Hunter complained to tabloid reporter, Craig Lewis, and other members of the press that his office needed a "break," a new revelation, in order to indict the Ramseys. The bad fact is that District Attorney Hunter ignored all the breaks that came his way except for immediately reporting them via a press leak to the Ramseys' defense attorneys. While this did not necessarily render the leaked evidence inadmissible in court, it provided the Ramseys' lawyers with access to evidence that they had no right to receive prior to the filing of charges. It armed the defense with the argument that no "fair" trial was possible, and thus provided a basis to dismiss the prosecutor's case, or grounds to appeal a conviction. John and Patsy's lawyers, and the press, then spun real evidentiary facts out to the public with their own response, which was to trivialize, deny or calumniate the source.
Interestingly, as came to light through the persistence of the New York Post in its slow capitulation to a Ramsey lawsuit over Burke's possible involvement in the death of JonBenet, lawyers for the Ramseys and the District Attorney's office had evidence regarding Burke that neither side wanted the press to examine. Burke was a few weeks shy of being ten years old at the time of his sister's death, and, under Colorado law, he could not be charged with the crime of murder at so tender an age. One may speculate that the grand jury was prevented from issuing a report because only one of the three persons in the Ramsey household on December 26, 1996, Burke, was called to testify. The information provided by police interviews with virtually every other potential witness was provided to the defense lawyers and leaked to the press. Burke's was not.
