Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 131
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    [QUOTE=Holdontoyourhat;3813717]Maybe.

    Slightly less ambiguous than RDI's pocket-guide to probable cause, LE and judges are probably looking for stuff like this:

    PR files for divorce, weeks prior to the murder, or
    JBR's pediatrician notes suspicious injury prior to the murder, or
    a hundred other things prior to the murder that would establish any kind of motive, or
    sharpie ink stain, blood stain, or paintbrush shard anywhere on R skin or clothing, or
    scratch injury to JR or PR face, arm, or hands.

    See what I mean?

    I do but it can't just be relatively hard evidential stuff like that - I thought that behaviours (including post-offence) could be part of probable cause (e.g. refusing to answer questions, evasion etc)? I mean, there was some fibre evidence etc and the RN was known to be written on Patsy's paper and with her pen. Add this to their behaviours post-offence, and it seems to me that you have pretty much got your probable cause.


    I appreciate that this is vague and largely based on case-law rather than statute but surely there's something approaching a formula?


    B******x: I can see the bodice-ripper I had set aside for this week's reading being replaced with research into probable cause now. TY, HTYH


  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    as far as pen marks go,Patsy would have had plenty of time to wash those off.and the house was said to smell like bleach..it's not hard to think she might have used some to get what,if any,residual marks might be on her.IMO she likely wore gloves to write it anyway.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to JMO8778 For This Useful Post:


  4. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    I do but it can't just be relatively hard evidential stuff like that - I thought that behaviours (including post-offence) could be part of probable cause (e.g. refusing to answer questions, evasion etc)? I mean, there was some fibre evidence etc and the RN was known to be written on Patsy's paper and with her pen. Add this to their behaviours post-offence, and it seems to me that you have pretty much got your probable cause.


    I appreciate that this is vague and largely based on case-law rather than statute but surely there's something approaching a formula?


    B******x: I can see the bodice-ripper I had set aside for this week's reading being replaced with research into probable cause now. TY, HTYH
    Hard evidential stuff is what got all those other kidnappers. It was typewriters, glasses, dead ringer handwriting, marked bills, and stuff like that. It wasn't fiber from somebody's clothing who lived in the same house. It wasn't how they behaved after they were placed under 'an umbrella'.


  5. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    You've claimed all along that BPD had probable cause but the DA squelched the idea out of some corrupt or misguided authority.
    Damn right I have.

    That the DA tied BPD hands or told them what to do or not to do just seems to be your own characterization.
    Oh, yeah??? I figured that would be your answer. So I came prepared. ALex Hunter himself has said why he refused, and he agrees with me. The way he phrased it was "yes, they could have arrested, but once an arrest is made, the clock is ticking."

    Look, HOTYH, I don't deny that what you say is probably true in most places in America. But that's kind of the point I'm trying to make: comparing the DA's office in Boulder to the DA's office in, say, Los Angeles, Miami, or even my home town is like comparing pig droppings to chocolate ice cream.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    Would a judge be that amenable to signing a warrant if the DA didn't support the police's request? In fact, I'm pretty sure the BPD discussed this possibility with their own legal people who doubted that a judge would agree.
    They DID, Sophie.

    Having said that, there's at least one judge mentioned in PMPT who claims to have routinely taken an anti-Hunter stance so maybe they could have pursued this possibility more aggressively. In any event, neither Koby nor later Beckner seem to have had any appetite for rocking the boat and you can't really expect a detective to go to a judge without even his own boss's support?
    THANK you!

    Generally, it looks to me as though AH was paralysed by fear.
    Exactly right.

    I'm also pretty sure that people close to him have commented on his fear of being involved in another 'OJ.'
    Right, again.

    This fear was compounded by his own department's lack of trial experience. Equally, can you imagine the controversy had this case gone to trial? His own faith in, and history of, plea bargains would have been at total odds with the public pressure to prosecute this case to the utmost.
    You're hitting them out of the park, today.

    How would he and De Muth and Hofstrom have reconciled this conflict? Indeed, the defence could probably have made an issue out of his traditional laxity had he tried a hardler line in any JBR trial. Much easier to twabble on about one's utter belief in the presumption of innocence and to suggest that it's this precept that is informing your inactivity. With any luck, the case will never get to trial and the BPD's early errors will pre-dispose a critical public to blame them rather than the DA's office.


    If you read any true crime book, you will see prosecutors getting on detectives' nerves and demanding more and more evidence but they normally facilitate the acquisition of this evidence by supporting requests for warrants etc and normally accept that, once the police have established probable cause, it's the job of prosecutors to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. AH wanted the police to establish guilt beyond any doubt - or at least wait until he was no longer around to have to prosecute the case.


    Separately, going by what I understand probable cause to be, the BPD had more than established that. In fact, that the BPD had got probable cause is one of the few undisputed aspects of this case - I don't think even AH seriously contested this. Certainly, LE all over the US seems to have agreed that they had probable cause.
    Sophie, even I am in awe.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  8. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    SD,after JR passes on,can one or either parent be declared the killer,and the case closed?? (based on what evidence LE has now, irregardless of whether anymore is discovered or not).
    Probably. Will they is another story.

    barring that,would confessions from one or more of those with inside knowledge be enough to close it,after JR passes on??
    I think it would depend on how accurate the story was.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    [quote=Sophie;3816262]
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Maybe.

    Slightly less ambiguous than RDI's pocket-guide to probable cause, LE and judges are probably looking for stuff like this:

    PR files for divorce, weeks prior to the murder, or
    JBR's pediatrician notes suspicious injury prior to the murder, or
    a hundred other things prior to the murder that would establish any kind of motive, or
    sharpie ink stain, blood stain, or paintbrush shard anywhere on R skin or clothing, or
    scratch injury to JR or PR face, arm, or hands.

    See what I mean?

    I do but it can't just be relatively hard evidential stuff like that - I thought that behaviours (including post-offence) could be part of probable cause (e.g. refusing to answer questions, evasion etc)?
    They can. HOTYH is talking about the kinds of things that HE would look for, not what can be actually used. If Hunter's (and HOTYH's) standards were uniform in this country, we'd have to scrap the justice system altogether, because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted!

    I mean, there was some fibre evidence etc and the RN was known to be written on Patsy's paper and with her pen. Add this to their behaviours post-offence, and it seems to me that you have pretty much got your probable cause.
    Probable cause is the easiest thing to prove, Sophie. Did you know that the cops wanted to plant listening devices in the Ramsey home? They needed cause to do that. The only reason they backed out is because Beckner was worried that someone would open his big mouth about it, not because of cause issues.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  12. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,978
    Here is an explanation in ONE sentence of why the Rs were not arrested or prosecuted:

    Ready?

    Hunter was a coward and afraid to lose such a high-profile case publicly.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  13. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  14. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Sorry it took so long to get back to this one, folks. It's SO hard to find a good helmet/breathing mask polishing service these days.

    A few highlights:

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    If Hunter's (and HOTYH's) standards were uniform in this country, we'd have to scrap the justice system altogether, because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted!
    Yup, I still stand by that one!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie
    Would a judge be that amenable to signing a warrant if the DA didn't support the police's request? In fact, I'm pretty sure the BPD discussed this possibility with their own legal people who doubted that a judge would agree. Having said that, there's at least one judge mentioned in PMPT who claims to have routinely taken an anti-Hunter stance so maybe they could have pursued this possibility more aggressively. In any event, neither Koby nor later Beckner seem to have had any appetite for rocking the boat and you can't really expect a detective to go to a judge without even his own boss's support?

    Generally, it looks to me as though AH was paralysed by fear. I seem to recall that one of his first actions was to call prosecutors in the Jeffrey Dahmer case to discuss managing a high profile case. I'm also pretty sure that people close to him have commented on his fear of being involved in another 'OJ.' This fear was compounded by his own department's lack of trial experience. Equally, can you imagine the controversy had this case gone to trial? His own faith in, and history of, plea bargains would have been at total odds with the public pressure to prosecute this case to the utmost. How would he and De Muth and Hofstrom have reconciled this conflict? Indeed, the defence could probably have made an issue out of his traditional laxity had he tried a hardler line in any JBR trial. Much easier to twabble on about one's utter belief in the presumption of innocence and to suggest that it's this precept that is informing your inactivity. With any luck, the case will never get to trial and the BPD's early errors will pre-dispose a critical public to blame them rather than the DA's office.

    If you read any true crime book, you will see prosecutors getting on detectives' nerves and demanding more and more evidence but they normally facilitate the acquisition of this evidence by supporting requests for warrants etc and normally accept that, once the police have established probable cause, it's the job of prosecutors to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. AH wanted the police to establish guilt beyond any doubt - or at least wait until he was no longer around to have to prosecute the case.

    Separately, going by what I understand probable cause to be, the BPD had more than established that. In fact, that the BPD had got probable cause is one of the few undisputed aspects of this case - I don't think even AH seriously contested this. Certainly, LE all over the US seems to have agreed that they had probable cause.
    Another , just to show that SOME of us value what you have to say, Sophie! You really hit it out of the park.

    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
    You've claimed all along that BPD had probable cause but the DA squelched the idea out of some corrupt or misguided authority.
    I STILL stand by it!

    And just to put us back where I wanted to go, let me remind our friends who bring up Leopold and Loeb that what what I describe is exactly what happened when they were arrested: they each tried to pin it on each other.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  16. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,978
    And that is exactly what would have happened if they had arrested and questioned PR and JR SEPARATELY.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  18. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    If BPD knew without any doubt that PR and/or JR murdered their daughter, they would have probable cause and can therefore make arrests. They don't need DA permission. They simply need to convince a judge to sign an arrest warrant. Thats how it works.
    How are you going to find probable cause when things like the phone records go missing? Really! I read the phone records went missing. Is that true? Did that happen to everyone on that street or was it just them?

    You can't find probable cause because maybe the evidence went out the door with the Ramsey's.

    Now, I don't blame anyone for not doing there job because this case is Abby Normal.

    I have not voted on "who done it" yet.


  19. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    147

  20. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Reznor View Post
    Nice read, Dave, thanks!
    My pleasure.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  21. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Reznor View Post
    How are you going to find probable cause when things like the phone records go missing? Really! I read the phone records went missing. Is that true? Did that happen to everyone on that street or was it just them?

    You can't find probable cause because maybe the evidence went out the door with the Ramsey's.

    Now, I don't blame anyone for not doing there job because this case is Abby Normal.

    I have not voted on "who done it" yet.
    I believe there were computers in 1996, and the phone company used them. Its not like phone records for one number just vanish. Maybe consider the source, or take it with a grain of salt?


  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Holdontoyourhat For This Useful Post:


  23. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Reznor View Post
    How are you going to find probable cause when things like the phone records go missing? Really! I read the phone records went missing. Is that true? Did that happen to everyone on that street or was it just them?

    You can't find probable cause because maybe the evidence went out the door with the Ramsey's.

    Now, I don't blame anyone for not doing there job because this case is Abby Normal.

    I have not voted on "who done it" yet.
    Yes, in a manner of speaking. At first, DA Hunter refused to issue a warrant for the phone records, saying LE should simply "ask for them". Right...
    Much later, when they were finally produced, all records for December 1996 were missing. It was said that NO calls were made that month. Right.
    Then a tabloid tried to obtain them fraudulently and a judge subsequently sealed them forever.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Speculation on the Second Cross
    By Baznme in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 372
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 04:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •