Bill McReynolds

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1733 Apr 11, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
A few things to clear up.
You do understand that a District Attorney does not have the authority to indict anyone do you not?
An indictment can only be decided by a Grand Jury, is this something that you understand?
The Grand Jury must vote on specific charges in order to indict, is this something that you comprehend?
The Ramsey Grand Jury VOTED to indict the Ramseys on the charge of Child Abuse resulting in death, is this something that you acknowledge?
Scott Robinson (and Ramsey defender) called Hunter's action of not filing the charges "unprecedented" because this had not happened in Colorado before, are you aware of that?
Mimi Wesson is a constitutional law scholar and law professor --unlike Robinson who is a criminal defense attorney--at the University of Colorado, is this something that you acknowledge?
Since you are not surprisingly such as staunch supporter of Robinson's views on the case, what do you think he means when he writes that Huner essentially used a "pocket veto" even though this power is given to a President and not a prosecutor?
Let's review one more time. ONLY a Grand Jury has the authority to indict. The prosecutor, judge, clerk, or any other Officer of the court has NO RIGHT, POWER or AUTHORITY to INDICT. A grand Jury is empanelled to investigate and report findings and or indict (which can only be accomplished by voting) since the Grand Jury in this case investigated for thirteen months and concluded by voting for an indictment on child abuse leading to death, they fullfilled their obligations under Colorado State Law. Hunter's violation of law does not change the fact that Ramseys were INDICTED.
Maybe one example will help, if a Police Officer observes a perpetrator commiting a crime and arrests that person, and then then that person's arrest does not get processed because he or she escaped en route to the Police Station, it does not invalidate the arrest that took place nor does it factually or substantively CHANGE the fact that the person was arrested.
So AK your demand that we write the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys instead the Ramseys were indicted is tantamount to saying the Police Officer decided to arrest, instead of saying that the perpetrator was arrested. In the examples there was an indictment and an arrest. In the real example and hypothetical example the perpetrators escaped albeit in different ways.
I have no idea why you would write that I am “such as [sic] staunch supporter of Robinson's views on the case.” You brought him up, you quoted him. I simply showed what else he had to say and showed that he doesn’t seem to be supporting your position at all.

Since you brought up the term, let’s just go with it: Hunter vetoed the grand juror’s decision. That means that he stopped it; he overrode the decision (vote); no indictment.

It really, really is that simple. The grand jury voted to indict, Hunter vetoed that decision, hence no indictment.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1734 Apr 11, 2013
Of the two experts cited by Steve Eller, Robinson believes that Hunter did the right thing, and explains his “action” as a “pocket veto.” Robinson was NOT being literal with the use of this term! He says Hunter’s action was EQUIVALENT to a pocket veto. He is saying that Hunter essentially did nothing and by that inaction he stopped the indictment. Robinson also states that Colo. law is unclear on the matter.

The second expert, Wesson, thinks that Hunter did not follow proper procedure, and that he could have pursued a “more transparent and responsible course.” Harsh words. She says that Hunter should have signed the indictment and filed it with the court,“then move in open court to dismiss the charges.”

Both Robinson and Wesson acknowledge that Hunter, by action or inaction, improperly or otherwise vetoed, dismissed and/or stopped the indictment. Wesson thinks he did so improperly, and Robinson thinks the law is unclear, but both accept that the indictment was not enacted.

As I said, it really is this simple: The grand jury voted to indict, Hunter stopped that decision, hence no indictment. And, there’s nothing more to say about it. I think almost all of us understand this, anyway. So, I’m done now. Those who wish to continue to say that the grand jury indicted the Ramseys and I will continue to say that Hunter vetoed that decision; hence no indictment and we can just leave it at that.


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1735 Apr 11, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Of the two experts cited by Steve Eller, Robinson believes that Hunter did the right thing, and explains his “action” as a “pocket veto.” Robinson was NOT being literal with the use of this term! He says Hunter’s action was EQUIVALENT to a pocket veto. He is saying that Hunter essentially did nothing and by that inaction he stopped the indictment. Robinson also states that Colo. law is unclear on the matter.
The second expert, Wesson, thinks that Hunter did not follow proper procedure, and that he could have pursued a “more transparent and responsible course.” Harsh words. She says that Hunter should have signed the indictment and filed it with the court,“then move in open court to dismiss the charges.”
Both Robinson and Wesson acknowledge that Hunter, by action or inaction, improperly or otherwise vetoed, dismissed and/or stopped the indictment. Wesson thinks he did so improperly, and Robinson thinks the law is unclear, but both accept that the indictment was not enacted.
As I said, it really is this simple: The grand jury voted to indict, Hunter stopped that decision, hence no indictment. And, there’s nothing more to say about it. I think almost all of us understand this, anyway. So, I’m done now. Those who wish to continue to say that the grand jury indicted the Ramseys and I will continue to say that Hunter vetoed that decision; hence no indictment and we can just leave it at that.

AK
AK you're 'done now' with defending your baseless and frivolous argument about the indictment but you have been 'done' with logic a long time ago. You can not stop something that occurred already. Hunter did not have the authority to veto an indictment neither does any other prosecutor in the state of Colorado. Hunter's conduct did not prevent the indictment from taking place, what it prevented was an arraignment which is the immediate step after an indictment. And spare us your protestations about not supporting Robinson's views when you quoted him at length including every positive comment about Hunter. I would ask you to stop inserting your own incorrect interpretations of what Wesson said but all you have left are your revisionist application of the facts. By voting to indict the Ramseys on the specific charge of child abuse resulting in death--the Grand Jury effected an indictment that Hunter IGNORED. If it suits you we can partially accomodate your request for us to stop writing that the Ramseys were indicted with some more clarifying language--by writing that the Ramseys were INDICTED by the Grand Jury but CORRUPT Alex Hunter IGNORED their FINDING which was an INDICTMENT of the RAMSEYS for child abuse resulting in DEATH. Since the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT, the Ramseys ESCAPED PROSECUTION.
I hope that works for you.
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#1737 Apr 13, 2013
M Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
Very stupid
very yours
yours truely
carry out carry in carrie anne
Glad that you relocated to Denver to join Brother Moon's 'Brain Trust'. Do give him (them?) my regards and urge him to start taking the medication that the state mandated psychiatrists prescribed.

One more time for it so settle in:

AK you're 'done now' with defending your baseless and frivolous argument about the indictment but you have been 'done' with logic a long time ago. You can not stop something that occurred already. Hunter did not have the authority to veto an indictment neither does any other prosecutor in the state of Colorado. Hunter's conduct did not prevent the indictment from taking place, what it prevented was an arraignment which is the immediate step after an indictment. And spare us your protestations about not supporting Robinson's views when you quoted him at length including every positive comment about Hunter. I would ask you to stop inserting your own incorrect interpretations of what Wesson said but all you have left are your revisionist application of the facts. By voting to indict the Ramseys on the specific charge of child abuse resulting in death--the Grand Jury effected an indictment that Hunter IGNORED. If it suits you we can partially accomodate your request for us to stop writing that the Ramseys were indicted with some more clarifying language--by writing that the Ramseys were INDICTED by the Grand Jury but CORRUPT Alex Hunter IGNORED their FINDING which was an INDICTMENT of the RAMSEYS for child abuse resulting in DEATH. Since the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT, the Ramseys ESCAPED PROSECUTION.
I hope that works for you.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1738 Apr 13, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad that you relocated to Denver to join Brother Moon's 'Brain Trust'.
I wouldn't be surprised that BM is posting using the spammers hat - you shouldn't be either!
Steve Eller

United States

#1740 Apr 13, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't be surprised that BM is posting using the spammers hat - you shouldn't be either!
I'm not surprised in the least. I was trying to make a point. I wouldn't be surprised if he is the original M Michigan and the source of most of the spam on this forum. While I haven't been on this forum for that long, from what I understand, he was/is accepted and respected by many on this forum. I think he is just a nasty crackpot who went overboard when people started giving it back to him.
Steve Eller

United States

#1742 Apr 13, 2013
Crack Crab Eater wrote:
Busted buster
tell how JonBenet ate crab or wear your crackpot hat
MM
I'll answer to specific individual who doesn't spam board after every single (which happens often) time he's humiliated on Topix worse than he/they were on Peter Boyles show. You are a whack job and I don't owe you anything, the only thing you've exposed is yourself on this board and elsewhere. You've been SHUT DOWN and that's why you've stopped owning your comments.

Since: May 11

AOL

#1743 Apr 13, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll answer to specific individual who doesn't spam board after every single (which happens often) time he's humiliated on Topix worse than he/they were on Peter Boyles show. You are a whack job and I don't owe you anything, the only thing you've exposed is yourself on this board and elsewhere. You've been SHUT DOWN and that's why you've stopped owning your comments.
LOL pineapple in cream, anyone?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1747 Apr 13, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad that you relocated to Denver to join Brother Moon's 'Brain Trust'. Do give him (them?) my regards and urge him to start taking the medication that the state mandated psychiatrists prescribed.
One more time for it so settle in:
AK you're 'done now' with defending your baseless and frivolous argument about the indictment but you have been 'done' with logic a long time ago. You can not stop something that occurred already. Hunter did not have the authority to veto an indictment neither does any other prosecutor in the state of Colorado. Hunter's conduct did not prevent the indictment from taking place, what it prevented was an arraignment which is the immediate step after an indictment. And spare us your protestations about not supporting Robinson's views when you quoted him at length including every positive comment about Hunter. I would ask you to stop inserting your own incorrect interpretations of what Wesson said but all you have left are your revisionist application of the facts. By voting to indict the Ramseys on the specific charge of child abuse resulting in death--the Grand Jury effected an indictment that Hunter IGNORED. If it suits you we can partially accomodate your request for us to stop writing that the Ramseys were indicted with some more clarifying language--by writing that the Ramseys were INDICTED by the Grand Jury but CORRUPT Alex Hunter IGNORED their FINDING which was an INDICTMENT of the RAMSEYS for child abuse resulting in DEATH. Since the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT, the Ramseys ESCAPED PROSECUTION.
I hope that works for you.
One
More
Time!!!

:)


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1748 Apr 13, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
One
More
Time!!!
:)

AK
The Ramseys were INDICTED! Sorry to ruin your sleep. But if you were busy "misremembering" hopefully that jogged your memory. Most of us on this forum ACKNOWLEDGE that Ramseys were INDICTED and we don't have your difficulties with comprehension (or what like to call it 'interpretation') of the English language or your gormless wit to boot.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1749 Apr 13, 2013
At least, if nothihng else, Steve Eller is entertaining!:)

Steve Eller writes “Since the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT, the Ramseys ESCAPED PROSECUTION.”

IOWs, the grand jury did NOT FILE the INDICTMENT. Why not? Because – take it away Steve!“the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT.”

So, no indictment was filed.

This is what Hunter said,“we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges.”

So, no charges were filed which means that no indictment was filed. Why not?

No indictment was filed because of, as Hunter said, insufficient evidence and because, as Steve Eller writes,“the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT.” So, they didn’t file one, and no one filed one. No Indictment = No Arraignment. True story.
:)


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1750 Apr 13, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
At least, if nothihng else, Steve Eller is entertaining!:)
Steve Eller writes “Since the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT, the Ramseys ESCAPED PROSECUTION.”
IOWs, the grand jury did NOT FILE the INDICTMENT. Why not? Because – take it away Steve!“the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT.”
So, no indictment was filed.
This is what Hunter said,“we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges.”
So, no charges were filed which means that no indictment was filed. Why not?
No indictment was filed because of, as Hunter said, insufficient evidence and because, as Steve Eller writes,“the Grand Jury did not know that they could FILE the INDICTMENT WITHOUT Hunter's CONSENT.” So, they didn’t file one, and no one filed one. No Indictment = No Arraignment. True story.
:)

AK
I'd rather be entertaining and RIGHT than bombastically self assured but turgidly WRONG as you are in this case. While the Grand Jury COULD have filed in this case, they had no obligation to do so, that duty fell to Hunter who as Constitutional Scholar Mimi Wesson correctly states, abrogated his obligation to do so. That means that while an INDICTMENT occurred, an arraignment did not. No arraignment does NOT equal no INDICTMENT, just as no prosecution does not necessarily mean no arrest. Arrests are often made by Police Officers that are not prosecuted. This does not erase the fact of an arrest, just as Hunter violation of Colorado law does not erase the FACT that the Ramseys were INDICTED--much to your consternation but a fact that you can NOT escape an no amount of 'interpretation' or 'misremembering' will modify. The Ramseys were INDICTED--this was accomplished by a Grand Jury through a vote on a specific charge of child abuse leading to to death. Although I must admit your desperate attempts to change this at least INNOCULATES us from your (beyond) absurd attempts to show an intruder or come up with some mistake made by Kolar. Keep trying AK--you are more amusing than you realize.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1753 Apr 13, 2013
Steve Eller is right, the Ramseys were indicted by the grand jury, but no indictment was filed due to insufficient evidence and the jurors failing to bypass Hunter, hence no indictment; no indictment + no arraignment. So glad we could straighten this out.

And, Kolar will forever be guilty of incorporating fiction and bad reasoning into his book. Oh well, nobody is perfect.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1754 Apr 13, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Steve Eller is right, the Ramseys were indicted by the grand jury, but no indictment was filed due to insufficient evidence and the jurors failing to bypass Hunter, hence no indictment; no indictment + no arraignment. So glad we could straighten this out.
And, Kolar will forever be guilty of incorporating fiction and bad reasoning into his book. Oh well, nobody is perfect.

AK
er, No Indictment + No Arraignment should read No Indictment = No Arraignment. But, I bet y’all knew that!


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1755 Apr 13, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
er, No Indictment + No Arraignment should read No Indictment = No Arraignment. But, I bet y’all knew that!

AK
INDICTMENT mandates arraignment but corrupt Alex Hunter did not dollow law. Tired 'MiSREMBERING' SENILE ANTI K too upset to come to terms with insisputable fact that his beloved Ramseys were INDICTED. Desperately trying to find some type of SPIN anything to keep him being able to continue posting on Topix with some semblance of credibility after his DISASTROUS attempt to to slime Kolar. Ramseys being indicted shows him for the unreasonable illogical hack that he is and his impotent argument about a grand jury indicting if there wsa enough evidence now gone with the wind and he is seeking some kind of cause much like the defeated Confederacy clung to the 'lost cause' for about 150 years, only thing is odds of Confederate victory after Appomatox far greater than chance of presenting remotely credible argument of Ramsey innocence.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1756 Apr 14, 2013
It doesn’t matter if my argument regarding indictment is flawed and my claim wrong and it doesn’t matter how silly or entertaining Steve Eller may find me. I could be dumber than a sack of hammers and even bald and speaking in tongues but none of that makes Steve Eller right.
If Steve Eller wishes to prove his point, then he needs to show that charges against the Ramseys were filed. That’s what an indictment is, a formal charge. If it’s not filed, it’s not formal and there’s no charge.
So far, Steve Eller has offered up nothing in support of his claim and his claim is contradicted by the fact that no charges were filed.

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1757 Apr 14, 2013
In all fairness AK, your argument IS flawed.

You know exactly the point that is being made and due to your own disdain of the reality of what happened with the GJ, you seem to prefer to focus on the fact that the GJ, nor Hunter FILED the charges. The FACT remains that the GJ voted to indict.

That Hunter did not file the charge, nor the GJ, does not change the FACT that the GJ voted to indict

No charges were filed, but the argument is more than valid and in this argument, you are wrong.

If you prefer to ignore the reality, filed charges or not, that is up to you but the FACT and the REALITY is that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys.

The FACT remains that the GJ heard all the evidence and found the Ramseys NOT innocent

That is the point of all this. Ignoring the point of it all doesn't make the Ramseys any more innocent than if they filed the charges and Hunter refused to prosecute

The bottom line is that they WOULD HAVE been indicted FORMALLY had it not been for Hunter preventing it

Why not focus on WHY the GJ voted to indict instead of the minutia of the paperwork?

That would be more productive than trying to bash Steve Eller for pointing it out, semantics or not

It is all semantics which worked in the Ramsey favor in the beginning of this crime. With all that we now know, the semantics no longer whitewash the facts and the actions of the Ramseys, Hunter, the GJ, etc.

We all know too much and can read between the lines and know what all the unspoken words mean and the unspoken words speak loud and clear
Steve Eller

United States

#1758 Apr 14, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
In all fairness AK, your argument IS flawed.
You know exactly the point that is being made and due to your own disdain of the reality of what happened with the GJ, you seem to prefer to focus on the fact that the GJ, nor Hunter FILED the charges. The FACT remains that the GJ voted to indict.
That Hunter did not file the charge, nor the GJ, does not change the FACT that the GJ voted to indict
No charges were filed, but the argument is more than valid and in this argument, you are wrong.
If you prefer to ignore the reality, filed charges or not, that is up to you but the FACT and the REALITY is that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys.
The FACT remains that the GJ heard all the evidence and found the Ramseys NOT innocent
That is the point of all this. Ignoring the point of it all doesn't make the Ramseys any more innocent than if they filed the charges and Hunter refused to prosecute
The bottom line is that they WOULD HAVE been indicted FORMALLY had it not been for Hunter preventing it
Why not focus on WHY the GJ voted to indict instead of the minutia of the paperwork?
That would be more productive than trying to bash Steve Eller for pointing it out, semantics or not
It is all semantics which worked in the Ramsey favor in the beginning of this crime. With all that we now know, the semantics no longer whitewash the facts and the actions of the Ramseys, Hunter, the GJ, etc.
We all know too much and can read between the lines and know what all the unspoken words mean and the unspoken words speak loud and clear
Great post Capricorn and while we may differ slightly on the semantics of the indictment, the significant fact is that a panel of twelve disinterested individuals found the Ramseys RESPONSIBLE for this HEINOUS and GRUESOME murder. Anti K and his spammer sidekick(s) M Michigan aka Brother Poon/Banquo/Blue Bottle/Greg/Rorke/Mark/Dork/We irdo/Creepy guy at the Park can not come to terms with them because it reinforces what most of us have been saying for a long time and that is that whatever evidence we haven't seen is evidence indicating the Ramseys guilt.
Steve Eller

United States

#1759 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
It doesn’t matter if my argument regarding indictment is flawed and my claim wrong and it doesn’t matter how silly or entertaining Steve Eller may find me. I could be dumber than a sack of hammers and even bald and speaking in tongues but none of that makes Steve Eller right.
If Steve Eller wishes to prove his point, then he needs to show that charges against the Ramseys were filed. That’s what an indictment is, a formal charge. If it’s not filed, it’s not formal and there’s no charge.
So far, Steve Eller has offered up nothing in support of his claim and his claim is contradicted by the fact that no charges were filed.

AK
Once again you are confusing and wrongly 'interpreting' information. Just because an indictment is "formal charge" does not mean that it has to have been filed to have taken place. The "formal charge" element here does not come from Ole Alex Hunter doing his job and bringing the Ramseys to court for an arraignment where they would be formaLLY chargED. An indictment is a formal charge but it comes from a jury voting to indict or not indict on specific charges. What happens after the decision of the Grand Jury does not alter or ammend the finding of the Grand Jury which in this case was a formal charge not carried out by Hunter. Using your logic a SEALED INDICTMENT could never exist.
Steve Eller

United States

#1760 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Steve Eller is right, the Ramseys were indicted by the grand jury, but no indictment was filed due to insufficient evidence and the jurors failing to bypass Hunter, hence no indictment; no indictment + no arraignment. So glad we could straighten this out.
And, Kolar will forever be guilty of incorporating fiction and bad reasoning into his book. Oh well, nobody is perfect.

AK
Funny AK! Did you have another bout of 'MISREMEMBERING'? On another thread you waxed indignantly about how I was 'misrepresenting' your views and twisting your words and thoughts about Kolar. You actually claimed that you did not mean that Kolar was an author of fiction but that were referring solely to his ASPIRATIONS to become a writer of fiction not related to this case.
So now that the cat is out of the bag and your spiteful fetish against Kolar been REVEALED and put to rest, please tell us specifically the parts of Kolar's book that are fiction. And don't worry if sudden bouts of 'MISREMEMBERING' start to plague you AGAIN, I'll be waiting patienty for your memory to be restored, much as I have been waiting for you to produce a Kolar lie or distortion. In case you 'forgot' already, please cite specifically what you think is fiction in Kolar's book.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The underwear JonBenet was changed out of (Jul '15) 1 hr Green Envelope 13
Jon enter doing work for Jesus 1 hr Green Envelope 21
Patsy's rationale for calling 911 with the body... (Nov '15) 2 hr Green Envelope 53
News Diane Dimond: Still No Justice for JonBenet Ram... (Dec '16) 2 hr Green Envelope 178
Richard Talfryn Jones 3 hr biz 2
Mr. Garnett, Impact This Already ! 6 hr Green Envelope 11
News 'Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh!': Burke Ra... 19 hr robert 73
More from around the web