MR. DIAMOND: State of the evidence? What do you mean by that?

MR. WOOD: That's his term, state of the evidence.

MR. DIAMOND: That's his term?

MR. WOOD: Yeah, it's why I'm asking.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the state of the
evidence with respect to the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here today, the state of the
evidence as of September 2001, true?

A. After leaving the police department, yes, that concluded my official participation. I have followed
the case through the media, but as far as being privy to anything that occurred in the grand jury or
continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of that.

Q. You knew the state of the evidence as it existed in the case as of March 2001, true?

A. That was during the period which -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I -- no, I wasn't inside
the police department reviewing evidence at that time either.

Q. But what you did know and you had actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had met for some
13 months and had not issued an indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey, right?

A. I don't know that. Do you know that?

Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do you have information there was an indictment of my clients
that nobody has bothered telling them or me about?

MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin, Patrick Burke has information that he should have told you about
which he announced to the media that according to him the grand jury actually took a straw poll. Why
don't you ask Patrick Burke.

MR. WOOD: Let me tell you, Darnay, that won't count against my time.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

MR. WOOD: But you're right, it was a straw poll; it was a vote not to indict. Thank you for bringing
something to my attention that I already knew.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You know that no
indictment was issued by the grand jury, true?

A. I don't know what the grand jury did.

Q. I'm not asking you what they did in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.

MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking you --

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you whether they issued an indictment to indict John and/or Patsy
Ramsey?

MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of any public report of such an indictment.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex Hunter
stated publicly that all seven of the prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed that this was not a case
where they felt that evidence was sufficient to justify at that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
don't you, sir?

A. That Hunter --

Q. Made that statement publicly?

A. Made the statement that his advisors supported that decision?

Q. Seven prosecutors, not his advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that, don't you, sir?

A. I know that statement was made.

Q. Do you have any knowledge to contradict the accuracy of that statement, that is to say that some
of those seven did not so agree as Mr. Hunter stated? Do you have anything to contradict that
factually?

A. You would have to poll them, Mr. Wood.

Q. I'm polling you. Do you have any information to contradict that, Mr. Thomas?

A. No.

MR. WOOD: But you're right, it was a straw poll; it was a vote not to indict. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I already knew.

Interestingly, Patrick Burke, at the time, did not say that a straw poll had been taken. He only said that he had heard rumors of a straw poll. Are rumors now to be taken as hard fact?

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/19lrams.html

"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.

Strange thing about the GJ rumors, though. They seem to be fairly accurate - - and called "rumors" because no one wants to get in trouble for breaking the GJ secrecy.

I think it would be great if those records were opened too - - why not ask the witnesses if they mind?

What we do know is that Hunter said there would be no indictments at that time. He didn't say there was a straw vote, he didn't say the grand jurors had even taken a vote. It is wrong to simply assume that because Hunter said there would be no indictment that it was the decision of the grand jurors. Rumors are not facts, and Hunter himself could have made the decision not to indict. It is also not known whether the other prosecutors agreed with him. One might question whether Kane did in fact agree with the decision, but Hunter had the final word.

I don't know if the GJ voted to indict. Do you? If so, how do you know? Assumptions don't count.

In Colorado, the vote of a GJ is meaningless. It doesn't matter how they voted. The DA has all of the power; the GJ process has been subverted in order to circumvent the rights of many of those witnesses brought in for questioning that would ordinarily not have to talk to the police investigating the crime.

I can't believe the citizens of Colorado feel comfortable with this.

There have been leaks. Will be more. No doubt.

Thinking otherwise is naive.

I would encourage them to join in if they have something to share - - we would love to get their thoughts on who may have done this - - just how they feel now about the new investigation.

If one of that group did want a secured hat, I would have to know who they were, to verify that so I could say - YEAH - this person was on the gj. But I would not reveal their name - - I see no reason why I should as it might just cause them to get called by the media - - I wouldn't do that.

So, what does it actually mean in this case?

We don't know if the GJ decided to indict and the DA ruled against their recommendation, or if the GJ voted not to indict, or if there was a hung jury or sorts and the DA made the decision.

We know that the grand jury ended with no indictment or arrest.

And we know the DA publicly stated there was not enough evidence to make an arrest.