Boulder DA-A Profile in Incompetence

[BBB167893]

Well, you can say whatever you like and you know I can't debate local issues with you, but I'm just going to call it the way I see it.

I wouldn't expect any less.

And that is, despite how bad you say the DA was, I believe the Police investigation was infinitely worse and IMO this is at the heart of the matter.

I think ST said it best:

When the police botched the crime scene, they damaged the case. When the DA's office started making deals, they lost it entirely.

And he is correct. The DA could have taken any number of measures that would have gotten the case back on track. They did NONE of them.

 

[madeleine]

If the DA's were incompetent how many pages do you think I'll need for LE.The list is SO DARN LONG.

 

[BBB167893]

*SIGH* And I had such high hopes for this thread.

I laid out a very specific challenge: I challanged those who have savaged the police to show me that the DA really was a good prosecutor who did everything exactly the way other good prosecutors would do, thus proving the accusations against the cops and absolving the DA's office of its myriad sins.

Hope dies so fast around here.

 

[madeleine]

If I blame LE that doesn't mean I am defending the opposite(in this case opposite ) side,the DA.This is what's so unbelievable about this case.Incompetence at all the levels.
Hunter may not have been a good prosecutor because he chose to rather make deals than prosecute(in his past).But in the Ramsey case,how do you think any prosecutor would have gone to court with the crap LE prepared for him?
Even RDI prosecutors said on talk shows that it's impossible since (IF RDI) you have no idea which ONE it was!

 

[BBB167893]

If I blame LE that doesn't mean I am defending the opposite(in this case opposite ) side,the DA.This is what's so unbelievable about this case.Incompetence at all the levels.

Thank you.

Hunter may not have been a good prosecutor because he chose to rather make deals than prosecute(in his past).

That's part of it, certainly.

But in the Ramsey case,how do you think any prosecutor would have gone to court with the crap LE prepared for him?

But that's precisely my point, madeleine. If what they presented was such crap, why didn't he do the things other prosecutors would have done to get a solid lock?

--Why didn't he have them put in separate holding cells and see which one would confess first?

--Why didn't he have their phones tapped?

--Why didn't he order their home to be wired with microphones to pick up possibly incriminating conversations?

I sure as life would have!

Even RDI prosecutors said on talk shows that it's impossible since (IF RDI) you have no idea which ONE it was!

Quite correct. I seem to recall there was a thread around here discussing that very issue. But as I've said, there were ways to address that issue as well, which were not put into use.

 

[madeleine]

But that's precisely my point, madeleine. If what they presented was such crap, why didn't he do the things other prosecutors would have done to get a solid lock?

--Why didn't he have them put in separate holding cells and see which one would confess first?

--Why didn't he have their phones tapped?

--Why didn't he order their home to be wired with microphones to pick up possibly incriminating conversations?

I sure as life would have!

Maybe he should have.Maybe he should have followed up S.Singular's theory as well.Maybe he should have taken in consideration the sex ring theory (reminds me of some stuff I read lately about P.Griffin&R.Simons but this is not the place for it).

IMO
LE was scared or too stubborn to see anything else besides RDI
The DA basically didn't wanna see.... ANYTHING.

 

[Tadpole12]

I wouldn't expect any less.



I think ST said it best:

When the police botched the crime scene, they damaged the case. When the DA's office started making deals, they lost it entirely.

And he is correct. The DA could have taken any number of measures that would have gotten the case back on track. They did NONE of them.

Yo.

When ST details the limits of his investigation, he suggests that the DA was apathetic, continually closing doors on the investigation. But I wonder, with respect to the search warrants which ST describes, those he wished to persue, if it was not the DA's obstruction, but that no jurisdiction would have granted these warrants?

 

[BBB167893]

Yo.

Yo!

When ST details the limits of his investigation, he suggests that the DA was apathetic, continually closing doors on the investigation.

Yup.

But I wonder, with respect to the search warrants which ST describes, those he wished to persue, if it was not the DA's obstruction, but that no jurisdiction would have granted these warrants?

Without knowing the exact ins-and-outs, all I can say is that I doubt very much that they would have been denied.

 

[BBB167893]

What's say we try this again? For real, this time.

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!

 

[WHITEFANG]

If Idiot Thomas had enough evidence to state publicly through the piece of fiction he wrote and all the electronic and print media interviews he pushed to sell his book, if he had the evidence to support his accusations, why did he settle? I know, I know. Blah, blah blah his publisher wanted to, etc. But that's not the point. Truth trumps defamatory allegations. What were they worried about? In fact, these bird-brains had the perfect opportunity to compel even more "evidence" to prove their preposterous garbage by deposing the Rs and conducting discovery through this very lawsuit. This was that jerk's golden moment to shine light on his disastrous theories. But, he picked up his pen and pad and bolted with his tail curled up behind his pitch fork. It is easy to do what he did. Takes no effort whatsoever, especially when you receive advances for promising to use your insider knowledge to skewer people.

Now Almighty Wiz, where do you disagree with his theories or have you swallowed them hook, line and soiled size 12s?

 

[BBB167893]

If Idiot Thomas had enough evidence to state publicly through the piece of fiction he wrote and all the electronic and print media interviews he pushed to sell his book, if he had the evidence to support his accusations, why did he settle? I know, I know. Blah, blah blah his publisher wanted to, etc.

That is most likely it.

But that's not the point.

You're right, it isn't. This is just another attempt to shield the DA's rotten conduct, and I'm not going for it.

Truth trumps defamatory allegations. What were they worried about?

I don't know if they were "worried" about anything. It's typical to settle nuisance lawsuits to save time and effort. Other than that, I couldn't say.

In fact, these bird-brains had the perfect opportunity to compel even more "evidence" to prove their preposterous garbage by deposing the Rs and conducting discovery through this very lawsuit. This was that jerk's golden moment to shine light on his disastrous theories.

Agreed. Yet another missed opportunity. I think I understand how Sisyphus felt.

But, he picked up his pen and pad and bolted with his tail curled up behind his pitch fork. It is easy to do what he did. Takes no effort whatsoever, especially when you receive advances for promising to use your insider knowledge to skewer people.

That's true enough.

Now Almighty Wiz, where do you disagree with his theories or have you swallowed them hook, line and soiled size 12s?

Well, I disagree with him on several points. One, I don't think PR did it by herself. Two, I don't think JB's vaginal issues were the result of rough toilet training. Three, I don't think it was the bed-wetting that triggered the terrible events of that night.

Now you answer me something: what does any of this have to do with the incompetence in the DA's office?

 

[Roy23]

What's say we try this again? For real, this time.

Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999

Mark Beckner, Chief of Police

Ramsey News Release #72

I want to first publicly thank the twelve citizens of this grand jury for their service to the community. Although by law, I cannot comment on the grand jury's work as it relates to this case, I am grateful to the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, for allowing a grand jury investigation. Contrary to public perception, we have made progress in this case over the past 13 months because of the work of the grand jury. If you recall, when investigators asked for a grand jury in the spring of 1998, it was for the purpose of assisting us in our investigation. In this regard, it has been a successful grand jury.

I also want to thank Mike Kane, Mitch Morrisey and Bruce Levin for their hard work. There's been a great deal of speculation about the working relationship between the DA's office and the police. Let me just say that we have a great deal of respect for one another, and the working relationship on this case has never been better. Over the past 15 months, we have worked hand in hand with the prosecutors on this case and have been very pleased with how things have been handled.

There has also been speculation that charges have not been filed in this case because of reluctance on the part of the District Attorney's office. In addition to Alex Hunter, we have had 3 experienced prosecutors working on this case. None of these prosecutors, in my opinion, would hesitate in taking this case to trial once the evidence is sufficient to do so.

The next obvious question is...where do we go from here? From the police perspective, this will remain an open, ongoing investigation. Contrary to the public perception and the rampant speculation that the investigation is over, this case is not dead in the water. I know you have grown tired of hearing this, but yes, we still have forensic evidence we are working on. We are committed to not giving up on this investigation. Like any other open homicide, we will continue to process and test evidence as necessary, and follow any reasonable leads that are developed.

(Anyone who's been in law enforcement can tell you of cases that finally come to resolution, often after many months or years of investigation, and sometimes when you least expect it. That's what keeps us going.)

If you believe what some of the pundits are saying, you might think it's futile to keep trying. Those of us close to the case know better. We know that the right and just thing to do is to keep going. Quite frankly, too much has been made of the conclusion of the grand jury. We have simply completed another phase of this difficult investigation.

In addition to the possibility of new evidence developing, new forensic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. As a result, cases that were once unsolvable have been solved. New technology in the last 2 1/2 years has helped us in this case. We never know what the next month, year, or several years will bring.

As Police Chief, there is something else I know I can count on. And that is the dedication of the four investigators who have been on this case from the beginning.

These four individuals, as well as all members of the Boulder Police Department, are committed to finding a resolution in this case, and they will not be swayed from that commitment.

Much has been made out of alleged mistakes early in this case. Yes, there are things we should have done differently and wish we would have done differently. Any time a crime scene is disturbed, it creates problems for the investigation. However, to say that mistakes have made this an unsolvable case is not accurate. Circumstances and evidence that raise questions for us today are not the result of a contaminated crime scene.

I know that this case has been frustrating for everyone, but I can assure you it has not been more frustrating than for the detectives who have worked full time on this case for almost three years. While we will continue to be criticized by those who fail to understand the complexities in this case, I am proud of the work our detectives have done to get us where we are today. For any mistakes that may have been made early on, there have been many times more right things that have been done in this case.

I would also like to say that while the intense scrutiny has not always been pleasant, there have been positives. We are not the same police department we were 3 years ago. As a result of learning from our experiences, we have taken steps to make some changes in how we operate. We have developed some new policies and procedures, adjusted some of our training, and made some changes in our detective section. And, we have also developed a more open philosophy when dealing with the media. As a result of these changes, I believe we are a better prepared, better trained police department.

I must take a moment to thank the local Boulder community for its support. City council, the city manager, and the many citizens of this city have been understanding and supportive in our efforts. For this, we are appreciative.

In the end, all of the media attention doesn't matter. All of the speculation doesn't matter. Legal analysts who will find fault with the work we've done doesn't matter. What matters is finding justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

To this day, two years and nine months after her death, we are as intent on that objective as we were from day one

 

[BBB167893]

There has also been speculation that charges have not been filed in this case because of reluctance on the part of the District Attorney's office. In addition to Alex Hunter, we have had 3 experienced prosecutors working on this case. None of these prosecutors, in my opinion, would hesitate in taking this case to trial once the evidence is sufficient to do so.

I'd look really closely at that wording. "None of THESE prosecutors would hesitate."

Of that, I have no doubt. Except we're not talking about THESE prosecutors, who, to hear them tell it, were just brought in as window-dressing anyway.

 

[Roy23]

I'd look really closely at that wording. "None of THESE prosecutors would hesitate."

Of that, I have no doubt. Except we're not talking about THESE prosecutors, who, to hear them tell it, were just brought in as window-dressing anyway.

Nice try, Dave. I am not having it. The chief knows and understands they can't make the ham sandwich but appreciates the DA's office giving it their shot. The BPD was told it may not be a good idea but the DA's office did it anyway.

Anyhow, Beckner was right about newer DNA technology. But they already had their dog and pony show and all they have to show for it are clownsuits.

 

[BBB167893]

Nice try, Dave.

I'm just warming up.

I am not having it.

Then I don't know what to tell you. If their own words won't do it...

The chief knows and understands they can't make the ham sandwich but appreciates the DA's office giving it their shot.

Really? Because I didn't get either of those impressions. Beckner was one of the most gung-ho to bring charges against them. Moreover, I'm curious as to your definition of "giving it a shot." We've been over this many times before, you and I.

The BPD was told it may not be a good idea but the DA's office did it anyway.

As political cover, Roy. Anyone can see that.

Anyhow, Beckner was right about newer DNA technology. But they already had their dog and pony show and all they have to show for it are clownsuits.

You're not the only one who's not having things, Roy. Specifically, you're acting as if the DA in this case was somehow heroic and active. Problem is, everything I said in the opening post has already been said by MANY people. I have yet to find a prosecutor who has actually supported the DA's conduct in this case. Furthermore, I still say what I said before: if this had been anywhere else, there's a good chance that this case would have already played out.

 

[Roy23]

I'm just warming up.



Then I don't know what to tell you. If their own words won't do it...



Really? Because I didn't get either of those impressions. Beckner was one of the most gung-ho to bring charges against them. Moreover, I'm curious as to your definition of "giving it a shot." We've been over this many times before, you and I.



As political cover, Roy. Anyone can see that.



You're not the only one who's not having things, Roy. Specifically, you're acting as if the DA in this case was somehow heroic and active. Problem is, everything I said in the opening post has already been said by MANY people. I have yet to find a prosecutor who has actually supported the DA's conduct in this case. Furthermore, I still say what I said before: if this had been anywhere else, there's a good chance that this case would have already played out.

You just can't accept Beckner at his word. Just read it Dave. This is hilarious. I think I will make a signature for the world to see.

 

[BBB167893]

You just can't accept Beckner at his word.

Depends on what "word" that is. Because he seems to have two modes: public and private. I, on the other hand, have quite a bit of support from both sides.

Just read it Dave.

What do you think I've been doing?

This is hilarious.

I like a good laugh as much as the next, except I don't know what you're talking about.

I think I will make a signature for the world to see.

Looking forward to it.

 

[BBB167893]

Giving this thread a general going-over, one has to wonder just WHO is not getting it.

How much more do we need, people?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Wouldn't it be nice if the detectives that investigated the Darlie Routier case took a look at all the evidence in this one? I have never seen the two cases compared, but it would be interesting, to say the least. Texas prosecutors don't sit on the fence very long (or maybe they just know BS when they smell it).

ETA: I know Darlie was prosecuted for First Degree Murder and I am in NO way implying JB's death was pre-meditated or intentional.

 

[BBB167893]

Wouldn't it be nice if the detectives that investigated the Darlie Routier case took a look at all the evidence in this one? I have never seen the two cases compared, but it would be interesting, to say the least. Texas prosecutors don't sit on the fence very long (or maybe they just know BS when they smell it).

ETA: I know Darlie was prosecuted for First Degree Murder and I am in NO way implying JB's death was pre-meditated or intentional.

Now you're talking my language.