Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (44 page)

T
he Theory of Prosecution that I sent to Stan Garnett and Mark Beckner also included some closing thoughts and observations on the status of the investigation, as well as a suggestion on how the case might be moved forward toward closure. These comments also included references to grand jury materials, so I decided to paraphrase the essential elements of this discussion so as not to compromise the integrity of the grand jury investigative process.

I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys and intruder theorists had continued to hail the DNA identified in JonBenét’s underwear, Distal Stain 007-2, as proof that a lone sexual predator was responsible for her murder. This partial sample is microscopic, and the strongest specimen was located in the crotch of the panties with weaker samples located along the waistband and seams of the underwear.

I think it is interesting to note, however, that intruder theorists have conveniently chosen to ignore the other trace DNA evidence that suggests more than one intruder was in the Ramsey home on the evening of December 25
^th
. From the outset, they appear to have remained silent on the evidence collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails at the time of her autopsy.

It is uncertain whether Ramsey attorneys are aware of the two new “Touch DNA” profiles developed at the time that Mary Lacy exonerated the family in the closing days of her term in 2008, but I had given it a lot of thought after attending the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February the following year.

If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways:

1.) The intruder theory must be expanded to incorporate the existence of six perpetrators, four of whom were in the home and had direct physical contact with JonBenét at the time of her death. The DNA in the underwear and beneath her fingernails supports this proposition.

It could be argued that the DNA on the two pieces of cord could have been placed there without the necessity of these last two individuals being in the home.

These six individuals form the core group of the “foreign faction” identified in the ransom note, and the investigation must expand its scope to search for a number of co-conspirators.

To deny this physical evidence is akin to admitting that Distal Stain 007-2 is an artifact that has no correlation to the murderer(s) in this case. Intruder theorists must now explain how all of these people entered and exited the residence leaving no further evidence of their existence.

2) An opposing theory suggests that the strongest partial sample of DNA discovered in this case, Distal Stain 007-2, was deposited in the underwear during the manufacturing process, and survived to the date of JonBenét’s murder.

The technological advances in ‘touch DNA’ analysis have revealed the capability of forensic science to identify trace evidence that may, or may not, have anything to do with the crime being investigated.

Distal Stain 007-2, and the other trace samples collected in this case, are mere artifacts of trace genetic materials that have no bearing on the investigation, and are of no material assistance in identifying the perpetrator(s) involved in this crime. They were in place long before the crime was committed.

The totality of the circumstances, and all of the evidence gathered over the course of an investigation, must be evaluated when seeking to identify the perpetrator(s) who had the motive, opportunity, and capability of committing, or covering up this crime.

The prosecution has the opportunity to legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of JonBenét.

The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. “Cloth to cloth” transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.

The point to be made is that technological advances in the collection of “touch” microscopic DNA evidence has yet to be fully understood and clarified.

When the prosecution is able to discount the intruder theory, and all of its components (DNA, stun gun, window-well entry and exit, Wine Cellar foot print, and disproving that an anonymous person authored the ransom note), it is then in a position to focus its primary attention on the motivations of the family, and all of the other evidence that points to their involvement.

I expressed my belief to Garnett and Beckner, that the theory of family involvement outlined in the preceding chapters was supported by witness interviews and Ramsey statements, forensic findings, fingerprints, trace evidence, and an identifiable childhood pathology that explained the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding the death of JonBenét.

DNA theory aside, I pressed the argument to Garnett and Beckner that there continued to be a course of action to pursue through the assistance of a grand jury.

I believed that there was a reason defense attorneys had worked so hard behind the scenes to withhold family medical information, and proposed that this “island of privacy” was a viable lead that deserved the attention of investigators and prosecutors.

I am sure it has become apparent that I believe each member of the Ramsey family, home on the night of the murder, may have been involved at least as an accessory after the fact. Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. The statutes of limitations for the crime of accessory after the fact have long since expired.

There is no statute of limitations for murder, but all persons in the family home the night of the murder have been formally “cleared” of any crime. Those actions by past prosecutors create a formidable obstacle to any future prosecution.

Yet clearly, the death of JonBenét remains an open murder investigation, and while no one is likely to
ever
be criminally charged with this crime, I expressed the opinion that there are proactive steps that should be taken to bring it to resolution and closure.

In our pursuit of truth and justice, not only for this little girl, but for all of the other innocent people wrongly accused by her family, isn’t it our responsibility as criminal investigators and prosecutors to go in search of it?

“Smit says he is only interested in finding the truth, wherever it takes him.

‘If the Ramseys did this and I found out, I’d be the first one standing in line at the Boulder Police Department,’ he says.”

—
CBS:
“Searching for a Killer: The Stun Gun Theory”

David Kohn

February 11, 2009

L
ou Smit was often heard to say that we should “follow the evidence,” and presumably, it would lead it us to the people responsible for this crime. Smit was a true gentleman in the classic sense of the word, and I regret that we never had the opportunity to have debated the evidence in this inquiry. So I will have to be content with leaving this last lead for the intruder theorists who yet remain.

It always makes sense to revisit your theories when you are working a case. New evidence comes to light that must be considered, and sometimes this completely alters your concept of the crime.

In this instance I looked back at the significance of the discovery that John Ramsey had made when he had alerted Smit to the chair that blocked the entrance of the Train Room doorway. This important piece of the puzzle placed at least one or more of the intruders in the residence long after police and friends of the family had stormed the home.

What if I was wrong about excluding the window well as being a possible point of entrance and exit? Smit had demonstrated on national television how someone could have entered the home through that window, and Boulder Police investigators also conducted trial runs of sending someone in and out of that window in attempts to evaluate it as a possible part of the crime.

They conducted the same tests on the window of the basement bathroom and, for a variety of legitimate reasons, quickly ruled it out as a possibility.

The Train Room window well was a small space, and it seemed unlikely that a single intruder, let alone six of them, would be able to enter / exit that window and not disturb the cobweb that was in the lower left corner of the window frame - or similarly, that the rectangular shaped piece of glass balancing on the sill would not have been jostled from its position during this activity.

And then there were the additional spider threads that anchored the metal window grate to the surrounding vegetation and cement foundation of the window well.

The bug experts had stated that the spiders responsible for these webs were in hibernation at that time of year, and that the stringer portion of the web attached to the grate would only stretch about ten inches before breaking. If these had been destroyed by an intruder(s), the webs would not have been reconstructed that day.

Smit had adjusted his theory after being told that information, and he suggested that perhaps the grate had been swung “forward” to permit entry to the window well versus being swung “up,” as he had demonstrated on television. This would permit entry to the window without breaking the stringer lines.

That didn’t account for the remaining web in the corner of the window frame, however, and I continued to think about how it was possible that someone could have used that window for their entry and exit. According to the Ramseys, every other door of the residence had been locked that day.

The suitcase didn’t belong below the Train Room window well according to John Ramsey, and he should know. He was the owner of the house. That suitcase certainly may have played a role in the crime.

It dawned on me that someone physically fit and agile could possibly maneuver through that narrow window, and not disturb the glass and spider webs.

I thought back to the clues that had been presented in the ransom note. The kidnappers had stated that they were members of a foreign faction that didn’t care for the way John Ramsey did business. Perhaps it was someone from overseas that was responsible for this crime, and we should take the note at face value.

Amsterdam. John’s company conducted business in the Netherlands, and to my knowledge, this was a lead that had not been considered or pursued during the course of this investigation. His company also operated out of Mexico City, but it was fairly evident that the ransom note had been written by folks fairly familiar with the English language, so I decided that we could rule out this country as a possible home base for the perpetrators.

Furthermore, based on the DNA samples collected in this case, I suspected we were looking for at least six individuals who had conspired to commit this crime. For some reason, this group of individuals had been greatly offended or harmed by something undertaken by John Ramsey’s company in the Netherlands.

Follow the evidence
, I continued to remind myself. Who really could have been responsible for the kidnapping and murder of JonBenét?

It was the consideration of all of this evidence that prompted me to craft the theoretical construct of the actions of the team of kidnappers outlined in the opening chapter of this book, “Foreign Faction.” Given the trace DNA evidence present in this case, it seemed entirely reasonable to propose this new theory, and the explanation of the activities of those who invaded the Ramsey home certainly appears to fall within the realm of possibilities.

So, based upon some of the evidence, we were looking for a group of six individuals (five men and a woman), who likely lived overseas, and who were incredibly athletic and agile – skilled enough perhaps to get through the window well without disturbing anything, and leaving no other trace of their existence.

Images suddenly conjured of the scene from the movie,
The Great Escape
, where prisoners of war slowly crept out, one by one, through the narrow hole of an underground tunnel to gain their freedom. If I recalled correctly, well over a hundred of them made it clear of the tunnel before a Nazi guard stumbled to their endeavor. Perhaps that was possible in this instance.

As I contemplated the possibilities that followed this evidence, I again looked to the contents of the ransom note. As the Ramseys liked to phrase it, there were all of these “funny little clues” left around the house that seemed to taunt investigators at their every turn. No one could make sense of the manner in which this kidnap and murder had been committed.

If I was right, and the kidnappers had left some additional
funny little clues
as to their identity, maybe there was something else in the note that had been deliberately written to challenge and further confuse investigators. In plain sight for everyone to see, they had declared themselves to be the members of a
foreign faction,
which I deduced to mean that they were not claiming to be U.S. citizens. I contemplated this information for quite some time, and it was another one of those midnight awakenings when a possibility finally dawned on me. I got out of bed and quietly stepped out onto the deck of my home to view the pitch-black night. There was no moon, and the twinkling lights of the milky-way gazed back at me. Victory! Victorious.

I guess the kidnappers could claim their “victory” although it could be viewed as hollow. They exacted their revenge by killing JonBenét, but went home with an empty attaché case. The ransom money was never collected. I wouldn’t necessarily count that as a victory.

SBTC. SBTC…something there... Got to follow the evidence…

A coyote, the trickster of the night, barked not far beyond the limits of my night vision. I stifled a yawn as a star streaked through the sky, and then there was light.

People have been guessing at the meaning of the acronym since the day it became public, and it seemed not a tremendous jump in logic to think that the group had signed off the ransom note with another funny clue as to their identity. SBTC: I thought that perhaps they were declaring themselves to be a:

S
mall

B
and of

T
errorist

C
idnappers.

And then it struck me.

We should be looking at a group of athletes working the European circus circuit. Who else could have possibly made it through that window without disturbing the spider web and glass fragment but a small, highly trained group of gymnasts, contortionists, and trapeze artists.

And by
small
, I don’t mean that there were only
six
of them in the group of this “foreign faction.” I am referring to their number being
small in stature.

We ought to be looking for a troupe of highly skilled circus midgets - ones who are likely to carry attaché cases with them when they travel.

Truly another matter of speculation on my part, but I figured, what the hell! They were a group of foreigners who didn’t know how to spell.

After all, when one takes all of the evidence into careful consideration, anything then becomes possible. Right?