Maura Murray

JWB wrote:

Based on renners research.
I haven't spoken to Columbo in months but I hope he is doing ok also. I think Columbo just got tired of being mis treated.

What do you mean a grand jury was convened?

I am confused.

A grand jury has a specific function. They review evidence to determine whether to indict a person.

Who was the prospective defendant?

JWB wrote:

No way NDg115 really?

I don't speak that language.

NDG115 wrote:

J4P593IE7SE

I don't speak that language.

To expand on my comment from yesterday:

A grand jury is convened in secret. The government presents evidence and the grand jury determines whether there is probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime.

If there is probable cause, then the accused is indicted. If not, the investigation remains open.

JWB -- I specifically interested in determining whether the grand jury was convened by New Hampshire or the United States. This would indicate the nature of the proposed charges.

If the United States convened a grand jury, then, of course, we are talking about federal charges (e.g., kidnapping, carjacking or crossing state lines during the commission of the crime).

I must admit (and I say this respectfully) that I am skeptical. If Renner truly told you this, then it is not something that he is keeping secret. Why wouldn't he have posted about it on his blog?

If you do not wish to discuss it here, maybe you would be willing to send me an email? samuel.s.ledyard@gmail.com.

One thing is clear. If a grand jury was convened, then an indictment was not handed down (after all, no one has been charged in connection with Maura's disappearance).

That means that the grand jury, if there was one, did not find probable cause.

Probable cause is a very low standard; there is not probable cause only if it would be UNREASONABLE to conclude that the accused committed the criminal acts alleged by the state.

There is an old saying: you can indict a ham sandwich. When a grand jury review the evidence, the outcome is nearly always an indictment.

NDG115 wrote:

J4P593IE7SE

J4P593IE7SE = piece of the URL

T0DQU "J4P593IE7SE" 6

Ah the fall is here. ski season right around the corner..

T0DQUJ4P593IE7SE6 wrote:

<quoted text>
J4P593IE7SE = piece of the URL
T0DQU "J4P593IE7SE" 6

lol.. say what?

T0DQUJ4P593IE7SE6 wrote:

<quoted text>
J4P593IE7SE = piece of the URL
T0DQU "J4P593IE7SE" 6

ok Thank You. I see it now.

backspace4me wrote:

<quoted text>
ok Thank You. I see it now.

Light. More Light.

NDG115 wrote:

<quoted text>
very observant. yes it is.

but why post it?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

One thing is clear. If a grand jury was convened, then an indictment was not handed down (after all, no one has been charged in connection with Maura's disappearance).

That means that the grand jury, if there was one, did not find probable cause.

Probable cause is a very low standard; there is not probable cause only if it would be UNREASONABLE to conclude that the accused committed the criminal acts alleged by the state.

There is an old saying: you can indict a ham sandwich. When a grand jury review the evidence, the outcome is nearly always an indictment.

See Renner's post "Records Show Scope of Police Investigation" from Feb 2, 2012. It references "Grand Jury subpoenas."

Sam,
Even if a grand jury finds guilty it is up to the prosecutor to move forward.The Benet Ramsey cas is an example of this.

The grand jury in that case determined sufficient evidence towards the mother and father but the DA did not want to proceed.

Amy, what is your take on my last post? Possible or did I read things wrong?

JWB wrote:

Amy, what is your take on my last post? Possible or did I read things wrong?

I'm not that familiar with the Ramsey case. I did find this from an article online: "With no evidence to suspect her parents, they were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. However, according to a story published on Daily Camera this year, the grand jury had actually voted to indict her parents on charges of child abuse which resulted in death. The story states that the indictment was never carried out because District Attorney Alex Hunter had refused to sign it because of the lack of evidence."

In Maura's case, I think Sam is right that the grand jury did not indict anyone. My reasoning is that I think there would be record of the fact that there was an indictment, even if the records of the indictment itself are sealed. This would have been one of the records denied to Fred and Renner and anyone else who did a FOIA request, I'm assuming. I might be wrong about that, so I'm hoping Sam will weigh in with his opinion.

JWB wrote:

Sam,
Even if a grand jury finds guilty it is up to the prosecutor to move forward.The Benet Ramsey cas is an example of this.

A grand jury doesn't find someone guilty, a grand jury determines whether there is probable cause that a crime has been committed by the accused.

But, yes, once charges are brought the prosecutor must actually prosecute -- the state has the burden of proof.

"The story states that the indictment was never carried out because District Attorney Alex Hunter had refused to sign it because of the lack of evidence."

The DA need not prosecute the crime. There are (extremely rare) cases in which a private lawyer prosecutes a crime. That is part of our system, as a safeguard against corruption.

For example, when Martha Coakley was Middlesex County DA, the republican candidate running against her, Larry Frisoli, threatened to prosecute a defendant if Coakley refused to do so.

Again, however, if goes without saying that if no one prosecutes, then there will be no conviction.

Secrecy is almost always a common trait with grand jury findings.Just because nothing was heard in the mm GJ trial doesn't mean not guilty does it Amy? Had anyone even heard about a grand jury in this case prior to Renner?

I meant to say "IT goes without saying...."