The papers

After the physical evidence had been collected at the autopsy and from the search of the residence, the next step was testing by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations. Blood had been found on the long-sleeved white top and the "Wednesday" underwear worn by JonBenet, the blanket and nightgown found in the wine cellar, and the duct tape found in the cellar which John reported to have removed from JonBenet's mouth. CBI Agent Kathren Dressel, a DNA and serological testing expert with 25 years of experience, performed the DNA testing on these items and positively matched the blood to JonBenet.

Agent Dressel examined the fingernail clippings taken during the
autopsy. According to the DNA profile developed, there was an indication
of least two persons, the major component being JonBenet. It was Agent Dressel's opinion that if the other DNA component from the fingernails were from a single individual, all samples submitted for comparison could be eliminated. These samples included John, Patsy, Burke, Melinda and John Andrew.

Agent Dressel’s next task was to run DNA testing on the panties worn by JonBenet. Again, Dressel found that if the DNA was attributed to one person other than JonBenet, the same people could be excluded as a match.

The DNA analysis of the trace evidence recovered from the duct tape revealed a human hair, an animal hair, later identified as beaver, and various natural and man made red, blue, pink, purple and brown fibers.

The white blanket found with JonBenet’s body and the swabs of substances
recovered during the autopsy were examined for semen. Serological studies
did not find the presence of semen on any of these items. However, two hairs were recovered from the blanket. One of the hairs, identified as a
Caucasian pubic hair, did not match samples from John, Patsy or John Andrew.
A second hair, was also identified as human head hair several inches long,
Was also examined but no conclusions were reached as to the source.

The DNA samples extracted from the fingernails and the panties, and the two hairs were sent to CellMark Diagnostics, Inc. in Germantown, Maryland for further analysis. CellMark, the largest private DNA testing lab in the nation, became a household word during testimony at the 0. J. Simpson trial. When the FBI labs were criticized for its DNA testing procedures during the trial, CellMark was employed for independent DNA analysis. In the Ramsey investigation, CellMark was able to determine that the primary source of DNA from the fingernail clippings were from a female, and the secondary source was from a male, but that no further conclusions regarding this male could be made. No DNA identification could be made fro the underwear stains or hair other than that JonBenet could possibly be the source.

Another name from the Simpson trial was also brought on board the Ramsey investigation Dr. Henry Lee, a leading criminologist and expert in DNA analysis and crime scene reconstruction. in February, 1996 Lee spent five hours with police department investigators and D.A. Hunter to review evidence in the Ramsey case. After attending the briefing, Lee concluded that there was probably a 50% chance of solving the crime. He took DNA evidence back to the State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Hartford, Connecticut, of which is the director, for his own testing and analysis.
One piece of physical evidence recovered from the wine cellar was the black duct tape that John said covered his daughter's mouth which he removed before carrying her body upstairs. During the April 30 interviews, both John and Patsy said they had never seen, used or owned such duct tape.

On January 19, the Boulder police department received a telephone call from one of the bookkeepers at McGuckins Hardware in Boulder. The bookkeeper said she had received two phone calls, one on January 14 and again on January 19, from a man only identifying himself as John and requesting information about receipts for purchases with his American Express card on December 2 and December 9. The caller said he would call back on January 20.The bookkeeper said that the person calling was pushy, impatient and intimidating. Boulder police met at McGuckins early on the morning of January 20 and set up a tape recording for calls to the accounting department. The bookkeeper had volunteered to assist with tape recording of this conversation. The call came in soon after the store opened,
but this time the caller was cordial and patient:

"This is John. I called you last week looking for some receipts," said the caller. The bookkeeper said she had the receipts, but asked John to verify the number of the American Express account. John gave her a number that did not match the account number appearing on the receipts.

Bookkeeper: "That's not the correct number that I've got out of the system."

John: "Ok, but you were able to pull a purchase on an American Express on 12/2 for $46.31 and on 12/9 for $99.88?"

Bookkeeper: "That's correct. I was not able to pull anything for a John Ramsey.'

John: "Ok I'm looking at the invoices here from American Express and it does say 12/2 and 12/9 for those amounts on this card could be under Patsy's card too."

Bookkeeper: "That's exactly what it is, it's under Patsy's card.''

After confirming that John's and Patsy's American Express cards were under a joint account, the bookkeeper agreed that she could provide John with the information from the store if he would provide a written request. John told the bookkeeper he would provide the written request by fax machine and asked the bookkeeper to send the store receipt to him by fax.

A few minutes later John called again. "I just got your fax and I wanted to thank you for that. I also wanted to ask you if there was a itemized invoice available on those two. I got the credit card invoices but not the itemized copies." The bookkeeper apologized for the mix up and told John she would immediately fax the itemized receipts

The receipts for purchases by Patsy Ramsey in, December 1996 at
McGuckins shows items priced at $1.99 the price of the missing duct tape, but unfortunately the items listed at this price were not identified on the receipt. Perhaps that is what John was trying to find out.

A report had also come in to the Boulder police that Patsy, while shopping at a local home improvement store in Athens, Georgia in November 1996 has asked a clerk for assistance in locating duct tape.

During the search of the residence, the detectives found pictures hanging on the walls with black duct tape used in the framing on the back. This tape appeared to be identical to the duct tape found in the wine cellar. Both the tape found in the wine cellar and the tape on the back of the pictures were sent to the FBI for analysis which concluded that the two samples were consistent in manufacturer, but from a different production time.

In a subsequent interview with personnel at A better Light Photography
where Patsy had the two portraits framed, the detectives were told that
the photography studio had placed the black duct tape on these portraits
in the framing process.

With this lead ended, the detectives were again trying to determine the source of the duct tape. In September/ Dets. Gosage and Thomas flew to North Carolina for a site visit of the Shufford Mills duct tape manufacturing plant the manufacturer previously identified by the FBI testing. Personnel at the plant explained that the uniqueness of this tape is the percentage of the market share. The general model is a retail grade sold at hardware and other stores throughout the country, but that this particular black color only accounted for a fraction of two percent of the entire market of the tape. Additionally, further elimination of sources could be accomplished by testing thread count which had consistently changed during the last three years. The detectives returned to Boulder with samples of tape provided by Shufford Mills and product specification information which would be provided to the FBI to continue their analysis.

Other key evidence connected with the duct tape was trace evidence which had adhered to the surface of the tape. CellMark laboratories, who conducted the testing on the duct tape, found ,red, blue, pink, purple and brown cloth fibers, and animal fur probably beaver.


The original ransom note, which had been collected into evidence in the early morning hours of the suspected kidnapping, was turned over to CBI for analysis and testing. Fingerprint testing did not reveal anything identifiable. Det. Whitson's print was found on the "practice" note as he was the one who discovered it on the notepad given to him by John that morning.

Handwriting samples believed to be Patsy's were obtained during the course of the investigation, including "non requested" samples retrieved during the search of the Charlevoix home and several other "nonrequested, unsolicited" writing samples provided from other sources which Patsy authenticated as being hers.

Agent Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Supervisory Laboratory and a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, provided the following information concerning the ransom note and handwriting analysis: the three pages of the note were physically matched as having originated from one of the notepads given to Det. Patterson by John Ramsey. On that notepad, on a page prior to the removed three pages for the note, in a similar ink and handwritten style was the beginning of a note stating, “Mr. & Mrs. R”, but the handwriting the handwriting on this page probably does not contain full identification potential. Other writings on this notepad were identified by Agent Ubowski as Patsy’s. Ubowski stated the writing was done with a black felt tipped pen. (felt tipped sharpies were recovered from the counter where the notepads were originally retrieved). According to Ubowski, the analysis of the note indicates that it may have been written by Patsy, but the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion. The analysis of the handwriting samples from John show “indications that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note.'

Although additional handwriting samples were obtained from Patsy, it is often difficult to make a comparison since these samples were prepared in anticipation of this comparison and so not show the full range of variation of a given writer. For a proper evaluation process, a sufficient amount of samples which are naturally executed are necessary. In addition, since the note in this case was done with block printed letters, samples containing primarily printing would have to be obtained.

The Boulder police department was also in contact with three other known handwriting experts for possible assistance, one of which was the Secret Service Laboratory headed by James O’Neill, and two private experts, not affiliated with any governmental agency. Ed Alford and Les Spekin. All three agreed to help with the analysis and handwriting comparisons.

In addition to Patsy, John and Burke, over 50 persons had submitted handwriting samples. After analysis, none of these persons are indicated to be the author of the ransom note.

On May 18, 1997, the attorneys for the Ramseys met with Det. Wickman and Trujillo. The handwriting experts hired by the Ramseys made an informal presentation concluding that the ransom note was not written by Patsy Ramsey.


Donald Foster, a professor of dramatic literature at Vassar
College, was hired as a linguistics expert to analyze the writing
style of the ransom note and compare it to writing samples of
possible suspects. With the aid of computer programs, he
compares stylistic mannerisms, grammar patterns, sentence
structure and other behavior nuances in writing styles. He is
most noted for uncovering the author of Primary C 1 3 and his
work on the Unibomber case where he unequivocally identified the suspect Theodore Kaczynski as the Unibomber, even though the professor had been hired by the defense to assist in proving Kaczynski's innocence.

Foster says his work "is rather like DNA testing and fingerprinting . . . Such evidence by itself is rarely enough to result in a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict at trial."

On January 16, 1998, Det. Thomas traveled to Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York to meet with Prof. Foster and gave him a notebook with various known writings, other documents requested by Foster, and a videotape of a Geraldo Rivera t.v. program that featured an interview of Patsy Ramsey. Foster requested additional materials, including other videotaped interviews of the Ramseys, an inventory of the Ramseys' home library and writings from other possible suspects. Det. Thomas returned to Denver to assemble the requested material and went back to Poughkeepsie on January 26 to once again deliver the material in person. A third package of requested material was delivered in person by Thomas to Prof. Foster in Pouqikeepsie on March 3, 1998. This package also included homework assignments from Burke. Several persons were contacted and asked to provide written material for submission to Foster. Some voluntarily submitted material; for others, it was necessary to obtain the information through other sources.

On March 26, 1998, Foster had completed his analysis and traveled to Boulder to present his findings and opinion to the Boulder police department and representatives from the D.A.'s office. His study concluded that Patsy was undisputedly the author of the ransom note.


One of the problems in the investigation was delayed gathering of
evidence. It was not until almost a year after the murder that the Boulder police through D.A. Hofstrom finally asked for the clothing worn by Ramsey family members to Whites’ dinner party on the night of December 25. Fleet had taken photos during the holiday gathering which were turned over to the police department, and police request the clothing that was depicted in these photos. Another month would go by before the Ramseys, through their legal counsel and private investigators, would comply with this request.
At that time, two black shirts from John and black pants and a red and black checked sweater from Patsy were provided. Two months later additional clothing, a red short sleeved shirt and a red turtleneck shirt, were also turned over by Patsy through the private investigator. The police department was informed that since John owned several pairs of khaki pants matching those in the photograph, John had not been able to determine which pair were worn on December 25. Not only had all of this clothing probably been reworn and been through many cleaning or laundering processes, the move from the Ramsey home had been done by a professional moving company. once again, contamination of evidence obtained from these articles of clothing could very likely present problems in any prosecution.

Considering the delayed cooperation from the Ramseys in turning over the clothing, it was significant what items of clothing requested by the police department were not turned over. Patsy had told the officers that she had worn black short boots, to the White’s dinner party. The boots had never beaver been given to police officials in spite of repeated requests. At a subsequent session with the police department to give handwriting samples, Patsy had been wearing short black fur boots, and the detectives wondered if these were the boots that the Ramseys were saying they could not locate. The detectives were anxious to locate the fur boots to test for beaver hair.

911 TAPE

While re-listening to the recording of the 911 call made by Patsy
in the early morning of December 26, detectives thought they
could hear a conversation in the background while Patsy was
attempting to hang up the phone. On April 21, Det. Melissa Hickman flew to Los Angeles to meet with Mike Epstein and Jim Roeder, engineers at Aerospace Corporation, for purposes of enhancing the recording of the 911 call received at the Boulder Regional Dispatch Center.

At her first meeting with the three engineers, Hickman was told that it appeared that the cassette had been recorded in a Dictaphone format which would require a special recorder to recopy. Hickman drove to the nearest Dictaphone company which was located in the San Fernando Valley. A Dictaphone technician examined the tape and told Hickman that the information was not recorded in Dictaphone format. Hickman, feeling the frustration of the proverbial goose chase, returned to her hotel.

That evening, Roeder called her at the hotel and asked her to return to Aerospace. Roeder had decided that the tape probably had been recorded on a regular format which could be copied digitally by their computer. A hard drive disk was made of the tape, and this disk was copied to a JAZ drive, a large disk with more memory than a standard floppy disk.

On the morning of April 22, Hickman met again with Roeder in his office at Aerospace. The detective and the engineer went to a small lab to work with the disk to try to filter out extraneous noise and enhance the voices in the background. Roeder made several variations using different noise reduction settings, and those recordings were then copied onto the JAZ drive. They returned to Roeder's office where they were able to further enhance the disk. With this latest enhancement, they were able to hear two voices on the tape one of which sounded like a juvenile male, and the second one appeared to be Patsy. The first words seemed to belong to the juvenile, and then Patsy is heard to say, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus." The voice again appeared to be the "juvenile male saying, "Please, what do I do?'' Hickman and Roeder agreed to meet again in the morning to continue enhancing the tape.

When Hickman returned to Aerospace the next morning to meet with Roeder, he said that he had continued listening to the disk after Hickman had left for the evening. He and another engineer had played the original version of the 911 call that had been transferred to the JAZ drive and found that to be the clearest recording. Both engineers had heard three distinct voices on the tape and written down that they thought was being said. The tape
was then played for Hickman. After listening to the tape three or four times, Hickman heard John Ramsey say “We’re not speaking to you”. In what sounded like a very angry voice. Patsy then says, “Help me Jesus, help me Jesus,” and finally Burke is clearly heard to say, “ Well, what did you find?”, with an emphasis on the word “did.” After Hickman told the engineers her impression of the conversation, Roeder handed her a piece of notepaper containing the conversation heard by himself and his fellow engineer – the conversation as written down was exactly as Hickman herself had just heard.


Coroner Meyer had noted in his autopsy examination that the food found in JonBenet's intestine would have been consumed approximately two hours prior death. However, both John and Patsy stated that no one had eaten anything at the house when they returned from the White’s dinner party, and that JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and remained asleep.

In February, 1998, detectives from the Boulder police department asked their assistance in conducting an analysis of the contents from the intestine obtained during the autopsy. At the initial examination, Coroner Meyer had suspected that the retrieved substance was pineapple fragments. The bowl of pineapple detectives found on the dining room table at the Ramsey residence the morning of December 26 had been taken into evidence that morning and frozen for future comparison studies. After examining the two samples, the biology professors confirmed that the intestinal substance were pineapple, ant that both this specimen and the pineapple found in the bowl contained portions of the outer rind of the fruit.

The study also identified both samples as being fresh pineapple not canned. The conclusion of the two professors was that there were no distinctive differences between that found in the bowl and that removed
from the intestines.

Prior fingerprint testing on the bowl that contained the pineapple had picked up prints from both Patsy and Burke.


Another item of evidence would also be tackled in February. A large rubber coated, black Mag light flashlight had been found on the kitchen counter in the Ramsey residence the morning that officers arrived at the home. During the entire investigation, everyone, including the Ramseys, the Boulder police officers and family friends who had been at the residence that morning, denied ownership or any knowledge of the flashlight. This had also become a controversial piece of evidence in the media, as reports were circulating the flashlight had been misplaced and then found again. As most of the reports to the public about evidence, the information was erroneous. The flashlight had always been in the custody of either the police department or one of the crime labs doing laboratory analysis on behalf of the police department.

Crime lab analysis had not been able to obtain any fingerprints
from either the outside or interior of the flashlight, nor on the
batteries inside. Testing was then conducted to determine if it could have been the weapon used for the bludgeon wound on JonBenet's skull. The forensic lab did testing with an identical flashlight by smashing it into pieces of Styrofoam. The impressions left in the Styrofoam by striking it with the head of the flashlight were identical to the fracture found daring the autopsy. If the flashlight was not one of the murder weapons used, whatever it was had identical dimensions.

Golf clubs located in the Ramsey basement were also considered as possible bludgeon instruments. After testing the heel of the clubs, some of them were found to have certain consistencies with the area of injury, but none matched as closely as the test results from the flashlight.


John Ramsey had presented his own theory on the murder of his daughter to all who would listen. He pointed to the location of a blue suitcase under the basement window and told of finding the window open when he searched the basement on the morning of the alleged kidnapping. He theorized that the murderer had made his entrance and escape through the window. However, as noted by detectives arriving early on the morning of December 26, an intact spider web covered the grate which blocked off the window. In order to enter or exit the window, the grate would have had to have been removed.

This grate was photographed and collected for evidence. Interior dusting of
the window for fingerprints was done by crime scene investigators and no
latent prints were found. In May, the photos were submitted to Brent Opell,
Professor of Biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University in Blacksbury, Virginia. Prof. Opell reported that the web was
that of the Agelenidae, known as a funnel-web spider. The web was
reasonably intact and extending through the grating, suggesting that the
grating had not been disturbed since the spider constructed its web.
According to Prof. Opell, these types of spiders would cease constructing
webs no later than early November, thus indicating that no one had entered
that window well past this early November deadline. The theory that anyone
could have entered the Ramsey residence through this broken window was
totally discounted by this simple evidence of nature.


Heading the Boulder police department at the time of the Ramsey murder was 47 year old Police Chief Tom Koby. Koby, a native Texan, relocated to Boulder in 1991 leaving his position as a ranking police officer in Houston. Koby had graduated from the University of Houston with a degree in business administration. Because of his business education background, Koby adopted the community oriented policy of policing. This was a new philosophical approach gaining popularity in other towns across America. The basic principle of this concept is that officers begin interacting and cooperating with the public in all facets of the community for overall improvement instead of only dealing with criminal offenses.

Koby attempted to use his community management skills in dealing with problems that were emerging in the Ramsey murder investigation. However, the issues between the police department and District Attorneys' office, the internal leaks feeding information to the media, and the public outcry for justice for JonBenet, was taking a toll on Koby's ability to keep the investigation under control. In a press conference on January 3, Koby stated, "We are not going to be a part of a media circus. Our goal is to remain focused on apprehending the person or persons responsible for JonBenet Ramsey's death and getting a conviction." True to his word, Koby remained calm and non-responsive to the criticisms hurled at him and his department throughout the investigation, while at the same time he also was paying a personal price. The union of the police officers which he commanded issued "no confidence" votes towards Koby twice in 1997. Koby had vowed that he would leave his post with the Boulder police department in 1998, but he wanted to remain long enough to present the Ramsey case to the District Attorney for prosecution.

After the CNN interview where the Ramseys themselves leaked previously undisclosed information to the press, other leaks of information began to appear in the media. Rumors were that the members of the Boulder police department investigation team, angry with the Ramseys' statements, were retaliating. The first attempt to cure leaks that might have been coming from the police department itself was Det. John Eller's removal of Det. Sgt. Larry Mason from the investigation team on January 5. However, Mason's reassignment did not stop the leaks. An internal investigation was launched into the actions of Det. Eller who was now accused by Mason of misconduct. A five member citizen's review panel, appointed by the Boulder City Manager, was established to review the accusations against Eller and submit a recommendation on the complaint to Chief Koby. Koby has sole discretion on any actions to be taken after a recommendation is received. Eiler, who had been with the Boulder police department since 1979, resigned in October, 1997.

Other police department detectives would also fall by the wayside
as the investigation continued. Linda Arndt, one of the most
crucial witnesses to events on the morning of December 26, was
taken off the case in May, 1997 and placed on a medical leave for
a few months due to the stress of her involvement in the investigation. Arndt did return to active duty, although not to the Ramsey investigation team, but problems within the department continued to plague her because of backlash from the initial investigation. Officer French, the first officer to respond to the reported kidnapping, is haunted by nightmares because he failed to open that latched door in the basement that hid JonBenet's body. French constantly relives the hours he spent that morning at the Ramsey home.


Alex Hunter has been District Attorney for Boulder County since 1972 over a quarter of a century and is considered by many "one of the good old boys" in today's world of sophisticated politics. Hunter had long been a staunch Democratic supporter and highly involved in the local party politics. He had worked on the campaigns for some of Colorado's leading Democrats – alongside Hal Haddon John Ramsey's attorney.

Hunter's historical hesitancy to bring charges in any capital murder case has consistently created dissent among other district attorneys, the City Attorney's office, but mainly the local police department. This dissention was felt mostly by detectives who worked long hours investigating a crime, presenting the case to Hunter, and being rebuked with a denial of prosecution.

Hunter's key assistants in the D.A.'s office were Peter Hofstrom, chief trial deputy and a former San Quentin prison guard who had worked with Hunter for 23 years, and Lawrence "Trip" DeMuth, senior trial deputy. Hofstrom also has connections with the Ramsey legal team – a 20 year friendship with Brian Morgan, on of the named partners in the Haddon firm.

Not only was the publicity regarding Hunter's distaste for prosecuting capital crimes causing concern for the police department, but Hunter’s and Hofstrom’s relationship with the members of the Haddon law firm started a rift between those two divisions of the justice system. In an apparent spirit of camaraderie the D.A.'s office was providing information to the attorneys for the suspects which under any circumstance would be considered an impropriety. Before the Ramseys agreed to submit to interviews they were provided with copies of critical reports prepared by the detectives. While freely offering information to the suspects, the D.A.'s office was refusing to obtain information from the suspects that was wanted by the police department as part of their investigation efforts.

Another problem with the D.A.'s office as perceived by the police department was the appointment of Lou Smit, a retired homicide detective, as the lead investigator. Smit immediately began to draw the criticism of many from the police department. It was rumored that Smit characterized the Ramseys as good Christians incapable of committing such a crime. With this attitude from chief investigator, it was becoming difficult to conduct an unbiased investigation.

As the Ramseys and the police department continued to gather experts to bolster their investigation efforts, the D.A.'s office also began to solicit help from outside sources. Local District Attorneys from surrounding Jefferson, Adams and Arapahoe Counties formed a consulting group to aid Hunter and his staff in analyzing information. Barry Scheck, a New York law professor who aided in the defense of 0. J. Simpson in his trial for the murder of his wife, Nicole Simpson Brown, and her friend, Ron Goldman, was asked to advise on forensic evidence and potential trial strategy. Scheck specializes in DNA evidence and was accredited with helping win the acquittal of 0. J. Simpson through his criticism of the Los Angeles police department's evidence lab.

With both the Ramseys and the D.A.'s office retaining legal consultants during the process of the murder investigation, the Boulder police department decided to hire its own team of legal experts. Chosen for this consulting team were three of Denver's most well known attorneys – Daniel Hoffman, Richard Baer and Robert Miller. So highly regarded and respected were these three local media soon dubbed this trio the "dream team".

Dan Hoffman, former dean of the University of Denver College of Law and how head of the litigation department of the international law firm of McKenna & Cuneo, had been in contact with the Boulder Police for several weeks formulating the "dream team's" assistance in he investigation, but word had only recently leaked to the press.

Hoffman’s current practice consisted mainly of representing large corporations, such as Gates Rubber Company and Lockheed Martin, and dealing with high-publicity cases. He had recently successfully defended a suit in which Michael Jackson was sued by a Denver woman charging Jackson with stealing her song, "Dangerous". Michael Jackson appeared and testified in person in Denver the only time he had ever done so in a lawsuit against him. The tape recording of Jackson's testimony in that trial, which was sold by the Colorado U. S. District Court to fans around the world, hit the pop charts as a "best seller".

Ironically, as so many little ironies continued to emerge during the unfolding of the mystery of the death of JonBenet, Lockheed Martin, which had been one of Hoffman’s largest clients for several years, was the corporate entity that owned Access Graphics. Hoffman had defended this corporate giant in lawsuits ranging from water pollution to age discrimination.

Although 67 years old, Hoffman looked ten years younger and had
the energy and drive of a person 30 years younger. Publicly
known for his high profile cases, throughout his legal career Hoffman had been a champion of the common people and often headed up the legal battle in cases of public interest. For many years he has sat on the Board of Directors of the Legal Center Serving Persons with Disabilities and The Elderly, a local nonprofit agency. His awards for community service literally cover the walls of his office. Hoffman has been married to his wife for 40 years, has three daughters, and five grandchildren. Although heart and sole dedicated to the practice of law, Dan's greatest source of pleasure and pride in life were his grandchildren, in part because of his love of children, the Ramsey murder was to be the case that jerked his heart strings like no other and create within him a sense of rage against the perpetrator of this heinous crime - the homicide of an innocent child.

The unsolved mystery of the murder of the 6 year old beauty queen
had united these three private practice attorneys together on one
case for the first time in their careers. Hoffman was acquainted with Bob Miller when Miller served at the Colorado U.S. Attorney General. He did not know Rich Baer prior to the forming of the dream team, but Baer’s reputation as a criminal prosecutor for the State of New York before his move to Denver was widely known. It seemed out of sorts to place Hoffman among the two former criminal prosecutors, but Hoffman brought with him 40 years of experience in complex litigation, and the investigation into this homicide had definitely become complex. In addition, early in his legal career Hoffman had served as Denver’s manager of safety – supervisor of the Denver police and fire departments – and earned the respect and camaraderie of police officials and public servants throughout the state.

The assignment of these three seasoned trial attorneys was to review the evidence, outline the case, advise on additional follow up, and assist in the presentation of the case to the Boulder District Attorney's office.


As if there was not enough dissention between the D.A.'s office and the police department, and internal accusations and name calling among the detectives in the Boulder police department, the media soon picket up "links" they claimed caused a conflict of interest for the dream team. It was learned that Attorney Hoffman, who had held a sterling reputation throughout his legal career, had been named as one of many defendants in a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by a disgruntled former client unhappy with her award of assets in the property division portion of a multi-million dollar divorce proceeding. This lawsuit, although filed a few years prior to the Ramsey murder, was still in its initial stages of litigation, because of appeals of various legal issues regarding the filing of the suit itself. Hoffman, along with all other defendants in that suit, including the law firm of which he was a former partner, were represented by the firm of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman – the same law firm hired by John Ramsey. What the press failed to print in their stories about this potential "conflict of interest" was that the claims alleged in the malpractice suit were covered by professional liability insurance and that the Haddon firm was hired by the insurance carrier not Hoffman personally. In addition, Hoffman had disclosed this relationship to the Boulder police department prior to offering his assistance on the Ramsey cause, and the Boulder police department had waived any potential conflict of interest.


The Boulder police department had been negotiating for months with the attorneys for the Ramseys to schedule their official interrogation. The attorneys had demanded that the interviews be at the same time, that they not exceed 90 minutes, that all previous statements by the Ramseys and others to the police be made available and that Peter Hofstrom of the Boulder D.A.’s office be present. On April 30, over four months after JonBenet's death, the long awaited interview with John and Patsy by the police department finally occurred. Most of the demands made by their attorneys remained unmet. One key demand was successfully argued for by D.A. Hofstrom. Prior to the April 30 interviews, the Ramseys had been provided with copies of all of their prior statements and several key police reports.

Patsy’s interview began at 9:00 a.m. with Det. Steve Thomas and Det . Tom Trujillo and would continue for six and a half hours. She was accompanied by her attorney, Pat Burke, and private investigator, John Foster. Deputy D.A. Pete Hofstrom, as requested by the Ramseys, also attended. Patsy had been taking several drugs at the time of her interview: Paxil, an antidepressant, and Atavin/Lorezapan, and anti-anxiety drug. The results of Patsy’s interview was disappointing to the detectives. She could not remember key events and was generally nonresponsive to most of the critical questions. She did clearly remember that when they arrived home that evening JonBenet was sound asleep at the time John carried her upstairs and when Patsy changed her into the long johns. Patsy said she left on the white long sleeved knit top worn to the party, contrary to her statement on the morning of December 26 that she had changed JonBenet into a red turtle neck shirt. Patsy now also clearly remembered that she walked downstairs and found the note before looking for JonBenet in her bedroom – another contradiction to the statement on December 26. She also distinctly remembered that when Burke hugged her before leaving the residence with Fleet, which differed from Fleet’s statement that Burke did not even see Patsy before they left. Patsy then mentioned that she had her
suspicions about Fleet's involvement in the crime as he had been acting differently since that day and his behavior had been erratic.

John's interview began at 3:30 p.m. that same afternoon. Little time was available for the detectives to question John since so much of the day had been spent with Patsy. Present at John's interview were Dets. Thomas and Trujillo, and John's attorney, Brian Morgan, investigator, John Foster, and, once again, Deputy D.A. Pete Hofstrom. Apparently John’s confusion on the sequence of events on the night of December 25 had now cleared. John said that some of the statements by the reporting officers were
inaccurate. “Well there was a couple of areas I there was some misunderstanding or. . . wasn’t correct. . .I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think – checked any door.
I think we were tired and we were gonna go to bed, get up early . . . and I think the other part I noticed in there was they said . . . read to both kids before went to bed and that . . . did not happen. I mean, what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read.” John also contradicted
statements from Det. Arndt and others regarding his leaving the house the morning of December 26. “No. I didn’t leave the house until we left it for good.”

John also informed the detectives for the first time that when he inspected the basement that day at approximately 10:00 a.m. he noted that the basement window was open. At the time, John had not mentioned this to any of the officers on scene. John said he also noticed a blue suitcase located beneath the broken window, and theorized that an intruder had made his escape by standing on the suitcase to reach up to the exit window, since it would have been impossible to reach the window from standing on the floor. He also told the officers that he did not open the wine cellar door during this inspection. When John was asked about Fleet's first inspection of the basement soon after he arrived in the early hours that morning, John stated that he was not aware that Fleet had gone down to the basement. The detectives did not tell him that Fleet had already told them that he had inspected the broken window long before 10:00 a.m. and found it latched, but not locked.
Although John's testimony at this interview closely matched the responses given by Patsy, one discrepancy did arise. Patsy had stated that the clothes for the Charlevoix trip had been packed in plastic bags John said they were packed in "carryon" bags which were sitting by the back door. The children's winter clothing was indeed found by Priscilla White in paper sacks sitting in the doorway to the den.

John also had been on two anti-depressant medications since the death of his daughter – the antidepressant Paxil, and Klonopin – used for the treatment of panic disorders.

On May 1, the day after the official police interrogation finally took place on April 30, the Ramseys again give an interview this time to seven media people at the Marriott in downtown Denver. The conference was so carefully staged that it was called the "Ramsey infomercial" by a local talk radio host. Standing behind John and Patsy were their team of lawyers and publicists, who had previously told the gathered press that they would not take any questions. In opening the press conference, John told the reporters: "We've been anxious to do this for some time and I can tell you why it's taken us so long . . . We felt from the beginning an obligation to talk with the Boulder authorities and to let them do their formal interrogation of Patsy and I." Apparently, the Ramseys had not felt this obligation prior to the CNN interview six days after the death of their daughter.

The Ramseys continued to battle with the Boulder police department in the press. In a statement issued on July 23, John announced, ". . . today I am announcing an escalation in my own efforts to find the murderer of JonBenet. Prominent experts in the fields of criminology, handwriting and language forensics have developed a profile of the probable behavior of JonBenet's killer before and after the crime. Highly qualified handwriting
analysis experts have developed a template for our investigators to use in comparing key features of handwriting samples against the note." The statement continued with a behavior profile of the killer as created by the experts hired by the Ramseys.

On July 27 the Ramseys published an open letter in the Boulder Daily
Camera thanking everyone who had shown concern for the Ramsey family and
asking that anyone with information call the "tipline" established by the

Even an internet web site was established "as a tool for the media to obtain comments released by the Ramsey family and their attorneys," according to the logo contained on the web site. On the one year anniversary of the death of JonBenet, the following Christmas message with distributed nationwide through the internet web site:

A Christmas Message from the Ramsey Family

With the Christmas season upon us and the anniversary
of JonBenet’s death approaching, we are filled with
many emotions. We, as a family, miss JonBenet's
presence among us as we see the lights, hear the music,
and recall celebrations of Christmases past. We miss
her every day not just today.

On the one hand, we feel like Christmas should be
canceled. Where is there joy? Our Christmas is
forever tainted with the tragedy of her death. And yet
the message rings clear. Had there been no birth of
Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and,
hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again.

As the day of the birth of our Lord and Savior
approaches, we thank all across the nation and around
the world for your continued prayers of concern and
support. It is those prayers that sustain us. We ask
that as you gather with your families and loved ones
this Christmas, be joyful in the celebration of the
birth of Christ, knowing that this is truly the reason, for the season. We must continue to celebrate the
birth of Christ . . . for our hope of life together
ever after.

Thank you for all you meant to her and mean to as.

With blessing and prayer for a Joyful Holiday
Grace of God's ever present love for the New Year,

John, Patsy, John Andrew, Melinda and Burke

As Christmas 1997 and the first anniversary of JonBenet's death approached, the people of Boulder had grown tired of the intrusion on their lives by the deluge of media which continued to camp in their town. The White family had posted a sign on their door which read "Journalists Keep Out". White wrote to the New York Times with a plea to the American public. "We request that Boulder be given the opportunity to enjoy this sacred season in peace without interruption from anyone who to intends to further erode our community's privacy and exploit our misfortunes for the purpose of profit or personal gain." But the media, true to its intrusive reputation, had plans of highlighting this death anniversary with t.v. specials and feature news articles recapping the events and once again flooding the public with the images of the little beauty queen in her full regalia of make up and costumes. Even the New York Times published a full page review of the case on the same day as they published Fleet's plea for privacy. By now, the death of JonBenet had seized the hearts of people around the world, and t.v. crews from Europe, Japan and other countries were swarming over the small town of Boulder to capture the events of the death anniversary.

The other battle still raging during the investigation was the battle between former friends, now pointed out as suspects by the Ramseys, and the Ramsey family and their continued allies. Fleet and Priscilla were early victims of the fall out of friends, and word came from the Ramsey camp that either you were a friend of the Whites are you were a friend of the Ramseys not both. The Whites apparently reached the brink of their frustration when they sent a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera which was published on January 16, 1999.

"As witnesses, we have developed confidence and trust in Boulder Police Department investigators. While we recognize that errors have been made in the investigation, we feel strongly that these officers and their leadership are committed both personally and professionally to assembling a valid case which will lead to an arrest and conviction. Furthermore, we are greatly encouraged by their addition of competent legal counsel who are aiding their investigation.

We have not, on the other hand, developed such sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney. On the contrary, we feel that the Boulder County District Attorney has not acted in a manner consistent with an agency which must work with police investigators and witnesses in a positive and professional manner. Our sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney are based on our personal experiences which have been augmented by the following considerations:

"1. There are various relationships between
the Boulder County District Attorney and
members of the Boulder and legal communities
which may have impaired the objectivity of
the Boulder County District Attorney with
respect to a case brought before it by the
Boulder Police Department.

"2. The Boulder County District Attorney
under the leadership of District Attorney
Alex Hunter has been criticized in the past for not being an aggressive prosecutor of homicide cases.

There appears to be an atmosphere of
distrust and non cooperation between the
Boulder County District Attorney and the
Boulder Police Department regarding the
investigation. This relationship appears to
be irreparably damaged with respect to the
Ramsey case.

“4. There is a strong impression that the
Boulder County District Attorney has acted
improperly by sharing evidence and other
information with attorneys and other parties
not officially involved in the

The Whites asked Governor Roy Romer to intervene. Romer's official response was "Among the advice I received was from the Boulder police chief, who said that this action was not needed and would not be helpful, because the investigation was proceeding and had not yet been turned over to the district attorney." The Whites then went to Attorney General Gale Norton, but were informed that Norton had no jurisdiction over the matter since the District Attorney had not refused to press charges. "We have not seen any kind of refusal from the Boulder DA's office. They've not said, 'We're not going to prosecute.' They've essentially said it's still under investigation.''

Chief Koby rose to the defense of the DA's office: "The Boulder District Attorney has not done anything but try and be supportive of the investigation. Whether people agree with that is another issue." In discussing the letter itself, Koby went on to say, "It's an indication of the level of intensity and level of media exposure this case has gotten.''

Other Ramsey friends and neighbors who had innocently talked with reporters soon after the crime found themselves hounded by the press for more information and shunned by the Ramseys, even it their statements had been supportive. Employees at Access Graphics were told that if they spoke to the press or the police without permission from Access Graphics they would be fired. The investigation team had early on set up an office at Access Graphics to conduct interviews and other investigation from that office. However, they were soon promptly asked to leave the premises. A family friend who had created most of the pageant costumes lost most of her customers after her appearance on a national t.v. talk show. The emotional devastation from this crime had reached far beyond the normal limits of the victim's circle of family and friends.

The only thing that did not appear to suffer as a result of the murder of JonBenet was the child beauty pageant industry. In spite of the criticism hurled at this industry and accusations of abuse toward any parents who subjected their children to this world, the "kiddie pageant" interest around the world had almost doubled.

In spite of the turmoil which had touched so many lives in Boulder during the past year, friends of JonBenet gathered at the former Ramsey home on 15th Street on the evening of the first death anniversary for a candlelight vigil in the memory of the lost child.

As the candlelight ceremony was being planned in Boulder, another vigil was taking place at St. James Episcopal Cemetery in Marietta, Georgia. Boulder police department detectives had set up surveillance cameras wired for sound near the gravesite of JonBenet in hopes of catching a remorseful perpetrator asking for forgiveness on the first anniversary of the crime a not uncommon occurrence in the death of a child. This operation by the Boulder police department was so secreted that a flight was arranged which routed the detectives through several cities before reaching their destination in hopes of camouflaging their actions. While doing their stake out, the detectives noticed that the headstone erected after the funeral bore the inscription "August 8, 1990 December 25, 1996". They wondered how the Ramseys knew the date of death when even the coroner had not made an official confirmation.

Unfortunately, the detectives' vigil proved fruitless. The only visitor to the gravesite that day was a poor, unsuspecting tourist, a serviceman with the U.S. Navy visiting Atlanta, Georgia that week who had stopped to take pictures of the grave and headstones. He was driving a vehicle with Colorado license plates and was eventually located by the Boulder police for interrogation. When interviewed, he admitted he had also stopped at the Ramsey home in Boulder to take pictures while visiting friends in Colorado. Because of his interest in the case, the same fascination that had consumed thousands of people throughout the United States, he was asked to submit to photographing, fingerprinting, saliva sampling for DNA analysis and giving handwriting samples, which the Naval officer did without any hesitation.

In January, 1997, the Boulder police investigation team had met
in Quantico, Virginia with the Critical Incident Response Group
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A follow up consultation
was scheduled for September 9. Special agents from the FBI's
Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit ("CASKU"), a member of the
Profiling and Behavioral Assessment unit ("PBAQ), two lab
technicians and a forensic pathologist, met with Hofstrom and
Demuth from the D.A.'s office, Dets. Thomas, Trujillo and Wickman
and other key detectives now assigned to the Ramsey investigation
team, and the three "dream team" attorneys. CASKU provides
immediate operation assistance to federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies involved in investigations of child abduction and serial homicide. The opinion expressed by the CASKU team at the first meeting was that the kidnapping story was not credible based upon the utter illogic of an intruder’s actions and behavior. They also opined that the ransom note had a ridiculous content, but a complimentary tone. They pointed out that the staging aspects of the crime and the behavior of the parents pointed to a familial involvement. Another aspect of the death scene which indicated familial involvement was the finding of the Barbie nightgown with JonBenet’s body. Grandmother Nedra had mentioned in her interview that this nightgown was know to be one of JonBenet’s favorite items and she took it with her to all the pageants. According to the FBI, “Parental murders are often trademarked in their staging aspects and care for the victim, . . and placing a child’s item of affinity with the victim’s body is consistent with a parental homicide.”

The second meeting was to discuss three possible scenarios of the
murder of JonBenet as presented to the CASKU team by the Boulder representatives: murder by an intruder, murder by the mother with the father as an accomplice, and murder by the father with the mother as an accomplice. The FBI special agents gave insights as to profile and behavioral considerations in these various scenarios.


In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful
because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.

Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from Children’s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.

In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.


On December 5, 1997, Cmdr. Mark Beckner of the Boulder Police Department, called his first press conference. Beckner has been appointed as head of the Ramsey murder investigation in October. It appeared from Beckner's prepared speech and response to questions from the press that the investigation was now taking a new path not the prior yellow brick road which had lead to so many diversions from the intent and purpose of the journey. Beckner announced that the investigative team was being realigned with some change and some addition in personnel.

Beckner also stated that the department had identified a 78 item''
task list that they were working through 38 items were completed and nine were near completion. The first task was to review the entire case file and evidence. Another task was to do follow up interviews with John, Patsy and Burke. While this task would appear to be routine in the normal course of an ongoing investigation, for the police department it was becoming a monumental effort. Beckner explained that follow-up interviews
were needed for clarification of prior statements and for additional questions related to information that had not been available at the time of the first interviews.

In exchange for the second interviews, legal counsel for the Ramseys were now making additional demands, one of which was that the Ramseys' legal team be allowed to review all evidence collected to date in the case. The police department responded that such disclosure would severely hamper the investigation and reliability of information provided by witnesses or potential suspects, and that it was also contrary to accepted police procedure and had never been done before in any criminal investigation. The Ramsey legal team counter offered with the suggestion that the interview be conducted by written questions with written responses, but the police department also declined to accept this procedure in lieu of in person interviews.

Beckner requested a follow up videotaped interview with Burke at a neutral setting in one on one meeting with a detective experienced with children, and that all questions and answers be confidential with no information given to attorneys or family members. Counsel for the Ramseys also denied this request.


Dan Hoffman, Rich Baer and Bob Miller, the Boulder police department's 'dream team", met with the department’s investigators for a first briefing session September 1997. After reviewing key evidence, the attorneys discussed methods of presenting the case to the District Attorney’s office in an effort to persuade them to bring indictments against John and Patsy and what the options were if the D.A. decided that the case was still not ready for prosecution.

One of the options available to the department was asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Another option under discussion was the use of a grand jury. A grand jury is comprised of 12 people from the community at large and the proceedings are conducted in secret other than county prosecutors no attorneys are allowed at grand jury sessions. By a vote of at least nine out of the 12 Jurors, a grand jury can decide to indict suspects or conclude that theme is insufficient evidence to charge anyone. An indictment brought by a grand jury is based on "probable cause", which is a much lower standard of evidence than that required for a "beyond a reasonable doubt” conviction in a trial. However, even if a grand jury returns an indictment, the District Attorney still has the authority to reject the jury's findings.

Grand juries are rarely used in Colorado, and used even less in Boulder County.

Another consideration in the use of a grand jury in the Ramsey case was to provide a solution to the ongoing struggle between the police department and the district attorney's office. If a grand jury returned an indictment on this case and the D.A. refused to prosecute, the public would be swarming with furor.

In March, 1998, Cmdr. Beckner met with D.A. Hunter and formally requested the convening of a grand jury to aid the investigation. A grand jury would allow authorities to force reluctant witnesses to appear for testimony, but witnesses can invoke the Fifth amendment and refuse to testify. They can also be granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony. Another power of a grand jury is the use of subpoenas to obtain documents which have not been voluntarily provided.
On March 27, 1999, Pam Paugh called the Boulder police to report a suspicious man at JonBenet's gravesite. Det. Harmer was given the assignment of returning Pam's call. When the phone rang at the number left by Pam, it was answered by Patsy. Patsy explained to Harmer that Polly was actually the one who saw the suspicious man, but Polly had just had surgery and Patsy was babysitting her nephew. Polly had talked with the man at the cemetery and the evening before her surgery and he told her that JonBenet reminded him of a former neighbor girl.

After taking the report of the suspicious man, Harmer asked Patsy how she was doing and Patsy responded, "We are well." Although Harmer knew that Patsy had strict instructions from her attorneys not to speak with Boulder police officials, Patsy seemed eager to continue talking. She asked Harmer if the police department "was close", and said, "you know I want to be out there every day.''

“We still very much want to talk to you and John," Harmer responded.

"We want to do that as well, but our attorneys' told us that the police are still focused on us. The attorneys wouldn't like the idea that I am talking to you right now."

Patsy and Harmer continued to discuss the reasons for the communication problems between the police and the Ramseys Patsy reiterated her desire to cooperate.

When asked about Burke, Patsy said that he was doing great. "He's a kid and is resilient. He is doing well in school and making friends. We shield him from everything we don't watch t.v. or get newspapers.”

Patsy closed the telephone conversation by telling Det. Harmer that she prayed for the Boulder police every day.


FINGERPRINTS: Fingerprints identified: wine cellar door, Patsy.


The Colorado Bureau of investigation analyzed and confirmed that the wooden stick used with the ligature rope is, in fact, the paint brush handle from the broken paint brush from the painting supply tray a critical second piece of weapon evidence that came from within the house. It was also noted that a portion of the paint brush handle, appearing to be from the top, is unaccounted for. No fingerprints were ever found on any portion of the paintbrush.

STUN GUN Round marks, consistent with shape of cigarette, found on JB's neck and jaw could have been caused by a stun gun. It was rumored that the Ramseys had a tape on the use of a stun gun.


Barbara Fernie, who was one of the close friends called immediately by Patsy and stayed by Patsy's side through the morning of the reported kidnapping, in an interview with detectives on 12123 stated that Patsy had discussed with her the ransom note. Patsy told her that it was written on the same kind of paper that she had in the kitchen. The women had discussed
the possibility of it being written by the housekeeper since the notepad was inside the house, and Patsy stated that the handwriting did look like Linda Hoffman’s. However, when Patsy looked at the photocopy of the note later, she said, "That doesn't look like her handwriting at all." Detectives found it odd that Patsy said the ransom note paper was similar to the notepad located in the kitchen. Patsy before said she did not read much of the original note when it was found, and if she was referring to the photocopy returned to the residence, a photocopy of a legal notepad page appears generic. It is unknown why Patsy would have speculated about the similar paper on the morning of the reported kidnapping.


Melody Stanton was interviewed by Det. Barry Hartkopp on January 3. Stanton lives across the street and one house to the south of the Ramseys. Her bedroom is on the second floor of the west side of the house which faces the Ramsey home. On Christmas night she had gone to bed at approximately 10:00 p.m. Stanton always sleeps with her window slightly open, and on that night she had opened it 6-8 inches. She related that she had fallen asleep shortly after she went to bed, but was awakened by “one loud, incredible scream”. She related that it was “obviously from a child” and that it lasted 3 to 5 seconds and then abruptly stopped. It appeared that the sound came from across the street, south of the Ramsey residence. She did not look at the clock, but estimated the time at somewhere between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. She stayed awake and listened for any other noises for five to ten minutes, but heard absolutely nothing after that no cars, no voices, no footsteps, so she eventually went back to sleep.

Stanton said she had not left on any televisions or radios when she went to bed. She admitted that she did not sit up in bed to look out the window, so she did not see any activity outside her window. When asked why she had not come forward with this information right after the homicide when detectives had canvassed the neighborhood, Stanton said she was so shocked by JonBenet’s death that she at first did not make any connection to the scream. Also, since none of the other neighbors had not mentioned to her about hearing a scream, she began to doubt she actually heard it. In fact, when she told her husband he said she had probably imagined it. It was Diane Brumfitt, a friend of Stanton's, who reported this incident to the Boulder Police after her conversation with Stanton.


Fleet diagramed the position of the body in the wine cellar. This positioning was inconsistent with John’s description when he found JonBenet.


Krupsky stating she is trying to convince a molestation victim to come forward

Ainswoth report noting the duct tape possibly after the strangulation.

Coffman - Pam Griffin statements that Patsy admitted writing the practice
note" for an innocent purpose.

Subic Bay plaque

Pubic hairs from Patsy Boulder Community Hospital 2/13
On December 29, John and Patsy, accompanied by their attorneys appeared at Boulder community hospital to give hair and blood samples and be fingerprinted. As she was being fingerprinted, Patsy became hysterical Saying, "Why are you doing this? Do think I killed my baby?"

Pubic hairs from John Boulder Com. Hospital 2/21
CBI report 3/3 semenal fluid found on [John Andrew’s] suitcase and its contents.

Interview of Dr. Beuf pediatrician 3/25 JonBenet had over 33 visits to the pediatrician in the last two years diagnosis was "yeast infections". In November 1997, the Boulder police department made a verbal request to re interview Dr. Beuf and his staff. Armistead, private detective on the Ramsey team, provided the children's medical records from Michigan with a written consent form to obtain copies of the medical records, but permission was never granted for follow up interviews with the treating physicians.

Scarf - given to John by his daughter Beth from Scotland/Tartan shops

Linguistics examination of ransom note by FBI/Secret Service

JOHN RAMSEY There are a few though who remember the times when John did get angry and displayed an extreme temper that made his face visually change and who equated him with a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality.

RED HEART ON JONBENET's PALM: Patsy drew one regularly on JonBenet, telling her it was so that she would take her heart wherever she went.

Blue FIBERS ON VAGINA - No match from anything in house so far

CELLULOSE PARTICLE IN VAGINA possibly from paint brush handle

PATSY'S JURY DUTY: Ironically, in the middle of the ongoing homicide investigation, Patsy was selected for jury duty in the Boulder County Court in October 1997.

TELEPHONE RECORDS: in October, 1997, the Boulder police department, through D.A. Hofstrom, asked for written consent for all telephone records. At first attorneys for the Ramseys agreed to provide the records, but refused to sign a consent for the police department to obtain the records themselves. The following November, they did finally sign the consent forms.
The End

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)