsey case everything is twisted. The parents – who have considerable power – have showered praise on the "professionalism" of Hunter's office and scorn on the Boulder Police Department. According to Det. Thomas, Hunter and his staff are the only reason the Ramseys have avoided indictment"

    One paragraph from the conclusion is very telling.

    "Time is on the Ramseys side. When the grand jury failed to indict them, they passed their gravest test. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, they describe in great detail the fear they had of the grand jury and how they expected an indictment against both of them. They were so sure they would be indicted that they returned to Boulder in the days before the grand jury was mandated to finish its deliberations. They wanted desperately to avoid the ignominy of being arrested in Atlanta and forced to spend several days in the Fulton County Jail before being extradited to Colorado. Both had a deep revulsion to the image of their being arrested and handcuffed. Above all, they did not want to be handcuffed. They wanted to be able to just turn themselves in to the district attorney's office and have bond posted immediately for their release."



    Now, instead of blaming the problem on the DA, perhaps you should instead place the blame squarely at the feet of the BPD. The fact that they had decided early on that they already had JBR's killers is well documented, and neither is it denied by the BPD themslelves.

    Det. Arndt 'knew' it was JR as soon as he found JBR's body and she saw the "look in his eyes". ST was convinced it was PR who did it. They were determinded to find one of the R's guilty.

    They tried and tried to find enough evidence, but there was and is not enough to convince a reasonable person, let alone for a jury to convict. I believe it is the DA's duty NOT to take such weak cases to trial. The strategy is to wait until they have evidence that they believe will lead to a conviction. If I understand correctly, you cannot be tried again if you are found not guilty of a crime, unless there is new evidence so strong that it would result in the reversal of the original decision? So, if that evidence actually exists, then it MUST be found before ANYONE could be charged, stand trial and have a reasonable chance of being found guilty by a jury.

    For PR to have been prosecuted, she first needs to be guilty and then following this, the evidence of this guilt presented. Having a 'gut feeling' someone is guilty is not enough.

    The behaviour of the BPD in this investigation appears not to have only been incompetent, but they displayed an arrogance that seems intrinsic to their attitude (the screensaver one of the officers had on his computer for example "Ramseys are Killers") and demonstrates a total lack of discipline and effective leadership. To treat the parents of a child killed in such an horrific fashion in her own home on Christmas night in such an appalling manner, speaks volumes about their own prejudices and an inability to correctly assess a situation, again pointing to sloppy, shabby police work.
    I expect "the other side of the story" would balance SD's presentation, at least to some extent. Regardless, even if the DA was more incompetent than is portrayed here, the Ramsey's guilt isn't established. That they got a break may be an understatement. That they were subjected to the relentless, criminal intrusions and fabrications of a brutal media swings the pendulum of justice back and then some.

    None of this makes any difference, though. All that matters is the evidence. SD, would you list every piece of evidence you have? Thanks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    Doesn't mean they were guilty.
    I KNOW that, Fang. My POINT is that:

    A) If they ARE guilty, then it was his incompetence that damaged any case against them beyond repair;

    and B) if they are innocent, then the things I listed that he didn't do could have proved it a long time ago.

    Like I said, defend them if you can.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    Needless to say, it's not possible for me to comment in depth on your legal system, so I'll try to keep to general observations.

    While you have given us a few examples of what you believe was wrong with the way the DA in Boulder did things, you did not present any evidence that this jurisdiction did/does things any differently than any other.
    Sorry. I admit it's tough for someone who is not familiar with the American legal system to take all of this in. Most people already know how things are done mostly every place else. So, to be specific:

    1) Hunter would not grant search warrants for clothing. He told the police to ask the Rs to turn over their items. The FBI was stunned when they found that out.

    2) Hunter would not grant an arrest warrant to have the Rs thrown into jail (not to be confused with prison; jail is just a holding cell before being processed) and hold them for a while to see if one would confess. He stated that the idea of doing so offended his sensibilities, even though it's a standard police ploy and is very effective. Just to give you a specific example, in 1990, a beautiful little girl named Lisa Steinberg was beaten to death in her New York City apartment. Her adoptive parents, Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nusbaum, were arrested. But the cops didn't know which one had done it, so they placed the parents in separate holding cells. Hedda Nusbaum cut a deal for immunity if she would testify against Steinberg. She did, and he went to prison.

    3) Perhaps most importantly, most DA's work hand-in-glove with police. If the cops bring a case, the DA will study it and if it's not up to his standards, he/she will say "do more work; bring me something harder than what you've got," etc. That did not happen in this case. The DA and his staff were constantly telling the cops to look elsewhere. I've never heard of something like that.

    You have presented three cases where you believe the DA's actions may have led to reduced punishment

    1981 - Christopher Courtney - 2 years
    1985 - Mike Grainger - 3 years
    1986 - Bert Johnson - jury found not guilty
    That I did.

    I'm assuming you are one of the people who are authors of this article, as you did not credit it as the source, although some of it was quoted word for word?

    The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey
    by J. J. Maloney & J. Patrick O'Connor
    Related Story: Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross. (04/14/03)

    http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm
    I did? Sorry about that. I legitimately did not know. I haven't read that in a while and was going by my notes.

    Interesting that you omitted some of the article,
    Omit, nothing! I didn't know!

    so here it is, and I quote:

    "While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

    In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

    His actions as prosecutor have often caused criticism to rain down on him."
    Right!

    and inexplicably, this part of the article was also omitted from the list of his inactions,

    "1992: The Rape Crisis Team, part of the Mental Health Center of Boulder County, penned a report, "Sexual Assault in Boulder County: The Crimes and Their Consequences." The report showed that, in 1990, of 60 cases involving children, 42 abusers avoided serving any time at all, three went to a halfway house, 13 served county jail time (half of those with work-release) and only one was sentenced to state prison."

    So, can I assume you prefer that the forum does not know the number of sexual assualts on children in Boulder County?? Perhaps you find this irrelevant to your argument?
    It's not inexplicable, and I don't find it irrelevant. I didn't KNOW!

    Then this paragraph, also omitted, which is almost a backhanded compliment of Hunter

    "Hunter, who did not seek re-election in 2000, made a lot of enemies over the years, but they were never able to do him in politically. Ordinarily, in a case such as JonBenet's, the danger to a prosecutor perceived as shirking his duty comes from the parents. In the Ramsey case everything is twisted. The parents – who have considerable power – have showered praise on the "professionalism" of Hunter's office and scorn on the Boulder Police Department. According to Det. Thomas, Hunter and his staff are the only reason the Ramseys have avoided indictment"
    I don't see how that's a compliment of ANY kind.

    One paragraph from the conclusion is very telling.

    "Time is on the Ramseys side. When the grand jury failed to indict them, they passed their gravest test. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, they describe in great detail the fear they had of the grand jury and how they expected an indictment against both of them. They were so sure they would be indicted that they returned to Boulder in the days before the grand jury was mandated to finish its deliberations. They wanted desperately to avoid the ignominy of being arrested in Atlanta and forced to spend several days in the Fulton County Jail before being extradited to Colorado. Both had a deep revulsion to the image of their being arrested and handcuffed. Above all, they did not want to be handcuffed. They wanted to be able to just turn themselves in to the district attorney's office and have bond posted immediately for their release."
    Yes, it is very telling, isn't it?

    Now, instead of blaming the problem on the DA, perhaps you should instead place the blame squarely at the feet of the BPD.
    I can't do that, MurriFlower. Because they don't deserve it. Even Mike Kane said that after the initial days, the BPD really got it together and conducted a fine investigation. Everything I've said here (and a lot of what you have said) goes to show who the real screw-up is. Usually I'd ask (semi-rhetorically) what is so hard to understand about this. But I'm willing to let some of it slide because you specifically are not familiar with how our American legal system is supposed to work. What the DA's office did in this case is NOT standard procedure, not by a DAMN sight.

    Det. Arndt 'knew' it was JR as soon as he found JBR's body and she saw the "look in his eyes". ST was convinced it was PR who did it. They were determinded to find one of the R's guilty.

    They tried and tried to find enough evidence, but there was and is not enough to convince a reasonable person, let alone for a jury to convict.
    That's where we part company, MurriFlower. I believe and have believed for a while now that a GOOD prosecutor (underline GOOD) could very well have made a case against them. In fact, that was my whole point: that Alex Hunter and his successor were NOT good prosecutors and did things that other prosecutors would not do, and did not do things that other prosecutors would do.

    Vincent Bugliosi himself used the word incompetence. I did not put that word in his mouth. I should think that would tell people something.

    I believe it is the DA's duty NOT to take such weak cases to trial. The strategy is to wait until they have evidence that they believe will lead to a conviction.
    That's something you're right about. But don't you see? That's exactly what I'm trying to say: how can a DA GET a strong case when he's working against the police who are trying to put one together? When he gives the defense attorneys the whole case? When he undercuts his own Grand Jury? When he has no real experience with grand juries at all?

    I'd really like to know the answers to these questions.

    If I understand correctly, you cannot be tried again if you are found not guilty of a crime, unless there is new evidence so strong that it would result in the reversal of the original decision?
    That's pretty much it. And even then, the only way to reverse the decision is if you can prove that the jury was tampered with or the judge was crooked or another DA intentionally tanked the case. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find afterwards, that person is home free.

    So, if that evidence actually exists, then it MUST be found before ANYONE could be charged, stand trial and have a reasonable chance of being found guilty by a jury.
    Agreed, but what good does it do when the DA doesn't know how to put together a case with circumstantial evidence? Or when the DA has a standard of evidence that's almost impossible to meet? Or has never taken a case to trial in ten years?

    I don't mean to come off so hard on you, MurriFlower. I realize that our system may seem very odd to someone who has not grown up in it.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    I expect "the other side of the story" would balance SD's presentation, at least to some extent.
    What "other side" is there?

    Regardless, even if the DA was more incompetent than is portrayed here, the Ramsey's guilt isn't established.
    Granted, but my point is one led to another. I asked people to try and defend the way the DA conducted himself in this case. I have yet to see anyone try.

    That they got a break may be an understatement. That they were subjected to the relentless, criminal intrusions and fabrications of a brutal media swings the pendulum of justice back and then some.
    Even if what you say is true, Fang, that's my point: the two DAs took it upon themselves to "rectify" the treatment that the Rs got from the media and, supposedly, the police. That's NOT the DA's JOB.

    None of this makes any difference, though.
    The hell it doesn't!

    All that matters is the evidence.
    My feelings EXACTLY! And that goes to the very HEART of what I'm trying to say with this thread: the DA's job is to take the evidence and put together a case, not worry about investigating other leads and denying search warrants so the prime suspects' FEELINGS don't get hurt.

    You get what I'm saying? No wonder I'm having such a hard time explaining our system to MurriFlower; I feel like I'm the one who's gone through the looking glass!

    SD, would you list every piece of evidence you have? Thanks.
    Yes, but not here. These threads have a habit of getting sidetracked.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.


  11. #11
    SuperDave;5269383]Sorry. I admit it's tough for someone who is not familiar with the American legal system to take all of this in. Most people already know how things are done mostly every place else. So, to be specific:
    I think there are similarities, it's not like a different planet. The burden is on those who are investigating (police, etc) to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence.


    1) Hunter would not grant search warrants for clothing. He told the police to ask the Rs to turn over their items. The FBI was stunned when they found that out.
    This demonstrates the BPD problem NOT the DA's. The BPD (eventhough they thought the Rs guilty from the get go) DID NOT EVEN THINK to ask them for the clothes they were that night.

    "10 Q. Did it strike you as odd that the

    11 Boulder Police Department never made a request

    12 to the Ramsey family to obtain the articles

    13 of clothing that they wore on the 25th of

    14 December for almost a year?

    15 MR. DIAMOND: Are you representing

    16 that is the case?

    17 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I think Mr. Thomas

    18 knows that is absolutely the case, don't you?

    19 A. Which question?

    20 Q. That the one that I -- well, the

    21 Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and

    22 Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing

    23 they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996

    24 until almost a year later, true?

    25 A. For a long time, that was a

    314

    1 mistake, yes.

    2 Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?

    3 A. That the police did that?

    4 Q. You and the police, you were part

    5 of the case?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. Why did you do it?

    8 A. Why did I do what?

    9 Q. Why didn't you ask the Ramseys to

    10 give you the articles of clothing they wore?

    11 A. In hindsight, that was important.

    12 Q. You had already concluded that

    13 Patsy Ramsey committed the crime before you

    14 even asked for the clothes that she had worn,

    15 true?

    16 A. Those should have been collected

    17 the first day and they weren't.

    18 Q. You had already concluded that

    19 Patsy Ramsey had committed the crime before

    20 you even asked the Ramseys for the clothes

    21 they had worn that night, true?

    22 A. It was my belief that that

    23 evidence that I'm talking about led to Patsy

    24 Ramsey. So yes, she was the best suspect

    25 before we wound up collecting their clothes.

    315

    1 Q. I'm not asking you about who is

    2 the best. I'm talking about you, Steve

    3 Thomas, a lead detective had concluded that

    4 Patsy Ramsey had killed her daughter,

    5 JonBenet, months before you or the Boulder

    6 Police Department even asked for the clothes

    7 that she and her husband were wearing that

    8 night; is that true?

    9 MR. DIAMOND: Asked and answered.

    10 You can answer.

    11 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Can I get an

    12 answer and then we can move on. Am I

    13 correct, sir?

    14 A. That's my belief that she was

    15 involved.

    16 Q. And the timing is correct, right?

    17 A. Prior to the retrieval of the

    18 clothing, yes.

    19 Q. All right. Thank you. It seems

    20 like it was a pretty simple question. "


    So as far as BDP were concerned the fibers weren't important in them in forming the RDI theory, but luckily for them (and according to them - remember we've seen no report on this, nor had ST) four of these fibers were 'consistent' with PR's jacket. So you're telling me this is snappy Police work??

    2) Hunter would not grant an arrest warrant to have the Rs thrown into jail (not to be confused with prison; jail is just a holding cell before being processed) and hold them for a while to see if one would confess. He stated that the idea of doing so offended his sensibilities, even though it's a standard police ploy and is very effective. Just to give you a specific example, in 1990, a beautiful little girl named Lisa Steinberg was beaten to death in her New York City apartment. Her adoptive parents, Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nusbaum, were arrested. But the cops didn't know which one had done it, so they placed the parents in separate holding cells. Hedda Nusbaum cut a deal for immunity if she would testify against Steinberg. She did, and he went to prison.
    Can't comment on other cases, and I'd really prefer if you just stuck to this one.

    Perhaps there was something called "Evidence" in this case? Evidence was not even considered important by BPD apparently, see answer above. Just the belief that they were guilty was quite enough it seems.

    Despite this, I can't imagine Police here taking the parents of a murdered child and 'throwing them in jail', until one confesses. I'm thinking it would be more likely (assuming they are guilty) to work against the Police case. It would be regarded as intimidation and there would be a raft of psychologists who would testify that any confession that was obtained was inadmissible due to having been obtained under duress. Aside from this, I wouldn't think it was appropriate just on a 'hunch' of the Cops, they would still need some concrete evidence.

    3) Perhaps most importantly, most DA's work hand-in-glove with police. If the cops bring a case, the DA will study it and if it's not up to his standards, he/she will say "do more work; bring me something harder than what you've got," etc. That did not happen in this case. The DA and his staff were constantly telling the cops to look elsewhere. I've never heard of something like that.
    Yes, this 'them and us' mentality seems to have permeated the entire case. From what you have told me, there aren't too many checks and balances in your system to 'fix' such difficulties. The BPD were their own worst enemies, constantly leaking their 'findings' to the press. ST admits it was an attempt to discredit the Rs and was one of the worst. If what he was doing was not illegal (I'm not convinced it wasn't) it was clearly 'wrong'. At least the DA had the guts to try to stop this. They were out of control - this is down to their leader.

    That I did.

    I did? Sorry about that. I legitimately did not know. I haven't read that in a while and was going by my notes.

    Omit, nothing! I didn't know!

    Right!

    It's not inexplicable, and I don't find it irrelevant. I didn't KNOW!

    I don't see how that's a compliment of ANY kind.

    Yes, it is very telling, isn't it?
    You see, to me SD this is all down to credibility. You find this a lot on the internet. People deliberately give the impression that they have done a certain amount of personal research on a subject, when in fact all they have done is the same 'cut and paste' that I can do with a Google search. If you use such uncredited quotes in your book, you are going to spend a lot of time in Court!

    This is beside the point of where this information came from. Even the posters from whom you stole the words may not have been the original authors. I've been criticised on this forum for quoting from expert researchers (because they were from Finland) and from Court proceedings (outdated), while you freely present as evidence of your claims information copied from uncredited sources. For all we know, this could be originally from a tabloid article (unless you believe these to be credible sources). It is most likely an exageration if not completely false. So what you've done here, despite your 13 year 'tenure with this case', is demonstrate your lack of expertise.

    I can't do that, MurriFlower. Because they don't deserve it. Even Mike Kane said that after the initial days, the BPD really got it together and conducted a fine investigation. Everything I've said here (and a lot of what you have said) goes to show who the real screw-up is. Usually I'd ask (semi-rhetorically) what is so hard to understand about this. But I'm willing to let some of it slide because you specifically are not familiar with how our American legal system is supposed to work. What the DA's office did in this case is NOT standard procedure, not by a DAMN sight.
    A 'fine investigation'?? Pull the other one!! Even ST doesn't believe that, even he can't defend what happened. Sorry, but this, but your legal system is only different in the way it is arranged. What the Police Department did was NOT standard procedure either. Or is it?? Here's what ST said.

    "6 Q. There was a lot of evidence that

    7 has never even been collected or even

    8 requested, true?

    9 A. Such as the clothing?

    10 Q. The clothes, that's a key piece of

    11 evidence, isn't it, sir?

    12 A. Correct. As I have said, that

    13 was a mistake.

    14 Q. Yeah, and it was one of many

    15 mistakes, wasn't it?

    16 A. I'm not here today defending the

    17 police department.

    18 Q. I'm not asking you to defend the

    19 police department.

    20 A. Yeah, there were many mistakes. "



    That's where we part company, MurriFlower. I believe and have believed for a while now that a GOOD prosecutor (underline GOOD) could very well have made a case against them. In fact, that was my whole point: that Alex Hunter and his successor were NOT good prosecutors and did things that other prosecutors would not do, and did not do things that other prosecutors would do.

    Vincent Bugliosi himself used the word incompetence. I did not put that word in his mouth. I should think that would tell people something.
    Your GOOD prosecutor would have to be VERY GOOD (or particularly stupid) to prosecute a case with such flimsy (and that's an exageration) evidence.

    That's something you're right about. But don't you see? That's exactly what I'm trying to say: how can a DA GET a strong case when he's working against the police who are trying to put one together? When he gives the defense attorneys the whole case? When he undercuts his own Grand Jury? When he has no real experience with grand juries at all?

    I'd really like to know the answers to these questions.

    That's pretty much it. And even then, the only way to reverse the decision is if you can prove that the jury was tampered with or the judge was crooked or another DA intentionally tanked the case. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find afterwards, that person is home free.

    Agreed, but what good does it do when the DA doesn't know how to put together a case with circumstantial evidence? Or when the DA has a standard of evidence that's almost impossible to meet? Or has never taken a case to trial in ten years?
    I'm still trying to work out if you are naive or if you are trying to kid us. WOL seems to think the former. I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both.

    I don't mean to come off so hard on you, MurriFlower. I realize that our system may seem very odd to someone who has not grown up in it.
    No, not at all, you don't intimidate me in the least.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    I think there are similarities, it's not like a different planet. The burden is on those who are investigating (police, etc) to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence.
    That's right.

    This demonstrates the BPD problem NOT the DA's. The BPD (eventhough they thought the Rs guilty from the get go) DID NOT EVEN THINK to ask them for the clothes they were that night.
    That's not the point, MurriFlower. The point is that the DA would not issue search warrants when any other one would.

    You're trying to turn this into an attack on the police without even considering the issues with the DA's office that I have raised. Well, they'll HAVE to be considered, because they're at the very heart of why this case went nowhere. In other words, it's no good trying to change the subject.

    I can't imagine Police here taking the parents of a murdered child and 'throwing them in jail', until one confesses. I'm thinking it would be more likely (assuming they are guilty) to work against the Police case. It would be regarded as intimidation and there would be a raft of psychologists who would testify that any confession that was obtained was inadmissible due to having been obtained under duress. Aside from this, I wouldn't think it was appropriate just on a 'hunch' of the Cops, they would still need some concrete evidence.
    Whether you can imagine it or not, it's a standard tactic for cops and DA's to use. And I'm not aware of it ever resulting in the scenario you illustrate.

    Yes, this 'them and us' mentality seems to have permeated the entire case.
    Now we're agreeing on things.

    From what you have told me, there aren't too many checks and balances in your system to 'fix' such difficulties.
    Unfortunately, you may be right. The only thing I can say is that in most places, these issues don't happen.

    The BPD were their own worst enemies, constantly leaking their 'findings' to the press. ST admits it was an attempt to discredit the Rs and was one of the worst. If what he was doing was not illegal (I'm not convinced it wasn't) it was clearly 'wrong'. At least the DA had the guts to try to stop this. They were out of control - this is down to their leader.
    You're partly right: leadership is at the core of this matter, or more accurately, the lack of it.

    You see, to me SD this is all down to credibility. You find this a lot on the internet. People deliberately give the impression that they have done a certain amount of personal research on a subject, when in fact all they have done is the same 'cut and paste' that I can do with a Google search.
    I've experienced it myself. And are you honestly saying that I haven't done research in this matter?

    If you use such uncredited quotes in your book, you are going to spend a lot of time in Court!
    Then I have nothing to worry about!

    It is most likely an exaggeration if not completely false. So what you've done here, despite your 13 year 'tenure with this case', is demonstrate your lack of expertise.
    Your insults do not faze me.

    A 'fine investigation'?? Pull the other one!! Even ST doesn't believe that, even he can't defend what happened. Sorry, but this, but your legal system is only different in the way it is arranged. What the Police Department did was NOT standard procedure either. Or is it??
    Well, let's be fair, here. Kane was only speaking from what he knew.

    Your GOOD prosecutor would have to be VERY GOOD (or particularly stupid) to prosecute a case with such flimsy (and that's an exageration) evidence.
    It's been done with less. That was my point. Although, in this instance, there was a lot more going on. You still have not addressed the issues I brought up with this DA. I'm hard-pressed to see how you could, anyway.

    I'm still trying to work out if you are naive or if you are trying to kid us. WOL seems to think the former. I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both.
    Number one, I can tell you, it's neither. Number two, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I can assure you that when I refer to the DA not taking a case to trial in ten years, not knowing how to use Grand Juries, not doing things that all other DAs would do, I'm not saying ANYTHING that other people have not said.

    Let me put it this way: if the Boulder DA was so blasted good, then it shouldn't be too hard to find ONE--ONE other prosecutor who will support him. I have found NONE. Quite the opposite.

    Look, even if you don't take what I say seriously, you can't deny what Vincent Bugliosi said. So here it is once again:

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI I'm sure he's an honorable person and he's interested in seeking justice in this case. But he's certainly not the stereotypical DA who's tough and hard—nosed. And you need an aggressive DA in a situation like this. And he apparently is not that type of person.
    ELIZABETH VARGAS (VO) Which, perhaps, is why his critics say it took public protest to get the Ramsey case to a grand jury after nearly two years. Remember, a grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify. (interviewing) How unusual is it to wait that long to impanel a grand jury to investigate that?

    VINCENT BUGLIOSI It's highly unusual, particularly when you have two suspects and they're not cooperating with you I mean, it's DA 101 that when you have two suspects, you do everything possible immediately to separate those two and not give them time for their stories to harden and to reconcile with each other. It's being done now, a year and a half later. But it's a little late in the day. Incompetence.


    I would add a few more "I"s to that:

    inept
    insufficient
    inexcusable.

    No, not at all, you don't intimidate me in the least.
    Same here.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    For PR to have been prosecuted, she first needs to be guilty and then following this, the evidence of this guilt presented. Having a 'gut feeling' someone is guilty is not enough.

    The behaviour of the BPD in this investigation appears not to have only been incompetent, but they displayed an arrogance that seems intrinsic to their attitude (the screensaver one of the officers had on his computer for example "Ramseys are Killers") and demonstrates a total lack of discipline and effective leadership. To treat the parents of a child killed in such an horrific fashion in her own home on Christmas night in such an appalling manner, speaks volumes about their own prejudices and an inability to correctly assess a situation, again pointing to sloppy, shabby police work.
    SD said that he/she is glad that I'm not in charge because I'd ask for RDI badges.

    No disagreement, but...

    There is an assumption within RDI that someone who wasn't overtly insane, who lives in the same house, would somehow rationalize putting pen to paper for 350 words. I'm certain that realism within any criminal investigation is very important, but I'm not certain that this assumption is connected in any way to reality.

    It would be better for RDI to claim that PR was insane, there was no reason to write, she just wrote. Instead there's this 'oh what would YOU do, thats what EVERYBODY would do.

    This is ludicrous.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    SD said that he/she is glad that I'm not in charge because I'd ask for RDI badges.
    1) What's this "he/she" stuff? Do you know a lot of girls named Dave? You've been around me these many years. Don't you know by now that I'm a man?

    2) It's not that so much. What I said was that if our legal system was run the way you seem to want, we'd have to scrap the whole thing, because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted, of anything.

    3) The problem that I've been trying to bring to everyone's attention is that the DA's office was run pretty much on that basis, HOTYH. And look how it turned out.

    No disagreement, but...
    Glad to hear it.

    There is an assumption within RDI that someone who wasn't overtly insane, who lives in the same house, would somehow rationalize putting pen to paper for 350 words.
    Nice choice of words, and I mean that.

    I'm certain that realism within any criminal investigation is very important, but I'm not certain that this assumption is connected in any way to reality.
    Well, maybe that's just it. Maybe PR had a "break" with reality. It's been known to happen to people in extreme-stress moments. That said, it's too easy to write off something as unrealistic without taking into account what may have seemed like the way to go in that person's head. After all, within each skull is a little world all its own.

    It would be better for RDI to claim that PR was insane, there was no reason to write, she just wrote.
    I'm close to doing that.

    Instead there's this 'oh what would YOU do, thats what EVERYBODY would do.

    This is ludicrous.
    Well, the way you characterize it, yeah it is ridiculous. But I'm in a good mood, so I'll go along with you for now.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post



    Well, maybe that's just it. Maybe PR had a "break" with reality. It's been known to happen to people in extreme-stress moments. That said, it's too easy to write off something as unrealistic without taking into account what may have seemed like the way to go in that person's head. After all, within each skull is a little world all its own. Wildcard generalization. I'm getting used to those.



    I'm close to doing that. Whatever works, eh?



    Well, the way you characterize it, yeah it is ridiculous. But I'm in a good mood, so I'll go along with you for now.
    OK now I'm confused. Which RDI scenario is right?

    RDI scenario no. 1: PR had a break with reality and then wrote the note in a state of being out of touch with reality. She saw the note as necessary when it really wasn't. JR had no choice but to comply with her desire to write a prolonged, 350 word note.

    RDI scenario no. 2: PR and JR were backed into a corner, felt there was no other way out so they consciously decided to write a 350 word note. Its what everybody does when they're backed into a corner, they write long notes as a diversion.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Incompetence or something else?
    By madeleine in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-09-2016, 01:59 PM
  2. Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera
    By steph5280 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 502
    Last Post: 06-23-2013, 07:55 AM
  3. Replies: 243
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 09:50 PM
  4. Ramsey PI Incompetence
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 06:42 PM