Maura Murray

Beaglefukker wrote:

Whats your point retard? Seriously, can you make just a small attempt to make sense?
F-ing retard

Simply Caustic wrote:

Beagle:
The first post you made ALSO had this at the link you posted...
Grand juries composed of a single Superior Court judge were at one time relatively commonplace in Connecticut, especially in difficult cases or in investigations of suspected political corruption, but now are used much less frequently.
The second post you made is regarding violation of election laws. From that link:
Circuit Court, by affirmative majority decision of the bench, authorized issuance of an order to convene a one person grand jury for the purpose of conducting a judicial investigation as to the allegations contained in the complaint.
That's a judicial investigation, and it had to go through the Circuit Court. It's not a regular grand jury, nor a petit jury. It's a judicial investigation.
Regarding the Wisconsin link you cited - that's in John Doe cases...this isn't a John Doe case, and I cannot find any references to any recent Wisconsin one person grand juries whatsoever.
I would like to note that you haven't linked anything from the state of Mass.(I linked the current law in a previous post, about grand juries and their makeup).
Also - it states in the very link you provided that they are essentially used in political corruption cases - and now used much less frequently (and that's Connecticut).
I noticed you didn't refute my assertion that grand juries do, in fact, require a suspect in order to proceed - otherwise, who are they attempting to indict? You had stated earlier that they didn't need a POI.
Do you have any thoughts now, regarding the focus of the grand jury? A POI, or Maura, perhaps, herself? Just wondering what your thoughts are.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>The cold case of the missing woman was not a judicial or political case. Neither were two more that I cited. However, a judge in at least two of them was the sole grand juror.
Correct, I haven't cited anything specific to MA. You're right that it's an unusual situation - I never disputed that - but it does exist, which was my point. Of course, the Beaglefukker retard comment from Toronto was a point also well made.
BTW, MA does limit the number of grand jurors to 23. But that's the limit. 23 is required by statue.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, but a grand jury can consist of only one juror, a judge. Not rare.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean the Beaglefucker retard comment was a point well made?!?!
Yes, 23 is required. I learned that when I linked it yesterday or the day before.

Simply Caustic wrote:

Beagle:
The first post you made ALSO had this at the link you posted...
Grand juries composed of a single Superior Court judge were at one time relatively commonplace in Connecticut, especially in difficult cases or in investigations of suspected political corruption, but now are used much less frequently.

Judged:

1

Simply Caustic wrote:

Do you have any thoughts now, regarding the focus of the grand jury? A POI, or Maura, perhaps, herself? Just wondering what your thoughts are.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Saw your link - I stand corrected, it does state that 23 is the maximum number. I'd have to track down the link I posted, but I'm fairly certain I just assumed (and one should never do that!) that the grand jury is 23 people as a standard - but it clearly states it's the max., not otherwise.

Simply Caustic wrote:

Most assuredly, it was not a one-man jury - judge or otherwise. Agreed?

Judged:

1

1

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>FM was approached and given a small knife in plastic. He went to the Concord STP barracks, they would not accept it. FM explained he wanted to drop off potential evidence from a crime and asked whether there were any officers or any place else to take it. He was told there were no officers come back Monday through Friday.He had to return back to work in Ma. So he wrote a cover letter to send with it to the Concord STP. He did recieve notification of delivery and receipt from the post office.

Judged:

1

1

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>FM was approached and given a small knife in plastic. He went to the Concord STP barracks, they would not accept it. FM explained he wanted to drop off potential evidence from a crime and asked whether there were any officers or any place else to take it. He was told there were no officers come back Monday through Friday.He had to return back to work in Ma. So he wrote a cover letter to send with it to the Concord STP. He did recieve notification of delivery and receipt from the post office.

Judged:

1

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Well, if they're used less frequently now, but were relatively common some time back, then I guess they're still used? They're just not relatively common any more.
But I agree, we're talking about 50 different states here and only one of them is relevant - NH. I don't have a theory about it, but I would agree with you that if a regular grand jury is convened, then prosecutors probably have someone in mind. I guess.
BTW, I was a little older than 6 when the Bears last won the Super Bowl. That's probably why the idea of a one-person grand jury, no longer so popular, stuck in my head.

Judged:

1

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Well shack is as bright as a bag of doorknobs, so how did she know? I thought that she was the source of this little tidbit?
Bill

Simply Caustic wrote:

Those investigating agencies need not be mutually exclusive with the focus of the GJ, however.

Judged:

1

1

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>No idea. Would a grand jury be convened if Maura was regarded by the police to have disappeared into the woods?