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

Prosecution Redirect of Vacca:

Ok, on redirect, Hall tries to rehabilitate Mr. Vacca, re: his conflicting statements about the "Confidentiality and Publishing Agreement," the document that was entered as Exhibit A, which Vacca signed, along with the Ramseys. Hall brings up that Vacca's grand jury testimony was in August 1999--remember the date of the Miller trial was June 11-14, 2001, so the implication by Hall was that Vacca just forgot. Hall also asked Vacca how long it was before the grand jury that he signed the "Agreement" with the Ramseys. Vacca said a year and a half to two years before.

So both Mr. and Mrs. Vacca were excused.

Next up, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman lawyer Lee Foreman. hahahaha Just took a peek at Foreman's introduction of himself--he said he "has a small law firm" in Denver. hahaha I thought there were quite a few lawyers working for that "small law firm." Maybe I'm mistaken.

Anyhow, I'll save this for later. I notice that Mr. Lozow takes over to cross examine Mr. Foreman. Oh, I bet that's going to be some fireworks.

 

Well, if the Ramseys somehow ended up with possession of the copy of the ransom note at the house that morning, it was because someone purloined it that day, wasn't it? Just wondering who that might have been? I mean, LE should have been responsible for making sure it was recovered. If it was just left lying around in the stress, LE should have ended up with it. But if someone deliberately folded it and put it in a pocket or purse, they meant to do that.

Good catch, Elle!

 

Direct Examination of Lee Foreman by Hall

This is too much fun to miss. Here is the resume Foreman gives to Hall:

Graduated from Stanford University in 1972.

Went to Colorado and passed the bar in Sept. of the same year. Worked for the Colorado State Public Defender's Office, mostly in Denver.

Left the Public Defender's Office in 1977. Joined Hadden and Morgan, only the three of them at first. They all primarily did criminal law as "public defenders" and continued in that area. Various numbers of lawyers working for them since.

OK, during the testimony, Mr. Lozow mentions during an objection that the law firm has maybe 10 lawyers. I thought it was much larger than that for some reason. Live and learn.

Good lord. What kind of deal with the devil did this firm make to get the kind of power they have in that small a firm? But I digress....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defense counsel Lozow was all over Foreman and Hall during this direct questioning. hahaha Lozow must have prepared for this like a priize fight. He won't let Foreman get a word out of his mouth hardly. hahaha But...Lozow's making some points. The questions and answers from the prosecutor and witness are very speculative and rambling. The prosecutor Hall seems a bit out of it, having trouble asking a decent question of the witness. Hero worship? Foreman doesn't seem to be a whiz, either. The judge is giving them quite a bit of latitude. Lozow is all over it. Finally, the judge gets it and Foreman has to quit the BS and just give the straight facts. Thanks so much.

Well, this answers that question: Haddon, Morgan & Foreman got a copy of the ransom note from the BPD--Linda Arndt, specifically--on January 5th of 1997.

Do we remember that? Did Thomas tell us that in his book? He must have.

Foreman goes through quite a convoluted opening story when asked about the "conditions" under which they got a copy of the note and handwriting samples. It's clear his firm was bargaining with the handwriting samples and physical evidence right off the bat. The upshot is that Team Ramsey got a copy of the ransom note and handwriting samples on January 5th, 1997.

Oh, did I mention that Foreman, when speaking about the murder of his client's child, says she "died"? Here it is:

I just love these little details, don't you? It's what I live for: ON OR ABOUT THE 26TH.... I'm thinking...Mr. Foreman knows something about this case, doesn't he?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, it comes out on direct that Mr. Foreman knew Donald Vacca, the document examiner his firm hired to compare the ransom note to John and Patsy's handwriting exemplars. He'd known Vacca since they both worked for the Denver legal system, Foreman as a public defender and Vacca as LE. Then Foreman has used Vacca for cases before the Ramsey case, as well, which is what Vacca said also.

So, the upshot of this testimony is that the Ramsey law firm considered Vacca in their employ and under a duty and obligation to them as regards the ransom note and his work on it. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Foreman never once was able to show any document or give direct testimony that he verbally told Vacca what those duties and obligations were, only that he "expected" Vacca knew that as a professional in the field. Then Foreman testified that Vacca called his firm when Lewis made the offer to buy the note from him. The law firm "sent an investigator up to interview Mr. Vacca in depth concerning those circumstances, and we suggested he contact the district attorney's office and report the event to law enforcement."

The witness is passed to defense, with Mr. Lozow doing the cross this time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Hall did a pretty poor job in this direct exam and I expect the defense to have a strong cross. For example, I'm wondering if Mr. Vacca was advised by Foreman's firm to call LE and report the lawyer who called Vacca to buy the note TWO DAYS BEFORE Miller contacted Vacca? Well, we'll see.... Maybe they did.

 

Cross-examination of Foreman by defense attorney Lozow

[This cross is going to be long and detailed, so I'm going to just try to get as far as I can as quickly as I can without too much editorializing because I have some stuff to do the next few days and won't be able to pick back up until next week. Maybe Punisher will get his CD and can jump in.]

OK, Mr. Lozow goes straight for the meat: he has Foreman testify that in fact Foreman's firm had no prior written confidentiality agreement with Mr. Vacca, ever. Remember Defendant's Exhibit A: The Confidentiality and Publishing Agreement that was signed by Vacca was with the Ramseys only.

I can't find that Exhibit A attached to this pdf file, so I don't know when Vacca signed this confidentiality agreement with the Ramseys. I am wondering about that because if it was AFTER Miller and Lewis went to see Vacca...well, that smacks of creating false evidence, if it in any way impacts on the charges being brought against Miller in this case. But I hope it will come out in this cross or somewhere along the way. We'll see.

Ok, Foreman is splitting hairs, but Lozow finally gets him to admit that PI Mr. Williams worked for his firm as an investigator and hired Mr. Vacca to do the ransom note exam at the firm's request. They move on to another investigator, a Mr. John Foster. [Oh, great, another FOSTER added to this name game.] Mr. Foster was hired by Foreman's firm to interview Vacca after Vacca reported to them he'd been approached by Lewis and Miller to purchase the note. From that interview, the law firm suggested to Mr. Vacca that he write a letter to DA Dave Thomas (who had jurisdiction over the matter) about the alleged offense. Then the law firm also wrote a letter to Mr. Thomas about it. Foreman admits that his firm knows the DA, working "opposite" him for years. Then Lozow gets this out of Foreman:

OK, Lozow brings out that he and Foreman know each other and have worked together.

Now it gets interesting. We have a Ramsey lawyer under oath, in a trial, testifying about some of the Ramsey lawyers' activities in relation to a number of things. This is a very long cross, and I'm so intrigued, I think I'd like to type out this cross for y'all. It's quite astonishing. Lozow makes Miller's case right here. He even has Foreman OFFERING testimony that virtually agrees with the defense's entire theory.

And most important, that date I was looking for, with the Confidentiality and Publishing Agreement signed by the Ramseys and Vacca? Turns out that Bynum wrote it and the Ramseys and Vacca signed it...in MAY of 1997...which means AFTER Lewis made that offer of 30K for the note to Vacca. But it gets better: SOMEONE CROSSED OUT THE MONTH OF MAY AND WROTE IN NOVEMEBER. Now, I'm not sure how Lozow is going to play that, considering this document is explained by Foreman as being written to stop those working for the Ramseys and their lawyers from SELLING THE CASE INFO THEY HAVE FOR PERSONAL GAIN--sort of an afterthought once Vacca was approached, it seems. But to create this document after the fact illustrates that BEFORE this, there was no de facto legal document between Vacca and anyone about this ransom note copy. The privacy issues are implied with attorney-client privilege, which Lozow brings up and Foreman addresses. But we haven't actually heard the law on this yet as it applies to this case.

Another thing that is important, Lozow gets Foreman to convivially offer that with only 3 or 4 expert document examiners in the state, anyone could conclude Mr. Vacca would be on the short list of persons who might have been involved with the ransom note analysis. He even goes further, offering that copies of the note would be expected to be with the CBI, DA Hunter's office, the Boulder Co. Shefiff's Office, and some out of state agencies, as well. Lozow adds to this list, bringing up the question we had earlier about those in the home that morning: the Fernies, the Whites, the minister, all having had access to the note that morning. But so far, he hasn't mentioned the "missing copy" that was at the house that morning, but I'm thinking that's exactly where he's headed with that. Lozow also questions if Pam Paugh might have gotten a copy from Patsy. So I think he's getting his point across, that Miller easily could have simply been looking for someone with a professional interest in the note who got a copy from a connection not linked to the law firm.

So far, Lozow and Leidner have outlawyered the prosecution something fierce.

Lozow gets Foreman to admit on the stand that their hiring Vacca to do a handwriting analysis of the note was kept private, not well known.

Lots of stuff here. Lozow brings in the various media that published the note by the end of that year, Foreman accomodates, discussing the media frenzy, etc. Foreman states something curious: he says that "they" had photos they took of the Ramsey home stolen by the developers and sold. He says "we" had...then corrects himself...says autopsy pictures were stolen and published. See, you need to see this, because it's rather obvious Foreman is referring to the actual case evidence as if it was THEIR MURDER INVESTIGATION. \

Oh, did I mention that Lozow got Foreman to admit that when he, as a defense attorney, asks LE for evidence, IT'S NOT COMMON FOR HIM TO GET IT? That in the Ramsey case it was A COUP to get the note and handwriting samples? Oh, yeah, HE DOES ADMIT THAT WITH NO HESITATION.

You know...I'm starting to wonder about this little Hunter/Haddon collaboration. Just how on earth did this happen? I mean, was Hunter just so genuinely corrupt that he was so accomodating he handed evidence over to the prime suspects without even a thought that it might not be the right thing to do? Was every lawyer in his office that far gone?

Oh, this is good. Lozow just trapped Foreman into getting into testimony the information that Foreman's firm did extensive investigation of Miller. The poor prosecutor Hall jumped to object when he realized that this fascinating "conversation" between Foreman and Lozow had led Foreman right into the lion's den. Foreman offered, unsolicited, his opinion that Miller was not a "recognized handwriting expert." Foreman took this opportunity to interject that Miller's opinion that Patsy wrote the note was not valued by anyone. Now Lozow is going to have them for lunch. hahaha Oh, this man Lozow is really good. Because Foreman brought up that information on his own, now Lozow has the grounds to IMPEACH HIM ON IT, as Foreman stated he knew nothing of Miller testifying in any trials as a recognized handwriting expert. Mymymymymy. BAM! Prosecution's objection overruled!

This is the crux of Miiler's defense--that Foreman's firm brought their influence to bear on the DA to prosecute Miller BECAUSE they wanted him discredited for stating he believed Patsy wrote the note and might testify to that. And it also demonstrates how the Ramsey lawyers operate, down and dirty. Think about it: why would the Ramsey's law firm be investigating Tom Miller? Because he took Lewis to their handwriting expert? Vacca sold nothing and informed the law firm immediately. By Foreman's own admission, people all over the place were trying to buy a copy of the note, and another person had even contacted Vacca before Miller. Did the firm investigate ALL of them? So why the interest in Miller? Well, let's see if Lozow draws it out of Foreman.

OH! Lozow has got them on the ropes! Foreman out and out lies to keep out of evidence the BACKGROUND report that his PI did on Miller, which Foreman then gave to the DA and Miller's defense got through discovery! Foreman says HE DOESN'T REMEMBER IT! Oh, yeah, sure, where have we heard THAT before?! The prosecutor then objects to having it entered into evidence because there is no foundation that the document is what Lozow says it is! Which is a document from a PI Foreman admits he has used for many years and whose office is in his same building, with the letterhead there and addressed to Mr. Foreman's firm, which LE got from Foreman's firm! hahaha Y'all think the jury missed THIS LIE? hahaha Oh, they are desperate when they start trying to score legal points at the expense of losing their credibility! BAM! BAM!

To get this document into evidence now, with Foreman denying it's his, the only way to get it into evidence is to call the LE detective who investigated the case, which I think they do the next day. We'll see if it gets into evidence then.

So on and on they go. Lozow runs into a wall. He has two letters, one from Craig Lewis to Haddon himself, and one from Haddon back to craig Lewis. Lewis apparently wrote the Rasmeys' law firm in a LETTER asking if they'd sell ilnformation to the Globe. And Haddon answered back, telling Lewis that he needed to study up on the law before making such offeres, as far as I can tell. It's not clear because that's the wall Lozow hits: he can't get the two letters into evidence because Lewis isn't coming to the trial to testify and the prosecution keeps objecting to having the letters admitted as evidence. I think the judge is firm on not letting these letters in because the defense is in a bind: they can't call Lewis to testify, because he was Miller's client, and even though Lewis waived his attorney-client privilege so Miller could defend himself, remember Lewis only did so the day before the trial and after the prosecution droppped its charges against Lewis for that 100k donation to a U of Co school. I don't know what concessions were bargained for Lewis to give the waiver to Miller, or to get the prosecution to drop charges against Lewis, but I think it's clear that lots of dealing was going on, so the defense can't call Lewis to the stand. Without Lewis taking the stand, his letter to Haddon has no "foundation," meaning there's no one to testify he actually wrote it. Therefore, Haddon's response letter to Lewis wasn't admitted as hearsay, also, even though Lozow tried mightily to get it into evidence through Foreman's endorsement of it as authentic. Remember that the defense got both these letters through discovery, meaning LE had them in the case file as evidence. But the judge ruled no admittance. Not even if Haddon...who is FISHING IN MONTANA...interestingly enough...came to court to testify he wrote his letter. I guess it all only holds up if Lozow has Lewis testify he wrote the first letter to Haddon.

So that took forever. Lozow did a bit of whining after the jury was dismissed, but the judge didn't move an inch. I understand what Lozow wanted from the letters, but he's already made his case, IMO, everything else is gravy. Well, tomorrow is another day, and so we'll see how that shakes out. Fernie testifies then, plus some other witnesses. I guess this is where Lozow is going to take his bone from Glick from Newsweek not showing up, but instead having lawyers show up with a motion to quash his subpoena. And then White and Thomas not showing up, I'm sure Lozow will have a fair fit over. hahaha I can see it coming. As I said, since Miller was acquitted, I'm thinking it worked for them in the end.

I'm too tired to continue right now, so please excuse typos until I can get back to proofread and edit. As for the last half of the trial, it may be next week before I can get back to it, as I have lots to do this weekend and Monday. But Punisher is welcome to jump in if he has time.

 

Steve Thomas HB page 128 (Thanks to Little)

One day Burke rushed up to me in the police department lobby, and

after I grabbed Detective Trujillo to be a witness, I listened to his

demands. Always referring to his client as "my lady," he wanted (1) a first-

generation copy of the ransom note and to know (2) whether semen

had indeed been discovered, (3) whether there was in fact a practice

Page 129

note, (4) how many detectives were working the case, and (5) if we had

accounted for a couple of "prime suspects" they had named.

We stared hard at each other. I was insulted that he thought I would

hand over confidential case information just because he demanded it. I

told him that if the parents had worked with us, they might have been

cleared by now. "Tell your lady to come by any day or every day," I

said.

He simply went around me and got the information elsewhere. Few

secrets were held for very long.

 

For Punisher

Hey,

Yes, I believe the RAMS knew about Miller investigation. A law firm such as Haddon, Morgan, and Foreman does not hire a private investigator unless directed to do so and paid for it.

At a softball game in 1997, Susan Stine, who was still on the team, approached me and stated that I needed to get a good lawyer. I then asked her if this was a threat and she replied that I had been officially warned.

I believe this entire "commercial bribery" lawsuit originated with the RAMS. They had both Doc and I in the crosshairs: discredit the handwriting expert and stress out the wife not to mention the expense of it all!

Yes, Doc and I both believe that JBR was sexually abused and not by the parents. You get my drift? Soiling ones own bed shows me that sexual abuse was taking place.

 

Well, now! That sure SOUNDS like a threat to me!

Not by her parents? Then it was by her brother, her half-siblings or a close friend...

 

Well, Cookie, I'm sorry you and Doc had to go through such hell, compliments of the Ramseys.

And this is why I once said it's not up to me to forgive the Ramseys. It's up to their victims. And there are many.

We're discussing Patsy's last interview on another thread, and she apparently said the killer...forgiven! LIKE SHE HAS TO BE FORGIVEN.

So we're BACK to square one: the Ramseys have no anger at the killer of their own little girl.

But they were and are willing to completely DESTROY anyone else who gets in their way of forgiving the child killer.

What more does a person need to know?

 

Mr. Haddon

I really don't know if Mr. Haddon would come after us again. Doc and I have to live our lives being the best people we can and stand up for justice, no matter what. I remember in the early days after the murder, I felt I was living in a Robert Ludlum novel. That's history now and I am not afraid. If you have truth on your side, you can overcome any obstacle with your head held high.

Unlike the present media and publishing industry, we are not afraid. I see them predominately as wishy washy cowards using the insane "intruder theory" in their reports. The RAMS have nearly eliminated the freedom of speech in this country. What a shame!

 

Good for you, Judith. I know what you mean by a Robert Ludlum novel. I've read some. That's wonderful you're not afraid. We need more people like you and Tom who are strong and able to stand up against this RST team, and come out WINNERS! :toast: Three cheers!

 

"Unlike the present media and publishing industry, we are not afraid. I see them predominately as wishy washy cowards using the insane "intruder theory" in their reports. The RAMS have nearly eliminated the freedom of speech in this country. What a shame!"

It's a shame, all right! I got friends and relatives fighting for democracy for everybody BUT us!

Cookie, would you be willing to help me rectify that little problem?

 

Punisher

What do you want me to do?

 

Well, if memory serves, Doc was a lawyer at one time. I wonder if he knows how one goes about filing a complaint to the American Bar Association. I plan to do just that against Woody, and in it, I plan to argue that his lawsuits constitute obstruction of justice and barratry.

What I want to know is:

Do I have any grounds?

What are my chances of success?

And how many here are willing to help me do it?

 

Ok

I'll get on it right away, Punisher.

 

I hope the Bar will conduct an investigation. Even if Lin Wood's license isn't revoked, it'll still make life difficult.

The barratry one is easy. That's using litigation to enrich your personal finances. And he BRAGS publically about doing that!

Cookie, thank you so much!

 

Following Research

Hey Punisher,

Sorry that it took so long for me to respond to your great idea because I have been doing research and found that indeed we can grieve LW and Mary Keenan Lacy. We must play this smart with an awesome letter and we must ban together. One grievance letter will do nothing. However, many letters with the same complaint will catch someones attention and we must complain about a behavior done within the last 3 or 5 years. I will find out the statue of limitations.

Who is the best letter writer here?

 

Help!

FFJ,

Please check out the FFJ chat room for a new thread. Punisher and I need your help!

 

How do you get to the chat room here?

 

Thank you Moab!