Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 74
  1. #37
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I am very angry. Could you imagine working on this case and having to just sit there and listen to the media talking about the GJ "refusing to indict?" I think Hunter and Lacy wanted people to think that--it is so obvious now. The Ramseys could have saved a ton of money by not hiring any PR people--the DA's did a better job than they ever could!

    Heads need to roll on this, guys!

  2. #38

    Default

    Isn't Garnett said that he'll pursue this case not based on emotions or books?...So, NOW it's time to pursue it based on the LEGAL issues. And if outcome from 'GJ leak' causes some kind of pollution/danger for currently ongoing investigation (for example: witnesses could start talking reveiling sensative GJ info, some GJ documents could be legaly retrieved) then the proper action is to assemble the new GJ, without corruption, prejustice and false pretent, ASAP.

    I honestly believe this is the only way to proceed. I'm very much interested what Kolar think about? What kind of justifications must be in place for DA to call new GJ?
    jmo

  3. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    That's very kind of you. And you're right. Thanks for reminding me.

    I've begun to look at our justice system this way:

    Once I had to pay for a parking sticker for the school year, but the problem was finding a parking space available. Cars had to troll around and around until one was spotted. I asked the person taking my money if she was selling something she didn't actually have--an actual parking space I was paying to use but couldn't always find. Her answer may apply to our legal system: she said I was paying for the OPPORTUNITY to park.

    It seems that's what we have in our justice system: an OPPORTUNITY for justice.

    It could be worse, that's true, I understand that.

    But that's no excuse for those in power who are so criminally corrupted to get away with it unchecked. If corruption is the standard, then either it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH or I've wasted 16 years of my life here when I should have been lying and cheating for personal gain.

    Reading Mary Lacy tell a reporter she's not capable of corruption made me sick.
    Boulder has got to be one of the more corrupt locations in this nation, perhaps second only to Washington DC.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  4. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Boulder has got to be one of the more corrupt locations in this nation, perhaps second only to Washington DC.


  5. #41

    Default

    Thank you for this information cynic!
    It sounds to me like in order for the Boulder "powers that be" to keep from giving the GJ testimony up in a FOIA request they would have to reconvene a new GJ. That would prevent the release of the old GJ transcripts according to what is posted above in this thread.
    It's a win-win either way as far as I'm concerned!

  6. #42

    Default

    Some supporting documentation:

    While the following are from states other than Colorado, it appears to affirm that a signature is not required for validation of an indictment.

    Ala.Code, § 12-16-204, requires that after twelve (12) grand jurors have concurred to find an indictment, the indictment must be endorsed “A True Bill” and be signed by the foreman. See Rule 12.8(a) and (b).
    The signature of the district attorney on an indictment is proper but not necessary. Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So. 664 (1925), Mayo v. State, 36 Ala.App. 557, 60 So.2d 860
    (1952).
    http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/cr13_1.pdf

    An objection is made to the indictment that it was not signed by the district attorney of the United States; but, as the indictment was found by the grand jury, and indorsed as a true bill by the foreman, and filed in open court according to law, we do not see that there is any error on that subject; certainly, none which goes to the jurisdiction of the court. See Com. Stone, 105 Mass. 469.
    https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...35.US.443.html

    N.C.G.S. 15A-644(a)(4) provides that the prosecutor should sign the bill of true indictment if it is returned as a “true bill.” However, the statute states that the District Attorney’s failure to do so is not a fatal defect.
    Similarly, the law requires the grand jury foreperson to sign the indictment, which affirms that at least twelve of the grand jurors agreed in the finding of probable cause. Nevertheless, the failure of the foreperson to sign the true bill does not invalidate an otherwise valid indictment. State v. Midyette, 45N.C. App. 87 (1980) (Court minutes showed indictment returned as a true bill).
    http://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog...JuryIssues.pdf


    Regarding a FOIA attempt:

    PEOPLE v. TYNAN
    701 P.2d 80 (1984)
    The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff,
    v.
    Robert Manley TYNAN, Hazel Arelena Selman, and Donald Hoffman, Defendants-Appellees,
    And Concerning: the Colorado Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Appellant.
    No. 83CA0590.
    Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
    November 8, 1984
    We also disagree with the Department's contention that even if the records are grand jury records, the trial court abused its discretion by not releasing the records for use in the civil proceedings.
    The secrecy given to grand jury proceedings is not absolute. Release of the records is permitted after an indictment is returned, Crim.P. 6.2, or if the record would exonerate the person requesting it. Section 16-5-205(4), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Also, if a grand jury undertakes a bona fide criminal investigation, facts incidentally brought to light may be used for other legitimate purposes after a court has held a hearing and determined that the prosecution's "particularized need has overcome the traditional shroud of secrecy," and ordered the material released.

    (California has a similar provision to what we find in Colorado.)

    “If an indictment is returned, Penal Code section 938.1 requires that a transcript of the grand jury proceedings be prepared and delivered to the district attorney and the defendant, and, unless the court orders otherwise, opened to the public 10 days thereafter.“If no indictment is returned, there is no provision for the general release of testimony or evidence given in private sessions before the grand jury.
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...41867550,d.b2I

    Access to state grand jury transcripts varies. In California, transcripts of grand jury testimony become public record once an indictment is returned, unless a defendant can show a reasonable likelihood that release of part or all of the transcripts would prejudice his right to a fair trial. Other states have no such law. A Massachusetts trial judge recently unsealed all court documents except the grand jury transcripts in Commonwealth v. Pitsas, a case involving a retired dentist charged with accidentally poisoning an infant.
    When the media seeks disclosure of a grand jury transcript, a court balances the government’s interest in secrecy against the public’s interest in disclosure. The press should argue “that there is an important public interest in seeing what is in the grand jury transcripts,” especially in cases involving botched prosecutions or government corruption, said Lake, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief for the media in United States v. Aisenberg.
    In Aisenberg, the parents of a missing infant sued the government after federal prosecutors misled the court about evidence that was used to indict the couple for allegedly lying to investigators. A trial court judge ordered the complete disclosure of all the grand jury transcripts and the government appealed. The Court of Appeals in Atlanta (11th Cir.) reversed in February of this year, concluding that the trial court erred in deeming the government’s interest in grand jury secrecy to be “minimal.”
    One argument often advanced in favor of disclosure is that the information contained in the grand jury materials is already public knowledge, so releasing it would cause no additional harm. In one of several cases involving the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the White House accused the Office of Independent Counsel of violating grand jury secrecy. The New York Times reported that OIC prosecutors hoped to secure an indictment against Clinton for perjury from the grand jury that was then investigating him. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., agreed it would ordinarily violate court rules to reveal that a grand jury was investigating someone, but in this case it was no secret the grand jury was investigating Clinton — he himself had said so on national television. (In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091 (Office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding))
    But even if the media has revealed grand jury secrets, the information may still be entitled to some protection from disclosure. Indeed, the argument that much has already been publicized about a subject may actually backfire on the party seeking disclosure. In Aisenberg, one of the reasons the court gave for keeping the grand jury transcript sealed was that evidence of the prosecution’s misconduct in the case already had been aired publicly at great length. The lower court was wrong when it decided disclosure was necessary “so that the public can know about this misdirected prosecution,” the appellate court concluded. “The public already knows.”
    http://www.rcfp.org/secret-justice-g...n-and-material


    Interesting article:

    Ramsey housekeeper suing to break silence
    By Jennifer Medina, The Denver Post, Aug. 5, 2000

    A former housekeeper for the Ramsey family plans to file a lawsuit claiming that the Colorado law prohibiting her from talking about her statements to the grand jury violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

    Linda Hoffmann-Pugh testified before the Boulder grand jury in the JonBenét Ramsey case in September, and was required to take an oath of silence. Under Colorado law, Pugh must maintain secrecy until the grand jury issues an indictment or report.
    The grand jury disbanded in October, which means Pugh is supposed to keep silent indefinitely, said Darnay Hoffman, a New York lawyer who expects to sue Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in federal court early next week.
    Hunter said he has not heard about the lawsuit and declined to comment.

    Pugh is negotiating a book deal, but under the law she cannot write about the any testimony she gave before the grand jury, Hoffman said.

    "There is a lot she said that many people would probably be very interested in hearing," Hoffman said. "That is an infringement on her right to free speech."

    If the law was changed, several other witnesses in the Ramsey case are likely to come forward, Hoffman said.

    "The floodgates could come open and turn this case on its head," he said. "People might decide to speak out and we might be very surprised at what we hear."

    Pugh initially contacted Hoffman because she was considering filing a libel lawsuit against the Ramseys for naming her as a suspect in their recent book "The Death of Innocence."
    The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar Florida law in 1990, arguing that individuals' First Amendment rights were more important than the state's interest in preserving the secrecy of a grand jury, according to Hoffman.

    JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in her family's Boulder home in December 1996. No arrests have been made.

  7. #43

    Default

    Excellent news, Cynic!!! Thank you!!!! no, SUPER THANK YOU!!!!

  8. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    Thank you for this information cynic!
    It sounds to me like in order for the Boulder "powers that be" to keep from giving the GJ testimony up in a FOIA request they would have to reconvene a new GJ. That would prevent the release of the old GJ transcripts according to what is posted above in this thread.
    It's a win-win either way as far as I'm concerned!
    Exectly!!!! I'm with you! (see post #38).....Hope Tricia will bring this issue today on her radio show to Kolar and other guests.

  9. #45

    Default

    Cynic, the only thing I do NOT like is JR and his team could read full GJ transcript.

    “If an indictment is returned, Penal Code section 938.1 requires that a transcript of the grand jury proceedings be prepared and delivered to the district attorney and the defendant, and, unless the court orders otherwise, opened to the public 10 days thereafter.“
    Otherwise, HURRAY!!!!!!!!! (did I said 'Thank You!' yet because I cannot say 'Marry Me', someone already did.....

  10. #46

    Default

    I think JR knew about the indictment at least a few days after the GJ disbanded if not sooner. I have no doubt whatsoever he's read the GJ transcript.

  11. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    I think JR knew about the indictment at least a few days after the GJ disbanded if not sooner. I have no doubt whatsoever he's read the GJ transcript.
    That would be criminal, indeed.

    But the Ramseys have written that they were prepared to be arrested in Boulder. They were at their friends' home, the Archuletas, when they watched Hunter's press conference on TV proclaiming "no indictment." Even Mrs. Archuleta told a pro-Ramsey reporter about that day, when Patsy suddenly rejuvenated with joy.

    Seems I remember JR said they had a legal guardian in place to take care of Burke at the time, as well.

    Now that I think about it, I don't believe that for one minute. If there is any truth in it, it was all for show. Staging yet another scene....
    Last edited by koldkase; February 6, 2013, 8:21 am at Wed Feb 6 8:21:06 UTC 2013.

    "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.

  12. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    That would be criminal, indeed.

    But the Ramseys have written that they were prepared to be arrested in Boulder. They were at their friends' home, the Archuletas, when they watched Hunter's press conference on TV proclaiming "no indictment." Even Mrs. Archuleta told a pro-Ramsey reporter about that day, when Patsy suddenly rejuvenated with joy.

    Seems I remember JR said they had a legal guardian in place to take care of Burke at the time, as well.

    Not that I think about it, I don't believe that for one minute. If there is any truth in it, it was all for show. Staging yet another scene....
    I actually have no doubt they were prepared to be indicted. I think they just didn't trust Hunter to do what he had apparently agreed to do, (or was paid to do),... not pursue it. They were obviously pleasantly surprised.



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. Need Help/Hunter documents about Grand Jury on pg2
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: July 6, 2006, 12:46 am, Thu Jul 6 0:46:20 UTC 2006
  4. 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
  •