Then I read the last paragraph of Famous Crimes Revisited
"But one thing is clear to me: Alex Hunter has carried a heavy cross from the outset, and he had the courage not to push the Grand Jury for an indictment. And why? Lack of sufficient evidence. He is an honest and fair gentleman - a truth seeker who is know for thoughtful deliberation.
Quite the bromance.
It's a change from his earlier statement, 2 percent. In his own book, ST relates a statement made by Lee to Hunter at the time he was considering whether to push forth on an indictment: "if you do this, you will have to confess your own sins."
For my money, that's the reason why Alex Hunter shut down the Grand Jury after the indictment. I'm not really concerned with being popular, so what I'm about to say will undoubtedly get some people angry, but I think it needs saying, so here goes.
I've often compared the DA's office in this case to the administration of Richard Nixon, specifically to Nixon's conduct vis-a-vis the Watergate scandal. There are people, such as my brother, who believe that Nixon's choice to resign rather than be put through an investigation and impeachment, were not out of respect for the office of president, but out of fear (possibly justified) that an investigation would uncover something MUCH worse.
Well, that's the tack that I've begun to take regarding the DA's office. I admit, it's a theory only. I couldn't even hazard a guess as to what Hunter and company might wish to keep hidden. But I can't ignore the pattern that I've noticed. That being: Hunter and his successors have fought very strongly to make sure that no one from the outside can examine the case files or work the case.
Exhibit A: The Grand Jury itself. Hunter was very clear that he did not want one and stated to the police and his assistants after the June 1998 interviews that one would not be called. He DID call one later that year, of course, but only AFTER ST's resignation letter made the rounds in the media and the governor of CO started feeling the heat. Hunter called the Grand Jury as a dog-and-pony show to present the image that he was doing something with the case so that the governor's office would not take the case from him and appoint a special prosecutor, which he was threatening to do.
You have to wonder WHY Hunter was so intent that the governor's office not take the case.
Exhibit B: The lawsuit-that-wasn't by the Rs against FOX NEWS. Determined not to make the same mistakes that had crippled Hoffman and Wolf, FOX NEWS's legal team made a concerted effort to obtain the case file and use it in court. Mary Lacy, who had replaced Hunter by then, announced publicly that she would fight the attempt. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed, but it would have been interesting to see what legal justification Lacy would have used in court to deny access to the files.
Anyway, here's the points he makes Intruder v. Insider:
Intruder:
-Basement window with scuff marks
-Marks of a stun gun
-Small amount of DNA under fingernails
-Small amount of DNA on underwear
-Ransom note
-Ramseys passed polygraph
-Baseball bat outside with fibers from basement
-Signs of sexual assault
-Shoe print on floor of cellar
I bolded the one about the polygraph above the others (which are also highly questionable) because a forensics expert like Henry Lee should know that lie detectors mean NOTHING in investigations. Their purpose is purely to give police a "scientific" avenue of interrogation.
Look, we've had arguments here at WS over what is real crime science and what isn't. Every new approach or development has to prove itself in court. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, for any number of reasons. But polygraphs have been around almost 70 years, and they haven't been able to get it right. Which means that they probably never will.