Turning a Blind Eye Is Not the Same Thing As Justice
Boulder P.D. continued to remain fixated on the Ramseys no matter what they were presented with. Evidence to the contrary was often ignored. There was no evidence of forced entry, therefore there was no intruder. Period.
Never mind that prison inmates teach one another the fine art of lock picking and never mind that the Ramseys had loaned spare house keys out freely to housekeepers, handymen, friends and construction workers. And never mind that every time a person leaves their car keys with a valet, they risk that impressions of their entire set of keys can be made so that duplicates can be cut later.
The D.A.’s office under special prosecutor Michael Kane even sought to suppress, confiscate and destroy Lou Smit’s exculpatory evidence. People who thought they had very pertinent information regarding non-Ramsey suspects complained that they had placed as many as twenty calls in to various Boulder P.D. personnel but never received a call back. The same complaint was made against the FBI.
To be fair, Boulder P.D. did not sit on its hands They did investigate hundreds of people and collected writing samples, hair samples, and DNA samples. They did. And to be fair, the Ramseys seemed to go out of their way to make themselves suspect. Their behavior was often quite strange, quite curious.
Many years later, it was revealed that Boulder was taking direction from the FBI. In essence, the FBI. became their handler. JonBenet had been the only murder in Boulder that entire year. But then, it depends upon one’s definition of murder (part 5).
Suddenly, these people were dealing with a heavily scrutinized high profile case complete with media frenzy. When the FBI. told them to go with the stats that show the vast majority of child deaths are at the hands of a parent Boulder closed their eyes to everything else. Justice, in order to be justice, should be blind to all save the preponderance of the evidence which must be carefully and thoughtfully weighed. These people made up their minds the very first day and spent the rest of their time trying to make the clues fit a fore drawn conclusion.
One Simple Fallacy
Officially, there was one theory and one theory only; that Patsy Ramsey had killed her daughter accidentally with a blow to the head. The ransom note, the garrote and the vaginal trauma were all part of a desperate staging by Patsy Ramsey (and possibly John) in an effort to point away from themselves.
But if your child is dead because you killed them, accidentally or not, and you know that the body is in the house, would you sit down and calmly write a three page ransom note? Knowing that you have just killed your child and you have coldly decided that your diversionary theme of the day was going to be bondage with a hint of sexual abuse perpetrated by a murderous pedophile intruder, of what possible use is a three page ransom note from a “small foreign faction”??? If you aren’t going to dispose of the body well off premises, what is the purpose of a ransom note? And if you are going to stage an intruder/pedophile scenario, why bother with a garroting?
According to the official theory, and accepting for a moment the notion of a staging by the parents, the blow to the head MUST HAVE COME FIRST because all else belongs to the staging which followed the fatal strike to the head Without this sequence, the prosecution would never be able to successfully pin the tail on the Patsy . The head blow had to come first.
But here lies the problem; the autopsy noted that there was a small quantity of JonBenet’s own skin cells under her nails. Just above the cord that was deeply embedded in her neck, there were tiny scratches, little half moons. This means that she had not yet received that terrible blow to her head. Had the head blow come first, she would have been unconscious and could not have screamed and she could not have clawed at the cord. She did both of these things. She was quite conscious throughout all of that torture As Lou Smit had advised, the blow to the head had followed the garroting. This was a vicious murder, not a cover up of an accidental blow to the head by a parent, and not a kidnap attempt.
The policy that the FBI promoted to Boulder PD was to go with the odds, the stats, At this point, the impossible became possible. The statistics support the murder being at the hands of a parent. Anything to the contrary had to be ignored and/or suppressed. Otherwise why try to confiscate and destroy Lou Smit’s evidence? Why neglect to return calls from people who were trying to provide additional information and clues? The fix was in courtesy of the FBI and an inexperienced and perhaps controlled local homicide division.
The Favorite Pink Nightgown
JonBenet’s favorite pink nightgown was on the wine cellar floor along with the white blanket. Psychologists felt that this implicated the mother. Who else would know which nightgown was JonBenet’s favorite? Who else would place it there with JonBenet?
Why didn’t the FBI. go with the odds on this one? The blanket had been left in a dryer along with other laundry. The presence of the night gown was most likely just a result of static cling. A frenzied murderer and a very dark room, the killer never even noticed that the nightgown was stuck to the blanket. Yet early reports spun this to further implicate the mother.
DNA=“Do Not Analyze‘.
In Boulder, DNA must stand for “Do Not Analyze‘. When you have two minuscule spots of blood, analyze one and don’t bother with the other. There were two very tiny spots of dried blood on JonBenet’s under pants. Boulder decided to test for DNA on just one of them There wasn’t enough DNA in spot number one to get a full profile. Are we to think that Boulder investigators could not reason that the second spot should be tested as well? For whatever reason, they did not test the second spot in 1997.
Nothing further was done with the DNA until 2003 when an attorney noticed that the second tiny blood spot had never been tested. As a result of this testing of spot two, the DNA of a Caucasian male was found and it did not match any Ramseys. Seven long years had passed since the murder of JonBenet; seven long years of focusing only on the parents of JonBenet. At last, there was a DNA suspect profile that could be entered in the FBI’s national DNA database. To this day, curiously, no match has been found. But it wasn’t from the Ramseys. There had been an intruder after all.
There was quite a lot of fiber evidence left at the scene. Fibers were positively everywhere.
“During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia. Dr. Meyer (Coroner) stated that it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area. A white fiber was found on her chin; dark colored hairs were found on the shoulder area of the shirt; dark blue fibers were located on the back of the right shoulder of the shirt; hairs and other trace evidence were located on her shirt underneath both her left and right arms and on the lower part of her shirt; fibers and an eyelash were located on the front of her shirt.
The gold ring given to JonBenet by her grandmother was removed from the middle finger on the right hand, along with the bracelet given to her by Patsy. After removing the ring, more fibers were found underneath the ring, and additional fibers and trace evidence were recovered from the left hand.”
But it was the four microscopic red fibers found embedded in the duct tape over JonBenet’s mouth that seemed to hold investigators transfixed. Boulder P.D. seemed confidant that these matched the red sweater that Patsy had worn to the White’s dinner party the previous night. CellMark laboratories, who conducted the testing on the duct tape, also found brown, purple, blue, and pink cloth fibers as well as animal fur probably beaver. (Please remember the beaver fur as you will see it referenced again in the upcoming article, part 5.)
The Ramseys had removed JonBenet’s black velvet outfit when they put her in her bed. Did investigators ever check to see if those fibers matched JonBenet’s red turtleneck pajama top? Why would four microscopic red fibers stuck to duct tape mean more to Boulder P.D. than beaver fur found on the very same tape? Beaver fur is far more rare and certainly more of a clue than four microscopic red fibers at Christmas time. If anything was staged in this case, it was the investigation itself.
To be continued-Part 5-The Road Not Taken