Has the case fizzled a bit?

[RANCH]

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.

Do you have a link to that statute for us to read?

 

[tezi]

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.

Apparently, you are not well acquainted with Alex Hunter. Yes, he knew something was wrong. All his backdoor dealings with Team Ramsey would have come to light in the courtroom. I know you have faith that AH and Company did the right thing, but in this case and many others, it's just not true.

JMO

 

[otg]

I'm not sure if this will be an accepted source by all present (since it comes from a book), but here are the Colorado statutes:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colorado-Criminal-Procedure-Series-ebook/dp/B004MYFNCU"]Amazon.com: Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Just the Rules" Series) eBook: Colorado Supreme Court, Jimmy Verner: Kindle Store@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41hHsFZqs6L.@@AMEPARAM@@41hHsFZqs6L[/ame]

...or they can be searched online here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Additionally, according to University of Colorado law professor Mimi Wesson, under Colorado grand jury law, Hunter might not have had the statutory power to invalidate the indictment by refusing to sign it.

"I doubt that a judge would order a prosecutor to sign an indictment, but that's a different question from the validity of an unsigned indictment."

"The question of the prosecutor's obligation usually comes up when a defendant is indicted and arrested and arraigned and generally put in the path of a prosecution, and then tries to get the charges dismissed on the ground of the prosecutor's failure to sign the indictment."

"This has not come up in Colorado that I can discover, but in some other jurisdictions, these defendants have not been successful."

Wesson also pointed out that Rule 6.6 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure states that, "Presentation of an indictment in open court by a grand jury may be accomplished by the foreman of the grand jury, the full grand jury or by the prosecutor under the instructions of the grand jury."

Wesson also stated, "It seems to me that this rule suggests that the grand jurors had the power to bypass the DA's Office and report to the court that they had returned an indictment. Of course, if they did not know they had this power, they might believe that they were powerless to act without the DA, and that they were bound to maintain secrecy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

ETA one more source of information:
http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/index.html

 

[2 percent]

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.

I'm sorry but I'm throwing the bullpucky flag here.
Totally personal and I won't expand on it but my family are the kind of people that pull the strings of people like Hunter. It is reality.

 

[RANCH]

I'm not sure if this will be an accepted source by all present (since it comes from a book), but here are the Colorado statutes:
Amazon.com: Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Just the Rules" Series) eBook: Colorado Supreme Court, Jimmy Verner: Kindle Store

...or they can be searched online here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Additionally, according to University of Colorado law professor Mimi Wesson, under Colorado grand jury law, Hunter might not have had the statutory power to invalidate the indictment by refusing to sign it.

"I doubt that a judge would order a prosecutor to sign an indictment, but that's a different question from the validity of an unsigned indictment."

"The question of the prosecutor's obligation usually comes up when a defendant is indicted and arrested and arraigned and generally put in the path of a prosecution, and then tries to get the charges dismissed on the ground of the prosecutor's failure to sign the indictment."

"This has not come up in Colorado that I can discover, but in some other jurisdictions, these defendants have not been successful."

Wesson also pointed out that Rule 6.6 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure states that, "Presentation of an indictment in open court by a grand jury may be accomplished by the foreman of the grand jury, the full grand jury or by the prosecutor under the instructions of the grand jury."

Wesson also stated, "It seems to me that this rule suggests that the grand jurors had the power to bypass the DA's Office and report to the court that they had returned an indictment. Of course, if they did not know they had this power, they might believe that they were powerless to act without the DA, and that they were bound to maintain secrecy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

ETA one more source of information:
http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/index.html

Do you have a link to the source of Professor Wesson's comments?

 

[CherCher]

As a 10 year lurker and new member of WS, I have to say that this case is what drew me here.
Having said that, I appreciate all those who have done the homework that made me the RDI that I am. I'm not sure which one but I am confident that a Ramsey killed JB. Poor little girl.
I'll be back when I can collect my thoughts a bit better, but just wanted to let folks know that I think there will be an answer to this case.

 

[Venom]

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.

Corruption could have been the reason why he didn't sign it.

 

[Venom]

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.

Why would it be flawed?

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not sure if this will be an accepted source by all present (since it comes from a book), but here are the Colorado statutes:
Amazon.com: Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Just the Rules" Series) eBook: Colorado Supreme Court, Jimmy Verner: Kindle Store

...or they can be searched online here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Additionally, according to University of Colorado law professor Mimi Wesson, under Colorado grand jury law, Hunter might not have had the statutory power to invalidate the indictment by refusing to sign it.

"I doubt that a judge would order a prosecutor to sign an indictment, but that's a different question from the validity of an unsigned indictment."

"The question of the prosecutor's obligation usually comes up when a defendant is indicted and arrested and arraigned and generally put in the path of a prosecution, and then tries to get the charges dismissed on the ground of the prosecutor's failure to sign the indictment."

"This has not come up in Colorado that I can discover, but in some other jurisdictions, these defendants have not been successful."

Wesson also pointed out that Rule 6.6 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure states that, "Presentation of an indictment in open court by a grand jury may be accomplished by the foreman of the grand jury, the full grand jury or by the prosecutor under the instructions of the grand jury."

Wesson also stated, "It seems to me that this rule suggests that the grand jurors had the power to bypass the DA's Office and report to the court that they had returned an indictment. Of course, if they did not know they had this power, they might believe that they were powerless to act without the DA, and that they were bound to maintain secrecy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
​

ETA one more source of information:
http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/index.html

otg,
Interesting stuff. So I guess this is where the time limit kicks in? Otherwise could the foreman still report to the court they had returned an indictment, otherwise delayed by the DA?

.

 

[Chelly]

As a 10 year lurker and new member of WS, I have to say that this case is what drew me here.
Having said that, I appreciate all those who have done the homework that made me the RDI that I am. I'm not sure which one but I am confident that a Ramsey killed JB. Poor little girl.
I'll be back when I can collect my thoughts a bit better, but just wanted to let folks know that I think there will be an answer to this case.

Glad you decided to join in CherCher. I was a lurker for many years too before finally jumping in with both feet to support other RDI. Your outlook that this case will be resolved is more positive than many. Looking forward to hearing more.

 

[redheadedgal]

I'm not sure if this will be an accepted source by all present (since it comes from a book)

:floorlaugh:

 

[redheadedgal]

Do you have a link to the source of Professor Wesson's comments?

google? is easy to use.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446411/ramsey-grand-jury-legal-analysis


**PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY POST OFF WEBSLEUTHS**

 

[2 percent]

As a 10 year lurker and new member of WS, I have to say that this case is what drew me here.
Having said that, I appreciate all those who have done the homework that made me the RDI that I am. I'm not sure which one but I am confident that a Ramsey killed JB. Poor little girl.
I'll be back when I can collect my thoughts a bit better, but just wanted to let folks know that I think there will be an answer to this case.

Collect away but don't be shy. Airing your thoughts (in a tos accepted manner ) is a good thing.

I hope there is an answer but I'm not confident. That's why I hope it won't matter to her now.

 

[redheadedgal]

As a 10 year lurker and new member of WS, I have to say that this case is what drew me here.
Having said that, I appreciate all those who have done the homework that made me the RDI that I am. I'm not sure which one but I am confident that a Ramsey killed JB. Poor little girl.
I'll be back when I can collect my thoughts a bit better, but just wanted to let folks know that I think there will be an answer to this case.

:welcome6: :welcome5: :welcome:

 

[Alyssa2013]

There are many of you that say that JBR was murdered by her father and/or parents, but can you explain away the presence of a foreign DNA that was found on her body? To me that seems like pretty hard evidence. Not only that, the sex offenders in the neighborhood were cleared, JBR's parents were cleared, and I'm pretty sure most acquaintances of JBR were cleared as well. I know that this isn't conclusive, but don't you all think you're being a little biased and rushing to judgment here? Not only that, but the facts just don't add up in this case. Yes, there are definite reasons to suggest that JBR's father knows more than he is saying, but that's circumstantial. What we have to work with is the DNA evidence which suggests only that it was not him. That's what I have to go on right now and that's what I personally believe is going to solve this case, the DNA.

 

[tezi]

There are many of you that say that JBR was murdered by her father and/or parents, but can you explain away the presence of a foreign DNA that was found on her body? To me that seems like pretty hard evidence. Not only that, the sex offenders in the neighborhood were cleared, JBR's parents were cleared, and I'm pretty sure most acquaintances of JBR were cleared as well. I know that this isn't conclusive, but don't you all think you're being a little biased and rushing to judgment here? Not only that, but the facts just don't add up in this case. Yes, there are definite reasons to suggest that JBR's father knows more than he is saying, but that's circumstantial. What we have to work with is the DNA evidence which suggests only that it was not him. That's what I have to go on right now and that's what I personally believe is going to solve this case, the DNA.

No one has been cleared. No one.

JMO

 

[Venom]

There are many of you that say that JBR was murdered by her father and/or parents, but can you explain away the presence of a foreign DNA that was found on her body? To me that seems like pretty hard evidence. Not only that, the sex offenders in the neighborhood were cleared, JBR's parents were cleared, and I'm pretty sure most acquaintances of JBR were cleared as well. I know that this isn't conclusive, but don't you all think you're being a little biased and rushing to judgment here? Not only that, but the facts just don't add up in this case. Yes, there are definite reasons to suggest that JBR's father knows more than he is saying, but that's circumstantial. What we have to work with is the DNA evidence which suggests only that it was not him. That's what I have to go on right now and that's what I personally believe is going to solve this case, the DNA.

Welcome.
Have you had the time to look at all the evidence? It's not one thing that is the smoking gun in this case, but it's the totality of all the evidence.

 

[RANCH]

google? is easy to use.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446411/ramsey-grand-jury-legal-analysis


**PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY POST OFF WEBSLEUTHS**

I wouldn't have asked if the op had done what you suggested. Why are you telling me to not take your post off of Websleuths?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm sorry but I'm throwing the bullpucky flag here.
Totally personal and I won't expand on it but my family are the kind of people that pull the strings of people like Hunter. It is reality.

Well that would be your experience so maybe that is why you think that of them here. However no matter what your experience there is no proof that happened here. AH had it in the bag if he wanted it all off his shoulders all he had to do was charge them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Corruption could have been the reason why he didn't sign it.

Na.. If you are corrupt you want to go with the flow and hide it.. Not stand up against the powers that be and make a ruffle.