Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1843 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
Alex Hunter's statement: "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."

If that's not "ownership", then I am not sure how you define the term.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#1844 Apr 17, 2013
So you think maybe the GJ voted the opposite of what they felt to be true, or what? If so, they were as stupid as the Anthony jury!
Mama2JML wrote:
Also, consider that NOT ONE grand jury member speaking out, recently (anonymously), claimed they are/were convinced that the Ramseys were guilty.
Steve Eller

United States

#1845 Apr 17, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
The grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy based on the evidence the prosecutor wished to disclose at the time. The GJ was not privy to all of the evidence, specifically evidence that has come to light since 1999/2000. Also, consider that NOT ONE grand jury member speaking out, recently (anonymously), claimed they are/were convinced that the Ramseys were guilty. The GJ's vote to indict is not even "kinda sorta" equivalent to a guilty verdict.
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.
In the end, Hunter did not sign the true bill, the parents have never been charged, arrested, arraigned, etc. However, new evidence has, since, come to light; a 'la the evidentiary DNA in CODIS. This evidence does not implicate the Ramseys.
You, I, and our fellow posters can certainly choose to ignore whatever evidence we wish, but this is not how our judicial system works. Had the Ramseys been indicted, and had the case gone to trial, more evidence would have been revealed, AND there would have been a defense.
Jurors would have been advised to consider all of the facts/evidence qualified as "admissible" by a judge. Then, the jury if 12 would have had the luxury of basing a decision of guilt or non-guilt on ALL of the evidence aside from that which may have been qualified as inadmissible. This did not occur.
Hunter did not sign an indictment, the GJ did not bypass Hunter, and the Ramseys have never been indicted, arraigned, charged, arrested, nor found guilty of any crime relating to the death of JonBenét.
That's the story and the truth; given what has been disclosed to us, the public. It's fine to theorize any which way one prefers, but theories are not facts until proven otherwise. Period.
Ignore what you like. The Ramseys were INDICTED. ONLY a Grand Jury can indict. How does this happen? There is a vote. The Grand Jury must vote on a specific charge. Did this occur? Yes. What was the specific charge? Child Abuse resulting in death. Did they deliver this indictment to Hunter? Yes. Did Hunter follow Colorado law and deliver this indictment to the Court (based on Mimi Wesson's analysis)? No, therefore the Court did not know that there was an indictment and neither did the public. Therefore no arraignment, but an indictment. The Ramseys were INDICTED, you can try to spin it any way you like but nothing will change that.
Steve Eller

United States

#1846 Apr 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Instead of beating THIS dead horse, wouldnt 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
I understand your point, but this is what happens when you start playing their game. I respect your posts and opinion highly but I don't think we are under any obligation to write that Grand Jury "VOTED" to indict. The news of the indictment was and is about as damning for the IDI as you could get at this point in the case. Their goal is to pretend that it didn't happen and that it is not there, much like the ransom note in the case.
Steve Eller

United States

#1847 Apr 17, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
Alex Hunter's statement: "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."
If that's not "ownership", then I am not sure how you define the term.
Be that as it may...he is "owning" something that does not belong to him. A prosecutor does not have a right to INDICT or not INDICT anyone.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#1848 Apr 17, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point, but this is what happens when you start playing their game. I respect your posts and opinion highly but I don't think we are under any obligation to write that Grand Jury "VOTED" to indict. The news of the indictment was and is about as damning for the IDI as you could get at this point in the case. Their goal is to pretend that it didn't happen and that it is not there, much like the ransom note in the case.
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

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#1849 Apr 17, 2013
Quoting Hunter's public statement about not filing charges does not answer any of the questions asked

The question was: Why did Alex lie to the public, misleading everyone into believing that the GJ did not vote to indict? He refused to own HIS decision as it related to what the Grand Jury had decided

Nobody wants to touch that one eh?
Steve Eller

United States

#1850 Apr 17, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
The grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy based on the evidence the prosecutor wished to disclose at the time. The GJ was not privy to all of the evidence, specifically evidence that has come to light since 1999/2000. Also, consider that NOT ONE grand jury member speaking out, recently (anonymously), claimed they are/were convinced that the Ramseys were guilty. The GJ's vote to indict is not even "kinda sorta" equivalent to a guilty verdict.
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.
In the end, Hunter did not sign the true bill, the parents have never been charged, arrested, arraigned, etc. However, new evidence has, since, come to light; a 'la the evidentiary DNA in CODIS. This evidence does not implicate the Ramseys.
You, I, and our fellow posters can certainly choose to ignore whatever evidence we wish, but this is not how our judicial system works. Had the Ramseys been indicted, and had the case gone to trial, more evidence would have been revealed, AND there would have been a defense.
Jurors would have been advised to consider all of the facts/evidence qualified as "admissible" by a judge. Then, the jury if 12 would have had the luxury of basing a decision of guilt or non-guilt on ALL of the evidence aside from that which may have been qualified as inadmissible. This did not occur.
Hunter did not sign an indictment, the GJ did not bypass Hunter, and the Ramseys have never been indicted, arraigned, charged, arrested, nor found guilty of any crime relating to the death of JonBenét.
That's the story and the truth; given what has been disclosed to us, the public. It's fine to theorize any which way one prefers, but theories are not facts until proven otherwise. Period.
Facts are facts and Grand Jurors are not permitted to speak about the case publicly or privately. And by and large the Grand Jurors have honored this obligation save for a couple of 'anonymous' snippets of very little information. So basically we have to go on the facts and not theorize, that was a good point. However, no exculpatory evidence has come to light favoring the Ramseys, since the Grand Jury was dismissed. The artifact DNA to which you cling so hard, does not exonerate or incriminate anyone. Now back to the facts...a Grand Jury INDICTS (which it did) it does not convict and let me assure you that no one is saying the Ramseys were convicted in a court of law. But back to some more facts, it is highly unususal for the Prosecutor in a case to bring forth evidence and witnesses whose goal and purpose are to exonerate and clear chief suspects in the investigation. This is exaclty what happened with the Grand Jury in this case. Lou Smit and John Douglas testified on behalf of the Ramseys and the Grand Jury wasn't buying what they were selling. I know what you're thinking...perhaps Lou Smit went on a tangent about the the Psychics working on the case...until the Grand Jury rules of secrecy are lifted we will never know--so it is a good idea to stick to the facts of the case and stop attempting to surmise how many of the Grand Jurors who have supposedly 'spoken out' believed one scenario or another.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#1851 Apr 17, 2013
OK, you arent tuning in to what I was trying to point out, so I will try and simplify it for you - it is the assumptions and rushes to judgment that lead some down incorrect paths both in the indictment scenario and in the scenario I posed, and repeatedly splitting hairs on words and arguing the same point over and over doesnt make it different. You seem to have a deep seated need to continue to argue with Steve Eller and have pages of posts on the board when in effect you arent getting any closer with your quest to be right there than you are with the speeding ticket.

You automatically made the leap to the ticket was dismissed because the judge didn't impose a fine. Not true. The ticket still stayed on the driving record, but the fine was forgiven due to exigent or tricky circumstances which were explained to the judge.(Not MY scenario, but an actual one.) Capricorn was right - not paying a fine didn't mean that the speed wasn't exceeded.

So to respond to your And, I ask, would you go around saying you were given a speeding ticket or would you say you were given a speeding ticket but you talked your way out of a fine in front of the judge?

That is close to what I would say the ticket was still issued and valid, yet no fine was imposed due to presenting exigent circumstances. However, your original comment and the one I was trying to point out the incorrectness AND rush to judgment concerning was:
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text> So, we could say that you received a speeding ticket, but it was thrown out in court; right?
That conclusion was completely untrue but understandable, because you lacked the information to make an informed decision.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I re-read your post. Im not sure what you think I got wrong. You wrote: If I was given a speeding ticket, and talked my way out of a fine in front of the judge - was I still given a ticket or not?
The meaning remains the same but Ill rephrase my original response to better reflect your wordage. I say yes, you were still given a speeding ticket, but you talked your way out of a fine in front of the judge.
And, I ask, would you go around saying you were given a speeding ticket or would you say you were given a speeding ticket but you talked your way out of a fine in front of the judge?
Wheres the wrong in that? Am I misunderstanding something?

AK

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1852 Apr 17, 2013
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.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1853 Apr 17, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
OK, you arent tuning in to what I was trying to point out, so I will try and simplify it for you - it is the assumptions and rushes to judgment that lead some down incorrect paths both in the indictment scenario and in the scenario I posed, and repeatedly splitting hairs on words and arguing the same point over and over doesnt make it different. You seem to have a deep seated need to continue to argue with Steve Eller and have pages of posts on the board when in effect you arent getting any closer with your quest to be right there than you are with the speeding ticket.
You automatically made the leap to the ticket was dismissed because the judge didn't impose a fine. Not true. The ticket still stayed on the driving record, but the fine was forgiven due to exigent or tricky circumstances which were explained to the judge.(Not MY scenario, but an actual one.) Capricorn was right - not paying a fine didn't mean that the speed wasn't exceeded.
So to respond to your And, I ask, would you go around saying you were given a speeding ticket or would you say you were given a speeding ticket but you talked your way out of a fine in front of the judge?
That is close to what I would say the ticket was still issued and valid, yet no fine was imposed due to presenting exigent circumstances. However, your original comment and the one I was trying to point out the incorrectness AND rush to judgment concerning was:
<quoted text>
That conclusion was completely untrue but understandable, because you lacked the information to make an informed decision.
<quoted text>
I lacked the information to provide an informed decision? Okay, thats 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.

As for arguing with Eller it takes two. You can stop reading my posts if you wish, just as I as of last night am going to stop reading Ellers. And, of course Im no closer to proving myself right this is topix! thats not how things work here.

BTW, I automatically jumped to the ticket was dismissed because that makes your example analogous to the topic at hand.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1854 Apr 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Quoting Hunter's public statement about not filing charges does not answer any of the questions asked
The question was: Why did Alex lie to the public, misleading everyone into believing that the GJ did not vote to indict? He refused to own HIS decision as it related to what the Grand Jury had decided
Nobody wants to touch that one eh?
Quoting Hunter's public statement about not filing charges may not answer any of the questions YOU asked, but it does show that no charges were filed, which is what all that Ive been saying.


AK

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, wouldnt 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 dont 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.

Its 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 werent 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 anyones 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.
…

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.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#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

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? 45 min Note 732
Linda Arndt (May '07) 9 hr Rangette 21
Jonbenet's grave gives a clue? 10 hr Just Wondering 18
Suspect John Steven Gigax (Apr '11) Wed erikatamayo 137
Det. Linda Arndt's 1999 interview on the JonBen... (Feb '12) Tue shawna 39
Burke Ramsey REFUSED to be interviewed by inves... (Sep '10) Mon Rupert 658
Boulder's JonBenet Ramsey, Sid Wells murders on... Mon Note 4

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE