Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

by Lawrence Schiller

  The meeting took place on February 13. Hunter wanted Pete Hofstrom to come along, but the deputy would not give up his customary Friday court responsibilities. He had invested months in determining the just punishment for felons about to be sentenced, and he wanted to be the one to present his findings to the court. The Ramsey case was not yet on his docket. If Hunter was frustrated by Hofstrom’s decision, he didn’t show it. That kind of dedication was what he admired in Pete.

  Lee met for almost six hours with Hunter, Smit, DeMuth, Beckner, and Detectives Wickman and Trujillo. Afterward, the group hastily called a press briefing for the small media contingent that had assembled at the airport.

  “I need to state that I’m disappointed,” Hunter said, “that we have not had more cooperation from the Ramseys in helping us get to the truth. We need to have that in order to answer questions that remain that are critical to finding out what happened in this case.”

  This was the first time Hunter had criticized the Ramseys in public. During the meeting with Lee, the police and the DA realized that the Ramseys’ refusal to grant additional police interviews had brought the investigation to a standstill. The detectives had completed almost all the items on their to-do list. Now they needed answers that only JonBenét’s parents could provide. Hunter’s remark, possibly made in frustration, was a turning point in his relations with the police. The DA had now supported the department in public. It would make a big difference in his dealings with Beckner.

  When Dr. Lee took his turn at the microphone, he said that after the meeting, he now gave the case a 50-50 chance of being solved.

  After the airport meeting, Hunter met with Tom Koby.

  “I need to look at what we have,” Koby said, referring to the evidence. “It may be that I will stand up and say the case needs to be put on the shelf, or I may recommend to you that you take it to a grand jury.” Koby told the DA that he wanted some witness testimony legally preserved as soon as possible. A grand jury was the only solution Koby saw.* Melody Stanton, the neighbor of the Ramseys who had heard the scream, was a case in point. Her interview wasn’t signed or given under oath, and since the Globe had published her story, she’d become more and more frightened and reluctant to testify. Then there were the Ramseys’ close friends—the Fernies, the Stines, and the Walkers. Some of them refused to talk to the police, and more than one detective wanted them charged with obstruction of justice. Koby and Hunter discussed granting them “use immunity” before a grand jury to get them to talk.* Finally, they wanted Burke Ramsey’s testimony preserved. He was now eleven, and his memories of the events surrounding his sister’s death were sure to be fading. Hunter discussed all this with the chief, though in his opinion it was not the proper use of a grand jury. If a grand jury was to be considered, he told Koby firmly, they would have to go all the way and ask for an indictment.** The grand jury could not become simply another investigative body.

  TOM KOBY DEFENDS POLICE DEPARTMENT

  In an unscheduled public appearance before the City Council, Koby explained that the department has been faced with an unusual number of high-intensity cases—from the non-lethal shooting of a state trooper to December’s Susannah Chase murder and several suspicious transient deaths.

  Among other things Koby said:

  • There will be a resolution to the Ramsey case in three months.

  • The Boulder County Sheriff’s Department will assign officers to help Boulder police with an investigative backlog.

  • Officers from the traffic division have been temporarily moved to work 60 investigations, which is expected to result in fewer tickets for speeding and other violations. The department is not easing up on drunken driving patrols.

  • To boost morale, a consultant has been brought in to provide “emotional survival” training to the top administrators. In April, the consultant will work with officers and their families.

  —Julie Poppen

  Daily Camera, February 18, 1998

  Commander Beckner was in discussions with Jim Jenkins, an Atlanta attorney who had represented Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey since March 1997 and was now counsel for Burke Ramsey. The police were hoping to conduct a formal interview of Burke and to do it before the media got wind of it. By mid-February, Beckner and Jenkins had agreed that the interview would take place in Atlanta, at a neutral location, and that it would be videotaped and conducted by a police officer rather than a child psychologist. Most important to the police was the stipulation that John and Patsy would not be present and that neither they nor their attorneys would be provided with information about the interview. The day after they agreed, Marilyn Robinson of The Denver Post called Jenkins, detailed for him the position he’d taken in his discussions with Beckner, and asked for a comment on the pending interviews. Jenkins was livid. Not only had someone leaked the fact that he was talking to Beckner, but they knew everything he had said. Jenkins now believed he saw Beckner’s hidden agenda—to use Burke as a weapon in the police-backed media campaign against his parents. Beckner denied Jenkins’s charges. Nevertheless, that same afternoon, the lawyer called off the interview between the Boulder PD and Burke Ramsey.

  FORMER RAMSEY CASE CHIEF QUITS

  The former chief investigator of the widely criticized JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation will call it quits Saturday.

  “I wanted to be chief. I wanted to do it my way,” Eller said.

  On Friday, personal belongings packed in boxes stacked in his office, Eller, characteristically wearing a pin-striped suit, talked about his career, his family, the Ramsey case and his future.

  On one side, Eller, whose smiles are few and fleeting, is a self-proclaimed “fairly hard-nosed” cop who doesn’t mind he has rattled a few cages. On the other side is a man whose all-time favorite band is Led Zeppelin, who painted a mural of sea creatures and animals at the Niwot Child and Family Advocacy center and who has expressed his sense of humor by drawing political cartoons.

  —Christopher Anderson

  Daily Camera, February 23, 1998

  That week, twenty-four Boulder detectives took John Eller out to lunch at Dolan’s restaurant. It was more like a wake than a retirement celebration. The officers had a group picture taken of themselves to make into a plaque. Eller took the floor and gave the detectives an inspirational speech of the sort Knute Rockne used to give his players before they took the field.

  A week later, Steve Thomas and Eller’s brother, who had come from Florida, helped Eller load two Ryder trucks with his life’s belongings. On February 28, with Eller’s brother in one truck and Thomas and Eller in the other, they began the four-day drive to Florida. Within a few months, Eller would return to the police academy for night courses to get his Florida law enforcement credentials.

  The cross-country trip was tiring for Thomas. He couldn’t understand why he needed so much coffee to keep awake during the drive east. He had also been having headaches for months. He knew he needed to see a doctor, but he couldn’t fit an appointment into his tight schedule.

  BECKNER TO TAKE COMMAND OF DETECTIVE BUREAU

  The names should be a roll call of the Boulder Police Department’s best and brightest—Detective Linda Arndt, Sgt. Larry Mason, Cmdr. John Eller and Chief Koby.

  Instead, the litany represents the tarnished reputations of Boulder’s men and women in blue, careers forever changed—some would even say ended—by the ghost of JonBenét Ramsey.

  But Mark Beckner, the 42-year-old commander who took the reins of this city’s most notorious murder investigation last fall, doesn’t expect to be the next casualty.

  One week from today, he’ll assume command of the department’s beleaguered detective bureau with eyes on the ultimate prize—one day becoming chief of police.

  —Matt Sebastian

  Daily Camera, February 23, 1998

  On Monday, February 23, a detective on the Ramsey case returned a phone call from a writer covering the story. The writer wasn’t in, so the detective left the follo
wing message:

  TELEPHONE ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE SAVED AT 6:09 P.M.

  I am sorry it has taken me so long to return your call. I just got back in town. I am simply not in a position to talk to you right now. The reason is twofold. One, I think that the defense would try and make an issue should I talk to you, however benign or innocent it may be. And secondly, the department would make the same issue with Koby’s blanket gag order.

  But I can tell you there are things that I have witnessed in this case that you simply would not believe. Things, in my opinion, have been unconscionable. I know this case from the inside, I guess, as well as anyone. And there are things that probably should be known at some time.

  Let’s just see where this is at in a couple of months. This case, this victim, which has consumed my life in every waking moment, is just too important to me to jeopardize.

  By the first of March, some members of Hunter’s staff thought that Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth had become fixated on the intruder theory, almost to the point of ignoring evidence that ran against it—much the same way they had accused the police of obsessively focusing on the Ramseys as the guilty parties. Hofstrom was noncommittal; he said he would only give his opinion after reviewing the entire case file. For his part, Hunter had said for months that he wanted to see convincing evidence before anyone was charged. He claimed that so far only 40 percent of the evidence he had seen pointed to the Ramseys. Since the case would soon be coming his way and his team was sure to expand, he renewed the lease on the war room for the rest of the year. They would need a secure place to work.

  On March 3, Beckner met with Hofstrom and said he wanted to put about a dozen witnesses before a grand jury: Fleet and Priscilla White; John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey; friends of the Ramseys; and various Access Graphics employees. Hofstrom explained that the commander couldn’t use the grand jury as an extension of his authority. The jury didn’t work for the police, and it wasn’t an investigative arm or an extension of the district attorney’s mandate.* Hofstrom repeated what he was sure Beckner knew: that the purpose of the grand jury was to indict if there was a question about probable cause or if the DA’s office didn’t want to reveal its evidence at a preliminary hearing before a judge.** Hofstrom acknowledged, however, that as part of the grand jury process, evidence could be preserved until a trial took place.

  The current grand jury’s term was to expire on May 30, and by that date a new jury would have to be seated. Colorado law required that the selection process and the names and addresses of jurors be made public. Though Denver DA Bill Ritter had occasionally petitioned the court for secret selection of a grand jury and had been granted his request, Hunter saw a public relations value in doing things according to the letter of the law in the Ramsey case. He welcomed the public scrutiny and an open selection process. It would help rebuild his credibility, he thought.

  In early March, chief district judge Joseph Bellipanni picked April 22 as the date the selection process would begin for a new grand jury. A panel of about 150 Boulder residents would be summoned, selected from motor vehicle and voter registration records. Twelve jurors and five alternates would be selected by the judge in consultation with the DA.

  At about this time, Trip DeMuth told Pete Hofstrom that the DA’s office still didn’t have all the police department’s files. For example, he was missing the detectives’ handwritten notes, and typed reports were not sufficient for a thorough review of the case. Also, six of the police department’s thirty binders hadn’t been handed over.

  On March 5, Hofstrom wrote to Commander Beckner.

  THE STATE OF COLORADO

  TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

  ALEXANDER M. HUNTER

  DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  TO:

  Commander Mark Beckner

  Boulder Police Department

  FROM:

  Peter A. Hofstrom

  Chief Trial Deputy District Attorney

  SUBJECT:

  Possible use of the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation.

  I am writing this memorandum in response to your request that I take notice of the fact that you are considering asking the District Attorney’s Office to convene the Boulder County Grand Jury and to ask the Grand Jury if they would desire to hear evidence concerning and investigate the JonBenét Ramsey homicide. The purpose of this letter is to set out my thoughts concerning the conditions precedent to such a request being considered in a meaningful and productive manner.

  While this office will support the appropriate use of the Boulder County Grand Jury in this case, the following need to be received before your request of use of the Grand Jury can be evaluated and acted upon by the District Attorney’s Office.

  1. A written statement from you setting out the Police Department’s position on the issue of whether or not there is, at this time, sufficient admissible evidence to charge an identifiable person.

  2. A statement of reasons that, in your opinion, support the use of the Grand Jury at this time.

  3. A list of every “reluctant” witness that the Police Department believes should be called before the Grand Jury…The list should include the following information regarding each person named:

  a. Has this person been interviewed by the Police in the past?

  b. If not, why not?

  c. If the person has been interviewed, how many times has he or she been interviewed?

  d. Have you attached a transcript of each interview, and a copy of each report, or witness information sheet or relevant notes for that person to the list?

  e. If not, why not?

  f. Why does the person have to be called before the Grand Jury instead of simply being interviewed by law enforcement personnel?

  g. What do you expect that this person will testify to before the Grand Jury if called to testify?

  h. Why do you expect that the person called to testify would provide the testimony referred to ing) above?

  i. What is the relevance and materiality of that testimony to the issue of whether or not there is sufficient admissible evidence to file a charge against an identifiable person in this case?

  4. An appropriately organized and formatted copy of the Police Department’s investigative case file.

  …The procedure set out above will allow us to properly evaluate your request for Grand Jury involvement in the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation.

  [signed]

  Peter A. Hofstrom

  The next day, Hunter told Koby he did not want to wait until his office was handed the case to receive the six missing binders. Koby told him that if he wanted support in getting the files, he should support Beckner’s request for a grand jury. To Koby, Hofstrom’s letter looked like an attempt to block the request for a grand jury. Hunter was noncommittal; he said he’d have to keep his options open for now.

  Indeed, Hofstrom was a stumbling block for Hunter too. He had said it might take six months to reinvestigate the entire case after they received it from the police. Hunter had told Pete there was no way he could afford to take six months. “But look at how many other cases I have,” Hofstrom protested. When Koby heard about the six-month estimate, he went directly to Hofstrom. “The media is going to be all over you, like they were all over us,” the chief told the deputy DA.

  Bob Grant, who for a year had acted as spokesman for Hunter, said on TV that once the DA’s office was handed the case, evaluation of the police files would take around thirty days.

  DA HINTS RAMSEY CASE HEADED FOR GRAND JURY

  District Attorney Alex Hunter hinted Monday that the 15-month-old JonBenét Ramsey murder case is headed for a grand jury.

  “It has been an option for a long time and it has become a matter of more serious consideration at this point in time,” said Hunter, who declined to elaborate on his reasons.

  “We’re certainly a lot closer to making a decision [on a grand jury] than we were months ago,” Beckner said Monday.

  —Kevin McCu
llen

  Rocky Mountain News, March 10, 1998

  On Thursday morning, March 12, Koby and Beckner paid a visit to Hofstrom. They would respond to his letter in due course, they said, but they wanted to move the process along. Within hours, they would announce that they were asking the DA’s office to submit the case to a grand jury. Hofstrom was sure the detectives’ pro bono attorneys had suggested this.

  “You guys don’t have it,” Hofstrom told Koby. “Why don’t you be honest? Put it out on the table.” He pointed out that if they asked for a grand jury, they would lose control of the investigation.

  Beckner asked if a Boulder police detective would be used as an investigator for the grand jury. Hofstrom explained that it might be improper. Beckner said he didn’t understand why and said he would consult their own attorneys about what the law required.* A few days later, a deputy DA commented, “If the cops think they’re still going to be running around investigating this case, they’re wrong. It’s ours now. They’re out of it.” Most likely, the DA’s staff was unenthusiastic about involving the police in the grand jury investigation because they had little faith in the department’s ability to carry out tasks properly and professionally.