Who hurt this case the most?

[madeleine]

Remember,you can choose more than 1 option.

[DeeDee249]

That's a tough one. There were just SO many errors. I'd have to say we have to go back to the beginning- to the very first day. I'd lay the blame on the first LE on the scene- French and Arndt.
French for not having the sense to open the door by any means possible, and also for not refusing admission to the horde of evidence-tampering R friends and clergy. By discovering JB's body before the parents touched it, he could have ensured that any fibers or evidence from the parents found on the body didn't happen after that point. It would have put that evidence more firmly in the area of having been left during the crime/staging.
I blame Arndt for allowing any of them out of her sight. She had a gun. She could have kept them in one room and simply waited for reinforcements. She allowed free-range all over an active crime scene. Though she didn't know at that point it was a murder, a kidnapping is also a crime where evidence found in the home of the victim is of paramount importance. She also touched the body and allowed her to be covered with a blanket, further contaminating the evidence. It's like she forgot everything she learned as far as protocol and proper procedures.
These were "fatal errors" done so early in the investigation and to me, there was no fixing it at that point. This two officers were a defense attorney's dream.

[madeleine]

I agree DeeDee

[voynich]

Originally Posted by madeleine

I agree DeeDee

so do i - among other things it made it harder to convict the real intruder

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by voynich

so do i - among other things it made it harder to convict the real intruder

What do you say about M.Lacy's decisions then and I don't mean the R's exoneration now but the rest of it,not testing the murder weapon for starters(IDI's claim it was the ligature,right?).If she already took the case why didn't she do what LE is supposed to do now?Isn't it a sad irony that she made the same mistakes,maybe even worse ones that will definitely affect a possible future IDI charge/conviction,as LE did back then ?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by madeleine

What do you say about M.Lacy's decisions then and I don't mean the R's exoneration now but the rest of it,not testing the murder weapon for starters(IDI's claim it was the ligature,right?).If she already took the case why didn't she do what LE is supposed to do now?Isn't it a sad irony that she made the same mistakes,maybe even worse ones that will definitely affect a possible future IDI charge/conviction,as LE did back then ?

I'm interested in hearing an answer myself.

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I'm interested in hearing an answer myself.

Think I'll get one?

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I'm interested in hearing an answer myself.

BUMP
even if I know I'll never get an answer

[Tadpole12]

Originally Posted by madeleine

What do you say about M.Lacy's decisions then and I don't mean the R's exoneration now but the rest of it,not testing the murder weapon for starters(IDI's claim it was the ligature,right?).If she already took the case why didn't she do what LE is supposed to do now?Isn't it a sad irony that she made the same mistakes,maybe even worse ones that will definitely affect a possible future IDI charge/conviction,as LE did back then ?

Hi madeleine.


Why wouldn't the ligature be retested using the new technology available? Dna degrades through time. Advances in dna technology occurs each year, Why wouldn't the PBD and DA take advantage of this?

Is it cost?

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

Hi madeleine.


Why wouldn't the ligature be retested using the new technology available? Dna degrades through time. Advances in dna technology occurs each year, Why wouldn't the PBD and DA take advantage of this?

Is it cost?

Hi Tad!
That's what I meant,why didn't Lacy do it?Why did she test only what was important for her decision to clear the R and she didn't bother with the rest that would have definitely helped the case?

[Ravyn]

I agree with everything that been said here cause now if anyone can be charged with this murder can agrue about the RN,and all the other evidence...

[smart blonde]

There were so many irreversible errors, every step of the way, but...

What has always baffled me the most was the Ramsey's refusal to be interviewed/ questioned by the authorities.

I can almost understand their 'lawyering up' as quickly as they did, as Mr. Ramsey was a legally savvy, astute businessman.

But... the Ramseys not 'allowing' the authorities to question them (for days, weeks and then months!), has just always given me such a bad feeling.

Also, the detectives treating the Ramseys with such kid gloves, and allowing this to happen (the Ramseys dictating when and if and how they would be questioned), was just as shameful.

[smart blonde]

BUMPING- for those who may have missed.

[LinasK]

Linda Arndt, by letting John search the house instead of LE!!!

[Sophie]

I voted for Lacy because I think she made a dreadful error which could render prosecution of this case impossible for all time. Until she wrote that letter, there was a chance that justice might be served, regardless of the errors made elsewhere.

However, there's more than enough blame to go around. In no particular order:


Failing to protect the crime scene on day one, then compounding this by allowing the further decimation of the evidence by Pam a day or two later, are corking examples of LE's incompetence.


AH apparently presuming the Ramseys were guilty and refusing to execute the subpoenas and warrants etc that he should have presumed would exculpate them.


The leakers of information to the media who made it impossible for the police to separate the wheat from the chaff (eg. Chris Wolff's GF reading the latest news in The Globe then changing her stories to ST; JMK reading up on what was known by every half-knowledgeable JBR student on the planet and manipulating a couple of naive people into believing his tales..etc).


Private citizens inserting themselves into the case to the extent that they were personally soliciting information and evidence - information which would be questionable and evidence which would have chain of custody issues purely because they had passsed through a private citizen's hands.

The Ramseys not talking to police about JBR's life from day one.


Actually, the Book of Genesis has shorter lists...

[weasel]

Originally Posted by LinasK

Linda Arndt, by letting John search the house instead of LE!!!

I can't really blame Arndt due to the fact that she called her supervisor practically begging him for help and he didn't send any. I blame the Boulder PD period. They screwed the case royally from the beginning and then tried to damn anybody who disagreed with them. This case never had a chance due to the in-fighting between the PD and the DA.

[Ravyn]

I'm wondering about the longjohns cause we all know that JR touched them but other than what PR said do we really know if she touched them...And testing everything else would seem to be for the best interst in this case....

[Sophie]

Excellent question, Ravyn. You're on fire at the moment.

[SuperDave]

You know, they say hindsight's 20/20. But after 13 years, I'm damn near blind.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Ravyn

I'm wondering about the longjohns cause we all know that JR touched them but other than what PR said do we really know if she touched them...And testing everything else would seem to be for the best interst in this case....

According to JR, Patsy would have had to touch them. He said she was the one who put them on her. Patsy also told LE that she put the longjohns on JB after not being able to find her pajama bottoms. When shown photos of JB's bed (which shows a pink garment laying on it) she said that the pink garment was the pink pajama TOP (which a smiling JB is seen wearing in the Christmas morning photo) but Patsy said because JB was "sleeping" she left the white Gap shirt on her and pulled on the longjohns.
I think it's pretty certain Patsy touched the longjohns, and definitely the waistband would have been touched if she pulled them up. I don't see how Patsy could have put them on JB without touching the waistband.
Why wasn't her DNA found? Well, we don't know that it wasn't found. We only know it hasn't been SAID that it was found. Because Lacy has already said that the DNA on the waistband belongs to the "killer" (right...) she of course was not going to say "Oh, by the way, the mother's DNA was also found" because someone could then say "Well, if the DNA is the killers, how do we know WHICH DNA is the killer. Maybe the mother IS the killer". That's why it will never be revealed whether Patsy's DNA is on the longjohns.

[Ravyn]

Did they say JR's DNA was on the longjohns..cause he picked her up from the waist right I might be wrong on that...

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Ravyn

Did they say JR's DNA was on the longjohns..cause he picked her up from the waist right I might be wrong on that...

As far as I know, it hasn't been revealed publicly whether EITHER parent's DNA was found.

[weasel]

Why wasn't her DNA found? Well, we don't know that it wasn't found. We only know it hasn't been SAID that it was found. Because Lacy has already said that the DNA on the waistband belongs to the "killer" (right...) she of course was not going to say "Oh, by the way, the mother's DNA was also found" because someone could then say "Well, if the DNA is the killers, how do we know WHICH DNA is the killer. Maybe the mother IS the killer". That's why it will never be revealed whether Patsy's DNA is on the longjohns.

snipped

What?? Sorry, but what is she supposed to say? The mother's DNA is on the longjohns, therefore she's the killer. Oh by the way, we found some strangers DNA there also, but pay no mind. Most children have strangers DNA on their underpants, as well as their mother's. So logically, it makes more sense that the mother is the killer. I would be surprised if PR's DNA wasn't on JBR's longjohns if PR said she put them on her.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by weasel

I would be surprised if PR's DNA wasn't on JBR's longjohns if PR said she put them on her.

From your mouth to the ears of the gods.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by weasel

Why wasn't her DNA found? Well, we don't know that it wasn't found. We only know it hasn't been SAID that it was found. Because Lacy has already said that the DNA on the waistband belongs to the "killer" (right...) she of course was not going to say "Oh, by the way, the mother's DNA was also found" because someone could then say "Well, if the DNA is the killers, how do we know WHICH DNA is the killer. Maybe the mother IS the killer". That's why it will never be revealed whether Patsy's DNA is on the longjohns.

snipped

What?? Sorry, but what is she supposed to say? The mother's DNA is on the longjohns, therefore she's the killer. Oh by the way, we found some strangers DNA there also, but pay no mind. Most children have strangers DNA on their underpants, as well as their mother's. So logically, it makes more sense that the mother is the killer. I would be surprised if PR's DNA wasn't on JBR's longjohns if PR said she put them on her.

So would I. So why wasn't it mentioned? Re-read my comment. Lacy was NEVER going to put the Rs in this. That was her agenda from Day 1.
What she is "supposed" to say is the truth about whose DNA was found there, if traceable to a person. To say that the DNA donor MUST be the killer is as wrong as it is to NOT say if the parents' prints were also found.