I will keep waiting and see.
I'm assuming you're not speaking of my follow-up. But that's what I'm here for anyway. And you provided me a perfect segue:
I personally think the case has moved past the Ramsey's. It seems like they tried to give us enough information for us to be past all of this. That is just my take on it. But they don't feel the need nor have the responsibilty to prove it to guys and gals like us. They went as far as apologizing because they all thought a Ramsey was guilty.[/QUOTE]
You're a stand-up guy, Roy. I appreciate that more than you know. But what I'm trying to get across is that guys like me have
no reason to trust Mary Lacy's decisions or to believe that she's acting in good faith. And I've put together a list which, I think, shows just how biased in favor of the Rs she was from the very start:
-Several people, including the Boulder cops and
some of her own former campaign workers have stated that ML is more guided by radical feminist politics than legal principles. For illustration, one of these campaign workers, Frank Coffman, described an incident after the 1998 interviews with the Rs in which Lacy chastised Det. Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy. Now, you think about that: an assistant DA, who had never even brought a murder case to trial in her entire career, telling one of the best homicide detectives in the region--if not the country--that he was too tough for using absolutely standard interview techniques that the newest rookie on a BEAT would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the he** does she think SHE is?"
Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd? I can tell you it jarred the he** out of me.
But it doesn't end there:
-ST writes in his book that Lacy told the investigators that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. That doesn't come off as a very reliable way of determining guilt or innocence.
In fact, his book contains many instances showing that she had her mind made up well before 1998.
-Then there was the whole Boulder University debacle. If you're at all familiar with the Duke Lacrosse case, then this will seem like a dress-rehearsal for that sorry incident. A group of football players were accused of rape. Lacy was gung-ho to prosecute, even though it was clear that there was no case.
-She was convinced that Bill McReynolds was a likely perp LONG after everyone else had given up on him as viable.
-Another incident came in 2006 when a ten-month-old boy named Jason Midyette was beaten to death and she wouldn't take any action because the grandfather owns half of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. It took one of Bill O'Reilly's field reporters ambushing her in her own driveway to get ANY action at all on that one.
-She attended PR's funeral on her own dime. What possible reason did she have for doing that?
-She gave us John Mark Karr, based on nothing except Michael Tracey's say-so. She damn well should have known better. A first-year law student would not have made those kinds of mistakes. Many people accused her outright of trying to give a gift to the Rs.
-Her biggest supporters have been the Rs, the prime suspects. They've been her biggest mouthpieces. JR even contributed to her reelection campaign.
-When she found out that the head investigator she'd hired was friends with ST the guy was dropped like a hot brick within a week.
-And let's not forget how she managed to get control of the case to start with. Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT? I've never even heard of such a thing.
-Then, when she had the case, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, she brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including private investigators paid by the Ramseys, not to find the killer, but, as John admitted in his court deposition, to build a defense and keep him and Patsy out of jail.
From where I'm standing, the only way ANYONE could find this new DNA and automatically claim it proves an intruder would have to be if they had already decided there WAS an intruder in the first place!
So, in closing, all I can say is that someone better have one
DAMN good explanation as to why I or anyone else should trust her judgment.
I would also suggest that you take a look over on the "If the Rs confessed" thread. You'll find a treatise from me on how the legal system in this country could have degenerated badly enough that people like Lacy could become prosecutors in the first place.
Just think it over, Roy.
