We Have Your Daughter Page 10
“In the basement I attempted to open the door leading to the area where JonBenét was ultimately found, but it was secured by a wooden latch above the door. The door opened inward and I was looking for access out of the house. Since the door could not have been used for that purpose, and it was latched closed, I did not open it.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996 Time written: 2317—11:17 p.m.)
French wrote this part of his report slightly more than ten hours after JonBenét’s body was discovered. Here’s why these statements he wrote about the door are incorrect and misleading:
• The door opened outward only, not inward.
• French could not have known if there was an exit out of the room unless he opened the door and looked into the room to find out where it led. “I did not open it,” he wrote.
Officer French gave even more contradictory and incorrect information about that critically important basement door in a formal debriefing two weeks later on January 10, 1997. According to the JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index, at this time he told the two senior officers who reported:
“Officer French finds the wine cellar locked.” (BPD Report #5-3853.) (Date of Formal Interview: 1-10-97.)
“Officer French thinks the wine cellar door is nailed shut.” (BPD Report #5-3854.) (Date of Formal Interview: 1-10-97.)
These erroneous statements created questions related to the accuracy of perceptions noted in other parts of French’s report, including:
“She [Patsy] found JonBenét’s room empty and then discovered the note as she walked down the stairs.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996 Time written: 1300—1 p.m.)
In the later formal debriefing/interview, Officer French clarified and disagreed with his own report, according to police reports by senior BPD officers:
“Officer French does not know whether Patsy said that she went in to get her daughter ready or whether she came downstairs first.” (BPD Report #5-3834.) (Date of Formal Interview: 1-10-97.)
Lone on-scene Detective Arndt also contradicted the information about Patsy’s actions described in Officer French’s report:
“Patsy had gotten up on the morning of Dec. 26 1996 and had gone down the stairs from her bedroom to the kitchen … At the bottom of this spiral staircase Patsy discovered a 3 page handwritten note … After Patsy looked at the note and read it she ran to JonBenét’s bedroom. JonBenét was missing” (Detective Linda Arndt—Date of Report 1-8-1997).
Another discrepancy from Officer French’s report again referred to Patsy. After she found her daughter’s room empty, French wrote:
“She immediately called the police.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996.)
The Ramseys have said Patsy did not immediately call police when she found the ransom note and her daughter missing. She first called out for John. Together they checked their daughter’s room and then went to check on their son, Burke. According to John, he was then on the floor in the kitchen with the ransom note spread out before him while Patsy placed the 911 call.
Another question about perception from Officer French’s report:
“Mrs. Ramsey told me that she had gone into JonBenét’s room at about 0545 hours [5:45 a.m.] to wake her in preparation for a short trip the family was to take later that day.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996 Time Written: 1300—1 p.m.)
Here’s why this information was incorrect:
“The Ramseys were planning to travel from Jefferson County Airport near Boulder to Minneapolis to pick up their other children and then fly on to Traverse City, Michigan. From there, they were to drive more than an hour to their vacation home in nearby Charlevoix, Michigan. The total trip would have taken approximately seven hours and covered about 1,000 miles.” (Source: JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)
Regardless of whether Patsy described the pending trip in this way or the way Officer French did, the Ramseys weren’t preparing for a “short” trip. It’s a small detail, but that lack of extended information about the trip should have been used as an avenue for more questioning by the officer, in case the trip had any bearing on JonBenét’s disappearance. A defense attorney has said it was another reason why defense attorneys would eventually question French’s entire report.
French wrote this next part of his report nine and a half hours after JonBenét’s body was found:
“[T]hey arrived home at 2200 [10:00 p.m.] hours. Mr. Ramsey said he read to both kids for a short time and then they were in bed by 2230 [10:30 p.m.] hours.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996 Time written: 2254—10:54 p.m.)
The report is countered by other police reports regarding what the Ramseys said:
“(2100 to 2115 hours) [9:00-9:15 p.m.] The Ramsey’s [sic] returned home. JonBenét had fallen fast asleep. John carried her inside, took her upstairs, put her on her bed and then Patsy came in to her bedroom behind him. John went down to get Burke ready for bed who was working on a little toy and John worked on that toy with him for 10 or 15 minutes then he took him to bed, got his pajamas on and then John Ramsey went upstairs and got ready for bed.” (BPD Report #5-2449.)
“(2130 to 2200 hours) [9:30-10:00 p.m.] Patsy Ramsey went upstairs to bed.” (BPD Report #5-2364.)
“(2130 to 2140 hours) [9:30-9:40 p.m.] John Ramsey was in bed and all the lights were out.” (BPD Report #5-2449.)
There were questions about what JonBenét was wearing when she went to the Christmas party and afterwards when she went to bed. She was found dead in a white top with a silver star. Officer French wrote:
“Ms. Ramsey said that JonBenét had been dressed in white long underwear and a red turtleneck.” (Officer Rick French—Date of Report 12-26-1996 Time written: 2254—10:54 p.m.)
This statement would be contradicted by:
• Detective Lou Smit, who reported that fibers from the white top were found on JonBenét’s bed sheet.
• Patsy, who has explained that while the two were going to dress alike in red tops that evening, JonBenét opted to wear a white top instead before they left for the dinner party, and Patsy did not change JonBenét out of that white top when she put her daughter to bed.
When John Ramsey spoke with the Boulder Police Department in a June 1998 interrogation, he described how his daughter had been dressed in this way: “She had on a little top with a silver star on it and a black-color pair of pants. I don’t remember if she had color—she probably did. I don’t remember what color it was.” (John Ramsey Interrogation— June 23, 1998.) (Present for the interrogation: investigators for the prosecution Lou Smit and Mike Kane, John’s attorney Bryan Morgan and a private investigator for the Ramsey attorneys, David Williams.)
The white top JonBenét was wearing when her body was found had a white silver star on it. The red top didn’t. Smit and Kane would ask no more questions about a red top, indicating, said a Ramsey attorney, “the red top wasn’t an issue.”
Detective Arndt’s initial report supported Officer French, however: “JonBenét had last been seen wearing a red turtleneck and white long underwear.” (Detective Linda Arndt—Date of Report 1-8-1997.)
Arndt didn’t list a source of information for this statement in her report.
Former Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant would later question when Officer French wrote the above information in his report. Then he’d ask whether the discovery of JonBenét’s body affected what French wrote so many hours later at 10:54 p.m., 11:17 p.m. and 11:44 p.m. about activities in the Ramsey home. Those times are listed on French’s own report, which is available in the Documents Section of this book.
His report was written in one continuous flow of words with no delineations for time changes.
As for why the second officer on the scene and first-responding supervisor, Sergeant Paul Reichenbach, didn’t open the basement storage room door where JonBenét’s body was eventually found: “Sgt. Reichenbach told Ofc. French that he had seen the wine cellar door, but he didn’t go in it.” (Source: Jon
Benét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)
Reichenbach’s first report does not reflect why he didn’t go in the storage room/“wine cellar” door. He filed an amended report the next day, December 27, which is not available. His first report contained information “concerning the initial inspection of the house and basement and outside. Also contact with John Ramsey.” (Sergeant Paul Reichenbach— date of report unclear from available documentation.)
The first twenty-four to forty-eight hours of a death investigation are vital.
It is during this short period that investigators must interview witnesses, gather a wide array of information and sort out facts. They must rely on people’s memories and get their statements quickly. They normally write new reports on a daily basis from their notes, so each day’s work can be recalled later, clearly and concisely. Other detectives assigned to a case also need access to all written reports. The detective in charge of a case oversees the investigation and ensures that developing detective reports are filed on a daily basis in what some law enforcement officials call the Murder Book. Such oversight did not happen with regard to the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. Lou Smit, brought in by the Boulder District Attorney and approved by Boulder Police, has criticized the lack of organized control and oversight at the Boulder Police Department during the Ramsey investigation for even the most elementary and ordinary process of writing reports. Smit’s main job was to organize and coordinate the Boulder Police Department reports on the case.
Formal interviews of some BPD officers were conducted by high-ranking officers to verify, clarify and, in some cases, question what was in each individual officer’s report. Formal interviews of officers are not the norm in a homicide investigation. They’re used as a form of damage control when too many questions exist about what someone has reported. According to a report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, such interviews should involve a “‘devil’s advocate’” who “should review investigative conclusions to ensure they were made and documented with transparency and integrity to combat any occurrence of investigative bias.”1
Despite such attempts to control and learn more from the errors made that first day of the Ramsey murder investigation, high-ranking Boulder Police Department officials compounded problems by scheduling formal interviews an astonishing number of days later. Officer Rick French’s formal interview took place more than two weeks (fifteen days) after JonBenét’s body was found, and Sergeant Paul Reichenbach’s formal interview occurred more than a month (thirty-six days) after. Memories and details become vague over such long periods of time, and this was a death investigation. By allowing such lengthy delays, BPD officials failed to fulfill one of their basic responsibilities. As stated in a guide to investigating deaths from the National Institute of Justice, “Local death investigators must do their best to find answers for families who have lost loved ones.”2
During the formal interview of Officer French on January 10, 1997, senior officials sought to learn whether French had actually checked the doors in the Ramsey home on the morning of December 26, 1996. In addition to a quote from Officer French which states “John Ramsey said all the doors were locked,” the report related to this interview includes the following statements:
• “Det. Patterson had asked Ofc. French if there was any sign of break in and (French) told him no because he asked Mr. Ramsey if everything was locked and he [Ramsey] said yes; is anything broken; he said no; and (French) noted that but he does not know that for sure.”
Experts insist that police officers must check such information themselves.
• “It is not clear if Officer French determined that JonBenét’s patio door was locked.”
All possible points of entry in a home must be thoroughly checked to determine whether an intruder was involved in a kidnapping case, say experts. That’s a key and elementary area of investigation.
During the formal interview of Sergeant Reichenbach on January 31, 1997, senior officials sought to learn more about any locked or unlocked doors at the Ramsey residence. The report related to this interview includes the following statements:
• “Sgt. Reichenbach did not check the doors to see if they were locked.”
• “Sgt. Reichenbach could not recall observing the butler kitchen door when he was at the house.”
That last statement is important, because both the first family friend to arrive at the Ramsey home the morning of December 26, 1996, and a neighbor had noticed that this particular door was partially open at 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., respectively. While case notes from December 27, 1996, as well as February 1 and February 24, 1997, state that BPD officers discussed their concerns about the open butler kitchen door on those dates, such statements as well as supporting documentation should have been provided in initial reports and observations from the first day of the investigation, December 26, 1996. The butler kitchen door in the Ramsey home was located on the north side of the house and led to a small utility room that shared a wall with the kitchen. At each end of the butler kitchen, a few steps led up into the main kitchen.
After subsequent and more thorough investigations of the home, BPD police report excerpts state that multiple doors and windows in the Ramsey residence were found to be unlocked and some were open, providing more than eight areas of possible entry. (Source: JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)
The Boulder District Attorney’s Office became involved in the Ramsey murder investigation the afternoon of December 26, 1996, when the body of JonBenét was discovered. However, Boulder DA Alex Hunter was on vacation in Hawaii, and First Assistant DA Bill Wise decided not to call him while he was away. The gravity of the case was just not registering.
A Boulder Police Department officer was left to guard JonBenét’s body while the DA’s Office acquired a search warrant. Even though the family said the police could have access to the home, the DA’s Office wanted the legal protection of a search warrant. While one was obtained, no one re-entered the home for several hours. It was the right thing to do when so much hadn’t been done correctly. “With a search warrant,” said one attorney consulted for this book, “you’re golden.”
After the paperwork was in order at 8:00 that Thursday night, the coroner signaled that the body could be removed from the home.
By then, a few local reporters had arrived on the scene to videotape and photograph the careful removal. JonBenét’s small, broken body, contained inside two coroner body bags layered one inside the other, lay on a gurney that was wheeled outside the front door of her family’s home to the coroner’s wagon that cold, frozen night. There was a hush as the reporters realized what they were witnessing. Stillness enveloped them and seemed to expand throughout the neighborhood. You could almost feel it as it traveled. The only sounds were the crunching from the wheels of the loaded gurney when it hit a few patches of crusted snow and then the slam of the rear door on the coroner’s station wagon as they prepared to drive JonBenét Ramsey’s body away.
CHAPTER 9
LONE ON-SCENE DETECTIVE’S FIRST REPORT
Portion of Boulder Detective Linda Arndt’s police report about events of December 26, 1996.
CHRONOLOGY
JANUARY 8, 1997
Detective Arndt’s police report is dated thirteen days after JonBenét’s body was found. The significance of this is that the three largest police departments in Colorado—Denver, Colorado Springs and Aurora—dictate violent crime reports must be turned in within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of the investigator’s observations.
“Each department or agency has a method which they use for written documentation of the crime scene. There [sic] investigator/technician should follow his/her departments assigned procedures for written documentation. The importance of sharing information can never be over-looked.”1
The Boulder Police Department referred me to its Policies and Procedures online report which was under the name of its new police chief who took office in July of 2014. Under the Written Reports Section, reports must
be turned in at the “end of the work day” unless supervisory approval is needed. So BPD’s policy as of 2014 would be the twenty-four- to forty-eight-hour rule.
“WHERE’S HER REPORT? What’s she going to say?”
That was overheard in Boulder, where a group of cops had gathered with media close by. They were describing the thirteen days it was taking for the lone Boulder police detective who had been in the Ramsey home when JonBenét’s body was found to turn in her report. Once it was in the system, that report actually reiterated some continuing errors and created new ones. Bob Grant, then Adams County District Attorney has said he wouldn’t have factored in the information from this report because it had taken so long for the detective to file it, but he would have included reports from each day as long they were turned in the day the observations were made.
Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant was one of four metro-Denver district attorneys who would later assist the Boulder DA in the Ramsey investigation. Grant and the other DAs were asked to help by then Governor Roy Romer in 1998. Grant said he was alarmed when looking at evidence in the case because of “recall” reports that were filed and considered part of the chain of evidence by the Boulder Police Department.
“I was disturbed during the Boulder Police Department presentation of the case when I determined to reject the ‘recall’ reports provided by the police department,” Grant said. “These were reports written after the fact by officers, sometimes a month later. I didn’t consider ‘recall’ reports as valid. An officer should be writing reports the day of his/her investigation.”
Detective Arndt’s report was regarded by District Attorney Grant to be a “recall” report. Yet her report was still considered by the Boulder Police Department to be a viable part of the case file. This meant that, if there was a trial, her report and testimony would be part of it. It would give future defense attorneys information that could be considered to raise reasonable doubt because of the time it had taken for the report to be filed and because of the questions the report raised.