Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (45 page)

T
he decision to publish the details of my participation in the investigation of JonBenét’s murder has been extremely difficult. I have been a duly sworn law enforcement officer in the State of Colorado for over 35 years, which accounts for the better part of my adult life. Granted the opportunity to serve the public in this capacity involves an incredible amount of trust, not only on the part of the citizens whom I have been sworn to protect, but for the agencies that have employed me to work on their behalf.

I have worked many varied assignments over the course of my career, and I am cognizant of the need for discretion when protecting the rights of the innocent, as well as those of the accused. By necessity, the very nature of many of the aspects of police work involves the holding of a confidence, and I have strictly held to that premise throughout my service.

An indiscreet comment could very well result in the compromise of a critical investigation, the death of an undercover officer, or of an individual cooperating with authorities. Inappropriate statements about a personnel matter could result in damaged careers and costly lawsuits.

That being said, it is important to note that the management of public safety is an extremely difficult business. It involves a balancing act regarding the public’s right to know, and government’s need to protect the rights of everyone, while still addressing the need for transparency as we interact with our constituency.

Most people would probably describe me as a quiet, reserved person, and sometimes difficult to get to know. I would characterize myself as introspective and rather shy, and the nature of my personality has contributed to the internal struggle that has taken place in deciding whether the discoveries I made during my investigation of this child’s death should be made a matter of public record.

The accumulation of months that gathered after my departure from the DA’s office in the spring of 2006 served to distance me from the Ramsey investigation, and the immediacy of pursuing leads that I had developed in the case began to fade away. The passing of Patsy Ramsey in June of that year only seemed to underscore the tragedies that had been visited upon this family.

I began to question the necessity of pursuing evidence that pointed to a family’s involvement in the death of their daughter, and debated whether it was really all that important for the mystery of this murder to be resolved. I had almost convinced myself to let it all go: to walk away, and let confusion reign. What harm could come from the decision to remain silent about the new discoveries that had been made in the investigation?

Then came John Mark Karr, and with that fiasco, came a clarification of purpose.

I was reminded of the demoralization and destruction that had been visited upon many of the people who were touched by the death of this innocent child. Law enforcement careers were ended by resignation, forced departure, and outright termination.

I had also given thought to the experiences of John and Patsy Ramsey as they tried to deal with the loss of their daughter. John had lost his oldest daughter from a previous marriage to a traffic accident in 1992, and he would ultimately lose his second wife to the ravages of a deadly disease. From my perspective, no husband, parent, or family, deserves to suffer this type of tragedy in their lives.

And yet, one must contemplate the social contract that we necessarily accept, and abide by, when we choose to live side-by-side in a civilized society. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones of that civil agreement, and unfortunately, history has repeatedly proven that many hold themselves
above
the fabric of that social dynamic.

I had originally put pen to paper with the intention of having something of a history prepared that could be released when this investigation was finally resolved. That was a dream that has gone unfulfilled.

For a variety of reasons, some of which are explained herein, I have chosen to part company with the Boulder County Law Enforcement community, and decided to go forward with the publication of this investigative treatise. I greatly admire the members, past and present, of the Boulder Police Department and the Twentieth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, but after a lengthy period of silence, I felt the time had finally come to publically reveal the discoveries that had been made in the murder investigation of JonBenét Ramsey.

I proceeded with the understanding that the Boulder Police Department will
forever
be prohibited from fully commenting on the status of the open, yet unsolved murder investigation of JonBenét. The members of that department will never be in a position to defend themselves against the unwarranted allegations of incompetence and near-sightedness that were attributed to their efforts at solving this case.

It is equally important to recognize the position that Stan Garnett, the current district attorney of Boulder County, inherited when he took office in 2009. From my perspective, Garnett was dealt a hand that looked eerily similar to the first hours of Boulder P.D’s response to the report of a
kidnapping
at the Ramsey household.

Boulder Police were confronted with an intensely chaotic scene on the morning of December 26, 1996, for which no one was prepared. A ransom note was shown that purported to evidence the kidnap of a little girl, and family friends were called to console the grieving family. In deference to the emotionally charged situation, officers granted the family their comfort while attempting to conduct a criminal investigation. Though they had their early suspicions about the circumstances being reported, officers responding to the scene never anticipated that the kidnap victim would eventually be found within the confines of her own home.

Boulder Police were quick to correct their initial mistakes, but District Attorney Alex Hunter’s oversight and management of his portion of the case created a division between police investigators and his office that spanned the breadth of the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, this philosophical division was more than a metaphor, and the gap that separated Boulder Police investigators from members of the prosecutor’s office would never be bridged.

Political expediency, and the tendency of Hunter’s office to craft defense pleas in advance of knowing the facts of a case, precluded a proper review of the true elements of this murder investigation. For many years, Boulder County law enforcement officials had voiced their concerns about the relationship that existed between the defense bar and prosecutors. It was not uncommon for the D.A.’s office to be having plea agreement discussions with a defense attorney
before
they had even received the full complement of investigative reports from a law enforcement agency.

More importantly, it appeared as though many in the D.A.’s office didn’t want to consider
any of the evidence
that pointed to some type of family involvement, and totally discounted the opinions of the experts who counseled that all was not right with this “kidnapping” case.

Unfortunately, Stan Garnett inherited all of these problems when he took office in 2009. It was an active homicide investigation in which his predecessor had already publically exonerated the very people whom law enforcement authorities could never clear of involvement. The investigation had been so thoroughly compromised that it was unlikely the prosecution of anyone would ever take place.

Hope springs eternal, and I had always believed that the criminal justice system would eventually prevail. But like Steve Thomas, and many of the other un-named investigators who gave their heart and soul to the pursuit of justice in this case, I gradually lost my faith in the system that was supposed to protect the interests of an innocent and brutally murdered child.

For nearly six years, I have been pushing authorities to initiate another grand jury inquiry that would be able to pursue probative leads that I believed were key to discovering the truth of the matter regarding this child’s death. This would be no fishing expedition, and the inquiry would be pursuing specific details that could lead to a definitive conclusion to this investigation.

Over a year has passed since I first sent the “Theory of Prosecution” to the offices of the District Attorney and Boulder Police Department. There had been no acknowledgement of the receipt of this correspondence, or any indication, that police and prosecutors were willing to consider the grand jury leads that were presented in the documents. It appeared that no one in Boulder wanted to ask the difficult questions, or pursue the sensitive information that could solve this murder case.

In all fairness, I can hardly say that I blame them. The investigative file consists of thousands of pages of documents and exhibits, and it would take months for a prosecutor to become fully conversant with all of the nuances and details of the case. Under the current set of legal circumstances, it may very well be that some of the leads I suggested in the case are beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities.

Additionally, the initiation of a grand jury inquiry would bring its attendant problems with the media, and the people of Boulder have truly had enough of that experience. Moreover, the ever-present threat of a Ramsey lawsuit further chills the investigative process.

And now, as outlined in closing chapters, it is readily apparent that the Statute of Limitations has expired, and for that and other reasons, no one will ever see the inside of a criminal court room for their involvement in the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenét. What prosecutor, or police chief, would want to expend additional public funds in pursuit of a murder investigation when they know that it will not result in the conviction of the person responsible for the crime?

When I returned to Boulder in 2004, I never envisioned myself stepping into the lead role of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. Nor did I imagine, once I accepted that responsibility, I would discover the things that I have, or reach the beliefs that I now hold. This would not have been possible but for the efforts of the Boulder Police investigators who preceded me in this investigation.

Over the course of the first twelve years that Boulder Police had investigated the case, they conducted 590 interviews, collected handwriting and non-testimonial samples of evidence from 215 people, and had travelled to 17 states and 2 foreign countries in their pursuit of the perpetrator.

They thoroughly vetted well over 100 possible, viable suspects.

In addition, they received approximately 6500 telephone tips and over 5000 letters that purported to identify people involved in the murder.

Over 1500 pieces of physical evidence were collected, and 64 experts were consulted from a variety of fields.

The investigative file, which I came to describe as a
library
, exceeded 60,000 pages of reports and documents.

These were the details that emerged as I began to explore the steps that had been taken to investigate this murder.

This is hardly the picture the Ramsey camp has liked to paint about the Boulder Police Department’s search for the murderer of JonBenét. The truth is, however, that a number of
other
potential suspects stood with the Ramseys beneath the
umbrella of suspicion
at one time or another.

The documentation of this case by Boulder Police investigators was nothing less than extraordinary, and allowed me to piece together the framework of an investigative theory that seems not only possible, but, in my opinion, probable when we attempt to understand and explain the circumstances that surround this child’s death.

If it could be characterized that Hunter’s office missed their opportunity, I would have to say that the investigation languished once it reached Mary Lacy’s office. It is difficult for me to speak to this issue, because I worked in her office for nearly two years, and it was my personal observation that everyone there promoted a very positive “can-do” attitude when it came to carrying out their responsibilities as prosecutors.

And yet I could find no rational explanation for her singular view on the matter, and the ease with which she wrote off evidence that led experienced criminal investigators to the opinion that the Ramsey family had somehow been involved in the death of their daughter.

Evidence of this nature continued to be summarily dismissed out of hand, and Tom Bennett, as thorough and efficient an investigator as I observed him to be, was hamstrung when it came to pursuing leads of a probative nature.

Any lead that directed the investigation to an outside intruder was pursued with due diligence, and, regrettably, he spent a good deal of time logging inconsequential flotsam that continued to flood the office.

Following the arrest and release of John Mark Karr, when I was attempting to involve Governor Owen’s office in pursuing another grand jury inquiry, it was suggested by certain individuals in the DA’s office that I was “obsessed” with the case. I have to presume that this also meant that I had lost my “objectivity” and couldn’t see the
forest for the trees
when it came to evaluating the evidence gathered during the murder investigation.

I fully realize that some of the information provided herein is, at best, circumstantial, and there currently exists no
direct
evidence that could be used in a court of law to convict anyone who may have been involved in the death of this child. Regrettably, there are many murders committed in this country that present similar circumstances, and yet, in some fashion, many prosecutors have made the conscious decision to leave
no stone unturned
when pursuing the leads presented for the homicides committed in their jurisdictions.