Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1855 Apr 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree Steve and I believe the GJ indicted.
I used the term "voted" because if I didn't, the response to anything further that we can delve into will be "they didn't indict". In order to prevent that and get into other areas, I used voted to just so "they" have no excuse to discuss other areas
I do agree that they are pretending and making excuses that don't really exist on this topic. I believe and hold strong that the GJ INDICTED the Ramseys. That it wasn't FILED makes no difference to me, as the evidence had to be damning considering Smit's presentation, etc.
Of course now we are hearing (above) that the GJ didn't have all the evidence LOLOLOL That is probably the most lame of any excuse we have heard to date, but not unexpected
The grand jury DID vote to indict. No one denies that. It is a fact. We all agree; right? However, no charges were filed and that, too, is a fact.

It may not matter to you that charges were not filed. I have no problem with that. However, setting aside the issue of right or wrong, you do agree that charges were not filed; right?


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1856 Apr 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Instead of beating THIS dead horse, wouldn’t it be more productive to discuss WHY and HOW the GJ came to the decision to VOTE to indict the Ramseys?
WHY do you think Hunter kept it a secret instead of being forthright and telling the truth, stating that although the GJ voted to indict, he was not going to file it?
I already know that the responses to Hunter NOT filing it will be plentiful, but that is another issue and not what I am asking.
What I am asking is WHY he chose to do that and not be honest about the GJ vote, owning his own decision
Well, I have made some attempt to discuss why and how the grand jury came to their decision, but, iirc, no one picked up on it.

Unfortunately, we don’t really have much to work on here because of Secrecy. I tend to think that for the jurors whoever wrote the note committed the crime. I think that this is the reason Smit/Douglas had little impact on the jurors, simply because whoever wrote the note committed the crime and Smit/Douglas would have had nothing to counter any of the evidence of authorship presented to the jurors. <1> None of this evidence of authorship would have been challenged in any way. Whoever wrote the note committed the crime.

It’s not just telling us that they voted, but that there even was a vote. I can understand why he would not want this public, but weren’t there some legal restrictions imposed that would have determined what he could and could not reveal?

<1> I first posted the bit about Smit/Douglas and the ransom note here on this thread in post to you; # 1667


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1857 Apr 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Therein lies the problem.
I made it as simple as I could and if you don't see how it applies, there is nothing more anyone can do. Either someone gets it or they don't
You are in the latter category and I don't think anyone could make it any simpler to help you. If anyone feels they can do it better, or make it simpler, they are free to go ahead and give it a shot
The problem is not mine or anyone’s failure to understand simple. The analogy itself is flawed. The speeding ticket analogy would be correct if an officer filled out the ticket, but did not issue it.


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1858 Apr 17, 2013
Shame on you Capricorn! Stop making 'straw man arguments' and issuing 'red herrings'!:)
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1859 Apr 17, 2013
Sobriquet9833 wrote:
The GJ was NOT presented with all the evidence. If ST would have been allowed to testify, then they would have had it all. They were only presented with what AH wanted them to know; LS's ridiculous theory and presentation. AH stacked the deck in favor of the Rs. By keeping ST out I believe AH never thought they'd vote to indict. He was pushed into the GJ and probably hoped that he could say they voted NOT to indict. When it didn't happen like he thought it would he was stuck. If he admitted they voted to indict, but that he wasn't going to sign it, there would have been an uproar. Likewise, if he signed it and took it in front of a judge to have it dismissed. There wasn't even a 1 in a million chance that he would sign it and press charges. It was CYA all the way. He was a full fledged, card carrying member of the RST.
LOLOL! If ST had testified before the grand jury, he wouldn't have been able to write a book on the case. Everything would have been sealed under grand jury secrecy. He was THE ONLY Detective not called before the grand jury. Kane made the decision who to call, and he didn't call Thomas.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1860 Apr 17, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, I automatically jumped to “the ticket was dismissed” because that makes your example analogous to the topic at hand.
Â…

AK
The "speeding ticket" analogy is not a proper fit, PERIOD. The BPD has never charged a Ramsey, for any crime, relating to the murder of JonBenet. Neither filing charges, nor making an arrest, requires the use of a Grand Jury.

The analogy made with regard to going in front of a judge and presenting testimony that would dismiss a speeding ticket does not fit because:

A. The Rs were not "caught" in the act of committing a crime, as is the case when a LE agent clocks a speeding vehicle. Were there any "absolutes" presented to the GJ implicating John, Patsy, Burke, etc.? Are there any "absolutes" to this day?..

&

B. The Rs did not have the opportunity to testify before a jury and/or a judge. There was no defense. The DA determines what evidence will be revealed to the GJ. Furthermore, Smit worked as an investigator FOR the DA's office SPECIFICALLY on the JonBenet case. Yet, he had to fight to go before the GJ. He was not working for the Ramseys when he came to theorize that the Rs were not responsible for the death of their daughter/sister. Actually, he never worked FOR the Ramseys.
Steve Eller

United States

#1861 Apr 17, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>The "speeding ticket" analogy is not a proper fit, PERIOD. The BPD has never charged a Ramsey, for any crime, relating to the murder of JonBenet. Neither filing charges, nor making an arrest, requires the use of a Grand Jury.
The analogy made with regard to going in front of a judge and presenting testimony that would dismiss a speeding ticket does not fit because:
A. The Rs were not "caught" in the act of committing a crime, as is the case when a LE agent clocks a speeding vehicle. Were there any "absolutes" presented to the GJ implicating John, Patsy, Burke, etc.? Are there any "absolutes" to this day?..
&
B. The Rs did not have the opportunity to testify before a jury and/or a judge. There was no defense. The DA determines what evidence will be revealed to the GJ. Furthermore, Smit worked as an investigator FOR the DA's office SPECIFICALLY on the JonBenet case. Yet, he had to fight to go before the GJ. He was not working for the Ramseys when he came to theorize that the Rs were not responsible for the death of their daughter/sister. Actually, he never worked FOR the Ramseys.
One questions about Smit. Were the 'psychics' paying him or was he paying the 'psychics'? The FBI, Scotland Yard, and Interpol would be proud.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1863 Apr 18, 2013
Regardless of whether or not Smit had to "fight" to present his side to the Grand Jury, he did in fact, present to the Grand Jury

No matter how he got there, he presented

He presented and the Grand Jury didn't buy what he was selling

End of story and no amount of "excuses" changes that FACT

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1864 Apr 18, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
One questions about Smit. Were the 'psychics' paying him or was he paying the 'psychics'? The FBI, Scotland Yard, and Interpol would be proud.
LOL Steve,

I'm sure the psychics and the network paid him in addition to whatever other money he was making.

It has turned out, against my former theory that Smit was honest and just misguided, that he in fact, was part of the whole spin team and probably made his share of money too. When I look back in hindsight, knowing what we know now, I can no longer defend his "honor" about his theory as I did for many years.

As for Scotland Yard, Interpol, etc., I am sure they have found Smit useful when they are in training on how NOT to handle an investigation :)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1865 Apr 18, 2013
Just because you missed the analogy, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text> The "speeding ticket" analogy is not a proper fit, PERIOD.
Smit worked with Ollie Gray who worked for the Ramseys, so yes, technically, he DID work for the Ramseys. If he hadn't, do you think JR would have gone and sat with him in hospice when he was dying? I think not!

Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, he never worked FOR the Ramseys.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1866 Apr 18, 2013
Correct. So how does Hunter, who was not privy to EVERYTHING said during the GJ, think he knows more than the people who heard all of the testimony given AND voted to indict? That doesn’t raise a red flag for you?
Mama2JML wrote:
The grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy based on the evidence the prosecutor wished to disclose at the time
Surely you don’t teach math at that school of yours, do you?

From an earlier post on this thread,“A quorum of either 12 or 23 GJ members,(and 4 alternates)” voted to indict the Ramseys . Add to that quorum your 2 prosecutors and that far outweighs your 4 who didn’t agree with Hunter + Hunter himself. You guys will be apologists even when simple math tells you differently!
Mama2JML wrote:
Furthermore, of all the prosecutors advising Hunter, 1 or 2 felt he should sign the indictment while up to 4 of these advisors did not believe there was sufficient evidence to charge the Ramseys, let alone win a case against them.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1867 Apr 18, 2013
If I had said I talked my way out of the “ticket” you could have jumped to the conclusion you did, but I didn’t say that, I mentioned only the fine, so yes it does infer that.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I lacked the information to provide an informed decision? Okay, that’s fair. I was only working with what you gave me and I had no idea you were talking about a specific, real life scenario. To say that “you talked your way out of a fine in front of the judge” does not infer that the ticket was valid.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1868 Apr 18, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>The "speeding ticket" analogy is not a proper fit, PERIOD. The BPD has never charged a Ramsey, for any crime, relating to the murder of JonBenet. Neither filing charges, nor making an arrest, requires the use of a Grand Jury.
The analogy made with regard to going in front of a judge and presenting testimony that would dismiss a speeding ticket does not fit because:
A. The Rs were not "caught" in the act of committing a crime, as is the case when a LE agent clocks a speeding vehicle. Were there any "absolutes" presented to the GJ implicating John, Patsy, Burke, etc.? Are there any "absolutes" to this day?..
&
B. The Rs did not have the opportunity to testify before a jury and/or a judge. There was no defense. The DA determines what evidence will be revealed to the GJ. Furthermore, Smit worked as an investigator FOR the DA's office SPECIFICALLY on the JonBenet case. Yet, he had to fight to go before the GJ. He was not working for the Ramseys when he came to theorize that the Rs were not responsible for the death of their daughter/sister. Actually, he never worked FOR the Ramseys.
Yes, the speeding ticket analogy falls apart once going before a judge or the court is mentioned. However, the speeding ticket analogy can be made to work for us if we say that an officer pulled you over for speeding, he fills out a ticket, but you manage to convince him that it was not warranted so he rips it up – the ticket is not issued or filed.

officer = grand jury
speeding ticket = indictment
not filing ticket = not filing indictment


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1870 Apr 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
If I had said I talked my way out of the “ticket” you could have jumped to the conclusion you did, but I didn’t say that, I mentioned only the fine, so yes it does infer that.
<quoted text>
Okay.


AK

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1871 Apr 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
From an earlier post on this thread,“A quorum of either 12 or 23 GJ members,(and 4 alternates)” voted to indict the Ramseys . Add to that quorum your 2 prosecutors and that far outweighs your 4 who didn’t agree with Hunter + Hunter himself. You guys will be apologists even when simple math tells you differently!
"Hunter made a short impromptu announcement on October 13, 1999, and held a longer press conference on October 14, 1999. On October 13, he said:

The Boulder grand jury has completed its work and will not return. No charges have been filed. The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all of their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness.

Yet, I must report to you that I, and my prosecution task force, believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time.'
...
"On October 14, 1999, accompanied by fellow prosecutors on the case, he said:

'We have eight career prosecutors with many, many years of service, who together have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges at this time.'

Bob Grant, the most prominent media voice for prosecutors throughout the case and an adviser to Hunter and his team during the grand jury investigation, also spoke at the October 14 press conference:

GRANT:'I'm Bob Grant, most of you know me. I'm the district attorney in the neighboring county of Adams. I've been involved in this case since February of 1997, been in the prosecution business for 22 years, elected district attorney next door since 1992. This is not a happy day. Yesterday was not a happy day. There is no satisfaction here in Boulder, there is no satisfaction in this case.
....This case has come to a grand jury posture in the hopes that the use of the subpoena power, the use of the confidentiality and secrecy provisions would, in fact, provide sufficient evidence to take it forward to a public prosecution; that hope hasn't materialized.'

Grant dropped a lot of clues the final week of the grand jury investigation, and in the days after the decision not to indict was announced, even though he refused to directly answer the question as to whether the grand jury had voted.
On one show, he explained the difference between a true bill and an Indictment. He said the grand jury had three options.

*It could return a true bill or return no true bill.
*It could issue a report.
*Or it could elect not to vote and simply disband.

The prosecutor is held to a different standard than the grand jury. He or she is ethically duty bound not to file charges unless he or she has a good faith belief the charges can be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.
Looking back now at Grant's statements that week, the new Boulder Daily Camera report makes sense. He all but spelled it out.

The day before the Hunter’s October 13, 1999 announcement, Grant was on CBS (“JonBenet Ramsey’s Death" CBS News Transcripts October 12, 1999). He said:

'Certainly, the prosecutors can advise and give their opinion, but the grand jury truly is in charge of this case at this stage and at every stage. If they choose to vote, no matter what the DAs say, they will vote.'

When asked what happens if the prosecutor disagrees, he said:

'Well, his ethical and legal and professional obligation would be not to submit that true bill as an indictment, if that's what he truly believes. See, the grand jury works on probable cause but also takes all inferences in favor of the people. In other words, if there are credibility questions, they believe people. If there's forensic evidence questions, they believe the forensic analysts. They work without the defense posture, so, you know, the DA has to bring all the other stuff into play and say,'Well, there's a reasonable likelihood of conviction or not.' Not just probably somebody did it.' "

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1873 Apr 19, 2013
It was presented that the grand jurors could have bypassed Hunter’s decision not to indict and speculated that they may not have known that they had that right. What’s not mentioned is that the jurors may very well have been aware of that right and simply chose not to exorcise it.

Most of what we know about the jurors comes from the recent Brennan article and the jurors there seemed to be quite understanding of Hunter’s decision. Is it not possible that they were well of their rights and simply chose not to exercise them?

Are we to truly believe that juror’s rights are hidden from them? I can understand how, in most cases, grand jurors may not “understand” their right to bypass a prosecutor’s dismissal of their decision, nut in a case where that option becomes real? I think that in this case it would have been incumbent upon the prosecutor to ensure that the jurors were aware of their right.

We’re not talking about just Hunter here, but a group of about eight, and at least a couple who disagreed who could have easily become “dissidents,” making sure that the juror’s knew they could bypass Hunter. That didn’t happen.


AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1874 Apr 19, 2013
Why would they vote to indict if they were just going to fold when challenged and say it's ok if the DA doesn't agree with their decision and that they understand? That sounds like a big waste of the 13-month GJ.

Ever been a juror? Were you aware of all the leagal ins and outs AFTER your job as a juror had ended?
Anti-K wrote:
It was presented that the grand jurors could have bypassed Hunter’s decision not to indict and speculated that they may not have known that they had that right. What’s not mentioned is that the jurors may very well have been aware of that right and simply chose not to exorcise it.
Most of what we know about the jurors comes from the recent Brennan article and the jurors there seemed to be quite understanding of Hunter’s decision. Is it not possible that they were well of their rights and simply chose not to exercise them?
Are we to truly believe that juror’s rights are hidden from them? I can understand how, in most cases, grand jurors may not “understand” their right to bypass a prosecutor’s dismissal of their decision, nut in a case where that option becomes real? I think that in this case it would have been incumbent upon the prosecutor to ensure that the jurors were aware of their right.
We’re not talking about just Hunter here, but a group of about eight, and at least a couple who disagreed who could have easily become “dissidents,” making sure that the juror’s knew they could bypass Hunter. That didn’t happen.

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1875 Apr 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Why would they vote to indict if they were just going to fold when challenged and say it's ok if the DA doesn't agree with their decision and that they understand? That sounds like a big waste of the 13-month GJ.
Ever been a juror? Were you aware of all the leagal ins and outs AFTER your job as a juror had ended?
<quoted text>
Excellent point Seuss,

Again, the issue really is the FACT that the GJ heard the evidence and found that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet Ramsey and that is really all that matters.

Whether it was filed or they knew the legalities of every nuance of their responsibilities, I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone else when the DA asked them to hear the evidence, they heard it, voted and were slapped in the face by Hunter

Filed or not, the Grand Jury found that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

The rest is just fodder for stubborn arguments of denial

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1876 Apr 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
It was presented that the grand jurors could have bypassed HunterÂ’s decision not to indict and speculated that they may not have known that they had that right. WhatÂ’s not mentioned is that the jurors may very well have been aware of that right and simply chose not to exorcise it.
...
Are we to truly believe that jurorÂ’s rights are hidden from them?
...
think that in this case it would have been incumbent upon the prosecutor to ensure that the jurors were aware of their right.
It is quite unlikely that the grand jury was unaware of their rights. Would this not be unethical (@ minimum) and ILLEGAL? It does not seem that this is something Hunter would have escaped &, in turn, NOT been held accountable...

An article printed on 02.28.99 offered insight with regard to the possible outcomes of the GJ process:

"The media Question now is will jury indict and will DA bring charges"
By Christopher Anderson and Matt Sebastian
...
"Issuing an indictment

Although opinions are mixed, some legal experts believe Hunter's decision to present the Ramsey case to the grand jury implies the district attorney has a suspect or suspects in mind, and that he believes he can secure an indictment.

'The grand jury adds the solidarity of community involvement and endorsement to the prosecutors' own decision to indict,' said Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, Calif.

On the other hand,'the fact that you impanel a grand jury doesn't mean you know how it is going to turn out,' argued Joanne Epps, a Temple University School of Law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.
Regardless, they and other experts agree that a grand jury won't indict unless it's asked to. And if Hunter or his grand-jury pointman, Deputy District Attorney Michael Kane, present a 'true bill' to the panel, only nine of 12 jurors' votes are required for indictment.

Should the grand jury indict someone, the real question is, on what charges? While murder is the first offense that comes to mind, there are many lesser crimes for which someone could be charged.
...
If the grand jury does return an indictment, Hunter and his team of hand-picked prosecutors will be keenly aware that a trial court has much more stringent rules than those the grand jury follows.

A 12-member trial jury must determine guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' a much higher burden of proof than the grand jury needs to indict. After all, a grand jury indictment is congruous with filing criminal charges and only 'probable cause' is needed to do so.

Hunter has said he won't prosecute a 'bare-bones' probable-cause indictment.'I wouldn't do that, period,' he said last June, vowing to move forward only with a good likelihood of winning a conviction.
'In theory, a prosecutor could get an indictment and wouldn't have to return it to the court,' said Terry Gillespie of the Colorado Attorney General's Office.
...
Should the grand jury return a true bill in the Ramsey case, it's unclear how long Hunter has to decide if he'll sign the indictment and proceed to charging a suspect and taking the case to trial.
...
'I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned thing,' said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey investigation.

But, Ritter pointed out,'a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it.' "
Steve Eller

United States

#1877 Apr 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>It is quite unlikely that the grand jury was unaware of their rights. Would this not be unethical (@ minimum) and ILLEGAL? It does not seem that this is something Hunter would have escaped &, in turn, NOT been held accountable...
An article printed on 02.28.99 offered insight with regard to the possible outcomes of the GJ process:
"The media Question now is will jury indict and will DA bring charges"
By Christopher Anderson and Matt Sebastian
...
"Issuing an indictment
Although opinions are mixed, some legal experts believe Hunter's decision to present the Ramsey case to the grand jury implies the district attorney has a suspect or suspects in mind, and that he believes he can secure an indictment.
'The grand jury adds the solidarity of community involvement and endorsement to the prosecutors' own decision to indict,' said Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, Calif.
On the other hand,'the fact that you impanel a grand jury doesn't mean you know how it is going to turn out,' argued Joanne Epps, a Temple University School of Law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.
Regardless, they and other experts agree that a grand jury won't indict unless it's asked to. And if Hunter or his grand-jury pointman, Deputy District Attorney Michael Kane, present a 'true bill' to the panel, only nine of 12 jurors' votes are required for indictment.
Should the grand jury indict someone, the real question is, on what charges? While murder is the first offense that comes to mind, there are many lesser crimes for which someone could be charged.
...
If the grand jury does return an indictment, Hunter and his team of hand-picked prosecutors will be keenly aware that a trial court has much more stringent rules than those the grand jury follows.
A 12-member trial jury must determine guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' a much higher burden of proof than the grand jury needs to indict. After all, a grand jury indictment is congruous with filing criminal charges and only 'probable cause' is needed to do so.
Hunter has said he won't prosecute a 'bare-bones' probable-cause indictment.'I wouldn't do that, period,' he said last June, vowing to move forward only with a good likelihood of winning a conviction.
'In theory, a prosecutor could get an indictment and wouldn't have to return it to the court,' said Terry Gillespie of the Colorado Attorney General's Office.
...
Should the grand jury return a true bill in the Ramsey case, it's unclear how long Hunter has to decide if he'll sign the indictment and proceed to charging a suspect and taking the case to trial.
...
'I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned thing,' said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey investigation.
But, Ritter pointed out,'a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it.' "
There is no evidence that the Grand Jury kniew they had a right to prsent this themselves as many attorneys questioned about this case failed to cite it as something that the Grand Jury could have done. This option came to light through Mimi Wesson's analysis. Alex Hunter had a duty to deliver the indictment to the Court and ask for it to be invalidated. Moreover, it is clear that the Grand Jury in addition to having the option of not filing chgarges also had the option of filing a report, instead the INDICTED the Ramseys on a specific charge of child abuse resulting in death.

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
Mark Beckner's Ashonishing Lack of Knowledge in... 37 min robert 5
The head blow, just a thought. 1 hr Jack 3
Fleet White's grand jury documents lawsuit 3 hr Mama2JML 2
Media misrepresenting Chief Mark Beckner's remarks 4 hr Mama2JML 93
Burke Said 4 hr Just Wondering 15
The a 11 hr Just Wondering 25
Ramsey's larry king live (Jan '07) 11 hr berrytea333 16
More from around the web