Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by BobC, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. cynic

    cynic Member

    No, there is no way to do that.
    The other problem with respect to getting information from people “in the know,†is that regardless of whether it should be or not, the JonBenet case is an OPEN investigation.
    Then there is this:
    JUROR OATH: "You, as members of this grand jury, do swear (or affirm) that you will diligently inquire and true indictment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall receive legal evidence; that you shall indict no person through malice, hatred or ill will; nor have any not indicted through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the hope or promise thereof; but in all your indictments, reports or undertakings, you shall present the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, and further that you will forever keep secret whatever you or any other juror may have said or in what manner you or any other juror may have voted on any matter before you; and that you will keep secret the testimony of any witness heard by you unless ordered by the court to disclose the same in the trial or prosecution of the witness for perjury before the grand jury, so help you God."

    The penalty in Colorado for violating the oath is a fine or fixed jail sentence (up to six months) or both for contempt of Court.
     
  2. cynic

    cynic Member

    I came across this recently:

    Put Up or Shut Up
    On August 31, 2001, CNN reported that Patsy Ramsey had issued a challenge to the Boulder police, via her attorney, that urged them to "file charges against her if they think they can prove that she killed her daughter."
    Following the challenge, Patsy told USA Today, "I'm beyond being hurt or embarrassed, if you think I did it, let's have a trial and get it over with."
    Ramsey attorney Lin Wood followed up on CNN's Larry King Live, when he demanded that Boulder County special prosecutor Michael Kane "explain why a grand jury did not indict either of the Ramseys after a 13-month investigation."
    He added that Kane should either "put up or shut up" about charging the Ramseys.
    Kane countered, saying, "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 system works," he said.
    He further stated that he "could not release any information about the grand jury proceedings without the court's permission."
    During the King interview on CNN, attorney Wood and prosecutor Kane agreed to release the complete videotape of the interview and to seek the release of the grand jury transcripts, with Kane telling 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 replied, "I will walk into that courtroom with you."
    In another CNN report on September 1, 2000, however, the offer was recanted when Boulder prosecutors stated they would not be releasing the grand jury investigation transcripts. Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter later told CNN, "Colorado law prevents his office from releasing the information. The rule clearly states that grand jury proceedings are secret and shall remain that way until either an indictment is returned or a report is issued, and neither event has occurred," he said.
    The following November, attorney Wood told CNN that he "hopes that newly elected Boulder district attorney, Mary Keenan, would publicly admit that there is no case against the Ramseys."
    Keenan, who replaced District Attorney Alex Hunter after his retirement in January 2001, is a specialist in sex-related crimes and a 15-year veteran of the Boulder County District Attorney's Office.
    In his statement, Wood fell short of asking for his clients to be officially cleared, but stressed that he would like "a public statement that the investigative efforts have been exhausted and there is insufficient evidence to bring charges."
    In answer to Wood's request, Beckner said, "That's not something we would do."
    Keenan was not available for comment.
     
  3. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    But but but...an indictment was returned so open those files!!!
     
  4. cynic

    cynic Member

    I didn't comment because I wanted to do some checking, but there is something very strange going on here.
    Have a look at this:
    In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver (10th Cir.) ruled that a housekeeper for the parents of murdered child JonBenet Ramsey could not disclose anything she learned through testifying before the grand jury in a book she intended to write. In upholding a Colorado admonition to all grand jurors to keep their testimony secret “until and unless” an indictment issued, the court cited the importance of preserving the state’s interest in grand jury secrecy. (Hoffmann- Pugh v. Keenan) “[W]e are convinced a line should be drawn between information the witness possessed prior to becoming a witness and information the witness gained through her actual participation in the grand jury process,” the court said.
    The U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to review the decision.
     
  5. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Thanks Cynic. I see Colorado provides for an automatic non-disclosure statute.

    However, Ramsey spin, publicly, used every maneuver in the book to make it appear there was not enough evidence for the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment.

    I'll go to my grave believing Patsy wrote that note and I heard with my own ears via television her admission that she agreed that whoever wrote that note killed JonBenet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  6. cynic

    cynic Member

    Here is more from the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case:

    HOW SECRET WAS THIS GRAND JURY INDICTMENT IF IT WASN'T REVEALED DURING THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS??????????


    338 F.3d 1136

    Linda HOFFMANN-PUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Mary T. KEENAN, as District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-1385.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

    August 6, 2003.

    William F. Nagel, Assistant District Attorney (Andrew Ross Macdonald, Assistant County Attorney, with him on the briefs), Boulder County Attorney's Office, Boulder, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

    Darnay Robert Hoffman of New York, NY, submitted a brief for Plaintiff-Appellee but did not appear for oral argument.

    Before SEYMOUR, HOLLOWAY and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

    SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

    1
    This case concerns the constitutionality of a Colorado statute governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations. Plaintiff Linda Hoffmann-Pugh worked as a housekeeper for John and Patsy Ramsey prior to the highly publicized murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey. Due to her association with the Ramsey household, Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh was involved in the grand jury investigation of the murder. She now wishes to write a book about her experiences. Colorado requires a grand jury witness to take an oath not to disclose her testimony, except to discuss it with her attorney or with the prosecutor, until and unless an indictment or report is issued. The oath thereby precludes the witness from divulging her testimony even after the term of the grand jury has ended if the investigation of the crime continues. Fearing prosecution under Colorado law for contempt if she discloses her grand jury testimony, Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh sought and was granted a judgment declaring she could not be prosecuted for revealing that information. The district court held that the Colorado secrecy rules violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state appeals and we reverse.

    2
    * Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.2 and 6.3 provide that the proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret and the grand jury witnesses must take an oath to keep their testimony secret. In pertinent part, Rule 6.2 states:

    3
    All persons associated with a grand jury and its investigations or functions should at all times be aware that a grand jury is an investigative body, the proceedings of which shall be secret. Witnesses or persons under investigation should be dealt with privately to insure fairness. The oath of secrecy shall continue until such time as an indictment is made public, if an indictment is returned, or until a grand jury report dealing with the investigation is issued and made public as provided by law.

    4
    Rule 6.3 provides,

    5
    The following oath shall be administered to each witness testifying before the grand jury: DO YOU SWEAR (AFFIRM), UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, AND THAT YOU WILL KEEP YOUR TESTIMONY SECRET, EXCEPT TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, OR THE PROSECUTOR, UNTIL AND UNLESS AN INDICTMENT OR REPORT IS ISSUED?

    6
    Violations of the grand jury oath are punishable by contempt proceedings. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh testified under the Rule 6.3 oath before the grand jury that investigated the murder of JonBenet Ramsey from 1998 until October 1999, when its term ended by law. No indictment or grand jury report concerning that murder has been issued. Because there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder under Colorado law, however, a new grand jury could consider evidence and continue the investigation. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh wants to write a book describing her grand jury testimony about this unsolved murder, discuss it with the media, and answer questions about it from members of the public. She has not done so for fear of facing contempt proceedings for violation of the grand jury secrecy requirements.

    7
    Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh claims, and the district court agreed, that the Colorado secrecy rules violate her First Amendment rights by requiring her to remain silent even after the grand jury ended its term without issuing an indictment or report. The district court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376, 108 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990), was controlling and granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh. The court cited Butterworth as holding that to the extent a rule or statute "prohibits a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended, it violates the First Amendment." Aplt.App. at 128 (quoting Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 626, 110 S.Ct. 1376).

    8
    We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). In doing so, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. More specifically, the district court's interpretation of state rules of criminal procedure is an issue of law we review de novo. United States v. Maher, 919 F.2d 1482, 1485 (10th Cir.1990). Likewise, challenges to the constitutionality of a statute as well as the district court's conclusion as to the constitutionality of a rule are issues requiring de novo review. United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 398 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 879 (10th Cir.1998).

    II

    9
    In our judgment, Butterworth does not require invalidating Colorado's grand jury secrecy rules. In Butterworth, the Court considered a Florida statute permanently prohibiting a grand jury witness from disclosing not just his "testimony" but also the "content, gist, or import" thereof. Because that prohibition encompassed information the witness possessed prior to participating in the grand jury investigation, the Court determined the statute was unconstitutional. See Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 631-32, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In making its determination, the Court distinguished its decision in Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984), where it concluded the First Amendment was not infringed by a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained through judicially compelled discovery of otherwise private information. Comparing the situation in Butterworth, the Court said:

    10
    Here, by contrast, we deal only with respondent's right to divulge information of which he was in possession before he testified before the grand jury, and not information which he may have obtained as a result of his participation in the proceedings of the grand jury.

    11
    494 U.S. at 632, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Butterworth makes clear that the state cannot, by calling a person as a witness, prohibit her from disclosing information she possessed beforehand, that is, the substance itself of the information the witness was asked to divulge to the grand jury.

    12
    The Colorado statute is more narrowly drawn than the Florida statute at issue in Butterworth. The Florida statute specifically precluded disclosing the "gist or import" of the testimony, which clearly encompassed the substance of the knowledge the grand jury witness had before entering the grand jury process. The Colorado statute, by contrast, speaks only in terms of "testimony". The Colorado Supreme Court has explicitly referred to this distinction in discussing Rule 6.2: "Grand jury secrecy is intended only to prevent disclosure of what transpires or will transpire before the grand jury." State v. Rickard, 761 P.2d 188, 192 (Colo.1988).

    13
    The policy of secrecy is intended only to protect against disclosure of what is said or takes place in the grand jury room. But if a document is sought for itself, independently, rather than because it was presented to the grand jury, there is no bar to disclosure. The respondent... here is not inquiring into any facet of what is taking place within the grand jury room. Indeed, some of the documents have not yet been presented before the grand jury. Respondent asks only to see documents which have been, or may at some time be shown to a grand jury. The request is to see these documents for an unrelated and independent purpose. The secrecy of the grand jury would not be violated by this procedure.

    14
    Granbery v. Dist. Court, 187 Colo. 316, 531 P.2d 390, 393-94 (Colo.1975) (citation omitted). Thus, the Colorado statute does not prohibit disclosure of information the witness already had independently of the grand jury process.

    15
    Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh apparently wishes to disclose more than information she possessed prior to her grand jury testimony. In her complaint, she refers to publishing a book that "will include her appearance before the Boulder grand jury ... and recount her testimony." App., tab 2 at 3. She also refers to "questions addressed to her before the Boulder grand jury, and her answers." Id. She says she wants to relate publicly "her experience and testimony before the grand jury." Id. at 5. But as the Court recognized in Butterworth, "grand jury secrecy remains important to safeguard a number of different interests" to preserve its proper functioning. Id. Reading Butterworth in light of Rhinehart, we are convinced a line should be drawn between information the witness possessed prior to becoming a witness and information the witness gained through her actual participation in the grand jury process.

    16
    As one treatise explains: "Butterworth does not necessarily preclude a permanent disclosure prohibition ... where that prohibition is limited to a discussion of the specific content of the witness' testimony before the grand jury as opposed to the witness' knowledge of events discussed in that testimony." 3 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, JEROLD H. ISRAEL, & NANCY J. KING, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, § 8.5(d) at 78 (2d ed.1999) (discussing Butterworth and its application in State v. Heltzel, 552 N.E.2d 31 (Ind.1990)). The treatise clarifies: "Full disclosure of the testimony could encompass information learned through the testimony, such as prosecution strategy (as indicated by the questions of prosecutors or grand jurors) and the differing perspectives of other witnesses (as indicated by those questions)." Id. at 78 n. 109. In our judgment, drawing the line at what Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh knew prior to testifying before the grand jury protects her First Amendment right to speak while preserving the state's interest in grand jury secrecy.

    17
    We note, moreover, that there is a way for Hoffman-Pugh to free herself even from this restriction. Rule 6.9 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a witness to apply to the court overseeing the grand jury for a copy of the witness' testimony and a determination that secrecy is no longer required. Colo. R.Crim. P. 6.9(b)(c). This rule provides a mechanism for Hoffman-Pugh to free herself of the restriction on her disclosure of her grand jury testimony at such time as the investigation is truly closed and the state no longer has a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of that testimony.

    18
    In sum, we agree with the state that the Colorado grand jury secrecy rules, as limited by the Colorado Supreme Court in Rickard, do not preclude Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh from disclosing information she possessed prior to her grand jury appearance. Contrary to the district court, we hold that the Colorado secrecy rules do not violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the disclosure of matters Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh learned from her participation in the grand jury process, at least so long as the potential remains for another grand jury to be called to investigate an unsolved murder.

    19
    Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     
  7. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    :genie:

    Thank you Cynic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  8. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Thank-you, Cynic, for using your time to keep us up-to-snuff. It is appreciated.
     
  9. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Never have I been more thrilled and POed at the same time...marry me, Cynic!
     
  10. heymom

    heymom Member

    Wow, that's amazingly callous, even for Patsy Ramsey. She JOKES about such a horrendous subject as her 6 year old daughter's death like that?? How do they DARE to say/think/write such things, knowing what they knew?

    :rage:
     
  11. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Gee...what tasteless way could Patsy follow up on her joke? Maybe a tacky photo op posing over the tiny grave of her daughter?!

    So glad I have held on to my avatar all these years...
     
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    Yeah, that's damned tasteless too. What a piece of work she was...

    :yuck:
     
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    It's the Ramsey's point of view: JR says this grand jury revelation is "just more drama."

    One might be stupid to think he would look at it as another opportunity to FIND THE KILLER OF HIS CHILD, with more media attention on what has already been labeled A COLD CASE by BPD Chief Beckner and DA Garnett. It's been 16 years, after all.

    I mean, JR said finding the killer would be their life's mission, didn't he? Waaaaaaaaaaaaay back on Jan. 1, 1997?

    Maybe he meant except NOT. :rst:
     
  14. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Hey, John Ramsey has played thousands of rounds of intruder golf since then ... what more do you want?

    Oh, and in the past 16 years, John has flown his private plane around all over the country and looked for an intruder from the air.

    Once, John thought he saw a foreign faction, but it was just a bunch of Guernsey cows that didn't respect his plane.
     
  15. cynic

    cynic Member

    Lin Wood's lies and distortions about the Ramsey Grand Jury through the years

    Lin Wood then:

    A grand jury investigated the case, but disbanded in October 1999 without issuing an indictment.
    Wood said the Ramseys were entitled to a restoration of their reputation following the grand jury.
    But the lawyer said Thomas' book, published about six months later, attempted to put them on "trial by media in the court of public opinion" and was a "form of vigilante justice" that should not be tolerated.
    Daily Camera, March 30, 2001
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/30arams.html


    Larry King Live
    April 14, 2000
    KING: Well, you’re saying they -- you're saying one of them murdered their kid and the other is covering.
    THOMAS: Certainly. And I think there's evidence to support that.
    What I find terribly hypocritical on their part is that they can take advantage of every constitutional protection available to them, and then later use the First Amendment to write a book and name three people whom I believe to be clearly innocent in this case as suspects in the murder of their daughter. Yet, Larry, when I turn around, and just as a working stiff, try to use that same First Amendment, here comes team Ramsey, ready to roll.
    KING: Why weren't they indicted in your opinion?
    THOMAS: Probable cause was never an issue in this case. And as a police officer and a detective for 13 years, I had never been involved in a case in which we didn't arrest on probable cause. But this high-profile case, where there were sufficient facts and circumstances to articulate in an affidavit, an arrest warrant didn't happen, and then it got to a grand jury. which has that same threshold of probable cause, but I think Alex Hunter chose not to move forward with it because this -- in this day and age, this "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is almost unattainable.
    KING: In a case like this maybe unattainable, right?
    THOMAS: Particularly with wealthy defendants.
    KING: So why? Was their clout? THOMAS: Well, yes, look what happened in O.J. You have resources...
    KING: O.J. went to trial. He was arrested.
    THOMAS: He absolutely was. And they took a shot, and they stepped up to the plate and they tried to do the right thing. Alex Hunter did not.
    KING: All right. Do you think the grand jury -- we'll never know I guess. Do you think the grand jury might have voted to indict?
    THOMAS: I've heard this week that there was a grand juror in that case -- and I didn't hear this through the grand juror, certainly, but through an intermediary that there's a grand juror that wants to talk, and...
    KING: That they wanted to indict and Hunter didn't want then to indict?
    THOMAS: I don't know that, and we'll never know because of grand jury secrecy what happened in those four walls, but that's certainly a possibility, that they returned it a true bill.
    KING: Don't detectives want to arrest and don't prosecutors hedge because prosecutors want to know they can get convictions? Isn't this a classic clash?
    THOMAS: No question. But what was atypical in Boulder was this culture that had been in existence for many, many years prior to the Ramsey case, in which under-aged drinkers and bicycle thieves, there was a system in place to deal with them, but this government failed horribly when the big one landed in the collective laps of Boulder.

    [SNIP]

    KING: There's another detective, Lou Smit -- he says there was an intruder with a stun gun. He totally believes him. You must know Lou.
    THOMAS: I like Lou. I think the world of Lou. I don't have a bad thing to say about Lou. We, I think, are still friends, but we are diametrically opposed on this case. But let me say something, because I've heard Lou Smit, Lou Smit, Lou Smit, Lou's the lone voice on this thing. This isn't just me espousing this theory.
    KING: You're saying most of the Boulder Police agree with you?
    THOMAS: There's no question. There's federal law enforcement. Even in the district attorney's office there is agreement.
    Larry, who do you think they targeted this grand jury? It wasn't an intruder.
    KING: So other prosecutors agree with you, too?
    THOMAS: Of course.
    KING: Why do you think Alex didn't indict?
    THOMAS: Because once again, I just think his history is very telling that an arrest followed by a trial is not his strong suit.

    [SNIP]

    KING: Now a return visit with Lin Wood, the civil attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey. He's at our CNN headquarters in Atlanta.
    Are you going to sue? Are the Ramseys going to sue Steve Thomas, Lin?
    LIN WOOD, RAMSEYS' CIVIL ATTORNEY: I have been studying his book and I've been watching all of his appearances in his public relations publicity tour to make money off of this book. I sat here tonight, Larry, and I am absolutely amazed.
    KING: Are you going to sue?
    WOOD: After tonight, you bet.
    KING: You're going to sue.
    WOOD: You can count on team Ramsey, if that's what I am, in terms of civil litigation. Steve Thomas will have his day in court, and Steve Thomas...

    [SNIP]

    KING: Lin, are you worried when Steve said that he heard that one of the grand jury members may come forward and say they wanted to indict?
    WOOD: I think what I heard him say was that he had heard that one grand juror may want to come out and talk...
    KING: Right.
    WOOD: And then -- see, here's Steve Thomas for you -- he takes that hearsay, rumor, gossip, and then makes the outrageous statement that from that the grand jury may well have indicted. Listen, if the grand jury indicted John and Patsy Ramsey, there would be -- we'd be probably in the middle of a trial right now. You're not going to put a grand jury out there for 13 months and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money, have them bring an indictment, and then say no thanks. The grand jury didn't indict in this case for the very simple reason that inside the investigation the evidence did not support an indictment. And it just doesn't take very much to get an indictment. It wasn't there.
    KING: Lin, thanks very much. As always, good seeing you.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/14/lkl.00.html


    Ramsey jury voted
    Christopher Anderson, Daily Camera, May 19, 2001
    DENVER — A former attorney for Patsy Ramsey says he has heard that a majority on Boulder County's 1999 grand jury agreed not to indict anyone in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.
    "The rumors that I have heard, and they are just rumors, were that they took a straw poll of the grand jurors and said there was not going to be an indictment, and the case then was closed in terms of grand jury," Boulder attorney Patrick Burke told a group of attorneys gathered for a seminar Friday at the Adams Mark Hotel.
    Whether the grand jurors voted on the Ramsey case and what they concluded has been a tightly guarded secret, mandated by Colorado law and a court order.
    The only official statement on the grand jury was made Oct. 13, 1999, when District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that "no charges have been filed" and that prosecutors "do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time."
    His office then put out a statement saying that no one connected to the case would ever discuss grand jury proceedings, unless ordered by the court, regardless of "how much that might help in the public's understanding."
    JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under police suspicion but have repeatedly said they did not kill their daughter. The couple have said they thought they were the targets of the grand jury investigation.
    Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.
    It could also mean that prosecutors avoided asking for a formal vote of the grand jury. Prosecutors avoided a formal grand jury vote in a Boulder County investigation of a 1983 slaying. A vote not to indict might be used by the defense if a target of the grand jury investigation were later prosecuted.
    District Attorney Mary Keenan was unavailable to comment on Burke's statements.
    Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.
    "There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."
    In the investigation of University of Colorado student Sid Wells' gunshot death in 1983, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office asked a grand jury to "make no decision in this case on the issue of whether or not the suspect had murdered Sid Wells," according to court records of the grand jury proceeding later released under court order.
    Prosecutor Pete Maguire stated in an affidavit that he explained to the grand jury that he did not think there was enough evidence to file criminal charges.
    "After a period of deliberation the grand jury indicated that they would not request that they be allowed to vote and decide the issue of probable cause," according to Maguire's affidavit.
    In 1997, Boulder police reopened their investigation of that grand jury's target, Thayne Smika, whose whereabouts are unknown.
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/19lrams.html


    Lin Wood now:


    Lin Wood, the Atlanta lawyer for John Ramsey, said, "I have known for years that Boulder prosecutors did not file charges against John and Patsy Ramsey because the evidence to prosecute them did not exist."
    He said Monday that any reported "confusion of the grand jury over child abuse" could have been addressed had the Ramsey parents testified, as they repeatedly offered to do.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2013
  16. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Amazing

    Before I ban myself for all of the angry words getting ready to spew from deep inside of me...Mega thanks for sharing these reminders! I knew I heard this news before, Cynic!

    Steve Thomas...this one is for YOU!!!

    Let the Real Drama begin!!! Team Ramsey, your many lies are finally unraveling.

    JFJBR,
    RR
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013
  17. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Let's publish the book with all these LIES stated on record by high-paid Ramsey attorney LW and call this book: 'Lin Wood land of LIES' or 'How much LIES cost?'...

    All these statements on TV, radio and in COURT should be compiled and published in capital letters for everyone to see!!!!

    It's the time to get this blood-sucker Lin Wood to court for label, misinformation and LIES!!!!

    Cynic, we'll donate for publishing this book! Do it!!!!!
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Cynic, thanks for compiling this list.

    Unfortunately, it's relatively short. If you tried to list all the Team Ramsey BS spun through the last 16 years, it might take up the rest of your life...if you lived to be 100...or more.
     
  19. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Member

    I have read ST's words on Larry King a few times. I wished each time I read the transcript, that at least one juror would 'spill the beans'.

    I have no idea how much money Lin Wood has made defending the R's, telling lies and brow beating innocent people involved in this case. Whatever amount of money he made, it wont keep him warm when he dies. That will be when he answers for his actions.

    Steve Thomas, thank you for having the fortitude to stick to your guns!! You, along with Chief Kolar gone above and beyond to gain justice for JonBenet
     
  20. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Amen!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice