What was Alex Hunter REALLY afraid of?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#23 Feb 1, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
"...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?
Hello, Capricorn. I can't tell you how to find it, but I can tell you that the source for "HER" statement is Evan Ravitz himself. He has a website or page or something that I stumbled on the other day thru one of the other pertinent threads. In it he reveals numerous letters he directed to different parties demanding to be heard at the GJ, and the responses that he and Dr. McF got in return. It was an interesting site, but I felt it was largely another strange bunny trail, inhabited by un-nameable, shadowy, important figures in the Boulder upper echelon. Perhaps SHE will give you a link to it. I sure can't - I can't even remember how I ended up there!! I'm a cavegirl...and damned proud of it!

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#24 Feb 5, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one's grabbing at straws. The IDI theory has in no way been debunked. I am perfectly confident in my belief that the Ramseys are innocent and think I can safely say that applies to every other IDI as well.

However, I notice not a single RDI has made an attempt to explain why Alex Hunter would not allow evidence to be presented to the grand jury which could have prevented an indictment when it's perfectly clear he, Hunter, did not want to prosecute the Ramseys. He acted in contradiction to his own wishes and there has to be an explanation for it.

Why would Alex Hunter sooner break the law than allow Ravitz and McFarland to contact the grand jurors, as was their legal RIGHT, to ask for permission to testify? When they left certain material at the DA's office addressed to the grand jury foreman to be passed on to him in order to hopefully gain permission to testify, this material was intercepted and never passed on. It was not Hunter's right to decide what the jury foreman may or may not see. Why did he go to such lengths to prevent the grand jury hearing what Ravitz and McFarland had to say? This are important questions which need to be addressed, yet you RDI are dancing around them. I've offered an explanation. Would you care to offer yours?

Since: Feb 12

Wahiawa, HI

#25 Feb 5, 2013
Hi Lynette,
As an RDI, I will give you MY opinion as to why Hunter did not allow certain evidence IF he in fact did not.

IF Hunter did not allow certain evidence or testimony at the GJ, it was because either he knew, or he felt it would hurt the Ramsey family.

Because the GJ decided to indict in spite of his claim of "lack of evidence", he made his now OBVIOUSLY deceptive statement. One thing for sure, is I don't think ANYONE on either side of the fence will say that Hunter's statement on the GJ was NOT deceptive.

CC
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No one's grabbing at straws. The IDI theory has in no way been debunked. I am perfectly confident in my belief that the Ramseys are innocent and think I can safely say that applies to every other IDI as well.
However, I notice not a single RDI has made an attempt to explain why Alex Hunter would not allow evidence to be presented to the grand jury which could have prevented an indictment when it's perfectly clear he, Hunter, did not want to prosecute the Ramseys. He acted in contradiction to his own wishes and there has to be an explanation for it.
Why would Alex Hunter sooner break the law than allow Ravitz and McFarland to contact the grand jurors, as was their legal RIGHT, to ask for permission to testify? When they left certain material at the DA's office addressed to the grand jury foreman to be passed on to him in order to hopefully gain permission to testify, this material was intercepted and never passed on. It was not Hunter's right to decide what the jury foreman may or may not see. Why did he go to such lengths to prevent the grand jury hearing what Ravitz and McFarland had to say? This are important questions which need to be addressed, yet you RDI are dancing around them. I've offered an explanation. Would you care to offer yours?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#26 Feb 5, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Hi Lynette,
As an RDI, I will give you MY opinion as to why Hunter did not allow certain evidence IF he in fact did not.
IF Hunter did not allow certain evidence or testimony at the GJ, it was because either he knew, or he felt it would hurt the Ramsey family.
Because the GJ decided to indict in spite of his claim of "lack of evidence", he made his now OBVIOUSLY deceptive statement. One thing for sure, is I don't think ANYONE on either side of the fence will say that Hunter's statement on the GJ was NOT deceptive.
CC
<quoted text>
The GJ indicted despite Lou Smit's powerpoint. That says a lot. Nobody was more eager to sway the jury than Smit. They had an abundance of evidence and Smit tried to debunk it all and they still indicted

Ever wonder why Steve Thomas wasn't allowed to testify? I don't

The GJ voted to indict the Ramseys despite their best efforts to sway them otherwise and for me, that is important
Steve Eller

United States

#27 Feb 5, 2013
Stating that Alex Hunter did not provide exculpatory evidence on behalf of the Ramseys is PATENTLY false. While it is highly unusual for evidence favoring the suspects to be presented to a Grand Jury, Alex Hunter gave every iota of the case file to Lou Smit. Smit appeared before the Grand Jury with an elaborate presentation addressing every aspect of the intended prosecution and intending to clear suspicion away from the Ramseys. This most highly decorated and respected investigator was thought to have been the reason why the Grand Jury did not indict. However we now know that after taking into consideration Lou Smit's meretricious presentation and his interpretation of talking points--errh ahem I mean 'evidence' after considering the material presented by Lou Smit the Grand Jury still voted to indict! Oh for years now we have heard that a Ramsey defense team coupled with Lou Smit's cogent eloquence would have destroyed the prosecution. We now know that this was utter unadulterated pure nonsense. The only person who had the power to destroy the prosecution in this case is the one who ultimately will receive proper credit--none other than Alex Hunter.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#28 Feb 5, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
Stating that Alex Hunter did not provide exculpatory evidence on behalf of the Ramseys is PATENTLY false. While it is highly unusual for evidence favoring the suspects to be presented to a Grand Jury, Alex Hunter gave every iota of the case file to Lou Smit. Smit appeared before the Grand Jury with an elaborate presentation addressing every aspect of the intended prosecution and intending to clear suspicion away from the Ramseys. This most highly decorated and respected investigator was thought to have been the reason why the Grand Jury did not indict. However we now know that after taking into consideration Lou Smit's meretricious presentation and his interpretation of talking points--errh ahem I mean 'evidence' after considering the material presented by Lou Smit the Grand Jury still voted to indict! Oh for years now we have heard that a Ramsey defense team coupled with Lou Smit's cogent eloquence would have destroyed the prosecution. We now know that this was utter unadulterated pure nonsense. The only person who had the power to destroy the prosecution in this case is the one who ultimately will receive proper credit--none other than Alex Hunter.
Hi Steve,

Wonderful post and right on target.

Pedophile rings exist all over the world and that topic now is nothing more than a "distraction" from the real issues. That works in HER circles, but here; not so much :)

If there were anything to any other aspect of the Ramsey case that included pedophile rings, you could bet that Smit would have introduced it and made a more public complaint about it not being allowed into the GJ. He didn't. Like his silence whenever he was proven to be incorrect or downright wrong, his silence speaks volumes. Currently, the silence of all the RST other than the one comment of "more drama" from daddy dearest is deafening and screaming volumes

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#29 Feb 5, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No one's grabbing at straws. The IDI theory has in no way been debunked. I am perfectly confident in my belief that the Ramseys are innocent and think I can safely say that applies to every other IDI as well.
However, I notice not a single RDI has made an attempt to explain why Alex Hunter would not allow evidence to be presented to the grand jury which could have prevented an indictment when it's perfectly clear he, Hunter, did not want to prosecute the Ramseys. He acted in contradiction to his own wishes and there has to be an explanation for it.
Why would Alex Hunter sooner break the law than allow Ravitz and McFarland to contact the grand jurors, as was their legal RIGHT, to ask for permission to testify? When they left certain material at the DA's office addressed to the grand jury foreman to be passed on to him in order to hopefully gain permission to testify, this material was intercepted and never passed on. It was not Hunter's right to decide what the jury foreman may or may not see. Why did he go to such lengths to prevent the grand jury hearing what Ravitz and McFarland had to say? This are important questions which need to be addressed, yet you RDI are dancing around them. I've offered an explanation. Would you care to offer yours?
There aren’t many IDIs left Lynette. Only those holding on to the fact that they don’t want to be wrong, or can’t admit they are or were wrong.

I am an RDI and I will give you a reason, or two:

Evidence must be relevant — that is, it must be directed at proving or disproving a legal element, which leads me to believe Ravitz and McFarland’s alleged evidence wasn’t evidence at all as related to the death of JonBenet. Otherwise there would be no reason it wasn’t presented. For heaven’s sake look at all the misleading crap Smit presented.

The link you provided showed proof of nothing, so how can you say “it could have prevented an indictment”? What could have Lynette? Are you taking the word of the two people who had some un-related agenda to push? How do you KNOW whatever they had would have prevented an indictment? I don’t see how you can “know” that.

Political Aspirations,(or lack thereof in Hunter’s case – he just wanted to retire), many times affect whether or not a crime will be prosecuted. After all we don’t want the public outraged, do we? Not when we sit in an elected position. We prosecute DUIs, but not always rich people for child abuse and murder! At least Colorado doesn’t. Look how long it took for the Midyettes to finally be charged for the death of their 10-week old son. Do you think that was a pedo ring too?

Now, would you like to prove:

The information from Ravitz and McFarland would have prevented an indictment?

The information from Ravitz and McFarland was intercepted and never passed on for nefarious reasons?

How about:
The information from Ravitz and McFarland was applicable to the murder of JonBenet?

You all (IDIs) are grabbing at straws, but that idea didn’t come to the RDI overnight. We have believed it for going on 17 years. Slowly but surely information gets released that debunks all of the scenarios the IDI have clung to all these years. Until Kolar published his book and debunked most of the propaganda, there were a few things to grab onto and beat into the ground.

Even a month ago you had the GJ didn’t indict so the Ramseys aren’t guilty, and The DNA doesn't match. Now you have gone from needing one match to 6 necessary matches. When that goes away, checkmate!
Steve Eller

United States

#30 Feb 5, 2013
It won't be checkmate! Trust me on this...they will find something anything. Even if the remaining Ramseys confess and explain how everything happened and innocently account for every piece of foreign DNA there will be those who WILL insist that the confessions were coerced, they will still talk about John Mark Karr, cast suspicion on Linda Hoffman Pugh, and still accuse Fleet White. I am almost as sure of this as I am of the Ramseys guilt.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#31 Feb 5, 2013
Ravitz and MacFarlane were wingnut city. That had to do with the then new book "Presumed Guilty" by Steve Singular, WHICH LED NOWHERE. That's where all that garbage about sex rings, etc. came from.

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#32 Feb 6, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
There aren’t many IDIs left Lynette. Only those holding on to the fact that they don’t want to be wrong, or can’t admit they are or were wrong.
I am an RDI and I will give you a reason, or two:
Evidence must be relevant — that is, it must be directed at proving or disproving a legal element, which leads me to believe Ravitz and McFarland’s alleged evidence wasn’t evidence at all as related to the death of JonBenet. Otherwise there would be no reason it wasn’t presented. For heaven’s sake look at all the misleading crap Smit presented.
The link you provided showed proof of nothing, so how can you say “it could have prevented an indictment”? What could have Lynette? Are you taking the word of the two people who had some un-related agenda to push? How do you KNOW whatever they had would have prevented an indictment? I don’t see how you can “know” that.
Political Aspirations,(or lack thereof in Hunter’s case – he just wanted to retire), many times affect whether or not a crime will be prosecuted. After all we don’t want the public outraged, do we? Not when we sit in an elected position. We prosecute DUIs, but not always rich people for child abuse and murder! At least Colorado doesn’t. Look how long it took for the Midyettes to finally be charged for the death of their 10-week old son. Do you think that was a pedo ring too?
Now, would you like to prove:
The information from Ravitz and McFarland would have prevented an indictment?
The information from Ravitz and McFarland was intercepted and never passed on for nefarious reasons?
How about:
The information from Ravitz and McFarland was applicable to the murder of JonBenet?
You all (IDIs) are grabbing at straws, but that idea didn’t come to the RDI overnight. We have believed it for going on 17 years. Slowly but surely information gets released that debunks all of the scenarios the IDI have clung to all these years. Until Kolar published his book and debunked most of the propaganda, there were a few things to grab onto and beat into the ground.
Even a month ago you had the GJ didn’t indict so the Ramseys aren’t guilty, and The DNA doesn't match. Now you have gone from needing one match to 6 necessary matches. When that goes away, checkmate!
There aren't many IDI's on THIS forum, LE, but believe me there are still plenty out there. PLENTY.

The evidence Ravitz and McFarland wanted to present had POSSIBLE relevance to JonBenet's murder, which is why they so desperately wanted the grand jury to hear it. Look at it this way: you have a collection of rare gold coins worth millions of dollars in your home. You wake up one morning to find the whole lot gone and within days the police suspect YOU of "stealing" them in order to make a fraudulent insurance claim. Your case comes up before a grand jury and someone wants to present evidence that a sophisticated gang of thieves has been operational in your area. They can even name some of them. Would you consider their evidence irrelevant or would you deem it important enough for the grand jury to know about? You decide, but if you choose the former, I may not believe you.:)

No IDI that I know of ever made a big deal of the grand jury's decision not to indict. All I ever saw was reminder here and there. It's you RDI who are making such huge deal of it. Grand juries aren't infallible, LE. Neither are juries. That's why there are so many wrongful convictions. Do you remember that petition so many of us signed for Troy Davis some time back? Well, ever since the Innocence Project has been sending me regular emails and it's heartbreaking to know how many innocent people have spent large portions of their lives in prison, some of them on death row, for crimes they did not commit. So I don't set too much stock by grand juries. They base their decisions on the evidence presented to them and when they don't hear all the evidence, all the more reason they could be wrong.

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#33 Feb 6, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Hi Lynette,
As an RDI, I will give you MY opinion as to why Hunter did not allow certain evidence IF he in fact did not.
IF Hunter did not allow certain evidence or testimony at the GJ, it was because either he knew, or he felt it would hurt the Ramsey family.
Because the GJ decided to indict in spite of his claim of "lack of evidence", he made his now OBVIOUSLY deceptive statement. One thing for sure, is I don't think ANYONE on either side of the fence will say that Hunter's statement on the GJ was NOT deceptive.
CC
<quoted text>
Hi Charlie. Thank you for your polite response. It's not an IF that Hunter didn't allow certain evidence, it's a FACT he did not. I posted this link before on your thread, but here it is again as proof of what I'm saying:

http://www.evanravitz.com/ramsey/

Hunter's statement was definitely deceptive, no dispute about that. You believe he wanted to protect the Ramsey family, but I've never seen any evidence that Hunter was a Ramsey supporter. In fact, initially at least, it was obvious he suspected them. If he was in support of the Ramseys, don't you think he'd have been happy to allow Lou Smit to testify before the grand jury? But instead he did everything in his power to prevent Smit from doing so.

I'll tell you what I think. IMO Hunter wanted to prevent certain witnesses from testifying because they were speaking of intruders (Smit) and paedophiles (Ravitz and McFarland) and Hunter wanted to keep a tight lid on that. He did not want that door opened at all because it may have sparked off media interest resulting in an investigation into such activities in which some very important people were involved, creating a scandal of monumental proportions. We saw that just recently in the Jimmy Savile scandal and I believe that is what Hunter wanted to avoid. If my guess is correct, the question is why would Hunter want to protect paedophiles? Perhaps because he reaped certain "benefits" by turning a blind eye?

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#34 Feb 6, 2013
candy wrote:
Ravitz and MacFarlane were wingnut city. That had to do with the then new book "Presumed Guilty" by Steve Singular, WHICH LED NOWHERE. That's where all that garbage about sex rings, etc. came from.
It's only "garbage" in the eyes of the VERY naive or those who'd rather not know. How could it lead anywhere with a police force who were unwilling to investigate?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#35 Feb 6, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
There aren’t many IDIs left Lynette. Only those holding on to the fact that they don’t want to be wrong, or can’t admit they are or were wrong.
I am an RDI and I will give you a reason, or two:
Evidence must be relevant — that is, it must be directed at proving or disproving a legal element, which leads me to believe Ravitz and McFarland’s alleged evidence wasn’t evidence at all as related to the death of JonBenet. Otherwise there would be no reason it wasn’t presented. For heaven’s sake look at all the misleading crap Smit presented.
The link you provided showed proof of nothing, so how can you say “it could have prevented an indictment”? What could have Lynette? Are you taking the word of the two people who had some un-related agenda to push? How do you KNOW whatever they had would have prevented an indictment? I don’t see how you can “know” that.
Political Aspirations,(or lack thereof in Hunter’s case – he just wanted to retire), many times affect whether or not a crime will be prosecuted. After all we don’t want the public outraged, do we? Not when we sit in an elected position. We prosecute DUIs, but not always rich people for child abuse and murder! At least Colorado doesn’t. Look how long it took for the Midyettes to finally be charged for the death of their 10-week old son. Do you think that was a pedo ring too?
Now, would you like to prove:
The information from Ravitz and McFarland would have prevented an indictment?
The information from Ravitz and McFarland was intercepted and never passed on for nefarious reasons?
How about:
The information from Ravitz and McFarland was applicable to the murder of JonBenet?
You all (IDIs) are grabbing at straws, but that idea didn’t come to the RDI overnight. We have believed it for going on 17 years. Slowly but surely information gets released that debunks all of the scenarios the IDI have clung to all these years. Until Kolar published his book and debunked most of the propaganda, there were a few things to grab onto and beat into the ground.
Even a month ago you had the GJ didn’t indict so the Ramseys aren’t guilty, and The DNA doesn't match. Now you have gone from needing one match to 6 necessary matches. When that goes away, checkmate!
BRILLIANT POST LE!!!!!!!

As we can see, desperation has set in. I can only assume that the alien invasion theory will be next. After all, there are many who believe in that stuff and sooner or later, that will be the theory and you'd better place your bets that it will show up in an IDI post sooner or later as they run out of more theories that get shot down.

Not unexpected but despite your brilliant post, it falls on deaf ears; not because they are deaf, but because they choose to be deaf

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#36 Feb 6, 2013
Hunter was NOT a Ramsey supporter. He was a Ramsey supporter by proxy.

Hunter was a Haddon supporter
Hunter was a Hunter supporter

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#37 Feb 6, 2013
For anyone who wants to muck through this link you provided, they will certainly understand just how whacked out these two are.

What don’t they understand about the word NO?

You are alleging no one would listen to them and there was this great conspiracy to keep them from the GJ, when just the opposite happened ~ half of Boulder told them NO!

Talk about misrepresenting information.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Hi Charlie. Thank you for your polite response. It's not an IF that Hunter didn't allow certain evidence, it's a FACT he did not. I posted this link before on your thread, but here it is again as proof of what I'm saying:
http://www.evanravitz.com/ramsey/

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#38 Feb 6, 2013
Lynette, there are less than a handful of IDI forums left, and the posters there are the same posters here and are the same posters at Mamas.

You only get to count them once, not three times, LOL!

When Jams closed her forum she made a statement, and that statement was it was useless to move forward with the innocence mindset towards the Ramseys because that line of thinking drowned due to too much information having been released that proved the IDI are either "UP IN THE NIGHT" or involved (like you are) with one conspiracy after another. Now you have started this Ravitz and McFarland bunk. So even she sold out to the NE and went against everything she had previously been proclaiming. Game Set Match.

It is appalling to me how you IDI can keep up the ruse involving one innocent person after another with flagrant accusations and innuendo, and forget about the reason these forums were started in the first place. An innocent child was murdered in her own home Lynette, by the people she trusted most in life. The only other people in the house, and she didn’t deserve to die.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> There aren't many IDI's on THIS forum, LE, but believe me there are still plenty out there. PLENTY.
Dale Fowler

Detroit, MI

#39 Feb 6, 2013
There are only a handful of forum posters and followers. 99.99% of the people do not post or follow this case because nobody is interested in it.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#40 Feb 6, 2013
And 86% of statistics are made up, LOL.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#41 Feb 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
And 86% of statistics are made up, LOL.
I guess he/she is part of the .00000000001% LOL that obviously do follow the case and post and seemingly "interested" :)
Dale Fowler

Detroit, MI

#42 Feb 6, 2013
Yes, I have a little bit of interest in the case. Every month or so I will read the forums to see if any new info has come out. It is not something I think about on a daily basis and I really dont care if the case is ever solved.

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
Suspect Randy Simons! (Dec '07) 1 hr stoned luck aka ... 318
Questions RE Burke's involvement.... (Dec '11) 3 hr stoned luck aka ... 334
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case 4 hr stoned luck aka ... 18
Think family...helter skelter type of family 8 hr stoned luck aka ... 19
It Is a FELONY to Harass, Stalk, or Even Annoy ... (Mar '10) 9 hr stoned luck aka ... 39
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 10 hr icu2 434
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 13 hr Undrtheradar 240
More from around the web