Nah, I ain't gonna flip. But you probably should not let one crackpot IDI affect you so much.
It seems she was exposed.
I do not align myself with other IDI's nor the IDI movement besides LE.
I feel LE is now IDI. But only time will tell whether I too, myself, will be exposed. Or maybe it will be you that is exposed.
The good thing, Dave, is that we both just HOPE that one of us is. Because that may mean Justice, Pilgrim.
Just to follow up on that, I was hoping to discuss this issue, but we got sidetracked talking about Her Oiliness. So let's try again:
It seems that whenever Roy and I get into it, it always comes back to Nixon and Wategate, and there's a reason for that, because I believe in both cases, the cover-up was worse than the crime.
A few years ago, a defense lawyer-turned talking head named Larry Pozner said that a new Grand Jury should be called to investigate the Boulder police and their conduct in this case.
Now, let me establish right off that I do not like Larry Pozner or any of the other National Lawyers Guild-types like him. But that's not important. What is important is that no such action was taken and that he is ignorant enough not to know why.
Anybody want to guess? I'll save you the trouble! I'll TELL you guys why there was no Grand Jury investigation into the Boulder police department; it's the SAME reason why the DA didn't want to call one in this case and then sabotaged it when it WAS formed:
because then the DA would have had to admit their OWN sins, as Henry Lee put it. I once got into it with some IDI on another forum who agreed with Poz. I told this person, "great idea! Let's have them investigate the DA's office, Lou Smit, and the Ramsey attorneys while they're at it!"
Ths subject was QUICKLY dropped.
Was the Grand Jury actually charged to indict on evidence presented or were they charged to examine the case and see if addional evidence could be found or were they charged with some other directive?
What did Hunter actually tell them to do?
Can you prove to me why this is such a big deal? I mean I will listen if you want.
Now I believe a GJ didn't indict because they didn't have enough.
And I am not gonna buy the theory you explained about them not knowing which one did it.
I think they really believed an intruder was a strong possibility due to Smit's and other testimony.
Even Henry Lee himself has a few quotes out on the GJ.
I should HOPE so.
As to WHY it is such a big deal, I should think that would be fairly obvious: because to go forward with any investigation, the DA's office would have to air its own dirty laundry. That would jeopardize their little empire.
Do the names Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia mean anything?
Whether or not that's true--and I have good reason to believe it isn't--that is not my point, Roy. My point is that I don't think the Grand Jury was ever INTENDED to indict anyone, and even if it did, the DA would have the power to quash it and be accountable to no one. He'd done it before, you know. It was very clear to a lot of people involved that the Grand Jury was nothing more than an expensive dog-and-pony show, a stunt to cover Alex Hunter's butt in the wake of ST's resignation and look like he was actually DOING something so the Governor of the state wouldn't yank the case out from under him and appoint a special prosecutor who might stumble on to something really damaging, a la Watergate.
And just why not?
Well, even supposing that's true, the only reason why he was allowed to go before them in the FIRST PLACE is because he threatened to do exactly what I'm talking about: drag the DA's dirty laundry out into public.
I know. He makes it very clear that the DA was not up to the job.
I should HOPE so.
As to WHY it is such a big deal, I should think that would be fairly obvious: because to go forward with any investigation, the DA's office would have to air its own dirty laundry. That would jeopardize their little empire.
Do the names Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia mean anything?
Whether or not that's true--and I have good reason to believe it isn't--that is not my point, Roy. My point is that I don't think the Grand Jury was ever INTENDED to indict anyone, and even if it did, the DA would have the power to quash it and be accountable to no one. He'd done it before, you know. It was very clear to a lot of people involved that the Grand Jury was nothing more than an expensive dog-and-pony show, a stunt to cover Alex Hunter's butt in the wake of ST's resignation and look like he was actually DOING something so the Governor of the state wouldn't yank the case out from under him and appoint a special prosecutor who might stumble on to something really damaging, a la Watergate.
And just why not?
Well, even supposing that's true, the only reason why he was allowed to go before them in the FIRST PLACE is because he threatened to do exactly what I'm talking about: drag the DA's dirty laundry out into public.
I know. He makes it very clear that the DA was not up to the job.
SD,
Trying to keep up,
with all the multiples of conspiratorial angles?, all the forces working in tandem, is your commentary regarding Smit related to a point in time, headline or media appearance?
Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia mean nothing to me. Explain it.
DA Hunter, from my understanding, was advised by Henry Lee that he should follow the GJ's instructions and leave this case be---at least for now. Hunter was pretty clear that he felt the Ramsey's were involved. I know you feel his actions and statements were contrary to each other.
And I would think if this was a dog and pony show, the governor would have yanked the case.
Anyhow, carry on with your theory and I will listen.
Subsequent DA's and LE still have this case on the burner and have yet to play their cards. Why?
no Dave, he says the Ramsey's were cleared. Yes, I said cleared after the GJ investigation.
Now I don't want to use Mr Lee as some great source, but that is what he said in his interview in 2008. The DNA is great but the Ramsey's were already cleared. Yes cleared.
Given how she and her predecessor kissed up to people with connections, stabbed their own witnesses in the back and generally acted as if they were of account to no one--right out of the Machiavellian playbook--somehow the comparison to Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia seemed appropriate!
Remember: You ASKED for it.
In a nutshell, Rodrigo Borgia and his children, Cesare and Lucrezia (a son and daughter, respectively), were a powerful family in Renaissance Italy who used intrigue, bribery, treachery and murder to achieve power and even worse means to keep it. Their methods and lack of morals were so well-known that the political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli--who met them--was inspired by them to write his famous book on politics in which he argued that in order to maintain power and prevent chaos, a ruler could not let little things like morals interfere. Since then, the name Borgia has come to be synonymous with political treachery and debauchery.
More specifically, Rodrigo Borgia bribed, blackmailed and murdered his way to becoming Pope Alexander VI, then set out to conquer Italy and unify it through armies led by his brutal, treacherous, lecherous son, Cesare. (Now that I think of it, it would be much better to liken Mary Lacy to Cesare, not Lucrezia.)
Leo Strauss wrote about Machiavellianism in 1958, saying:
Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics, which exists and will continue to exist independently of his influence, a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends - its end being the aggrandizement of one's country or fatherland - but also using the fatherland in the service of the self-aggrandizement of the politician or statesman or one's party.
Could not have said it better myself.
Right. That should end the history lesson. Do you see the connection now? Because if you don't, I'll be more than happy to give you some real-world examples!
It's more than that, Roy. Steve Thomas talks extensively about the process in which the GJ was selected and how the DA handled it:
My heart sank as Beckner outlined the DA's game plan:
--The grand jury might have the sole mission of helping us secure records, testimony and evidence;
--It might not hear the entire case at all;
--It would not be used to obtain an indictment;
--And if a runaway grand jury somehow returned an indictment on its own, the DA would not be obligated to prosecute.
They seemed willing to go to any lengths, even to distort the grand jury processes, to avoid a courtroom fight with the Ramseys.
I mentioned how Hunter had done this before, and it might help to know what I mean:
I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in the slaying of Sid Wells. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, because Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the 1983 Grand Jury hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the cops, and the grand jurors were not told of the deal. In the letter, an attorney named Dan Hale wrote that based on what he had seen, he reached the preliminary conclusion that the agreement "may be in contempt of court."
Just to reinforce my whole "incestuous politics" angle, it should be noted that when Dan Hale became a judge, he forgot all about his problems with Alex Hunter.
Well, you MIGHT think that, but you'd be wrong. The Governor could only intervene if there was clear evidence of impropriety. And the problem with Grand Jury Secrecy is that it prevents exactly that kind of knowledge from coming out. More than that, ver few people want to barge in on an "Active" case, even if they think that calling it "Active" is just a way to avoid intervention in the first place.
Prosecutorial discretion is just about absolute, Roy. Prosecutors are rarely beholden to ANYONE.
GOOD
I've been TELLING you why! But, on the off-chance that I've been too cryptic, let's get literal here.
Number one, this case is like nuclear radiation. Nobody wants to go near it, because it contaminates everything and everybody. This case represents the very danger that I've been talking about for the last week now: the danger of having their little ship of state fall apart like a house of cards. They want it to JUST GO AWAY.
Number two, and even more importantly, WHO would they charge, and WITH what? See, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to tell you about the cross finger-pointing problem. You said you weren't going to buy that explanation, but you STILL haven't told me why. So before you do, maybe it would help if I told you about a few prosecutors--GOOD ones--who agree with me:
Bill Ritter, from PMPT:
That left prosecutors with the troubling question of which parent had knowingly caused the child's death. Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects.
And Vincent Bugliosi:
the inevitable question presents itself: which parent did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear the either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up." Even if you could prove that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder."
And if THAT's not enough, Wendy Murphy writes extensively about this case in her book, And Justice for Some, in which she outlines how the Ramsey case is the best-known example of cross finger-pointing in modern history.
But, you'd know that if you'd bother to read the thread I created on this very subject. Despite what you might think, pilgrim, I'm trying to HELP you.
Thanks for explaining that.
And I have heard some of Wendy Murphy's theories but not in detail on that.
As a matter of fact, I heard her mention that theory in regards to the Anthony trial.
I may read some other books on this case if I ever get the time.
Anyhow thanks for your explanation.
I am gonna let it sink in some but I will also retort with the DNA.
No matter what politics or all these other factors play, the DNA is more real and more of a factor in this case than way back 12 to 15 years ago.
I'm still waiting, Roy. We've got a lot to talk about.
