I think you are absolutely right,unfortunately.It think this happend and still happens with both RDI and IDI investigators.
Both teams have tried and it didn't work so maybe they have to start fresh.Who knows,maybe it's not black or white.Maybe a Ramsey did it and had an accomplice,maybe an intruder did it and the Ramsey's know.Maybe one doesn't exclude the other in this case IMO.
Oh so true. Sometimes I wish I could be a fly on the wall if able to change back to human form and use what I learned.
I think enough evidence exists that an IDI is pretty possible.
Personally I blame the R's lawyers for taking the stance of stonewalling (legally) any investigation of the R's. His overall combative approach to the R's even being suspected.
Instead of doing whatever he could to QUICKLY help PD to clearly and concisely do a through investigation and eliminate them and clear up what inconsistencies are in their statements. ----The red shirt or the white shirt she may have worn both recently and Patsy really just doesn't remember that kind of stuff correctly. The shirt could have had some evidence they were washing off as it was found soaking in a sink. An innocent error on her part or some proof of staging either way, the lawyer always tried to prevent the R's from answering or making corrections until the police told them if they had found any evidence on the shirt.
If they didn't have anything the question was really just an irrelevant issue and had nothing to do with the murder and there was no need for the R's to answer it. Their lawyers prevented any
FISHING.
Let me try and explain what I mean by fishing.
This may not have been what really transpired but it is used for example purposes.
The red shirt is suspicious as it is soaking in sink and mother reports it is shirt last worn by daughter. They bag it and test it. No blood residue or other strong incriminating evidence can be found in regards to forensics. The only way to get any further info on the shirt is to question the mother. Lawyer is present and questions about red shirt are asked, lawyer wants to know if any incriminating evidence is found on shirt? No answer from police, lawyer instructs client not to answer. If shirt contains any evidence they want to use against client, then file the charges. No answer from client and any suspicion raised by the shirt is a non issue and cannot be investigated further without help from the clients. This in effect didn't hamstring the investigation it just made the Boulder PD have to collect their case against the R's and be prepared to use the evidence they collected to convict them.They couldn't use
traditional police questioning methods.
Since no charges were filed I can safely assume not enough evidence was collected that tied the parents to the crime as too much IDI evidence also existed, even without the RN. In other word the PD wasn't able to find enough strong evidence to use against the R's.
What should scare the BEJES#$ out of everyone is my Bold. If you have a lawyer present police can't "try and break you down to trip you up, harass you with the same questions over and over, grill you and give you the 3rd degree."
A lawyer present makes the police address any direct issues they have with your involvement in a case and prevents them from using their police power of interrogation.
The end result in this case--long dragged out investigation with no results as forensics haven't totally solved the case.
Guilt in court of public opinion of the parents.
While what they and their lawyers did is legal but it has most certainly made the case drag on longer.
I don't think the DA really was worried about being sued for civil rights offenses as he knew he was protected. You can be placed on trial have your reputation dragged through the mud, etc and be found innocent. You can't turn around and sue if the evidence used against you is considered a reasonable conclusion. If you can prove misconduct or a personal vendetta then you have a case. If the DA filed he knew he had to have other strong forensic evidence as a confession was not happening.
The R's prevented legally what they felt was a waste of time the investigation of themselves. They actually made themselves look more guilty in the eyes of the public. It left a lot of loose ends that can't be tied up and may or may not have any bearing on the crime. It makes the investigators use forensics very heavily to solve the case.
I watch a lot of true crime shows and even in cases where the perp has left behind several pieces of themselves . Or even the world's most stupid criminals who leave a neon sign behind, the police like to have more than forensics and theories, they like to discredit the perp during questioning. This makes for easier convictions.
This case isn't going to be easy. If an IDI is caught and tried all the theories about the parents involvement will certainly be used as a defense, even Patsy doing it alone with no knowledge of Burke and JR being involved. Since she is dead she can't give the DA any testimony to rebut the defense.
This case is going to be heavily based on forensic evidence. No matter who is charged.
