1380 users online (245 members and 1135 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,787

    Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost.

    A new article in the Daily Mail today spells out quite clearly why the Ramseys were never indicted, according to the author who co-wrote a book with Detective Steve Thomas.

    Hunter was known amongst legal circles as "Mr Plea Bargain" and simply didn't have the stomach or the courage for such a high profile case against such wealthy, well lawyered and connected people.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ald-Davis.html

    All I can say is, if this is true (and I have no personal doubt it is) then there needs to be a reinvestigation of the entire mess, from the DA's office down, from an impartial (perhaps federal) agency.

    Jonbenet needs justice, and it's not too late for someone to grow some balls.
    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    650
    Hold on, the result of the Grand Jury was to indict them, but they didn't?
    wtf?

    How has this taken 14 years to be revealed? Or did we know this already?
    Surely this is enough to take it to a trial now?
    Why am I asking so many questions?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,281
    I always thought the Rams were guilty but im shocked .....now anyway, that Hunter was too chicken to do the right thing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    21,512
    Oh my... I saw this on the news today... And am still trying to pull together a post which is not formed with anger and shocked disbelief...

    Sooo... The Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramsey's... But Hunter.... in an unprecedented (albeit legal) move... Overturned it...

    and this was not brought to the attention of the public for these many years?!?!?

    Who was keeping this information from being revealed... And why is it coming out now?

    Please excuse my limited knowledge of the legal system... And I appreciate any clarification from you WSers...

    TIA
    Last edited by IHAVENOCLUE; 01-29-2013 at 01:41 AM. Reason: Typo...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,787
    Has this story been almost ignored in the US?

    I double checked before I posted it.

    It's just kind of slipped out like, oh, by the way, you know the jury voted to indict, but we decided not to. No biggie.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    Has this story been almost ignored in the US?

    I double checked before I posted it.

    It's just kind of slipped out like, oh, by the way, you know the jury voted to indict, but we decided not to. No biggie.

    You didn't see the other topic about it with 5 pages?

    No, I wouldn't say it's been ignored. You can't expect wall-to-wall coverage. It was on GMA, Today, Nightline, Happening Now, and The Fox Report yesterday. It also made FOX News radio. It was on the front page of ABCNews, NBC, and FOX all of Monday. It's STILL the most popular story on ABC News, after almost 24 hours. CNN and CBS also picked it up. It was a Top 10 News story on Yahoo all day Monday, and trended in the Top 10 pretty consistently.

    Considering that CNN broke the news on their website very late on Monday, hopefully, they will put something on TV about it on Tuesday. Maybe AC 360? The Associated Press still has to pick it up, and see no reason why they wouldn't, and I definitely expect them to do so when they all wake up. At this moment, anyone connected to this case...Ramsey...Wood...Hunter...Brennan...Kolar... Thomas..could get on probably any show in the country to talk about this new development.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    You didn't see the other topic about it with 5 pages?

    No, I wouldn't say it's been ignored. It was on GMA, Today, Nightline, Happening Now, and The Fox Report yesterday. It was on the front page of ABCNews, NBC, and FOX all of Monday. It's still the most popular story on ABC News, after almost 24 hours. CNN and CBS also picked it up. It was a Top 10 News story on Yahoo all day Monday, and trended in the Top 10 pretty consistently.
    I saw that thread but this is a different story regarding the same event.

    This is a first ever direct interview (by the Daily Mail in the UK) with the author of Steve Thomas's book and I felt it added something new and important because someone actually came out and accused Hunt of being "scared" as motivation for dropping the case.

    I felt if I buried it in the other thread, it might not stand out as being important all on its own. As far as I know, no one impartial like him has ever actually come out in public making this accusation and I felt it was noteworthy.
    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,768
    Another thing is that Hunter retired in 2000. I'm sure he knew that, at the time the GJ finished. I wonder if that played a part in his decision? Like if he started planning for a trial, he would have to stick through it, and that could take years? Then again, couldn't he just retire in 99/00 and give the case to the new DA? Who would've been...Mary Lacy? AAAAAH.

  9. #9
    "Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost...."

    ...and he would certainly have lost.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmond.DantesIII View Post
    "Alex Hunter didn't prosecute because he was scared of being embarrassed if he lost...."

    ...and he would certainly have lost.
    Absolutely disagree! IMO, Hunter should be embarrassed NOW more than he would be in 1999. Regardless, the case has been won or lost, the honest and dedicated prosecutor has always respected by his co-workers, public and justice system which he/she was elected, sworned and PAID for to serve!!! Are you familiar with Anthony case? Mr. Ashton has lost this case in the court. But he's still a winner in life!!!!

    Now, in regards of 'he would certainly have lost', how do you know?! Could be, should be, would be.....You and I don't know for sure what outcome WOULD BE if Ramsey would be prosecuted in 1999. But what I DO KNOW FOR SURE that justice would be attempted to serve for the 6-year old innocent girl named JonBenet. And if you have children of your own or/and if you have a little respect for society (and it's LAW) in which you leave - you MUST NOT care about Hunter's reasons to do nothing. You must DEMAND from people like him to DO THEIR WORK honestly!!!!!

    P.S. And don't you worry to repeat LW statement about Hunter's 'hero' attempt to prevail 'miscarriage' of justice if he would prosecute Ramsey. As much as I'm concern, it was the premature ABORTION of justice by not taking Ramsey to court after GJ report in 1999.
    Last edited by OpenMind4U; 01-29-2013 at 10:22 AM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Rural area, eastern Nebraska
    Posts
    1,287
    Hey - Edmond.DantesIII

    BRILLIANT REBUTTAL by OM4U

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    Absolutely disagree! IMO, Hunter should be embarrassed NOW more than he would be in 1999. Regardless, the case has been won or lost, the honest and dedicated prosecutor has always respected by his co-workers, public and justice system which he/she was elected, sworned and PAID for to serve!!! Are you familiar with Anthony case? Mr. Ashton has lost this case in the court. But he's still a winner in life!!!!

    Now, in regards of 'he would certainly have lost', how do you know?! Could be, should be, would be.....You and I don't know for sure what outcome WOULD BE if Ramsey would be prosecuted in 1999. But what I DO KNOW FOR SURE that justice would be attempted to serve for the 6-year old innocent girl named JonBenet. And if you have children of your own or/and if you have a little respect for society (and it's LAW) in which you leave - you MUST NOT care about Hunter's reasons to do nothing. You must DEMAND from people like him to DO THEIR WORK honestly!!!!!

    P.S. And don't you worry to repeat LW statement about Hunter's 'hero' attempt to prevail 'miscarriage' of justice if he would prosecute Ramsey. As much as I'm concern, it was the premature ABORTION of justice by not taking Ramsey to court after GJ report in 1999.
    We want the truth, but can we handle the truth?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,768
    With how high-profile the trial would've been, I imagine that the prosecution could have gotten the best legal minds and experts to work for them. Obviously, the same goes for the defense. But I don't think it would be small-town prosecution going on against big-time defense lawyers.

    It's so hard to predict the outcome. We're not just talking about being found guilty or acquitted, but also how many years in jail the R's would have received, if convicted. I mean, Casey was found not-guilty, and she waited 31 days to report her daughter missing!

    But no matter what the verdict, the case should have gone to trial, because that's what the GJ recommended.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by midwest mama View Post
    Hey - Edmond.DantesIII

    BRILLIANT REBUTTAL by OM4U
    Yes, it was. But Dantes is likely correct: Hunter would have lost; NOT because the evidence wouldn't convince a jury, but because he was a coward and lazy.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Rural area, eastern Nebraska
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Yes, it was. But Dantes is likely correct: Hunter would have lost; NOT because the evidence wouldn't convince a jury, but because he was a coward and lazy.
    HEY SD - Where the heck have you been?

    Yep - AH valued his cozy Colorado subsidized retirement existence WAAAAYYYYYY more than the adventure he would have gotten by rocking that RST boat! Who knows he might have even had to take a deep swim with some fishes, rather than try to figure out which fly to tie to his rod for a lazy day at the stream!
    We want the truth, but can we handle the truth?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    64
    But how would you have proved 'who did what' in this case? What if this case had gone to trial and the 'alleged' killer or killers were then found not guilty because of an inability to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these acts?

    How would you PROVE that Patsy wrote the ransom note? How would you prove that the evidence was sufficient to draw the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramseys (or one of them) killed their daughter and proceeded with a cover-up? That crime scene was thoroughly polluted, as Dr. Henry Lee explained to the Boulder police and detectives, working the case.

    Would you rather have had Hunter go to trial, knowing that whoever tried this case, would lose? What sort of justice would this have served?

    Or would it be more feasible to go to trial - in the future - should more evidence lead to an ability to try this case in court in a 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' fashion?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Scared little bear so tired even the dart didn't wake him
    By zwiebel in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2015, 05:19 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-04-2014, 10:01 AM
  3. Lost hunter rescued, thanks to his tighty whities
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-15-2005, 11:00 AM