Justice Watch Discussion Board "NEW LAW- The inside scoop " [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... NEW LAW- The inside scoop , Bobby, 05:14:47, 8/14/2000 Thanks!, Holly, 07:34:43, 8/14/2000, (#1) both posts together, Starling, 10:36:50, 8/14/2000, (#2) Here's what I thinking, Starling, 11:00:53, 8/14/2000, (#3) Hi Starling and Bobby......, mee too, 11:36:07, 8/14/2000, (#5) gobblygook, Seashell, 11:35:41, 8/14/2000, (#4) Starling...., rose, 12:06:35, 8/14/2000, (#6) Seashell--I think this new bill says, fiddler, 12:52:05, 8/14/2000, (#8) Seashell/Rose, Starling, 12:50:35, 8/14/2000, (#7) Starling--interesting!, fiddler, 12:57:40, 8/14/2000, (#9) The bill...., Starling, 13:27:08, 8/14/2000, (#10) Thanks, Starling, for all the info--, fiddler, 13:39:45, 8/14/2000, (#11) if they called another GJ, Edie Pratt, 14:13:46, 8/14/2000, (#12) Edie, , starry, 14:17:17, 8/14/2000, (#13) thanks, Starry, Edie Pratt, 14:19:26, 8/14/2000, (#14) Little Bitty Baby Step, Tedleg, 14:56:57, 8/14/2000, (#16) Thanks, Seashell, 14:54:09, 8/14/2000, (#15) Seashell, Starling, 15:31:54, 8/14/2000, (#17) Tedleg, Starling, 15:41:28, 8/14/2000, (#18) public safety, Edie Pratt, 16:01:21, 8/14/2000, (#19) What I want to know, tinky, 17:37:31, 8/14/2000, (#20) Well, Tedleg--we're the, fiddler, 18:24:00, 8/14/2000, (#21) HA!, Seashell, 18:47:24, 8/14/2000, (#22) ................................................................... "NEW LAW- The inside scoop " Posted by Bobby on 16:01:45 8/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:01:45, 8/14/2000 Liz&Starling were great in finding this stuff about who supported & opposed the law. Also the link to FW letter(near the bottom) points out how involved many have been in trying to bring about JfJBR. DA office had stalled terribly with help of former Gov. Romer. I thought this needed its own space because of Starling&Liz' revelations. 33. "Additional Information" Posted by Starling on 00:18:15 8/14/2000 Liz posted Section I - through Owens home page I found this additional information: Disclosure To Grand Jury Witnesses DENNIS--SPENCE Section 2. Safety Clause. The General Assembly hereby finds, determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety. I also found (from links off of Owens page) references where both Bill Ritter and Bob Grant testified in favor of this bill: BILL SUMMARY for SB00-189 SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 09:50 AM -- SB00-189 Senator Dennis presented SB 189, Concerning Grand Jury Proceedings. The following witnesses testified on the bill: 09:50 AM -- Bill Ritter, Denver District Attorney, spoke in favor of the bill; 10:06 AM -- Bob Grant, Colorado District Attorneys Council, spoke in favor of the bill; and 10:08 AM -- Kim Morss, Judicial Department, spoke in favor of the bill. BILL: SB00-189 TIME: 10:23:29 AM MOVED: Perlmutter MOTION: Moved a conceptual amendment so that a witness would be able to look at prior statements taken under oath that are in the possession of investigating agencies. ____________________________ BILL SUMMARY for SB00-189 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 02:41 PM -- SB00-189 Representative Spence, bill sponsor, provided an explanation of the bill's provisions. 02:43 PM Maureen Cain, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, spoke in opposition to the bill. She spoke to the history of current language as it was adopted in 1977 to protect witnesses from attempts by prosecutors to trap witnesses in perjurious statements. She suggested an amendment to the bill to protect witnesses from such "perjury trap." She also spoke to the provision to delete court review of the grand jury record. 02:56 PM Jeanne Smith, District Attorney, 4th Judicial District, spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to the need for the change in section 1 of the bill regarding statements made by witnesses and provided examples of cases in which the requirement that a witness be given a copy of his or her prior statements is disadvantageous to the prosecution. She disputed prior testimony regarding a "perjury trap." Ms. Smith responded to committee questions regarding the potential for abuse if the bill is adopted and to the cases providing the impetus for the bill. 03:29 PM Mr. Weir spoke in support of the bill and responded to prior committee comments and questions. He spoke to the grand jury process and to cases which were the impetus for the bill. 03:38 PM Ms. Cain responded to committee questions regarding the number of grand jury indictments the court has thrown out and spoke to the need, aside from the threat of being charged with perjury, for allowing a witness to review prior testimony. BILL: SB00-189 TIME: 03:41:31 PM MOVED: Mitchell MOTION: Page 1, line 9, after "made", insert "TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PROSECUTION OFFICIAL OR"; page 2, strike lines 2 through 6. ______________________ Info on the others who testified: Kim Morss - who also testified in favor of the bill - is also a name that Fleet White mentions in one of his letters. The bill that he went on about - she supported it. http://www.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr.htm Maurine Cain - who opposed this bill, was Terry Nichols wife's attorney, during the OKC Bombing Trial. You may recall that one of Terry's attorney's was Susn Foreman. I believe Lee Foreman's wife. That's all I found tonight. Starling [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thanks!" Posted by Holly on 07:34:43 8/14/2000 Great info. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "both posts together" Posted by Starling on 10:36:50 8/14/2000 30. "Legislative history" Posted by LizzieB on 20:09:36 8/13/2000 I did some research on this law at FindLaw. I found most of the information using this page as a starting point. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html S.B. 00-189 Grand jury proceedings - witness statements. Entitles a witness, or an attorney for such witness with the witness's written approval, to examine and copy a statement made to a law enforcement or prosecution office or made under an oath required by law prior to testifying before a grand jury. APPROVED by Governor April 14, 2000 EFFECTIVE April 14, 2000 ------------------------ Summarized History for Bill Number SB00-189 (The date the bill passed to the committee of the whole reflects the date the bill passed out of committee.) 02/07/2000 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Judiciary 02/15/2000 Senate Committee on Judiciary Pass Amended to Senate Committee of the Whole 02/21/2000 Senate Second Reading Laid Over 02/22/2000 Senate Second Reading Passed with Amendments 02/23/2000 Senate Third Reading Passed 02/28/2000 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary 03/09/2000 House Committee on Judiciary Pass Amended to House Committee of the Whole 03/28/2000 House Second Reading Laid Over 03/29/2000 House Second Reading Passed with Amendments 03/30/2000 House Third Reading Passed 03/31/2000 Senate Considered House Amendments - Result was to Laid Over Daily03/31/2000 03/31/2000 Senate Considered House Amendments - Result was to Concur - Repass 04/06/2000 Signed by the President of the Senate 04/06/2000 Signed by the Speaker of the House 04/07/2000 Sent to the Governor 04/14/2000 Governor Signed This information is prepared as an informational service only and should not be relied upon as an official record of action taken by the Colorado General Assembly. ----------------------- SENATE BILL 00-189 BY SENATORS Dennis, Blickensderfer, Evans, Perlmutter, and Teck; also REPRESENTATIVE Spence. CONCERNING GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. 16-5-204 (4) (h) Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 16-5-204. Witnesses before a grand jury - procedure. Any witness summoned to testify before a grand jury, or an attorney for such witness with the witness's written approval, shall be entitled, prior to testifying, to examine adn copy at the witness's expense any statement in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury which such witness has made TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PROSECUTION OFFICIAL OR UNDER AN OATH REQUIRED BY LAW that relates to the subject matter under inquiry by the grand jury. If a witness is proceeding in forma pauperis, he shall be furnished, upon request a copy of such transcript and shall not pay a fee. ---------------------------- The bill was judged to have no fiscal impact. Summary of Assessment: This bill would repeal two current provisions of Colorado statutes relating to grand jury proceedings. First, the bill would repeal the provision allowing a grand jury witness to examine statements they made which are in the possession of the prosecution or grand jury. Second, the gill would repeal the provision that allows a trial court to dismiss grand jury indictments if the court finds the indictement is not supported by the record. The bill would take effect upon signature of the Governor. This bill is assessed as having no fiscal impact. Currently, witness statements are examined and copied at the witness' expense; therfore, the bill's first provision will have no fiscal ipact to the state. The number of grand jury cases reviewed and dismissed by trial courts is not significant, therefore, the number of hearings eliminated is estimated to have a minimal fiscal impact. -------------------------------------- All the bill sponsors are Republicans except for Perlmutter. Senator Gigi Dennis represents District 5 (Alamosa, Conegjos, Costilla, Custer, Huerfano, Las Animas, Mineral, Pueblo, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties). Senator Tom Blickensderfer is from District 26 (Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties). Senator John Evans is from District 30 (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Jefferson Counties). Senator Ed Perlmutter, the lone Democrat, is from District 20 (Jefferson County). Senator Ronald Teck represents District 7 (Mesa County). Representative Nancy Spence is from District 39 (Arapahoe County). ---------------------- I could find no answer as to why this bill was passed at this time, nor any connection whatsoever to the Ramsey grand jury. 33. "Additional Information" Posted by Starling on 00:18:15 8/14/2000 Liz posted Section I - through Owens home page I found this additional information: Disclosure To Grand Jury Witnesses DENNIS--SPENCE Section 2. Safety Clause. The General Assembly hereby finds, determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety. I also found (from links off of Owens page) references where both Bill Ritter and Bob Grant testified in favor of this bill: BILL SUMMARY for SB00-189 SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 09:50 AM -- SB00-189 Senator Dennis presented SB 189, Concerning Grand Jury Proceedings. The following witnesses testified on the bill: 09:50 AM -- Bill Ritter, Denver District Attorney, spoke in favor of the bill; 10:06 AM -- Bob Grant, Colorado District Attorneys Council, spoke in favor of the bill; and 10:08 AM -- Kim Morss, Judicial Department, spoke in favor of the bill. BILL: SB00-189 TIME: 10:23:29 AM MOVED: Perlmutter MOTION: Moved a conceptual amendment so that a witness would be able to look at prior statements taken under oath that are in the possession of investigating agencies. ____________________________ BILL SUMMARY for SB00-189 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 02:41 PM -- SB00-189 Representative Spence, bill sponsor, provided an explanation of the bill's provisions. 02:43 PM Maureen Cain, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, spoke in opposition to the bill. She spoke to the history of current language as it was adopted in 1977 to protect witnesses from attempts by prosecutors to trap witnesses in perjurious statements. She suggested an amendment to the bill to protect witnesses from such "perjury trap." She also spoke to the provision to delete court review of the grand jury record. 02:56 PM Jeanne Smith, District Attorney, 4th Judicial District, spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to the need for the change in section 1 of the bill regarding statements made by witnesses and provided examples of cases in which the requirement that a witness be given a copy of his or her prior statements is disadvantageous to the prosecution. She disputed prior testimony regarding a "perjury trap." Ms. Smith responded to committee questions regarding the potential for abuse if the bill is adopted and to the cases providing the impetus for the bill. 03:29 PM Mr. Weir spoke in support of the bill and responded to prior committee comments and questions. He spoke to the grand jury process and to cases which were the impetus for the bill. 03:38 PM Ms. Cain responded to committee questions regarding the number of grand jury indictments the court has thrown out and spoke to the need, aside from the threat of being charged with perjury, for allowing a witness to review prior testimony. BILL: SB00-189 TIME: 03:41:31 PM MOVED: Mitchell MOTION: Page 1, line 9, after "made", insert "TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PROSECUTION OFFICIAL OR"; page 2, strike lines 2 through 6. _____________________ Info on the others who testified: Kim Morss - who also testified in favor of the bill - is also a name that Fleet White mentions in one of his letters. The bill that he went on about - she supported it. http://www.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr.htm Maurine Cain - who opposed this bill, was Terry Nichols wife's attorney, during the OKC Bombing Trial. You may recall that one of Terry's attorney's was Susn Foreman. I believe Lee Foreman's wife. That's all I found tonight. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Here's what I thinking" Posted by Starling on 14:50:03 8/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:50:03, 8/14/2000 Someone's testimony may be very valuable to the D.A's office. During the original GJ stint - as we all know, John nor Patsy was called to testify. Had they been called, they would have been allowed to see any statements made against them, by others. The way the new law reads - the only statements they are now entitled to, are only ones they have made to law enforcement, prosecutors or under oath. As we all know, the Ramsey's have long held the trump cards when it comes to interviews. As Lynn Wood stated in the original news article, the Ramsey's have been "generally" cooperative during this entire process. But usually when a Ramsey comes to an interrogation table, they get something in return, wheather it be prior statements or examination of police property. Leverage is what this new bill is all about. Personally, I have a feeling this all revolves around Burke's testimony or is at least a huge factor in the passage of this bill. According to Thomas, Burke has said something(s) that actually contradict and may totally impeach John and Patsy's prior statements. The new law further protects Burke's statements and does have the potential to lay snares for John and Patsy's upcoming talks later this month. Perjury is a serious crime. All those inconsistant statements John and Patsy both have continually made - may end up being one of the prosecutions strongest assets. Prooving these two lie - has just been made easy. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Hi Starling and Bobby......" Posted by mee too on 11:36:07 8/14/2000 Thanks ever so much.....I will copy this info...... Starling...you've got that right the Ramsey's IMO only help out..when they receive a large cut of the pie....Maybe it's apple pie this time and they get the worm...... Off Topic....(well sort of) JR is willing to answer questions at Hir's forum..That's the biggest joke yet...LOL I wonder why JR didnt think of this sooner...the answers could have been in DOI.....Can we say interviews...want to get ALL those answers down pat....Never know what PESTY little questions the BPD might just ask......With the Ramsey's there's always a motive...IMHO ....(Mee Too) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "gobblygook" Posted by Seashell on 11:35:41 8/14/2000 I just don't read this stuff well. First, the bill would repeal the provision allowing a grand jury witness to examine statements they made which are in the possession of the prosecution or grand jury. This I understand, but where does it say that they CAN'T read statements made by others or has that always been the case? I thought this new bill made it more comfy for others to testify against them without fear of reprisal. Did I miss something? I wonder how many "I don't remembers" will come out of their mouths at this upcoming interview. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Starling...." Posted by rose on 12:06:35 8/14/2000 I think you might be right. Remember the police interview of Burke on the 26th at the White's residence? We know that this interview concerns the Ramseys very much. Months ago they were challengeing the police rights to question Burke without their permission. On one of their many TV interviews they brought up the subject of the police questing of Burke on the 26th. They were saying that the polic interview at the Whites home was not legal because they had not given their permission for them to question Burke. That does make one wonder if Burke's GJ testimony differed from his Dec. 26th rememberances when the police talked to him???? If so could the police charge the Ramseys for fibbing to the police and tampering with a GJ wittness????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Seashell--I think this new bill says" Posted by fiddler on 12:52:05 8/14/2000 that a witness is entitled to copies of his/her previous statements that were made under oath to some representative of the court/government. A witness would not be entitled to statements made about him/her by other witnesses, in the same circumstances. My question is: Does this mean that a witness CANNOT receive copies of previous statements which he/she might have made, but not under oath? And, if other witnesses made statements, but not under oath, is the primary witness entitled to those? Ginja? Anyone? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Seashell/Rose" Posted by Starling on 12:52:57 8/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:52:57, 8/14/2000 I'm sure they might - but I don't honestly see how John or Patsy either one can answer straight questions with "I don't know." If they do - it's only because they know their answer would be self incriminating. There are to many public interviews, they have given where they do remember. The one exception I found was during a LKL interview where John answered one of LK's questions with "I don't remember" and King called him on his response, with 'what do you mean you don't remember? - you wrote a book about it.' So they might try it, but it surely won't wash. As many times as Patsy has repeated her cancer story, we know she has an excellant memory and after carefully reading the Miles deposition, I'm absolutely positive John Ramsey has a exellant memory. He was remembering small details about things that happened to him, 30 years earlier. Rose - I came across something interesting in my notes this morning. Long ago, I was listening to Boyles and they were telling us about some new information investigators had. Someone had informed him or one of his panel members that morning of a new breakthrough. Looking back, I now think it could have been Burke stating JonBenet walked in the house - instead of both Ramsey's swearing umpteeeeeen times, she was carrried into the house sleeping. These are the clues from the Boyles show that morning: 1. It is evidence which contradicts previous statements. 2. Fibers have something to do with the timing of what happened that night. 3. It contradicts earlier statements by her (Patsy). 4. It impeaches both Ramsey's statements. 5. It has to do with the timeframe between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.. 6. It is evidentury in nature - and a court filing was being considered. At the time, the Globe ran an article which suggested this evidence pointed to Patsy, while the Enquirer ran an article which indicated it pointed towards John. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Starling--interesting!" Posted by fiddler on 12:57:40 8/14/2000 And remember Beckner saying, back in May or June, that they were looking at "hair and fiber evidence"? Hmmmm. As far as the Ramseys' memories go--look at how much doubt has been cast on Patsy's account of her "Stage Four" cancer, on this forum. IMO, PR's "memory" consists of one part truth to three parts manipulative fabrication....and going by John's varying accounts of what he did on the night of the 25th and morning of the 26th, I'd say his probably does too. At least with "I don't remember," no one may believe it, but they can't disprove it, either. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "The bill...." Posted by Starling on 13:27:08 8/14/2000 The bill repeals the provision that allows a grand jury "witness" to examine statements they made, wich are in posession of the prosecutors or Grand Jury. Under the old law they were entitled to all their statements. But now, they are only entitled to what the Grand Jury is actually focusing on: 16-5-204 - "Any witness summoned to testify before a grand jury, or an attorney, for such witness, with the witness's written approval, shall be entitled, prior to testifying, to examine and copy at the witnesses expense any statement in the posession of the prosecuting attorney or Grand Jury which such witness has made to any law enforcement, or prosecution official or under an oath required by law that relates to the subject matter under inquiry by the Grand Jury" Second, the bill repeals the provision that allows a trial court to dismiss Grand Jury indictments - if the court finds the indictment is not supported by the records. Now this is interesting. Under the old law, if a true bill had been brought down and charges filed, the first thing the Ramsey's lawyers would have done was petition the court to throw the case out - probably because it was based largely on alot of circumstantial evidenece (I know we've discussed this before, regarding what the first thing they would do if indicted). The way the new law reads the indictments will stand on their own and that motion will have to be denied, if presented by a Ram$ey attorney. Maybe they are trying to ensure this case gets it's fair day in court. That's what it sounds like to me. I know there has been alot of new testing since the GJ disbanded and I know they now have new questions for the Ramsey's. It is a good sign to know the case isn't shelved and it's very nice to know the number of people heading to Atlanta soon.... I'm very optimistic at this point. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Thanks, Starling, for all the info--" Posted by fiddler on 13:39:45 8/14/2000 I'm optimistic too. I have a feeling this case is going to be like the Aisenbergs--the less we hear, the better the prospects for arrest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "if they called another GJ" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:13:46 8/14/2000 would it be made up of the same people from the last one? I thought they are seated for a year, in session or not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Edie, " Posted by starry on 14:17:17 8/14/2000 No, it would be made up from GJ that is currently sitting. IOW, those grand jurors time ended after their year was up. Those dates are escaping me at this min. but I'm sure we could find them, if it's important. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "thanks, Starry" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:19:26 8/14/2000 no need, I remembered that after I posted, lol:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Little Bitty Baby Step" Posted by Tedleg on 14:56:57 8/14/2000 This law is a teeny step toward bringing Colorado into line with the rest of the country regarding its criminal procedure rules. I have been constantly amazed when doing legal research on this case at how pro-defense (some would say pro-criminal) Colorado's laws are. Note, however, that even with this change in the law, Colorado's grand jury laws are still more pro-defense than most jurisdictions. In most states (and the Federal system) a witness isn't entitled to squat before he testifies in the grand jury. You only become entitled to receive your statements after you become a defendant--i.e. when (and if) you are formally charged. Colorado also retains a bunch of other screwed up grand jury rules--e.g. a witnesses' lawyer get to sit in during the grand jury sessions when that witness testifies. The Colorado House still has a lot of work to do, IMO, with the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Thanks" Posted by Seashell on 14:54:09 8/14/2000 for the clarification, star. This is good news, but what about the Ramseys having access to what others say about them during the GJ process? Do you have that answer? Or did you answer that and I didn't get it? It's good to know the RST can't have an indictment thrown out. Now....can they have Burke's testimony that she walked up the stairs thrown out? Maybe there was no indictment before becuz of that law that's been repealed. Maybe AH wears a white hat after all. It sure sounds to me as if these repeals and new laws were pushed thru just for the Ramseys. And now they're being interviewed again. Very timely. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Seashell" Posted by Starling on 15:31:54 8/14/2000 The Ramsey's are not entitled to any statements anyone has made about them. The only way they can now get those statements is if they are charged, then the prosecution has to turn over things like that at time of discovery. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Tedleg" Posted by Starling on 15:41:28 8/14/2000 What's up with the Safety Clause in Section 2? Section 2. Safety Clause. "The General Assembly hereby finds, determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety." There has to be a reason this safety clause was added in. Just how does this law preserve public peace, health and safety? Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "public safety" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:01:21 8/14/2000 it does preserve public safety; this way, the suspects can't read other's testimony, and therefore would not harrass or threaten them. I doubt TeamRamsey is above such tactics, better safe than sorry. JR keeps saying the killer will kill again, you never know...besides, don't want the killer or killers to know vital info, and have time to prepare:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "What I want to know" Posted by tinky on 17:37:31 8/14/2000 Is Haddon completely out of the picture now? If the R's are charged, will Wood defend them? Or will each have their own attorney. Haddon with all his political connections and powers is what kept the R's out of jail in the beginning, will Wood be able to do the same? If they are out of money, how are they going to pay for representation? Can Wood even practice law in Colorado? I hope this new law will sink their ship...about time. Thanks for the earlier post Tedleg...Very informative... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Well, Tedleg--we're the" Posted by fiddler on 18:24:00 8/14/2000 Wild, Wild West, you know! You comes out here, and you takes your chances--although Doc Holliday, Billy the Kid and Jesse James are probably whirling in their graves at the thought of being compared to the Ramseys. What would be...poetic justice, I guess--is if the Ramseys have been bled dry of money, and have no prospects of hiring anyone of any reknown to defend them--and THEN are charged with this crime. Maybe that was Hunter's plan, all along....cunning can go both ways, after all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "HA!" Posted by Seashell on 18:47:24 8/14/2000 If If If Hunter has a white hat stashed under his desk, he'd better don it before the election, or he'll leave with posterity laughing at him. This timing of everything is very interesting. Perhaps the evidence is almost there for indictments and these new interviews and laws will clinch them - enuf for an arrest before November - or at least another GJ to hear the case. I haven't felt this frisky about the case in months. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE