The meeting we had agreed upon never took place, and I subsequently prepared a document that outlined a theoretical concept of the events that had taken place in the Ramsey household on the night of December 25, 1996, and the potential criminal charges that I believed were supported by the evidence in the case. I copied this correspondence to Chief Beckner at the Boulder Police Department.
The cover letter below is a redacted version of the correspondence I sent to Garnett’s office in January 2011.
Portions of the document containing references to grand jury information and other sensitive materials have been excised from its presentation here.
January 3, 2011
Stan Garnett, District Attorney
20th Judicial District Attorney’s Office
1777 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Stan,
Somewhere in between your campaign visits to Telluride this last fall, I had inquired by email if you thought anyone would ever be prosecuted for their involvement in the death of JonBenét. Your response indicated that Boulder Police had not yet presented a theory of prosecution to your office.
I am aware that Mark’s office has been pursuing the task of attempting to identify the contributor of the DNA in JonBenét’s underwear and presumably this effort has been consuming a lot of time on the part of his investigators and laboratory personnel. Understandably, he is attempting to negate this piece of trace evidence before updating a case theory and although this seems a thorough and necessary course of action, I will be pleasantly surprised if this endeavor yields positive results.
During our last brief conversation, I indicated that I would consider putting together a working theory for your consideration.
This task has taken longer than anticipated but I am enclosing a theory of prosecution that outlines this hypothesis. It incorporates a theoretical construct of the events of the crime and is presented in a manner that might be argued before the members of a grand jury. As expected, a working theory involves some degree of speculation and for the sake of brevity I did not duplicate all of the information that has previously been documented in my investigative reports and correspondence.
From my perspective however, and it will become evident should you elect to take the time to review this theory, your predecessors have left your office with little or no opportunity to prosecute anyone who had a hand in the murder of JonBenét or those who participated in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding her death.
With the recent passing of the fourteenth anniversary of JonBenét’s murder I suspect that the vast majority of people have given up hope of ever seeing the case resolved. Moreover, I whole-heartedly share the opinion that you voiced during the task force meeting nearly two years ago: most in Boulder County wish to hear nothing more about the case unless it has been definitively solved.
With those sentiments in mind, I continue to argue that there is a course of action available to you that will ultimately clear this homicide. I believe that the information outlined in the attached materials provides your office with the best and perhaps the last opportunity to seek the answers that Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy were unwilling to pursue.
Ultimately, the furtherance of this murder investigation rests in your hands and I would propose that the time has come for the prosecutor’s office to take back the initiative from the cadre of Ramsey attorneys who have steered the course of this inquiry for far too many years.
In closing, I have to state that I have always held to the belief that the criminal justice system would be able to bring this case to a successful resolution. And as a criminal investigator who was once responsible for the lead role in one of the most bizarre murder investigations this country has ever witnessed, I feel that I have finally fulfilled my obligation to the office where my participation first began.
Respectfully,
James Kolar
ajk
Enclosure: Theory of Prosecution
The document prepared for Garnett, which ran to approximately 20 pages, included an opening statement that a prosecutor could use to outline the details of the case to a jury, and was followed by a theoretical construct of the events that I believe to have occurred in the Ramsey home on the evening of December 25, 1996.
The actions of each of the family members in the home that night were fleshed out in a story-telling fashion that was based upon, and supported by, information found in the investigative files I had reviewed up to that point in time.
The conclusions voiced about what likely occurred in the home that evening were based upon my analysis of the behavioral clues, family statements, and physical evidence that had been gathered over the course of the investigation. The theory outlined a suggested motive for the cover-up of JonBenét’s death.
I found the totality of the circumstances comprising the investigative theory to be rather disquieting, and too disturbing, in my opinion, to express in a public forum. It was another internal debate that continued for some period of time as I went about putting the finishing touches on this work, but eventually, as the time to go to press grew near, I decided not to spell it out it, or share that written document in the body of this manuscript.
Some portions of the theory regarding the behavioral aspects of the crime were of a highly speculative nature, and I felt they are better reserved for a presentation to a trained law enforcement audience.
I realize that this situation is probably a little frustrating to the reader, but the foundation for this theory is interspersed throughout this manuscript and I will have to leave it to your imagination for the moment.
Chapter Thirty-Seven
Missed Opportunities
The Theory of Prosecution that I sent to Stan Garnett and Mark Beckner also included some closing thoughts and observations on the status of the investigation, as well as a suggestion on how the case might be moved forward toward closure. These comments also included references to grand jury materials, so I decided to paraphrase the essential elements of this discussion so as not to compromise the integrity of the grand jury investigative process.
I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys and intruder theorists had continued to hail the DNA identified in JonBenét’s underwear, Distal Stain 007-2, as proof that a lone sexual predator was responsible for her murder. This partial sample is microscopic, and the strongest specimen was located in the crotch of the panties with weaker samples located along the waistband and seams of the underwear.
I think it is interesting to note, however, that intruder theorists have conveniently chosen to ignore the other trace DNA evidence that suggests more than one intruder was in the Ramsey home on the evening of December 25th. From the outset, they appear to have remained silent on the evidence collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails at the time of her autopsy.
It is uncertain whether Ramsey attorneys are aware of the two new “Touch DNA” profiles developed at the time that Mary Lacy exonerated the family in the closing days of her term in 2008, but I had given it a lot of thought after attending the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February the following year.
If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways:
1.) The intruder theory must be expanded to incorporate the existence of six perpetrators, four of whom were in the home and had direct physical contact with JonBenét at the time of her death. The DNA in the underwear and beneath her fingernails supports this proposition.
It could be argued that the DNA on the two pieces of cord could have been placed there without the necessity of these last two individuals being in the home.
These six individuals form the core group of the “foreign faction” identified in the ransom note, and the investigation must expand its scope to search for a number of co-conspirators.
To deny this physical evidence is akin to admitting that Distal Stain 007-2 is an artifact that has no correlation to the murderer(s) in this case. Int
ruder theorists must now explain how all of these people entered and exited the residence leaving no further evidence of their existence.
2) An opposing theory suggests that the strongest partial sample of DNA discovered in this case, Distal Stain 007-2, was deposited in the underwear during the manufacturing process, and survived to the date of JonBenét’s murder.
The technological advances in ‘touch DNA’ analysis have revealed the capability of forensic science to identify trace evidence that may, or may not, have anything to do with the crime being investigated.
Distal Stain 007-2, and the other trace samples collected in this case, are mere artifacts of trace genetic materials that have no bearing on the investigation, and are of no material assistance in identifying the perpetrator(s) involved in this crime. They were in place long before the crime was committed.
The totality of the circumstances, and all of the evidence gathered over the course of an investigation, must be evaluated when seeking to identify the perpetrator(s) who had the motive, opportunity, and capability of committing, or covering up this crime.
The prosecution has the opportunity to legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of JonBenét.
The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. “Cloth to cloth” transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.
The point to be made is that technological advances in the collection of “touch” microscopic DNA evidence has yet to be fully understood and clarified.
When the prosecution is able to discount the intruder theory, and all of its components (DNA, stun gun, window-well entry and exit, Wine Cellar foot print, and disproving that an anonymous person authored the ransom note), it is then in a position to focus its primary attention on the motivations of the family, and all of the other evidence that points to their involvement.
I expressed my belief to Garnett and Beckner, that the theory of family involvement outlined in the preceding chapters was supported by witness interviews and Ramsey statements, forensic findings, fingerprints, trace evidence, and an identifiable childhood pathology that explained the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding the death of JonBenét.
DNA theory aside, I pressed the argument to Garnett and Beckner that there continued to be a course of action to pursue through the assistance of a grand jury.
I believed that there was a reason defense attorneys had worked so hard behind the scenes to withhold family medical information, and proposed that this “island of privacy” was a viable lead that deserved the attention of investigators and prosecutors.
I am sure it has become apparent that I believe each member of the Ramsey family, home on the night of the murder, may have been involved at least as an accessory after the fact. Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. The statutes of limitations for the crime of accessory after the fact have long since expired.
There is no statute of limitations for murder, but all persons in the family home the night of the murder have been formally “cleared” of any crime. Those actions by past prosecutors create a formidable obstacle to any future prosecution.
Yet clearly, the death of JonBenét remains an open murder investigation, and while no one is likely to ever be criminally charged with this crime, I expressed the opinion that there are proactive steps that should be taken to bring it to resolution and closure.
In our pursuit of truth and justice, not only for this little girl, but for all of the other innocent people wrongly accused by her family, isn’t it our responsibility as criminal investigators and prosecutors to go in search of it?
“Smit says he is only interested in finding the truth, wherever it takes him.
‘If the Ramseys did this and I found out, I’d be the first one standing in line at the Boulder Police Department,’ he says.”
—CBS: “Searching for a Killer: The Stun Gun Theory”
David Kohn
February 11, 2009
Chapter Thirty-Eight
One Last Lead
Lou Smit was often heard to say that we should “follow the evidence,” and presumably, it would lead it us to the people responsible for this crime. Smit was a true gentleman in the classic sense of the word, and I regret that we never had the opportunity to have debated the evidence in this inquiry. So I will have to be content with leaving this last lead for the intruder theorists who yet remain.
It always makes sense to revisit your theories when you are working a case. New evidence comes to light that must be considered, and sometimes this completely alters your concept of the crime.
In this instance I looked back at the significance of the discovery that John Ramsey had made when he had alerted Smit to the chair that blocked the entrance of the Train Room doorway. This important piece of the puzzle placed at least one or more of the intruders in the residence long after police and friends of the family had stormed the home.
What if I was wrong about excluding the window well as being a possible point of entrance and exit? Smit had demonstrated on national television how someone could have entered the home through that window, and Boulder Police investigators also conducted trial runs of sending someone in and out of that window in attempts to evaluate it as a possible part of the crime.
They conducted the same tests on the window of the basement bathroom and, for a variety of legitimate reasons, quickly ruled it out as a possibility.
The Train Room window well was a small space, and it seemed unlikely that a single intruder, let alone six of them, would be able to enter / exit that window and not disturb the cobweb that was in the lower left corner of the window frame - or similarly, that the rectangular shaped piece of glass balancing on the sill would not have been jostled from its position during this activity.
And then there were the additional spider threads that anchored the metal window grate to the surrounding vegetation and cement foundation of the window well.
The bug experts had stated that the spiders responsible for these webs were in hibernation at that time of year, and that the stringer portion of the web attached to the grate would only stretch about ten inches before breaking. If these had been destroyed by an intruder(s), the webs would not have been reconstructed that day.
Smit had adjusted his theory after being told that information, and he suggested that perhaps the grate had been swung “forward” to permit entry to the window well versus being swung “up,” as he had demonstrated on television. This would permit entry to the window without breaking the stringer lines.
That didn’t account for the remaining web in the corner of the window frame, however, and I continued to think about how it was possible that someone could have used that window for their entry and exit. According to the Ramseys, every other door of the residence had been locked that day.
The suitcase didn’t belong below the Train Room window well according to John Ramsey, and he should know. He was the owner of the house. That suitcase certainly may have played a role in the crime.
It dawned on me that someone physically fit and agile could possibly maneuver through that narrow window, and not disturb the glass and spider webs.
I thought back to the clues that had been presented in the ransom note. The kidnappers had stated that they were members of a foreign faction that didn’t care for the way John Ramsey did business. Perhaps it was someone from overseas that was responsible for this crime, and we should take the note at face value.
Amsterdam. John’s company conducted business in the Netherlands, and to my knowledge, this was a lead that had not been considered or pursued during the course of this investigation. His company also operated out
of Mexico City, but it was fairly evident that the ransom note had been written by folks fairly familiar with the English language, so I decided that we could rule out this country as a possible home base for the perpetrators.
Furthermore, based on the DNA samples collected in this case, I suspected we were looking for at least six individuals who had conspired to commit this crime. For some reason, this group of individuals had been greatly offended or harmed by something undertaken by John Ramsey’s company in the Netherlands.
Follow the evidence, I continued to remind myself. Who really could have been responsible for the kidnapping and murder of JonBenét?
It was the consideration of all of this evidence that prompted me to craft the theoretical construct of the actions of the team of kidnappers outlined in the opening chapter of this book, “Foreign Faction.” Given the trace DNA evidence present in this case, it seemed entirely reasonable to propose this new theory, and the explanation of the activities of those who invaded the Ramsey home certainly appears to fall within the realm of possibilities.
So, based upon some of the evidence, we were looking for a group of six individuals (five men and a woman), who likely lived overseas, and who were incredibly athletic and agile – skilled enough perhaps to get through the window well without disturbing anything, and leaving no other trace of their existence.
Images suddenly conjured of the scene from the movie, The Great Escape, where prisoners of war slowly crept out, one by one, through the narrow hole of an underground tunnel to gain their freedom. If I recalled correctly, well over a hundred of them made it clear of the tunnel before a Nazi guard stumbled to their endeavor. Perhaps that was possible in this instance.
As I contemplated the possibilities that followed this evidence, I again looked to the contents of the ransom note. As the Ramseys liked to phrase it, there were all of these “funny little clues” left around the house that seemed to taunt investigators at their every turn. No one could make sense of the manner in which this kidnap and murder had been committed.
Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 36