RMN - Pt 1 - Experts: Resolution of Ramsey case unlikely

Excellent WN! I agree wholeheartedly. In another thread I remarked on the same thing; he was no naive lawyer in the DA's office. He was a man already experienced, or should have been in the field of homicide investigations.

HE failed JonBenet Ramsey and the citizens of Boulder (who don't actually seem to care much)

 

Hmmmm, well....if we were betting on just Who allowed a Murderer a Free Pass - I'd put my money on whoever has a head full of pure WHITE hair now....and enjoy that Irony at the same time!!!

Fleet and Petite Priscilla - This One's for you, baby! :thumbsup:

 

Ah yes? Then why did that spineless coward not push the case to trial?

Again Hunter shows his incredible ignorance about the case. NOWHERE has it ever been stated that male blood was found there.
No wonder Hunter sunk the ship of this investigation. For what is to be expected from a DA who doesn't even know basic case facts?
DNA "the case killer"? Laughable. If Hunter wants to see one of the case killers, he only has look in the mirror.

Well Mr. Hunter, both you in the JB case and prosecutor M. Clark in the OJ case could have given the public that closure. But you both miserably failed because you let yourself intimidate by the influential Ramseys and Simpson and their powerful lawyer teams.
And in case it is yourself whom you are referring to by being driven to drink, maybe it 's the inner voice of your bad conscience which you are trying to silence with that?

I can't understand why a coward like Hunter chose the profession of prosecutor. For a wimp, that's one of the worst possible job choices to make.

And how bitter it must be for Steve Thomas having to read now Hunter' statement that the case should be handed back to the BPD again? Has Hunter forgotten how often he himself threw obstacles into the BPDs path because he did not really want this case being prosecuted?

"A good play? A good ride?" Statements like that are an incredible insult to every victim of violent crime.

Ten years ago today, JB's parents left their daughter's dead body lying there under the Christmas tree, like a broken doll beyond repair.
And it seems that you, Mr. Hunter, saw JonBenet in more or less the same way. For how else could you make such a callous statement? Shouldn't your role as a prosecutor have been to find justice for the victim in this case?
Shame on you! Profilers like Gregg McCrary said you should have been charged with obstruction of justice log ago.
Too bad that never happened.

 

If I were the father of a little girl who had been murdered, and whose murderer had never been found, let alone prosecuted, in 10 long years, and the former DA who screwed up the case called that case "a good ride, a good play," I would be all over him with every hammer I could find. How dare he say such a thing! But we will get no reaction like this from John Ramsey, because he doesn't really care about his little girl who died that night. Never really has, and never will. He's free now, to go about his life as he wishes.

 

I think Hunter's right--the DNA was from a male.

 

As far as I'm informed, the traces of DNA were from a male, but the blood was JonBenet's.
But Hunter called it "male blood". This misleads people to believe that an intruder left his blood there.

 

Quote: Alex Hunter:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">"I have to say that as rough as this case was, if I hadn't had the chance to live this, I would have felt I missed something," he said. "It was a good ride, a good play. And I have zero anger about it." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Rashomon:

Well said, rashomon. What a weak man Alex Hunter is. However, he fulfilled his duty to the RST. He kept Patsy and John Ramsey out of jail for ten years.

 

Video interview - very long

If you go to the Rocky Mountain News website, there is video of the entire interview. I am watching it now. The first part runs 59 minutes, and there are 3 parts. He talks for a l-o-n-g time.

 

What I have seen so far is that Mr. Hunter is having a very difficult time making any eye contact, especially when he is talking specifically about John and Patsy. He starts to move about excessively, look around, look out the window, shift in his chair, move out of the video frame. Hmmmmm....do you think his inner conscience might be tweaking him just a bit???

He also mentioned his own "weakness."

Addendum: He is talking about how he didn't know much about the case when it happened. He was in Hawaii and he wasn't told what had happened, who was in charge, etc. What comes across is that he isn't a "take-charge" kind of person - it's as though he was expecting to have everyone come to him and brief him, or gain case knowledge through osmosis. Yes, he is a weak person, by his own admission and by observation.

Further addendum: He says "The Ramseys lawyered up, as anyone would be expected to do, under the circumstances." Really??? Really??? Only the guilty people do this, Mr. Hunter. The innocent people help law enforcement find the killers.

He keeps using the word "advocates" in respect to the DA's office. I thought the role was more along the line of "prosecutor."

 

Here is a link to the page where you can find the video: It's in a box on the right hand side, under "video archives."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5237612,00.html

 

This is a monologue - there is no interviewer asking him questions. He is just talking on and on without a focus, really. No point-counterpoint. No questions to him, only his own thoughts and opinions. Just as one-sided as the RST has always been.

Edit: Adding that every time Alex has a memory lapse, he asks Charlie Brennan for the information, dates, names, etc. I guess Charlie Brennan has so much case knowledge that he's become Alex Hunter's personal assistant.

There are some questions in Part 2, but nothing hard-hitting. Just soft balls. It is coming across loud and clear that to Alex Hunter, being liked and admired is the main thing, not making anyone mad, not offending anyone, being a mediator for justice, an advocate. These terms keep coming up. He compliments people by saying they were "well-liked," or "loved," not that they are good cops or tough on crime.

 

It's fun to watch the snow fall throuth the window behind him - Tez, you need to watch this - you will get your fill of snow by the end of it!

 

And is still in that role, solidly.

 

Because LACY is and has been BIASED from the start of this case. That's why HUNTER removed her from it, along with Trip DeMuth. Talk about coming back with a VENGENCE. Obviously, Lacy and DeMuth both agreed that it was someone, anyone, but the Ramseys and highly resented being taken off such an attention-grabbing case by Mr. I'm-A- Hero Hunter. They wanted to be HEROES, too! Only, they wanted to be the ones who caught the INTRUDER! Which is why Lacy fell so hard for John Karr when Tracey and Smit and John Ramsey came to her and said, "TRUST US! THIS IS THE GUY! (We've groomed him for 4 years and I'll stand behind what we told him to say!)"

Oh well, back to the drawing board. Time to turn their suspect radar to PUERTO RICO! Barbara has seen it in her crystal ball...along with South Park's "Butters" episode.... :floor:

 

Are your sure, KK?

About Puerto Rico? I thought Lou Smit :jester: said it was a Mexican, demanding the ransom money in pesos?

 

Puerto Rican...Mexican...they're not PICKY about intruder suspects. They only have to be poor, dead, or crazy enough to falsely confess...or all of the above!

Anyone but someone who can level their karma with a law suit for libel and slander. People with MONEY...NEVAH!

 

And how about the Ramsey's book? Anybody in the D.A.'s office read that objectively, as evidence, but Kane? Does anyone on this planet who has the most rudimentary concept of a DEFENSE in a trial really think that the Ramseys wouldn't provide reasonable doubt for ANY defendant?

But themselves, of course....

However, Miss "Press Statements" Lacy herself would be found testifying FOR THE RAMSEYS after her own "agreement" with Judge Carnes, wouldn't she? She's one TO TALK!

She's pretty much all but stating outright she's NEVER going to prosecute a Ramsey, isn't she?

Why are we even discussing this anymore? It's OVER.

 

What worked "pretty well," you idiot?!! Nothing worked "pretty well." In fact, nothing worked at all. You came up with ZERO. You didn't solve the case or arrest anyone for JonBenet's murder. How can you say "it worked pretty well"?

Unless you're talking about the Colorado "good ol' boy's network." Now, THAT worked pretty well. They greased your palm, you greased theirs. Haddon said, "Don't cross me," and you didn't. The Ramseys said, "Jump!" and you said, "How high?"

And what kind of a stupid generic statement is "the search for truth has not given us the nut"? The search for truth? You never even tried to search for the truth because it was staring you right in the face and you wouldn't look at it. The truth took you to the Ramseys, but you decided they weren't "bad people" so therefore, the evidence did not apply.

If you look at every person who believes the Ramseys are innocent, it never has anything to do with the real evidence, just their own personal belief that the Ramseys aren't bad people.

That's it. That's all they base their whole belief on, and the reason they reject the overwhelming evidence of the Ramsey's involvement in JonBenet's death ... because THEY cannot believe, they don't WANT to believe, they refuse to believe the empirical objective evidence over their own PERSONAL subjective FEELINGS.

And that is a fatal flaw. Anytime a person believes they can reject reality in favor of their own personal fantasy, there will be dysfunction.

The people who believe the Ramseys are innocent are living in a fantasy world where "good" people don't do bad things, and they have set themselves up as God in order to decide who is good and who is bad and who could have committed such a deed. As Paradox said, it is infantile narcissism to the max. It's all about their FEELINGS.

Look at Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Mary Lacy, etc. They all say the Ramseys COULDN'T have done such a thing. Every one of them refuses to look at the evidence without bias because of their FEELINGS.

HOW DARE THEY?!! How dare they set themselves up as judge and jury! How dare they refuse to look at the evidence and do everything in their power to exhonerate those who are the most guilty!

They do not have one shred of evidence that says the Ramseys are innocent. Not one. Yet they refuse to face the reality of Ramsey guilt because of their FEELINGS. Well, to h*ll with their precious FEELINGS. JonBenet deserved more than their self-centered ego-driven narcissic FEELINGS. She deserved so much more than being left to rot in the Georgia clay while her parents danced around and played the martyr. And that is a reality no personal FEELINGS can ever erase.

 

KK, you are on a roll!!! If you watch Hunter's video (I made it through 2 parts and then I just couldn't go on), it's clear that Hunter considers himself an advocate, not a prosecutor. He uses that word several times, along with mediator. When he describes Lou Smit, he praises Lou by saying he was a man everyone liked, he was lovable, he was religious. Several other key players are described in this manner. And Mike Kane actually baked muffins in the War Room!

I think Steve Thomas was the only real man in Boulder at the time. The rest of them had been feminized to the point where they were totally useless. The lesbians up there had more cajones than the men.

 

I was told my previous post was confusing when I said "Are you talkin' to ME?" What I meant was, are you referring to my post just above yours, or another one written by KK? (My post had nothing to do with your reference to "lesbians with cajones.")