October 4, 2002
“If you’re like most Americans you probably think that John and Patsy Ramsey are hiding something in the murder of their daughter, JonBenét. In fact, a new poll for 48 Hours Investigates, 52 percent say they believe one or both parents were involved in the murder in some way.”
—Television Journalist Lesley Stahl during a 48 Hours Investigates program: “Searching for a Killer”, aired October 4, 2002
Chapter Twenty-Four
Stepping Off The Fence
I had taken several binders home with me over the 2005 Thanksgiving holiday weekend, and they included the first at-length police interviews conducted with John and Patsy Ramsey on April 30, 1997. I had read in police reports what had been ascribed to them over the course of their inquiry, but was now at a point that I wanted to spend some in-depth time reviewing the details of these statements. One of the binders also included the June 1998 interviews of John and Patsy that I would learn had been conducted by members of the D.A.’s office.
Most of the weekend was spent in a lounge chair where I sat in the relative warmth of the sunny weather outside my cottage in Chautauqua Park. I was into the first few pages of John Ramsey’s April 30, 1997, interview when I nearly fell out of my chair. I was dumbfounded to read that the Ramseys had been provided copies of police investigative reports in advance of their sit-down with detectives.
It certainly seemed an unusual move when viewed as an investigative technique. Police investigators don’t usually share their reports with people who are about to be questioned, especially when they are still under suspicion of being involved in a criminal case. I would later learn that the D.A.’s office had agreed to the release of these reports to the Ramsey team in exchange for their participation in the interview. This would be one of many concessions that the D.A.’s office would make over the course of the investigation.
My review of the June 1998 interviews held yet another surprise.
The opening pages of John’s interview, led by Lou Smit, highlighted the fact that Boulder Police investigators were not present and considered “persona non-grata.” I had seen a copy of a handwritten letter authored by John Ramsey in the spring of 1998, during my search of the I-Legal files, and Smit read into the record this same letter requesting an independent meeting with members of the D.A.’s office outside the scope of BPD involvement.49
Present with Smit and representing the D.A.’s office was special prosecutor Mike Kane. John Ramsey was accompanied by attorney Bryan Morgan and their private investigator David Williams. Morgan expressed the desire of wanting to continue to cooperate with the D.A.’s office, but there was a caveat. Morgan stated that the family felt the need to withhold certain medical records from the criminal inquiry, claiming that they deserved an “island of privacy” when it came to the investigation into JonBenét’s murder.
The following is an excerpt from that interview:
Morgan:
“I have a real problem with certain kinds of medical records. These people are entitled to an island of privacy to try to recover what they’ve been through.”
“I think you will get virtually everything you’ve described with the possible exception of personal medical records that I think John and Patsy are at least entitled to make a reasonable decision on….”
“I’ve already discussed these matters with Hoffstrom and he knows how we operate.”
There was additional reference to a “first” letter that Lou Smit apparently had sent to the Ramseys prior to this June interview. Based upon my reading of this transcript, it seemed that there was a movement afoot to segregate and distance the Boulder Police Department from further involvement in the investigation.
It seemed to me that the Ramseys were looking for a sympathetic ear in the law enforcement community.
There had been a number of occasions in the preceding months when I turned in for the night, contemplating the details of the case. It was a method of problem solving that had developed over years of police work, letting my subconscious evaluate all of the angles of an investigation while my physical body was rejuvenated by a night’s rest.
There were many times when I awoke the following morning with a different perspective, and this allowed me to pursue a new course of action. On a few occasions, thoughts would emerge in the middle of the night, and I learned to keep a notepad by my bedside to record these transient images. My research into the details of the Ramsey case was no different.
By that juncture, I had been scouring police reports and interviews for nearly five months, and something I read in the files that Thanksgiving weekend triggered a similar event. I awoke at 3:00 a.m. on one of those mornings for no apparent reason. I was suddenly and completely awake, and sat upright for a moment before moving into the living room.
It seemed a simple realization, but it dawned on me that Patsy had reported that she had never finished reading the ransom note before rushing upstairs and screaming for John. Yet, she was able to recite the name of the kidnappers during the panicked and hysterical 911 telephone call to police that morning.
She explained in her April 1997 interview that she had looked at the note when the dispatcher asked her if the kidnappers had identified themselves. I wasn’t buying the explanation.
John Ramsey, according to his statement, was on his hands and knees hovering over the note as he tried to read through it.50 He was facing south, and the note was spread from left to right. Patsy was on the phone about four – five feet away and would have been required to read the note upside down - that is, if she had been able to look through her husband.
It was a significant turning point for me and could be described as one of those “ah haa” moments when the truth has finally been revealed to the seeker.
It had taken a number of months of intensive examination of investigative files before I came to believe that the family was somehow involved in the death of JonBenét. I did not quite know how or why, but at that juncture, I no longer felt it was likely that an intruder had participated in this crime.
I returned to the office from the holiday weekend with a renewed energy and an expanded viewpoint. While continuing to evaluate the new leads that continuously streamed into our office, I began to narrow the focus of my review on the family, and observed a number of behavioral clues that seemed out of sync.
Suffice it to say, the more I scrutinized the Ramsey family, the more I came to believe that the likelihood of involvement by a kidnapper – intruder was becoming extremely remote.
I was aware that investigators had discovered that the 911 tape contained a few extra seconds of recorded telephone conversation that was captured when Patsy had failed to fully terminate the call. A number of people had independently listened to the tail end of the call and described hearing the same voices and words on the tape. It piqued my interest because it was reported that a young voice, thought to be that of Burke, had been recognized on the tape.
If that was the case, and Burke was in the vicinity of the kitchen and speaking to his parents when the 911 call was made, why were the Ramseys continuing to insist that he was asleep in his bedroom?
I had listened to the CD of the 911 call and couldn’t quite make out the voices that others had heard, so I decided to contact the California lab that had worked on enhancing the tape. (I have to admit that my hearing has somewhat degraded over the years due to the many hours spent on firearms ranges.) I wanted to know if there was any new technology that could further clarify the voices caught on the tail end of the recording.
I had called Mike Epstein at the Aerospace Corporation just prior to the Thanksgiving holidays, and he advised me that he had not completed any additional work on the tape since first being contacted by Boulder investigators in 1997. He indicated that he didn’t think they had missed a word that had been said on the tape and was willing to send another master copy of the CD for my review. I was not certain which generation of recording was in my hands at the D.A.’s office, and i
t was my desire to have a cleaner, fresher generation that could be reviewed.
I was disappointed to hear during my gathering of information that technology had not changed and that the same “tool set” being used in the entertainment industry in 1997 was still state of the art in 2005.
In the meantime, while awaiting the arrival of the new Aerospace CD, I continued to work the regular caseload that was ever present in the office. If memory serves, the DA’s office handled nearly 2500 felony and misdemeanor filings in any given year, and many of those cases required additional follow-up investigation once police had cleared their case by arrest. Preparing those cases to the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” frequently fell to the investigative unit of the DA’s office.
I continued my review of the Ramsey case file whenever a spare moment presented itself, and further explored the possibility of family involvement in the weeks that followed.
Chapter Twenty-Five
The Evolution of John Ramsey’s Statements †
As noted in previous chapters, investigators were concerned about the discrepancies showing up in the statements being provided by the family. I was interested in tracking the history of the statements to see exactly how they had evolved over time.
The following is a synopsis of the statements made by John Ramsey with regard to some of the actions taken on the morning of the discovery of the ransom note. Included are his thoughts about the intruder and the suspected point of entry used to access his residence.
A more detailed analysis of some of John Ramsey’s statements is addressed in a later chapter.
The Chronological History of John Ramsey’s Statements
Initial Police Investigation: December 26, 1996:
-John advised officers / investigators that he believed the house to have been locked on the evening of December 25, 1996.
-He indicated that he observed no signs of forced entry to the home.
-He advised that upon learning of JonBenét’s disappearance, he checked on Burke’s welfare and determined him to be safely asleep in his bedroom.
-John did not ask Burke if knew the whereabouts of JonBenét or if he’d seen or heard anything during the night.
-John stated that he conducted a cursory search of JonBenét’s bedroom after reading the ransom note, but there was never any mention of a trip to the basement.
-During questioning by police investigators about possible suspects, John and Patsy provided names and possible motives for suspects, but John did not say anything about his observations and suspicions regarding a possible entry / exit point to the residence.
Follow-up Police Interview: December 27, 1996
Sergeant Larry Mason and Detective Linda Arndt responded to the Fernie residence on the evening of Friday, December 27th in attempt to arrange a follow-up interview with the Ramseys but were told that Patsy was too distraught to answer questions about the death of her daughter.
Ramsey friend / attorney Michael Bynum, present at the Fernie residence that evening, wouldn’t permit an interview to take place at the police department.
Sergeant Mason asked John about the broken window in the basement and was told that he had broken it during a forced entry to his home the previous summer when he had left his keys behind.
Police investigators were subsequently advised on December 28th that members of the Ramsey family were now being represented by legal counsel. Any questions investigators wished to pose to them would have to be routed through the district attorney’s office.
CNN Interview: January 1, 1997:
-Not yet having participated in a formal police interview, the Ramseys decided to involve the national media by providing an interview with CNN in Georgia.
-John Ramsey stated that he had ‘shared his thoughts with the police’ and that he intended to return to Boulder and speak to investigators.
-John Ramsey reported that they were “now ready to cooperate.”
-John Ramsey stated that he / family were “not angry” about JonBenét’s death but he / they were interested in finding out “why” this had occurred.
-John and Patsy pointed to the involvement of an intruder in the death of their daughter but, other than mentioning the ransom note, provided no other details about an intruder’s activities in their home.
Police Interview: April 30, 1997
-Having negotiated the terms of their first official police interview, John Ramsey advised investigators that the garage door was typically used to enter and exit the house.
-He reported that he had checked the 1st floor doors and they appeared to have been locked.
-John stated that he would usually check the back hallway door because it was typically used by the kids to enter and exit the house when playing in the back yard.
-John reports that he checked on Burke “fairly quickly” after the discovery of the ransom note and that he was still asleep.
-John reports that he had been to the Train Room sometime early that morning and observed the broken window but that he didn’t see any glass. (The exact timing of this visit is not made clear during the interview but it was described as being later in the morning, after the 911 call to authorities.)
-When he did visit the basement, John assumed that the window was broken from his summer 1996 forced-entry to the basement.
-He reported that the Train Room window was open approximately “1/8 inch.”
-John stated that he closed and latched the window
-John reports that he didn’t return to the basement until at the direction of Detective Arndt. This took place at approximately 1:00 p.m. and he led Fleet White to the Train Room and informed him of his previous forced entry into the room. They inspected the window and looked for window glass together.
-John states that the unlatched window ‘probably struck him as a little unusual…but it wasn’t dramatically out of the ordinary’.
-He didn’t bring it to anyone’s attention.
-John went on to state: “My theory is that someone came in through the basement window…because there was the blue Samsonite suitcase also sitting right under the window…” “[He]…could have gotten into the house without that but you couldn’t have gotten out that window without something to step on”…“Those windows weren’t obvious to somebody just walking by…”
Denver News Media Interview: May 1, 1997
-In response to the criticism of the father of murder victim Polly Klaas regarding their lack of cooperation with authorities, John Ramsey reports to the media that they (the Ramsey family) had ‘spoken with police investigators for approximately eight (8) hours on December 26, 1996; another two (2) hours on December 27, 1996 and that they had supplied them with every piece of information they had.’
-John stated, “And we have all along, through our investigative group…communicated every piece of information we had that we felt was relevant to the case.”
Boulder County District Attorney’s Interviews: June 23, 1998
-John thinks he checked JonBenét’s room before Patsy called 911.
-He stated that… “there was just a lot of running around going on.
-John “just looked in [Burke’s room] he was in bed and was asleep…I knew he was there and he was ok.” “I mighta looked around the house some more.”
-“I know I looked in the refrigerator, we have this walk-in refrigerator we’re always worried about the kids getting in there…”
-John was “perplexed” at how they got in. ‘Later in the morning…wondering if anyone was watching the house…went to Burke’s room with binoculars...’ “There was a truck parked in the alley across the road [behind the Barnhill residence] that I never noticed before…” “There was a white Ford Fiesta driving by more than once.”
-John reported that he had gone to the basement earlier and found the door to the Train Room ‘kinda blocked…there was a chair in front of the doors…window was cracked open…maybe an inch.’
-John stated a “Samso
nite suitcase was against the wall directly under the window”… “I don’t think I looked anywhere else…at that point I was still trying to figure out how they got in the house.”…“The window was sort of explainable…but the suitcase was unusual, that shouldn’t have been there.”
-Regarding his trip to the basement: “Well, when I came down, one of the things I noticed was, ok, that door is still kind of blocked”…“There were some boxes and there was a stool kind of thing sitting there”…“It wasn’t obvious to me that someone had gone through there cause I had to move the chair to get in which I did.”…”the window was partially open, but the suitcase just kind of jumped out at me.”
-John states “I absolutely did not put it [suitcase] back there [in the Train Room].
Continuation of District Attorney’s Office Interview: June 24, 1998
-Detective Lou Smit and John Ramsey review photograph #71, which depicts the entryway to the Train Room:
John Ramsey: ‘What is different, the door is blocked only by this drum table. Here’s the chair I said was blocking the door…I moved the chair to get into the door.’ ‘When I went down, that chair was kind of blocking that entrance right there [Train Room door]. ‘There was something else on the other side...but all I had to do was move that chair and I walked into the room.’
Lou Smit: “So do you think that the chair would block the door in an attempt that nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?”
John Ramsey: “Correct.”
Lou Smit: “In other words, let’s say that the intruder goes into the Train Room and gets out, let’s say, that window…would he get that chair to block the door…”
Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 22
