Justice Watch Discussion Board "C is for Corruption" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... C is for Corruption, Matt, 20:31:15, 6/27/2000 yep, Nandee, 20:37:29, 6/27/2000, (#1) Matt writes:, Seashell, 01:08:36, 6/28/2000, (#2) Is this Matt,, Holly, 14:47:13, 6/28/2000, (#3) The Number 1 Phrase, Seeker, 15:05:53, 6/28/2000, (#4) Seeker, Seashell, 16:01:26, 6/28/2000, (#5) Seashell, Seeker, 16:09:39, 6/28/2000, (#6) Right On, Sea!, Paralegal, 16:59:00, 6/28/2000, (#7) weenie or what, Matt, 20:27:06, 6/28/2000, (#8) Matt, Nandee, 20:57:42, 6/28/2000, (#12) inform the public, Matt, 20:42:03, 6/28/2000, (#10) Actually ...., mandarin, 20:41:25, 6/28/2000, (#9) HOLLY, Matt, 20:51:35, 6/28/2000, (#11) Yep. It's Matt alright., Holly, 07:55:28, 7/01/2000, (#33) quoting, Matt, 20:58:15, 6/28/2000, (#13) what can we do, Matt, 21:13:13, 6/28/2000, (#14) Evan, Matt, 21:16:42, 6/28/2000, (#15) Evan info..., Nandee, 22:10:18, 6/28/2000, (#16) Nandee, momo, 06:07:03, 6/29/2000, (#17) momo, Nandee, 09:52:01, 6/29/2000, (#19) Seeker, Sioux, 06:34:26, 6/29/2000, (#18) Aw, Matt!, Jellyjaws, 11:39:16, 6/29/2000, (#20) Matt My Son, Paralegal, 11:57:40, 6/29/2000, (#22) Seeker, Sioux, Momo..., Jellyjaws, 12:27:39, 6/29/2000, (#23) "C" is also for , Seeker, 11:52:15, 6/29/2000, (#21) Matt..., shadow, 13:57:18, 6/29/2000, (#24) I almost forgot, Seeker, 16:05:15, 6/29/2000, (#25) Corrupt District Attorneys, straykat2, 16:47:21, 6/29/2000, (#26) Who, here, can prove corruption?, Ginja, 17:02:16, 6/30/2000, (#27) Ginja, Nandee, 17:16:26, 6/30/2000, (#28) The ONLY Hope, New York Lawyer, 18:38:13, 6/30/2000, (#30) NYL, Ginja, 18:52:41, 6/30/2000, (#31) Nandee, Ginja, 18:29:30, 6/30/2000, (#29) Proof and Other Such Nonsense, Paralegal, 20:56:11, 6/30/2000, (#32) Well, Straykat and PL, Ginja, 13:37:27, 7/01/2000, (#39) Right On, Paralegal, straykat2, 11:21:44, 7/01/2000, (#34) defending the undefendable, Edie Pratt, 12:26:25, 7/01/2000, (#35) Hunter Trumped Justice, straykat2, 12:40:16, 7/01/2000, (#36) A Legal Flaw, straykat2, 12:45:08, 7/01/2000, (#37) StrayKat,, Edie Pratt, 12:47:13, 7/01/2000, (#38) ................................................................... "C is for Corruption" Posted by Matt on 20:31:15 6/27/2000 JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest while Hunter is DA (tole ya) JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest if DeMuth becomes DA. JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest if Keenan becomes DA. If what Thomas said in his book about Hunter, DeMuth and Hoffstrom are true then obstruction of justice charges should be filed NOW against these 3. Gregg McCrary was quoted as saying there is a case for prosecutorial malfeasance. The above two sentences are very serious. Why in the hell are they never discussed? With even a swamp witch snake of a truth to them it is why this case is over (that's right it is over). My question is for the lawyers on this forum: WHO has to get an investigation going into Hunter, DeMuth, Hoffstrom, and Keenan to see if these charges are legit? Does this have to be done by some high legal power (like the governor) or can some everyday citizen (like me) file something to get it going? To borrow an expression from Thomas' book: "the fix is in." I want to know why the "fix is in" and I want to know what or who has to launch the investigation to get a "fix" on Hunter and his corruption. I have a strange feeling that "Mister" Hunter is afraid of a little bit more than just "the big bad defense attorney." That little road Mystery Woman was paving didn't have a back road that somehow led to Alexia did it? Alexia isn't retiring because he hears horse hooves now is he? Hmmmm. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "yep" Posted by Nandee on 20:37:29 6/27/2000 "I have a strange feeling that "Mister" Hunter is afraid of a little bit more than just "the big bad defense attorney"." That same thought has crossed my mind. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Matt writes:" Posted by Seashell on 01:08:36 6/28/2000 JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest while Hunter is DA (tole ya) JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest if DeMuth becomes DA. JonBenet's case will never result in an arrest if Keenan becomes DA. If what Thomas said in his book about Hunter, DeMuth and Hoffstrom are true then obstruction of justice charges should be filed NOW against these 3. Gregg McCrary was quoted as saying there is a case for prosecutorial malfeasance. The above two sentences are very serious. Why in the hell are they never discussed? " WHY INDEED? Perhaps JW could start a lawsuit against those 3. Darney? Ginja, what do you say? What can we do to throw those **&^%#$ out of office. They shouldn't be allowed on the ballot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Is this Matt," Posted by Holly on 14:47:13 6/28/2000 Matt C? If so, glad you're still around. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "The Number 1 Phrase" Posted by Seeker on 15:05:53 6/28/2000 I keep remember hearing is, "money is the root of ALL evil". I guess those old sayings were true enough. I also remember hearing, "money makes the world go round". I wonder if the 2 sayings go hand in hand in this case? Let me answer my own question, YES. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you have money, you in a sense have power, the Ramsey's have both and have used that money to corrupt the legal system to avoid prosecution in the death of their child. Children ARE our future and look what we've done to them, what we've taught them and continue to teach them. My heart literally breaks from the pain and suffering we (society) inflict on our children. So much for the ideaology of the 60's & 70's... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Seeker" Posted by Seashell on 16:01:26 6/28/2000 Seeker writes, "money is the root of ALL evil" The Biblical quote is, "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." There's a big difference. Money is simply money, a flow of God's goodness into our lives. It can be used to help others or to hurt and that's where the problems begin. Ramseys use it to lie, cheat, injure others and obstruct justice. They love money more than they love God. I hope they read this, those hypocrites! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Seashell" Posted by Seeker on 16:11:03 6/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:11:03, 6/28/2000 I wasn't quoting from the Bible, I was quoting from the way I've always heard it said. Think I'll stick by that saying, in that way, in this case. :) Edited because I can't spell today... :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Right On, Sea!" Posted by Paralegal on 16:59:00 6/28/2000 The LOVE of money...and Scripture also says we can't serve two masters, God and money. It says we'll love one and hate the other. Guess we know who's on first at the Rams' ballgame... Matt, this is the first I've read a post from you and it's been worth the wait. Matt just happens to be my beloved son's name too...Anyway, I do believe the people of CO have a just cause to encourage the FBI and Justice Dept. if need be to investigate the mishandling of this case. I'm surprised NYL hasn't tried to parlay a class action suit here. But that's what it will take to put a stop right NOW to Hunter et al, is a big BUNCH of folks making a HUGE stink about this case. Are you in CO? If so, start circulating a petition at least. In the meantime, perhaps NYL will show up and give us some sage counsel on this issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "weenie or what" Posted by Matt on 20:27:06 6/28/2000 Nandee: In 1997 I speculated that something evil was bubbling underneath the surface that was making Hunter shy away from this case. I speculated at that time child pornography. In 1998 that Propwash pamphlet hit the internet. Then MW came along with her story... echoes of the past (ie Propwash). Hunter practically shoved that story of hers out there for us. Then seemed to run scared. What happened? Was he salivating thinking he could further his cause for "not making an arrest of his beloved Ramseys" only to find she was about to travel down a road linking....the jellyfish himself? Hmm. Hunter has a history of being soft on child/sex predators. Is it any surprise that a case involving child murder, possible link to child sex ring, that he instead of making an arrest, sits on his lard pile widening his spare tire? Thomas laid out for us how Hoffstrom, DeMuth, and Hunter all 3 practically bent their spineless @zzes over backwards to help insure this case hit brick walls. I gotta wonder just why. I don't believe anybody was paid off. But I am suspicious now, when I tally up the tab, that it's more than just a chicken little DA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Matt" Posted by Nandee on 20:57:42 6/28/2000 Before I started posting here, I was in email contact with Evan Ravitz, the guy who wanted to testify before the GJ and was denied. I told him my gut feelings about Hunter. He didn't deny or confirm my theory. He just said there was something fishy in Boulder.... I think you are on the right track!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "inform the public" Posted by Matt on 20:42:03 6/28/2000 Seashell: Do the Boulder residents know what kind of crap they have on their ballots? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect the avg Boulder resident is sick of this case and wants it to "just go away." So they probably don't follow it on the internet and probably a large pop of them have never even read the first page of Thomas' book...and hence they probably don't even know about these allegations. I just hope Thompson gets the word out. The voters there need to know what these pieces of crap did with respect to the Ramsey case. I think Keenan's platform revolves somewhat around "boulder needs to heal and move on" with respect to Ramsey which is a billboard that will most likely appeal to a good portion of voters. Unfortunately. The case is dead as it is. But if DeMuth OR Keenan go in it is really gone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Actually ...." Posted by mandarin on 20:41:25 6/28/2000 The way I always paraphrase that old saying is this .... It's the "lack" of money that is the root of all evil (LOL). At least that might be the reason for the whole case being botched so badly. The BPD's and DA's, etc "lack" of money to match the Ram's considerable wealth & influence was the root of all their evil. There were so many people involved in this case, that were such "prostitutes" for the Rams, actually more like old ho's because seems old JR is really tight with the buck. Bet they didn't even have to pay the Stine's for their undying servitude and loyalty. Imagine a multi-millionaire trying to get the "cheapest" fares for his older kids to go to Charlevoix! Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "HOLLY" Posted by Matt on 20:51:35 6/28/2000 How soon we forget!! I have only been gone 4months not 40 years. lol. Although it feels like the latter. Personal life Holly, personal life (G) I have not kept up with the forums, the case, on a daily basis (not even on a weekly basis actually). I have kept my vigil site up faithfully but just haven't come here. And the Swamp Witch and hir crap interest me about like a dead lizard does. So....BTW, Holly, in light of the recent events with respect to copyright issues, I would like your permission to keep a post of yours that is on my timeline. It was one you posted about 6months ago (g) about Smitten. Heck I can't even remember what you said now I just know it's on my timeline. Do I have ye permission to keep it? Do I have to BEG? Oh great Holly (g) I did put on there it came from you, and came from this forum. However, I sure didn't ask ye permission first. Well??? Do I have it (your permission)? Pleeze. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Yep. It's Matt alright." Posted by Holly on 07:55:28 7/01/2000 Permission, as always, is granted. :-) JfJBR BTW -- do you have PROPWASH anywhere you could email to me? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "quoting" Posted by Matt on 20:58:15 6/28/2000 Seeker: I've always heard that about evil too. We must be from the same part of the country. But with respect to the other quote I thought it was "love makes the world go round." (g) I don't think money exchanged hands on this case, btw, as part of the coverup. I just have a bad feeling that something else is going on here. I can't address the idealogy of the 60s and 70s. Lil...just a lil...afore my time.(g) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "what can we do" Posted by Matt on 21:13:13 6/28/2000 paralegal: This is too kewl you stopped in on my thread. Thank you. Are you trying to tell me you are really my mom? (g) just kiddin'. So it takes the FBI and the justice department to launch an investigation? And it has to be prompted by us forcing the issue, right? Well in Thomas' book he states that the FBI was "considering" filing obstruction of justice charges. I wonder why they stopped. Unfortunately, no, I do not live in CO so there is nothing I can do as a resident. But can those of us on this forum do anything? Should we write the FBI? The Justice Dept? If it takes VOLUME then why can't we all as a group start something up? Of course I may be the only one who wants to see this aspect of the investigation done but I can stoke a fire as well as the next one. You see the thing that gets me is I think Hunter has figured he can keep the alligators at bay by pretending this crap about "analyzing evidence." Hello. What are they analyzing 4yrs later, each other's toenail clippings? This is insane. I am sick of Hunter and his bullsheet. I want him investigated, charges filed, and him to have to pay the legal price for his corruption. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Evan" Posted by Matt on 21:16:42 6/28/2000 nandee: Refresh my memory. Who is Evan? What does he think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Evan info..." Posted by Nandee on 22:10:18 6/28/2000 http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl%40listserv.aol.com/msg42009.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Nandee" Posted by momo on 06:07:03 6/29/2000 Was he the one who came to chat about a month ago? Seems there may be people involved in the porn ring that hold high places in Boulder. That would sure explain the bungled up case as we know it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "momo" Posted by Nandee on 09:52:01 6/29/2000 Yep! That' the guy..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Seeker" Posted by Sioux on 06:34:26 6/29/2000 **Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.** Absolutly. **If you have money, you in a sense have power,** I find funny (and I am sorry I am maybe offending posters that I usually respect) the distinction between MONEY and the LOVE OF MONEY. Philosophically, they are right. But only philosophically. **used that money to corrupt the legal system to avoid prosecution in the death of their child.** So much forthe "spiritual values" they address in the JBF's "goals"> "Children ARE our future and look what we've done to them, what we've taught them and continue to teach them. My heart literally breaks from the pain and suffering we (society) inflict on our children." My heart breaks when I see kids being raised under GOD UTILITARIANISM. I guess back somewhen this country had the VIRTUE of teaching PRACTICAL SKILLS through a weekly allowence (only country that I know of with this"habit" which is already telling you something),but nowadays the disscussable virtue of it has been replaced by a confusing "right" .(IMO of course). **So much for the ideaology of the 60's & 70's... ** We could sing :"Imagine NO POSSESSIONS..." until we go mute and still some will never get it. It's a "lost war". Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Aw, Matt!" Posted by Jellyjaws on 11:57:17 6/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:57:17, 6/29/2000 You are so right! Boy, are you a man after my own heart. I'm so disgusted I had to walk away from the Forum for a while to get away from the corruption and "cheap people," i.e., the Ramsey's. What an arrogant piece of work! "Gee, don't rub my nose in it," says I to the Boulder justice system. They don't even seem to care how bad it looks. The "fix" must be that good! Yipes, Matt, it's so obvious! It was so good to see your post. Please post again every other day or so. I need a place to vent my rage and collect my thoughts! I'd be glad to add a rant or two! Love, Jelly! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Matt My Son" Posted by Paralegal on 11:57:40 6/29/2000 I'd be honored to be your cyber-Mom! Check out that Ravitz link-he's a real go-getter up there in Never Never Land, a voice of reason for sure. Maybe you could email him to ask what we at JW can do to help him in his cause, cuz it's the same one you're promoting. Count me in too! Yes, it is my understanding that the FBI has been investigating the handling of this case by AH et al from the beginning. Why they haven't done anything about it yet is beyond me. Although a federal probe is a very serious thing, and indictments coming out of it handled by the Justice Dept. is a major thing...If they decide to do anything, it may be a timing thing. I totally agree with you that something should be done prior to Nov. elections up there, although if the Feds waited to see if CO would rectify it's own probs by voting in a decent DA, they would always have the investigative probe to "de-throne" AH's replacement should the elections go awry. Also, did you guys know there was a "little guy" in the DA's office who got nailed a couple years before the Ramsey case for child pornography? What if, and this is just MHO, the whole damn lot of them in that office ARE the sex ring MW has been referring to in Boulder? OMG, what if the Rams, through their political connections, got involved in the existing ring and JB's murder was one of the ring's holiday activities gone amuck and now they're all covering for each other? Politics they say make strange bedfellows-are there any stranger than this lot??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Seeker, Sioux, Momo..." Posted by Jellyjaws on 12:27:39 6/29/2000 Good to see you again! Good, also, to speak the unthinkable, that the "fix" is in and noone is going to do a blessed thing about it. Thank you, Matt, for breaking the ice. I missed all the good folks at the "Forum" but had nothing to offer. Nothing but my cynicism! Anyhow, "OPSAIL, 2000" is coming and a neighbor and I, who both have great views of the harbor of NYC, are cooking up a party. It should be great fun! Love, Jelly! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. ""C" is also for " Posted by Seeker on 11:52:15 6/29/2000 COIN! Didn't Judas give up Jesus for 30 pieces of silver? I wonder how much "silver" (or gold, or diamonds, etc) these "prosecuters" were paid to look the other way and deliberatley sabatoge this whole investigation? Why else wouldn't they have brought charges by now???? Or how about "C is for CASH!"? Cash isn't tracealbe and who knows how much JR pays his attorney's who in turn pay the DA cash to keep this covered? Easy laundering tips; pay one vendor by check, they in turn pay another in cash. Vendor 1 has two sets of books, 1 real (for IRS) and 1 really real (how much they actually received less expenditures of cash). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Matt..." Posted by shadow on 13:57:18 6/29/2000 I remember you well... nice that you dropped-in. I personally do not believe the FBI is looking into "corruption" within the Boulder PD or DA's Office. JMHO... OTHO, there seems to be many things about this case that the Justice Dept could look into, without being asked by anyone, if they so desired - includes possible "conspiracy" to obstruct justice, possible involvement of child porn, possible violation of someone's civil rights (but whose), possible bribery of public officials, and even misleading the FBI during an investigation (this is a stretch). shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I almost forgot" Posted by Seeker on 16:05:15 6/29/2000 "C" is also for Collusion and Control! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Corrupt District Attorneys" Posted by straykat2 on 16:47:21 6/29/2000 I am so glad someone (Matt) brought up the subject of corruption within the DAs office. This corruption includes both Boulder AND Denver. Hopefully, Steve Thomas lit a fire under the FBI with his book. Perhaps there is an ongoing investigation going on right now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Who, here, can prove corruption?" Posted by Ginja on 17:02:16 6/30/2000 Imho, no one. No one here can even prove who killed JonBenet, much less how! Is the Boulder DA's office really corrupt? Who can bring suit against them for malfeasance? Who, other than the DA, can bring charges against JonBenet's murderer? Answering the latter first, the answer is no one. That is, no one else can bring criminal charges against the murderers. Civil charges can be brought for wrongful death. Who can bring those charges? The parents. Is it likely they will? Hahahahahaha...yeah, right! Like duh, arrest me for murder! Who can bring suit against the DA for malfeasance? Well, first you have to be able to prove such charges. So far, a number of different agencies and offices have investigated the Boulder DA's office for corruption and malfeasance. There's nothing there, folks. The law is on Hunter's side. This is the problem. Both the BPD and Boulder DA have no experience. Sure, go ahead and say they have a legendary history of pleading down cases. So what? That's the mainstay of litigation. You have something against a defendant, that defendant is going to want to make a deal. It's a win-win situation because you save the taxpayers $ for keeping it out of a court room, while at the same time, getting a conviction and some jail time for the perp. It's the circumstantial cases that make it to trial, not these cases that are being pled down. How many "circumstantial" plea bargains has Boulder County litigated? You have to keep in mind that JonBenet was the ONLY murder in 1996! Where's the experience? The BPD's so-called homicide division can hardly be compared to any others in this country for two main reasons: (1) there aren't very many homicides in Boulder; and (2) the department runs on 6-month rotations of all officers...so you have no one detective who's seasoned or has experience in any one practice. This same lack of experience holds true for the prosecutors. If murders aren't being committed in this county, then these prosecutors aren't getting any trial experience...or litigation experience...in murders. All the mistakes these two departments made in the beginning can be chalked up to inexperience. That inexperience did not "ruin" this case. That is, it's not so screwed up that it can never be tried. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to make a case here. But only a seasoned, experienced litigator can make that case. There's no one in Boulder who can make a case against JonBenet's murderer. But the laws are keeping the DA afloat where he can keep this case 'pending'. The laws are specific. The DA can't simply make an arrest of the parents because they were the only people home that night. The law forbids that. The DA most certainly could take this to trial now with the circumstantial evidence it has...but neither the DA ... nor anyone in his office ... has the wherewithal to figure out what happened. Nor does Steve Thomas. Nor any poster on this forum. No one has set forth a plausible, reasonable scenario that connects all the dots. You have three major crimes in one here: (1) sexual molestation; (2) strangulation; (3) severe head blow. Those are the facts to this homicide. Yet no one has come up with a scenario that includes all three elements. Hell! Thomas ignores (1), claims (2) was done by a shirt, and claims (3) was the result of pushing the child into a structure (e.g., sink or tub), and brings in his own (4), rage over bedwetting! There is no corruption in Boulder. It's called inexperience and ignorance. The prosecutors are dumbfounded because they're out of touch with reality! They don't know how to connect the dots! They don't know how to present a solid scenario that takes into consideration the three elements of this crime. But neither has anyone else been able to do so. Everyone's looking at this case as if it was some kind of loss of control or rage reaction. It was not. This case revolves around the sexual molestaton and exploitation of a child. Everyone seems to want to push that under the rug. Including the FBI! JBR's sexual injuries were not staged. They were chronic and acute and pivotal. I've read with interest for months posters' ideas as to what they think is corrupt behavior. None of it has any relevance to solving this crime, or trying this case. Hunter and his people can rely on the law, pointing to the fact they don't know how to connect the dots. It's that simple. It's one thing to point fingers and say an office is corrupt or doesn't know what it's doing and should be replaced. It's another to be able to point and say: the DA's actions are negligible because he could try this case this way... . In order to solve the problem, you have to have the solution. I haven't seen that yet...from anyone! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Ginja" Posted by Nandee on 17:16:26 6/30/2000 If we could only post what we could prove, there would be no need for this board!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "The ONLY Hope" Posted by New York Lawyer on 18:38:13 6/30/2000 Governor Owens is the ONLY person in Colorado who can remove Hunter, et al., from the Ramsey case. If he won't do it, which he is constitutionally allowed to do, why should the courts, or private citizens like myself? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "NYL" Posted by Ginja on 18:52:41 6/30/2000 >Governor Owens is the ONLY person in >Colorado who can remove Hunter, et >al., from the Ramsey case. If >he won't do it, which he >is constitutionally allowed to do, why >should the courts, or private citizens >like myself? This matter has already been brought to Owens attention...and Hunter's still in office working the Ramsey case. My guess is there's nothing there that merits Hunter's removal. If there was, it would be political suicide for Owens to ignore it. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post. If the governor is the ONLY person who can remove the DA, why question the abilities (or in this case, the inabilities) of the courts and private citizens? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Nandee" Posted by Ginja on 18:29:30 6/30/2000 >If we could only post what we >could prove, there would be no >need for this board!! My point was that no one has come up with a theory that includes all three elements of the crime. And THAT'S why this case hasn't gone to trial. Not because Hunter has invested in the same project as Haddon, or someone in the RST gave Hofstrom a backrub at one of Patsy's handwriting tests. You most certainly could post a theory that included all three elements. Connecting all the dots would be proof enough! As far as 'proving' corruption...the DA is living in a fishbowl. Investigations into his actions and how he's handled this case have been investigated at a number of different levels, from the FBI to the Govenor to the Attorney General. Hunter, DeMuth, Hofstrom...none of them can be charged with corruption (as regards this case) or for being too chicken to take on this homicide. So my question was facetious...if the feds can't find anything to bring against these guys, do we move on to the real case at hand (connecting the dots to this murder), or do we expand all the conspiracy theories to include the government and various agencies in corruption and collusion theories? Personally, I think the latter is a waste of time! Of course, as usual, it's all jmho. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Proof and Other Such Nonsense" Posted by Paralegal on 22:05:49 6/30/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:05:49, 6/30/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:59:21, 6/30/2000 Well, here we go, demanding proof again. Wouldn't we ALL like some proof because that would bring resolution to a horrible crime that we've all been obsessing over for 3 1/2 yrs. Connecting the dots, Ginja? There isn't any literal connecting of the dots in most homicide cases. If it were that easy, our prisons would be even more overflowing than they are now,appeals would be obsolete, death row would host the majority of inmates and executions would be a helluva lot more swift than they are! A successful prosecution of a capital crime case is usually accomplished by the skillfulness of the prosecution team not to connect dots but to take a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and WEAVE it into a pattern of logic beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury's mind. That takes not only experience but a TALENT for litigating that most DA's don't even possess. The position of District Attorney is a political one, and not necessarily based in talent or skill. That's how the country ends up with Alex Hunters who remain in the job for too many years cuz they find a way to schmooze their constituency AND their superiors. And massaging his numbers by eliminating even a possibility of poor results at trial is the brainstorm of a politician, not an effective DA. THAT'S AH's talent, not practicing law or trying cases. Yes, he and his staff are grossly inexperienced in a courtroom, but don't hoist his plea bargaining track record up the flagpoll like some innocent banner of justice! The truth is AH's track record is pitiful when compared to any reasonable standard of success as a DA and it's not just because Boulder CO isn't the crime capital of the country and poor Alex et al just don't have availability of crime to hone their swords on. Boulder has a fair share of serious crimes that should all be considered for prosecution first, plea bargaining second. When almost 99% of a DA's cases are plea bargained away without any real attempt at prosecution, it spells out to even the most naive that this man has found a political tool to pacify voters and barely squeek by the standards. And truth be told, AH's little methodology of being a popular DA has never fallen under even the most remote scrutiny until the Ramsey case came into being. This case is his Waterloo, and he knows it. That's why he's retiring and pussyfooting around with the power vested in him NOT to try this case before his grand farewell. And if it were just a mere matter of inexperience, AH wouldn't have allowed Mike Kane, a damn fine prosecutor with a phenomenal track record, to step in and be bushwhacked for politics' sake! Does conflict of interest, malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty ring a bell? It should, cuz AH is guilty of all of that, and it doesn't take a governor or the FBI to figure that one out. Wouldn't it be just ducky too if an investigation into AH's performance turns up tax fraud, investment fraud and any number of other crimes committed in his real estate and financial handholding with all the other bigwig politicians in CO? If the feds can't build a strong enough case to boot AH's behind out of office, it wouldn't take much on audit to find something amiss business-wise to do the same job. IMHO, I truly believe AH "brokered his own deal" with the feds/Owens to finish his term and retire in lieu of prosecution. Who knows who else he could bring down if they didn't take that deal? Especially if MW's allegations of a sex ring in Boulder are true and some very powerful people are involved...The feds don't just step into situations like this without counting the cost to prosecute, and this would cost a fortune. It's just easier to let AH cut his last plea bargain and quietly fade into the shadows. NYL, is that some kind of New York attitude I read in your post? If Owens won't do the job, why should we? I'll tell you why, because I absolutely REFUSE to lower my standards of morality to swim with self-serving sharks and let little children rot in their graves without SOME effort to make this world a little better. Call me naive, call me ambitious, just don't call me late to the trial! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Well, Straykat and PL" Posted by Ginja on 13:44:28 7/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:44:28, 7/01/2000 ...it has nothing to do with "coming to Hunter's defense". It's just a matter of being on a level playing field; something most of you anti-Hunter's refuse to establish, insisting on skewering facts with opinion. PL, you said nothing in the beginning of your post that I didn't...what differs is how we each come up with entirely opposite conclusions. I just don't understand how you think any member of the Boulder County DA's office can be 'skillful' when they don't have any experience! The two go hand-in-hand and I thought I covered that in saying they don't have the experience, resources or wherewithal to deal with reality (because their fishbowl is outside of reality) to connect all the dots to this case. I've consistently maintained this is a complex circumstantial case, and all three elements had to be pulled together into a cohesive scenario (aka connecting the dots!) to present to a jury. I think that's saying the same thing as weaving it all into a pattern of logic. As I said, we're saying the same thing, only coming to different conclusions. Perhaps that's why you're wordsmithing, so you can weave logic into your theories of conspiracy and collusion. And that's exactly what I meant above re leveling the playing field (and my original post to which some think was some kind of defensive pro-Hunter rhetoric). Boulder, CO is no capital crime capital of the country! They don't get tough cases. If they did, they wouldn't be able to plead so many down. And it's misleading to say everything's pled down. Prosecutors will shoot for the stars in bringing charges knowing damn right well the only way they can make the case stick is to plead it down. In essence, they get the perp to plead guilty to the 'actual' charge, even though it looks like the charge was lessened. They've got something like an 88% conviction rate, which is basically one of the highest in the country. Maybe you think it's bullshit, but that's what you're facing in trying to make charges of collusion or malfeasance of office. As far as "demanding" proof, I never said proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm simply asking people to look at the facts and circumstances and come to some kind of resolution of this case before they start throwing their daggars at others for not being able to do the very thing they can't seem to do themselves! This is not a police state; although, if we were to blindly follow you, that's exactly where we'd find ourselves. I've already pointed out the law that says you simply can't arrest these people because they were the only ones home! Laugh all you want, but you HAVE to connect the dots if you want to get a conviction in this case. There are three elements and you've got to bring them together. You say you've been obsessing over this case for more than three years...yet I haven't seen you pull the three elements together. We aren't speaking figuratively here...these are three literal elements that will go nowhere fast without any attempt to literally connect them. These three dots are material to the crime; the circumstantial evidence is what's going to support their connection. I find it remarkable so many can point fingers at Hunter, et al, because he hasn't made an arrest, when these same fingerpointers can't figure out themselves how this case could be successfully tried. If one takes the position he hasn't got the legal training and background the prosecutors have to make such determinations, then what makes that person think he has enough legal knowledge to point out what's being done wrong (or not being done right)! This is dumbfounding to me. As far as proving this 'malfeasance', again, my point wasn't to come up with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply showing what that "malfeasance" is and how it has affected this case would be good enough proof for me. For example, if Hunter was defrauding the IRS, what bearing has that had on the case? Sure, arrest the guy on tax fraud, but that's all you'll get. Unless you can show that that tax fraud was due to monies illegally gained in making a "deal" with "someone" to keep this case out of a courtroom. It's funny, but a lot of this kind of fingerpointing is exactly what the RST is famous for. In trying to derail the investigation, they thwart the direction. They've hired their own detectives to look for the intruder...and they've come up with nothing. Likewise, they put their private dicks (no pun intended) onto investigating the cops and prosecutors. Again, we've heard nothing, apparently because these dicks have once again come up with nothing. Now if anyone had anything more to gain, I would think these guys would have found something...if something was there for them to find. Your 'logic' that Hunter brokered a deal to finish his term out in lieu of prosecuting is weak. He could have made a big bang simply by allowing arrests to be made and come off as a real hero "for doing the right thing"...not having to worry about taking it to trial. He'd be long out of office before the case finished discovery and came to trial so his record would remain initially 'clean'. And if he was a real dickhead as you think, he could have deliberately sabotaged the case by bringing it to trial to soon...that is, when no one knows how the hell anything went down. It would have been a helluvalot easier for him to 'broker' this kind of sabotage, ensuring the suspects got off with applicable double jeopardy. Instead, he's left the investigation open where arrests could issue at any time. There is no statute of limitations on murder. > If Owens won't do the >job, why should we? I'll tell >you why, because I absolutely REFUSE >to lower my standards of morality >to swim with self-serving sharks and >let little children rot in their >graves without SOME effort to make >this world a little better. Call >me naive, call me ambitious, just >don't call me late to the >trial! There would never be a trial for you to be late to! It's not a question of YOU lowering your standards. It's a question of the law and being able to prove to some reasonable degree that not only a crime took place, because we all know it did...but to show HOW that crime was effected. All I've been trying to say is I think it's only fair you should have a better handle on the steps the perps took to kill JonBenet before you go charging the DA and his staff with crimes for not having a handle on that same crime. Edited to add there was no statute of limitations on "murder". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Right On, Paralegal" Posted by straykat2 on 11:21:44 7/01/2000 Well said. I am curious why some forum members always come to the defense of Alex Hunter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "defending the undefendable" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:26:25 7/01/2000 StrayKat, I kind of defend him. I guess I'm naive afterall, because I cannot accept that anyone involved in this case, does not want justice for this little girl. I believed him when he first came before the cameras. He looked us in the eye and said, "NO MORE MERCY" for a killer and his/her games. I thought he was the Hero. (FOFLMAO just thinking about you doing the same right now!) I still think he thought he would be the Hero, but managed to bollax the case because he was going by the premise of an accident. I think he truly felt compassion for the Ramseys, with that theory in mind. He seems guilty for not having a sense of the absurd, because this case is absurd, and no telling who's who from one day to the next. I do believe he has a good heart, that his aim was true. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Hunter Trumped Justice" Posted by straykat2 on 12:40:16 7/01/2000 I understand your sentiment, but I believe Hunter's aim was to please his political allies. He trumped justice for JonBenet in the process. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "A Legal Flaw" Posted by straykat2 on 12:45:08 7/01/2000 Forsaking justice in favor of politics is an inherent flaw in our legal system. Too bad prosecutors are politicians. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "StrayKat," Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:47:13 7/01/2000 OK:-) I see your point. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]