Perfect Murder, Perfect Town
Page 53
Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenét’s panties, which was a mixture of DNA from two or more people. Here further testing was needed. The detectives were advised to take saliva swabs from possible suspects. The list of people to be tested in connection with the mixed DNA was long and included many of JonBenét’s playmates. If a match could be found, it might provide a simple explanation—for example, two children sharing the same underwear. In that case, an important door would be closed in the case: No defense attorney would be able to claim that the unidentified DNA found on the panties belonged to a unknown person—an intruder or stranger who might have killed JonBenét.
Meanwhile, both the CBI and the FBI were still examining and analyzing the four red and black fibers found on the duct tape, and the fibers on and near the folds of JonBenét’s labia, on her skin, and in the area around her vagina. The fibers on the duct tape were of a different origin than those found on the child’s body.
Earlier in the case, the police had thought the fibers from the body came from John Ramsey’s bathrobe or Patsy’s black pants or from the blanket found near JonBenét or from the blanket that had been found inside the suitcase under the broken basement window. The fibers might also have come from JonBenét’s own clothes or from one of her stuffed animals. By now, however, all of those possibilities had been excluded, and the only logical explanation was that the fibers came from whatever had been used to wipe JonBenét or possibly from someone who might have rubbed up against her when she was unclothed, which allowed the fibers to find their way along her skin and eventually into the folds of her labia. In any event, the clothes worn by Patsy and John on Christmas would have to be compared with the fibers.
The investigators also had to revisit the issue of the pubic hair found on the blanket that JonBenét’s body was wrapped in. Early analysis had shown that it might be consistent with Melinda Ramsey, who had been cleared as a suspect in March. But that didn’t mean the hair could not also be consistent with some other person. Alternately, the hair might have been transferred from the floor or some other object that the blanket had touched since it was last washed. The police wanted to use a newer method of comparison that was about to become available to make sure that the hair did not belong to John and Patsy Ramsey, who had previously been excluded.
Several detectives believed that JonBenét had suffered sexual abuse before the crime. Dr. David Jones, Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California at Davis, thought that the damage to JonBenét’s hymen dated from an old injury. Another expert, Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the CU Health Sciences Center, suggested that the injury to the hymen might have been part of the staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenét’s vaginal injury dated to the time of her death. It was likely that the truth would never be known.
By now the detectives had a long list of open questions, and it was growing daily. It was clear that they had to interview the Ramseys again about new developments. For example, the police had learned from a confidential informant at the hospital in Charlevoix that JonBenét had once been hit by a golf club and had required stitches and that a plastic surgeon in Denver had been consulted. There was also secondhand information coming out of Charlevoix that JonBenét might have been the victim of child abuse. The police wanted access to these additional medical records in Denver and Michigan. Also, to further investigate the vaginal penetration, they wanted to know whether JonBenét had been prone to masturbate and whether she played doctor with her friends or brother.
The police hadn’t yet discussed with the Ramseys their other suspects, such as Chris Wolf and Kevin Raburn. They wanted to ask about some of the books and videotapes they’d found in the house, and about the Bible, which was found open to Psalm 118.
Then there was the issue of where Burke’s red pocket knife had been kept prior to the murder; it was found a few yards from JonBenét’s body. High on their list of questions was the family’s movements early that morning, at the time of the 911 call, and the clothes the Ramseys wore that morning and the time and order in which they were put on, as well as when and where Patsy had gotten dressed and put on her makeup that morning.
The long list of questions demanded additional interviews with John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey, but as of the end of November, the attorneys had not responded to the police department’s request. Getting the Ramseys and their attorneys to agree to another round of questioning would be Mark Beckner’s first real test since he had replaced Eller.
11
RAMSEY CASE COSTS CLIMB IN BOULDER
One of the Boulder police detectives investigating the JonBenét Ramsey murder case has received $22,726.09 in overtime pay since the child was found dead in her parent’s home December 26.
As of October 19, Detective Steve Thomas recorded the most overtime of five detectives who have worked the murder case full time since the start of the year.
After Thomas, Detective Thomas Trujillo earned the most overtime, with $18,373.96, police records show.
—Kevin McCullen
Rocky Mountain News, November 10, 1997
On November 12, Sheriff Epp met with Koby. The week before, the chief had told the mayor, acting city manager Dave Rhodes, and his command staff that he would be leaving his post in 1998 and would soon make it public. Koby told Epp that he felt good about himself, because the week before, voters had agreed to a tax increase that would permit the implementation of his plan for more police officers and satellite substations. He was happy to be retiring, he told Epp.
But Epp wasn’t happy. “I’m angry because of the way you guys have handled the Ramsey case,” he told Koby. “It makes us all look bad.” The sheriff complained that Koby had placed his loyalty to Eller above solving the case. Koby, he said, was still, at this late stage, blind to what had gone on in his department.
Epp felt that Koby had simply distanced himself from the problems of the investigation. Each time Epp had suggested that Eller be removed from the case, Koby had answered, “We’ve got them where we want them,” referring to the Ramseys. The police simply didn’t care that the Ramseys were being prejudged by the public and that they had lost their presumption of innocence. “Just let them sweat” was their attitude. Epp knew it was hard for law enforcement officers to see both sides of an issue and still do their job. But Epp had learned to walk a tightrope. You have to be honest and choose your words carefully. You may say that the evidence points in a particular direction, but you should explain that it is not conclusive. Epp had never once heard words to that effect from the chief of police.
KOBY ANNOUNCES HIS INTENTION TO RESIGN
Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby announced Tuesday he will resign at the end of 1998.
The announcement put an official lock on earlier indications by Koby that he would leave within two years.
“I think that what probably impacted me the most was losing my good friend and mentor (former City Manager) Tim Honey, and then having the mayor (Leslie Durgin) step down, who is one of my heroes,” Koby said Tuesday night. “I’m pretty spiritually and emotionally drained. I know that I will continue to stay devoted to this community for the next year, and then I need to have some time to do some work on myself.”
In May, the Boulder Police Benefit Association voted “no confidence” in Koby by a ratio of more than 2-to-1. Tonight the BPBA is scheduled to discuss progress made on concerns surrounding Koby’s leadership.
—Daily Camera, November 19, 1997
The same day that Tom Koby made it official, John Eller put a FOR SALE sign on his front lawn and told the detectives that his resignation would be effective February 28, 1998. In Eller’s living room hung an oil painting of the famed mission in Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, which he had painted in happier tim
es. Now there was such an emptiness in his life that he couldn’t even imagine picking up a paintbrush. He had resolved to remain silent about the Ramsey case until it reached some conclusion, but he also feared that it would never reach a courtroom. If it didn’t, he said, he would write a book. Then he remembered the book Guilty, by Judge Harold J. Rothwax, of New York City, which Steve Thomas had given him. Rothwax believed that while the rights of defendants are important, they should not be protected at the expense of justice for the victims. He wrote, “Our system is a carefully crafted maze, constructed of impenetrable barriers to the truth. Even when the evidence against the accused is as clear as a ringing bell, lawyers will grasp at anything to fog the issues and mask the terrible facts.”
Eller remembered that Thomas had told him about his first confrontation with Pete Hofstrom, while the police substation on University Hill was being set up in the early 1990s. Thomas was part of a team chosen to help clean up the Hill under Koby’s community policing policy. Young people were out of control, throwing Molotov cocktails and cinder blocks at the police. Some nights the police would make fifty arrests, but only a few kids would go to jail. The rest would be processed and released with a summons. One night a girl, maybe five feet tall and eighty pounds, was arrested. Thomas was six-foot-one and 215 pounds, but she punched him with a closed fist and drew blood. Only after Thomas handcuffed the girl and took her to jail did he realize that his nose was broken.
Two weeks later, Thomas, who had charged the girl with a Class II felony, received a letter from her mother asking that he not “ruin” her daughter’s life. She didn’t seem to understand that her daughter had punched him deliberately. He ignored the letter.
Shortly afterward, Pete Hofstrom walked into the Hill annex to see Thomas. “I noticed you charged this girl with a felony,” he said.
“She broke my nose.”
“I want to drop this to a misdemeanor.”
“I’m not looking to ruin anybody’s life, but she tagged me,” Thomas said. “There has to be some consequence for her actions. I don’t agree to a misdemeanor plea bargain.”
“Look, I worked San Quentin,” Hofstrom said. “I know what a felon is. And goddamnit, I respect those guys on death row. I had to feed some of them their last meals. You don’t know what a goddamn felon is.”
“Maybe not, but from where I come from, you don’t punch a cop,” Thomas replied. “She should consider herself lucky she didn’t get her ass kicked.” Hofstrom left without saying another word.
A month later, the DA’s office pled the charges to a nonviolent misdemeanor. Thomas saw it as part of the culture of Boulder. Eller agreed. But he was damned if he would go along with it.
Commander Mark Beckner told Alex Hunter that he had scheduled a press conference for December 5. A lot of thought had gone into how Beckner would deal with the Ramseys and the media, much of it from forensic psychiatrist Steve Pitt, who had begun to work with the Boulder police in February. Pitt was an expert in behavioral profiling and he had advised the police on interview techniques to be used with the Ramseys.
In early November, Pitt was asked how the Boulder PD might use the media to its advantage when dealing with the Ramseys. A couple of weeks later, Pitt met with Tom Wickman, Alex Hunter and metro DA Dave Thomas, from Hunter’s task force.
Though there was a liability in Beckner’s holding a press conference when the police had nothing new to tell the public, Pitt emphasized that the goal of the press conference was to put pressure on the Ramseys to grant the police a new round of interviews. Pitt said the upcoming holidays, which coincided with the first anniversary of JonBenét’s death, would be an excellent time for the police to update the media on the status of the investigation.
When he was told about the strategy, Koby balked. Pitt then requested a meeting with him and Mark Beckner. Over coffee at the Foundry coffee house, Pitt told them that a public request for the Ramseys to grant new interviews was essential: the Ramseys would not be inclined to refuse, because that would make them appear uncooperative. Pitt suggested that Beckner include the threat of a grand jury in his opening statement. And, the Ramseys were to be mentioned continually in every answer given to the media. A message was to be delivered to the couple: if you don’t cooperate, somebody is going to push for a grand jury.
Koby finally agreed, on the condition that Hunter’s office would not be involved in the press conference. Hunter accepted the condition but asked to be consulted on the wording of Beckner’s opening statement. Within a day of their agreement, the threat of a grand jury had been leaked to the press. The Ramseys would feel the pressure sooner than Steve Pitt had planned.
REPORTS OF RAMSEY GRAND JURY ‘PREMATURE’
Boulder Country District Attorney Alex Hunter yesterday denied reports he will soon ask a grand jury to investigate the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and consider indictments in the nearly year-old case.
Hunter’s spokesperson, Suzanne Laurion, said, “Absolutely no decision has been made. It’s premature to talk grand jury.” She added, “This whole thing is certainly more media-driven than it is reality-driven.” Laurion said the reports were nothing new, and that the D.A.’s team has been considering a grand jury for months, in addition to other options.
In Boulder County, a grand jury was seated in the fall of 1996 and has yet to hear a case, said Hunter.
—Daily Camera, December 1, 1997
In the early afternoon of December 1, Bryan Morgan called Alex Hunter and asked if he, Hal Haddon, and Patrick Burke could meet with the DA and Pete Hofstrom. In Hunter’s office on December 3, Haddon asked Hunter point-blank where the case stood. Would Mark Beckner announce the convening of a grand jury when he held his press conference on December 5?
Hunter told the lawyers that as far as he knew, the police were not ready to present the case to his office, so he didn’t see a grand jury as imminent. Haddon then asked whether there was a possibility of arranging another set of interviews with the Ramseys through some civil process. For example, they would consent to be interviewed under oath in a civil discovery deposition setting, with a court reporter present. Hunter said this would not be the same as twelve citizens sitting in judgment.
Next Patrick Burke spoke up. He said he didn’t like the false information being circulated in the press about Burke Ramsey. The media repeatedly said that the boy hadn’t been interviewed by the police. The lawyer reminded Hunter that Burke had been interviewed twice, once on December 26 by Detective Patterson and a second time on January 8 by child psychologist Dr. Suzanne Bernhard, yet the Boulder police kept giving the public the impression that no interviews of the boy had taken place. The lawyer wanted Hunter to “stand up and be courageous” and set the record straight.
Hunter reacted with irritation at the suggestion that the actions of the DA’s office were—or could be—dictated by the police or anybody else. Then he confronted the real issue facing them. He told the Ramseys’ attorneys what he was sure they knew—that there would soon be tremendous pressure from the police and the public to convene a grand jury. Hunter added that the Ramseys’ image would be further tarnished if they didn’t agree to nonconditional interviews with the police. They had to know that in such a complicated case, as the investigation proceeded and more information became known, specific questions were raised and these questions needed answers.
Patrick Burke argued that if their clients cooperated, it would give credence to the idea that they were involved in the death of their daughter. However, Haddon admitted that if the Ramseys didn’t consent to the new interviews, they would be damned again in the press. Of course they were used to that by now, but it was an unpleasant prospect nonetheless. The DA implied that the real holdup for the Ramseys’ attorneys was that Burke wasn’t old enough to be coached for an interview or an appearance in front of a grand jury.
With nothing resolved and the atmosphere tense, the Ramseys’ attorneys left. Hunter said that he felt Hal Haddon watched him as closely as anyb
ody had ever looked at him in his life. It was as if Haddon was trying to assess by Hunter’s every movement and gesture whether Hunter was being candid with him.
That afternoon Bill Wise spoke to Bob Miller, one of the three pro bono attorneys advising the police detectives. They agreed that any future action or decision the police took in this case would have to be clearly thought out. For example, if they asked to convene a grand jury, they had to be clear about its true purpose. Would it be to preserve testimony under oath, to get a reluctant witness to talk, to develop new evidence, or to seek an indictment?* Each one of those aims would require developing a different strategy. Nevertheless, there was an advantage to using a grand jury, said Miller. Under a new state law, if a grand jury failed to indict, it could, if it wanted, issue a report giving reasons for its decision. Hunter’s only fear, Wise said, was of a “runaway jury,” predisposed to indicting the Ramseys. He was pretty sure that his boss was prepared for any other eventuality, he said.
On December 5, Mark Beckner stepped in front of a single microphone at Boulder’s city council chambers. He was flanked by the eight police detectives who were now working the case. Seated before them were over a hundred members of the media. This was the first time that most of the press had seen Beckner—as well as the detectives. For the occasion, the police wore suits.