What About Judge Carnes's Ruling?
by
Ryan Ross
The recent ruling by a
federal judge dismissing a suit against the Ramseys is a good illustration of
the hazards of relying on lawsuits as vehicles for truth seeking.
Judge Julie Carnes last month tossed out the defamation
suit filed against the Ramseys by journalist Chris Wolf, whom the Ramseys had
identified in their book as one of the suspects in the death of their daughter.
In her ruling, Judge Carnes writes that "the weight of the evidence is more
consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with
the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did."
But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was
weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to
Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys,
or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told
the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served
their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files
either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts
asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.
The result is that Carnes's ruling reads very much like
something the Ramseys would write. For openers, for example, she writes that
JonBenet was murdered. The only evidence before her of that was the assertion of
the Ramseys that their daughter was murdered. Wolf's lawyer didn't dispute that
because Wolf also thinks JonBenet was murdered. So Judge Carnes accepted that
conclusion. She had no choice. No one suggested otherwise to her.
Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known
that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to
as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from
family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when
they knew about them.
Patsy Ramsey, for example, was told by prosecutors in 2000
that the Ramsey's son, Burke, and a friend of his had both testified before the
grand jury that Burke owned a Hi-Tec boot. Nonetheless, Judge Carnes writes in
her ruling, based on assertions made to her last summer by the Ramseys, that
that the owner of the Hi-Tec boot has never been identified. Wolf didn't dispute
that, but then he didn't attend the interview during which prosecutors told
Patsy about Burke and his friend's grand jury testimony.
The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they
have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in
the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was
killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush
used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the
brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.
The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes,
making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed
only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her
to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that
don't want her to know.
Judge Carnes's ruling includes a list of items the Ramseys
consider evidence of an intruder, only a small fraction of which has even been
cited by Det. Lou Smit, the staunchest advocate of the intruder theory who,
unlike the Ramseys, had at one time seen all the police evidence in the case. If
Smit won't bother to cite the items on this list as evidence of an intruder,
there's little reason for anyone else to.
Judge Carnes has no more luck formulating a coherent
explanation for why an intruder would leave behind a ransom note in his or her
own handwriting that anyone else has. She simply notes the suggestion of the
Ramseys that the intruder may have been laying in wait for the Ramseys before
they came home Christmas Day, in which case the intruder would have had plenty
of time to write a long note.
But the biggest problem the note poses for intruder
theorists is not its length, but the fact that it was left behind when there had
been no kidnapping. Judge Carnes doesn't offer any explanation for why she
thinks an intruder who had just killed JonBenet and left the body in the family
residence would leave behind a ransom note he/she had written that would provide
the best evidence linking him or her to the murder, when he/she would know that
as soon as someone conducted a thorough search of the house the possibility of
obtaining a ransom would be lost and a manhunt for the murderer would be
launched.
Finally, Judge Carnes does a tap dance on the question of
the credibility of Gideon Epstein, the handwriting expert Wolf was relying on
for his assertion that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Judge Carnes acknowledged
that in reaching her decision on whether to dismiss Wolf's suit before it goes
to a jury that she is not supposed to assess the credibility of any of his
witnesses, because that is something only a jury is permitted to do. Judge
Carnes also acknowledges that Epstein is qualified to render such an opinion.
But she complained that in his deposition in the case
Epstein hadn't explained the methodology he had used to conclude with "absolute
certainty" that Patsy had written the note. Yes, he had said there were
similarities between the note and Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting. But he hadn't
specified how many similarities or what kind. His failure to do so, Judge Carnes
concluded, meant that "the weight and impact" of his testimony would
"necessarily" have been less than the weight of the handwriting experts relied
on by Boulder police.
Epstein could, of course, have explained his methodology
in more detail in his deposition, had Wolf's attorney asked him to, and to a
jury, had Carnes permitted the case to go forward. But barring a successful
appeal, the judge has made sure he won't get the opportunity.
Now, how is it that Judge Carnes knows about the
handwriting experts Boulder police relied on? The Ramseys told her about them
and their findings. And how did they know? Because Boulder prosecutors, bending
over backwards to accommodate the Ramseys, had told them.
There's no reason to expect the Ramseys to give Judge
Carnes evidence they know of that undercuts their assertions.
And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling
much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the
case.
Return to the story,
Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross.
