Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 63
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    Reallllllllllllllly NOT caring How ~ but Charlie has been there just as we have ~ for the duration ~ it's only fitting that someone that never accepted the Fake Reality that the Corrupt Administration of HunterLaceyTracy tried to cram down our throats ~ Shame, Shame, Shame on Them for Thinking We Would Swallow.

    This Rat is Ready to Retire from RamseyLand ~ but only after MY Victory ~ if Patsy gets one so do I ~ Thinking that Surviving the Death of My Own Daughter has proven to me even Deeper the Depths of Patsy's Performances ~ and it damn sure did not make me any nicer about it ~ xo

    Oh RiverRat, I didn't know you were grieving for the loss of a daughter. My heart goes out to you because I understand your loss. Losing my youngest son six years ago still feels like just a few months ago. Happy memories of him help me to survive. Keep strong and think of the happy times you had with her. They will always be in your heart.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Hey, wombat! Good to see you, my favorite engineer.

    Charlie Brennan may turn out to be another case hero. I don't want to get my hopes up, but a copy of the lawsuit has been posted at topix and I swear, it almost sounds like Brennan could get access to the indictment.

    As I read it, Stan Garnett and Mark Beckner are fine with releasing the document in question, but Garnett wants a judge to make the final decision to be sure Colorado grand jury law isn't broken in the process.

    I'm no lawyer, though. So what do y'all think: http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonb...TN6RBGTF1B8Q0M
    There is a fair chance that he will be successful, but as with the case of Hoffmann v Hunter/Lacy, it’s possible that any lower court victory for CB will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, so I will not be looking to see it any time soon.
    It does appear that Beckner and Garnett are fine with the release of the indictment and that may be because there is very little there by way of new information.
    Some of why Charlie may be seeking the release may be not be so much in terms of finding out new case details but simply to finally have the document out as public record, and it would of course serve as absolute validation of his work earlier this year with jurors from the GJ.
    I do think that he should have simultaneously requested the GJ transcript, based on the premise that there has been an indictment and Hunter affirmed that possibility in prepared statement he gave September 1, 2000.
    (I outlined that possibility earlier this year http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ad.php?t=10215)

    Here is an excerpt from an article in a California newspaper which includes Hunter’s comments.
    Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter said in a prepared statement Thursday that Colorado law doesn’t permit the release of the grand jury transcripts until either an indictment is returned or a report is issued, neither of which has occurred in the Ramsey case.




    Now I could understand if Hunter simply said that he is not willing to comment on grand jury proceedings or words to that effect, but what he chose to do instead was to OVERTLY LIE.
    That was and is UNACCEPTABLE and I believe someone should hold him accountable.


    Perhaps Lin Wood should be asking for the transcript of the GJ.
    After all he claimed to want its release 13 years ago.
    Let's get this case out fully and fairly before the public.
    (Somehow I think the fact that his clients were indicted might dampen his enthusiasm)

    Sept. 1, 2000 - Transcript of Aug. 30, 2000 "Larry King Live" on CNN:
    LARRY KING, HOST: … topping the news, inside views on the police Q&A with John and Patsy Ramsey, against their lawyer's advice. In Atlanta, the Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood; in Mechanicsburg, Pa., Ramsey case special prosecutor Michael Kane. They're both next on LARRY KING LIVE.

    John and Patsy Ramsey were questioned by Boulder authorities during separate meetings in their attorney's office in Atlanta on Monday and Tuesday.
    Joining us from Atlanta is Lin Wood, and from Mechanicsburg, Pa., Michael Kane. Michael is on contract to the prosecutor's office in Boulder.
    Michael, you were part of the questioning. Did you learn anything yesterday or today that changed your mind, added to the facts, caused you to think differently?

    MICHAEL KANE, RAMSEY CASE PROSECUTOR: Well, Larry, I'm not on this program or any other program to talk about the facts of the Ramsey investigation. This is a case that's been going on for three and a half years and we have had a policy - I have certainly had a policy that it is not appropriate to talk about the facts. The reason I am agreeing to appear here tonight is because Mr. Wood has been making comments about our approach during these last round of discussions with the Ramseys, and I would like an opportunity to respond to that.

    KING: All right, but the question was: Did you learn anything different? Not what did you learn, but did you learn something?

    KANE: Well, I mean, you always learn any time you have an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses or suspects, and so, of course, we learned information. I'm not going to deny that.

    KING: All right, Lin Wood, what was your objection since, as you say, your clients didn't do it, what did it matter how the questioning went, as long as they didn't do it and answered the questions"

    LIN WOOD, RAMSEY ATTORINEY: Well, even innocent people need to be protected from overzealous and less than objective prosecutors such as Michael Kane.

    KING: What did he do? WOOD: Well, Michael Kant wanted, for example, to go into an area dealing with forensic tests, some test results primarily on fibers, he wanted to tell us what the results of the tests were and then ask a hypothetical question about it. The test results, as they described them, were confusing, they couldn't give us a clear explanation, so I said just show us the results. You know, interrogators often will intentionally mischaracterize things such as forensic tests so that they can go on a fishing expedition.
    We are almost four years into this investigation of this family, millions of dollars, special prosecutors, a grand jury for 13 months, Larry. Every inch of this family's life has been examined and re-examined. They have have been subjected to police interrogation for over 66 hours. So my question for Michael Kane tonight is, Mr. Kane, are you now ready to state that you are prepared to file criminal charges against John and Patsy Ramsey? It's time for you to answer that question, and you owe that answer to the American public and to this family.

    KANE: Mr. Wood, neither I nor Chief Beckner arc going to be directed by you, or by your clients, or by anybody else as to when it would be appropriate to file criminal charges. When we reach the point - as every prosecutor in this country recognizes, when we reach the point where there is an individual against whom we can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we will file the charges.

    WOOD: Well, Mr. Kane, what else do you have to do to investigate John and Patsy Ramsey? What possibly could be left to do? You have collected all the physical evidence from the crime scene. You have done all of the forensic tests known possible to be done. I mean, 66 hours of voluntarily coming in and answering questions from skilled police interrogators - what else is there to do? Isn't it time for you to acknowledge that you have done everything you can do, you have exhausted the investigation, and as much as you might like it, it's not there? You want it to be there, Mr. Kane, but it's not there and it's time for you to acknowledge that.

    KANE: Well, Mr. Wood...

    KING: Michael - let me interrupt. Michael, it's a fair question only in that the public is already with enough of this already either - I guess the old term is put up or shut up. What's the story?

    WOOD: Absolutely.

    KANE: Well, you know, and I don't ascribe to that at all, Larry. I don't know how many cases, criminal cases, Mr. Wood has had, but I have had quite a few, Bruce Levin has had probably twice as many as I have, and Mitch Morrissey - he's had more than that. And we've had cases that have been a week old, we have had cases - I tried a murder case that was 15 years old. You don't try a case until you get to the point where the evidence proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Are we there now? No. Will something happen next week that could put us there? Perhaps, Could something happen in five years that could put us there? Perhaps. But I'm not going to be dictated, nor is the Boulder Police Department going to be dictated, by a demand by Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey or anybody else to put up or shut up. That's not how the criminal justice systems works.

    WOOD: So you're acknowledging tonight, Mr. Kane, that after this period of time, this much investigation, this much money, these hours of interrogation, you are admitting tonight that the evidence is still not there, and I guess you're telling us that someday, you're hoping a miracle will occur, and you'll find something to prove your case, despite the fact that you haven't been able to do it in all this period of time. I just think that's a - continuing to show a lack of objectivity and fairness to this family.

    KANE: You know, we went down to Atlanta, because we have been told by you, Mr. Wood, that the Ramseys were willing to answer any question that was put to them, so long as we weren't plowing over old ground.

    WOOD: As long as it was fair.

    KANE: And if you'll recall, I wrote you a letter on July 13, in which I said in response to a letter that you had written the day before, I said to you - and if I could read this, Larry, it's important: "In recent conversations with you and your clients, we agreed there would be no need to plow old ground in this case. It serves no purpose in the investigation to pose questions which have already been answered. We did not, however, ever hint at a willingness to roll over and play dead if a question was not to your or your client's liking. We do not conduct interviews with anyone, suspect or witness, under such terms, nor would any other competent law enforcement agency."
    After receiving that letter, Mr. Wood, you called me before the ink on your fax machine was dry and assured me that whatever question that we had that was germane to the investigation, your clients were willing to answer.

    WOOD: And they did. And they did.

    KANE: And then we got down there, we found out otherwise.

    WOOD: Not true, absolutely false.

    KING: We have a difference here. Are you saying, Michael, questions were not answered?

    KANE: Absolutely. Absolutely. I told Mr. Wood, before we left, he said, do you have further questions? I said, I have many, many more questions. But with the parameters that you've set, I'm not going to ask those, because I'm not going to listen to a 10-minute speech every time I ask one of these questions, and that's how it was left.

    WOOD: That will not be borne out by the transcript of that interview. The only questions that were not...

    KANE: Release it.

    WOOD: Well, if you would like for me to. I thought Chief Beckner asked me not to.

    KANE: You've already done it, Mr. Wood. You've already released it.

    KING: Do you have - did you release all the transcripts, Lin?

    WOOD: No. I released a small segment of an afternoon session that shows some problems that occurred with Mr. Kane's conduct in the interviews. I did that because the Boulder Police Department issued a press release basically praising Mr. Kane's conduct. I found out that Mr. Kane was going to appear on "Good Morning America," and so I decided it was appropriate to let the public see what Mr. Kane did and how he did it, and let the public decide if his conduct was appropriate.

    KING: Lin, do you plan to release the whole thing? WOOD: Well, it just sounds like I've been asked to do so by Mr. Kane, and I will tell you this, Larry...

    KANE: I'm not asking you to do anything.

    WOOD: I thought you just said release it.

    (CROSSTALK) KING: Well, why not? Why not release it, Lin? Why not release it, Michael?

    WOOD: Listen, I'm more than happy to release it. I'd like to for the public to know exactly what this police department has done to John and Patsy Ramsey.

    KING: Well, who can release it? Michael, can you release it? KANE: I'm - we're prosecutors, we work under prosecutorial ethics, and our ethics are, we don't discuss a case, we don't release information about a case.

    WOOD: You're on national television discussing the case, so...

    KANE: And I'm not here talking about the facts of the case, Mr. Wood.

    WOOD: What are you here to talk about?

    KANE: I did not leave the interviews on Monday afternoon and hold a press conference. I didn't do that.

    WOOD: We didn't either.

    KANE: You did. You did.

    KING: I'm a little confused.

    WOOD: We went outside to a waiting group of journalists who wanted to have some questions answered, and I thought they were entitled to answers.

    KING: Michael, if someone is questioned by prosecutors or police, and says, release it, I don't care, you can hear everything I said, what could you possibly have against that if the person being questioned wants it released?

    KANE: I don't have a problem with it. I'm saying that as prosecutors, we can't release it.

    If Mr. Woods...

    KING: Who can't?

    WOOD: Sure you can. He's got my authority to release it if you need it. Go right ahead and release it, Mr. Kane, and release...

    KANE: But, Mr. Wood, I don't even have it. I don't have the tape.

    WOOD: Release the 48 hours of videotape when you interrogated them for three days in June of 1998. Let the public see what you did to them in those days. KANE: You have...

    KING: Let me break here, fellows. Let me get a break.
    Michael says you can release them, Lin.
    We'll come back with Lin Wood and Michael Kane.
    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    WOOD: Mr. Kane, you misrepresent my letter to you, you misrepresent our conversation, you misrepresent your statements that I have imposed conditions - let me finish. All - the only...

    KANE: Mr. Wood, this is a sham.

    WOOD: No, it's not.

    KANE: This is a big publicity stunt...

    WOOD: No, it's not.

    KANE: ...on your part. You want you to go out there and say my client answered every question. Well, don't say that, because you're not letting your client answer this question.

    (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KANE: That medallion worked in a school. It was tied into something in the - in the - principal's office. Is that correct? PATSY RAMSEY: Right. Right.

    KANE: So on way to school it wouldn't work. What...

    RAMSEY: Well, I...

    KANE: Why did you allow her to go without any security against Tracy Temple's (ph) advice, as a matter of fact, to be transported to and from school when he was most vulnerable.

    RAMSEY: Well, he - he left the garage in a locked car and drove straight to school, and then was escorted into the school. KANE: You didn't have any concerns about somebody, a stop sign...

    WOOD: Mr Kane...

    KANE: Michael.

    What's the objection now? WOOD: I just wondered, what does this have to do with the investigation into finding who killed JonBeneÚt Ramsey?

    KANE: The very fact that I'm asking it means it has something to do with it.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    KING: Lin Wood, you released that tape to us, and Michael says you can release all of it; will you?

    WOOD: Well, if Michael has authorized me.

    KING: He just did.

    WOOD: Well, then, Michael...

    KANE: I'm saying I have no objection.

    WOOD: I will absolutely accept your request that I release those records, and release those tapes, and we'll release the June of 1998 tapes.
    And I would challenge you, in return, to tell us now why the grand jury that you were in charge of, after 13 months, refused to issue an indictment in this case. Would you tell us that, please, Mr. Kane?

    KING: But you will still release them, right, Lin? He has agreed to let you release. WOOD: Let me say one thing too, Larry, about the interviews, if you don't mind, because it is important to know...

    KANE: Mr. Wood, let me ask you...

    KING: Let him answer that first. Go ahead.

    WOOD: Let me finish. During the interviews, John and Patsy Ramsey did, in fact, answer every question, even the questions that I thought were basically a waste of time about whether or not they had adequate protection for their son Burke, then 10 years old, when he returned to school in Boulder in 1997. They did not answer a handful of questions about the forensic tests, but I offered, if they would simply show me the results so that we could verify what they were telling us was accurate that we would answer those. But what Mr Kane does not know is that when he had already left, the other members of the interrogation squad were there, and we didn't have any problems with those six individuals. My clients gave to Chief Beckner, the Boulder Police Department, their direct private telephone numbers, and they told Chief Beckner: We want to have a dialogue with you. We want to work with you. If you think there is something that we can give you, in terms of additional information, pick up the phone and call us, don't even call our lawyer, call us directly. That is cooperation.

    KING: I have got a time problem here, Lin. But you will release them, and Michael has given you permission. And now, Michael, he asked you, why - to explain why the grand jury did not indict.

    KANE: Larry, Mr. Wood, if he has ever practiced criminal law, which I don't know that he ever has, because it is criminal law 101 that no prosecutor can talk about what went on in the grand jury.

    WOOD: Sure you can.

    KANE: I can absolutely not talk about what went on in the grand jury, and you know it, and you know it, Lin.

    WOOD: Mr. Kane, why don't you just tell us why the grand jury didn't take any action. It is a fair question. The public is entitled to know. This is not...

    KANE: No, I'm not - I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood, I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me, and ask the presiding judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it.

    WOOD: I will walk into that courtroom with you, I may not...

    KANE: I will sign that petition with you, Mr. Wood, I will sign. WOOD: Let's get this case...

    KING: Wait a minute.

    WOOD: Let's get this case out fully and fairly before the public.

    KING: We have made some progress here tonight. Lin Wood will release all the tapes he has got. And Michael and Lin will go to court together; Lin will ask for the release of the grand jury, Michael will say it’s OK.

    WOOD: I look to seeing you in court, Michael.

    KANE: I will tell the judge I have no objection. If you say that you will waive rule 6 and allow us to release that information, I will tell the court I have no objection.

    WOOD: Let the truth come out, Mr. Kane.

    KANE: All right, very well.

    KING: We're going to have you both back for an hour when all of it comes out, and I appreciate you being with us, Lin Wood and Michael Kane, and the dilemma goes on.

  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Also, on another forum a link to the Midyette's grand jury indictment shows a very detailed account of the evidence which led that jury to its determinations. It's horror reading--the absolute worst and not for the faint of heart; but perhaps Brennan is on to something here with his suit.
    It does give us some idea of what to expect in terms of the level of detail released in an indictment.

    DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
    Court Address: Boulder County Justice Center
    1777 Sixth Street
    Boulder, Colorado 80302
    Court Phone: (303) 441-3750
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
    VS.
    ALEXANDER JAY MIDYETTE, D.O.B. 6/13/79
    MOLLY IRENE MIDYETTE, D.O.B 9/23/78
    Defendant(s)

    Attorney Name: Mary T. Lacy, #15091 Case No: 07CR918
    District Attorney
    P.O. Box 471
    Boulder, CO 80306
    Attorney Phone: (303) 441-3700
    Attorney Fax: (303) 441-4703
    Attorney E-mail: mlacy@co.boulder.co.us

    Division: TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRAND JURY INDICTMENT
    COUNT ONE: 7(7)(a)(l) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
    COUNT TWO:(7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)- (Alexander Midyette). (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
    COUNT THREE:(7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)- (Alexander Midyette). (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
    COUNT FOUR:(Alexander Midyette)
    COUNT FIVE:(7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)' (Molly Midyette)
    COUNT SIX: : CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6—401(1)(a),(7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Molly Midyette)CHILD ABUSE RESULTING 1N DEACHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(l)(a),CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(1)(a),CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S._ 18-6-401(1)(a),CI-I]LD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-4OI(I)(a),exam) (CLASS 2 FELONY) -TH, C.R.S. -18-6—401(1)(a),
    COUNT SEVEN: CHILD ABUSE RESULTING 1N DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l) (CLASS 2 FELON Y)(Molly Midyette)


    TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRAND JURY INDICTMENT
    Of the 2006-2007 term of the Boulder District Court, in the year 2007. The grand jurors
    chosen, selected, and sworn in and for the County of Boulder, in the name and by the authority the People of the State of Colorado, upon their oaths, present the following described acts, all done contrary to the form of statutes in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado, as stated in the counts attached hereto:

    COUNT ONE
    That on. or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MIDYE'I'I'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly caused an injury to, the life or health of a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(1), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony),and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    COUNT TWO
    That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder,‘ State of Colorado ALEXANDER MDYE'ITE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted 'a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in' violation of section 18—6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    COUNT THREE
    That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MIDYE'ITE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries to a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-. 40.1(1)(a),(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.'

    COUNT FOUR
    That on or about February 24, 2006 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MHDYETTE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    COUNT FIVE
    That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYETI'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    COUNT SIX
    That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYETI‘E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of .conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries to a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6—401(l)(a),(7)_(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    COUNT SEVEN
    That on or about February 24, 2006 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYE'I‘T'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poseda threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18—6—401(1)(a),(7)(a)(1), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

    The offenses charged in counts one through seven of the indictment were committed in the following manner:
    1. On December 17, 2005 Jason Jay Midyette was born at Boulder Community Hospital Foothills. Alexander Midyette was the father and Molly Midyette was the mother. Jason was delivered by cesarean section and at the time of delivery the gestational age was 36 weeks and one day. By the date of Jason’s release on December 24, 2005 all health issues were successfully resolved. At the date of Jason’s release, he was a healthy infant.
    2. Upon Jason’s release from Boulder Community Hospital Foothills, Alex, Molly, and Jason resided at 102 Barbara Street, in the city of Louisville, Boulder County, Colorado. The parents stayed home to care for Jason until early February 2006. When the parents returned to work, Molly worked three days a week and Alex would work two days a week. During his life, the parents exclusively cared for Jason, with the exception of one occasion when Jason was left in the care of his paternal grandparents for several hours on the evening of February 19, 2006.
    3. The parents attended four well baby exams conducted by Dr. Jill Siegfried, Jason’s general practitioner, throughout Jason’s life. Both parents accompanied Jason to each doctor’s visit. At the first exam, three days after Jason’s discharge, be had gained nearly a pound. At his second well baby exam, three weeks later, the only Concern noted by Dr.Siegfried, was a failure to gain weight. After Dr. Siegfried initiated a feeding program, -Jason resumed his weight gain. Although the parents were asked if they had any concerns at every visit, they never expressed any concerns about Jason to Dr. Siegfried, with the exception of Jason being gassy. All of the appointments were routine well baby exams, and not the result of any medical concerns expressed by the parents.
    4. On February 15, 2006, Dr. Siegfried examined Jason and noted that he was a normal,- healthy two-month old infant. Because of this, Jason was given his two-month vaccinations. The parents again expressed no concerns about Jason at this visit.
    5. On the night of February 23, 2006 the parents agreed that Alex would get up for Jason’s feedings because Molly had to work the following day. Jason woke up at 2:00 am. and5:00 am. on February 24, 2006 and fed normally. After the 5:00 am. feeding, Alex and Jason fell asleep together on the couch. Alex and Jason next awoke at 7:00 am. and Alex changed Jason’s diaper. During the diaper change, Jason had a crying spell, appeared to hold his breath, made “funny” noises, and stiffened up. Alex called Molly into the room to observe Jason. Molly left for work at Midyette Architecture/Pearl Street Mall Properties in Boulder Colorado. Alex put Jason down for a nap and Jason woke up around 11:00 am. Alex tried to feed Jason but he wouldn’t eat. Alex gave Jason a bath. During the bath Jason tensed and released his body, both arms went up into the air and were straight and stiff, and his back was very arched. Alex described Jason as “almost standing up.” After the bath, Alex laid Jason down and could hear him moaning on the baby monitor. Alex called Molly at work at approximately 11:37 am.
    6. Molly arrived at work at approximately 9:00 to 9:30 am. In the morning While in a conversation with two co-workers, Molly expressed her concern that Jason was not doing well and described various symptoms. Molly described Jason clenching his fists when he awoke, tightening his body, shaking his fists, having breathing problems, and crunching up his face while his eyes were squeezed together. She also used the word “seizure” to describe Jason’s behavior on February 24, 2006. Molly also said that as soon as she got off work she was planning to take Jason to the doctor. Molly stated that she was trying to get an appointment for Jason to go to the doctor that afternoon because of her concerns. Molly further stated that she could not figure out what was wrong with Jason and that she wished she could. The co-workers described Molly as being really upset, concerned and/or worried when she was describing Jason’s condition to them. In an earlier conversation on February 13 or 14, 2006, Molly told one of these co-workers that she had concerns about seizure-like behavior by Jason.
    7. The conversation on the morning of February 24, 2006, was between 9:00 and 9:30 am. according to one of the co-workers however the other co-worker believed the conversation occurred around lunchtime.
    8. A co-worker also overheard Molly discussing her concerns about Jason with J. Nold Midyette, Alex’s father, that morning. J. Nold advised Molly that perhaps they should change doctors.
    9. After Molly returned home to the residence at 102 Barbara Street in Louisville, she called Dr. Siegfried’s office at 12:30 p.rn., leaving a message with the receptionist that Jason was, “out of it, lethargic, stiffening his arms and legs, moaning and just not feeling well.”After checking with Dr. Siegfried, a member of the office staff called back at 12:52 p.111.and instructed Molly that if Molly thought Jason needed immediate medical attention she should consider taking Jason to Urgent-Care or the emergency room. Molly seemed calm and stated that, “We really want to see Dr. Siegfried.” A double-booked appointment was made for 3:30 pm. that afternoon, the earliest available time. Between the time Molly returned home and the 3:30 p.m. doctor’s appointment, both Molly and Alex remained at home and could hear Jason continuing to moan.
    10. Molly and Alex arrived at Dr. Siegfried’s office at 3:30 p.m. An LPN described Jason as lirnp, with his eyes half—open, and not moving. The LPN said that when Jason was- moved, it looked like he was going to cry, then he would moan and fall asleep. The LPN said she had never seen a baby like that before and immediately called Dr. Siegfried to the room.
    11. Dr. Siegfried saw Jason, and indicated that Jason had a bulging fontanelle, was grey, limp, and lethargic. Jason’s condition scared her and she immediately called another physician within the office to come and look at him. Dr. Siegfried’s medical records state the “Chief Complaints and Concerns” on 2/24/06 at 3:32 p.m. included Jason “Not waking up or eating, baby being limp and lethargic, won’t track movement.” The records also state that, ‘This happened after he had a diaper change and he held his breath until he passed out. Fine yesterday. Not eating normally today only groaning.”Dr. Siegfried next advised the parents to take Jason to Boulder Community Hospital Foothills as he was much too ill to be treated in her office.
    12. Alex and Molly drove Jason to Boulder Community Hospital Foothills, arriving just before 4:00 p.m. Dr. David Jones, the emergency room doctor, immediately contacted Dr. Stephen Fries, a pediatrician, to assist with Jason. The physicians noted that Jason was posturing and unresponsive, with his right pupil fixed and dilated, indicating brain, injury. A CT scan was ordered and the results showed a skull fracture, mixed chronic and acute subdural hematomas, and a complete loss of gray-white interface involving the cerebrum. X-rays taken indicated a number of fractures in various stages of healing. These fractures included the left parietal skull fracture, a right clavicle fracture, a left forearm fracture, corner fractures of both femurs, and fractures on both ends of the left tibia. Boulder Community Hospital Foothills nurse Susan Spielrnan asked the parents if Jason had been dropped, fallen, fallen off of a changing table, or if he had hit his head on something. The parents replied that nothing like that had happened, and “nobody had dropped it.” They added, “The baby was fine twelve hours ago and got progressively worse.” Nurse Spielman heard Molly make the comment, “I knew I shouldn’t have gone to work today.” Radiologist Technician Tina Gerhardt heard Molly say, “I knew I .shouldn’t have went back to work.” Dr. Fries also overheard Molly muttering, “I should never have gone back to work. BCH Radiologist Technician Kristy Rouse heard one of the parents state that the, “Child had been vomiting for the past two nights,” and that he was “not acting like himself that day.”
    13. Dr. Fries informed Molly and Alex of Jason’s condition, including the fractures. Alex' became angry and repeatedly stated that there were no bruises.
    14. Jason was transported by Flight For Life Ground Ambulance to Children’s Hospital. X- rays revealed additional fractures that were in various stages of healing. These additional fractures included numerous rib fractures, fractures to the hands and feet and additional arm and leg corner fractures. CT scans performed at Children’s showed that Jason’s brain injuries were getting worse and portions of the brain were dead. Jason’s brain injury progressively worsened over the next several days.
    15. During the course of Jason’s treatment, Molly and Alex made statements at Children’s Hospital denying that Jason had been dropped or had fallen. The parents indicated that Jason had been fine the evening of February 23, 2006. At Children’s Hospital on February 24, 2006 Molly told Dr. Antonia Chiesa that Jason’s left arm did not move very well. The following day both parents told Stephanie Stronks, Children's Hospital social worker, that Jason always had a "limp" left arm, it just hung there. She remembered them saying that they affectionately called Jason something like, "limp arm" or "lefty."
    16. Molly and Alex told Dr. Meghan Norton at Children’s Hospital and D83 social worker Tami Bee, that Jason had vomited three times since Tuesday, February 21, 2006. Molly and Alex also told Bee that on February 21“, Jason had screamed so long he lost his breath, appeared to stiffen and had been doing some twitching, tensing and releasing of his body since that date. On February 21, 2006 Molly had a postpartum medical appointment with Dr. Siegfried that she attended alone while Alex took care of Jason. At that visit Molly told Dr. Siegfried that Jason was doing well.
    17. On February 27, 2006 J .M. Stanlee West—Watt was appointed as Jason’s Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). From February 27 through March 3, 2006, Ms. West-Watt received information from Jason’s family that there were times that he cried a lot and that he had some breathing difficulties. Alex and/or Molly then told Ms. West-Watt that Jason was crying more than normal and he needed comforting. In fact Alex and/or Molly expressed concerns about Jason’s rigidity and that his crying was becoming more difficult to soothe.
    18. The withdrawal of life support began on March 1, 2006 and Jason died March 3, 2006. Dr. John Meyer, a forensic pathologist associated with the Boulder County Coroner’s Office, performed an autopsy on Jason’s body March 4, 2006.
    19. The Boulder County Coroner’s Office ruled Jason Midyette’s death a homicide. Dr.Meyer determined that the cause of death of this 10-week old infant was blunt force craniocerebral injuries. Dr. Meyer sent the brain for neuropathologic examination to Dr. Ross Reichard, Director of Neuropathology at the University of New Mexico Hospital and Assistant Professor of Pathology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. In his report Dr.Reichard notes that, “neuropathological examination revealed evidence of traumatic injuries of varying ages.” Dr. Reichard determined that Jason had contusions on the right and left temporal lobes of his brain. These contusions were older than other hemorrhages found in Jason’s brain. Dr. Meyer was able to confirm a number of the fractures previously identified by both Boulder Community Hospital Foothills and Children’s Hospital. .During the course of the autopsy Dr. Meyer identified three previously undetected fractures located in the right hand, foot and rib.
    20. Dr. Thomas Hay, Pediatric Radiologist, The Children’s Hospital and Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center reviewed CT scans and skeletal surveys from Boulder Community Hospital Foothills and Children’s Hospital. Dr. Hay noted that Jason’s fractures were in various stages of healing, with the oldest fractures being the right clavicle and the left forearm. Dr. Hay identified the skull fracture as acute, showing no signs of healing, and said that such fractures in infants are caused by an impact. He said rib fractures have to have a known mechanism of injury and are commonly caused by abusive squeezing. Dr. Hay said, corner or bucket handle fractures, which were observed on the long bones of the arms and legs, are caused by twisting or pulling forces applied near the end of a bone, or from violent shaking. Dr. Hay said hand and foot fractures are .very uncommon, and are likely the result of a direct blow.
    21. Sara Vernet is friends with Alex and Molly and has known them for about thirteen years. In early to mid—January 2006, Sara said she saw a dime-sized bruise in the area of Jason’s forehead. Sara observed the bruise on Jason’s head and asked Alex about the bruise. Alex responded that he felt bad because he had been walking, slipped, and bumped Jason’s head into a wooden dining room chair. Alex said that the incident had occurred that day, a couple hours before Sara’s arrival. Molly was not home on the day of this incident. Sara later told Molly about this bruise.
    22. On February 24, 2006 at 12:57 pm, Sara talked to Molly on the phone. During the conversation, Molly told Sara that Jason was really sick, and something was wrong with him. Molly described Jason as lethargic and making weird sounds. Molly explained, “something is wrong with him,” “I’ve never seen him like this,” and “something is different with him.” Sara said that Molly sounded concerned and very scared in the conversation.
    23. Dancer Vernet visited Molly and Alex at their-home of 102 Barbara in Louisville during the first week of January 2006, on either a Tuesday or a Wednesday afternoon. This was the only time that she saw Jason. Dancer recounted a 5-second incident where Jason, while awake, turned red in color like he was going to the bathroom. He was also clenching his fists. Molly told Dancer that she did not know why Jason was doing this, but that “he did that sometimes.” On Tuesday, January 3, 2006, Jason had a doctor’s appointment at 4:30 pm. for his circumcision. N 0 concerns were voiced by Molly or Alex to Dr. Siegfried.
    24. Josh Logan has been a friend of Alex’s for three years, and they have been close friends for the last one and a half years. Josh believed that Alex and Molly returned to work after Jason’s birth in the second week of February 2006. Alex worked Tuesday and Wednesday and Molly worked Monday, Thursday, and Friday. The non-working parent cared for Jason. Josh was not aware of any other care provider.
    25. In early to mid-January 2006, Josh observed a bruise in the area of Jason’s temple. The bruise was between the eye and the ear. The bruise was “typical bruise color”, possibly bluish black and the size of a nickel. Josh stated that right when he entered the home Alex told him about the bruise before Josh even saw Jason. Josh described Alex as very nervous when he told Josh that he had been Carrying Jason into the kitchen when the phone rang. Alex indicated that when he turned around to get the phone he bumped Jason’s head on a kitchen chair causing the bruise. Alex said the incident had taken place a couple days earlier. The bruise lasted about a week. Josh had the impression from Alex’s description that Alex and Jason were alone at the time of the incident and that it was Molly who had called on the phone.
    26. Josh remembered several conversations prior to February 24, 2006 in which Alex and Molly discussed Jason ‘flexing his muscles” and described his arms and legs being tense for a second.
    27. Josh talked to Alex on the phone several times on February 24, 2006. Josh believed that in an initial call he could hear Jason crying in the background. Alex said that Jason was sick and didn’t seem right, and they were taking him to the doctor. In an interview with Detective Steele July 27, 2006, Josh stated that Alex told him they were taking Jason to the doctor because he was a bit lethargic and wasn’t eating.
    28. In late January or early February 2006, Molly showed her mother, Jane Bowers, a very light colored bruise that was located on Jason’s forehead by an eyebrow. Molly told Jane that the bruise occurred while Alex was holding Jason as he bent down to pick something up off the floor in the dining room, and bumped Jason’s head on a chair when he stood up. Molly further told Jane that she was not home during this incident and that she learned that Jason did not cry,-but his eyes just popped open. Additionally Molly told Jane there was something wrong with Jason’s arm. Molly described Jason’s arm as “it sort of floated.” Further Molly told Jane that she and Alex talked to the doctor about it and showed her the arm. Molly said the doctor examined the arm and referred to it as his “gimpy” arm. Dr. Siegfried said that Molly or Alex never informed her about a problem with Jason’s arm. Jason’s medical records do not reflect any mention of this concern.
    29. Kay Midyette is Alex’s mother. Kay Midyette stated that on a morning between February2-7, 2006, Alex called her and said while he was reaching for the cell phone, he bumped Jason’s head on the edge of a table. Kay personally saw a bruise and described it as being located in the middle of Jason’s forehead. It was the size of her little finger, smaller than a dime. The bruise was light yellowish in color and she thought that it lasted a couple of days.
    30. Kay said she received a call from Alex sometime prior to February 2, 2006 where Alex expressed concern about bleeding from an injury to Jason’ s gum. Molly later expressed a concern to Kay about a second bleed from the gum when giving him a pacifier. The area of the bleed was described as the front center area of the upper gum. Alex and Molly advised Kay they had talked to the doctor and the area of the gum had been examined by the doctor using a metal probe and the doctor indicated that it was not a problem as it did not go all the way through. Dr. Siegfried stated that at no point was the issue of a gum bleed raised by Molly or Alex, and she said she had never used a metal probe to examine any infants’ gums.
    31. At the time of autopsy Dr. Meyer noted that Jason’s frenulum was rudimentary, explaining it was not present or merely a small stub. Dr. Meyer explained that the frenulum is a small fold of tissue centered inside the upper lip that connects the upper lip-to the gum. Dr. Meyer said the frenulum is examined in infant deaths, because the frenulum is sometimes torn in child abuse cases. Dr. Fries said that an injury to a child’s frenulum is usually caused by forcibly pushing a bottle or a pacifier into a baby’s mouth. Dr. Chiesa indicated that injuries to the frenulum are common in child abuse cases.
    32. As to the counts charged in the indictment, count one asserts that Alex Midyette during the time period charged, knowingly or recklessly caused the injuries that resulted in Jason Midyette’s death.
    33. Count two regarding Alex Midyette, and corresponding count five regarding Molly Midyette, asserts that the actions and inaction of the defendants during the time period charged, knowingly or recklessly permitted Jason Midyette to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of him, that resulted in the death of Jason Midyette.
    34. Count three regarding Alex Midyette, and corresponding count six regarding Molly Midyette, asserts that during the time period charged, the defendants knowingly or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment (which includes inaction), or an accumulation of injuries to Jason Midyette that resulted in his death.
    35. Count four regarding Alex Midyette and corresponding count seven regarding Molly Midyette involve the actions and inaction of the defendants on February 24, 2006 which culminated in the admission of Jason to Children’s Hospital, his placement on life support, and his eventual death on March 3, 2006.

    ALEXANDER MIDYETTE

    AS TO COUNT ONE:
    TRUE BILL
    NO TRUE BILL

    AS TO COUNT TWO:
    TRUE BILL
    NO TRUE BILL

    AS TO COUNT THREE:
    TRUE BILL
    NO TRUE BILL

    AS TO COUNT FOUR:
    TRUE BILL
    NO TRUE BILL


    I, Stephan K Elliot, the Foreperson of the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury, do hereby swear and affirm that each and every True Bill returned in this Indictment by the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury was arrived at after deliberation and with the assent and agreement to the existence of probable cause by at least nine members of the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury


    Submitted and sworn to before me 1n the County of Boulder, State of Colorado, this 8th day of May, 2007
    _____________
    NOTARY PUBLIC


    Respectfully submitted and approved for filing this __ day of May, 2007
    MARY T. LACY
    DISTRICT ATTORNEY

    Kenneth E. Kupfner #29924
    Chief Deputy-District Attorney

    K Colette Cribari #13524
    Deputy-District Attorney

    Robert S. Shapiro #26869
    Chief Deputy District Attorney
    Boulder County District Attorney’s Office
    1177 6th Street
    Boulder, CO 80303
    (303)-441-3700

    http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfi...te/07CR918.pdf

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Now I could understand if Hunter simply said that he is not willing to comment on grand jury proceedings or words to that effect, but what he chose to do instead was to OVERTLY LIE.
    That was and is UNACCEPTABLE and I believe someone should hold him accountable.
    I agree. Hunter lied; justice died.

    The Ramseys have lived off that lie since the Grand Jury. Who in Colorado has the guts to hold Hunter accountable and FINALLY put a stop to THE LIE?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I agree. Hunter lied; justice died.

    The Ramseys have lived off that lie since the Grand Jury. Who in Colorado has the guts to hold Hunter accountable and FINALLY put a stop to THE LIE?
    We now know Hunter made a deal with the killer of Sid Wells, through his defense attorney, decades ago that Hunter wouldn't indict him. What Hunter got out of that deal, I have no idea, because he did it all as a back-room sleeze operation, IMO. Sid Wells' murderer is so free today, nobody can even find him, according to reports that Garnett was ready to re-visit that case.

    Hunter has been at this so long, he was called Monty Hall, from the TV show "Let's Make a Deal."

    I bring this up because one thing I can say with confidence is once Hunter announced to the world there would be no indictment after the grand jury disbanded, the Ramseys never had a moment of doubt they had beat the system...again, IMO. They published their book, went on an extended book selling tour, went on TV endlessly hawking it, etc. Even Smit was on TV sharing autopsy photos of their murdered child, case evidence, and shilling for Team Ramsey after Hunter gave him carte blanche to do so once the grand jury was over.

    As you posted, cynic, Patsy boldly challenged Boulder to take her to trial. Ha. She knew that was never going to happen and talked her head off about it for the rest of her life.

    Obviously the Ramseys knew long before we did they'd never be arrested.

    I'm betting it was another Hunter back-room deal, probably in the works before 911 was even called. His patterns were well known to defense lawyers, I'm guessing.

    "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.

  6. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    There is a fair chance that he will be successful, but as with the case of Hoffmann v Hunter/Lacy, it’s possible that any lower court victory for CB will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, so I will not be looking to see it any time soon.
    It does appear that Beckner and Garnett are fine with the release of the indictment and that may be because there is very little there by way of new information.
    [snip]
    I never get too hopeful in this case. In fact, I have to work not to get down right depressed.

    One thing though: if Garnett and Beckner are not fighting the release of this document, if a judge approves it--which is the long shot, IMO--Garnett wouldn't appeal that decision, would he?

    In that (fantasy) case, it would be released PDQ , don't you think? At least, compared to the 16 yrs., 8 months we've waited for a Boulder DA to do the right thing in this case, I mean.

    "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. #31

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    We now know Hunter made a deal with the killer of Sid Wells, through his defense attorney, decades ago that Hunter wouldn't indict him. What Hunter got out of that deal, I have no idea, because he did it all as a back-room sleeze operation, IMO. Sid Wells' murderer is so free today, nobody can even find him, according to reports that Garnett was ready to re-visit that case.

    Hunter has been at this so long, he was called Monty Hall, from the TV show "Let's Make a Deal."

    I bring this up because one thing I can say with confidence is once Hunter announced to the world there would be no indictment after the grand jury disbanded, the Ramseys never had a moment of doubt they had beat the system...again, IMO. They published their book, went on an extended book selling tour, went on TV endlessly hawking it, etc. Even Smit was on TV sharing autopsy photos of their murdered child, case evidence, and shilling for Team Ramsey after Hunter gave him carte blanche to do so once the grand jury was over.

    As you posted, cynic, Patsy boldly challenged Boulder to take her to trial. Ha. She knew that was never going to happen and talked her head off about it for the rest of her life.

    Obviously the Ramseys knew long before we did they'd never be arrested.

    I'm betting it was another Hunter back-room deal, probably in the works before 911 was even called. His patterns were well known to defense lawyers, I'm guessing.
    RBBM: There was another case more recent than Sid Welles', I believe. It was the Michael Manning case. I will see what I can find in way of links about it. But, a two-year-old boy was murdered by his mother's boyfriend, Daniel Arrevelo (sp), and the body was later found wrapped in a shower curtain from Manning's home. To make a long story short, there was a backdoor dealing, Michael Manning's mother, Elizabeth only served a year and Arrevelo served 10. All thanks to Hunter.

    ETA: Here is the link with the sentences. I am still looking to find what Hunter had to do with this.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13121165

    http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/29/us...ild-abuse.html
    Last edited by Tez; September 23, 2013, 3:39 pm at Mon Sep 23 15:39:26 UTC 2013. Reason: add linky link

    The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

  8. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez View Post
    RBBM: There was another case more recent than Sid Welles', I believe. It was the Michael Manning case. I will see what I can find in way of links about it. But, a two-year-old boy was murdered by his mother's boyfriend, Daniel Arrevelo (sp), and the body was later found wrapped in a shower curtain from Manning's home. To make a long story short, there was a backdoor dealing, Michael Manning's mother, Elizabeth only served a year and Arrevelo served 10. All thanks to Hunter.

    ETA: Here is the link with the sentences. I am still looking to find what Hunter had to do with this.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13121165

    http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/29/us...ild-abuse.html
    Thanks, Tez. I've found some more articles that, in hindsight, really burn my butt.

    I'll post one next.

    "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.

  9. #33

    Default

    Discussing the maid, LHP, over at WS; particularly her suit in Colorado to be able to talk about her grand jury testimony, etc. So reading some old stuff I found this and man, near the end it gets back to LIN WOOD and howdy do I want to shove this in his face now.

    http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm


    Ex-Housekeeper Says Patsy
    Ramsey Killed JonBenet
    By Mike McPhee
    Denver Post Staff Writer
    http://www.denverpost.com
    7-6-1

    A federal judge Thursday gave grand-jury witnesses permission to talk about their secret testimony, prompting the Ramsey family's former housekeeper to declare that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old daughter.


    Former Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, speaking publicly for the first time about her testimony before the Boulder County grand jury, told reporters Thursday:

    * She thought Patsy Ramsey had killed JonBenet.

    * The grand jury seemed to zero in on Patsy Ramsey, and she thought it would indict her.

    * A Swiss Army knife was found in the basement room where JonBenet's body was found.

    * "Only Patsy could have put that knife there. I took it away from Burke (JonBenet's older brother) and hid it in a linen closet near JonBenet's bedroom. An intruder never would have found it. Patsy would have found it getting out clean sheets."

    * Pieces of rope were tied around JonBenet's neck and wrist when her body was discovered Dec. 26, 1996.

    * The blanket wrapped around JonBenet's body had been left in the dryer. There was still a Barbie Doll nightgown clinging to the blanket, so it had to have come out of the dryer recently, she said. Only Patsy would have known it was in the dryer, she said.

    * An intruder never would have found the door to the basement room where JonBenet's body was discovered. It was too difficult to see unless someone knew it was there, she said.

    * Hoffmann-Pugh has never turned off her porch light since the death of JonBenet and won't until her killer is found.

    * She believes Gov. Bill Owens should appoint a special prosecutor to the case.


    [snip]

    Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said she believes the grand jury that investigated the beauty queen's death was focusing on the girl's mother.

    U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel ruled that two sections of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure violate the prior-restraint protection of the First Amendment.

    Afterward, Hoffmann-Pugh walked outside the federal courthouse in Denver and said she told the grand jury investigating the murder that she believes the beauty queen was killed by her mother, Patsy Ramsey.

    "At first, I didn't want to believe that Patsy could do such a thing," said the 57-year-old Platteville resident, who now delivers newspapers. "I loved her. But as time went on, things came to me that made me think she did it. I want Patsy Ramsey tomorrow to look in the mirror and say to herself, "I killed JonBenet.'"

    Hoffmann-Pugh challenged the state's rules, which forbid witnesses from repeating what they've told grand jurors unless an indictment or report is issued, in order to write a book about her experiences with the Ramsey family.

    She said the grand jury focused almost exclusively on Patsy Ramsey. "It was almost all about Patsy, down to the underwear she had purchased from Bloomingdales," she said. "They wanted to know how she related to JonBenet. I felt in my heart they were going to indict Patsy."

    She said she told the grand jury that Patsy had become very moody right before Christmas of 1996. "I think she had multiple personalities. She'd be in a good mood and then she'd be cranky. She got into arguments with JonBenet about wearing a dress or about a friend coming over. I had never seen Patsy so upset.

    "I don't believe Patsy meant to kill her. I truly believe it was an accident that just continued," said Hoffmann-Pugh, who worked in the Ramsey house until three days before the slaying on Dec. 26, 1996, and testified before the grand jury in January 1999.

    The Ramseys have maintained they had nothing to do with their daughter's death.

    The grand jury adjourned in October 1999 after 13 months. No indictments were issued. The grand jury, and then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, never issued a report about its investigation.

    [snip]

    Nagel said it was his duty as a prosecutor to appeal any decision that goes against state law, and that he would begin preparing an appeal.

    The Ramseys' attorney, L. Linn Wood, reached in Atlanta, said the ruling was only a step in the right direction.

    "I'm interested in any information about the truth of the grand-jury investigation," he said. "I want the whole truth as to why the grand jury did not indict John and Patsy Ramsey.

    "This ruling doesn't sound like it goes far enough for the basis of a claim" to ask how the grand jury voted, he said.

    "If the grand jury voted not to indict, I don't think (former District Attorney) Alex Hunter has the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill," he said. "If the grand jury voted not to indict ... clearly the Ramseys and the public have a right to know."


    Wood said he is waiting for Hunter to return from a Hawaiian vacation to subpoena him to testify about any grand-jury votes. He says he expects Hunter to declare privilege against testifying, and that Wood will file a motion in court forcing him to testify.
    Okay, then!

    Woody wants the WHOLE TRUTH about WHY the grand jury did not vote to indict the Ramseys! Oops.... He must have meant WHY the grand jury DID vote to indict the Ramseys!

    He said the Ramseys and the public have the right to know!

    But not just if the grand jury voted a no-true bill. If they voted a true bill, wouldn't the same argument apply, Mr. Woody?

    Why yes. Yes, I think it would. The truth is the truth, no matter which way it cuts, if the truth is what you want--and that's what Woody said he wants.

    Also if Hunter doesn't have the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill, doesn't the opposite also appy? Hunter, it's now being claimed, "neglected" to sign THE TRUE BILL the grand jury voted on to indict the Ramseys.

    So looks like Wood is making our argument for us, for once. Oh my, maybe he is a good attorney--when he doesn't mean to be.

    "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.

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Hunter has been at this so long, he was called Monty Hall, from the TV show "Let's Make a Deal."
    God's truth, KK. Look what I "found" ... heh.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Cherokee; September 25, 2013, 9:20 am at Wed Sep 25 9:20:15 UTC 2013.

  11. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Exclamation

    Lol come on down!
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  12. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Discussing the maid, LHP, over at WS; particularly her suit in Colorado to be able to talk about her grand jury testimony, etc. So reading some old stuff I found this and man, near the end it gets back to LIN WOOD and howdy do I want to shove this in his face now.

    http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

    KK, I believe in this statement from Linda Hoffman Pugh more than any
    others I have read. It's more practical and believable!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. A quick interview with Boulder DA, Stan Garnett, about the Ramsey case!
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 25, 2010, 5:51 pm, Mon Oct 25 17:51:47 UTC 2010
  2. FFJ Ramsey Case Petition - Presented to Governor Owens of Colorado on April 30, 2004
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 22, 2008, 3:41 pm, Tue Jul 22 15:41:40 UTC 2008
  3. Lacy hopeful Ramsey case will be solved - Boulder Daily Camera
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: December 27, 2006, 5:54 pm, Wed Dec 27 17:54:41 UTC 2006
  4. Colorado Governor Owens blasts Boulder prosecutor!
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 29, 2006, 3:42 pm, Tue Aug 29 15:42:20 UTC 2006
  5. Welcome to Boulder Colorado
    By Paradox in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 20, 2006, 10:53 pm, Sun Aug 20 22:53:16 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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