In Defense of Mary Lacy

[Pedro]

Agreed.

But think about him the next time you send your kid off to college. While I'm not saying all college professors are like that, I'll say I'm not surprised at the whole situation. Colleges are just about as political as governments.

My kids are out of college, step kids, I should add, 36 and 41.

 

[sandraladeda]

Lacey, in her role of overseeing the (supposed) JBR murder investigation, did not seem to be doing any investigating. A person in her position should have held a stone face when commenting on the case so as not to let anyone guess her bias. Instead, her bias in favor of intruder theories was evident. imo, I (and many posters here) know more about this case than she does. imo, she should have immersed herself in all the facts. I don't believe she has done so.

I also believe that attending PR's funeral was not only unnecessary, but a way of thumbing her nose at RDI's, an unmistakeably pointed action which showed "I believe what I believe, nothing is going to change my mind, and I'm going to show it by paying my respects to PR" Professionally speaking, what possible argument could be made in favor of her attending the funeral? She wasn't even involved at the time of the murder, nor during any of the "real" investigation. Why should she have had any relationship with the Rs? They were never cleared!

When the information about JMK came to light, sure, she had to look into it. imo, it would have been possible for Karr to be questioned in Thailand to get to the heart of how much he really knew. His family could have provided their information as to his whereabouts on Christmas 1996 prior to his first class flight home.

In her initial news conference, right after the story broke, she had the look of a young girl who could not believe her luck, that the captian of the football team was going to date her! She could barely wipe the smirk off her face, that she was about to land a really big fish. imo, her ambition to achieve a very big career coup overshadowed her judgement.

In that news conference, she could have remained tight-lipped, and offered nothing beyond stating that "this is a lead we have to follow up on. Leave us alone and we'll let you know when we have news to report". But she didn't. The impression I got from her was that she was excited and bursting to tell us all the reasons JMK is the guy, but was frustrated that she could not do so. Not very professional, imo.

Finally, if she was prepared to soak up the glory for bringing in JBR's killer when she arrested JMK, and I think she was, she should be equally as prepared to deal with the egg on her face when her suspect turned out to be a mentally ill phony. In the DA's office, the buck stops here....

 

[newtv]

In the long run the folks who think the ramseys are guilty should be happy for this-if she resigns a new DA will be put in place who may look at the case from a different pair of eyes..much like we do here on the forum. If so, it may be reopened to a different theory.

 

[justice2]

My kids are out of college, step kids, I should add, 36 and 41.

Hugh?

 

[Louisa]

In her initial news conference, right after the story broke, she had the look of a young girl who could not believe her luck, that the captian of the football team was going to date her! She could barely wipe the smirk off her face, that she was about to land a really big fish. imo, her ambition to achieve a very big career coup overshadowed her judgement.

Isn't it interesting how people can watch the same thing and reach two entirely different conclusions?

When I saw the initial news conference, all my early hopes from the "breaking news" about an arrest in the JBR case were dampened. I listened to Mary Lacy talk about "exigent circumstances" for the arrest and knew she was saying she had brought the arrest before she really felt confident about doing so. I didn't see a smirk or a sense that she was ready to land a really big fish at all, more a cautionary tone that said, "I was pushed by circumstances to move on this before I would have preferred to."

 

[packerdog]

Lacey, in her role of overseeing the (supposed) JBR murder investigation, did not seem to be doing any investigating. A person in her position should have held a stone face when commenting on the case so as not to let anyone guess her bias. Instead, her bias in favor of intruder theories was evident. imo, I (and many posters here) know more about this case than she does. imo, she should have immersed herself in all the facts. I don't believe she has done so.

I also believe that attending PR's funeral was not only unnecessary, but a way of thumbing her nose at RDI's, an unmistakeably pointed action which showed "I believe what I believe, nothing is going to change my mind, and I'm going to show it by paying my respects to PR" Professionally speaking, what possible argument could be made in favor of her attending the funeral? She wasn't even involved at the time of the murder, nor during any of the "real" investigation. Why should she have had any relationship with the Rs? They were never cleared!

When the information about JMK came to light, sure, she had to look into it. imo, it would have been possible for Karr to be questioned in Thailand to get to the heart of how much he really knew. His family could have provided their information as to his whereabouts on Christmas 1996 prior to his first class flight home.

In her initial news conference, right after the story broke, she had the look of a young girl who could not believe her luck, that the captian of the football team was going to date her! She could barely wipe the smirk off her face, that she was about to land a really big fish. imo, her ambition to achieve a very big career coup overshadowed her judgement.

In that news conference, she could have remained tight-lipped, and offered nothing beyond stating that "this is a lead we have to follow up on. Leave us alone and we'll let you know when we have news to report". But she didn't. The impression I got from her was that she was excited and bursting to tell us all the reasons JMK is the guy, but was frustrated that she could not do so. Not very professional, imo.

Finally, if she was prepared to soak up the glory for bringing in JBR's killer when she arrested JMK, and I think she was, she should be equally as prepared to deal with the egg on her face when her suspect turned out to be a mentally ill phony. In the DA's office, the buck stops here....

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Sherlockmom]

>Right, that is what a DA with a functional brain would have said ; "The guy is nutzs, inform the Thai authorities so they can keep him away from children and lets get a DNA sample"




And if the DNA came back days later as a match they would have found Karr gone.

From what I have read the DNA swab needed was a cheek swab. You can't get one of those without the perp knowing you are doing it making arresting him the only way to get one.

Who first leaked this information to the press I have no idea. Interviewing his family before hand would have tipped him off as well. They really only had his family's say-so that he was home that Christmas and also the family could have been lying about not knowing where he was and tipped him off also.

He was a wanted felon who fled the country on child *advertiser censored* charges. I personally think it was worth it to get him back here and behind bars. Maybe someone will come forward and claim they had been abused by Karr in the past and we can get him behind bars for a long time. Maybe not. But I believe the DA had to act on this information regardless of who it came from.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>We should know soon the cost of "Mary's Thai experience" soon and I hope the constituents of that County scream at high heaven for her immediate removal from office and her investigation at the hands of the pertinent disciplinary committee in that state.<


If it can be shown that she was deliberately incompetent and irresponsible in her duties then she should take responsibility for that.

But I'm curious. Have none of you ever made an error while performing your job? Did you resign immediately?

No one died. JBR is just as dead today as she was two weeks ago. Yes, taxpayers foot the bill for this but as Karr said himself, he wasn't an innocent man. A creep is off the street for now. He's a guilty man, just not guilty of murdering JBR.

 

[FactorFiction]

I pulled this off of the BDA profile page...i think it answers a few of the questions behind Mary's motives for bringing this guy in.

During her tenure as a deputy District Attorney Mary Lacy co-founded Blue Sky Bridge Child Advocacy Center and has been on the Board of Directors of Chestor House, the Board of Directors for the YWCA of Boulder County, the Executive Board of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council, the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board and the Advisory Board for Boulder County Partners.

District Attorney Lacy established the Boulder County Sexual Assault Team, has become a successful prosecutor and national instructor on Acquaintance Rape, and assisted in the revision of the Prior Acts Legislation. She was inducted into the YWCA Hall of Fame in 1999 for Contributions to Women and Children; she received the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault Award for Excellence in 1998, and was honored by the Colorado Juvenile Council.

 

[kwatson696]

:clap:

I pulled this off of the BDA profile page...i think it answers a few of the questions behind Mary's motives for bringing this guy in.

I would have done the same thing:clap:

 

[Details]

How much motive do you need to bring in a pedophile who is confessing to a crime, pretty convincingly? Snag the guy before he runs away again, before he molests others. If you are wrong - admit it later, but don't let him get away out of a fear of being wrong.

 

[LaMer]

Who first leaked this information to the press I have no idea.

I do! I can't believe this hasn't been posted by someone. I heard it on one of the many programs. That was the only time I heard it. So I thought maybe it was a known thang, and had been something I missed in the very beginning, and was too lazy to go back into the archives for Breaking News. I did hear this! YES!

What I heard was, JR called Dan Abrams. LOL


Defense of Mary Lacy? HA!

They are using their 'pristine' DNA sample as an excuse.

Dr. Kobolinsky, stated: Maybe a sample (pristine) for evidence in a trial, but not to have confirmed the DNA was match to JMK.

In addition, NG interviewed an attorney from Bouldler, who has 20 years service in as an attorney in Boulder. He could not remember one time ever, when Lacy handled a major major death case.

It was clear to me, when listening to her, she is nothing but a Puppet! She was in cohoots with JR, LW and LS, along with working with her staff.

I don't think, she was looking for JonBenet's killer at JonBenet's funeral!

She deserves no slack, not even an inch!

 

[cricket]

Lacy didn't even do a basic investigation. They have admitted they knew about Karr for months because Patsy Ramsey knew about him before she died. Yet Lacy still hadn't interviewed family members about his whereabouts. The first thing you would check is whether he had a ready alibi or not.

They knew about him - but DID NOT know his name or who he was. He used an anonmyzer e-mail address, and they only found out who he was 5 days before he was arrested. They could only do but so much, without raising suspicion and maybe causing him to leave Thailand.

I think she did what she had to do.

 

[aspidistra]

We all have some level of bias based on our experiences. The problem begins when one allows that bias to cloud their better judgement. I know how lawyers think. I also have a legal background. I left the legal field because of how lawyers think. There is my bias. Admittedly, I may have over-reacted and there is good and bad in everything. I have a history of biases, however. We all do.

It takes a really special person, like Steve Thomas, to set those bias aside and follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. I can't give Lacy a free pass on this one. She has a long history of bias too. She had other options available to her for what she became privy to. She didn't bring Karr back because she wanted a dangerous pedophile brought to Justice. She brought him back because she truely believed he was the intruder. She should pursue ALL LEADS (including no intruder leads) as vigorously as she pursued this one. Perhaps then, I could see her just following up on a good lead.

I really don't care what the fallout would have been to her and the DA's office if Tracey released his information. That shouldn't be her concern either. Again, this case isn't about her and her Political future .. it is about Justice for JBR. Many have sacrificed their careers and suffered terrible attacks against their character because they pursue a course of true Justice in this case. I have no sympathy for someone who would haul a mentally disturbed man to Colorado on a hunch he might know something about a case just to avoid being embarrassed should he come to light in the media. Moreover, it wouldn't have taken much basic investigative work to know that she would wind up with egg on her face anyway. Perhaps that is just her bias showing.

I agree that the things Karr said in the emails would alarm anyone, but I think Karr could have been investigated before he was arrested. If he was under surveillance anyway, any new molesting could have been prevented if it was about to happen. I think maybe Lacy jumped the gun on arresting him because he was showing grooming behaviour toward the one child.

I was also very surprised to hear Lacy say today that there doesn't seem to be any way to place Karr in Colorado. Why have we been given 420 page of emails and many hours of phone calls, but not a clue about what leads were investigated? She specifically said Karr's family seemed to give him an alibi. Sorry but I didn't see any proof of that being anything but family protecting family, which Karr himself said they would do.

If Karr lied in many details in his emails and phone calls, why aren't they proving which ones are lies? Or does it not matter because everything hinges on the dna?

The dna didn't match OJ Simpson either but how come most of the world believes he did it?

 

[Sherlockmom]

>1. - Wasted taxpayers money.<


LOL!! If that was the only criteria for asking an elected official to resign Washington DC would be a ghost town!


>>2. - Arrested a man for nothing with no evidence beyond delusional mamnbo jambo.<<

Well now, he was a wanted man in the state of California after all. All this vitriol for Lacy whose only crime it seems is to be incompetent and doesn't share the Ramsey's did it theory and the pervert now becomes the victim. Interesting.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

aspisdra--you are joking right--about OJ?--the DNA matched perfectly--Henry Lee himself recently stated OJ's blood was there--and his cut finger--and his bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints--and his no alibi(I was sleeping,no wait,I was hitting golf balls)--and the glove which fit PERFECTLY when he tried it on in court(the one that wasn't caked in dried blood)--and the bloody sock--and his smirking at the death scene--and his failing the lie-detector test(one of the worst scores ever)--and his conviction in the civil trial--etc.etc..--OJ's guilt is without question---you must be the only WebSleuther who thinks otherwise

 

[openminded1]

I have mixed feelings on this one. After reading the emails I could understand the way Mary Lacy described her feelings. One minute thinking no way, and the next a 50-50 chance maybe he did it. If it is true what was said about the 5 year old girl in the Thai school, I can understand the Thai government wanting him the heck out of there. However, I do not understand why the mixed DNA sample could not be at least tested to see if there was basis for a swab being needed. From what I understand about DNA, that would have at least been possible, right?

 

[CaliKid]

It seems to me that taking him to the US embassy in Bangkok and having the FBI interrogate him and take DNA samples would've been sufficient.

 

[aspidistra]

aspisdra--you are joking right--about OJ?--the DNA matched perfectly--Henry Lee himself recently stated OJ's blood was there--and his cut finger--and his bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints--and his no alibi(I was sleeping,no wait,I was hitting golf balls)--and the glove which fit PERFECTLY when he tried it on in court(the one that wasn't caked in dried blood)--and the bloody sock--and his smirking at the death scene--and his failing the lie-detector test(one of the worst scores ever)--and his conviction in the civil trial--etc.etc..--OJ's guilt is without question---you must be the only WebSleuther who thinks otherwise

I wasn't joking. I think OJ is guilty; any sane person does, but he was found to be innocent even though there were mountains of dna, right? I was pointing out how dna matching is not always going to save an innocent man, but might also be used to save a guilty man, depending on interpretation, and ignoring the rest of the evidence. I am not impressed when a bald statement says the dna doesn't match; he's no longer being charged. Huh? Tell me how all the rest of the evidence also doesn't match too. But no, that is now just dropped.

DNA is the big thing. But Henry Lee said it 's not a dna case, right?

I question this one statement of Mary Lacy's:
"This information is critical because...if Mr. Karr's account of his sexual involvement with the victim were accurate, it would have been highly likely that is saliva would have been mixed with the blood in the underwear," Lacy said in court papers.

Yes, but: in his account, his saliva doesn't go anywhere near the panties she was found in. What if he washed the body? No one is answering that. In his account he says he undressed the child. She was naked when he was abusing her. If he then washed all his saliva off the body (does anyone admit this is scientifically possible?) and redressed her, keeping her original panties as a souvenir, which he buried in a box with other souvenirs, then what? Why should his dna be on the oversize panties she was found in, or anything else, when he was wearing gloves when he handled her and the clothes, and was not depositing dna on her after he washed her?

I have heard our dna is all over the place. What of the talk about "degraded" dna or "not enough for a match" dna? Can someone say for sure his dna would last on her body, or anywhere in the house, after say 9 hours, 24 hours, if it had been wiped or washed or he was wearing gloves? Why is there no dna from the parents on her if they hugged her, carried her to bed ? Or is there? Could someone give us some assurance of this?

I'm not the only person in the world who thinks he would be executed for this crime if it happened 40 years ago, on circumstantial evidence alone. But because the dna doesn't match, they are not even LOOKING at the other evidence. Was the palm print even compared to his? Mary Lacy accepted his family's alibi for him , yet today I read that the ex wife is no longer sure; that they might have been separated.

I just don't like the constant changes in "he did it!" "he didn't do it!" without a definite thorough investigation of everything. We've got the emails and phone calls; now no one cares what he said? Just insane ramblings?

So the detailed confessions are meaningless now because the dna doesn't match. There's like months or years of things to investigate that he talked and wrote about. There's possibly more ways to link him to Boulder. If we don't go on "assuming" so much.

 

[aspidistra]

I have often wondered if there is anything still secret, but I find myself thinking it isn't likely. Everything was shared with the BDA who in turn shared it with the Defense who in turn shared it with the likes of Tracey, Smit who in turn shared it with......

I think my chances of winning the lottery are greater then there still being "yet to be disclosed information" in this case.

Karr's claim that he hung her by her wrists and tied her by her feet has never been speculated in any intruder theory I ever saw. Surely that could be proved or disproved. I'd be glad to hear either way that it could or could not have happened the way he said. The point is, here is a detail he could not have picked up from a book or the internet. Also the perfume she was wearing was never mentioned in the autopsy or anywhere else. These were not considered unique evidence that he was there? I just want to see someone disprove everything he said, or prove it was already on the web.