A thought occurs...

[Roy23]

The case would have gone forward if there was evidence. This wasn't a case where circumstantial evidence would be enough. Alex Hunter told the police bring me a case. The dry run the police put on was laughable. Scheck was one of the police depts. expert witnesses---no way he would support the police with unknown DNA. And then there's Lou Smit. The Grand Jury was a dry run, and the DNA was a problem with them....the police were running around collecting more DNA when the Grand Jury met....and these weren't blue collar jurors the prosecution could manipulate---many had a scientific background. Alex Hunter was correct in not going forward, and even the Grand Jury was a waste of time and money--they only called them because of Steve Thomas's resignation and the pressure put on the governor in the media.

It is nice to see some good ole common sense.

 

[BBB167893]

The case would have gone forward if there was evidence.

Please, Maikai. By now, we're ALL familiar with the Boulder DA's track record, so I'd appreciate it if we could save some time.

This wasn't a case where circumstantial evidence would be enough.

And exactly WHY is that?

Moreover, whose FAULT is that? This case was just the tip of the iceberg. It seems like we're flooded lately with cases where circumstantial evidence SHOULD be enough, but wasn't. (At least, for some people.)

Alex Hunter told the police bring me a case.

By whose standards? His? See above!

The dry run the police put on was laughable.

Kane didn't happen to think so.

Alex Hunter was correct in not going forward, and even the Grand Jury was a waste of time and money--they only called them because of Steve Thomas's resignation and the pressure put on the governor in the media.

FINALLY, we agree on something!

 

[BBB167893]

It is nice to see some good ole common sense.

Sure would be a welcome change.

 

[FairM]

In a way I wish they had of gone ahead with a case against the Ramseys because provided they had a fair jury imo they would have been acquitted on the evidence.

 

[FairM]

You seem to be missing the point, Maikai. It doesn't seem like there was any intention of going forward with a case.

We've had this conversation before.



What's your point? In case you haven't noticed, the great majority of cases are circumstantial. And up until recently, that was enough.



We'll have to differ on that, Maikai. I'd convict, as I imagine a lot of other people would. And it wouldn't be the evidence that did it. The minute the Ramseys got on the stand, that would have been that.

But that's not what we're talking about.

An example of a case which was successfully prosecuted in Colorado on circumstantial evidence was the case of Michael Blagg, in I believe 2004.

 

[BBB167893]

An example of a case which was successfully prosecuted in Colorado on circumstantial evidence was the case of Michael Blagg, in I believe 2004.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, FairM. If it's to contrast how Boulder works vs every place else, I'm with you 100%.

 

[FairM]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, FairM. If it's to contrast how Boulder works vs every place else, I'm with you 100%.

The point is this, it is possible to prosecute cases successfully where there is ONLY circumstantial evidence and that this has been done in the same place as Boulder i.e Colorado.

 

[Maikai]

An example of a case which was successfully prosecuted in Colorado on circumstantial evidence was the case of Michael Blagg, in I believe 2004.

I think you might mean Gerald Boggs? The case was mostly circumstantial although the marriage to Boggs was her 8th marriage, and her son testified that she had told him her boyfriend killed him. He was zapped with a stun gun, and although the medical examiner missed it at first, when they found the stun gun in the trunk of the boyfriend's car, they exhumed Boggs and the marks matched the stun gun. http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_w...ist-murderer-sociopath--married-11-times.html

 

[Maikai]

Michael Blaggs---that was a different one....there was little evidence and his daughter was never found. He didn't appear to be a very sympathetic suspect. Perhaps if he had high powered attorneys he could have gotten off.

 

[FairM]

I think you might mean Gerald Boggs? The case was mostly circumstantial although the marriage to Boggs was her 8th marriage, and her son testified that she had told him her boyfriend killed him. He was zapped with a stun gun, and although the medical examiner missed it at first, when they found the stun gun in the trunk of the boyfriend's car, they exhumed Boggs and the marks matched the stun gun. http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_w...ist-murderer-sociopath--married-11-times.html

No I mean Michael Blagg i have never heard of gerald boggs

 

[FairM]

Michael Blaggs---that was a different one....there was little evidence and his daughter was never found. He didn't appear to be a very sympathetic suspect. Perhaps if he had high powered attorneys he could have gotten off.

Michael Blagg not Blaggs, that is the one I am on about , There was a lot of circumstantial evidence the jury was entitled to convict him on that , I dont agree there was little evidence. His attorneys did a pretty good job of presenting his case.

 

[Roy23]

In a way I wish they had of gone ahead with a case against the Ramseys because provided they had a fair jury imo they would have been acquitted on the evidence.

It is funny that you mention this. Had they done so there would have been hell to pay. It would be similar to the Duke Lacrosse case. There was no prosecutorial evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

The point is this, it is possible to prosecute cases successfully where there is ONLY circumstantial evidence and that this has been done in the same place as Boulder i.e Colorado.

Well, FairM, number one: the rest of Colorado is a fair sight different from Boulder.

Number two, yes, it is possible, or at least it was then. But the Rs had a few things going for them that this man did not.

But I'm glad that you understand where I'm going.

 

[BBB167893]

It is funny that you mention this. Had they done so there would have been hell to pay.

Well, let's get one thing out of the way here. I do NOT agree with FairM's assertion. I strongly believe that if a case had gone before a jury, the Rs would have been convicted. I've said it many times: once they got on the stand and some hard-*advertiser censored* prosecutor had a go at them, you might as well dig the grave.

But then again, I'm also convinced that it never would have gotten that far. I'm convinced it would have ended in typical Boulder fashion: a plea-bargain.

But as for your assertion, Roy, that there would have been hell to pay had they gone forward with a prosecution, maybe you haven't noticed, but THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

Here it is again, in case anyone missed it:

Personally, I don't think it's just the EVIDENCE that they don't want becoming public. I think it's also all of the dirty little secrets the DA's office wants to remain hush-hush. I had this conversation with someone a few years ago on another forum. This person, an IDI all full of p*** and vinegar, proudly crowed that a Grand Jury should be called to investigate the Boulder police department for misconduct in this case. My response?

"Hey, that's a GREAT idea! But I'd go even further: let's have them investigate the DA's office, the Haddon law firm and Lou Smit while they're at it!"

The conversation was VERY quickly dropped.

Exactly WHAT part of that is so difficult to understand? Henry Lee TOLD the DA: "if you go forward with this, you will have to confess your own sins." That's pretty damn straightforward to me! It doesn't take any great leap of imagination to see the connection between THAT and what happened with the GJ.

It would be similar to the Duke Lacrosse case. There was no prosecutorial evidence.

I find it odd that you mention that case in regard to this one, pilgrim, for a couple of reasons.

Number one, I think it helps to remember that Mary Lacy, whom you seem to LOVE so much, actually had a Duke Lacrosse case of her own. For those of you who don't remember, back in 2004, Mary Lacy went on one of her damn-fool crusades, this time against the University of CO, Boulder football team. A female student claimed she was gang-raped by several football players. Mary Lacy pressed the case long after it was clear that there was no case.

I've often made mention of Mary Lacy's radical feminist politics and how they affected her approach to the JB case. The U of CO case illustrates the problem quite well, I think: this was a person with far too much unchecked power and far too little wisdom.

But number two, and perhaps more germaine to the issue at hand, is that in both the JB and Duke cases, the respective DA's were more concerned with politics than with justice. I'm more than happy to discuss that issue, but I think the point is made.

 

[Alix]

I'm still working on my first book, but after that, I'm dying to hear what being a feminist has to do with being a lazy, good-for-nothing coward who protects child-killers.

Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm still working on my first book, but after that, I'm dying to hear what being a feminist has to do with being a lazy, good-for-nothing coward who protects child-killers.

Maybe I misunderstood.

Alix, this is not the first time I've gotten in some hot water for mentioning this. (Imagine that!) But it's not a matter of BEING a feminist so much as HOW she went about it. Mary Lacy seems to have a pathological inability to believe that a mother could kill her own child. My friend cynic has often posted statements from people who knew ML about how she was personally offended at the sight of a bunch of macho male cops "bullying" a successful woman like Patsy. One of my favorite incidents involves Mary Lacy getting in the face of Tom Haney over how to do his job. She believed that Haney was too tough on her in the 1998 interviews. Now, I want you to think about that, Alix. Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. He makes Lou Smit look like Barney Fife. He KNOWS his job. And here you have an assistant DA (at the time) who had never even TAKEN a murder case to trial in her entire career telling him that he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interview techniques that the greenest rookie on a BEAT would know! Haney's feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

That's part of it. It also helps to remember that the Boulder DA's office at the time was staffed with 1960's-era radicals who viewed the police as a greater threat to society than the most vile criminal.

 

[FairM]

Well, let's get one thing out of the way here. I do NOT agree with FairM's assertion. I strongly believe that if a case had gone before a jury, the Rs would have been convicted. I've said it many times: once they got on the stand and some hard-*advertiser censored* prosecutor had a go at them, you might as well dig the grave.

But then again, I'm also convinced that it never would have gotten that far. I'm convinced it would have ended in typical Boulder fashion: a plea-bargain.

But as for your assertion, Roy, that there would have been hell to pay had they gone forward with a prosecution, maybe you haven't noticed, but THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

Here it is again, in case anyone missed it:



Exactly WHAT part of that is so difficult to understand? Henry Lee TOLD the DA: "if you go forward with this, you will have to confess your own sins." That's pretty damn straightforward to me! It doesn't take any great leap of imagination to see the connection between THAT and what happened with the GJ.



I find it odd that you mention that case in regard to this one, pilgrim, for a couple of reasons.

Number one, I think it helps to remember that Mary Lacy, whom you seem to LOVE so much, actually had a Duke Lacrosse case of her own. For those of you who don't remember, back in 2004, Mary Lacy went on one of her damn-fool crusades, this time against the University of CO, Boulder football team. A female student claimed she was gang-raped by several football players. Mary Lacy pressed the case long after it was clear that there was no case.

I've often made mention of Mary Lacy's radical feminist politics and how they affected her approach to the JB case. The U of CO case illustrates the problem quite well, I think: this was a person with far too much unchecked power and far too little wisdom.

But number two, and perhaps more germaine to the issue at hand, is that in both the JB and Duke cases, the respective DA's were more concerned with politics than with justice. I'm more than happy to discuss that issue, but I think the point is made.

what makes you think the Ramseys would have got on the stand if they had stood trial?

I don't know about Colorado so if Boulder is different to the rest of Colorado I didnt know that ,

I think we do agree on one thing though and that is , that it is possible to bring a case based soley on circumstantial evidence and it is possible to get a conviction.

 

[BBB167893]

what makes you think the Ramseys would have got on the stand if they had stood trial?

Good point.

I don't know about Colorado so if Boulder is different to the rest of Colorado I didnt know that

I get you. ST illustrates the difference in his book many times. Put it this way: they don't call it "25km surrounded by reality" for nothing!

It's actually appropriate that you mention that, because Colorado has undergone "Boulderization" in the last few years. At the time of JB's death, Colorado was a rock-solid Republican state, what today would be referred to as a "Red State." Boulder was odd in the regard that it was essentially a hippie commune in the middle of this conservative environment (a fact their politicians--like Alex Hunter--were proud of). I'm not talking just liberal--Boulder was, and is, a 1960s radical wax museum with a pulse. That started changing a few years ago, culminating with CO voting for Obama in 2008. But even then, it will take a while to get from there to Boulder.

I think we do agree on one thing though and that is, that it is possible to bring a case based soley on circumstantial evidence and it is possible to get a conviction.

Maybe in 2004, in a case where you had a lone perp whose lawyers didn't control half the state! Even then, not in Boulder. Let's not forget: we're talking about a DA's office that didn't know HOW to put circumstantial cases together and PRIDED themselves on their devotion to the idea that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than let one innocent man suffer.

Alexis de Tocqueville said famously that, "in a democracy, you get the government you deserve." That about sums it up. Boulder DESERVED Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. JonBenet DAMN sure deserved better, though!

 

[Alix]

Alix, this is not the first time I've gotten in some hot water for mentioning this. (Imagine that!) But it's not a matter of BEING a feminist so much as HOW she went about it. Mary Lacy seems to have a pathological inability to believe that a mother could kill her own child. My friend cynic has often posted statements from people who knew ML about how she was personally offended at the sight of a bunch of macho male cops "bullying" a successful woman like Patsy. One of my favorite incidents involves Mary Lacy getting in the face of Tom Haney over how to do his job. She believed that Haney was too tough on her in the 1998 interviews. Now, I want you to think about that, Alix. Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. He makes Lou Smit look like Barney Fife. He KNOWS his job. And here you have an assistant DA (at the time) who had never even TAKEN a murder case to trial in her entire career telling him that he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interview techniques that the greenest rookie on a BEAT would know! Haney's feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

That's part of it. It also helps to remember that the Boulder DA's office at the time was staffed with 1960's-era radicals who viewed the police as a greater threat to society than the most vile criminal.

Okay, I'm just saying that a true, hard-core feminist would hardly claim that a woman couldn't murder and/or rape her own child, and wouldn't hesitate to prosecute. I'm just not sure people know what a feminist is.

Personally, I have no problem with jumping up in the air and landing on another woman's head with both feet if she's commited such a hideous crime. (family "femi-nazi" here).

 

[DeeDee249]

Okay, I'm just saying that a true, hard-core feminist would hardly claim that a woman couldn't murder and/or rape her own child, and wouldn't hesitate to prosecute. I'm just not sure people know what a feminist is.

Personally, I have no problem with jumping up in the air and landing on another woman's head with both feet if she's commited such a hideous crime. (family "femi-nazi" here).

I think the point that it being made about ML is that she was adamantly pro-female, allowing it to prevent her from looking at cases objectively. She held the woman to be innocent at all costs, doing whatever was necessary to promote that innocence.
Det. Arndt had some of the same tendencies. She was trained as a rape victims' advocate. When she went to the R house that morning, she was immediately sympathetic to Patsy as a victim herself. She was suspicious of JR almost right from the start-his "discovery" of his daughter's body and his demeanor at that time convinced her of his guilt. She remained sympathetic to Patsy until her death. I am not sure whether she remained suspicious of JR. I feel that as she became more antagonistic towards her employers she may have backed off the Rs for no other reason than the rest of the BPD was focused on their guilt.