Prosecute the JonBenet case! Help prove that money doesn't buy license to kill!

FedoraX

The real stupidity of Darnay's suit was to name Patsy as JonBenet's murderer. If he had just stuck to PR's authorship of the note, he had a shot. Darnay snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with his ignorance.

IMO, Darnay owes Linda Hoffman Pugh, Cris Wolff, and Candy a big apology for giving all of them a false impression that he was a competent attorney. Also IMO, Darnay is missing a full packet of french fries and the secret sauce from his Happy Meal.

 

Darnay

I used to badger the hell out of him at JW and he responded in kind. I can see from his latest negligence how one would definitely see malpractice. I couldn't believe he stipulated to every single one of the Ramsey points (Smit's points). Stipulated facts...he agreed to them all!!!! His case solely rested on the handwriting experts, and that got thrown out. He had nothing. Except for the damn stipulated facts he agreed to. That's why Carnes wound up relying on Smit's BS...because Darnay agreed to all them!

I don't remember all the facts now, but when he filed the Wolf suit, I went beserk because to my thinking, he could have filed a simple libel suit (or something like that) and had a damn good chance of winning it. Instead, he chose the prosecutorial route and wanted to prove Patsy killed her daughter. And of course, his whole case relied on the handwriting experts because, according to Patsy's own words, whoever wrote the note killed JonBenet.

He evidently forgot he represented a client.

I guess it's also pretty evident that, but for Darnay agreeing with the stipulated facts (submitted by Smit and Wood), Carnes never would have issued such a misinformed decision.

And Keenan's excuse for making a public statement supporting that decision? Guess she's got none, seeing as how she hired Smit. It's a given she's putty in Wood's hands...guess that has something to do with her inability to stand up to threats.

And I used to call Hunter spineless!!

 

NYL

Handwriting is not a slamdunk for admissibility, and in this case it would be the first thing argued by the defense to exclude. Ergo, any case brought has to exist independent of the handwriting, just in case it gets tossed.

Darnay spent $1300 to find experts who said as he wished. He found out there were differing points of view.

He didn't care about his clients -- this was all his dream to grandstand and play in the big leagues. My God, his depositions were the most inept things I've ever read. Even Wood felt sorry for him and helped him shape questions. I was in pain reading those.

Darnay ABANDONED his clients and in doing so, led to the single most devastating ruling yet in the court of public opinion. Thankfully a competent prosecutor can get around this in a criminal trial, but why should that have to be contended with? Someone who had compassion for the case wouldn't do that kind of harm. It's the same kind of selfish behavior Steve Thomas exhibited when he did the photo shoot on JBR's grave on what would have been her 8th birthday, saying he was quitting the case he cared so much about -- then he went on to make damned sure he ruined it by taking himself out of the pool of potential witnesses. Pig.

Why didn't Hoffman follow through and give Carnes the proper amount of arguments and proof she'd need to make an informed decision? Stupidity or malice? Laziness is no excuse because once you've come that far, you continue. To do less is an infraction of legal ethics.

I've seen this kind of thing before. A bigger lawyer gets a smaller one to cave, under the promise of throwing him business in the future. Until Darnay fully explains his behavior, I will have no choice but to see that as an option.

 

How?

Maybe someone with a legal mind can tell me how in heck a prosecutor is going to be able to get around Keenan's statement? The only way I can see that happening is if the defense isn't allowed to bring that quote up in any of their questioning.

If the defense can find a way to introduce Keenan's comment it would have a huge impact on any jury. I can't think of any good reason she made that statement, even if lw was threatening a law suit, it was unethical.

 

Keenan's "out there"

Keenan went completely outside professional and ethical limits when she came out with a public statement that supported Carnes decision....especially knowing the decision was based on biased evidence...as a matter of fact, it wasn't based on evidence at all! There's no evidence of stun gun use! The evidence that was presented as unidentified and therefore "intruder" was false! The items have been identified by police already. She just doesn't want to be bothered with any of it because it's Ramsey-culpable.

Perhaps her negligence might be a boon for the Ramsey defense, but it's a miscarriage of justice...another black mark on her record that she'll get away with because she's the DA.

Makes one want to puke!

 

The D.A. IS the prosecutor! Keenan would need to recuse herself as a result of her public comments and an assistant D.A. in her office would need to assume lead in prosecuting anyone. To not do so would raise an immediate motion from defense.

Furthermore, Keenan's comments go a long way to tainting a jury pool IF she were to ever prosecute this case. I believe Keenan made her comments so confidently because she has no intention of prosecuting anyone unless it's a set-up to tag an innocent person as the mysterious intruder, just to close the case.

 

My view...

I would expect Keenan would try this case herself as lead attorney. Her comment in support of Carnes would be explained in her opening statement. (And no, I don't like that she said it, but I don't think it's fatal.)

 

DejaNu and FedX

Y'All are joking right?


A <b><i>trial</i></b> in Boulder?

 

FedX......

Glad to hear that you think a prosecution is still possible with the development of new forensic techniques....

I am thinking, like Tricia.....I have thought for a while now that there is something brewing with authorities moving toward a prosecution, but that something is not being shared with the public....which is frustrating but OK...

I think that the Ramseys are trying to combat what they know is coming, with trying to manipulate the public (and therefore the eventual jury pool) with false information, ei. their version of the 911 tape....I believe that there will be an accounting in this case....that it will eventually come to trial....

I don't really think that any venue that is chosen will be more favorable for the Ramseys if their case comes to trial....the whole country has been inundated with their case information....

I would not expect that their case would be tried in Boulder, but more likely it will be moved to someplace like Denver where the jurisdiction would be able to handle a long, complicated, and expensive case that the Ramsey's trial is bound to be....

Voyager

 

I disagree that Keenan

could successfully prosecute anyone in the JBR case after making the outrageous and biased statements she made. Not only should she recuse herself from any such proceedings, she should have been run out of town on a rail when she made those statements. Her unprofessionalism in making those statements will haunt whatever unfortunate prosecuting attorney that has to try the case in court. Both Hunter and Keenan have made public statements that hurt their own cases - Hunter when he made disparaging remarks about one of the lead detectives on the case and Keenan when she embraced Carnes' faulty decision in the Wolf case.

Besides that, I wouldn't want Keenan trying the case. She has made her biases well known. How effective could she be in the role of prosecuting attorney, no matter who was on trial? Her words can and will be used against her, be it some poor sapsucker they pull out of their as$es to be used as their "intruder," or a Ramsey or two on trial.

 

Keenan absolutely cannot try any case in this matter. A prosecutor, at least for appearances sake, must remain neutral in the investigation phase of a case. It's one thing to publicly comment on investigative angles and evidence, but Keenan's public comments clearly support the Rs and therefore violate Bar ethics rules for a start.

That bias also creates an enormous opportunity for any successful prosecution to be automatically appealed by defendants, a huge strategical error for the prosecutor.

Her best bet would be to use a deputy DA as lead on any prosecution, but even that poses an automatic risk of appeal. Keenan should have kept her mouth shut publicly, but, her failure to do so provides a strong legal argument to Owens to appoint a special prosecutor to avoid any opportunity for dismissal motions, oral argument on the prosecutor's suitability to try the case or appeal. I agree that the case would most likely be moved to Denver, and possibly, the Kobe Bryant case, depending on how it proceeds, would establish suitable precedence for doing so.

My greatest hopes are that DH succeeds in his Supreme Court efforts to allow public access to GJ transcripts and that Keenan et al are not going to tag some innocent homeless person or alien just to get this case closed.

 

Boulder vs. Denver

It's a good thought that maybe Boulder isn't equipped with parking, etc., compared to Denver. Can you imagine the attention a trial would get!? But even still the Boulder DA would be doing the lead work, or her delegated people. I'm inclined to think Keenan would want to do it herself. It's only we who are aware of the particulars who think she may be biased -- remember, to the average person her comments would be the height of open-mindedness if she went from 'that place' to finding the way to a prosecution. I wouldn't sweat that her comments will bog down action once the hammer comes down.

And yes, I'm eternally optimistic. I see too many signs of why we should stay hopeful. Recently an expert showed me autopsy pix of a person who was exhumed. Even after several years the person was in fairly good shape. Cops initially investigated and found this to be an accidental death. The person's family felt otherwise. A major expert was brought in and confirmed what cops said. Case closed.

Years passed, but the victim's family was determined not to let this go away. The exhumation occurred and lo and behold, a poison was found, something that wasn't screened for before. Turns out that the lab had just acquired new ways of testing and personnel that turned this into a hot case again.

Prosecutors were still gun shy. The case was brought to state officials. During that time many other significant things were discovered. About ten different angles were working at the same time, by techies who were excited to be part of this process.

One night I got a call. My original expert had been puzzled by some marks on the victim which were first thought to be signs of decomp. But noooo! Now it seemed there was a tool, familiar to both victim and suspect, that perfectly fit the marks. I was sent an URL to confirm, and OMG, it was just a magic moment. It wasn't just a light bulb that went off, it was a giant kleig light!

I don't want to get into more detail, but these things happen. The scientists who deal with true crime and catching (or clearing) murderers have a level of commitment that is awesome to behold and entirely inspiring.

Sometimes, at a certain point, all things come together. All the sniping, incompetence and finger-pointing that went on before gets shelved and the teams line up and get busy. Happens every day.

 

Fed: "...But even still the Boulder DA would be doing the lead work, or her delegated people. I'm
inclined to think Keenan would want to do it herself. It's only we who are aware of the particulars who think she may be biased -- remember, to the average person her comments would be the height of open-mindedness if she went from
'that place' to finding the way to a prosecution. I wouldn't sweat that her comments will bog down action once the hammer comes down."

Fed, I'd have to disagree with you. It doesn't matter who else knows about Keenan's bias, what's important is that any defense counsel would and take it to vociferous issue should a case ever get filed. It would be the FIRST defense strategy to getting the case dismissed!

But I do have to tell you that I just love your writing style! Your posts like the one above are filled with such vivid imagery; it's no wonder you are in the profession you are. I would love to read some of your articles. Can you provide me any links? Keep up the posts, I'm enthralled!

 

You know I love ya, Fed

but sometimes I swear you must live in a bubble.

You can bet your socks that all of Boulder and probably most of Colorado heard the statements Keenan made about Carnes' decision, and even if they didn't, a defense team would sure know about every statement she has ever made publicly.

I know hope and optimism burn eternal for you, Fed, but I just don't have the confidence that any prosecutor, but especially Keenan and her team, would have a chance of winning this case in court. Contrary to your beliefs about me, which you have stated in the past, I am not a negative person. I am, however, a realist, and the reality that I see here is the DA's office in Boulder has provided any potential defense attorney with a surplus of statements that could not only mean a change of venue but could also throw the case to the defense.

One simply can't ignore the fact that Keenan made a statement that she agreed with Carnes' Decision that an intruder killed JBR. She can't make those kinds of statements and expect to help provide a fair trial for anyone. Say they came up with some poor sap off the street as their intruder - she has already shown her bias toward this poor sap off the street. A defense attorney could, and should object to her prosecuting the case simply because she had her mind made up before hand that an intruder committed this crime.

OTOH, say they did come up with a Ramsey or two as JBR's killer. Again, the defense team would say - but, Mrs. Keenan, didn't you say you agreed with Judge Carnes' Decision that an intruder killed JBR?

Either way, Keenan is screwed, and I don't agree that it's something she can ever overcome. I didn't sign the Petition to the governor just because I think Keenan and her team are hopelessly pro-Ramsey, although that was a big part of why I signed. I signed it because I look at the big picture and I see so many problems with a Boulder DA prosecuting. Alex Hunter shot his mouth off about Steve Thomas, giving a potential defense team the most unbelievable ammunition to use against the State in a trial. Can't you just hear it now? Mr. Hunter, did you or did you not make this statement about one of the lead detectives in this case, "blah blah blah." Hunter did the unforgiveable - he denegrated one of his own detectives, out of personal spite, and he stepped on the Boulder big one, big time, when he did that.

Keenan has done the same thing with her public statement. We've already seen Lin Wood, the Ramseys' civil attorney and PR pit bull, take her statement and use it to threaten more lawsuits. What do you think high-powered criminal attorneys would do with that statement? She has crippled any prosecuting attorney's ability to try this case, especially if the Ramseys are ever indicted.

I don't see anyway past this, and that's not being negative, it's being realistic. It's way too late to close the barn door now - the horses got out a long time ago.

 

All this does not mean

that I think there will NEVER be an arrest, or arrests, in this case. I just don't think it will be with the present DA as prosecutor.

As Fed mentions, old cases are getting solved these days. Nearly 40 years ago, a woman was murdered in a town about 40 miles from where I live. She disappeared from her home, and they found her body under a tree by an old gravel pit pond about a year later. A few years after her murder I moved to that town. I used to drive by that gravel pit, just to look at the tree under which she was found and wonder why they never found her killer.

Last week I heard on the news they had revived the investigation into her murder, and they had brought a man in for questioning. He confessed to the murder. I don't know why he confessed - maybe they had DNA evidence that wasn't available 40 years ago.

So, it's not as if I don't hold out any hope of this case ever being solved. I just don't think anyone will be arrested and tried in the near future or even in the next 10 years. Sue me.

 

WY, you have made my point. Keenan's prejudice in this case, together with ALL the damn leaks of evidence and witness testimony over the years, makes a fair trial virtually impossible without a change of venue. You expressed my sentiments exactly that this sudden hush over Boulder is closing the barn door AFTER the horses have gotten out.