Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Other than the dead body?" (from A Few Good Men)
The prosecutors in Boulder haven't distinguished themselves. Instead of prosecuting a case that wasn't a guaranteed home run, they ran.
Do you mind my asking you what experience you have with: 1. the legal system; or 2. police work?
My hunch is that you don't have very much.
The point is that it takes more than a dead body in the Ramsay home and a ransom note that bears *some* resemblance to Patsy Ramsay's writing to convict John Ramsay or anyone else of murder. That's basically the evidence in the case right now. Virtually everything that everyone else has said so far is just theory and conjecture. Theory and conjecture aren't facts that a jury can rely upon to convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The 'feeling" that a detective has when she interviews a witness is not evidence either.
The state gets exactly one shot at John Ramsay or anyone else they charge with this crime. A not guilty verdict means that the person charged walks free whether they committed the crime or not.
Knowing all this, what do you think competent authorities do in such a situation? They wait. They try to gather more evidence. There is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder and so they can wait as long as they need too. Now, I do think after this many years it is unlikely that John Ramsay or anyone else will be charged with this crime. However, no one should be charged based on the facts that have come forward so far.
This investigation may have been badly handled in the beginning and a number of reasons have been given for it. However, it doesn't mean the prosecution has mishandled this, or in your words is "looking for a home run".
Never claimed to be a lawyer or in law enforcement. (your question is fine, your comments are a bit self-righteous)
My opinion is based upon the accounts I have read about this case, two from inside the investigation (Steve Thomas, James Kolar) and one from an investigative writer (Lawrence Schiller). All have showed great disrespect toward the ability of prosecutor's office.
After reading those accounts, it is my belief that the both JR and PR had taken control of the investigation early on. A grand jury room is the first step in taking control back. Obtaining an indictment is the next step. I further believe JR and PR would be completely out of their element once arrested... first opportunity for police to speak with them separately. (I know they can 'lawyer up' but there are MANY other ways to let them get careless and slip up) I believe its not uncommon to arrest people late on a Friday and let them sit it out for a while. Can you imagine PR in a cell? no makeup, no designer clothes?
Now, for the "dead body". That's a tough one to explain away, isn't it. A courtroom is a much more appropriate place to debate "could someone have made it in through that basement window" than the newspapers. Let the experts try to make their points to a jury, the prosecution had a much stronger case for it being an inside job vs the multiple excuses offered by Team Ramsey.
So, if no other information may be coming forth, why not take a chance, argue your case if you believe in it? The information was all there, very incriminating information in my opinion. I wonder had Vincent Bugliosi been the prosecutor would the Ramsey's have been prosecuted?? Absolutely.
After reading those accounts, it is my belief that the both JR and PR had taken control of the investigation early on. A grand jury room is the first step in taking control back. Obtaining an indictment is the next step. I further believe JR and PR would be completely out of their element once arrested... first opportunity for police to speak with them separately. (I know they can 'lawyer up' but there are MANY other ways to let them get careless and slip up) I believe its not uncommon to arrest people late on a Friday and let them sit it out for a while. Can you imagine PR in a cell? no makeup, no designer clothes?
First of all, arresting someone requires probable cause they have committed a crime. Again, the child's body was found in the house. That in and of itself would not constitute probable cause to arrest JR. PR's situation is a little less clear. Since the ransom note bore some resemblance to her handwriting, perhaps both that and the presence of the body might have been sufficient probable cause for her arrest. Since PR is now dead that isn't a possibility though. You did know that she died didn't you?
Quote:
Now, for the "dead body". That's a tough one to explain away, isn't it. A courtroom is a much more appropriate place to debate "could someone have made it in through that basement window" than the newspapers. Let the experts try to make their points to a jury, the prosecution had a much stronger case for it being an inside job vs the multiple excuses offered by Team Ramsey.
What I keep trying to explain and what you don't seem to get is that there isn't enough evidence to take this case to trial. If the dead body is the extent of the evidence and there is no DNA, no fingerprints, no eyewitness, and nothing else that would connect JR to that body there isn't a case to take to a jury. If you tried, the judge would throw the case out of court and possibly end up directing a verdict for the defense. This would mean a complete end to any proceedings. Double jeopardy would forbid retrying JR. No prosecutor wants to be in that situation and I don't blame them.
Quote:
So, if no other information may be coming forth, why not take a chance, argue your case if you believe in it? The information was all there, very incriminating information in my opinion. I wonder had Vincent Bugliosi been the prosecutor would the Ramsey's have been prosecuted?? Absolutely.
Vince Bugliosi would have sat on this case for the very reasons I've articulated. This is insufficient evidence to convict JR. Bugliosi knows this and would wait (hoping other evidence surfaced).
I realize there is an element that is never going to accept the notion that the reason JR was not tried was not because of his wealth and power, but simply because the evidence was lacking to charge him with murder. Those are the facts whether some people can accept it or not.
You are welcome to your opinion.
I'll stand by mine... The DA believed JR & PR were complicit in JBR's death, had overwhelming circumstantial evidence yet chose not to prosecute because they were afraid of losing, not because they were waiting for a smoking gun.
BTW.. I only mention Bugliosi because he impressed me on two counts: At a time when the country was in fear of Manson, Bugliosi had no fear at all of Manson and 2) he got a conviction on a guy who had no blood on his own hands. How many prosecutors would have had the guts to go for that?
The parents did it. That much is obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
