Simple question...

[Holdontoyourhat]

I was just getting to that. From what I understand, the DA did not ask the GJ to vote specifically because he was afraid they would indict.

Its clear you have your own private sources that are different than, say, THE NEWS:

"After 13 months of secret testimony and an investigation that lasted 34 months and cost more than $2 million,the grand jury determined that no charges would be filed."

Doesn't say anything about the DA here.

Let me guess, this is another 'don't believe everything the media says'. Would you be needing to change that to 'don't believe ANYTHING the media says (lol)?'

BOULDER, Colo. –– The JonBenet Ramsey grand jury decided Wednesday there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone in the 6-year-old beauty queen's killing, ending its investigation of a baffling case that cast a cloud of suspicion over her parents.
"No charges have been filed," District Attorney Alex Hunter said in announcing that the grand jury had completed its probe.

Doesn't say the DA tied the GJ's hands. Thats what you implied but that isn't what was reported. Where do you get this stuff. Do you make it up?

Take this GJ decision of 'not enough evidence', add to it the lack of any LE agency that states either 'PR wrote the note' or 'JBR was previously abused', plus the new DNA evidence and exhoneration letter. This adds up to a lot of failure. How much failure can RDI take and keep going with a straight face?

 

[BBB167893]

Correct. The effort of lying, spreading disinformation, or whatever you want to call it, was wasted. Not too surprising you don't see that, and it makes RDI seem like simply a machine that keeps plugging along without a driver.

Boy, you're off to a great start. Keep digging.

Put that another way: suppose RDI finally concedes the DNA was deposited during a criminal act. Why did JR or PR not put somebody up to it? Why would these rich people do the dirty work themselves? They are supposed to be so clever, certainly they could have a third party accomplice. This explains the DNA on JBR's underwear and the longjohns.

You know, HOTYH; you'd get along pretty well with my brother.

HOTYH, let me try this bit of grist for your mill. Right now, it seems like we're trying to divide the issue into "people problem" vs. "data problem." To me, it's a false division because it doesn't take into account that the former could lead to the latter. Let me be more specific on that. You asked for a list of LE who believe the Rs did it. Well, there's one that I know of: Michael Kane. He was a prosecutor who was brought in on the case because he could do what the BDA couldn't do: win cases. He agrees with me: that it was and is a people problem. He has gone on record as saying that he was brought on as window-dressing and that the DA's staff was the most unprofessional group he'd ever seen and that the way they did and didn't do things baffled him. So if it's a choice between you and a veteran prosecutor with a winning record who was actually there, I KNOW which side I'm going to be on.

So if nothing I say will make a dent, you might want to consider this.

this concession is about a year overdue, and the delay plus alternate explanations just make RDI appear irrational

Very soon now, we'll see just how irrational people think it is.

Its clear you have your own private sources that are different than, say, THE NEWS

You're more right than you know. And you'd be surprised at who some of them are. That's one area where everyone from Henry Lee to (dare I say it?) Mikey Tracey actually agree on. And they're not private, nor are they "mine." Anyone who bothers to look can find them.

You trot out the news as if it means something. Problem is, most of the time it doesn't. And I don't mean just specific to this case, no way. I've been a critic of the modern "sound bite" media for a LOOOOOONG time, for a multitude of reasons. As I often say, you could fill volumes with what the media doesn't report. And this case is no exception. Indeed, it's a fine example.

I realize this probably won't take, HOTYH, but in the spirit of Christmas, allow me to offer some friendly advice: don't limit yourself to the "news." Read some of the books available on this case. You'll be glad you did. Because if all you're going by is the news reports, you'd have a better grip on reality watching Michael Jackson (RIP) preen in front of a funhouse mirror.

Let me guess, this is another 'don't believe everything the media says'.

Damn skippy. I honestly don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.

Would you be needing to change that to 'don't believe ANYTHING the media says (lol)?'

Perahps you should remember the words of Ronald Reagan: "trust, but verify." In other words, don't take my word for it. Go read the books.

Doesn't say the DA tied the GJ's hands. Thats what you implied but that isn't what was reported.

Surprise, surprise.

Where do you get this stuff.

Henry Lee, Michael Tracey, Larry Schiller...is any of this sinking in, or am I just talking to myself?

Do you make it up?

HOTYH, that's about all I'm going to take. NOBODY calls me a liar.

 

[BBB167893]

Just so we don't get too far from the topic:

Her analysis concluded that it was "highly probable" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. She said there are over 243 points of similarity between a sample of Patsy Ramsey's writings and the ransom notes. "There are so many unique similarities between both writings."

Exclusive Cina Wong Exhibit Charts - Forums For Justice

I don't know too many people who make typescript "a"s, or make their "q"s like "8"s, or make their "c"s like Pac-Man, or their "f" like fishhooks, or their "e"s like lizard heads. I certainly don't know anyone who does ALL of those things! I can't not see what my eyes see. I don't have a "stupid" button that I can push to get stupid.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Golly,why then do you suppose NOT ONE LE agency would identify PR as the author?

If all you're going to do is read this one page.

I suggest verify the source for each character, where they came from exactly. Which letters from which PR exemplars and which letters from the RN. As it is now we have to take your word for it that they both are as represented.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, that's about all I'm going to take. NOBODY calls me a liar.

I believe you represented the GJ members as pawns. That they took 13 months to simply be told what to do by somebody else. Instead, there are several media reports indicating that the GJ decided there was not enough evidence to warrant an arrest. "No bill" I believe it is called.

Now you're saying not to believe media reports.

Whereas the GJ returned "no bill," you stated that the GJ never voted because they were instructed not to, thus seemingly making 13 months of secret testimony moot.

My guess is that you would claim the DA was 'running' the investigation and campaigning for PR exhoneration. Something that seems to run from one DA to another?

 

[DeeDee249]

I think you'd find that any member of the Boulder Police, circa 1996, would also feel that the DA was running the investigation. The DA was (this includes Lacy, who was assistant DA in 1996 under her maiden name) under the thumb of the Governor's office and he was also pals with the defense lawyers. They were a powerful group. Hunter was never going to stand up to them. He was close to retiring and his pension loomed. He didn't have what it took to be a hero.
The media can and does print falsehoods with regularity. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes due to misinformation. The local media in Boulder was very liberal, very soft on crime, as was the DA. The slightest hint of pro-R info, correct or not, disproven or not, and they would run with it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think you'd find that any member of the Boulder Police, circa 1996, would also feel that the DA was running the investigation. The DA was (this includes Lacy, who was assistant DA in 1996 under her maiden name) under the thumb of the Governor's office and he was also pals with the defense lawyers. They were a powerful group. Hunter was never going to stand up to them. He was close to retiring and his pension loomed. He didn't have what it took to be a hero.
The media can and does print falsehoods with regularity. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes due to misinformation. The local media in Boulder was very liberal, very soft on crime, as was the DA. The slightest hint of pro-R info, correct or not, disproven or not, and they would run with it.

This doesn't explain the profound differences between what the media has reported and what SD claims. According to SD, the GJ heard 13 months of testimony only to have the DA squelch their vote.

It really didn't happen that way. Instead, there were multiple media sources that reported on the GJ decision that there was not enough evidence to indict. This indicates RDI is missing the data needed to effectively prosecute the case.

This GJ decision was a RDI failure that is on a long list of RDI failures. A list that also includes the exhoneration letter, and lack of any local or federal LE agency naming PR as the RN author.

 

[BBB167893]

Golly,why then do you suppose NOT ONE LE agency would identify PR as the author?

From what I understand, it's not a question of identification; it's a question of "will the courts allow it?" Alex Hunter said specifically that he was worried that nothing he could get would pass the Daubert test in court after the rulings in the Timothy McVeigh case. A journalist said pretty much the same thing during the radio interview with Mark Fuhrman. The link is around here if you'd care to listen in.

If all you're going to do is read this one page.

Ah, but that's just it: it's not just this one page.

I believe you represented the GJ members as pawns. That they took 13 months to simply be told what to do by somebody else.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, HOTYH, but a DA has absolute discretion when dealing with Grand Juries. It's not unheard of for DA's to do exactly what I said. In fact, Alex Hunter himself had done it some years earlier. I forget the name just now. Simka, I think.

Instead, there are several media reports indicating that the GJ decided there was not enough evidence to warrant an arrest. "No bill" I believe it is called.

Given the air of secrecy around the GJ proceedings, I'm rather surprised at how much faith you show in the media vs. people who were there.

Now you're saying not to believe media reports.

That I am.

Whereas the GJ returned "no bill," you stated that the GJ never voted because they were instructed not to, thus seemingly making 13 months of secret testimony moot.

Like I said, that's a fairly common occurence. Many times, a GJ will be used not to indict, but for investigative purposes. Thus, in the event of a "runaway" GJ, a DA is not bound by their decision. Even if the GJ had voted to indict, he STILL would not have to abide by their decision.

This is BASIC law, HOTYH. I'm kind of shocked you don't know these things.

My guess is that you would claim the DA was 'running' the investigation

Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. According to Michael Kane and Bryan Morgan, he was indeed.

and campaigning for PR exhoneration.

Again, it depends on who you ask. The general feeling is that AH was acting more like a politician than a prosecutor, trying to please all sides. One theme that seems to recur is the idea that the DA's office (at least the ADAs) were convinced that Santa Bill was "the guy." There have been several statements to that effect from the police involved. Other people have said that he believed the Rs were guilty, but that his inexperience with handling murder trials made him too afraid to take on the well-connected, million-dollar defense team the Rs had on their side. To say nothing of the fact that he was business partners with them

One things's sure: he was no Giuliani.

You've got a good friend in DeeDee there, HOTYH. You'd do well to listen.

Something that seems to run from one DA to another?

Hmm. That one's a bit complicated. Depending on who you ask, AH was either convinced of the Rs guilt or desperate to prove that they were innocent, but he would at least listen to all sides. His successor, on the other hand, was more like the Boxer from Paul Simon's song: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. According ST and Frank Coffman, a Boulder-area journalist who worked on her campaign, ML made up her mind from Day One that there was no way that the Rs, especially PR, could have done the deed and that she was--and I quote--absolutely convinced that Santa Bill was guilty. Afterward, when she succeeded AH, she made it a point to exclude anti-R investigators from the investigation.

And before you say anything, HOTYH, none of this is secret. It's actually fairly well-known. If you don't know it by now, don't kill the messenger.

 

[BBB167893]

I think you'd find that any member of the Boulder Police, circa 1996, would also feel that the DA was running the investigation. The DA was (this includes Lacy, who was assistant DA in 1996 under her maiden name) under the thumb of the Governor's office and he was also pals with the defense lawyers. They were a powerful group. Hunter was never going to stand up to them. He was close to retiring and his pension loomed. He didn't have what it took to be a hero.
The media can and does print falsehoods with regularity. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes due to misinformation. The local media in Boulder was very liberal, very soft on crime, as was the DA. The slightest hint of pro-R info, correct or not, disproven or not, and they would run with it.

Could not have said it better myself!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like I said, that's a fairly common occurence. Many times, a GJ will be used not to indict, but for investigative purposes. Thus, in the event of a "runaway" GJ, a DA is not bound by their decision. Even if the GJ had voted to indict, he STILL would not have to abide by their decision.

This is BASIC law, HOTYH. I'm kind of shocked you don't know these things.

Such insolence. Not surprising if it weren't for the holiday spirit.

Seriously though, if the GJ voted to indict PR or JR or both, and the DA didn't abide by that decision, the DA would be removed.

Please proved one example (only one) where a DA overrode a GJ vote where the GJ listened to testimony for months and months but was then considered a runaway GJ. Since its 'basic law', that shouldn't be too hard, right? Besides, THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. It was not a runaway GJ and there was a decision by this GJ that there was not enough evidence. This GJ was then dismissed. There are plenty of news reports to back this up.

There is no indication that the DA instructed the GJ not to vote. Where do you get this stuff? Do you make it up? Where is your source for this information?

 

[DeeDee249]

We don't really know if the GJ voted not to indict because there was not enough evidence. It could have been any one of several reasons, that being one of them. OR they could have wanted to indict one of the parents, but were not able to decide which one. OR they could have wanted to indict BR but were prohibited by Colorado law. This doesn't mean I feel BR was the perp. It was a matter of public discussion then, as now, as to what part, if any, he may have played.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We don't really know if the GJ voted not to indict because there was not enough evidence.

Yes we do.

There are plenty of news reports covering the end of the GJ and their decision that there was not enough evidence. Its not like we can come along and make up our own stories about what happened at that time.

 

[madeleine]

Even the R's themselves said in DOI that they "packed their bags" and were expecting an arrest.And we all know they had inside info and knew exactly what was going on behind closed doors.I think they were even surprised that they got away with it again.

 

[Sophie]

Dave, you can probably tell me this off-hand, but I'll look it up if you don't have it at hand. Didn't Meyer actually say openly that he had kept things vague-ish deliberately for a variety of reasons?

Regarding the GJ, I believe that in an interview ST mentioned having received some paperwork from an anonymous source that he didn't believe to be a grand juror showing that AH had actually instructed the GJ not to indict. I am almost 100% sure I saw this interview a few months ago so I'll look it up on ACR.

Finally, I am not sure why HOTYH keeps rattling on about the most recent news being IDI. The most recent news was neither IDI or RDI - it put everyone firmly back under the umbrella. Before that, there had been very little news for a long time other than Lacy's reckless exoneration of the Ramseys (which drew criticism from the press and others, among them Cyril Wecht and Dr Henry Lee). We know from Tricia, who has connections with LE on this case, that Lacy had infuriated a lot of people in high places with her actions. This year, no fewer than THREE new websites have been set up positing RDI scenarios (although one of them by an apparent lunatic). Similarly, Lin Wood has managed, by spin, to keep the press cautious. The new investigation is obviously more discreet than the first one and there have been no leaks.

You can infer nothing from the lack of press coverage of the RDI position.

 

[BBB167893]

Such insolence. Not surprising if it weren't for the holiday spirit.

Don't kill the messenger, HOTYH.

Seriously though, if the GJ voted to indict PR or JR or both, and the DA didn't abide by that decision, the DA would be removed.

HIGHLY doubtful, HOTYH. Like I said, prosecutorial discretion is absolute. Make no mistake: someone could TRY to remove him/her, but courts tend to side with the prosecutor.

And even if you were right, don't forget this is BOULDER we're talking about!

Please proved one example (only one) where a DA overrode a GJ vote where the GJ listened to testimony for months and months but was then considered a runaway GJ. Since its 'basic law', that shouldn't be too hard, right?

I'll do better than that. I'll give you an example from Boulder itself!

ITRMI, pg 394:

I received a copy of a letter containing information on a cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells, the boyfriend of actor Robert Redford's daughter. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, in the wind, because District Attorney Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the 1983 grand jury hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of the deal.

Besides, THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. It was not a runaway GJ and there was a decision by this GJ that there was not enough evidence. This GJ was then dismissed. There are plenty of news reports to back this up.

Etched in stone, no doubt. I, on the other hand, prefer the statements of people who were actually there.[/I]

There is no indication that the DA instructed the GJ not to vote.

Oh, no?

Where do you get this stuff?

I'll show you in a second.

Do you make it up?

HOTYH, you're pushing my buttons.

Where is your source for this information?

I'm glad you asked. Let's take them one at a time. First, we have ITRMI, page 395:

A friend advised me that Dr. Henry Lee told Alex Hunter, "This is a monumental decision. It all comes down to you. If you move forward with this, you have to confess your sins." With that sort of warning hanging in the air, I knew where the grand jury was going. The key was in Lee's comment about "moving forward," which meant an arrest and trial. These were not the strong points of our district attorney. (Emphasis mine) Under law the grand jury has the option of writing a report but is not bound to do so, and the jurors usually follow the wishes of the district attorney.

If THAT's not enough for you, here's a quote from Henry Lee himself:

13 months later, when the deliberations were completed but before the panel had the chance to vote on indicting one or both of the Ramseys, I told the DA that the best course of action would be not to file charges.

Lee said something else, too:

It seemed to me that there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice. But in the state of Colorado, that lesser option was not possible as long as there was the potential for a homicide charge.

I hope I've made my point.

 

[BBB167893]

Even the R's themselves said in DOI that they "packed their bags" and were expecting an arrest.And we all know they had inside info and knew exactly what was going on behind closed doors.I think they were even surprised that they got away with it again.

Exactly! Bryan Morgan himself said that if not for Hunter stepping in, the GJ would likely have voted to indict because of Kane's presentation.

One thing is sure: Kane scared the CRAP out of the Rs and their backers. That's why I'm leading the charge to bring him back into the investigation.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, you can probably tell me this off-hand, but I'll look it up if you don't have it at hand. Didn't Meyer actually say openly that he had kept things vague-ish deliberately for a variety of reasons?

That's what I've heard.

Regarding the GJ, I believe that in an interview ST mentioned having received some paperwork from an anonymous source that he didn't believe to be a grand juror showing that AH had actually instructed the GJ not to indict. I am almost 100% sure I saw this interview a few months ago so I'll look it up on ACR.

I already posted it.

Finally, I am not sure why HOTYH keeps rattling on about the most recent news being IDI. The most recent news was neither IDI or RDI - it put everyone firmly back under the umbrella. Before that, there had been very little news for a long time other than Lacy's reckless exoneration of the Ramseys (which drew criticism from the press and others, among them Cyril Wecht and Dr Henry Lee). We know from Tricia, who has connections with LE on this case, that Lacy had infuriated a lot of people in high places with her actions. This year, no fewer than THREE new websites have been set up positing RDI scenarios (although one of them by an apparent lunatic). Similarly, Lin Wood has managed, by spin, to keep the press cautious. The new investigation is obviously more discreet than the first one and there have been no leaks.

You can infer nothing from the lack of press coverage of the RDI position.

:clap: :clap:

 

[Sophie]

Sorry, Dave, I'm dopey this week so I'm sorry to have missed your post re ST.


BTW, I',m applauding your patience: I'd have thrown an epi by now.

 

[Sophie]

Exactly! Bryan Morgan himself said that if not for Hunter stepping in, the GJ would likely have voted to indict because of Kane's presentation.

One thing is sure: Kane scared the CRAP out of the Rs and their backers. That's why I'm leading the charge to bring him back into the investigation.

Agree totally. I really hope AH can sleep at night knowing that he demanded proof beyond reasonable doubt before he'd indict but that he personally made it impossible to gather this proof by refusing warrants, pandering to the Ramseys and - for someone who should have been more knowledgeable than anyone about Colorado law - misinterpreting local law to suit his own agenda (eg. Disagreeing with every legal authority about patient-doctor confidentiality after death).

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, Dave, I'm dopey this week so I'm sorry to have missed your post re ST.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I only posted it today.

BTW, I',m applauding your patience: I'd have thrown an epi by now.

Getting close to that.

Agree totally. I really hope AH can sleep at night knowing that he demanded proof beyond reasonable doubt before he'd indict but that he personally made it impossible to gather this proof by refusing warrants, pandering to the Ramseys and - for someone who should have been more knowledgeable than anyone about Colorado law - misinterpreting local law to suit his own agenda (eg. Disagreeing with every legal authority about patient-doctor confidentiality after death).

It's not me you need to tell that to.