Third Impressions -- The Phony Investigation.

Third Impressions -- a/k/a Plausible Deniability.

During the protracted battle of wills between the Boulder authorities and the Defense Lawyers, it was clear the Boulder Authorities knew that time was on their side. The Defense Lawyers were being undermined by their own clients who were desperate to see progress made on the case no matter what the cost. The authorities were clearly the source of media leaks and had some grinning mouthpiece holding formal press conferences so the authorities knew they had the lawyers outgunned.

The Boulder Authorities did have available to them the concept of Plausible Deniability. The BPD in failing to test a blood spot on the panties knew that they could always avail themselves of that tired old standby excuse: we were awaiting further technological developments prior to submitting the sample for destructive testing. The BPD also knew that in sending investigators around to gather dirt on the Ramseys they need only demonstrate the depth and breadth of their efforts. Anecdotal statements from the various interviewees that the BPD were clearly fishing for dirt and ignoring any positive statements by the witness are simply never sufficient to overcome the public's belief that there was a neutral investigation.

Sending a team to the Vietnamese underwear factory or testing endless numbers of unsold packages until some human dna is finally found demonstrates the lengths to which the BPD would stoop in order to maintain their anti-Ramsey stance. Having a legitimate belief that the dna found at the crime scene came from the sneeze of a Vietnamese factory worker is absurd. As to how such a sneeze could cause dna to fall only on those minute portions of the panties on which Jonbenet's blood would later fall makes even the contemplation of such an absurd possibility an almost criminal waste of investigative resources and constitutes clear proof that there was no investigation going on. Clearly the BPD were conducting an enterprise that was closer to a legal witch hunt than an investigation.

Yet the police can always fall back on their plausible deniability stance. They control access to the investigative files and the allocation of resources. They know how the resources were deployed and they know what the real agenda was but they also control the speechwriters and public information spokesmen. So there is really no way to force the police to move in any direction than that which they choose.

There are notable cases wherein police forces have carried this to an extreme. Rapid LAPD were repeatedly urged by relatives of the victim to look at one female officer but this was resisted until dna tests were performed almost two decades later. Lothian and Borders police had even announced the magic phrase of "no other suspects" and "not a sex crime" despite the dead 14 year old girl having the dna from several men associated with her corpse and clothing. Only the boyfriend whose dna was not found at the crime scene was ever a suspect. The police are simply without proper oversight. One police force was able to properly deal with twelve separate homicide scenes during a one-day killing spree. A nearby police force found one corpse in a wooded area and simply left it unattended and uncovered in a rain storm until the next morning. Yet nothing happens to these incompetent police officers who are skilled mainly at finding excuses for themselves. After all, if two fourteen year old teenagers can make it over a low wall and half the drug buyers in the village can routinely make it over a low wall, don't you think a police officer should be able to make it over that wall so as to preserve the crime scene?

While the police are careful to maintain a facade of Plausible Deniability sometimes its just clear that the situation is simply "We Don't Want To Do Anything That Is Contrary To Our Whims"!

First Impressions.

I've wondered recently about first impressions and the JonBenet Ramsey case. We invest a great deal of discretion in our police and be they patrol officers or detectives they are pretty much on their own. Oh there can be budget constraints and a variety of other constraints such as a hot pursuit policy, but in reality the beat cop is pretty much on his own.

So in the very early stages of the investigation when information is filtering in and its all pretty much jumbled, contradictory, vague, ambiguous and confusing we have to have some action being taken despite all the uncertainty involved.

Someone contacted the FBI profiling types. Oh, okay so the unit has a fancy name and it doesn't use the title profiling but that's what they do, nevertheless. So what was given to the profilers? I don't know. What was available to be given to them? Well, such gems as "No Footprints in the Snow". Not exactly a true statement to begin with because one of the invited guests left his footprints in the snow. Also of great relevancy to the question of footprints is the corrollary: there was no snow on the paved approach paths that surrounded the house. There was never any reason to suspect that an intruder would have had some reason to cut across the snow covered grass and leave footprints.

What else was available? Okay, so we got a ransom note. Its long and its weird. That's about it. The profiler might have had nothing more specific than "there is something hinky about the note". We know that the FBI agents at a conference in Denver who were "beeped" to be on standby status for possible travel to Boulder felt the ransom demand was strange though they made no precise analysis of it.

What else: How about demographic information. The profilers might have been told that the parents are rich, the home seems neat and fairly presentable, there is no obvious drug use, the parents support their church and school. However, its unlikely that any of this information was really made available to the profilers. Probably the main thing that was said is that the kid's corpse was found inside the home ... by the parents! We surely know that the BPD didn't fess up right away to those profilers that the cops had bungled the initial searches and that having an ineffective detective on-scene sure didn't help matters any. Do we really expect the profilers to stop and recall that all their expert interviewing of perpetrators had involved low-class common vulgar drug addicts who live a life of constant strife, inescapable poverty and prior involvement with police and social service agencies? No. The profilers shoot from the hip and provide their "expert guidance" which basically is "look to the parents". This guidance from the FBI profilers then is used to re-inforce the opinions already held by the those luminaries at the BPD who have trouble with opening simple wooden latches.

Is it really any wonder the case got derailed right from the start? Stubborness aside, the performance of the first responders was so bad that the case went askew right away. No real case management. No control over the crime scene. Cops sent to search the basement but not knowing just how thorough to be or what they are really looking for. Cops certainly not reporting back what they have done and not done in that basement. On-scene detective never once went to the basement. Fouled up case right from the start!