Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,742
» Forum posts: 5,542

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 23 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 23 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Jean Fortier
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
02-13-2021, 02:42 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 3,501
Diane Brumfit - South
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
02-13-2021, 02:28 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 3,366
Perry Freeman
Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note
Last Post: jameson245
02-04-2021, 10:18 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 906
Marcel Eflers
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: Dave
02-04-2021, 09:59 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 116
Fleet White - 12/29/1996
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
02-03-2021, 02:51 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 411
Retired FBI John Douglas
Forum: FBI involvement
Last Post: Dave
02-03-2021, 01:40 PM
» Replies: 27
» Views: 9,907
Suzanne Savage
Forum: Housekeepers, workers in the house
Last Post: jameson245
02-02-2021, 03:35 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 7,387
9 pageants
Forum: Pageants
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 04:12 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,180
interesting - was she ang...
Forum: Judith Phillips
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 04:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 137
Not sure
Forum: Pam and Kristine Griffin
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 03:40 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1,158

  Windowless room
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-02-2017, 01:21 PM - Forum: Rooms - Replies (3)

Where body was found

Print this item

  images from morning of 26th
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 07:00 PM - Forum: Footprints in the snow - Replies (3)


Print this item

  Chuck Green (and his opposition)
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:49 PM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - Replies (2)

By Katherine Rosman
Issue Date: February 2000


Chuck Green is a 32-year veteran of The Denver Post and an award-winning journalist. Green believes that "the evidence points to the Ramseys' being involved in their daughter's death," and he speaks with a preacher's cadence as he makes his argument that a rich couple has gotten away with murder.

As with Boyles, what Green believes-not what he knows-counts, because he writes an opinion column for the Post four times a week. Green says he has devoted at least 80 columns to the Ramseys. He admits that's a lot of ink for one murder case but says that morally he has no choice as long as JonBenét's killer walks free. "The system has failed JonBenét," he says. "The system will fail and fail and fail other kids as long as nobody cares how the system failed JonBenét."

Green's not just a talking head, though; he claims to have inside "law enforcement" sources. And he freely admits to having served as a conduit for their leaks.

Journalists on this story have covered the "breaking news" by broadcasting and printing the spin fed to them by sources, Green contends. But the longtime newspaperman is hardly knocking himself and his colleagues for having done so. "I don't care if you're covering city hall or a sports team....You report the spin that your best sources give you and by reporting that spin you get access to that source," says Green. A consulting contract with NBC has helped Green ensure that his brand of reporting isn't limited to a local audience. He has made regular star turns on Today.

"That's how journalism works," Green continues. "You report the spin that your best sources feed you and that's how you keep them as sources."

But what about verifying the spin before publishing it as fact? "You try, but you usually can't," he says. "You verify with the guy who's sitting at the next desk to the guy who's giving you the information in the first place. And they're usually working on the same team."

Certainly, reporting often starts with a source's telling a reporter what that source would like to see in the paper the next day. But the job of a journalist usually involves checking the information, especially if the leak comes from a police or prosecution source hoping to test a theory or create the impression that progress is being made on a case. Otherwise, a story may be technically correct-in that the police do believe or suspect such and such-but contextually wrong or completely unfair, as is likely with Footprints In The Snow and the tabloid revelation about John Ramsey's pilot.

But anyone who actually thinks that such verification takes place, Green claims, lives in a dream world. The onus is on the consumer, Green says, to decide if he trusts the reporter. "I think this system serves the public," he says.

Ridiculous, answers University of Colorado journalism professor Michael Tracey, who coproduced a documentary that attacked the media's coverage of the case. "Boulder law enforcement put a ring in Chuck Green's nose and led him around on a leash," Tracey says. "Law enforcement used the media to build a case that law enforcement knew it couldn't construct in court. The role of the journalist is to assume you're being used, assume you're being lied to, and to double-check."

That has been an important rule in the Ramsey coverage, says Carol McKinley. Having reported the saga from the onset-first for Denver radio's KOA-AM before making the considerable leap from AM radio to Fox News Channel-McKinley had been fed a fair share of leaks. Back in late 1997, a Ramsey spokesman leaked her some potential news over lunch.

"There was something in the grass," McKinley recalls the spokesman telling her. "A cord? Some tape? A key?" McKinley says she asked. He wouldn't say, but he implied the news would prove that an intruder had been outside the Ramsey home the night of the murder. This could be a blockbuster, McKinley says the spokesman told her.

After lunch, McKinley returned to her office, got on the phone, and learned that the "something" found in the grass was a kneeprint.

A kneeprint? she thought. What in the world does that mean?

She called a forensic investigator, who, McKinley says, shared her skepticism. "'A kneeprint? So what?'" McKinley says the expert told her, who added that without some other indentation nearby-like a footprint or toeprint-such evidence would likely be unidentifiable.

He told her that there was no significance in a kneeprint in the grass. So she didn't broadcast it.

Such leaks-and people like Green, who say they let them into the public domain without verifying them-have led to the appearance (if not the reality) of "camps" within the Ramsey case: polarized groups of journalists whose work leans toward insinuating either the guilt or innocence of John and/or Patsy Ramsey. "It's defined by who talks to whom and who doesn't talk to whom," says Newsweek's Glick. "A lot of reporters were happy to have sources in one camp and stopped trying to get sources in other camps."

Glick spent six years in Newsweek's Washington, D.C., bureau, and he thinks the reporting of the Ramsey case mirrors Washington coverage in terms of close and longstanding journalistic relationships between specific political sources and reporters. "It's like the old Washington game," he says. "Almost everyone knew where these friendships were. It's not dissimilar in this situation."

Glick himself has been accused of being part of the pro-Ramsey camp. In fact, no national media outlet that runs news reports has been as castigated as much as Newsweek for this type of camp journalism. Consistently, Newsweek's Ramsey stories-usually written and reported by Glick and Keene-Osborn-have espoused a Ramsey-favorable point of view. Most of Glick and Keene-Osborn's "pro-Ramsey" coverage for Newsweek has criticized both the case that the police say they have against the Ramseys-and the press's often sensationalized representation of that case-rather than promoting a belief in the Ramseys' guilt or innocence.

The Newsweek scribes have taken their reporting multimedia; both acted as associate producers on professor Michael Tracey's British-funded documentary, which maintained that the Ramseys had been wrongly tried and convicted by the American lynch-mob media.

The documentary offers what no nonfiction piece at the time could: John and Patsy Ramsey appearing on camera to answer questions about the case and the media's behavior. Newsweek got exclusive rights to the interview and, using outtakes from that on-camera exchange, quoted the Ramseys in a July 13, 1998, article that chastised Boulder's law-enforcement community. The documentary has aired four times so far in the United States on A & E. Glick and Keene-Osborn split half the fee from the U.S. television rights.

Ramsey critics such as Boyles and Green have denounced the documentary as pure spin. Green labels it an "infomercial"; Boyles prefers "crockumentary." They insist that Newsweek and the Ramseys have a symbiotic relationship: Glick and Keene-Osborn get their Ramsey-fed exclusives and the Ramseys get favorable coverage.

To Glick, that kind of criticism shows the inherent flaw of the Ramsey coverage. He says he got access to the Ramseys not because of favorable coverage but because the Ramseys trusted he would not merely follow the spin of his best law-enforcement sources. He says he got access to the Ramseys because they saw that he was "questioning the orthodoxy" and "looking critically" at what law-enforcement sources were leaking. And Glick says that he became skeptical of the police investigation long before he had any access to the Ramseys. Keene-Osborn adds, "During the entire case, most of my sources were within the prosecution. To have labeled me as any kind of Ramsey pawn is laughable."

That Green and Boyles criticize Glick for maintaining a journalist-source relationship with the Ramseys astounds him. "What journalist in the country would say no to three days of on-camera, on-the-record interviews" with the Ramseys? he asks. "If that makes me pro-Ramsey, so be it."

Tracey defends the film against cries of "advocacy journalism" with equal ferocity. "What it was advocating is not being a megaphone for spin, and double-checking leaks from sources," Tracey howls. "If that's advocacy journalism, then, fine."

Print this item

  Brill's Content
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:46 PM - Forum: Peter Boyles - Replies (1)

By Katherine Rosman
Issue Date: February 2000


There is no question in radio-talk-show host Peter Boyles's mind that John and Patsy Ramsey were involved in the murder. Boyles doesn't know what happened to JonBenét, but what he knows is of little importance. That's because Boyles is a part of the "opinion press." On Denver's KHOW-AM, Boyles broadcasts his beliefs nearly every chance he gets. And why shouldn't he? Since JonBenét died, Boyles's ratings have skyrocketed. In the fall of 1996, Boyles had a 4.9 percent share of the morning audience. In fall 1997, that number jumped 31 percent, to 7.1 percent, a share he maintained through the fall of 1998.

Because of the thirst of the national media to keep the JonBenét mill churning, Boyles doesn't have to reserve his comments for his morning show's local audience. When he wants a little national media attention, he comes up with all kinds of clever ways to get it. Take the war of the newspaper ads.

During the last week of July and the first week of August 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey published two full-page advertisements in the Boulder Daily Camera seeking public help infinding the killer of their daughter.

After reading the Ramseys' first plea, Boyles took action. For $3,100, he placed his own ad, which ran in the Daily Camera the same day as the Ramseys' second ad was printed. Titled "An Open Letter to John & Patsy Ramsey," it outlined Boyles's reasons for thinking the Ramseys are guilty. In part, he wrote, "you are displaying certain characteristics that are totally opposite those of most victim parents....Fred Goldman's behavior exemplifies the true victim parent of a child who has been murdered. You, on the other hand, have led Colorado and the nation on a seven month, low speed, white Bronco chase."

The payoff? In the two days after Boyles's letter ran, he appeared on Dateline NBC, Rivera Live, and Good Morning America to discuss it. Two CBS Sunday night news programs and CBS Morning News aired reports about Boyles and his missive.

Boyles says he talks about the case as frequently and as passionately as he does so that JonBenét will not have died in vain. More than three years into the case, Boyles still covers JonBenét regularly. He has even helped produce a CD of parody songs with titles such as "Big Bad John [Ramsey]."

Still, Boyles is just a small part of the Lynch the Ramseys Brigade. Nationally, Geraldo Rivera is similarly committed to giving airtime to those who imply guilt on the part of the Ramseys. On November 24, 1997, Rivera stood before the audience of what was then his nationally syndicated broadcast show (not to be confused with his CNBC talk show), tie adjusted, mustache groomed. "It is entirely possible," Rivera said ominously, "that this murder mystery will never be solved, and that no one will ever be tried for the terrible crime committed against that lovely child-except for today, except for the mock trial we are about to stage for you right here in our studio."

Rivera then gave new meaning to the cliché "trial by media." He presented a two-part mock trial of John and Patsy Ramsey. (Rivera declined to comment for this story.)

The trial's "witnesses" for the prosecution included Tony Frost, the editor of the Globe; Cindy Adams, the New York Post's gossip columnist who was introduced by the prosecutor as "the world's greatest authority on everything"; a former Miss America; and Craig Silverman, a Denver attorney with no relation to the Ramsey case. Most of the "testimony" came in the form of clips from past shows.

Highlights from these "witnesses" included a statement from Adams in which she said, "Bit by bit, inch by inch, so slowly that you can't see it, it is closing around Patsy....Everything is pointing to Patsy."

Marilyn Van Derbur Atler, a former Miss America and alleged victim of child abuse and incest, "testified" that because her own mother had forced the pageant world upon her, she believes the Ramseys did the same to JonBenét.

Silverman, the Denver lawyer, "testified" that he wonders whether Patsy killed her daughter in a religious sacrifice. Silverman says his so-called testimony was actually an outtake from a different Rivera appearance during which he floated the religious sacrifice theory. He had no idea Rivera was going to use his comments as part of a mock trial until he turned on the TV and saw it himself.

A former Denver prosecutor, Silverman is a self-styled pundit and paid source for the Globe tabloid, according to Jeffrey Shapiro, the former Globe scribe. Silverman confirms he is on the tabloid's payroll. "I will take their money when they offer it but only on the condition that they show me my quotes ahead of time," he says, but later adds, "the vast majority of my work has gone uncompensated." Silverman also waxes analytical for The New York Times, Good Morning America, Inside Edition, Today, Extra, and Fox News Channel.

The "defense," represented by Rivera perennial Linda Kenney, a New Jersey attorney, called friends and relatives of the Ramseys, who said they knew the Ramseys could not have killed their daughter.

A jury made up of six volunteers found the Ramseys liable for the wrongful death of JonBenét. Rivera's studio audience hollered in approval.

Two weeks later, it was reported that NBC News hired Rivera as a full-time employee for $30 million over six years. If NBC hoped to capitalize on Rivera's proven ability to keep the JonBenét coverage going, the news organization got its money's worth. Since going legit full-time on CNBC, Rivera has done about 50 JonBenét segments on Rivera Live.

Print this item

  Brill's Content
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:43 PM - Forum: Frank Coffman - No Replies

By Katherine Rosman
Issue Date: February 2000


Time is by no means the only mainstream media organization that has looked to those who employ tabloid tactics to get the goods. Outlets such as Dateline NBC and The New York Times have turned to a Boulder gadfly named Frank Coffman to keep them competitive in their JonBenét coverage.

Coffman, 52, is something of a town crier in the saga. A resident of Boulder for more than 20 years, he once lived a quiet life making Halloween masks and writing occasional columns for a Boulder weekly newspaper. But that was before his town's serenity was rocked by the murder of a little girl. As an accident of proximity, Coffman says, he became entangled in the case.

On December 11, 1998, in his downtown Boulder apartment, which looks like a graduate student's crash pad, Coffman's phone rang. John Ramsey's standing on a street corner by your apartment right now! cried the caller.

Coffman took the cue: He snatched a camera and dashed out the door. Coffman saw Ramsey standing on the street corner with his son, a friend, and one of Ramsey's lawyers; with his heart pounding, Coffman raised his camera, aimed, and fired.

Ramsey wasn't pleased to see Coffman with his camera hoisted. "He attacked me," Coffman says, claiming that Ramsey lunged at him and grabbed his jacket before one of Ramsey's attorneys, Michael Bynum, stopped the potential brawl. (Bynum did not return phone calls seeking comment.)

"I was not stalking him," Coffman says without being asked. Still, he adds, it's "kind of weird to take a picture of somebody like that. I wouldn't do it to anybody else...but John and Patsy Ramsey are fair game."

Despite the scuffle, Coffman snapped a few shots, though the camera's flash didn't go off for the one picture that captured Ramsey allegedly lunging at Coffman. "If that flash had gone off, that would have been a fabulous picture," says Coffman. "It would have made him look so damn guilty. Because people would have said, 'Ah-hah! Here he is. The killer,' " Coffman purrs, adding, "and I don't know that Ramsey killed anybody."

But whether Ramsey killed anyone matters little when you've got an exclusive picture. Coffman says the incident surrounding his photography was reported in an Internet chat room and that once the word was out that he had a few photos of John Ramsey, his phone was ringing like a car alarm in New York City. "The New York Times called me," he says. "I didn't try to sell it, but they said, Look, we want to buy this, we want to publish it, so I said, Okay.

Why not?"

The Times ran one of Coffman's pictures on December 16, 1998, along with an item that described the alleged tussle with Ramsey. Coffman says he made $150 from the sale of the photo. (In addition to getting work from the Times, Coffman says, he has peeped through the windows of the Ramseys' former home in Boulder, taken photos, and sold them to Schiller's movie production team. The photos helped the producers properly re-create the crime scene.)

That the Times considers it newsworthy that a "stalkerazzi" photographer claims to have had his collar grabbed by John Ramsey indicates how far even the most legitimate of news outlets have gone for a JonBenét story. Asked about the paparazzi-like photo, Times deputy picture editor Mike Smith said, "We don't encourage or look for that kind of work."

Coffman says he is not a profiteer seeking to make hard cash off the death of a kid. "I never tried to make money on the Ramsey case," says Coffman. "I never asked anyone to send me money....They just spontaneously-all these people who were so desperate to get information and photographs and whatever on the Ramsey case."

Coffman admits that he now accepts retainers from various media outlets in case he finds himself in possession of information they want, but won't say which outlets. "I'd rather retain my freelance independent status," he reasons.

Print this item

  Pilot Archuletta tabloid story
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:41 PM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

From Brill's Content February, 2000

For many reporters, getting the story out ultimately became more important than getting it right. And context was hardly the only element missing. Tabloids such as the Globe, which kept JonBenét on the front page for three years (and counting), fabricated stories outright, says Jeffrey Shapiro, a freelancer who exclusively reported for the Globe from February 28, 1997, to February 11, 1999.

Such a manufactured news bulletin began, Shapiro recalls, over the weekend of August 22, 1998. Shapiro was facing more pressure than usual to find a blockbuster headline. Just a few days before, the National Enquirer had landed the biggest tabloid scoop of recent months: "911 Call Nails Brother in Murder Cover-Up-And It's On Tape," blared the Enquirer.

Shapiro had been a tireless tabloid soldier. He admits that short of paying his sources and breaking the law, he would do anything to live up to his e-mail address: jbsavenger. He pestered people he believed had information; he climbed trees to peek through windows to watch police investigations of the Ramsey home; he even tried to get close to the Ramseys' minister by pretending that he wanted to convert from Judaism to Christianity.

Shapiro defends his tactics even as he betrays his lack of perspective about how big of a deal the Ramsey case is. "Do you believe in undercover journalism?" he asks. "If you were a journalist who knew you had to go undercover to break up a big drug ring that was the cause of death to innocent people or to even solve one of the two mysteries-what is on the missing 18 minutes of Watergate tapes or about the grassy-knoll assassin who shot President Kennedy-would you go undercover? I would. I would in a second," he says with complete earnestness.

Days after the Enquirer's 911 scoop, Shapiro's editor had a big lead for him. Late in the night, on August 22, 1998, Shapiro says, one of his editors, Joe Mullens, called him at home to tell him that Mullens had found a source with the perfect juicy nugget. The lead, Shapiro recalls, was that John Ramsey had handed his pilot, Michael Archuleta, a box potentially filled with evidence, such as the cord used to strangle JonBenét and the tape found covering her mouth. (Mullens referred questions on this topic to the Globe's press representative. So did Tony Frost, the paper's editor. The press representative declined to comment.)

Shapiro says that when his editor filled him in on the details of the tip, he questioned the accuracy of the main source, who turned out to be Archuleta's brother. Apparently, in addition to telling Mullens about Ramsey's having allegedly dropped off the murder weapon at his pilot's home, Archuleta's brother gave Mullens another tip that Shapiro knew was demonstrably incorrect-the details of a conversation Shapiro knew could not have taken place.

Mullens defended his source, Shapiro says, telling the young reporter that although the pilot's brother may have been wrong about the conversation, he was sure about the box delivery. Shapiro says he wasn't convinced.

But Mullens assigned Shapiro to look into the tip anyway, and Shapiro went to stake out Archuleta's house. After waiting for hours, Shapiro called Mullens to inform him that nothing was happening.

Just wait. The police are on their way over to Archuleta's, Shapiro says Mullens told him.

How do you know? Shapiro says he asked.

Because we called the police and told them, so we know they'll be heading over there, Mullens replied, according to Shapiro. Shapiro kept at his post.

Meanwhile, inside the house, Archuleta got a phone call from a Globe editor. According to the pilot, the Globe editor said that Archuleta's brother had told the Globe that John Ramsey had given Archuleta a box of evidence. Would he care to comment? The Globe editor inquired.

Archuleta told the editor that he had been estranged from his brother for about five months. "If you're taking information from my brother, that shows me how stupid you people are," he recalls having told the Globe editor.

Soon after, Archuleta says, an investigator contacted him to tell him that law-enforcement officials were going to come out to his house that night to ask him about information that had just been called in from the Globe. The pilot says he had told the investigator that the police knew from extensive prior interviews that he had not been at the Ramseys' house the morning after the murder. Archuleta says he asked, "Why do you guys chase your tail around every time a Globe reporter calls?" The investigator told Archuleta that they had to follow up every lead, and if the tabloid press wrote that law enforcement had a tip that they didn't look into right away, the police department could get fried in the mainstream papers. (Mark Beckner, chief of the Boulder Police Department, declined to comment while the Ramsey investigation is still active.)

Sure enough, the police arrived at the pilot's house late in the night, Shapiro was there to capture the moment, and the Globe had its headline: "World Exclusive! Cops probe breakthrough charge in Little Beauty murder case...JonBenét: dad caught hiding key evidence. Ramsey hid deathbed sheets, girl's nightie and stuffed animals in box, then gave it to pilot-says source." The article included only one word of Archuleta's comments: "inaccurate."

From the beginning, the story was never based on legitimate sources, according to Shapiro: "They initiated the whole thing...fed it to the police, got the police to react on it so they could write the story."

Print this item

  Playing the odds
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:28 PM - Forum: odds and ends - Replies (1)

I agree with investigators, BORG and IDI, that when a very young child is brutally killed in their own home it will usually be a domestic incident.  After all, how many enemies can a child have and how many intruders really are daring enough to enter a home with a full family on site?

But the fact is, some intruders ARE that daring and are willing to do this kind of horrible crime.

Reviewing Thomas' book today, I came across some interesting statistics on page 33.

In child murders, and this includes ALL child murders, not those limited to the child's home
                         54% of the time the killer will be a family member, it will be a domestic incident.
                           6% of the time, the killer will be a STRANGER
Which means 40% of the time it will not be family but will be someone who knows the victim - like a neighbor or someone from their school or church.

Considering the FACT that there is not a single know case of a parent murdering their child with a garotte, and that we have foreign DNA found mixed with her blood from the sexual assault that took place that night, I think the odds it was either a stranger or (more likely) an acquaintance go up to 99.9%

Print this item

  Steve Thomas' book
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:17 PM - Forum: Footprints in the snow - No Replies

From page 19 - hardcover

Sgt. Reichenback ...."saw no fresh foot impressions, found no open doors or windows, nothing to indicate a break-in, but walking on the driveway and sidewalks left NO VISIBLE PRINTS."  (jameson's emphasis)

Considering both John Fernie and Scott Gibbons saw the door to the butler's kitchen open and unattended early that morning, I have to wonder just how hard Sergeant was looking at the time.  There was at least one open window - deliberately left open to run electrical cords to the Christmas decorations and there was ONE broken window where an intruder could have gotten in.  I think his report would say he didn't notice anything, be shameful if he stated as fact the house was securely locked up.    

But that is not the subject of this thread.  

Point is, even Steve Thomas admits the walks were clear and not covered in snow.

Print this item

  From Brill's Content
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-28-2017, 06:07 PM - Forum: Footprints in the snow - Replies (1)

This is just part of a larger story



On March 10, 1997, Charlie Brennan, a 15-year veteran of the Denver Rocky Mountain News, was sitting at his desk in the newsroom when a colleague tapped him on the shoulder and gave him a tip about the JonBenét Ramsey case. It sounded like a good one, so Brennan, 44, followed up by calling a man Brennan characterizes as a "law-enforcement source."

The source confirmed the information Brennan's colleague had passed along: The police noted in their initial report that there were no footprints in the snow outside the Ramsey home the morning after the murder. This made it unlikely that an intruder had entered the home. Brennan scribbled down notes, made a few more calls, and hunkered down to write his page 4 report:

Police who went to JonBenét Ramsey's home the morning she was reported missing found no footprints in the snow surrounding the house, sources said Monday.

That is one of the earliest details that caused investigators to focus their attention on the slain girl's family, police sources said.

Although there was no significant storm just before police went to the house the morning after Christmas, it had snowed lightly several times from Dec. 23 to 25, weather records show.

Brennan's scoop was as close to a smoking gun as anything publicly known at the time. Until that point, a broken basement window on the south side of their home meant an intruder could have gotten into the house and killed John and Patsy Ramsey's daughter. Now a lack of footprints in the snow indicated otherwise.

Brennan's findings made national headlines, appearing in publications such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the San Francisco Examiner. Even The New York Times reported Brennan's findings. (Those papers' combined readership is 2,519,501.) In all, 23 publications and news programs picked up the report, according to a search on the Lexis-Nexis database.

His No Footprints In The Snow scoop solidified Brennan as an important force on the Ramsey beat. When journalists from national publications began parachuting into Boulder to get their share of the action-such as Vanity Fair's Ann Louise Bardach, and Lawrence Schiller, who had been commissioned by The New Yorker to cover the Ramsey murder-Brennan was the man they called. In fact, when Schiller decided to expand his New Yorker article into a book, he hired Brennan to help with the reporting. (Brennan won't say how much money he made from collaborating on Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. The hardcover and paperback editions both reached best-seller lists.)

Although Brennan was beginning to enjoy the national exposure-The New York Times was reporting his discovery, Larry King Live was calling-his scoop would soon quietly fall apart.

When Daniel Glick heard about Brennan's No Footprints headliner, he thought it was a bombshell. Glick, a former Washington correspondent for Newsweek who now writes for the magazine from Boulder County, even went so far as to say on Larry King Live that if the Ramseys' claims of an intruder were to be believed, the killer must have had the power to "levitate."

But in mid-June 1997, Glick and his writing partner, Sherry Keene-Osborn, both began to question the story's accuracy. Keene-Osborn said she got a call from an "impeccable source" who warned her that much of what ran in the newspapers and magazines (including Newsweek) was flat wrong. Glick says he raised an eyebrow when, while visiting the Ramseys' Boulder house, he noticed that flagstone surrounded its south side.

They started re-reporting Brennan's scoop. Glick says he found a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told him that there was little snowfall and that the temperature had been mostly above freezing in the week prior to the murder. Glick says he then deduced that because there were no leaves on the trees to block the sunshine from reaching the flagstone patio outside the broken window, there probably wasn't any snow on the ground outside the broken window-even though there were patches of snow on the lawn. To confirm, Glick says, he contacted a "frost expert" who told him that scientifically one couldn't even determine whether or when frost would have been on the ground outside the window. In other words, the police notation of "no footprints" was meaningless; it certainly did not rule out the entrance of an intruder.

Glick and Keene-Osborn wrote a story that questioned Brennan's reporting. The article was largely ignored by other print outlets, though Geraldo Rivera mentioned Newsweek's report on Rivera Live and Glick discussed his findings on two episodes of Larry King Live. Given the relatively little play by the media outlets that had so quickly picked up Brennan's No Footprints piece, Glick and Keene-Osborn's piece hardly made a dent in what John and Patsy Ramsey's attorney now calls "the greatest urban legend of the case." In fact, five months after Newsweek disputed Brennan's story, The Washington Post reported that "from the start, circumstances surrounding the crime focused suspicion on the parents....There were no conclusive signs of forced entry at the home and no footprints in the snow that fell that night."

The importance of the No Footprints story, Brennan contends, is not whether there actually were footprints or not. Rather, he says, his report showed the direction in which the police investigation was heading: By noting a lack of footprints (wrongly or rightly), the police were clearly considering the potential guilt of the Ramseys. "What I reported was that police noted in their reports an absence of footprints," says Brennan. "That's not Charlie Brennan saying, 'Hey, there was an absence of footprints.' I'm saying, 'Hey, the police put it in their reports.' And they did! They did! That was never wrong."

But when The New York Times ran its story about Brennan's No Footprints article, the paper didn't play up the aspect of the direction of the police investigation. The Times's headline was "No Sign Of An Intruder At Home Of A Slain Child."

To Glick, Brennan's piece unfairly threw a dark shadow on the Ramseys and forever cast them as the homicidal parents. Again, Brennan disagrees: "The public opinion train was way out of the station by the time that story broke," he asserts.

For many reporters, getting the story out ultimately became more important than getting it right. And context was hardly the only element missing. Tabloids such as the Globe, which kept JonBenét on the front page for three years (and counting), fabricated stories outright, says Jeffrey Shapiro, a freelancer who exclusively reported for the Globe from February 28, 1997, to February 11, 1999.

Print this item

  Shall Be The Conqueror
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-27-2017, 03:48 PM - Forum: SBTC - No Replies

John Mark Karr once used these words when writing in a classmate's yearbook.

Since I have never liked him as a suspect I will only say he was cleared by DNA and never could prove he was in Colorado at the time in question.

Print this item