[RiverRat]

Miss steps
Experts: Resolution of Ramsey case unlikely

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
December 23, 2006

The murder took place Christmas night. Even Santa Claus was a suspect.

Police searched the house and found nothing, leaving it to the missing girl's father to find her body in his own basement.

The ransom note was signed with an acronym, "S.B.T.C," that 10 years later has yet to be decoded.

It was a case in which the grieving parents shunned the press for a week - until they submitted to an interview on national television, smack in the middle of football bowl coverage on New Year's afternoon. They declined thorough police interviews for four months - but since have given three.

Officers, detectives and lawyers who'd enjoyed success, or at least the quiet anonymity of satisfying careers out of the spotlight, saw those careers publicly derailed.

The victim's mother, who labored for nearly 10 years under varying degrees of suspicion while battling persistent ovarian cancer, died earlier this year.

There have been a baker's dozen books and several movies and documentaries, noisily posing questions that, a decade later, still have no answers.

There has even been an arrest - the apprehension of a self-professed pedophile who confessed and offered to plead guilty, but was released and dismissed as a suspect less than two weeks later.

Now, 10 years after the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, many agree: a successful courtroom prosecution for the 6-year-old's murder may be virtually impossible.

Denver defense lawyer Larry Pozner sees only one conceivable way to get a conviction.

"They match the DNA in her underwear and under her fingernails with a suspect who then confesses and relates in profound detail a second-by-second account of stalking her, staking out the house, (his) method of entry, (and a) method of death (that) lines up with the kidnap note, (and he) has a history as a predator - and he pleads guilty," Pozner said.

"They have ruined it with bad police work, followed by foolhardy political moves. This is a saga of what you can do wrong when you seek to do justice."

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy believes the case still has a chance, and she's vowed to pursue a meaningful conclusion.

But those who agree with Pozner have built a case of their own. They point to half a dozen factors that pose what they believe are insurmountable obstacles.

Exhibit 1: No more secrets

Police typically work to preserve the integrity of an investigation by keeping at least one ace up their sleeve - a telling detail that only the killer could know.

One factor that made Karr an attractive suspect to Boulder authorities, they said, was the 41-year-old teacher's voluminous knowledge of case details, including being able to sketch roughly accurate diagrams of the Ramseys' Boulder home.

But other studious case followers can do the same - house plans have been reproduced in books and are available in cyberspace. Many of those who have made the case their hobby were not impressed by Karr's knowledge.

The truth is, detectives have no more "only the killer could know" cards left to play.

"The ability of our office or any law enforcement to connect this crime to a person based on something that no one else knows about was gone a long time ago," Lacy said on Aug. 29 after clearing Karr as a suspect. "That's impossible."

Exhibit 2: Passage of time

Homicide investigators subscribe to a truism: If a crime is not solved in the first several days, the likelihood plummets rapidly.

There are, of course, exceptions. But already in the 10 years since JonBenet's death, time has cost more than the usual worries about deteriorating evidence and fading witness memories.

One key witness and several suspects have passed away - most notably Patsy Ramsey, who died of cancer at her father's home in Roswell, Ga., on June 24.

Once branded, along with her husband, John Ramsey, as being under the "umbrella of suspicion" by Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, she was a central witness - whatever her actions prior to, and subsequent to, her daughter's death.

Patsy Ramsey's recorded statements may not be allowed in court, since she can't be cross-examined.

Much of what Patsy Ramsey saw that morning was also witnessed by her husband.

However, retired Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said the parents' testimony isn't interchangeable.

"The part where she gets up in the morning and goes down and finds the (ransom) note, he is not present," Wise said.

There are numerous other points that pertain uniquely to Patsy Ramsey. For example, several fibers were found on the duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth that were microscopically similar to a jacket worn by Patsy on Christmas night.

Police considered that to be significant, but forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee has concluded that the fibers could have ended up there if "a mother kissed her child good night" and the fibers were transferred.

Lawyers will never be able to question Patsy Ramsey about that possibility.

At least two other men who were under scrutiny have died. One is former University of Colorado journalism professor Bill McReynolds, who played Santa at a party at the Ramseys' two nights before the slaying. Another is Michael Helgoth, who owned a stun gun, Hi-Tec boots and committed suicide in Boulder on Feb. 14, 1997, one day after a news conference in which then-Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter warned that the list of suspects was narrowing.

Denver defense lawyer Scott Robinson, who writes legal analysis for the Rocky Mountain News, said a deceased alternate suspect is a defense lawyer's delight.

"Helgoth," Robinson said. "That guy would be great, because he's not going to come in and say, 'I didn't do it.' You can't bring in a corpse and prop him up and have him say he didn't do it. Santa Claus, too."

Lacy is not concerned about the Helgoths and McReynoldses.

"Whether it's by DNA or a confession - and if the person is confessing, we're able to corroborate by DNA, or access, or psychopathy or other evidence - I don't think a defense attorney is going to be very successful pointing at alternate suspects," Lacy said.

Exhibit 3: Arndt dilemma

Few figures have seen their role criticized as much as former Boulder Detective Linda Arndt.

One of the first investigators to the Ramseys' home that morning, she was alone with the couple and their friends when JonBenet's body was found.

Arndt moved the child's body from a hallway into the living room and didn't intervene when John Ramsey placed a quilt over his daughter. In fact, according to one account in a book, she then adjusted it.

Although she would later testify in an unsuccessful defamation suit against the Boulder Police Department that she called repeatedly, in vain, for backup, Arndt is among those blamed for not securing the crime scene.

Robinson is more forgiving of Arndt than some.

"I think the fact that this was an upper-middle-class family with no apparent criminal history or leanings, that may have led Arndt into believing this was a true kidnapping," Robinson said.

If someone is ever put on trial, Arndt would certainly be called as a witness.

And she has done the prosecution no favors with some remarks she made in the years since.

Most notably, Arndt told ABC's Good Morning America in September 1999 that when Ramsey brought his daughter upstairs and she saw the girl's lifeless body, "My mind exploded." She added, "I mean it literally. . . . I saw black with thousands of lights."

She also told the audience she had a "nonverbal exchange" with John Ramsey when their eyes met over JonBenet's body.

As they looked at each other, Arndt said, "I remember, and I wore a shoulder holster, tucking my gun right next to me . . . and consciously counting out the 18 bullets. Because I didn't know if we'd all be alive when people show up."

Pozner said such remarks by the investigator would be admissible at trial.

"The credibility of every witness is at issue, and this goes to her credibility. 'You saw blinding light? You saw a thousand stars?' You lose a juror right there. You may lose five."

Arndt recently declined to explain those remarks.

However, she said, "From my understanding, what the public has been told is that, from the moment I got involved, I am responsible for every error, omission and screw-up in this case. Just me, no one else.

"And it's very convenient to lay it all on my doorstep. But it's a travesty to the truth - not my truth, but the truth of what happened to JonBenet."

Lacy believes Arndt and others who have made comments on television, in civil depositions or in other venues, pose hurdles.

"The officers who appeared at the scene are definitely state's witnesses - and maybe defense witnesses, too," she said.

"Any state witness who made statements outside of their report is going to be a problem. Because all those statements come back to haunt you."

Exhibit 4: 2nd noisy exit

If any detective's departure was more noisy than Arndt's, it was that of Steve Thomas.

Thomas quit the Boulder Police Department on June 26, 1998, but it wasn't until Aug. 6 of that year - JonBenet's eighth birthday, were she still alive - that it became very public knowledge.

In a resignation letter that weighed in at eight pages, Thomas laid bare the core of the dysfunctional relationship that had festered for 18 months between his department and Hunter's office, blasting the prosecutor's team for "facilitating the escape of justice."

It went on. And on.

"There is evidence that was critical to this investigation, that to this day has never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other means were supported to do so," he wrote. "Not to mention evidence which still sits today, untested in the laboratory, as differences continue about how to proceed."

Thomas was mostly silent in succeeding years, but in the wake of the Karr situation, he posted an open letter on a Web site maintained by friends and supporters:

Forstevethomas.com.

"As illustrated in my 1998 resignation letter, I previously had little confidence (now, none) in the Boulder DA's Office ever solving the Ramsey homicide," he wrote. "If there were any lingering questions as to why I departed, I believe the events of the 13 days in August concerning John Mark Karr simply add an exclamation point to that resignation."

The no-confidence vote of a former detective, who now builds houses in Australia, might not seem a fatal blow in a future prosecution.

But he, too, could be called as a defense witness.

Lacy said it's possible she could put on a case in which he's barely mentioned. But even if the prosecution wants to use Thomas simply to establish certain facts he uncovered as an investigator, some say, his book poses more problems.

"If Steve Thomas takes the stand and says X, he can be contradicted with the fact that he wrote Y in his book," Robinson said. "If you write it down, and you're a witness and you change your story, you're going to hear about it in cross-examination."

The mere existence of Thomas's book could create problems.

Robinson said, "If you can show someone profited at all (from the case), that's going to stain the jury's perception of what they have to say."

Exhibit 5: The Karr fiasco

Numerous prosecutors and investigators - retired El Paso County homicide investigator Lou Smit, Boulder County sheriff's Detective Steve Ainsworth, former Boulder Deputy District Attorney Trip DeMuth, to name a few - have argued for years that the evidence strongly suggests the involvement of an intruder.

For many, that theory has been a tough sell, even after a federal judge in March 2003 dismissed a libel case filed against the Ramseys and stated that the evidence she reviewed was "more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it was with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."

The surprising Aug. 15 arrest of confessed intruder suspect Karr, in Bangkok, Thailand - followed quickly by the announcement that he was a fraud - could make any future intruder suspect be met with greater skepticism.

And, with his highly detailed confession, shared in e-mails to University of Colorado media-studies professor Michael Tracey and subsequently with Lacy's investigator, Karr could be the strongest element of any future intruder suspect's defense.

"Everything that pointed to John Mark Karr would be introduced in trial," said former Denver District Attorney Norm Early. "And everything that pointed to no intruder would be introduced in trial."

Lacy said she didn't think the Karr episode would impair the future prosecution of another intruder suspect.

But she agreed that another suspect's lawyer might well point to Karr, along with "everyone who has been looked at - and that's a very large number of people.

"There are, as in any case, methods for dealing with that."

Exhibit 6: The DNA

Supporters of the Ramseys have long held to the fact that DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear matches no one in the family.

But Lacy, in announcing why Karr was being freed, admitted what several other investigators connected to the case had been saying for years: It might not even be the killer's DNA.

It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact, or even when the underwear was manufactured.

"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."

In Karr's case, she told reporters, the DNA was even less valuable as proof because if Karr's specific confession were true, the DNA on the underwear should have been his.

"There is no question that, if you get a DNA match, you still have a long way to go," said Wise, the No. 2 prosecutor in the Boulder office through the first four years of the case. "You can't build a case just on the DNA."

There's disagreement about whether Lacy's news-conference remarks could be introduced at trial.

Lacy said last week that DNA could be a hindrance or a help to the prosecution.

"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.

"But if the DNA matches, that's a different story, and that's a very prosecutable case."

Forecast: Cloudy

Different players in the sad drama offer different reasons. But there's near unanimity that a jury will never hear the Ramsey case.

"The case is a quagmire, and it's one that's not likely to be prosecuted if all the principals live to be 200 years old," Early said.

Said Pozner, the defense lawyer, "They have convinced half of a prospective jury panel that it is a Ramsey - no matter what the evidence is. So if it isn't a Ramsey (on trial), you have built-in reasonable doubt."

But Lacy, who will oversee the Ramsey puzzle until she leaves office in January 2009, "absolutely" believes a trial - and a conviction - are still possible.

"Obviously, it would be a ton of work to put it together," she said. "This case is unusual - compared to every other case."

The realities of justice

Everyone has an opinion about the possibilities of catching and successfully trying anyone for the murder of JonBenet. Here are a few:

• "Being realistic, the way you have to look at it is, we follow all of what appear to be legitimate leads - particularly from law enforcement. But I don't think anybody believes we're going to find some kind piece of (previously unknown) evidence that solves the case. It's going to be a confession or DNA."

?Mary Lacy

Boulder district attorney

• "This is one of the saddest chapters in police work we have ever witnessed in Colorado. They made it absolutely unsolvable."

Larry Pozner

Denver defense lawyer

• "The death of this child remains yet another unresolved homicide in which the administration of justice is left to God. At least there is consolation in that end."

Steve Thomas

former Boulder Police detective

• "Beauty queen, Boulder, Christmas, fake kidnapping. If I were to write a crime novel and include even half the elements of the JonBenet Ramsey saga, no publishing house in its right mind would touch it. It could not happen in real life. It's just not realistic."

Scott Robinson

Denver defense lawyer

• "If you want to hold people accountable, it's too late. It's been 10 years. What are you going to do to the people who are really responsible for making this case non-prosecutable?"

Linda Arndt

former Boulder police detective

• "I don't think the case will be solved. But if there were a confession, or if they could match the DNA and then - unlike they did with Karr - place the person in Boulder at the right time, then I think the case can be solved. But I think the chances of either one of those things happening are pretty slim."

Bill Wise

retired assistant Boulder district attorney

• "Because of my faith, I know the end of the story. I will be in heaven. I know I will be reunited with Patsy and JonBenet and Beth (a daughter from a previous marriage who died in a car accident). And I'm not ready to go yet. I've still got some things to do here. But I'm not afraid of that."

John Ramsey

to Barbara Walters, on ABC's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2006

About the series: Ten years of mystery

• Today: Many experts agree mistakes, missteps, the cumulative effects of time and other factors combine to make it highly unlikely the JonBenet Ramsey case will ever result in a trial and conviction.

• Monday: Part 1 of an exclusive interview with former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, breaking his silence on the Ramsey case six years after leaving office.

• Tuesday: Part 2 of an exclusive interview with Alex Hunter, who talks about his feelings concerning the recent death of Patsy Ramsey, the grand jury investigation, former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas and more.