DA's objectivity

[MsBashterd]

This whole crime leaves us sick to our stomachs and speechless. Shock? Nothing shocks me. Wealthy powerful people buy their way out of crimes all the time. DAs, LE, judges and medical examiners can be threatened or bought. (I am not making any specific accusations in this case, merely stating generalities).

Ain't that the truth, twice now I have had to put down PTPM (only for a moment though) and look at it in disgust. Some of the liberties that were given and taken by the Ramsey's, by many different agency's is shocking and sickening. I had no idea that all that was going on behind the scene's. I don't give a rat's arse if your the Czar of freakin Tootle Town, frankly I think so many were blinded by the status of JR and I will just leave that right their.

Oh wow and eventually I will find a thread that I can voice my opinion on the lack of anything that resembled a police investigation on the morning of the 26th. PR and her tea party in honor of her new found martyrdom.... seemed a little more like the tea party for Alice and Wonderland to me.


Holy Moley I am this passionate and only 3/4 the way through 1st book 3 left to go. I may need an intervention soon:crazy:

 

[Sophie]

Mary Lacy knew the evidence........some of those comments from the insiders were made by the all male chauvinistic police. Steve Thomas had definite bias against southern women and hatred of the DA's office. The police were embarrassed early on in the media, and that's when they started circling the wagons--I don't think it mattered that they were on the wrong track. They wanted to justify why they screwed up---and accuse the Ramsey's of fooling them. The police had baggage with the DA's office. Frank Coffman (aka masked man) swung both ways on Ramsey guilt.

After all the injustices done to the Ramseys by the BPD, Mary Lacy's statement was the right thing to do. It put it on the record where the DA's office stood and why.

Hi Maikai, I don't think there's any disputing ST's dislike of the DA's office. I don't think there is any lack of clarity as to why he disliked the DA's office. He wasn't alone: there are judges quoted in PMPT who thought that the DA's office was risible in its liberal approach.

However, not sure where you are coming from in suggesting that he was biased towards all southern women. I'm not in the US and have conceivably missed interviews in which he displayed this prejudice but a) it was Schiller who commented on ST being attuned to flirtatious southern women, not ST himself and b) ST actually refers in his book to one interviewee (a woman) as having a charming southern drawl. I'd be interested in reading any comments he has made to suggest that this bias exists. I'd be very disappointed if this were true. While I admit that he does come over as being a tad abrasive here and there, it has always struck me as an equal opportunities sort of abrasiveness. Not contradicting you, Maikai, as I know this is something I may have missed.


Re Lacy and clearing the Ramseys, I can't agree that she did the right thing. Firstly, until someone else is convicted of the murder, it is logically impossible to clear anyone other than on air-tight alibi. Secondly, her emphasis on one aspect of the case (ie the DNA) and her suggestion that this evidence was the very heart of the case was a bit of strategic lunacy from a prosecutor who may, at some point, want to try the case on the basis of other evidence.

 

[MsBashterd]

Re Lacy and clearing the Ramseys, I can't agree that she did the right thing. Firstly, until someone else is convicted of the murder, it is logically impossible to clear anyone other than on air-tight alibi. Secondly, her emphasis on one aspect of the case (ie the DNA) and her suggestion that this evidence was the very heart of the case was a bit of strategic lunacy from a prosecutor who may, at some point, want to try the case on the basis of other evidence.

That seems like such an odd statement concerning the DNA, as a crime scene it was defiled, destroyed, and contaminated, there ever being any type of viable DNA, that couldn't or wouldn't be arguable, seems unlikely.

I would think this case would be concentrating on another form of evidence. Well thus far, an for the life of me I can't figure out what you could base it on. What wasn't contaminated????:waitasec:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Her major contribution to the case came after Patsy Ramsey's funeral, which she attended, in a shocking display of unprofessionalism. In August of 2006, Mary Lacy announced that the killer of JonBenet had been found. His name was John Mark Karr. By the time he was back in the US, his relatives had established he was nowhere near Boulder, his story had collapsed, and Mary Lacy was on the defensive. She shouldn't have been, because this should not have happened. Her conduct violated the most basic elements of procedure that a first-year law student would know. It was clear to many that she was a pro-Ramsey partisan and was trying to give them a gift. There should have been a recall election. She should have been forced to resign. The case should have been taken over by capable professionals. But none of that happened, because after ten years nobody cared. Journalist Jeff Shapiro writes, "It's no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy's attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice."

From Associated Press, August 2006:

updated 5:14 p.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 17, 2006

BOULDER, Colo. - The prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey slaying urged the public not to “jump to conclusions” Thursday, hours after an expatriate school teacher in custody in Thailand claimed he accidentally killed the girl a decade ago.

I dunno, SD, but this report seems to say different stuff than what you say. Characterized differently somehow, know what I mean?

 

[BBB167893]

From Associated Press, August 2006:

updated 5:14 p.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 17, 2006

BOULDER, Colo. - The prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey slaying urged the public not to “jump to conclusions” Thursday, hours after an expatriate school teacher in custody in Thailand claimed he accidentally killed the girl a decade ago.

I dunno, SD, but this report seems to say different stuff than what you say. Characterized differently somehow, know what I mean?

Actions speak louder than words, do they not?

While you ponder that, HOTYH, I confess I was writing to save time for potential readers, and in so doing, I conflated the DA herself with other members of the RST. And since that was the only part you took issue with, that tells me a lot.

BUT, when you're right, you're right. And I pride myself on my accuracy. (I stand by all other statements.) So, in the interest of fairness, I shall rewrite that sentence. It shall now say:

In August of 2006, Mary Lacy announced that a suspect had been arrested. His name was John Mark Karr

 

[Maikai]

Detective Linda Anrdt was a rape victim specialist. She was most certainly NOT anti-women. If anything, she viewed PR as a victim also, turning her suspicions to JR from the start.

ST has NO bias against women, Southern or otherwise.
He DOES, however, have bias against Southern women who kill their children and make it look like someone else murdered her.

Linda Arndt was made a scapegoat by the BPD. She was given no backup in the house. She had been told the house had been thoroughly searched and she was following orders by Ellers. You didn't see any backlash with French. He wasn't hung out to dry for failing to open the wine cellar door.

ST's book is full of venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra. IMO, he had abandonment issues due to his mother dying when he was young.

 

[Sophie]

Linda Arndt was made a scapegoat by the BPD. She was given no backup in the house. She had been told the house had been thoroughly searched and she was following orders by Ellers. You didn't see any backlash with French. He wasn't hung out to dry for failing to open the wine cellar door.

ST's book is full of venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra. IMO, he had abandonment issues due to his mother dying when he was young.

French was full of self-reproach, though, while Arndt claims to have done a phenomenal job (see her depo). I am not a critic of Arndt, BTW, but I don't think it's fair to compare a uniformed officer looking for a means of egress from the house to a detective who is supposed to be managing a crime scene.

Re ST, you may be right: we all have issues. However, that doesn't make him wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and his views, in any case, were shared by plenty of people without abandonment issues.

For what it's worth, though, I think in picking up on his comments about Nedra, Pam et al, you may be ignoring his positive comments about other women (including Melinda and Beth, who were southern) and the fact that he is fairly acerbic about a lot of men, too. There is a fair bit of anger and even bitterness in his book but these are directed towards a system and circumstances which failed a little girl. They aren't gender-specific.

Separately, this thread has developed the quality of a school literature essay: 'In his book, ST proves nothing adequately other than his own misogyny - Discuss. '

 

[Ames]

Mary Lacy knew the evidence........some of those comments from the insiders were made by the all male chauvinistic police. Steve Thomas had definite bias against southern women and hatred of the DA's office. The police were embarrassed early on in the media, and that's when they started circling the wagons--I don't think it mattered that they were on the wrong track. They wanted to justify why they screwed up---and accuse the Ramsey's of fooling them. The police had baggage with the DA's office. Frank Coffman (aka masked man) swung both ways on Ramsey guilt.

After all the injustices done to the Ramseys by the BPD, Mary Lacy's statement was the right thing to do. It put it on the record where the DA's office stood and why.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html

Here is a little snippet from that article...


Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday publicly cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, a fatal error that only complements the repeated misjudgments she has made in the case since she was elected.
Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."
Forensic expert Henry Lee most likely would agree that the foreign DNA in question most likely is "artifact," because he always has said he believes it actually is the result of contamination and that it is completely unrelated to the crime.

From Ames...So, in 2006, according to Mary Lacy...."The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the Killer's. There's a possiblity that it's the killer's. But it could be something else". But NOW...the "could be an artifact. Isn't nessarily the killer's. Could be something else" DNA is all of the sudden good enough to clear the Ramsey's?? Well arighty then. THIS...IMO...just shows her intentions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."

Lacy's quote is from 2006 and is no longer relevant, what with the discovery of the new DNA on the leggings.

In 2006, it was not known that the DNA in the underwear matched as yet undiscovered DNA in the leggings. Therefore, the DNA that existed could have been artifact.

That all changed in 2008 with the discovery that the legging DNA matched the underpants DNA. That discovery pretty much rules out the artifact idea. Lacy's words were appropriate for 2006, but those words were rendered obsolete with the new DNA information in 2008.

Its not likely the DA would reiterate the same thing, now that we all know the DNA in the underwear matches the DNA in the leggings. The DA apparently no longer believes the 'artifact' idea is a possibility because of the new matching DNA, and would not make the same statement now as was made in 2006.

This is obvious. I am now deeply concerned. Why is RDI unable to grasp this?

 

[PGWodehouse]

Linda Arndt was made a scapegoat by the BPD. She was given no backup in the house. She had been told the house had been thoroughly searched and she was following orders by Ellers. You didn't see any backlash with French. He wasn't hung out to dry for failing to open the wine cellar door.

ST's book is full of venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra. IMO, he had abandonment issues due to his mother dying when he was young.

I've voiced some massive venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra, myself, and I adore southern women. I AM a southern woman!

 

[DeeDee249]

Linda Arndt was made a scapegoat by the BPD. She was given no backup in the house. She had been told the house had been thoroughly searched and she was following orders by Ellers. You didn't see any backlash with French. He wasn't hung out to dry for failing to open the wine cellar door.

ST's book is full of venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra. IMO, he had abandonment issues due to his mother dying when he was young.

I TOTALLY agree with your first sentence. But while French regretted his actions that morning, Arndt did not feel she did anything wrong, and THAT is simply not true. She also touched the body- she moved JB from the hall where JR had placed her to the living room under the Christmas Tree. (supposedly to get her out of a high-traffic area).
It is true at the time they did not know it was a murder until the body was found, but a kidnapping still made the house a crime scene. Every cop knows how to preserve a crime scene. Keep people who don't belong there OUT (victims' advocates included), keep whoever is present IN, and don't touch or allow to be touched ANYTHING.
While she had no backup, she did have a gun. She could have put everyone in one room and kept them there till back up arrived. Now that the crime scene was contaminated, all those who had been summoned that day could have been required to give hair, blood, DNA samples. I am sure they were asked at some point, I don't know who complied.

 

[Ames]

Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."

Lacy's quote is from 2006 and is no longer relevant, what with the discovery of the new DNA on the leggings.

In 2006, it was not known that the DNA in the underwear matched as yet undiscovered DNA in the leggings. Therefore, the DNA that existed could have been artifact.

That all changed in 2008 with the discovery that the legging DNA matched the underpants DNA. That discovery pretty much rules out the artifact idea. Lacy's words were appropriate for 2006, but those words were rendered obsolete with the new DNA information in 2008.

Its not likely the DA would reiterate the same thing, now that we all know the DNA in the underwear matches the DNA in the leggings. The DA apparently no longer believes the 'artifact' idea is a possibility because of the new matching DNA, and would not make the same statement now as was made in 2006.

This is obvious. I am now deeply concerned. Why is RDI unable to grasp this?

"Although “touch DNA” scraping has been around for some time and is gaining ground, it’s still used seldomly in the U.S., Wojtowicz said.
The methodology also is not without its critics, said Charles Brenner, a forensic mathematician, speaking from his home in Oakland, Calif.
“Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection: the sample can be so small, it’s hard to be reliable,” Brenner said." From the Daily Camera.

From Ames...Because the sample can be so small, that its hard to be reliable...this tells me that the DNA found on the longjohns and inside of the underwear BOTH could be an artifact. There is no telling how the DNA got there...there are many possiblities...just because unknown male dna was found there...it doesn't mean that it had to have been left there that night...and that the male was an adult. Touch DNA can be a transference from someplace else. IOW...if JB touched a toilet seat, and then touched her longjohns...it could have arrived there that way, for example. The touch DNA means absolutely nothing. And when this case is finally closed...you will understand this.

 

[BBB167893]

ST's book is full of venom and sarcasm against Patsy, Pam, and Nedra.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[DeeDee249]

:dance:

 

[BBB167893]

Let me bump this up for those who have yet to see it.

While I'm doing that, anyone who doubts what I have to say about the DA's inability/unwillingness to take circumstantial cases against wealthy people, I suggest you google these words:

"Jason Midyette."

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey SD.

Ty for redirecting me to the Objectivity thread.

SD, you're always so concise and well versed in all aspects of this case.
And your opinions are very convincing, and always a pleasure to read.

As you recount MLK history and behaviour, it's still difficult for me to seperate what is just a reflection of internal politicing and what could be bad judgement and inexperience by Lacy. Difficult to access those attachments of motive to her behaviour.

 

[Maikai]

Let me bump this up for those who have yet to see it.

While I'm doing that, anyone who doubts what I have to say about the DA's inability/unwillingness to take circumstantial cases against wealthy people, I suggest you google these words:

"Jason Midyette."

I don't believe the case was entirely circumstantial. Prior to charging the Midyette's, expert witnesses outside of Boulder were called in to review the medical evidence in the baby's death, and they came up with a pretty good case that the baby did not have the brittle bone disease.

Coincidentally, Jason Midyette's father (or is it grandfather?) was expanding Access Graphics space on Pearl Street at the time JBR was murdered. He is one of the largest developer's of Pearl Street, an architect, and quite wealthy. Yes, the DA's office knew what they were up against---Jason Midyette lawyered up early.

 

[Maikai]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

We'll see. I don't see how you can rule out the intruder evidence......or how you can publish any book where you could be sued for slander/libel.

 

[Roy23]

We'll see. I don't see how you can rule out the intruder evidence......or how you can publish any book where you could be sued for slander/libel.

Ain't that the truth. I also imagine that some of his sources would not want some of their statements publicized again considering the 2008 DNA homerun.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey SD.

Ty for redirecting me to the Objectivity thread.

SD, you're always so concise and well versed in all aspects of this case.
And your opinions are very convincing, and always a pleasure to read.

Thank you.

As you recount MLK history and behaviour, it's still difficult for me to seperate what is just a reflection of internal politicing and what could be bad judgement and inexperience by Lacy. Difficult to access those attachments of motive to her behaviour.

Well, I'm sure that it was largely both. But then, look who she had to learn from.