PDA

View Full Version : Another One Bites The Dust


Barbara
01-12-2004, 02:07 PM
Thanks to Tricia for posting this on several forums.

It seems Darnay lost yet another case for LHP. Funny how this wasn't waiting for us this morning like most other articles, but the bottom line is that LHP and Darnay lost their bid in court to allow her to reveal her GJ testimony.

:boohoo:

http://www.cybersleuths.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004739

Show Me
01-12-2004, 07:15 PM
Darnay lost a case........................
.................what a surprise.

SisterSocks
01-12-2004, 07:19 PM
Darnay lost a case........................
.................what a surprise.


LOL No doubt Show....

Socks :laugh:

Imon128
01-13-2004, 10:10 AM
Thanks, Barbara for bringing the article. I wonder if Wood will find some way to go after LHP, too? Oh, silly me, he likes the high bucks cases. I'm very empathetic toward LHP and hope that life will bring her some good things for a change. Her connection to the Ramsey case will probably put a damper on that, though, in many ways.

Show Me
01-13-2004, 06:26 PM
Thank you Barbara for the article.

Yeah Sistersocks...wonder why Darnay released the smut version of LHP's book right before the Supreme Court thingy? Don't think that was a wise move, in spite of what Darnay thinks....the majority of people like to read a true crime type book without the grossness. Doubt the Supreme court reads here, still read it was also released to 'others'.

Maxi
01-13-2004, 06:48 PM
Here's something I've never understood: Can she not reveal any information that she gave to the GJ, or can she just not say, "Here is what the GJ asked and here is what I told them"?

tipper
01-13-2004, 07:09 PM
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0808hoffma.html

Ramsey housekeeper cannot discuss grand jury testimony in book
 A federal appeals court held that a state grand jury secrecy law that interferes with publication of a book does not violate the First Amendment.
Aug. 8, 2003 -- A Colorado law making it illegal for a witness to publicly discuss her own testimony before a grand jury "until and unless an indictment or report is issued," does not violate the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver (10th Cir.) ruled on Aug. 6.
The decision means that Linda Hoffman-Pugh, a former housekeeper for murdered child JonBenet Ramsey's family, cannot discuss her testimony in a book she is writing about her experiences with the family before and after the 1996 murder. The decision overturns a federal district judge's decision that the law was unconstitutional. The long-running investigation into the murder has produced no indictments yet.
The appellate court distinguished this case from a previous U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down Florida's grand jury secrecy law. The court noted that the Colorado law did not interfere with Hoffman-Pugh's right to discuss any facts or information she knew before she testified, but barred her only from revealing what actually transpired during the grand jury hearing or other information she learned during the grand jury process. In Butterworth v. Smith, "the Florida statute specifically precluded disclosing the 'gist or import' of the testimony, which clearly emcompassed the substance of the knowledge the grand jury witness had before entering the grand jury process," the appellate court ruled.
The court added that any harm to Hoffman-Pugh was lessened because she would be able to discuss her testimony once the criminal investigation was complete, and because she could petition a state court for a determination that secrecy is no longer required.
...

Maxi
01-13-2004, 07:25 PM
Thanks, tipper. That clarifies it. I don't see any reason this ruling would stop her book from being published, if any publisher wants it.

Blazeboy3
01-15-2004, 02:24 AM
Thanks, Barbara for bringing the article. I wonder if Wood will find some way to go after LHP, too? Oh, silly me, he likes the high bucks cases. I'm very empathetic toward LHP and hope that life will bring her some good things for a change. Her connection to the Ramsey case will probably put a damper on that, though, in many ways.


WOOD could chuck "wood" if a "wood" could "chuck WOOD...; IMHO...it's so simple but complicated for those that think "negatively but un-conscious-ly !!!...so sad/Ipray for them/theirs (as they don't see/hear "anything???!!!@@@)" :boohoo: :blushing: :o :eek: :angel: :furious: :innocent: \
xxxooo