Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 19 of 19
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    That what it seems. Leave it to the R lawyers to prevent the Grand Jury from being able to talk to him in person- where every nuance of his body language and facial expressions can be seen. Rather, all they see is him on video, a very controlled situation.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I almost fell out of my chair when reading that!!
    Does this mean Burke did not testify directly at the GJ, but only by video?
    That's exactly what it means.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  3. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    It would interest me WHY the federal judge gave that permission.
    My guess is he had no legal reason to deny the permission, so he had no choice but to allow it.


    I almost fell out of my chair when reading that!!
    Does this mean Burke did not testify directly at the GJ, but only by video?

    That's what it means! As I have stated before, my husband, a Gov. Agent, has had to testify before a Grand Jury before...he says that its because of Burke's age at the time. Apparently testifying in front of a grand jury is too difficult or traumatic for a child that age. To me that means...he wasn't asked any questions, by the Grand Jury. How could he have been, if he was videotaped beforehand? And I will say this...the grand jury doesn't have a set of prepared questions...they ask the questions after the testimony, and they have no idea what the person testifying (or speaking) is going to say. After the testimony, its like rapid fire questions from them.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2) General Laws c. 233, § 20, Fourth, inserted by St. 1986, c. 145, provides:



    "An unemancipated, minor child, living with a parent, shall not testify before a grand jury, trial of an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding, against said parent, where the victim in such proceeding is not a member of said parent's family and who does not reside in the said parent's household. For the purposes of this clause the term 'parent' shall mean the natural or adoptive mother or father of said child

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Let's not assume Burke had a pre-recorded video played to the GJ. Often times with minors, the child is sequestered in a room with a parent and an attorney, but the video in the room is interactive with the courtroom.

    The too traumatic part is the minor having to be in the court room itself. Had Mitchell and Barzee gone immediately to trial, that is how Elizabeth Smart would have testified as well, as she was still a minor. I think they use this process in regular trials so the minor isn't traumatized a second time by facing the defendant in court. The can eliminate coersion and intimidation that way.
    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. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moab View Post
    Let's not assume Burke had a pre-recorded video played to the GJ. Often times with minors, the child is sequestered in a room with a parent and an attorney, but the video in the room is interactive with the courtroom.

    The too traumatic part is the minor having to be in the court room itself. Had Mitchell and Barzee gone immediately to trial, that is how Elizabeth Smart would have testified as well, as she was still a minor. I think they use this process in regular trials so the minor isn't traumatized a second time by facing the defendant in court. The can eliminate coersion and intimidation that way.

    Well, here in East Texas, an eight-year old-girl had to testify in court twice, because the first trial was a mis-trial, about how she was molested by a Cass County depty sherrif.

    That should be illegal.
    This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moab View Post
    Let's not assume Burke had a pre-recorded video played to the GJ. Often times with minors, the child is sequestered in a room with a parent and an attorney, but the video in the room is interactive with the courtroom.The too traumatic part is the minor having to be in the court room itself. Had Mitchell and Barzee gone immediately to trial, that is how Elizabeth Smart would have testified as well, as she was still a minor. I think they use this process in regular trials so the minor isn't traumatized a second time by facing the defendant in court. The can eliminate coersion and intimidation that way.

    When the child is sequestered in a room with a parent and an attorney, but the video in the room is interactive...that is called a Closed Circuit Testimony (where the court can see them, but they cannot see the courtroom or the defendant) not a Video Testimony...where the testimony is actually videotaped..which I believe is the case with Burke, since it said that he testify via Video, (opposed to a Closed Circuit Testimony). Please see below link....

    http://www.locatethelaw.org/ManualWe...m#_Toc97299290

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC View Post
    Well, here in East Texas, an eight-year old-girl had to testify in court twice, because the first trial was a mis-trial, about how she was molested by a Cass County depty sherrif.

    That should be illegal.
    ITA...I believe the law states that it has to be a minor that cannot testify against a parent that he lives with. I guess its okay if its someone other than a parent (that the child lives with). GO FIGURE!



Similar Threads

  1. Dale Yeager: Patsy killed JBR because she was "losing control of her daughter"
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: September 23, 2013, 8:55 pm, Mon Sep 23 20:55:12 UTC 2013
  2. RMNews-John Mark Karr as much killed JonBenet Ramsey as Mickey Mouse did
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 19, 2006, 3:57 pm, Sat Aug 19 15:57:47 UTC 2006
  3. Patsy Ramsey & John Ramsey - BPD Interviews (Atlanta) - August 28, 2000
    By Tricia in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 15, 2004, 1:29 am, Sat May 15 1:29:53 UTC 2004
  4. Housekeeper Testifies
    By Tez in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 10, 2003, 8:55 am, Mon Nov 10 8:55:40 UTC 2003
  5. Prized Possession: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey?
    By JR in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: August 19, 2002, 1:01 pm, Mon Aug 19 13:01:17 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

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