jameson comment - Does it matter that Kane ignored some evidence and fought to supress other evidence because it was not pointing to the Ramseys? You bet it does. What he did was shameful. And anyone who supports what he did is not interested in justice, just vengence, right or wrongly directed.

I would be most interested to know the private thoughts of the District Attorneys regarding Michael Kane's handling of the Grand Jury. It is one thing to view the BPD as inexperienced and rather cock-eyed in their presentation of the evidence in this case (to the FBI group and to the group in Boulder) and to read of such outrage over intruder evidence getting into their files and contaminating them, but Michael Kane and his attempts at supression of evidence for the GJ to hear is quite another thing altogether. I cannot help but think there are many legal minds in Boulder with many questions in their minds. BORG posters would have the public believe that everyone connected to this case in Boulder was of a similar mind (based on the evidence) that Patsy, or John, or Burke did it. NOT TRUE AT ALL. Far from it. There were many who (just like us) could NOT see a case against any Ramsey unfolding the way Steve Thomas would have had us believe.

Kane's previous 'notoriety' came from getting a third-degree murder charge against a Pennsylvania mother in the death of her child where it had previously been determined accidental (a fire that the mother's husband suspected had been set intentionally). She got six years. I'm sure that was a Kodak moment for Kane, worth repeating the glory and basking in the light of another mother sent off to prison for being found responsible for the 'accidental' death of her child. Thankfully, there were free thinking logical minds at work to oppose his shameful attempts.