Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Default Now Finally A Bit of News

    Credit to poster Cottonstar for bringing this article to attention on sister site ws:
    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...r-court-battle

    Beyond the DNA evidence in the possession of the BPD, the CBS subpoena of AH is certainly of interest. AH likely thought he’d reached the end of the skirmishes in this case and then comes this:

    “The Hunter subpoena wants all documents relating to an affidavit Hunter gave stating that through the end of his tenure, Burke Ramsey was never a suspect; all his communications with JonBenet's parents, as well as a "all documents relating to (the) death of JonBenet." Hunter has since moved to quash that subpoena.”


    Well . . . .Stay tuned.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  2. #2

    Default

    Just to add to thoughts about the affidavit AH signed -

    Knowing how AH parsed his statement to the public about “the GJ completing its work and no charges would be filed,” I’ve been led to consider that he was also parsing the affidavit composed by attorney LW pertaining to BR. This affidavit has been used in every lawsuit filed by LW when BR has been mentioned in a tabloid or other news vehicle. AH crosses out one sentence and inserts the following: “From December 26 to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to suspect.”

    In my studies of this case I’ve learned that no one has any certain evidence of what was used to strike JB and no evidence of who struck (or flung) her. It is simply theoretical.

    At the end of this affidavit which AH signed, dated October 12, 2000, LW has written the following admission for AH’s signature: “I am aware that this affidavit may be used by Counsel for Burke Ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.”

    One would question why AH would agree to sign this cooperative affidavit if the BPD never really investigated BR. In fact, Beckner stated in his AMA – “However, after a short initial interview that day (before we had many facts) Burke was only interviewed one more time and that was by a social services worker. We of course had many other questions we wanted to ask him as the investigation wore on, but were never given an opportunity to interview him again.”

    It would seem to be a perfectly reasonable idea to subpoena AH.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  3. #3

    Default

    Once many years ago, back in 1972 with only a year on the job AH once prosecuted a case with great vigor. It involved cheating in a Soap Box Derby. This was one of the few times he went to court. And he did win the case, although the judge did not force the defendants to produce the 1972 derby car as Hunter had asked. The car had been sent to California to be tested. Hunter was disappointed about that.

    "Justice takes many forms and it's never perfect," Hunter told the Daily Camera at the time.*

    (*Good Gawd . . . And to think he mentored his successor ML. )

    To flash forward to the present day legal battles –
    The first glimpse of the fight to provide testimony has emerged. As written in the Daily Camera AH and his attorney are fighting the subpoenas from both sides of the lawsuit. AH and his legal representation do have reasons – he’s elderly (81), he has to relocate to Hawaii for the winter, CBS and LW already have what they need . . . .Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, it will compromise the prosecution of person(s) involved in the crime.

    As Alan Prendergast once put it, every so often we seem to revisit the ‘Ramsey case wormhole.’ And that’s more comprehensible than any explanation we could imagine coming from AH.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  4. #4

    Default More of AH History

    In looking at some prior threads discussing AH I came across another small GEM of interest relevant to AH’s legal fight to avoid testimony. But before I get to the GEM posted by Koldkase, here’s a link to LW’s recent interview to Westwood in which he seems to back AH’s fight to refuse the subpoena. https://www.westword.com/news/jonben...wsuit-10939535

    ”LW: Mr. Hunter is a third party to this litigation and has the right to question whether there is a legitimate need for his testimony and/or whether the subpoena imposes unnecessary trouble and expense.”

    It may, of course, just be an impression, but it seems LW is in AH’s corner. And this post by Koldkase years ago flavors this impression. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...s-best-defense

    In the following interview Nancy Grace spoke with Ollie Gray (recently deceased April, 2017) and John San Agustin. In the interview San Agustin gives us a little insight into his assistance, under the direction of the Rs’ attorney LW. ST was dialed into some of this, but left before the additional work of Gray and San Agustin took place.

    Excerpt from NG’s interview with Gray and San Agustin -
    SAN AGUSTIN: We have been working pro bono on behalf of the family since 1999.
    GRACE: And when did you enter the case?
    SAN AGUSTIN: Well, we were initially called back in 1996 by Commander Eller (ph). We were brought in to initially look at this case. And then after that, shortly we were brought on by Alex Hunter`s staff to assist Lou Smith (ph) in the intruder theory.

    GRACE: So at no time...
    SAN AGUSTIN: ... where we were asked to review...
    GRACE: At no time were you employed by the Ramseys?
    SAN AGUSTIN: No, we were. We were working for them pro bono since 1999 under Mr. Wood, Mr. Lin Wood.


    So Gray and San Agustin worked for AH’s office, assisting Lou Smit with the intruder theory in 1997. This additional staffing in the DA’s office was apparently paid for by the good taxpayers of Boulder County. Then, in some slightly convoluted (parsed) explanation, since 1999 Gray and San Agustin were working for the Rs pro bono at the direction of LW. Did Gray and San Agustin wave a magnet over their heads, you know kind of like amateurs wave magnets to erase tapes, in order to erase all the knowledge of evidence they’d seen while working with Lou Smit at the DA’s office?

    Sigh.
    If any of our former posters read here, you know this better than I . . . It wasn’t a conspiracy, it just all seemed to concatenate in a dance of machinations behind the scenes.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,838

    Default

    I am sure they passed all that information along to Dear John, further making the case as convoluted as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by questfortrue View Post
    In looking at some prior threads discussing AH I came across another small GEM of interest relevant to AH’s legal fight to avoid testimony. But before I get to the GEM posted by Koldkase, here’s a link to LW’s recent interview to Westwood in which he seems to back AH’s fight to refuse the subpoena. https://www.westword.com/news/jonben...wsuit-10939535

    ”LW: Mr. Hunter is a third party to this litigation and has the right to question whether there is a legitimate need for his testimony and/or whether the subpoena imposes unnecessary trouble and expense.”

    It may, of course, just be an impression, but it seems LW is in AH’s corner. And this post by Koldkase years ago flavors this impression. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...s-best-defense

    In the following interview Nancy Grace spoke with Ollie Gray (recently deceased April, 2017) and John San Agustin. In the interview San Agustin gives us a little insight into his assistance, under the direction of the Rs’ attorney LW. ST was dialed into some of this, but left before the additional work of Gray and San Agustin took place.

    Excerpt from NG’s interview with Gray and San Agustin -
    SAN AGUSTIN: We have been working pro bono on behalf of the family since 1999.
    GRACE: And when did you enter the case?
    SAN AGUSTIN: Well, we were initially called back in 1996 by Commander Eller (ph). We were brought in to initially look at this case. And then after that, shortly we were brought on by Alex Hunter`s staff to assist Lou Smith (ph) in the intruder theory.

    GRACE: So at no time...
    SAN AGUSTIN: ... where we were asked to review...
    GRACE: At no time were you employed by the Ramseys?
    SAN AGUSTIN: No, we were. We were working for them pro bono since 1999 under Mr. Wood, Mr. Lin Wood.


    So Gray and San Agustin worked for AH’s office, assisting Lou Smit with the intruder theory in 1997. This additional staffing in the DA’s office was apparently paid for by the good taxpayers of Boulder County. Then, in some slightly convoluted (parsed) explanation, since 1999 Gray and San Agustin were working for the Rs pro bono at the direction of LW. Did Gray and San Agustin wave a magnet over their heads, you know kind of like amateurs wave magnets to erase tapes, in order to erase all the knowledge of evidence they’d seen while working with Lou Smit at the DA’s office?

    Sigh.
    If any of our former posters read here, you know this better than I . . . It wasn’t a conspiracy, it just all seemed to concatenate in a dance of machinations behind the scenes.
    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.



Posting Permissions

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