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.
