Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#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

Grande Prairie, Canada

#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

Grande Prairie, Canada

#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

Grande Prairie, Canada

#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

Grande Prairie, Canada

#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

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#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.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1761 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
You seem to be missing the fact that I AM saying that the grand jury voted to indict.

However, while technically correct, it is misleading to say that the grand jury indicted just as it is misleading to say that there was no indictment although this too is technically correct. The former is misleading because no indictment was filed, and, the latter is misleading because the grand jury voted to indict. It is more correct to say that although the grand jury voted to indict there was no indictment because the prosecutor did not agree with the juror’s decision.

Also, it is not true that the Jurors found the Ramseys “not innocent.” The jurors simply found that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge against them.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1762 Apr 14, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The grand jury found that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge, no more and no less. Responsibility (guilt) was not determined as that was not in the grand juror’s power.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1763 Apr 14, 2013
For an indictment to occur the document must be signed by both the grand jury and the prosecutor. If one or the other fails to sign it then there is no indictment.

Arguing that Hunter had no legal right to refuse to sign the document (an uncertain premise) does not affect matters at all, because Hunter’s decision, right or wrong, proper or improper, still stands and that decision resulted in no charges being filed.

If Steve Eller wishes to prove his point, then he needs to show that charges against the Ramseys were filed. Claiming that I am a senile, upset, desperate, unreasonable and illogical hack does nothing to support his claim.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1764 Apr 14, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Chapter two, pages 7 to 21 are fiction.


AK
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1765 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The grand jury found that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge, no more and no less. Responsibility (guilt) was not determined as that was not in the grand juror’s power.

AK
The Grand Jury INDICTED the Ramseys on a specific charge--hence an indictment occurred.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1766 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
For an indictment to occur the document must be signed by both the grand jury and the prosecutor. If one or the other fails to sign it then there is no indictment.
Arguing that Hunter had no legal right to refuse to sign the document (an uncertain premise) does not affect matters at all, because Hunter’s decision, right or wrong, proper or improper, still stands and that decision resulted in no charges being filed.
If Steve Eller wishes to prove his point, then he needs to show that charges against the Ramseys were filed. Claiming that I am a senile, upset, desperate, unreasonable and illogical hack does nothing to support his claim.

AK
Incorrect again
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1767 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Chapter two, pages 7 to 21 are fiction.

AK
Some of your previous words about Kolar below:
My favorite moment of the Kolar video that’s been going around is at the 8:56 mark. He says,“The year my son graduated from CSU my wife and I took he and his girlfriend to Mexico for a vacation um, in um Mexico. I can’t remember where we went. Cancun or something.” LOL He went on a vacation and he can’t remember where he went! Hola! It’s a good thing no one asked him about that night he forgot his keys and had to break into the house!

Kolar wants to be a writer. But, he sucks. He used his access to the Jonbenet case file to get something out there and promote himself as an author; an author of fiction.


AK

I am glad you remembered about pages 7-21. Thanks for finally setting the record straight that Kolar is NOT a writer a fiction. I believe this is tremendous progress. Next we will get you to deal realistically with the DNA evidence and CONCEDE that there was no intruder. Small but significant steps nonetheless...
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1768 Apr 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
For an indictment to occur the document must be signed by both the grand jury and the prosecutor. If one or the other fails to sign it then there is no indictment.
Arguing that Hunter had no legal right to refuse to sign the document (an uncertain premise) does not affect matters at all, because Hunter’s decision, right or wrong, proper or improper, still stands and that decision resulted in no charges being filed.
If Steve Eller wishes to prove his point, then he needs to show that charges against the Ramseys were filed. Claiming that I am a senile, upset, desperate, unreasonable and illogical hack does nothing to support his claim.

AK
Please explain the difference between a regular indictment and a sealed indictment.

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
Note-odd detail? 21 min Legal__Eagle 1,199
Suspect John Steven Gigax (Apr '11) 4 hr JimmyWells 147
Note attends lectures at Duquesne University 6 hr Note 13
Wine cellar door...many questions Sat Blackstone Again 13
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... (Jan '14) Fri candy 198
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Oct 17 JTF 7,484
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." Oct 17 Legal__Eagle 65

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE