Has the case fizzled a bit?

[BBB167893]

Well that is how you feel about Lin Wood, but he is a practicing atty. Not disbarred and works within the law.

If what he does is within the law, then the law is crazy!

As for not being disbarred, that's something I'll have to change.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave said:
Depositions brought on by subpoena when a law suit opens the gates ... nice tactic SuperDave.

I'll put them through the wringer, BOESP. And the things I will squeeze out!

Of course, that's assuming that they're STUPID enough to try and come after me, because, as far as I know, they haven't got a legal leg to stand on.

 

[BBB167893]

And this means what??
Really?

I'll tell you what it means: it means he's just the kind of person you CLAIM to be disgusted by--a person who makes money off this little girl's dead body. He likes to portray himself as the lawyer to the damned, dedicated to defending the people who have been condemned by society, sort of a legal version of Saint Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. But his only cause is how much money he can get. He's a cheap-shot artist who grabs what he can as quickly as he can.

Well, Scarlett, the use of litigation to increase a lawyer's personal wealth is called barratry, and it IS a disbarring offense. And this joker was brazen enough to brag about it in open court.

Lin Wood is good at what he does.

Which means he's good at being bad. He's a litigation lawyer on top of it, which means that he's not bound by even the flimsy regulations that reign in defense lawyers.

Whatever it does for you, even Hal Haddon and his crew, who could write a book about dirty tricks, hate Lin Wood.

He stays within the law and if he is your atty you have a pit bull working for you.

That's an insult to pit bulls everywhere.

So he may not be a likable guy. He is not getting paid to be liked.

That's a damn good thing! Because he'd starve to death!

All this is is stuff posted to incite anger and hatred toward the R's and their legal team but it means nothing. Really.

"Nothing," my *advertiser censored*.

 

[redheadedgal]

Since the criticism comes from a person who is himself was CONVICTED of witness tampering, Maybe not the best source.

Other forensic pathologists, most notably former New York City Coroner Michael Baden and Pittsburgh Coroner Cyril Wecht, have made similar observations about Meyer's report of the Ramsey autopsy.

I have to tell you Cyril wechts opinion carries weight with me.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9683093&postcount=9"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder[/ame]


good to know considering he was one of those criticizing meyer

 

[snowblossom2]

Has anyone seen the TNT show Cold Justice? They go to small towns, revisit cold cases. Tonight they had a case where it turned out the GJ indicted who they suspected 30 years ago when the murder first happened. Has any one thought about submitting JB's case? You have to have some connection to the case...(I tried to start a new bread but it said I didn't have the privileges to do so)

 

[FrayedKnot]

I'll tell you what it means: it means he's just the kind of person you CLAIM to be disgusted by--a person who makes money off this little girl's dead body. He likes to portray himself as the lawyer to the damned, dedicated to defending the people who have been condemned by society, sort of a legal version of Saint Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. But his only cause is how much money he can get. He's a cheap-shot artist who grabs what he can as quickly as he can.

Well, Scarlett, the use of litigation to increase a lawyer's personal wealth is called barratry, and it IS a disbarring offense. And this joker was brazen enough to brag about it in open court.



Which means he's good at being bad. He's a litigation lawyer on top of it, which means that he's not bound by even the flimsy regulations that reign in defense lawyers.

Whatever it does for you, even Hal Haddon and his crew, who could write a book about dirty tricks, hate Lin Wood.



That's an insult to pit bulls everywhere.



That's a damn good thing! Because he'd starve to death!



"Nothing," my *advertiser censored*.

Amazing post, and THANK YOU!!!!!:rockon:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Has anyone seen the TNT show Cold Justice? They go to small towns, revisit cold cases. Tonight they had a case where it turned out the GJ indicted who they suspected 30 years ago when the murder first happened. Has any one thought about submitting JB's case? You have to have some connection to the case...(I tried to start a new bread but it said I didn't have the privileges to do so)

It wouldn't hurt to send it in as a suggestion, but looking at their website, it seems like the focus is on very obscure murder cases. I think they want to do cases where there is a better chance they will have actually have an impact.

 

[otg]

BOESP posted this in the Media Links thread. Thought I'd repost this here in case no one noticed it:

Camera reporter sues Boulder DA seeking release of Ramsey indictment

By Mitchell Byars Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 09/18/2013 04:34:41 PM MDT | Updated: about 2 hours ago

​

"A Daily Camera reporter and a press advocacy group sued Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett on Wednesday seeking the release of the indictment that was secretly voted on by the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury in 1999 but never prosecuted."

(more)
​

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'll tell you what it means: it means he's just the kind of person you CLAIM to be disgusted by--a person who makes money off this little girl's dead body. He likes to portray himself as the lawyer to the damned, dedicated to defending the people who have been condemned by society, sort of a legal version of Saint Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. But his only cause is how much money he can get. He's a cheap-shot artist who grabs what he can as quickly as he can.

Well, Scarlett, the use of litigation to increase a lawyer's personal wealth is called barratry, and it IS a disbarring offense. And this joker was brazen enough to brag about it in open court.



Which means he's good at being bad. He's a litigation lawyer on top of it, which means that he's not bound by even the flimsy regulations that reign in defense lawyers.

Whatever it does for you, even Hal Haddon and his crew, who could write a book about dirty tricks, hate Lin Wood.



That's an insult to pit bulls everywhere.



That's a damn good thing! Because he'd starve to death!



"Nothing," my *advertiser censored*.

Has he been disbarred? No. Has he been sanctioned.. No..

While apparently people are offended by his behavior it meant nothing legally.

And again, this has nothing to do with what happened that night at the R house when someone killed JBR.
The evidence shows someone else was there.

 

[snowblossom2]

It wouldn't hurt to send it in as a suggestion, but looking at their website, it seems like the focus is on very obscure murder cases. I think they want to do cases where there is a better chance they will have actually have an impact.

True, this case is too contraversial. Just watching the show, though, gave me a bit of hope, especially with the new publicity the case has gotten the past year

 

[2 percent]

Has anyone seen the TNT show Cold Justice? They go to small towns, revisit cold cases. Tonight they had a case where it turned out the GJ indicted who they suspected 30 years ago when the murder first happened. Has any one thought about submitting JB's case? You have to have some connection to the case...(I tried to start a new bread but it said I didn't have the privileges to do so)

I watched it last night. They're doing a great job, a great service to the communities they're helping.

The two episodes I watched had the investigators requesting help. If that's the criteria then there are lots of people who could probably request help in JBs case. But I doubt Kelly and her team would touch it. Too much controversy, too much risk of lawsuit I imagine too.

One interesting thing about the episode you mentioned was the Grand Jury thing. As snowblossom said, the Grand Jury indicted someone 30 years ago. Since there was no trial they assumed they passed on the case. When Kelly and her team presented their new evidence the DA agreed to look at it. He called Kelly days later and asked to see her in person. They talked for a very long time and when she came out to talk to her team it was to say there had been an indictment 30 years ago and the current DA was investigating why no action was taken.

The most important part was Kelly explaining only the DA can unseal Grand Jury records.

Which brings up a few interesting questions. How did the JB Grand Jury results leak? How likely is it a future Boulder DA will officially unsealed the results and proceed?

 

[BOESP]

Here is a link regarding the JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury that may answer some questions:

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/summary.html

 

[2 percent]

Here is a link regarding the JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury that may answer some questions:

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/summary.html

Strange. I hadn't even considered the secrecy oath from the witnesses point of view, infringing on their First Amendment rights.

 

[KoldKase]

Alex Hunter threatened to prosecute anyone who "broke" their Grand Jury secrecy oath.

However, he didn't utter a pip when one grand juror actually spoke on camera to none other than PMPT's Schiller. Schiller then edited her remarks to make it appear the grand jury didn't indict the Ramseys...ha. (Schiller would sell his mother's soul to the Devil if it got him a deal.) That "documentary" in fact was aired the night of Patsy Ramsey's "proper burial" rites.

Darnay Hoffman actually won a decision on behalf of Linda Hoffman-Pugh (no relation) in a Colorado court allowing witnesses to speak about grand jury proceedings in which they were involved. Hunter appealed, of course.

Media analysts were quite excited about this and thought Darnay would have continued to win the appeals, changing a grievous error of law practiced in the state which denies citizens their Constitutional rights.

Alas, Darnay had "issues" and didn't bother to show up in court on the appeal, so he lost and Hunter won by default. It was a colossal blunder by Darnay, but we know he continued to score great victories in peripheral legal cases related to the murder and then fail miserably in the final judgments for lack of resources and/or competency and abilities.

Yes, this case has proven beyond any doubt that in America money and connections can twist the law any way those who have it want it to go.

JMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Alex Hunter threatened to prosecute anyone who "broke" their Grand Jury secrecy oath.

However, he didn't utter a pip when one grand juror actually spoke on camera to none other than PMPT's Schiller. Schiller then edited her remarks to make it appear the grand jury didn't indict the Ramseys...ha. (Schiller would sell his mother's soul to the Devil if it got him a deal.) That "documentary" in fact was aired the night of Patsy Ramsey's "proper burial" rites.

Darnay Hoffman actually won a decision on behalf of Linda Hoffman-Pugh (no relation) in a Colorado court allowing witnesses to speak about grand jury proceedings in which they were involved. Hunter appealed, of course.

Media analysts were quite excited about this and thought Darnay would have continued to win the appeals, changing a grievous error of law practiced in the state which denies citizens their Constitutional rights.

Alas, Darnay had "issues" and didn't bother to show up in court on the appeal, so he lost and Hunter won by default. It was a colossal blunder by Darnay, but we know he continued to score great victories in peripheral legal cases related to the murder and then fail miserably in the final judgments for lack of resources and/or competency and abilities.

Yes, this case has proven beyond any doubt that in America money and connections can twist the law any way those who have it want it to go.

JMO.

Or just that when there is not enough evidence we don't drag people into court and try to convict them of something that they did not do.

 

[tezi]

Alex Hunter threatened to prosecute anyone who "broke" their Grand Jury secrecy oath.

However, he didn't utter a pip when one grand juror actually spoke on camera to none other than PMPT's Schiller. Schiller then edited her remarks to make it appear the grand jury didn't indict the Ramseys...ha. (Schiller would sell his mother's soul to the Devil if it got him a deal.) That "documentary" in fact was aired the night of Patsy Ramsey's "proper burial" rites.

Darnay Hoffman actually won a decision on behalf of Linda Hoffman-Pugh (no relation) in a Colorado court allowing witnesses to speak about grand jury proceedings in which they were involved. Hunter appealed, of course.

Media analysts were quite excited about this and thought Darnay would have continued to win the appeals, changing a grievous error of law practiced in the state which denies citizens their Constitutional rights.

Alas, Darnay had "issues" and didn't bother to show up in court on the appeal, so he lost and Hunter won by default. It was a colossal blunder by Darnay, but we know he continued to score great victories in peripheral legal cases related to the murder and then fail miserably in the final judgments for lack of resources and/or competency and abilities.

Yes, this case has proven beyond any doubt that in America money and connections can twist the law any way those who have it want it to go.

JMO.

Amen...

 

[2 percent]

Or just that when there is not enough evidence we don't drag people into court and try to convict them of something that they did not do.

There's a third choice here. Hunter could have (should have) honored the Grand Jury indictment and dismissed when the case was brought to court. What he did is illegal in other states. I'm not familiar enough with Colorado law to know if he violated the law but at the very least there should be an investigation into Hunter's actions.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's a third choice here. Hunter could have (should have) honored the Grand Jury indictment and dismissed when the case was brought to court. What he did is illegal in other states. I'm not familiar enough with Colorado law to know if he violated the law but at the very least there should be an investigation into Hunter's actions.

Why would he do that if he knew that it was not a valid case. He is obligated to be ethical when doing his job. He did not charge because he knew it was a bogus indictment.

 

[tezi]

Why would he do that if he knew that it was not a valid case. He is obligated to be ethical when doing his job. He did not charge because he knew it was a bogus indictment.

Hunter and ethical do not belong in the same sentence. For reference look up the Michael Manning case. That should give anyone a glimpse into the situation.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Hunter and ethical do not belong in the same sentence. For reference look up the Michael Manning case. That should give anyone a glimpse into the situation.

JMO

He did the right thing here.