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

Oh...sigh...one more thing from all this lawyering outside the jury's presence that is important: Lozow also wanted to get testimony out of Recht that Recht was given the $30K by the Globe to give to Lewis to buy a copy of the ransom note. That's a point that was ruled on by the grand jury judge as being an exception to the attorney client privilege, and therefore Judge Tidball ruled Recht would have to answer that question for Lozow.

Lozow wanted to have this evidence before the jury, I'm surmising, because it proves that the Globe was instigating the purchase of a copy of the note, and not Tom Miller. I guess. Whatevah....

 

So, the jury returns after lunch.

Defense calls Mr. Recht, counsel for the Globe, for direct exam:

Lozow establishes that Mr. Recht is a competent, experienced lawyer, with 20 years of practice in Colorado, and other states, past President of the Colorado Criminal Defense bar, and works for the Globe from time to time, including March/April '97.

Hm. Turns out this guy Recht had also worked as co-counsel with Haddon's law firm before. Trivia, I guess. But he testifies he knew Haddon's firm was involved in the Ramsey case and no, he didn't know they'd hired Vacca, whom he did not know.

Lozow has Recht testify that the Globe sent him $30K to give to Craig Lewis, though Recht knew not for what, on or about March 31/April 1st, '97, I think.

Then Lozow tries to bring in Craig Lewis' deal which Recht negotiated on his behalf for the Globe. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But the prosecutor has been fighting from pre-trial hearings to keep this information out of the trial and the jury's information. So Hall objects and the judge sustains after bench arguments. Honestly, I don't know the law enough to say for sure, but it seems this is a very iffy argument between the defense and prosecution and I'm not sure I agree with the judge's ruling on this all the way. Of course, she does know the law, but she hears the arguments over and over on this issue, so that's where I'm getting the idea that this is not an issue that is set in stone, but rather one that has been hotly contested by the defense, and rightly so. Other testimony has not been admitted based on this earlier ruling, and the defense is being a bit hamstrung by this, as it's clearly a Catch 22 situation for them.

The issue is this: Craig Lewis got handed a deal wherein his criminal bribery charges were dropped when the Globe donated $100K to the U of Co School of Journalism. Y'all have that cold by now, I'm sure. It's not rocket science. The Globe's Colorado attorney, Recht, got this deal done. He also is a defense attorney who works with the firm of Haddon at times. How is this blind justice? Recht got immunity for his testimony at the grand jury in this case. How obvious is this? The prosecutor is clearly after Miller and Miller alone. Why is that? How does Lewis and the Globe get a pass, when they are clearly the INSTIGATORS all along?

On the one hand, Judge Tidball allowed the prosecutor to use the "partners in crime" argument of complicity between Lewis and Miller, when she ruled against the defense acquittal motion based on that argument after the prosecution rested. Now she's ruling that the defense cannot use the same argument the prosecutor used, only to their advantage by arguing attorney Recht is the man who made a deal to get Lewis' charges dropped by the prosecution, and if one is not accused and prosecuted, why is the other?

Recht has also claimed, to be able to assert his attorney client privilege and not answer questions critical to the defense, that he is NOT Lewis' attorney--thereby circumventing Lewis' waiver of attorney client privilege, which was given by Lewis to allow Miller to USE this information in his defense. Yet RECHT MADE THE DEAL, for the Globe, on Lewis' behalf that resulted in Lewis having the same charges dropped! This is changing horses in mid-stream. How can the judge not see this?

Tidball is cutting the defense both ways, letting the prosecution have its cake and eat it, too. The prosecution let Lewis skate, let the Globe skate, but charged Miller, when at the very least Miller was being led by Lewis and the Globe all along. Miller is the fall guy. That's clear and lost on nobody.

So now I'm wondering why Judge Tidball let this get this far. If she allowed the prosecution an argument and ruled in their favor for it, why does she turn around and cut the defense based on the exact same argument, only made by the defense?

You know, it's just splitting hairs all the way. The whole of the case, based on an obscure criminal bribery statute the prosecution was pushed by Haddon to selectively apply to one man, Miller, related to murky circumstances which took place in 1997, brought to trial in 2001 after dismissing charges against two other principals in the whole of the situation, is irresponsible prosecution.

HA! Too bad Hunter wasn't the DA. If he couldn't make a case against the Ramseys with all that evidence, he'd have thought Haddon insane to even suggest charging Miller in this case!

I think I'm seeing something different here. I think this is Haddon really running Miller out of lawyer town on a rail. Miller wouldn't play ball with Haddon, made his professional opinion on Patsy being the writer of the ransom note public, and so Haddon brought all his power to bear on Miller by manipulating the legal system...AGAIN. Shame on DA Thomas. Shame on Judge Tidball. Shame on the entire of the legal system in Colorado.

But they have no shame, do they? If they did, they'd do something about the corrupt law all around them. Led, apparently, by the firm of Haddon. How appropriate that the Ramseys hired them. Good Christians aligned with the highest level of corruption in Colorado law. Very appropriate.

 

Well, off the soapbox...and back into the trial.

So Lozow does get in one important point, finally: he gets Recht to testify that he got immunity from the prosecution to ensure that his testimony at the grand jury would not result in Mr. Recht being charged with a crime, LIKE MR. MILLER.

OH! What a surprise! The prosecution has no questions!

Mr. Recht is excused, still under subpoena by the defense for future testimony if needed, concerning the elusive memorandum that Lozow wants to get into evidence, wherein it's alleged that Recht told Lewis and Miller they had committed no crime. Which as far as I can tell, since the argument keeps going around in circles, never being filled out, as Recht asserts attorney client privilege, is important to the defense because it is a contextual issue to explain what Miller was implying when he stated to DA investigator Burkhalter that he thought Vacca worked for Haddon's law firm...or something...or not. Like I said, the argument never gets made, so that's all I can figure out, because other than that one statement, the state's case is already non-existent. Therefore, the defense is fighting to get in evidence watering down Miller's statement on that, which provides intent to commit the crime alleged. That's critical for the prosecution now. It's really all they have, and it's very weak at that.

Now the defense calls David Williams for direct examination:

David Williams is the private investigator used by Haddon to investigate Miller's background. He testified that he was told to do this investigation of Miller's cases in which he was either the attorney, the defendant, or the plaintiff, for purposes of impeachment. While Lozow again couldn't get into testimony the answers to such simple questions as did Williams investigate Mr. Miller's credentials as a handwriting expert, with Mr. Hall arguing the questions were meant to enter into evidence that Miller is a handwriting expert--I see the point, but disagree that it was hearsay testimony, but the judge ruled again for the prosecution, again--Lozow did get Williams to testify that he did investigate Miller for Haddon.

It seems like not much, but as we know exactly why Haddon wanted to discredit Miller, it's pretty significant that the man on trial at the behest of Haddon was also the man who was of a professional opinion that, at the time, was considered a professional threat to clients of Haddon's firm.

No cross exam.

Next witness up: Tom Miller.

 

I am determined to get done with this trial today, if I don't pass out first.

Tom Miller is given is his Curtis advisement by the judge. That basically ensures that he knows he has the right not to testify and it won't be held against him, as the jury is instructed on this, or he has the right to testify, even against his counselor's advice. Some discussion of what medicines Miller is on takes place, and it is clear he does have a serious heart problem, having had a heart attack at some point. The judge clears him to testify.

Let me say here that it is a very rare defendant who takes the stand to his benefit. Obviously, since we know the outcome, it was the right move in this case. But in general, defendants do not fare well by taking the stand. Of course, many of them have criminal records, and that comes into evidence when they take the stand. Miller does not, so there was that to consider in making this decision to testify.

My guess is that the prosecution has fought and succeeded in keeping Miller's handwriting expertise out of the trial record so far, so this is the only way to get it into evidence, by having Miller testify himself.

Direct testimony of defendant Tom Miller:

Good god. No wonder the man had a heart attack. He has something like 4 or 5 degrees. 2 teaching certificates. A master's in English. Advanced studies in classical languages. A law degree, passed the bar. Worked as a journalist for years, and as a private investigator. Studied handwriting analysis and became a qualified court expert, testifying in cases in the late '80s up until 1996, when he had his heart attack.

Well, bless his heart...literally. He has to take many medications, some which make him sleepy, to keep him calm so he won't have another heart attack. He quit taking one for a week prior to this trial so he'd be lucid for it. Lord, I guess this whole mess hasn't helped his heart problems.

I guess for us, it's worth listing his handwriting training and credentials as he gave them at trial: certified by the Samson Institute of Graphology in Colorado; certified by the International School of Handwriting Sciences; certified by the American Handwriting Analysis Foundation; studied with various police agencies in Colorado. He worked with the Pinkerton private investigating agency for a number of years until he opened his own business from his home. He expanded that to a large investigative agency with an office on Pearl Street in Boulder, he says, with a number of employees. He got his law degree and passed the bar in 1993, sold his investigation business and started practicing law full time in 1995. That was going well, general law, bankruptcy, employment, criminal, etc., until his heart attack in May of '96, when the business collapsed as he tried to recover and finish up what cases he had. Also, he was getting a divorce during all of this, as well as teaching at a community college and writing for publication, which he states writing is what he does now (2001).

So...finally, the resume that Lozow wanted to get on the record as the one that David Williams used to investigate Miller for Haddon is admitted as a defense exhibit for the jury to see. Important because it goes to Miller's credibity as a handwriting analyst. Good work, Lozow and Miller.

OK, Miller states that Craig Lewis called him, referred from an investigative agency of some sort, to work as an investigator. Miller told him he no longer did that, but worked as a lawyer and handwriting expert. Lewis came to see him at his office in Denver. There he learned Lewis worked for a tabloid, but Lewis had published 3 books and was a journalist, Miller said, so that's how he saw him. Lewis hired Miller as a lawyer, hourly rate, and handwriting analyst, when it all shook out.

Miller had been in handwriting analysis for 9-10 years at that time in Colorado and knew the small pool of experts there. He told Lewis he'd make some calls to see if he could "locate who might have the handwriting of the ransom note." He stated he thought "it had gone to the east coast at the time, until I began checking around."

HAHAHAHA I LOVE IT! HELLO...DONBRADLEY. Upon being asked about contacting Mr. Vacca...DONALD VACCA:

So Miller goes through contacting Mrs. Vacca, and as Lewis requested to have his identity as a reporter kept secret so as not to scare Vacca away if he had information, Mr. Miller made the fateful appt. using his own name, fax number, and correct information, and representing their interest as a "handwriting case."

So they went to the appt. and Miller tells the exact same story as Vacca. It's obvious Mr. Miller was shocked by Lewis jumping in and offering Vacca money in the manner he did, but more upsetting was the way Mr. Vacca reacted. Mr. Miller said Vacca acted like a firecracker was set off under him, calling his wife to come down and telling her they tried to buy the Ramsey note from him, saying he was going to call [Ramsey lawyer] Patricke Burke, and ordering them to get off his property. He said Vacca seemed to be angry at him/Miller. So Miller got Lewis out of there. Lewis called repeatedly over the next few weeks trying to get Miller to go back with him, but Miller said he refused.

Lozow asks Miller what kind of interview he expected to take place at Vacca's that day. Miller said he expected a journalistic type of interview, as Lewis had described getting interviews and paying for them, but it didn't take place that way. Miller said as his lawyer he advised Lewis not to go back to see Vacca, that "he'd already offended the man."

Several weeks after this, DA investigator Burkhalter contacted Miller. Miller's mother had just died, but Burkhalter "was relentless," so Miller put off Burkhalter until he buried his mother and then met with him a couple of weeks later, on May 7. During the weeks before that meeting, Miller became aware that Haddon's right hand investigator was calling an investigator Miller used to get Miller's resume. And during this time, Miller talked to Globe lawyer Recht, whom Lewis told Mller was also Lewis' lawyer. So Miller told Burkhalter he had to get permission from his client to speak with Burkhalter, and Lewis said talk to him, but don't tell him who I am.

NOW! WE GET TO SEE THE INFAMOUS MEMORANDUM. So Lozow was trying to get this into evidence otherwise, so Miller wouldn't necessarily have to testify, I am now concluding. Since that didn't work, Miller is testifying and here is the memorandum which Recht stopped being entered into evidence, citing attorney client privilege with the Globe...but NOT with Lewis...who had WAIVED attorney client privilege. It's a mess, isn't it?

So the memorandum comes in now, and seems to be Lewis stating that Miller cannot identify either Lewis or the Globe to Burkhalter. Miller testifies he talked with Recht about half a dozen times about the investigation going on, and that Miller believed that no crime had been committed.

So Hall objects to another attempt by Lozow to get Recht's statements about this not being a crime on the record. It's hearsay, though, and the judge sustains. They go to the bench and round and round they go again. The judge calls for a break for the jurors and then they start arguing in open court.

So Lozow tells the judge that part of the defense case in this trial is "advice of counsel," meaning that Miller had been advised by Recht that no crime had been committed. But the judge and prosecutor shoot that down, and I somewhat agree with them on this, because what a man things after the fact of the crime has no bearing on did he or did he not commit the crime. Lozow makes a valiant attempt at circumventing that by arguing state of mind after the fact implies guilt or lack of guilt, and the judge almost bites, but then she ends up arguing FOR THE PROSECUTION, which Lozow points out to her, and then she says OK, well, let's let the prosecution speak, and the prosecution makes the argument the judge just handed him. Nice, judge.

So she rules the hearsay testimony will not come in, and they proceed with Miller's testimony.

Miller testifies a bit about what he said to Burkhalter during the interview with him, recalling that by then he had surmised that Vacca had the ransom note copy and worked for the Ramsey lawyers because of what Vacca had said, the DA investigation going on, and that he himself was being investigated by Haddon's firm.

So months go by and in July, Miller gets faxed a copy of the ransom note and anaylyzes it. He provided his analysis and opinion to the Globe, to a newspaper in New York, and to the Boulder District Court in an affadavit.

Damn right to be outraged, too. Her parents sure weren't.

So Lozow asks againg of Miller if he knew Lewis was going to offer $30k to Vacca for the note that day. Miller says he did not know. Lozow asks Miller if he knew Vacca had the note or that he worked for the Ramsey lawyers that day. Miller says "I did not know."

Lozow says, "Your witness."

Now, I have to say Mr. Miller has come across as very sincere, very professional, and very competent and open. I did not get any impression at all that he was trying to hide anything, that he was lying or even fudging about any of this. I got the impression that Mr. Miller was a man who got run over by the Ramsey bus, like so many others.

 

Cross exam of Miller by Hall:


First Hall tries to establish that Miller and Lewis are good buddies. Nope, says Miller. They are not friends. Played poker together, did business, but are not friends.

Then Hall tries to make Miller look like a liar by asking him if there is some difference between "finding the ransom note" and "investigating" for Lewis, which Miller has stated he can't do because of his agreement upon the sale of his investigative company. Miller says he is allowed to do handwriting analysis work, which he considers that to be.

Miller and he go back and forth on what Miller expected, which Miller reiterates he didn't expect Lewis to be so crass, more of an interview to get information, etc. He states repeatedly he was there to facilitate his client getting an interview with Vacca about the Ramsey case in general, as well as specifically about the note.

Miller doesn't come across as disingenuous at all, because in fact he answers a couple of questions in a way that is somewhat incriminating, rather than just pat answers to clear himself: when asked where did he think Vacca might have gotten the copy of the note, if not from Ramsey lawyers, he said maybe from the Ramseys, then he said he really didn't know. Then Hall asks Miller if he thinks it is ok for Lewis to try to buy the note from Vacca, who has a duty to his clients, and Miller says it is not illegal to ask, more or less, that this is what the press does to get information all the time. I'm thinking, wrong answer, from a defense point of view. But it was obviously what Miller believes and so he didn't lie about it.

So then Hall tries to impeach Miller by asking him if he expected Lewis to ask for the note that day. Miller says no, he didn't. So Hall calls a sidebar, resulting in the judge sending the jury out, and a very long argument takes place wherein ONCE AGAIN Hall tries to get Miller's diary entered into evidence, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN RULED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED BY LE. This diary issue had been argued in pre-trial motions and Hall lost. And rightly so. Damn nazis. But now Hall is trying to cite an exception to get a couple of lines from the diary in that he claims rebuts Miller's statement he didn't know Lewis was going to try to get the note.

So round and round they go and the judge gets this one right: she rules against the prosecution on the basis that the entry in question doesn't prove Miller was lying.

Hall then tries to paint Miller again as somehow too cozy with Lewis, but it doesn't really go anywhere, as Miller states he was being paid by the hour and there was no dispute about his billing. Hall was stretching and it showed.

Redirect of Miller:

Lozow hits a few issues here and there and then asks Miller if he were going to take a client to commit a felony, would he use his real name? No, Miller said. It seems silly, but it's a very good point in the defense from the beginning and it's always good to hit those points often: a person intending to commit a crime doesn't call from a number that can be traced with caller ID, leave his true name during his calls, as well as his actual fax number where he's faxed information by the person.

Recross by Hall:

I'm not sure what Hall was trying to do, other than he was just irritated by this point at Miller because Miller just wasn't looking like the dastardly criminal Hall wanted him to appear to be. He asks a few lame questions from which he draws nothing.

Miller is excused.

 

Oooouuuhhh...Lozow and the judge going at it. She's mad because he doesn't have any more witnesses for the day. He's mad because it's not his fault THREE WITNESSES DIDN'T SHOW UP.

GUTTAH TRUTH-MURDERING CONSPIRACY ALERT GUTTAH TRUTH-MURDERING CONSPIRACY ALERT!!

The witnesses that were ALLEGEDLY subpoenaed and did not show were Thomas, White, and Dan Glick, from Newsweek. Thomas, it later came out, never GOT served his subpoena; Dan Glick did have a lawyer there to on his behalf to argue for him; and White just didn't show after writing a letter to the judge, which she took as a motion to quash his subpoena and denied, remember.

So the judge sent the jury home, told Lozow and Hall to be ready to have their jury instructions ready in the morning, etc.

Then they get to the issue of the motion to quash the subpoena for Dan Glick, who wrote the Newsweek article remember, with the ransom note back in Sept. of '97. Basically, there seems to have been a lot of confusion about the fact that Glick was supposed to be in court this day. Honestly, it just sounds like both sides kept getting mixed signals and the upshot is that Glick's lawyer and Lozow and Leidner were unable to communicate clearly if and/or when Gllick was supposed to appear. So Glick had a book tour scheduled and he just left the state, not even returning his lawyer's calls at this point. But Lozow said if he could talk to Glick by phone that night blahblahblah. Judge deferred her ruling on this until the next morning.

White had a bench warrant issued for him, as the judge had already admonished him at an earlier court hearing he didn't show up for until he was forced to later that day. She told him he'd be arrested for contempt of court if he did this again. Oh, well, he was warned. He made his choice. He went to jail for a month. Poor guy.

Thomas had a bench warrant issued for him, as well, with several remarks about him being a cop and knowing he had to show up, etc.

Then Lozow has a tantrum--to make a record, he says. He's mad at the judge for saying the defense wasn't ready this morning and held up proceedings. He's right. The judge stated that they lost three hours that morning because of the defense, and that was not true, as he pointed out. He had Recht there, and that took all that time, with the attorney client issues. But he's also not quite right, as two of his subpoena witnesses weren't there because they had one subpoena not served to the witness--Thomas was not served, we later find out, and one they didn't stay on top of, confusing when and whether the witness, Dan Glick, needed to be there, which lost a half hour that afternoon. And this judge seems to be a time freak. Tic toc tic toc.

So the judge dresses LOZOW down again, saying he made his record but she disagrees with him and repeating HER mistake--that they lost three hours that morning, which they did not, because I have it all on the record RIGHT HERE, GIVING ME A HEADACHE! :headache:

So court is adjourned until tomorrow morning...thank god.

 

So I'm up to the next morning, third day, and it's basically the defense and prosecution and judge hammering out the jury instructions about the law, regarding the evidence and charges. B O R I N G.

I'd like to say two things before I go on, one a caveat I should have said up front:

I am not a lawyer. I am not even schooled in law. I am a bit of a law hound, though, because I believe our justice system is the only thing between us and dictatorship or anarchy. As we can see from this trial, abuse of power slips through sometimes. And the strongest point of our judicial system is the one that allowed justice to prevail: the common citizen on the jury.

But my knowledge is very limited, and my interpretations flawed. So take what I say with a grain of salt. The only thing that really matters in this case is that Tom Miller did get justice, but it cost him a lot. The biggest horror for me is realizing that the Ramseys and their corrupt law firm, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, have illustrated for me that justice is for sale and corruption is the rule rather than the exception. I didn't know that before the Toxic Ramseys came along. I am deeply saddened that a child died to teach us that.

If there is a legacy JonBenet has left us, it's that evil can come in sheep's clothing. Every time I see Patsy Ramsey open her mouth to spread her blasphemy of lies about the murder of her own child, I see the face of evil.

Which brings me to my second point: people believe the Ramseys are innocent because they can't handle the truth. That's what Elle said and she's right.

 

It is a horror because it undermines the foundations of democracy. A normal, law-abiding citizen was targeted for prosecution and persecution by the Ramseys. Because of their money and connections, they were able to almost make that citizen go to prison as a felon.

The terrifying thing is that they have the power to make it happen to any one of us if we get in their way. All they have to due is file a lawsuit and most of us are bankrupt before the first day of court because we don't have the kind of money it takes to defend ourselves. And that's just one of the things wrong with the American "justice" system. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we have GOT to get laws passed that penalize those who file frivolous lawsuits. We need laws like the British justice system where the parties that file incur all the costs if they lose. That would stop a lot of the nonsense.

For those who live in Colorado, there is another frightening aspect to all this in that the Ramseys could have their back-door cronies bring trumped-up charges against you. If you speak out against the Ramseys and live in Colorado, you'd better watch your step or you will pay. Any deviation from their instructions will result in your financial beheading and/or jail time.

And this is the crux of the matter ...

INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE NO REASON TO USE OUR COURT SYSTEM TO TRY TO RUIN THE LIVES AND REPUTATIONS OF OTHERS ...​

BUT GUILTY PEOPLE DO.​

​

​

 

When I last left you, our heroes were in dire straits, having had warrants issued for their arrest....

OH, no they didn't. It was after 5 pm, so the warrants were issued on the third morning of trial.

Sorry, a bit of Masterpiece Theater creeped into my psyche....

OK, like I said, jury instruction hearing at the beginning of Day Three of the trial. B O R I N G. T E D I O U S.

And to illustrate, let me mention that this goes on for some 38 pages of arguments about jury instruction, the missing subpoenaed witnesses, another motion for acquittal, and various and sundry things that go like this:

You think I'm making this up, don't you? I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! I SWEAR!!

OK, now the rest of the story: the judge erred in the above statement and corrected it a minute later, to accepting the "People's tendered instruction" and rejecting the defendant's. If the judge is having this much trouble keeping up, how do you think I FEEL? :abnormal:

Lozow tried a couple of more times to get the judge to address the flaws in the indictment of Tom Miller: wherein it says at one point that Miller himself tried to buy the note for $30K. The judge again rules against the defense, pretty much just ignoring the lack of evidence to support that claim in the indictment, but this might have been a good thing, because the jury might have caught it as obviously unproven by the evidence.

There is one other truly important issue in this case Lozow makes one last attempt to rectify at this time, one that the judge has stubbornly refused to relieve and blocked at every effort the defense made, whether because the defense has not been able to frame it correctly in case law, or because she doesn't give a damn about abuse of power by a DA, is up for debate. But this is it: the DA is trying Miller for an alleged crime involving two other parties, and only Miller has been charged, while the other parties, Lewis and the Globe, have been given free passes, when they were the parties who instigated the entire event on its face. Lozow again pleads with the judge to advise or instruct the jury that Craig Lewis, the person whom the DA is pinning the PARTNERS IN CRIME theory on--they call it "complicity" in the crime--had his charges dismissed by the DA with no admission of guilt, as well as the Globe, his employer, was never charged. Again, the judge says no. Then she lies right there on the bench, saying it was Lozow's fault he didn't get it in. Lozow tried six ways from Sunday to get this evidence in, with the Globe attorney Recht's testimony, but they all thwarted that with claims of attorney client privilege and refusing to allow Lozow to even ask the questions in front of the jury with Recht on the stand. Now the judge tells him it's all his fault he didn't ask the questions in front of the jury, when she was the one who admonished him not to ask at the prosecution's request, because they said it IMPLIES INFORMATION TO THE JURORS BY ASKING THE QUESTIONS!

I'm telling you, I'd like to kiss every member of that jury. They must have been quite disgusted with this whole fiasco. I was thinking about this last night, and I'll comment on it later.

OK, issues of three subpoenaed witnesses who didn't show:

Dan Glick's attorney did not get in touch with him the previous night. He's out of town. Questions still linger. Lozow asked for a warrant to be issued for him.

Fleet White: warrant issued. Steve Thomas: warrant issued. Lozow wants the judge to advise the jury these three witnesses were subpoenaed by the defense and did not show up, as the defense did promise them in opening statement. The judge agrees to do so.

Some other highlights:

The motion for judgment to acquit is renewed, as the defense has no more witnesses and rests. I'm sure it's common form for a judge to do this, but basically, Tidball denies the motion, stating that it's her duty to favor the prosecution and she feels that the state has proven its case against Miller and the jury can reach a guilty verdict. HOWZAT? Before the jury even gets the case, the judge puts on the record that SHE deems the defendant guilty? This seems so wrong.

Is there such a thing as "reasonable doubt" in Colorado--I mean, for anyone besides the Ramseys, who got ALL reasonable doubt accorded THEM by the legal system without even going to court? The evidence against Miller doesn't even reach the civil standard of a "preponderance of the evidence," IMO, much less the criminal standard. Since we know the verdict was not guilty, I believe I'm right. The jury saw the truth.

OK, defense attorney Leidner makes a joke. The defense has spent some time arguing the indictment as written by the prosecution is flawed. So the defense asks that the judge give the jury a copy of the indictment, she agrees and asks if the prosecution has extra copies. Defense attorney Leidner says he has a copy of the indictment, but it has holes in it. Very funny, says Judge Tidball. Just a little court humor....

And the jury is brought back in for closing statements.

 

Prosecution's closing statement:

Hall lays out the "duty of fidelity" concept which supports the commercial bribery statute applied in this case: you work for a lawyer, you owe them confidentiality in information you get from him, as well as you cannot sell that information.

Then Hall goes to the one statement that I have mentioned several times that is the single piece of evidence that Miller in fact had intent to commit the crime when he went to Vacca's office: Burkhalter testified that Miller said he knew that Vacca worked for the Ramsey defense. REMEMBER THAT THIS PARTICULAR TESTIMONY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE TRANSCRIPT AND A TAPE OF THE INTERVIEW WHEREIN MILLER IS ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE THIS STATEMENT. BUT THE TAPE WAS NOT PRODUCED.

Now I HAVE to ask: why did neither the DA NOR the DEFENSE produce that tape? It must have been a pre-trial issue. But the transcript of the tape DID come in, but it was brought in by the defense, not the prosecution--if memory serves. I find that very strange. IT'S THE CRUX OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. If both did not want the tape to come in, then that would seem to support the idea that something incriminating is on the tape for both sides. The defense, however, DID bring in the transcript of the taped interview. But the STATE HAS TO PROVE THE CASE, not the other way round. So if there is something on the tape the prosecution doesn't want the jury to hear...REASONABLE DOUBT. All day long. IMO

Oh, this argument is just stupid. Basically, Hall says Miller lied, don't believe him, of course he knew what Lewis was doing, and so he's like the getaway driver in a bank robbery: the robber has a mask and a gun and says take me to the bank, so the driver knows what he's up to. IOW, Hall's case is Miller isn't believable, he lied, convict him. Yeah, that's a solid case there, Hall. What do you do for an encore? Make children cry for laughs?

OK, now I'm going to comment on something else that the jury was thinking, and I know they were thinking it, because they've been in this for three days, and during Hall's closing...

IT SCREAMS OUT AT YOU!!​

WHERE IS LEWIS? WE DIDN'T SEE LEWIS! WHY ISN'T LEWIS BEING HEARD ON THIS?! LEWIS COULD ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED OF THE JURY IN ONE STATEMENT! WHERE IS HE? YOU WANT TO SEND A MAN TO PRISON FOR ACTING IN COMPLICITY WITH LEWIS, AND LEWIS DOESN'T EVEN SHOW UP TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH?


But that's it. No Lewis. Just...Miller lies, proven by one ambiguous statement testified to by the DA investigator, who came across as not convinced himself this was a crime. So convict a man who has no criminal record, and who his entire life is an upstanding citizen, with a family, of a felony because--I told you he must be lying?

Not guilty.

If you have a big old question mark involved in the crime, like the pink elephant in the room everyone keeps ignoring, IT'S REASONABLE DOUBT.

If Lewis wasn't going to show up and testify then the prosecution HAD to know that the jury is sitting there wondering WHY? And that WHY is REASONABLE DOUBT.

So the prosecution was able to use the judge and the law to keep the jury from being told Lewis got off without so much as a speeding ticket, but Hall wasn't able to keep the jury from thinking about the ABSENCE of the man whose name was brought up over and over as partner in this alleged crime.

ALL DAY LONG--NOT GUILTY.

I can't believe for one minute this DA thought they'd win this case. STUPID! And MALICIOUS PROSECUTION!

 

Oh, absolutely.

And the only thing we can do...is to acknowledge the injustice to Miller...and SPEAK OUT.

That's why I bought the cd. That's why I've been reading this damnable record of corruption and abuse of power.

And that's why I've been writing and writing and writing about it.

Whoever wants to read it, that's one more person who keeps the truth about this horrible, toxic Ramsey case alive.

Miller's nightmare was his own, and I do not mean in any way to minimize it. He has spent his life as a good citizen, working in the very system that tried to destroy him. How do you recover from that? I don't know.

But it's still part of the larger issue we're here for: a child was murdered. Her parents failed to protect her. Her parents failed to witness for her. Her parents failed her in every way they could, and in all probability, were the ones who conspired in her murder.

But she was a citizen, just like we are. And the very government sworn to protect her rights, as well, to seek justice for her life that was so viciously snuffed out, failed her as miserably as is possible.

Tom Miller's experience throws a light on how that happened. With his arrest and trial, we see the essence of the evil that surrounded JonBenet Ramsey, her life and her murder. We see a justice system full of corruption, lies and deceit, being manipulated with malice by the very people who swore an oath to uphold the laws of our Constitution.

So here we are. We can't change a thing.

BUT WE CAN WITNESS IT. WE CAN OPEN OUR EYES AND SEE THE TRUTH. WE CAN RECORD IT. AND WE CAN NEVER LET IT BE FORGOTTEN, HIDDEN IN THE DARKNESS OF THE CONSPIRACY OF OBSTRUCTION, IN THE MURDER OF JONBENET RAMSEY.

 

Closing argument for the defendant:

Oh, good start. Lozow begins with his wife's adages to him when he leaves home this morning, the same for her all these years: don't mumble; speak slowly; drive carefully. A nice, Norman Rockwell image. He's good.

He segues into the adages that never change in the justice system: the presumption of innocence for the defendant. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the burken of proof is the prosecution's, not the defense's.

So he immediately gets to the statement the prosecution claims is incriminating for Miller: that a detective with 25 years of experience said that in an interview 45 days after the incident Miller "had deduced" that Vacca got the note from the Ramsey team, but that detective didn't know 45 days in himself if Vacca even had the note. Or something. Lozow does a good job of skewing this testimony. I'm not sure what the detective said now. hahaha

Then Lozow makes fun of the bank robbery analogy, "wheel man...ski mask" and such. But he points out that not one piece of evidence has been introduced to PROVE that Miller knew Lewis had the $30K on him. And he's right. None. Or that Miller KNEW that Lewis was going to make an offer for the note that day. True again.

So Lozow impeaches Mrs. Vacca, because she did have some testimony that was somewhat wrong, but just stuff like she thought the fax number Miller left was wrong, only it wasn't wrong, as she did fax Miller info about Vacca--that kind of small potatoes, but effective in demonstrating that this entire case is half-baked.

Then Lozow goes to Mr. Vacca. He goes into Mr. Vacca's initial confirmation of Miller's credentials, etc., Vacca being shocked when the offer of money was made by Lewis, Vacca said, though he then had to admit 2 days before another lawyer from California had called him and made such an offer. Then Lozow brings up the flipflop testimony about attorney client privilege contract Vacca had, which ended up being a contract with the Ramseys, not their lawyers, signed after the fact of this April 1st meeting, and being a non-publishing agreement instead.

Then Lozow goes into how many ways Vacca could have gotten the note, other than the Ramsey lawyers: he mentions Peter Boyles had an unknown source with it; Glick from Newsweek got it; Patsy Ramsey's sister had it days after the murder, Mr. Wise said; speculation and conjecture, he says...and he's right.

But he says something else that is significant to us: he says that the fact that the Ramsey attorneys had the note "in a case where the people were being investigated as homicide suspects that early in the process is almost unheard of. Almost unheard of." Yep. We know.

Lozow points out the early testimony of the prosecution witness, Foreman, that PRETTY MUCH went to the defense's benefit: that Foreman himself said it was extremely unusual for his firm to have the note. But Hall wanted the jury to believe that Miller should have figured out they did have it and that Vacca had been hired by them, as well, and had the note from them. Absurd, Lozow says. He's right.

Then Lozow goes into how Foreman stated "we were eager" to have Miller prosecuted. Lozow brings up PI David Williams stating that he was hired to investigate Miller "to impeach him," which only applies in trial. So what trial, Mr. Lozow asks? Lozow says that after months of investigating Miller and handing the info over to prosecutor Hall, Hall could not impeach Miller on the stand, not one word.

Oh, now he's hitting the heartstrings. He talks about how flippantly Foreman spoke of Miller as if he was subhuman, he didn't work for Haddon or charge $300/hr., did graphology, junk science, Foreman didn't know that Miller had been to three schools and is a "human being" Lozow twice states. He brings in the Ramseys as suspects and says they get the presumption of innocence, as well, but that their defense attorneys didn't care about Miller, "Who is this fellow, let's get rid of him. All right." It's very poignant.

Then Lozow moves on to Burkhalter and his experience in LE, and how he initially came to the conclusion there was no crime. Then he moves into Haddon's firm interceding: "Why did they write that letter? That's patronage, that's taint, that's good old boy, that's do it for us."

Lozow moves into testimony of Burkhalter's that was clearly disingenuous, when he stated under oath this solicitation for prosecution by Haddon wasn't uncommon, this letter of complaint which resulted in a renewed investigation at Thomas' instructions. Upon cross, broken down into how many in his years in LE, Burkhalter ends up looking like he wasn't being honest, because he says only 3 or 4. It's the taint of this case, Lozow says. He's right again.

Hm. Lozow floats a theory that in July/August, the Ramsey lawyers wanted the ransom note released to the press, but the BPD said no. And then...it appears in magazines everywhere.

Oh, good point: Lozow says that's the prosecution's case, that's all there is. But he tells the jury to think about this: what if there had been no letters from Haddon and Vacca? What if Thomas hadn't told Burkhalter to go back? He draws the line from Haddon to Miller being indicted.

Now Lozow goes through Fernie's testimony about the people at the house that morning reading the note in detail: the Whites, the Fernies, the preacher, "police types," no restrictions on them. He brings in White and Thomas having access to the note, though they didn't show up under subpoena, he brings in Wise's testimony about Pam Paugh having a copy--which, by the way, the prosecution may jump on, because Lozow has mentioned this twice, but Wise only said she EITHER saw it or had it, he couldn't remember.

Finally, Lozow brings in Recht and the Globe. He calls the Globe the elephant in the room, saying where is the Globe? They were never charged, where are they? The Globe is the one who wanted the note published, etc. And Mr. Recht did testify that he got the $30K from the Globe to give to Mr. Lewis, Lozow points out.

He goes through Boyles' testimony, how Boyles saw the note through an unidentified source. How Boyles said that it's common for new organizations to pay for information, etc. Then, given an admonition by the judge to finish in 10 minutes, he goes into David Williams' investigation into Miller for Haddon's firm. Williams testified it was to impeach Miller, Lozow concludes for the Ramsey case.

Lozow now ends with Miller's character and testimony. He talks about his resume, his history, his family, and his health.

PS I was very lucky to get this posted before I completely lost contact with FFJ. Obviously, other things have taken priority, so I'll finish this up when things settle down and maybe people have time or desire to wrap it up.

I am almost at the end anyway. So let me say, the verdict was not guilty, as it should have been.

 

Well, this all fell by the wayside when the Karr fiasco broke on August 17, and I figured no one really wanted to read it anymore, if ever. But now that Spade has brought up the Lewis/Globe payoff, thought I'd bump it up for anyone wanting to see what happened to Miller after Lewis made his deal with DA Thomas. This thread is part one of the trial threads.