Justice Watch Discussion Board "Corruption 3 -- The Analysis" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Corruption 3 -- The Analysis, Ginja, 08:47:21, 7/08/2000 Hopefully..., Ginja, 10:51:09, 7/08/2000, (#1) So the real question to ponder, gaiabetsy, 16:29:04, 7/08/2000, (#2) Ginja, mary99, 20:23:25, 7/08/2000, (#3) If I may jump in, MJenn, 22:16:04, 7/08/2000, (#4) ................................................................... "Corruption 3 -- The Analysis" Posted by Ginja on 08:47:21 7/08/2000 We've spent up two threads alleging there's corruption and we've outlined how those allegations should be dissected and analyzed. Anyone game for truly taking a serious look? From Corruption 2, Straykat asked me: >I would like you to specifically address >Hunter's behavior with Jeff Shapiro. >How would you defend Hunter's leaks >to Shapiro? How would you >defend Hunter's sharing of information (beyond >what's required) with opposing counsel? >How would you defend a DA >who DELIBERATELY REINFORCES the gap between >the police department and the DAs >office? I responded with: I'm not sure what you want or what you're looking for. We could start a thread just on this. :-) It's not a black/white issue. The relationship is defintely gray and we'd have to look at what that relationship was...and why it was forged. What kinds of exchanges were made...and why. What was effected, what was impacted. Was the law broken? Leaks to Shapiro? What were those leaks. Were they leaks? or "leaks"? Was the law broken? Sharing info with opposing counsel? There are no defendants, therefore there's no "opposing counsel". There's legal representation...but of whom? Suspects? or victims? How and why are the exchanges initiated/carried out? Exactly what evidence was 'shared'. Was the law broken? Reinforces the chasm between the departments? Hmmmm...and all this time I thought that honor belonged to Eller? This point could use it's own thread! That's how I'd address your issues. I wouldn't even dare defend anything until the issues were fully analyzed. * * * * * Which brings us here to Corruption 3 -- The Analysis. Again, is anyone interested in taking a serious look? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Hopefully..." Posted by Ginja on 10:51:09 7/08/2000 No one's responding because you're enjoying your weekend. My enjoyment comes in digging in and starting the dissection. Before understanding or addressing Hunter's behavior with Shapiro, we have to 'know' who Jeff Shapiro is...who was he? where was he coming from, and where was he going. Shapiro was a brand-spanking new reporter with the Globe...something he wasn't too proud of. But if he could 'get the scoop' on the Ramsey investigation, he'd land a 'real' reporter's job. The problem was that this was a serious investigation, and Boulder didn't look at tabloids with any kind of seriousness. He's sent to Boulder and he's on his own. No one's going to talk to a tabloid reporter, so he goes "undercover" and infiltrates. He starts out after JAR, being the same age, and disguises himself as a law student at CU and introduces himself as such to JAR's friends. Through them, he'll get to JAR. He meets up with Allison Russ, JAR's friend. Introduces himself as Matt Hayworth and lies to her to win her confidence, get to JAR. Tells her he believes the Rams are innocent and throws her a fig. Tells her he's heard there was a lubricant on JBR's vaginal area, complicating DNA testing...asks Russ to take that to the Rams. At this point, query where he's getting this information. He was just dumped in Boulder and had no access or hadn't met anyone in the investigation. Is he making this up, or is his editor feeding him tidbits? He then goes and applies for a job at Pasta Jay's, continuing his infiltration. There he meets JAR. Gives the same story to him as he did Russ, except he introduces himself as Jeff Scott. JAR asks him if he's a journalist, and again, he lies, and denies it. He denounces the BPD, hoping to win JAR's friendship. Realizing he may have let the cat out of the bag, he runs back and calls Russ to explain he's really Jeff Scott, not Matt Hayworth. Now Russ is suspicious and calls Steve Thomas. Thomas calls "Jeff Scott" and tells him he's heard Scott has some interesting info. He goes on to tell him he has to make sure Scott's not a journalist "before letting you (Scott) into the department." Shapiro again denies it...he's infiltrated the BPD. He calls his editor to file a report. The editor freaks out. "You can't lie to the cops!" The editor then calls Thomas to tell him who 'Scott' really is and who he works for. Thomas is pissed and says he's going to call Russ and JAR. Meanwhile, continuing his infiltration into the investigation, Shapiro next stops in at St. John's and meets with Holverstock. Tells him he's Jewish and wants to convert to Christianity. Also notes he was very interested and followed the OJ case, and Holverstock tells him he's come at a good time (e.g., with the Ramsey investigation in full swing). Again, Shapiro denies he's a journalist. He moves on and writes a letter to JAR. He calls Lucinda. He's trying to infiltrate the family by telling them he's their friend and wants to help them. What he's really trying to do is get "inside". JAR ignores the letter and Lucinda hangs up on him (realizing he's the one who wrote the letter). He then sees Hunter in the parking lot of the Justice Center and walks up to him asking, Are you Alex? Get's Hunter's attention and tells him he's an investigative reporter (neglecting to say he's with the Globe), he lies and says he worked the Simpson case. Pulls Hunter into a discussion in the parking lot from everything from pedophilia to Scheck to Lee. And then he throws out a fig: asks Hunter if he knows about the phisoderm. He's got Hunter's interest. Hunter tells him they should chat later, and goes to his office. Again, Shapiro calls his editor and files a report. And again the editor freaks out and calls Hunter to tell him who Shapiro really is and who he works for. Note that Shapiro was in an infiltration mode and did exactly the same thing to BOTH Thomas and Hunter, pulling them in, telling them he knew things about the investigation, telling them he was someone he wasn't. The editor sends Shapiro back to Hunter to find out if he can uncover anything more on the pedophile angle. He goes and learns that his editor told Hunter who he was and he worked for the Globe. Shapiro thinks this is bizarre that Hunter will meet with him, knowing it was the Globe who "acquired" and published the crime scene photos. Is there much difference in Hunter playing off Shapiro and trying to find out what he knows vice Thomas' same attempts in "bringing him into the department"? At that "meeting", Shapiro realizes he's the interviewee, not the interviewer. Hunter's asking all the questions, pulling the information from him. "What do you know about Singular?" Remember, it's Shapiro who first goes in there with the "pedophile assignment" to see what the investigation has on this, if anything. Hunter turns the tables...tries to get him to talk about what he knows, or thinks he knows. The editor also prompted Shapiro to find out what he could on Fleet White...the rumor was that Fleet was involved with the murder. Was it wrong for Hunter to flatly deny that? Shapiro then asks Hunter who else knows about the conflict between Ramsey and White. Hunter responds, "I would think the Enquirer is already on top of it." What do we make of that? Shapiro took that to mean that Hunter was not only "talking" to the Globe, but to the Enquirer! And that's exactly how Shapiro describes it: "I realized Hunter was talking to the tabs". There is nothing to substantiate that Hunter's talking to the tabs. To date, it's been Shapiro and the Globe throwing out "information" to Hunter AND Thomas, not vice versa. Both would be derelict if they didn't pursue Shapiro and where and how he's getting information, and whether that information has any substance. After that meeting with Hunter, Shapiro moved on to Pam Griffin. She told him that Krupski told her that a cop told Krupski the word "Iran" was in the ransom note. Shapiro picked that up and ran with it, doing research on Iranian terrorism (e.g., small foreign faction). He writes a paper (report) on his findings, including the fact they strangle people and sometimes behead them. He tries to get this paper circulated, delivering copies to Hunter, Fleet White and Ramsey. He was disappointed at first to hear Ramsey say it was unlikely. Later he learned, or realized, that John knew "Iran" was never in the note. When he delivers the paper to Hunter, he tells him he had met with White. Did Hunter break laws when he asked Shapiro about that meeting? or what he knew about White? Shapiro then admits that Hunter was talking to himself out loud when he said "I want to know who this guy Fleet White is....I'm just interested, that's all" But how does he react? "I felt like some young Washington aide getting orders from his senator. The biggest case in the country, and Hunter is asking me for help. It boosted my ego." Shapiro even admits that Hunter never "asked" him to look into it personally. Yet he then turns around and thinks he's being asked to investigate FW! Shapiro is playing everyone off each other and he's reading into things as to what the "real" meaning is. To date, it's him who's throwing out these tidbits of information. Not vice versa. That becomes even more evident when you read about his experience in church with Patsy. He watches her pray, saying "please please" over and over. From that he assumes she's praying for herself, for her own soul. "I had never seen anyone pray for his own soul the way Patsy was praying for hers." At communion, he looked in her eyes. "That was when I felt in my heart that she had murdered JonBenet. At that moment, I decided she was the killer." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "So the real question to ponder" Posted by gaiabetsy on 16:29:04 7/08/2000 is could someone who has compromised himself and lied numerous times (such as Jeff Shapiro) have any credibility left? Are we to believe his observations or would that just be really stupid? It is my opinion that many people can and often do compromise their honor and credibility in order to "learn the truth". Yet, at the same time, I believe these same people want very much to be honest and straightforward. Yep, it all sounds confusing and inappropriate. Yet, I do believe there are people in this world who sacrifice a lot of personal honesty an intestinal fortitude in order to compliment the human and basic good. Nope, I'm not sure I think that's the right way to go about it, but I sure do understand it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Ginja" Posted by mary99 on 20:23:25 7/08/2000 Hunter probed Shapiro's mind to see what he, JS had learned from the various interactions he had with those people he'd spoken to. I agree that Hunter was acting as the interviewer vs the interviewee, regardless of what JS thought. When the victim's family won't meet with police, what's a DA to do? In the end, if Hunter did communicate some info to JS, it was to stimulate the Ramseys to make a response. The leaks in the BPD were just as bad if not worse. If the Ramseys hadn't pushed the case into the public eye by their own behavior, and actions, JS would never have had any relationship with Hunter and Thomas. He was acting as a go-between because the BPD had canned the detectives, as you pointed out earlier, who were first on the case, and replaced them with Mr. Gung-ho who alienated himself with his Patsy theory. I do think Thomas wasn't open to other theories or suspects and that caused the rift between the DA's office and the BPD. Ultimately, much of the communication with the Ramseys was through the tabs because the didn't answer letters or phone calls from the detectives working the case-even Lou Smit. In the end, Hunter pushed them to redeem their public image by writing DOI and going on the publicity trail. We've seen the results. If not for the ill-favored BaBa Wawa interview, they never would have made the polygraph statement. If not for that statement, they wouldn't have taken the self-sponsored polygraphs. If not for the failure of those tests as an image repair device, they wouldn't have gone to Texas to pray with Robison. Every single thing they've done to improve their public image has made them look more guilty than ever. Meanwhile, the BPD has been videotaping their TV appearances and compiling the discrepancies between their previous and most recent statements. This has to be a windfall for the BPD. The Ramseys love the spotlight and Hunter drew them into it. I can't fault him for that. PS What a writer you are! E-mail me, please :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL mary99 ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "If I may jump in" Posted by MJenn on 22:16:04 7/08/2000 I believe you mentioned in your opening post that you were questioning whether Alex Hunter had inappropriately provided evidence to prime suspects in JonBenet's murder. I know you've mostly been addressing another issue that I cannot add anything helpful to, but there are a couple of points I can make about Hunter's perceived cooperation with the Ramsey's attorneys. (However, I haven't read the other 2 threads on this, so if I'm repeating, please forgive me and scroll.) The Ramseys made the statement on LKL in March that their lawyers were ready to go to trial on the day Hunter announced there would be no indictments. And they also rather tactlessly stated that "it would have been a blood bath." It seems to me that this is pretty good back up for Steve Thomas's assertion that the Ramsey's attorneys were given most of the evidence as it was gathered. Otherwise, how could team Ramsey be prepared to defend their clients, and win, no less, before an indictment was written, an arraignment was held, and motions for discovery of the evidence could even be filed? You may know the prosecution does have to turn over the evidence once suspects become defendants and are arraigned in court--but not one minute before. And they don't bring it to court to hand over immediately, either. It's part of the dance the opposing counselors do: each side files motions and then they must turn over what is specifically requested, but not one molecule more, and in due time, but no one's setting any records on speed. So, with this very general procedural synopsis in mind, did Hunter violate the Canons of the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility? Keeping in mind that Hunter represents the people of the state of Colorado and JonBenet in his position as District Attorney, here are a couple of ethical considerations: From the Canons of the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 9: A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. (I put this one first, because once this canon is breached, several others follow pretty closely. How can Hunter justify turning over evidence to the prime suspects in a homicide case? I don't even know how to begin to condone his actions in this matter. He completely compromised the state's case by doing this, as well as effectively crippling the detectives in their ongoing investigation, virtually guaranteeing no one would ever answer for murdering JonBenet. He did much more than present the appearance of professional impropriety; he gave away the case.) So the following Canons 5 through 8 naturally fall under the question of professional misconduct: 5: A lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client. 6: A lawyer should represent a client competently. 7: A lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law. 8: A lawyer should assist in improving the legal system. Whatever arguments may be made for or against Hunter's actions, I don't think he'll ever even be questioned by the press about this, much less by the ABA. He's part of the club, he was complying with the wishes of a well-connected and influential law firm, he's also rich and financially in bed with many of these same lawyers, and he's retiring. Welcome to the Ramsey's world. OJ Simpson can give you a guided tour. A last point to put it all in perspective: President Clinton is being sued for disbarrment for giving "misleading" statements about the most personal information imagineable in a deposition from a private lawsuit against him. Whatever you think of that whole mess (and I'm hoping we don't go there at this time), Clinton, unlike Hunter, was not acting as an attorney representing anyone and therefore did not compromise any client. He could lose his license to practice law. The point being, Hunter isn't getting away with murder, but JonBenet's killer is, thanks to him, and NOBODY will ever call him on it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE