I found it interesting that the last testimonies that the GJ received were from LE personnel. (When I sat on the GJ we usually heard from them first.) That tells me that the GJ had LOTS of questions for LE and it's quite possible that the GJ is basically telling LE, sorry, you just don't have enough yet, go back to work. That's exactly what I think has gone on.
2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins
- Thread starter freefallzzzz
- Start date
gwenabob
A nice girl with a disturbing hobby
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,486
- Reaction score
- 16
Folks, quite possibly it is as simple as the GJ is tired and needs a break, or one of them had a family wedding they had to attend to, or it was time for them to disband and a new one take over. Or there was simply a lull in witnesses at this time for whatever reason. We are overstepping things if we take this to mean there is not enough evidence. There is no reason to believe this. AFAIK, the court is planning on a GJ to hear stuff through October.
grandmaj
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 43,414
- Reaction score
- 16
Blah it has taken me hours to find this but I remembered reading this article. This is when the original judge's order of no pictures of witnesses expired in August. Before it was renewed through October. Interesting.
http://www.nwcn.com/news/Kyron-Horman-grand-jury-quiet---for-now-101165964.html
He said grand jury term can be extended for weeks, months or even years. Jurors are essentially on stand-by as the investigation moves forward.
"It's really not that uncommon with a complex unsolved case to keep the grand jury going and bring them back and bring people back in to testify when you need them or when you develop new evidence or leads," he said.
IMO this is all this break means at this point. As more evidence is ready for Grand Jury they will be brought back.
My Blah is the frustration of hours of search looking for this article LOL Goodness there are lots of media reports to sift through in this case. I guess that is good that Kyron's name is still out there.
http://www.nwcn.com/news/Kyron-Horman-grand-jury-quiet---for-now-101165964.html
He said grand jury term can be extended for weeks, months or even years. Jurors are essentially on stand-by as the investigation moves forward.
"It's really not that uncommon with a complex unsolved case to keep the grand jury going and bring them back and bring people back in to testify when you need them or when you develop new evidence or leads," he said.
IMO this is all this break means at this point. As more evidence is ready for Grand Jury they will be brought back.
My Blah is the frustration of hours of search looking for this article LOL Goodness there are lots of media reports to sift through in this case. I guess that is good that Kyron's name is still out there.
For the record, my father passed away in CA when I was on an OR GJ as foreman. I had to take leave, but I was replaced for two weeks with an "alternate" juror, which they have already in waiting should someone come up sick or whatever. One of the jurors who'd been a regular took over as foreman and then they brought in an alternate also. Just thought I'd pass that on.
Exactly, but I think the sentence should say IF more evidence is ready. And also, it can be an entirely different grand jury brought in, years later if necessary.
passionflower
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,749
- Reaction score
- 11,416
maybe these are the team of Angels Dede thanks on her tweeter ..............
would she know any of the GJ????? personally???
would she know any of the GJ????? personally???
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,694
While the Grand Jury can be extended for months if LE really had the evidence to bring an indictment at this time they would proceed on. There would be no reason to delay, imo.
Also GJs arent always used to get an indictment every time but are used as an investigative tool.
I have always felt they were using this GJ as an investigative tool in order to get witnesses' testimony under oath.
By law persons do not have to give a sworn statement to LE but they can be subpoenaed to testify at a GJ whether they like it or not.
IMO
Also GJs arent always used to get an indictment every time but are used as an investigative tool.
I have always felt they were using this GJ as an investigative tool in order to get witnesses' testimony under oath.
By law persons do not have to give a sworn statement to LE but they can be subpoenaed to testify at a GJ whether they like it or not.
IMO
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,293
I think the wording in that article..."suspended itself" is just a very weird phrase...and that the reporter may not know anything more than the fact that the GJ has not met in a few weeks on this case...from what I've read on here and other places, a GJ doesn't just suspend itself. It may move on to other cases or end naturally...but wouldn't just...cease to exist for a while.
grandmaj
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 43,414
- Reaction score
- 16
LE may not feel they are finished with their investigation so are now in the review phase of what came out of the GJ testimony. Matching and cross referencing what witnesses have said. We are already 3 months into this investigation. The GJ is a terrific tool, with the prosecutor interviewing witnesses, almost like at a trial. That testimony is now all on court record.
People forget things, small details. So by starting the grand jury proceedings, a court stenographer has recorded and locked in the testimony and remembrances of those that may have facts in the case.
People forget things, small details. So by starting the grand jury proceedings, a court stenographer has recorded and locked in the testimony and remembrances of those that may have facts in the case.
But they can invoke the 5th Amendment if subpoenaed. So that kinda makes me wonder if the investigative purpose of this GJ was just to see who would invoke and who would not, you know?
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,694
Yeah.
And this is slightly off-topic but I've been to court a few times to testify, and truthfully I would be scared to death to invoke the 5th... even if advised. Much less in front of a GJ. My mind would be screaming 'say what you know' at me and I wouldn't be able to not. Too much respect for authority, maybe? I don't know.
But if I were a DA of any sort, I'd be paying close attention to that.
TxLady2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,099
- Reaction score
- 1,627
I've never heard of a grand jury being used as an investigative tool. Where I live, once the case goes to the grand jury, the investigating is done, the DA presents the case and there is either an indictment, or not. Sometimes they just don't have enough solid evidence, but it can always go back to another grand jury later on.
However, by "investigative" you mean getting testimony on record, why not just have the witness give a taped deposition? This is often done under oath, and with a court reporter present who will later transcribe it into written form, which is very handy in court once a trial begins. Testimony doesn't have to be done in front of a grand jury to be binding.
However, by "investigative" you mean getting testimony on record, why not just have the witness give a taped deposition? This is often done under oath, and with a court reporter present who will later transcribe it into written form, which is very handy in court once a trial begins. Testimony doesn't have to be done in front of a grand jury to be binding.
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,293
I know that in the Molly Bish murder case, at one point, after a number of years, the case was put to a grand jury and no one was indicted. From what I can find on it, they were not going after a specific suspect, just trying to determine if there was enough evidence pointing to anyone for an indictment and the GJ decided there was not. Not sure how that works in other states, this was in Massachusetts. I think there were two men who were POI's.
Still no one has been charged in that case.
Still no one has been charged in that case.
eyes4crime
Go Chicago Bears!
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 38
Pretty sure the GJ doesn't need probable cause to subpoena records. That would mean Kyron's medical records could be reviewed to substantiate the conversation about petit mal seizures and to see if an appointment was made.
Records from the FM store, to substantiate if the medication Terri said she went to get was really out of stock and available in another FM, could be subpoenaed.
IMO not needing 'probable cause' can broaden the investigative horizons for the GJ and DA. I'm hoping the two areas mentioned above were reviewed by the GJ. mho moo
Records from the FM store, to substantiate if the medication Terri said she went to get was really out of stock and available in another FM, could be subpoenaed.
IMO not needing 'probable cause' can broaden the investigative horizons for the GJ and DA. I'm hoping the two areas mentioned above were reviewed by the GJ. mho moo
Thank you eyes, but I am still totally confused....We need an attorney again!
A subpeona for records vs a subpeona for testimony is a different thing, correct? I have been subpeonaed specifically to provide records (which means I have to turn over documents already in existence and under my control, and possibly testify to my record keeping) but have also been subpeonaed to testify as a witness when I was present during the incident that required the record keeping. Does that make sense?
So we really don't know what the GJ may have been seeking.... I think? :waitasec:
eyes4crime
Go Chicago Bears!
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 38
Hi there Oriah - hope you and your amazing dogs are doing great! Haven't seen much of you since beautiful Aja...I continue to think of her daily.
I asked this question in the verified lawyer thread about probable cause with the GJ. I'll go find it and put the link here. I asked it quite some time ago. Be back soon. moo
Thank you eyes, I would like to understand this better, perhaps its a state to state issue...
Oh and :blowkiss: right back at you.
(I've been here, we're doing well thank you!)
eyes4crime
Go Chicago Bears!
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 38
Thank you eyes, I would like to understand this better, perhaps its a state to state issue...
Oh and and :blowkiss: right back at you.
(I've been here, we're doing well thank you!)
Here is the link where I asked about the medical records - I or someone else did ask another question about probable cause and the GJ and the answer suggested the standards were different. Can't find the post. Our wonderful lawyers have been working overtime for us on this case, I don't want to repeat a question. And yes, it may vary from state to state. moo mho
Here in Illinois the GJ for the Drew Peterson case had just about everyone he knew in front of them. The standard for probable cause either did not exist or was vastly different from the LE investigation. I don't know how to use the search mode here at WS so when I get the time I will look for the question...maybe it was even someone else who asked. moo mhoo
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5507524&postcount=193"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*[/ame]