Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

by Lawrence Schiller

  Nevertheless, Smit knew he had to ask the Ramseys if they had ever owned or possessed a stun gun and whether they owned or had ever worn Hi-Tec shoes.

  On Saturday morning, July 12, Smit, Hofstrom, the Ramseys, and one of their attorneys met at the Justice Center for an informal tape-recorded interview. By now the Ramseys had come to believe that Hofstrom and Smit would be straight in their dealings. The absence of the police from the meeting may have led the Ramseys to conclude that Smit believed them possibly innocent of their daughter’s murder.

  Lou Smit showed Patsy and John many of the crime-scene photographs taken by the police in the days after the murder. In one photo Patsy noticed a small white toy bear dressed in a Santa suit. It was among the other toys on the second bed in JonBenét’s room. She told Smit she didn’t know where the bear came from. The stuffed toy had not been confiscated by police after the murder, and now it seemed to be missing. In the coming months the DA’s office would try to determine how it got there.

  Then Smit asked the Ramseys about the stun gun. John Ramsey said that they never owned one. Ramsey thought he remembered being given a videotape on self-defense by Spy World, a high-tech security outlet in southern Florida, which might have included a segment on the use of stun guns. The family didn’t wear or own Hi-Tec shoes, he said.

  Five days later, Smit asked John Andrew about the same items. Like his father, he said he knew nothing about stun guns and didn’t own Hi-Tec brand shoes.

  Hoping that someone with information might come forward, Smit believed that the police or the DA should go public with what they’d discovered about a stun gun and asked permission to release the information. But Hunter considered the stun gun theory “iffy.” He talked to the police about exhuming JonBenét’s body, but they were against it. The media were sure to find out, they said, and exhuming the body would lend credibility to what the detectives called Smit’s “wacko” stun-gun theory. Hunter knew they had another reason: no jury would believe that the Ramseys could have used such a device on their daughter.

  Lou Smit’s request was turned down. The police said they would inquire about a stun gun when they recanvassed the Ramseys’ neighborhood. It would take another six months.

  Meanwhile, on July 14, the Colorado Supreme Court denied the coroner’s request to withhold his autopsy report from the public. Deputy county attorney Mason told the press that since John Meyer anticipated being called as a material and expert witness “at any future trial in this case,” he would not comment on the supreme court’s decision or offer an interpretation of the still-censored autopsy report.

  The report, which detailed the long fracture to JonBenét’s skull, the blood around her vagina, the abrasions to her hymen, and the severity of the furrow around her neck from the ligature, was in the hands of the press by midafternoon.

  Dr. Richard Krugman—dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March—told the media that on the basis of what he’d read in the report, JonBenét was not a sexually abused child. Then he added, “I don’t believe it’s possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.” The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease, or the child’s medical history combined with the child’s own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse, Krugman told reporters.

  Physical abuse was another matter. Krugman had occasionally seen injuries to little girls’ genitals that were related to toilet training and had nothing to do with sexual abuse. In children, one had to separate sexual from physical abuse. By now the detectives had learned that at age six, JonBenét was still wetting the bed, and was asking adults to wipe her after she was done on the toilet. It was possible that the injury to her vagina was a result of punishment.

  Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist who was appearing regularly on talk shows about the case, scoffed at Krugman’s remarks. “How can anybody say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not sexual assault? What is he [Krugman] talking about?” Wecht theorized that JonBenét had died during sex play that had gone astray.

  “My guess is the child had her head whacked against something and then was still alive and strangled,” said Dr. Robert Kirschner, a retired deputy chief medical examiner for Cook County, Illinois.

  Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the medical examiner for the Fort Lauderdale area, stated flatly that it was clear the girl’s vagina had been penetrated. He also believed that she’d probably been struck by a blunt object, such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight. He too took issue with Krugman’s interpretation. “Somebody’s injured her vagina. And she’s tied up. Doesn’t that make it involuntary sexual battery?” Wright asked.

  The Ramseys’ attorneys released a statement on behalf of John and Patsy Ramsey: “We have not had the opportunity to review the autopsy report, but credible experts who have, confirm what we have been saying all along—that there is no evidence of abuse or molestation prior to the night of her murder.”

  Two days after the release of the autopsy report, Tom Kelley, representing the Daily Camera, was in court seeking the police search warrants. On July 16, district court judge Daniel Hale heard arguments.

  Kelley told the court that it was clear the investigation had stalled and the release of some information might encourage a witness to come forward. He pointed out that some of the material he wanted had already been provided to the Ramseys by the police, such as a copy of the ransom note and certain early police reports.

  Two days later, Judge Hale upheld Judge MacDonald’s previous ruling. The search warrants, affidavits, and inventories would remain sealed.

  Having hired his own investigation team before the police were ready to present the case to him, Alex Hunter had put himself squarely in the action. At first Koby didn’t mind Hunter’s attempt to involve himself in the case, because it took some of the heat off the police. To some of Hunter’s colleagues, however, the DA’s frequent public appearances seemed forced. It was obvious that Hunter had nothing concrete to offer, and some reporters were saying that he’d let himself be swept up into the circus. Metro DA Bob Grant, a member of Hunter’s prosecution task force, knew it would take time for Hunter to gain some perspective and get down to planning a potential prosecution.

  By mid-July that process had begun. Hunter started to dissect the police investigation—not to criticize it, but rather to consider what he would face in court.

  Hunter could not ignore the possibility that someone other than John and Patsy would be charged, and in that case he would have to rehabilitate the Ramseys—show the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they hadn’t murdered their daughter.

  Bob Grant said that the Ramseys would be the focus of any trial, whether or not they were charged. Anyone defending a third party would point an accusatory finger at JonBenét’s parents. The police detectives might even be called as hostile defense witnesses. But if the Ramseys were charged, evidence pointing to a third party would be the core of the defense case.

  In a shooting by police in Longmont in 1989, Hunter had unsealed police reports and displayed them in the public library. “Tell me what you think,” he had asked the public. Their comments had helped him decide to take the case to a grand jury, and ultimately the police officers were exonerated. According to Grant, Hunter thrived on public input and community approval.

  But the Ramsey case was different, Grant told Hunter. The DA couldn’t walk down the Pearl Street Mall and ask Boulderites what they thought. He had to set his own agenda and adhere to it.

  On July 23, the Ramseys’ attorneys faxed the media the text of some full-page ads they planned to publish in the Daily Camera. “An Open Letter from John and Patsy Ramsey” addressed anyone who could help identify the killer. The text of the ad outlined a general profile of the killer—someone, the Ramseys said, who was no stranger to their family or home. The killer, they noted, would have displayed c
ertain characteristics both before and after the murder. Likely precrime behavior was conflict with a female, conflict with family, financial stress, marital problems, legal problems, and employment problems. Typical postcrime behavior would include establishment of an obvious alibi; appearing to cooperate with the authorities; closely monitoring media accounts of the crime; appearing extremely rigid, nervous, and preoccupied during casual conversations; suddenly becoming religious; experiencing depression; and suffering from insomnia.

  The next day, even before the first ad was published, the media were criticizing the Ramseys’ effort as amateurish.

  RAMSEY LASHES OUT AT POLICE

  In a blistering statement Wednesday, John Ramsey denounced the Boulder Police Department’s investigation into the murder of his daughter JonBenét and announced the family’s plan to hunt down the killer.

  Gregg McCrary, a former FBI criminal profiler, called the profile superficial.

  “What’s missing here that’s very important is there’s no description of the characteristics and traits of the offender, crime and the crime scene analysis, an analysis of the content of the note, the medical examiner’s report and what those injuries may or may not mean,” McCrary said.

  “I don’t think the offender has any remorse for this crime because of the way the crime was committed. Right in the aftermath of this murder, the killer sat down and wrote a ransom note—he’s not sorry he did it, he’s just trying not to get caught.”

  —Alli Krupski

  Daily Camera, July 24, 1997

  Matt Lauer: Over the weekend the parents [the Ramseys] went on the offensive, placing a newspaper ad, and distributing fliers profiling the man who they believe killed their daughter. Former FBI profiler John Douglas helped write the profile, and he has been working with the Ramseys to help them find JonBenét’s killer…. Mr. Douglas, did you do it with the understanding that the Ramseys might make it public?

  John Douglas: I wasn’t aware that they were going to make it public this soon. I think what’s happened now is a feeling of frustration, desperation and anger on the part of the families. That information should have been put out by the police the first week after the homicide, not really now. So it’s an act of, really, desperation and frustration on their part.

  MATT LAUER: Do you think this case will be solved?

  JOHN DOUGLAS: I think, unfortunately, this may end up like many homicides in this country where we only solve 65 percent of our homicides, and this may be one of that 35 that does remain unsolved.

  Today, NBC, July 28, 1997

  While Hunter withheld comment on the ads, he considered which of his staff members would prosecute the case. At the same time, he fretted over the police department’s lack of interest in working with criminalist Dr. Henry Lee and DNA expert Barry Scheck, whose services he’d enlisted in February. Few of the suggestions Lee had made during his March presentation to the police had been acted upon, and Eller’s attitude toward Scheck was that he got people released from jail and won acquittals for defendants like O. J. Simpson. Nor had the police followed up on suggestions made by Lou Smit and Steve Ainsworth to check out all known sex offenders, track down all the missing keys to the Ramsey house, and recanvas the neighborhood for possible overlooked leads.

  Apparently, the police thought all that could wait. Instead, they decided to consult with the FBI to get an overview of the case rather than put it together piecemeal as they had been doing so far. The FBI agreed to meet with the Boulder PD and members of the DA’s office at the Bureau’s headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, the first week of September. They said they would review all the evidence and give their expert opinion. Eight hundred pieces of physical evidence—including thirty-eight fingerprint cards—would be viewed by fresh eyes. The police wanted to know the FBI’s opinion about what physical evidence pointed to the Ramseys and whether the Bureau’s experts could map out the sequence of events surrounding the murder. Both the Boulder PD and the DA’s office wanted to hear the conclusions of the experts firsthand.

  The trip to Quantico was sure to put more public pressure on everyone, however. Even now the DA’s office was being deluged with letters of complaint: “Why is this taking so long?” “Obviously you’ve been paid off.” “How come the rich always get away with it?” Hunter didn’t delude himself that the public would get more patient over time.

  IS THE CASE PROGRESSING?

  Just as JonBenét’s father was revealing a preposterously useless profile of her merciless killer, Boulder investigators were plodding along on their own determined path—a path now leading directly to the FBI in Quantico, VA.

  Respected profilers say that unless a profile is meticulously defined by actual clues at the scene of a crime, it is little more than a wild guess.

  For frustrated observers, [Hunter’s] decision to send the lead prosecutor [Hofstrom] to Quantico is a major step in developing a potential case for presentation in court.

  The methodical, determined course now being pursued by police and prosecutors is in sharp contrast to their earlier conduct—a bickering, mistrusting relationship best symbolized by police withholding critical evidence from the D.A.’s office.

  —Chuck Green

  The Denver Post, July 25, 1997

  On July 28 the Globe published a cover story under the headline ARREST THEM NOW, COPS TELL DA. It emphasized the frustration of the police and asserted their view that Lou Smit, with his Christian beliefs, had somehow bonded with Patsy over their mutual religious convictions and that it was hindering the case.

  When Steve Thomas read the story, he immediately asked Jeff Shapiro to come to police headquarters. The detective lost no time in escorting him into the witness room.

  “Jeff, you fuckin’ burned me,” Thomas said.

  “I told my editors our conversations were off the record,” Shapiro protested. “I’m sorry—I know I screwed up. I didn’t mean to.”

  “Fuckin’ Koby says to us, ‘We’ve got a fuckin’ leak and I’m going to find out who it is!’” Thomas told Shapiro.

  Shapiro didn’t know what to say.

  “If anyone thinks I’m leaking this…” Thomas continued. “Can you imagine what’s going to happen if [Ramsey attorney] Hal Haddon puts me on the stand?”

  Shapiro was embarrassed.

  “I can’t fuckin’ lose my badge over you,” Thomas said. “I’m the fuckin’ thorn in the Ramseys’ side. If I’m kicked out of here, or if us five detectives get kicked out, no one is going to be getting justice for this little girl.”

  Mumbling apologies, Shapiro left.

  After that, Thomas ignored Shapiro’s calls.

  Indeed, in the span of seven months, Thomas had conducted 164 interviews and had traveled to Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Thomas and a partner had interviewed every member of the Ramsey family, their friends, neighbors, ministers, and business associates, possible suspects, and prostitutes. Thomas had tracked down the sources of evidence, followed people and information on the Internet, looked into the world of beauty pageants, dealt directly with the Ramseys’ investigators, and verified the alibis of over four dozen people. Eller had given him a free hand. There were few police officers who could match Thomas’s encyclopedic knowledge of the case. He was determined to bring JonBenét’s killer to justice.

  Meanwhile, Carol McKinley’s police source contacted her.

  “We’ve decided to hire our own lawyers to look at the case,” the detective told McKinley. “How do you think it will play out?”

  “It’s not going to make you look bad,” McKinley reassured him, but she could sense how nervous the officers were about the step they were taking.

  McKinley sat on the story for three days, not knowing if her source wanted it made public. Then she called the detective and told him that if she broke the story, it would reflect favorably on the police. The public would see there was forward momentum in the case. He agreed.

  At 5:00 P.M. on July 31, McKinley called E
ller. “I know about the lawyers,” she said. “Do you have a comment?”

  “I knew you guys would get this sooner or later,” Eller replied.

  He said he had no comment.

  Next she called Dan Caplis, a talk-show host at her radio station, who was also an attorney. Caplis said he would call someone he knew in the Boulder DA’s office to find out whatever he could. Caplis called Bill Wise to warn him about McKinley’s story but just as important, to tell Wise something else—that he was the one who had brokered the deal between the police and their new lawyers, a fact Caplis hadn’t told McKinley. When Wise found out, he was shocked.

  In mid-July, knowing that the Boulder police had lost confidence in Hunter’s office, Caplis had approached Richard Baer, a former New York homicide detective and prosecutor who was now an attorney in Denver, and asked if Baer would volunteer his services to the police. Caplis knew that powerful lawyers were representing the Ramseys, and he felt that equally high-powered attorneys should be advising the police. When Baer agreed, Caplis called several people at the Boulder PD, one of whom was Steve Thomas. The detectives liked the idea. Baer then recruited Robert Miller, a former U.S. attorney from Colorado, and Dan Hoffman, former dean of the University of Denver Law School. On July 24, the three attorneys met with Eller and the detectives working the Ramsey case. They discussed an arrangement in which the lawyers would work pro bono.*