If I was right, and the kidnappers had left some additional funny little clues as to their identity, maybe there was something else in the note that had been deliberately written to challenge and further confuse investigators. In plain sight for everyone to see, they had declared themselves to be the members of a foreign faction, which I deduced to mean that they were not claiming to be U.S. citizens. I contemplated this information for quite some time, and it was another one of those midnight awakenings when a possibility finally dawned on me. I got out of bed and quietly stepped out onto the deck of my home to view the pitch-black night. There was no moon, and the twinkling lights of the milky-way gazed back at me. Victory! Victorious.
I guess the kidnappers could claim their “victory” although it could be viewed as hollow. They exacted their revenge by killing JonBenét, but went home with an empty attaché case. The ransom money was never collected. I wouldn’t necessarily count that as a victory.
SBTC. SBTC…something there... Got to follow the evidence…
A coyote, the trickster of the night, barked not far beyond the limits of my night vision. I stifled a yawn as a star streaked through the sky, and then there was light.
People have been guessing at the meaning of the acronym since the day it became public, and it seemed not a tremendous jump in logic to think that the group had signed off the ransom note with another funny clue as to their identity. SBTC: I thought that perhaps they were declaring themselves to be a:
Small
Band of
Terrorist
Cidnappers.
And then it struck me.
We should be looking at a group of athletes working the European circus circuit. Who else could have possibly made it through that window without disturbing the spider web and glass fragment but a small, highly trained group of gymnasts, contortionists, and trapeze artists.
And by small, I don’t mean that there were only six of them in the group of this “foreign faction.” I am referring to their number being small in stature.
We ought to be looking for a troupe of highly skilled circus midgets - ones who are likely to carry attaché cases with them when they travel.
Truly another matter of speculation on my part, but I figured, what the hell! They were a group of foreigners who didn’t know how to spell.
After all, when one takes all of the evidence into careful consideration, anything then becomes possible. Right?
Epilogue
The decision to publish the details of my participation in the investigation of JonBenét’s murder has been extremely difficult. I have been a duly sworn law enforcement officer in the State of Colorado for over 35 years, which accounts for the better part of my adult life. Granted the opportunity to serve the public in this capacity involves an incredible amount of trust, not only on the part of the citizens whom I have been sworn to protect, but for the agencies that have employed me to work on their behalf.
I have worked many varied assignments over the course of my career, and I am cognizant of the need for discretion when protecting the rights of the innocent, as well as those of the accused. By necessity, the very nature of many of the aspects of police work involves the holding of a confidence, and I have strictly held to that premise throughout my service.
An indiscreet comment could very well result in the compromise of a critical investigation, the death of an undercover officer, or of an individual cooperating with authorities. Inappropriate statements about a personnel matter could result in damaged careers and costly lawsuits.
That being said, it is important to note that the management of public safety is an extremely difficult business. It involves a balancing act regarding the public’s right to know, and government’s need to protect the rights of everyone, while still addressing the need for transparency as we interact with our constituency.
Most people would probably describe me as a quiet, reserved person, and sometimes difficult to get to know. I would characterize myself as introspective and rather shy, and the nature of my personality has contributed to the internal struggle that has taken place in deciding whether the discoveries I made during my investigation of this child’s death should be made a matter of public record.
The accumulation of months that gathered after my departure from the DA’s office in the spring of 2006 served to distance me from the Ramsey investigation, and the immediacy of pursuing leads that I had developed in the case began to fade away. The passing of Patsy Ramsey in June of that year only seemed to underscore the tragedies that had been visited upon this family.
I began to question the necessity of pursuing evidence that pointed to a family’s involvement in the death of their daughter, and debated whether it was really all that important for the mystery of this murder to be resolved. I had almost convinced myself to let it all go: to walk away, and let confusion reign. What harm could come from the decision to remain silent about the new discoveries that had been made in the investigation?
Then came John Mark Karr, and with that fiasco, came a clarification of purpose.
I was reminded of the demoralization and destruction that had been visited upon many of the people who were touched by the death of this innocent child. Law enforcement careers were ended by resignation, forced departure, and outright termination.
I had also given thought to the experiences of John and Patsy Ramsey as they tried to deal with the loss of their daughter. John had lost his oldest daughter from a previous marriage to a traffic accident in 1992, and he would ultimately lose his second wife to the ravages of a deadly disease. From my perspective, no husband, parent, or family, deserves to suffer this type of tragedy in their lives.
And yet, one must contemplate the social contract that we necessarily accept, and abide by, when we choose to live side-by-side in a civilized society. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones of that civil agreement, and unfortunately, history has repeatedly proven that many hold themselves above the fabric of that social dynamic.
I had originally put pen to paper with the intention of having something of a history prepared that could be released when this investigation was finally resolved. That was a dream that has gone unfulfilled.
For a variety of reasons, some of which are explained herein, I have chosen to part company with the Boulder County Law Enforcement community, and decided to go forward with the publication of this investigative treatise. I greatly admire the members, past and present, of the Boulder Police Department and the Twentieth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, but after a lengthy period of silence, I felt the time had finally come to publically reveal the discoveries that had been made in the murder investigation of JonBenét Ramsey.
I proceeded with the understanding that the Boulder Police Department will forever be prohibited from fully commenting on the status of the open, yet unsolved murder investigation of JonBenét. The members of that department will never be in a position to defend themselves against the unwarranted allegations of incompetence and near-sightedness that were attributed to their efforts at solving this case.
It is equally important to recognize the position that Stan Garnett, the current district attorney of Boulder County, inherited when he took office in 2009. From my perspective, Garnett was dealt a hand that looked eerily similar to the first hours of Boulder P.D’s response to the report of a kidnapping at the Ramsey household.
Boulder Police were confronted with an intensely chaotic scene on the morning of December 26, 1996, for which no one was prepared. A ransom note was shown that purported to evidence the kidnap of a little girl, and family friends were called to console the grieving family. In deference to the emotionally charged situation, officers granted the family their comfort while attempting to conduct a criminal investigation. Though they had their early suspicions about the circumstances being reported, officers responding to the scene never anticipated that the kidnap victim would eventually be found within the confines of her own home.
Boul
der Police were quick to correct their initial mistakes, but District Attorney Alex Hunter’s oversight and management of his portion of the case created a division between police investigators and his office that spanned the breadth of the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, this philosophical division was more than a metaphor, and the gap that separated Boulder Police investigators from members of the prosecutor’s office would never be bridged.
Political expediency, and the tendency of Hunter’s office to craft defense pleas in advance of knowing the facts of a case, precluded a proper review of the true elements of this murder investigation. For many years, Boulder County law enforcement officials had voiced their concerns about the relationship that existed between the defense bar and prosecutors. It was not uncommon for the D.A.’s office to be having plea agreement discussions with a defense attorney before they had even received the full complement of investigative reports from a law enforcement agency.
More importantly, it appeared as though many in the D.A.’s office didn’t want to consider any of the evidence that pointed to some type of family involvement, and totally discounted the opinions of the experts who counseled that all was not right with this “kidnapping” case.
Unfortunately, Stan Garnett inherited all of these problems when he took office in 2009. It was an active homicide investigation in which his predecessor had already publically exonerated the very people whom law enforcement authorities could never clear of involvement. The investigation had been so thoroughly compromised that it was unlikely the prosecution of anyone would ever take place.
Hope springs eternal, and I had always believed that the criminal justice system would eventually prevail. But like Steve Thomas, and many of the other un-named investigators who gave their heart and soul to the pursuit of justice in this case, I gradually lost my faith in the system that was supposed to protect the interests of an innocent and brutally murdered child.
For nearly six years, I have been pushing authorities to initiate another grand jury inquiry that would be able to pursue probative leads that I believed were key to discovering the truth of the matter regarding this child’s death. This would be no fishing expedition, and the inquiry would be pursuing specific details that could lead to a definitive conclusion to this investigation.
Over a year has passed since I first sent the “Theory of Prosecution” to the offices of the District Attorney and Boulder Police Department. There had been no acknowledgement of the receipt of this correspondence, or any indication, that police and prosecutors were willing to consider the grand jury leads that were presented in the documents. It appeared that no one in Boulder wanted to ask the difficult questions, or pursue the sensitive information that could solve this murder case.
In all fairness, I can hardly say that I blame them. The investigative file consists of thousands of pages of documents and exhibits, and it would take months for a prosecutor to become fully conversant with all of the nuances and details of the case. Under the current set of legal circumstances, it may very well be that some of the leads I suggested in the case are beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities.
Additionally, the initiation of a grand jury inquiry would bring its attendant problems with the media, and the people of Boulder have truly had enough of that experience. Moreover, the ever-present threat of a Ramsey lawsuit further chills the investigative process.
And now, as outlined in closing chapters, it is readily apparent that the Statute of Limitations has expired, and for that and other reasons, no one will ever see the inside of a criminal court room for their involvement in the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenét. What prosecutor, or police chief, would want to expend additional public funds in pursuit of a murder investigation when they know that it will not result in the conviction of the person responsible for the crime?
When I returned to Boulder in 2004, I never envisioned myself stepping into the lead role of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. Nor did I imagine, once I accepted that responsibility, I would discover the things that I have, or reach the beliefs that I now hold. This would not have been possible but for the efforts of the Boulder Police investigators who preceded me in this investigation.
Over the course of the first twelve years that Boulder Police had investigated the case, they conducted 590 interviews, collected handwriting and non-testimonial samples of evidence from 215 people, and had travelled to 17 states and 2 foreign countries in their pursuit of the perpetrator.
They thoroughly vetted well over 100 possible, viable suspects.
In addition, they received approximately 6500 telephone tips and over 5000 letters that purported to identify people involved in the murder.
Over 1500 pieces of physical evidence were collected, and 64 experts were consulted from a variety of fields.
The investigative file, which I came to describe as a library, exceeded 60,000 pages of reports and documents.
These were the details that emerged as I began to explore the steps that had been taken to investigate this murder.
This is hardly the picture the Ramsey camp has liked to paint about the Boulder Police Department’s search for the murderer of JonBenét. The truth is, however, that a number of other potential suspects stood with the Ramseys beneath the umbrella of suspicion at one time or another.
The documentation of this case by Boulder Police investigators was nothing less than extraordinary, and allowed me to piece together the framework of an investigative theory that seems not only possible, but, in my opinion, probable when we attempt to understand and explain the circumstances that surround this child’s death.
If it could be characterized that Hunter’s office missed their opportunity, I would have to say that the investigation languished once it reached Mary Lacy’s office. It is difficult for me to speak to this issue, because I worked in her office for nearly two years, and it was my personal observation that everyone there promoted a very positive “can-do” attitude when it came to carrying out their responsibilities as prosecutors.
And yet I could find no rational explanation for her singular view on the matter, and the ease with which she wrote off evidence that led experienced criminal investigators to the opinion that the Ramsey family had somehow been involved in the death of their daughter.
Evidence of this nature continued to be summarily dismissed out of hand, and Tom Bennett, as thorough and efficient an investigator as I observed him to be, was hamstrung when it came to pursuing leads of a probative nature.
Any lead that directed the investigation to an outside intruder was pursued with due diligence, and, regrettably, he spent a good deal of time logging inconsequential flotsam that continued to flood the office.
Following the arrest and release of John Mark Karr, when I was attempting to involve Governor Owen’s office in pursuing another grand jury inquiry, it was suggested by certain individuals in the DA’s office that I was “obsessed” with the case. I have to presume that this also meant that I had lost my “objectivity” and couldn’t see the forest for the trees when it came to evaluating the evidence gathered during the murder investigation.
I fully realize that some of the information provided herein is, at best, circumstantial, and there currently exists no direct evidence that could be used in a court of law to convict anyone who may have been involved in the death of this child. Regrettably, there are many murders committed in this country that present similar circumstances, and yet, in some fashion, many prosecutors have made the conscious decision to leave no stone unturned when pursuing the leads presented for the homicides committed in their jurisdictions.
I would, therefore, like to believe that, at some point in time, history will eventually resolve the question as to who exercised the better part of reasonable judgment in this particular matter.
It was a combination of all of these things that finally motivated me to move forward with the publication of this work.
Had there been any hope of prosecuting anyone for this
child’s murder, I might have felt otherwise. But that is no longer a viable option, and though I have had many second thoughts about this issue, it is my feeling that the truth should be revealed.
It has been extremely frustrating to tune into “investigative news programs” that purport to have “new” information about evidence in the case. Late in the spring of 2011, Aphrodite Jones, an investigative cable TV journalist, hosted a program during which a team of Ramsey defense investigators explored the evidence left behind by the intruder responsible for the crime.
A friend had alerted me to the upcoming program, and I actually went out and purchased a DVD video recorder so I could capture the show for later viewing. I was going to be traveling and would be unable to see the initial airing of the program.
I have to say that I was more than a little disgusted when I finally had the opportunity to see the program. From my personal perspective, the investigators showcased by the program were continuing to tout evidence that had been thoroughly discounted and no longer held any probative value. It was my opinion that none of the information presented in the program would help identify the actual perpetrators involved in the crime.
I believe the time has come to unveil the discoveries made in recent years and dispel the “BS” that intruder theorists have continued to peddle to an unsuspecting public.
Once my review of the investigation had, in my mind, thoroughly eliminated any significant possibility of involvement by an intruder, I set about examining the evidence, statements, and motives as to each of the surviving family members who were present in the home.
It was readily apparent to me that the parents were completely devastated by the death of their child, and I came to believe that their efforts to keep authorities at arm’s length was to not only allow themselves the time to grieve, but to also insulate themselves from the prying questions that they might not be able to answer.
Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 37