Has the case fizzled a bit?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.

It was unethical to ignore the indictment of a sworn Grand Jury he was obligated to respect.
Possibly illegal, too.

Who says whose opinion of the evidence was bogus? I think I would tend to trust the verdict reached by several people over the opinion of one political animal.
 
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.
BBM

I've been searching for a source that say's Darnay Hoffman had "issues", didn't show up in court and the appeal was lost by default. I haven't found anything that say's that. I did find this.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the state’s grand jury secrecy law prevents Linda Hoffman-Pugh from using her testimony in a book.

Hoffman-Pugh’s lawyer said today that the former housekeeper intended to publish the book, The Death of an Innocent, with a blank, 32-page chapter where the testimony would have been printed.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the state's grand jury secrecy law prevents Linda Hoffman-Pugh from using the testimony in a book as long as there's a chance another grand jury could be called to investigate the case.

Hoffman-Pugh's lawyer said the planned book, "The Death of an Innocent," would contain a blank, 32-page chapter in place of the testimony

The appellate court distinguished this case from a previous U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down Florida's grand jury secrecy law. The court noted that the Colorado law did not interfere with Hoffman-Pugh's right to discuss any facts or information she knew before she testified, but barred her only from revealing what actually transpired during the grand jury hearing or other information she learned during the grand jury process.

It looks to me that the court ruled on the issues of the case and not because the lawyer didn't show up.



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-08-08/news/0308090017_1_jonbenet-ramsey-grand-jury-testimony

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/housekeeper-says-shell-publish-blank-chapter-in-ramsey-book

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...eper-cannot-discuss-grand-jury-testimony-book
 
Why convene a Grand Jury in the first place then, if there isn't enough evidence? Explain that one to me?
 
I follow JB's threads and it is such a shame to see them turning into a "right fight", like Madeleine McCanns case.

Some simply refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of what they don't like.

This is not a Faith based site. This is a "sleuthing" site.

We sleuth, which means unpalatable motives are considered, same as more comfortable ones.

Rejecting hypotheses out of hand because you personally "don't believe it", doesn't make for good sleuthing.

Repeatedly and consistently doing that crosses the line from debate to flaming.

:cow:
 
Why convene a Grand Jury in the first place then, if there isn't enough evidence? Explain that one to me?

Because that is what they do. The GJ is their first stop.. But just because a GJ indicts does not mean it is a guilty person. It just means they think there is enough to try the case..

I think he took it to GJ under pressure.
 
The right thing for whom? Himself? And that is your opinion, not the opinion of everyone. Please remember that.

For the whole case. There was something very wrong with that indictment and he knew it. He knew everything. Not charging them was the right thing. There is no other reason for him not to charge them.
 
I follow JB's threads and it is such a shame to see them turning into a "right fight", like Madeleine McCanns case.

Some simply refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of what they don't like.

This is not a Faith based site. This is a "sleuthing" site.

We sleuth, which means unpalatable motives are considered, same as more comfortable ones.

Rejecting hypotheses out of hand because you personally "don't believe it", doesn't make for good sleuthing.

Repeatedly and consistently doing that crosses the line from debate to flaming.


:cow:

Exactly right on the point there.
 
I follow JB's threads and it is such a shame to see them turning into a "right fight", like Madeleine McCanns case.

Some simply refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of what they don't like.

This is not a Faith based site. This is a "sleuthing" site.

We sleuth, which means unpalatable motives are considered, same as more comfortable ones.

Rejecting hypotheses out of hand because you personally "don't believe it", doesn't make for good sleuthing.

Repeatedly and consistently doing that crosses the line from debate to flaming.

:cow:
Not directed at you SS but a general reminder:


1) if you see a post that is "flaming" use the alert button

2) if you want to discuss the RDI angle go here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221853"]RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

3) if you want to discuss the IDI angle go here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221732"]Other opinions...(other than RDI) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

4) if you post a comment don't make it personal. Address the post and not the poster.

5) This forum is not an echo chamber and all opinions are welcome.
 
For the whole case. There was something very wrong with that indictment and he knew it. He knew everything. Not charging them was the right thing. There is no other reason for him not to charge them.

Nope, he did not do the right thing. The right thing would have been to sign the indictment, then dismiss the charges in open court.

Have you lived in Boulder County? I have, I know how Hunter and Company worked. You are right, he convened the GJ on the advice of the DA's from neighboring counties. They knew he was in over his head. Why do you think he brought Michael Kane in? Because his office had no clue on how to present a case to the GJ. Grand Jury investigations were rare in Boulder County when Hunter and Company were in office.

Hunter said he convened the GJ as an investigative body. He NEVER had any intention of indicting anyone with the last name of Ramsey, not matter what the GJ said.

And let's not mention the Jeffrey Shapiro debacle. Let's not mention how not so ethical Hunter is/was.:banghead:

JMO
 
For the whole case. There was something very wrong with that indictment and he knew it. He knew everything. Not charging them was the right thing. There is no other reason for him not to charge them.

"He knew everything"? So did other people in this case.
Why so much faith in Hunter? He's just a man, a lawyer, a politician. He had his prejudices like everyone else. I don't get the cannonization.
 
"He knew everything"? So did other people in this case.
Why so much faith in Hunter? He's just a man, a lawyer, a politician. He had his prejudices like everyone else. I don't get the cannonization.

I don't know if I call it faith.. nor canonization. One can appreciate someone's good choices without bowing down to them.

He brought it all to a GJ I suspect under a lot of pressure. When the GJ indicted the only reason for him not to bring charges is that he knew something was wrong with that indictment. There is no other reason for him not to bring charges at that point. The easy thing would have been to charge them and let it fall where it all may.. The fact that he did not means he had knowledge of something hinky.
 
Nope, he did not do the right thing. The right thing would have been to sign the indictment, then dismiss the charges in open court.

Have you lived in Boulder County? I have, I know how Hunter and Company worked. You are right, he convened the GJ on the advice of the DA's from neighboring counties. They knew he was in over his head. Why do you think he brought Michael Kane in? Because his office had no clue on how to present a case to the GJ. Grand Jury investigations were rare in Boulder County when Hunter and Company were in office.

Hunter said he convened the GJ as an investigative body. He NEVER had any intention of indicting anyone with the last name of Ramsey, not matter what the GJ said.

And let's not mention the Jeffrey Shapiro debacle. Let's not mention how not so ethical Hunter is/was.:banghead:

JMO

No that would not be the right thing.. you don't charge people that you know there is not enough to prosecute with. You don't charge people if the indictment is flawed. You don't charge people without good cause.
 
I don't know if I call it faith.. nor canonization. One can appreciate someone's good choices without bowing down to them.

He brought it all to a GJ I suspect under a lot of pressure. When the GJ indicted the only reason for him not to bring charges is that he knew something was wrong with that indictment. Theere is no other reason for him not to bring charges at that point. The easy thing would have been to charge them and let it fall where it all may.. The fact that he did not means he had knowledge of something hinky.

He also could have been corrupt, scared or ignorant.
 
He also could have been corrupt, scared or ignorant.

No. Corruption would lead him to indicting.. Not charging means he was doing the right thing. With all the pressure had he charged them he would have been a hero.

He did the right thing. He knew there was something wrong.
 
No that would not be the right thing.. you don't charge people that you know there is not enough to prosecute with. You don't charge people if the indictment is flawed. You don't charge people without good cause.

Yes, it would have been the right thing to do. How difficult does this have to be? The GJ voted to indict, he refused to sign the indictment because he knew his previous missteps in this case would come to light. The GJ voted to indict even though Lou Smit presented HIS IDI theory.

I just don't understand what is so difficult to understand about Hunter being not very ethical.

JMO
 
Yes, it would have been the right thing to do. How difficult does this have to be? The GJ voted to indict, he refused to sign the indictment because he knew his previous missteps in this case would come to light. The GJ voted to indict even though Lou Smit presented HIS IDI theory.

I just don't understand what is so difficult to understand about Hunter being not very ethical.

JMO

It shows he is ethical. If he was not he could have just voted to indict an that would have been that, Chips fall where they may, He had to have known that something was wrong with the indictment. There is no other reason for him not to indict. If he indicts he is the hero, Not doing it shows he had something that bothered him about it.

I don't think this GJ did the right thing, I think they did the popular thing.
 
No. Corruption would lead him to indicting.. Not charging means he was doing the right thing. With all the pressure had he charged them he would have been a hero.

He did the right thing. He knew there was something wrong.

One of the most unfortunate aspects about the American Judicial System is that it is politically influenced.

In Australia, our DA's are hired, not elected. The general public has barely any idea who they are, and they are a Government Department, not just one man. Our local government has been known to overturn the Public Prosecutors rulings, too, if there's a public outcry. They are answerable and transparent to the taxpayer.

In America, they lobby for and win the position.

This means that your DA's are first and foremost, politicians, with all the vote grabbing hidden agendas that entails.

AH was covering his own butt, in my opinion, and I know I'm right because I just am. :p

His decision was not transparent, would not happen in another system in the first place, and was made with "my next election" vote grabbing in mind.

He knew the general public (back then) did not want the Ramseys to be guilty. It upset their idea of the world. Simply put, no one could accept that two nice rich white folks could be so depraved, and AH chose to coddle that belief, in exchange for votes. We see that denial on this thread even today, and he just took advantage of it.

Also, who knows what strings JR pulled. People don't seem to appreciate just how incredibly wealthy and powerful he was in Colorado at that time. He was extraordinarily well-connected, politically...he even had support to run recently for public office.

There are a few too many politicians in this mess for my liking. :pullhair:

:cow:
 
One of the most unfortunate aspects about the American Judicial System is that it is politically influenced.

In Australia, our DA's are hired, not elected. The general public has barely any idea who they are, and they are a Government Department, not just one man. Our local government has been known to overturn the Public Prosecutors rulings, too, if there's a public outcry. They are answerable and transparent to the taxpayer.

In America, they lobby for and win the position.

This means that your DA's are first and foremost, politicians, with all the vote grabbing hidden agendas that entails.

AH was covering his own butt, in my opinion, and I know I'm right because I just am. :p

His decision was not transparent, would not happen in another system in the first place, and was made with "my next election" vote grabbing in mind.

He knew the general public (back then) did not want the Ramseys to be guilty. It upset their idea of the world. Simply put, no one could accept that two nice rich white folks could be so depraved, and AH chose to coddle that belief, in exchange for votes. We see that denial on this thread even today, and he just took advantage of it.

Also, who knows what strings JR pulled. People don't seem to appreciate just how incredibly wealthy and powerful he was in Colorado at that time. He was extraordinarily well-connected, politically...he even had support to run recently for public office.

There are a few too many politicians in this mess for my liking. :pullhair:

:cow:

The fact that the R's had money has nothing to do with this case. People get prosecuted whether they have money or not. Usually the money comes into play when they go to court and have high priced lawyers and lots of help to fight for them.

The point is that he did not charge them. The popular thing would have been to charge them. And yet he did not. There is only one reason for that IMO.
 
Strange. I hadn't even considered the secrecy oath from the witnesses point of view, infringing on their First Amendment rights.

Basically, if I've understood Colorado law correctly, there is more than that involved. It seems DA Hunter failed to sign-off on the Grand Jury findings. The way I understand things is even if the DA fails to file the indictment he/she still must sign-off and, apparently, Hunter did not sign-off.

I know next to nothing about Colorado statutes so somebody correct me if I'm wrong (it's open season :))
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
2,588
Total visitors
2,713

Forum statistics

Threads
603,994
Messages
18,166,403
Members
231,905
Latest member
kristens5487
Back
Top