Hi again, everybody.
I'm trying to put together a list of points to hit on this Sunday's broadcast. We're doing this airing to educate people, and God knows some of them need it!
What I'm asking is this: depending on the point, I'd like for anyone who can contribute to contribute as much as possible from as many sources as possible. I know it's asking a lot, but it's worth it.
I'd like to start with Point One. Point one is how a domestic killing is most often solved. As most of us who have followed true crime know, when a child is found dead in their own home with two or more people there, the case is not solved by the forensic evidence. Instead, the police solve it by, as the lady DA on Law & Order SVU put it so well, squeezing the suspects until one of them pops.
By that I mean you arrest them, separate them, then come around to each one and say, "who wants a get-out-of-jail-free" card? In other words, you get one to give up the other one.
Well, that's what the police WANTED to do, and what the FBI, the "Dream Team" guys and Chief Beckner TOLD them to do: arrest the Ramseys and throw them in jail until one of them confessed.
So what I want to do here is, I want to cobble together all of the things that COULD have been done by the investigators to solve this case that were NOT done and to acquire material that shows how probable cause works to that end. And apparently, the Ramseys' lawyers knew more about it than the DA did, because, despite Hal Haddon's public statements, John Ramsey has made it clear that the lawyers were preparing for the police to do exactly that: arrest them, separate them, place snitches in the cells with them to frighten them, etc. Funny how that works out.
I admit I have personal reasons for this. Some of my "friends" (and I clenched my teeth on that) have tried to portray this absolutely STANDARD tactics as some kind of coercion. They claim I want to waterboard innocent people. I want this point to be reinforced to show how hollow their claim is. (On a side note, I can't help but wonder why they don't have enough guts to accuse me of that HERE!)
I'll start off on this one. I quote from ST's book:
"A prosecutor can do a lot with probable cause short of arrest; it can open the door to search warrants, wiretaps and other investigative avenues. Hunter's failure to aggressively pursue any of these options when he knew the forensic case had holes was inexcusable."
And there's a lot to choose from. The police wanted search warrants. They wanted to tap the Ramseys' phone. They wanted to place listening bugs in the house. They wanted to call a Grand Jury early on (and of much different character than the dog-and-pony show they ended up with). They wanted to arrest the Ramseys and separate them.
ALL were shot down at higher levels.
Let's have at it!
I'm trying to put together a list of points to hit on this Sunday's broadcast. We're doing this airing to educate people, and God knows some of them need it!
What I'm asking is this: depending on the point, I'd like for anyone who can contribute to contribute as much as possible from as many sources as possible. I know it's asking a lot, but it's worth it.
I'd like to start with Point One. Point one is how a domestic killing is most often solved. As most of us who have followed true crime know, when a child is found dead in their own home with two or more people there, the case is not solved by the forensic evidence. Instead, the police solve it by, as the lady DA on Law & Order SVU put it so well, squeezing the suspects until one of them pops.
By that I mean you arrest them, separate them, then come around to each one and say, "who wants a get-out-of-jail-free" card? In other words, you get one to give up the other one.
Well, that's what the police WANTED to do, and what the FBI, the "Dream Team" guys and Chief Beckner TOLD them to do: arrest the Ramseys and throw them in jail until one of them confessed.
So what I want to do here is, I want to cobble together all of the things that COULD have been done by the investigators to solve this case that were NOT done and to acquire material that shows how probable cause works to that end. And apparently, the Ramseys' lawyers knew more about it than the DA did, because, despite Hal Haddon's public statements, John Ramsey has made it clear that the lawyers were preparing for the police to do exactly that: arrest them, separate them, place snitches in the cells with them to frighten them, etc. Funny how that works out.
I admit I have personal reasons for this. Some of my "friends" (and I clenched my teeth on that) have tried to portray this absolutely STANDARD tactics as some kind of coercion. They claim I want to waterboard innocent people. I want this point to be reinforced to show how hollow their claim is. (On a side note, I can't help but wonder why they don't have enough guts to accuse me of that HERE!)
I'll start off on this one. I quote from ST's book:
"A prosecutor can do a lot with probable cause short of arrest; it can open the door to search warrants, wiretaps and other investigative avenues. Hunter's failure to aggressively pursue any of these options when he knew the forensic case had holes was inexcusable."
And there's a lot to choose from. The police wanted search warrants. They wanted to tap the Ramseys' phone. They wanted to place listening bugs in the house. They wanted to call a Grand Jury early on (and of much different character than the dog-and-pony show they ended up with). They wanted to arrest the Ramseys and separate them.
ALL were shot down at higher levels.
Let's have at it!