JonBenet Ramsey Documents
On this page you will find: 1) The
resignation letter of Det. Steve Thomas; 2)
Letters 1 and
2 from Fleet White calling for an independent prosecutor; 3) The
complete autopsy report.
Resignation Letter of Det. Steve Thomas
August 6, 1998
Chief Beckner,
On June 22, I submitted a letter to Chief Koby, requesting a leave of absence from the
Boulder Police Department. In response to persistent speculation as to why I chose to
leave the Ramsey investigation, this letter explains more fully those reasons. Although my
concerns were well known for some time, I tried to be gracious in my departure, addressing
only health concerns. However, after a month of soul searching and reflection, I feel I
must now set the record straight.
The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the
district attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case. I had been troubled for
many months with many aspects of the investigation. Albeit an uphill battle of a case to
begin with, it became a nearly impossible investigation because of the political
alliances, philosophical differences, and professional egos that blocked progress in more
ways, and on more occasions, than I can detail in this memorandum. I and others voiced
these concerns repeatedly. In the interest of hoping justice would be served, we tolerated
it, except for those closed door sessions when detectives protested in frustration, where
fists hit the table, where detectives demanded that the right things be done. The wrong
things were done, and made it a manner of simple principle that I could not continue to
participate as it stood with the district attorney's office. As an organization, we
remained silent, when we should have shouted.
The Boulder Police Department took a handful of detectives days
after the murder, and handed us this case. As one of those five primary detectives, we
tackled it for a year and a half. We conducted an exhaustive investigation, followed the
evidence where it led us, and were faithfully and professionally committed to this case.
Although not perfect, cases rarely are. During eighteen months on the Ramsey
investigation, my colleagues and I worked the case night and day, and in spite of tied
hands. On June 1-2, 1998, we crunched thirty thousand pages of investigation to its
essence, and put our cards on the table, delivering the case in a formal presentation to
the district attorney's office. We stood confident in our work. Very shortly thereafter,
though, the detectives who know this case better than anyone were advised by the district
attorney's office that we would not be participating as grand jury advisory witnesses.
The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file
to see justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded true
prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of resources. All legal
opportunities were not made available. How were we expected to "solve" this case
when the district attorney's office was crippling us with their positions? I believe they
were, literally, facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider
the following:
•During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring evidence to
the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily dismissed or rationalized as
insignificant. The most elementary of investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone
and credit card records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The significant
opinions of national experts were casually dismissed or ignored by the district attorney's
office, even the experienced FBI were waved aside.
•Those who chose not to cooperate were never compelled before a grand jury early
in this case, as detectives suggested only weeks after the murder, while information and
memories were fresh.
•An informant, for reasons his own, came to detectives about conduct occurring
inside the district attorneys office, including allegations of a plan intended only to
destroy a man's career. We carefully listened. With that knowledge, the department did
nothing. Other than to alert the accused, and in the process burn the two detectives [who
captured that exchange on an undercover wire, incidentally] who came forth with this
information. One of the results of that internal whistleblowing was witnessing Detective
Commander Eller, who also could not tolerate what was occurring, lose his career and
reputation undeservedly; scapegoated in a manner which only heightened my concerns. It did
not take much inferential reasoning to realize that any dissidents were readily silenced.
•In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and
investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all of this in the
district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I served a search warrant,
only to find later defense attorneys were simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.
•An FBI agent, whom I didn't even know, quietly tipped me off about what the DA's
office was doing behind our backs, conducting investigation the police department was
wholly unaware of.
•I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded from
pursuing particular investigative efforts. Polygraphs were acceptable for some subjects,
but others seemed immune from such requests.
•Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it
was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were destroyed. Some in
the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak, defenseless, and innocent people
in shameless tactics that one couldn't believe more bizarre if it were made up.
•I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable to
"break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of events he had
witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation, this was an attempt to derail
months of hard work.
•I was repeatedly reminded by some in the district attorney's office just how
powerful and talented and resourceful particular defense attorneys were. How could
decisions be made this way?
•There is evidence that was critical to the investigation, that to this day has
never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other means were supported to do
so. Not to mention evidence which still sits today, untested in the laboratory, as
differences continue about how to proceed.
•While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant
affidavits and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six year old
child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that we "ask the permission
of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just before conducting the Ramsey interviews,
I thought it inconceivable I was being lectured on "building trust".
These are but a few of the many examples of why I chose to leave.
Having to convince, to plead at times, to a district attorney's office to assist us in the
murder of a little girl, by way of the most basic of investigative requests, was simply
absurd. When my detective partner and I had to literally hand search tens of thousands of
receipts, because we didn't have a search warrant to assist us otherwise, we did so. But
we lost tremendous opportunities to make progress, to seek justice, and to know the truth.
Auspicious timing and strategy could have made a difference. When the might of the
criminal justice system should have brought all it had to bear on this investigation, and
didn't, we remained silent. We were trying to deliver a murder case with hands tied behind
our backs. It was difficult, and our frustrations understandable. It was an assignment
without chance of success. Politics seemed to trump justice.
Even "outsiders" quickly assessed the situation, as the
FBI politely noted early on: "the government isn't in charge of this
investigation." As the nation watched, appropriately anticipating a fitting response
to the murder of the most innocent of victims, I stood bothered as to what occurred behind
the scenes. Those inside this case knew what was going on. Eighteen months gave us a
unique perspective.
We learned to ignore the campaign of misinformation in which we
were said to be bumbling along, or else just pursuing one or two suspects in some ruthless
vendetta. Much of what appeared in the press was orchestrated by particular sources
wishing to discredit the Boulder Police Department. We watched the media spun, while we
were prohibited from exercising First Amendment rights. As disappointment and frustration
pervaded, detectives would remark to one another, "if it reaches a particular point,
I'm walking away." But we would always tolerate it "just one more time."
Last year, when we discovered hidden cameras inside the Ramsey house, only to realize the
detectives had been unwittingly videotaped, this should have rocked the police department
off its foundation. Instead, we allowed that, too, to pass without challenge. The
detectives' enthusiasm became simply resigned frustration, acquiescing to that which
should never have been tolerated. In the media blitz, the pressure of the whole world
watching, important decisions seemed to be premised on "how it would play"
publicly. Among at least a few of the detectives, "there's something wrong here"
became a catch phrase. I witnessed others having to make decisions which impacted their
lives and careers, watched the soul searching that occurred as the ultimate questions were
pondered. As it goes, "evils that befall the world are not nearly so often caused by
bad men, as they are by good men who are silent when an opinion must be voiced."
Although several good men in the police department shouted loudly behind closed doors, the
organization stood deafeningly silent at what continued to occur unchallenged.
Last Spring, you, too, seemed at a loss. I was taken aback when I
was reminded of what happened to Commander Eller when he stuck his neck out. When reminded
how politically powerful the DA was. When reminded of the hundreds of other cases the
department had to file with this district attorney's office, and that this was but one
case. And finally, when I was asked, "what do you want done? The system burned
down?", it struck me dumb. But when you conceded that there were those inside the
DA's office we had to simply accept as "defense witnesses", and when we were
reduced to simply recording our objections for "documentation purposes" -- I
knew I was not going to participate in this much longer.
I believe the district attorney's office is thoroughly
compromised. When we were told by one in the district attorney's office, months before we
had even completed our investigation, that this case "is not prosecutable," we
shook our heads in disbelief. A lot could have been forgiven, the lesser transgressions
ignored, for the right things done. Instead, those in the district attorney's office
encouraged us to allow them to "work their magic" (which I never fully
understood. Did that "magic" include sharing our case file information with the
defense attorneys, dragging feet in evidence collection, or believing that two decades of
used-car-dealing-style-plea-bargaining was somehow going to solve this case?). Right and
wrong is just that. Some of these issues were not shades of gray. Decision should have
been made as such. Whether a suspect a penniless indigent with a public defender, or
otherwise.
As contrasted by my experiences in Georgia, for example, where my
warrant affidavits were met with a sense of support and an obligation to the victim.
Having worked with able prosecutors in other jurisdictions, having worked cases where
justice was aggressively sought, I have familiarity with these prosecution professionals
who hold a strong sense of justice. And then, from Georgia, the Great Lakes, the East
Coast, the South, I would return to Boulder, to again be thoroughly demoralized.
We delayed and ignored, for far too long, that which was
"right", in deference of maintaining this dysfunctional relationship with the
district attorney's office. This wasn't a runaway train that couldn't be stopped. Some of
us bit our tongues as the public was told of this "renewed cooperation" between
the police department and the district attorney's office -- this at the very time the
detectives and those in the district attorney's office weren't even on speaking terms, the
same time you had to act as a liaison between the two agencies because the detectives
couldn't tolerate it. I was quite frankly surprised, as you remarked on this camaraderie,
that there had not yet been a fistfight.
In Boulder, where the politics, policies, and pervasive thought
has held for years, a criminal justice system designed to deal with such an event was not
in place. Instead, we had an institution that when needed most, buckled. The system was
paralyzed, as to this day one continues to get away with murder.
Will there be a real attempt at justice? I may be among the last
to find out. The department assigned me some of the most sensitive and critical
assignments in the Ramsey case, including search warrants and affidavits, the Atlanta
projects, the interviews of the Ramseys, and many other sensitive assignments I won't
mention. I criss-crossed the country, conducting interviews and investigation, pursuing
pedophiles and drifters, chasing and discarding leads. I submitted over 250 investigative
reports for this case alone. I'd have been happy to assist the grand jury. But the
detectives, who know this case better than anyone, were told we would not be allowed as
grand jury advisory witnesses, as is common place. If a grand jury is convened, the
records will be sealed, and we will not witness what goes on inside such a proceeding.
What part of the case gets presented, what doesn't?
District Attorney Hunter's continued reference to a
"runaway" grand jury is also puzzling. Is he afraid that he cannot control the
outcome? Why would one not simply present evidence to jurors, and let the jury decide?
Perhaps the DA is hoping for a voluntary confession one day. What's needed, though, is an
effective district attorney to conduct the inquiry, not a remorseful killer.
The district attorney's office should be the ethical and judicial
compass for the community, ensuring that justice is served -- or at least, sought.
Instead, our DA has becoming a spinning compass for the media. The perpetuating inference
continues that justice is somehow just around the corner. I do not see that occurring, as
the two year anniversary of this murder approaches.
It is my belief the district attorney's office has effectively
crippled this case. The time for intervention is now. It is difficult to imagine a more
compelling situation for the appointment of an entirely independent prosecution team to be
introduced into this matter, who would oversee an attempt at righting this case.
* * * * *
Unmistakably and worst of all, we have failed a little girl named
Jon Benet. Six years old. Many good people, decent, innocent citizens, are forever bound
by the murder of this child. There is a tremendous obligation to them. But an infinitely
greater obligation to her, as she rests in a small cemetery far away from this anomaly of
a place called Boulder.
A distant second stands the second tragedy -- the failure of the
system in Boulder. Ask the mistreated prosecution witnesses in this investigation, who
cooperated for months, who now refuse to talk until a special prosecutor is established.
Ask former detectives who have quietly tendered their shields in disheartenment. Ask all
those innocent people personally affected by this case, who have had their lives upset
because of the arbitrary label of "suspect" being attached. Ask the cops who
cannot speak out because they still wear a badge. The list is long.
I know that to speak out brings its own issues. But as you also
know, there are others who are as disheartened as I am, who are biting their tongues,
searching their consciences. I know what may occur -- I may be portrayed as frustrated,
disgruntled. Not so. I have had an exemplary and decorated thirteen year career as a
police officer and detective. I didn't want to challenge the system. In no way do I wish
to harm this case or subvert the long and arduous work that has been done. I only wish to
speak up and ask for assistance in making a change. I want justice for a child who was
killed in her home on Christmas night.
This case has defined many aspects of all our lives, and will
continue to do so for all of our days. My colleagues put their hearts and souls into this
case, and I will take some satisfaction that it was the detective team who showed
tremendous efforts and loyalties to seeking justice for this victim. Many sacrifices were
made. Families. Marriages. In the latter months of the investigation, I was diagnosed with
a disease which will require a lifetime of medication. Although my health declined, I was
resolved to see the case through to a satisfactory closure. I did that on June 1-2. And on
June 22, I requested a leave of absence, without mention of what transpired in our
department since Christmas 1996.
What I witnessed for two years of my life was so fundamentally
flawed, it reduced me to tears. Everything the badge ever meant to me was so
foundationally shaken, one should never have to sell one's soul as a prerequisite to wear
it. On June 26, after leaving the investigation for the last time, and leaving the city of
Boulder, I wept as I drove home, removing my detectives shield and placing it on the seat
beside me, later putting it in a desk drawer at home, knowing I could never put it back
on.
There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the
person who committed these acts, independent of this system we call "justice." A
greater justice awaits. Of that, at least, we can be confident.
As a now infamous author, panicked in the night, once penned,
"use that good southern common sense of yours." I will do just that. Originally
from a small southern town where this would never have been tolerated, where respect for
law and order and traditions were instilled in me, I will take that murderous author's
out-of-context advice. And use my good southern common sense to put this case into the
perspective it necessitates -- a precious child was murdered. There needs to be some
consequence to that.
Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my police career, a
calling which I loved. I do this because I cannot continue to sanction by my silence what
has occurred in this case. It was never a fair playing field, the "game" was
simply unacceptable anymore. And that's what makes this all so painful. The detectives
never had a chance. If ever there were a case, and if ever there were a victim, who truly
meant something to the detectives pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this case, what
case? Until such time an independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee this case, I will
not be a part of this. What went on was simply wrong.
I recalled a favorite passage recently, Atticus Finch speaking to
his daughter: "Just remember that one thing does not abide by majority rule, Scout --
it's your conscience."
At thirty-six years old, I thought my life's passion as a police
officer was carved in stone. I realize that although I may have to trade my badge for a
carpenter's hammer, I will do so with a clear conscience. It is with a heavy heart that I
offer my resignation from the Boulder Police Department, in protest of this continuing
travesty.
[Signed]
Detective Steve Thomas #638
Detective Division
Boulder Police Department
August 6, 1998
The Whites' First Letter-Jan. 1998
By FLEET RUSSELL WHITE, Jr. and PRISCILLA B. WHITE
As witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, we are reluctant to express
our views regarding the investigation. At this time, however, we feel compelled to address
matters which we feel to be of great importance.
There is a widely held perception that the investigation has been plagued by intense
news media coverage and the improper conduct of the Boulder Police Department and the
Boulder County District Attorney.
There can be no question that the wide circulation of facts, evidence, and opinions has
had a debilitating effect on the investigation. Equally damaging, however, have been
public statements made by officials which, because of their nature and discontinuity, have
created confusion and anxiety not only for the public but also for law enforcement
personnel and witnesses. It must be clear at this point that the extraordinary
circumstances of this crime and its investigation do not lend themselves to discussion or
debate in a public forum. Doing so will only serve to jeopardize the civil rights of
involved parties, reduce the willingness of witnesses to cooperate, and make the task of
law enforcement agencies investigating the case more difficult.
Public officials who contemplate the release of information concerning the case or who
desire to publicly express their opinions must be mindful of these risks. Such statements
and the release of information should only serve the goals of furthering the investigation
or protecting the public. There are simply no other valid reasons for making information
regarding the investigation available to the public. It is likely that few, if any,
statements of fact or opinion made by public officials concerning the Ramsey investigation
have met this standard. For this case to proceed in a positive manner it will be necessary
to do all that is practically possible to integrate the activities of a prosecutor and
police investigators and shield their investigation from public view until such time when
an arrest is made.
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:
There are various relationships between the Boulder County District Attorney and
members of the Boulder and Denver 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.
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.
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 investigation.
There is a strong impression that Alex Hunter and members of his staff have acted
inappropriately by giving their opinions and information regarding the investigation to
various news media organizations. This impression has been strengthened recently by the
statements made by District Attorney Alex Hunter appearing in the Jan. 19, 1998, issue of
New Yorker magazine. His comments regarding the police investigation are mean-spirited and
entirely devoid of any constructive aspect. We feel that his decision to state publicly
these opinions regarding an on-going homicide investigation clearly defines his poor
judgment and wanton disregard for all parties involved in this investigation and for the
criminal justice system. The fact that he made some of these statements five months ago,
as has been recently suggested, does nothing to make them less inexcusable. What public
service did Mr. Hunter envision when he made such statements and revealed details of the
investigation over a period of five months to a noted journalist who has publicly
announced his intention to write a book about the investigation?
These considerations cannot be ignored in an attempt to understand the present status
of the investigation or in anticipating its future course. At a minimum, these
considerations have created the strong appearance of impropriety, professional
incompetence and a lack of objectivity. Additionally, the suit against Alex Hunter brought
by Darnay Hoffman, regardless of its merit, has reinforced this appearance in the public
consciousness. In this context, the following questions must be asked:
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of inspiring the confidence and trust
of police investigators and relevant witnesses in order that a case may be developed in
such a manner as to maximize the likelihood of an arrest?
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of objectively and professionally
evaluating the merit of a case presented to it by the Boulder Police Department?
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of aggressively and professionally
coordinating and conducting a prosecution or other court proceedings in a manner most
likely to result in an indictment and a successful prosecution?
On Dec. 18, 1997, we met with Gov. Roy Romer to urge that he intervene immediately to
remove the Boulder County District Attorney from any involvement in the case and appoint
an independent special prosecutor. On Jan. 7, 1998, we were notified by Governor Romer
that he had decided not to intervene. In a Jan. 12, 1998, letter from Gov. Romer, we were
formally notified of his decision. In this letter, he stated that he had "decided not
to intervene in this matter at this time" and indicated that his decision was
"based in part on the fact that the police investigation is not yet complete and the
case has not been referred to the district attorney for prosecution." While he did
not specify what other factors were considered in arriving at his decision, we can only
hope that they derive from sound recommendations received from knowledgeable and unbiased
officials involved in the investigation who are in possession of compelling facts which
are not available to us.
If Gov. Romer is inclined to intervene but feels that such a decision would now be
untimely, we would submit that the passage of time cannot be expected to reduce the
obstacles facing the investigation and the prosecution. In their effort to follow
evidence, construct a valid case, and to maintain the confidence of witnesses, the Boulder
Police Department needs the immediate participation and guidance of a supportive and
competent prosecutor.
The idea of waiting for the case to be "completed" and to be
"referred" to the Boulder County District Attorney presupposes that the negative
effect of the presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the investigation will
somehow be mitigated in the future. It ignores the practical problem that the Boulder
Police Department and relevant witnesses have no confidence in the ability of the Boulder
County District Attorney to prudently handle evidence and to professionally and
impartially consider a case presented to it.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable for Governor Romer or for any of us to rely on civic
and law enforcement officials who offer assurances that they can somehow eliminate the
differences between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney
in an effort to move the case forward purposefully when they have so amply demonstrated
their inability to do so. Nor should we or Gov. Romer rely on the Hoffman suit or similar
actions that may follow. It appears that these will only result in meaningless debate over
semantics and, at best, lead to protracted and contentious court proceedings and
investigations. As for the concern that the removal of the Boulder County District
Attorney from the Ramsey case will jeopardize the future relationship between the Boulder
Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney on other cases, it is more
likely that the continued presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the Ramsey
case will only serve to lessen the prospects of a healthy future relationship.
We again respectfully request that Gov. Romer intervene in this matter and level the
playing field in Boulder. The Boulder Police Department has but one goal in this matter
which is to bring the person or persons who have committed crimes to justice. The police
are handicapped by those who are acting to obfuscate and confuse the facts of this
investigation. At this point there is little to be gained by speculating about who these
people are and what reasons they may have for doing so. That can be left for another day.
We request that Governor Romer immediately intervene and remove the Boulder County
District Attorney and its offices from the investigation and appoint a competent and
completely independent special prosecutor who is capable of establishing and maintaining
the confidence and the trust of the Boulder Police Department, witnesses in the case, and
the public whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion to this case.
Regardless of the nature of his decision, we request that Governor Romer announce it
publicly and that he make clear his reasoning. We ask the people of Colorado and
especially the people of Boulder to join us in this respect.
The investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has profoundly hurt many innocent
people. It has caused the Boulder community and many of its leaders and institutions to be
degraded. It has engendered contempt for Boulder`s law enforcement agencies and criminal
justice system. Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to
these matters now.
The Whites' Second Letter
To the people of Colorado:
On August 12, 1998, Boulder
District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that he would be presenting the JonBenet Ramsey
murder case to a Boulder grand jury at the expense of the State of Colorado. Colorado
grand jury law requires that both jurors and witnesses take an oath of secrecy regarding
grand jury proceedings and testimony. In anticipation of receiving a subpoena to appear
before that grand jury, we wish at this time to address matters concerning the
investigation which we feel are of great importance to the people of Colorado and the
Boulder community.
After JonBenet Ramsey was killed in Boulder nearly twenty
months ago, her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, immediately hired prominent Democrat
criminal defense attorneys with the law firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. This firm and
its partners have close professional, political and personal ties to prosecutors, the
Denver and Boulder legal and judicial communities, state legislators, and high-ranking
members of Colorado government, including Governor Roy Romer. The investigation of her
death has since been characterized by confusion and delays. The district attorney and
Ramsey defense attorneys started early in the investigation to condition the public to
believe that these delays and the lack of a prosecution have resulted almost entirely from
initial police bungling of the case and the non-cooperation of witnesses. This has
continued to this day. Advising the district attorney since the early days of the
investigation have been Denver metropolitan area district attorneys Bob Grant (Adams
County), Bill Ritter (Denver County), Jim Peters (18th Judicial District), and Dave Thomas
(1st Judicial District).
Recently, Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, an
investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, left the department in disgust. In his
August 6 letter of resignation, he publicly accused the district attorney of obstructing
the police investigation and allowing politics to "trump" justice. He asked that
a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case.
We knew JonBenet and her parents very well and have been
closely involved in the investigation as witnesses. During the past year, we have also
come to know and respect Mr. Thomas and were saddened and discouraged by his departure
from the investigation. We share Mr. Thomas' view regarding the district attorney and his
contention that overwhelming pressure brought to bear on the district attorney and police
leadership from various quarters has thwarted the investigation and delayed justice in the
case. While it is unlikely that the district attorney has been corrupted by Ramsey defense
attorneys, it is certain that the district attorney and his prosecutors have been greatly
influenced by their metro area district attorney advisers and by defense attorneys' chummy
persuasiveness and threats of reprisals for anyone daring to jeopardize the civil rights
of their victim clients. Indeed, the district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have
simultaneously rebuked the police for "focusing" their investigation on the
Ramseys when in fact police were simply following evidence. During the course of the
investigation, the district attorney has used inexplicable methods including the
recruitment of magazine writers and tabloids to leak information concerning the case and
to needle witnesses, "suspects", and police detectives. He has provided evidence
to Ramsey defense attorneys at their request but denied reasonable requests by witnesses
for their own statements to police. He has thoroughly alienated police detectives and key
witnesses whose cooperation is vital to the investigation and prosecution. His public
statements regarding the investigation have been erratic, evasive, and misleading. They
have also been profoundly damaging to the case. Understandably, public confidence in the
district attorney's handling of the investigation was low even before Mr. Thomas' letter.
Notwithstanding what the public has been led to believe,
Boulder police leadership and detectives have been under the effective control of the
district attorney and his advisers since the early days of the investigation.
In December, 1997, we met with Governor Romer to request that
the state intervene and appoint an independent special prosecutor to take over the
investigation and prosecution of the case. Citing the growing conflict between police and
prosecutors and the delay of any progress in the investigation, we expressed our view that
Boulder authorities were incapable of seeking justice. We also pointed out specific
circumstances which we felt could inhibit or restrict Governor Romer's willingness to
intervene. In early January, 1998, we were advised that he had decided against
intervention on the advice of Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby. Chief Koby, who has since
left the department, had told Governor Romer that the investigation was incomplete and
therefore had not been given to the district attorney for prosecution. In short, there had
been no failure to prosecute and thus no basis for the state's intervention. Upon learning
of his decision, we wrote a letter published January 16, 1998 in the Boulder Daily Camera
expressing our views and requesting that Governor Romer reconsider his decision. Recently,
Governor Romer publicly stated that he did not recall the letter. We hope that this letter
will make a stronger impression.
Since our meeting with Governor Romer eight months ago, the
public has been shown the forced reconciliation of demoralized police detectives with the
district attorney and his prosecutors and a sequence of odd and highly publicized
milestones In the case. In March, 1998, police Chief Koby and lead investigator Mark
Beckner (later to be appointed police chief), made an unusual public appeal to the
district attorney for a grand jury investigation on the pro bono advice of three prominent
Denver attorneys. In response, the district attorney requested a complete presentation by
police of evidence. This presentation occurred over two days in early June, 1998, and was
witnessed by prosecutors, representatives of the State Attorney General's office,
prominent forensic scientists, and advisers of the district attorney and the police
department. The public was then told that the investigation had been finally transferred
to the district attorney from the police department and that the district attorney would
now require some indeterminate length of time to review the case prior to making a
decision concerning the police request for a grand jury investigation. Upon leaving the
presentation, both Alex Hunter and Mark Beckner made inappropriate but tantalizing
comments designed to give the public hope that the case may yet be "solved".
They warned, however, that there was still a lot of work to do and that additional
evidence was needed. Then, in late June, 1998, the public was once again brought in on a
major development in the case. The Ramseys were interviewed by representatives of the
district attorney in a carefully orchestrated demonstration of their willingness to
cooperate in the investigation now that biased and incompetent police detectives were no
longer involved.
Most developments in the case brought to the public's
attention throughout 1997 should be regarded as well-publicized but clumsy attempts by the
district attorney and police leadership to look busy, follow long "task lists",
and clean up investigative files while the district attorney killed time and spread-out
responsibility for the case. On the other hand, "advances" in the case since
early this year have been carefully planned to condition the public for a grand jury
investigation. The district attorney's past indecision and the need for the police to ask
him for a grand jury investigation were deliberate attempts to mislead the public. If
based on nothing other than the district attorney's repeated public statements and leaks
characterizing the case as "not prosecutable", there can be little doubt that,
absent a confession, the people running the investigation had long ago decided against
filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of
the grand jury. There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for
presenting the case to a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new
evidence, grilling "reluctant" witnesses, or returning an indictment and
everything to do with sealing away facts, circumstances and evidence gathered in the
investigation in a grand jury transcript. It is our firm belief that the district attorney
and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their
careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening
people who have something to hide or protect or who simply don't want to be publicly
linked to a dreadful murder investigation. Also weighing on the district attorney has been
the matter of preserving and protecting the now "cooperative" and forthcoming
Ramseys' rights as victims.
In
direct response to Mr. Thomas' recent letter, Governor Romer met on August 12, 1998 with
district attorneys Grant, Ritter, Peters, and Thomas. Later that day, Governor Romer
announced at a press conference that Hunter had told him that the case was "on track
for a grand jury". Romer said that "it would be improper to appoint a special
prosecutor now" but that to improve public confidence in the case he would make
available to Hunter additional prosecutorial expertise. Shortly after the press
conference, Hunter's office announced that the case would be presented to a grand jury in
"order to gain additional evidence in the case". On August 13, 1998, the Rocky
Mountain News offered an editorial entitled "Calling in the Calvary" (sic) in
which the editor generally supported Governor's Romer's action but insightfully asked the
obvious question: Why has it taken so long for Hunter's office to present the case to a
grand jury? The editorial read:
"But if the Ramsey case is 'on track for a grand jury,'
as Romer insists, it seems to have been sitting on a siding for quite a long time awaiting
clearance to proceed. This is all the more true given the fact that Ritter, Grant, Thomas,
and Peters obviously believe that the grand jury must be used as an investigative tool in
the Ramsey case, and not merely to reach a predetermined prosecutorial goal. If that is
the case, why wasn't a grand jury used months ago? Indeed, why wasn't it used more than a
year ago?"
Following the Sid Wells murder in Boulder in August, 1983, a
grand jury investigating the high-profile case met off-and-on for fifteen months without
returning an indictment. Quoted in the January 29, 1984 Denver Post, Boulder Assistant
District Attorney Bill Wise revealed that the case had been originally referred to the
grand jury "because of its power to further investigate the case. The district
attorney didn't have subpoena power and we needed that tool." Hunter had waited less
than three months before presenting the Wells murder case to a grand jury. Three months
after the death of JonBenet Ramsey, police were still trying to interview John and Patsy
Ramsey and obtain other evidence critical to the case.
There is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the
question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial. Since very early in the case, there
has been at least a tacit understanding among the district attorney, police leadership,
those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be
presented to a grand jury but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in
April, 1998. This delay was deemed necessary by some or all of these parties in order to
take advantage of a new statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.) concerning grand jury reporting
procedures which was the result of legislation promoted by the Colorado District
Attorney's Council and passed by the legislature in early March 1997. By law, however,
this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after
October 1, 1997. In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would
have to wait until April, 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury
subsequent to October 1, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these
people to stall and cynically rely on the public's relative ignorance of the statute and
the purpose and general nature of grand juries. The district attorney and police
leadership worked hard to create the fiction that the police investigation was not
"complete" and therefore not ready to be transferred to the district attorney.
As long as the district attorney didn't have the case it would be difficult to fault him
for not prosecuting or presenting the case to a grand jury. It was this fiction that was
used by the district attorney to deflect mounting criticism including that contained in
our letter in January, 1998. It also served as the basis for a Boulder court to throw out
a suit brought against the district attorney by New York attorney Darnay Hoffman who had
accused the district attorney of "constructively abandoning the case". The
district attorney's publicly expressed indecision in late 1997 regarding a grand jury
investigation gave way to his progressively greater "leaning" toward such a
decision as the date for convening the Boulder grand jury drew near.
House Bill 97-1009 was drafted by the
Colorado District Attorneys Council in late 1996 and was introduced in the Colorado House
of Representatives on January 8, 1997, two weeks after JonBenet was killed. HB 97-1009 was
sponsored by Representative Bill Kaufman, a Republican, and Senator Ed Perlmutter, a
Democrat.
The impetus for this bill was the desire of the Council to
effect legislation changing an existing statute (16-5-205 (4), C.R.S.) regarding the
issuance of grand jury reports in those cases where there is not an indictment. The matter
was discussed by the district attorneys and legislators at a conference in the summer of
1996. The existing statute allowed the issuance of reports but was argued to be confusing
and overly restrictive. As a result, grand jury reports were nonexistent. In a January 19,
1997 editorial supporting passage of the bill, the Denver Post pointed to the inconclusive
grand jury investigations concerning DIA and police conduct in the high profile Ocrant
case in Arapahoe County. Also mentioned was the recent Truax officer-involved shooting
case in which Denver DA Bill Ritter chose not to use a grand jury to investigate possible
police officer misconduct because of his concern that the grand jury might not report its
findings to the public. Citing these cases, the Post "...urged that in the balance
between the public's right to information and the statutory demand for grand jury secrecy,
public disclosure should carry more weight than it now does." The Post editorial went
on to say:
"The proposed law would instruct judges to determine
whether the report should be released and allow for withholding any parts necessary to
protect witnesses. It also would give witnesses an opportunity to see reports and file
opposing motions if they object to their release.
Such reports could go a long way toward dispelling doubts like
those that still linger over the DIA and Truax investigations, and by providing all
witnesses with safeguards against disclosures that might damage or embarrass them, still
preserve the confidentiality that is both the armor and the engine of the grand jury
process. "
The original draft of the bill was presented to the House
Judiciary Committee by Representative Kaufman at a hearing on January 21, 1997, long after
the Ramsey case had exploded into a national news story amid growing suspicions of police
mishandling of the case. Speaking in favor of the bill before the committee were district
attorneys Ritter, Thomas, and Grant. All of these district attorneys, along with Jim
Peters, would be named publicly as advisers to Alex Hunter on the Ramsey case a few weeks
later on February 14, 1997. It is clear from the draft bill and from their comments at
this hearing that they intended reporting by grand juries to be on matters generally
limited to allegations of non criminal misconduct by public employees, officials, and
agencies but only when such information regarding those allegations was in the public
interest. At the hearing, Mr. Ritter stated:
"...there are other matters where we bring...an issue
into the grand jury for investigation and it grows legs and we find ourselves
investigating the conduct of government officers, the conduct of public employees, the
conduct of government programs where, because tax dollars are involved, the public does
have a right to know something about the operation even if it they fall short of the
conduct being criminal and that, I think, is the real meaning behind a bill like
this."
Also speaking in favor of the bill were John Dailey, Head of
the Criminal Enforcement Unit of the Attorney General's office and Kim Morss of the
Colorado Judicial Department appearing at the request of the Chief Justice of the Colorado
Supreme Court. Also speaking in favor of the bill was Marge Easton of the Colorado Press
Association.
On March 5, 1997, Senator Perlmutter presented the bill to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Appearing once again to speak in favor of the bill were Bill
Ritter, Marge Easton, and John Dailey. Also speaking for the bill were Ray Slaughter and
Stu Van Meveren of the Colorado District Attorneys Council.
The final bill was passed on March 21, 1997. Included in the
bill were specific criteria to be used by grand juries and prosecutors in determining what
constitutes the "public interest" for the purpose of a grand jury report:
(a) Allegations of the misuse or
misapplication of public funds;
(b) Allegations of abuse of
authority by a public servant, as defined in Section 18-1-901(3)(o), C.R.S.,or a peace
officer, as defined in section 18-901(3)(1), C.R.S.
(c) Allegations of misfeasance
or malfeasance with regard to a governmental function, as defined in Section
18-1-901(3)(j), C.R.S."
(d) Allegations of commission of
a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony.
The original intent of the
Colorado District Attorney Council draft and that of Representative Kaufman was to make it
easier for grand juries to issue reports in cases where there is not an indictment
returned but where, in the public interest, the grand jury wishes to address allegations
of misconduct by public employees falling short of criminal conduct. The final bill made
it possible for a grand jury to address allegations of 1st and 2nd degree murder and the
two classes of child abuse resulting in death. The new statute would enable a Boulder
grand jury investigating the death of JonBenet Ramsey to publicly exonerate someone who
has been alleged to have of (sic) committed one of these crimes but only in the event an
indictment was not returned. The bill was signed into law by Governor Romer on April 8,
1997. We strongly urge those wishing to investigate the intentions and motives of the
Colorado District Attorneys Council, legislators, and those speaking on behalf of the bill
to review the Senate and House Journals and listen to tapes of the House and Senate
Judiciary Hearings and floor debates on file at the Colorado State Archives, 1313 Sherman
Street, Room 1B20, Denver.
During the Senate Judiciary Hearing on March 5, 1997, and
after the bill had been amended to include the criteria defining the public interest,
Senator Perlmutter stated that he had "...contacted several defense attorneys I know
in Denver and they were all supportive of it (the bill). They thought it was a good
idea." According to records at the Secretary of State's Office, Sen. Perlmutter
received a 1994 campaign contribution from Hal Haddon, defense attorney for John Ramsey.
The Haddon firm is well known for its expertise in grand jury practice. Norman Mueller, a
partner of the firm, once wrote in the April, 1988 issue of The Colorado
Lawyer"...defense counsel must creatively and vigorously scrutinize the grand jury
process at the earliest possible stage of the case."
The May 6, 1998 issue of the Colorado Journal, a publication
for the legal community, presented an article flattering to Alex Hunter entitled
"D.A. Winks At This One With or Without a Grand Jury Indictment Boulder's Prosecutor
Will Still Shine". The article is written around comments received from Senator
Perlmutter and district attorney Bill Ritter. It reads:
"If Hunter does take the matter to the grand jury and
that panel manages to wrestle the evidence it needs to hand down an actual indictment,
Hunter will appear the hero for going that route.
But if they fail to do so, Hunter could still come out
smelling like a rose with the help of a little-known state law that went into effect last
fall: That grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from
its probe.
That way, a prosecutor facing pressure to file charges can
say, 'See even the grand jury couldn't find anything.' said Sen. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden,
who co-sponsored the law in the 1997 Colorado Legislature.
The law, which only applies to Class 1, 2, and 3 felony cases,
was intended to help ease the public's mind in certain investigations where a prosecutor
fails to file charges, despite pressure from the police to do so as in the JonBenet case,
he said." (italics added).
In the article Sen. Perlmutter
indicated that he sponsored the bill because he "didn't want the grand juries to be
abused, especially in high-profile cases as this one (the Ramsey case)."
For his part, Mr. Ritter said:
" I don't think Alex Hunter would go to the grand jury
for political cover, that's just not how Alex Hunter operates,' said Denver District
Attorney Bill Ritter.
'The reason you go to a grand jury is because, as DA, you do
not have the ability in the state of Colorado to compel testimony or compel the production
of documents."'
But then the article speculates:
"But no matter what the grand jury decides, its probe
could help vindicate the impugned reputations of many members of the Boulder police and
district attorneys office."
The article was misleading in that it stated that the new
grand jury statute designed by Mr. Ritter and Senator Perlmutter to protect and exonerate
people and "vindicate" the reputations of public servants was
"effective" and therefore available for use by a Boulder grand jury on October
1, 1997. It also inaccurately described what allegations the statute deemed of public
interest.
For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation,
the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel
S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cuneo, Robert N. Miller with the firm of
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman &
Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request,
the Boulder city attorney's office supplied us with copies of the final agreement between
the city and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997 and an earlier draft of that agreement
dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures
to the city:
"As we indicated to you, our
respective firms have or had certain relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to
you. Specifically: 1. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. ("S. & H.") represents
Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the
company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994, S. & H.
represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee...
2. Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a
number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that
during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin.
Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman,
his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman's former partners at the firm.
3. Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on a
litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will
proceed on appeal."
John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of
Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access
Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported
in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics
was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics
under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed
Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of Colorado Journal to be
the "lead attorneys for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days
before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The "Mr. Haddon" referred to
in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing
John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these three attorneys
did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request
of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no
knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation.
On March 10, 1998, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that
"DA hints Ramsey case headed for grand jury". Two days later, the Boulder police
made their request for a grand jury on the advice of these attorneys and transferred the
case to the district attorney. On April 22, 1998, the Boulder grand jury was convened.
It is certain that Boulder County District Attorney Alex
Hunter; the metro area district attorneys advising Mr. Hunter; the current leadership of
the Boulder Police Department, the three attorneys advising the Boulder Police Department,
and Ramsey defense attorneys have known since HB97-1009 was signed by Governor Romer on
April 8, 1997, that to take advantage of the new statute, it would be necessary to delay a
grand jury investigation of the Ramsey case until April, 1998. In retrospect, it is clear
that the case was delayed for that purpose. It is hard to imagine that Governor Romer and
members of the office of the Attorney General and the Colorado Judiciary Department have
not also long known this.
The Boulder County District Attorney and members of his office
have delayed the investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey in order to take advantage
of a statute which will, if an indictment is not returned, enable him to persuade a grand
jury to issue a report telling the public that the case was delayed and that an indictment
was not returned as a result of police misconduct and the non-cooperation of witnesses. It
will also enable him to publicly exonerate anyone alleged to have murdered JonBenet
Ramsey. If he wishes such a report to be made, and of course he does since it would
contain precisely what he has been saying throughout the investigation, he must first
cause the grand jury not to return an indictment.
This, then, is how politics will have been allowed, finally,
to trump justice.
Delaying the case in this manner simply to serve the selfish
interests of a relatively small number of public servants and wealthy and powerful people
has destroyed the case's infrastructure which consists of the confidence and trust of
witnesses and the public in the criminal justice system and the hard work done in good
faith by police detectives. That he has allowed this destruction is compelling evidence
that Alex Hunter and those advising him have no intention of seeking an indictment from a
grand jury. By their actions, these people have demonstrated cynical and callous disregard
for the people of Colorado, the criminal justice system, and the well being and safety of
the Boulder community and its citizens.
What distinguishes the investigation of JonBenet's death from
all others, and what has so seriously handicapped the investigation, is the extraordinary
number of people that it has affected and influenced. The people of Colorado wish to see
justice for JonBenet. They must not accept the "conclusion" to the case now
being offered by the Boulder County District Attorney and Governor Romer. We will not.
After further assessing public opinion and reviewing the
contents of this letter and that of Mr. Thomas, we hope it will occur to Governor Romer
that evidence in this case must be reviewed by those who have no interest in seeking
anything other than justice for JonBenet.
Fleet and Priscilla White, August, 1998.
The JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report
AUTOPSY REPORT
NAME: RAMSEY, JONBENET AUTOPSY NO. 96A-155
DOB: 08/06/90 DEATH D/T: 12/26/96 @ 1323
AGE: 6Y AUTOPSY D/T: 12/27/96 @ 0815
SEX: F ID NO: 137712
PATH MD: MEYER COR/MEDREC#: 1714-96-A
TYPE: COR
FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin of face
II. Craniocerebral injuries
A. Scalp contusion
B. Linear, comminuted fracture of right side of skull
C. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere
D. subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage
E. Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes
III. Abrasion of right cheek
IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder
V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg
VI. Abrasion and vancular congestion of vaginal mucosa
VII. Ligature of right wrist
Toxicologic Studies
blood ethanol - none detected
blood drug screen - no drugs detected
CLINOCOPATHOLIGICAL CORRELATION:
Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with
craniocerebral trauma.
John E. Meyer M.D.
Pathologist
jn/12/27/96
The body of this six year old female was first seen by me after I was called to an
address identified as 755 - 15th street in Boulder, Colorado, on 12/26/96. I arrived at
the scene approximately 8 PM on 12/26 and entered the house where the decedent's body was
located at approximately 8:20 PM.
A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature
around the right wrist. Also noted was a small area of abrasion or contusion below the
right ear on the lateral aspect of the right cheek. A prominent dried abrasion was present
on the lower left neck. After examining the body, I left the residence at approximately
8:30 PM.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF INJURY: Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the
mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of
rust colored abrasion. In the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner
conjunctival surface is a 1 mm in maximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine, less
than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the upper eyelids bilaterally
as well as on the lateral left cheek. On everything the left upper eyelid there are much
smaller, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface.
Possible petechial hemorrhages are also seen on the conjunctival surfaces of the right
upper and lower eyelids, but liver mortis on this side of the face makes definite
identification difficult.
A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck. The width of the furrow varies from
one-eight of an inch to five/sixteenths of an inch and is horizontal in orientation, with
little upward deviation. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow
contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring
approximately 3 x 2 inches. The ligature furrow crosses the anterior midline of the neck
just below the laryngeal prominence, approximately at the level of the cricoid cartilage.
It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal
towards the back of the neck. The midline of the furrow mark on the anterior neck is 8
inches below the top of the head. The midline of the furrow mark on the posterior neck is
6.75 inches below the top of the head.
The area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes
on the lower left neck, just to the left of the midline, a roughly triangular,
parchment-like rust colored abrasion which measures 1.5 inches in length with a maximum
width of 0.75
inches. This roughly triangular shaped abrasion is obliquely oriented with the apex
superior and lateral. The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin
above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to
rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck. The
skin just above the ligature furrow along the right side of the neck contains petechial
hemorrhage composed of multiple confluent very small petechial hemorrhages as well as
several larger petechial hemorrhages measuring up to one-sixteenth and one-eight of an
inch in maximum dimension. Similar smaller petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin
below the ligature furrow on the left lateral aspect of the neck. Located on the right
side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eight of an inch area of superficial
abrasion. On the posterior aspect of the right shoulder is a poorly demarcated, very
superficial focus of abrasion/contusion which is pale purple in color and measures up to
three-quarters by one-half inch in maximum dimension. Several linear aggregates of
petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left shoulder just above deltopectoral
groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eight of an inch in
width. On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter
inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two
dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures
one-eight by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by
one-eight of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified. On the posterior
aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the
level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored.
They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eight by less
than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively.
On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora,
is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is
present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the
vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is
circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The
hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area
of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice.
The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the
2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position
and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the
area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent
discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into
the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid
thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other
perineal trauma is identified.
REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION: The unembalmed, well developed and well nourished
Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weight an estimated 45 pounds.
No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of
blood. The eyes are green and the pupils equally dilated. The sclerae are white. The
nostrils are both patent and contain a small amount of tan mucous material. The teeth are
native and in good repair. The tongue is smooth, pink-tan and granular. No buccal mucosal
trauma is seen. The frenulum is intact. There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the
tongue. On the right cheek is a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material which does not
appear to be hemorrhagic. The neck contains no palpable adenopathy or masses and the
trachea and larynx are midline. The chest is symmetrical. Breasts are prepubescent. The
abdomen is flat and contains no scars. No palpable organomegaly or masses are identified.
The external genitalia are that of a prepubescent female. No pubic hair is present. The
anus is patent. Examination of the extremities is unremarkable.
The fingernails of both hands are of sufficient length for clipping. Examination of the
back is unremarkable. There is dorsal 3+ to 4+ livor mortis which is nonblanching. Livor
mortis is also present on the right side of the face. At the time of the initiation of the
autopsy there is mild 1 to 2+ rigor mortis of the elbows and shoulders with more advanced
2 to 3+ rigor mortis of the joints of the lower extremities.
INTERNAL EXAM: The anterior chest musculature is well developed. No sternal or rib
fractures are identified.
Mediastinum: The mediastinal contents are normally distributed. The 21 gm thymus gland
has a normal external appearance. The cut sections are finely lobular and pink-tan. No
petechial hemorrhages are seen. The aorta and remainder of the mediastinal structures are
unremarkable.
Body Cavities: The right and left thoracic cavities contain approximately 5 cc of straw
colored fluid. The pleural surfaces are smooth and glistening. The pericardial sac
contains 3-4 cc of straw colored fluid and the epicardium and pericardium are
unremarkable. The abdominal contents are normally distributed and covered by a smooth
glistening serosa. No intra-abdominal accumulation of fluid or blood is seen.
Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and 175 gm let lung have a normal lobar configuration. An
occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage is seen on the surface of each lung.
The cut sections of the lungs disclose an intact alveolar architecture with a small amount
of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mild pressure. The intrapulmonary
bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.
Heart: The 100 gm heart has a normal external configuration. There are scattered
subepicardial petechial hemorrhages over the anterior surface of the heart. The coronary
arteries are normal in their distribution and contain no evidence of atherosclerosis. The
tan-pink myocardium is homogeneous and contains no areas of fibrosis or infarction. The
endocardium is unremarkable. The valve cusps are thin, delicate and pliable and contain no
vegetation or thrombosis. The major vessels enter and leave the heart in the normal
fashion. The foramen ovale is closed.
Aorta and Vena Cava: The aorta is patent throughout its course as are its major
branches. No atherosclerosis is seen. The Vena Cava is unremarkable.
Spleen: The 61 gm spleen has a finely wrinkled purple capsule. Cut sections are
homogeneous and disclose readily identifiable red and white pulp. No intrinsic
abnormalities are identified.
Adrenals: The adrenal glands are of normal size and shape. A golden yellow cortex
surmounts a thin brown-tan medullary area. No intrinsic abnormalities are identified.
Kidneys: The 40 gm right kidney and 40 gm left kidney have a normal external
appearance. The surfaces are smooth and glistening. Cut sections disclose an intact
corticomedullary architecture. The renal papilae are sharply demarcated. The pelvocaliceal
system is lined by gray-white mucosa which is unremarkable. Both ureters are patent
throughout their course to the bladder.
Liver: The 625 gm liver has a normal external appearance. The capsule is smooth and
glistening. Cut sections disclose an intact lobular architecture with no intrinsic
abnormalities identified.
Pancreas: The pancreas is of normal size and shape. Cut sections are finely lobular and
tan. No intrinsic abnormalities are identified.
Bladder: The bladder is contracted and contains no urine. The bladder mucosa is smooth
and tan-gray. No intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Genitalia: The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities. The
prepubescent uterus measures 3 x 1 x 0.8 cm and is unremarkable. The cervical os contains
no abnormalities. Both fallopian tubes and ovaries are prepubescent and unremarkable by
gross examination.
Gallbladder: The gallbladder contains 2-3 cc of amber bile. No stones are identified
and the mucosa is smooth and velvety. The cystic duct, right and left hepatic duct and
common bile duct are patent throughout their course to the duodenum.
G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white mucosa. The stomach
contains a small amount (8-10 cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material
without particulate matter identified. The gastric mucosa is autolyzed but contains no
areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The proximal portion of the small intestine contains
fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which
may represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified. The remainder of the
small intestine is unremarkable. The large intestine contains soft green fecal material.
The appendix is present.
Lymphatic System: Unremarkable.
Musculoskeletal System: Unremarkable.
Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of
scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge,
posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring
approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence
of organization. At the superior extension of this area of hemorrhage is a linear to
comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area
forward to the right frontal area across the parietal portion of the skull. the
posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment
of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the
fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This
fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length. On removal of the skull cap there is
found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the
surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral
hemisphere. The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the
sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified. There is a thin
film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the
right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an
extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area,
posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area.
This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At
the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one quarter inch similar appearing
purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal
lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The
cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of
the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebullum disclose no additional abnormalities.
The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like
discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex.
These extend approximately 6 mm into the cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the
brain discloses no additional fractures.
Neck: Dissection of the neck is performed after removal of the thoracoabdominal organs
and the brain. The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiple
sections of the sternocleidomastoid muscle disclose no hemorrhages. Sections of the
remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage.
Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and hyoid bone disclose not
evidence of fracture of hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no
hemorrhage or traumatic injury. The thyroid gland weights 2 gm and is normal in
appearance. Cut sections are finely lobular and red-tan. The trachea and larynx are lined
by smooth pink-tan mucosa without intrinsic abnormalities.
MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION: (All Sections Stained with H&E)
(Slide Key) - (A) - scalp hemorrhage, (B) - sections of vaginal mucosa with smallest
fragment representing area of abrasion of 7:00 position, (C) - heart, (D-F) - lungs, (G) -
liver and spleen, (H) - pancreas and kidney, (I) - thyroid and bladder, (J) - thymus and
adrenals, (K-L) - reproductive organs, (M) - larynx, (N-T) - brain.
Myocardium: Sections of the ventricular myocardium are composed of interlacing bundles
of cardiac muscle fibers. No fibrosis or inflammation are identified.
Lungs: The alveolar architecture of the lungs is well preserved. Pulmonary vascular
congestion is identified. No intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Spleen: There is mild autolysis of the spleen. Both red and white pulp are
identifiable.
Thyroid: The thyroid gland is composed of normal-appearing follicles. An occasional
isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory infiltrate is seen. There is also a
small fragment of parathyroid tissue.
Thymus: The thymus gland retains the usual architecture. The lymphoid material is
intact and scattered Hassall's corpuscles are identified. Mild vascular congestion is
identified.
Trachea: There is mild chronic inflammation in the submucosa of the trachea.
Liver: The lobular architecture of the liver is well preserved. No inflammation or
intrinsic abnormality are identified.
Pancreas: There is autolysis of the pancreas which is otherwise unremarkable.
Kidney: The overall architecture of the kidney is well preserved. There is perhaps mild
vascular congestion in the cortex but no inflammation is identified.
Bladder: The transitional epithelium of the bladder is autolyzed. No significant
intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Reproductive Organs: Sections of the uterus are consistent with the prepubescent age.
The ovary is unremarkable.
Adrenal: The architecture of the adrenal is well preserved and no intrinsic
abnormalities are seen.
Brain: Sections of the areas of contusion disclose disrupted blood vessels of the
cortex with surrounding hemorrhage. There is no evidence of inflammatory infiltrate or
organization of the hemorrhage. Subarachnoid hemorrhage is also identified. Cortical
neurons are surrounded by clear halos, as are glial cells.
Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial
chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal
wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small
number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign
material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.
EVIDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include:
Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing; vaginal swabs and
smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands, fingernail
clippings, jewelry, paper bags from feet; white body bag; sample of head hear, eyelashes
and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top
tubes of blood.
END OF REPORT
Return to The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
Return to Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross.
