Riverside Police Press Release Apr 4, 2016 10:59:04 GMT -6
Post by amerigochattin on Apr 4, 2016 10:59:04 GMT -6
That's it? How did Ross Sullivan even get to be a suspect? Do you know?
Now, then. Do you know what it COSTS to prosecute a murder case? Do you know how much is in the Riverside DA's budget? Let me clue (get it?) you in on a few things I learned as an insurance investigator:
1. If cops don't get a confession, there will probably be no trial.
2. Short of a confession, the DA MIGHT try to bluff out a plea deal.
3. If, because of publicity or some other political pressure, the DA decides MAYBE to roll the dice on a trial, then the cost of that trial is going to bankrupt the DA's office. In a small town like Riverside, that means they need outside funding. Which they don't always get. IF the victim had a BIG life insurance policy, then the insurance company MIGHT be willing to help. In fact, in maybe HALF of murder cases, a life insurance company has paid half the cost of the investigation. And by "murder" cases, I mean cases when someone who is not a criminal is killed.
Guess what? Most murders do NOT go to trial. Belieeeeeeeeeve me. Most murderers, IF convicted, are convicted (through plea bargain) of SOME OTHER CRIME, and John Law considers that a successful bid to get the perp off the streets for a while. You know why murder trials are always such big news? Because they NEVER HAPPEN.
F'r examples: Son of Sam: Confession. Jeffrey Dahmer: Confession. Albert DeSalvo: Confession. O.J. Simpson: LA went for broke; LA went broke.
See? RPD agonized over the HUGE financial gamble of putting Barnett on trial. He aaaaallllllllmost confessed. But without that confession . . .
Now, wait a second here. I grew up in LA, and am very familiar with the City and County of Riverside and the Riverside County court system. I'm also an attorney with lots of friends who are prosecutors.
And, yes, I am well familiar with the criminal justice process, and just how many cases are plead out, as compared to being tried. I'm also familiar with general policies regarding prosecution of capital cases (especially in California). Of course, all of this is a bit beside the point, because "Barnett" was never even arrested, let alone charged.
As to Riverside and its finances, I am sorry to say that in this case, you're just plain wrong. Riverside County, which would handle the prosecution of a murder committed in the City of Riverside, is no "small town"; it has well north of 2 million people with an annual municipal budget of around $3 billion. This isn't Junction City, Illinois. Riverside County has a large, modern District Attorney's Office with a budget of about $40 million. Indeed, just last year, the Riverside County DA's Office prosecuted a cold case murder from 1972, without a police confession, and obtained a conviction against Michael Hayes for murdering Mary Costa.
Riverside County does not seek to finance murder prosecutions through collateral sources (like life insurance policies). I'm not sure where you'd get this information that the Riverside County DA is too hard up for cash to undertake a murder prosecution, but it's not true. There is not a chance in the world that a prosecution of "Barnett" would "bankrupt" Riverside County.
And, quite frankly, it doesn't help with your other arguments (which I otherwise find very persuasive about "the Zodiac") when you argue something like this. If anything, it starts to make me re-examine my conclusions.
The role of the (City of) Riverside Police Department in determining whether the Riverside County District Attorney's Office will prosecute a suspect is limited to the strength of the case and likelihood of conviction, not the finances of the County of Riverside nor its District Attorney's Office.
So .... this all bring us back to the critical questions I have raised, to wit:
If the case against Barnett is really that strong (i.e., confession of a friend, which not only implicated Barnett, but also the friend himself) ..... where are the law enforcement files substantiating this??
Thomas, one of the reasons I have respected your work so much on the "Zodiac" case is that you have always been skeptical of Internet claims about what the facts really are, and instead have insisted on examining source documents, such as the actual, underlying law enforcement files.
That is all I am asking for here. If the case against "Barnett" is as strong as you say, then there should be law enforcement files to support that.
So where are they?