The Whites seek the release of the Ramsey indictment in its entirety
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
Charterhouse
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 3
If no one is being covered for, why not release the documents. Who will it hurt?
Just another question of who stands to gain from the documents not being released?
Just another question of who stands to gain from the documents not being released?
It would hurt more for those documents NOT to be released. From and IDI perspective, suppose JonBenet's killer is serial? The information in those documents could be the key clue in identify this killer and saving his next victim.
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
I agree, there is undoubtedly valuable information contained within the grand jury records. However, the Whites aren't seeking the release of testimony heard or evidence gathered by the GJ. The Whites are pursuing "official actions" (indictments, true bills, no true bills, reports, etc.) of the GJ. According to Judge Lowenbach, Stan Garnett and DDA Finn, all official actions have been released.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 105
i'll bite -- which other child murders relate closely enough to this case to have been done by the same perp? if there are cases that match, why didn't LE or the FBI draw a comparison? which LE or FBI investigator stated a serial killer may be involved in the JBR case? if the perp hasn't struck again in almost 20 years, why would he do it again?
http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-july-15-2014-hr-3/
Peter Boyles Show, Hr 3
July 15, 2014Alan Prendergast from Westword on the Jon Benet Ramsey case
Peter Boyles Show, Hr 3
July 15, 2014Alan Prendergast from Westword on the Jon Benet Ramsey case
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 139
Thanks, Tad,
It was gratifying to hear what many of us know - both Boyles (and Prendergast) speaking to the integrity of the Ws.
Lowenbachs decision
According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released. http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24381455
As others have stated here, at issue is whether the 14 pages redacted at the time of the release should have been redacted, whether the pages contain pertinent information entwined with the GJs decision. If the redaction hangs on the thread of signature of the foreman, who knows whether a court will look at that as absolute or not. It sounds as though and Ive no legal background - the Ws suit may have a chance to reach the court, based on the Thompson decision.
A Look Back in Time from the Daily Camera (http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/0228rams.html):
Hunter has said he won't prosecute a "bare-bones" probable-cause indictment. "I wouldn't
do that, period," he said last June, vowing to move forward only with a good likelihood of
winning a conviction.
In theory, a prosecutor could get an indictment and wouldn't have to return it to the
court," said Terry Gillespie of the Colorado Attorney General's Office. "I don't know why
you would want to hang on to it." Findings could be sealed.
~SNIP~
"I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned
thing," said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey
investigation.
But, Ritter pointed out, "a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that
the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it."
Should the grand jury indict someone, it's also not clear when the public will learn of the
panel's action.
AH chose a path in between open court request to dismiss the indictment and filing the indictment. As Ritter notes above, AH could at any point in time have decided to not move forward with a trial. (Not wanting to divert to a discussion of AHs actions, but it sure doesnt sound like the path of a brave warrior. See SD's book, An Angel Betrayed, pgs 104-105 for further analysis.)
All JMHO
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 12
Thanks to Cynic for this gem which only appears in the paperback edition. C&P from FFJ
2 short paragraphs, yet so much to discuss !
Did they know about the TBs? It wouldn't surprise me if they had given how much other info was "shared" with them. Or maybe they would have known b/c that is standard operating procedure? :dunno:
If they did know, their statements are quite brazen. As much as some of us look back on AHs statement after the GJ concluded and feel duped, his statement in no way ever implied he believed they were innocent.
If they knew, their assertion that "it takes a mountain of evidence to convict, but only a paltry amount of evidence to indict. Yet in the eyes of the grand jurors, even that did not exist," shows an extreme level of arrogance.
It's also interesting to note their comments regarding the media speculation. Did the press actually believe the GJ voted to indict, but AH didn't act on it? Ain't it interesting that's exactly what happened? That's an amazing coincidence, yes? Pointing out that the "GJs decision" was "secret" may be the tell tale indicator that they were fully aware of the GJs decision.
And finally, their attempt to legitimize these claims with the notion that if the police didn't leak indictment info then there was no indictment is priceless.
It will be interesting to watch how this plays out as the Whites continue to seek release of all the documents.
Gotta wonder if LW regrets declaring "Anything less than the release of all of the proceedings is a gross injustice to the Ramsey family."
Emphasis mine
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/25/details-1-indictment-in-jonbenet-ramsey-slaying-to-be-released
2 short paragraphs, yet so much to discuss !
Did they know about the TBs? It wouldn't surprise me if they had given how much other info was "shared" with them. Or maybe they would have known b/c that is standard operating procedure? :dunno:
If they did know, their statements are quite brazen. As much as some of us look back on AHs statement after the GJ concluded and feel duped, his statement in no way ever implied he believed they were innocent.
If they knew, their assertion that "it takes a mountain of evidence to convict, but only a paltry amount of evidence to indict. Yet in the eyes of the grand jurors, even that did not exist," shows an extreme level of arrogance.
It's also interesting to note their comments regarding the media speculation. Did the press actually believe the GJ voted to indict, but AH didn't act on it? Ain't it interesting that's exactly what happened? That's an amazing coincidence, yes? Pointing out that the "GJs decision" was "secret" may be the tell tale indicator that they were fully aware of the GJs decision.
And finally, their attempt to legitimize these claims with the notion that if the police didn't leak indictment info then there was no indictment is priceless.
It will be interesting to watch how this plays out as the Whites continue to seek release of all the documents.
Gotta wonder if LW regrets declaring "Anything less than the release of all of the proceedings is a gross injustice to the Ramsey family."
Emphasis mine
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/25/details-1-indictment-in-jonbenet-ramsey-slaying-to-be-released
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
A true bill does not mandate a DA to file charges/present an indictment in open court:
"The role of the grand jury is restricted to a finding as to whether or not there *1087 is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. The discretionary power of the attorney for the United States in determining whether a prosecution shall be commenced or maintained may well depend upon matters of policy wholly apart from any question of probable cause [Schwartz, Federal Criminal Jurisdiction, 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 64; 2 Ops.Att'y Gen. 482; 38 Ops.Att'y Gen. 98]. Although as a member of the bar, the attorney for the United States is an officer of the court, he is nevertheless an executive official of the Government, and it is as an officer of the executive department that he exercises a discretion as to whether or not there shall be a prosecution in a particular case. It follows, as an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, that the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions [Statements of the controlling principles and references to other precedents may be found in Dear Wing Jung v. United States, 9th Cir. 1963, 312 F.2d 73; Swepston v. United States, 8th Cir. 1961, 289 F.2d 166, cert. den. 369 U.S. 812, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 612; People v. Florio, 301 N.Y. 46, 48, 92 N. E.2d 881, 17 A.L.R.2d 993; Hassan v. Magistrates Court, 20 Misc.2d 509, 191 N.Y.S.2d 238; Murphy v. Sumners, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 369, 112 S.W. 1070]. The provision of Rule 7, requiring the signing of the indictment by the attorney for the Government, is a recognition of the power of Government counsel to permit or not to permit the bringing of an indictment. If the attorney refuses to sign, as he has the discretionary power of doing, we conclude that there is no valid indictment."
https://www.courtlistener.com/colo/7FSS/dresner-v-county-court-in-and-for-county-of-pueblo/
interesting source :giggle:
Actually it states in the paragraph above the one you quoted an indictment by the grand jury
(IV) That it is signed by the foreman of the grand jury, and the prosecuting attorney, his assistant, or deputy.
Wasn't signed, action not taken.
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
Right, but the supreme court's ruling in U.S. v. Cox, the precedent, states:
"The provision of Rule 7, requiring the signing of the indictment by the attorney for the Government, is a recognition of the power of Government counsel to permit or not to permit the bringing of an indictment. If the attorney refuses to sign, as he has the discretionary power of doing, we conclude that there is no valid indictment."
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1965509342F2d167_1471.xml/UNITED STATES v. COX
Well regardless of the legal dispute over action, signature etc. Just what must motivate FW to have the whole shebang published in its entirety? For someone who complains about media intrusion and negative publicity for his relatives, one might assume he would be happy to see the case cast into oblivion? Yet he is pursuing a path of public transparency. Curiously we have not read FW's version of events. Maybe he considers his version and the Ramsey's to vary in some manner?
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 12
but that isn't exactly the full context of the 'argument'. no one has ever stated that AH wasn't within his legal authority to not proceed with the indictment. what has been at issue is whether or not the public had a right to know what the GJ decided, and that it should have been a matter of public record. A review of Judge Lowenbach's decision in the "Show Cause order" brought before the court by Charlie Brennan supports AHs authority to either proceed or not proceed based on his assessment of the evidence, but more importantly the order supports and agrees that he had a responsibility for transparency.
the Order which, Lowenbach signed on Oct. 18, 2013 reads in part:
RULING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
I. BACKGROUND[SUP]1[/SUP]
The Plaintiffs assert that on a date shortly prior to October 13, 1999, the Grand Jury voted in favor of an indictment of JonBenét Ramsey’s parents, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, for the crime of child abuse resulting in death, a Class 2 felony pursuant to § 18-6-401(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. The Plaintiffs also assert that a written indictment (the “Indictment”was prepared for and signed by the Grand Jury foreperson but that Hunter elected not to sign the Indictment, and not to present it to the District Court, but to keep the Indictment secret from the general public. Since members of the Grand Jury and others surrounding the investigation were sworn to secrecy, it appears that this information, if accurate must have been provided in violation of that oath.
On October 13, 1999, the Grand Jury investigating the death of JonBenét Ramsey was discharged, and Hunter announced we “believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time.” The Plaintiffs assert that this announcement left the public with the clear impression that the Grand Jury had determined not to indict anyone in connection with the death of JonBenét Ramsey.
[SUP]1[/SUP] This summary is undisputed and is in large part taken from the Plaintiff’s Complaint District Court, Boulder County, State of Colorado
II. DISCUSSION
There is no precedent in Colorado regarding the question of whether a purported “indictment” signed by the foreman of a Grand Jury but unsigned by the District Attorney is subject to disclosure to the general public, either through presentment before the court pursuant to C.R.Crim.P. 7(a)(1), or through a release as an “official action” pursuant to §24-72-301 et seq. However, in Dresner v. County Court, 540 P.2d 1085 (Colo. 1975), a divided Colorado Supreme Court held that an indictment issued by a grand jury is ineffective to commence a criminal proceeding unless it is signed by the prosecutor. This case involved a district attorney disregarding the Grand Jury’s indictment for a lesser offense and charging a more serious offense by the filing of an information.
The Court, in this very short opinion, did not address the issue of whether the action by a Grand Jury constitutes an “indictment” but rather focused on the issue of whether an order requiring a district attorney to prosecute an action would interfere with the district attorney’s discretion and would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Id. at 1087. Likewise, the Court did not address the issue of whether the “indictment”, unsigned by the district attorney, should be “presented in open court”, as stated in C.R.Crim.P. 7(a)(1).
The Dresner court cited a federal case, United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5thCir. 1965) as authority for its narrow conclusion. Although not cited for more than the narrow issue of whether the district attorney should be required to prosecute the Grand Jury’s “indictment”, the Cox case stands for a broader proposition that this court finds persuasive. In that case, five of the seven member court held that the prosecutor is required to assist the grand jury in preparing an indictment, and that an indictment in which the prosecutor does not join should be prepared and made public in open court along with the prosecutor’s decision. Although some of the Cox judges took the position that the government attorney should sign the indictment and could then refuse to go forward, all five of these judges expressed their belief that transparency was important in order to expose the difference in view between the prosecutor and grand jurors.
This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with an indictment from the Grand Jury is in the public interest. Under the rationale of the prevailing opinions in Cox, the term “record of official action” in the form of an “indictment” should include the completed work of the grand jury, even if the district attorney has declined to sign it. This court agrees that the fact of this official action should not happen in secret in circumstances that give the public an impression that the grand jury has declined to act. Recognizing that the Grand Jury’s “indictment” is not required to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the district attorney cannot proceed with a prosecution unless he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction, the process followed in this case offered citizens no opportunity to consider the conflict between the decisions of the prosecutor and the grand jury.
Although a contrary view was express by Judge Finesilver in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F. Supp. 1451 (D. Colo. 1993), in which he concluded that an indictment is not an indictment for any purpose, including public disclosure, unless and until it is signed by the prosecuting attorney, this court concludes that the better view is that expressed in Cox, supra. This view is also supported by C.R.Crim.P. 6.6 (a), which 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 acting under instructions of the grand jury.” It appears clear from this provision that the power of the presentment lies with the grand jury.
Finally, the court concludes that the secrecy required in the Grand Jury process set forth in C.R.Crim.P. 7 is not compromised through a process that requires the presentment of the indictment in open court. Under this procedure there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in Grand Jury proceedings.
The Colorado Supreme Court has declared that the reasons for grand jury secrecy that it sought to protect in promulgating Colo. R. Crim. P. 6.2 are: (1) to prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to prevent disclosure of derogatory information presented to the grand jury against someone who has not been indicted; (3) to encourage witnesses to come before the grand jury and speak freely with respect to commission of crimes; (4) to encourage grand jurors in uninhibited investigation of and deliberation of suspected criminal activity. In re P.R. v. Dist. Ct., 637 P.2d 346, 350 n.6 (Colo. 1981). In this case, the only factor that may be implicated is the prevention of derogatory information being released against someone who has not been indicted. This factor is important where a Grand Jury concludes its investigation with suspicions but without sufficient evidence to cause them to vote to indict. In this case, assuming as asserted by the Plaintiffs that the Grand Jury voted to indict Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the evidence rose to a level in the minds of the grand jurors justifying an indictment.
III. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant show cause why he should not be required disclose the requested documents.
Dated: October 18, 2013
J. Robert Lowenbach
Senior District Court Judge
http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/RamseyIndictmentShowCauseOrder (00667733).PDF
It was his failure to provide the public with transparency, and his misleading statements that is at issue. Many may criticize him for not going forward with the case, but no one has suggested (to the best of my knowledge) that he was legally bound to move forward with the case.
bettybaby00,
ITA. Looks to me as if AH minimized the information released to the public, whilst allowing the impression to fester that the R's had no case to answer, i.e. it was an intruder, by default. AH's decisions should be subject to public scrutiny. He might like to think he is only answerable to private interests. IMO state and federal law suggests his legal decisions including those where declines to prosecute should be open to review, otherwise why bother with a GJ, why not appoint a Grand Ajudicator. AH's legal decisions should be open to historical scrutiny, otherwise how do we know he made the correct decision? All this stuff regarding signatures etc is simply barrack room legalese excersised by those dignified with degrees in law!
ITA. Looks to me as if AH minimized the information released to the public, whilst allowing the impression to fester that the R's had no case to answer, i.e. it was an intruder, by default. AH's decisions should be subject to public scrutiny. He might like to think he is only answerable to private interests. IMO state and federal law suggests his legal decisions including those where declines to prosecute should be open to review, otherwise why bother with a GJ, why not appoint a Grand Ajudicator. AH's legal decisions should be open to historical scrutiny, otherwise how do we know he made the correct decision? All this stuff regarding signatures etc is simply barrack room legalese excersised by those dignified with degrees in law!
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 12
Well!, well, well. In my search regarding my previous post I came across this revelation.
"I have known for years that Boulder prosecutors did not file charges against John and Patsy Ramsey because the evidence to prosecute them did not exist," Wood, the Atlanta lawyer for John Ramsey, said this year.
That answers that question. And once again, word choice is critical...."did not file charges" ignores the existence of the TBs, and "evidence does not exist," is in no way comparable to "do not believe we have sufficient evidence," as stated by AH.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 139
Agreed!
Referencing the case quoted, small technicality, it wasnt a Supreme Court decision; it was the US court of Appeals 5th district. (US vs. Cox) And the majority of the court judges believed that the indictment in question in this case should have been signed by the DA. (There was one judge dissenting on that for reasons I wont go into.)
The court drew a clear line between the importance of the GJs role and the discretionary ability of the DA, or as a Circuit Judge explained, the power of the DA, i.e., Executive Branch of government (represented at the highest level by the President) and the GJ, an agency considered to be affiliated with the Judicial Branch (represented at the highest level by the Supreme Court).
The following was the expression of one of the judges of the court pertaining to the handling of disagreement between a DA and a GJ. The powers of the Executive are so awesome in determining those whom it will not prosecute, that where there is a difference between the Grand Jury and the Executive, this determination and the resulting conflict of views should be revealed in open court. With great power comes great responsibility. Disclosure of this difference of view and the resulting impasse would, subject this decision of the Executive to the scrutiny of an informed electorate. The issue would be clearly drawn and the responsibility, both legally and in the public mind, plainly fixed. There would not be the sort of thing reflected in this record in which only in the loosest way could the public see what it was the Grand Jury proposed to do and what the Executive declined to help it to do.
Transparency This is what a CU professor opined in a brief interview: AH should have gone to court and openly addressed his difference of opinion with the GJ and dealt with it from there. moo
bettybaby00,
Exactly, sufficient evidence, absence of evidence, probable evidence, its all legalese, precisely legal language, i.e. similar to that employed by politicians, e.g. don't answer that question, just any other, e.g. those who create wealth should have tax breaks to encourage the distribution of this wealth amongst the many, i.e. trickle down theory, or bread crumbs falling from the table, or in Catholic theology a distribution of the Sunday Plate between the congregation, does it happen, you decide?
Exactly, sufficient evidence, absence of evidence, probable evidence, its all legalese, precisely legal language, i.e. similar to that employed by politicians, e.g. don't answer that question, just any other, e.g. those who create wealth should have tax breaks to encourage the distribution of this wealth amongst the many, i.e. trickle down theory, or bread crumbs falling from the table, or in Catholic theology a distribution of the Sunday Plate between the congregation, does it happen, you decide?
questfortrue,
Sure, hiding behind unsigned bills and unpresented allegations simply appears to be what it it looks like, a failure of juridical duty. AH should have stated why he was not moving forward with prosecuting the R's, there is no embarrassment in saying there is a conflict of evidence here so I am declining to prosecute? Everyone and their dog knows that there was unholy consensus to remove the R's from any consideration, in whatever manner it took, apparently as far as AH considered the matter, only signatures were relevant, i.e. not evidence!
.
Sure, hiding behind unsigned bills and unpresented allegations simply appears to be what it it looks like, a failure of juridical duty. AH should have stated why he was not moving forward with prosecuting the R's, there is no embarrassment in saying there is a conflict of evidence here so I am declining to prosecute? Everyone and their dog knows that there was unholy consensus to remove the R's from any consideration, in whatever manner it took, apparently as far as AH considered the matter, only signatures were relevant, i.e. not evidence!
.
Similar threads
