Comments
1 - 20 of 108 Comments Last updated Mar 30, 2013
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

What we have to understand and it's very important to remember is that Alex Hunter was NOT pro-Ramsey. He prohibited his own investigator, Lou Smit, from testifying before the grand jury to present evidence of his (Smit's) intruder theory which would have been favourable to the Ramseys. Smit had to resort to obtaining a court order to be allowed to testify.

Even if he, Hunter, felt there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, why not just sign the indictment, take the case to trial and let the jury decide? It would have taken the intense pressure off him and since the indictment was on the lesser charge of child abuse, double jeopardy would not apply had further evidence later come to light implicating the Ramseys in murder. His duty would be done and he'd have emerged the "good guy".

So why was he so resistant to indicting the Ramseys? My own feeling is, and this is my opinion only, that he was aware of certain paedophile activities going on in Boulder to which he'd turned a blind eye and therefore he could not, in all good conscience, indict the Ramseys knowing the probability was high that they had nothing to do with their child's death.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Colorado Revised Statute 16-5-204 (1) states: "Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request to testify or retestify in an inquiry before a grand jury or to appear before a grand jury".

Yet when Evan Ravitz, a political activist in Boulder, and Dr Robert McFarland MD, co-founder of Boulder's Parenting Place, requested to testify as they had important information to relate regarding a possible paedophile ring operating in Boulder involving some very important people (they mentioned two names), their request was denied. Certain material which they left at the DA's office to be handed to the grand jury foreman was intercepted and never passed on and when they exercised their legal right to approach the grand jurors directly, they were threatened with prosecution and contempt of court.

Ravitz later, in September '99, approached the Colorado ACLU Intake Director and was told they would take their (Ravitz and McFarland's) case, but it was too late. The grand jury was about to disband.

We have to ask ourselves what Hunter was so afraid Ravitz and McFarlane would tell the grand jury that he'd rather act in violation of the law than allow them to testify? Was he protecting paedophiles? More importantly, was he protecting himself? More detailed information is at the following link:

http://evanravitz.com/ravitz/guest.htm

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

4

4

It appears pedophiles are the soup du jour today! Letís blame everything on them!

Lynette, there are pedophile activities in the majority of cities in my country and yours. Is that why Hunter never prosecuted any other cases as well? Cause he blamed all the rest of the crimes in Boulder on those ole pedophiles?

Alex Hunter didnít want to put in the effort that would be needed to bring a tough case to justice when he was on his way out of office. He didnít want that legacy because he didnít believe he could get a conviction. Heck, if I hadn't prosecuted a case in 28 years, I would be worried about getting a conviction on a parking ticket, LOL!

ď he was aware of certain paedophile activities going on in Boulder to which he'd turned a blind eye and therefore he could not, in all good conscience, indict the Ramseys knowing the probability was high that they had nothing to do with their child's death.Ē

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LOL Seuss,

The only thing Alex Hunter was afraid of was Haddon.... and covering up the lack of competence he was "supposed" to have as a District Attorney. He had a great record of saving taxpayer monies by PLEA BARGAINING with every criminal in Boulder over his tenure and likely feared for the incompetence he would have shown in court
and his lack of practice

Notice how everyone is just glossing over the lies and the misinformation about what Hunter actually did instead of the focus on what he didn't do

It doesn't matter whether anyone believes it was prosecutable in a court of law or whether there would have been a victory. AH showed himself to be worse than a lowlife when he announced that the GRAND JURY didn't return an indictment

A man worth his title would have been honest and told the public that while the GJ indicted, it would not be in the best interest of the case to prosecute at this time. At least that would be the truth and he still wouldn't have to prosecute.

For those who think he is a hero because he lied to the public, along with Smit, Wood and the rest of those "in the know" about this, IMO it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was nothing less than a corrupt system who obviously wasn't afraid to show it and that from Day One JBR was not going to receive the justice she deserved

Nobody in Boulder cares
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

DrSeussMd wrote:
It appears pedophiles are the soup du jour today! Letís blame everything on them!
Lynette, there are pedophile activities in the majority of cities in my country and yours. Is that why Hunter never prosecuted any other cases as well? Cause he blamed all the rest of the crimes in Boulder on those ole pedophiles?
Alex Hunter didnít want to put in the effort that would be needed to bring a tough case to justice when he was on his way out of office. He didnít want that legacy because he didnít believe he could get a conviction. Heck, if I hadn't prosecuted a case in 28 years, I would be worried about getting a conviction on a parking ticket, LOL!
ď he was aware of certain paedophile activities going on in Boulder to which he'd turned a blind eye and therefore he could not, in all good conscience, indict the Ramseys knowing the probability was high that they had nothing to do with their child's death.Ē
Sorry folks but Alex Hunter wouldn't have felt he had enough evidence to convict Bernie Madoff after he confessed. Morever the more we learn about the investigation, it becomes much more likely that Hunter was protecting the Ramseys for personal reasons. All of the Ramseys apologists can make as many excuses as they want--some of them even call him brave!
The fact of the matter is that the Ramseys Propagandist in Chief Lou Smit presented to the Grand Jury a powerpoint presentation filled with numerous uncontested falsehoods and mistakes. The chief investigator from the Boulder Police never uttered a syllable to the Grand Jury. After 13 months of reviewing an enormous amount of evidence as well as Smit's presentation--which should have been appropriately titled 'A Depiction of What Actually Could NOT Have Happened In The House That Niight'-- after reviewing all of that they CORRECTLY and RESPONSIBLY voted to indict.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

3

3

Whether he was protecting the Ramseys or too lazy to prosecute, it has the same bottom line ending. He lied to the public about the GJ results and JBR deserved better than his actions.
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry folks but Alex Hunter wouldn't have felt he had enough evidence to convict Bernie Madoff after he confessed. Morever the more we learn about the investigation, it becomes much more likely that Hunter was protecting the Ramseys for personal reasons. All of the Ramseys apologists can make as many excuses as they want--some of them even call him brave!
The fact of the matter is that the Ramseys Propagandist in Chief Lou Smit presented to the Grand Jury a powerpoint presentation filled with numerous uncontested falsehoods and mistakes. The chief investigator from the Boulder Police never uttered a syllable to the Grand Jury. After 13 months of reviewing an enormous amount of evidence as well as Smit's presentation--which should have been appropriately titled 'A Depiction of What Actually Could NOT Have Happened In The House That Niight'-- after reviewing all of that they CORRECTLY and RESPONSIBLY voted to indict.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

DrSeussMd wrote:
Whether he was protecting the Ramseys or too lazy to prosecute, it has the same bottom line ending. He lied to the public about the GJ results and JBR deserved better than his actions.
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss

That is the bottom line. JBR deserved better than his actions and she deserved better than the actions of Smit, Lacy, Tracey and most of the apologists for the actions of the Ramseys and all their supporters.

As usual, JBR gets forgotten in their efforts to paint a better picture of the Ramseys and those SWORN to protect victims like her i.e. Hunter and Smit

The apologists for all of them really need to apologize to JonBenet Ramsey

Anyone remember her?

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
Whether he was protecting the Ramseys or too lazy to prosecute, it has the same bottom line ending. He lied to the public about the GJ results and JBR deserved better than his actions.
<quoted text>
I agree.
The reasons for his actions could be that he was corrupt, or it could be because of the results of the OJ Simpson trial. He might have been afraid of going against powerful attorneys after seeing OJ Simpson get off, from an obvious conviction.

Looking at all of this, I am more convinced that Smit was on the take by the Ramsey estate.
CC

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss
That is the bottom line. JBR deserved better than his actions and she deserved better than the actions of Smit, Lacy, Tracey and most of the apologists for the actions of the Ramseys and all their supporters.
As usual, JBR gets forgotten in their efforts to paint a better picture of the Ramseys and those SWORN to protect victims like her i.e. Hunter and Smit
The apologists for all of them really need to apologize to JonBenet Ramsey
Anyone remember her?
I don't know how long it took for Hunter to worry about his real estate holdings, but he did appear to try and define the crime by bringing in Marilyn Van Derber whom, as you know, was a victim of incest by her wealthy, powerful father. Soon after that came Shapiro and that nonsense..but, it seemed AH cared about the truth for a minute there.
learnin

Onaga, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lynette 22 wrote:
What we have to understand and it's very important to remember is that Alex Hunter was NOT pro-Ramsey. He prohibited his own investigator, Lou Smit, from testifying before the grand jury to present evidence of his (Smit's) intruder theory which would have been favourable to the Ramseys. Smit had to resort to obtaining a court order to be allowed to testify.
Even if he, Hunter, felt there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, why not just sign the indictment, take the case to trial and let the jury decide? It would have taken the intense pressure off him and since the indictment was on the lesser charge of child abuse, double jeopardy would not apply had further evidence later come to light implicating the Ramseys in murder. His duty would be done and he'd have emerged the "good guy".
So why was he so resistant to indicting the Ramseys? My own feeling is, and this is my opinion only, that he was aware of certain paedophile activities going on in Boulder to which he'd turned a blind eye and therefore he could not, in all good conscience, indict the Ramseys knowing the probability was high that they had nothing to do with their child's death.
Are you saying, then, that the Rams were covering for a pedophile?
They were covering for someone and the Grand Jury surely thought so.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

DrSeussMd wrote:
It appears pedophiles are the soup du jour today! Letís blame everything on them!
Lynette, there are pedophile activities in the majority of cities in my country and yours. Is that why Hunter never prosecuted any other cases as well? Cause he blamed all the rest of the crimes in Boulder on those ole pedophiles?
Alex Hunter didnít want to put in the effort that would be needed to bring a tough case to justice when he was on his way out of office. He didnít want that legacy because he didnít believe he could get a conviction. Heck, if I hadn't prosecuted a case in 28 years, I would be worried about getting a conviction on a parking ticket, LOL!
ď he was aware of certain paedophile activities going on in Boulder to which he'd turned a blind eye and therefore he could not, in all good conscience, indict the Ramseys knowing the probability was high that they had nothing to do with their child's death.Ē
I'm not blaming EVERYTHING on paedophiles, Seuss. Alex Hunter had a reputation for not wanting to prosecute cases. As at 1996 he hadn't prosecuted a single case in ten years, so when faced with the prospect of prosecuting this difficult, high-profile case, he undoubtedly didn't feel up to the challenge, especially not with the weak, circumstantial evidence he had to present to the court. He didn't have a winnable case.

So what makes no sense is why then, if he did not want the grand jury to indict, he would prevent Evan Ravitz and Robert McFarland who had important evidence which could have prevented an indictment, from testifying. What did these witnesses have to tell that Alex Hunter did not want the grand jury to hear? I believe Evan Ravitz summed it up very accurately with the following statement:

"The substance of our testimony to the police and what we still want investigated is what it seems Hunter most wanted to avoid: the possibility that accused pedophiles in very high places in Boulder -we suggested two names- had both motive and means to de-rail the investigation in the first hours, possibly by calling off the FBI. The motive would be to keep the wide-ranging spotlight of a media case like this away from people like themselves, whether they were involved or not."

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

I wish I knew who these two people were that Ravitz and McFarland named. Anyone who has the power to call off the FBI must be very powerful indeed. We know the FBI kept in the background, which is highly irregular in a case where a child has been kidnapped. The FBI did not act in accordance with the Lindbergh Law by assuming jurisdiction during the early hours of the investigation when JonBenet was thought to be kidnapped. They didn't even visit the crime scene until after the discovery of the body.

Then there were the ones who were so overly concerned about keeping media attention off Boulder. They were very protective of Boulder. WHY? Because IMO paedophilia was so rampant in Boulder and involved so many people in high places that they wanted no attention focused on Boulder whatsoever for fear of all this being uncovered. And I believe Hunter knew about it and had been persuaded to turn a blind eye to what had been going on right underneath his nose for years.

Boulder with Alex Hunter as DA was a safe haven for anyone engaged in unlawful activities because cases were plea-bargained, not prosecuted.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss
That is the bottom line. JBR deserved better than his actions and she deserved better than the actions of Smit, Lacy, Tracey and most of the apologists for the actions of the Ramseys and all their supporters.
As usual, JBR gets forgotten in their efforts to paint a better picture of the Ramseys and those SWORN to protect victims like her i.e. Hunter and Smit
The apologists for all of them really need to apologize to JonBenet Ramsey
Anyone remember her?
What JonBenet deserves is the TRUTH because the truth would lead to justice for her. Since the BPD didn't respect her enough to do a thorough, competent and professional investigation, others tried to get her the justice she deserves. They should not be scorned for their efforts.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying, then, that the Rams were covering for a pedophile?
They were covering for someone and the Grand Jury surely thought so.
No learnin, that is absolutely not what I'm saying, lol. I believe Alex Hunter was covering for paedophiles.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> What JonBenet deserves is the TRUTH because the truth would lead to justice for her. Since the BPD didn't respect her enough to do a thorough, competent and professional investigation, others tried to get her the justice she deserves. They should not be scorned for their efforts.
If JBR deserved the truth, it would have been offered. All that was offered were lies, misinformation and spin.

The "others" who tried and still try to get her the justice she deserves do NOT INCLUDE her own family and in fact, it was her own family that denied her justice then and continues to deny it to this day

Those who should be scorned are those who willingly perpetuate the lies and defend those others who do, so if the shoe fits......

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No learnin, that is absolutely not what I'm saying, lol. I believe Alex Hunter was covering for paedophiles.
You also believe that trolls who show the most ugly amount of cruelty to other posters (we needn't rehash the specifics) are just wonderful, warm, and poetic, so your opinion and beliefs are meaningless to most here. Most here do not have short memories

Stick with those who are willing to swallow your faux intellect and pretend caring; you won't find many here who are willing to believe you

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

"...So what makes no sense is why then, if he did not want the grand jury to indict, he would prevent Evan Ravitz and Robert McFarland who had important evidence which could have prevented an indictment, from testifying...."

Do you have a source for this?

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how long it took for Hunter to worry about his real estate holdings, but he did appear to try and define the crime by bringing in Marilyn Van Derber whom, as you know, was a victim of incest by her wealthy, powerful father. Soon after that came Shapiro and that nonsense..but, it seemed AH cared about the truth for a minute there.
AH cared about the truth UNTIL Haddon was hired. Once Haddon was hired, AH had to worry about his real estate holdings. He was partners with him in the real estate business and breakfast partners daily.

Alex Hunter cared about Alex Hunter; not JonBenet Ramsey and if he did it was for a fleeting moment until he was instructed otherwise

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
AH cared about the truth UNTIL Haddon was hired. Once Haddon was hired, AH had to worry about his real estate holdings. He was partners with him in the real estate business and breakfast partners daily.
Alex Hunter cared about Alex Hunter; not JonBenet Ramsey and if he did it was for a fleeting moment until he was instructed otherwise
well then, if he was on board until Haddon entered the picture, clearly he was telegraphing what he believed happened by bringing in Marilyn...just as I have suspected from day one.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No learnin, that is absolutely not what I'm saying, lol. I believe Alex Hunter was covering for paedophiles.
I think this is just the 'next straw' you are grabbing on to as more information comes out to debunk the IDI mindset, you (IDI in general) latch on to something else. There isn't much left that hasn't been debunked, so I will anxiously await whatever straw y'all grab next.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

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.

Other Recent JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 6 hr Note 400
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? 7 hr Undrtheradar 51
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 7 hr JTF 7,467
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 19 hr Note 23
Doc Miller to be on Boyles 2/1/13 (Feb '13) Thu Rupert 33
Jason Midyette (Dec '07) Aug 19 Legal__Eagle 1,320
The Jonbenet Ransom note and Dirty Harry Aug 18 Note 17

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
•••