Letter from the Whites to Dave Thomas

The lawyer who intimidated Thomas was Haddon, along with David Kendall, Bill Clinton's lawyer for the impeachment hearings. Kendall was currently representing Star Magizine in their futile attempt to fight off LinWad's shakedown scam.

October 22, 2002

David J. Thomas
District Attorney
First Judicial District
500 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401

Subject: The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff
Vs.
Craig Lewis, Defendant
District Court, Jefferson County, State of Colorado
Case No. 99 CR 3053

Dear Mr. Thomas:

On or about December 17, 1999 the Jefferson County grand jury indicted Craig A. Lewis, an employee of the Globe supermarket tabloid, for committing criminal extortion and commercial bribery.

Regarding the indictment of Mr. Lewis, you were quoted by the Associated Press on December 21, 1999 as saying that: “We believe the conduct as set forth in this indictment clearly crosses the line of legitimate news gathering activity and violates Colorado law.â€

On May 15, 2000, Jefferson County District Court Judge Jane A. Tidball denied Lewis’ Motion to Dismiss the indictment.

On June 21, 2000, defendant Lewis filed Petition for Relief in the Nature of Prohibition or Mandamus and for Issuance of a Rule to show cause pursuant to C.A.R. 21 with the Colorado Supreme Court.

On June 30, 2000 the Colorado Supreme Curt entered an Order and Rule to Show Cause. On July 31, 2000 your office filed People’s Response to Defendants’ Petition Pursuant to Rule 21, C.A.R.

On October 26, 2000 the Colorado Supreme Court ordered that “the Rule to Show Cause hereto entered, be, and hereby is, discharged as having been improvidently issued.â€

Notwithstanding the significant litigation of the indictments of Mr. Lewis and the October 26, 2000 Supreme Court order, your office on November 9, 2000 filed People’s Motion to Dismiss the charges against Mr. Lewis and The Globe. The motion stated that “Defendant and his employer have made public†a statement regarding the alleged crimes and have “donated $100,000 to the University of Colorado School of Journalism. The University will use this money to pay an instructor who teaches on the subject of Ethics in Journalism.†In regard to the dismissal of charges against Mr. Lewis, the November 9, 2000 Rocky Mountain News quoted you as saying “It is very unusualâ€.




Page 2

At a meeting at your office on September 17, 2001, you told us that several lawyers representing Mr. Lewis and The Globe met with you to discuss the charges against Mr. Lewis. You said that at least one of the lawyers attending that meeting attempted to influence your official decision and action regarding the indictment of Mr. Lewis through enclosed affidavits of Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White). By doing so, that person violated Section 18-8-306 C.R.S., Attempt to influence a public servant, and possibly other Colorado criminal statutes.

We hereby request that the conduct of the person or persons who illegally attempted to influence your decision or actions concerning Mr. Lewis’ indictment be investigated and prosecuted. We further request that your office cause the appointment of a special prosecutor for that purpose and that you recommend to the Colorado Attorney General that the matter be referred to a state grand jury for investigation.

We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Fleet Russell White, Jr.
Priscilla Brown White

Cc: Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado
Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado
Mary Keenan, District Attorney of the Twentieth Judicial District
John Suthers, United States Attorney



AFFIDAVIT OF FLEET RUSSELL WHITE, JR.

The undersigned hereby swear and affirms as follows:

1. My name is Fleet Russell White, Jr.
2. I reside at (address redacted)
3. On September 19, 2000, I met with Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney Dennis Hall. At that meeting, Mr. Hall stated that David Kendall, a lawyer with the Washington, D.C. office of the Williams & Connolly law firm had visited Mr. Hall and Jefferson District Attorney David Thomas earlier that year and had attempted to persuade Mr. Hall and Mr. Thomas to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Craig A. Lewis, an employee of the Globe, a supermarket tabloid. Also at the meeting, Mr. Hall indicated that the ultimate objective of the Lewis prosecution was to bring criminal charges against Globe executives who shared responsibility for the illegal actions of Mr. Lewis.
4. On September 29, 2000, I met with Mr. Bob Brown, an investigator for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Also present at the meeting was my wife, Priscilla Brown White. At that meeting, Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Kendall had visited the Jefferson County District Attorney in June 2000 for the purpose of persuading the District Attorney to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Lewis.
5. On September 17, 2001 I attended a meeting at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. The people present at the meeting were my wife, Priscilla Brown White, Denver lawyer Craig R. Truman, Jefferson County District Attorney David Thomas; and Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney Charles Tingle. The meeting was held in a conference room at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. At that meeting, the 1999 indictments of Thomas C. Miller and Craig A. Lewis by the Jefferson County grand jury were discussed by those present. During the course of that discussion, I recall asking Mr. Thomas why, in November 2000, his office chose to dismiss charges against Mr. Lewis in consideration of a $100,000 payment by Globe International to the University of Colorado School of Journalism and Mass Communication. I recall Mr. Thomas stating that the decision to dismiss the charges against Mr. Lewis was made in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive prosecution. I also recall him describing a meeting with lawyers representing Mr. Lewis and including “Bill Clinton’s attorney†who I assumed to be Mr. Kendall.
I clearly recall Mr. Thomas stating that one of the lawyers present at that meeting attempted to persuade him to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Lewis by threatening Mr. Thomas with reprisals

Affidavit of Fleet Russell White, Jr.
Page Two

Having to do with Mr. Thomas’ career and work that Mr. Thomas might seek in the future.
Further the Affiant sayeth not.
Date: October 22, 2002

Fleet Russell White, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Fleet Russell White, Jr. this 22nd day of October 2002


AFFIDAVIT OF PRISCILLA BROWN WHITE

The undersigned hereby swears and affirms as follows:

1. My name is Priscilla Brown White
2. I reside at (address redacted)
3. On September 29, 2000, I met with Mr. Bob Brown, an investigator for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Also present at the meeting was my husband, Fleet Russell White, Jr. At that meeting, Mr. Brown stated that Mr. David Kendall, a lawyer with the Washington D.C. office of the Williams & Connelly law firm had visited the Jefferson County District Attorney in June 2000 for the purpose of persuading the District Attorney to dismiss the December 1999 Jefferson County grand jury indictment of Mr. Craig Lewis, an employee of the Globe, a supermarket tabloid.

4. On September 17, 2001, I attended a meeting at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. The people present at the meeting were my husband, Fleet Russell White, Jr.; his lawyer, Craig R. Truman, Jefferson County District Attorney David Thomas; and Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney Charles Tingle. The meeting was held in a conference room at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. At that meeting, the December 1999 indictments of Thomas C. Miller and Craig Lewis by the Jefferson County grand jury were discussed by those present. During the course of that discussion, I recall my husband asking Mr. Thomas why his office chose to dismiss charges against Mr. Lewis in consideration of a $100,000 payment by Globe International to the University of Colorado School of Journalism and Mass Communication. I recall Mr. Thomas explaining that it was a financial decision and that prosecuting Mr. Lewis could take another three years. I also recall Mr. Thomas stating that he had been visited by five lawyers who attempted to persuade Mr. Thomas to dismiss the charges against Mr. Lewis and the Globe. I also recall Mr. Thomas revealing to use that one of the lawyers attending the meeting was “Bill Clinton’s attorney.â€. At the meeting, I noted that Mr. Thomas stating that one of the five lawyers “told him he (Mr. Thomas) will no longer work again anywhere†if Mr. Thomas continued his prosecution of Mr. Lewis and the Globe. I also noted Mr. Thomas stating: “I’m a small town DA and these five attorneys, Bill Clinton’s attorney – I wasn’t intimidated. I mean I don’t think I was intimidated.â€

Further the Affiant sayeth not.

Date: October 22, 2002

Priscilla Brown White

ATTACHED TO AFFIDAVIT OF PRISCILLA BROWN WHITE
DATED OCTOBER 22, 2002

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me by Priscilla Brown White this 22nd day of October 2002

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL

Notary Public (not legible)



OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Jefferson and Gilpin Counties
DAVID J. THOMAS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

October 23, 2002

Fleet Russell White, Jr.
(address redacted)

Dear Mr. White,

I received your letter dated October 22, 2002, regarding the case of People v. Craig Lewis. In it you request that I conduct an investigation and possibly charge individuals with violations of CRS 18-8-306. In your attached affidavits you attribute certain statements to me. I remember the discussion quite well. I also remember the meeting I had with Mr. Kendall and other attorneys. At no time did I believe that they were attempting to influence me in a way that violated Colorado criminal statutes. They were aggressive and attempting to be persuasive but nothing in their conduct breached ethics or Colorado statutes. They did refer to the fact that no other District Attorney had taken such action against the Globe or its staff and that it may reflect badly on my office and upon myself. At no time do I recall them telling me that I would “no longer work again anywhere.†It is not uncommon for defense counsel to discuss with me the community standard, the public image aspects of our decisions and how decisions might reflect upon me as an elected official. The statute requires that the attempt to influence a public servant be by means “of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal…â€. Such was not the case in this instance.

The meeting to which you refer occurred with the respective attorneys almost two years ago. The meeting I had with you was more than a year ago. It is hard to fathom what has prompted you to contact me at this point in time. I respectfully decline to conduct an investigation or to seek a special prosecutor.

Sincerely,

David J. Thomas
District Attorney

 

Spade, I feel like I'm being socked in the gut here, man! I've only been here a few weeks, I'm not ready for this stuff you are uncovering. Jeez Louise!
:unreal:

I'm freaking out.

Heymom :no: :no: :no: :burnedup: :rage:

 

Don't listen to the young - keep it coming, Spade!

HeyMom - we have to teach you this - I am sorry - we didn't write the script but the group gathered here has followed it closer than anyone else on the outside has and we have NOT FORGOTTEN.

Thanks to MaryTraceyKarrConLacy - we now have the opportunity to reveal to the rest of the world what has really happened with this case.

 

WHAT?

MICHAEL TRACEY DIRECTLY WAS GIVEN THE MONEY PAID BY THE GLOBE TO HAVE LEWIS' INDICTMENT DROPPED?

 

koldkase

The big picture is not pretty.

 

Spade, before the Karr story broke, I had been reading and writing about the Miller trial. I bumped up those threads in case anyone wants to look at them, in conjunction with what you are sharing here.

Thank you so much for coming back and helping reveal the truth about this...yes, a truly awful look into how a little girl can be molested and brutally murdered in her own home with impunity in the highly evolved government of the United States of America.

 

Please keep it coming Spade!

 

Tracey

Notwithstanding the significant litigation of the indictments of Mr. Lewis and the October 26, 2000 Supreme Court order, your office on November 9, 2000 filed People’s Motion to Dismiss the charges against Mr. Lewis and The Globe. The motion stated that “Defendant and his employer have made public†a statement regarding the alleged crimes and have “donated $100,000 to the University of Colorado School of Journalism. The University will use this money to pay an instructor who teaches on the subject of Ethics in Journalism.â€

The Bold Print refers to Michael Tracey.

Not only did Tracey, the self appointed moral arbiter of the media, benefit from Craig Lewis’ semi-misfortune and Tom Miller’s major-misfortune; but IMO he benefited big time by using SueSwamp as a front for selling the Ramsey interview tapes to the National Enquirer for $40, 000. It would be interesting to have the Bennett’s tax return looked at; to see how much of the $40K she kept and how much she kicked to Tracey. The “plain brown envelope†went from LinWad to Tracey to SueSwamp to Don Gentile. The $$$ went from Gentile to SueSwamp to probably Tracey to maybe LinWad.

 

You don't believe that Smit had the tapes already, Spade? I always figured that Smit gave them to Tracey. Remember, in Hunter's court plea to force Smit to give back the PowerPoint after Smit resigned, case videotapes are also mentioned as in Smit's possession.

But you think Wood gave them to Tracey? Of course, those would have been given to Haddon's firm, after the DA interviews, I'm sure, as a pre-condition.

So Haddon handed them over to Wood...who gave them to Tracey for his croc?

I still think that Smit had them as well. You know jams has said she has seen the tape of Burke's interview with the child psych for LE. Why would Wood give that to Tracey? I figured Smit showed it to her. But of course, I always figured they shared all that with each other.

 

:curses: :rage: :burnedup: unbelievable, I literally feel sick after reading this. :nono:

 

It's OK, RiverRat, I know it's necessary and even in a way, marvelous that Spade has got all this information...Not to exclude the rest of you and Tricia too! It's just that with this extra bit of information, the "penny has dropped" for me, and it is all making sense now. I couldn't figure out why the truth has never been uncovered, why people like Fleet White haven't come out and told what they knew, how the Ramseys got away with what they did. My hubby has always told me that people must have been involved from the beginning, and he was right...even before JonBenet's body was cold, the lawyers were circling around the Ramseys.

It literally makes me sick that money can buy freedom. Everyone here knows (as do most of the American public) that any other parents would have been slapped in jail almost immediately. I believe the reason this case keeps us involved is that we all KNOW what is wrong - the perps have never been charged.

Heymom :rage:

 

Please read every letter that Fleet and Priscilla have delivered throughout the years and then read my below signature - what is not to understand after doing that?

 

More from the White's

Early in the morning of December 26, 1996, my wife Priscilla received a phone call from her friend, Patsy Ramsey. She said that her daughter, JonBenet had been kidnapped. She asked Priscilla to come to their home quickly. Priscilla and I immediately drove to the Ramsey home and thus unwittingly became potential witnesses in a criminal investigation. After the discovery of JonBenet's body that afternoon, Priscilla and I and our two young children (ages 6 and 7 at the time) all became important police witnesses in a homicide investigation. We had no previous experience with the criminal justice system. We had moved to Boulder from California two and a half years earlier. We knew nothing about Boulder's police, its prosecutors, its lawyers, its judges, its politics or its government.

In the days, weeks and months following the discovery of JonBenet's body, my family was interviewed, re-interviewed and interviewed again by Boulder police detectives. We soon learned that the Boulder Police and the Boulder District Attorney were at odds. The police did not trust the District Attorney. Police detectives were not sharing evidence or witness interviews with the District Attorney. We learned this from police detectives. They told us that the Ramsey investigation had created dissension within the Boulder Police Department. They also told us about their personal disagreements and dissatisfaction with their police chief and their fellow police officers.

The homicide and the investigation became an international media event. News media and tabloid coverage was pervasive. Boulder law enforcement was under intense scrutiny. The press picked up the problems between the police and the District Attorney. The Boulder District Attorney took on District Attorneys from neighboring Colorado jurisdictions as advisors. JonBenet’s father, John, had been the chief executive of a successful subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. He and his wife had retained prominent lawyers and were not cooperating with the police. Detectives came to us to try and understand why. Reputations were at stake and everyone involved in the investigation was scared. People in law enforcement, the community and in the press were picking sides. Six months after the homicide, it was obvious to us that the investigation was going nowhere. Many others shared that opinion.

By then we had grown accustomed to being followed, hounded, threatened and harassed by the press. They were looking for an interview. We uniformly denied those requests but our family still became the subjects of humiliating press reports. One tabloid article contained the gist of our interview by the Boulder District Attorney and his investigator. The article featured a photo of our daughter sitting with her friend, JonBenet. Another article stated that John Ramsey had identified me as a suspect. Other articles appearing in national magazines featured interviews with the Boulder District Attorney who gave his views and opinions on the investigation, the Ramseys, and the Boulder police. A magazine article quoted someone whom I had never met as saying that I had a “dark side’. Our telephone records were obtained illegally by the tabloids. They called our friends and family and told them, I was a suspect in the Ramsey homicide. A popular television crime drama with a a story line based on the Ramsey investigation showed a dead prostitute in a morgue. The corpse was identified as Priscilla Brown, my wife's maiden name. It wasn’t a coincidence.

It became obvious to us that the Boulder District Attorney’s office and the Boulder police were the sources for a great deal of the press and entertainment media coverage of the investigation. We were stunned and brought the problem to the attention of the District Attorney and the police. The Police Chief was sympathetic but said he was unable to control the dissemination of information by his officers or the District Attorney. The District Attorney told us to hire a lawyer. He said that perhaps a lawyer could explain to us how the criminal justice system works. We didn't take his advice, Why would cooperative witnesses in a crimnial investigation be told to get a lawyer?

By the fall of 1997, everything in our lives had changed. Our family’s privacy had been ruined and our children’s well being was being jeopardized. We had to slip our children away to friends’ homes to protect them from news cameras. We avoided tabloid reporters who would chase us as we drove our children to school and piano lessons. We worried ahout what lay ahead and withdrew from everything other than taking care of our children.

We were, however, still spending time with police detectives who had become demoralized, angry, and frightened. It occurred to us that they were now no longer simply interviewing us. They were asking for help. The investigation had become a nightmare for the Boulder police and a lot of others in law enforcement who had been dragged into it. Something had to change. We decided that we would try to do that.

In December 1997, former Governor Romer agreed to meet us to discuss the investigation. We asked the Governor to intervene and, if necessary, remove the investigation from the jurisdictions of the Boulder Police and the the Boulder District Attorney. A few weeks later the Governor informed us that he did not intend to intervene in the investigation. In response, we publicly stated our opinions regarding the investigation in a letter written to local newspaper in early 1998. We did so again later that same year.

Notwithstanding our reluctance to continue as witnesses in the investigation, we gave testimony before the Boulder District Grand Jury investigating the Ramsey homicide. Shortly thereafter we read the substance of our confidential police and prosecutor interviews in a best selling book. Priscilla heard a portion of her secret grand jury testimony discussed on television and radio talk program - testimony that had been highly derogatory of one of JonBenet's parents. Greatly concerned, we brought those unethical and illegal disclosures to the attention of a Boulder grand Jury prosecutor, the Boulder District Court the Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel and other high ranking law enforcement and state government officials. Our concerns, including those having to do with violations of grand jury secrecy, were dismissed out of hand by both the Boulder District Court and the Attorney Regulation Counsel without any investigation or follow up.

Throughout the grand jury investigation our family continued to be reviled, defamed, harassed and humiliated by the press, the tabloids and by the authors of books and

2

magazine articles. Priscilla and I corresponded and spoke with several media organizations asking them to be more responsible in their coverage. We asked a network not to produce and broadcast a television movie dramatizing the Ramsey homicide. We told them they were crippling the investigation and needlessly degrading the lives of a lot of people who were essential for seeking justice in the case. We were very insistent. We had experienced enough. We wanted it to stop.

In mid-February 2000 we once again raised the issue of official misconduct in the
Ramsey investigation with the Boulder District Court and other high-ranking officials.
Once again, those concerns were dismissed or ignored.

On February 25, 2000 the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper, owned by the E. W. Scripps Company, published a front-page headline news story reporting on an unidentified woman from California who had come forward and claimed to have information relevant to the Ramsey ease. The article reported the woman’s false claim that JonBenet was killed accidentally when an asphyxiation technique used to stimulate an orgasmic response during a child sex and porno party went to far’. The "party" was alleged to be a Christmas dinner at our home on December 25, 1996. The article quoted the Boulder District Attorney as finding the woman "very believable†and "Even if only 15 percent of what she says is true... this case warrants investigation. And if Boulder cops don’t want to do it, I will take the case to the U. S. Attorney." The unidentified woman was known by both the Daily Camera and the Boulder District attorney to be unreliable. What she had alleged concerning the Ramsey homicide was totally false. We did not even know of her existence prior to the publication of the news article.

Other news organizations and the Internet immediately reinforced the sting of the Daily Camera article. Further allegations made by the unidentified woman leaked out. A Denver television news program reinforced the smear by broadcasting her allegations of “sexual abuse, exploitation, domination and torture." Within minutes of the Daily Camera article hitting the streets, a popular Denver talk show host said that the woman had accused both my father and I of sexually abusing her. A few weeks later, the Boulder community access relevision channel implicated our family in ‘a ritualistic underground wealthy society in Boulder that molests children and, in JonBenet's case, murdered her.’ In a "World Exclusive†cover story, a national tabloid reported that the woman says she was sexually abused as a child by a person who was at Fleet White’s Chnstrnas party, on December 25 1996". Internet speculation regarding the woman’s allegations on popular Ramsey discussions forums was focused and orchestrated. It went on, unabated, for over a year. Inexplicably, the Boulder police took eleven weeks to investigate her allegations and to make a public statement that the woman’s allegations had been proven false. Even then, the police statement was made only after we had requested closure to the matter from the City of Boulder. The publication of the woman’s allegation had been a fraud perpetrated on the Colorado justice system by the Boulder District Attorney and certain members of the press. They had intended to retaliate against us for having spoken out concerning official and media misconduct and to destroy our credibility as witnesses in the Ramsey investigation. There was simply no other explanation. It is not possible to

3

describe the profound effect those senseless acts have had on Priscilla and I and our children.

In August 2000 we lodged complaints of criminal conduct under Colorado law with the Boulder Police Department against several news media organizations. After a cursory investigation, the Boulder District Court appointed a special prosecutor to review our allegations. The next day the Boulder Daily Camera published several comments it had received from the newly appointed special prosecutor. The prosecutor stated he had neither the time nor the desire to review the matter. He had attempted to avoid the appointment since he felt he had a conflict of interest. He had served on Governor Owens task Force in October 1999 to determine whether a special prosecutor should review the Boulder District Attorney’s decision not to bring charges in the Ramsey case at the conclusion of the grand jury investigation.

Confused and suspicious we questioned the proprietry of the Special Prosecutor's public statements in correspondence with the Boulder District Court and several high ranking Colorado law entbrcement offcials. In response, the Boulder District Court issued an order terminating the special prosecutor's appointment and any further investigation we felt that the Court’s order was highly unusual. Others did as well. For the first time since the homicide, we hired a lawyer in order to ask the Court to reconsider its decision the Court refused to change its order. In January of this year we filed a notice of our intention to appeal the Court’s decision. The Colorado Attorney General contested the appeal. The appeal was eventually dismissed on June 5 2001.

On April 30, 2001 I was served with a subpoena to appear at a motions hearing in Jefferson County District Court in People v. Miller.

Mr. Miller and a Globe tabloid reporter had been indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury for attempting to purchase a copy of the Ramsey ransom note. I had long suspected those indictments were the result of pressure brought by Ramsey defense attorneys on Jefferson County prosecutors. Court documents support that suspicion. The indictments were controversial with the press since they had to do with news gathering practices.

In 2000 I had the opportunity to discuss the indictments with a Jefferson County District Attorney prosecutor. Those discussions did very little to allay my suspicions concerning the unusual nature of the charges against the Globe reporter and Mr. Miller.

On November 7. 2000 the Jefferson County DA dismissed the felony charges against the Globe reporter. In a very unusual arrangement, the Globe donated $100,000 to the University of Colorado School of Journalism while not admitting any criminal wrongdoing. At the time of the dismissal, a Jefferson County District Attorney spokesperson said that a conviction of the Globe reporter would not have warranted jail time. Nevertheless, the Jefferson County District Attorney continued its prosecution of Mr. Miller for the same felony charge that had been dismissed against the Globe reporter.

4

I was very suspicious of the dismissal of the charges against the Globe reporter and the continuted prosecution of Mr. Miller. I had never heard of felony charges being dropped against someone for a payment of money. The prosecution of the tabloid reporter was the result of hundreds if not thousands of hours of police investigation, grand jury proceedings and lengthy and contentious litigation of First Amendment issues between Jefferson County prosecutors and prominent lawyers in Denver and Washington DC. When a motion to dismiss charges on constitutional grounds was denied by the district court in the Spring of 2000, the charges were reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Court did not rule in favor of the Globe reporter and Mr. Miller thus allowing the prosecution to proceed. Yet, shortly thereafter, the charges against the Globe reporter were dismissed.

Earlier in 2000 we had learned that prominent Washington DC lawyers representing the Globe had traveled to Denver to meet with Jefferson County prosecutors. They attempted to persuade the Jefferson County District Attorney to dismiss the charges against the Globe reporter. In September of 2000 we asked Jefferson County prosecutor to assist us in encouraging the Colorado Attorney General to refer the investigation of our allegations against the news media to a state grand jury. He was willing to do so. A month earlier our allegations had been met with strong opposition by a prominent Washington DC law firm representing the E. W. Scripps Company. It was their contention that the police investigation and any prosecution of our allegations were unconstitutional.

The Boulder District Court terminated the investigation of our allegations against media organizations on October 10, 2000. Less than a month later, the Jefferson District Attorney dismissed charges against the Globe reporter.

I immediately suspected that both the charges against The Globe reporter and the investigation of our allegations bad been dropped as the result of threats of reprisals from prominent local and national lawyers representing powerful media organizations. To me, there did not seem to be any other reasonable explanation. There still doesn't.

Thus, upon receiving a subpoena on April 30 of this year to appear at the May 3 hearing in the Miller case, I greatly suspected the motives of the Jefferson County District Attorney. I suspected that the indictments of Mr. Miller and the Globe reporter were, at least in part, an accommodation to Ramsey defense lawyers. I suspected that the dismissal of the charges against the Globe reporter was the result of pressure brought to bear on the Jefferson County District Attorney - the same pressure that caused Boulder authorities to terminate the investigation of my allegations. Furthermore, it was clear to me that I had absolutely no relevant information concerning the charges against Mr. Miller. I was aware that in the past Mr. Miller had been paid by a tabloid for his services, and strongly suspected that his defense had been and was continuing to be funded by a tabloid or some other media organization. His motive for calling me as a witness was an attempt to attract publicity to his peripheral involvement in the Ramsey investigation. I further suspected that Mr. Miller and those funding his defense would attempt to use my appearance at his trial and my testimony for commercial purposes. Mr. Miller has publicly announced his intention to write and book on the Ramsey investigation.

5

Therefore, without consulting an attomey, I wrote a letter to Mr. Miller's defense attorney and advised him, that I would not appear at the May 3 hearing. After not appearing, I was called to appear before the Court. I was told that in the future I should obey Court orders.

A few days later an individual who claimed to have associations with Colorado law enforcement and the news media including the tabloids approached me. This person had a great deal of knowledge concerning the Ramsey investigation. Much of that information seemed credible. That individual proceeded to give me highly derogatory information concerning Ramsey defense lawyers and the Jefferson County District Attorney. It was my suspicion that this information was given to me to serve as a basis for my testimony as a defense witness in the Miller trial.

Thus, immediately before receiving a second subpoena on June 3, 2001 to appear as a witness at Mr. Miller’s trial I was strongly suspicious of the Jefferson County District Attorney's motivation to continue the prosecution of Mr Miller. I suspected that Mr Miller had called me as a witness simply to garner publicity. I was suspicious that other persons had not been called as witnesses who would certainly have information extremely relevant to the prosecution and the defense. I suspected that I would be asked about the events of December 26, 1996 that I had not publicly disclosed for over four years as a witness in the Ramsey investigation. I suspected that I had been given information by someone associated with the tabloids and Mr. Miller that was to be brought out through my testimony at his trial I believed that providing any such information would have further jeopardized the rights and well being of my family and quite possibly the rights and well being of others.

Most importantly, I had been a witness in the Ramsey investigation for over four years and had suffered, along with my family, profound humiliation and degradation. Just a year earlier our family had been subjected to the worst defamation imaginable I had no reasonable basis not to expect more of the same as a consequence of my ap pearance at the Miller trial.

Afer receiving the second subpoena on June 3 to appear as a witness at the Miller trial on June 13, I wrote a letter to the Court dated June 7. Once again I had not consulted a lawyer I asked the Court to quash the subpoena on the grounds that I had no relevant information to give at trial. I further indicated that I have not publicly spoken about the Ramsey homicide. I also asked the Court to weigh the importance of my testimony against the state’s interest in seeking justice in the Ramsey homicide along with my rights and interests as an important witness in the Ramsey investigation. On June 8, 2001 the Court denied that request. I did not appear at the Miller trial on June 13 and a bench varrant for my arrest was issued. On June 18 I voluntarily appeared at the Court, was arrested and was booked into the Jefferson County Jail.

In May 2000 when I received my first subpoena to appear at the June 3 hearing, my trust and faith in the Colorado justice system had been completely eroded. I cannot honestly

6

say that has changed. On December 26, 1996 Priscilla and I would have done anything a law enforcement officer or a judge asked without hesitation. Since then, we have been transformed into people who can only regard police officers, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and the press with great suspicion and distrust. For that I I am deeply sorry.

I admit that I made a mistake by not appearing at the May 3, 2001 hearing in Judge Tidball's court, I admit That I made an even greater mistake by not appearing on June 13 for Mr Miller's trial. I now fully realize that I must obey court orders. In the future if I should receive a lawfully served subpoena I will either contest the subpoena in accordance with the court’s procedure or simply comply with the courts order and appear. I do not have contempt for Judge Tidball's court. On the contrary, Judge Tidball has always been very kind and respectful. I am deeply sorry that my actions placed her in a position where she needed to defend the integrity integrity of her Court.

Fleet White Jr.

Octoter 24, 2001

 

Oh good grief, KK. My head is spinning!

Thank you, Spade!

 

White's 1999 letter to Colorado Supreme court

Fleet Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White

April 6, 1999

/The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey
Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court Colorado State Judicial Building
2 East 14th Avenue. 4th Floor
Denver. CO 80203

Dear Ms. Chief Justice:

We are witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. At this time we wish to bring to your attention the conduct of certain attorneys officially associated with the case. We have previously brought some of these matters to the attention of District 20 prosecutors and the District Court. We are concerned that these matters are not being promptly attended to.

We were friends of John and Patsy Ramsey and were at their home on December 26, 1996, when JonBenet's body was found. In the months following the murder we cooperated fully with Boulder Police detectives. In early April 1997 we had an occasion to meet with Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and his investigator, Lou Soot. Shortly after that meeting. We came to suspect that Mr. Hunter had given information concerning our family to tabloid reporters. Over the next several months, it became clear to us that Boulder Police detectives did not trust Mr. Hunter and that they had stopped sharing evidence with his office. In order to protect our family, We adopted a policy of limiting our involvement in the investigation. We met with Governor Roy Romer in December 1997 and Attorney General Gale Norton in January 1998 to express our concerns with the investigation. We also detailed the misconduct of the District Attorney including his disclosures of information concerning our family and our status in the investigation to tabloid reporters and journalists. We asked Governor Romer to intervene and cause an independent prosecutor to be appointed. He declined to take any action in the matter. We have since publicly expressed our opinions regarding the District Attorney and the investigation. In January 1998 we submitted a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera referring to our meeting with Governor Romer. In August 1998 we released to the media a second letter. Both of these were highly critical of Mr. Hunter. We have enclosed copies of these letters for your reference. .

In September 1998 Boulder Deputy District Attorney Michael Kane and prosecutors Mitch Morrissey and Bruce Levin contacted us. Despite our reservations concerning the past conduct of the Boulder District Attorney, we met with these attorneys for several days had subsequently testified before the Boulder grand jury investigating the Ramsey murder. We were asked by Mr. Kane to overlook the past conduct of Mr. Hunter. He also assured us that any violations of grand jury secrecy would not be tolerated
In March 1999 we came to suspect that violations of grand jury secrecy had occurred with respect to the Boulder grand jury. We have sent letters to Chief District Judge Roxanne Bailin dated March 17) 1999 outlining our concerns in this regard. We have also requested -transcripts of our grand jury testimony. Copies of this correspondence and a memo received from Judge Bailin are enclosed for -your reference. Those portions of Priscilla White's letter that refer to the substance of her grand jury testimony have been obscured.

**'"

The improper conduct of the Boulder District Attorney has debilitated the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. This improper conduct has included numerous ex1mjudicial public statements and disclosures that have eroded the confidence and trust of police investigators and witnesses. Mr. Hunter


The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey April 6, 1999
Page Two

Apparently made the following improper statements to writer Ann Bardach which appeared in the October 1997 issue of Vanity Fair magazine (copy enclosed):

"No question about it they (John and Patsy Ramsey) lawyered up early on normally, it is true,
Such victims throw themselves at the police and district attorney, offering and begging for information. The fact that they do not cooperate is most compelling, but it is not really evidence.'... She was fused with (JonBenet) it was more than mere love."

The article continues:

"As for John Ramsey, whom he (Hunter) referred to as an 'ice man', he wondered aloud whether 'someone as smart as Ramsey would write such a long note.' Toward the end of our talk, he said, 'these are not bad people,' then hastily added, 'Of course, we know that good people can do bad things.' "

Later in the article, the conflict between the District Attorney and the Boulder police is discussed:

"Hunter told me (the author of the article) in June, 'The police could go to a judge without coming to me and submit an affidavit for an arrest warrant.. . .They could do that, but the DA would then say, 'That's great, but I am not bringing charges." As I was leaving, Hunter mused aloud, 'If we file or we don't file, these people are doomed. They have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. ' "

An article written by author Lawrence Schiller appearing in the December 19, 1998 issue of The New Yorker magazine attributes to Mr. Hunter the following statements (copy enclosed):

"The case against the Ramseys is unfileable The Ramseys would
be out on bail within hours... .. the cops felt they had a slam dunk In those first weeks we
thought we had semen, and then we learned we didn't. That changed the case drastically.. .. There is nothing negative in this child's life-not even one instance of a slap in a supermarket.. . . Of course, for the media and the general public, the fact that Patsy Ramsey had JonBenet do the pageant stuff makes them think that she is an evil mother. People are angry, and they have a right to that emotion-a child has been killed But they're also angry that the Ramseys bleached her hair... .The public may be seeing the Ramseys more as prime suspects than
we are. I've never before seen anything like the battery upon these people who, wealthy or not, are not receiving the presumption of innocence. And I am troubled by that... .The cops became so convinced that the Ramseys did it, that they've never been able to look at the
evidence objectively If it starts out as an accident, then becomes a cover-up, you must look
at the same eight hundred pieces of evidence differently: an accidental killing and a premeditated cover-up... .Even though it is a long shot, if a swab sample did provide a DNA match to the DNA taken from JonBenet's body then police would be able to connect a second person to the murder. . ..Every rock must be turned over, and if that means swabbing everyone's mouth or exhuming JonBenet's body that's what the police will have to do, I don't want the
public to think that everything already has been done when in effect everything hasn't been
done If the linguistics experts say she wrote it, we may have something I would like there
to be a smoking gun, and I don't care who the gun is aimed at"

In these statements, Mr. Hunter 0) discusses the character, credibility and reputation of John and Patsy Ramsey, (2) expresses his opinions regarding the culpability of John and Patsy Ramsey, (3) discloses evidentiary obstacles facing the investigation and prosecution, and (4) expresses his negative opinions regarding the competence of the Boulder Police Department which at the time was officially responsible for the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Mr. Hunter, as a reasonable person with over twenty


The Honorable Mary 1. Mullarkey April 6, 1999
Page Three

years of experience as a prosecutor must have known that these statements could not only materially prejudice future adjudicative proceedings but could also impede the ongoing police investigation. The impropriety of these extrajudicial statements is obvious.

On February 18, 1999 Lawrence Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" was released. The book contains information and opinions regarding the investigation, evidence, and witnesses. Much of that information came from the Boulder District Attorney's office. The quotes and conversations attributed to Mr. Hunter, First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise and Chief Trial Deputy Peter Hofstrom are too numerous to put in this letter. You would simply have to read the book. Much of the information contained in the book regarding witnesses and suspects is derogatory (please refer to our March 17, 1999 letters to Judge Bailin). Much of that derogatory information is false. There is information in the book that could only have come from our family's police interviews. We know that much of this information is inconsistent with police documents and is false. We strongly suspect that a person deh1>erate1y gave. false information to Mr. Schiller to impugn our family's reputation and damage our credibility. We have good reason to suspect that a person or persons associated with the Boulder District Attorney's office may have given false information to Mr. Schiller.

Among the examples of misconduct described in the book is Mr. Hunter's relationship with a tabloid reporter who Mr. Hunter enlisted in March 1997 to look into the personal lives of our family and former Boulder Police Commander John Eller who at the time was heading up the Ramsey investigation. Shortly after our meeting with Mr. Hunter and Mr. Smit on April 7, 1997 members of our family and our friends began receiving telephone calls from the National Enquirer and the Globe tabloids. They were told that the Boulder District Attorney was reporting that John Ramsey had identified Fleet White as a suspect in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. A reporter for the Globe told one of our family members that the District Attorney had given him the information on April 7, 1997, the same day that we had met with Mr. Hunter to discuss the matter. Another tabloid reporter told one of our family members that he had obtained her telephone number from our long distance billing records. In June 1997 Vanity Fair writer Ann Bardach came to our house after meeting with Alex Hunter to tell us that he had told her that "we were in trouble". She also visited at least one of our neighbors and warned him that the Whites were "in trouble" and requested that our neighbor arrange a meeting with her (we did not grant Ms. Bardach an interview). From late January 1997 through the spring of 1998, our family was harassed and threatened by tabloid reporters and other journalists.

There is no question that this book has profoundly damaged the investigation and reduced the likelihood of a successful prosecution. By its very nature the book is "prejudicial to the administration of justice". It would be absurd to argue otherwise. Any attorney official’s associated with the investigation that assisted Mr. Schiller in the writing of this book has violated Rule 8A(d) Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Schiller has provided us with the names of three: Mr. Hunter, Mr. Wise and Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant. Mr. Grant recently told us that he did in fact give an interview to Mr. Schiller. Incredibly, he attempted to justify his actions by telling us he had done so at the request of Alex Hunter and that Mr. Schiller had assured him that the book would not be published and released until the grand jury investigation was completed. We are at a loss to understand why Mr. Grant would contribute to the writing of such a book regardless of when it was published.

It is our firm belief that Alex Hunter has, over the past two years, engaged in conduct which has violated rules 3.6; 3.8; and 8.4, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. It is very likely that Mr. Wise has also violated some or all of these rules. Furthermore, it is our firm belief that other attorneys officially involved in the Ramsey investigation have long known of these substantial violations and may thus be in violation of
Rule 8.3. This group of attorneys includes: former Governor Roy Romer, former Attorney General Gale Norton., Mr. Grant and Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter. Certainly these attorneys have had a basis to seriously question Mr. Hunter's fitness as an attorney, not to mention one serving as a public prosecutor. We have become acquainted with these attorneys and doubt that any of them actually approve of


The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey April 6, 1999
Page Four

the conduct of Mr. Hunter and Mr. Wise. Yet, they have apparently done nothing to satisfy their duty under Rule 8.3. Furthermore, they have allowed the public to perceive that they support Mr. Hunter and his handling of the case.

We respectfully request that you immediately cause the Attorney Regulation Committee to commence an investigation of at least Mr. Hunter and Mr. Wise regarding violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Due to the egregious and notorious nature of these violations, we further request that both of these attorneys be immediately suspended from practicing law pending the outcome of the committee's investigation. The public's interest will not be served by allowing them to continue their duties and it is essential to the integrity of the pending Boulder grand jury investigation that Mr. Hunter be removed immediately.

It is proper that the Committee or the Attorney Regulation Counsel commence these proceedings on its own motion. The Supreme Court should not rely on outside parties to do so. The grounds for commencing these proceedings are clear and under the extraordinary and highly publicized circumstances of this case, it is important that the public perceive that the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognizes the gravity of these matters and the importance of thoroughly investigating and punishing improper conduct

In addition to the improprieties described above, we are aware of probable violations of grand jury secrecy and other improprieties as set forth in our letters of March 17, 1999 to Judge Bailin. We strongly suspect that some or all of these violations and improprieties may involve attorneys either officially or unofficially associated with the grand jury. We are hopeful that Judge Bailin promptly initiated an investigation of these matters and will take appropriate measures against any attorney found to have violated the law or the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. As of this date, however, we have not received any
communication from Judge Bailin concerning our March 17 letters or our March 19, 1999 "good cause" request for our grand jury testimony transcripts. Our telephone message of March 30, 1999 to Judge Bailin's clerk has not been returned.

The Attorney Regulation Committee should not expect an acknowledgement of wrongdoing from Mr. Hunter. Over the past several months, we have been with Mr. Hunter on several occasions. He has never offered any words of apology or contrition. Late last month, Mr. Hunter spoke at a crimes-against-children symposium at the University of New Haven. Consistent with his past statements, Mr. Hunter is reported to have blamed Boulder police for the failure of the investigation. He told the audience that:

"We had to replace personnel that refused to get on the same page The bodies of those who
worked on this case remain strewn along the road"

On March 23, 1999 Mr. Hunter appeared on national television (Today Show/NBC) and arrogantly advised the American people that:

"1 have not closed the door to anybody. Any piece of information from any reporter, any citizen, and any Internet information has been logged into our system. I don't think any information door can be closed and that means a11 information. And there's some risk there and 1 think that risk needs to be taken. Although there are times when I'm angry with a shot either direct on
or, as I mentioned in there, below the belt. it's part of the game ! think there are some rules we
all have to play by, that there are some foundation blocks that are critical to our criminal justice system. But the public is impatient; they expect cases to be solved quickly. But I think the average citizen who reflects on the process and recognizes that somebody he loves, that she loves, could be the subject of the investigation, wants the rules to apply to everybody. I think the public will accept me playing by the rules even if things seem to be moving slowly for them In point of fact, some cases take a long time to solve. The worst ting that could happen is that somebody move prematurely before its ripe or as (Henry) Lee would say, before the rice is cooked. and


The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey April 6, 1999
Page Five

I won't do that, even at the cost of frustrating or angering some citizens, or a lot of citizens. I'm not going to do that."

Mr. Hunter is now publicly advocating a new paradigm for the American criminal justice system. His
"foundation blocks" include the use of tabloid reporters and news media to destroy the privacy and lives of critical witnesses and police officers that are not "on the same page" as the prosecutor. Mr. Hunter's "rules" allow prosecutors to publicly disclose and discuss evidence and express their opinions regarding witnesses, suspects and law enforcement personnel. Mr. Grant, Mr. Ritter and the State of Colorado have allowed Mr. Hunter to utilize these methods unchallenged and with impunity. Mr. Grant has himself made disparaging and mean spirited public statements regarding witnesses. He once characterized us as "going off the deep end" and dismissed our public criticisms of the case and Mr. Hunter as being "ridiculous". These and other statements that have been made by Mr. Grant are false. We have not "gone off the deep end" and our criticisms of the case are well intentioned and valid. Mr. Grant knows this yet he is willing to impugn our credibility simply to protect himself and a fellow district attorney that we know he holds in low regard. We are not on "the same page" as Mr. Hunter and I doubt that Mr. Grant is either. We prefer to think that he and others have simply lost sight of how important investigators and cooperative witnesses are to the criminal justice system. Mr. Grant and Mr. Ritter and the other prosecutors who continue to publicly support Alex Hunter should know that a prosecutor who has "bodies strewn along the road" has failed.
He should also know that a prosecutor who is unable to recognize his failing in such a highly publicized case must be removed to protect the criminal investigation and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

*"""

On December 26th 1996 our family involuntarily entered the Colorado criminal justice system. By reflex we cooperated with Boulder police officers investigating the murder of JonBenet. Those officers were generally professional, courteous and honest. It is from attorneys associated with the case that we have come to expect treachery, deceit and cowardice. It has been their misconduct that has pushed our family away from the investigation.

We have read your "State of the Judiciary" address of January 15, 1999. In it you make reference to the concept of restorative justice and the need to focus on the damage that crime causes to a community. As we are all aware, the murder of JonBenet has damaged the Boulder community. It is also making an indelible impression on the national consciousness and is inexorably shaping public sentiment regarding the criminal justice system. The murder now involves more than merely seeking justice for JonBenet Ramsey. Manifest in this case are important moral, legal and public policy issues that have not been seriously addressed by anyone in Colorado government or the Colorado legal community. Book writers, tabloid reporters and the national news media have filled the vacuum with entertainment and misinformation often with the assistance of members of the Colorado Bar. This has been devastating for the case and for the lives of people involved. It has also fueled growing public cynicism regarding the criminal justice system

We are hopeful that the Colorado Supreme Court will recognize a legal, moral and ethical duty in this matter and take the initiative to assist in "repairing the tear in the fabric of society" that JonBenet's murder has caused. A first step should be at least.. a best efforts attempt to limit the improper and inunoral maneuvering of attorneys. We assure 'you that we will continue to do whatever we see as our duty ill that regard.

We would appreciate some form of response to this letter at your earliest convenience

-- --


The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey April 6, 1999
Page Six

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Sincerely,

Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White

cc The Honorable Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado enclosures .

 

White's letter to Kobe Bryant judge

Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White
403 Cleveland Place Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 440-4571

August 12 2003

The Honorable Frederick Gannett Eagle County Court
P.O. Box 597
Eagle, Colorado 81631

Subject:

People of the State of Colorado v. Kobe Bean Bryant Case Number: 03 CR 204

Your Honor:

We would like to respectfully provide the Court with information that may have a bearing on the Court's attempt to control, investigate or sanction extrajudicial statements by attorneys and law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation, prosecution and defense of the subject case.

We have read the Court's Order Re Pretrial Publicity dated July 24, 2003, Defendant's Motion for Hearing to Enforce Court Order Of July 24, 2003 Concerning Pre-Trial Publicity and To Sanction Violations of the Order dated August 4, 2003 and the Court's Order Re Defendant's Motion for Hearing to Enforce Court Order of July 24, 2003 Concerning Pre-Trial Publicity and to Sanction Violation of the Order dated August 6, 2003.

I. Introduction

The Court's July 24, order was apparently intended to "advise and remind those interested in this matter of the applicable restrictions" regarding extrajudicial statements and disclosures. In paragraph 1.A. of its order, the Court specifically ordered that the conduct of lawyers involved in the case is "governed by Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6." Consistent with that rule, the Court further stated in paragraph I.B. of its order:

A lawyer or law enforcement agency or officer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of this matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer or law enforcement agency or officer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

I
The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12, 2003
Page Two

Additionally, the Court stated in paragraph I.F. of its order:

Lawyers and law enforcement agencies and officers are further advised to review and refer to the comments following Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6...for guidance as to what constitutes appropriate conduct. Matters considered more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect relate to (1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record. of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness...(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; (4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case, the merits of the case and the merits of the evidence in the case... (Emphasis added)

In its July 24 order, the Court gave no indication of what remedy it would employ if an offending extrajudicial statement were brought to the Court's attention. Presumably, the Court may exercise its contempt powers or, if the offending party is an attorney, refer the matter to the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel for investigation and possible disciplinary action (Colo RPC 251.4, Duty of a Judge to Report, and 251.9,
Request for Investigation) or both.

In his August 4 motion, the defendant through his attorneys brought to the Court's attention news reports that allegedly violated the Court's order. Specifically, the defendant cited the Court's order regarding statements relating to "... (1) The character, credibility, reputation...of a party, suspect...or witness...or the expected testimony of a party or witness;... (3)...any examination or test...or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; (4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant...the merits of the case and the merits of the evidence in the case..." The defendant asserted that the "proper remedy" to enforce its order would be a "hearing where all law enforcement officers who are or have 'participated in the investigation of this matter' answer under oath regarding their statements to the media" after which "any law enforcement officer found in violation" of the Court's order "should be sanctioned for contempt."

By its August 6, order, the Court appointed a special investigator to investigate defendant's allegations of violations of the Court's July 24 order. Additionally, the Court indicated that any further proceedings in the matter would await the findings of the special investigator.


. The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12,2003
Page Three

However, before the Court undertakes any further action regarding alleged prejudicial statements in the subject case, we wish to advise the Court that the Attorney Regulation Counsel has, on several occasions, unequivocally stated that certain extrajudicial statements prohibited by the Court's July 24 order do not violate the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct including Colo RPC 3.6 at least when such statements are made by a district attorney or other attorneys (prosecutors) within a district attorney's office as explained below.

ll. Complaints of ethical misconduct against former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and his staff re Colo_RPC3.6in the context of the Ramsey investigation

By our letter dated April 6, 1999 to the Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey, we identified numerous extrajudicial statements attributed to former Boulder District
Attorney Alex Hunter that we alleged were in violation of Colo RPC 3.6. (See Enclosure "'I") We later received a letter dated April 15, 1999 from Chief Justice Mullarkey advising us that she was forwarding our April 6, 1999 letter to the Attorney Regulation Counsel to be treated as a "complaint of ethical misconduct" against Mr. Hunter (and also Assistant District Attorney William Wise). (See Enclosure "'2") On April 22, 1999 we received a letter from John S. Gleason, Deputy Regulation Counsel in which Mr. Gleason wrote:

"... you state that these individuals made numerous extrajudicial public statements and disclosures to the author of the above mentioned book ("'Perfect Murder Perfect Town" authored by Lawrence Schiller and released in 1999) and to tabloid reporters, which discussed the character, credibility and reputation of the Ramseys ; which expressed opinions regarding the culpability of John and Patsy Ramsey; which disclosed evidentiary obstacles; and which expressed negative opinions regarding the Boulder Police Department's work on such case. Please realize, however, that the district attorney is elected by the people and has considerable discretion in the investigation and prosecution of particular matters. As the district attorney makes the decision whether or not an individual will be prosecuted for a particular crime, the district attorney may also discuss the relevant considerations which go into that determination. These considerations could include the character and credibility of witnesses and evidentiary issues. While you may find such statements distasteful, unfortunate, and ill-advised, this office does not believe that such statements rise to the level of a violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. (See Exhibit "3" attached hereto. Emphasis added.)


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12,2003
Page Four

By our letter dated June 23, 1999 to Governor Bill Owens and Chief Justice Mullarkey we identified numerous additional extrajudicial statements by Mr. Hunter that appeared in a book titled "Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography" that was released in June 1999 and authored by Stephen Singular. (See Enclosure "4") On June 29, 1999 we sent yet another letter to Governor Owens and Chief Justice Mullarkey questioning additional aspects of Mr. Hunter's conduct in the context of the Ramsey investigation and Colo. RPC 3.6. (_ Enclosure "5") We later received a letter from Mr. Gleason dated September 7, 1999 in which he stated that his "determination today is the same as my determination in my April 22, 1999 letter. I did not determine that the statements made by Mr. Hunter, if in

1Mr. Singular claims to have had several question-and-answer meetings with Mr. Hunter in 1997 during the early months of the Ramsey investigation. Among the numerous extrajudicial statements he attributed to Mr. Hunter are the following: .
Hunter:
"I've met the man (Fleet White, Jr.), and he made me very uncomfortable. He's six-foot-four, with big shoulders and huge hands. An iron grip. He just gave me a feeling. We know one thing for sure. The Ramseys and the Whites stopped being mends after the trip to Georgia... Both families had young daughters the same age. We've heard that Daphne White was JonBenet's best friend"
SinW1lar:
"Has anyone ta1ked to Daphne?"
Hunter:
"Social Services has, but I'm not satisfied with what they've done." ("Presumed Guilty", page 101)

And:

SinW1lar:
"Does the evidence completely rule out the notion that she (JonBenet Ramsey) may have been killed some other place?"
Hunter:
"No it doesn't"
Singular:
"Do you believe that the Ramseys murdered their child?.."
Hunter:
"I've met Patsy (Ramsey)...and she seems like a quality person to me. John...! don't know about" ("Presumed Guilty", page 161)

And:

Hunter:
"An interesting thing happened when we talked to the two families."
Singular:
"Which two?"
Hunter:
"The Ramseys and the Whites. In our interview with the Ramseys, they indicated that they were very suspicious of Mr. White. But when we gave White the opportunity to say the same things about them, he didn't do that 1bat seemed strange to me, and I've never forgotten it. Why wouldn't he have pointed the finger at them, when everyone else is doing that?" ("Presumed Guilty" page ISO)


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12, 2003
Page Five

fact Mr. Singular is accurate and correct, violate the Rules of Professional Conduct." (See Enclosure "6")

On February 25, 2000 a front-page headline story appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper titled "DA pursues new Ramsey lead. Hunter asks police to investigate woman's story of sex abuse." (See Enclosure "T') In mid February 2000, the woman had told the Boulder District Attorney, the Boulder Police Department and the press that she had been sexually abused since infancy by the undersigned Fleet Russell White, Jr. as well as JonBenet Ramsey's father, John Ramsey.2 Additionally, she alleged that JonBenet Ramsey had been killed during a "child sex and porno party" at our home on December 25, 1996. The Daily Camera article (the first public dissemination of the woman's claims and allegations) quoted Mr. Hunter as saying that he found the witness to be "very believable:' Notwithstanding Mr. Hunter's assessment of her credibility, the woman's accusations were false as they related to OUT family, the circumstances of JonBenet Ramsey death and, to the best our knowledge, as they related to John Ramsey. The Boulder Police Department nevertheless investigated her accusations and claims off and on for eleven weeks. Following the February 25,2000 Daily Camera article, the woman and her false claims and accusations were widely reported in the Boulder and Colorado press and eventually became the subject of significant public and media speculation regarding the Ramsey homicide. On May 15, 2000 the Boulder Police issued a press release announcing the end of the investigation of the woman's claims and their irrelevance to the Ramsey homicide. The Daily Camera later stated publicly that its decision to publish the article resulted from Mr. Hunter's positive endorsement of the woman's accusations and credibility as expressed by Mr. Hunter to one of its reporters. 3

In 2001 we initiated a grievance with the Attorney Regulation Counsel concerning Mr. Hunter's extrajudicial statements regarding the credibility of the unidentified witness. We wrote a letter to the Attorney Regulation Counsel dated January 14, 2002 regarding the matter. (See Enclosure "8") In response, we received a letter dated February 15,2002 :from Assistant Regulation Counsel Luain T. Hensel who advised:

There is insufficient evidence to allow us to prove your allegation that Mr. Hunter violated Colo. RPC 3.6 by clear and convincing evidence...As you are aware, the comment must be one which has a substantial likelihood of

2 We did not become aware of the :full extent of the woman's false and preposterous accusations and claims until 2002 when we obtained criminal justice records from the Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department including transcripts of her interviews by Boulder police investigators.
3 In the context of People v. Bryant. Mr. Hunter's extrajudicial statements regarding the Ramsey witness would be the equivalent of District Attorney Hurlbert telling the press that a witness who had told Jaw enforcement (including Mr. Hurlbert) and the press that she bad been sexually assaulted repeatedly by Mr. Bryant (or. alternatively. by an important witness in the case) was "'very believable."


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12. 2003
Page Six

materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. Unfortunately. there has been no such adjudicative proceeding in the Ramsey case...

For the above reasons. this office has determined that the information you provided does not set forth facts which, if proved, would constitute grounds for the imposition of discipline...(See Enclosure "9,,)4

m. Relevance and implications of previous ethical grievances in the context of the Ramsey investigation to the Court's orders and Defendant's motion in People v. Bryant

It is evident from Mr. Gleason's letters that the Attorney Regulation Counsel has determined that an extrajudicial statement by a district attorney or one of his prosecutors does not violate Colo RPC 3.6 to the extent it relates to the following general matters:

a. The character. credibility, reputation of a party, suspect in a criminal
investigation or witness; b. the identity of a witness; c. the expected testimony of a party or witness;

4 Ms. Hensel's assertions that the Attorney Regulation Counsel is unable to consider disciplinary action
against Mr. Hunter because "the statement must be one which has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding" and because "there has been no such proceeding in the .Ramsey case" appears to be inconsistent with well-established law for preserving fair trials where "the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384
U.S.333, 363 (1966) and also an April 2, 2001 Opinion and Order by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Colorado Supreme Court in The People of the State of Colorado v. Mark C. Pautler (Case Number OOPDJOI6) where the Court stated:
Whether Pautler's deceptive conduct infected the fairness of the underlying criminal
proceeding against (the accused) is not before this court. That determination is for
another forum. For purposes of deciding whether Pautler violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c),
it is not relevant. It is the conduct of the lawyer which dictates whether there is a violation
of The Rules of Professional Conduct, not the effect of that conduct...(emphasis added)
Applying this standard and observing the plain language of Colo. RPC 3.6, it is only necessary for a violation that an attorney knows or bas reasonable grounds to know that a statement "will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding". For the purposes of establishing a violation of Colo. RPC 3.6, it should not be necessary to establish or prove that the statement, in fact, bad a prejudicial effect.
Furthermore, application of the standard asserted by Ms. Hensel could lead to the undesirable outcome where:

"An attorney who made prejudicial comments would be insulated from discipline if the government, for reasons unrelated to the comments, decided to dismiss the charge, or if a plea bargain were reached. An equally culpable attorney whose client's case went to trial would be subject to discipline. The United States Constitution does not mandate such a fortuitous difference". Gentile v. State Bar o/Nevada, 111 S.Ct. 2720. 2148 (1991).


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12, 2003
Page Seven

d. the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; e. opinions as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a
criminal case; or
f the merits of the case and the merits of the evidence in the case.

Furthermore, it is clear from Ms. Hensel's January 14, 2002 letter that the Attorney Regulation Counsel will not in any case investigate an extrajudicial statement alleged to be in violation of Colo. RPC 3.6 unless an adjudicative proceeding has taken place and the prejudicial effect of the extrajudicial statement can be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Therefore, with respect to the alleged extrajudicial statements referred to in defendant's August 4 motion, there is no basis for this Court to expect that a referral to the Attorney Regulation Counsel will result in an investigation or disciplinary action against a district attorney or a prosecutor nor is there any basis for the Court to expect the Attorney Regulation Counsel to take such action against any attorney with respect to such statements until an "adjudicative proceeding" has occurred and the prejudicial effect of such statements is assessed. Indeed, if a district attorney or a prosecutor makes such statements, it would appear that this Court has no obligation under Colo RPC 251.4 to report such matters to the Attorney Regulation Counsel. Furthermore, since such statements by a district attorney or a prosecutor are not deemed by the Attorney Regulation Counsel to be in violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, there is no basis under Colo RPC 3.8(e) for a district attorney or a prosecutor to "exercise reasonable care to prevent" other law enforcement personnel from making extrajudicial statements such as those reported in defendant's August 4 motion.

It may be instructive for the Court to read comments made by Mr. Bryant's defense counsel Harold Haddon regarding Colo RPC 3.6 at a panel discussion sponsored by the Faculty of Federal Advocates on May 18, 2001 at the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver, Colorado titled "The Media and the Bar". The panel discussion was titled the "JonBenet Ramsey Investigations-Tabloids v. Legitimate Media and Protecting Your Client's Interests" (Mr. Haddon had previously represented John Ramsey during the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide). In response to a question from panel moderator Pat Burke (previously counsel for Patsy Ramsey) regarding what rules applied to lawyers and law enforcement during the Ramsey investigation, Mr. Haddon stated:

There weren't any rules that applied to anybody in the legal profession, members of the District Attorney's office or representatives of the Ramseys and various witnesses. We do have a rule that applies in theory in state prosecutions. Its rule 3.6 which says that a lawyer should not make a statement that a reasonable lawyer might think runs a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding, whatever


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12, 2003
Page Eight

that means. It's so amorphous that to my knowledge it hasn't been enforced in a formal way against a lawyer in Colorado and indeed there was a plurality on the United States Supreme Court in the Gentile case that suggested that it was void on vagueness. So, in my view, there weren't any rules and the Ramsey case almost immediately degenerated into a leak fest. The prosecutors did their fair share of leaking. The police IC3ked constantly throughout the pre-grand jury phase of the Ramsey case and they weren't just leaking stuff that was adverse to the Ramseys although that was the primary strain, the theory being, I guess, that if we put enough pressure on them, someone win crack. But also the prosecutors and the police were leaking against each other because they were at war not only about tactics. but about the substance of the case and whether or not there was actual evidence to support an arrest and a charge. So the short answer, Pat, is there weren't any rules...

In consideration of Mr. Haddon's well-informed remarks, it should not be surprising that defendant's August 4 motion included no reference to Colo RPC 3.6 nor did it request the Court to refer any alleged violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct to the Attorney Regulation Counsel. Inst_ the motion asserts "the proper remedy for the apparent misconduct" is a hearing and the possible imposition of contempt sanctions by the Court.

IV. Conclusion

As evidenced by the enclosed correspondence relating to the Ramsey investigation, the Attorney Regulation Counsel has vitiated Colo RPC 3.6 which is now, for all practical purposes, little more than an empty shell. Consequently, there does not exist in Colorado an effective restraint on prejudicial statements by prosecutors, lawyers or law enforcement involved in the investigation or adjudication of a criminal matter absent an order such as the one issued by the Court in this case.

We do, however, respectfully question the force and effect of the Court's July 24 "advise and remind" order to the extent it relies to any degree on the sweep and authority of Colo RPC 3.6 to prohibit certain extrajudicial statements by a district attorney or a
prosecutor (or a defense lawyer or anyone in law enforcement for that matter) when the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel has unequivocally deemed such statements!!!!! to be a violation of Colo RPC 3.6. This would most likely include some if not all of the statements brought to the Court's attention by defendant's August 4 motion.

We do wish to express our gratitude to the Court for its considerable efforts to control prejudicial statements and publicity in this case. It is extremely unfortunate,


The Honorable Frederick Gannett August 12, 2003
Page Nine

however, that the courts, the Attorney Regulation Counsel and numerous state officials and law enforcement officers thwarted or simply ignored attempts to control the flood of prejudicial statements and other misconduct by lawyers and law enforcement during the course of the Ramsey investigation. In doing so, they greatly diminished the prospects for fair adjudicative proceedings not only in the Ramsey case, but also in the case before you now.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Signed by:
Fleet Russell White, Jr.
Priscilla Brown White

Governor Bill Owens
The Honorable Mary Mullarkey, Chief Justice Colorado Supreme Court John Gleason, Attorney Regulation Counsel, Colorado Supreme Court Mark Hurlbert, District Attorney, 5th Judicial District
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, State of Colorado
Acting Chief Gary Ward, Town of Eagle Police Department
Chief Dwight Henninger, Town of Vail Police Department
Sheriff Joe Hoy, Eagle County Sheriff's Department
Thomas B. Kelley, Esq.
Rohn K. Robbins, Esq.
Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq. and Harold A Haddon, Esq. A.William Ritter" Jr., District Attorney, 2nd Judicial District
Mary T. Keenan, District Attorney, 20th Judicial District
David J. Thomas, District Attorney, 1st Iudicial District
Robert S. Grant, District Attorney, 17th Iudicial District
James Peters, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District

 

LinWad tries to throw the White's under the bus

This is from the 2000 interviews in Atlanta:

4 MR. WOOD: Before we go there,
5 Bruce, let me say to you, I turned over to
6 Ollie two expandables of stuff that I have
7 gotten for him to look at, including, you
8 may know this, Chief, but I got some really
9 long and detailed analysis of Fleet White's
10 letters compared to the ransom notes from a
11 lawyer in New York. Are you familiar with
12 it? You may not have gotten it yet.
13 MR. BECKNER: I don't believe so.
14 MR. WOOD: He will go through it
15 and get it all to you. I am trying to
16 keep up with it to go to Ollie. It is two
17 expandables of different tips on leads.
18 MR. BECKNER: What type of
19 analysis is it?
20 MR. WOOD: It's a linguistic
21 analysis of the public letters that Fleet
22 White and Priscilla White have written about
23 the case, and they have taken that and done
24 an analysis of the ransom note. So I am
25 not making any suggestions except to describe
0025
1 it.


14 MR. WOOD: I told you about the
15 Fleet White package that I received.
16 MR. KANE: Yes. That is right.
17 Fleet White.
18 MR. LEVIN: If I can interrupt
19 for just a second, that's based on
20 linguistics, though, if I understood you?
21 MR. WOOD: To tell you the truth,
22 I haven't, other than to recognize what it
23 was, I did not try to study it. So I
24 wouldn't -- my impression was initially it
25 was linguistics, but it might be, it might
0073
1 reference handwriting.
2 MR. KANE: Was that a handwritten
3 note or something of Fleet or --
4 MR. WOOD: No. It's about an
5 inch and a half thick report.
6 MR. KANE: Okay. But it's not
7 handwritten, I was talking about handwriting
8 here, was that in here?
9 MR. WOOD: That is what I was
10 telling Bruce. I didn't study it other than
11 to recognize that it was someone sending me
12 an analysis of Fleet White's writings. And
13 whether it is limited to linguistics or
14 whether it goes into the handwriting issue, I
15 wouldn't state on the record without being
16 certain, but I will get that to you all and
17 you will know exactly what it is.


8 Q. Do you still consider Priscilla
9 White to be a suspect?
10 A. I never considered either of the
11 Whites to be a suspect. Their behavior
12 post-December '96 was very, very strange.
13 And that -- we were frightened of it, pure
14 and simple.
15 MR. WOOD: Did they ever --
16 THE WITNESS: But I -- you know,
17 we were at their home that evening, they
18 were in good spirits, they had relatives
19 there, I had no reason to consider them
20 suspects.

 

The bulk of that "worst defamation imaginable" came from Mary Suma and her ilk - Holly, Mary99, Morgan, and others who were sucked in by them. It was some of the worst defamation possible and a deliberate, calculated attempt to ruin an innocent man and his family. I hold nothing but contempt for this group.

 

bump

This thread needs to be made a sticky.

 

The Honorable Mary J. Mullarkey

You have GOT to be kidding....

::shocked2

Sometimes, I think this case was simply written by Charles Dickens. Only he could have possibly come up with these names.