Another One Bites The Dust

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Barbara, Jan 12, 2004.

  1. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Show Me

    Show Me New Member

    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Darnay lost a case........................
    .................what a surprise.
     
  3. SisterSocks

    SisterSocks What a wild and crazy trip its been

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    LOL No doubt Show....

    Socks :laugh:
     
  4. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Show Me

    Show Me New Member

    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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'.
     
  6. Maxi

    Maxi Guest

    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"?
     
  7. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
    ...
     
  8. Maxi

    Maxi Guest

    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.
     
  9. Blazeboy3

    Blazeboy3 Inactive

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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: :eek: :eek: :angel: :furious: :innocent: \
    xxxooo
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice