Read Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Online
Authors: A. James Kolar
Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (49 page)
It is my belief the district attorney’s office has effectively crippled this case. The time for intervention is now. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for the appointment of an entirely independent prosecution team to be introduced into this matter, who would oversee an attempt at righting the case.
Unmistakably and worst of all, we have a little girl named JonBenét. Six years old. Many good people, decent, innocent citizens, are forever bound by the murder of this child. There is a tremendous obligation to them. But an infinitely greater obligation to her, as she rests in a small cemetery far away from this anomaly of a place called Boulder.
A distant second stands the second tragedy – the failure of the system in Boulder. Ask the mistreated prosecution witnesses in this investigation, who cooperated for months, who now refuse to talk until a special prosecutor is established. As former detectives who have quietly tendered their shields in disheartenment. Ask all those innocent people personally affected by this case, who have had their lives upset because of the arbitrary label of “suspect” being attached. Ask the cops who cannot speak out because they still wear a badge. The list is long.
I know to speak out brings its own issues. But as you also know, there are those who are disheartened as I am, who are biting their tongues, searching their consciences. I what may occur – I may be portrayed as frustrated, disgruntled. Not so.
I have had an exemplary and decorated thirteen year career as a police officer and detective.
I didn’t want to challenge the system. In no way do I wish to harm this case or subvert the long and arduous work that has been done. I only wish to speak up and ask for assistance in making a change. I want justice for a child who was killed in her home on Christmas night.
The case has defined many aspects of all our lives, and will continue to do so for all of our days. My colleagues put their hearts and souls into this case, and I will take some satisfaction that it was the detective team who showed tremendous efforts and loyalties to seeking justice for this victim. Many sacrifices were made. Families. Marriages. In the latter months of the investigation, I was diagnosed with a disease which will require a lifetime of medication. Although my health declined, I was resolved to see the case through to a satisfactory closure. I did that on June 1 – 2. And on June 22, I requested a leave of absence, without mention of what transpired in our department since Christmas 1996.
What I witnessed for two years of my life was so fundamentally flawed, it reduced me to tears. Everything the badge ever meant to me was so foundationally shaken, one should never have to sell one’s soul as a prerequisite to wear it. On June 26, after leaving the investigation for the last time, and leaving the city of Boulder, I wept as I drove home, removing my detective shield and placing it on the seat beside me, later putting it in a desk drawer at home, knowing I could never put it back on.
There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the person who committed these acts, independent of this system we call “justice.” A great justice awaits. Of that, at least, we can be confident.
As a now infamous author, panicked in the night, once penned, “Use that good southern common sense of yours.” I will do just that.
Originally from a small southern town where this would never have been tolerated, where respect for law and order and traditions were instilled in me, I will take that murderous author’s out-of-context advice. And use my good southern common sense to put this case into perspective it necessitates – a precious child was murdered. There needs to be some consequence to that.
Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my police career, a calling which I loved. I do this because I cannot continue to sanction by my silence what has occurred in this case. It was never a fair playing field, the “game” was simply unacceptable anymore. And that’s what makes this all so painful. The detectives never had a chance. If ever there was a case, and if ever there was a victim, who truly meant something to the detectives pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this case, what case? Until such time an independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee this case, I will not be a part of this. What went on is simply wrong.
I recalled a favorite passage recently, Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter: “Just remember that one thing does not abide my majority rule, Scout – it’s your conscience.”
At thirty six years old, I thought my life’s passion as a police officer was carved in stone. I realize that although I may have to trade my badge for a carpenter’s hammer, I will do so with a clear conscience. It is with a heavy heart that I offer my resignation from the Boulder Police Department, in protest of this continuing travesty.
Detective Steve Thomas #638 Detective Division Boulder Police Department August 6, 1998
August 17, 1998
To the people of Colorado,
On August 12, 1998 Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that he would be presenting the JonBenét Ramsey murder case to a Boulder grand jury at the expense of the State of Colorado. Colorado grand jury law requires that both jurors and witnesses take an oath of secrecy regarding grand jury proceedings and testimony. In anticipation of receiving a subpoena to appear before that grand jury, we wish at this time to address matters concerning the investigation which we feel are of great importance to the people of Colorado and the Boulder community.
After JonBenét Ramsey was killed in Boulder nearly twenty months ago, her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, immediately hired prominent Democratic criminal defense attorneys with the law firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. This firm and its partners have close professional, political and personal ties to prosecutors, the Denver and Boulder legal and judicial communities, state legislators, and high-ranking members of Colorado government, including Governor Roy Romer. The investigation of her death has since been characterized by confusion and delays. The district attorney and Ramsey defense attorneys started early in the investigation to condition the public to believe that these delays and the lack of a prosecution have resulted almost entirely from initial police bungling of the case and the non-cooperation of witnesses. This has continued to this day. Advising the district attorney since the early days of the investigation have been Denver metropolitan district attorneys Bob Grant (Adams Count), Bill Ritter (Denver County), Jim Peters (18
th
Judicial District), and Dave Thomas (1
st
Judicial District).
Recently, Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, an investigator on the JonBenét Ramsey murder case, left the department in disgust. In his August 6 letter of resignation, he publically accused the district attorney of obstructing the police investigation and allowing politics to “trump” justice. He asked that a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case.
We knew JonBenét and her parents very well and have been closely involved in the investigation as witnesses. During the past year, we have also come to know and respect Mr. Thomas and were saddened and discouraged by his departure from the investigation. We share Mr. Thomas’ view regarding the district attorney and his contention that overwhelming pressure brought to bear on the district attorney and police leadership from various quarters has thwarted the investigation and delayed justice in the case. While it is unlikely that the district attorney has been corrupted by Ramsey defense attorneys, it certain that the district attorney and his prosecutors have been greatly influenced by their metro area district attorney advisers and by defense attorneys’ chummy persuasiveness and threats of reprisals for anyone daring to jeopardize the civil rights of their victim clients. Indeed, the district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have simultaneously rebuked the police for “focusing” their investigation on the Ramseys when in fact police were simply following evidence. During the course of the investigation, the district attorney has used inexplicable methods including the recruitment of magazine writers and tabloids to leak information concerning the case and to needle witnesses, “suspects”, and police detectives. He has provided evidence to Ramsey defense attorneys at their request but denied reasonable requests by witnesses for their own statements to police. He has thoroughly alienated police detectives and key witnesses whose cooperation is vital to the investigation and prosecution. His public statements regarding the investigation have been erratic, evasive, and misleading. They have also been profoundly damaging to the case. Understandably, public confidence in the district attorney’s handling of the investigation was low even before Mr. Thomas’ letter.
Notwithstanding what the public has been led to believe, Boulder police leadership and detectives have been under the effective control of the district attorney and his advisors since the early days of the investigation. In December, 1997, we met with Governor Romer to request that the state intervene and appoint an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation and prosecution of the case. Citing the growing conflict between police and prosecutors and the delay of any progress in the investigation, we expressed our view that Boulder authorities were incapable of seeking justice. We also pointed out specific circumstances that we felt could inhibit or restrict Governor Romer’s willingness to intervene. In early January, 1998, we were advised that he had decided against intervention on the advice of Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby. Chief Koby, who has since left the department, had told Governor Romer that the investigation was incomplete and therefore had not been given to the district attorney for prosecution. In short; there had been no failure to prosecute and thus no basis for the state’s intervention. Upon learning of his decision, we wrote a letter published January 16, 1998, in the Boulder Daily Camera expressing our views and requesting Governor Romer reconsider his decision. Recently, Governor Romer publically stated that he did not recall the letter. We hope that this letter will make a stronger impression.
Since our meeting with Governor Romer eight months ago, the public has been shown the forced reconciliation of demoralized police detectives with the district attorney and his prosecutors and a sequence of odd and highly publicized milestones in the case. In March, 1998, police Chief Koby and lead investigator Mark Beckner (later to be appointed police chief), made an unusual public appeal to the district attorney for a grand jury investigation on the pro bono advice of three prominent Denver attorneys. In response, the district attorney requested a complete presentation by police of evidence. The presentation occurred over two days in early June, 1998, and was witnessed by prosecutors, representatives of the State Attorney General’s office, prominent forensic scientists, and advisors of the district attorney and the police department. The public was then told that the investigation had been finally transferred to the district attorney from the police department and that the district attorney would now require some indeterminate length of time to review the case prior to making a decision concerning the police request for a grand jury investigation. Upon leaving the presentation, both Alex Hunter and Mark Beckner made inappropriate but tantalizing comments designed to give the public hope that the case may yet be “solved”. They warned, however, that there was still a lot of work to do and that additional evidence was needed. Then, in late June, 1998, the public was once again brought in on a major development in the case. The Ramseys were interviewed by the representatives of the district attorney in a carefully orchestrated demonstration of their willingness to cooperate in the investigation now that biased and incompetent police detectives were no longer involved.
Most developments in the case brought to the public’s attention through 1997 should be regarded as well-publicized but clumsy attempts by the district attorney and police leadership to look busy, follow long “task lists,” and clean up investigative files while the district attorney killed time and spread-out responsibility for the case. One the other hand, “advances” in the case since the early this year have been carefully planned to condition the public for a grand jury investigation. The district attorney’s office past indecision and the need for the police to ask him for a grand jury investigation were deliberate attempts to mislead the public. If based on nothing other than the district attorney’s repeated public statements and leaks characterizing the case as “not prosecutable,” there can be little doubt, that absent a confession, the people running the investigation long ago had decided against filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of the grand jury. There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for presenting the case to the a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new evidence, grilling ‘reluctant” witnesses, or returning an indictment and everything to do with sealing away the facts, circumstances and evidence gathered in the investigation in a grand jury transcript. It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening people who something to hide or protect or who simply don’t want to be publically linked to a dreadful murder investigation. Also weighing on the district attorney has been the matter of preserving and protecting the now “cooperative” and forthcoming Ramsey’s rights as victims.
In direct response to Mt. Thomas’s recent letter, Governor Romer met on August 12, 1998, with district attorneys Grant, Ritter, Peters, and Thomas. Later that day, Governor Romer announced at a press conference that Hunter had told him that the case was “on track for a grand jury.” Romer said that “it would be improper to appoint a special prosecutor now” but that to improve public confidence in the case he would make available to Hunter additional prosecutorial expertise. Shortly after the press conference, Hunter’s office announced that the case would be presented to a grand jury in “order to gain additional evidence in the case.” On August 13, 1998, the Rocky Mountain News offered an editorial entitled “Calling in the Calvary” in which the editor generally supported Governor Romer’s action but insightfully asked the obvious question: Why has it taken so long for Hunter’s office to present the case to a grand jury? The editorial read:
“But if the Ramsey case is on track for a grand jury,” as Romer insists, it seems to have been sitting on a siding for quite a long time awaiting clearance to proceed. This is all the more true given the fact the Ritter, Grant, Thomas, and Peters obviously believe that the grand jury must be used as an investigative tool in the Ramsey case, and not merely to reach a predetermined prosecutorial goal. If that is the case, why wasn’t a grand jury used months ago? Indeed, why wasn’t it used more than a year ago?”
Following Sid Wells murder in Boulder in August, 1983, a grand jury investigating the high-profile case met off- and – on for fifteen months without returning an indictment. Quoted in January 29, 1984, Denver Post, Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise revealed that the case had been originally referred to the grand jury “because of its power to further investigate the case. The district attorney didn’t have subpoena power and we needed that tool.” Hunter had waited less than three months before presenting the Wells murder case to a grand jury. Three months after the death of JonBenét Ramsey, police were still trying to interview John and Patsy Ramsey and obtain other evidence critical to the case.
There is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial. Since very early in the case, there has been at least a tacit understanding in the district attorney, police leadership, those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be presented to a grand jury but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in April, 1998. This delay was deemed necessary by some or all of these parties in order to take advantage of a new statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.) concerning grand jury reporting procedures which was the result of legislation promoted by the Colorado District Attorney’s Council and passed by the legislature in early March, 1997. By law, however, this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after October 1, 1997. In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would have to until April, 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury subsequent to October 1, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these people to stall and cynically rely on the public’s relative ignorance of the statute and the purpose and general nature of grand juries. The district attorney and police leadership worked hard to create the fiction that the police investigation was not “complete” and therefore not ready to be transferred to the district attorney. As long as the district attorney didn’t have the case it be difficult to fault him for not prosecuting or presenting the case to a grand jury. It was this fiction that was used by the district attorney to deflect mounting criticism including that contained in our letter in January, 1998. It also served as the basis for a Boulder court to throw out a suit brought against the district attorney by New York attorney Darnay Hoffman who had accused the district attorney of “constructively abandoning the case.” The district attorney’s publically expressed indecision in late 1997 regarding a grand jury investigation gave way to his progressively greater “leaning” toward such a decision as the date for convening the Boulder grand jury drew near.
House Bill 97-1009 was drafted by the Colorado District Attorney’s Council in late 1996 and was introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives on January 8, 1997, two weeks after JonBenét was killed. HB 97-1009 was sponsored by Representative Bill Kaufman, a Republican, and Senator Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat.
The impetus for the bill was the desire of the Council to effect legislation changing an existing statute (16-5-204 (4), C.R.S.) regarding the issuance of grand jury reports in those cases where there is not an indictment. The matter was discussed by the district attorneys and legislators at a conference in the summer of 1996. The existing statute allowed the issuance of reports but was argued to be confusing and overly restrictive. As a result, grand jury reports were nonexistent. In a January 19, 1997 editorial supporting passage of the bill, the Denver Post pointed to the inconclusive grand jury investigations concerning DIA and police conduct in the high profile Ocrant case in Arapahoe County. Also mentioned was the recent Truax officer-involved shooting case in which Denver DA Bill Ritter chose not use a grand jury to investigate possible police officer misconduct because of his concern that the grand jury might not be able to report its findings to the public. Citing these cases, the Post”…urged that in the balance between the public’s right to information and the statutory demand for grand jury secrecy, public disclosure should carry more weight than it does now.” The Post editorial went on to say: