breach of promise

[Charterhouse]

Do you think they can say that documents cannot be released because the case is still open?

 

[midwest mama]

Do you think they can say that documents cannot be released because the case is still open?

The Judge initially posed the challenge to the DA to show just cause as to why the indictment should NOT be released, so now that the Judge has the ability to release it, why wouldn't he??

 

[madeleine]

The Judge initially posed the challenge to the DA to show just cause as to why the indictment should NOT be released, so now that the Judge has the ability to release it, why wouldn't he??

yep,I didn't hear Garnett say making it public will hinder/undermine the investigation...guess he's aware as well that it's dead cold IMO

 

[madeleine]

remember this?

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014a.htm

STATEMENT

The following statement was issued Wednesday night by John and Patsy Ramsey and their lawyers:

After almost three years of intense legal scrutiny, with the aid of a grand jury of honest and responsible citizens, it has been determined that there is simply not sufficient information to indict anyone for the murder of JonBenet. We take no satisfaction in this result because a child killer remains free and undetected.

The Ramsey family lives in a nightmare. There has been no end to the public lynching and speculation which marred this case from the beginning. The public has been misled by a constant stream of attacks and false information from people all too eager for a headline regardless of truth. Those persons who have biased this case by leaking false, incomplete or misleading information are as corrupt as those who report it. The time has come for an accounting of those responsible for this spectacle.

Experienced detectives were removed from this investigation in 1998. It is our request that this investigation be renewed by returning these skilled investigators to authority. This crime cannot be solved by those who close their minds to any lead which is inconsistent with their biases.

We thank our many friends and family members for standing by us during this terrible ordeal. We also extend our thanks to the grand jurors who took so much time out of their own lives to assist the investigation.

There is still much work to be done. We remain committed to finding our daughter's killer. With God's help, we will succeed.

 

[Frigga]

remember this?

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014a.htm

STATEMENT

The following statement was issued Wednesday night by John and Patsy Ramsey and their lawyers:

After almost three years of intense legal scrutiny, with the aid of a grand jury of honest and responsible citizens, it has been determined that there is simply not sufficient information to indict anyone for the murder of JonBenet. We take no satisfaction in this result because a child killer remains free and undetected.

The Ramsey family lives in a nightmare. There has been no end to the public lynching and speculation which marred this case from the beginning. The public has been misled by a constant stream of attacks and false information from people all too eager for a headline regardless of truth. Those persons who have biased this case by leaking false, incomplete or misleading information are as corrupt as those who report it. The time has come for an accounting of those responsible for this spectacle.

Experienced detectives were removed from this investigation in 1998. It is our request that this investigation be renewed by returning these skilled investigators to authority. This crime cannot be solved by those who close their minds to any lead which is inconsistent with their biases.

We thank our many friends and family members for standing by us during this terrible ordeal. We also extend our thanks to the grand jurors who took so much time out of their own lives to assist the investigation.

There is still much work to be done. We remain committed to finding our daughter's killer. With God's help, we will succeed.

We remain committed to finding our daughter's killer.

... with God's help, I hope they do succeed!

 

[chlban]

I'll believe it when I see it, meaning the release of the indictment. Right now, I am thinking JR will get his way again. There has to be reason he is so arrogant.

I have really had it with parents getting away with murder, in this case and in several others. While I don't believe this murder was premeditated in the classic sense (athough legally I think it was), it was murder just the same. Result of Patsy's rage doesn't make it acceptable, but she managed to escape justice. The McCann's got away with it, as well as countless other parents who seem to have figured out that if you just get rid of the body, you can get away with the crime.

It feels to me like it all started with the Ramsey's. Not the killing, of course. That has sadly been going on forever, but at least the others, Jefffrey MacDonald, Diane Downs, Allice Crimmins, got caught. Since the Ramseys not only got away with it, they cashed in on it, the new trend is that LE (obviously in this case the blame sits solidly on good old Alex Hunter and the even dumber Mary Lacy) is either too scared or too incompetent to do a thing about it.

I am really sick of it.

 

[tezi]

JUDGE ORDERS RELEASE OF INDICTMENT...MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! FRIDAY IS THE DAY!!!!

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...indictment-charging-parents-john-patsy-ramsey

 

[madeleine]

wow,can we have a new thread for this?

 

[tezi]

wow,can we have a new thread for this?

Sure, I will make one...Right now..

 

[tezi]

New thread...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224943"]Indictment will be released...10/25/13 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[otg]

NOTE: I started this post before the news about the judge releasing the information on Friday. I’m going to go ahead and post it because I think it explains why Haddon and Morgan got involved (and too, because I spent so much damn time on it):


Well, looks like John has called out the cavalry, the big guns, the heavy hitters, the lawyers with a big pile of political chits who can make backroom deals and make things happen that leaves everyone else scratching their heads wondering what just happened. Looks like John thinks this is becoming a little more than just “more drama”. Looks like in a situation like this he doesn’t want to depend on that bottom-feeder Lin Wood. So what brought about this sudden panic? It wasn’t James Kolar’s book. It wasn’t the lawsuit Charlie Brennan filed. And it wasn’t even Judge Lowenbach’s order for Garnett to “show cause” as to why the GJ’s only “official action” be released to the public -- even though that is what is stated in the letter.

The “show cause” order came on Thursday, October 17. The next day, Friday the 18th is when Garnett announced that he would not fight the judge’s order and simply turn it over for him to decide. I think that is what sent RST into full defense mode. Finally, it actually looked like the indictment might be actually unsealed and released to the public because of what the judge had already said about his desire for “transparency”. RST’s last hope had been for the DA to continue putting up a fight to keep it “secret”. That allowed them to keep propagating the myth that the GJ had not indicted them.

Haddon’s letter is dated October 20, 2013 (a Sunday, if no one noticed). What kind of a panic must be raging through the Ramsey camp that would get a high-priced lawyer to work on a Sunday? (OT: Do lawyers get paid double-time or time-and-a-half for weekend work?)

(BTW, just to point out now that everyone who reads this knows the DA’s email address, as well as the format for anyone else who works for the County of Boulder.)


http://i42.tinypic.com/2q2o3n9.jpg

“Formally exonerated?” As opposed to an informal exoneration? :floorlaugh: Haddon knows better than that. He knows the legal definition of the word exonerate, and he knows the perception of the word in the mind of the public. Most people think exonerated is the equivalent of the word acquitted. And the RST has constantly reminded anyone who would listen that they were “exonerated” by the DA. Even Mary Lacy never used the word “exonerated” in her bogus “letter of absolution”. While we laypeople may not fully understand the implications of the word, an attorney knows exactly what it means. From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.
​

But this doesn’t stop Haddon from incorrectly using term in a letter to another lawyer. So I think here he is using it knowing this letter will be made public and hoping it will continue to mislead the public who reads it.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2070sch.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/a9pjys.jpg

Judge Lowenbach is not hearing the case against the Ramseys. He is not looking at evidence that the GJ had, nor any evidence that may have been developed after the GJ was dismissed. This is a simple case of whether or not to release to the public information on an “official action” taken by a body of people commissioned by the state. It was public money that paid for the GJ -- the public is owed an explanation as to what was done with their tax money.

http://i42.tinypic.com/s5uyyp.jpg

The “constitutional right” he is referring to (and cites) here says the following:

Section 16a. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS

Any person who is a victim of a criminal act, or such person's designee, legal guardian, or surviving immediate family members if such person is deceased, shall have the right to be heard when relevant, informed, and present at all critical stages of the criminal justice process. All terminology, including the term "critical stages", shall be defined by the general assembly.
​

So here, Haddon is claiming this action is a “critical stage” in the “criminal justice process”. But the reason for this “right” being added to the Colorado Constitution is given as follows:

THE RIGHT OF A VICTIM'S SURVIVING IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER TO BE PRESENT AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A PARTY'S RIGHT TO SEQUESTER WITNESSES UNDER C.R.E. 615. The father of a murder victim who testified in the defendant's trial was wrongly excluded from subsequent portions of the trial. People v. Coney, 98 P.3d 930 (Colo. App. 2004).
​

If you’ve ever noticed in a trial, a potential witness is not allowed to hear testimony prior to his own. This is to prevent him from changing his testimony based on what transpires in the proceedings. But this rule is superseded by the above rule for a victim’s immediate family member in a criminal proceeding. This hearing presided over by Judge Lowenbach is not a criminal proceeding.

http://i43.tinypic.com/evdlol.jpg

Haddon et al are taking a big gamble here. It seems they are trying to tie the release of the indictment to the evidence presented to the GJ by pleading for “fairness” in the information made available. But the DA, as custodian of the records of GJ proceedings, did not want to release any information despite the requirement by law of release of “official actions” of the GJ once the indictment was known to exist. The judge cannot order him to release the GJ proceedings. That means that any witness testimony or evidence the prosecutors presented to the GJ will not be released. Haddon would love to have that information, because it would tell them exactly what evidence they had against the Ramseys. But Haddon knows that information is never shared with a suspect until they are actually charged with a crime. Then it is part of the information that has to be turned over to the defendant’s side so they can prepare a defense.

But Haddon does not really want that information disclosed to the public, despite his having stated it in his letter. He knows it will not (cannot) be released. He is simply trying to tie it to the indictment from a sense of “fairness” and “transparency” so that the judge might decide not to release any of it. This won’t happen. This is absolutely essential to the reason for secrecy in the GJ proceedings.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2z5pzie.jpg

I was skeptical at first that the GJ’s True Bill of Indictment would actually be released. But I have to admit that I see a lot more hope now for it to happen -- especially after reading this letter from Haddon. It shows me they are actually scared that it might be released to the public. Thank you, Charlie Brennan and Mimi Wesson.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

JUDGE ORDERS RELEASE OF INDICTMENT...MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! FRIDAY IS THE DAY!!!!

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...indictment-charging-parents-john-patsy-ramsey

Hoooooooraaaaaayyyyy!

:judge:

:scale:

 

[Darlene733510]

It seems to me that JR made the statement that he wants all the information released has an ulterior motive behind it. If all was released, it would include the testimony of BR, who who was protected from prosecution because of his age. This is a desperate attempt to use his Son as a reason to stop the release of the GJ hearing to the public.
I am wondering if BR's testimony to the GJ will be released, or will it be redacted?
I have a feeling that because PR is dead, somehow they are trying to make her the scapegoat. What better way is there to defend himself than to pass the buck to someone who cannot speak or defend herself.

 

[Frigga]

Wow.wow.wow!

 

[rachael123]

Wow.wow.wow!

SO GLAD TO SEE THIS.Look forward to Tomorrow.
Somebody is sweating.:clap:

 

[questfortrue]

NOTE: I started this post before the news about the judge releasing the information on Friday. I’m going to go ahead and post it because I think it explains why Haddon and Morgan got involved (and too, because I spent so much damn time on it):


Well, looks like John has called out the cavalry, the big guns, the heavy hitters, the lawyers with a big pile of political chits who can make backroom deals and make things happen that leaves everyone else scratching their heads wondering what just happened. Looks like John thinks this is becoming a little more than just “more drama”. Looks like in a situation like this he doesn’t want to depend on that bottom-feeder Lin Wood. So what brought about this sudden panic? It wasn’t James Kolar’s book. It wasn’t the lawsuit Charlie Brennan filed. And it wasn’t even Judge Lowenbach’s order for Garnett to “show cause” as to why the GJ’s only “official action” be released to the public -- even though that is what is stated in the letter.

The “show cause” order came on Thursday, October 17. The next day, Friday the 18th is when Garnett announced that he would not fight the judge’s order and simply turn it over for him to decide. I think that is what sent RST into full defense mode. Finally, it actually looked like the indictment might be actually unsealed and released to the public because of what the judge had already said about his desire for “transparency”. RST’s last hope had been for the DA to continue putting up a fight to keep it “secret”. That allowed them to keep propagating the myth that the GJ had not indicted them.

Haddon’s letter is dated October 20, 2013 (a Sunday, if no one noticed). What kind of a panic must be raging through the Ramsey camp that would get a high-priced lawyer to work on a Sunday? (OT: Do lawyers get paid double-time or time-and-a-half for weekend work?)

(BTW, just to point out now that everyone who reads this knows the DA’s email address, as well as the format for anyone else who works for the County of Boulder.)


http://i42.tinypic.com/2q2o3n9.jpg

“Formally exonerated?” As opposed to an informal exoneration? :floorlaugh: Haddon knows better than that. He knows the legal definition of the word exonerate, and he knows the perception of the word in the mind of the public. Most people think exonerated is the equivalent of the word acquitted. And the RST has constantly reminded anyone who would listen that they were “exonerated” by the DA. Even Mary Lacy never used the word “exonerated” in her bogus “letter of absolution”. While we laypeople may not fully understand the implications of the word, an attorney knows exactly what it means. From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.
​

But this doesn’t stop Haddon from incorrectly using term in a letter to another lawyer. So I think here he is using it knowing this letter will be made public and hoping it will continue to mislead the public who reads it.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2070sch.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/a9pjys.jpg

Judge Lowenbach is not hearing the case against the Ramseys. He is not looking at evidence that the GJ had, nor any evidence that may have been developed after the GJ was dismissed. This is a simple case of whether or not to release to the public information on an “official action” taken by a body of people commissioned by the state. It was public money that paid for the GJ -- the public is owed an explanation as to what was done with their tax money.

http://i42.tinypic.com/s5uyyp.jpg

The “constitutional right” he is referring to (and cites) here says the following:

Section 16a. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS

Any person who is a victim of a criminal act, or such person's designee, legal guardian, or surviving immediate family members if such person is deceased, shall have the right to be heard when relevant, informed, and present at all critical stages of the criminal justice process. All terminology, including the term "critical stages", shall be defined by the general assembly.
​

So here, Haddon is claiming this action is a “critical stage” in the “criminal justice process”. But the reason for this “right” being added to the Colorado Constitution is given as follows:

THE RIGHT OF A VICTIM'S SURVIVING IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER TO BE PRESENT AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A PARTY'S RIGHT TO SEQUESTER WITNESSES UNDER C.R.E. 615. The father of a murder victim who testified in the defendant's trial was wrongly excluded from subsequent portions of the trial. People v. Coney, 98 P.3d 930 (Colo. App. 2004).
​

If you’ve ever noticed in a trial, a potential witness is not allowed to hear testimony prior to his own. This is to prevent him from changing his testimony based on what transpires in the proceedings. But this rule is superseded by the above rule for a victim’s immediate family member in a criminal proceeding. This hearing presided over by Judge Lowenbach is not a criminal proceeding.

http://i43.tinypic.com/evdlol.jpg

Haddon et al are taking a big gamble here. It seems they are trying to tie the release of the indictment to the evidence presented to the GJ by pleading for “fairness” in the information made available. But the DA, as custodian of the records of GJ proceedings, did not want to release any information despite the requirement by law of release of “official actions” of the GJ once the indictment was known to exist. The judge cannot order him to release the GJ proceedings. That means that any witness testimony or evidence the prosecutors presented to the GJ will not be released. Haddon would love to have that information, because it would tell them exactly what evidence they had against the Ramseys. But Haddon knows that information is never shared with a suspect until they are actually charged with a crime. Then it is part of the information that has to be turned over to the defendant’s side so they can prepare a defense.

But Haddon does not really want that information disclosed to the public, despite his having stated it in his letter. He knows it will not (cannot) be released. He is simply trying to tie it to the indictment from a sense of “fairness” and “transparency” so that the judge might decide not to release any of it. This won’t happen. This is absolutely essential to the reason for secrecy in the GJ proceedings.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2z5pzie.jpg

I was skeptical at first that the GJ’s True Bill of Indictment would actually be released. But I have to admit that I see a lot more hope now for it to happen -- especially after reading this letter from Haddon. It shows me they are actually scared that it might be released to the public. Thank you, Charlie Brennan and Mimi Wesson.

Here's something else which may or not be widely known. The evidence possessed by BPD/DA office could be used to charge someone (without necessarily starting up a new indictment process). From the Boulder Manual of Law:Bar Media Manual:

"Only a small number of prosecutions in Colorado state courts are initiated through the use of a grand jury. A grand jury might be considered useful when the prosecutor believes that further investigation should be done and that the subpoena power, the ability to take sworn testimony, and secrecy rules of grand jury proceedings will assist in that investigation. Additionally, a prosecutor might turn to the grand jury in a politically sensitive case in order to take the evidence before a group of citizens to include their experience and objectivity, as well as the sentiment of the community they represent, as part of the charging decision.

"Prosecution for a felony may be started one of three ways: 1) the return of a grand jury indictment; 2) the filing of an information in district court by the district attorney or 3) the filing of a felony complaint in county court by the district attorney."

Were an unforseen arrow to hit a mark for charging someone, it wouldn't be necessary to initiate another GJ. So, the fact that the DA keeps evidence away from JR attorneys is not only required by the law, but important in the event of future charges.

 

[Chelly]

JR will most likely release a statement through his lawyers re release of indictment, right?