“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.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1878 Apr 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<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
No, no, no, and no. Your assessment is false on SO many levels.
Steve Eller

United States

#1879 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>
Exactly. If the Grand Jury was unsure or lukewarm, they could have just issued a report and called it a day. Thirteen months is a long time to conduct an investigation. I am amused at the desperate excuses being propagated by the IDI. That panel did not decline to issue charges, they did not file a report, they issued an INDICTMENT, that speaks volumes and tells us all we need to know about the non effect of the Ramsey defense spin.
Terrance

Kitchener, Canada

#1880 Apr 19, 2013
Why don't people respect the original title of this thread? It started out with a discussion of facts but degenerated. I suggest you move the GJ over onto a new thread and have a good ole donnybrook there.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1881 Apr 19, 2013
Terrance wrote:
Why don't people respect the original title of this thread? It started out with a discussion of facts but degenerated. I suggest you move the GJ over onto a new thread and have a good ole donnybrook there.
Good idea...

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1882 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>
We have no way of knowing, do we? All we know is that now, when interviewed by Brennan the jurors seemed to be okay with Hunter’s decision.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1883 Apr 20, 2013
When they voted they would not have known that Hunter was going to “veto” their decision. I’m suggesting that it’s possible that after their vote the rationale for Hunter’s decision was explained to them and that their “rights” were also explained. The Brennan article suggests that the juror’s "understood" Hunter’s decision. Maybe, back then, after the vote, they understood and agreed with Hunter's decision and that is the reason that they did not bypass him.


AK
Steve Eller

Marcus Hook, PA

#1884 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
We have no way of knowing, do we? All we know is that now, when interviewed by Brennan the jurors seemed to be okay with Hunter’s decision.

AK
Only some of the Grand Jurors were interviewed by Brennan off the record because of Grand Jury secrecy, may have been 12 may have been 2. Moreover we don't know the exact questions that they were answering and we know nothing about the context of the answers. Even the most adamant RDI might sympathize with the daunting task of prosecuting parents for murdering their child.
Steve Eller

Marcus Hook, PA

#1885 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
When they voted they would not have known that Hunter was going to “veto” their decision. I’m suggesting that it’s possible that after their vote the rationale for Hunter’s decision was explained to them and that their “rights” were also explained. The Brennan article suggests that the juror’s "understood" Hunter’s decision. Maybe, back then, after the vote, they understood and agreed with Hunter's decision and that is the reason that they did not bypass him.

AK
Hunter did not have a veto. The problem was that Hunter did his best to prevent an indictment but he was flummoxed in part by Michael Kane. Explanations and rationalizations after the fact not withstanding, after a lengthy investigations the Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury.

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
YES this DNA could have been transferred (Jul '08) 28 min Legal__Eagle 378
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 2 hr JBI 1,629
Good riddance Paula Woodward (Apr '09) 3 hr robert 22
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 5 hr candy 49
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 14 hr ICU2 9
housekeeper a possible suspect (May '12) 17 hr Bakatari 89
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 21 hr berrytea333 6
More from around the web