So I just finished PMPT and it ended with description of the grand jury being called and interviewing various witnesses etc. but it didn't really say what the outcome of the grand jury was? I mean obviously the Ramsey's were never arrested or indicted, did the grand jury conclude there was not enough evidence? I found it weird the book ended without concluding this. Did they have more interviews with the Ramsey's? I know they talked to Burke, but there was no description as to what they asked him, is this all sealed or what? Confused :maddening:
Grand Jury
- Thread starter Stef88
- Start date
claudicici
Well-Known Member
here's a link to an old thread about the Grand Jury,I believe it will answer your questions 
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32708&highlight=grand+jury+jonbenet+ramsey
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32708&highlight=grand+jury+jonbenet+ramsey
Patsy and JR never testified. BR did not testify in person, but on video. This is actually unacceptable, because when you may not have a lawyer present when you are questioned by the GJ. Because they did not actually see BR in person, they had no way of knowing of he had a lawyer present or whether the answers to their questions (all obviously submitted in advance and probably read by his lawyer- he had his own) were given to him.
The GJ can choose to indict, refuse to indict, take no action with explanation, or take no action with NO explanation. They chose the last option, cowards that they were. I am sure there were some "instructions" given to them, though.
Thanks guys! Will definitely have a look through that thread at some point. UGH now that is just a typical end to this case, what an absolute joke, not a wonder Steve Thomas resigned in anger, I would have been very close to doing the same or have done it. Gah what a travisty this case was from start to finish. They should teach this case in policing/law as a WHAT NOT TO DO! :banghead: Haha god it just infuriated reading/thinking about it! Haha ok rant over!
My understanding is that they do exactly that.
I don't know if it will answer your question, Stef88, but pretty much everyone in the know on BOTH sides agrees that Alex Hunter deliberately pulled the plug on the Grand Jury either AFTER they had already handed down an indictment or because they were about to hand one down.
Do you mean they were about to indict Ramsey's and he pulled the plug?! :O Omg that scum bucket!
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean in a nutshell!
And when I say people on both sides, I mean exactly that. On the RDI side, you have Henry Lee and Dan Caplis (just to name two). And on the IDI side, you have no less than Bryan Morgan, Patsy's own lawyer, who expressed that sentiment
It would not be the first time that Hunter had done this. In his book, ST recounts the case of Thayne Smika, the likely killer of Sid Wells. Hunter sabotaged THAT Grand Jury by cutting a secret deal with Smika's defense attorney.
So, the evidence seems stacked in favor of the view that Hunter deliberately "pulled the plug" (I like how you phrase that!) on the Ramsey Grand Jury.
If we accept the premise that he did, that leaves us with the BIG question: why did he do it? Several possibilities present themselves, ranging from legitimate to illegitimate.
The first possibility is that Hunter simply felt that the Ramseys had suffered enough and that no justice would be served to society by imprisoning them. (I can sympathize with that idea.)
The second possibility, one which ST subtly points at, is that Hunter simply had no confidence in his ability to bring a case, especially against a big-time, bulls**t artist like Hal Haddon (who just HAPPENED to wield a lot of power in the Democratic Party, which Hunter HAPPENED to belong to) and the jury-friendly say-anything-for-a-buck-experts that the Ramseys had hired.
(Just to get off subject for a minute, if there's ONE thing that the OJ Simpson trial did well, it's that it exposed just how the constant parade of experts has fouled up the jury system. Fact is, no matter how ridiculous your claim is, there's SOMEONE out there with a whole mess of letters after his/her name who will present it as gospel. I'm sure there's an accountant in Hollywood right now who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Titanic LOST money!)
The third possiblity, and quite possibly the most disturbing, is that Hunter pulled the plug because he knew that if he went forward with a case against the Rs, all of his dirty dealings over the past 25 years would come back to haunt him. There was something Henry Lee said to Hunter just before the GJ was set to make a decision that hints at that:
"If you go forward with this, you will have to confess your own sins."
That about sums it up. In outlining this scenario, I have often used the comparison to Nixon and Watergate. Most people think that Nixon resigned rather than face an investigation and impeachment hearings because he knew he'd done wrong and wanted to spare himself and the office of President the indignity of being dragged through the mud. But there are some people, like my brother, who believe that Nixon resigned because he was afraid that an investigation would uncover something even WORSE than the Watergate break-in itself.
Well, Lee's comment seems to hint that Hunter had SOMETHING (God only knows what) he didn't want people to know. This may also explain why Hunter did not want the Grand Jury in the first place and why he hamstrung the specialists (by their own admission). Lest we forget: Hunter only called a Grand Jury because the Governor told him to either do something or he would. ST's resignation letter had riled the public and the Governor's office was feeling the heat. The GJ in this case was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show from the very start.
I've tried to explain this to others, Stef88, and they just don't listen. (I won't name names--we all KNOW who I'm talking about.) Hopefully, you will.
It's certainly food for thought and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if accurate! This case was just a JOKE from the beginning, I wonder how many cases get bungled like this, the only reason we know about how terribly this was handled is because it became so famous. It's sickening how much politics can play in solving a murder case. ****wits should have had FBI on the crime from day 1, i'm sure this case would have been solved if handled properly. Arrogance, politics and stubborness ruined this case. Heart breaking for poor JonBenet! Hunter was/is a coward and there should be consequences for the way he and other individuals ruined any possibility for this case to be solved!
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 130
Look at recent cases like Lisa Irwin, Haleigh Cummings, Holly Bobo, Lauren Spierer, Kyron Horman, McStay family, Lindsey Baum, Isabel Celis....Now, those cases are famous too, but we literally know NOTHING about what's going on behind-the-scenes. I don't think there's any big coverup/conspiracy in any of those cases, but I wonder if there's more to it than "no body no case".
If there's any truth to what the nuns told me in Sunday School, there will be!
Speaking of consequences, Stef88, a few years back, I got into an argument with a nameless IDI who said that a Grand Jury should have investigated the Boulder police for possible misconduct. I responded that it should not end there; that the Grand Jury should have investigated the DA's office, Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, Lou Smit, Michael Tracey, Lin Wood and the Haddon Law Firm while they were at it! The subject was very QUICKLY dropped, and I think you can guess why.
Well, I know I'm just spinning my wheels by saying this, but it needs saying, anyway: if it had been within my power to do so, I would have done exactly that: set up a new Grand Jury and put the microscope up the nether regions of all the folks I just listed. I'd put 'em through the wringer! And, BOY, the things that would squeeze out.