[ACandyRose Logo] A Personal view of the Internet Subculture
Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)
This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials

Ramsey Grand Jury
September 15, 1998 to October 13, 1999


1997-12-07: Daily Camera: Current jury members

Current jury members
Sunday, December 7, 1997

Under Colorado law, Boulder County must maintain a permanent grand jury, because its population is more than 100,000.

Although there is talk that the JonBenet Ramsey murder case may go to a grand jury, the current members may well not hear the case: State law dictates that permanent grand juries must be replaced every 18 months.

The current members of Boulder County's Grand Jury, seated until May, are:

Foreperson Melissa Gregory, Lafayette
Assistant foreperson Steven Wells, Longmont
Victoria Dietz, Longmont
Patrick Graninger, Louisville
Thomas Herman, Longmont
Manfredt Kledt, Boulder
Viola Kniceley, Louisville
Cedric Peebles, Louisville
Robert Phelan Jr., Boulder
Tincy Royer, Broomfield
Dorothy Showers, Longmont
Lorraine Simon, Boulder

Alternates are:

R. Brent Cherry, Boulder
Janice Jankovsky, Broomfield
Mark Laitos, Longmont
Linda Little, Boulder


1998-03-12: BPD-PR #65 - Police ask District Attorney to convene a grand jury in Ramsey investigation

March 12, 1998
Contact: Jennifer Bray, Media Relations, 441-3090

Police ask District Attorney to convene a grand jury in Ramsey investigation

(Ramsey Update #65)
Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby and Commander Mark Beckner today requested and recommended that the Boulder District Attorney convene a grand jury investigation into the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey. While there is still some investigation left to be done, both Chief Koby and Commander Beckner believe the investigation has progressed to the point at which the authority of a grand jury is necessary in order to have a complete investigation. A grand jury can be utilized to obtain sworn testimony, to obtain items of evidentiary value not otherwise available through routine investigative methods, and to review the case for purposes of seeking an indictment against the person or persons responsible for the death of JonBenet.

Commander Beckner has worked closely with the District Attorney’s Office in recent weeks in preparation of the recommendation for a grand jury. According to Beckner, “We only make this request/recommendation after 14 grueling months of investigation, much consideration and thought, and after consultation with attorneys familiar with, and experienced in the use, of grand juries. We believe the investigation has reached the point at which a grand jury will be very helpful in completing the investigation, thus, our recommendation to the District Attorney.”

As the investigation progressed in recent weeks, the direction the investigation should take became very clear. As stated at a Dec. 5, 1997 news conference, the police were working toward one of three options:

--- Seek an arrest warrant and prosecution --- Ask for a grand jury investigation, or --- Inactivate the case until such time that additional information becomes available

Out of a task list that has now grown to 90 tasks, 64 tasks have been completed or worked on as thoroughly as possible. “The longer we worked on the case, the clearer it became that inactivating the case would not be appropriate,” said Beckner. “The appropriate step at this time is to ask for a grand jury to assist us in gathering additional admissible evidence.”

The next step will be for the police to assist the District Attorney’s Office in the review of case files and evidence. Given the volume of information gathered to date, it is expected that it will take some time for the District Attorney’s Office to complete it’s review of the case files prior to any decision being made. “We have worked well with the DA’s Office in the last five months and I expect to work even closer with them in the months to follow,” added Beckner.


The NEW Ramsey Grand Jury Members Below
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
James Plese
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Loretta Resnikoff
Assistant Forewoman
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Elizabeth Annecharico
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Michelle Czopek
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Frances Diekman
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Josephine Hampton
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Martin Kordas Jr
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Susan LeFever
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Barbara McGrathArnold
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Martin Pierce
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Tracey Vallad
[Ramsey Grand Jury Member]
Jonathan Webb

Detail Information on Ramsey Grand Jury
at Redd Herring's Primer #7 and #8

[Screen Capture from E True Hollywood Story 10-26-2003] [Screen Capture from E True Hollywood Story 10-26-2003] [Screen Capture from E True Hollywood Story 10-26-2003] [Screen Capture from E True Hollywood Story 10-26-2003]
[Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006]
[Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006] [Screen Capture from Anatomy of a Cold Case - Court TV 07-07-2006]

1998-10-30: Rocky Mountain News: Grand jurors inspect Ramsey house

Grand jurors inspect Ramsey house
Panel methodically examines home where child was found dead almost two years ago
By Charlie Brennan
News Staff Writer
BOULDER -- Grand jurors took a field trip Thursday, spending several hours inspecting the house where JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered.

Clutching notepads and other printed material, they scoured the 15-room, 61/2-bath house unsupervised while Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and his team of prosecutors huddled in the back yard.

The tour of the home, which JonBenet's parents sold in February, was supposed to be a secret, as are all grand jury proceedings.

But within 15 minutes of the jurors' arrival shortly after 9 a.m., reporters and photographers began arriving at the home at 755 15th Street. Prosecutors warned the media to stay 100 feet away from the jurors, as required by a court order.

Jurors methodically inspected the grounds, tested different doors, and even examined the southwest window well where the John and Patsy Ramsey have said they believe an intruder may have gained entry to the home.

The jurors, who began investigating the case Sept. 15, were chauffeured to the Ramsey home in a sheriff's van and dropped off in an alley behind the house.

Each keeping to themselves and working quietly, they traipsed for two hours and 20 minutes through all four levels of the residence, which the Ramseys bought for $500,000 in 1991 and called home until the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.

That's the day John and Patsy Ramsey told police they woke up before dawn, discovered their 6-year-old daughter missing and found a 21/2-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.

JonBenet's body was found early that afternoon beaten and strangled. Her parents, who moved to Atlanta in the summer of 1997, have been labeled suspects in the case but maintain they're innocent and welcome the grand jury probe, which began Sept. 15.

Legal experts said it's rare for a grand jury to visit a crime scene.

"That's very unusual," said Susan Brenner, a professor and national grand jury expert at the University of Dayton School of Law.

"They normally don't do this, because they normally don't have to. If you have got enough to indict, you don't need to tour the house. And if you don't have enough to indict, touring the house is not going to do it. But it can't hurt."

However, Christopher Mueller, who teaches evidence and procedure at the University of Colorado School of Law, said there's nothing startling about the visit.

"This gives them an idea how isolated the various rooms are from each other, that it would be easy for noises to happen in the vicinity of JonBenet's room that the parents wouldn't necessarily hear. And it's good for them to get a feel for that."

JonBenet's parents have said they put her to bed about 10 p.m. Christmas night in her bedroom on the second floor then went to sleep in their third-floor bedroom and never heard a suspicious sound. Their bedroom was three levels above the tiny windowless basement room where JonBenet's body was found behind a closed door.

October 30, 1998


[Perfect Murder, Perfect Town]1999-02-18: "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, JonBenet and the City of Boulder"
Written by Lawrence Schiller, February 18, 1999

PMPT Page 741sb

"In many respects, the case was "scene-dependent"-could a person have lifted the window-well grate and climbed through the broken window to the basement and still leave a partial spider web intact? How well could someone hear from one room to another?

On October 29, the grand jury toured the Ramseys' fifteen-room house. By 9:10 A.M. some jurors were already combing the property, going in and out through the side doors on the north side of the house and in and out the front door and peering in through the windows on the ground level. Each juror carried a notepad and several pages of photocopied material.

Kane, Levin, Morrissey, Wise, and Hunter lingered in the yard while the jurors spent several hours in the house,

PMPT Page 742sb

working mostly alone, almost never speaking to one another, each moving along at his or her own speed. The house was now unfurnished, and without the aid of photographs, it was hard to visualize how it had once looked. Still, the tour was sure to have an impact on the jurors. It was, after all, the crime scene.

Before the group left, one male juror tested the drainpipes on the exterior of the house, to see how strong they were. Possibly he wondered whether the pipes could support someone trying to scale the outside of the house. Another juror looked at the duct that led from the boiler room to the front of the house. Probably the jurors had been told Lou Smit's theory about how the scream might have been heard by the neighbor but not on the third floor, by JonBenet's parents.

At 11:20 the jurors left, two hours and twenty minutes after they arrived."

[Webbsleuths Community Forum at www.munitrading.com]1999-03-31: Webbsleuths Community Forum (http://munitrading.com)
on thread titled, "my request to see the grand jury"

"my request to see the grand jury"
Posted by jameson on 19:10:55 3/31/99
Include Original Message on Reply

From the TimeLine ©
March 27th
personal news - ò¿ó - I received a letter from Michael Kane advising me that my petition to be seen by the grand jury was not acceptable. He was not denying my request, he said, he was simply stating that I had not presented my request properly.
"Because this is not a denial of your request to testify, but rather a determination that your petition does not meet the statutory requirements...."
I reworded my application and resubmitted it immediately.
(Will it take another month to get a response?)
Personally, I am offended by what I see as an attempt by Michael Kane to ignore certain information in this case. I fear Michael Kane is wantonly using his position in order to gain an indictment at all costs.
I have reason to believe a certain report that reached the DA's office six months ago through a perfectly legal, respectable and credible source was not followed up on. Was it an oversight or intended disregard?

Doesn't matter which it was. It is not too late to do the right thing.
I e-mailed this quote to Mr. Kane today.
"The issue is not whether mistakes were made, but how they are addressed when they are discovered."
I hope Mr. Kane does the right thing here

I expect the clock has run out and I will not be heard. I have hope that Marcia Clark and the others were right last week when they predicted that there will be no indictment. But I am still concerned that their report will be based on some misinformation.

I can only hope that when the grand jury returns next week they have an agenda and insist on hearing from others who may have something to add to the discussion BEFORE they write a report that will determine the future of this case.

3. "The way it is..."
Posted by jameson on 21:40:13 3/31/99
Include Original Message on Reply

I have information that the grand jury should know before they take ANY action - - before they vote OR before they wrote a report.

I have given this information to the authorities and the Ramsey representatives.

The authorities seem to wish I would disappear.

The Ramsey representatives are not yet in any position to use the information I got to them. Since I have never spoken to any of the Ramsey lawyers, I don't know what they can or will do with it in the future.

I have decided to go public with that information. The story will be out in April. It is scheduled to air on 48 Hours. Soon after, it will be on the internet.

This isn't how I wanted it to be, but it is how it is going to happen. I did not want to "go public" but feel forced to do this because it is the "right thing to do".

I have other information that will come out later, some of it is important as well, but the piece I want to bring to the grand jury will be out very soon.

10. "48 Hours, gj and stuff"
Posted by jameson on 07:49:33 4/01/99
Include Original Message on Reply

As it stands now, the show will air by the end of this month. (Yes, you will get to see me - don't get excited about that, I'm just another non-descript middle-aged housewife.)

I won't know what the show actually shows until you do - I get no preview and so I have to trust the editors are going to tell the story correctly.

The whole hour is not on me - (don't blink) - so don't expect to hear all I know - just one piece of the puzzle I felt had to come out now.

I have petitioned again to be heard by the grand jury. I may still get in. I understand it can be as little as 48 hours between the time they decide to let you appear and the actual appearance. Just have to hope they decide to correct a mistake.

11. "Wendy and Mikie"
Posted by jameson on 07:59:23 4/01/99
Include Original Message on Reply

Wendy - my sources clearly indicate who the target of the grand jury is - I think it is well known they aren't about to indict anyone whose name we have never heard.

Mikie - There is a very good reason why I want to personally present my evidence to the grand jury. I can't send them a file directly or I would be arrested for jury tampering.

And I don't trust the DA to give my evidence for me - you see, IMO, the DA has already shown through their actions that they don't want to see, understand, or present all the evidence in this case.

14. "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on 09:03:20 4/01/99
Include Original Message on Reply

I am not surprised that information you wish to present to the grand jury has not been presented so far. If you wish to present it without going through the prosecutor's office, you are still attempting to jury-tamper. Can you argue to the contrary? Or are you under some misunderstanding similar to your misunderstanding about the rules governing hearsay?

[Boulder News Forum]1999-04-07: Boulder News Forum thread,
"Is Jameson Tampering With the Grand Jury?"

wiltonjr - 05:52am Apr 7, 1999 MST
The bot will accept "Wilt".

I get a few laughs from reading Jameson's Timeline and I discovered this this morning. It can be found on the Monthly Timelines section.

"In 1998, I became more active in the Ramsey investigation. I was maintaining the TimeLine, posting on forums, forwarding anonymous tips to the authorities. My e-mail was busy and exhausting but informative and revealing. I met the Ramseys in May. More than ever, I was convinced of their innocence.

Over the summer I became aware that Vassar Professor Donald Foster was part of the prosecution's case against Patsy Ramsey. I decided that it was time for me to come forward and tell what I know about that individual. I did, but the authorities made the decision to ignore me. I, in turn, decided that it was time to go forward and go public if necessary.

1999 came. I petitioned the DA's office to let me appear in front of the grand jury if Donald Foster's testimony was heard, or if his reports were admitted as evidence. I was advised that e-mail wasn't acceptable, it had to be snail mail - and not to Judge Bailin or the foreman of the grand jury - but to DA Hunter. I sent in the petition as required. Six weeks later I was informed by snail mail that my petition was not being denied, but that I would have to resubmit my petition because it was a "conditional" request. To call me in they would have to reveal that they had heard from Mr. Foster and that was a breach of the grand jury secrecy. The petition was resubmitted with no conditions - jameson asked to be seen by the grand jury. period. As I edit this page on April 5th, 1999, I await another letter from Michael Kane."

birdy - 12:36pm Apr 7, 1999 MST (#35 of 35)

On the Erin Hart show, Schiller says jammy refused to allow him to put anything about Foster in the book. Michael Kane refused jammy's request/demand to testify in front of the grand jury. Jammy had to find another way to smear Foster for telling the truth about her. This is also jameson's attempt to influence the GH or the trial jury and contaminate the jury pool.

Now murph, if you think telling the truth or giving an honest opinion is a flame, then I think you are too stupid to recognize a flame if your ass was on fire. ( you may consider that a flame)

1999-09-22: Rocky Mountain News: Ramsey grand jury to hear new witnesses

Ramsey grand jury to hear new witnesses
Parents of slain girl not subpoenaed to testify
By Charlie Brennan
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
September 22, 1999

BOULDER -- The JonBenet Ramsey grand jury will hear from new witnesses when it returns to work Thursday, according to a source close to the case.

And they're not John and Patsy Ramsey.

The parents of 6-year-old JonBenet, considered suspects in their child's Christmas night 1996 slaying, still have not been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury probing her murder, the source said.

The Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta with their 12-year-old son, Burke, have steadfastly maintained their innocence.

The grand jury's 18-month term expires Oct. 20. Exactly who will testify is unclear.

Burke Ramsey is the only family member known to have testified before the eight-man, four-woman panel. His testimony came just prior to the grand jury's May 25 meeting, which was followed by a layoff lasting all summer.

The list of those not yet called as witnesses contains another surprise.

A former executive at Access Graphics, the $1 billion Boulder computer software firm where John Ramsey worked as president and chief executive in 1996, said no one from that company has appeared.

"I don't know anybody from Access who has been called," said the executive who stays in touch with past and present company officials.

A 21/2-page ransom note Patsy Ramsey said she found in the house Dec. 26, 1996, when JonBenet was discovered missing suggested a possible business connection in the murder.

The note said the culprits represented "a small foreign faction" who told John Ramsey "we respect your business, but not the country that it serves."

Former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas, hired by the Ramseys, also concluded the crime was likely committed by someone outside the family, and possibly by someone with a business-related grudge against John Ramsey.

Scott Robinson, a Denver attorney who has followed the case closely, said the fact that apparently, few people -- if any -- from John Ramsey's former business have testified, could be telling.

"It means either the Boulder police have exhausted, independently of the grand jury, every slimly related lead, or the grand jury -- for whatever reason -- has focused elsewhere in the search for JonBenet's killer," said Robinson.

"The police, in general, have long had the Ramseys as their principle and apparently sole suspects. But even with that in mind, it would be beneficial to any eventual prosecution to rule out business jealousy or business-related anger as a potential motivation for the murder of JonBenet."

Robinson said the fact that more witnesses are scheduled to appear before the panel, which resumes its meetings Thursday after a four-month break, shoots down one popular theory.

"This suggests that the jury has not been spending the last few weeks working out the bugs on a report, in lieu of indictment -- which had been a plausible explanation for the hiatus," said Robinson, "and that they have not yet decided what to do. They want to make sure that no voice goes unheard before reaching a determination."

Those who have not yet appeared include former Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the street from the Ramseys and told police she heard a child's scream not long after falling asleep Christmas night.

Her comments to police about the scream have been the subject of much analysis for what that scream might say about the possible time of death, and for what it might say about where, in the Ramseys' expansive home, the killing might have taken place.

Authorities have never specified a time of death in the case. The Ramseys told police they put JonBenet to bed shortly after arriving home from a party shortly after 9:30 p.m. on Christmas night.

Among those witnesses who might still be scheduled could be some of the same case investigators who passed through the courtroom in the grand jury's first days last fall.

Former prosecutor Dave Heckenbach, who ran grand juries for the Denver district attorney's office from 1986 to 1992, pointed out that as recently as early summer, some of those detectives were still actively interviewing witnesses and seeking additional evidence.

"If they've done a lot of work, between the last time they met and now, the grand jury would have to meet a few times -- or have one megasession, depending on how much work the police have done in the interim."

Grand Jury witnesses

Some of the people known to have testified before the Ramsey grand jury:

Mike Archuleta -- Private pilot who was scheduled to fly the Ramseys to their Michigan vacation home the day after Christmas 1996.

Linda Arndt -- Now-retired Boulder Police detective, the first investigator on the scene.

Dr. Francesco Beuf -- JonBenet's pediatrician.

Debbie Chavez -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensics expert.

John Douglas -- Former FBI criminal profiler hired by the Ramseys.

Michael Everett -- Among the first Boulder Police detectives assigned to the case.

John and Barbara Fernie -- Friends of the Ramseys who were summoned to the home after JonBenet was discovered missing.

Richard French -- One of the first Boulder patrol officers on the scene. He searched the house shortly after arriving, without locating JonBenet's body.

Ron Gosage -- Boulder Police detective working the case from its first days.

Pam Griffin -- Ramsey family friend and seamstress who assisted with JonBenet's beauty pageant costumes.

Jane Harmer -- Boulder Police detective involved in the case from the beginning.

George Herrera -- CBI fingerprints expert.

Linda Hoffmann-Pugh -- Ramseys' housekeeper at the time of JonBenet's death.

The Rev. Rol Hoverstock -- Minister from the Ramseys' church, summoned to the home in the first hours of JonBenet's disappearance.

Larry Mason -- Boulder Police sergeant removed from the case in its second week when he was wrongly accused of leaking information to the press.

Dr. John Meyer -- Boulder County coroner; he performed the autopsy on JonBenet.

Fred Patterson -- Boulder Police detective, among the first on the scene.

Carol Piirto -- Burke Ramsey's third-grade teacher.

Merv Pugh -- The husband of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh; he had done some work at the home a month before the murder.

Burke Ramsey -- JonBenet's brother, now 12, the only person other than her parents known to be in the house at the time she disappeared.

Lou Smit -- Retired Colorado Springs homicide detective who worked on the case for the district attorney's office.

Tom Trujillo -- A Boulder Police detective on the case since its earliest days.

Chet Ubowski -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting analyst who concluded that Patsy Ramsey may have written the ransom note linked to JonBenet's murder.

Barry Weiss -- Among the first Boulder patrol officers at the Ramsey home.

Fleet and Priscilla White -- Ramsey friends called to the house the morning of JonBenet's disappearance. Fleet was in the basement with John Ramsey when the child's body was found.

Tom Wickman -- The Boulder police detective sergeant who has supervised the investigation since the early days.

September 22, 1999

1999-10-01: Denver Post: Jury hears Ramsey supporters
Jury hears Ramsey supporters
By Karen Auge
Denver Post Staff Writer

Oct. 1 - BOULDER - For the second time in a week, the grand jury investigating JonBenet Ramsey's death has met - and for the second time in a week the panel is believed to have heard from witnesses sympathetic to her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey.

H. Ellis Armistead, the tall, lanky private detective hired by the Ramseys' attorneys to investigate the 6-year-old's death, walked in the front door of the Boulder County Justice Center on Thursday morning. When he left the building an hour later he was coming from the direction of Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter's office, not the grand jury room.

Hunter followed about a minute later.

It is unknown whether Armistead testified before the grand jury, which operates in secret, or simply met with Hunter and his staff. He was seen going into the grand jury's prep room, a source said.

John Ramsey's two grown children from a previous marriage also were expected to testify Thursday.

John Andrew Ramsey, 23, and Melinda Ramsey Long, 27, arrived at Denver International Airport on Wednesday and were escorted off their plane by Denver police and taken to their attorney's waiting car near an airport fire station.

John Andrew Ramsey, a former University of Colorado student, and his sister, who lives in Virginia, were in Atlanta when JonBeneÚt was killed and are not suspects in their half sister's death. They were publicly cleared by police in March 1997.

But the two could shed light on relationships within the Ramsey family, lawyers following the case say.

Last week, Patsy Ramsey's close friend Susan Stine reportedly testified before the grand jury. The Ramseys visited Susan and Glen Stine on Christmas night 1996 - the night before JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' home. The Stines since have moved to the Atlanta area, where the Ramseys also now live.

Susan Stine, who was referred to in Lawrence Schiller's book about the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town,'' as "Patsy Ramsey's pit bull,'' has reportedly remained close to Patsy and staunch in her defense.

Stine's reported appearance came as the grand jury met for the first time in four months. Before that, the last time the panel met was to hear from JonBenet's older brother, Burke, who was in the family's home at the time of her death.

Legal analysts said recent appearances of witnesses apparently friendly to the Ramseys could signal the grand jury hasn't reached a decision.

They may be looking at suspects outside the family, and are relying on family and close friends to tell them about any relationships with JonBenet that could arouse suspicion, said Denver attorney Scott Robinson.


[ACandyRose Internet Subculture Forum]1999-10-12: ACandyRose Internet Subculture Forum
"colfax: i went to the freakshow today"

From: jtcolfax@hotmail.com (JTColfax) 10/12/1999 1:25 pm
To: ALL (1 of 36) 599.1

heres some exhausted notes for our cheezey cottage industry. Quicklike. HUNDREDS of media people...a huge swarm...party atmosphere. Not so many boulderites,, but actually plenty of them too. Charlie Brennan zapped in kinda late comparatively and managed to park right next to gj reserved spots. Frank Coffman is a truman Capoteish grandiose jackass....buzzing round with his camcorder....sniffing at lesser people. Schiller was here there and everywhere. for some odd reason the sherriffs dept decided to place a gaggle of jumpsuited inmate workers raking leaves RIGHT behind the main phalanx du media. Odd. I saw Sherriff Epp drive by EARLY and look about and then drive away from the justice center where his office is...alone. More...media personae are cackling about the rude message on aunt pams machine....suchlike..:"Theres only one of me and lots of you...so i will only talk to larry king<" and there were two other reporters named ...i cant BELIEVE i forgot whom...one's a woman.....Next...more>...peter boyles producer trying constantly to get someone to page doc. hodges....Shciller, well...i asked him if he'll write another book on this case should a trial happen...he answered a very sure and quick..."NO>"...Several deputies of my acquaint spent several minutes trying to jimmie open a red cherokee...finally they gave up on it...who knows what that was about. The guy from the atlanta constitution (he loves aunt pams house which is filled with angels and fotos of jbr) says he might well be here a week. Charlie Brennan says he has his paperback issue copies from the publishers. Schiller confirms the book comes out this week or next. Several near traffic collisions......and that's the way it was except to reiterate that frank coffman suffers from the same grandiosity lancey manson does....lance matthews....hey, lance...since your're probably lurking out there you might want to know your drug dealing friend Big Lance" is back in jail and in inmatre workers...get his to write you something you can USE.........and that....my shimmmering glimmering eels is all....hey maeven, ma b.....and auntie....enjoy. jt colfax oct 12th 11:00 or so a.m. colo time.

From: jtcolfax@hotmail.com (JTColfax) 10/12/1999 1:39 pm
To: MadToddler (3 of 36) 599.3 in reply to 599.2

i gotta get outta here...im at a kinkos...they charge like you know...eine arm and und leg...besides i stayedup all night moving to a new place...so suddenly at 4 a.m. i wnet to bus station...hope it's worth it to some of you. Brennan is supernice...he really is a decent guy...so is the guy from atlanta journal you'll be reading his article via brady this week no doubt...but coffman is MOST distasteful. Oh...all the media is truly truly and really in LIMBO for an outcome...no one knows....drama drama drama....bake those patsy did it cakes NOW....

From: jtcolfax@hotmail.com (JTColfax) 10/13/1999 12:46 am
To: Laura (arnie023) (14 of 36) 599.14 in reply to 599.13

glad you all liked the report...and not one snarling retort yet....i forgot...in my exhaustion that the punchline of pam paughs tart answering machine message was that after she said she'd only talk to larry king and two others she said, "so the rest of you will just have to stand in line." THE EFFECT in the r. camo must be devastating right now...unfortunately ive been working the rest of the day...have been communicationless for 8 hours and for all i know they're already in jail...and you all are watching special reporrts on tv...de3nvers chan 4 did houtrly updaters this afternoon...like when nixon was dying...incredible. i also forgot to mention the WATCHING of the GRAND JURY arrive and enter the building BUT like i said it was a PARTY atmosphere and with the arrival of each gj memeber everything stopped for the walk but since the WALK was all there was to it...it wasn;t much. Not ONE protester in site...there was a babbler about boulder being a big cia town etc....i was there when the sun came up ...until about 10.00 a.m. and am paying dearly for it...not to mention that the first post to start this thread cost 10.78 cents at this hideous kinkos. rushing now naturally. i wont be able to be in aunties chat...i've changed jobs at the same place ive been working, now i have a REAL job...life moving on. i dont know why people are surprized i can write...thats all i ever wanted to do...and i neglected NORMAL life for it...and thereby...got in lotsa trouble...some thought my presence was inappropriate this morning...but brennan and boyles were kind...and the guy from the contitution. glen asakawa was pretty jackassish to me...he's a rmnews fotog. larry kings booker is HIDEOUS with grandiosity. all i can think of for now...letr me have a sleep cycle...i'lll think of more...Anyone in the area SHOULD go there if there are other days like this...it's a mess but worth it...jt colfax

From: jtcolfax@hotmail.com (JTColfax) 10/13/1999 1:08 pm
To: jtcolfax@hotmail.com (JTColfax) (19 of 36) 599.19 in reply to 599.18

i have forgotten to tell you that when i was in jail and it looked like it was ramsey o'clock back in april or so b4 it turned out they extended les jury grande, that i received eine message to call monsewer francis coffman...and when i did so...the freak kept babbling about being in touch with major tabloids offering 6 figures for help in getting a photo of une rams in les handcuffs. imagine how I was supposed to help in this blurry deal from jail....oh how we giggled at les card table when i got off les phone..still....he thought i might be useful...and now...LES COLD....a cut les line trait of FEEDERS...he SHANT go far...oh no.

[Grand Jury Announcement October 13, 1999 Page 1] [Grand Jury Announcement October 13, 1999 Page 2] [Grand Jury Announcement October 13, 1999 Page 3] [Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter Press Conference 10-13-1999] [Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner]

1999-10-14: Grand jury members


Grand jury members

JAMES A. PLESE, foreman
Age: 60
Residence: Boulder

About him: During jury questioning in April 1998, Plese said he was not excited about serving on a grand jury, but "it's difficult to complain about the system and not participate in it." The architect of Boulder's annual Fourth of July fireworks display for more than 20 years, Plese is a licensed pyrotechnician and an employee of the Public Service Co. of Colorado. He was born and raised in Pueblo and moved to Boulder in 1969. He's a member of Downtown Boulder Inc. and the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. He has a daughter who is a biophysicist and another who is studying to be an attorney. Plese said he knew both Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter and Chief Trial Deputy Peter Hofstrom from being involved in legal action stemming from a school bus accident in which one of his daughters was injured (he sued after the accident).

LORETTA P. RESNIKOFF, assistant forewoman
Age: 40
Residence: Boulder

About her: Resnikoff is an accountant and has two children. She was a University of Colorado student in 1977 and became a resident of Boulder in 1981. The daughter of a career Navy man, Resnikoff was born in Japan. She is the youngest of eight children and grew up in California. She enjoys reading history books and is a member of a book club.

Age: 56
Residence: Boulder

About her: Annecharico moved to Boulder two years ago and is retired. She listens to National Public Radio, watches news-magazine shows such as "Dateline" and "60 Minutes" and enjoys fishing.

Residence: Boulder

About her:A Coloradan since 1964, McGrath-Arnold moved from Fort Collins to Boulder in 1967. She likes swimming and walking, and she holds a real estate license.

Age: 40
Residence: Superior

About her: Czopek came to Boulder County in 1985. She is a nutritionist, works part time at a local health science center and has two children. She listens to NPR, reads scientific journals and mysteries, and enjoys tennis and running. Czopek is originally from Evanston, Ill.

Age: 60
Residence: Longmont

About her: Diekman, a mother of three and grandmother of three, is a Longmont native. Diekman has been a fan of the "Judge Judy" and "People's Court" television programs. She worked in the county's probation office years ago. She likes fishing, camping, sewing, crafts and reading.

Age: 63
Residence: Lafayette

About her: Hampton was born in Burlington, Iowa, and moved here in 1982. She has three children and three grandchildren. She told prosecutor Peter Hofstrom that her career in management had taught her how to keep a secret. She enjoys photography, watching sports, reading fiction and listening to light rock on the radio.

Age: 65
Residence: Lafayette

About him: Kordas is a Connecticut native and war veteran who served in the Navy's shore patrol. He has served as an expert witness on firearms in product liability trials. A Boulder County resident since 1990, he enjoys outdoor sports and reading technical books.

Age: 45
Residence: Boulder

About her: LeFever told prosecutor Hofstrom she had prior experience as a juror, several years ago in an assault case. She moved here in 1990 from California and works for a nonprofit organization. She listens to NPR and watches science fiction on television. She is active in the Sierra Club and also has participated in the Coalition for Restraint in Campaign Spending.

Age: 38
Residence: Longmont

About him: Pierce is a former utility company service technician and a 30-year resident of Colorado who grew up on a farm in Nebraska. He belongs to a Longmont Harley-Davidson owners group and likes country-western and rock music. He said he worried about putting someone on trial who doesn't deserve to be. "That would stick in my mind."

Age: 39
Residence: Longmont

About her: Vallad moved here in 1960, is a single mother of two teenagers and goes to night school. An outdoors enthusiast, she likes biking and reading fiction, magazines and newspapers. She listens to rock and classical music.

Age: 32
Residence: Louisville

About him: A University of Colorado graduate student in chemical engineering, Webb moved to Boulder in 1995 after working for Eli Lilly and Co. in Indianapolis. He has a graduate degree from Georgia Tech. He said he reads "obscure chemical engineering journals." He is involved in a civil lawsuit in Indiana with a former tenant.

October 14, 1999

1999-10-15: BPD-PR #72 - Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999

News Release
October 15, 1999
Contact: Jennifer Bray, Media Relations
Jana Petersen, Media Relations, 303-441-3090

Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999

Mark Beckner, Chief of Police

Ramsey News Release #72

I want to first publicly thank the twelve citizens of this grand jury for their service to the community. Although by law, I cannot comment on the grand jury's work as it relates to this case, I am grateful to the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, for allowing a grand jury investigation. Contrary to public perception, we have made progress in this case over the past 13 months because of the work of the grand jury. If you recall, when investigators asked for a grand jury in the spring of 1998, it was for the purpose of assisting us in our investigation. In this regard, it has been a successful grand jury.

I also want to thank Mike Kane, Mitch Morrisey and Bruce Levin for their hard work. There's been a great deal of speculation about the working relationship between the DA's office and the police. Let me just say that we have a great deal of respect for one another, and the working relationship on this case has never been better. Over the past 15 months, we have worked hand in hand with the prosecutors on this case and have been very pleased with how things have been handled.

There has also been speculation that charges have not been filed in this case because of reluctance on the part of the District Attorney's office. In addition to Alex Hunter, we have had 3 experienced prosecutors working on this case. None of these prosecutors, in my opinion, would hesitate in taking this case to trial once the evidence is sufficient to do so.

The next obvious question is...where do we go from here? From the police perspective, this will remain an open, ongoing investigation. Contrary to the public perception and the rampant speculation that the investigation is over, this case is not dead in the water. I know you have grown tired of hearing this, but yes, we still have forensic evidence we are working on. We are committed to not giving up on this investigation. Like any other open homicide, we will continue to process and test evidence as necessary, and follow any reasonable leads that are developed.

(Anyone who's been in law enforcement can tell you of cases that finally come to resolution, often after many months or years of investigation, and sometimes when you least expect it. That's what keeps us going.)

If you believe what some of the pundits are saying, you might think it's futile to keep trying. Those of us close to the case know better. We know that the right and just thing to do is to keep going. Quite frankly, too much has been made of the conclusion of the grand jury. We have simply completed another phase of this difficult investigation.

In addition to the possibility of new evidence developing, new forensic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. As a result, cases that were once unsolvable have been solved. New technology in the last 2 1/2 years has helped us in this case. We never know what the next month, year, or several years will bring.

As Police Chief, there is something else I know I can count on. And that is the dedication of the four investigators who have been on this case from the beginning.

These four individuals, as well as all members of the Boulder Police Department, are committed to finding a resolution in this case, and they will not be swayed from that commitment.

Much has been made out of alleged mistakes early in this case. Yes, there are things we should have done differently and wish we would have done differently. Any time a crime scene is disturbed, it creates problems for the investigation. However, to say that mistakes have made this an unsolvable case is not accurate. Circumstances and evidence that raise questions for us today are not the result of a contaminated crime scene.

I know that this case has been frustrating for everyone, but I can assure you it has not been more frustrating than for the detectives who have worked full time on this case for almost three years. While we will continue to be criticized by those who fail to understand the complexities in this case, I am proud of the work our detectives have done to get us where we are today. For any mistakes that may have been made early on, there have been many times more right things that have been done in this case.

I would also like to say that while the intense scrutiny has not always been pleasant, there have been positives. We are not the same police department we were 3 years ago. As a result of learning from our experiences, we have taken steps to make some changes in how we operate. We have developed some new policies and procedures, adjusted some of our training, and made some changes in our detective section. And, we have also developed a more open philosophy when dealing with the media. As a result of these changes, I believe we are a better prepared, better trained police department.

I must take a moment to thank the local Boulder community for its support. City council, the city manager, and the many citizens of this city have been understanding and supportive in our efforts. For this, we are appreciative.

In the end, all of the media attention doesn't matter. All of the speculation doesn't matter. Legal analysts who will find fault with the work we've done doesn't matter. What matters is finding justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

To this day, two years and nine months after her death, we are as intent on that objective as we were from day one


2000-03-15: Rocky Mountain News: DAs tried to block testimony by Smit

DAs tried to block testimony by Smit
Grand jury finally did hear intruder theory
By Kevin McCullen
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

BOULDER -- Prosecutors last year tried to stop detective Lou Smit from sharing with a grand jury his theory that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Court documents unsealed Tuesday show Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter obtained a court order in February 1999 prohibiting Smit from testifying before the grand jury investigating the 6-year-old beauty princess's slaying.

Smit fought the court order, which was eventually lifted, and in March detailed for the jury the theories he developed during his 18 months as Hunter's special investigator on the case.

Smit's attorney accused Hunter of not wanting to give the grand jury all of the facts in the case, according to the court documents. Authorities have named only JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, as suspects in the case.

"The prosecution is either intentionally or unintentionally emphasizing and focusing upon evidence which points to involvement of the Ramsey family and is not presenting clear evidence of involvement of an intruder in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey," attorney Greg Walta argued in court documents.

Neither Hunter nor Smit could be reached for comment Tuesday.

A source close to the case said prosecutors were concerned Smit, a former homicide investigator in Colorado Springs, would offer grand jurors only theories in the case and not present any factual evidence.

Smit this week publicly revealed the evidence that he believes shows an intruder killed JonBenet. Smit is now helping the Ramseys investigate their daughter's death.

Smit said an aluminum baseball bat with carpet fibers from inside the Ramsey house was found outside a broken basement window. JonBenet's skull was fractured by a blow to the head before she was strangled Christmas night 1996.

He also said packing material and leaves were found both inside and outside the broken window, which indicates an intruder could have entered or exited the house.

He also said marks on the girl's face match marks that would have been left by a Taser stun gun.

Smit's testimony in March 1999 came just weeks after several alternate jurors were dimissed, fueling speculation that the grand jury's work was near completion.

After Smit and others testified, the jury continued to meet until last October, when it closed its investigation without indicting anyone.

Smit resigned from Hunter's office in September 1998, after Hunter decided to take the investigation to the grand jury.

Smit said he quit, in part, because he believed Boulder police and prosecutors "had developed tunnel vision and were focusing only on the Ramsey family and not on other suspects," according to the court documents.

Smit initially asked Hunter for permission to make a three-hour "intruder theory" presentation, but was rejected, court documents show.

Smit made the request to ensure "all aspects of the evidence are presented before criminal charges are filed," records show.

Contact Kevin McCullen at (303) 442-8729 or mccullenk@RockyMountainNews.com.

March 15, 2000


2001-05-19: Boulder Daily Camera: Attorney: Ramsey jury voted

Attorney: Ramsey jury voted
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer

DENVER — A former attorney for Patsy Ramsey says he has heard that a majority on Boulder County's 1999 grand jury agreed not to indict anyone in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.

"The rumors that I have heard, and they are just rumors, were that they took a straw poll of the grand jurors and said there was not going to be an indictment, and the case then was closed in terms of grand jury," Boulder attorney Patrick Burke told a group of attorneys gathered for a seminar Friday at the Adams Mark Hotel.

Whether the grand jurors voted on the Ramsey case and what they concluded has been a tightly guarded secret, mandated by Colorado law and a court order.

The only official statement on the grand jury was made Oct. 13, 1999, when District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that "no charges have been filed" and that prosecutors "do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time."

His office then put out a statement saying that no one connected to the case would ever discuss grand jury proceedings, unless ordered by the court, regardless of "how much that might help in the public's understanding."

JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under police suspicion but have repeatedly said they did not kill their daughter. The couple have said they thought they were the targets of the grand jury investigation.

Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.

It could also mean that prosecutors avoided asking for a formal vote of the grand jury. Prosecutors avoided a formal grand jury vote in a Boulder County investigation of a 1983 slaying. A vote not to indict might be used by the defense if a target of the grand jury investigation were later prosecuted.

District Attorney Mary Keenan was unavailable to comment on Burke's statements.

Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.

"There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."

In the investigation of University of Colorado student Sid Wells' gunshot death in 1983, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office asked a grand jury to "make no decision in this case on the issue of whether or not the suspect had murdered Sid Wells," according to court records of the grand jury proceeding later released under court order.

Prosecutor Pete Maguire stated in an affidavit that he explained to the grand jury that he did not think there was enough evidence to file criminal charges.

"After a period of deliberation the grand jury indicated that they would not request that they be allowed to vote and decide the issue of probable cause," according to Maguire's affidavit.

In 1997, Boulder police reopened their investigation of that grand jury's target, Thayne Smika, whose whereabouts are unknown.

Contact Christopher Anderson at (303) 473-1355 or andersonc@thedailycamera.com.

May 19, 2001

2001-07-06: Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses

July 6, 2001
Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses
By B.J. Plasket
The Daily Times-Call

DENVER — A federal judge on Thursday said a Colorado rule requiring life-long secrecy by grand jury witnesses is unconstitutional, paving the way for witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury probe to speak about their testimony.

In throwing out the rule, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel called it an impermissible restriction of First Amendment free-speech rights.

Daniel made the ruling in a suit filed last year by Linda Hoffman-Pugh, a former housekeeper for John and Patsy Ramsey . Hoffman-Pugh’s suit claimed she wanted to write a book but was fearful she would be prosecuted if she divulged information that she shared with the grand jury.

Noted New York attorney Darnay Hoffman, who represented Hoffman-Pugh, said the decision would free others who testified before the grand jury to tell what they know. He said enterprising journalists could “win a Pulitzer Prize” by digging into the testimony of the grand jury witnesses.

Boulder County Deputy District Attorney William Nagel said Daniel’s ruling will be appealed to U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nagel did not request a stay of Daniel’s order until the appeal is decided, meaning any of the Ramsey grand jury witnesses are free to speak.

The ruling does not allow grand jury witnesses to divulge such things as what questions they were asked and does not allow them to comment on the proceedings of the jury.

The Ramsey grand jury met for more than a year before disbanding in October 1999 without returning any indictments. Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, at the conclusion of the grand jury, vowed that the proceedings would remain secret forever.

In declaring the rule unconstitutional, Daniel said it was “virtually identical” to a Florida law overturned 10 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Nagel argued the two cases were different because the Colorado rule — unlike the one in Florida — did not prohibit witnesses from discussing information they knew before testifying.

The Colorado rule prohibited witnesses from discussing their testimony unless or until an indictment was issued or in the event a report was issued in the absence of an indictment. The Ramsey grand jury was not permitted to issue a report, and those who served on the jury are still sworn to silence.

Nagel argued the Colorado rule provided “a good balance between free speech and the criminal justice system.”

Daniel surprised the attorneys who were arguing the case when he ruled from the bench in granting Hoffman-Pugh’s motion for a summary judgment, declaring the rule unconstitutional. Prior to the hearing, Hoffman said he believed there was “no chance” Daniel would rule immediately and predicted the judge would issue a written ruling days or weeks from now.

Daniel gave an indication of how he might rule shortly after the hearing began. He told Nagel he was concerned the rule constituted an “indefinite and permanent” silencing of witnesses.

Daniel said the federal courts — and courts in 40 states — allow grand jury witnesses to discuss their testimony as soon as it is completed.

“The suggestion here is that there is some sort of problem with the Colorado law,” he said. “What information are they seeking to keep her from revealing?”

Daniel said that in order to restrict free speech, there must be a showing of “compelling governmental interest.”

[Steve Thomas Deposition 09-21-2001 Wolf vs Ramsey]2001-09-21: Steve Thomas Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

(Screen Capture on left is from "Today Show, October 28, 2002)

For Plaintiff: Darnay Hoffman, ESQ.
For Defendants: James C. Rawles, ESQ., L. Lin Wood, ESQ.
For Deponent: Charles P. Diamond, ESQ., Sean R. Smith, ESQ.
Also present: O.M. "Ollie" Gray
Also present: Jay R. Ren, CLVS, Todd Tompkins, Videographer Intern

Steve Thomas Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

(Grand Jury Discussion)

17 Q. Did you ever receive any
18 information about grand jury testimony or
19 evidence in the case?
20 A. Never.


7 Q. Do you have any other documents
8 about this investigation, other than those
9 documents? Do you?
10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand
11 the question correctly, no, as I said, not
12 that I recall because post-August '98 began
13 the grand jury. And certainly I don't have
14 any information from the grand jury room.


4 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very
5 clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the
6 state of the evidence with respect to the
7 JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here
8 today, the state of the evidence as of
9 September 2001, true?
10 A. After leaving the police
11 department, yes, that concluded my official
12 participation. I have followed the case
13 through the media, but as far as being privy
14 to anything that occurred in the grand jury
15 or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of
16 that.
17 Q. You knew the state of the evidence
18 as it existed in the case as of March 2001,
19 true?
20 A. That was during the period which
21 -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I
22 -- no, I wasn't inside the police department
23 reviewing evidence at that time either.

24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had


1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

24 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You

1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No.
15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that
16 after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex
17 Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the
18 prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed
19 that this was not a case where they felt
20 that evidence was sufficient to justify at
21 that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
22 don't you, sir?
23 A. That Hunter --
24 Q. Made that statement publicly?
25 A. Made the statement that his

1 advisors supported that decision?
2 Q. Seven prosecutors, not his
3 advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that,
4 don't you, sir?
5 A. I know that statement was made.

Steve Thomas Deposition - 09-21-2001
Chris Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case

(Grand Jury Discussion)


24 Q. Do you know of any prosecutor who
25 is familiar with the evidence that has

1 concluded that the evidence shows beyond a
2 reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey is guilty
3 of the homicide of her daughter?
4 A. No, because the prosecutors privy
5 to that evidence are bound by grand jury
6 secrecy and none have violated that with me.


13 Q. Why did you not, when you had old
14 Barry Scheck, a nice guy, Henry Lee, all
15 these VIPs there, why did you not include the
16 intruder evidence in the presentation to
17 objectively give those individuals both sides
18 of the case?
19 A. Because the Boulder Police
20 Department's position was, as I understood it
21 and understand it, the VIP presentation was
22 to show that there was sufficient probable
23 cause to arrest Patsy Ramsey and for the DA's
24 office to move it forward through the use of
25 a grand jury with that end in mind.

1 Q. Of an indictment which is a
2 finding by a grand jury of probable cause to
3 charge or arrest, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You've been in the business long
6 enough to know that the grand jury can, as
7 they say, indict a ham sandwich, right? It
8 doesn't take much evidence to indict or
9 arrest, does it, sir?
10 A. My understanding of probable cause
11 is facts and evidence and circumstances that
12 are within the knowledge of a police officer
13 that would lead a reasonable person to
14 conclude that, A, a crime was committed and
15 B, that a particular individual was involved.
16 Sometimes, depending on the case,
17 that can sometimes be a great threshold.


24 Q. You state in your book there were
25 27 reasons for a grand jury and it's at page

1 309. But my question is, were those 27
2 reasons for a grand jury correlate to the 27
3 remaining tasks that were referred to in that
4 June '98 press release by the Boulder Police
5 Department?
6 A. Let me look at 309 real quickly.
7 308, 309?
8 Q. It's on 309 and I've got a copy
9 of that press release where he says there
10 were 27 tasks remaining. I'm just wondering
11 if that's the correlation.
12 A. Oh, if I understand you correctly,
13 did these 27 reasons correspond with the 27
14 tasks left on the to-do list?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. No.


6 Q. What I want to know is if you can
7 date that for me? "'The case is not being
8 handled well,' said the CASKU agents."
9 A. Shortly before I believe the
10 Ramseys' April 30, 1997 interview.
11 Q. Can you identify the three agents
12 for me?
13 A. Supervisory special agent Bill
14 Hagmaier, special agent Mike Morrow, and their
15 partner and the third special agent, his name
16 just escapes me at the moment.
17 Q. And those three agents prior to
18 April 30, 1997 said that the intruder theory
19 was absurd, Hofstrom needs to act like a
20 prosecutor not a public defender. Don't do
21 tomorrow's interview and get a grand jury as
22 soon as possible, right?
23 A. Yes.

2001-12-18: Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury

Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury

Kane says he never felt that Ramseys gave him the straight story during his interviews

By Charlie Brennan, News Staff Writer

Michael Kane says he still thinks about the JonBenet Ramsey murder every day.

"And at least once a week, when I'm out running or something, this case will be running through my head," he said, "and I'll think, 'What if we did this now?' or 'What if that happened?' "

Kane, 49, joined former District Attorney Alex Hunter's team in June 1998, about 18 months after JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her Boulder home.

He led the 13-month-long grand jury probe that concluded Oct. 13, 1999, with no indictments issued in the case.

JonBenet's parents remain under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the death.

Kane spent many hours questioning John and Patsy Ramsey about their daughter's murder. He said he believes they have yet to give him the straight story.

"When I met with them, I never felt that they were genuine," Kane said. "I always felt like I was talking to a press secretary who was giving responses with a spin.

"I always felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern."

Kane said one of the biggest mistakes in the case was that officials didn't take it to a grand jury in the early going.

"I think the major problem with this case was the hard-core evidence gathering," Kane said.

He believes a grand jury should have been impaneled promptly -- not necessarily to secure a rapid indictment, but in order to use a grand jury's broad powers to subpoena witnesses and, equally important, personal records.

"I had this argument with them until the day (former Boulder prosecutors) Pete Hofstrom and Trip DeMuth were off the case" in August 1998, Kane said.

"That's what a grand jury is for, because a grand jury can order someone to produce documents. It's up to the DA's office to say, 'There's an awful lot of things we need to know about, and the only way we're going to know about it is by getting these records.'

"Instead, it was almost two years later when we started issuing subpoenas for information, and the trail sometimes grows cold. A lot of businesses don't keep records that long," Kane said.

Many people connected to the case claimed they tuned out the constant chatter it sparked in the media. Not Kane.

"There were lots of times, sitting in the (Boulder justice center) war room at night, I'd flip on the TV and they'd be doing a program about this case, and somebody would say something, and I'd say 'Darn, I wish I'd thought of that,' " Kane said. "And then, I'd follow up on it."

On occasion, such brainstorms still lead Kane to call and share ideas with Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. And, periodically, he'll get a call from Beckner seeking Kane's thoughts on any new wrinkle in the case that might have arisen.

Kane has had virtually no contact, however, with Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan. She inherited the case from Hunter after his retirement in January.

"I don't feel slighted" by Keenan, Kane said. "I worked that case intensely. I had my shot. I did everything with the information that I had at the time to try to come up with an answer. And it didn't happen.

"Maybe what this case needs now is someone coming to the case for the first time, who may have a light bulb come on."

Kane moved back to his native Pennsylvania and spent the time since November 1999 in private practice doing primarily civil litigation.

He returned Dec. 10 to the Pennsylvania State Department of Revenue, as deputy director for taxation. He had been working at that Pennsylvania state agency when Hunter picked him to pilot the Ramsey grand jury.

Kane, a divorced father of two girls -- Kathleen, 17, and Madeline, 13 -- makes his home in Mechanicsburg, Pa., less than a mile from where his daughters live with their mother.

Asked if he's frustrated that no one has been charged in JonBenet's slaying, he didn't hesitate: "Lots. In a word, lots. I didn't sign on there to not come up with a conclusion that was not prosecutable."

Kane participated in two interviews with the Ramseys after joining the case. In the first, he was teamed with former homicide investigator Lou Smit for an interrogation of John Ramsey that spanned three days -- June 22 to 24, 1998.

More recently, he traveled with Beckner to Atlanta for interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted Aug. 28 and 29, 2000, in the office of their lawyer, L. Lin Wood. Those contentious sessions ended with the Ramseys and the Boulder officials calling the interviews a waste of time.

Reflecting now on his interviews with the Ramseys, Kane said, "I never felt like I was getting a spontaneous response

"John Ramsey always left me with the impression that he was a very smart man, and he is very careful at answering questions," Kane said. "Whereas, Patsy struck me as somebody that just had an answer in advance of the question, and just kind of resorted to an 'I don't know' if she didn't have an answer in advance."

Kane said that with more than half a dozen books published and two movies made about the case, people could assume they know everything there is to know about the murder -- other than who did it, of course.

But, he said, such an assumption would be wrong.

There remain "dozens" of secrets, he said. "Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."

He wouldn't disclose any of the former or correct any of the latter.

The legacy of the Ramsey case for Kane, personally, is that it left him in bad need of a vacation from criminal law.

"I got burned out on the cat-and-mouse aspects of it, after spending a year and a half focused on nothing else but that case," Kane said. "The process of going from small point to small point to small point, trying to find the truth, can be very intense and frustrating.

"Sometimes it's rewarding, but after doing it for a year and a half on this one case, I was just glad to get a break from it."

Contact Charlie Brennan at (303) 892-2742 or brennanc@RockyMountainNews.com.

December 18, 2001


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2002-11-21: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.com)

Charter Member
6685 posts Nov-21-02, 08:57 AM (EST)

4. "The purpose"
In response to message #3

... Kane's job was to get an indictment of Patsy Ramsey - - I believe that with all my heart. He was very willing to ignore anyone who wanted to suggest an intruder did it - - and more than willing to use someone like Don Foster to help with his dastardly deed.

Kane did NOT bring in the Ramseys to be questioned in that room - - and why? I believe because he didn't want the Grand Jury to see for themselves how sincere, gentle, and innocent they are.

Kane refused me entrance. Said if he brought me in that would be admitting he was using Foster so he couldn't do that. He was wrong when he thought I would slip silently in the night. Thanks to some very good friends, I exposed Donald Foster in a way no one could ignore - on 48 Hours. (Probably better that way - - if I went into the Grand Jury and exposed him, I wouldn't be able to tell you all about it - - - but now I can post all I want - - Ah... American Justice.)

Kane tried to refuse Lou Smit- - butheagain failed because that very honourable gentleman wouldn't be denied his truthful voice. Hewent to court and FOUGHT to speak. And he won.

The grand jury is supposed to look at ALL the evidence - - they didn't get to do that. But they were not, in the end, the means for Kane to get an innocent person indicted.

I would invite all members of the grand jury to join us - - post as Americans with opinions. They don't have to discuss anything that went on in that room - - but they do have a right to post thoughts on the case. I wouldn't reveal who they were - - and wouldn't expect they would, either.

I would invite Kane, too. But him - - I would want him to admit who he was. (Don't hold your breath - - he isn't going to come here - - he couldn't handle it.)


[Crime and Justice Forum]2003-07-19: From Crime and Justice Forum thread,
"Explaining why no report filed re: Grand Jury"

Little (Administrator)
Posts: 2998
(7/19/03 9:05 pm)

Explaining why no report filed re: Grand Jury
I’m posting this with permission from ACandyRose. This is a thread from ACR-I forum archives with credit to Crimes-R-Us for the post.

This was a posting on the Crimes-R-Us forum back in 1999 before the Grand Jury ended. It explains why no report would be filed. If they had filed a report they would have had to clear the Ramseys and they obviously didn't want to do that.


1 . "Grand Jury Report Statute"
Posted by JDCO on Sep-27-99 at 11:35 AM (EST)

Here is the statute on the grand jury issuing reports. Before it even gets to the judge, the DA has to notify all people and businesses named in it and give them an opportunity to respond. I think had someone received one already, this would have leaked.

I don't think a report will be issued because the invesitgation is likely to continue if an indictment doesn't issue.

The purpose of the reports is to clear the subject of the investigation who doesn't get indicted. Nothing we have heard to date suggests the grand jury is ready to clear the parents, who are the only known subjects (if not not suspects or targets).

If this grand jury is not indicting because of lack of provable evidence as opposed to because of a belief the parents are innocent, they won't want to clear anyone and no report is likely.

Just my legal opinion.
C.R.S. 16-5-205.5 (1998)

Grand jury reports

(1) In any case in which a grand jury does not return an indictment, the grand jury may prepare or ask to be prepared a report of its findings if the grand jury determines that preparation and release of a report would be in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section. The determination to prepare and release a report pursuant to this section must be made by an affirmative vote of at least the number of jurors that would have been required to return an indictment. The report shall be accompanied by certification that the grand jury has determined that release of the report is in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section.

(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in any instance in which the prosecuting attorney chooses to file charges against the person or business that was the subject of the grand jury investigation.

(3) Within ten days after receiving a report of the grand jury prepared pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the prosecuting attorney shall notify in writing all persons and businesses named in the grand jury report to give such persons and businesses an opportunity to review the grand jury report and prepare a response to be submitted to the court with the grand jury report. Such notice shall be by personal service or by certified mail return receipt requested. Any responses shall be submitted to the prosecuting attorney within ten days after notification.

(4) Upon completion of the time for submitting responses, the prosecuting attorney shall submit the grand jury report to the court, together with the certification of public interest and any responses that may have been submitted. The court shall examine the report and make an order accepting and filing the report, including the certification and any responses that the respondent, by written notice to the prosecuting attorney and the court, has agreed to release, as a public record only if the court is satisfied that:

(a) The grand jury and the prosecuting attorney were acting within the statutory jurisdiction of such persons in convening the grand jury; and

(b) The grand jury foreman and the prosecuting attorney have verified on the record that:

(I) The certification of public interest by the grand jury complies with the provisions of subsection (5) of this section; and

(II) The report is based on facts revealed in the course of the grand jury investigation and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and

(III) The report does not contain material the sole effect of which is to ridicule or abuse a person or business or to subject such person or business to public disgrace or embarrassment; and

(IV) The report does not contain material that is personal in nature that does not relate to any lawful inquiry; and

(V) No confidentiality agreement will be violated and the identity of no confidential informant will be disclosed in making such grand jury report public; and

(VI) The filing of such report as a public record does not prejudice the fair consideration of a criminal matter.

(5) Release of a grand jury report pursuant to this section may be deemed to be in the public interest only if the report addresses one or more of the following:

(a) Allegations of the misuse or misapplication of public funds;

(b) Allegations of abuse of authority by a public servant, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (o), C.R.S., or a peace officer, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (l), C.R.S.;

(c) Allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance with regard to a governmental function, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (j), C.R.S.;

(d) Allegations of commission of a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony.

HISTORY: Source: L. 97: Entire section added, p. 313, § 1, effective October 1.
Edited by: Little at: 7/19/03 9:05 pm

2003-08-06: Ramsey Housekeeper Can't Publish Book

Ramsey Housekeeper Can't Publish Book
The Associated Press
August 06, 2003

A former housekeeper for JonBenet Ramsey's parents cannot publish a book based on her grand jury testimony as long as there is a chance another grand jury could be called to investigate the 6-year-old's slaying, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state's grand jury secrecy law prevents Linda Hoffman-Pugh from using her testimony in a book.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that the secrecy law was unconstitutional. The Boulder district attorney's office had appealed the earlier ruling.

Hoffman-Pugh, of Evans, does not have a listed number. Her lawyer did not return an after-hours telephone message.

Hoffman-Pugh worked for John and Patsy Ramsey when JonBenet was found strangled and beaten in the basement of their Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996.

No one has been charged in the slaying and the grand jury issued no indictments.



[Anatomy of a Cold Case by Lawrence Schiller 2006]2006-07-07: “JonBenet: Anatomy of a Cold Case"
Directed by Lawrence Schiller (Court Tv)


CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory

The www.acandyrose.com web site is an privately owned archive site collection of found materials and organized timelines on missing and/or cold cases created for educational purposes as community service. All personal collection of found materials have been accessed from public domains and/or quotes following the rules under the "fair use rule of copyright law." - This web site is non-profit although personal donations are welcome via the PayPal donation button on the top right
Home Page
First Amendment ACandyRose© since 1998
webmaster e-mail Disclaimer