Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (50 page)

“The proposed law would instruct judges to determine whether the report should be released and allow for withholding any parts necessary to protect witnesses. It would also give witnesses an opportunity to see reports and file opposing motions if they object to their release.”

Such reports could go a long way toward dispelling doubts like those that still linger over the DIA and Truax investigations, and by providing all witnesses with safeguards against disclosure that might damage or embarrass them, still preserve the confidentiality that is both the armor and the engine of the grand jury process.

The original draft of the bill presented to the House Judiciary Committee by Representative Kaufman at a hearing on January 21, 1997, long after the Ramsey case had exploded into the national news story amid growing suspicions of police mishandling of the case. Speaking in favor of the bill before the committee were district attorneys Ritter, Thomas, and Grant. All of these district attorneys, along with Jim Peters, would be named publically as advisers to Alex Hunter on the Ramsey case a few weeks later on February 14, 1997. It is clear from the draft bill and from their comments at this hearing that they intended reporting by grand juries to be on matters generally limited to allegations of non-criminal misconduct by public employees, official, and agencies but only when such information regarding those allegations was in the public interest. At the hearing, Mr. Ritter stated:

“…there are other matters where we bring...an issue to the grand jury for investigation and it grows legs and we find ourselves investigating the conduct of government officers, the conduct of public employees, the conduct of government programs where, because tax dollars are involved, the public does have a right to know something about the operation even if they fall short of the conduct being criminal and that, I think, is the real meaning behind a bill like this.” Also speaking in favor of the bill were John Daily, Head of the Criminal Enforcement Unit of the Attorney General’s office and Kim Morss of the Colorado Judicial Department appearing at the request of Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Also speaking in favor of the bill was Marge Easton of the Colorado Press Association.

On March 5, 1997, Senator Perlmutter presented the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Appearing once again to speak in favor of the bill were Bill Ritter, March Easton, and John Daily. Also speaking for the bill were Ray Slaughter and Stu Van Meveren of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council.

The final bill was passed on March 21, 1997. Included in the bill were specific criteria to be used by grand juries and prosecutors in determining what constitutes the “public interest” for the purpose of a grand jury report:

“(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:

Allegations of the misuse or misapplication of public funds;

Allegations of abuse of authority by a public servant, as defined in Section 18-1-903 (3)(o), C.R.S., or a peace officer, as defined in Section 18-1-901(3)(1) C.R.S.

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

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

The original intent of the Colorado District Attorney Council draft and that of Representative Kaufman was to make it easier for grand juries to issue reports in cases where there is not an indictment returned but where, in the public interest, the grand jury wishes to address allegations of misconduct by public employees falling short of criminal conduct. The final bill made it possible for a grand jury to address allegations of 1
^st
and 2
^nd
degree murder and the two classes of child abuse resulting in death. The new statute would enable a Boulder grand jury investigating the death of JonBenét to publically exonerate someone who has been alleged to have committed one of the crimes but only in the event an indictment was not returned. The bill was signed into law by Governor Romer on April 8, 1997. We strongly urge those wishing to investigate the intentions and motives of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, legislators, and those speaking on behalf of the bill to review the Senate and House Journals and listen to the tapes of the House and Senate Judiciary Hearings and floor debates on file at the Colorado State archives, 1313 Sherman Street, Room B20, Denver.

During the Senate Judiciary Hearing on March 5, 1997, and after the bill had been amended to include the criteria defining the public interest, Senator Perlmutter stated that he had “…contacted several defense attorneys I know in Denver and they were all supportive of it (the bill). They thought it was a good idea.” According to records at the Secretary of State’s Office, Senator Perlmutter received a 1994 campaign contribution from Hal Haddon, defense attorney for John Ramsey. The Haddon firm is well known for its expertise in grand jury practice. Norman Mueller, a partner of the firm, once wrote in the April, 1998 issue of The Colorado Lawyer, “…defense counsel must creatively and vigorously scrutinize the grand jury process at the earliest possible stage of the case.”

The May 6, 1998 issue of the Colorado Journal, a publication for the legal community, presented an article flattering to Alex Hunter entitled “D.A. Winks At This One – With or Without a Grand Jury Indictment Boulder’s Prosecutor Will Still Shine.” The article was written around comments received from Senator Perlmutter and district attorney Bill Ritter. It reads:

“If Hunter does take the matter to the grand jury and that panel manages to wrestle the evidence it needs to hand down an actual indictment, Hunter will appear the hero for going that route.

But if they fail to do so, Hunter could still come out smelling like a rose with the help of a little-known state law that went into effect last fall: That grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from its probe.

That way, a prosecutor facing pressure to file charges can say, “See even the grand jury couldn’t find anything.” Said Senator Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, who co-sponsored the law in the 1997 Colorado Legislature.

The law, which only applies to Class 1, 2, and 3 felony cases, was intended to help ease the public’s mind in certain investigations where a prosecutor fails to file charges, despite pressure from the police to do so as in the JonBenét case, he said.”

In the article Senator Perlmutter indicated that he sponsored the bill because he “didn’t want grand juries to be abused, especially in high-profile cases as this one (the Ramsey case).”

For his part, Mr. Ritter said: “I don’t think Alex Hunter would go to the grand jury for political cover, that’s just not how Alex Hunter operates,” said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter.

“The reason you go to a grand jury is because, as DA you do not have the ability in the State of Colorado to compel testimony or compel the production of documents.”

But then the article speculates: “But no matter what the grand jury decides, its probe could help vindicate the impugned reputations of many members of the Boulder police and district attorney’s office.”

The article was misleading in that it stated that the new grand jury statute designed by Mr. Ritter and Senator Perlmutter to protect and exonerate people and “vindicate” the reputations of public servants was “effective” and therefore available for use by a Boulder grand jury on October 1, 1997. It also inaccurately described what allegations the statute deemed of public interest.

For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation, the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cueno, Robert N. Miller with the firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman & Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request, the Boulder city attorney’s office supplied us with copies of the final agreement between the city and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997, and an earlier draft of that agreement dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures to the city: “As we indicated to you, our respective firms have or had certain relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to you. Specifically:

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. (“S. & H.”) represents Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994, S. & H. represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee…

Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman, his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman’s former partners at the firm.

Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will proceed on appeal.

John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of the Colorado Journal to be the “lead attorney” for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The “Mr. Haddon” referred to in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these attorneys did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation.

On March 10, 1998, The Boulder Daily Camera reported that “DA hints Ramsey case headed for grand jury.” Two days later, the Boulder police made their request for a grand jury on the advice of these attorneys and transferred the case to the district attorney.

On April 22, 1998, the Boulder grand jury was convened.

It is certain that Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, the metro area district attorneys advising Mr. Hunter; the current leadership of the Boulder Police Department, the three attorneys advising the Boulder Police Department, and Ramsey defense attorneys have known since HB 97-1009 was signed by Governor Romer on April 8, 1997, that to take advantage of the new statute, it would be necessary to delay a grand jury investigation of the Ramsey case until April, 1998. In retrospect, it is clear that the case was delayed for that purpose. It is hard to imagine that Governor Romer and members of the office of the Attorney General and the Colorado Judiciary have not also long known this.

The Boulder County District Attorney and members of his office have delayed the investigation of the death of JonBenét Ramsey in order to take of a statute which will, if an indictment is not returned, enable him to persuade a grand jury to issue a report telling the public that the case was delayed and that an indictment was not returned as a result of police misconduct and the noncooperation of witnesses. It will also enable him to publically exonerate anyone alleged to have murdered JonBenét Ramsey. If he wishes such a report to be made, and of course he does since it would contain precisely what he has been saying throughout the investigation, he must first cause the grand jury not to return an indictment.

This, then, is how politics will have been allowed, finally, to trump justice.

Delaying the case in this manner simply to serve the selfish interests of a relatively small number of public servants and wealthy and powerful people has destroyed the case’s infrastructure which consists of the confidence and trust of witnesses and the public in the criminal justice system and the hard work done in good faith by police detectives. That he has allowed this destruction is compelling evidence that Alex Hunter and those advising him have no intention of seeking an indictment from a grand jury. By their actions, these people have demonstrated cynical and callous disregard for the people of Colorado, the criminal justice system, and the well-being and safety of the Boulder community and its citizens.

What distinguishes the investigation of JonBenét’s death from all others, and what has so seriously handicapped the investigation, is the extraordinary number of people that it has affected and influenced. The people of Colorado wish to see justice for JonBenét. They must not accept the “conclusion” to the case now being offered by the Boulder County District Attorney and Governor Romer. We will not.

After further assessing public opinion and reviewing contents of this letter and that of Mr. Thomas, we hope that it will occur to Governor Romer that evidence in this case must be reviewed by those who have no interest seeking anything other than justice for JonBenét. Any further involvement of the Boulder County District Attorney, his prosecutors, or anyone else responsible for the delay of the case is totally unacceptable. The people of Colorado must demand that Governor Romer resist the advice of interest parties, including the district attorneys advising Alex Hunter, and immediately the Attorney General to take over the investigation and any future prosecution. He must then excuse himself from any further involvement. He is simply too close to people whose lives and careers may hinge on what becomes of the case.