Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (32 page)

A second method involves
direct
contact with the head of the ECD and the subject being targeted. The twin electronic contact leads on the head of the ECD are placed flush on the body and the operator activates the device to deliver the electronic charge. This type of contact is referred to as a “drive-stun” in Taser nomenclature. It was this type of device that Smit believed was responsible for the marks on JonBenét’s body.

The problem I had with Smit’s theory is that the use of this device would not have knocked JonBenét out, nor do I think that it would have made her more compliant with her kidnapper. The delivery of this electronic charge is extremely painful and most people scream uncontrollably when they have been at the receiving end of this
less- lethal
law enforcement tool.

From a law enforcement point of view, an ECD is used to temporarily incapacitate and induce
pain compliance
when confronting a violent, out-of-control subject, or in situations where lethal force might otherwise be legally employed. The idea being, by way of example, is that an incapacitating dose from an ECD may temporarily disable a knife-wielding suspect long enough so that we may disarm him without having to resort to shooting him with a firearm. The
distance
that can be maintained by an officer from an armed subject under these circumstances is what makes this tool so effective.

I don’t want to make this sound overly simplistic. There are many circumstances that come into play when an officer has to make a split-second decision regarding the use of deadly force. I am merely attempting to provide some background on the use of a device that was developed to help law enforcement personnel better do their job.

It was not clear to me as to
when
Smit thought the stun gun had actually been used during the kidnapping, but it is my belief that JonBenét would have screamed bloody murder if it had ever been used on her. Moreover, it had been his opinion that the stun gun had been used
twice
during her abduction – once on her face, and once on her back. Sound asleep or otherwise, I don’t believe she would have ever been able to have controlled herself vocally if confronted with the excruciating pain of this device.

The need for the use of a stun gun in the torture and murder of Gerald Boggs may have very well played some significance in that crime. On the other hand, to have used this device on a small, 6-year-old girl, within earshot of the family, seemed extremely improbable from my point of view.

It didn’t quite make sense to me that an
adult male,
presumably the person responsible for this kidnapping, would require this type of device to control a 45-pound, 6-year-old girl. The use of duct tape or a hand over JonBenét’s mouth would have easily sufficed.

There was one additional lead that had come into the office in the closing weeks of my tenure that I had intended to try to track down. Someone had suggested that a couple of construction workers had also been acting strange around the time of JonBenét’s murder and were purportedly involved in the remodel of a garage somewhere in her neighborhood.

It was a very vague lead, and no names were provided for the construction workers, or for the people whose home was being remodeled.

“Acting strange” and “being somewhere nearby” were frequently key words that prompted people to write and call the office, but I was trying to remain open to the possibility that one tip might eventually pay dividends.

I had considered the FBI’s early opinion about more than one individual being involved in this crime. Certainly, the possibility existed that the remodel of a garage in the area of the Ramsey home might point to two construction workers who had become infatuated with a 6-year old girl living nearby.

I had thought I might canvass the neighborhood to see if any such project were actually taking place at the time of the murder, but time was not on my side. I left the D.A.’s office before I was able to find the time to knock on any doors.

It probably would not have mattered in any regard. By the time I parted company with the D.A.’s office, I was convinced that there was no significant possibility that an intruder had been involved in the death of JonBenét. Subsequent events would only serve to solidify that opinion.

“We could find the killer tomorrow, he could be arrested, convicted and you know, jailed, and there’d still be 20 per cent of the population would think that we had something to do with it.”

—John Ramsey during an interview aired on
48 Hours Investigates–Searching for a Killer.
October 4, 2002

“I don’t give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board.

I didn’t do it. John Ramsey didn’t do it, and we don’t have a clue of anybody who did do it.

Quit screwing around asking me about things that are ridiculous and let’s find the person that did this.”

—Patsy Ramsey’s response to an investigator who indicated that trace evidence appeared to link her to the death of her daughter. Boulder District Attorney interviews, June 1998

T
he essence of our daily existence is comprised of some form of constant thought, movement, and behavior. As human beings, we are motivated to achieve certain things in our lives, and we take specific steps and actions to accomplish these goals and objectives. The things we say and do when moving toward realization of these goals are observable, and sometimes they help point an investigator to a better understanding of the motivation behind an individual’s actions.

In some of the preceding chapters, I have marked things that popped up as a “red flag” for me as I poured through the investigative reports that had been compiled over the course of this thirteen- year investigation. The pages or paragraphs are marked with a symbol (†) that identify a statement, piece of physical evidence, or behavioral clue that seemed out of sync with the elements that were supposed to point to a crime being committed by one or more intruders. They were the initial signs that alerted me to the possibility that all did not seem right within the reported construct of this crime, and I continued to come back to these time and time again as I tried to sort out the events and comprehend the motive for the commission of this murder.

Some of the same things may have jumped out at you as you read through the events that transpired over the course of this inquiry. I will leave it to your discretion if you wish to review their history before continuing to explore this chapter, but it is here that a discussion of these behavioral clues will be presented.

I would note that this is neither an all-inclusive listing of things that raised questions about the existence of an intruder, nor are they presented in the chronological history of their discovery. And let me make it clear, many of these red flags were the same things that troubled Boulder Police investigators during their investigation into this matter.

The evolution of John Ramsey’s statements make for an interesting study and will be analyzed in a later chapter, but one of the first things to catch my eye were his comments made during the January 1, 1997, CNN interview. In response to a question from CNN correspondent Brian Cabell about the family’s decision to hire a defense attorney, John indicated that he was “not angry” about JonBenét’s death but he / they were interested in finding out “why” this had occurred. He stated that they could not go on until there was an answer as to “why” his daughter had “died.”

I was puzzled by this statement and could understand that he would be asking
why
someone had chosen his daughter to murder, but the part about not being
angry
was confounding. The emotional aspect of this statement didn’t make sense to me. I would have thought that of all the emotions flowing through a family victimized by a violent murder, surely anger would have been one of them. As a parent of three, I believe I would have been extremely angry if a stranger brutally took the life of one of my children.

And then, in the context of this same sentence, he referred to JonBenét’s “dying” as opposed to her being “murdered.” This selection of language may be inconsequential, but the choice of this word seemed to soften the circumstances of this crime.

To whom, I wondered, was this response being directed?

The Ramseys received quite a bit of criticism for the perception that they were attempting to manage the media. As noted in Chapter Seven, a national public relations firm had been retained early in the investigation and a family spokesperson regularly issued press releases and responded to media reports that covered the progress of the investigation.

I thought it interesting that John Ramsey tried to divert some of the criticism about the decision to do the January 1, 1997, CNN interview to his former friend, Fleet White. Ramsey stated in a 1998 sworn deposition taken during the Steven Miles law suit (Miles, a local photographer who had been charged but not convicted of sexual exploitation of children, sued John Ramsey and the National Enquirer for pointing to him as a likely perpetrator of the crime) that it was White who had insisted that the family go on CNN to plead their innocence.

My review of the records didn’t support Ramsey’s claim of White’s involvement. According to Mary Ann Kaempfer, she had overheard Patsy Ramsey participating in a telephone conversation on the morning of January 1, 1997. Patsy was on a conference call from a phone in Kaempfer’s bedroom, and they talked once the call had ended.
⁵³

Kaempfer reported that family friend Rod Westmoreland was a close friend with the president of CNN and that he (Westmoreland) had suggested that the family do an interview on the cable news network. It was felt that the family had to make some type of public statement to stifle all of the other media reports that were speculating about family involvement in the murder of JonBenét.

John and Patsy Ramsey subsequently responded to the CNN studios that day, and the interview was broadcast later that night. Nearly everyone in the Paugh household stayed up to watch the broadcast, including Kaempfer. The following day, Kaempfer indicated during her interview with Boulder investigators that the CNN interview had included a short video clip from inside the Atlanta church that had been recorded during JonBenét’s funeral services.

Kaempfer remarked that she had seen the camera set up in the balcony of the interior of the church. It looked to be a commercial grade camera, versus a smaller hand-held unit that she had seen present in the Boulder services.

It is uncertain if this was a family photographer recording the services for posterity or if a CNN cameraman had been granted access to the interior of the church to record the events. If that were the case, it would seem that the negotiations for a CNN interview had been on-going for a little longer than originally indicated, and this footage of the services had been arranged with the intent of being aired during the January 1
^st
interview.

John Ramsey’s attempt to point the finger of blame at Fleet White for recommending the CNN interview did not appear to be supported by the record. It also appeared that this discussion had been taking place soon after their arrival in Atlanta for JonBenét’s services, and material for the interview was being prepared almost immediately.

I had also labored under the impression from the beginning of my involvement in the case that the Ramsey family had not hired attorneys and private investigators until after Lt. Eller had attempted to withhold the body of JonBenét in exchange for a family interview.

I had reviewed a VHS video tape in the investigative files that featured an interview with Ramsey family friend and attorney Mike Bynum. Acting as a spokesman for the family, Bynum was speaking on national television in September 1997, and being interviewed by news correspondent Diane Sawyer, who had asked why the Ramsey family had obtained a lawyer.
⁵⁴

Bynum indicated that he, as a family friend, felt they should have “legal advice” in the matter concerning the police investigation into the murder of their daughter. He had mentioned this to John Ramsey because, as a former prosecutor, he knew where the attention of the police would be focused – the parents and family.

Sawyer commented that by Saturday, two days following the murder, police were “openly hostile” toward the family. Bynum was reportedly told by the D.A.’s office that the police were refusing to release the body of JonBenét for burial unless the parents would provide interviews with investigators.

He wasn’t sure if this course of action was legal or not, but pointed to this action as being “immoral and unethical.” Bynum indicated that he just was not willing to have the family participate in that kind of situation, and told the DA / police that not only would the family not give an interview under these circumstances, but he told them “Hell no, you’re not getting an interview.”
⁵⁵

Investigative files revealed that Eller had not even considered this option until Saturday, December 28
^th
, around the time that non-testimonial evidence was being collected from the immediate family. Even then, it was reported that his thoughts of holding on to the body of JonBenét was not for the intention of holding her for “ransom” in exchange for a family interview, but to determine if there were any other forensic examinations that could have been conducted that would help shed light on the mechanics of her murder.

When Eller was discussing this possibility with the D.A.’s office, it was Pete Hoffstrom who coined the phrase “ransom the body,” and this term eventually was espoused by Ramsey attorneys in later public statements.

I found it noteworthy that Bynum specifically stated in the Primetime interview that it was he who suggested to John Ramsey that attorneys should be brought in to consult with the family. He expressed the thought to John that there were some ‘legal issues that needed to be taken care of.’ Bynum went on to indicate that he did not think that it had occurred to the family to do this prior to his conversation with John.
⁵⁶

Bynum’s inference to the national audience during the September 1997 interview, however, was that legal representation had not been retained until
after
Commander Eller had performed this act of desperation.

So you can imagine my surprise when I learned that Ramsey attorneys and their investigators were working the case on Friday morning before the autopsy of JonBenét was even underway.

Even more intriguing was the identity of the person selected for their first interview. It was not housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the woman whom Patsy had named as a possible suspect – a person who needed money and who had previously mentioned concerns about the kidnapping of JonBenét.

Ramsey attorneys instead chose trusted family friend Fleet White: one of the few who had immediately been summoned to the Ramsey home on the morning of the kidnapping, and the only individual who had accompanied John Ramsey to the basement in search of JonBenét.

Of all the people initially named as possible suspects by the Ramseys, what could Fleet White possibly know about the kidnapping and murder of JonBenét? Moreover, why would it be so important that he, a material witness to the discovery of JonBenét’s body, be interviewed before the cause and manner of her death had even been determined?

I realize that attempts to interview the housekeeper could have interfered with the police investigation, but it did not preclude the Ramsey team from running their own parallel investigation and interviewing other material witnesses.

John Ramsey continued to shield that information, and conveniently side-stepped a question about attorney involvement posed by Lou Smit during their June 1998 interview. They were discussing events that were taking place on the evening of Friday, December 27, 1996, when the Ramsey family was staying at the Fernie residence. According to John Ramsey, Mike Bynum had been delivering food to the residence while Sergeant Mason and Detective Arndt were there attempting to arrange a follow-up interview with the family.

Smit asked if that had been the first time that he, John Ramsey, had contacted a lawyer. Ramsey replied that Bynum just happened to be there, delivering food from Pasta Jay’s and called a “time-out” when police were trying to “haul” them down to the station for questioning.

Bynum, according to John Ramsey’s statement to Smit, reportedly took him aside and asked him if he would allow him to do some things that he thought were necessary. Ramsey agreed, and Bynum and Ramsey claimed that it was after this conversation that Bynum reportedly brought attorneys Bryan Morgan and Pat Burke into the case.

This statement clearly does not account for the fact that Ramsey attorneys had actually been attempting to reach Fleet White on the very afternoon of the discovery of JonBenét’s body, and were seeking to interview him first thing the next day, on Friday morning.

According to White, he had driven to Denver on Friday morning to conduct some personal business. His wife, Priscilla, advised him upon his return early that afternoon that Ramsey attorneys had again been trying to reach him that morning, and wanted to speak with him. The interview was held later that day in the Boulder law offices of Bryan Morgan, and private investigator David Williams was present taking notes.

More recently, John Ramsey provided a description of how attorneys became involved in his book,
The Other Side of Suffering,
⁵⁷
which significantly differs from the explanation he provided to Lou Smit, and what Mike Bynum reported during his Primetime Live television interview.

In the latest version, Ramsey states that he received a
telephone call
from a friend at his office on the day after JonBenét was murdered. This person told him that they had been asked to get a message to him, and the message was as follows: “The police are out to get you…the police think you murdered JonBenét.”
⁵⁸

Ramsey went on to state that the person warning him had received a call from a reliable person “inside the system,” and that they had recommended he get the best defense attorney to represent him as possible.
⁵⁹

Ramsey indicated that the idea that police would suspect him of being responsible for the murder of his daughter was “insane,” but was now offering this as a reason why criminal defense attorneys had been hired by the family so early in the investigation. In his opinion, the caller had been correct, and he believed Boulder Police began to focus their attention on him from the early hours of the investigation. It was this insider’s tip that forced him to engage the services of attorneys to defend him, and his family.