Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (31 page)

“U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes, a former federal prosecutor, ruled that there is “abundant evidence” to support assertions by JonBenét’s parents, John B. and Patricia P. “Patsy” Ramsey, “that an intruder entered their home at some point during the night of Dec. 25, 1996, and killed their daughter.”

Carnes’ order stem from a 2000 case filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by Robert Christian Wolf, a Boulder, Colo., journalist who has written for Colorado Daily and The Boulder County Business Report. Wolf, who had been questioned by Boulder police as a potential suspect in JonBenét’s murder, sued the Ramseys. He claimed that Patsy Ramsey and her husband, as a way of directing police suspicion away from Patsy, had hired private detectives to investigate Wolf and others “in hope of encouraging the authorities to arrest the plaintiff for the murder of her daughter”.

On March 31, Carnes dismissed the case against the Ramseys on a motion for summary judgment. Noting that if Wolf could not prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that his theory that the Ramseys killed their daughter was true, “he cannot demonstrate that their statement concerning his status as a suspect was made with the requisite malice.”

‘It is the first time that a judge has reviewed all the evidence pertaining to JonBenét’s murder and released a public analysis of the case,’ said the Ramsey’s Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood Jr.

‘I just find it, from A to Z, a total, unequivocal victory for John and Patsy Ramsey, Wood said. ‘The court has done what I’ve urged the public to do from day one. Look at the evidence…If you look at the evidence, you will reach the same conclusion Judge Carnes reached. This is a family that has been horribly and wrongly accused of the murder of their child.’ Wood said that since Boulder County District Attorney Mary W. Keenan took office, she has rejuvenated the investigation into JonBenét’s murder. Characterizing Keenan’s investigation as ‘very active,’ Wood said investigators ‘are doing things in that case that have never been done before,’ including testing foreign, male DNA that was found in JonBenét’s underwear.”

R. Robin McDonald

Fulton County Daily Report

April 07, 2003

A
s noted in other chapters, I had been researching the official family statements made over the course of the investigation and these included those that had been provided by Burke. Some things said by him had set off faint alarm bells, and I was continuing to look for things that could help clarify questions I had about his behavior.

Having explored the window well and stun gun, thought to be specific elements that pointed to the existence of an intruder, I turned my attention to the DNA evidence found in the underwear worn by JonBenét at the time of her death.

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10
^th
marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

DNA samples generally consist of 13 Core loci markers, so it is important to note that Distal Stain 007-2 is not a full sample of DNA, and the FBI requires at least 10 markers be identified before an unknown sample can be entered into the national CODIS data base.

Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of
blue
during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that
amylase
was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler.

Laberge confirmed that no traces of semen had been present in the underwear or clothing articles worn by JonBenét upon the discovery of her body.

Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer.

He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear. The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article.

Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.

We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.

It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop.

Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the
age
of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy.

Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine
when
a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.

Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.

The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.

Realizing that there could have been a rational explanation for the unidentified male DNA being found in JonBenét’s underwear did not deter me from continuing to assess new leads that were continuing to stream into the office.

Around this same time period I took a call from an FBI agent in the Midwest who wanted to pass along information she had received from an individual who had a track record of cooperating in other criminal investigations.

The CI had told her that a subject known to them had once worked and lived in the Boulder area and that they had returned to their Midwestern farm home very shortly after JonBenét’s death. The CI told the agent that the subject had become very reclusive and was acting out of character. Apparently the decision to return home was very spontaneous and although a long shot, the CI thought that it bore mentioning to authorities.

I obtained the name and date of birth for the suspect and ran a criminal history to check for an arrest record. I don’t recall that there had been any history of arrests for this subject but I did locate a traffic citation when querying his driving history in Colorado. The ticket had been issued in a mountain resort county approximately seven months after JonBenét’s murder. The timing of this citation placed the subject in Colorado for considerably longer than what the CI was indicating as a return date to the Midwest.

I proceeded to obtain a photocopy of the traffic ticket to check out the handwriting of the defendant. I recognized that the block handwriting of the ransom note would likely be different when compared to the actual signature of an individual, but observed that neither bore any resemblance to the other.

Some other minor details were explored with this lead, and I didn’t believe that they pointed to the need for a trip to the Midwest. It joined the file of many that didn’t appear to hold any true promise.

In the fall of 2005, I had decided to take another look at the theory proposed by retired FBI Agent John Douglas. He had the opportunity to interview John and Patsy Ramsey in early January 1997, at a time when they were still holding BPD detectives at bay, and I wondered what type of insight he may have gained through his face-to-face encounter with the parents. He had devoted an entire chapter to his participation in the JonBenét investigation in his book,
The Cases That Haunt Us.,
⁵²
and I spent some time reviewing his analysis of the details of the case.

Douglas noted that he had not been hired by Ramseys to provide a profile of a possible offender, although, based upon his initial review of the circumstances during his interview with the parents, believed that the perpetrator was someone who was familiar with John, and who had harbored
ill feelings
toward him. It was thought that the killer had been in the Ramsey home sometime prior to the murder.

A “Personal Cause Homicide” was believed to have been the motive for the murder, and Douglas pointed to the elements of
revenge
and
retaliation
that had been voiced in the ransom note as the basis for this opinion. Following this brief interview with John and Patsy, he had told their attorneys that he didn’t believe the parents had murdered their daughter.

Ramsey attorneys would subsequently arrange to have Douglas meet with BPD investigators to share his thoughts about the case. Though they had already been consulting with the FBI from the outset of the investigation, lead detectives in the case listened politely to his early analysis of the crime. This took place the day after he had interviewed the parents.

When all was said and done, the investigators thanked the former FBI profiler for his time, and continued the process of chasing leads in their case. Despite the generosity exhibited by Ramsey attorneys to share the opinion of their “expert witness,” the BPD elected to continue their dialogue with the men and women of the FBI’s specialized units that were fully conversant with the active, and emerging details of the investigation.

As further outlined in his book, Douglas advised that it was his belief that the motive for the crime was
personal
and directed specifically at John Ramsey. He didn’t believe this was the work of a serial killer and thought the person responsible was an “inexperienced, mission-oriented offender.” For that reason, he didn’t anticipate that there would be a repeat of this specific “signature crime” that would capture the attention of authorities.

The ransom demand of $118,000 matched a year-end bonus that Ramsey had received and Douglas thought that the perpetrator has somehow gained access to this information, and used it in the kidnap note.

The “UNSUB” (unknown subject) was thought to be a white male in his 30’s or 40’s, with some type of business background, although Douglas indicated that he would later revise the age of the perpetrator downward. His final profile suggested that the killer was “relatively young,” and that he carried a “personal grudge” against JonBenét’s father. The act of murdering this little girl had served to rob John Ramsey of the most valuable thing to him in the world: his daughter.

Despite the presence of a ransom demand, Douglas did not believe that this was a crime of
criminal enterprise,
which would have relied upon the motive of financial gain. There was some type of personal motive involved in the planning and commission of this crime, and apparently, the demand for money was mentioned only as a ruse.

Like the FBI agents who had already been working with BPD detectives, Douglas thought that the crime scene and crime, exhibited signs of both an
organized
and
unorganized
offender. This suggested to him that the individual responsible for this crime was “criminally unsophisticated.”

In his book, Douglas spent some time analyzing the opposing theories as proposed by Detectives Thomas and Smit, and posed a few rhetorical questions of his own about some of the elements involved in the crime. He provided, based upon his experience, some answers to the questions that had been posed.

I noted that Douglas had indicated that he had
not
been provided full access to the entire range of police investigative reports, and witness statements, that his former colleagues at the FBI BAU / CASKU units were considering as they consulted with BPD detectives. He was forced to rely
only
upon the information that had been provided to him by the parents of the murdered child in order to establish his offender profile. I considered this significant when it came time to evaluate his opinion on the matter.

As Douglas went through his analysis of the case, he cited Sherlock Holmes’s investigative dictum that states, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable,
must be the truth.”

I would eventually think it apropos that he would offer this investigative theorem as a basis for his analysis of the JonBenét homicide investigation. It is something that would also be argued at the conclusion of my investigative journey into the murder of this little girl.

Before I had ever become involved in the investigation of this murder, I had contemplated Smit’s theory regarding the use of the stun gun by an intruder. It was his opinion that the stun gun had been used as a means of controlling JonBenét. Douglas had covered the use of the stun gun when reviewing Smit’s theory, and I once again gave this aspect of the crime some thought.

It is important to note that a stun gun, also known as an Electronic Control Device (ECD) in today’s nomenclature, does not render a person unconscious. It delivers approximately 600,000 volts of electricity to its victim and disrupts the body’s neurotransmitters, which essentially physically incapacitates a person
while
the electronic charge is being delivered. Muscular control is virtually non-existent during the activation of the device and a person is incapable of fighting back or resisting during the event.

Depending upon the device used, the duration of a normal electrical charge is five seconds long and neuro muscular incapacitation ceases when the ECD has finished doing its job. It is important to note, however, that a person can fight back
after
the delivery of an electronic charge, and those under the influence of narcotics or alcohol frequently may require more than one electronic dose before they are ready to submit to arrest or control.

There are two methods utilized to deliver an electronic charge to an individual, depending on the type of device used. One involves the discharge of two barbed probes that are shot from the head of an ECD. The barbed probes are capable of being shot of a distance of up to 35 feet and remain connected to the device by thin wires. The probes must properly imbed themselves on the individual being targeted, and if sufficiently anchored, the circuit is completed and an electronic charge is then delivered by the ECD. As noted above, the initial dose usually lasts five seconds, but this can be cut short by the operator, or additional, follow-up doses may be delivered.