03-01-2017, 08:41 PM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ALEXANDER M. HUNTER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JUSTICE CENTER
1777 6th Street
Box 471
Boulder, CO 80306
January 20, 1999
Ms. Cina L. Wong
1131 Granby Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Re: Request to appear before the Boulder County Statutory Grand Jury
Dear Ms. Wong:
After due consideration of your request to appear and testify before the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, I wish to inform you that your request is denied. We have determined that your proposed testimony would not serve the interests of justice which is the controlling standard by which to judge your request. (Comment by New York attorney DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In the nearly eighteen months that the police and Boulder DA have had the handwriting reports of experts Thomas Miller, Cina Wong and David Liebman, there has not been a single phone call from any investigator willing to spend even five minutes discussing the handwriting evidence with arguably some of the finest questioned document examiners in the country -- provided free of charge at my own expense. Compare this with the time and expense spent on searching for "Santa bears" and the periodic pleas by the police and the DA to the public to "come forward with any information that might help solve this crime." The ONLY reason the DA has even bothered considering the handwriting evidence of Liebman and Wong at this late date is due to the legal requirement under Colorado law that every request to appear before a grand jury be met with a written reply after "careful" consideration of such a request. Under Colorado law, a judge is allowed to review the basis for any rejection to determine it's "reasonableness." )
The primary reason that we have reached this decision is that we believe that the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusions does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic questioned documents examiners in this country. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "What Michael Kane fails to mention is the fact that David Liebman is the president, and Cina Wong the vice president, of the National Association of Document Examiners, NADE, which is a distinguished professional organization that sets the "methological standards" of its members and of the entire field of questioned document examination. Wong and Liebman, in effect, help formulate and set the "standards" used in the field. Curiously, Kane does not explain why every court Liebman and Wong have testified in have accepted their methodology into evidence. Please notice that Kane fails to mention what these"methological standards" are that Liebman and Wong have "failed" to meet except for the single objection which appears in the next paragraph. Clearly, Kane is "reaching" for a reason to reject the reports of Wong and Liebman and their damning conclusions about Patsy Ramsey's authorship. Compare Kane's use of Donald Foster's handwriting report before the grand jury as described in Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." Schiller reports on page 470: "Hunter...considered linguistics a good investigative tool, but he did not think it would be deemed admissible in a Colorado court. Also, Foster had never testified in a criminal trial. They could use linguistics testimony with the grand jury." Then on page 488: "Hofstrom and some other deputies thought that under the circumstances, which pointed to inadmissibility in court, the professor's [Foster's) report and conclusions should not be presented to the grand jury...DeMuth pointed out that it would not be admissible in a Colorado court. "My guys think you're an asshole," Beckner said to him (DeMuth), "but we're going to need an asshole to fight for us." He (Beckner) asked DeMuth to persuade Hofstrom and Hunter to use Foster's report and conclusions before the grand jury." QUESTION: Why is Michael Kane using Donald Foster's report, despite Hunter's legitimate reservations, before the grand jury, while at the same time turning his nose up at Liebman and Wong?")
Most significant is your complete failure to account for or even reference any unexplained dissimilarities between the questioned and known samples. You are willing to conclude with 100% certainty that a writing was authored by a particular person based on some threshold level of similarities without any mention that there may be 10, 100 or 10,000 unexplainable dissimilarities between the known and unknown writings. I know of no reputable forensic document examiner who will not agree that unexplainable dissimilarities between a person's natural writing and questioned handwriting will preclude a positive identification. In fact, where the degree of unexplained dissimilarity is high, it may result in a (sic) elimination in spite of the existence of a number of points of similarity. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This paragraph is the only reason Kane gives for rejecting Liebman and Wong on methological grounds. Please note how bogus it is: First, Liebman and Wong never cite 100% "certainty" in their reports as Kane claims. Wong cites 85% in her report, and Liebman 90-95%. Kane misstates the degree of their certainty in a transparent attempt to mislead people into believing that Liebman and Wong look ridiculous and that their conclusions should not be trusted. Second, there are no "unexplained dissimilarities" between Patsy's writing and the ransom note. Why? Because the whole purpose of disguising handwriting in a ransom note is to purposely create as many dissimilarities as possible -- that is the whole reason for disguising handwriting, to create as many dissimilarities as possible. Both Liebman and Wong account for these "dissimilarities" by noting that the handwriting was written by someone trying to disguise their identity, which is certainly a common sense way of explaining the "dissimilarities." Kane almost sounds like a defense attorney arguing for the Ramseys with this "objection.")
Because of this, it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado. We recognize that the rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, but it would be rather pointless to allow the grand jury to indict based in part on opinion evidence that a petit jury might never be permitted to hear in a trial. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In light of Hunter's and Hofstrom's reservations about the admissibility of Donald Foster's linguistics report, which I've already discussed, this "explanation" by Michael Kane is so bogus it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. It speaks for itself.")
In addition to your technical deficiencies, there are other reasons for our decision. I would note that you have engaged in a campaign of promoting your opinion in a manner that would surely open your credibility to doubt on cross examination in a judicial proceeding. As an experienced trial attorney. I believe that an expert witness who has attempted to insinuate herself into a particular criminal investigation through a public media campaign would appear less than objective and professional to a jury. It would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examiners who are not tainted in this way. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "Kane makes a good point if it were not for the following facts, as described in Schiller's book on pages 568-9: "Foster had written to Patsy Ramsey in the spring of 1997, before he agreed to work for Hunter...In Foster's letter to Patsy, he had written, "I know you are innocent--know it absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it. Indeed my faith in humanity." He also said that his analysis of the note {at the time} "leads me to believe you did not write it and the police are wasting their time by trying to prove that you did." Even though Foster's spring 1997 conclusions were based only on the fragments of the ransom note that were available at the time, there was a powerful contradiction between his conclusion at the time and what he said in 1998...In his final report, Foster used strong language to state that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note. In the letter to Patsy claiming he was sure she didn't write it, Foster had used almost the same language." Let's face it, Donald Foster is an expert witness with lots of personal and professional "baggage." And yet the Boulder newspapers report that Kane is using Foster's handwriting analysis before the grand jury. QUESTION: Why was this guy taken seriously for so long by both the police and the DA while Liebman and Wong were completely ignored? And if experts who are "publicity hounds" bother Kane, then what about Barry Scheck and Henry Lee, who have made numerous TV appearances as talking heads repeatedly commenting on the JonBenet Ramsey case? They are on TV almost as much as Homer Simpson.")
You, of course, may appeal this decision. If your (sic) choose to do so, you should be aware of an order entered by Judge Daniel Hale and Judge Roxanne Bailin when the grand jury began its work. The order requires that all pleadings filed in this case be filed under seal. Thus, if you plan to appeal, you should be aware that any public dissemination or discussion of your pleadings may be seen by the court as a violation of the order and could result in a (sic) the issuance of a citation for contempt of court. I would suggest that you make your attorney aware of the existence of the order which is on file with the district court clerk. He can advise you in this regard (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This not so subtle attempt at "intimidating" two handwriting experts who have come forward at their own expense to help the DA "solve" this case is almost beneath contempt. Does anyone believe Michael Kane is trying to discover who leaked "secret" grand jury information to Fox News reporter Carol McKinley?")
Very truly yours,
Alexander M. Hunter
District Attorney
By:___________
Michael J. Kane
Deputy District Attorney
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ALEXANDER M. HUNTER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JUSTICE CENTER
1777 6th Street
Box 471
Boulder, CO 80306
January 20, 1999
Ms. Cina L. Wong
1131 Granby Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Re: Request to appear before the Boulder County Statutory Grand Jury
Dear Ms. Wong:
After due consideration of your request to appear and testify before the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, I wish to inform you that your request is denied. We have determined that your proposed testimony would not serve the interests of justice which is the controlling standard by which to judge your request. (Comment by New York attorney DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In the nearly eighteen months that the police and Boulder DA have had the handwriting reports of experts Thomas Miller, Cina Wong and David Liebman, there has not been a single phone call from any investigator willing to spend even five minutes discussing the handwriting evidence with arguably some of the finest questioned document examiners in the country -- provided free of charge at my own expense. Compare this with the time and expense spent on searching for "Santa bears" and the periodic pleas by the police and the DA to the public to "come forward with any information that might help solve this crime." The ONLY reason the DA has even bothered considering the handwriting evidence of Liebman and Wong at this late date is due to the legal requirement under Colorado law that every request to appear before a grand jury be met with a written reply after "careful" consideration of such a request. Under Colorado law, a judge is allowed to review the basis for any rejection to determine it's "reasonableness." )
The primary reason that we have reached this decision is that we believe that the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusions does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic questioned documents examiners in this country. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "What Michael Kane fails to mention is the fact that David Liebman is the president, and Cina Wong the vice president, of the National Association of Document Examiners, NADE, which is a distinguished professional organization that sets the "methological standards" of its members and of the entire field of questioned document examination. Wong and Liebman, in effect, help formulate and set the "standards" used in the field. Curiously, Kane does not explain why every court Liebman and Wong have testified in have accepted their methodology into evidence. Please notice that Kane fails to mention what these"methological standards" are that Liebman and Wong have "failed" to meet except for the single objection which appears in the next paragraph. Clearly, Kane is "reaching" for a reason to reject the reports of Wong and Liebman and their damning conclusions about Patsy Ramsey's authorship. Compare Kane's use of Donald Foster's handwriting report before the grand jury as described in Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." Schiller reports on page 470: "Hunter...considered linguistics a good investigative tool, but he did not think it would be deemed admissible in a Colorado court. Also, Foster had never testified in a criminal trial. They could use linguistics testimony with the grand jury." Then on page 488: "Hofstrom and some other deputies thought that under the circumstances, which pointed to inadmissibility in court, the professor's [Foster's) report and conclusions should not be presented to the grand jury...DeMuth pointed out that it would not be admissible in a Colorado court. "My guys think you're an asshole," Beckner said to him (DeMuth), "but we're going to need an asshole to fight for us." He (Beckner) asked DeMuth to persuade Hofstrom and Hunter to use Foster's report and conclusions before the grand jury." QUESTION: Why is Michael Kane using Donald Foster's report, despite Hunter's legitimate reservations, before the grand jury, while at the same time turning his nose up at Liebman and Wong?")
Most significant is your complete failure to account for or even reference any unexplained dissimilarities between the questioned and known samples. You are willing to conclude with 100% certainty that a writing was authored by a particular person based on some threshold level of similarities without any mention that there may be 10, 100 or 10,000 unexplainable dissimilarities between the known and unknown writings. I know of no reputable forensic document examiner who will not agree that unexplainable dissimilarities between a person's natural writing and questioned handwriting will preclude a positive identification. In fact, where the degree of unexplained dissimilarity is high, it may result in a (sic) elimination in spite of the existence of a number of points of similarity. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This paragraph is the only reason Kane gives for rejecting Liebman and Wong on methological grounds. Please note how bogus it is: First, Liebman and Wong never cite 100% "certainty" in their reports as Kane claims. Wong cites 85% in her report, and Liebman 90-95%. Kane misstates the degree of their certainty in a transparent attempt to mislead people into believing that Liebman and Wong look ridiculous and that their conclusions should not be trusted. Second, there are no "unexplained dissimilarities" between Patsy's writing and the ransom note. Why? Because the whole purpose of disguising handwriting in a ransom note is to purposely create as many dissimilarities as possible -- that is the whole reason for disguising handwriting, to create as many dissimilarities as possible. Both Liebman and Wong account for these "dissimilarities" by noting that the handwriting was written by someone trying to disguise their identity, which is certainly a common sense way of explaining the "dissimilarities." Kane almost sounds like a defense attorney arguing for the Ramseys with this "objection.")
Because of this, it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado. We recognize that the rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, but it would be rather pointless to allow the grand jury to indict based in part on opinion evidence that a petit jury might never be permitted to hear in a trial. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In light of Hunter's and Hofstrom's reservations about the admissibility of Donald Foster's linguistics report, which I've already discussed, this "explanation" by Michael Kane is so bogus it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. It speaks for itself.")
In addition to your technical deficiencies, there are other reasons for our decision. I would note that you have engaged in a campaign of promoting your opinion in a manner that would surely open your credibility to doubt on cross examination in a judicial proceeding. As an experienced trial attorney. I believe that an expert witness who has attempted to insinuate herself into a particular criminal investigation through a public media campaign would appear less than objective and professional to a jury. It would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examiners who are not tainted in this way. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "Kane makes a good point if it were not for the following facts, as described in Schiller's book on pages 568-9: "Foster had written to Patsy Ramsey in the spring of 1997, before he agreed to work for Hunter...In Foster's letter to Patsy, he had written, "I know you are innocent--know it absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it. Indeed my faith in humanity." He also said that his analysis of the note {at the time} "leads me to believe you did not write it and the police are wasting their time by trying to prove that you did." Even though Foster's spring 1997 conclusions were based only on the fragments of the ransom note that were available at the time, there was a powerful contradiction between his conclusion at the time and what he said in 1998...In his final report, Foster used strong language to state that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note. In the letter to Patsy claiming he was sure she didn't write it, Foster had used almost the same language." Let's face it, Donald Foster is an expert witness with lots of personal and professional "baggage." And yet the Boulder newspapers report that Kane is using Foster's handwriting analysis before the grand jury. QUESTION: Why was this guy taken seriously for so long by both the police and the DA while Liebman and Wong were completely ignored? And if experts who are "publicity hounds" bother Kane, then what about Barry Scheck and Henry Lee, who have made numerous TV appearances as talking heads repeatedly commenting on the JonBenet Ramsey case? They are on TV almost as much as Homer Simpson.")
You, of course, may appeal this decision. If your (sic) choose to do so, you should be aware of an order entered by Judge Daniel Hale and Judge Roxanne Bailin when the grand jury began its work. The order requires that all pleadings filed in this case be filed under seal. Thus, if you plan to appeal, you should be aware that any public dissemination or discussion of your pleadings may be seen by the court as a violation of the order and could result in a (sic) the issuance of a citation for contempt of court. I would suggest that you make your attorney aware of the existence of the order which is on file with the district court clerk. He can advise you in this regard (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This not so subtle attempt at "intimidating" two handwriting experts who have come forward at their own expense to help the DA "solve" this case is almost beneath contempt. Does anyone believe Michael Kane is trying to discover who leaked "secret" grand jury information to Fox News reporter Carol McKinley?")
Very truly yours,
Alexander M. Hunter
District Attorney
By:___________
Michael J. Kane
Deputy District Attorney