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.
Alex Hunter may have been well intentioned; or maybe he lacked courage; or he may have been influenced to get the Ramseys off the hook. We probably will never know.
The DNA evidence against OJ was very strong, the victims blood was in his Bronco. Some people have written the jurors were confused by the DNA testimony. When the National Enquirer published a picture of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, proving Simpson was at the scene of the crime, some of the jurors said they would have voted guilty instead of not guilty if they had known this.
Simpson either committed the murders, or he lied about finding the scene and then ran away.
I always thought the serial killer theory had some merit. This serial killer murdered his girlfriends, who looked like Nicole, two of them with knife wounds. He was hired by a contractor to work inside the Simpson's house. He says OJ hired him to steal sports memorabilia from inside the house. The serial killer, now in prison, says he murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and so does the serial killer's brother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Edward_Rogers
I agree, there was strong evidence against OJ. If he wasn't rich he would still be in jail.
My point was from reading Marcia Clarke's book... she knew there was no way she could get a conviction especially after Johnny Cochran said 'give me one black juror and I'll get a hung jury' (something to that effect)
Hunter had a grand jury agreeing with him and would not take a chance on losing... no guts.
Certain medications, perhaps combined with alcohol, could perhaps predispose someone to an act of rage. Psychiatric medications could also demonstrate a history of mental instability, most likely Patsy or Burke. Since the Ramseys were suspects, taken to a grand jury, this information was relevant.
That's a long stretch, and sounds a lot like what the police have already been accused of, namely "letting a theory drive the investigation" rather than the evidence. Don't you see how this type of thing could easily build a circumstantial case around an innocent person?
I agree, there was strong evidence against OJ. If he wasn't rich he would still be in jail.
My point was from reading Marcia Clarke's book... she knew there was no way she could get a conviction especially after Johnny Cochran said 'give me one black juror and I'll get a hung jury' (something to that effect)
Hunter had a grand jury agreeing with him and would not take a chance on losing... no guts.
OJ had the best lawyers, they ran circles around the prosecution. Money talks. I don't blame the jurors, the defense provided a fog around the expert DNA testimony which confused the jurors. Marcia made crucial mistakes, such as letting OJ try the glove on in the courtroom. Later it was found that new gloves, of the exact same type, fit OJ's hands perfectly, but the damage was done.
I lean towards Hunter having no guts, but it is also possible the fix was in. When he refused to sign the indictments, keeping them secret, if he had any courage he would have signed them. Then he still could have chosen not to prosecute.
Last edited by Graywhiskers; 12-11-2020 at 09:19 AM..
That's a long stretch, and sounds a lot like what the police have already been accused of, namely "letting a theory drive the investigation" rather than the evidence. Don't you see how this type of thing could easily build a circumstantial case around an innocent person?
You make a valid point.
Do we lean towards protecting the rights of the accused, or seeking justice for the murdered victim? Who represents JonBenet?
.. sounds a lot like what the police have already been accused of, namely "letting a theory drive the investigation" rather than the evidence.
Yes. As someone quoted Steve Thomas mentioning about narcotics--which was his only background when he got pulled into this case two days after the murder--the department starts with a known suspect and moves backward to gather the evidence. So it's no wonder this case was never solved. He wanted Patsy Ramsey as his suspect, but the evidence wasn't there. He did try very hard to make the evidence fit his theory, though.
Alex Hunter may have been well intentioned; or maybe he lacked courage; or he may have been influenced to get the Ramseys off the hook.
It didn't take a law degree to figure out that there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal trial.
CNN excerpt, April 2000, w/ Steve Thomas:
VAN SUSTEREN: Struggles between police eager to make an arrest and prosecutors cautionary about the law are common. But did the disputes between Boulder investigators and the district attorney have an effect on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?
Steve, anybody who's in the house where a murder is committed certainly are under the umbrella of suspicion. In this case, though, here's what the prosecution's faced with. There were burglaries in the areas prior to the murder, there's a broken window, there was a foot print that can't be identified, a palm print that can't be unidentified, unidentified pubic hair on the body, a very compromised murder scene and no history of child abuse. Any defense lawyer could drive a Mack truck through that case. Why do you think that this case should proceed forward in light of that fact?
Show me a reason why the other Ramsey's medical records are or would be relevant.
The BPD questioned both parents in detail, multiple times, about drug and alcohol use. Here's a formerly posted part of a transcript about medications PR was taking after JBR's murder.
April, 1997 BPD interview with Tom Trujillo:
TT: Okay. Patsy, I need to go through a couple of things here. What medications are you on right now? Are you still on Paxel?
PR: I’m on Paxel, um hum.
TT: How often do you take that?
PR: In the evenings (inaudible) once a day.
TT: Just a bedtime?
PR: Um hum.
TT: And, what’s the dose on that?
PR: 30 milligrams.
TT: And, are you taking anything else right now?
PR: I just started Monday taking something for this sinus infection. I know your going to ask me the name of it.
TT: Is it an over the, I’ll start (inaudible).
PR: No, it’s a prescription.
TT: Okay.
PR: You take it once a day for five days. Dr. Beuf prescribed it.
TT: Okay. And, are you taking anything else right now?
PR: Um, no.
TT: Any over the counter medication, vitamins . . .
PR: Vitamins. I’m taking vitamin C.
TT: Okay.
PR: (Inaudible) vitamin C.
TT: Just for that sinus infection?
PR: Right.
TT: Is that an ongoing type or just . . .
PR: Well, I just. . .
TT: (Inaudible)
PR: I just, since Monday started taking a lot of it.
TT: Okay. Okay. Um, any, any other uh, any other drugs, originally you were taking Paxel and what was the other drug you were taking? Lorzipan.
PR: Ah yeah, right.
TT: Are you still taking that at all?
PR: Uh, occasionally. Kind of as, on an as needed basis.
TT: When was the last time you took the Lorizpan?
PR: Uh, I took one last night about 6:30.
TT: How’s that, how’s that one make you feel. I mean, out of the two do any of them effect you at all that you can notice?
PR: I mean I don’t really notice anything, but I, usually I take the Adavan if I’m, I start getting, evenings are difficult for me.
TT: Um hum.
PR: When I start getting tired and I feel the onset of this, not feeling real good. Last night I was pretty, I've just been missing JonBenet a lot lately.
TT: Okay.
PR: And uh, you know, it, it seems to, to kind of quell that . . .
TT: Takes the edge off a little bit.
PR: Takes the edge off a little bit.
TT: What kind of dose are you taking on the Adavan when you take it?
PR: Uh, a half milligram.
TT: Okay. Took it last night, how, about how many times a week are you taking that? Once, twice?
PR: Well, probably a couple.
TT: A couple of times a week is all?
PR: Yeah.
TT: Okay. The Adavan and the Paxel, um . . .
PR: The Paxel is an anti-depressant.
TT: Um hum. Either one of them, do you think either one of them’s kind of, uh, changing your thought process or clouding your mind, memory, anything like that?
PR: No.
TT: Okay. It’s not, not effecting any judgment or anything like that?
PR: No, huh uh.
TT: Okay. Um, I all this, I know with the sinus infection your probably not even thinking about it, um, have you taken any alcohol? How much alcohol . . .
PR: No. I don’t drink alcohol.
TT: Okay. Uh, do you drink alcohol at all?
PR: No. Not since I’ve been on the Paxel at all.
TT: Okay. When did you start the Paxel?
PR: Uh, I don’t know. February maybe.
TT: Okay. Beg…towards the beginning or the end of February?
PR: I can’t remember exactly.
TT: Okay. And the Adavan, did you start that about the same time?
PR: Simultaneously.
TT: Okay.
PR: One’s kind of a, I think one, is the way she explained it to me, one kind of works, takes awhile to start taking effect and the Adavan is kind of an on the spot, doesn’t last very long, but helps you.
TT: Okay. Now is Dr. Beuf still prescribing all that?
PR: No. Uh, Rebecca Barkhorn, that’s my doctor (inaudible)
(FTR, those medications are Paxil, Ativan and Lorazepam.)
Ativan is the brand name for Lorazepam, so am wondering if Trujillo was not aware of that when he made the suggestion to PR. (She didn't correct him, but stated that she was taking Ativan, possibly thinking that he knew they were the same drug?) Ativan is for panic attacks or for sleeping problems, so I don't think it's taken unless/until needed, and is supposed to be a temporary medication.
The BPD questioned both parents in detail, multiple times, about drug and alcohol use. Here's a formerly posted part of a transcript about medications PR was taking after JBR's murder.
I still don't see the relevance of their medical history though, or what investigators hope to glean from it unless it included confessions which their providers would have been required by law to report anyway. But medical histories often get dragged into court cases where they don't belong.
Do we lean towards protecting the rights of the accused, or seeking justice for the murdered victim? Who represents JonBenet?
Internet justice warriors? I don't know. But Jon Benet is not represented unless the correct person is found and convicted. Charging someone you can't convict does her no good at all. And how would JB benefit from a family member being charged on flimsy evidence, if they are actually innocent?
This is why we protect the rights of the accused in the US, or are supposed to. They have a right to due process and a presumption of innocence. In this case there isn't even enough evidence to charge, let alone convict. Its unfortunate, but true.
There are several people still trying to solve this murder (although not the BPD, unfortunately). Someone apparently put up (anonymously) the funds to have DNA re-tested. Lou Smit's list of uncleared suspects is in the hands of his daughter. And JR, John Andrew, Burke and other family members who are still alive remain hopeful that this crime can be solved.
See post #3887 on this thread; listen to the podcast, one of several of them from earlier this year.
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.
