Info about what happened in there
#1
No testimony but impressions by witnesses
Reply
#2
Susan Stine - "It was very clear to me that the prosecutors were out to get the Ramseys. That's how their questioning was shaped. Their questions were filled with facts and evidence that the police and prosecutors should have already known wasn't accurate."
Reply
#3
Lou Smit said he had "never been treated more terribly" than he was in the grand jury that day.

He told me personally that they persecutors were treating him like someone to be dismissed, the jurors could tell the prosecution was not supporting a word he said.
Reply
#4
Howard Rile, handwriting expert, told Paula Woodward the questioning had been aggressive and confrontational. He was testifying that the writing was most likely NOT Patsy's. Very VERY improbable that she wrote that.
Reply
#5
 
Mame  (Mary Suma) 10/9/06

"... IMMEDIATELY after Smit presented his case and evidence to the grand jury all hell broke loose. The grand jury said they needed more info, they demanded to know whose DNA was in evidence. The grand jury is a fact-finding entity and they used their powers to FORCE the BPD to dig deeper. The grand jury halted and went on "vacation"... Since the BPD and Kane were totally intent on bringing in their "Patsy"...they went into overdrive trying to match the DNA... ultimately they never brought an indictment."
 
 Fox news : 

SHOW: FOX THE EDGE WITH PAULA ZAHN (22:00 ET)

October 12, 1999, Tuesday
HEADLINE: The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury
GUESTS: Carol McKinley; Craig Silverman; Jeralyn Merritt
BYLINE: Paula Zahn

MCKINLEY: The specific evidence is this DNA, which points to no one, we keep hearing about. They found it in JonBenet's underwear. It's mixed with her own blood. They've gone out and tested hundreds of people to find the owner of that DNA. So far, no one's turned up. Prosecutors have tried to tell this grand jury, "Let's get past the DNA. Look at what we do have, a ransom note two and a half pages, plus three only -- only three known people who were in the house that night." But this DNA keeps rearing its ugly head, and this could be what's holding the grand jury up.




Report: Late testimony swayed JonBenet jurors

October 18, 1999
BOULDER - Late testimony from witnesses to the grand jury investigating JonBenet Ramsey's death may have turned attention away from a prosecutor's focus on the little girl's parents, a national news magazine is reporting.
Newsweek reports in its Oct. 25 issue that the new testimony forced jurors to change direction and may have led to their decision not to bring charges against John and Patsy Ramsey. The issue hits newsstands today.
After meeting in secret for more than a year, the grand jury investigating the 1996 slaying ended its work last week.No indictments were returned, and prosecutors announced that the Boulder Police Department would resume the investigation.
According to the Newsweek report, prosecutor Michael Kane was nearing the end of his presentation to the grand jury when several witnesses "with strong evidence pointing away from the parents" asked to be heard.
The report cites "several knowledgeable sources" as saying the late testimony forced jurors to change direction.
After testimony by former Colorado Springs homicide detective Lou Smit, who has spoken publicly about DNA found under JonBenet's fingernail and on her underwear that did not match the family's, grand jurors reportedly asked prosecutors to explain the DNA.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)