Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (19 page)

Brennan reported that former FBI profiler John Douglas had previously stated that he believed the crime had been committed by someone outside the family, possibly by someone with a “business-related grudge against John Ramsey.”

Brennan noted, however, that interviews with executives of Ramsey’s former employer, Access Graphics, revealed that no one from the company had been called to testify before the grand jury. Denver media legal analyst Scott Robinson thought that information relevant, and he believed that the investigation was focused “elsewhere in the search of JonBenét’s killer.”
³⁵

Some of the witnesses who were reported to have testified before the grand jury up to that point in time were listed as follows:

• Mike Archuleta, Ramsey pilot
  
• Lind Arndt, BPD detective
  
• Dr. Francesco Beuf , JonBenet’s pediatrician
  
• Debbie Chaves, CBI forensics expert
  
• John Douglas, retired FBI profiler
  
• Michael Everett, BPD CSI
  
• John and Barbara Fernie, friends of Ramsey family
  
• Rick French, BPD officer first on scene
  
• Ron Gosage, BPD detective
  
• Pam Griffin, Ramsey family friend and beauty pageant seamstress
  
• Jan Harmer, BPD detective
  
• George Herrera, CBI fingerprint expert
  
• Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, Ramsey housekeeper and accused suspect
  
• Reverend Rol Hoverstock, Ramsey pastor
  
• Larry Mason, BPD detective sergeant
  
• Dr. John Meyer, Boulder County Coroner
  
• Fred Patterson, BPD detective
  
• Carol Piirto, JonBenet’s 3
  ^rd
  grade teacher
  
• Merv Pugh, husband of Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh
  
• Burke Ramsey, older brother of JonBenet
  
• Lou Smit, Boulder DA investigator
  
• Tom Trujillo, BPD detective
  
• Chet Ubowski, CBI handwriting analyst
  
• Barry Weiss, BPD CSI
  
• Fleet and Priscilla White, Ramsey family friends
  
• Tom Wickman, BPD detective sergeant
  

On October 1, 1999, the
Denver Post
reported that the grand jury was preparing to hear from people considered to be Ramsey supporters.
³⁶
Private investigator Ellis Armistead, working for Ramsey attorneys from nearly the outset of the case, had been observed walking into a grand jury “prep room” and walking from the ‘direction of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office’ about an hour later.’

Close family friend and supporter, Susan Stine, was said to have testified the week prior. The Ramseys had delivered a Christmas present to the Stine residence after leaving the White party on Christmas night. Susan was described as a
staunch defender
of Patsy Ramsey, and she and her husband had moved to Georgia with the Ramseys when they left Boulder.

The paper also reported that John Ramsey’s older children, John Andrew and Melinda, were expected to testify on Thursday of that week. Though not in the home on the night of the murder, they could possibly answer questions about other relationships with the family.

Legal analysts theorized that the appearance of witnesses friendly to the Ramseys suggested that investigators were looking for suspects
outside
the family. Friends might be able to point to things that aroused their suspicion and provide detectives with new leads.

Though they were prepared to testify in the matter, neither Patsy nor John Ramsey was reported to have appeared before the grand jury during their investigation.

On October 13, 1999, thirteen months after being convened, Alex Hunter held a press conference and stated that the grand jury had concluded its inquiry into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, and that “no charges have been filed.” He went on to indicate that prosecutors “do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.”

The panel of grand jurors investigating the murder had been dismissed and no report had been issued by their body. Hunter reportedly vowed that the proceedings would remain secret forever and jurors were prohibited from speaking about the details of their participation in the investigation.

Mark Beckner, now the police chief of Boulder, issued a statement two days later. He thanked the grand jurors for their service to the community, and went on to praise the special prosecutors who had led the grand jury through its work.

Commenting on speculation that charges had not been filed because of reluctance on the part of the District Attorney’s Office, Beckner noted that three experienced prosecutors had worked on the grand jury investigation. In his opinion, none of them would hesitate to take the case to trial once the evidence was sufficient to do so.

Beckner indicated that despite the lack of an indictment being issued, progress had been made during the grand jury inquiry and that the murder investigation remained an open and on-going case.

Michael Kane, the special prosecutor who had led the grand jury inquiry, returned to his home in Pennsylvania a tired and frustrated man. In an interview conducted nearly two years later, Kane told
Rocky Mountain News
staff writer Charlie Brennan that he still thought about the murder case every day.

“And at least once a week, when I’m out running or something, this case will be running through my head, and I’ll think, ‘What if we did this now?’ Or, ‘What if that happened?’”
³⁷

Kane had the opportunity to interview the Ramseys on two occasions: the first when he joined Hunter’s team in June 1998 and he assisted Lou Smit with the family interviews arranged by the DA’s office. The second occasion took place in August 2000, when he traveled to Atlanta with Mark Beckner to participate in interviews taking place in the offices of Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood.

Kane indicated that he had spent many hours questioning the Ramseys and believed they had ‘yet to give him the straight story.’
³⁸

It was his impression that he felt like he was talking to a “press secretary who was giving responses with a spin.” “I felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern.”

The August 2000 interviews had been arranged so that police could explain the evidence that placed the Ramseys under suspicion, and explore whether the family had any explanations for some of the evidence.
³⁹

Kane and Wood went head-to-head on one or more occasions during the interviews. Kane took exception to Wood’s interjections during some questions and accused him of obstructing his questioning. Wood responded by calling Kane’s line of questioning as irrelevant, and referred to one particular question about Burke’s school security as “the disgusting tactic of an overzealous prosecutor.”
⁴⁰

Kane had encouraged Wood to accompany him to a judge’s chambers, and seek public disclosure of the grand jury records. Wood responded affirmatively to the suggestion, but there was never any follow-up on the proposal.

The August interviews were characterized by both police and Wood as non-productive, and marked the end of Kane’s official involvement in the murder investigation.

He told Brennan in his 2001 interview that he thought a major problem with the case was that prosecutors had failed to initiate a grand jury inquiry early in the investigation. He felt that the grand jury should have been impaneled promptly, not necessarily with the intent to seek a quick indictment, but to use its broad-ranging subpoena powers. Reluctant witnesses could have been compelled to testify, and records of a personal and business nature could have been obtained in a more timely fashion.

Kane indicated that, despite the numerous books and media stories that had covered the investigation, the public was not fully aware of the real facts of the case. There remains ‘dozens of secrets and what the public thinks is fact is simply not the fact.’
⁴¹

After a year and a half spent focusing on nothing but the murder case, Kane indicated that he was burned out from the
cat-and-mouse
aspects of the case. He found it rewarding, but was glad to have been able to take a break from the frustrations of the investigation.

T
he polygraph has been a tool used by law enforcement investigators for decades, and it is an instrument that relies upon the physiological responses of an individual who undergoes questioning while attached to the machine. It is intended to tell an examiner whether or not someone is being truthful during the testing process.

The polygraph machine tests three aspects of the human physiology:

• Respiration
  
• Changes in skin resistance / skin conductance
  
• Relative blood volume and pulse rate
  

The
lie
is purportedly detected by physiological changes taking place in the body when a person is not being truthful. The premise being, that when a person is deceptive, there are numerous physiological changes that occur, such as an increase or decrease in blood volume being pumped through the body; an increase or decrease in the heart rate; and changes in respiration and perspiration.

When a person is being truthful, the body functions within its normal patterns with no significant changes. The polygraph examiner helps determine this baseline of physiological behavior by asking questions for which a truthful response is expected: i.e. How old are you? Do you live at 123 Oak Street, Anywhere, USA? What is your name?

Changes in physiological conditions are graphed throughout the questioning, and alteration or significant and consistent changes in a person’s responses may be indicative of deception.

It is important to note that many studies have taken place over the years to help determine the reliability and veracity of polygraph testing. There are many different factors that come into play when deciding whether the results of a polygraph test can be relied upon to determine the truth of the matter.

Despite the studies that have been completed to date, there continues to be a debate about the
accuracy
of polygraph exams. While it is has been stated that the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it must be recognized that it is not infallible, and errors can and do occur when an examiner is interpreting the data collected during a test.

Like the situation in which an inexperienced physician can misdiagnose an x-ray, so too can a polygraph examiner misread a chart if there is insufficient experience coming into play. Most errors point to inexperienced polygraph examiners.

And despite the evidence that points to the credibility of polygraph testing, there are many people who claim to be able to teach methods and techniques that will help someone successfully beat the machine. The Internet is full of websites that claim to offer this service.

The American Polygraph Association notes that the admissibility of polygraph test results vary from state to state and from one federal circuit court to another. A judge is usually the final arbiter when it comes to admitting polygraph test results in a court of law. Most frequently, both sides must stipulate in advance of any test, that polygraph results will be permitted to be entered into the record of the case being heard before the court.

In Colorado, it is extremely rare to see polygraph results considered during the prosecution of a criminal case. The polygraph is more typically used as an investigative tool, and test results are frequently utilized during the interview that immediately follows an examination. The subject of the interview may be questioned more thoroughly about indications of deception on certain questions that were asked during the testing process.

The success of rooting out the deception that has been uncovered during the polygraph examination is often determined by the experience, and skill of the trained police interrogator. An admission of guilt must accompany a deceptive polygraph exam, for it is not possible to waive the test results of a lying suspect in front of a prosecutor and expect that criminal charges will be filed. It just isn’t going to happen in today’s environment.

Boulder investigators were fully conversant with this situation when they had their first opportunity to conduct follow-up interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey in April, 1997.

Treading lightly in his approach to the topic, Steve Thomas indicated that he was attempting to take possible suspects
out of the bucket
so that he could focus his efforts on those who declined to clear themselves of involvement in the crime. He didn’t specifically ask either of the parents during their interview if they would submit to polygraph testing, but wanted to know
how
the test results would turn out if they did take a test.

John Ramsey indicated that he had been told that he should not take a test because of the tremendous amount of guilt he was harboring for failing to protect his daughter. This feeling of guilt, and the strong emotions he was experiencing, might impact his test results. He went on to say that he had not killed JonBenét, and that if the polygraph was accurate, he would “pass it 100%.” Thomas pressed the issue, and asked Ramsey if he would, at some point, take a polygraph. Ramsey replied that he would be “insulted” if asked to take a polygraph, and though he was willing to follow any recommendations made by his attorneys, he objected to the way he thought police were trying to characterize him and his wife in the matter. He expressed the opinion that police were on a course of “tragic misdirection” by spending time investigating him and Patsy for possible involvement in the murder of their daughter. Patsy was asked a similar set of questions regarding a polygraph examination, and indicated that she was “telling the truth.” She stated that she didn’t know how polygraphs worked, but that if they “tell the truth,” then she would be “telling the truth.” When asked specifically if she would pass a test, Patsy replied by saying, “Yes, I would pass it. I’ll take ten of them, I don’t care, you know. Do whatever you want.” The topic of polygraphs remained dormant for the 40 months that followed the death of JonBenét, and it was not until after the grand jury had concluded their inquiry into the matter that Ramsey attorneys considered using the lie detector for their clients. When answering questions posed by the media during the release of their book,
The Death of Innocence,
⁴²
in March 2000, the Ramseys indicated that they had never taken a polygraph in relation to the murder investigation of their daughter. At one point during the interviews, however, they stated that they were now willing to do so, provided that the polygraph examiners had no connection with the Boulder Police Department. Chief Beckner decided to take them up on the offer not long thereafter, and after consulting with the DA’s office and FBI, indicated in an April 11, 2000, press release that he was willing to accept their conditions. Beckner indicated that Ramsey attorneys had been notified of the acceptance of the offer and was awaiting a reply to schedule a date for the exam.

Negotiations appeared to have broken down in the interim, and the City of Boulder issued another press release on April 25, 2000.

After several discussions with Boulder Police, an attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey today informed police Chief Mark Beckner that the Ramseys will not take polygraph examinations.

On April 11, the Boulder Police Department accepted John and Patsy Ramsey’s public offer to take polygraph exams regarding the death of their daughter, JonBenét. The department agreed to the conditions as set forth by John Ramsey in a March 23 television interview as follows:

• The exam be conducted by an examiner independent from the Boulder Police Department
  
• The exam be conducted in Atlanta
  
• The results of the exam be made public
  

Boulder Police arranged to have FBI specialists conduct the examination in Atlanta. After consulting with others in law enforcement, Boulder Police selected the FBI polygraphers specifically for their international reputation in criminal polygraphs and their independence from the Boulder Police Department. Other factors that weighed heavily in selecting the FBI were the specialist training received by FBI examiners, the quality control implemented in their examinations and supervisory oversight that is provided for every exam.

During subsequent discussions, Ramsey attorney Lin Wood told Boulder Police that the Ramseys were reluctant to take an exam administered by the FBI, as they believed involvement of the FBI and FBI laboratories in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation prevented them from being “independent” examiners.

As a compromise to the Ramsey’s concerns, the FBI agreed to assign an examiner who had no prior knowledge or involvement in the Ramsey case, and the Boulder Police Department agreed not to be involved in selecting the specific FBI examiners.

This did not satisfy Ramsey concerns with the FBI involvement, and the Boulder Police Department is not willing to further compromise the issue, so there will be no polygraph exams at this time.
⁴³

Beckner was quoted as saying that he was disappointed that the Ramseys had declined to take the polygraph examinations, after publically saying that they would.

Ramsey attorney Lin Wood was hesitant to accept Beckner’s offer when he learned that the FBI’s protocol for a polygraph examination typically involved
pre
and
post-testing
interviews. Subjecting his clients to another series of interviews was not part of his agenda, and he countered by offering to have the Ramseys tested by someone other than the FBI. He claimed that the Bureau had been assisting the Boulder Police Department throughout the entire course of their investigation and he didn’t consider them to be neutral parties in the matter.

Wood didn’t trust the federal authorities, based upon his prior experience with the FBI when defending accused Atlanta bomber, Richard Jewel. He thought the Boulder Police Department’s conditions for polygraph testing was unfair. Further, he was insisting that the Boulder Police take the parents off the suspect list if they were able to successfully pass their tests.

Mark Beckner balked at the idea. Investigators believed it was important to carefully craft the types of questions that would be posed to each of the parents during an examination, and there were too many variables to consider if someone unfamiliar with the details of the investigation were to run the test.

Besides, there were just too many things that had been uncovered in the investigation to remove the parents from the
umbrella of suspicion.
Their passing of a polygraph test was not likely to convince investigators of their innocence.

The ball was now in Wood’s court. His clients had volunteered to take a polygraph examination and had offered to make the details public. Some in the media quietly debated whether the Ramseys had been experimenting with polygraphs before the topic was ever raised during the press conference that announced the release of their book.

Wood declined Beckner’s offer to participate in an FBI test, but was now beginning to feel the heat that was building with the media. He had to do something, and outside the scope of public scrutiny, proceeded to hire a private examiner from New Jersey to carry out the testing.

Wood subsequently held a press conference about a month later on May 24, 2000,
⁴⁴
pointing out that his clients had never actually been asked by police investigators to take a polygraph during the interviews being conducted in the death of their daughter. Wood quoted portions of the April 30, 1997 interview transcripts of the Ramseys, during which time they had only been asked
how
they might do on a test
if
taken. (Relevant portions of those questions are referenced above.)

Wood seemed to be trying to make the point that police had never asked the Ramseys to submit to polygraph testing, and that it had been
their
idea to clear themselves of involvement of the crime by taking a lie-detector exam.

Wood pointed out that the topic of polygraphs had not been raised at all during the family’s second set of interviews, arranged by the D.A.’s office in June 1998.

Wood reported that the polygraph examiner who conducted the first tests on John and Patsy, Jerry Toriello, determined the results to be “inconclusive.” Toriello reportedly didn’t think he should conduct follow-up tests, and pointed Wood to Edward Gelb, a man recognized nationally as an expert in the field of polygraphs.

Toriello’s absence at the press conference was explained by Wood to be due to a recent medical procedure, and he proceeded to introduce Gelb to the Press Corp gathered for the conference. He let Gelb speak to his area of expertise and outline the testing procedures that he had used in his examination of the Ramseys.

Gelb cut to the chase and listed the questions that had been individually posed to John and Patsy Ramsey.

Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenét.

Series 2, John Ramsey,

Question 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenét?

Answer: No.

Regarding JonBenét, do you know for sure who killed her?

Answer: No

Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenét?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied knowing who killed JonBenét.