"Well, this board definitely has a pro RDI slant, and I haven't crossed over yet."
(As the Emperor): You underestimate the power of the dark side!
"As far as the 'new' DA not really being new---Well, you learn something new every day. I didn't know that she was actually a part of the DA's office since 1998."
She was indeed.
"So basically what you are saying is that she had been a player in the pro-IDI office of the DA prior to her becoming the head honcho, so there was no way she would file charges. I see your point."
Glad to hear it. Yeah, I guess I was saying that.
"However, I think that theory may hold more water if she had been a part of the DA's office in 1996, or 1997--closer to when the crime occurred."
She might have been, julianne! I'm not sure. I'll have to go back and check, okay?
"I mean, regardless of the Karr fiasco and the major role she played in that, she is an educated woman ( I'm acknowledging that I'm walking right into that one, so don't flame ) who I am sure had her opinions on this case well before she came on board. Isn't that possible?"
Educated? Yes, but this is a woman who, in the wake of the Karr fiasco, admitted that she really doesn't know much about criminal procedure. That's from her OWN mouth! Julianne, you're an intelligent person. I can tell that. That's why I would think you'd be more mindful of the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom."
I suppose it is possible. Never gave it much thought. My assumption was that Hunter filled her head with all of his "They didn't do it" business.
"Scenario A--She comes on board to the DA's office already thinking the Ramseys are innocent. Do you really think that if she saw evidence that convinced her of their guilt, that she would still publicy put out the perception that she thinks their innocent?"
Well, it's funny you should mention that, because in the summer of 2003, when she had taken the case away from the police, Michael Kane, the man who ran the Grand Jury, said, IN PUBLIC, ON TV, before millions of people, that it was clear to him that she was not reading the case file. You can imagine my surprise, not to mention OUTRAGE, when I heard that. Also, she never even TRIED to talk to Kane himself, or the chief of police.
"I don't know if they above makes sense----it just seems to me that if the key players, those who are closest to the real evidence in this case and those who have the ability to file these charges, the DA, thought they were in fact guilty, then they would have prosecuted."
Well, if you read the various books and articles concerning this case, you start to see a theme, and that theme is that the people in the DA's office NEVER even considered with any seriousness that the Ramseys did it. So, I guess that answers your point best it can.
"That seems so much more logical to me than going with theory that can aptly be named the 'popularity contest.' Meaning that I don't think she would just go along with the other DA & his cronies just to be in with the in crowd and go with the presumption of innocence just because that's the way it's been."
Loyalty can be a powerful thing. I know. I can't tell you how many times I've been backstabbed by people I thought were my friends.
"If there was enough evidence to prosecute the Ramsey's, and the DA had full knowledge of that, don't you think that charges of obstruction of justice could be levied against her and all those responsible for obstructing that justice?"
Well, there seems to be a movement now to do exactly that, julianne! Call it hubris if you like, but a letter of complaint to the American Bar Association is in the works right now!
"The 'staging and staging within staging' pointing to first one Ramsey and then another also are, I feel, evidence. They wouldn't stage the scene to point to themselves."
They didn't Eagle1. Everything in that staging is designed to point away from them. The fact that it didn't is due to a layperson's lack of know-how, not conscious planning. You can ask CASKU if you don't believe me. I know it was worth my postage stamp!
"Then there's the DNA. I don't believe in coincidences either, SD. It'd gradually wear off the worker's hand if he'd sneezed or coughed into it, not get on all the pairs of undies destined by NYC. Seems like just too much of a stretch. Nobody can estimate any odds of that happening. I've asked."
Then how DID it get on all those other pairs? What I mean is, if you've ever seen how these third-world factories work, it's basically a human corral, everyone rooting around, all cramped like. It's not a big stretch once you know that.
"There's another option, Julianne. She could have been a fence sitter, and then after working with her IDI/Pro-Ramsey coworkers for awhile, she got off the fence and landed firmly in the IDI camp."
Mark Fuhrman was on "Hannity & Colmes" in the wake of the "Karr Wreck." (I can't take credit for that one!) He said essentially the same thing.
Not only that, but he was harshly critical of her being so wedded to the intruder theory that she only hired people who also believed in it.
To julianne: it always struck me as hypocritical that, one the one hand, she took the case away from the police because (She SAID) they were biased, then she goes out and hires people who are TOTALLY biased, just the other way! I'm not the only person to make that observation, either!
There was one other thing about that: earlier this year, Tom Bennett, her chief investigator, left the investigation and was replaced by Jim Kolar. But for some reason, Kolar seemed to be cut out of the loop. When the Ramseys visited the DA's office in February, Kolar claimed that he'd never even been told they were coming! He never got a chance to speak with them. Three months later, he was gone and Bennett was back.
Now, and I'm just spitballing, you have to wonder just what it was that Kolar did or didn't do that put him on the outs. Maybe he read the file and came to the one conclusion the DA wasn't interested in hearing? Just hypothetical, you understand.