The Unusual Suspect
Thursday, February 19, 1998 at 4 a.m.
By Steve Jackson
A year ago, Boulder police chief Tom Koby faced the cameras and promised that "our guy won't walk."
A A
Facebook
0
Twitter
0
More shares
0
0
Print Article
Since then, of course, the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation has limped along. Thus far, the only arrests remotely related to the case have been that of a friend of the Ramseys who went after alleged reporters with a baseball bat; a "performance artist" who stole the morgue page referring to JonBenet and later set fire to the Ramseys' mailbox; and a former deputy sheriff and a photo-processing technician who leaked photos of the dead girl to the Globe.
While an arrest has yet to be made for JonBenet's murder, however, people touched by the crime have already gone to court to see that justice is done--at least for them.
There's no statute of limitations on murder--but there is on libel.
Last Wednesday, a Louisiana beauty pageant director filed suit against the West Monroe, Louisiana, police and assorted broadcast outlets--including American Journal, Inside Edition and Hard Copy--for linking him to the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. The fact that he'd been charged with indecent behavior with juveniles--he'd reportedly shown porn videos to two teens--was no reason to connect him with JonBenet's death, David Haynes said.
Upcoming Events
Colorado Rockies vs. Washington Nationals
Tickets
Mon., Apr. 24, 6:40pm
Colorado Rockies vs. Arizona Diamondbacks
Tickets
Fri., May. 5, 6:40pm
Colorado Rockies vs. St. Louis Cardinals
Tickets
Fri., May. 26, 6:40pm
Colorado Rockies vs. Seattle Mariners
Tickets
Mon., May. 29, 1:10pm
The week before, Boulder police detective Linda Arndt had sued her employer, claiming, among other things, that the Boulder Police Department's treatment of her resulted in defaming statements being broadcast on talk radio. Arndt's $150,000 suit contends that a department gag order prevented her from defending herself--and that Chief Koby did nothing to stop the defamation. (The City of Boulder has already settled a suit filed by Sergeant Larry Mason, who sued after he was removed from the Ramsey investigation and accused of leaking information to the press.)
At least no one's accused Arndt of murdering JonBenet. The day before Arndt went to court, possibly the most unusual suspect to surface--yet--filed his own suit in Boulder District Court. On February 3, Stephen Miles, a 49-year-old Boulder photographer, filed a defamation case against the National Enquirer, two of its reporters and John Ramsey. The October 21, 1997, issue of the tabloid had trumpeted a "JonBenet bombshell" on its front page: "Dad: We Know Who Did It." Below a pouty-lipped photograph of JonBenet was a picture of Miles, along with the promise of an "exclusive interview with man Ramseys say killed JonBenet."
Enquirer reporters John South and David Wright started their story with this: "John and Patsy Ramsey expect to be arrested for the murder of their daughter, but they already have their defense strategy in place--pointing at a man they'll claim is the intruder who killed JonBenet. 'John and Patsy will claim that the real killer is a neighbor, Stephen Miles, who was once arrested and accused of a sex offense against a minor,' a source close to the couple revealed."
But another anonymous source, this one close to the Ramsey team of lawyers, denies that John Ramsey ever made such an accusation. "Over the course of time, if you look at who we've let interview John, we've been pretty damn careful," says the source. "Now I ask you: Are we going to let him go talk willy-nilly to some fucking dog biscuit at the National Enquirer?"
Nor did John Ramsey make the accusation to anyone who might have repeated it to the Enquirer, the source says.
Lee Hill, Miles's attorney and a former Boulder city council candidate (on an anti-Koby platform), counters with this: "What we know is that the Enquirer published a story saying that John Ramsey said Steve Miles killed their daughter. If John Ramsey never said that, then this is a great opportunity for him to prove that and join us in going after the Enquirer.
"This lawsuit is not an inquisition," he adds. "It's an attempt to develop the truth."
That's something that's always been in short supply in the Ramsey case.
Early in the morning the day after Christmas 1996, Patsy Ramsey made an emergency call to 911. Her six-year-old daughter was missing, and she'd found a ransom note. The supposed kidnappers wanted $118,000 and were threatening to cut off the girl's head.
Arndt was one of the first cops on the scene. Early that afternoon, she reportedly allowed John Ramsey to search the house; he found JonBenet's body in the basement. An autopsy revealed that the girl had been strangled, her skull fractured. It was possible that she'd been sexually assaulted.
Tiny beauty queen. Rich parents. Perverted murder. It had all the trappings to become the true-crime story of the decade (post-O.J.). The Globe and Enquirer raced to see who could turn up the most lurid details and make the most inflammatory accusations, and the rest of the press followed like puppies.
As the BPD investigation bogged down, the DA's office brought in retired detective Lou Smit as a special investigator. Although the cops considered the Ramseys their prime suspects, Smit pursued the theory that an intruder had broken into the Ramsey home, stolen the girl from her bed, killed her in the basement, then taken the time to write a lengthy ransom note on a legal pad found in the home.
That's when word leaked out that the Boulder police were checking out child sex offenders. (Convicted sex offenders must register with the police when they take up residence after release from prison.) The cops had plenty to choose from: There are 71 registered child sex offenders in Boulder and another 30 in Boulder County.
But Miles, who lives with his 89-year-old mother six blocks from the Ramsey house, is not a convicted child sex offender. He has been arrested before--but for possessing photographs of teenage boys. So why go after him for the murder of a six-year-old girl?
Miles was working in the garden last October when next-door neighbor Judith Phillips came rushing over. Phillips, a photographer herself and a former friend of the Ramseys, was breathless, he says.
"She said, 'You need to come over to my house right away. It's extremely important...use the side door,'" Miles recalls. "She put her hands on my shoulders and said, 'Trust me.'"
Miles did as he was asked. Phillips led him into her darkened living room, he says, where she introduced him to a man named John South.
South told him he worked for the Enquirer. "He said, 'We've learned that the Ramsey camp is targeting you as the killer of JonBenet,'" recalls Miles, imitating South's British accent. "He said, 'They want to confuse the issue and take attention away from themselves. Can you think of any reason why they would choose you?'"
Miles told the Enquirer reporter that he had several drug arrests, the last in the late 1980s, on his record, and that he'd also been arrested for sexual exploitation of a child in 1989.
That year the Boulder police raided Miles's home and seized a number of photographs of teenage boys in various stages of undress. Because there were three copies of one particular photograph, it was considered to have been taken for commercial purposes, netting Miles the exploitation charge.
However, that photograph was of Peter Hale, a friend of Miles's and, more important, a male then seventeen years old--and therefore above the age of consent.
Like the other photographs, the Hale picture was fairly modest. "Michelangelo's sculpture of David is more revealing," notes Hill, Miles's attorney. The photograph has since appeared in several mainstream photography magazines.
The exploitation charge was dropped; however, Miles pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, for supplying beer to an underage drinker. As part of the deal, he was told to report to a monastery in Pecos, New Mexico, that bills itself as a retreat/counseling center for "wounded healers," where his brother was the abbott for counseling.
Miles's therapy was geared to helping him develop "more age-appropriate relationships." He also was told to stay away from minor children and from Penny Lane, a Boulder coffeeshop/ poetry venue then known as a hangout for the young and disenfranchised.
Now here was the Enquirer's South, asking if Miles had noticed anything strange in the past few days. As a matter of fact, Miles told him, someone had stolen every bit of his trash that week, and a camper had been parked across the street for two days.
After South warned him that "this is quite serious," Miles says he assumed the theft of his trash and the camper's presence confirmed that the Ramseys were after him. South told him he had a plan. "Your story will prove they are barking up the wrong tree," Miles remembers him saying.
"Now I wonder if it wasn't the National Enquirer going through my trash, and their camper," Miles says.
The next day Phillips asked Miles to come over again--this time to take his picture for the story. At first, Miles says, Phillips said she wanted to photograph him in his garden, of which he is exceedingly proud. But then she asked him to put his hands behind his head and snapped the shot when he was unprepared.
It was that photograph of a harassed-looking Miles that ran on the front page of the Enquirer a week later.
The photograph of Miles was published again inside, along with a full-page story. "I can't believe this nightmare is happening to me," Miles was quoted as saying. "Why are they doing this to me? Are John and Patsy so cold-blooded as to try to make me the fall guy to save their own skins?"
The article intimated that Miles knew he was on a "list of pedophile sex offenders living in Boulder." But Miles takes issue with that. "I am not a pedophile," he says. "I am gay, openly gay, and have been for years. I never said that I knew I was on a list or that the Boulder police were looking at me."
And that list can't be the registration that the police are required to keep, since Miles isn't a convicted child sex offender.
In fact, the first contact Miles had with the Boulder police regarding the Ramsey case was three weeks ago, after his lawsuit against the Ramseys and the Enquirer was filed. "My lawyer asked if I was on any sort of list, and the detective said no," Miles says. "They just asked me where I was that night, and I told them with my mom. We had Christmas dinner with relatives and then we went home...They said, 'Sorry for the inconvenience.'" But they also asked for a handwriting sample, a mouth swab and a palm print, Miles adds.
Miles also disputes the magazine's characterization of him as a drug addict. "I consider myself a recovered drug addict," he says. "I do take methadone. It's a prescription I have for pain. I have lupus and some other health problems for which I need pain medication. But I don't take it to get high."
His mother is also in bad health, and the article was hard on her. But South approached him again, Miles says, and told him, "'I know you and your mom are going through hard times' and handed me $200. He then gave me a little piece of paper to sign saying I'd received the money." Miles says he took the cash and signed.
Soon after, Miles says, South and his fellow writer, David Wright, showed up at his house. This time Wright fanned "twenty crisp $100 bills in my face," Miles recalls. "He said, 'I know that you're a little unhappy about the story, but we'd like you to sign a contract giving exclusivity...I know you and your mom can use the money.'
"He said they'd write another story 'cleaning me up' and I'd get another $2,000."
As Wright spoke, Miles says, South stood at his side whispering, "'Take the money. Take the money.' I felt like I had a little devil on my shoulder."
The money was tempting, Miles says; between his and his mother's medical bills, they have difficulty paying the mortgage. He asked for time to read the contract; they gave him half an hour. In addition to the exclusivity clause, the Enquirer wanted him to sign that the first story, including the quotes attributed to him, was accurate and that he knew that he was on a pedophile list.
Miles turned the deal down.
Soon after, a producer from Hard Copy called and asked Miles to appear on the show. He did, and was paid an amount he won't disclose, but he says on TV he got the chance to tell the truth about the Enquirer allegations.
Of all the allegations in the Enquirer piece, the one that bothers Miles most, he says, is that he's a pedophile--defined as someone who attempts sexual contact with a prepubescent child.
The pedophile label dredged up old suspicions against Miles in Boulder. Part of that sentiment, Miles believes, can be traced to his friendship with Beat poet Allen Ginsberg. Miles often photographed Ginsberg, who encouraged him to publish a photography book he had assembled of male figure studies.
One of the founders of the Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics at the Naropa Institute, Ginsberg caused consternation several years back when he came out in support of the North American-Boy Love Association. Ginsberg, who was gay, publicly defended his position as supporting NAMBLA's right to free speech. He wasn't so circumspect with friends.
Hill, Miles's attorney, also describes the poet as a "dear friend." Hill was one of Ginsberg's writing apprentices at Naropa in the late 1970s and was on a panel with him when the poet described himself as a pedophile.
"It was abhorrent to me," Hill says. And that's why, he adds, he wouldn't be working for Miles if he believed that his client was a pedophile.
Although Miles is openly gay, he says he's never attempted to develop a relationship with anyone below the age of consent. "Sometimes gay kids have come to me to talk about what they're going through," he says. "My house has been a place for kids to hang out who have nowhere else to go. And yes, there have been some parties."
And while he concedes that he's sometimes attracted to the young males he photographs, he says he doesn't break the rules. "I've been asked by parents here, including people in the mental-health field, to take photographs of their sons," he says. "They know I'm gay, and they know about my arrest, but they're comfortable with me being around their sons. I am not some predator...I just sometimes relate better to younger people. I consider them my peers."
The Enquirer story damaged the way of life he'd worked to rebuild since his 1989 arrest, Miles says. And while he understands that no one is above suspicion in Boulder, he wonders why the magazine focused on him--particularly since there's no indication he's ever been interested in females of any age. (The Enquirer reporters did not return calls to their Boulder office. Phillips did not return Westword's call, either.)
The Ramsey legal team source says he didn't even recognize Miles's name when he saw the tabloid story. He wouldn't put it past the Enquirer to make up the "source close to the couple" in order to get Miles to jump through the hoop, he adds.
"I know Stephen Miles," says former Enquirer reporter Joe Mullins, who now covers the Ramsey case for the Globe, "and I don't believe he could hurt anyone and don't believe that anyone ever really considered him a suspect."
Hill agrees. "If you knew Steve, who's really very meek and not in the greatest health, you'd wonder why they ever chose him," Hill says. "To tell you the truth, JonBenet would have kicked Steve's ass."
Posting the transcript here to show how twisted the stories got - misleading, sometimes out and out lies - - and people interpreting the information in many ways. Interesting how things would have been different if Steve Thomas was in charge and they were in California.
Rivera Live Transcript on August 21, 1998
ENHANCED 911 TAPE REVEALING BURKE RAMSEY SPEAKING IN THE BACKGROUND, WHEN HIS PARENTS SAID HE WAS UPSTAIRS SLEEPING
Page 17 of transcript:
Mr. SHEA: Sure. Thank you.
CLARK: We're gonna take a break here, and when we return, the latest in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. New reports say that during Patsy Ramsey's hysterical 911 call to the police, John Ramsey is heard telling his young son, "Go Back to Bed." We'll be right back.
MARCIA CLARK, host:
There's news on two fronts in the JonBenet Ramsey case this week. First, there's surprising information about the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey made to police to report her daughter missing. Although the Ramseys told investigators that their son Burke, then 10 years old, was asleep when the call was made, a transcript of the 911 conversation apparently shows otherwise. According to the National Enquirer, which broke the story and other published reports, Burke can be heard speaking in a newly enhanced version of the audiotape.
After Patsy Ramsey screams, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' Burke reportedly says, 'Please, what do I do?' According to the reports, John Ramsey then says in a supposedly angry voice, 'It's none of your business. Go back to bed. We're not speaking to you,' or words to that effect. Patsy's again heard screaming, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' after which Burke clearly says, 'But what did you find?' Additionally, the Enquirer reports that, according to a source, Burke Ramsey recently told authorities he heard some kind of noises around the time his little sister was murdered. The paper quotes the source as saying, quote, "Detectives are convinced Burke saw or heard something that could crack this case," end quote.
Meanwhile, former close friends of John Ramsey have written an extraordinary 15-page letter asking that the people of Colorado should demand that the state's attorney general take over the case.
NBC's Leanne Gregg reports on this plea for the removal of the Bouldy--Boulder County district attorney.
LEANNE GREGG reporting:
Fleet White, a former friend of John Ramsey's and one of the pallbearers at JonBenet's funeral, in a scathing letter, accuses Boulder's district attorney, Alex Hunter, of having no intention of ever seeking an indictment. White was with John Ramsey when he found JonBenet's body in the basement of their home 20 months ago. White addressed the letter, acquired by The Denver Post, to the people of Colorado, asking them to demand that the state's governor immediately order the attorney general to take over the investigation.
Governor ROY ROMER (Democrat, Colorado): Let--let me make one last comment before you turn...
GREGG: Earlier this month, Governor Roy Romer, on the advice of four Denver area district attorneys, decided against replacing Hunter with a special prosecutor.
Gov. ROMER: I have concluded that it is not proper to appoint a special prosecutor because it would impair this investigation.
GREGG: Instead, Romer said the case is on track for a grand jury. In his letter, White accused Hunter of using the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect his career.
Unidentified Woman: (From video) Number 16, JonBenet.
GREGG: Frustrations over the lack of resolution of the case prompted White last December to ask the governor to appoint a special prosecutor. The governor declined. This latest plea is not likely to change his mind.
Within the next few weeks, Hunter is expected to appoint additional experts to help with the case.
He won't say when or where the grand jury will begin its part of the investigation. Leanne Gregg, NBC News, Denver.
Page 18 of transcript:
CLARK: Civil and criminal attorney--trial lawyer Craig Silverman now joins us in Denver. Craig served formerly as a chief deputy district attorney there.
Craig, I--I'm--I'm dying to know what you think is--of--of the current request that's on the table now, for the second time, that Alex Hunter be removed in favor of the attorney general. What do y--do you think it's likely to succeed? Do you think it should?
Mr. CRAIG SILVERMAN (Civil and Criminal Attorney, Former Prosecutor): N--no, it's not going to succeed. In fact, Governor Romer has already turned down Fleet White. But let's remember who Fleet White is. He's a star witness in this case, as is his wife, who also authored that letter. They have turned against this prosecutor. This follows Steve Thomas, lead investigator, putting down Alex Hunter. They're both requesting a special prosecutor and it--it casts a shadow over the case.
CLARK: Well, yeah, I mean, I understand that it does, except that--don't you think that there may be some merit to it? There's been no movement, and even since--it's been a while even since there was an announcement that there would be a grand jury investigation. That hasn't even begun.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Right. It's an interesting situation. And he points at--toward Governor Romer; he says, 'There's sort of a vast left-wing conspiracy here.' I think he overcharges, but he makes good, valid points: Alex Hunter, the Democrat DA in Boulder, being helped by an--a bunch of other established Democrats, and we've seen how people band together on partisan lines. Hopefully, that would not occur in a murder case, but it may be a matter of philosophy as much as politics.
CLARK: You know, but, Craig, I understand that Alex Hunter also hasn't had a whole lot of experience with high-profile cases, let alone with homicides. I understand--I--I've heard that he hasn't even had--tried one in his career. Maybe it is a good thing to get someone else in to run--guide the ship.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, what they're talking about now is bringing in a special deputy, somebody who will actually take charge of the case. Hopefully, it'll be somebody who's insulated from these political accusations...
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: ...'cause when you look at Fleet White, you have to ask yourself: What is this man's motivation? And you can't come up with anything other than justice for JonBenet.
CLARK: Yeah, that's really true. That's--his netter--letter was very impressive to me, as was the detective's letter, the one who just retired. And I think that after Fleet White's letter--even though that's been turned down again by Governor Romer, there's probably going to be another and yet another.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Right.
CLARK: So hopefully, that will be resolved. We're gonna go to break here, Craig.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Sure.
CLARK: When we come back, we're--all of us left here, Paul Rothstein and Howard Price, will join us discussing the significance of this newly enhanced 911 tape. Stick around, folks. We'll be right back.
(Announcements)
CLARK: One of the most horrible parts about discussing this case is having to see those clips over and over again. They are so painful. The n--this latest story about the 911 tape that has been enhanced, assuming that it's been properly enhanced and--and there's been no funny business with it, that reveals the son's voice wh--at a time
Page 19 of transcript:
when the parents insist that he had been sleeping, what--what--let's play out the significance. Howard, what do you think? You've had a lot of high-profile murders.
Mr. HOWARD PRICE (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, one, forgive my inherent skepticism, but this tape has been in their possession since day one. If there was background noise, which is what causes the enhancement, I would think it would've been enhanced a long time ago.
Mr. SILVERMAN: No.
Mr. PRICE: And, if indeed...
Mr. SILVERMAN: No, no, no.
Mr. PRICE: Well, pardon me. Maybe you're right. But indeed, if the words are as the audiologist determines them to be, clearly this is as close to a smoking gun as you're gonna get in this case.
CLARK: Mm-hmm. Maybe makes it fileable. Craig, why are you saying, 'No, no, no'?
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm--I'm saying that right here it is a very significant fact. But let's look at this situation. The DA has known about this for some time, yet he still can't pull the trigger. But we now better understand why the Ramseys are under an umbrella of suspicion.
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: As you so well know, Marcia, lies reveal so much about the truth.
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: It's the topic earlier.
Professor PAUL ROTHSTEIN (Law Professor, Georgetown University): But I think wor...
Mr. SILVERMAN: People lie--people lie for a reason, and if this is a Ramsey family lie to say that Burke was not there...
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and apparently, Burke stuck with that story--that's very revealing...
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and it really throws aside any intruder theory. It does not necessarily then bring us to the point where we can say which Ramsey did what. That's the critical determination.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, I think we're overestimating--Marcia...
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...I think we're overestimating the importance of this. Yes, it might be significant, but it might just be parents trying to protect their young son from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police and having publicity surround him.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein...
Page 20 of transcript::
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: So they did--they did lie. Now it could--it could also mean that Burke had a role or that he heard or saw something between the parents that showed that they had a role, but--but we're jumping to conclusions here.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Come on. You--you really...
CLARK: Are we really, Paul? Do you have--yeah, go ahead, Craig.
Mr. SILVERMAN: You have to ask yourself this question: Why would the family--the immediate family of this beautiful little girl lie about anything to the police? They're not going to do it.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, but it--to protect your son. It's the living son. They've lost a daughter. This is the living son.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Protect him from what? Has he been protected?
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Protect him from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, h--he's already been questioned.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...about the death of his--about the death--about the death of his sister.
Mr. SILVERMAN: At the time it--at the time this was first said, it was a kidnapping, and maybe the son had some clues. If the parents said, 'No, he didn't witness anything'...
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, they thought they'd question him--they thought they'd question him and see if he had some clues.
Mr. SILVERMAN: No, they s...
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Now I do admit the other fact is significant that friends--friends and neighbors are now suspicious.
CLARK: Wait, hang--hang on for a second, Paul. Hang onto the other fact.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Yeah. Yeah.
CLARK: Howard, you're shaking your head. Why?
Mr. PRICE: Well, I--well, I--I--I--Mr. Silverman knows this case 'cause he's monitoring. Maybe he can address the point a little bit further. Why is this just now coming to light?
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, because some things don't leak that fast. But beware of the false clue. According to the story, Patsy Ramsey unintentionally left the phone off the hook. If they shift blame toward Burke, Burke was one month shy of his 10th birthday. That's the age of culpability in Colorado, and he could not be charged with a doggone thing.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, this is bizarre. This is bizarre...
CLARK: Really.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm telling you that...
Page 21 of transcript:
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...to--to--that they're planting clues to implicate their own son...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein--no, no.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...planting clues to implicate their own son, that's bizarre.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein, whoever committed...
CLARK: Not to mention, Craig--let--let me ask you mo...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Whoever committed this crime staged the scene. Gregg McCrary and others have told you that. They are leaving false clues to hide who the killer is.
CLARK: Well, sure, like the ransom note.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Right, exactly.
CLARK: The ransom note, I--I can definitely see that as a false clue that's being left, but nevertheless...
Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying this is a false clue.
CLARK: Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that a 10-year-old child would've been capable--physically capable of constructing the kind of torqu--torquing device...
Mr. SILVERMAN: No way.
CLARK: ...that was used to kill...
Mr. SILVERMAN: No way am I...
CLARK: ...to strangle JonBenet and is capable of inflicting the kind of damage...
Mr. SILVERMAN: No...
CLARK: ...to her skull the way it was fractured?
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, th--is the--the first...
CLARK: You're telling me that a 10-year-old boy could do that?
Mr. SILVERMAN: I don't think so. I don't think he could do the garroting. He certainly could not write the ransom note. But it--to the extent--we have seen--we have se...
CLARK: Well, no, I mean, theoret--if you--if we accept your theory--if we accept your theory that they're trying to protect their son, then they would've written the ransom note to deflect, I suppose, the blame, but...
Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm saying just--I'm not saying it--I'm not saying...
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: There are things that point--there are things that point to the parents here. There are things that point to the parents, but this ain't one of them. I mean, this is stringing--yeah.
Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying...
Page 22 of transcript:
CLARK: Oh, you don't think it do--Paul, don't you think it--as--as Howard points out...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Oh, come on.
CLARK: ...don't you think it takes it out of the realm of being an intruder at all? I think it
confines it...
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: No.
CLARK: ...more than likely to the people inside that house.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, listen. I think if something horrible like that happened in my house and I had a little child, a 10-year-old, I--I might not want to expose them to the full glare of publicity...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well...
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...and have--and--and have the police questioning the guy. That's a traumatic experience about death of his sister.
CLARK: Well, Howard, what do you think of that?
Mr. PRICE: Well, I--I--I...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Wouldn't you want the truth to get out?
CLARK: Howard...
Mr. PRICE: Listen, I haven't heard the--I haven't heard the tape, but it seems to me you wouldn't have expressed the professor's sentiments in the way that we're told that these sentiments are being expressed.
CLARK: Mm-hmm.
Mr. PRICE: It just sounds to me to be very incriminating evidence. Seems to me that had they had this evidence, which I assume that they might have--and I have some doubt about this evidence to start with. But putting that aside...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Why?
Mr. PRICE: ...I can't believe--I can't believe that this has not been acted upon by the
authorities a long time ago.
CLARK: Well, at least it--it almost sounds to me like it becomes a fileable case with this if the tone of voice is being accurately depicted.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, who do you f--who do you file against, Marcia? Which Ramsey? Which Ramsey did what?
CLARK: Well, I c--oh, I don't know about--see, I don't know about Denver, I don't know about Colorado...
Mr. SILVERMAN: See, it--it...
CLARK: ...but I know in California you can charge them both and let the jury sort it out.
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, let me--in Colorado there's a big difference between being an accomplice and being an accessory. And that's what the prosecution's probably figuring...
Page 23 of transcript:
CLARK: You can't charge them both with both crimes and let the jury sort it out? You can here.
Prof. ROTHSTEIN: It's...
Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a heck of a thing to charge somebody with first-degree murder.
CLARK: Oh, we gotta go, Craig. Sorry to cut you off. Thanks, everybody, for being our guests. Brian Williams up next on CNBC.
Transcript Testimony of John Fernie Colorado vs Thomas C. Miller trial
June 13, 2001
John Fernie and his wife, Barbara were called by Patsy Ramsey the morning of December 26, 1996 shortly after Patsy called 911 to report JonBenet Ramsey had been kidnapped. Three and a half years later, John Fernie was subpoenead to testify in the trial of the State of Colorado vs Thomas C. Miller, who was accused of conspiring to help Craig Lewis purchase a copy of the ransom note for $30,000 for the Globe.
John Fernie, "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."
John Fernie: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."
John Fernie: "Fleet and Priscilla White were there when I arrived. And my wife came shortly thereafter. And our -- Overstock, our priest, came afterwards as well."
John Fernie: "My recollection is that later in the day, when we were waiting for phone calls from the supposed kidnappers, we were sitting in the back room with a detective and trying to figure out what the note meant. And there was a copy of the note. I don't know if it was the note, or a copy of the note, actually."
During the testimony, John Fernie stated he was not given a copy of the note.
1999-06-07: From The "Patricia Letter Writer" Collection[/font][/size][/b][/font][/size][/url]
[/color][/size]
1999-06-07: E-Mail from Jim Tipson (http://www.find-a-grave.com) to Cheesy
(Cheesy was the "Woman from Wisconsin" mentioned in DOI Page 310)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:24:17 -0600
To: "Cheesy aka Patti"
From: Jim Tipton
Subject: Re: me again....
"So, kind sir, if you would answer these questions, I would be eternally grateful ( I thought that was an appropriate term to use ....eternally...get it?)"
um...yes, i get it...and i dont' much mind if you ARE a cop...at his point, i'm ready to turn the whole thing over to the FBI/Boulder Police, just in case this person is involved...
"Where the photos cropped by you?"
I honestly can't remember, but i bet they were...i crop probably 95% of all photos that are sent to me...throwing away the originals...so, yes, i imagine they were cropped by me...
"Were there any other photos sent to you that you did not post on the site?"
again...from a fuzzy recollection, i believe i posted all of the photos the person sent me...as noted before, she/he had VERY specific details about what captions went with what photos...and then after i posted them, she/he thought something was wrong, but it turned out it was just their monitor or something and then they thanked me for the 'beautiful' job i did in posting the photos...i posted all of the 'captions' as they were sent to me and i believe i posted all of the photos as well...
"do you recall when these photos were sent to you?"
Late october of 98...7 PM MST on October 29, 1998 to be specific...from the email: ramsey080690@hotmail.com The address: ramsey@nym.alias.net was also signed at the bottom of the message...
"Thank you so much, if I happen to become rich and famous over this, I will be sure to plug your
website every chance I get."
I would hope so!
thanks agnd good luck,
jim
1999-11-11: From The "Patricia Letter Writer" Collection
Ramsey From Ramsey Thu Nov 11 13:12:41 1999
X-Apparently-To: gsquared100@yahoo.com via mdd502.mail.yahoo.com
Received: from nym.alias.net (18.26.0.252)
by mta105.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 1999 21:12:45 -0000
Date: 11 Nov 1999 21:12:41 -0000
Message-ID: <19991111211241.20408.qmail@nym.alias.net>
From: Ramsey
To: gsquared100@yahoo.com
Subject: My Friend Gail
Content-Length: 2968
Dearest Gail,
I want to thank you for your support and patient attentiveness to my past mails to you. Your insight into the man in mine and JonBenet's life; (now in her death), was very accurate. Once my foe, you turned into a wonderful friend. I will never forget how most every mail of yours ended with the gracious words, "How can I help you?". You will never know what those sweet words of help meant to me. I am sure you will remain good friends with people whom I respect and know as some of the world's finest journalists. Your intelligent insight coupled with your caring spirit, has brought me through this sea of confusion. I thank you, Gail - for everything.
It is with heavy heart that I come to you with the following unfortunate news - I must leave you now. For security reasons, the ramsey@nym.alias.net address will continue to exist to avoid sabotage through possible takeovers of the account; however, I will not have access to the account after tonight. Therefore, if you send messages to the Ramsey address, you will not be sending mail to me. Please be assured that I am in no present danger. Due to the overwhelming nature of this situation, and the fact that I have exhausted all my efforts; I have decided that I must let John, our investigators, and attorneys handle this situation in the way they see fit.
I am so sorry if I have done anything to confuse you or cause you to have any reservations about me. I am also very sorry that I cannot, at this time, discuss the things I shared with you here, via telephone or mail directed to my 4*** Paces Ferry Road address; the residence of my sister Pam; the Davis residence; or my parent's residence. Furthermore, I cannot discuss the things I shared with you here via any calls made to 404-262-**** or any of my cellular phone numbers. I need to talk to my husband about this before I meet with anyone and discuss this matter in front of him. I have not told him about this man. Our wedding anniversary is just days away - it would be the worse time to bring something of this magnitude up now.
I promise you that I am conscientously making every effort to find a way we can communicate past this closure. There will come an appropriate time when we can communicate via phone and mail - that time is not now.
I thank you for listening to me. I am richer from knowing you in this short amount of time. I will assure you that my husband, our investigators, and our attorneys will do everything possible to make sure justice is served. I hope soon to talk to the authorities personally. Until then, the previously mentioned people in my life will pursue truth and justice.
May God bless you. Until we meet again, you will be in my prayers. I will also pray that our separation will be a brief one. I feel confident that we will be back together in a very short time. Please remember my family in your prayers.
In Loving Gratitude,
Patricia Ramsey
1999-11-11: From The "Patricia Letter Writer" Collection
-----Original Message-----
From: AXD
To: cheesy21@email.com
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 03:19 PM
Subject: My Dearest Patti
Dearest Patti,
Patti, I will never forget what you have done for me. I will never forget the untold hours you have spent talking to me; helping me through this grief; showing concern when you felt I was in danger. I will never forget your faith in me when the world seemed to believe me guilty of this horrible crime. I will never forget your understanding responses when my heart was so full of grief over the loss of my baby. You have been like a sister to me. I know, someday, I will meet the woman who has shown my entire family such loyalty; such support. You pledged your faith in me during my darkest hours. Though I know more dark hours will follow, I am thankful that I had your friendship to help carry me through the ones I have survived thus far. My dearest Patti, words cannot describe what you have meant to me.
It is with heavy heart that I come to you with the following unfortunate news - I must leave you now. For security reasons, the ramsey@nym.alias.net address will continue to exist to avoid sabotage through possible takeovers of the account; however, I will not have access to the account after tonight. Therefore, if you send messages to the Ramsey address, you will not be sending mail to me. Please be assured that I am in no present danger. Due to the overwhelming nature of this situation, and the fact that I have exhausted all my efforts; I have decided that I must let John, our investigators, and attorneys handle this situation in the way they see fit.
I am so sorry if I have done anything to confuse you or cause you to have any reservations about me. I am also very sorry that I cannot, at this time, discuss the things I shared with you here, via telephone or mail directed to my 4*** Paces Ferry Road address; the residence of my sister Pam; the Davis residence; or my parent's residence. Furthermore, I cannot discuss the things I shared with you here via any calls made to 404-262-**** or any of my cellular phone numbers. I need to talk to my husband about this before I meet with anyone and discuss this matter in front of him. I have not told him about this man. Our wedding anniversary is just days away - it would be the worse time to bring something of this magnitude up now.
I promise you that I am conscientously making every effort to find a way we can communicate past this closure. There will come an appropriate time when we can communicate via phone and mail - that time is not now.
I thank you for listening to me. I am richer from knowing you in this short amount of time. I will assure you that my husband, our investigators, and our attorneys will do everything possible to make sure justice is served. I hope soon to talk to the authorities personally. Until then, the previously mentioned people in my life will pursue truth and justice.
May God bless you. Until we meet again, you will be in my prayers. I will also pray that our separation will be a brief one. I feel confident that we will be back together in a very short time. Please remember my family in your prayers.
This article is from October...October...kind of recent.. Still good article to read! Mary Lacy
Ex-DA on Why She Cleared the Ramsey Family of JonBenet's Murder
By CAROL MCKINLEY
Oct 28, 2016, 8:55
Mary Lacy was one of a team of four who walked through the home of JonBenet Ramseyjust days after the 6-year-old beauty contestant was discovered dead in the house's basement in Boulder, Colorado, on Dec. 26, 1996.
Just around the corner from JonBenet's room on the second floor, an indentation in the carpet was spotted and chills ran down her spine, she told ABC News. "It was a butt print. We all saw it. The entire area was undisturbed except for that place in the rug," Lacy, who was then the chief deputy district attorney heading up the Sexual Assault Unit under Boulder County DA Alex Hunter, said. "Whoever did this sat outside of her room and waited until everyone was asleep to kill her."
The apparent presence of that indentation went on to help form a theory that Lacy believes to this day.
The morning after Christmas in 1996, JonBenet was reported missing by her parents after they said a ransom note was found in their home. Her body bound and her mouth covered with duct tape, JonBenet was later discovered in the basement. An autopsy concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation. The coroner's report stated that a blunt object had hit her so hard, there was an 8-inch fracture to her tiny skull. The report also showed some damage to JonBenet's hymen, indicating possible sexual assault.
John and Patsy Ramsey, as well as JonBenet's brother, Burke Ramsey, were the only other people known to be in the house at the time of the slaying, and for years after her death, they were each trailed by a cloud of suspicion. John and Patsy Ramsey were at one point considered persons of interest in the case by authorities.
But in 2008, Lacy -- who by then had been named Boulder County DA and taken over the investigation -- surprised even some of the most seasoned of her fellow prosecutors by exonerating the family.
Now, for the first time in eight years, the former prosecutor is speaking out to ABC News about her decision to clear the Ramsey family as her exoneration letter has now come under scrutiny following a joint investigation by theBoulder Daily Camera and Denver's KUSA-TV/9News.
'Trying to Prevent a Horrible Travesty of Justice'
Former Adams County DA Bob Grant, one of a number of consultants on the case brought in early on by the Boulder County DA at the time, Hunter, told ABC News he was confounded by Lacy's 2008 decision. "This is craziness," he said. "This is not what prosecutors do. If prosecutors are going to exonerate someone they do it by charging someone else."
But Lacy didn't charge anyone else in the murder. Instead, armed with newly discovered DNA evidence found on JonBenet's long johns that Lacy said she believes belongs to JonBenet's unknown murderer, she sent the Ramseys a letter of apology. It read, in part, "to the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry." The letter made international news.
The DNA evidence was discovered after Lacy sent the long johns to Bode Cellmark Forensics to be tested for touch DNA. She had attended a seminar in the summer of 2007 that explained the relatively new process. She felt it could advance the seemingly stalled case, she said.
Some Boulder Police Department detectives who had long worked on the investigation and still considered the Ramseys persons of interests were furious.
"Here’s what I was doing with the exoneration letter," Lacy explained. "I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice. I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track."
In the 2008 letter, Lacy hung her hat on newly discovered touch DNA found on JonBenet's long johns, which she said was found to belong to an unknown male. Lacy argued that this unknown male DNA matched DNA found in two spots of blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. The unknown male DNA, reasoned Lacy, was the smoking gun that pointed to JonBenet's killer and that killer was not anyone in her family. Family members and 200 other potential suspects were excluded from the unknown male DNA found on the panties and long johns, she said.
Lacy's theory? When the Ramseys left to have Christmas night dinner with friends, they left the front door unlocked, and a male intruder simply walked inside and waited for hours for the family to come home. During that time, Lacy believes, he wrote the rambling two-and-a-half page ransom note.
That note referenced several lines from movies. "The Boulder police should have checked all of the video stores to see who was renting those movies and they never did," said Lacy.
However, the Boulder Daily Camera's investigation published Thursday found the DNA results in the Bode report are not necessarily as clear cut as Lacy concluded they were. According to the Daily Camera, they showed the Bode report to independent experts who say that the DNA samples from both the underwear and long johns may be composite samples from multiple people: JonBenet, an unknown male and, in one sample, a third unidentified person. To the extent composites were used in the search to identify the killer, the investigation states that the DNA profile "may be worthless as evidence." According to the paper, the possible presence of a third individual's DNA on the long johns has never been publicly revealed.
The experts also stated that the presence of the DNA on JonBenet's undergarments could have an innocent explanation because the "profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people or transferred from another piece of clothing."
According to the paper, these opinions "cut both ways" on the competing theories of the case. They neither disprove the intruder theory nor "implicate or exonerate anyone in the family."
When asked about the impending Daily Camera report ahead of its publication Thursday, Lacy said she has taken criticism for her decision to write the exoneration letter in the past. "I've withstood worse than this," she said. "And it's nothing compared to what the Ramsey family has gone through targeted as suspects in their own daughter's murder." Lacy has not responded to ABC News' request for comment since the Daily Camera report was published.
Is JonBenet's Murder a DNA Case or Not?
There have been conflicting views over whether the mystery of JonBenet's murder can be solved by DNA alone
.
Former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, who headed up the department from 1998 to 2014, said in an "Ask Me Anything" session on Reddit last year that the investigation considered the DNA important, but that there was other crucial evidence in the case that couldn't be ignored.
"Mary Lacy, the DA who said the DNA exonerated them, made up her mind years before that a mother could not do that to a child, thus the family was innocent," Becknerwrote.
Stan Garnett, the current Boulder County DA, told ABC News that no case is ever solely reliant on DNA. "DNA is a part of the case," he said. "But you have to account for everything else. There were problems with crime scene, you have the ransom note ... you have debates about the cause of death -- to solve this case we have to account for all of that."
But forensic pathologist Lawrence Kobilinsky with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who has not worked on the case but who reviewed a summary of the Bode report put together by Boulder County investigator Andy Horita prior to the publication of the Daily Camera report, told ABC News that ignoring the unknown male DNA would be a huge mistake. "This is definitely a DNA case," he said. Kobilinsky said the markers found on the long johns are not enough of a profile to "match" those found in the panties, as Lacy wrote in her letter exonerating the Ramseys, but he would describe the markers from both the long johns and the panties as being "consistent" and noted that the DNA does belong to an unknown male. "Lacy did the right thing [in clearing the Ramsey family]," he said.
When questioned about hanging her hat on the DNA in her exoneration letter, Lacy said that she only did that because the DNA was "something tangible people could understand." The truth is, she said, she cleared the Ramseys not just based on the DNA, but also from looking at the totality of the evidence.
"There was no motive [for the parents], and no psychopathy," Lacy said. She added that she is one of only two people who have read the entire transcripts of Patsy Ramsey's psychiatric interviews, in which Lacy said she saw no indication of jealousy toward JonBenet or any violent tendencies. In 2006 when Patsy Ramsey was dying of cancer and even on her deathbed, Lacy said the distraught mother was trying to solve the death of her daughter.
Lacy, who was the Boulder County DA from 2001 until 2009, said the Boulder police investigation had ignored important evidence that pointed away from the Ramseys and instead focused on them while "trying to get the death penalty."
"They were running around the country looking for something negative on that family," Lacy said. But the Ramseys, she said, were clean.
The case is currently cold, but Boulder police say they are continuing to investigate any lead that comes in. It's recently attracted new attention this fall as the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death approaches, and police have received hundreds of new tips.
A Lacy 'Apology Tour'
People who worked with Lacy remember her bringing John Ramsey into the Boulder County prosecutor's office around the time she exonerated the family. "She wanted us all to shake hands with him. We didn't know what to say ... it was like an apology tour," said one of Lacy's former DA investigators, Gordon Coombes.
Coombes, who worked in the Boulder prosecutor's office from 2008 to 2011, said he feels Lacy got too close to the family and lost her objectivity. "It was understood that if you didn't fall in line with the intruder theory, you were out," he said.
Another investigator who worked under Lacy, Ruth Aten-Shearwood, who is now a social worker in England, said that apart from a tight network of advisers, Lacy did not allow other investigators to work on the Ramsey case. Aten-Shearwood said she found out about the exoneration letter from watching the news. Said Aten-Shearwood, "I had to pick my jaw up off the floor."
Garnett, the current Boulder County DA, is running unopposed for his third term. Of Lacy's exoneration letter, he said, "This letter is not legally binding. It's a good-faith opinion and has no legal importance but the opinion of the person who had the job before I did, whom I respect."
When asked about the Ramseys, he said, "They, like everyone else, are presumed innocent. There's not enough admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to charge anyone with this crime."
The Ramseys have always maintained their innocence. Burke Ramsey, now 29, recently filed a $150 million defamation suit against a forensic pathologist who claimed he was involved in the murder on CBS’ "The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey." Burke's attorney, Lin Wood, told ABC News that Burke was falsely accused of being responsible for the death of his sister.
Wood told ABC News he has tremendous respect for Lacy and the work she did during her time as DA. "This was a one-side, unfounded and brutal attack on Lacy who served well the citizens of Boulder for eight years," he said of the Daily Camera report.
Later, he added that he is encouraged that the DNA is being called into question because "now maybe all of those other suspects who were excluded will have to be reinvestigated."
Lacy told ABC News she stands by her decision to exonerate the Ramseys, insisting that "if the evidence had been there [to prosecute them], I'd have gone for it."
These experts are the only ones who examined the original handwriting samples. This is lifted directly from Judge Carnes' decision in the Wolf v. Ramsey civil case:
Quote:"Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.
Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her.
Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.
Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note."
Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings.
Finally, Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note."
A suspected burglar fell to his death after breaking into a third-story Boulder apartment, police said.
The suspect was found lying on a sidewalk outside the Vistoso apartments in the 4500 block of Baseline Road early Monday, according to the Boulder Daily Camera.
Police said a resident of a third-story apartment screamed when the man entered her apartment at about 2:20 a.m. and he was attempting to get away when he fell at least 24 feet to the sidewalk below.
The man was not wearing shoes or socks and had no climbing equipment.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Searched for more info but can't find anything.
[/url][url=http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/10/15/alleged-brazen-boulder-burglar-busted-in-aurora-with-thousands-of-items/#] BOULDER, Colo. October 15, 2015
Police arrested Nick Duskin, 31, suspected in dozens of burglaries in Boulder between April and September, 2015. In many cases people were home and sleeping at the time of the crimes.
After police searched the suspect’s home in Aurora they say they found thousands of items that were stolen and now they’re trying to link the items to their rightful owners.
Police say Duskin’s method was similar in many cases — cutting and prying screens or using a ladder to get in through a second story window.
The arrest affidavit says that police were able to connect the crimes largely due in part to the suspect’s DNA that was left behind at some of the houses.
BOULDER - Boulder police are warning residents of a man they believe is responsible for a string of home burglaries in the neighborhoods of Goss Grove, University Hill, downtown and the area of 14th and Pine Streets.
In one of the burglaries, which occurred Sunday in the 1500 block of 9th Street, the female victim was asleep in her bed and was awakened by an unknown man touching her leg. The man left the home when she confronted him. She was not injured.
Boulder police are also investigating other cases in which the suspect or suspects have entered homes through unlocked doors and windows while many of the victims were home. In some of the cases, cash and electronics were stolen. In other cases, nothing was taken. Several of the victims confronted the burglar, who fled before police were notified. None of the victims has been hurt.
