The JonBenet Ramsey killer could have walked free if Alex Hunter, Colorado's District Attorney at the time, had listened to a grand jury and indicted the child's parents he says. And the Chandra Levy case may prove him right.
And wouldn't that be the real miscarriage of justice rather than waiting a little longer to bring prosecution in the case?
Alex Hunter, the district attorney in the Ramsey case said as much back then according to NBCNews.com, who reported the former prosecutor explained that he felt he could not go forward with prosecuting the parents for the crime because, "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."
It's good he didn't prosecute then. No one would want him to prosecute a case he doesn't think he could win. That could mean a killer might walk free, either because the wrong person was prosecuted or because the people prosecuted could get off on a technicality in a flimsy case against them.
Prosecutors in the Chandra Levy case felt they had ample evidence to move forward, despite the fact that the only tie to the man convicted was testimony from his jail cell roommate and a loosely-constructed profile of two previous rapes. And now it appears they may have jumped the gun in their eagerness to prosecute, as MercuryNews.com is reporting that secret hearings in the case may end up setting the convicted man free.
Chandra Levy's parents may feel they got justice when her killer was finally convicted, but if the prosecution dropped the ball and moved forward when they shouldn't have her parents will not feel that way for long, as Chandra Levy's killer could go free. And where's the justice in that? At least the JonBenet Ramsey case can still be reopened, and her killer still brought to justice--if they are still alive.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 5
The injustice is not prosecuting the guilty because you don't have enough evidence to convict???
Not subjecting innocent people to a life destroying prosecution???
You think like a cop...
One has to think like a good police detective AS WELL AS think like a good forensic specialist who works for a good criminal defense attorney.
But, of course, there are false convictions. Many of them.
However, it is also true that defendants are guilty of a crime--but will possibly get off on a technicality or because there is only circumstantial evidence.
Sometimes, the prosecution knows that a defendant will wind wind up with a verdict of not guilty.
But that doesn't mean he's innocent.
Prosecutors have to weigh whether it's worth it....
Do prosecutors ignore exculpatory evidence? They likely do--more often than anyone wishes to acknowledge.
But it doesn't mean that prosecutors are always going to move ahead--if they anticipate reasonable barriers to conviction, even if they strongly believe in the defendant's guilt.
They are probably guilty but that isn't enough evidence...