Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (25 page)

Photo 24 - Close up view of alleged point of entry, and rectangular shaped piece of glass resting on the exterior Train Room window sill. It was located near the middle of the sill. (Note the window screen eye bolt to the right of the glass shard) Source: Crime Scene Video, Boulder PD Case Files

I took several deep, cleansing breaths.

It was difficult to extricate myself from the intimate experience of exploring the Ramsey home that evening.

Crime scene videos, by necessity, are intended to provide the viewer with an objective and un-biased view of the cold, bare facts of an investigation. Photographs and videotape help us to discern fact from fiction.

My previous viewing of Smit’s Prime-time televised exhibition of his intruder theory immediately came to mind – it revealed that his small stature entirely filled the bottom sill of the window as he demonstrated how an intruder could have gained entry to the Ramsey home on Christmas night. Taking into consideration the location of the fragile spider web in the corner of the window frame, and the rectangular glass fragment visible in the crime scene video, I reached my first investigative conclusion:

It was extremely unlikely that anyone climbed through this window on the day that JonBenét was kidnapped and cold-bloodedly murdered.

I came to the realization that my work had only just begun.

Photo 25 - Detective Smit, interviewed by Katie Couric, demonstrates the “intruder” entry through the Train Room window on NBC. Note how the width of his hips and legs fill the entire base of the window frame. The author doubted the cobweb, depicted in crime scene video in the bottom left corner of this window, would have survived this activity. Or, similarly, that the rectangular piece of glass centered on the exterior window sill would have remained in its precarious position. Source: Single frame from NBC news program

T
he late summer and fall of 2005 had been a busy time in the office. I seem to recall that I had helped one of the Deputy D.A.’s prepare a couple of sex assault cases that went to trial, and my felony caseload was burgeoning with other active investigations. I was sifting through cell phone records obtained in the Gutierrez homicide and was trying to clarify motivation in that death by strangulation. In spite of those demands, I somehow managed to find the time to press forward on the Ramsey case and explored a number of additional questions that needed resolution.

I had been particularly interested in Lou Smit’s intruder theory and was aware that a number of elements comprised the basis for his hypothesis. The following is an overall synopsis of these elements:

1. Given the fact that no forced entry had been discovered on any of the exterior doors and windows of the residence, Smit thought the secluded window well of the basement Train Room an ideal location for a suspect to gain entry to the house.
   
2. The window had been broken by John Ramsey when locked out of the home the previous summer and it was simple enough for an intruder to reach through the broken glass to unlock the window for entry.
   
3. There was a scuff mark on the wall beneath the window and Smit theorized this had been left by the perpetrator.
   
4. There was a Samsonite suitcase sitting upright directly beneath this window. He felt that the height of the window above the floor required the use of this as an aid to climbing back out through the window well.
   
5. There was the impression of a boot print in the Wine Cellar near JonBenét’s body. It was identified as the poon of the sole of a Hi-Tec brand boot and Smit thought this was left by the perpetrator while concealing the body.
   
6. The duct tape placed over JonBenét’s mouth was evidence of the intruder’s intention to silence her during the kidnap.
   
7. The bindings tied to JonBenét’s wrists were utilized to restrain her during the assault.
   
8. The garrote tied around her throat was used to torture her during the sexual assault. This included the penetration of her vaginal orifice through the use of the broken handle of the paintbrush tied into the cord of the garrote.
   
9. A ransom note was left by the perpetrator with the intention of misleading authorities about the true nature of the crime: Smit believed a lone sexual predator was responsible for the kidnap and murder of JonBenét.
   
10. Photographs of marks on JonBenét’s face and her back appeared to Smit to have been created by a stun gun. It was his theory that this weapon had been used to render her unconscious during the kidnapping.
    

Smit was not shy about sharing his theories and he prepared a Power Point presentation that outlined the evidence that purportedly supported this hypothesis. It was my understanding that he used this presentation to point to the involvement of a sexual pedophile in this crime. He had prepared a shorter version for Lacy to utilize during her presentations on the case.

I reviewed both of these presentations during my exploration of his theory, and the underlying premise appeared to be this:

• There had been no recorded history of bad conduct, of physical, or sexual abuse located in the family’s background, and Smit could not identify a motive for either parent that pointed to their being responsible for the brutal murder of their daughter
  ⁴⁸
  
• Failing that, the lack of a viable theory for this crime of violence then pointed to the involvement of a sexual predator
  
• Some of the implements used in the crime were not found in the home after the discovery of JonBenét’s body, and he, therefore, presumed that they had been carried away from the scene by the perpetrator.
  
• The use of a stun gun was the cornerstone of the intruder theory. The parents would not have required the use of this type of instrument to control and silence their daughter.
  

As noted previously, Smit had appeared on national television and explained his thoughts about the point of entry, demonstrating how the intruder gained access to the home through the basement window well of the Train Room. I thought that the photographic and video evidence presented a compelling counter-argument to his theory, and a portion of this video clip would subsequently play a key role in my presentation about the intruder theory to ranking D.A. officials in January 2006.

I should note that I first met Smit during the summer of 2004 when Tom Bennett was still the lead investigator in the case. He was very pleasant, and he would usually spend a little time with Tom when visiting the office to check on leads. He would sometimes bring a checklist of things that he thought should be pursued in the case. I think I may have seen him in the office on approximately four to five separate occasions before I took over the investigation.

I specifically remember the last time I had seen him, and it was in the last week of September 2005, after I had returned from working as a reserve officer for a Telluride music festival. I had been in the lead role for several months by that time, and my head was still swimming as I tried to get a handle on all of the details of the case.

Smit took a seat in my office and we spoke briefly about the progress of the investigation. He told me that he had recently returned from Atlanta, where he had spent time visiting the Ramsey family. Patsy had been in the hospital, battling a return of cancer, and he described her as being on her “deathbed”.

I expressed my sympathy for Patsy and the family. They had been through hell.

Smit told me that he had spent some time with Patsy in the hospital, holding her hand and looking into her eyes. He told me that this experience led to him believe that she was “innocent.”

He advised me that he had also looked into the eyes of John Ramsey and didn’t feel that he had been involved in his daughter’s death either.

Smit reported that Patsy had been in and out of the hospital undergoing chemotherapy and had been staying at her parents’ home.

After several minutes of conversation, he indicated that it had taken him about a week to discover the evidence that pointed to an intruder being involved in the murder. He had formed this theory after studying the crime scene photographs, and it was my distinct impression, based upon his statements, that he spent little or no time reading any of the police reports that had been prepared by the initial responding officers, detectives, and crime scene technicians.

I wasn’t quite certain how to respond to that revelation. Smit was informing me that it had only taken him a week to develop his theory of the crime. I was several months into my review of the evidence collected in the case and couldn’t commit one way or the other to an opinion about who may have been responsible for the murder of JonBenét.

I chalked it up to his extensive experience as a homicide investigator and decided that I still needed some time to reach any firm theory about the circumstances of the crime.

That was the last time I saw Smit, and I regret not having been in a better position to have debated the merits of the case with him before he passed away.

Steve Thomas spoke to me on several occasions about his own conversations with Smit, and it was apparent that he was entirely committed to the sexual predator theory. The two had gone round and round about the feasibility of the window well being used as a point of entry and exit to the home. The spider webs played a central role in these discussions, as well as the suitcase and scuff mark on the wall.

Smit was not to be swayed and held steadfast in his belief that John and Patsy were not responsible for the death of their daughter. He could discern no motive that directly tied them to JonBenét’s brutal murder.

Tom Wickman was adamant that no stun gun had been used in the murder, and it was clear from my review of the autopsy report that the coroner believed that the marks on JonBenét’s back were “abrasions” versus “burn marks.” Boulder investigators had also sought the opinion of the manufacturer of the Taser stun gun thought to have been used in the crime. In no uncertain terms, they declared that the marks on JonBenét were not created by their stun gun.

It came to light during my read of the opinions of the medical consultants in the case that the marks on JonBenét’s face were believed to have been caused by something other than a stun gun. Michigan Pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz opined that the mark on her cheek had been caused by the imprint of a small object versus a deteriorating burn mark from a stun gun.

Dr. Spitz offered some additional expert opinions on the injuries sustained by JonBenét that are referenced in Chapter Six of this book.

Smit was determined to nail down the stun gun theory, and with the assistance of Boulder County Sheriff’s Department (BCSO) investigators, proceeded to conduct experiments on pigs under the influence of anesthesia. The most likely brand of stun gun that matched the distinct marks on JonBenét’s back was the Air Taser, and a series of photographs were taken of the marks left on the skin of the pig by the Taser.

I studied these photographs, and they depicted a series of marks in succession that marched up the side of the belly of the pig. A scaled BCSO business card was held next to these marks, but I could not locate any photographs of one-to-one comparisons of these marks to those found on JonBenét.

According to the scaled card, the measurement between marks on the pig appeared to be consistent with the coroner’s written report that stated the abrasions observed on JonBenét were approximately 3.5 cm apart. Smit’s Power Point stated that the marks appeared “close” in measurement, but had not been officially scaled to JonBenét’s injuries.

Scaled photographs of the electronic leads of the Air Taser were taken by investigators, but again I could not locate any one-to-one comparisons to the abrasions on the back of JonBenét.

I contacted Tom Trujillo, now a detective sergeant in Boulder’s Detective Bureau, and asked him if he had any one-to-one photographs that compared the electronic leads of the Air Taser to JonBenét’s injuries. I thought I had read that Lakewood Police had prepared a set of one-to-one photos early in the investigation for Boulder Police. Trujillo asked me to come by his office and he would show me what he had.

A thick binder of 35 mm photographs was produced, and Trujillo thumbed to a tab containing several enlargements of different views of the Air Taser, one of which included a front view of the electronic leads on the head of the instrument.

There was no one-to-one photograph comparing the electronic leads to the marks on JonBenét’s back, but Trujillo had fashioned a clear plastic overlay that depicted the same scaled representation. Holes had been cut in the plastic that illustrated the location of the electronic leads of the Taser and placed over the photograph of the injuries.

I leaned over to take a closer look at the plastic overlay. The holes cut in the plastic representing the electronic leads did not appear to match JonBenét’s injuries.

I asked Trujillo if any photographs had been taken of these materials, and he shook his head. These had been prepared back around 2000 when investigators were exploring the possibility that a stun gun had been used in the crime. No further work had gone into the materials since that time frame and especially because Chief Beckner had handed the case over to the D.A.’s office in 2002.

Technology had made giant strides in that period of time, and I asked Trujillo if he could arrange to have some scaled one-to-one photographs completed of his materials for a Power- Point presentation.

Within a week, a CD disk prepared by BPD Criminalist Shelly Hisey arrived at my office, and it contained a series of Power Point slides that depicted a graphic overlay of the stun gun to the injuries on JonBenét’s back. I pulled up the file on my computer and hit the play button.

I must have watched the presentation several times before I leaned back into my chair and felt a chill crawl down my back.

It was strikingly clear that the electronic leads of the Taser purported to have been used by an intruder in this murder did not align with JonBenét’s injuries.

Lou Smit’s representation that these marks were a “close match” were exactly that, “close”, but not the
exact
match you would expect to see from the direct physical contact that would have been required in these circumstances.

It was an opinion that Boulder Police investigators had been expressing privately for years.