Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files!

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Feb 2, 2013.

  1. Karen

    Karen Member

    Thank you for this information cynic!
    It sounds to me like in order for the Boulder "powers that be" to keep from giving the GJ testimony up in a FOIA request they would have to reconvene a new GJ. That would prevent the release of the old GJ transcripts according to what is posted above in this thread.
    It's a win-win either way as far as I'm concerned!
  2. cynic

    cynic Member

    Some supporting documentation:

    While the following are from states other than Colorado, it appears to affirm that a signature is not required for validation of an indictment.

    Ala.Code, § 12-16-204, requires that after twelve (12) grand jurors have concurred to find an indictment, the indictment must be endorsed “A True Bill” and be signed by the foreman. See Rule 12.8(a) and (b).
    The signature of the district attorney on an indictment is proper but not necessary. Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So. 664 (1925), Mayo v. State, 36 Ala.App. 557, 60 So.2d 860

    An objection is made to the indictment that it was not signed by the district attorney of the United States; but, as the indictment was found by the grand jury, and indorsed as a true bill by the foreman, and filed in open court according to law, we do not see that there is any error on that subject; certainly, none which goes to the jurisdiction of the court. See Com. Stone, 105 Mass. 469.

    N.C.G.S. 15A-644(a)(4) provides that the prosecutor should sign the bill of true indictment if it is returned as a “true bill.” However, the statute states that the District Attorney’s failure to do so is not a fatal defect.
    Similarly, the law requires the grand jury foreperson to sign the indictment, which affirms that at least twelve of the grand jurors agreed in the finding of probable cause. Nevertheless, the failure of the foreperson to sign the true bill does not invalidate an otherwise valid indictment. State v. Midyette, 45N.C. App. 87 (1980) (Court minutes showed indictment returned as a true bill).

    Regarding a FOIA attempt:

    701 P.2d 80 (1984)
    The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff,
    Robert Manley TYNAN, Hazel Arelena Selman, and Donald Hoffman, Defendants-Appellees,
    And Concerning: the Colorado Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Appellant.
    No. 83CA0590.
    Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
    November 8, 1984
    We also disagree with the Department's contention that even if the records are grand jury records, the trial court abused its discretion by not releasing the records for use in the civil proceedings.
    The secrecy given to grand jury proceedings is not absolute. Release of the records is permitted after an indictment is returned, Crim.P. 6.2, or if the record would exonerate the person requesting it. Section 16-5-205(4), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Also, if a grand jury undertakes a bona fide criminal investigation, facts incidentally brought to light may be used for other legitimate purposes after a court has held a hearing and determined that the prosecution's "particularized need has overcome the traditional shroud of secrecy," and ordered the material released.

    (California has a similar provision to what we find in Colorado.)

    “If an indictment is returned, Penal Code section 938.1 requires that a transcript of the grand jury proceedings be prepared and delivered to the district attorney and the defendant, and, unless the court orders otherwise, opened to the public 10 days thereafter.“If no indictment is returned, there is no provision for the general release of testimony or evidence given in private sessions before the grand jury.,d.b2I

    Access to state grand jury transcripts varies. In California, transcripts of grand jury testimony become public record once an indictment is returned, unless a defendant can show a reasonable likelihood that release of part or all of the transcripts would prejudice his right to a fair trial. Other states have no such law. A Massachusetts trial judge recently unsealed all court documents except the grand jury transcripts in Commonwealth v. Pitsas, a case involving a retired dentist charged with accidentally poisoning an infant.
    When the media seeks disclosure of a grand jury transcript, a court balances the government’s interest in secrecy against the public’s interest in disclosure. The press should argue “that there is an important public interest in seeing what is in the grand jury transcripts,” especially in cases involving botched prosecutions or government corruption, said Lake, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief for the media in United States v. Aisenberg.
    In Aisenberg, the parents of a missing infant sued the government after federal prosecutors misled the court about evidence that was used to indict the couple for allegedly lying to investigators. A trial court judge ordered the complete disclosure of all the grand jury transcripts and the government appealed. The Court of Appeals in Atlanta (11th Cir.) reversed in February of this year, concluding that the trial court erred in deeming the government’s interest in grand jury secrecy to be “minimal.”
    One argument often advanced in favor of disclosure is that the information contained in the grand jury materials is already public knowledge, so releasing it would cause no additional harm. In one of several cases involving the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the White House accused the Office of Independent Counsel of violating grand jury secrecy. The New York Times reported that OIC prosecutors hoped to secure an indictment against Clinton for perjury from the grand jury that was then investigating him. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., agreed it would ordinarily violate court rules to reveal that a grand jury was investigating someone, but in this case it was no secret the grand jury was investigating Clinton — he himself had said so on national television. (In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091 (Office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding))
    But even if the media has revealed grand jury secrets, the information may still be entitled to some protection from disclosure. Indeed, the argument that much has already been publicized about a subject may actually backfire on the party seeking disclosure. In Aisenberg, one of the reasons the court gave for keeping the grand jury transcript sealed was that evidence of the prosecution’s misconduct in the case already had been aired publicly at great length. The lower court was wrong when it decided disclosure was necessary “so that the public can know about this misdirected prosecution,” the appellate court concluded. “The public already knows.”

    Interesting article:

    Ramsey housekeeper suing to break silence
    By Jennifer Medina, The Denver Post, Aug. 5, 2000

    A former housekeeper for the Ramsey family plans to file a lawsuit claiming that the Colorado law prohibiting her from talking about her statements to the grand jury violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

    Linda Hoffmann-Pugh testified before the Boulder grand jury in the JonBenét Ramsey case in September, and was required to take an oath of silence. Under Colorado law, Pugh must maintain secrecy until the grand jury issues an indictment or report.
    The grand jury disbanded in October, which means Pugh is supposed to keep silent indefinitely, said Darnay Hoffman, a New York lawyer who expects to sue Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in federal court early next week.
    Hunter said he has not heard about the lawsuit and declined to comment.

    Pugh is negotiating a book deal, but under the law she cannot write about the any testimony she gave before the grand jury, Hoffman said.

    "There is a lot she said that many people would probably be very interested in hearing," Hoffman said. "That is an infringement on her right to free speech."

    If the law was changed, several other witnesses in the Ramsey case are likely to come forward, Hoffman said.

    "The floodgates could come open and turn this case on its head," he said. "People might decide to speak out and we might be very surprised at what we hear."

    Pugh initially contacted Hoffman because she was considering filing a libel lawsuit against the Ramseys for naming her as a suspect in their recent book "The Death of Innocence."
    The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar Florida law in 1990, arguing that individuals' First Amendment rights were more important than the state's interest in preserving the secrecy of a grand jury, according to Hoffman.

    JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in her family's Boulder home in December 1996. No arrests have been made.
  3. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Excellent news, Cynic!!! Thank you!!!! no, SUPER THANK YOU!!!!
  4. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Exectly!!!! I'm with you! (see post #38).....Hope Tricia will bring this issue today on her radio show to Kolar and other guests.
  5. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Cynic, the only thing I do NOT like is JR and his team could read full GJ transcript.

    Otherwise, HURRAY!!!!!!!!! (did I said 'Thank You!' yet because I cannot say 'Marry Me', someone already did:).....
  6. Karen

    Karen Member

    I think JR knew about the indictment at least a few days after the GJ disbanded if not sooner. I have no doubt whatsoever he's read the GJ transcript.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    That would be criminal, indeed.

    But the Ramseys have written that they were prepared to be arrested in Boulder. They were at their friends' home, the Archuletas, when they watched Hunter's press conference on TV proclaiming "no indictment." Even Mrs. Archuleta told a pro-Ramsey reporter about that day, when Patsy suddenly rejuvenated with joy.

    Seems I remember JR said they had a legal guardian in place to take care of Burke at the time, as well.

    Now that I think about it, I don't believe that for one minute. If there is any truth in it, it was all for show. Staging yet another scene....
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  8. Karen

    Karen Member

    I actually have no doubt they were prepared to be indicted. I think they just didn't trust Hunter to do what he had apparently agreed to do, (or was paid to do),... not pursue it. They were obviously pleasantly surprised.
  9. heymom

    heymom Member

    Yeah, they could play the victims then, "Oh look at poor us, we were prepared to serve time although WE DIDN'T DO IT!" Wah wah, poor you, all right! Never a thought for your poor little daughter whose body was rotting in her expensive casket.

    They had a legal strategy if something like that would have happened, but I'm pretty sure they figured they wouldn't have to worry about it.
  10. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef


    Team Ramsey is no longer capable of paying a performer called jameson to distort reality for them! Times ARE changing!
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
  11. heymom

    heymom Member

    Why do you say that, RR? I noticed that on the Yahoo page for the story, there is a comment poster named "Jam," which I assumed is Jameson in some form.

    Or did she pass away??
  12. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    I haven't seen nor heard anything from her in eons and would really enjoy watching her squirm through this revelation!
  13. otg

    otg Member


    Does Charlie Brennan read here, or did someone contact him?
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Ha. Who knows what the army of people involved in this case do now. Most of us are half-way to a nursing home or padded cell.

    And why not? I was reading Mary Lacy's "Mea culpa" press conference after she had to dismiss charges against Karr and lordy, that woman is either brain damaged or so corrupt she doesn't even bother to pretend anymore.

    From the transcript Jaylles provided, Lacy was tap dancing as fast as she could trying to mitigate how she and her crack team...I mean team of investigators pulled off such a colossal blunder as arresting Karr. With their feet to the fire, answering point blank questions about how they really had nothing on Karr but his years-long, Tracey-coached confessions chock-full of evidentiary mistakes, Lacy said this:

    OH, what a difference a year can make....
  15. otg

    otg Member


    Mary Lacy said THAT?!!!

    So does that mean Lacy was staying over with the Ramsey's on Christmas night in 1996?
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


    I think you've solved it!


  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Not to repeat myself from thread to thread, but I've found something interesting which applies to both active threads on the grand jury proceedings we're discussing.

    So let me put some of it here that applies to the questions raised about whether or not Hunter not signing the grand jury True Bill was legal.

    Turns out we have Lin Wood [inadvertantly] arguing our points! The worm sure turned, didn't it?

    Ex-Housekeeper Says Patsy
    Ramsey Killed JonBenet
    By Mike McPhee
    Denver Post Staff Writer

    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.


    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.

    Hoffmann-Pugh, whose efforts to change grand-jury rules were supported by the Ramseys, on Thursday handed out a packet of what she said were six handwriting experts' analyses of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting samples.


    In the courtroom, Boulder Assistant District Attorney William Nagel argued that Colorado Criminal Procedure Rules 6.2 and 6.3 are very specific as to what can't be repeated outside the grand-jury room.

    "Rule 6.3, the witness' oath, states "the testimony you are about to give ...' It's the testimony that can't be talked about publicly," he said. "The knowledge that was brought in to the grand-jury room can be spoken publicly.

    "What can't be discussed is any information obtained as a result of testifying before the grand jury, any information obtained inside the jury room," he said. "They also cannot say, "That's what I told the grand jury'... or "That's what the prosecutor asked me' ... or "The grand jury focused on this.' That would be public disclosure of the grand-jury proceedings."

    Daniel said 40 states as well as the federal government allow grand-jury witnesses to discuss their testimony. He said the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 struck down a Florida law that prohibited witnesses from talking publicly about any testimony they might have given, even if the knowledge had been gained prior to taking the witness' oath.

    Daniel called the state's argument "fallacious" and ruled that the state's grand-jury rules violate the First Amendment only as they pertain to witnesses talking about what they already knew.

    He said the rules also violated the "prior restraint" protection of the First Amendment, which he called "the least tolerable violation" of the First Amendment.

    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.

    That train runs both ways, doesn't it?

    Gosh, do you think Wood will send us a bill? :wood:
  18. Tez

    Tez Member

    RBBM: Yes, John's brother Jeff was supposed to take Burke if they were arrested.
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Very interesting posts one and all. I know the time involved
    when it comes to research. Thank you! Mary Lacy has a lot to answer for!
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I have thought about this in light of the disclosure that the Grand Jury voted a True Bill to indict both Patsy and John.

    Since we have information from the ex-wife of John's private pilot, Mike Archuleta, confirming the Ramsey's story about kneeling in front of the TV at the Archuleta's home in Colorado awaiting Alex Hunter's press conference, at which he announced there would be no indictment, I wonder if they already knew about that Grand Jury's decision.

    I'm pretty sure, from what we have learned about how Hunter worked with defense attorneys so closely in his 30 years as BDA he practically was a defense attorney, that he would have informed them of what went on in the Grand Jury.

    Maybe he told the Ramsey attorneys their decision "off the record." Or maybe he held that one card close to the vest. (Ha, right. :no:)

    Again, I'm only speculating based on Hunter's record; but thinking through how often it was planted in the media by Team Ramsey that the Grand Jury voted NO BILL, with not word one from any BDA to correct that HUGE DISINFORMATION campaign by Team Ramsey, it's just more evidence of the corruption of Hunter and Lacy in their duty as DAs, IMO.

    It leads me to think Hunter may have told the Ramseys attorneys about the de facto "True Bill" vote. So that would explain why the Ramseys were prepared to be indicted, in spite of Hunter being in bed with the defense attorneys from the start.

    Hunter's behavior towards the investigation--obstructing it from Day One, IMO--was so purely in favor of aiding the Ramseys in their flight from justice I have to ask why the Ramseys would have had any doubt after all the favor Hunter had bestowed upon them?

    There were unknowns, of course, and the stakes for the Ramseys were high. Consider the people we know were not on Team Ramsey, who fought for justice for a murdered child. One had "infiltrated" the DA's Office, remember? Thanks to Steve Thomas' resignation and public letter to the governor of Co., Hunter was in fact forced to bring in a special prosecutor--Michael Kane, an "outsider" from "Let's make a deal" Hunter's usual clique. Michael Kane was not in on the cover-up, bless him, and while he wasn't able to convince Hunter to indict anyway--poor guy probably had no idea that "no indictment" was a done deal in The Republic of Boulder--Kane did get that True Bill.

    And that must have put the fear of laws against murder into the Ramseys, even with all their powerhouse lawyers.

    So maybe they did fear the proverbial wild card would lead to indictments. Steve Thomas and Michael Kane put that fear in them, I'm guessing. John Ramsey's hot hatred for Thomas showed so ever clear on the Larry King Show, even the most gullible had to wonder that no such enmity had ever been issued from Subdued John for the "intruder."

    But by the same respect for the law, Thomas and Kane actually did honor the Grand jury code of secrecy. That opened up the path for lies and propaganda we had shoved down our throats by Team Ramsey about the Grand Jury.

    Who started the rumors that there was "no True Bill" from the Grand Jury? Whether by word or deceptive, ambiguous body language, I don't know, but the innuendos and gossip were quoted from the Ramsey propagandists in the press, I remember that. Reported as rumor, it became "fact" spread by the Ramsey Spin Team. Lin Wood certainly ate it up and passed it on every time a camera turned in his direction.

    Now we know it was just more lies.

    I feel sorry for Pam Archuleta, who said her marriage was destroyed by the Ramseys, more or less, with her and her husband spending so much time dealing with the Ramsey's problems, solving their own fell by the wayside. If Mrs. Archuleta ever figures out what the Ramseys truly did, I hope the truth set her free.
  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