breach of promise

[Tadpole12]

Judge orders Boulder DA to show why Ramsey indictment should remain secret:
10/17/2013

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...-orders-boulder-da-show-why-ramsey-indictment


Lowenbach ruled today that releasing the requested document would not be a breach of secrecy.
"The court concludes that the secrecy required in the grand jury process... is not compromised through a process that requires the presentment of the indictment in open court," Lowenbach wrote. "Under this procedure, there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in grand jury proceedings.
"It is ordered therefore that the defendant (Garnett) show cause why he should not be required to disclose the requested documents."

 

[gramcracker]

Lowenbach also ruled that the disclosure of the indictment would serve the public interest to show transparency of the prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment.

"This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment from the grand jury is in the public interest," he wrote. "Recognizing that the grand jury's 'indictment' is not required to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the district attorney cannot proceed with a prosecution unless he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction the process followed in this case offered citizens no opportunity to consider the conflict between the decisions of the prosecutor and the grand jury."

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...sey-indictment

 

[dodie20]

So far so good!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It sounds to me like....Unless Garnett can show the judge adequate reason as to why it should remain sealed, the indictment will be released, right? But the judge hasn't actually made the decision to release it yet? It does sound like he supports releasing it but he has to go through the proper procedure first.

 

[Chelly]

It sounds to me like....Unless Garnett can show the judge adequate reason as to why it should remain sealed, the indictment will be released, right? But the judge hasn't actually made the decision to release it yet? It does sound like he supports releasing it but he has to go through the proper procedure first.

Yes, appears that way. Fingers crossed.

 

[JC84]

I'm intrigued to see what Garnett does next.

If it's looking like the indictment will be released whether he likes it or not, will he really want to continue to object and get pulled ever further into the 'corrupt DA office corner' with Hunter et al?

Not to be too optimistic, but is there a good chance he may not fight it any further now? So he doesn't risk being labelled as trying to keep corrupt secrets if it is made public anyway?

Interesting again if the indictment has any element of BDI. Can that be released? Probably not. If the indictment isn't released, maybe that will tell us something in itself. We'll see...

Perhaps this is already somewhere, but does anyone have any idea what the procedure could be from here on in? What appeal courts it could go to etc?

 

[cubbeegirl]

Here is another article about the ruling.....

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...-orders-boulder-da-show-why-ramsey-indictment

 

[UKGuy]

Lowenbach also ruled that the disclosure of the indictment would serve the public interest to show transparency of the prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment.

"This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor's decision not to proceed with an indictment from the grand jury is in the public interest," he wrote. "Recognizing that the grand jury's 'indictment' is not required to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the district attorney cannot proceed with a prosecution unless he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction the process followed in this case offered citizens no opportunity to consider the conflict between the decisions of the prosecutor and the grand jury."

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...sey-indictment

gramcracker,
Wow! Looks like the judge is saying the prosecuters original decision was opaque thus leaving the citizens in the dark, i.e. the evidence on which the prosecuter based his decision was not disclosed?

Well it was one of the first terrorist cases maybe Garnett can cite state security, or any one of the innumerable security provisions enacted over the years?

You have to wonder what JR, LW and his team are cooking up, they have to be ready for a media firestorm if the indictment is made public?

Tricia could phone James Kolar for another interview to discuss the merits of AH's original decision?

I'll bet its a lengthy indictment too?


.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I hate the headlines that are like "RAMSEY INDICTMENT TO BE RELEASED!" Ugh, we are not at that point yet. Yes, it looks likely but let's not get too ahead of ourselves.

 

[DeeDee249]

I hope this happens, I really do. But if there are more hidden backroom deals with LW or the DA, it wouldn't surprise me. I just hope people realize that if it DOES remain sealed that there is NO innocent reason why that would happen. If it remains sealed we will know the family is involved. ALL of them.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

"We didn't know who did what," one juror told the Camera, "but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't."

Is it possible that the "may have done something they certainly could have prevented" refers to the garrote? After the head blow, someone made the decision to strangle JonBenet. With the head blow, it's possible it happened in an act of rage. But the garrote was a conscious decision. And then he says "OR they could have helped her" meaning...they chose to strangle their daughter even though they could've called 911?

Maybe it's just me but I feel like phrasing the head blow as "doing something you could have prevented" as just being very odd. Prevent yourself from bashing your daughter's skull? Prevent someone else from doing so? The word "prevent" is just weird word to use for something like this. It makes more sense to me when you think of it as referring to the garrote.

 

[RiverRat]

FW in court

Typical Fleet ~ just being Such a HERO of Mine again ~ never have I had the first doubt since placing my support behind Fleet & Priscilla ~ yet for the first time in 17 Years ~ I am feeling Happy for them ~ They Deserve NOTHING Less!

Pinky Promise ~
RR

 

[RiverRat]

I hate the headlines that are like "RAMSEY INDICTMENT TO BE RELEASED!" Ugh, we are not at that point yet. Yes, it looks likely but let's not get too ahead of ourselves.

Everything in this case up until Now has taught us to not Count on What SHOULD Be to Be Followed through on ~ but I have a Great Feeling about this ~ for Once!!!

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I really never thought that the truth would ever be told regarding the death of Jon Benet...

though it is not a "done deal", yet, that the GJ indictment will be revealed... At least it gives me hope that there will be justice in this case...

JMO

 

[madeleine]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/10/...or-jonbenet-ramseys-parents-should-be-public/


“I think one of the things we can learn is what is all of the evidence that was there, what type of investigation was done, what did the witnesses have to say and is there any possibility that we are ever going to achieve justice for JonBenet,” said CBS4 Legal Analyst and former prosecutor Karen Steinhauser.

-------

Steinhauser said that in this case that information could become public, “We have this issue where the grand jury said there should be an indictment, there was an indictment and the DA didn’t sign off on it and that the public has an interest in finding out why not and what happened during those proceedings and what the evidence was.”

Attorneys arguing for the release agree and called the judge’s ruling on the indictment a reasoned decision based on good law and are calling for the release.

 

[madeleine]

oops wrong thread,sorry
am excited about the news

 

[UKGuy]

Is it possible that the "may have done something they certainly could have prevented" refers to the garrote? After the head blow, someone made the decision to strangle JonBenet. With the head blow, it's possible it happened in an act of rage. But the garrote was a conscious decision. And then he says "OR they could have helped her" meaning...they chose to strangle their daughter even though they could've called 911?

Maybe it's just me but I feel like phrasing the head blow as "doing something you could have prevented" as just being very odd. Prevent yourself from bashing your daughter's skull? Prevent someone else from doing so? The word "prevent" is just weird word to use for something like this. It makes more sense to me when you think of it as referring to the garrote.

eileenhawkeye,
Possibly but at the garrote stage, she is already mortally injured, so prevention might be impractible. I have a victim profile for JonBenet where I cite instances where PR was notified about JonBenet's behaviour.

I think it is the sexual abuse that is being referred to when prevention is considered?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Typical Fleet ~ just being Such a HERO of Mine again ~ never have I had the first doubt since placing my support behind Fleet & Priscilla ~ yet for the first time in 17 Years ~ I am feeling Happy for them ~ They Deserve NOTHING Less!

Pinky Promise ~
RR

RiverRat,
FW obviously knows something we do not. I would love to see him discussing his account of the morning of 12/26/1996 and what he saw in the wine-cellar that morning?


.

 

[madeleine]

RiverRat,
FW obviously knows something we do not. I would love to see him discussing his account of the morning of 12/26/1996 and what he saw in the wine-cellar that morning?


.

at first he maybe thought it was a good idea to call the friends over but it seems that in the end it came back to bite him in the @ss cause FW probably put 2 and 2 together pretty quick.
Maybe Linda Arndt did a good thing after all ...she didn't send JR to check the house alone.Who knows how many more lies JR would have told re finding the body,etc

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

Originally posted by otg:

Generally, the CCJRA mandates disclosure of records of official actions. Pursuant to section 24-72-302(7), “official action” includes an indictment. § 24-72-302(7). Records of official actions “shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, except as provided in [the CCJRA] or as otherwise provided by law.” § 24-72-303(1) (emphasis added). Thus, a record of official action must be available for public inspection unless one of the two exceptions applies: (1) non-disclosure is required by the CCJRA, or (2) non-disclosure is required by other law. See id. Consequently, the CCJRA does not grant any criminal justice agency, including a court, any discretion as to whether to disclose a record of official action in its entirety, in part, or not at all. See id.

The plaintiff's argument, while compelling, presumes that a grand jury vote, without the DA's signature, rises to the level of an Official Action. I don't believe a grand jury alone can issue an indictment. Nor is a jury verdict official unless the trial judge signs it.

As a matter of last resort, I wonder if the DA will use this as a defense.