Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 193
  1. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post
    arrogant as he is,he will be all over the news shouting that the GJ voted without knowing about that "critical" piece of evidence which was discovered later,the touch DNA.... and some will believe it!
    Isn't THAT the truth! When the news hit that some Grand Jurors said they voted for indictment, that was Lin Wood's spin on the whole thing. John Ramsey just acted like the news was beneath him.

    And the media dropped it.

    EXCEPT for Charlie Brennan!

  2. #26

    Thumbs up

    YAY! is right!!

    So when is the date that this judge will make his ruling??

    TIA!
    ~~"Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    I came, I saw, I stuck around!~~

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Default Interesting.

    I would love to read it.

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,836

    Default

    Maybe Garnett is used to fishing cause he has now responded to the judge and is still playing "catch 'n' release" saying instead of 'showing cause to keep it sealed', he wants the judge to make the determination to have it released and will provide it to him...sigh...

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...sey-indictment
    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  5. #29

    Question

    let me know if I got it right(am definitely not a legal expert) ...so now he wants the judge to show cause as to why it should be released?
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  6. #30

    Default

    Soooooo...the DA's office is going to messenger over the case file, and will not object to the judge releasing any of it???? Am I dreaming, or is it possible that we may shortly see everything?

  7. #31

    Default

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...sey-indictment

    Boulder DA: Judge can review Ramsey indictment, release as he 'deems appropriate'

    By Mitchell Byars, Camera Staff Writer
    POSTED: 10/18/2013 04:23:11 PM MDT | UPDATED: ABOUT 16 HOURS AGO

    Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett signaled Friday that he's ready to submit any secret grand-jury indictment in the JonBenet Ramsey case to a judge to review and release "as the court deems appropriate."

    Garnett offered to file under seal "any such document in our possession" in a response to a ruling this week in the lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seeking the release of the un-prosecuted indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey on charges relating to their 6-year-old daughter's death.

    After hearing oral arguments Oct. 11, retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled Thursday that releasing the document sought by Brennan would not be a breach of grand-jury secrecy rules, and ordered Garnett to show cause why it should be kept secret.

    Garnett said Friday that his main concern in releasing any such documents was to ensure he followed Colorado law.

    "We've tried to handle this in a manner so that my office does not violate any such (secrecy) requirement," he said.

    The Camera reported earlier this year that the Boulder County grand jury investigating the Ramsey case voted in 1999 to indict the slain 6-year-old's parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death -- but that then-DA Alex Hunter refused to sign the document and prosecute the Ramseys.

    [snip]

    Thomas Kelley, an attorney for Brennan and the press group, said Garnett's response paved the way for the court to release the documents.

    "I think it shows that (Garnett's) interest is solely in complying with grand jury rules and that he believes that the court should decide whether this indictment should be disclosed and has permitted the court to do that without further delay -- and for that I applaud him for that," Kelley said.


    [snip]

    But in January of this year, the Camera reported that members of the grand jury confirmed they had voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey and that Hunter had refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Finn noted that the 3-year statute of limitations on the charges in the reported indictment would have expired long before Garnett came into office.

    "Our refusal focused on our concerns related to the legality of such a disclosure, particularly where an individual may have been accused but never formally charged," Finn wrote. "That concern seems particularly relevant where, as here, there can be no prosecution for the charges."
    This is exactly what Brennan's original suit stated: that DA Garnett's Office was sympathetic with the need for transparency in this issue, but that he was compelled to follow the law.

    Too bad Hunter and Lacy had no such compunctions while in Office.

    So it appears the judge has already stated he sees no reason not to release the document in his ruling, and he states why.

    Now it's up to the judge once he sees the document.

    Perhaps we should be prepared to see some redacted sensitive information, particularly if it concerns Burke in some way. Also there may not be much, if anything, we don't already know, in the way of evidence--other than the actual charges signed by the Grand Jury, of course, which I will be interested in seeing after all the years of Team Ramsey lies we've heard on this.

    Like y'all said, it's not completely certain the judge won't read it and change his mind. He might have been pressed by "others" after his ruling to change his mind. Of course I'm only speculating, but nothing in this case has ever gone right, so I'm afraid my skepticism is off the charts in anything relating to it.

    Still, Garnett has volleyed the ball into the Judge's court and...it looks possible the document might be released.

    Speaking of Garnett's balls, his have just earned some respect from me.

    "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.

  8. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    Soooooo...the DA's office is going to messenger over the case file, and will not object to the judge releasing any of it???? Am I dreaming, or is it possible that we may shortly see everything?
    See! That's what I'm thinking. It's a mass, shared dream. Has that ever happened? Are we all under the spell of Stephen King?

    "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

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post


    that's what journalism is all about...the truth,not spin
    It's been so long since we've seen anything like good journalism, I almost forgot that the Old School journalists ever existed.

    Brennan and his co-plaintiffs should be commended by every media outlet in the country.

    Of course, that doesn't seem to be happening.

    Would y'all please let me know if you see the major media hue-and-cry we should have heard by now over this important milestone in this infamous case?

    "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

    Elle, since it's an unsolved murder, and murder has no statute of limitations in American law, it won't ever be "closed." Patsy may be the guilty party, or at the least one of them, but she was never tried or convicted, so her death ended nothing but any possibility of anyone else ever being tried, as her ransom note will always be reasonable doubt for any other defendant.

    Even John could point the finger at her if push came to shove. So trying him would be an exercise in futility, no matter how convincing the evidence that he was involved. In Colorado law, it must be proven by the prosecution WHICH ONE put that ligature on the victim's neck and pulled it.

    Since Patsy's clothing fibers are the only fibers we have heard were tied into the knots of the ligature device, John can always say she did it.

    Moab, you really upped your game!

    And RiverRat, this picture needs some explanation: why is there a prostrate lobster on this tombstone?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "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.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post
    let me know if I got it right(am definitely not a legal expert) ...so now he wants the judge to show cause as to why it should be released?
    I'm thinking Garnett just wants the judge to take on the responsibility for releasing it. That way Wood's strutting around, threatening to sue Boulder for whatever BS he can think up, will go back to the judge, not the DA Office?

    It's not that subtle that the Ramsey's slap-suit lawyer Wood vowed to sue Boulder on behalf of the Ramseys, resulting in the BPD handing the case over to then D.A. Mary "Team Ramsey" Lacy. Remember that was a shameful precedent which stunned LE and attorneys across America. It pretty much meant that the prime suspects in a child murder were running the investigation. Yeah, it was THAT BAD.

    But not one lawyer, not the Colorado Bar, not anyone with the authority in Colorado or even the U.S. Attorney General thought this was worthy of addressing legally. That's when we knew this case was not what it seemed, no way, no how.

    Under Lacy's "watch" we saw how big of a circus this mess of a case had become in Boulder:

    • She actively refused to follow the recommendations of her own lead investigator, Kolar, who presented her with his own unbiased and detailed investigation results leading to the Ramseys as the prime suspects. Kolar shortly returned to his old job in Telluride afterward.
    • She orchestrated the arrest of PERV Karr based on the grooming and trapping by Tracey and Smit. We know how that turned out.
    • Finally, as a last act in defiance of the law and her duty as Boulder District Attorney, she presented the "exoneration" letter to John Ramsey with much media fanfare, which should have been grounds for Lacy being disbarred for incompetency and corruption, IMO, but oh well, it worked for every major news media which didn't want the burden of being accurate in reporting about the case. This further laid the groundwork in which any public voice of dissent risked being sued by "How dare you, Sirrah!" Woody. [Hearing Carol McKinley's strange interview with Peter Boyles in his January, 2013 radio segments on the case, and having read and heard from those battered by Wood in depositions, we know how viciously his defense of the Ramseys from the truth can be.]


    Now that I think about it, wonder if old Woody has been making "contacts" in Colorado, doing his usual song-and-dance?

    On that note, would you post your excellent quotes from THE RAMSEYS OWN BOOK on the Grand Jury results, Madeline? Thank you so much for looking these up, as we all know the Ramseys have lied so many times to LE, to the press, and to the public it's impossible to believe a word they ever said; yet everytime we point that out to their devoted "Believers" they always deny it and demand we list and source them...which they promptly ignore.

    Brilliant. JUST BRILLIANT: http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...7&postcount=61

    "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. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I'm thinking Garnett just wants the judge to take on the responsibility for releasing it. That way Wood's strutting around, threatening to sue Boulder for whatever BS he can think up, will go back to the judge, not the DA Office?

    It's not that subtle that the Ramsey's slap-suit lawyer Wood vowed to sue Boulder on behalf of the Ramseys, resulting in the BPD handing the case over to then D.A. Mary "Team Ramsey" Lacy. Remember that was a shameful precedent which stunned LE and attorneys across America. It pretty much meant that the prime suspects in a child murder were running the investigation. Yeah, it was THAT BAD.

    But not one lawyer, not the Colorado Bar, not anyone with the authority in Colorado or even the U.S. Attorney General thought this was worthy of addressing legally. That's when we knew this case was not what it seemed, no way, no how.

    Under Lacy's "watch" we saw how big of a circus this mess of a case had become in Boulder:

    • She actively refused to follow the recommendations of her own lead investigator, Kolar, who presented her with his own unbiased and detailed investigation results leading to the Ramseys as the prime suspects. Kolar shortly returned to his old job in Telluride afterward.
    • She orchestrated the arrest of PERV Karr based on the grooming and trapping by Tracey and Smit. We know how that turned out.
    • Finally, as a last act in defiance of the law and her duty as Boulder District Attorney, she presented the "exoneration" letter to John Ramsey with much media fanfare, which should have been grounds for Lacy being disbarred for incompetency and corruption, IMO, but oh well, it worked for every major news media which didn't want the burden of being accurate in reporting about the case. This further laid the groundwork in which any public voice of dissent risked being sued by "How dare you, Sirrah!" Woody. [Hearing Carol McKinley's strange interview with Peter Boyles in his January, 2013 radio segments on the case, and having read and heard from those battered by Wood in depositions, we know how viciously his defense of the Ramseys from the truth can be.]


    Now that I think about it, wonder if old Woody has been making "contacts" in Colorado, doing his usual song-and-dance?

    On that note, would you post your excellent quotes from THE RAMSEYS OWN BOOK on the Grand Jury results, Madeline? Thank you so much for looking these up, as we all know the Ramseys have lied so many times to LE, to the press, and to the public it's impossible to believe a word they ever said; yet everytime we point that out to their devoted "Believers" they always deny it and demand we list and source them...which they promptly ignore.

    Brilliant. JUST BRILLIANT: http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...7&postcount=61


    Yes, madeleine_ws, please post the Ramsey's own words that said the Grand Jury did NOT indict them, as written in their book of lies, Death of Innocence! As KK said, thanks so much for looking up those EXACT QUOTES and making them available to us!

    John and Patsy thought no one from the Grand Jury would ever say otherwise, and they definitely didn't expect anyone to force the truth of their indictment to be revealed publicly!

    The Ramseys thought they could lie with impunity. Lin Wood thought he could insinuate with impunity.

    They have now been caught in THEIR OWN WORDS!

    And the current silence from John Ramsey (and Lin Wood), in light of this latest development, is DEAFENING.



Similar Threads

  1. Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: November 7, 2016, 6:48 pm, Mon Nov 7 18:48:57 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. 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
  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
  •