Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (46 page)

I would, therefore, like to believe that, at some point in time, history will eventually resolve the question as to who exercised the better part of reasonable judgment in this particular matter.

It was a combination of all of these things that finally motivated me to move forward with the publication of this work.

Had there been
any
hope of prosecuting
anyone
for this child’s murder, I might have felt otherwise. But that is no longer a viable option, and though I have had many second thoughts about this issue, it is my feeling that the truth should be revealed.

It has been extremely frustrating to tune into “investigative news programs” that purport to have “new” information about evidence in the case. Late in the spring of 2011, Aphrodite Jones, an investigative cable TV journalist, hosted a program during which a team of Ramsey defense investigators explored the
evidence
left behind by the
intruder
responsible for the crime.

A friend had alerted me to the upcoming program, and I actually went out and purchased a DVD video recorder so I could capture the show for later viewing. I was going to be traveling and would be unable to see the initial airing of the program.

I have to say that I was more than a little disgusted when I finally had the opportunity to see the program. From my personal perspective, the investigators showcased by the program were continuing to tout evidence that had been thoroughly discounted and no longer held any probative value. It was my opinion that none of the information presented in the program would help identify the actual perpetrators involved in the crime.

I believe the time has come to unveil the discoveries made in recent years and dispel the “BS” that intruder theorists have continued to peddle to an unsuspecting public.

Once my review of the investigation had, in my mind, thoroughly eliminated any significant possibility of involvement by an intruder, I set about examining the evidence, statements, and motives as to each of the surviving family members who were present in the home.

It was readily apparent to me that the parents were completely devastated by the death of their child, and I came to believe that their efforts to keep authorities at arm’s length was to not only allow themselves the time to grieve, but to also insulate themselves from the prying questions that they might not be able to answer.

It is much harder to fashion a falsehood than it is to tell the truth, and I would submit that there were many examples of this hypothesis sprinkled throughout the investigation that proves this. Many of the statements provided by the Ramsey family pointed to
deception
and
collusion
rather than
cooperation
, and this was one of the very reasons police investigators continued to suspect their involvement in the crime.

We could enter into a continuous debate about how we think the parent of a murdered child should act, but the fact of the matter is that most parents who have experienced the horror of this type of situation have not sequestered themselves behind high-priced attorneys without justifiable cause. Innocent parents are typically the first people standing in line to be cleared of any suspected involvement by police so that investigators can get straight to the task of looking for the real perpetrators.

It is important to understand, however, that in our system of justice, the innocent frequently take advantage of legal counsel, and this is especially the case when they can afford to do so. But John Ramsey’s explanation of the timing of attorney involvement didn’t correspond to the facts when the details of witness statements came to light. Mike Bynum’s attempt to explain the timing and the reasons behind attorney involvement betrayed his clients’ ulterior motives in my view.

It appeared to me that the Ramseys were fortifying the ramparts within hours of the discovery of JonBenét’s body, so that they could tactically manage not only the police inquiry, but the heat the media was soon bringing to bear to the investigation.

I watched with some degree of amusement, and anger, as the parents of 6-year-old Aronne Thompson took the same tack in Aurora, Colorado several years ago. Her parents reported that she had gone missing one day after a family argument in November 2005 and called police to seek their assistance in finding her.

The events described by the parents didn’t quite ring true to investigators, however, and the parents soon were considered to be
persons of interest
in the investigation
,
something that I would describe as being similar to falling under the
umbrella of suspicion
. Lawyers coming to the defense appeared to be taking the same approach as Team Ramsey, and had at one point, sought a court order to obtain copies of police notes and reports while the case was still under active investigation. Prosecutors in this instance didn’t cave to the defense bar, and successfully fought the motion to produce the records.

The disappearance of Aronne was a case that eventually was proven to involve real parental abuse. Interviews with the remaining siblings revealed that Aronne had mysteriously disappeared from the home well over a year previous,
not
on the afternoon that the parents called police to report her family tiff.

The body of Aronne was never found, but the parents were subsequently indicted by a grand jury on numerous counts of criminal conduct. The mother passed away just before the indictments were released, and Aronne’s father was eventually sent to prison for her murder.

I considered this a prime example of where a police department and the prosecutor’s office worked in partnership with one another to solve the disappearance and suspected murder of a small child. Unfortunately, this collaborative effort was virtually non-existent in the case involving JonBenét Ramsey, and it is my hope and desire that there is a lesson to be learned in all of this.

Some readers who are familiar with the details of this case may note that I never fully addressed the issue of Santa’s
secret visit
in the body of this work. It had been reported by Barb Kostanik, the mother of one of JonBenét’s friends, that she (JonBenét) was excited about a secret visit Santa had promised to make to her after Christmas day. When questioned about it by this mother, JonBenét had been explicit in her belief that Santa Claus was going to give her a special gift sometime after Christmas.

Intruder theorists believed this secret visit had been arranged by the pedophile who ultimately was responsible for kidnapping and murdering JonBenét. It was thought to have been someone close to the family, and who would have had easy access to her in order to speak to her about the secret visit.

I, after leaving the D.A.’s office, later became aware, that Mary Lacy and many others strongly believed that Bill McReynolds was the secret Santa who allegedly had made arrangements to meet with JonBenét after Christmas. Lacy was so convinced that McReynolds was the perpetrator, she resurrected him as a suspect on one or more occasions after police had already cleared him of involvement.

I proposed another theory in the correspondence that I sent to Mark Beckner in the fall of 2008. I suggested that the secret Santa referred to by JonBenét was not a
person,
but an
event.

Patsy Ramsey, in her attempts to preserve and prolong the magical image of Christmas in the life of her young daughter, had to explain Santa’s Christmas presents that were going to show up in Charlevoix for John Andrew, Melinda, and her fiancé, Stewart Long.

Additional presents were likely to be presented to JonBenét and Burke, so Patsy offered the explanation to her daughter that Santa was going to be making a secret appearance in Michigan after the immediate family had already celebrated the Christmas holiday in Boulder. The second Christmas experience in Charlevoix would be the opportunity for JonBenét to receive her special gift.

Evidence that tended to support this hypothesis was found in the family’s holiday photographs and Boulder P.D.’s crime scene photos. A Christmas morning photograph of JonBenet and Burke depicted unwrapped gifts in the background as they posed by the tree with her new bicycle. Two presents bearing the same wrapping paper were later photographed in the Wine Cellar after JonBenet’s body had been found.

I couldn’t help but wonder if one of these presents, which remained hidden in the basement during the family’s Christmas morning celebration, contained Santa’s special gift for JonBenét.

It is unlikely that we’ll ever know what secret gift Patsy may have intended to give her daughter. The content of the wrapped presents found in the basement was not revealed during the investigation. Moreover, investigators did not obtain a search warrant for the contents of John Ramsey’s plane, which had been packed full of things on Christmas day in preparation for the flight to Michigan.

My alternate theory about the secret Santa was a matter of speculation, but I thought it a plausible explanation for the events that had been scheduled for the family’s second holiday celebration in Michigan.

I have to report that I had also struggled with interpreting the facts surrounding John Ramsey’s involvement. I was puzzled by his use of binoculars in Burke’s room to scan the alley behind the Barnhill residence, as well as his subsequent 1998 revelation that he had observed a suspicious van parked there, and another vehicle driving by the front of the house.

Crime scene photographs captured the image of a set of binoculars in the kitchen, so it seemed plausible that he actually
had
been scanning the neighborhood through the second floors of the home during the time that Linda Arndt lost track of his whereabouts.

But why not report the van and car driving by to officers when they were first observed that morning? Was he trying to cover his use of the binoculars for another reason?

I thought it possible that he had been checking the trash cans in the alley across the street behind the Barnhill residence because that is where the remnants of the duct tape, cord, and practice notes had been deposited. The alley was clearly visible from Burke’s second floor bedroom windows. Was he scanning that alley to see if the evidence of the crime had yet been hauled away?

It wasn’t until Steve Thomas reminded me that John Ramsey had stated he had found JonBenét at 11:00 a.m. that morning that I considered the possibility that he was not initially involved in any cover-up. This was a
spontaneous utterance
made to his daughter’s fiancé upon their arrival at the Ramsey home that afternoon, and I considered this to be a truthful statement, spoken under emotionally charged circumstances.

There would have been no plausible reason for him to have fabricated the statement concerning the discovery of JonBenét’s body at the time. It went against his penal interest and suggests that he was deliberately concealing information about the death from authorities.

Under those circumstances, I had to wonder whether John Ramsey was aware of the events surrounding the death of his daughter at the time he made this statement to Stewart Long. The changing story line revealed over the history of his statements led me to believe that it was only
later
that he became involved in the web of deception that became apparent after the discovery of his daughter’s body.

I realize that the tongue-in-cheek nature of the “Last Lead” chapter may appear to some to be cruel and uncaring, but I want to make it clear that this chapter was crafted as an ultimate expression of the frustration that has constantly trailed my participation in the investigation of this murder. It speaks to the incredible lack of judgment that some people exercised when pursuing and interpreting leads in this case, and I carried an internal debate for many weeks before deciding to include this as a closing chapter of this book.

Make no mistake. The murder of this little girl was horrific and tragic, and there is nothing funny about that.

Nor is it funny when you consider the damage done by the Ramsey family when they intentionally chose to point the finger of suspicion at other people. It is with some degree of restraint that I don’t expound on the travesty that this family has visited upon their
friends
, and other
innocent
bystanders, as they took steps to divert attention away from themselves, and their disingenuousness when it came to covering up the circumstances that surrounded the death of their daughter.

In retrospect, and I have to acknowledge that hindsight is always 20 - 20, Alex Hunter’s office appears to have been outmaneuvered by defense attorneys when he agreed to permit the family their
island of privacy
. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that his office has provided this type of concession to the defense bar.

And despite having information that discounted the elements of the intruder theory, Mary Lacy’s office chose not to seek credible information for the sole reason that she didn’t want to ‘harm her relationship’ with the Ramsey family.

If I have interpreted this correctly, it would appear that the Ramsey family, and their cadre of defense attorneys, have successfully subverted the system of laws that purportedly were crafted to speak for, and protect the rights of, the innocent.