Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (17 page)

The presentation took place at the Coors Event Center located on the University of Colorado Boulder campus. Approximately forty people attended, representing agencies from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the FBI’s Child Abduction Serial Killer Unit, BPD’s Dream Team, Hunter’s group of consulting DA’s and members of his staff, along with Dr. Lee and Barry Scheck.

Media trucks with satellite dishes camped in the surrounding parking lot.

A detailed analysis was provided regarding key pieces of evidence, which included opinions on the authorship of the ransom note, evidence that pointed to prior acts of
chronic sexual abuse,
the pineapple found in JonBenét’s digestive track, and the fingerprint evidence linking Patsy and Burke to the fruit.

Additional information was provided on the paintbrush found in the paint tray located outside the room where JonBenét had been discovered, and its use in the garrote that had been used to end her life.

The trace samples of DNA that had been analyzed thus far were discussed, with Lee and Scheck weighing in with their expert opinions. The conclusion was reached that more work was needed with regard to this evidence.

The long-delayed examination of fibers found on the sticky side of the duct tape used to silence JonBenét had finally returned from the lab. Only days before the presentation, BPD investigators had learned that fibers from Patsy Ramsey’s black and red Essentials jacket were consistent with those found on the duct tape.

This suggested to some investigators that Patsy had been in direct personal contact with the duct tape used to cover her daughter’s mouth, an element believed to have been used in the staging of the crime. She purportedly had never been to the basement on the morning of the kidnapping when the tape had been recovered. How could the transfer of this fiber evidence take place if it was the
intruder
who had brought the tape to the home during the kidnapping?

Sergeant Wickman was tasked with presenting information that discounted the suggestion that an intruder had been responsible for the crime. A series of theoretical questions were posed that challenged the logic behind an intruder’s involvement. BPD investigators believed there were too many illogical, conflicting behavioral elements in the case to have involved an outside perpetrator.

It was stressed that the evidence of
prior vaginal trauma
suggested that either the intruder had the opportunity to visit JonBenét on many occasions prior to her murder, or that the person responsible for the sexual abuse and her homicide were different people altogether.

A synopsis was provided that detailed the BPD’s efforts to clear all of the registered sex offenders who resided in the area, and other suspects who had come to attention of authorities during their investigation.

In their view, all evidence collected up to that point in time had pointed to family involvement. Boulder investigators were pinning their hopes on the weight of this evidence, and were confident that their presentation would convince Hunter to convene a grand jury.

They closed the presentation with a list of things they believed should be pursued through the investigative subpoena powers of the grand jury.

Hunter spoke to the media at the conclusion of the two-day presentation.

“This is all about finding the killer of JonBenét and justice… We do not have enough to file a case, and we have a lot of work to do. I will go back to my people and analyze what we heard over a number of hours and make sure it is sensible to spend the time it takes to run a grand jury.”
¹⁹

The investigators who had been leading the charge for a year and half went home to their families and awaited the DA’s decision. They had put every ounce of energy into the preparation of the argument for the convening of a grand jury, and now there seemed to be nothing left for them to do. The case had effectively been turned over to the DA’s office at the conclusion of the Event’s Center briefing.

They would subsequently learn that the Ramseys had agreed to participate in another round of interviews with the DA’s office, but Boulder Police would not be involved. In fact, the DA’s office wouldn’t even reveal the location of the interviews that would take place with the parents in Colorado. They were told to stay away from Georgia, which is where Burke was to be interviewed.

The interviews took place over the course of three days in late June, 1998, and BPD investigators were granted the opportunity to review the videotapes of the Q and A sessions during the evenings between interviews. It was not the most ideal set of circumstances for the investigators who wanted to ask their own questions of the family, but it was better than nothing.

Hunter seemed to be dragging his feet on announcing his decision as to whether or not he would convene the grand jury, and Steve Thomas had had enough. Not long after the conclusion of his agency’s presentation on the murder case, he submitted a request for unpaid leave from the department. After months of enduring grueling work and frustration, he needed time away to recuperate and gather his thoughts.

As Hunter postured on the use of the grand jury, it was announced that Boulder’s lead investigators wouldn’t even be sworn on the case. It was possible that only
one
representative from the police department would be authorized to participate as a grand jury investigator.

This meant that the majority of the detectives who were most familiar with the evidence in the case would be prevented from sitting in on the testimony of witnesses called before the jury. Additionally, they would not be able to see or review any of the documents and records that would be returned by subpoena. This proposed course of action left more than a few scratching their heads in wonderment.

Thomas timed the submission of his letter of resignation to coincide with JonBenét’s August 6th birthday. She would have turned 8-years-old that summer.

In an 8-page letter addressed to Chief Mark Beckner, recently appointed as police chief after Tom Koby’s forced departure, Thomas spelled out the frustrations he experienced as a lead investigator in the murder case. He specifically blasted Alex Hunter and the members of his office for their incompetence and “mishandling” of the investigation. He detailed a litany of things the DA’s office had failed to do that he felt had only served to obstruct the police inquiry into the matter.

In the end, Thomas indicated that he could no longer be a part of the
game
that the murder investigation had become. Until such time as a special prosecutor was appointed to take over the case, the Boulder detective wanted nothing more to do with the investigation.
²⁰

The media managed to get their hands on a copy of the letter and additional pressure was brought to bear on the investigation. A week later, Hunter officially announced that his office would present the case to the Boulder County Grand Jury. He declined to share the details of exactly when, and where, the inquiry would begin.

Fleet and Priscilla White, who had been trying to get a special prosecutor involved in the case since December 1997, authored a second letter to the media that was published on August 17, 1998. It expressed similar sentiments of the letter that had preceded it in January of that year.

The Whites expressed dismay at the recent departure of Detective Thomas, and went on to espouse a complicated theory of conspiracy involving the DA’s decision to delay the use of the grand jury. They apparently believed that if the grand jury failed to indict anyone in the family that Hunter could then ask them to issue a report that would vindicate the family, and point the finger of blame at police for a botched investigation.

It was a lengthy and complicated discussion of changes that had taken place to Colorado grand jury laws, which had been set in motion prior to JonBenét’s murder. Nonetheless, it was clear that the Whites thought Hunter’s office had mishandled the investigation and they were asking Governor Roy Romer’s office to intervene, and appoint a special prosecutor to move the case forward.

They closed the letter by blaming the Ramsey’s refusal to cooperate with police as the “first cause” of the reason for the failure of the investigation.
²¹

Though the murder investigation was now destined to be reviewed by a new set of eyes and ears, the summer of 1998 had not yet witnessed the last of the resignations of Ramsey investigators.

Not happy with the direction he thought the case was taking, DA investigator Lou Smit tendered his letter of resignation to Alex Hunter on September 20, 1998.

“Dear Alex,

It is with great reluctance and regret that I submit this letter of resignation. Even though I want to continue to participate in the official investigation and assist in finding the killer of JonBenét, I find that I cannot in good conscience be part of the persecution of innocent people. It would be highly improper and unethical for me to stay when I so strongly believe this…

At this point in the investigation the “case” tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him….

The case tells me there is substantial, credible, evidence of an intruder and lack of evidence that the parents are involved.”
²²

Smit had worked on the case for the DA’s office for nearly 19 months. His letter of resignation did not signal the end of his participation in the case, however, for he would go on to work for the Ramsey family, and their attorneys, as he proceeded to chase leads of the elusive intruder thought responsible for murdering JonBenét.

P
rior to his resignation, Smit had continued to pursue the defense leads that pointed to an outside intruder being involved in the murder of JonBenét. The Ramsey family, having become acquainted with him through the regular prayer vigils he held outside their Boulder home, must have felt that a savior had finally come to their rescue.

This was the man who had discovered evidence that suggested an intruder had used the Train Room window well to enter and exit the home, and he supported this theory by pointing to the odd placement of a suitcase directly beneath the window of this basement storage room.

Smit had also launched the hypothesis that a stun gun had been used to silence and subdue JonBenét during her abduction from her bedroom. The use of this instrument had left the telltale marks of its electronic probes on JonBenét’s body, and in his opinion, it was declarative of the existence of an intruder.

It was Smit’s strongly held belief that a family member would not have required the use of a stun gun to control JonBenét, and thus the evidence that pointed to its existence effectively cleared the family of any involvement in her death.

There were a number of prosecutors and investigators in the sheriff’s department who believed in Smit’s theory, and the separation between these agencies and Boulder PD investigators continued to widen. Boulder investigators could not understand how Smit and others in his camp excluded certain key pieces of physical evidence and behavioral clues that pointed to family involvement.

In other instances, intruder theorists outright dismissed the opinions of the outside experts who had continued to consult on the case. This included insight provided by members of the FBI’s venerable Behavioral Analysis and Child Abduction Serial Killer Units. Their interpretation of the circumstances involved in the case led them to counsel BPD investigators to continue their inquiry into the family.

Despite these contrary opinions, Smit pursued Alex Hunter’s charge of investigating the case from the defense perspective. His continuing efforts to run a parallel investigation are revealed in a letter that John Ramsey sent to him dated December 18, 1997. A copy of this letter was subsequently forwarded to Boulder investigators by the D.A.’s office and received on January 6, 1998.
²³

In 2 ½ pages of typewritten format, Ramsey spells out possible theories that would have prompted an intruder to target his family, and the names of other people who could have had motive to harm his daughter.

Ramsey points to two events that preceded the Christmas holidays that may have triggered someone to commit the crime. The first event was the article that had been published in the
Boulder Daily Camera
in early December 1996, announcing that his company, Access Graphics, had surpassed the 1 billion-dollar mark in sales. He states that he had a “strange gut feeling” about the publishing of the article and wasn’t sure it was a good idea. There were concerns because it mentioned him by name.

He ultimately approved the go-ahead for the article and, in hindsight, seemed to be suggesting that this article painted him as a wealthy target of opportunity. Ramsey would later suggest that the ransom demand exhibited the possibility of religious overtones, which arguably, would negate the financial motive for this crime. From the outset, many friends of the family thought the $118,000.00 demand was meager when compared to Ramsey’s relative wealth.

The second event was JonBenét’s public appearance in the Boulder Christmas Parade that took place on or around December 6, 1996. Ramsey indicated that JonBenét had ridden on a car float with two or three other girls, and that her name had been attached to the side of the car. He described her as looking very pretty and was voicing reluctance for having permitted her to participate in the event. He thought that perhaps the intruder had seen her there.

Ramsey then addressed the reference in the ransom note to his “southern” heritage and pointed out that he had been raised in Michigan and Nebraska. He had only moved to the south, Atlanta, Georgia, after completing his service in the U.S. Navy, so anyone who was close enough to be familiar with his background would have known that he was not a true southerner.

Potential suspects then became the focus of the correspondence and Ramsey began with an assessment of Bill and Janet McReynolds, also known as “Mr. and Mrs. Santa Claus.” He stated that he didn’t think he could “discount” the two as possible suspects and indicated that Bill McReynolds had played Santa Claus at two previous holiday parties hosted at his home. He advised that a dozen or so friends would come to the house, and then Santa would show up as a special treat for the children.

JonBenét reportedly was fascinated with Santa and during one party took him on a tour of the house that included her bedroom and the basement. Ramsey indicated that the basement was usually full of Christmas decorations and presents.

The Ramseys had not planned a Christmas party for the 1996 holidays due to the fact that there had already been a surprise 40
^th
birthday party celebration for Patsy, and because the family intended to go on a Disney cruise after spending some time at their vacation home in Michigan. There was a lot going on with the family that season and another holiday party had not been scheduled for the calendar.

McReynolds was reported to have called Patsy Ramsey to see if he could again play Santa for her holiday party. McReynolds indicated that Charles Kurault was in Boulder doing a special program about his portrayal of Santa and thought that he might come to the Ramsey party to film the event. He alluded to how nice the family home appeared.

Ramsey thought that McReynolds had made a point of calling his wife and inviting himself to their party.

Patsy Ramsey reportedly decided to go ahead and put together a party on short notice, inviting their regular group of friends and children. Santa was accompanied for the first time by his wife, who played the role of Mrs. Claus. Ramsey indicated that everything seemed normal at the party, although Mrs. Claus had not been particularly “cheerful” in portraying her holiday persona.

Ramsey stated that Santa “acted very frail” and needed the assistance of his wife during the evening. He noted that Santa didn’t seem to be playing his role very well either, but he wrote it off to McReynolds’ “feebleness.”

He contrasted this behavior with what he reportedly witnessed later that December when McReynolds was observed to be acting “quite spry” when standing outside a televised broadcast of the
Today
show.

Ramsey referenced the bizarre past he would later hear about the McReynolds family and when he put it all together, he wondered if they somehow could have been involved in the murder of his daughter. He went on to state that “whoever had done this was quite clever and that they seemed to have been trying to be overly clever.”

Ramsey thought that the crime had been “well thought out” and referenced Janet McReynold’s fictional play that she had written about a child’s murder. He thought perhaps that she had wanted to “try the real thing.”

Ramsey alluded to McReynold’s presence at his holiday party as being a precursor to the alleged secret visit that Santa was going to make to JonBenét on one of the days bracketing Christmas day. JonBenét reportedly told a childhood friend that Santa was going to pay her a special visit in addition to Christmas morning.

Two verses of Psalms had been circled in a bible located in his home, and he pointed to these as additional clues left by the intruder. He reported that neither he nor Patsy had ever marked a bible in their home and wondered why an intruder would leave a ransom note, except for the purpose of leaving “clever little clues.”

Ramsey also indicted that he had read that Psalm 118 was located exactly in the center of the bible, and that this perhaps accounted for the $118,000.00 ransom figure.

He concluded his assessment with the McReynolds involvement by opining that perhaps the real signature on the ransom note was “SBJC”, rather than “SBTC”. He suggested that it could be interpreted as an acronym for “Santa Bill and Janet Claus.”

Former employees of Access Graphics became the next focus of Ramsey’s list of possible “suspect” leads and he mentioned two people that he himself had a hand in terminating from the company. He then named men who had been mentioned early in the inquiry, people who might have been indirectly angry with him as a CEO who had permitted their firing.

Jeff Merrick, Jim Marino, and Mike Glenn had been introduced into the company by Ramsey, but eventually terminated. Each of the men apparently thought that Ramsey should have intervened in their personnel matters.

Ramsey indicated that he found it difficult to believe that any of these men would have been involved in the murder of his daughter, but of all of the three, he was suspicious of the wife of Merrick. He thought that she could have been angry with him over her husband’s situation.

The last suspect named in Ramsey’s letter was the woman with whom he had had an affair. He indicated that he had not seen or heard from her in 20 years and that it was difficult for him to imagine that she could have been involved.

He provided the names of a couple people who might be able to determine her current whereabouts, and concluded by indicating that it might be possible that she had been “vengeful” about his meeting and subsequent marriage to Patsy.

John Ramsey signed off this personal correspondence expressing the hope that Smit and his family were well, and that he would be able to spend time with them. Further, he expressed his and Patsy’s thanks that Smit had come into their lives at that time.

Boulder investigators were growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of any real progress in their investigation. It seemed that certain members of the D.A.’s office were bent on crippling their efforts to pursue leads in the case. Routine search warrants for records had been denied, and evidence that had been unearthed by investigators that pointed to family involvement was deemed insignificant by prosecutors, the very people who were supposed to have been their allies in the pursuit of the truth of the matter.

The media leaks continued, and the men and women of the Boulder Police Department were portrayed as inexperienced, incompetent, and biased in their singular opinion that the evidence collected in the case continued to lead them to believe that a family member had been involved in JonBenét’s murder.

The leadership of the department remained silent on the public front, not able to compromise the details of an ongoing criminal investigation, but that did not assuage the demoralized investigators who worked tirelessly to solve the murder of a six-year old girl. The media would not hear of all of the other intruder leads that Boulder investigators would be pursuing in their search for answers.

Boulder investigators had been asking for a grand jury investigation from the early onset of the case, as early as January 1997. There was a need to compel testimony from people who were refusing to cooperate, and to secure the information of witnesses while it was still fresh in their memories.

It was not a novel idea. Many judicial districts brought murder cases before their sitting Grand Juries because of the broad reaching powers associated with their investigative authority. Witnesses, adverse or otherwise, could be compelled to testify, and subpoenas could be issued that directed the production of records deemed probative to the inquiry.

For some unknown reason, the D.A.’s office balked at the idea. Apparently, Hunter’s office preferred to the let the gulf widen between his agency and the members of the police department who were statutorily charged with the investigation of the murder. Law enforcement agencies
investigated
crimes committed within their jurisdiction. District Attorney’s offices were responsible for
prosecuting
defendants who were ultimately charged under the legal threshold of “probable cause.”

Hunter seemed content to let confusion reign, and the animosity between police investigators and his office continued to build. As noted in Steve Thomas’s letter of resignation, the level of frustration amongst BPD investigators was reaching epidemic proportions. The Ramseys had not been charged in any crime, and yet their cadre of attorneys were making demands exclusively reserved to the rights of a criminal defendant.

The analysis of physical evidence that could have moved the case forward was put on hold, and investigators were constantly reminded that the politically influential team of Ramsey attorneys were a power unto themselves. From an outsider’s perspective, it seemed that the D.A.’s office was afraid to go head-to-head with the defense team that had been assembled in this case.

Tom Wickman was a friend and former colleague of mine, and he had come to Telluride on many occasions over the years to work as a reserve officer for me during the summer music festivals. As a detective sergeant, he had assumed responsibility for overseeing the murder investigation after Larry Mason had been removed from the case, wrongly accused of leaking information to the media.

Wickman was tightlipped about the inquiry, but he once shared with me that frustrations had run to the boiling point on one particular day. The men and women under his command had been running their tails into the ground, working untold hours, and in their minds their efforts had been fruitless.

Taking in the disparaging look on the faces of his team, Wickman decided to close the doors of the unit for the afternoon. Submitting their leave requests, the team snuck out the back door of the department and reconvened at a movie theatre. They took in a matinee movie, the topic of which was an uplifting crime drama that depicted the good guys triumphing over evil, something that doesn’t always happen in the real world.