On the day after Christmas 1996, in the basement wine cellar
of a large, elegant home on 15th Street in Boulder, Colorado there
was discovered wrapped in a white blanket the body of a six-year-old girl. Her hands
were tied, and duct tape was placed over her mouth, and a nylon cord was around
her neck. An autopsy revealed that girl had suffered “severe blunt trauma” to
the head, but officially she died of strangulation. And so began the supposedly
unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey, a case which to some observers was deliberately
bungled by police and prosecutors from the very beginning, and still has the
taint of something not quite “right.” The revelation in the past week that a
grand jury had voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for her murder—but
prosecutors refused to move forward with the case, claiming there wasn’t
sufficient evidence for a conviction—merely makes the whole thing even more
unpalatable.
There is much that makes little sense in this case. Take, for
instance, the “ransom note” found by Patsy Ramsey in a stairway, which stated
that JonBenet was allegedly kidnapped. The note claimed that the kidnappers
were members of a “small foreign faction” called the “S.B.T.C.”. No one has ever been able to determine what
exactly the initials stand for. Judging from the various threats in the note,
this “small” faction seemed have its entire membership in Boulder, with the
movement of the Ramseys, their family members, their friends, the police
department and even bank employees under constant surveillance to insure that
their every instructions were followed, or else the girl would be killed. Even
if this was false bluster to force cooperation, it didn’t seem to dissuade the
Ramseys’ from disregarding almost every warning in the note within hours of
finding it, particularly if the girl’s life was under threat; it was as if they
knew the letter was a hoax. The note further warned that the kidnappers were
quite willing to kill the girl, because there were other “fat cats” to skin in
town. Curiously, this mystery group was never heard from again, and none of its
members were discovered, despite the fact that eventually 160 “suspects” were
investigated by police.
The alleged ransom note demanded a payment of $118,000. This
was an odd amount; it was noted that this suggested “inside information,” since
it reflected an amount that coincided with one or two aspects of the family
finances (such as a recent bonus). There had been a Christmas party the day
before, during which supposedly anyone could have just “dropped in” and snooped
around the house to find such information just laying around. This had to be
so, according to the story, because the evidence of a break-in was rather weak
and could have been explained in any number ways given how many people attended
the party. Since the girl apparently never left the house, in order for that
narrative to make any sense, the kidnapper or kidnappers would have stayed hidden with the girl in the house
and then killed her for no apparent reason—and then got away without being
seen.
It just doesn’t add-up. The police didn’t initially
investigate the house because they “assumed” the child was not in the house, but
not investigating and conducting a proper collection of forensic evidence of
the crime scene could also point to the fact that there was a suspicion by some
that this was a “domestic” crime; John Ramsey was a former high-ranking naval
officer and now respected businessman, and there was little appetite to suspect
him or his wife of the crime. The case has had an evil aroma about it from the
start; many people thought that the killer or killers were right under
investigators’ noses, but they refused to sense it. They went off on wild goose
chases for public consumption, while the Ramseys’ public appeal to find the
“real” killers seemed self-serving if not completely suspicious. Nor did media
hype help advance the case; a University of Colorado professor named Michael
Tracey claimed to know who the real “killer” was, but his theories were regarded
crackpot by investigators, and such concocted “suspects” like John Mark Karr
proved to be publicity stunts and without merit.
What could have spurred the original grand jury to indict?
Was it merely that the crime was so heinous, someone had to be charged, and
nothing else made any sense? Was the
revelation that Patsy Ramsey was jealous of her daughter and “over-reacted” to
the girl’s bedwetting accepted as “evidence” of a motive? Did they believe it was suspicious that Patsy
Ramsey—a stickler for appearance—wore the same red outfit the day after she was
photographed in it at the Christmas party? Was she in fact up all night—and doing
what? Did her 911 call to police sound like she was “faking” being emotional,
as some contend? This is but circumstantial, but what can’t be as easily
explained away is that six handwriting experts testified that it was Patsy Ramsey
who wrote the ransom note. This
certainly does suggest an attempt to deceive investigators and draw suspicion
elsewhere.
The testimony of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the housekeeper, was also
important in the vote to indict. She claimed that JonBenet had been killed by
her mother. One reason for this assertion was in regard to a knife found at the
scene; Hoffman-Pugh told reporters that "Only Patsy could have put that
knife there. I took it away from Burke (JonBenet's brother) and hid it in a
linen closet near JonBenet's bedroom. An intruder never would have found it.
Patsy would have found it getting out clean sheets." She also reported
that the blanket found at the scene had recently been in a dryer, because the
static was so fresh that it had left a Barbie Doll nightgown clinging to it. Hoffman-Pugh
again claimed only Patsy Ramsey would have known the blanket was in the dryer.
She went on to say that only someone familiar with the house could have found
the door to the “wine cellar.” The fact that the level of digestion of
pineapple found in JonBenet's stomach suggested that she was killed
less than two hours after she had eaten it also seems to be suspicious.
None of this is ironclad evidence of murder, and it is
perhaps understandable why prosecutors did not move forward based on such. But
one cannot escape the feeling that this case is still “stumping” investigators
because they are looking for a killer who doesn’t exist. The third party DNA
could have belonged to who processed the evidence, not the killer. Former
Denver homicide lieutenant Jon Priest told the Denver Post the DNA could simply
be “contamination” after years after the fact. He also told the paper that it
never made sense to him that if this was an alleged kidnapping for ransom, why investigators
like Boulder detective Lou Smit insisted on looking at the case as one of a
“sexual sadist killer.” Isn’t that an admission that they don’t believe that
part of the Ramsey story, and if they knew that was a lie, why are they also
assuming that the rest of it is true? Priest noted that no DNA from a
third-party was found inside the JonBenet; while this does not rule out the theory
of a pedophile crime, it does mean that it does not quite reach the credulity
standard. Priest is also convinced that the crime scene appeared to be “staged”
to hide the fact that this was a domestic crime; “evidence” was scattered about
in a way that didn’t make logical sense.
The deceased Patsy Ramsey is now beyond the law. John Ramsey
continues to deny all and claims all speculation regarding family involvement (including
son Burke, who was 12 at the time) a “circus.” But one thing
remains true out of all of this: Someone did commit this crime, and the most “baffling”
aspect of it is that it seems to have happened right underneath the noses of everyone
who was in the best position to know, and yet plead complete ignorance. Just
because there are two standards of justice in the country—one for those with
money, and those without—doesn’t mean we have to believe it.
No comments:
Post a Comment