Fleet White

If based on nothing other than the district attorney's repeated public statements and leaks characterizing the case as not prosecutable, there can be little doubt that, absent a confession, the people running the investigation had long ago decided against filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of the grand jury.

If based on nothing other than the district attorney's repeated public statements and leaks characterizing the case as not prosecutable, there can be little doubt that, absent a confession, the people running the investigation had long ago decided against filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of the grand jury.

There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for presenting the case to a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new evidence, grilling reluctant witnesses, or returning an indictment and everything to do with sealing away facts, circumstances, and evidence gathered in the investigation in a grand jury transcript.

There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for presenting the case to a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new evidence, grilling reluctant witnesses, or returning an indictment and everything to do with sealing away facts, circumstances, and evidence gathered in the investigation in a grand jury transcript.

It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening people who have something to hide or protect or who simply don't want to be publicly linked to a dreadful murder investigation.

It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening people who have something to hide or protect or who simply don't want to be publicly linked to a dreadful murder investigation.

In direct response to Mr. Thomas' recent letter, Governor Romer met on August 12, 1998, with District Attorneys Grant, Ritter, Peters, and Thomas. Later that day, Governor Romer announced at a press conference that Hunter had told him that the case was on track for a grand jury.

In direct response to Mr. Thomas' recent letter, Governor Romer met on August 12, 1998, with District Attorneys Grant, Ritter, Peters, and Thomas. Later that day, Governor Romer announced at a press conference that Hunter had told him that the case was on track for a grand jury.

Romer said that it would be improper to appoint a special prosecutor now, but that to improve public confidence in the case, he would make available to Hunter additional prosecutorial expertise.

Romer said that it would be improper to appoint a special prosecutor now, but that to improve public confidence in the case, he would make available to Hunter additional prosecutorial expertise.

On August 13, 1998, the Rocky Mountain News offered an editorial entitled, Calling in the Cavalry, in which the editor generally supported Governor Romer's action, but insightfully asked the obvious question, why has it taken so long for Hunter's office to present the case to a grand jury?

On August 13, 1998, the Rocky Mountain News offered an editorial entitled, Calling in the Cavalry, in which the editor generally supported Governor Romer's action, but insightfully asked the obvious question, why has it taken so long for Hunter's office to present the case to a grand jury?

there is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial.

there is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial.

Since very early in the case, there has been at least a tacit understanding among the district attorney, police leadership, those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be presented to a grand jury, but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in April 1998.

Since very early in the case, there has been at least a tacit understanding among the district attorney, police leadership, those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be presented to a grand jury, but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in April 1998.

This delay was deemed necessary by some or all of these parties in order to take advantage of a new statute concerning grand jury reporting procedures. By law, however, this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after October 1, 1997.

This delay was deemed necessary by some or all of these parties in order to take advantage of a new statute concerning grand jury reporting procedures. By law, however, this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after October 1, 1997.

In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would have to wait until April 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury subsequent to October 1st, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these people to stall and cynically rely on the public's relative ignorance of the statute and the purpose and general nature of grand juries.

In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would have to wait until April 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury subsequent to October 1st, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these people to stall and cynically rely on the public's relative ignorance of the statute and the purpose and general nature of grand juries.