Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost.

SapphireSteel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
6,788
Reaction score
101
A new article in the Daily Mail today spells out quite clearly why the Ramseys were never indicted, according to the author who co-wrote a book with Detective Steve Thomas.

Hunter was known amongst legal circles as "Mr Plea Bargain" and simply didn't have the stomach or the courage for such a high profile case against such wealthy, well lawyered and connected people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ecute-parents-claims-author-Donald-Davis.html

All I can say is, if this is true (and I have no personal doubt it is) then there needs to be a reinvestigation of the entire mess, from the DA's office down, from an impartial (perhaps federal) agency.

Jonbenet needs justice, and it's not too late for someone to grow some balls. :furious:
 
Hold on, the result of the Grand Jury was to indict them, but they didn't?
wtf?

How has this taken 14 years to be revealed? Or did we know this already?
Surely this is enough to take it to a trial now?
Why am I asking so many questions?
;)
 
I always thought the Rams were guilty but im shocked .....now anyway, that Hunter was too chicken to do the right thing.
 
Oh my... I saw this on the news today... And am still trying to pull together a post which is not formed with anger and shocked disbelief...

Sooo... The Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramsey's... But Hunter.... in an unprecedented (albeit legal) move... Overturned it...

and this was not brought to the attention of the public for these many years?!?!?

Who was keeping this information from being revealed... And why is it coming out now?

Please excuse my limited knowledge of the legal system... And I appreciate any clarification from you WSers...

TIA
 
Has this story been almost ignored in the US?

I double checked before I posted it.

It's just kind of slipped out like, oh, by the way, you know the jury voted to indict, but we decided not to. No biggie.

:banghead:
 
Has this story been almost ignored in the US?

I double checked before I posted it.

It's just kind of slipped out like, oh, by the way, you know the jury voted to indict, but we decided not to. No biggie.

:banghead:

You didn't see the other topic about it with 5 pages?

No, I wouldn't say it's been ignored. You can't expect wall-to-wall coverage. It was on GMA, Today, Nightline, Happening Now, and The Fox Report yesterday. It also made FOX News radio. It was on the front page of ABCNews, NBC, and FOX all of Monday. It's STILL the most popular story on ABC News, after almost 24 hours. CNN and CBS also picked it up. It was a Top 10 News story on Yahoo all day Monday, and trended in the Top 10 pretty consistently.

Considering that CNN broke the news on their website very late on Monday, hopefully, they will put something on TV about it on Tuesday. Maybe AC 360? The Associated Press still has to pick it up, and see no reason why they wouldn't, and I definitely expect them to do so when they all wake up. At this moment, anyone connected to this case...Ramsey...Wood...Hunter...Brennan...Kolar...Thomas..could get on probably any show in the country to talk about this new development.
 
You didn't see the other topic about it with 5 pages?

No, I wouldn't say it's been ignored. It was on GMA, Today, Nightline, Happening Now, and The Fox Report yesterday. It was on the front page of ABCNews, NBC, and FOX all of Monday. It's still the most popular story on ABC News, after almost 24 hours. CNN and CBS also picked it up. It was a Top 10 News story on Yahoo all day Monday, and trended in the Top 10 pretty consistently.

I saw that thread but this is a different story regarding the same event.

This is a first ever direct interview (by the Daily Mail in the UK) with the author of Steve Thomas's book and I felt it added something new and important because someone actually came out and accused Hunt of being "scared" as motivation for dropping the case.

I felt if I buried it in the other thread, it might not stand out as being important all on its own. As far as I know, no one impartial like him has ever actually come out in public making this accusation and I felt it was noteworthy.
 
Another thing is that Hunter retired in 2000. I'm sure he knew that, at the time the GJ finished. I wonder if that played a part in his decision? Like if he started planning for a trial, he would have to stick through it, and that could take years? Then again, couldn't he just retire in 99/00 and give the case to the new DA? Who would've been...Mary Lacy? AAAAAH.
 
"Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost...."

...and he would certainly have lost.
 
"Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost...."

...and he would certainly have lost.

Absolutely disagree! IMO, Hunter should be embarrassed NOW more than he would be in 1999. Regardless, the case has been won or lost, the honest and dedicated prosecutor has always respected by his co-workers, public and justice system which he/she was elected, sworned and PAID for to serve!!! Are you familiar with Anthony case? Mr. Ashton has lost this case in the court. But he's still a winner in life!!!!

Now, in regards of 'he would certainly have lost', how do you know?! Could be, should be, would be.....You and I don't know for sure what outcome WOULD BE if Ramsey would be prosecuted in 1999. But what I DO KNOW FOR SURE that justice would be attempted to serve for the 6-year old innocent girl named JonBenet. And if you have children of your own or/and if you have a little respect for society (and it's LAW) in which you leave - you MUST NOT care about Hunter's reasons to do nothing. You must DEMAND from people like him to DO THEIR WORK honestly!!!!!

P.S. And don't you worry to repeat LW statement about Hunter's 'hero' attempt to prevail 'miscarriage' of justice if he would prosecute Ramsey. As much as I'm concern, it was the premature ABORTION of justice by not taking Ramsey to court after GJ report in 1999.
 
:thewave: Hey - Edmond.DantesIII

:star1::star1::star1: BRILLIANT REBUTTAL by OM4U:star1::star1::star1:

Absolutely disagree! IMO, Hunter should be embarrassed NOW more than he would be in 1999. Regardless, the case has been won or lost, the honest and dedicated prosecutor has always respected by his co-workers, public and justice system which he/she was elected, sworned and PAID for to serve!!! Are you familiar with Anthony case? Mr. Ashton has lost this case in the court. But he's still a winner in life!!!!

Now, in regards of 'he would certainly have lost', how do you know?! Could be, should be, would be.....You and I don't know for sure what outcome WOULD BE if Ramsey would be prosecuted in 1999. But what I DO KNOW FOR SURE that justice would be attempted to serve for the 6-year old innocent girl named JonBenet. And if you have children of your own or/and if you have a little respect for society (and it's LAW) in which you leave - you MUST NOT care about Hunter's reasons to do nothing. You must DEMAND from people like him to DO THEIR WORK honestly!!!!!

P.S. And don't you worry to repeat LW statement about Hunter's 'hero' attempt to prevail 'miscarriage' of justice if he would prosecute Ramsey. As much as I'm concern, it was the premature ABORTION of justice by not taking Ramsey to court after GJ report in 1999.
 
With how high-profile the trial would've been, I imagine that the prosecution could have gotten the best legal minds and experts to work for them. Obviously, the same goes for the defense. But I don't think it would be small-town prosecution going on against big-time defense lawyers.

It's so hard to predict the outcome. We're not just talking about being found guilty or acquitted, but also how many years in jail the R's would have received, if convicted. I mean, Casey was found not-guilty, and she waited 31 days to report her daughter missing!

But no matter what the verdict, the case should have gone to trial, because that's what the GJ recommended.
 
:thewave: Hey - Edmond.DantesIII

:star1::star1::star1: BRILLIANT REBUTTAL by OM4U:star1::star1::star1:

Yes, it was. But Dantes is likely correct: Hunter would have lost; NOT because the evidence wouldn't convince a jury, but because he was a coward and lazy.
 
Yes, it was. But Dantes is likely correct: Hunter would have lost; NOT because the evidence wouldn't convince a jury, but because he was a coward and lazy.

:great: HEY SD - Where the heck have you been?

Yep - AH valued his cozy Colorado subsidized retirement existence WAAAAYYYYYY more than the adventure he would have gotten by rocking that RST boat! Who knows he might have even had to take a deep swim with some fishes, rather than try to figure out which fly to tie to his rod for a lazy day at the stream!:moo:
 
But how would you have proved 'who did what' in this case? What if this case had gone to trial and the 'alleged' killer or killers were then found not guilty because of an inability to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these acts?

How would you PROVE that Patsy wrote the ransom note? How would you prove that the evidence was sufficient to draw the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramseys (or one of them) killed their daughter and proceeded with a cover-up? That crime scene was thoroughly polluted, as Dr. Henry Lee explained to the Boulder police and detectives, working the case.

Would you rather have had Hunter go to trial, knowing that whoever tried this case, would lose? What sort of justice would this have served?

Or would it be more feasible to go to trial - in the future - should more evidence lead to an ability to try this case in court in a 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' fashion?
 
But how would you have proved 'who did what' in this case? What if this case had gone to trial and the 'alleged' killer or killers were then found not guilty because of an inability to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these acts?

How would you PROVE that Patsy wrote the ransom note? How would you prove that the evidence was sufficient to draw the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramseys (or one of them) killed their daughter and proceeded with a cover-up? That crime scene was thoroughly polluted, as Dr. Henry Lee explained to the Boulder police and detectives, working the case.

Would you rather have had Hunter go to trial, knowing that whoever tried this case, would lose? What sort of justice would this have served?

Or would it be more feasible to go to trial - in the future - should more evidence lead to an ability to try this case in court in a 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' fashion?

I'd have rather seen it go to trial anyway. Just to show what liars they were. Just to show the incompetence and complicity of the DA'a office.
I recall a comment made by Pete Hoffstrom- the assistant DA to Hunter. He said that "just because she wrote the note doesn't mean she killed her kid".
He is right, of course, but it DOES mean she KNOWS who did. No one writes a note to cover up for an stranger/intruder. Hunter failed to act on the ramification of this- that the parents KNOW what happened, whether they were personally responsible or not.
There was NEVER going to be a future trail that would be able to be prosecuted any better. There was never going to be any new information that would lead to charges against anyone in this case. There are only a few reasons for this- of the three people in the house at the time JB was killed one was too young to be held accountable and the other two could not be compelled to testify against each other. Because BOTH parents' fibers are found intimately connected to the crime it could be shown that both were present at the crime. But it would never be possible to prove who did what.
I have always felt the weapon was the flashlight- because it was wiped down, but mostly because the batteries were wiped down. Because it was never able to be proven exactly what was used to bash her, and because it can't be proven who pulled that cord around her neck- it can't be proven who did the actual killing. You'd need a confession, or a witness who would testify. And there was never going to be that.
 
:great: HEY SD - Where the heck have you been?

Getting a new damn computer! The last one up and died.

Yep - AH valued his cozy Colorado subsidized retirement existence WAAAAYYYYYY more than the adventure he would have gotten by rocking that RST boat! Who knows he might have even had to take a deep swim with some fishes, rather than try to figure out which fly to tie to his rod for a lazy day at the stream!:moo:

You're right about one thing: he was cruising toward an easy retirement and just did not want this case.
 
But how would you have proved 'who did what' in this case? What if this case had gone to trial and the 'alleged' killer or killers were then found not guilty because of an inability to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these acts?

How would you PROVE that Patsy wrote the ransom note? How would you prove that the evidence was sufficient to draw the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramseys (or one of them) killed their daughter and proceeded with a cover-up? That crime scene was thoroughly polluted, as Dr. Henry Lee explained to the Boulder police and detectives, working the case.

Would you rather have had Hunter go to trial, knowing that whoever tried this case, would lose? What sort of justice would this have served?

Or would it be more feasible to go to trial - in the future - should more evidence lead to an ability to try this case in court in a 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' fashion?

This probably isn't the answer you're looking for, Bayareamom, but the simple fact is, in cases like this one, where the suspects and the victim all lived in the same place, you don't get solid evidence through forensic testing; you get it by separating the two parties and placing them in separate jail cells and seeing which one will crack first and give up the other.

The police in this case WANTED to do that, BAM. Right from the get-go. But Alex Hunter wouldn't allow it. Even though it's STANDARD procedure just about everywhere that the greenest rookie on a BEAT would know to do, it offended Hunter's outdated 1960's values.

On a side note, to answer your question as to how we could prove Patsy wrote the ransom note, as the field stands now, it's impossible to "prove" who wrote something--the analysts can only say how likely it is that someone wrote or didn't write an item. And even then, it's a matter of individual skill and experience. (But that's a whole 'nother subject.)
 
I am very well aware of what the police wanted to do, SuperDave. I understand that Alex Hunter's office was a major impediment, not only as to the collection of evidence, but regarding Hofstrom's chumminess with Team Ramsey. In fact, the chumminess of the Boulder DA's office with defense lawyers in Boulder is absolutely unheard of in most legal circles that I am aware of.

DeeDee, you stated the following: "There was NEVER going to be a future trail that would be able to be prosecuted any better. There was never going to be any new information that would lead to charges against anyone in this case. There are only a few reasons for this- of the three people in the house at the time JB was killed one was too young to be held accountable and the other two could not be compelled to testify against each other. Because BOTH parents' fibers are found intimately connected to the crime it could be shown that both were present at the crime. But it would never be possible to prove who did what."

I have always felt the weapon was the flashlight- because it was wiped down, but mostly because the batteries were wiped down. Because it was never able to be proven exactly what was used to bash her, and because it can't be proven who pulled that cord around her neck- it can't be proven who did the actual killing. You'd need a confession, or a witness who would testify. And there was never going to be that."

Just exactly HOW were the Ramseys' going to be proven to be liars? With evidence that would have been challenged as being tainted? With a top notch Defense Team that Team Ramsey had, which would have absolutely SMEARED the Prosecution's witnesses, including their crime lab technicians. Trust me when I tell you that you would have seen a repeat of the OJ Simpson trial if this case ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. Credulity would have been challenged as to how evidence was handled from the very initial stages that house was entered by the first cop to enter that home - Officer French.

Do you all remember that Linda Arndt cozied up to the Ramseys? Do you remember when she received FLOWERS from Team Ramsey and that she showed them to certain officers in her department at the time? Do you understand how offensive this was to the spirit of this little girl and how politics and ego played right into the hands of the Ramsey Team? The entirety of this case was a Prosecutor's NIGHTMARE, which held no chance whatsoever of ever seeing a winnable trial in court.

BELIEVE me when I tell you that I've read the entirety of the books written by those of whom were actively involved in this case, from Steve Thomas' book (which I'm currently re-reading, through to Kolar's recent book). I DO understand your frustration with all of this.

But you all keep harping about justice and what I am trying to tell you is that Justice would NOT have been served (in this particular case) IN GOING TO TRIAL.

Do you all understand that Alex Hunter hadn't tried a case IN YEARS right up to the time that JonBenet was murdered? That he LOST the two cases he DID prosecute, PRIOR to JonBenet's death? He was the PLEA BARGAIN guy - to 'go to' guy that defense lawyers knew they could bargain with. I cannot begin to explain to you all just how unusual this is! In all my years in the legal field, I have NEVER seen a DA's office cozy up to its defense lawyers in this manner. NEVER. It's just appalling.

For those of you who seem a little stymied with all of this, please re-read Thomas' book to help understand the nuances of the Boulder's DA's office and how their 'politics' works over there. I have a friend who still works in a major law firm in Colorado. She told me years ago, how much vitriol there is/was against Alex Hunter - Mr. Plea Bargain himself.

They wouldn't have had a chance in hell in bringing this case to trial, much less winning it.

And SuperDave, my questions in my prior post were rhetorical; I was assuming you all would catch that. Apparently, I was wrong...
 
But you all keep harping about justice and what I am trying to tell you is that Justice would NOT have been served (in this particular case) IN GOING TO TRIAL.

Bayareamom, there is no way to know what decision a jury would have come too. Saying it doesn't make it so.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
1,532
Total visitors
1,718

Forum statistics

Threads
589,974
Messages
17,928,574
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top