Alex Hunter's fault
1. Leaks to the press.
2. Provided evidence and testimony to Team Ramsey.
3. Failure to seek warrants for phone calls, credit card statements, medical records, etc.
4. Delayed questioning by police.
5. Preferred plea-bargain to prosecution.
6. Intimidated by Ramsey lawyers.
7. Made some decisions based on politics rather than justice.
Not Alex Hunter's fault
A. Compromised crime scene.
B. Lou Smit never believed RDI.
C. DA "dream team" agreed that the case was not winnable based on the evidence.
Would A, B or C change if 1 - 7 were different?
Maybe.
Well put. A very good summary as to how this became a media killing.
1. Leaks to the press.
Unfortunately this has happened in almost every major case the world over.
Is there any evidence that AH sanctioned leaks that suited his decisions/narrative?
Or evidence that whilst “leaking” himself, AH actively sought sanctions against those divulging counter-narrative material?
2. Provided evidence and testimony to Team Ramsey.
Crucial to this case. I remain as incredulous today as I was when I first learnt that full disclosure had been given to non-compliant parents of a murdered child. Extraordinary.
3. Failure to seek warrants for phone calls, credit card statements, medical records, etc.
Investigation basics. Evidence that could just as easily help clear the innocent.
4. Delayed questioning by police.
Rendered almost pointless by your point 2 above. And “questioning” is not the term I would use. Some of it would fail Level 1 PIP in the UK.
5. Preferred plea-bargain to prosecution.
I have seen mention of some eye-watering decisions made by AH.
However, balancing hat on, he could be considered ahead of his time (please don’t all scream at once!) in terms of exploring restorative justice, community payback etc. Which makes his Ramsey decision all the more confusing for me. There was a way through the wood, but he stayed sitting in the tree.
6. Intimidated by Ramsey lawyers.
To help me understand if D.A.s have a “public interest” responsibility, Tortoise kindly provided a link to
National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards Third Edition with Revised Commentary and I found this:
In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 408 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from Civil Rights Actions brought under Section 1983, 42 U.S.C., when acting within the scope of their duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the state’s case. The Court noted that although such immunity leaves the genuinely wronged criminal defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty, the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would outweigh the broader public interest in that it would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.
The Court did not extend such absolute immunity to actions taken by a prosecutor outside of the scope of his or her duties as aforesaid. Thus, Imbler did not change pre-existing law with respect to the performance of duties that traditionally are viewed as investigative duties falling primarily within the police function.
Although there has been a multitude of case law subsequent to Imbler discussing the prosecutor’s immunity for “administrative” and “investigative” duties, no bright line rule has been established.
In order to ensure that prosecutors are free to vigorously and fearlessly perform their essential duties, the prosecutor’s funding source should provide the costs, including attorney fees and judgments associated with civil suits against the prosecutor and his or her staff. No prosecutor should be expected to function without full coverage for actions arising out of the performance of his or her duties. “
I cannot see how LW or others could have sued AH or subsequent DAs on behalf of the Ramseys. Nor can I see how they could have sued BPD.
They were “persons of interest” not defendants.
They had never been arrested, let alone deprived of their liberty. (Actually, does anyone know for certain if they were ever interviewed “under caution”?)
Any loss of “good standing” was down to their own failure to engage with those professionals tasked with investigating the killing of their daughter.
7. Made some decisions based on politics rather than justice.
Within professional circles, it is inevitable that everyone either
a knows
x or knows
y who knows
x. (There is a section on conflict of interest in the National Standards quoted above.)
I have not learnt enough about the district/state affiliations of that time to know if AH was playing politics with people’s lives.
Not Alex Hunter's fault
A. Compromised crime scene.
Linked to your 2 and 4 above. Plus who invites an audience to a
real kidnapping, then forms a prayer circle around a murdered child. Agatha Christie, eat your heart out.
Words fail me.
B. Lou Smit never believed RDI.
The perfect answer to the Ramseys’ prayers. The innocence agenda.
C. DA "dream team" agreed that the case was not winnable based on the evidence.
I’m not sure - did they all agree? And on what?
IMO the difficulties resulting from point A could have been eased (if not surmounted) if points 2 and 4 had been played differently.
So yes, maybe.
