Comments
1 - 20 of 78 Comments Last updated Sep 12, 2009
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Dec 19, 2008
This is all too common, with no end in sight, especially glaring in high profile cases, where the media is out in force to cover it. Furhman, the cop who plead guilty to perjury for lying about repeatedly saying the "N" word in the OJ case, leading jurors to not trust his testimony, Arndt screwing up the crime scene in the Ramsey case, Thomas's illegal leaks, leading to the DA's office taking over the case to avoid a lawsuit, leading to the DA's office clearing the Ramseys, and now the Caylee Anthony case, the incredible incompetence of a cop not investigating a tip and clearing a scene because of a snake, cadaver dogs not hitting in an area reported by the tipster, all this leading to fertile ground for defense attorneys in a formerly slam dunk case. Each and every one ruined or seriously hampered by the incompetence and corruption of the cops investigating the case. An important issue that has only gotten worse.
Capricorn

Southampton, NY

#2 Dec 19, 2008
Perhaps some incompetence in many cases; In the Ramsey case, corruption was solely the reason the murderer/s are not in prison

You left out Hunter, Haddon and oh so many others; you know, the "breakfast buddies" and real estate business partners, Haddon and Hunter. What a team!

Somehow, I am sure Steve Thomas is also responsible for global warming and the extinction of the dinosaur, not to mention, our problems with the economy, unemployment and Hurricane Katrina!
koldkase

Smyrna, GA

#3 Dec 19, 2008
Gutter candy, just HOW can you spread your trash talk endlessly about Thomas and his "leaks" when you seldom say WORD ONE about DA HUNTER LEAKING LIKE THE TITANIC to the TABLOID PRESS, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. Not to mention, THE RST has been LEAKING THE SPIN they want out there in the public for 12 years. What about the RST Publicity Bus Tour, driven by Dimestore Detective Smit, still running down suspects as fast as he can drive? Where are your rabid attacks on "TV" Smit?

Oh, please. Face it, gutter candy, you are NEVER, EVER going to kiss those Thomas lips, because you, our dear harpie, are TOO MUCH WOMAN FOR HIM!! Now get over him and move on! There are so many people out there to hate! Thomas, White, and the Guttah just don't deserve to hog all your special brand of jealousy!

LOL Happy Holidays!!
Mame

La Jolla, CA

#4 Dec 19, 2008
koldkase wrote:
Gutter candy, just HOW can you spread your trash talk endlessly about Thomas and his "leaks" when you seldom say WORD ONE about DA HUNTER LEAKING LIKE THE TITANIC to the TABLOID PRESS, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. Not to mention, THE RST has been LEAKING THE SPIN they want out there in the public for 12 years. What about the RST Publicity Bus Tour, driven by Dimestore Detective Smit, still running down suspects as fast as he can drive? Where are your rabid attacks on "TV" Smit?
Oh, please. Face it, gutter candy, you are NEVER, EVER going to kiss those Thomas lips, because you, our dear harpie, are TOO MUCH WOMAN FOR HIM!! Now get over him and move on! There are so many people out there to hate! Thomas, White, and the Guttah just don't deserve to hog all your special brand of jealousy!
LOL Happy Holidays!!
Harpie? Gutter Candy? Dimestore Detective?(you stole that from me Darlin'....although I used it in reference to Thomas)

Whoa baby! Speaking of hate?

Do you EVER talk about or speak of real evidence?

Veruca, this one's for you...:)

http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/wp-content/uplo...
koldkase

Smyrna, GA

#5 Dec 19, 2008
Mame wrote:
<quoted text>
Harpie? Gutter Candy? Dimestore Detective?(you stole that from me Darlin'....although I used it in reference to Thomas)
It's always about you, isn't it, mame? Only...no, it's not. You and gutter candy are so...like jams.
Mame wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa baby! Speaking of hate?
Do you EVER talk about or speak of real evidence?
Sure, I do it everyday. You'd have to be stupid or blind not to see that.

Okay, you're stupid.
Mame

La Jolla, CA

#6 Dec 19, 2008
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always about you, isn't it, mame? Only...no, it's not. You and gutter candy are so...like jams.
<quoted text>
Sure, I do it everyday. You'd have to be stupid or blind not to see that.
Okay, you're stupid.
Do I sense the presence of wingnutty desperation?
Limaes

Sydney, Australia

#7 Dec 20, 2008
candy wrote:
Thomas's illegal leaks, leading to the DA's office taking over the case to avoid a lawsuit
Wasn't that because of Hunter's leaks, which also is why Smit got to nick off with confidential files (of a case he was no longer working on) and expose them to the public via a trumped up, erroneous, PP presentation?
Smit and Hunter were the biggest sieves of them all.
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#8 Dec 20, 2008
I don’t know how many Americans have heard about the brutal murder by stabbing to death of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in London, UK. That was a sensational and unusual murder case in this country which happened in 1992.

To try to cut a long story short, the London police at the time decided a man called Colin Stagg did it. He was put in prison on remand for 13 months. When the case came to trial the case against Stagg was thrown out by the judge.

In the past few days there has been a trial of another man called Napper who is now in Broadmoor criminal lunatic asylum for other murders and rapes. He confessed to the Rachell Nickell murder. The clincher against Napper seems to have been his DNA found on some tape at the crime scene by a company called LGC Forensics.

The point about all this is that it proves that the police don’t always get it right. Mistakes are made, and serious mistakes. I think that’s relevant to the Ramsey case, and the MacDonald case, in America.

It all reminds me so much of the black South African and Iranian Mugabe collaborators.
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#9 Dec 20, 2008
This is a bit of, edited by me, waffling about that case, from the Times of London newspaper:

"We need smarter police who are science-savvy
Officers able to understand what ‘experts' tell them could avoid the mistakes that marred the Rachel Nickell inquiry
David Canter

The police learn from their mistakes, like most of us. But when they make serious misjudgments people can get killed. So it is not surprising that profound errors in the initial investigation into the murder of Rachel Nickell, who was stabbed on Wimbledon Common in June 1992, have been sending shock waves through the system since it was realised that the prime suspect, Colin Stagg, was innocent. The impact of this debacle will resound for many years now that Robert Napper has admitted the killing.

In almost all big police investigations of which I have experience, a likely suspect emerges who turns out to have had nothing to do with the crime. Every now and then the senior investigating officer, like Detective Inspector Keith Pedder in the Nickell murder inquiry, is seduced by what psychologists call a “confirmation bias”. All the indicators that Mr Stagg was innocent were reinterpreted to point to his guilt.

Mr Pedder was so convinced that Mr Stagg was the murderer that he was determined to get evidence to convict him. This might have gone no farther had he not formed an alliance with Paul Britton, an offender profiler, who confidently promised that he could guide an undercover honeytrap that would lead to Mr Stagg confessing or revealing enough for a conviction.

I have seen internal memos from a senior police officer who heard of the honeytrap while it was in progress that said “when a judge hears of this he will be spitting feathers”. What made this officer so prescient was that he had a doctorate in psychology and could recognise the weaknesses in what Mr Britton was claiming. When Mr Stagg was brought to court, Mr Justice Ognall expressed himself rather more urbanely. He said that the investigation “betrays not merely an excess of zeal but a substantial attempt to incriminate a suspect by positive and deceptive conduct of the grossest kind”.

We still expect senior police officers to be generalists, turning their hand to crowd control one day and murder inquiries the next. Their expertise is seen as being police officers rather than in specialist knowledge of a particular field.

In many cases this is valuable, as has been shown by the remarkable success in foiling terrorist attacks.

But there are cases in which good old-fashioned policing is not enough. Officers need a proper academic grounding to use effectively the science that is available to them. In many forces around the world senior officers must have a degree and there are steps towards that in Britain. We could go farther. Why shouldn't thirty or fortysomethings who have enjoyed a career in science join the police at a senior level? The skills they have would be invaluable to modern police investigations that are now so reliant on forensic science.

We should not have to wait for another tragedy like the attempt to incriminate Colin Stagg before there are enough senior police officers well educated enough to recognise when a judge may “spit feathers”."

David Canter is Professor of Psychology at the University of Liverpool and Director of the Centre for Investigative Psychology
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#10 Dec 20, 2008
This is what the judge in the Colin Stagg trail said about that Colin Stagg trial. They could do with that judge in the MacDonald case in America:

Sir Harry Ognall: Commentary

"Robert Napper’s guilty plea yesterday to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell completes a remarkable legal circle. When Colin Stagg was charged with that same brutal killing I was the judge appointed to try a case that excited enormous media coverage. Before the trial in 1994 three things were apparent.

First, the police were faced with overwhelming pressure to identify the killer and establish a compelling case. Second, they were faced with a desperate lack of evidence of any quality against Mr Stagg - their exclusive candidate for the murder – let alone evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, it was obvious that the judge would need to be especially wary of the real risk that the jury might be swept along by the tide of widespread hostility to the accused and return a guilty verdict notwithstanding the absence of effective proof.

The second of those features led the police to set up the so-called honey trap, using an undercover policewoman to seduce Mr Stagg into a confession. It proved to be a fruitless initiative. The high-water mark of the material thereby obtained was a single comment by him that might, on one view, have been construed as betraying an awareness of details of the attack that could only have been known to the perpetrator. There was nothing else in the prosecution’s locker. There was no identification, no scientific evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no subsequent incriminating behaviour. Neither was there DNA available either to implicate or to exonerate him. In the event, I ruled that the evidence derived from the entrapment should not go before the jury. It is a graphic measure of the frailty of the prosecution case that, bereft of the foothold offered to them by that rotten plank, they elected to drop their case, and Mr Stagg was acquitted.

Since then a campaign of innuendo has been mounted in sections of the press that has repeatedly invited the public to conclude that Mr Stagg had literally “got away with murder”. The truth, of course, was that he had not got away with anything. He had been singled out because he was a soft target. His appearance, his lifestyle and the libidinous exchanges with the policewoman painted him in singularly unattractive colours.

Related Links
Napper faces questions about unsolved murders
Not quite Life on Mars
Mother and daughter caught eye of a rapist
The police closed their minds to any other possibility than that of his guilt. That cardinal error corrupted the whole of their investigation. They were wrong. I claim no special credit for ruling as I did. I am certain that any other judge in my position would have recognised that proof of guilt was simply not there. To leave the entrapment evidence to the jury would be to open the door to the wholly unacceptable risk that prejudice would replace proof.

There will no doubt be suggestions that there are obvious lessons to be learned from this 14-year saga. I am not so sure. Media hysteria, an embattled police force and the duty of a criminal trial judge to ensure inherent fairness of the process are not novel dimensions in the history........
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#11 Dec 20, 2008
This is another newspaper report about that Rachell Nickell case:

"Questions marks still hang over the original investigation and the missed opportunities to catch Napper, who went on to kill another young mother and her daughter.

Napper was questioned in December 1995 about Ms Nickell's killing and denied involvement.

Colin Stagg on his ordeal

He had been sent to Broadmoor secure hospital two months earlier for raping and killing Samantha Bissett, 27, and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine in an attack in Plumstead, south London in November 1993.

A tiny particle of Napper's DNA was picked up when Miss Nickell's body was swabbed soon after her death.

But it was too small to be analysed until recent advances made it possible. A match to Napper was confirmed in 2004.

The former warehouseman, who lived near Miss Bissett, was interviewed again in Broadmoor in 2006, but again he did not own up to the crime.

Police investigators admit that a series of failings meant Napper was not caught sooner.

Officers failed to question him after his mother rang a local police station in 1989 to say he had confessed to a rape.

The officer she spoke to could not match up details of the offence with any rape which had been reported.

Napper was also questioned about a series of sex attacks in 1992, but was wrongly eliminated.

"We have been absolutely honest about this to their family and we have told them that we deeply regret that this happened and have apologised to them," Commander Simon Foy said outside court.
jahazafat

Portage, MI

#12 Dec 20, 2008
The legitimate tip from a utility worker in FL was answered and verified even if it took months.

Boulder DA Alex Hunter's office was contacted the end of September 1999 with a tip about the duct tape, tan cotton fibers, and blue fibers found on JonBenet and they still haven't verified the information. They still haven't compared this evidence to a doll the Ramseys removed from the crime scene. They still haven't questioned John Ramsey about a duplicate doll ordered and delivered to his office after the crime.

There is corruption, collusion, conspiracy, and incompetence in every level of government and public service. Plenty to go around.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44
koldkase

Smyrna, GA

#14 Dec 20, 2008
Mame wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I sense the presence of wingnutty desperation?
So you have reunited with Krebs in California. Okay then!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#15 Dec 23, 2008
The three calls Roy Kronk, the meter reader, made to 911 in August were released today. Hearing LE on those tapes was awful. The poor man tried to give as much detail, and be as helpful as he could in an area he didn't know, but they did nothing but frustrate the man, and give him the bureaucratic run around. It's only thanks to his persistance that whatever is left of Caylee was ever found. I wonder if the Anthonys being on Larry King Live on December 10th, brought the whole thing back up to him, and made him go back there on December 11th, where he found the skull. No wonder Casey wasn't worried about where she put the body. The cops weren't interested in going back in that area, and just disregarded 3 leads about it.
FoolsGold

Bonita Springs, FL

#16 Jan 31, 2009
Police incompetence is common. Consider:
OC cops returned an overparked car to a mother with the daughter's corpse on the back seat.
One cop took a Vandalism complaint and never followed the tire tracks down the embankment to the wreck and dead driver.
One detective was just about to administer a polygraph to the husband when he learned the missing wife had been found barely alive after a week in an auto wreck. Evidence is often returned to the wrong party or not seized in the first place. Look at OJ's dark sweatsuit in the washing machine that was left there by the criminologist!
The only thing that has ever made cops a threat to criminals is that the cops have to get things right only ONCE whereas the criminal has to be careful at all times.
Rashomon

Germany

#17 Jan 31, 2009
FoolsGold wrote:
Police incompetence is common.
True. That's why in virtually every murder trial, one will see the defense trying to score points by pointing out police bungling.

But in the Ramsey case, despite the police blunders, this case could have been brought to trial if DA Hunter (who was convinced of the Ramseys' guilt) had not been such a spineless wimp.
FoolsGold

Bonita Springs, FL

#18 Jan 31, 2009
What actions of his merit your calling him a spineless wimp?
He failed to see that the parents were interviewed as they wanted to be.
He failed to halt the tabloid leaks.
I assume he was involved with the search warrant application for the child porn even though that was probably just a conction for the benefit of the tabloids.
But I don't see him as a spineless wimp.
Patricia Fox

Atlanta, GA

#19 Jan 31, 2009
FoolsGold wrote:
What actions of his merit your calling him a spineless wimp?
He failed to see that the parents were interviewed as they wanted to be.
He failed to halt the tabloid leaks.
I assume he was involved with the search warrant application for the child porn even though that was probably just a conction for the benefit of the tabloids.
But I don't see him as a spineless wimp.
Maybe he was considered a spineless wimp by many because he always plea-bargained his cases. Some might see that as a person afraid to show his capabilities or lack therof in actually prosecuting a case.

I do know some of his decisions in the Ramsey case were unfathonable. Letting them view the ransom note when getting their handwriting samples. I would have had it TYPED out and then let the chips fall where they may. It's not hard to change your handwriting when you have THE ACTUAL comparison of how you originally wrote; however, even under those circumstances Patsy couldn't quite pull it off.
Patricia Fox

Atlanta, GA

#20 Jan 31, 2009
Edit - thereof
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#21 Feb 1, 2009
I don't think it's fair on Alex Hunter to accuse him of being a spineless wimp.

For one thing Alex Hunter was honest. The Boulder DA's office was honest. He also had the rather unusual opinion that you don't prosecute unless you have enough evidence and you don't prosecute innocent people, as in the MacDonald case.

Alex Hunter also had his doubts about Fleet White in the Ramsey case, which puts him in my good books any day.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? 7 hr Just Wondering 84
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 17 hr JTF 7,470
Note-odd detail? 21 hr note 425
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) Wed Just Wondering 1,050
Lou Smit window video Aug 26 Just Wondering 1
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." Aug 25 Count 27
The London Letter Aug 25 Bee 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••