We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[inspector rex]

No, he didn't lie.

The searches I have done on MSM simply indicate that he declined to comment under the GJ secrecy provisions.
I cannot find anywhere a quote from him where he lied about the result.

In fact, most of the MSM articles I read, even those quoting unnamed jury members, praise him for his decision not to go forward with an indictment. (source: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys)

 

[BOESP]

In my state one man or woman deciding a case isn't the American way. A true bill is usually regarded as the voice of the people and the DA lets the cookie crumble in court instead of making a one-man decision and cloaking his or her decision in a press release that is ambiguous. At worst, a plea bargain will be brought before the court.

I can't find one instance where Hunter plainly stated that the Grand Jury issued a true bill; his statements sounded like someone trying to minimize what actually happened, imo.

There's at least one thing Patsy Ramsey and I agree on: she said she wished it had gone to trial (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ffTKGAtRyZzR6Adiw&sig2=_7DYLMT36Yr0mBSYbNwRzA)

 

[BOESP]

By the way, I find "minimizing" to be a form of hiding the whole truth. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[UKGuy]

I find a DA who will lie about whether or not a true bill was handed down, and fails to file the proper paperwork in court indicating his decision not to indict, is probably hiding something.

BOESP,
You nailed it down. Lets just say he gave a politicians answer which did not include the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The searches I have done on MSM simply indicate that he declined to comment under the GJ secrecy provisions.
I cannot find anywhere a quote from him where he lied about the result.

In fact, most of the MSM articles I read, even those quoting unnamed jury members, praise him for his decision not to go forward with an indictment. (source: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys)

inspector rex,
Evasion, deception by obscurity amount to lying in plain english. What will you IDI do once its obvious JR and PR staged a crime-scene to assist another family member, and legally hunter had to find some way to avoid publicity on the family member, so the true bill was given an administrative death sentence.

The case is BDI its no longer RDI, all thats left is the story about that night and why JonBenet was molested!

.

 

[inspector rex]

No one in main stream media has accused Hunter of lying or being deceitful.
The only place you hear this is on the forums.
Hunter is not permitted to violate grand jury secrecy rules by discussing the case.
Ramsey had wanted all the information released, so this isn't the act of someone with anything to hide.
If it were to be released, then we may all be able to see that, (as some of the jurors agreed), there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case successfully.
At the very least, it would give us something fresh to discuss :happydance:

 

[UKGuy]

No one in main stream media has accused Hunter of lying or being deceitful.
The only place you hear this is on the forums.
Hunter is not permitted to violate grand jury secrecy rules by discussing the case.
Ramsey had wanted all the information released, so this isn't the act of someone with anything to hide.
If it were to be released, then we may all be able to see that, (as some of the jurors agreed), there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case successfully.
At the very least, it would give us something fresh to discuss :happydance:

inspector rex,
How can you begin to defend the parents charged as accessories to their daughters death! What Hunter is allowed to violate matters little if Colorado Law allows him to say nothing due to legal protocol, you should be outlining what can he say, never mind speculating on what jurors may or may not have said, which is irrelevant since they can only adjudicate on what is put in front of them.

.

 

[Anti-K]

inspector rex,
How can you begin to defend the parents charged as accessories to their daughters death! What Hunter is allowed to violate matters little if Colorado Law allows him to say nothing due to legal protocol, you should be outlining what can he say, never mind speculating on what jurors may or may not have said, which is irrelevant since they can only adjudicate on what is put in front of them.

.

The Ramseys were never charged with anything. And, defending people who have been charged is accepted practice. But, they weren’t actually charged. The GJ signed a True Bill, but the DA didn’t sign it because he believed that the evidence did not support the charges. So the charges were never laid, no one was arrested, no trial was had, etc.

IOWS, your claim is not factual. Please, stick to the facts.

...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

inspector rex,
How can you begin to defend the parents charged as accessories to their daughters death! What Hunter is allowed to violate matters little if Colorado Law allows him to say nothing due to legal protocol, you should be outlining what can he say, never mind speculating on what jurors may or may not have said, which is irrelevant since they can only adjudicate on what is put in front of them.

.

These are accusations based on 'probable cause' and they were not charged.

I am not speculating on what jurors said, I am quoted sources.
What was put in front of them was the evidence.
And this evidence was evidently insufficient to secure a conviction on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Even had they been charged and gone to trial, they would still be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[lawstudent]

The burden of proof is so different with regard to a True Bill v. a jury trial that it is not even comparable. I agree it is probably quite a rarity for a DA not to prosecute after a True Bill is signed, and that does raise questions for me, but it certainly doesn't imply misconduct in and of itself.

Forcible rape would have nothing to do with statutory rape laws, and if the strangulation was a key element, it still doesn't explain why there was no one charged with murder if that was what raised it to murder.

 

[BBB167893]

I cannot imagine what evidence the GJ heard that could have led them to this conclusion.
Whatever it was, it seems that the DA did not agree and did not think it strong enough to go to trial.

If he ever intended to agree with it...

 

[BBB167893]

I've lost track of a video Alex Hunter appeared in and where, imo, he suggested it didn't go to trial because the person who did it likely had been punished enough and putting them in a Federal pen would not help or hinder public safety (my interpretation based on my memory of what he said). I took it to mean he thought Patsy did it and she was dying from cancer so why put the rest of the family through a trial when time was taking care of it and why spend more public monies on some one who wasn't a criminal. And, in his opinion, the killer had already been punished beyond what any penal system could provide.

I'm too lazy to look up the video since I've already posted links to it before (more than once).

I would agree with that sentiment. Trouble is, only God can make that decision, not Alex Hunter.

 

[BBB167893]

Did he lie?

As good as. Oh, he chose his words carefully, I admit that. But he sure IMPLIED that there had not been a true bill.

Why bother? Why not just come out and say "I respect the Grand Jury's efforts, but choose not to prosecute?"

BOESP is right: Hunter was hiding something. What that was, we may never know.

 

[BBB167893]

And I agree with your sentiment as well.

You gotta wonder why in the world the DA's office provides evidence to a Grand Jury (presumably hoping for an indictment) then when the Grand Jury issues a true bill the DA fails to indict because of a lack of evidence available to secure a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt. Heck, his office supplied the evidence! He had to know from the beginning he wasn't going to prosecute. What kind of DA would allow a Grand Jury to convene then say they didn't have enough evidence. :gaah:

Good question. I've got another. Above, I asked:

Why not just come out and say "I respect the Grand Jury's efforts, but choose not to prosecute?"

University of Colorado law school professor Mimi Wesson agrees with me:

In the event that the grand jury voted to indict on charges that Hunter did not believe he could prove at trial, Wesson said it is her opinion that proper legal procedure would have been to sign the document, file it with the court and then move in open court to dismiss the charges.
"That would be the more transparent and responsible course, in my opinion," Wesson wrote.

Because that would have allowed the public to react. And it WOULD react! Which means the governor's office would likely have reacted.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

We were all lead to believe that no indictment was handed down by the GJ. Maybe not lying in the strictest sense of the word but there was obviously some sleight of hand going on to make us think that was the case, not the reality that Hunter decided not to follow up on the indictment. If Hunter was honest and clear then why did both sides believe it? Do we have to go back and present all the times that a lack of indictment was used to argue Ramsey innocence by IDI?

If IDIs are now going to insist that Hunter was open about the truth of the matter and didn't deliberately muddy the waters then I think I am done - they are just here to troll and are never going to be open to honest debate.

I guess with that brick removed, the foundation of their case looks a little more wobbly so they have to argue something else.

 

[BBB167893]

The searches I have done on MSM simply indicate that he declined to comment under the GJ secrecy provisions.
I cannot find anywhere a quote from him where he lied about the result.

In fact, most of the MSM articles I read, even those quoting unnamed jury members, praise him for his decision not to go forward with an indictment. (source: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys)

The fact that anyone would praise him is only proof of two things:

1) The environment of Boulder, which led to this case being so screwed-up in the first place;

and 2) the sad trend our American justice system is following.

The man was elected and paid by the PEOPLE to do a job and he cared more about himself and his stupid *advertiser censored**ing image than the trust he'd been given.

EVERYONE betrayed this little angel. (She continues to be betrayed now.) Well, they'll have to answer for it eventually. Take it, Johnny:

[video=youtube;DQTCS6aWRSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTCS6aWRSc[/video]

 

[BOESP]

I read the above link and didn't see what I'd call praise. It sounded more like people wanting to keep a low profile and stay out of trouble, imo.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The searches I have done on MSM simply indicate that he declined to comment under the GJ secrecy provisions.
I cannot find anywhere a quote from him where he lied about the result.

In fact, most of the MSM articles I read, even those quoting unnamed jury members, praise him for his decision not to go forward with an indictment. (source: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys)

More smoke and mirrors from IDI.

I read the article and 2 jurors said that they understood why Hunter didn't go forward. They didn't say they agreed let alone praised. The other jurors were basically diplomatic and commented on their role and said that what happened after was up to the DA or refused to comment. Any praise (and I saw very little - it was more people just stating that they and others agreed with him) was from people on the Ramsey team or people on Hunter's team. Hardly unbiased. You managed to leave out the people who said he did the wrong thing, including people on Hunter's team that disagreed with him.

 

[inspector rex]

I read the above link and didn't see what I'd call praise. It sounded more like people wanting to keep a low profile and stay out of trouble, imo.

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.

[snip]

Grant said, "Had there been a question of whether to sign a document or not, I would have been among those advising not to indict, because I did not believe there was a winnable case based on the evidence at that time."

[snip]

"I absolutely do" believe Hunter made the right decision, said Wise, who is now retired. "And I thought it was a pretty courageous decision, because I know about the public pressure that was being put on everybody who was involved -- but particularly the elected district attorney. Wise said that those advising Hunter were not all of one mind when the decision was made.
"I would say there was not unanimity, or a unanimous decision, by anyone," Wise said. "I know of at least one, and possibly two (prosecutors), who felt it should have been filed, period, end of discussion. And I know of at least two, if not more than two, probably four, that thought there was not enough evidence to file."

[snip]

Quoting unnamed juror: "I'm not saying that I am at peace. But I had sympathy with his (Hunter's) decision. I could see the problem that he was in. I could understand what he was doing."

[snip]

But the juror added that, perceiving that it would be a difficult case to try, Hunter's declining to sign the indictment, also known as a true bill, was understandable. And, the juror said, "I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it."

[snip]

"You say, 'Our job was well done, we gave them an opinion.' What happened after that, we went through all that and you find out that the bottom line was the district attorney felt there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with any further effort in this regard.

"Can he do that? Yes, he most certainly can."

You must have just read the other bits

 

[BOESP]

I stand by what I originally said. I didn't see what I'd call praise. I might even call some of it acquiescence.

Since a part of his investigative team was the Grand Jury he seemed to have ignored an important part.