Has the case fizzled a bit?

[otg]

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

Yes..

 

[RANCH]

Yes..

Someone else already posted the link for me. It doesn't seem very clear to another professor that Hunter didn't follow proper procedure.

Sara Sun Beale, a professor at Duke University School of Law and author of the book "Grand Jury Law & Practice," said that while she did not disagree with Wesson's interpretation, she believed it remains "an open question" whether Hunter followed proper procedure under Colorado law

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

 

[otg]

Actually (for anyone), redheadedgal is absolutely spot on about Google. If you want to source anything, or search anything, just copy the phrase (or even a complete sentence) and search on any search engine and you'll most likely find it.

 

[otg]

No one has been cleared. No one.

JMO

Mmmmmmmmm....... I think John Mark Karr, or should I say Alexis Reich, has been cleared. (Odd, isn't it, that the only one cleared is the only one who ever admitted to "being there when she died.")

 

[Venom]

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.

I believe you may have missed my point. He may have been corrupt on the side of the defense. Maybe he didn't want to ruffle the R's lawyers feathers.
Just my opinion of a possibility.

 

[DeeDee249]

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 can ever be legally cleared in an UNSOLVED murder. It doesn't matter what R supporters like the DA who "cleared" them say. She can say whatever she wants, doesn't make it legal. And when the new DA took over, he "un-cleared" them. You're new. Read up on the case, read all the threads here, then you can make your "bias" claims from a more informed position.
The DNA evidence is "touch" DNA - skin cells. Could have come from anywhere- but unless it can linked to a NAMED person, it is useless to the case.

 

[questfortrue]

Mmmmmmmmm....... I think John Mark Karr, or should I say Alexis Reich, has been cleared. (Odd, isn't it, that the only one cleared is the only one who ever admitted to "being there when she died.")

:floorlaugh: On a roll tonight!

 

[tezi]

Mmmmmmmmm....... I think John Mark Karr, or should I say Alexis Reich, has been cleared. (Odd, isn't it, that the only one cleared is the only one who ever admitted to "being there when she died.")

Well, with the exception of JMK or AR or whatever it calls itself these days...LOL:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[tezi]

I believe you may have missed my point. He may have been corrupt on the side of the defense. Maybe he didn't want to ruffle the R's lawyers feathers.
Just my opinion of a possibility.

Excellent point.

Thank you!

 

[otg]

Someone else already posted the link for me.

Sorry. I hadn't gotten that far in trying to catch up yet.

It doesn't seem very clear to another professor that Hunter didn't follow proper procedure.

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

I think the opinion of the professor familiar with Colorado's laws would be my default, but that is all the type of thing that could be argued endlessly by lawyers in court just to decide whether or not, and then how, to proceed. Doesn't really matter if no one is going to pursue trying to test it in court -- and no one is.

(BTW... If the collective noun for a group of geese is a gaggle, a group of lions is a pride, crows a murder, rhinos a crash, etc.; what do you call a group of lawyers?)

Another interesting aspect of this whole GJ business, is that they might have been able to issue a report of their findings. The rules for this were changed and went into effect at the beginning of 1999 (before the GJ was dismissed), and I don't know what the rules were changed from. But if you read this (and I'm no legal expert), it explains the circumstances under which a report could have been issued. The key there may be in the part of the sentence that says, "In any case in which a grand jury does not return an indictment,..." Did they? We know now that they did return a true bill for indictment, but Hunter chose not to file it (or even sign it, as the statutes say he should have). So even though it's only rhetorical now, I wonder if they could have issued a report if they felt it was in the public interest, as stated in the statute.

But like the other issue, this could all be argued in court about whether to allow it. Like the other issue also, it doesn't matter now, because it's not going to be pursued. And in effect, once the members of the GJ were dismissed, there was no longer a GJ to even issue the report.

Several months after the GJ was dismissed, the statute of limitations expired on most of the crimes that were committed that night (IMO).

(Answer to question above: an argument.)

 

[BOESP]

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

Here's the links you can use to study and decide for yourself.

http://.blogspot.com/2013/01/alex-hunter-deception-via-missing.html

www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/statutes.html (sorry, this link no longer goes directly to the statutes for some reason but you may still want to check the site)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

There are many other references if you use a google search engine.

 

[BOESP]

<snipped for brevity for my response to otg>

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

Thanks otg. I am late to the picnic and didn't get to answer promptly. I appreciate you posting suggested reading.

 

[BOESP]

:floorlaugh:

See red, I told you otg was eggsceptionally versatile. :facepalm:

 

[FrayedKnot]

Mmmmmmmmm....... I think John Mark Karr, or should I say Alexis Reich, has been cleared. (Odd, isn't it, that the only one cleared is the only one who ever admitted to "being there when she died.")

Plus he had all that "top sekrit" info that one could only know if they had internet access. Cracker jack job, there, Lacy.

 

[RANCH]

Actually (for anyone), redheadedgal is absolutely spot on about Google. If you want to source anything, or search anything, just copy the phrase (or even a complete sentence) and search on any search engine and you'll most likely find it.

Just for everyones information, if you copy and past something from an article Websleuths TOS say that you have to provide a link in your post.

 

[tezi]

Plus he had all that "top sekrit" info that one could only know if they had internet access. Cracker jack job, there, Lacy.

I did forget something, he did eMail Patsy (or Patricia as he called her), numerous times. And he eMailed Michael Tracy also.

But, in order to investigate him, Lacy had to extradite him, which makes absolutely no sense.

JMO

 

[FrayedKnot]

I did forget something, he did eMail Patsy (or Patricia as he called her), numerous times. And he eMailed Michael Tracy also.

But, in order to investigate him, Lacy had to extradite him, which makes absolutely no sense.

JMO

It makes perfect sense if you are trying to take the focus off the Ramseys.

Except for that most people familiar with the case aren't that gullible.

It was a flippin' sideshow, that was. The Northampton Clown's got nothing on Mary Lacy......well, she might be scarier....

 

[tezi]

It makes perfect sense if you are trying to take the focus off the Ramseys.

Except for that most people familiar with the case aren't that gullible.

It was a flippin' sideshow, that was. The Northampton Clown's got nothing on Mary Lacy......well, she might be scarier....

The day the news broke that Karr was arrested, a friend of mine who is a Ramsey supported called me and said, "Well, you were wrong, they arrested the intruder!" Well, when Karr was released with no charges, that person admitted that it was she who was wrong. She is now a RDI. She finally realized what Hunter and Lacy did wrong.

OH, Lacy is much scarier. I've met the woman in person. EVIL comes to mind...

JMO

 

[otg]

Just for everyones information, if you copy and past something from an article Websleuths TOS say that you have to provide a link in your post.

I’m afraid you’ll have to point me to where you read that, RANCH, if you want me to help you understand what you misunderstood. I don’t believe it states anywhere in WS’s TOS that we have to provide a link for something copied from an article.

I usually do anyway, and I certainly wouldn’t mind doing so if you had asked. In fact, in my post, I was giving you links to other information you had asked for from someone else. I not only gave you two sources to satisfy your request, I gave you additional information that I thought would be helpful to understand the topic being discussed (a little something called lagniappe in Louisiana). The original source of that information was Prof. Marianne “Mimi” Wesson (who, BTW, is also one of the lawyers representing Charlie Brennan in his current lawsuit against the Boulder DA). She was quoted in an article at Boulder Daily Camera. Once printed, it is public information (and here, you should familiarize yourself with fair use doctrines before you even think about questioning copyright infringement -- but don’t ask me for links to assist you). Further, I only copied her words, not the entire portion of text from the article in order to avoid having to use quotes within quotes, so technically (since you seem to be looking for technicalities),the article itself was not quoted.

This is an example of how, regardless of the fact that I know you and I disagree on something, we could have had a discussion of facts, but you chose instead to put it into a confrontational situation.

 

[KoldKase]

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.







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

It's pretty easy to prevail in an argument when only one side is present, don't you think? Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "default"; but if you are engaged in a lawsuit and don't show up, you're going to lose even if your opponent doesn't utter a word. In addition, Darnay was from N.Y., not Colorado. (Like other sport, the home team has the connections, networks, and therefore an advantage.)

I must say I find the "winning argument" summarized in one of your sources laughable: that the MAID can again hire a lawyer (after an indictment which never came) to petition the court to be allowed to write and talk about what she knows and experienced during a life-changing event. It's pretty much stating you're either wealthy enough to pay for the legal right to free speech or shut up. It does sound like something the Boulder DA would come up with. :facepalm:

This was partially the reason Darnay kept losing ground in both Linda Hoffman-Pugh's and Chris Wolfe's lawsuits, after all--it costs a lot of money to sue the rich and powerful. Neither of them had it. Any.

As for Darnay's "issues": he claimed to have phobias, particularly of flying. He missed more than one court hearing which I know about, and he even used conference phone calls to conduct long distance depositions in the Wolf suit. There were news reports about it when he missed the Colorado Appeals Court hearing on grand jury testimony. You may be able to find them on the usual forums which follow the Ramsey case heavily, but after 10 years a lot of articles are no longer easy to find online.

Here I have simply related what I remember as a matter of historical record, for anyone interested. I appreciate that you want to do your own research, as we all should. I will point out that the articles you linked are vague on the legal issues and contain obvious errors in reporting--and that Darney was a main source for them.

:moo: