It's all in ST's book, rex. I haven't the time nor the space to reproduce all of it. So let's look at some big ones:
We were getting ready to bug the Ramsey home in Atlanta in hopes of overhearing incriminating statements. I had firmed up the operation with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. "Not only is this operation doable, it's necessary," said Ralph Stone, the agent in charge.
The tentative plan was for a GBI technical specialist to enter the house while the Ramseys were in Boulder for interviews. With the bugs in place, we would start listening when John and Patsy returned home after being grilled. All that was needed to launch the operation was a sign-off by the Boulder police, but our fearful leaders chickened out.
-ITRMI, pages 279-280.
The FBI encouraged the District attorney's representatives to convene a grand jury immediately. Get the Ramseys in their to testify under the hammer of perjury.
-ITRMI, page 240
Among the best leads was still another we could not touch. The Ramsey credit card purchases showed up again, this time through the mail from a tabloid newspaper to Sergeant Wickman. He and I took it to Bob Keatley for a legal opinion and he almost had a heart attack. His exact words were most unKeatley-like--s**t, s**t, s**t!--and he snatched the documents away. "put it out of your mind," he ordered. It was a struggle to let those Visa documents vanish into the evidence room, where the Touch Tone records were already gathering dust.
-ITRMI, page 237
These are just a few. Alex Hunter and his merry band resisted search warrants, handed evidence to the suspects as if it was candy on Halloween, and undercut potential witnesses.
And, of course, there's one REALLY big one I keeping returning to:
All the detectives agreed that one major mistake had been made in the first weeks: Patsy had not been arrested. The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in.
--PMPT, pages 377-378
This, to me, is numero uno of missed opportunities. The big one, as it were. This is how cases like this get solved: you throw the two parties into separate holding cells and see which one cracks first.
The police WANTED to do it.
The FBI and Dream Team guys TOLD them to do it.
Hell, even Lou Smit said he would have done it!
But AH wouldn't go for it.
I'm sure there are others here who can provide instances I've not mentioned. But let me finish for now with one more. It refers to the interviews done April 1997:
The only time [Patsy's] composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and time for me to press harder. But just as I was about to allow an opening, Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying, "let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what, in my opinion, was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet.
-ITRMI, page 188
You see when you talk about arresting Patsy or putting wire taps on their phones, I start looking for what the Police need to do before they are able to do this. I always come back to information about the law in USA:
The Wiretap Order
The police must first obtain a wiretap order before eavesdropping on your phone conversations. This is similar to a warrant. The police must
prove to a judge that they have
probable cause to believe that tapping your phone lines will help them to solve a serious crime, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, or terrorism. However, because wiretapping is so intrusive, the
police are held to a higher standard when seeking wiretap orders than when they are seeking warrants.
Restrictions on Wiretapping
Wiretapping orders are often restricted in order to minimize any invasion of privacy. In particular, wiretapping orders usually expire after a certain period of time, so the police cannot keep listening forever. Police are also required to limit wiretapping only to phone conversations that are likely to yield evidence against the suspect.
Probable Cause:
"Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime.
The probable cause requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."
As seen in those words, in order for a court to issue a warrant -- for someone's arrest, or to search or seize property -- there must be "probable cause."
Police must also have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, and in many cases to search or seize property without a warrant.
Prosecutors must also have probable cause to charge a defendant with a crime.
Warrants and Probable Cause
Typically, to obtain a warrant, an officer will sign an affidavit stating the facts as to why probable cause exists to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property. Judges issue warrants if they agree that probable cause exists.
There are many instances where warrants are not required to arrest or search, such as arrests for felonies witnessed in public by an officer. Here is more information on when warrants are not required.
If a warrantless arrest occurs, probable cause must still be shown after the fact, and will be required in order to prosecute a defendant.
Probable Cause for Arrest
Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Probable cause must come from specific facts and circumstances, rather than simply from the officer's hunch or suspicion.