Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 147

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!


  2. #2
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

  3. #3

    Default

    JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute

    By Charlie Brennan, Camera Staff Writer
    Posted: 01/27/2013 12:00:00 AM MST
    Updated: 01/27/2013 01:57:58 AM MST


    Excerpts:

    [snip]

    Yet multiple sources, including members of the grand jury, have now confirmed to the Daily Camera what Hunter did not say that day: The grand jury voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death in connection with the events of Christmas night 1996 -- but Hunter refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    One legal expert, however, believes Colorado law may have obligated Hunter to at least sign the indictment, even if he elected not to prosecute the case.

    "We didn't know who did what," one juror told the Camera, "but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't."


    [snip]


    Wise and Grant both question the validity of Lacy's exoneration, and they say Garnett -- and his successors -- are not bound by it.

    "It's more inappropriate than anything else," Grant said. "It's not a prosecutorial duty to exonerate people. It's a prosecutorial duty to seek justice and to prosecute the bad guys. If you don't have a bad guy to prosecute, don't exonerate people who are at least peripherally under suspicion. I didn't think it was appropriate at all."


    [snip]
    Last edited by Cherokee; January 27, 2013, 1:54 pm at Sun Jan 27 13:54:56 UTC 2013.

  4. #4
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I can understand the legal problem of not knowing for sure who did what, but what I cannot fathom is Lacy exonerating the Ramseys. And why have there never been lesser charges filed? I know everyone will say that prosecutors didn't want to give away evidence in the murder case but there hasn't been, nor will there ever be, a murder trial. This is Rich Man Justice.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    I can understand the legal problem of not knowing for sure who did what, but what I cannot fathom is Lacy exonerating the Ramseys. And why have there never been lesser charges filed? I know everyone will say that prosecutors didn't want to give away evidence in the murder case but there hasn't been, nor will there ever be, a murder trial. This is Rich Man Justice.
    Truer words were ne'er spoken!

    Lacy needs to be strung up by her hair curtains and made to rescind her bogus "exoneration"!!!

  6. #6

    Default

    I think cynic documented negligent homicide law which would have put Patsy into the defense chair with ease, since it was plenty easy to prove Patsy wrote that note, had THE DAMNED DA EVER DONE HIS JOB.

    Then there were the PHONE RECORDS which I am convinced--and will be until the day I die--HUNTER BURIED FOR A REASON. Once Hunter was in that deep, the Ramseys had him over a barrel, as well, so he was hardly going to try them when they would just turn around and say, yeah, and what did YOU do, Mr. Hunter, that was ILLEGAL in this case?

    Well, that's my opinion, anyway, and you all know it, so...I think I'll start drinking now....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Hi Everyone,

    I will be going off the deep end about this tonight on my show.

    Show starts at 8 PM Eastern. My first guest is Rick Baker who has written a book about the McStay family mystery.

    After that I will proceed to lose my mind over this outragous, yet not surprising development.

    Here is the link to the show.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...bsleuths-radio

    8 PM Eastern, 7 PM Central, If you want to call in and talk about the Ramseys feel free 760-825-0933
    Last edited by Cherokee; January 27, 2013, 7:33 pm at Sun Jan 27 19:33:05 UTC 2013. Reason: add CST info
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  8. #8

    Default

    Now, after 'GJ leak', the role of DA corruption is on the front runner like never before! And it reminds me of FW letter way back, 14 years ago: he saw what could happens; he knew that AH will not prosecute regardless of GJ findings.

    Just wondering, is there any law which allows GJ documents be available for public review? In another word, since time for indictment has been expired, can we have access to GJ documents? And if public cannot allow to see these documets then who can order to unseal them? Especially, since AH never signed and filed them properly.

    jmo

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    Now, after 'GJ leak', the role of DA corruption is on the front runner like never before! And it reminds me of FW letter way back, 14 years ago: he saw what could happens; he knew that AH will not prosecute regardless of GJ findings.

    Just wondering, is there any law which allows GJ documents be available for public review? In another word, since time for indictment has been expired, can we have access to GJ documents? And if public cannot allow to see these documets then who can order to unseal them? Especially, since AH never signed and filed them properly.

    jmo
    No, there is no way to do that.
    The other problem with respect to getting information from people “in the know,” is that regardless of whether it should be or not, the JonBenet case is an OPEN investigation.
    Then there is this:
    JUROR OATH: "You, as members of this grand jury, do swear (or affirm) that you will diligently inquire and true indictment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall receive legal evidence; that you shall indict no person through malice, hatred or ill will; nor have any not indicted through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the hope or promise thereof; but in all your indictments, reports or undertakings, you shall present the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, and further that you will forever keep secret whatever you or any other juror may have said or in what manner you or any other juror may have voted on any matter before you; and that you will keep secret the testimony of any witness heard by you unless ordered by the court to disclose the same in the trial or prosecution of the witness for perjury before the grand jury, so help you God."

    The penalty in Colorado for violating the oath is a fine or fixed jail sentence (up to six months) or both for contempt of Court.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Thanks Cynic. I see Colorado provides for an automatic non-disclosure statute.

    However, Ramsey spin, publicly, used every maneuver in the book to make it appear there was not enough evidence for the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment.

    I'll go to my grave believing Patsy wrote that note and I heard with my own ears via television her admission that she agreed that whoever wrote that note killed JonBenet.
    Last edited by BOESP; February 2, 2013, 9:26 pm at Sat Feb 2 21:26:29 UTC 2013. Reason: corrected spelling

  11. #11

    Default Lin Wood's lies and distortions about the Ramsey Grand Jury through the years

    Lin Wood then:

    A grand jury investigated the case, but disbanded in October 1999 without issuing an indictment.
    Wood said the Ramseys were entitled to a restoration of their reputation following the grand jury.
    But the lawyer said Thomas' book, published about six months later, attempted to put them on "trial by media in the court of public opinion" and was a "form of vigilante justice" that should not be tolerated.
    Daily Camera, March 30, 2001
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...1/30arams.html


    Larry King Live
    April 14, 2000
    KING: Well, you’re saying they -- you're saying one of them murdered their kid and the other is covering.
    THOMAS: Certainly. And I think there's evidence to support that.
    What I find terribly hypocritical on their part is that they can take advantage of every constitutional protection available to them, and then later use the First Amendment to write a book and name three people whom I believe to be clearly innocent in this case as suspects in the murder of their daughter. Yet, Larry, when I turn around, and just as a working stiff, try to use that same First Amendment, here comes team Ramsey, ready to roll.
    KING: Why weren't they indicted in your opinion?
    THOMAS: Probable cause was never an issue in this case. And as a police officer and a detective for 13 years, I had never been involved in a case in which we didn't arrest on probable cause. But this high-profile case, where there were sufficient facts and circumstances to articulate in an affidavit, an arrest warrant didn't happen, and then it got to a grand jury. which has that same threshold of probable cause, but I think Alex Hunter chose not to move forward with it because this -- in this day and age, this "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is almost unattainable.
    KING: In a case like this maybe unattainable, right?
    THOMAS: Particularly with wealthy defendants.
    KING: So why? Was their clout? THOMAS: Well, yes, look what happened in O.J. You have resources...
    KING: O.J. went to trial. He was arrested.
    THOMAS: He absolutely was. And they took a shot, and they stepped up to the plate and they tried to do the right thing. Alex Hunter did not.
    KING: All right. Do you think the grand jury -- we'll never know I guess. Do you think the grand jury might have voted to indict?
    THOMAS: I've heard this week that there was a grand juror in that case -- and I didn't hear this through the grand juror, certainly, but through an intermediary that there's a grand juror that wants to talk, and...
    KING: That they wanted to indict and Hunter didn't want then to indict?
    THOMAS: I don't know that, and we'll never know because of grand jury secrecy what happened in those four walls, but that's certainly a possibility, that they returned it a true bill.
    KING: Don't detectives want to arrest and don't prosecutors hedge because prosecutors want to know they can get convictions? Isn't this a classic clash?
    THOMAS: No question. But what was atypical in Boulder was this culture that had been in existence for many, many years prior to the Ramsey case, in which under-aged drinkers and bicycle thieves, there was a system in place to deal with them, but this government failed horribly when the big one landed in the collective laps of Boulder.

    [SNIP]

    KING: There's another detective, Lou Smit -- he says there was an intruder with a stun gun. He totally believes him. You must know Lou.
    THOMAS: I like Lou. I think the world of Lou. I don't have a bad thing to say about Lou. We, I think, are still friends, but we are diametrically opposed on this case. But let me say something, because I've heard Lou Smit, Lou Smit, Lou Smit, Lou's the lone voice on this thing. This isn't just me espousing this theory.
    KING: You're saying most of the Boulder Police agree with you?
    THOMAS: There's no question. There's federal law enforcement. Even in the district attorney's office there is agreement.
    Larry, who do you think they targeted this grand jury? It wasn't an intruder.
    KING: So other prosecutors agree with you, too?
    THOMAS: Of course.
    KING: Why do you think Alex didn't indict?
    THOMAS: Because once again, I just think his history is very telling that an arrest followed by a trial is not his strong suit.

    [SNIP]

    KING: Now a return visit with Lin Wood, the civil attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey. He's at our CNN headquarters in Atlanta.
    Are you going to sue? Are the Ramseys going to sue Steve Thomas, Lin?
    LIN WOOD, RAMSEYS' CIVIL ATTORNEY: I have been studying his book and I've been watching all of his appearances in his public relations publicity tour to make money off of this book. I sat here tonight, Larry, and I am absolutely amazed.
    KING: Are you going to sue?
    WOOD: After tonight, you bet.
    KING: You're going to sue.
    WOOD: You can count on team Ramsey, if that's what I am, in terms of civil litigation. Steve Thomas will have his day in court, and Steve Thomas...

    [SNIP]

    KING: Lin, are you worried when Steve said that he heard that one of the grand jury members may come forward and say they wanted to indict?
    WOOD: I think what I heard him say was that he had heard that one grand juror may want to come out and talk...
    KING: Right.
    WOOD: And then -- see, here's Steve Thomas for you -- he takes that hearsay, rumor, gossip, and then makes the outrageous statement that from that the grand jury may well have indicted. Listen, if the grand jury indicted John and Patsy Ramsey, there would be -- we'd be probably in the middle of a trial right now. You're not going to put a grand jury out there for 13 months and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money, have them bring an indictment, and then say no thanks. The grand jury didn't indict in this case for the very simple reason that inside the investigation the evidence did not support an indictment. And it just doesn't take very much to get an indictment. It wasn't there.
    KING: Lin, thanks very much. As always, good seeing you.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...14/lkl.00.html


    Ramsey jury voted
    Christopher Anderson, Daily Camera, May 19, 2001
    DENVER — A former attorney for Patsy Ramsey says he has heard that a majority on Boulder County's 1999 grand jury agreed not to indict anyone in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.
    "The rumors that I have heard, and they are just rumors, were that they took a straw poll of the grand jurors and said there was not going to be an indictment, and the case then was closed in terms of grand jury," Boulder attorney Patrick Burke told a group of attorneys gathered for a seminar Friday at the Adams Mark Hotel.
    Whether the grand jurors voted on the Ramsey case and what they concluded has been a tightly guarded secret, mandated by Colorado law and a court order.
    The only official statement on the grand jury was made Oct. 13, 1999, when District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that "no charges have been filed" and that prosecutors "do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time."
    His office then put out a statement saying that no one connected to the case would ever discuss grand jury proceedings, unless ordered by the court, regardless of "how much that might help in the public's understanding."
    JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under police suspicion but have repeatedly said they did not kill their daughter. The couple have said they thought they were the targets of the grand jury investigation.
    Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.
    It could also mean that prosecutors avoided asking for a formal vote of the grand jury. Prosecutors avoided a formal grand jury vote in a Boulder County investigation of a 1983 slaying. A vote not to indict might be used by the defense if a target of the grand jury investigation were later prosecuted.
    District Attorney Mary Keenan was unavailable to comment on Burke's statements.
    Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.
    "There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."
    In the investigation of University of Colorado student Sid Wells' gunshot death in 1983, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office asked a grand jury to "make no decision in this case on the issue of whether or not the suspect had murdered Sid Wells," according to court records of the grand jury proceeding later released under court order.
    Prosecutor Pete Maguire stated in an affidavit that he explained to the grand jury that he did not think there was enough evidence to file criminal charges.
    "After a period of deliberation the grand jury indicated that they would not request that they be allowed to vote and decide the issue of probable cause," according to Maguire's affidavit.
    In 1997, Boulder police reopened their investigation of that grand jury's target, Thayne Smika, whose whereabouts are unknown.
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...0/19lrams.html


    Lin Wood now:


    Lin Wood, the Atlanta lawyer for John Ramsey, said, "I have known for years that Boulder prosecutors did not file charges against John and Patsy Ramsey because the evidence to prosecute them did not exist."
    He said Monday that any reported "confusion of the grand jury over child abuse" could have been addressed had the Ramsey parents testified, as they repeatedly offered to do.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justic...ent/index.html
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 6, 2013, 10:31 am at Wed Feb 6 10:31:32 UTC 2013.

  12. #12
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Amazing

    Before I ban myself for all of the angry words getting ready to spew from deep inside of me...Mega thanks for sharing these reminders! I knew I heard this news before, Cynic!

    Steve Thomas...this one is for YOU!!!

    Let the Real Drama begin!!! Team Ramsey, your many lies are finally unraveling.

    JFJBR,
    RR
    Last edited by RiverRat; October 28, 2013, 4:19 pm at Mon Oct 28 16:19:23 UTC 2013.
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

Similar Threads

  1. Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: August 21, 2016, 5:17 am, Sun Aug 21 5:17:22 UTC 2016
  2. The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: August 3, 2016, 11:36 am, Wed Aug 3 11:36:47 UTC 2016
  3. Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files!
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: October 13, 2013, 8:23 am, Sun Oct 13 8:23:31 UTC 2013
  4. Judge Who Dismissed JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury To Retire
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 7, 2009, 2:49 pm, Fri Aug 7 14:49:57 UTC 2009
  5. Grand Jury is NOT looking into anything Ramsey
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 9:33 pm, Fri Jun 4 21:33:19 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •