The Whites seek the release of the Ramsey indictment in its entirety

[Tadpole12]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-of-John-and-Patsy-Ramsey&p=196645#post196645

cynic? It's like a rewrite or edit of history.

 

[2 percent]

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!


.

This is something I've been trying to get at in a roundabout way ever since Hunter's unethical behavior came to light. By going to court and saying there was an indictment but that Hunter didn't think there was sufficient evidence to convict, what really would have happened?

I can't decide whether it would have made the public more likely to think the Ramseys are guilty or not. I can't decide whether it would have made Hunter look better or worse. There are good arguments on both sides. While it would look bad that a grand jury returned an indictment, remember it was only a class four felony that pretty much meant they were negligent with JB's safety. It wasn't murder or manslaughter or even sexual assault. Every talking head, lawyer or not, will say that the indictment means something but the weak charge means there is no smoking gun. So would people tend more toward thinking they're guilty and getting away with it? Or truly think there is no evidence pointing at the Ramseys? I truly go back and forth on this.

As for the Hunter thing, I'm a little more convinced that he would suffer from coming out and saying there was lack of evidence. For no other reason than he should have taken abundant caution and recused himself from this case. For his reputation alone he should have gone to the governor and asked for a special prosecutor. Only thing, I don't think this man thought he was omnipotent. I don't think he thought he could control this case and bury any suspicion of the Ramseys. So what was the use of trying? Especially in the face of the media attention that started almost at once. Again, I go back and forth. He just doesn't strike me as a mastermind...just lucky. For all we know no one, including the governor, wanted to touch what was fast becoming a hot potato.

 

[cynic]

I’ve attached the latest pleadings in the attempt by the Whites to force the release of the Ramsey indictment. Those attachments may be found as an edit to the first post of this thread.
The DA’s office has, as expected, moved to dismiss, and will undoubtedly continue along the path of refusal until such time as a court ruling would order the release.
There are a few interesting things within the latest documents.
The Whites found it bizarre, as do I, that the DA’s office said the following, “The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Application for Order to Show Cause are neither admitted nor denied. Defendant is unaware of any attempts to cast suspicion on Plaintiffs.” (Found in the attachment titled, “Garnett's 7-24 answer and response to complaint.”Also of note is the inclusion of supporting letter sent by the Whites to Judge Lowenbach at the time of Brennan v. Garnett case which may be found in the attachment titled, “White's 7-31 reply to Garnett's answer and response.”I found this portion of the letter to be particularly outstanding:
In regard to his apparent decision in 1999 to not sign and file the grand jury’s indictment against the Ramseys, it is possible that Mr. Hunter was motivated in part by ethical considerations not to charge people with crimes unless he believed he could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Mr.Hunter apparently had no such ethical qualms in February' 2000 when it came to publishing Ms. Krebs’ lies for the purpose of destroying Fleet and Priscilla White and pushing them under the “umbrella.”
We support Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure of the written indictment that was prepared for and signed by the grand jury since doing so may provide a basis for (1) vindication of our family from accusations relating to the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey and (2) public scrutiny of Mr.Hunter’s motives and official conduct with respect to the grand jury proceedings and the Ramsey investigation in general.

 

[Mama2JML]

Agreed!

Referencing the case quoted, small technicality, it wasn’t a Supreme Court decision; it was the US court of Appeals 5th district. (US vs. Cox)

You're right. The Supreme Court & U.S. District courts are entirely separate bodies. My mistake. :blushing:

Thank you for the clarification.

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 won’t go into.)

The court drew a clear line between the importance of the GJ’s 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

I tend to agree. ...easier said than done, though, especially when you're on the outside looking in. JMO.

 

[UKGuy]

This is something I've been trying to get at in a roundabout way ever since Hunter's unethical behavior came to light. By going to court and saying there was an indictment but that Hunter didn't think there was sufficient evidence to convict, what really would have happened?

I can't decide whether it would have made the public more likely to think the Ramseys are guilty or not. I can't decide whether it would have made Hunter look better or worse. There are good arguments on both sides. While it would look bad that a grand jury returned an indictment, remember it was only a class four felony that pretty much meant they were negligent with JB's safety. It wasn't murder or manslaughter or even sexual assault. Every talking head, lawyer or not, will say that the indictment means something but the weak charge means there is no smoking gun. So would people tend more toward thinking they're guilty and getting away with it? Or truly think there is no evidence pointing at the Ramseys? I truly go back and forth on this.

As for the Hunter thing, I'm a little more convinced that he would suffer from coming out and saying there was lack of evidence. For no other reason than he should have taken abundant caution and recused himself from this case. For his reputation alone he should have gone to the governor and asked for a special prosecutor. Only thing, I don't think this man thought he was omnipotent. I don't think he thought he could control this case and bury any suspicion of the Ramseys. So what was the use of trying? Especially in the face of the media attention that started almost at once. Again, I go back and forth. He just doesn't strike me as a mastermind...just lucky. For all we know no one, including the governor, wanted to touch what was fast becoming a hot potato.

2 percent,
Absence of sufficient evidence to convict as a rationale for declining to prosecute might result in some suggesting this is a self-serving conclusion. Similarly with conflicting evidence then patently there is a case to be prosecuted, only the outcome is undetermined? So pragmatically a better outcome is where the DA decides whether to file charges etc, so AH decides no charges, voila problem solved. IMO it was all predetermined, planned, arranged, i.e. by taking impromptu soundings etc, what else are legal paractitioners paid for, except to fully understand the legal process? Neophytes who recieve their daily dose of jurididical arcana via the media are faced with an information faite accompli unless they request the legal documents. IMO AH relied on this process?

 

[questfortrue]

This is something I've been trying to get at in a roundabout way ever since Hunter's unethical behavior came to light. By going to court and saying there was an indictment but that Hunter didn't think there was sufficient evidence to convict, what really would have happened?

I can't decide whether it would have made the public more likely to think the Ramseys are guilty or not. I can't decide whether it would have made Hunter look better or worse. There are good arguments on both sides. While it would look bad that a grand jury returned an indictment, remember it was only a class four felony that pretty much meant they were negligent with JB's safety. It wasn't murder or manslaughter or even sexual assault. Every talking head, lawyer or not, will say that the indictment means something but the weak charge means there is no smoking gun. So would people tend more toward thinking they're guilty and getting away with it? Or truly think there is no evidence pointing at the Ramseys? I truly go back and forth on this.

As for the Hunter thing, I'm a little more convinced that he would suffer from coming out and saying there was lack of evidence. For no other reason than he should have taken abundant caution and recused himself from this case. For his reputation alone he should have gone to the governor and asked for a special prosecutor. Only thing, I don't think this man thought he was omnipotent. I don't think he thought he could control this case and bury any suspicion of the Ramseys. So what was the use of trying? Especially in the face of the media attention that started almost at once. Again, I go back and forth. He just doesn't strike me as a mastermind...just lucky. For all we know no one, including the governor, wanted to touch what was fast becoming a hot potato.

~RBBM~
It was a Class 2 Felony. Molly Midyette's charge of child abuse read exactly the same as the R's. (Midyette sentenced to 16 yrs).

After reading AH request to reporter Shapiro to "dig up dirt" on Commander Eller, seeing his refusal of warrants for BPD detectives, his caving to requests asked by the Rs attorneys, and being sickened by the maneuvering to throw the Ws under the umbrella of suspicion with the Krebs story, personally I can't help but reach a conclusion that AH's attempts to sink the case began very early and perhaps (?) didn't even end after he left office. (Witness how his protege ML handled things after he left.) MHO

 

[Mama2JML]

This is something I've been trying to get at in a roundabout way ever since Hunter's unethical behavior came to light. By going to court and saying there was an indictment but that Hunter didn't think there was sufficient evidence to convict, what really would have happened?

I can't decide whether it would have made the public more likely to think the Ramseys are guilty or not. I can't decide whether it would have made Hunter look better or worse. There are good arguments on both sides. While it would look bad that a grand jury returned an indictment, remember it was only a class four felony that pretty much meant they were negligent with JB's safety. It wasn't murder or manslaughter or even sexual assault. Every talking head, lawyer or not, will say that the indictment means something but the weak charge means there is no smoking gun. So would people tend more toward thinking they're guilty and getting away with it? Or truly think there is no evidence pointing at the Ramseys? I truly go back and forth on this.

As for the Hunter thing, I'm a little more convinced that he would suffer from coming out and saying there was lack of evidence. For no other reason than he should have taken abundant caution and recused himself from this case. For his reputation alone he should have gone to the governor and asked for a special prosecutor. Only thing, I don't think this man thought he was omnipotent. I don't think he thought he could control this case and bury any suspicion of the Ramseys. So what was the use of trying? Especially in the face of the media attention that started almost at once. Again, I go back and forth. He just doesn't strike me as a mastermind...just lucky. For all we know no one, including the governor, wanted to touch what was fast becoming a hot potato.

Great questions. I am right there with you.

I do wonder, however, if Hunter was conflicted by the existence of exculpatory evidence he knew would come out @ trial -AND/OR- a hope that potentially crucial evidence against the Ramseys could/would develop from leads uncovered during the GJ's investigation.

The GJ found sufficient evidence to believe JonBenét's death was the result of murder, in the 1st degree, but brought no indictment for her murder? Seems the supporting charges would necessitate it...

 

[bettybaby00]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-of-John-and-Patsy-Ramsey&p=196645#post196645

cynic? It's like a rewrite or edit of history.

Or put another way: Ramsey-speak for "we're confident in the belief our secrets will stayed buried."

 

[bettybaby00]

This is something I've been trying to get at in a roundabout way ever since Hunter's unethical behavior came to light. By going to court and saying there was an indictment but that Hunter didn't think there was sufficient evidence to convict, what really would have happened?

I can't decide whether it would have made the public more likely to think the Ramseys are guilty or not. I can't decide whether it would have made Hunter look better or worse. There are good arguments on both sides. While it would look bad that a grand jury returned an indictment, remember it was only a class four felony that pretty much meant they were negligent with JB's safety. It wasn't murder or manslaughter or even sexual assault. Every talking head, lawyer or not, will say that the indictment means something but the weak charge means there is no smoking gun. So would people tend more toward thinking they're guilty and getting away with it? Or truly think there is no evidence pointing at the Ramseys? I truly go back and forth on this.

We'll never know how this might have impacted things. It certainly would have ignited a fire storm, both in the media, as well as in the law enforcement and legal community.

FW certainly wouldn't have kept quiet I'm sure, and charlie Brennan possibly as well.

It certainly would have put Hunter under extreme pressure to act. We'll never know, and it's the most extreme example of how his inaction irreparably harmed this case.

As for the Hunter thing, I'm a little more convinced that he would suffer from coming out and saying there was lack of evidence. For no other reason than he should have taken abundant caution and recused himself from this case. For his reputation alone he should have gone to the governor and asked for a special prosecutor. Only thing, I don't think this man thought he was omnipotent. I don't think he thought he could control this case and bury any suspicion of the Ramseys. So what was the use of trying? Especially in the face of the media attention that started almost at once. Again, I go back and forth. He just doesn't strike me as a mastermind...just lucky. For all we know no one, including the governor, wanted to touch what was fast becoming a hot potato.

We don't know what motivated him in this case. There was so much that was handled the wrong way. I think his record speaks to his fear of the courtroom, regardless of who he might have squared off against. It makes you wonder how many other times he might have done the same thing in response to a GJ voting to indict and he ended up doing nothing about it.

Although not exactly the same, i speaks to his MO, IMO.

Police have obtained an arrest warrant for the prime suspect in the 1983 slaying of Sid Wells, one of Boulder's most notorious unsolved killings. (This was in 2011)

Menger said she applauded District Attorney Stan Garnett's office for taking an interest in cold cases and pushing the investigation forward.

While two previous district attorneys and a Boulder County grand jury all declined to pursue charges against Smika, Garnett said investigators have enough evidence to charge him.


While Smika was arrested on Oct. 6, 1983, about two months after the slaying, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter declined to charge him, saying there wasn't enough evidence.

A Boulder County grand jury was convened to investigate the homicide but failed to issue an indictment in 1985 after Hunter made a secret agreement with Smika's public defender, Steve Jacobson, that the grand jury would not indict.

Mary Lacy, who succeeded Hunter, also said it was premature to file charges against Smika when police asked her to in 2001.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_17087476

Quite the dynamic duo these two. :facepalm:

The fact that Hunter refused to call in a special prosecutor, or even accept help from other sources makes me wonder if more than fear was at play. :dunno:

The other thing I wonder about is if he had shown transparency after the GJ concluded, how might it have effected Lacy?

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

I realize this. My posts were in response to this inquiry, BBM:

Not to be a smart..aleck, but doesn't an "official action" actually require action?
Silly english language

the Order which, Lowenbach signed on Oct. 18, 2013 reads in part:

RULING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE





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.

I agree that transparency was at issue, but this was resolved to the court's satisfaction in Brennan v. Garnett.

 

[2 percent]

~RBBM~
It was a Class 2 Felony. Molly Midyette's charge of child abuse read exactly the same as the R's. (Midyette sentenced to 16 yrs).

It depends on the interpretation of the law and the crime.
The Class 2 felony reads: When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7). The abuse has to result in death, but the cause of death, at least among many posters, is up in the air. So what killed her? If it was the head blow like many think, that's not abuse in the accepted sense (repeated violence) and doesn't appear to meet the criteria of abuse. If you think the slow strangulation (or Wecht's vagus nerve theory) was the cause of death, then yes the statute would apply as it was directly linked to the sexual abuse.
It has to be said, though, that I've seen no one blink an eye at claiming a single physical attack was "abuse". To be honest, the distinction doesn't really matter to me. I'm not even sure where I picked up that it was a Class 4 felony but I know it wasn't my opinion.

After reading AH request to reporter Shapiro to "dig up dirt" on Commander Eller, seeing his refusal of warrants for BPD detectives, his caving to requests asked by the Rs attorneys, and being sickened by the maneuvering to throw the Ws under the umbrella of suspicion with the Krebs story, personally I can't help but reach a conclusion that AH's attempts to sink the case began very early and perhaps (?) didn't even end after he left office. (Witness how his protege ML handled things after he left.) MHO

Politics is a funny thing. I remember debating in the political forum on this site about Halliburton and Cheney. One thing that was glaring is that it is impossible to be a billion dollar international company and be apolitical; that level of business requires some Washington DC grease. I imagine it's the same (maybe worse) being a DA in a medium sized town of about 90K. It's impossible not to have conflicts of interest. I know several DAs have been capable of walking this fine line. And that's the problem...this man just doesn't strike me as being that capable of such a large cover up. He had to have some help with this. Help we probably haven't heard about.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7TF1J8O4C21QQTQO/p10#c205

Candy at topix posts "Fleet's latest lawsuit: Case DISMISSED with prejudice, once again, yesterday."

 

[questfortrue]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7TF1J8O4C21QQTQO/p10#c205

Candy at topix posts "Fleet's latest lawsuit: Case DISMISSED with prejudice, once again, yesterday."

Heyya, Tad,
I clicked on your link and found some very vehement statements by the poster/leader of that forum regarding the latest lawsuit.

The Ws amended their filing on July 31, 2014. (See Cynic’s first post) This cannot already be dismissed by a court with prejudice, can it? An afternoon to be considered and dismissed? Once filed and accepted, my understanding is that a date is set for review of the documents and a subsequent decision of the court. Perhaps someone is mixing up the first lawsuit with the City asking for the rest of the W’s file held by the BPD, with the latest lawsuit with Garnett?

I’m confused. Perhaps Cynic can explain. Cynic, please put on your "elucidate hat" for us.

PS to 2 Percent: This stuff is confusing to me too . The class 4 felony was connected to Count VII (not Count IV)– which essentially is a charge of accessory after the fact (not accomplice). You didn't imagine that there was a class 4 felony. There’s a good thread about this here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Statutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey’s-death

 

[bettybaby00]

Heyya, Tad,
I clicked on your link and found some very vehement statements by the poster/leader of that forum regarding the latest lawsuit.

The Ws amended their filing on July 31, 2014. (See Cynic’s first post) This cannot already be dismissed by a court with prejudice, can it? An afternoon to be considered and dismissed? Once filed and accepted, my understanding is that a date is set for review of the documents and a subsequent decision of the court. Perhaps someone is mixing up the first lawsuit with the City asking for the rest of the W’s file held by the BPD, with the latest lawsuit with Garnett?

I’m confused. Perhaps Cynic can explain. Cynic, please put on your "elucidate hat" for us.

PS to 2 Percent: This stuff is confusing to me too . The class 4 felony was connected to Count VII (not Count IV)– which essentially is a charge of accessory after the fact (not accomplice). You didn't imagine that there was a class 4 felony. There’s a good thread about this here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Statutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey’s-death

Hmmm, there is no report of it when I did a quick google search :dunno:

But that info was posted by someone with a very clear bias, and clearly a hatred for here! So I'm not too convinced. :dunno:

 

[cynic]

Heyya, Tad,
I clicked on your link and found some very vehement statements by the poster/leader of that forum regarding the latest lawsuit.

The Ws amended their filing on July 31, 2014. (See Cynic’s first post) This cannot already be dismissed by a court with prejudice, can it? An afternoon to be considered and dismissed? Once filed and accepted, my understanding is that a date is set for review of the documents and a subsequent decision of the court. Perhaps someone is mixing up the first lawsuit with the City asking for the rest of the W’s file held by the BPD, with the latest lawsuit with Garnett?

I’m confused. Perhaps Cynic can explain. Cynic, please put on your "elucidate hat" for us.

The case was dismissed with prejudice, (as was the litigation relating to the Krebs investigation.)
The Whites were/are not required to pay court costs for the defending party in either litigation.
The judge here was not particularly nice in his dismissal. See below.
The court further notes that it has the power to limit and control frivolous filings by pro se litigants. Specifically, ”[a]n injunction may be necessary to prevent further abuse of judicial resources by a pro se litigant because a party acting in his own behalf is not subject to the disciplinary procedures that prevent abuse of the system by attorneys. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Morgan Cnty. v. Winslow, 706 P.2d 792, 794-95 (Colo. 1985); Shotkin v. Kaplan, 180 P.2d 1021, 1022 (Colo. 1947). "Forbidding a party from filing cases pro se does not infringe upon his constitutional right of access to the courts because he may still obtain access to judicial relief by employing an attorney authorized to practice in the state of Colorado." Id.; see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder County v. Barday, 594 P.2d 1057, 1059 (Colo. 1979). The court will not issue such a ruling at this time but may do so if the Plaintiffs continue their attempts to relitigate matters previously decided.

Full document is attached.

 

[Frigga]

Thanks Cynic. What a shame.

God bless the Whites for trying. Maybe now- with no avenue to further this he will speak freely with a respected journalist. Dismissed with prejudice means it's over- right? I wish he would spill the proverbial beans!

 

[cynic]

Thanks Cynic. What a shame.

God bless the Whites for trying. Maybe now- with no avenue to further this he will speak freely with a respected journalist. Dismissed with prejudice means it's over- right? I wish he would spill the proverbial beans!

Hey Frigga,
It is a shame and I’m not pleased with the tone of the dismissal.

Dismissed with prejudice means that the court is making it plain that the matter has been sufficiently litigated and there are no further issues that would warrant a subsequent legal pleading based on the same complaint.
The only path to continue this pleading would be for the Whites to appeal the reasoning behind the dismissal which they may do.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think this was the right legal decision.

 

[Tadpole12]

The only path to continue this pleading would be for the Whites to appeal the reasoning behind the dismissal which they may do.

Maybe now- with no avenue to further this he will speak freely with a respected journalist.

heyya cynic and Frigga.
Let's hope.

 

[Steely Dan]

Can someone translate all of that to English please? :waitasec: