Transcript of Tom Miller Trial (Revenge of the Ramseys) by KoldKase

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    November 7, 2005, 11:31 pm, Mon Nov 7 23:31:19 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,359



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elle_1
    I haven't received my Tom Miller CD yet. Anyone else received theirs?


    Hey, Elle, I got mine today in the mail. I've read about the first 100 pages...yeah, mostly jury qualification and voir dire...boring, but I just went through this myself for a murder trial, so it was interesting to compare the two state systems.

    Anyhow, the actual indictment read by the judge to the jury was rather shocking. Do you think we should start a new thread on this? The cd transcript is over 700 cd pages. I'd like to post the indictment charge, but keep in mind that Miller was found "not guilty" when you read it. This indictment painted Miller as a willing participant who was quite aware of the illegal transaction Globe editor Craig Lewis allegedly was attempting--the purchase of a copy of the ransom note from Donald Vacca, the document examiner hired by Hadden's law firm for the Rams. I look forward to seeing how the evidence was presented and how the jury concluded Miller was not guilty.

    I will say here that Counselors for the defense, out of the gate, in pretrial discussion and in the few pages of trial I've spot read so far, were quite good.

    I also cannot resolve as fair or even conscionable that the same DA who prosecuted Miller did so after DROPPING CHARGES AGAINST THE GLOBE EDITOR LEWIS, following Lewis' DONATION of a $100,000 CONTRIBUTION TO A COLORADO UNIVERSITY. See, call me simple-minded, but HOW IS THAT ETHICAL? If I were on the jury, that alone would have caused me to vote not guilty. Reasonable doubt? NO BRAINER. What juror would not ask him/herself, WHERE IS LEWIS? when the witnesses were done and the prosecutor was finished? Unless the defense was not allowed to bring in that information about Lewis obviously paying his way out of a charge, which I would find shocking, as well, but guess we'll see....

    At the very least, Lewis was the main player in this strange case, working for a notoriously unscrupulous tab magazine already up to their ears in illegally obtained pictures of a child's autopsy and heading quickly to attempted blackmail of Steve Thomas, with the actual witnesses now on the record with the details about both of these matters, which we all have seen and heard. But instead of going after the Globe, the DA dropped the charges against Lewis, represented by a group of Globe lawyers who I'm sure made the DA quake in his hot tubbie. Then he charged Miller. Go figure....

    Of course, Miller claims in his rather plainly stated opening editorial comments about his prosecution that it was all orchestrated by the Ramseys' attorneys as payback for his professional expert opinion that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. The writing is straightforward and I think the transcript will be an interesting read if all he says is borne out by the trial testimony. Let me reiterate, the verdict is already in. After hearing all the trial testimony and evidence, the jury determined NOT GUILTY.

    I doubt if the verdict even fazed the Ramseys or their lawyers, or their lawyers' cronies. It's all about the aggravation and cost to anyone who opposes the lies and "diversionary tactics" used to bury a child murder case forever, IMO. What price will a child killer pay to get away with murder?

    I gotta' tell ya', if there are any judicial districts in this country more corrupt, more unethical, or more immoral than those we've seen compromised by this murder case and all roads leading to it, I do not want to know about them. Really. Don't tell me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Next one:

    November 7, 2005, 11:55 pm, Mon Nov 7 23:55:40 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,359



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oh, yeah, another issue that will be interesting to watch is the argument by Miller's counsel that Miller's diary was illegally obtained by the DA and should not therefore be evidence for this trial. The DA has already read the diary and returned it with no expectation of using anything from it in the trial, the prosecution states, unless he wants to use it for rebuttal if Miller takes the stand, for impeachment of Miller's testimony if needed. Of course, Miller's lawyer pushes that issue, and of course, the prosecutor wants to retain the ability to use it for impeachment purposes. The prosecution claims precedence dictates this is allowed, and the judge agrees, rather lukewarmly, deferring any actual ruling until "later" in the trial.

    I don't know the case law on this, nor do I know how this finally plays out, as far as the legal issues, until I read the transcript in full. But before voir dire, the lawyers argue this issue a bit and it comes out that for some reason no judge has bothered to rule on whether or not the diary was legally obtained by LE or not. Before any ruling was made on those motions by the defense to exclude the diary as evidence, the DA gave the diary back and said he didn't need it, not to worry, UNLESS he wanted to use it for impeachment if Miller testified. HUH? Isn't that a bit like having your cake and eating it, too? So the defense argued again and Judge Tidball kept waffling on the issue as well, I guess to save time, in case Miller does NOT testify, making this a moot point.

    Me...I do NOT see how evidence that was unconstitutionally obtained can be used against a defendant...PERIOD. But I'm no legal eagle, so maybe upon reading, I'll learn if this issue ever got ruled on during the trial and on what precedent the ruling was determined.

    The defense attorney brought up Miller's Constitutional right to privacy issue here and that this had been violated, that the prosecution had access to knowledge of personal material from Miller's life LE had no legal right to obtain, and that can't be undone. And YET...so far, before voir dire started, no judge bothered to RULE on this very important U.S. Constitutional issue: the DA kept COPIES of Miller's diary even after returning the actual diary to Miller. The diary was read by other attorneys in the DA's Office, judges in the case, even Judge Tidball says she read it; then she carelessly thumbed her nose at the Constitutional issue and abuse of Mr. Miller's rights, dodging any responsibility or reparations for this violation of federal and state law by simply deferring it until "later." I'm just hoping it even gets brought up again, because this is sooooooooo wrong. But in Colorado, as they smugly illustrate with arguments so logically and legally flawed it's obvious they don't even feel the need to try to look intelligent, much less competent (yes, I'm talking about you, too, Bill Nagel), they have no regard for the law as laid out by the U.S. Constitution. They make it up as they go. Depending on who is the highest bidder for justice, of course.

    I will say I like Miller's opening comments for this trial transcript, as well as the CD title and great picture of the Ramseys by Judith. I agree with Mr. Miller's premise entirely: that justice can be had in this country...for a price. He should know, as his cost him dearly.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Number three repeat

    November 9, 2005, 11:24 pm, Wed Nov 9 23:24:03 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,361



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OK, just finished reading the voir dire, jury selection, and jury instructions.

    People of the State of Colorado v Thomas 99 CR 2023

    The state's attorney was Dennis Hall. Miller had two attorneys, one named Gary Lozow and one Charles Leidner. Lozow did the voir dire with the jury, which means he questioned them to establish any bias or problems for his client, and he was BRILLIANT. IN VOIR DIRE! That's remarkable. It's usually so boring, it's hard to stay awake.

    I never saw anyone do this before: Lozow questioned the jury pool in such a way as to practically INSTRUCT them in depth, prime them, so to speak, about the very issues that were going to get Miller a not guilty unless the state had an ironclad case. It really is remarkable. Very smart. Very.

    In his time to question the individual potential jurors, he talked/questioned them about any already formed opinions about the case, given its high profile, of course. But he went further: he "discussed" in question form how the jury might understand or not that a lawyer has attorney-client privileges, meaning he can't disclose certain information, and do they know how that works--which is significant here because Miller was in a position of not being able to give information to LE about whatever Craig Lewis did or said to him, as Miller was Lewis' representing attorney present and participating in the meeting where Lewis allegedly attempted to buy the ransom note from the Ramseys' document examiner, Donald Vacca. The case involved BOTH Lewis and Miller, being initially suspected of the same crime, as they were together when the alleged attempt at "criminal bribery" took place. It's an important point Lozow is making here with the jury pool, from which will come the jury, because I'm guessing that Miller's refusal to breech that privilege and roll over on Lewis was part of the reason Miller ended up charged, even though Lewis bought his way out of a charge with that obvious $100,000 donation. I haven't read the opening statements yet, but I believe Miller's defense was that he didn't know Lewis was there to try to buy a copy of the note. So when LE was alerted by Vacca of what had happened, Miller was in a double bind: to protect himself, he would have to break attorney-client privilege and help convict his client, or he'd have to keep his professional, legal duty to Lewis and face being charged himself. Helping the jury understand this early the bind Miller was in...before they're even on the jury...giving the defense's legal arguments at this time as an extra bite at the apple...truly great stategy. I'm impressed.

    Another point he made with the jury during voir dire, one defense lawyers really can't repeat enough in a case as thin as the state's here: did they understand Miller didn't have to put on any defense, testify, call any witnesses, and the jury could not hold that against him, as the judge would instruct them, because it was the state's responsibility to meet the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, not the accused's responsibility to prove himself innocent. Lozow was good at talking to these potential jurors. Very gentle. Barely maintaining this phase of the process as a questioning phase to qualify jurors, calling them individually by name, establishing a rapport with them...oh, he's good.

    Lozow also spent some time on how much the jury pool had heard about the case and formed opinions from news sources or the notoriety of the Ramsey case, asking them if they understood how reporters' biases and mistakes and incorrect information was not evidence, etc. Considering how much press anything related to the Ramsey case got in those days, this was an opportunity to "instruct" the jury in such a way as to make them aware of their own pre-trial influences and conscious of their duty to dismiss them and focus on the evidence presented at trial. Again, this man knew what he was doing. I was ready to vote not guilty after just reading voir dire!

    Did I mention he did this under a 30 minute stopwatch imposed by Judge Tidball? She gave him a little leeway...maybe an extra 15 minutes.

    So...Miller had at least one great attorney. I look forward to reading the opening statements, as well. The county where the trial was held is Jeffco, short for Jefferson County, I think. This is the airport location where Ramsey kept his plane, I believe, not far from Boulder. The Jefferson County DA...I saw him many times on TV standing in for Hunter, on Geraldo or LKL...a real Hunter-type, I might add, if I remember, not ever saying much, just there to show a face for Hunter, who was too chicken to show it himself by then. (Stinking heap of dung!)

    OK, still got real life stuff, but I'll keep going when I can...if nobody else is going to jump in...grumble grumble grumble....
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Cookie editorialized for us, as well:

    November 10, 2005, 12:14 pm, Thu Nov 10 12:14:31 CST 2005
    Cookie
    Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002
    Location: Denver
    Posts: 178

    You Get It!

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KK,

    That's exactly the position that "Doc" was in. There were close friends of his that tried to "reason" with him to roll over on Craig. Doc would absolutely not hear of it. He stuck to his moral responsibility and suffered the consequences. I backed him up no matter what he decided. It was pretty scary back then.

    Here's an interesting factoid: the final jury selection was done by "Doc's" handwriting analysis of potential jurors. He and Gary had personality characteristics that determined wich jurors to seat.
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh...now I remember...shiver....

    November 10, 2005, 4:50 pm, Thu Nov 10 16:50:01 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,361



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OK, I have just finished reading the opening statements of the prosecution and the defense, and I don't have time to say much until later this evening, if I can get an hour, but I wanted to write what I'm feeling right now as it is astonishing to me.

    My jaw is on the floor. My heart is heavy, my pulse was rapid as I read. I am having some kind of reaction with my senses that I can't even explain. It's like as I was reading, a psychic mist was creeping up around me full of a palpable evil. It's that "hair standing on end" kind of visceral feeling. I need a bath and a big hug from hubby...he'll be home any minute.

    It's the Toxic Ramsey cloud. That poor, poor child....
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Cookie added an interesting part of the story here

    November 14, 2005, 1:21 pm, Mon Nov 14 13:21:27 CST 2005
    Cookie
    Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002
    Location: Denver
    Posts: 178

    Doc's Diary

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I will never forget the night that the CBI and Boulder cops came to our Boulder home with their search warrant. Doc and I were busy working in my office preparing for a gallery opening. My daughter, then age 13, was doing her homework. They attempted their first search and seizure at the wrong house! Then they went back to the police department and found the correct address and 12 cops showed up at my house, guns drawn, and surrounded all exits. My daughter answered the door bell and was frightened to death. Doc came up from my office and looked at the warrant and noted that the wrong address was listed on the document. They bullied their way into the house by saying to back off our dogs or they were going to shoot them.

    I was listening to everything hidden in the stairway. They went directly down to my office and took Doc's diary. They seemed to know exactly where to find it. We found out later that one of his sons was instructed to take a photo of his bookshelf during one of their visits. Doc's ex-wife and the CBI were behind this maneveur. She told her sons that she was missing a book and wanted them to take pictures of Doc's bookshelf. She led the CBI right to his personal diaries that would have the information of the Vacca visit and name Craig Lewis as Doc's client. You see, at this time, Doc would not disclose the name of his client.

    During the trial, even though it was agreed NOT to use his personal diary, Dennis Hall tried to use the information in his case. Gary Lozow objected everytime.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Opening statements:

    November 14, 2005, 3:30 pm, Mon Nov 14 15:30:19 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,364

    People v Miller: opening statements

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ok, I'm going to try to keep this as succinct as I can, but you know me...so get comfortable.

    I think I'll do this in two parts: the state's opening statement, which was short, and the defendant's opening statement, which was actually a two-parter in itself, because in the middle of it, the state brought it to a halt with an objection because the prosecution didn't like that the defense was bringing in the dirty deeds of the state in its dismissal of Craig Lewis' charge when he dropped 100k into the CU journalism school's coffers as a de facto payoff...well, that's how it looks to me...and anyone with any sense....

    The state's case: "People's Opening Statement"

    Prosecutor Hall starts with the Ramsey homicide and the ransom note that came from that. (This was a bit of a shock to me, don't know why, but I really didn't realize how much the Ramsey murder case was going to play in this one. Duh.) Mr. Hall explains the circumstances of the note being seized by LE and then guarded closely as evidence, with a copy of the note being given to a few interested parties, one of those being JOHN RAMSEY'S LAW FIRM, HADDON, FREEMAN, AND FOREMAN. Foreman will testify, Mr. Hall says, that he hired Donald John Vacca, retired from the Denver Police Dept., a "questioned document examiner," to evaluate the ransom note for John Ramsey.

    Next Mr. Hall says Vacca's wife, who is also on the witness list, got a call from Miller wanting to meet with her husband, whose office was in his home, about work which they assumed was for Miller's law practice, not about the ransom note.

    So Mr. Hall says Miller showed up with "a man" (Craig Lewis) whom he didn't introduce to Mrs. Vacca or Mr. Vacca, but simply identified as representing "a large corporation." This is where the indictment really turns on a few words, as Mr. Hall claims that Mr. Miller then told Vacca he wanted to buy something from him, not have him examine a document for them. Vacca, Mr. Hall says, told Miller and Lewis I don't sell things, and then the stories of prosecutor and defense pretty much are the same: Lewis jumped in and said (I'm not making this up), "Cut the crap. You've got the ransom note, and we want to buy it." Then Lewis pulled out an envelope with the $30,000 in it to buy the note. Vacca proceeded to call his wife in as a witness and then threw Lewis and Miller out of his house because Vacca had a duty of loyalty to his employers, the law firm, and, says Mr. Hall, "Offering money to Mr. Vacca...to violate that duty is a crime. That's the crime called commercial bribery." (I swear on my poodle's grave, I am not making this up.)

    And that's pretty much the whole of it. When you see what Miller's lawyers tell the jury happened next you will see how jaw-dropping this whole indictment and trial is. Nothing but intimidation and manipulation, the same pattern we've been watching for years and years and years now as the RST has raped the justice system to keep a child killer out of prison.
    __________________
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    More opening statements:

    November 14, 2005, 4:31 pm, Mon Nov 14 16:31:24 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,367



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OK, this is a bit longer, and more complex, because lots of information comes out as the prosecution and defense get into an argument about how much of Craig Lewis' activities after he offered Vacca money are allowed into the trial. The jury is sent out for these arguments and this is where the revealing stuff comes in, pre-trial motions already ruled on that we wouldn't know about except for this argument when the defense brings them in to support its position. Well, again, better to start at the beginning....

    Defendant's Opening Statement

    Delivered by Mr. Leidner, he begins with a time line: Dec. 1996, when JonBenet was murdered, no less. He skips quickly to spring of '97, to when Vacca was already getting offers from others wanting to buy a copy of the ransom note. Then, Mr. Leidner says, Miller called Vacca to set up an appt. to interview Vacca because they were looking for a copy of the ransom note. As it comes out in the defense opening statement, when Miller and Lewis went to Vacca's, Lewis is the one who jumped in with "Cut the crap. You have the ransom note, and we want to buy it." But Miller claims he had no idea Lewis was going to do that, that he was only there to find out if it was possible for them to get a copy of the note, and he only was beginning the introductions when Lewis jumped in and made the financial offer. I believe the distinction here is Miller didn't commit any crime by being there to inquire about the note, versus "buy" the note, and that Lewis made the financial offer, not Miller, who was there as Lewis' attorney at any rate.

    Now, this is a bit suspect on its face, I have to admit. Seems like Miller wouldn't expect something as sought after as the contents of the ransom note to be "given" out by anyone for free at this point in the history of the case. But as the defense continued its argument, I think it became clear that the line was very fine with this indictment: you can't prosecute someone for what they "think," only for what they do. If Miller didin't make the offer of money himself or implicate himself in that offer, per se, he's not guilty...? I'm guessing that is the basis of the defense.

    Two weeks later, according to Leidner, Vacca called Jefferson Co. DA to complain about Miller and Lewis. Seems Mr. Lewis had called Vacca AGAIN, all on his own, and offered whatever amount Vacca wanted for the note. The DA looked into it and called Vacca back and said he felt no wrongdoing had occured, the defense contends.

    What happens next is quite shocking: Mr. Leidner tells the jury, "Well, Mr. Vacca calls the Ramsey lawyers, and the Ramsey lawyers generate a letter to the district attorney's office...saying: 'We want you to investigate what's going on with our witness, who's going to be here to defend this potential murderer. We want you to go after these people who are trying to buy this note.'"

    OK, I want to make one point here: as the defense is talking extemporaneously, it's not clear whether the Ramsey law firm wrote the letter to the DA or if that was Vacca. It seems in the above statement that it was the law firm, but then Leidner says Vacca sent a letter next, so maybe he meant Vacca sent the letter "generated" by the law firm. I'll let you know if I figure that out, unless someone else is further into the transcript and tell us. But I do think this is an important point and hope this letter is put into evidence and clears this up. I'd scan ahead and find out, but this is a pdf file and I'm not that good at getting around quickly in it on my old computer. I hope to have some time tonight to keep reading and maybe I'll figure it out then.

    So now, Leidner says, the DA's investigator, Mr. Burkhalter, is told to go back and look harder. So Burkhalter does. He's actually found out that the "other man" at Vacca's was Craig Lewis of the Globe because Vacca got Lewis' car rental license plate number when Lewis went BACK to Vacca's house ALL BY HIMSELF later to make another offer. Burkhalter tried to get Miller to give up Lewis' identity in May or June--the timeline is a bit confusing here, but Miller had received a letter by then from Lewis stating Miller was under no circumstances to give out his identity or that he worked for the Globe. Miller's hand were tied, but Burkhalter already knew Lewis' identity, so that's strange, right there.

    Also, by then, Miller has talked to another Globe/Lewis attorney who has led Miller to believe under the law, no crime has been committed at any rate. So Miller tells Burkehalter no way.

    Oh, I do want to mention here that by trial, Lewis had cut his deal with the DA, "donated" the money to the CU journalism school, and written a letter to Miller giving him permission to disclose any previously confidential information bound by attorney client privilege. This allowed Miller to finally defend himself at trial, giving out information on Lewis and his activities on Lewis' behalf. This is a tremendous benefit for Miller, as you will see, because the DA has a few cards up his sleeve to damage Miller's defense involving Lewis NOT being subpoenaed by the DA to testify, because Lewis was on the DA's witness list up until the week or so before trial. That's a very tricky tactic the DA used, and it was pretty dirty because, until Miller got that client release of privilege from Lewis, Miller STILL could not openly defend himself or testify about the activities of Lewis on the ONE DAY in question. Since Lewis' allowing Miller to have that release was contingent upon Lewis having his indictment dropped by the DA...you see...catch 22.

    Anyway, as Leidner later points out at the end of the opening statement, Miller's freedom and license to practice law were in jeopardy: as Mr. Leidner puts it, "His entire activity was: This is my client, and he represents a large corporation. That was it." More about this later.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Whew! No wonder I didn't get back to this!

    November 15, 2005, 1:42 am, Tue Nov 15 1:42:25 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,367



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where I stopped: Defense attorney Liedner, representing Miller along with Lozow, was giving the opening statement. He was delineating the sequence of events with a timeline, and when he came to August '97, the prosecutor jumps up and objects. Obviously Mr. Hall was waiting for this, and the attorneys go to the judge's bench for a sidebar. That's recorded by the court reporter, but out of earshot of the jury. Then the judge instructs the jury to retire to the jury room while they argue over the legal issues. When the jury is gone, the judge has the argument continue in open court, on the record. Here is basically what they were arguing:

    Mr. Hall objects on the grounds that whatever happened AFTER the initial numerous attempts by Lewis to buy the note from Vacca is not relevant to Miller's case. Leidner says that Lewis' behavior after Miller's initial involvement with him is relevant because it's consistent with Lewis "running amuck"--Leidner liked that term so much, he used it about 10 times--trying to buy the ransom note ON HIS OWN, even from Ellis Armistead eventually. (Y'all remember Armistead: he was a Haddon private investigator who quit the Rams' case when Ollie Gray, another Rams' investigator who worked with Smit later, put "suspect" Sketchman's drawing on the Rams' website. Guess Armistead had some standards. hehehe)

    The point is that the prosecutor didn't want the "disposition of Lewis' case" brought out to the jury. Turns out the DA didn't want the jury to consider that the DA had made a deal with Lewis in which LEWIS GOT NO CHARGES, NO TRIAL, MADE NO PLEA, NADA, FOR THE SUM OF A 100K DONATION TO CU. Did the DA think maybe a jury wouldn't think that was...oh...JUSTICE?

    So of course, the defense argues vigorously that they should be able to present the disposition of Lewis' charges in Miller's defense, as well as various other actions of Lewis and others who tried to buy the ransom note from Haddon and his investigators. The defense also brings up in this argument that by Sept. of '97, Vanity Fair published the ransom note, and that Newsweek did also, as well as the Globe, shortly thereafter, though the BPD had earlier denied the request of the Ramsey team that it be published. (Y'all remember, that was John Douglas' idea.)

    I'm a bit all over the place with this part of the trial, as the lawyers are going around and around, with pre-trial motions being discussed as well. They have this argument with the knowledge of what those previous motions and arguments were and what law was argued, so it's not that clear to me because I don't know those things, so it's very hard for me to keep up. So much comes out in this portion of legal argument that needs more background than I have about the case to follow it solidly, so I'll just have to do my best, reading between the lines. If I err, I'm sure Cookie will set me straight.

    A couple of interesting things that popped out at me during this back and forth between the prosecution, defense, and the judge during this open court argument with the jury not present:

    The prosecutor gave the defense notice about a month before trial that they MIGHT NOT call Lewis as a witness for the prosecution. Then a couple of weeks before trial, again they told the defense they MIGHT NOT call Lewis. This was so the defense could subpoena Lewis themselves if they wanted to ensure that he would be present to testify. The disingenuous part of this is that Lewis only gave Miller his legal waiver of attorney-client privilege THE DAY TRIAL BEGAN, June 11, 2001. It comes out here that the prosecutor notified the defense the day before opening statements that IT WASN'T GOING TO CALL LEWIS.

    See, here's the problem as I see it: until Lewis waived the attorney-client privilege ON JUNE 11, 2001, could Miller have his lawyers subpoena Lewis to testify on his behalf about what transpired between them...as attorney-client privilege applied? Until the prosecutor made his deal with the Globe and Lewis, dropping all charges in exchange for the Globe's 100K "gift" to CU--which the defense straight out calls "checkbook dismissal of the case against the Globe and Mr. Lewis"--Lewis was NOT going to waive that privilege, was he? Not unless he wanted to go to jail.

    So the question I'd like answered is this: WHEN DID THE PROSECUTION CUT THE DEAL WITH LEWIS AND THE GLOBE? If it was right before trial, the prosecutor would have Miller hog-tied until that happened because of the attorney-client privilege he had with Lewis and the Globe. If that's the case, then was it TOO LATE for Miller to try to subpoena Lewis, who might not even be in the country, much less easily found and gotten to Colorado? Clever. Dirty, but clever. Well, it's a guess on my part, but just doesn't seem right to me.

    Oh, and the prosecution said they decided not to call Lewis because his OTHER lawyer who talked with the prosecutor told him what Lewis would say on the stand, and that convinced the prosecution not to call him. (heh Right.) The defense said that the prosecution wouldn't call Lewis because, after the "checkbook dismissal," they had no idea what Lewis would say on the stand, which means he might say it was all him and corroborate what Miller said. So the prosecutor HAD to know that Miller might not, in fact, be guilty at all.

    THIS IS WRONG, PEOPLE! THE PROSECUTOR IS ABUSING HIS POWER! HE KNOWS HE CANNOT MEET THE BURDER OF PROOF BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT WITNESS TESTIMONY OFFERED BY COMPROMISED PARTIES WHO WORK FOR THE RAMSEYS, WITH A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AS THEY HAVE AN OBVIOUS BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.

    I mean, what kind of deal did the DA make with Lewis and the Globe that didn't include ANY testimony from Lewis against the ONE MAN they decided to prosecute? What did the prosecution GET out of making a deal with the Globe? The 100K didn't go to them, did it? Why make a deal at all when, if the defense's opening statement is true, the DA had Lewis coming and going, even on Vacca's answering machine, trying to buy the note from Haddon's people FOR WEEKS? And WHAT did Lewis get for that 100K? We know he got the charges against him dropped. Immunity from prosecution? Or an agreement NOT to show up at trial? This seems VERY SUSPECT to me. Why charge and prosecute Miller when obviously THEY HAD NO CASE, PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT THEY LOST? If they knew they couldn't get LEWIS, why go after Miller?

    It's got to be simple intimidation and an attempt to tarnish a possible future witness against the Rams. I didn't really fully buy that Miller was being targeted because of Haddon and the Rams up until this minute, but it's the only reason I can see for Miller's case to ever have gone to trial. Miller paid. He was found not guilty, but his life was turned upside down and it cost him a small fortune. Haddon's warning to future witnesses against the Rams? I believe so.

    But I digress....

    So the prosecution says unless Lewis is called by the defense as a witness, Lewis' deal with the prosecution should not be allowed to be brought in by the defense, and not in opening statements at all. The judge agrees. We know Lewis ain't coming. Let's see what happens.

    Aw, geez. The more I reread and try to put this down for y'all, the harder it gets. I can't write a simple sentence!

    Leidner and Lozow and Hall go back and forth: variously, Miller's defense is that Lewis ran amuck, trying to buy the note repeatedly from Vacca and others, contrary to anything any lawyer advised him. Acting willy nilly, Lewis was not concerned with any legal consequences, the defense argued, and he knew what he was doing, because he didn't get prosecuted for anything, did he, including his attempt to extort Thomas for information? The prosecution counters, what Lewis did after the date in question when both men went to Vacca's house is not relevant to what Miller did. The defense says it's relevant, giving what seems to me to the be a "splatter" argument: it's relevant because Lewis was running amuck and wouldn't listen to Miller's legal advice, as Miller continued as his lawyer up to the end of the year; wherein Miller's diary confiscation by LE comes into the argument as support for the defense argument the prosecution knew Miller was still Lewis' attorney until the end of '97 (this doesn't fly with Tidball as proving relevancy, and it is outside of the legal issue at hand); the powerful Haddon law firm was behind Miller's prosecution because Miller published his damning opinion on Peter Boyle's show in fall of '97 that Patsy wrote the ransom note, so Haddon's firm even had a man named David Williams (PI? Lawyer?) go through all Miller's cases and trials to write a character assassination of Miller to stop Miller from ever being a trial witness against the Ramseys (we've seen this before, haven't we, with White and Thomas). And even more...oh, my head is spinning...which all ends up with Tidball limiting the defense to bringing in Lewis' actions only up to three months after the alleged offense took place with Miller. Tidball also rules that Lewis' and the Globe's (bribery) deal with the prosecution couldn't be used in Miller's defense...I think, excepting if Lewis testified.

    As I said, they discussed the issue in a loose way of the Miller diaries taken by LE, as Judith has described to us here. This had already been argued and ruled on in pretrial, if I remember correctly. I think these diaries were confiscated a long time after the alleged offense took place--a two year time line from the date of the offense Miller was charged with and the time when Miller was actually charged comes up frequently during this opening statement interruption by the prosecution. This was a very sore point with the defense, as the prosecution eventually returned the diaries, claiming they wouldn't use them during trial, unless it was to impeach Miller if he testified. Seems the prosecution had legal precedent that this was allowed by the law, so that was that.

    It also comes out that two pretrial motions by the defense were:

    A pretrial defense motion to dismiss the charges based on "disparate treatment of Lewis," Miller's "co-defendant," meaning the defense argued that if the prosecution wasn't going to prosecute Lewis, who was clearly the person trying to buy the note from several of Haddon's employees, I believe, it shouldn't charge Miller: motion denied. (I don't know the law on this, so I'm just paraphrasing this as best as I can.)

    A pretrial defense motion to dismiss the charges based on Grand Jury abuse: also denied by the judge. I'm not sure at all what this was about, but I'd like to know.

    Judge Tidball, who brought up these pretrial motions and denials during the this brouhaha in the middle of the defense's opening statements, gave her reason for denying these pretrial motions, and it's too priceless to miss. You can see how Hunter got away with his dereliction of duty in the murder of JonBenet: the basis of Judge Tidball's denial of the defense motions was "The People have a broad discretion in charging and prosecuting cases." No chit.

    Anyhow.... Finally, the defense runs out of arguments and the judge runs out of patience and the jury is brought back in.

    So, the defense picks back up. I'm going to go to another post in case my computer crashes, as it's making those "spooling" noises. I may not have time to edit and proof read this tonight, as I'm trying to get through the opening arguments and I'm getting very tired. Also, I'm confusing myself, so I know you are all confused. Maybe I can just get through it and tomorrow it will all fall into place in my head and then I can edit and clear it up. Yeah, right.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yet more....

    November 15, 2005, 4:08 am, Tue Nov 15 4:08:26 CST 2005
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 1,367



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So finally, Leidner is back in front of the jury and he's hot!

    He goes lickety split through the defense:

    The defense says that Armistead asked the BPD to release the ransom note to the public in August, '97, and the BPD/Wickman denied the request. Then the note showed up in Vanity Fair and Newsweek in September, '97.

    Then the defense brings up a man from California name Micheal Erwin who called Vacca in April, '97, who tried to buy the note also, for $25K. Erwin was interviewed by the CBI, admitted he tried to buy the note, made a trip to get it, but he was not prosecuted.

    Now Leidner answers a question we all had: he says Miller originally was hired by the Globe because he was an accomplished private investigator himself before he became a lawyer, that he had experience and expertise in handwriting analysis, was educated and a man of letters, and therefore was a logical choice for the Globe to help find out IF the ransom note WAS ALREADY in the public domain. That's what the defense claims Miller went to Vacca for, to interview him to investigate if the note was in public domain yet.

    Leidner makes some other strong points for the defense: Miller, he says, thought Lewis was a journalist and an editor. He talked with Lewis at length: "He was unaware, at the time, that Mr. Lewis was other than an ethical individual." And if you're not sure about that, this might give you pause: Leidner points out that Miller gave both Mr. and Mrs. Vacca his real name, phone number, and fax number. If he intended to commit a crime, why would he do that?

    Leidner then repeats the events of that meeting, with the only variation from the prosecution's opening statement being that Miller did not mention the ransom note, and then Lewis jumped in with his offer: Cut the crap. You've got the ransom note, and I want it. Leidner says Miller was shocked, but then had no choice except to try to protect his client. Vacca called his wife in as a witness, saying they'd tried to buy the note, then threw Miller and Lewis out. That's the last contact Miller had with Vacca. Period. But not Lewis, who called three days later and left a message on Vacca's answering machine, then came to his house again 10 days later. Leidner again goes over Lewis trying to buy the note from Ellis Armistead. He talks about Miller being advised by another attorney for the Globe no law had been broken. He trashes Lewis pretty good here. Then he goes over the information about Haddon's law firm getting involved once the DA decided no crime had been committed. He draws the conclusion that Haddon is out to discredit Miller because of his August, '97 publication of his opinion Patsy wrote the note, bringing in the investigation by Haddon's firm into Miller's life and business affairs.

    Leidner finishes with a nice flourish: you won't see Vanity Fair in here being charged, nor Newsweek, nor the Globe, nor Lewis. "What you're going to see is Mr. Miller being set up for the purposes of the Ramsey defense team."

    I just don't see how the prosecution tried to make a case this weak against Miller. So far as I can see now, all they had was Vacca's word against Miller's. That is reasonable doubt all day long. What were they thinking? It'd be laughable but for the fact that it's little more than malicious prosecution and smacks of a police state. In fact, it's really frightening. All the things the Rams accuse LE of doing to THEM, that's EXACTLY what they have done to numerous others, through their nazi law firm.

    And if you think I'm a bit too quick to jump on that bandwagon, let me refer you to the People v Kobe Bryant, a few counties over in Colorado. Remember? A rape case against Kobe Bryant, whose lawyer was NONE OTHER THAN HADDON HIMSELF? No matter what you think happened in that case, it never went to trial because the witness was intimidated into hiding, wasn't she? How? HADDON'S CO-COUNSEL SAID THE ACCUSER'S NAME IN OPEN COURT 6 TIMES, WITH THE JUDGE ADMONISHING HER EVERYTIME. Guess what? THAT'S AGAINST THE RAPE SHIELD LAW. Do you think anything was done to that lawyer? Hell no. Why would they do anything to her, WHEN THE JUDGE'S OWN OFFICE RELEASED THE VICTIM'S NAME THREE TIMES TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET, ONCE EMAILING SEALED TRANSCRIPTS TO THE MEDIA OF THE VICTIM BEING QUESTIONED BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL IN A PRETRIAL HEARING, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE PROSECUTION PRESENT A CASE OR REBUTTAL, BECAUSE IT WAS FOR DISCOVERY, NOT PART OF THE TRIAL. That meant the media got the defense trashing the accuser on the stand, without the "other side." In fact, much of what the defense asked her wouldn't even be ALLOWED in a rape trial. Remember all the horrible headlines that trashed that poor woman? Can you imagine? NOT ONCE. NOT TWICE. BUT THREE TIMES, THE JUDGE'S ENTIRE OFFICE BROKE THE LAW. He apologized in court. HA! I am NOT making this up! And then Haddon was taking the case to higher Colorado Appellate courts, as they began working to DISMANTLE the rape shield laws. It started out with the talking heads saying oh, that would never happen. It ended with them saying it WAS going to happen. Every ruling went in favor of the rapist and against the victim. This was an abomination beyond anything I have ever seen in a court. That woman was surely raped by that court and Haddon, if not Kobe Bryant. It was awful to watch. I knew then that Haddon is a devil, and you better believe it.

    You see, when you really follow the deeds of the Toxic Rams, you see who they unleashed on those who would call them into account. No real Christian would ever hire Haddon, anymore than Jesus would have gone on board with Satan.

    OK, enough of the Ramsey's contribution to the erosion of morals and ethics in our legal system....

    So far in Miller's case, besides knowing that Miller was found NOT GUILTY, we know that the reporter for Newsweek, Dan Glick, doesn't testify, though he was on the witness list at some point, I believe. Also, Lewis doesn't testify. We know Thomas and White didn't show up, and that may have worked FOR Miller, as I glanced at closing arguments and the defense made hay out of that and howdy. At any rate, I am tired and I won't be able to work on this for a couple of days or so, so if anyone wants to jump in....
     
  11. Cookie

    Cookie Member

    Thanks KK!

    KK ROCKS!

    Thanks for all the work you are doing here. Doc and I appreciate your efforts!

    Let me reassure all of you that Doc is not crazy. Well maybe, just a little bit (just kidding).

    Gaby, the writer of the Observer article, is clearly a gun control advocate. Nothing wrong with that. Doc was raised differently. His father, a Texas doctor, taught his children to respect and use firearms for sport with proper training and licensing. Coming from Chicago, this attitude was somewhat new for me. Now, it's not a big deal.

    What Gaby saw was the collection of Doc's firearms being moved to a safer more secure area. They were temporarily placed in a guest bedroom, which could be locked, until the safe was ready. I tried to keep the door closed and didn't realize she had opened the door while we toured our Victorian house. I had nothing to hide. I just knew that some people get freaked out when they see a firearm, which is what she did. Oh well.

    As far as his comments about the Intruder Theory, he simply expressed his passion and anger about this approach to the JBR case. We both believe this theory is ridiculous and is being used in the media to sidestep what really happened.
     
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here's something I picked out of my prior editorials which I want to highlight for those who don't want to go back through all this again.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2006
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Defense opening summation:

    To quote the eloquent Counselor Leidner's last lines to the jury in his opening summation:


    And then the judge gave the jury instructions about conduct and they broke for lunch.
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    After lunch:

    Oh, one quick review point, as it's hard to keep up with the lawyers and names: For the people, and under DA Dave Thomas [y'all remember Thomas, Hunter's mouthpiece on TV many a time], attorney Mr. Dennis Hall; for the defense, attorneys Mr. Lozow and Mr. Charles Leidner; Judge Jane Tidball presiding.


    Afternoon session, July 12, 2001

    Prosecution's first witness called: Mrs. Karen Vacca, wife of Donald Vacca, who both worked for the Ramsey lawyers because they had a joint company which sold Mr. Vacca's handwriting analysis services.

    Mrs. Vaccca basically testified that she talked with Miller on the phone and set up the appt., then met Miller and his then unknown client at the door and directed them downstairs to the business office located in their home. 10-15 min's. later, Mr. Vacca called her down as a witness to identify the men, but she never heard anyone make any offer of money, only heard her husband and Mr. Miller discuss the legality of such an offer. Defense gets her to admit that it's not uncommon for a lawyer to protect the identify of his client. In fact, she said this under direct examination by the PROSECUTION:

    hahaha I bet Hall about choked when he heard that. It appears that Mrs. Vacca thought that was her cue to speak up about how sacred their client's trust in them was...meaning their clients the RAMSEYS, as regarding THE RANSOM NOTE. hahaha But all she did was confirm the defense's argument that Mr. Miller not identifying Lewis to the Vaccas was SOP, not some nefarious scheme of Mr. Miller's. hahaha I love it when that happens. In the terms of a con artist, it's called a "TELL." She got confused and gave up the goods by answering the wrong question. hahaha Very amusing.

    And then Mr. Leidner cross examines her on the same point, and she admits again that Mr. Miller not introducing Mr. Lewis was not unusual, even though she admits asking Miller on the phone and at the door who his client was, even though she has already stated the best protocol is NOT to know. That sounded a bit disingenuous to me. I guess it did to the jury as well.

    She was also asked on cross about Mr. Lewis returning WITHOUT MR. MILLER about 10 days later and also leaving a message on their answering machine offering however much money the Vacca's wanted for a copy of the ransom note. She said she had never seen or talked with Mr. Miller since that one visit.

    There was no redirect and the witness was excused.

    All in all...and I know I'm talking with prejudice and hindsight, and from reading a transcript...but all in all, the first witness came across as quite rehearsed and with an agenda...or two. Not a good start for the prosecution. It may seem a small thing, but this witness has in a short time pretty much confirmed exactly what the defense is now on the 3rd lap of hammering into the jurors' heads: Miller was there once, he did nothing unusual or illegal himself, and his client Mr. Lewis is the one who was trying to initiate the sale of the document, not Mr. Miller.

    Mr. Vacca is next. This should be the cornerstone of the prosecution's case. Let's see how strong a witness he is, being an ex-cop and all. If he doesn't nail the prosecution's case, it's over, because it's basically a He said, He said trial, as I see it. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. And since the jury already knows that Lewis isn't going to show and that many other news organizations pretty much had their hands all over that ransom note in no time, as per opening arguments, if Mr. Vacca isn't an ace in the hole, I can imagine the jury is going to be wondering why they have been forced to sit through such a turkey of a case as this.

    On the other hand, I guess we should remember that winning was not the point, was it? Scaring off witnesses against the Ramseys was the point. As we all now know, mission accomplished. :censored:
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Prosecution witness #2

    Prosecution calls Donald Vacca:

    Mr. Hall asks Donald Vacca to give his bona fides, which he does. Pretty impressive. He seems competent and experienced, having 25 years in LE, trained as a detective and in document examination by FBI, CBI, among other courses and experience. He retired from LE '93 and was in private practice in '97 when all this occurred. Stated almost all his clients are attorneys.

    Well, now Mr. Vacca says when he spoke with Mr. Miller the day before that fated appointment, Mr. Vacca asked Mr. Miller the name of his client, so as not to have a conflict of interest, if he had been already asked by an opposing counsel in the same case. That's strange. What happened to "we perfer not to know the name of the client" which his wife stated?

    Mr Vacca, as his wife had done under examination, stated that on the phone Mr. Miller represented his business as an interest in having Mr. Vacca do a document examination for Mr. Miller's client. This is an important point for the prosecution, because it implies Mr. Miller had an intention to deceive Mr. Vacca. Mr. Vacca describes how he asked about the type of document to be examined, because of the need for handwriting samples to compare, which should be brought if it's a handwritten document. Mr. Miller preferred to discuss all that at the meeting, Mr. Vacca said.

    HELLO!

    MR. J. DONALD VACCA TESTIFIED THAT HE GOT A FIRST GENERATION COPY OF THE RANSOM NOTE FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF JANUARY.



    Well, while the Ramseys were stalling LE and interviewing on national TV...they sure had time to dig out the evidence for THEIR LAWYERS:

    Uh...would someone like to explain to me how the Ramsey lawyers had a copy of the ransom note BY THE TIME THE VICTIM WAS BURIED?

    God, this makes me sick to my stomach. WHAT DAMNABLE DA IN THIS COUNTRY CAN BE SO LOW? If the devil doesn't live in Boulder, it's because he finds it TOO EVIL!

    'Scuse me...I have to go kick something.... :dammit:
     
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Sorry, I got sidetracked there and had my little tantrum....

    Anywhooooo....

    So Mr. Vacca is testifying and gives a blow by blow of the offer in question that day. It's pretty much what we've already heard, but with a little more embellishment. In fact, one piece of embellishment is clearly contradicting what the Mrs. said: Vacca says he called his wife downstairs and told her these men have offered me money for a copy of the Ramsey note, and that "the other man" then made another offer in front of the wife. That's not what she said. Mrs. Vacca said she never heard anyone make the offer of money. Maybe Mr. Vacca is just embellishing and getting his facts mixed up in the process, but that's not a good thing in court and I expect the defense to nail him on it. We'll see.

    But the gist is the same as has already been stated many times by prosecution and defense: Mr. Miller said to Mr. Vacca, my client is with a large corporation, and Mr. Lewis jumped in and said, "Let's cut through the crap. You've got the Ramsey ransom note and we want it." So Mr. Vacca stated to the court that he was shocked that they knew he had it. Then Mr. Lewis reached in his coat and brought out an envelope and offered him $30K for it, Mr. Vacca said. Mr. Vacca says he then called his wife over the intercom to come down, and dressed down Mr. Miller, saying how can you be a party to this. But Mr. Vacca says Mr. Miller said, "I'm not sure this is illegal." This seems to me again to corroborate that Mr. Miller wasn't expecting Mr. Lewis to make such an offer.

    Editorial aside, in case I left this out, and to refresh memories and clarify the legal arguments: Mr. Miller's attorney said in his opening statement that Mr. Miller only meant to inquire if Mr. Vacca had the ransom note to see if it was in the public domain yet. That's a bit iffy, I admit, but since the note was being bought and sold, with inquiries and offers admitted by others who were not indicted, not to mention actual publication by several media long before the time of trial, this hardly rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt so far. The evidence is clearly that Mr. Lewis made the offer and that Mr. Miller was possibly unprepared for it.

    So the prosecution goes into how Mr. Vacca got the note, his understanding of his duties to the law firm, his clients, to keep the document protected in his bolted down safe, in addition to his multi-functional security system, etc. The point is made that Vacca never signed an employment contract of confidentiality with the Haddon firm, with Mr. Vacca stating he'd have been insulted if asked to do so, so impeccable are his credentials and integrity, so I expect that's going to come up later as an issue.

    And that's the gist of the prosecution's direct of Mr. Vacca.

    The witness is passed to the defense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Defense cross examination of Vacca

    Defense cross of Vacca:

    Ok, right out of the gate, the defense has managed to get Vacca's notes he used in the grand jury hearings, plus his billing records, etc., with Haddon's firm. Also, he's onto the issue of no contract in writing between Haddon's firm and Vacca.

    Then Leidner lands his first blow: Vacca had stated he was shocked when Lewis brought up the ransom note, as he didn't know many people knew he had it outside of the law firm and his business. Leidner quickly gets him to admit that two days before Miller called Vacca, Vacca got another call from a lawyer in California, David Taylor, who knew Vacca had the note and wanted to buy a copy. So Leidner had Vacca on the ropes, asking if he was more shocked because "it was getting to be pretty common knowledge"? Yes, Vacca admits. Now Tom Miller's story about simply being there to inquire if the note WAS legally available for sale is starting to gain credibility.

    OK, this cross is going here and there, so I'm going to just go with it, as I don't know where Leidner is going to land:

    Next, Leidner enters into evidence Exhibit A...drum roll please...a document that is a generic CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT...which Mr. Vacca signed with JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY. Mr. Vacca admitted he signed it, saying he never met the Ramseys. Nowhere in the document was there any mention of Haddon's law firm, apparently. Don't know where Leidner is going with this, except that he just made a liar out of Mr. Vacca AGAIN, nailing Vacca with his grand jury testimony where he testified under oath that he often signed confidentiality agreements with law frims, a direct contradition of what he just stated UNDER OATH during direct questioning.This also proved Vacca was working for the Ramseys, which the defense is connecting to the prosecution of Miller stemming from his conclusion that Patsy wrote the note. But Leidner kind of lets that lie and moves on.

    Leidner then enters Exhibit B, which is a transcript Mrs. Vacca made of the phone recording Mr. Lewis left for Mr. Vacca a few days after his first appearance with Mr. Miller, a message offering again to pay for the note. Mr. Vacca acknowledges he asked his wife to make the transcript. Then he testifies that Lewis came back to his house alone to try again to buy the note.

    Finally Mr. Leidner establishes that Mr. Vacca knew another Colorado policeman named Jim Burkhalter and his brother, also a policeman, and had a business relationship with them from his 25 years at the Denver PD. [Editorial comment: Mr. Burkhalter is the detective who figures into this case because he investigated the allegations made by Vacca initially, but which Burkhalter dropped until the Haddon firm pushed the DA to pick it back up--all alleged in the opening statements by the defense and which will be developed as the trial goes on, I assume.]

    The defense passes the witness.

    The prosecution redirects.
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Jazus Murphy! I feel like kicking something myself KK. The ransom note is in the hands of Vacca in the first few days of January, 1997. It had to be D.A. Hunter who gave it to Haddon. Linda Arndt brought a copy back to the Ramseys from the Boulder Police Station on the 26 December,1996.
     
  19. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You know, that's a GREAT point, Elle. I always just assumed that the note Arndt was passing around at the Kidnap Party was collected and taken back with LE. But now I'm wondering why I thought that, because I don't believe we ever heard once what happened to that copy of the ransom note that morning. In the chaos of finding the body, who knows? BPD? I would hope so, but we sure haven't heard, have we? Now I"m thinking maybe this is why Miller had White served with a subpoena to testify. Did Miller and others realize that there might be a missing copy of the note somewhere? Maybe Cookie will tell us if this is so.

    Or maybe we'll find out as we continue in the transcript. I'm going to finish with the prosecution's redirect and then take a break.
     
  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    Steve Thomas "JonBenét Page 22

    Detectives Patterson and Arndt linked up at headquarters, where Arndt picked up a photocopy of the ransom note. Then they drove to the parking lot of the Basemar shopping center, only six blocks from the Ramsey residence. Sergeant Reichenbach pulled alongside in his own car and gave them an overview of what was known so far.

    It's possible that copy was left with the Ramseys, KK, and this went to Haddon (?).
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice