Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?

by A. James Kolar

  John Ramsey: “I go down…I moved that chair and went in the room.”

  Lou Smit: “So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”

  John Ramsey: “Correct.

  Lou Smit: “I’m trying to figure out, if an intruder went through the door, he’d almost have had to pull the chair behind him...that would have been his exit.”

  John Ramsey: “Yeah, it was blocked. He had to move something to get in the room.”

  Lou Smit: “And he would have had to have moved it back, if he was in there, to get out.”

  John Ramsey: “Yeah.”

  Lou Smit: “So that’s not very logical in terms of doing that.”

  John Ramsey: “Yeah, I think it is, if this person is bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, yet left all these funny clues around, they certainly are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.”

  ABC News Interview: March 17, 2000

  -During a nationally televised interview with Barbara Walters, John Ramsey shares his thoughts regarding the open Train Room window: “I was a bit alarmed, but I was more alarmed with the Samsonite suitcase that was standing up below the window.” “That looked wrong. That suitcase did not belong there…it was out of place.”

  -John’s first impression was that the kidnapper had gone through the window.

  Excerpts from the Ramsey’s Book, The Death of Innocence, published March 2000

  -Sometime that morning while awaiting the ransom call, John recalls breaking into the basement Train Room when locked out of the house that previous summer.

  -While waiting for the ransom call, he remembers that the note indicates the kidnappers will be watching. Hoping to catch them looking at the house, he races upstairs to find binoculars.

  -He observes a strange vehicle in the alley across the street behind the Barnhill residence. After several minutes, nothing has happened and he returned downstairs.

  -The ransom call does not come by 1000 hrs and John’s desperation increases.

  -“That entry point needs to be looked at…the pane is still broken and the window is open, with a large old Samsonite suitcase sitting under it. Odd, I think. This doesn’t look right.”

  -“This suitcase is not normally kept here. Maybe this is how the kidnapper got in and out of our house. The window ledge is a few feet off the floor, so a person would need something to stand on in order to get up and out.”

  Videotaped Deposition of John Ramsey in Civil Case 00CIV1187(JEC) ‘Robert C. Wolf v. John Ramsey. Atlanta, Georgia: December 12, 2001

  -John Ramsey testified that he went to the basement on one occasion before Detective Arndt asked him to check the residence. He did not remember the time that he made the first trip to the basement.

  -When asked what he remembered seeing in the basement when he went down there, John states, “I saw a partially opened window with broken glass and a suitcase beneath the window.”

  -When asked if he saw anything else there, John responded: “Not that looked out of the ordinary.”

  -Questioned as to why he went to the basement, John states: “I was trying to determine how someone could have gotten into our house.”

  -John advised that no one directed him to check the basement and doesn’t know if anyone saw him go there.

  -He had a vague recollection of mentioning the broken window to Detective Arndt, but had explained his earlier summer entry to the house.

  What I found disturbing about the chronology of these statements is that John had failed to mention his observations, and suspicions, about the suitcase to investigators on the morning of the kidnapping. He had the opportunity to tell Detective Arndt about this after his exploration of the basement. This was a crucial bit of information, especially in light of the fact that everyone in the house was puzzled about how kidnappers had gained entrance to the home that morning.

  He also neglected to mention these observations to Sergeant Mason the following evening, on December 27, 1996, when officers visited the family at the Fernie residence.

  Moreover, investigators didn’t learn about John’s observation of the ‘suspicious’ vehicles in his neighborhood until June 1998. I am aware that BPD investigators were driving through the neighborhood in unmarked vehicle(s) on the morning of the kidnapping, and they could have easily checked on the identity of the people occupying these vehicles.

  And then came the 1998 revelation that a suspect was believed to have moved a chair in the basement before escaping the residence. This chair could have yielded latent fingerprints for comparison against the seventy-one million (71,000,000) known offenders maintained in the national IAFIS FBI database. This database is more than seven times the size of the DNA database and I would suggest that this would have improved the chances of identifying a suspect if latent fingerprints had been collected from the chair.

  Despite claims that the family had shared all of the information they had with law enforcement authorities, it was discouraging to bear witness to the wasted opportunities presented in the events chronicled above.

  Assuming the intruder theory to be valid, it is entirely possible that the case could have been significantly advanced by identifying the people in the vehicles observed by Ramsey, and by the processing of critical evidence that might have been handled by suspects while in the home.

  Chapter Twenty-Six

  The Christmas Gift

  The 2005 Christmas Holidays were fast approaching, and for some reason I felt the necessity of “gifting” the discoveries of my work in the Ramsey case to District Attorney Mary Lacy. By that time, I felt that my reexamination had discredited the evidence that suggested an intruder had been responsible for this crime, and indeed, that compelling visual evidence pointed the investigation in an entirely new direction.

  I couldn’t understand how Smit so easily dismissed physical evidence that discounted the window well as a point of entry. Spider webs attaching the grate to the foliage and window well wall, as well as cobwebs in the corner of the frame, and the placement of the rectangular piece of glass on the exterior windowsill, appeared to preclude anyone’s entry or exit from this location. A collection of pine needles and leaves on the top of the grate further bolstered this observation.

  More importantly, the sequencing of the injuries sustained by JonBenét were entirely inconsistent with Smit’s version of events. It was his belief she had been repeatedly strangled with the garrote and then had suffered the blow to her head at or near the time of death. The lack of blood from an external wound apparently accounted for this hypothesis.

  But it should be noted that the first strike involved in a blow to the head doesn’t always break the skin of the scalp and cause immediate external bleeding.

  JonBenét’s injury gave the appearance of one massive strike to the top right side of her skull. There did not appear to be any follow-up blow, and the severity of her injuries could not be interpreted from a viewing of the external autopsy photographs alone. The severity of the injury to her skull was not realized until after her scalp had been redacted to inspect the internal aspects of her head. It only then became apparent that she had suffered a crushing blow to her skull.

  Internal bleeding normally does not occur once the heart stops beating. According to the forensic examiners who studied the evidence, the presence of such bleeding revealed that JonBenét had lived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head.

  Moreover, it appeared to me that the garrote had been applied in one singular fashion and not repeatedly tightened during an orgy of torture. Dr. Spitz’s opinion about the collar of the shirt causing the other abrasions on JonBenét’s neck seemed consistent with the appearance of those injuries. Although I thought it possible that the perpetrator could have repeatedly tightened and loosened the garrote during an episode of torture, I wondered why someone would do that to an unconscious child. This activity would not have resulted in the victim regaining any semblance of consciousness, and would not likely
have provided the intruder any degree of satisfaction. The intent of torture is to see the victim’s fearful reaction to pain, and physical torture, and that was not possible in this set of circumstances.

  It was a matter of speculation on my part, but I believed the cord of the garrote had been tightened during one single application. The hair that was caught in the knot of the garrote located at the base of her neck would likely have been torn free from JonBenét’s scalp during a repeated loosening and tightening of the ligature. As noted by the coroner, the final application of the garrote was the proximate cause of her death.

  I couldn’t help but wonder if Smit had ever reviewed any of the forensic findings when he constructed his theory of the intruder. His hypothesis was contrary to the forensic science developed over the course of the investigation. My interpretation of some of the physical injuries suggested that an entirely different series of events had taken place, and they were in direct contradiction to what Smit was proposing.

  There were other aspects of the “kidnapping” that didn’t quite ring true, and it was my belief that careful consideration of all of these pieces of evidence and clues would help steer the investigation back on course.

  A fairly substantial Power-Point presentation was nearing completion, and I was preparing to sit down with my boss to spell out the details of my efforts. I was patently aware that I was wading into dangerous territory. Mary Lacy didn’t believe that the parents had been involved in the death of their daughter.

  And then my phone rang.

  Jay Harrington, Town Manager of Telluride and my former employer, was calling to see if I had I tired of my current position. He indicated that the chief of police in Telluride, in place for less than a year, was preparing to move on to bigger and better things. Harrington wanted to know if I was willing to consider the possibility of returning to my old desk.

  Here I was, on the eve of committing political suicide, being offered an opportunity to return to the safe haven of the mountains of southwestern Colorado. I couldn’t help but laugh at the irony of the situation.

  I could be fired the next day for expressing my professional opinion about a murder investigation and out of the blue came another job offer. How fortuitous was that?

  I ended up postponing my presentation to Lacy and her staff, scheduled for the next day, so that I could add a few more video clips that would help round out my case theory.

  When I ultimately presented my theory on January 30, 2006, I wasn’t terminated. I didn’t really think that was going to happen, to be honest, but the events that followed seemed to suggest that I had fallen out of favor.

  Chapter Twenty-Seven

  January 2006 Presentation

  I had been working on a Power-Point presentation for approximately two months and was finally prepared to share my findings with Mary Lacy and her command staff at the end of January 2006. It had been a long haul, but I felt that I had prepared a fairly comprehensive investigative piece that placed the lone-intruder theory into question.

  There were a number of elements that comprised the foundation of my theory and key to these discoveries was the belief that I had effectively discounted the evidence that suggested an outsider was responsible for this crime. The core documents / photographs compiled by Boulder investigators had eventually revealed their secrets. My presentation consisted of a number of still 35mm photographs and video segments that would help illustrate my hypothesis.

  Closer examination of the crime scene video completed by Boulder Crime Scene Investigators on the evening of December 26, 1996, virtually eliminated the possibility that entry had been made to the Ramsey residence through the Train Room window well. This video provided more detailed information about the condition of the window well than what had been depicted in the 35 mm still photographs.

  I then moved forward to examine the theory that a stun gun had been used to silence JonBenét. Notwithstanding the fact that Boulder County Coroner John Meyer reported the undetermined marks on JonBenét to be “abrasions” versus burn marks, D.A. investigators conducted their own comparison of the most likely brand of stun gun alleged to have been used in the assault.

  One-to-one photographs comparing the stun gun probes to the injuries on JonBenét had not yet been prepared, however, and I asked that this be done. A series of Power Point photographs were completed that revealed the measurements of the electronic probes did not match the injuries on the body of JonBenét.

  It was related to me that the Hi-Tec boot print in the Wine Cellar was potentially from a number of sources and not necessarily left by an intruder.

  Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children‘s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line.

  I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.

  Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.

  Its presence was puzzling, but I felt that this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that had been collected over the course of the investigation.

  Having eliminated the Train Room window as a likely point of entry and exit and ruling out the use of a stun gun in this abduction, I was left pondering the question of motive. If an intruder was not responsible for the murder of JonBenét, then what possible reason could the Ramseys have had for brutally murdering their daughter?

  I didn’t quite buy the hypothesis that Patsy had lost her temper and struck JonBenét. She had not been eliminated as the author of the ransom note, which certainly left open the possibility that she had involvement in the crime. I just couldn’t reconcile the fact that Patsy was, by all accounts, a loving and doting mother, and I had difficulty envisioning her ever brutalizing either one of her children.

  Nevertheless, that was one of the questions I contemplated as I began to study the behavioral aspects of the family. A necessary part of that process required an examination of the motives presented in the crime. On the face of it, this was a crime that involved mixed motives, and the slide presentation I produced for Mary Lacy and her command staff was entitled “A Tale of Two Motives.”

  I cited materials from the FBI’s Crime Classification Manual and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime to spell out the details of these motives.

  The first involved the crime of Kidnap and was a motive identified as “Criminal Enterprise.” There had been the taking of a hostage that was to be held for ransom.

  Aside from the missing victim, the ransom note was the most obvious element for this motive, and it spelled out the monetary figure demanded by the perpetrators.

  But then things took a different twist. The object of the kidnap was never removed from the home. Additionally, the lengthy note suggested an intimate knowledge of the family, and it seemed reminiscent of a “Hollywood” version of the crime.

  Agents of the FBI consulting on the case thought the note extremely unusual. It had been their experience that kidnappers didn’t typically want to reveal details about themselves. Ransom notes were short and sweet: “We have your kid and want one million dollars. Wait for our call.” Period.

  The FBI had also advised Boulder investigators after the discovery of JonBenét’s body that they needed to take a close look at the family. Statistically, a child found murdered in the home usually involved a family member.

  FBI agents shared another word of advice. The circumstances surrou
nding this crime led them to believe that two hands were involved in this murder.

  The second motive present, quite obvious due to the violence perpetrated against JonBenét, was identified as “Sadistic Murder – Sexual Homicide.” The injuries inflicted upon JonBenét left little doubt about this motive.

  All things considered, these were entirely different and contrasting motives that seemed to defy explanation.

  If there truly was a group of people intent on extorting ransom from John Ramsey, why would they murder the object that held value in their cause? If JonBenét had been killed by accident, why not remove her from the home and follow through with the ransom call? They could have collected their money, and the family would never have been aware that their daughter was already dead.

  The other question posed addressed the sexual sadist. If the motivation for this crime involved a lone sexual predator, why would he not remove the object of his desire from the home? Pedophiles who abduct children typically take them somewhere private where they can take their time abusing their prey. He instead took the risk of being discovered and trapped by assaulting JonBenét within the confines of the residence.

  And for what purpose did he take precious time to craft a ransom note?

  Based upon a neighbor’s observations, it appeared that he may have written the note beneath the dimmed lights of the kitchen.

  From there I outlined the factors that pointed to a “mixed offender” profile, a technique used to help police narrow down the pool of suspects possibly involved in a case.

  The confusing circumstances present in this crime suggested that we had both an “organized” and “disorganized” offender(s) responsible for its commission.

  Some of the clues present suggested that an organized offender was responsible for this crime. He / they were methodical and had appeared to have conducted surveillance of the home before the kidnapping. According to the ransom note, they also appeared to be familiar with the family. Implements used in the crime, i.e. the cord and duct tape, were not found in the home after the discovery of the body, so it was presumed that they had brought these items with them: a sign that thought had gone into the process of pre-planning this event.