Boulder DA sued for release of indictment

[tezi]

Bill Wise! I ran across that name today when I was looking into the Grand Jury results. One of the places I looked said he and several people on the Grand Jury were the ones to leak the information from '99.

This is not cited information, I saw this on a blog I think. But he reportedly said he agreed with Hunter's decision not to pursue the Ramseys. If so, I'm confused as to why he'd reveal the Grand Jury indictment.

Oh, I think he leaked information way before the Grand Jury.



JMO

 

[eileenhawkeye]

JonBenet Ramsey is currently the #1 Trending Topic on Yahoo right now (3:46 PM Central).

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Garnett said this week that he would respond to the lawsuit in court. Garnett said: “We will respond to the motion in a pleading in court… Protecting the integrity of the grand jury process is important to every district attorney.”

Read more at http://www./958595/jonbenet-ramsey-...a-over-secret-indictment/#HdeIpJc1SfFGeZcH.99

 

[chlban]

[[

quote]QUOTE=ScarlettScarpetta;9849899]She has to arrest him. She had to. He confessed, Seemed to know things about the crime.. She had to investigate him and make sure.

That is good police work.

If the police start arresting everyone that confesses to a famous crime and "seems to know things about the crime" We are going to need to start building a whole lot more jails and fast.

There are probably still people confessing to having killed the Black Dahlia!

Law enforcement expects the crazies to start confessing. The more famous the crime, the more confessions they will get. Most of LE is just not a stupid and biased as ML. Thank God.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

:floorlaugh:If the polie start arresting everyone that confesses to a famous crime and "seems to know things about the crime" We are going to need to start building a whole lot more jails and fast.

There are probably still people confessing to having killed the Black Dahlia!

Law enforcement expects the crazies to start confessing. The more famous the crime, the more confessions they will get. Most of LE is just not a stupid and biased as ML. Thank God.

I am sure. The difference is that I think to get him here to America there had to be an arrest.. I know that it was most likely more complicated because he was not in the USA at the time.

People do confess all the time but it was more than that, He had a lot of info. I have no issue at all with her arresting him and investigating him.

 

[Frigga]

Protecting the integrity of the grand jury process is important to every district attorney.”

... as opposed to heeding their recommendations apparently.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Protecting the integrity of the grand jury process is important to every district attorney.”

... as opposed to heeding their recommendations apparently.

I would bet that him not charging was protecting that process. There is no good reason for him not to charge other than he knew it was a bad indictment.

 

[Frigga]

I would bet that him not charging was protecting that process. There is no good reason for him not to charge other than he knew it was a bad indictment.

Why on earth are you convening a Grand Jury in the first place if you know it is a "bad indictment"? What kind of sense does that make?

To be able to say you called one? You did your due diligence? To be able to infer for years that the Grand jury you seated voted against an indictment?

Because that is ultimately the way things played out until just recently!

I want a reasonable explanation- not just a "Lifetime Movie" one! How long was that Grand Jury seated, by the way?

 

[tezi]

I am sure. The difference is that I think to get him here to America there had to be an arrest.. I know that it was most likely more complicated because he was not in the USA at the time.

People do confess all the time but it was more than that, He had a lot of info. I have no issue at all with her arresting him and investigating him.

Again, he didn't have any more information than the general public. His handwriting didn't match, he wasn't anywhere near Boulder at the times in question, his DNA didn't match...We can keep doing this dance for the next 100 years and those facts aren't going to change.:banghead::banghead:

BTW, a vast majority of people of Boulder County disagree with ML's decision to extadite him.

JMO

 

[tezi]

I would bet that him not charging was protecting that process. There is no good reason for him not to charge other than he knew it was a bad indictment.

He was covering his butt. Not a good reason, but that is why he didn't charge.

JMO

 

[Frigga]

I hope the lawsuit is won and the contents of the indictment are laid bare. Shouldn't everyone (no matter what angle you come at this from) want that?

 

[Lucky42531]

Why on earth are you convening a Grand Jury in the first place if you know it is a "bad indictment"? What kind of sense does that make?

To be able to say you called one? You did your due diligence? To be able to infer for years that the Grand jury you seated voted against an indictment?

Because that is ultimately the way things played out until just recently!

I want a reasonable explanation- not just a "Lifetime Movie" one! How long was that Grand Jury seated, by the way?

Because a grand jury can compel witnesses to testify in ways that police can't so it was worth trying to see if a grand jury could gather any more information.

It's common for grand juries to indict people who are not prosecutable because GJs have a lower burden of proof. Prosecutors must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" so it makes sense that a jury could be pretty sure someone did something but it couldn't be proven in criminal court.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Here are some things I'm wondering about:

1. It seems that there will be a trial, right? Will there be a jury or does judge made the decision? How exactly does it work?

2. Any guesses on when we would get a verdict/conclusion?

3. What do we expect the indictment to say? I think I read that it would be a list of evidence that the GJ felt was sufficient to indict the R's?

 

[questfortrue]

Here are some things I'm wondering about:

1. It seems that there will be a trial, right? Will there be a jury or does judge made the decision? How exactly does it work?

2. Any guesses on when we would get a verdict/conclusion?

3. What do we expect the indictment to say? I think I read that it would be a list of evidence that the GJ felt was sufficient to indict the R's?

No, a trial will not result from this. The true bill claiming enough evidence against the R's for child abuse leading to death, expired many years ago. IIRC, it expired after 3 years from the time of the GJ's vote.

The statistics on GJ's for not behaving frivolously are thought-provoking, to say the least. One source, James Robinson, assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department notes the following statistics: A significant portion of those who are indicted -- 90 percent -- plead guilty, and that of the remaining defendants who go to trial, another 80 percent to 85 percent are found guilty by a jury or judge. That equates to about 98%. I have seen lower stats, though; and to be fair about these statistics, one should also look at the fact that some of those who pled gulty, weren’t guilty, but just took a deal from the prosecution. Still the statistics are “up there” in terms of the GJ getting it right. moo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

No, a trial will not result from this. The true bill claiming enough evidence against the R's for child abuse leading to death, expired many years ago. IIRC, it expired after 3 years from the time of the GJ's vote.

The statistics on GJ's for not behaving frivolously are thought-provoking, to say the least. One source, James Robinson, assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department notes the following statistics: A significant portion of those who are indicted -- 90 percent -- plead guilty, and that of the remaining defendants who go to trial, another 80 percent to 85 percent are found guilty by a jury or judge. That equates to about 98%. I have seen lower stats, though; and to be fair about these statistics, one should also look at the fact that some of those who pled gulty, weren’t guilty, but just took a deal from the prosecution. Still the statistics are “up there” in terms of the GJ getting it right. moo

I meant, will there be a trial to determine the lawsuit? Like what side wins and whether or not the indictment will be released?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

There is real evidence that someone else could have been there that night. There is Biological DNA that matches touch DNA. That is not a worker over seas.. that is someone that was there that night and it does not match any of the R's. That is big.

If people want to ignore it, That is their choice but it is not going to go away. There is someone out there that tried the same thing 8 months after this crime..

In any other case, this would be something awesome.. But here? Because it is the R's.. It is tossed out..

Without a link or evidence connecting the two, it is purely just rumor.

 

[redheadedgal]

Without a link or evidence connecting the two, it is purely just rumor.

and someone who repeatedly calls out for "facts" and "evidence" should know this...

fact: copycat crimes are prevalent

evidence:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crimes"]Copycat crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_Natural_Born_Killers_copycat_crimes"]List of alleged Natural Born Killers copycat crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment_n_3955057.html

Jessica.....I think you must be confused.

My response was to a poster who claimed there was an exact situation that happened to JBR to another girl 8 months later ***and I was asking that poster for a link to prove her statement***.

I hope that cleared things up.

 

[Jessica2012]

Jessica.....I think you must be confused.

My response was to a poster who claimed there was an exact situation that happened to JBR to another girl 8 months later ***and I was asking that poster for a link to prove her statement***.

I hope that cleared things up.

@ ATasteOfHoney,
SO sorry That link was not a response to the question you posed, I posted it in the wrong place. I agree with you, I have never read that the exact situation that happened to JBR happened to another girl 8 months later. I think such a tragedy happening again would have created a tidal wave of media trying to connect the two cases. This many years later, any remote connection to the Jon Benet Ramsey case is reported.
I read today about the Erica Parson disappearance case- that the step mother collected memorabilia of Jon Benet Ramsey. If media reports that, surely they would report it if the exact situation that happened to JBR happened to another little girl. I am not saying it did not happen, just that I cannot find anything about it.
I apologize for the confusion I caused.

 

[questfortrue]

I meant, will there be a trial to determine the lawsuit? Like what side wins and whether or not the indictment will be released?

IDK. Sorry, misunderstood. My neurons weren't synapsing well!