As a wife and mother, she was forever concerned with putting the best foot forward and according to family friends, was never to be seen wearing the same outfit two days in a row. She took particular care in grooming herself when going into the public eye and was a perfectionist when it came to presenting the family image.
Opening her home to the Boulder Holiday Parade of Homes, Patsy decorated extensively and every room boasted a different type of Christmas tree. Everything was in its place and was intended to show the world the face of a happy and prosperous family.
An understanding of Patsy’s internal drive to present the “perfect” image of her family is illustrated in many examples. One that surfaced during my review of reports revealed that she had once hired someone to cut her neighbor’s lawn before an event was to be held at the Ramsey home. She reportedly had not spoken to her neighbors before executing this plan of action, and I thought it helped explain her mindset when it came to presenting her world to those outside the family.
Thus, I felt it was necessary to fully understand the importance of image to Patsy, as it was “key” to identifying a possible motive for a cover up in this crime. I thought it twofold:
First of all, I didn’t think that Patsy would ever be able to live down the “loss of face” if it came to be known that JonBenét had suffered either an accidental, or intentional death, at the hands of a member of her household. It probably would not have taken long for this information to go “viral” in the competitive world of child beauty pageants. The prospect of this outcome would have been unbearable.
Secondly, I believed Patsy had given voice to a more specific motive during Burke’s DSS interview. Having lost her beloved daughter, she would have nothing left to live for if her last remaining child were to be taken from her. Was she determined not to let that happen, and set about an elaborate cover-up to ensure that authorities would be misdirected?
When I took into consideration all of this information, I had to pose the following questions:
What does it matter whether or not Burke was awake at the time that Patsy Ramsey made the 911 call to police and why would his parents wish to conceal this information?
Furthermore, what parent would not ask their son, who slept just feet from the bedroom of their kidnapped and murdered daughter, if he had seen or heard anything during the night? This course of action defies human nature and had long been a red flag for me.
And why would the Ramseys refuse to allow homicide investigators the opportunity to interview Burke about the death of his sister? Instead, they insisted that this interview be performed by a psychologist / psychiatrist.
Why were Burke’s parents so adamant that he was not a witness in this investigation? Was it because the family was afraid that direct contact with experienced police investigators might reveal some way in which he was involved in this case?
It was readily apparent that my request of the D.A.’s office for an objective review of my hypothesis was being ignored.
I was stepping out of my comfort zone, but I made the decision to take my case to Governor Bill Owens. I was aware that the governor’s office had been asked to intervene during Alex Hunter’s reign, and I thought it might be time for him to consider doing it again.
I spoke with Governor Owens on several occasions, and he was very interested in my endeavor and supportive of my cause. Having failed to receive any type of response from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, I crafted the following letter for his consideration:
January 1, 2007
Governor Bill Owens *VIA FAX*
136 State Capital Building
Denver, CO 80203-1792
Re: JonBenét Ramsey Death Investigation
Dear Governor Owens,
As you are aware, I wrote a letter to Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy at the end of October 2006, requesting that I be granted the opportunity to present information regarding an alternate case theory to the former special prosecutors who conducted the 19981999 grand jury investigation into the death of JonBenét Ramsey. As indicated in that correspondence, I believe there are specific records and testimony that were not sought or considered during that first inquiry into the matter of JonBenét’s death.
Nearly two months have passed since making this formal request and, as of this writing, I have received no response from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office. I suppose this is not surprising, in that I am well aware that Mary Lacy believes an intruder was responsible for the death of JonBenét. My concern, highlighted by the events surrounding the arrest of John Mark Karr, is that the District Attorney’s Office will go to extreme lengths to pursue an ’intruder’ in this case but is unwilling to consider new evidence that suggests the possibility of family involvement and a cover-up.
I am writing you because I am aware that you have the authority to involve the Colorado Attorney General’s Office in a matter such as this and that you had taken similar steps in 1998 when you asked several Denver-Metro area District Attorneys to consult in the case. I am convinced there are grounds for taking another look at the possibility of family involvement in the death of JonBenét and would request that the special prosecutors who were most familiar with the details of the first grand jury inquiry be asked to review the evidence that I discovered during my work on this investigation. I believe this information is key to resolving the matter and I am seeking your assistance in bringing this death investigation to a close.
In as much as the Boulder District Attorney’s Office has elected not to respond to my request for an independent review of this information, I will be asking that the Boulder Police Department observe/ participate in the presentation of this case analysis. As the law enforcement agency that retains original jurisdiction over the investigation of the matter, I do not believe Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner would withhold his consent to a review of information that had not been previously considered by investigators.
Additionally, I would also ask that consideration be given to inviting the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit to participate in the examination of this new evidence and case theory. The members of this unit certainly have the expertise to evaluate the merit of this information and I believe they would offer an unbiased and objective viewpoint to the overall inquiry.
In closing, I believe there is no harm to be done in examining information that could possibly move the investigation toward definitive resolution. Cold homicide cases are often solved when evidence is considered in the light of new theories. Moreover, if the family had a part in the death of JonBenét, I believe I know where the answers are to be found that will finally solve this decade-old mystery.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
A. James Kolar
ajk
Governor Owens was interested in seeing this case move forward, and placed a telephone call to the D.A.’s office to inquire about the lack of a response to my October letter. I am not conversant with the details of the discussion that took place, but Tom Bennett called me some time later to see about arranging a meeting to go over the materials.
I asked him who would be invited to participate, and he indicated that it would likely be himself, Mary Lacy, and members of her command staff. No outside prosecutors, Boulder Police Department representatives, or members from the BAU would be joining in the presentation.
It seemed ironic. The Ramsey family took every opportunity to publically criticize Boulder Police for not seeking outside assistance, even though that was not the case. Now it was the D.A.’s office that was unwilling to seek the assistance and opinions of outside experts on the matter. It seemed doubtful, however, that the Ramseys would have objected to Lacy’s position in this instance.
I saw no point in continuing to pursue the issue. Lacy was entirely sold on the intruder theory and conti
nuing to hang her hat on microscopic traces of DNA. It was extremely frustrating to see this one piece of evidence dominate the entire direction of this case.
Governor Owens thought he could do more if I were willing to go public and encouraged me to give it some consideration. I thought about it for a few weeks and scrubbed the idea. I didn’t particularly care for wearing a bulls-eye on my back and decided to wait for a change in regime in Boulder.
Not long thereafter, I received a letter from Lacy that more or less accused me of overstepping my authority, and being too willing to pursue leads that she did not think likely to be productive.76 It had been her intention to scale back the investigation when I took over the case for her office and instead, I had pumped new blood into it by discounting the point of entry, eliminating the use of a stun gun, and discovering viable leads to pursue.
It was readily apparent that I no longer retained any investigative authority having left her employ, but it was to her office that I first sought permission to obtain an expert analysis of my hypothesis. I guess I could have accepted the invitation to present at the BAU, but my loyalties were still with the D.A.’s office at the time.
I subsequently drafted a response to her letter, and went to some length to further explain my unresolved suspicions about SBP and the red flags that were present in the investigative files. Resolution of the case was in her hands, and I urged her to not let it slip from her grasp.
No further communication took place after these exchanges, and one of my friends still employed there informed me that the word circulating around the D.A.’s office was that I was “obsessed with the case.”
It was a discouraging time, but things began to brighten a bit when the last development finally came to fruition.
Sergeant Harry Stephens, involved in the surveillance of Jay Elowski described in Chapter One, had retired from Telluride several years prior, but continued to come back and work as a reserve officer during the major music festivals. I was in the process of completing my case synopsis in late September 2006 during one of the fall festivals, and I took the occasion to show Harry a few of the video clips of the Train Room and Stun Gun Power Point slides.
Around a month later, he called to tell me that he wanted to send me something in the mail. He thought it might be responsible for the twin abrasions located on JonBenét’s back. As promised, about a week later, a rectangular box arrived, and it contained a child’s toy.
It was a single piece of “O” gauge style train track, the same model of train and track depicted in the crime scene video of the basement play room. The track had three pins extruding from one end.
I called Harry, and we spoke about the track. “It has three pins,” I said “and we only have two abrasions on JonBenét’s back.”
“The pins fall out all the time.” He replied. “Didn’t you ever play with trains as a kid? It’s possible the middle pin was missing when this was used on her back.”
Laughter. “I was an HO-3 man, and the pins weren’t this sturdy.”
I thought it over and said I’d take some scaled photographs of the end of the track.
I emailed a set of digital photographs to Tom Trujillo a week or so later. It took awhile, but Shelly Hisey (see Chapter Twenty-three) again worked her magic with the Power Point slides. In late February 2007, I received a CD from Boulder Police with a photo array of slides.
The disk loaded into my computer and took several moments before the screen came alive.
I was on the phone after my first viewing.
“Way to go Harry! I think you just found the weapon used to inflict those marks on JonBenét.”
The pins on the outside rails of that piece of “O” type train track matched up exactly to the twin abrasions on the back of JonBenét.
Photo 26 - Stun gun one-to-one scaled overlay
This was a toy readily accessible in the home and located only feet from where her body had been found. Crime scene photos / video had captured images of loose train track on the floor of Burke’s bedroom as well.
Lou Smit’s calculation of the “close” match between the Air Taser stun gun and JonBenét’s injuries had effectively been marginalized. This cornerstone piece of “evidence” of an intruder’s participation in the crime, already called into question, had essentially vaporized. .
One of my female officers, Christine Sandoval, volunteered to be a “beta”’ tester the following week, and I videotaped her jabbing and slightly twisting the head of the track into the soft flesh of her palm.
Photo 29 - Scaled one-to-one Power-Point overlay photographs of the “O” gauge type of train track found in the Ramsey home reveals an exact match to the abrasions located on the back of JonBenét (The center pin is missing from the track in this photograph). Source: Photo of train track by author, and Power-Point series prepared by Boulder PD criminalist Shelly Hisey
The pins of the track left red marks when sufficient pressure was applied, and I suspected that the twisting motion of the twin outside rails could have been responsible for the appearance of an abrasion, especially when considering that the target area was the soft skin of a 6-year-old girl’s back. It was my observation that the twisting motion of the pins could have created the round and slightly rectangular aspect of the abrasions as noted by Dr. Meyer during the autopsy.
I believed the discovery of this toy was a significant development in the case, and I contemplated the possibilities of its use during the commission of this offense. Ultimately, I had a good cop, and an old friend, to thank for unearthing this breakthrough.
Photo 30 - A twisting and jabbing motion of the “O” gauge train track will create abrasions when sufficient pressure is applied. Source: Author photograph of Deputy Christy Sandoval
In June 2007, Mark Beckner and I found ourselves both in attendance at the annual Colorado Chiefs of Police conference being held in Ft. Collins. At the tail end of the gathering, we spent some time discussing my attempts earlier that year to stimulate interest in opening a new grand jury inquiry into the matter of JonBenét’s death.
It was apparent that Beckner had not wanted to wade into the middle of that effort, and it made perfect sense. At the time, there were approximately two years remaining in Mary Lacy’s term as D.A., and he couldn’t afford to jeopardize the working relationship between their two agencies.
I spelled out some of the details of the childhood behavioral disorder that I had been studying and how it appeared to correspond to several observed aspects of Burke’s behavior and others that were possible and called for further investigation. Beckner seemed interested in these details, and I told him that I would try to find the time to organize the information into a written document for his consideration.
I would estimate that I had been working on this for well over a year, but managing my own department had demanded the better part of my extracurricular energy. Although delayed by many months, I finally forwarded a synopsis of the studies to Beckner in October 2008. It provided an assessment of the statements, physical evidence, and behavioral clues that strongly suggested family involvement in the crime under investigation.
I pointed out that I thought it extremely significant that Ramsey attorneys were able to withhold certain medical records from the District Attorney’s Office during the period of their cooperation that preceded the grand jury inquiry in 1998. At the time, Alex Hunter probably considered it a small concession to agree to a partial withholding of records that Ramsey attorneys were declaring to be an “island of privacy” required of the family.
John Ramsey noted during his June 1998 interview with Lou Smit, that he was taking medication that had been prescribed for him by Burke’s psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Jaffee of Atlanta, Georgia. The fact that John was taking medication to help him through those difficult times didn’t seem out of the ordinary to me. I did think it unusual, however, that Burke, who reportedly had not witnessed any of the events surrounding JonBenét’s kidnapping or death, was still being treated professi
onally nearly a year and a half after the event.
Patsy had also made reference to Burke’s treatment during her 1998 interview with authorities, indicating that they didn’t want to him to wake up one day when he was forty, and have difficulties dealing with the repercussions of all that was going on with the events surrounding the murder investigation.
Purported to have witnessed nothing related to his sister’s disappearance, or having nothing of import for a police interview, I could not help but wonder why Burke would require such extensive psychological counseling.
I also referenced statements made by Pam Paugh during a nationally televised interview that had taken place around the time that the grand jury had begun its inquiry in 1998. Paugh declared during that interview that Burke had been cleared of any involvement in his sister’s death by psychological testing. Worthy of note is that she felt it necessary to spontaneously provide his psychological treatment as an offer of proof that he could not have been involved in this crime of violence.
I presented the argument to Beckner that Pam Paugh’s statements to the national audience about Burke’s psychological counseling, and his being cleared of any involvement in the death of his sister, may have voided the doctor-patient privilege. I believed that by raising the issue of his psychological testing and treatment, she had made the issue of his mental health treatment a matter of public record, interest, and concern. I wondered whether or not her public statements had opened the door to accessing his psychiatric records, for I felt that they needed to be evaluated in relation to any possible knowledge he may have had about the death of JonBenét.
I concluded my letter to Beckner urging that he again consider involving the grand jury in the matter of JonBenét’s death and was hopeful that a new regime at the District Attorney’s office would consider this course of action.
It was this work that prompted an invitation to participate in the Cold Case Task Force that would later be assembled to consider the future course of the investigation. I was optimistic that some positive movement would finally be taking place.
Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 33