PDF Summary:Foreign Faction, by A. James Kolar

In his investigative book Foreign Faction, former District Attorney investigator A. James Kolar presents a new theory about the unsolved 1996 murder of JonBenét Ramsey. Kolar builds a case that challenges the idea of an outside intruder, instead theorizing the involvement of the Ramsey family.

After a thorough re-examination of the evidence, Kolar concludes that various factors — DNA findings, the family's behaviors, and investigative missteps — point towards a potential cover-up of an accidental death rather than an intrusion. He makes a case for revisiting the investigation, using a grand jury to compel testimony and information long concealed.

(continued)...

• Despite the fiber evidence and other investigative leads, no charges were filed against Patsy Ramsey. The case remains open, with ongoing debates about the interpretation of the evidence.
• Duct tape is often used in crimes for restraint or concealment. Analyzing fibers on duct tape can help reconstruct events or identify individuals who may have handled it.
• Detritus refers to debris or waste material. In a crime scene, it can include any small, discarded fragments that might hold forensic value.
• The presence of fibers in specific areas suggests a level of familiarity with the home’s layout, which an outsider might not possess.
• Proper handling and documentation are crucial to prevent contamination of fiber evidence, which could otherwise compromise its integrity in legal proceedings.

The ransom note was composed using Patsy's notepad.

The ransom note serves as a crucial piece of evidence suggesting the possible involvement of Patsy Ramsey in the criminal act. The inquiry concluded that the note had been written on her notepad from the kitchen using a Sharpie that was discovered inside the home.

The probe uncovered evidence of a deliberate and prolonged effort to construct a deceptive narrative, as indicated by remnants of a preliminary version of the ransom note and the absence of certain pages from the notepad. While handwriting specialists were unable to definitively exclude Patsy's participation, the combination of these factors, especially the sudden change in her handwriting after the event, heavily implied she played a role in creating this crucial deceptive piece of evidence.

Practical Tips

• Develop your analytical thinking by creating hypothetical scenarios based on small changes in your environment. For instance, if you notice something out of place, like a book on a different shelf, construct a narrative around how it got there. This exercise can improve your ability to piece together information and draw conclusions from seemingly unrelated details.
• Start a neighborhood watch initiative that includes inventory checks. Collaborate with your neighbors to regularly check for and report missing household items that could be used inappropriately, fostering a community of vigilance and collective safety.
• Create a 'revision game' with friends or family where you exchange notes or messages with intentional 'preliminary' errors or changes. The goal is for each person to identify the remnants of the initial versions. This playful activity will sharpen your skills in recognizing the process of revision and the importance of thorough review.
• Use a notepad with removable pages to track a personal project, periodically removing pages that represent completed tasks. This physical representation of progress can provide a sense of accomplishment and a visual reminder of how far you've come in your endeavors.
• Use handwriting analysis as a creative icebreaker in social settings by asking friends to write down a sentence and discussing any noticeable changes over time. This can be a fun way to engage with others and explore the concept that handwriting might reflect personal changes. It can also deepen your understanding of how events impact those around you.

The conduct of the Ramsey family has elicited suspicion.

Burke Ramsey displayed unusual conduct and uttered strange comments during his interview.

Kolar's considerable doubts arose from the demeanor displayed by Burke Ramsey during his interactions with the police. Burke seemed unconcerned about his sister's location when he initially conversed with Detective Patterson on December 26, 1996. He seemed more preoccupied with eating a sandwich than with describing the circumstances leading up to her disappearance.

During his session with Dr. Bernhard from Social Services on January 8, 1997, his lack of emotional response to his sister's death was noticeably evident. Dr. Bernhard's disconcerting evaluation was heavily influenced by Burke's lack of emotional response, particularly his absence of tears and the omission of JonBenét from a family drawing. His portrayal, which was disturbingly nonchalant and included a demonstration of the fatal head injury, intensified these worries.

Other Perspectives

• Burke Ramsey's behavior might not necessarily be unusual for a child in a traumatic situation, as children can react to stress and grief in a wide variety of ways that may seem atypical to adults.
• His focus on eating a sandwich might have been a way to find some sense of normalcy during a highly stressful and confusing time.
• The interpretation of Burke's behavior could be subjective, and without knowing his usual demeanor, it might be unfair to draw conclusions from a single interaction.
• Emotional responses can be internalized, especially in situations where a child may feel overwhelmed or confused, and may not be visible to observers.
• The interpretation of nonverbal cues, such as emotional responses, can be highly subjective and influenced by the observer's biases and expectations.
• The demonstration of the fatal head injury could have been a way for Burke to try to understand or process what happened, rather than an indication of guilt or lack of concern.

Patsy Ramsey's account of her actions on the morning of the crime changed on several occasions.

Patsy Ramsey's account of her actions on that morning contained several discrepancies. Before discovering the ransom note on the staircase, she first checked JonBenét's empty bedroom. She was the first to find the note, according to her initial claim. Her detailed description of the ransom note's contents, despite her claim of only briefly seeing parts of it, indicated an intentional effort to deceive those conducting the investigation.

Despite the forensic evidence indicating that JonBenét had consumed pineapple and the presence of her fingerprints on the bowl, her steadfast refusal to admit she had given pineapple to JonBenét further highlighted a tendency towards deceitfulness. The discovery of JonBenét's body, coupled with the subsequent changes in her handwriting, reinforced Kolar's belief that her primary goal was to protect herself and her relatives.

Context

• Patsy Ramsey, JonBenét's mother, was one of the first people to report her daughter missing. Her actions and statements have been scrutinized due to inconsistencies and the unusual circumstances surrounding the discovery of the ransom note.
• The ransom note was a critical piece of evidence in the case, allegedly demanding money for JonBenét's safe return, which added complexity to the investigation.
• The case received widespread media coverage, and discrepancies in the family's statements were heavily reported, contributing to public suspicion and speculation.
• Providing a detailed account of a document without having thoroughly read it could raise suspicions of obstruction or involvement, impacting legal proceedings.
• Forensic analysis revealed that undigested pineapple was found in JonBenét's stomach during the autopsy, suggesting she ate it shortly before her death.
• Protecting oneself and relatives in a criminal case can involve altering or controlling narratives to avoid suspicion or legal consequences.

From the beginning, the Ramsey family's cooperation with the investigative officials was less than effective.

Right from the start of the investigation, the Ramsey family showed considerable reluctance to engage completely with law enforcement. The swift enlistment of legal representation, coupled with their hesitance to partake in prolonged conversations with law enforcement and their insistence on dictating the conditions for any subsequent cooperation, all indicated the same outcome.

The conduct of the parents, marked by an absence of cooperation, strategic interactions with the press, and intentional non-disclosure of specific medical documents, indicated an intentional attempt to steer the story and obstruct the progress of the inquiry. Kolar's suspicions intensified as he observed actions he considered highly questionable, reinforcing his belief that the family was concealing crucial information pivotal to understanding the circumstances surrounding JonBenét's death.

Context

• The case attracted significant media attention, leading to intense public scrutiny and numerous conspiracy theories about the family's involvement.
• Lawyers can advise clients on the extent and nature of their cooperation with law enforcement to ensure that their actions do not inadvertently harm their legal standing.
• The complexity and high stakes of the investigation could have made the family wary of making statements without thorough legal consultation.
• The traumatic nature of the event could have influenced the family's decision to dictate terms, as they might have been overwhelmed and seeking to maintain some control over the situation during a period of intense emotional distress.
• The Ramseys' interactions with the media were strategic, often giving interviews and making public statements that some believed were attempts to control the narrative.
• By interacting with the media, the family might aim to apply public pressure on law enforcement, possibly affecting the direction or intensity of the investigation.
• A lack of trust in law enforcement or fear of leaks to the media might have contributed to their decision to withhold documents.
• Kolar's role in the investigation provided him with access to evidence and interviews, shaping his perspective on the family's behavior and the case's complexities.
• The mention of medical documents refers to potential evidence that could have provided insights into JonBenét's health or injuries, which were not fully disclosed to investigators.

The investigation's initial phase suffered from missed opportunities and mistakes.

The viewpoints of the district attorney's office and the Boulder police department clearly conflicted.

Divergent goals and a deficiency in teamwork hampered both entities.

The investigation into JonBenét's murder was hindered by a lack of cohesion and shared objectives between the local law enforcement in Boulder and the office of the district attorney. The schism arose from a deep-seated dispute over who was probably responsible, fostering a climate filled with suspicion, divergent priorities, and squandered chances.

The Boulder police, convinced by clues suggesting the family's participation, were exasperated by the District Attorney's inclination toward the hypothesis of an external intruder. The district attorney's office's actions led to heightened tensions when they supplied the defense with evidence, declined requests from law enforcement for search warrants, and ignored the collective agreement of specialists who were in favor of the police's stance. The pursuit of justice faced considerable obstacles due to a lack of unified strategy, which was further complicated by political pressures and personal relationships, leading to the oversight of critical leads.

Context

• Differences in legal interpretations and procedural approaches between the police and the DA's office contributed to the lack of cohesion.
• The Boulder Police Department, relatively small and inexperienced with such high-profile cases, faced challenges in managing the investigation and coordinating with other agencies.
• The Boulder police's suspicion of the family stemmed from various factors, including the unusual nature of the ransom note found at the scene, the lack of forced entry, and behavioral observations during initial interviews.
• Specialists, such as forensic experts or criminal profilers, often provide insights based on evidence analysis. Their consensus can influence investigative directions, but the district attorney may prioritize legal standards over expert opinions.
• In smaller communities, personal relationships between law enforcement, legal officials, and community members can impact objectivity. These relationships might lead to biases, either consciously or unconsciously, affecting how evidence is handled or how certain individuals are treated during the investigation.

The integrity of the police investigation is undermined when prosecutors disclose evidence to the defense.

The actions taken by Alex Hunter's District Attorney's Office significantly hindered the Boulder Police Department's ability to conduct their investigation. One particularly egregious action involved the early release of police reports, witness statements, and physical evidence to the defense attorneys representing the Ramsey family before their first formal interviews in April 1997.

The Ramsey's legal counsel had the upper hand as they were informed about the ongoing developments in the investigation, a courtesy ostensibly offered to encourage cooperation, which allowed them to thoroughly prepare their clients. The reluctance of the prosecuting attorney to employ forceful investigative techniques, such as compelling individuals to give evidence under oath, hindered the collection of vital information and led to perceptions of favorable treatment for the Ramseys, which in turn fueled doubts about the impartiality of the investigation.

Other Perspectives

• Transparency in evidence sharing can actually enhance the integrity of the investigation by holding the police accountable for their investigative methods and ensuring that evidence is collected and handled properly.
• The actions taken by the District Attorney's Office could be seen as an attempt to maintain transparency and uphold the legal rights of the accused, which is a cornerstone of the justice system.
• Being informed about ongoing developments is a right protected by the principle of due process, which is intended to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that the accused can mount an effective defense.
• Employing forceful investigative techniques could potentially violate the rights of those being investigated, leading to legal challenges that may undermine the case.
• Compelling individuals to give evidence under oath can also lead to false or misleading testimony due to the pressure of the situation, which might not necessarily contribute to the impartiality of the investigation.
• The effectiveness of an investigation should be judged by its adherence to legal standards and the quality of evidence gathered, not solely by public perception.

Essential investigative avenues and evidence were neglected in terms of the necessary thoroughness.

The inquiry suffered due to a lack of thorough scrutiny of the home and the inadequate interrogation of the relatives.

In the early stages of the investigation, crucial evidence went missing because of major errors, and thorough interviews with key figures were not carried out. Upon responding to the emergency call, authorities did not conduct an exhaustive inspection of the premises, despite harboring uncertainties regarding the potential involvement of the family. As such, the Ramseys had the capability to interfere with or eliminate important evidence relevant to the investigation.

Additionally, their choice to refrain from questioning the brother and to rely exclusively on the evaluation of a child psychologist affiliated with the Department of Social Services limited their opportunity to grasp what he might have known about the incident. The challenge of engaging relatives, coupled with the choice of the prosecution to share evidence with the defense, significantly impeded the uncovering of the truth.

Context

• In cases involving family members, investigators must balance sensitivity with thoroughness. This can be challenging but is necessary to ensure that all potential leads are explored without bias.
• Burke Ramsey, JonBenét's older brother, was nine years old at the time of the murder. His potential knowledge of the events was considered crucial, yet he was not formally interrogated by police immediately after the incident.
• The investigation refers to the case of JonBenét Ramsey, a six-year-old beauty pageant contestant who was found dead in her home in Boulder, Colorado, in 1996.
• Thorough interviews are crucial in criminal investigations as they help gather detailed accounts, verify alibis, and understand the relationships and dynamics between individuals involved.
• Failing to conduct a comprehensive inspection can lead to the loss of crucial evidence, which may hinder the investigation and affect the ability to prosecute suspects effectively.
• The potential for interference with evidence is linked to the fact that the crime scene was not secured promptly, allowing family members and others to move freely within the house.
• There are legal and ethical challenges in questioning minors, especially in traumatic situations. Authorities must balance the need for information with the child's psychological safety.
• Psychological evaluations can be subjective and may not be as effective as direct questioning in uncovering factual information, particularly in complex cases involving potential criminal activity.
• Intricate family dynamics, such as estrangement or internal conflicts, can complicate the process of engaging relatives. These dynamics might affect the willingness of family members to speak openly or to provide consistent accounts of events.
• High-profile cases often attract media attention, and shared evidence can be leaked to the public, affecting jury selection and public opinion, which can indirectly impact the trial's outcome.

The delay in convening a grand jury for the purpose of compelling testimonies and obtaining relevant documents.

The assembly of a grand jury took place in April 1998, over a year after JonBenét's death, even though the Boulder police had previously requested its formation. The delay, thought by some to be a strategic move by the District Attorney to take advantage of a new law limiting the revelation of certain juridical proceedings, hindered the detectives' efforts to quickly obtain witness statements and access crucial documents, such as the family's medical records.

Starting the grand jury process sooner could have compelled key witnesses, including the family members, to testify while their memories were still fresh, and might have also guaranteed the retrieval of potentially incriminating documents that the Ramseys withheld, claiming concerns for their privacy. The lack of unity in purpose between law enforcement and the district attorney's office significantly hindered a comprehensive investigation and contributed to the ongoing frustration surrounding the case that remains unsolved.

Context

• JonBenét Ramsey was a six-year-old beauty pageant contestant who was found murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado, on December 26, 1996. The case received extensive media coverage and remains unsolved.
• In high-profile cases, families may resist sharing personal documents, citing privacy. A grand jury can override these concerns if the documents are deemed essential to the investigation.
• The delay could have affected the momentum of the investigation, as timely access to testimonies and documents is crucial for building a case.
• Witnesses are more likely to provide accurate and detailed accounts when events are recent. Over time, memories can fade or become distorted, which can affect the reliability of their testimonies.
• Over time, the relevance and availability of documents can diminish. Records might be lost, destroyed, or become less pertinent as the context of the case evolves, making timely legal action critical.
• The case became a cultural phenomenon, with books, documentaries, and dramatizations exploring various aspects, which perpetuated interest and frustration over the lack of closure.

The district attorney's response to the newly revealed DNA evidence

Genetic material was found in JonBenét Ramsey's underwear.

Biological substances from several unidentified persons

The genetic material found on JonBenét's clothing and other pieces of evidence created a baffling and complex situation. Proponents arguing for the involvement of an intruder in the home highlighted the discovery of an unidentified male's DNA on the interior of the undergarments as proof of an assailant from outside.

Following the grand jury's inquiry, a more complex situation was revealed through additional DNA testing carried out before and after the probe. Touch DNA technology revealed the presence of trace evidence from various unknown individuals: a male DNA trace was found beneath her fingernails, and a female DNA trace was detected in an area where JonBenét could not be ruled out as the source. Additionally, male DNA that matched was discovered on the waistband of her leggings, accompanied by varying male genetic evidence on the restraints encircling her wrists, and a separate unique male DNA profile was identified on the garrote.

The findings presented a fascinating puzzle. Supporters of the notion that the murder was perpetrated by an outsider needed to align their perspective with the possibility that as many as six individuals could be implicated, while also considering if these trace elements were mere contaminants or were unrelated to the crime.

Context

• DNA found under a victim's fingernails can be significant as it might indicate a struggle, where the victim attempted to defend themselves and potentially scratched the assailant, collecting their skin cells.
• The presence of female DNA that cannot rule out JonBenét as the source suggests the possibility of familial DNA, where close relatives might share similar genetic markers, complicating the identification process.
• Maintaining a strict chain of custody is crucial in forensic cases to ensure that evidence is not tampered with or contaminated. Any break in this chain can lead to questions about the integrity of the evidence.
• When multiple DNA profiles are found on a single item, it is referred to as a DNA mixture. Analyzing mixtures is complex and requires advanced techniques to separate and identify individual profiles.
• A garrote is typically a handheld ligature of chain, rope, scarf, wire, or fishing line used to strangle a person. In forensic terms, finding DNA on a garrote can be significant as it may indicate who handled or constructed it.
• Contamination can occur when DNA from individuals not related to the crime scene is inadvertently introduced during evidence collection, storage, or analysis. This can happen through improper handling or environmental exposure.

Advocates for the belief that the crime was perpetrated by someone not from the household contend that such evidence bolsters their position.

The presence of unidentified male DNA on JonBenét's undergarments became a pivotal point for those advocating that the assailant was not related to the family. Advocates, including Lou Smit, argued that the discovery of this evidence clearly pointed to an intruder's involvement, as a family member would lack any reason to leave behind clues that might incriminate them.

They also contended that the lack of DNA evidence connecting a recognized offender to the crime bolstered the belief that the responsible party remained unidentified. This perspective, nonetheless, overlooked the presence of supplementary DNA traces discovered beneath JonBenét's fingernails, which suggest the possibility of multiple unrecognizable persons' involvement. The advocates of the theory that an intruder was responsible placed significant focus on a distinct DNA sample, but their neglect of other genetic evidence raised doubts about their objectivity when evaluating the entirety of the crime scene evidence.

Other Perspectives

• Unidentified DNA on undergarments could be the result of contamination from the manufacturing process, handling, or other non-criminal sources.
• The absence of DNA evidence from a known offender could be due to limitations in the DNA database or gaps in the collection of DNA from potential suspects, rather than the involvement of an unidentified perpetrator.
• The interpretation of DNA evidence is complex and can vary; thus, the significance of the additional DNA traces is subject to expert analysis and may not be as clear-cut as the distinct DNA sample.
• The advocates might be focusing on the DNA evidence that best fits the known facts of the case, which does not necessarily indicate a lack of objectivity.

The exoneration of the Ramsey family was formally declared by District Attorney Lacy, who pointed to "touch DNA" evidence as the foundation for their acquittal.

The discovery of DNA from an unidentified person on multiple items fails to be mentioned in the context of the different locations where the crime occurred.

In 2008, District Attorney Mary Lacy controversially cleared the Ramsey family of involvement, citing advanced Touch DNA techniques that indicated the presence of an unidentified male's genetic material on JonBenét's undergarments and leggings.

The choice appeared to be hasty and poorly considered, particularly because Lacy chose not to disclose the simultaneous discovery of male genetic material on both the wrist bindings and the strangling device. The widespread sharing of particular information, coupled with Lacy's unwavering exoneration of the Ramseys and her conviction that an intruder was involved despite evidence to the contrary, ignited significant criticism and raised doubts about her motives and the objectivity with which the case was assessed.

Context

• The exoneration shifted the focus of the investigation away from the family and towards the theory of an unknown intruder, which some felt hindered the pursuit of other potential leads.
• Touch DNA refers to the genetic material left behind from skin cells when a person touches an object. It requires only a small number of cells and can be collected from surfaces that have been handled or brushed against.
• Mary Lacy was the District Attorney for Boulder County, Colorado. Her decision to clear the Ramsey family was based on the DNA evidence available at the time, which she believed pointed to an intruder rather than a family member.
• Various theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the perpetrator, including the possibility of an intruder, a family member, or someone known to the family, each with differing interpretations of the evidence.

The DNA evidence collected does not support the conclusion drawn by the district attorney.

Lacy's decision to exonerate the Ramsey family based solely on the "touch DNA" evidence was met with substantial criticism for disregarding the entirety of the evidence gathered during the investigation. While the DNA discovered on the leggings was initially deemed definitive proof of someone not belonging to the household participating in the crime, Lacy failed to account for other male DNA traces from an unidentified individual found on crucial evidence at the scene.

The assessment of the evidence, characterized by a particularized method and neglect of numerous behavioral indicators, inconsistent statements, and other red flags observed by the detectives, suggested a biased technique that appeared to be swayed by a tendency to protect the Ramseys. Doubts about the thoroughness of the investigation grew as the disclosure of DNA results was only partial, which further diminished public trust.

Other Perspectives

• The decision to exonerate could have been made in the context of a comprehensive review of all evidence, with the "touch DNA" serving as a key piece that tipped the scales in favor of the Ramsey family's innocence.
• The criticism of Lacy's decision may overlook the advancements in DNA technology and the evolving understanding of DNA transfer, which could have informed her decision-making process.
• Behavioral indicators and inconsistent statements can be subjective and prone to interpretation, whereas DNA provides a more objective form of evidence.
• The perception of bias could be a result of public pressure and media portrayal, rather than the actual conduct of the investigation.
• The partial disclosure could reflect standard procedural protocol in criminal investigations, where not all evidence is disclosed until the case is presented in court.
• The diminished trust might be temporary, with the potential for rehabilitation as further evidence or explanations are provided to the public.

The foundation for legal action suggested by the author

The Ramsey family might have had motives to conceal the truth.

Patsy Ramsey consistently strove to maintain the facade of a perfect family.

The commitment of Patsy Ramsey to maintaining a flawless public image led Kolar to propose that the Ramseys may have fabricated a deception. As a former beauty queen who placed immense importance on her public image, Patsy would have found it profoundly humiliating to entertain the notion that JonBenét's untimely demise was a result of neglect or malice in her own household.

The fear of tarnishing their image as a perfect family unit, combined with the potential shame associated with participation in child beauty pageants, provided a powerful motivation to fabricate a tale blaming an outsider.

Other Perspectives

• The concept of a "perfect family" is subjective, and striving for this could simply reflect personal or cultural values rather than an intent to mislead.
• Kolar's proposal is one of many theories and does not constitute proof of deception; the Ramseys have consistently maintained their innocence.
• The desire to present oneself well in public is common and not unique to former beauty queens or Patsy Ramsey.
• Blaming an outsider could be a result of genuine belief or confusion during a traumatic time, rather than a calculated effort to protect their image.
• The assumption that shame is associated with child beauty pageants is a subjective perspective and not a universally accepted truth.

Indications from behavioral evidence point towards the possibility of Burke Ramsey's involvement.

Kolar's theory also explored the possible involvement of Burke Ramsey in JonBenét’s death, suggesting that an accidental death, possibly during a fit of sibling rivalry or a sudden outburst, might have initiated a series of actions culminating in the concealment of what had occurred.

Kolar presented proof of earlier violent behavior by Burke towards JonBenét, despite his young age at the time of the incident, and pointed to his apparent lack of emotional response during interviews, as well as his extensive awareness of the specific injuries she suffered, to support his hypothesis. Coupled with Dr. Bernhard’s recommendation for follow-up evaluations and the family’s resistance to police questioning of Burke, this line of inquiry, although disturbing, warranted further investigation.

Other Perspectives

• The recommendation for follow-up evaluations by a professional does not confirm involvement but rather indicates a need for further understanding of the individual's behavior and mental state.
• Extensive awareness of specific injuries could be explained by overhearing conversations among adults rather than firsthand knowledge.
• Without corroboration from multiple, independent sources, claims of earlier violent behavior could be unreliable or taken out of context.
• Lack of emotional response can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as shock, trauma, or a natural variation in emotional expression, rather than guilt.
• The recommendation could be part of a broader set of suggestions aimed at the entire family, not just Burke, to help them deal with the aftermath of JonBenét's death.
• Resistance to questioning does not necessarily imply guilt; it could also be a response to a perceived lack of fairness or objectivity in the investigation process.

Circumstantial clues pointed towards the involvement of the family.

The Ramseys showed hesitance to fully cooperate with the investigative efforts, and their accounts were inconsistent.

Several subtle indications pointed to the possibility that the Ramsey family deliberately obscured the facts. Investigators grew suspicious due to inconsistencies in Patsy's description of her morning routine, coupled with the alterations in John Ramsey's account of how he conducted his search in the basement.

The investigation became more complex and faced additional obstacles due to the Ramseys' initial hesitance to work with law enforcement, their calculated approach to media engagement, and their refusal to release certain medical records. Kolar posited that the family's actions were inconsistent with those expected of relatives earnestly seeking justice for their child, whose life had ended tragically.

Context

• The Ramseys were the parents of JonBenét Ramsey, a six-year-old beauty pageant contestant who was found dead in their home in Boulder, Colorado, in 1996. The case received extensive media coverage and remains unsolved.
• Detectives and investigators often look for inconsistencies as potential indicators of deception, but they must also consider other explanations such as stress or misunderstanding.
• The initial investigation was criticized for procedural errors, including the contamination of the crime scene, which complicated the gathering of evidence.
• Inconsistent statements can be used by law enforcement to challenge the credibility of witnesses or suspects, potentially influencing legal proceedings or public opinion.
• They selectively participated in interviews and made public statements, which allowed them to present their side of the story while avoiding potentially incriminating situations.
• The refusal could stem from a belief that the medical records were not pertinent to the investigation, and thus, sharing them would not aid in solving the case.

Missed investigative opportunities due to interference from prosecutors

Kolar believed that the reluctance of the district attorney's team to employ proactive investigative techniques, along with the barriers they established, significantly hindered the resolution of JonBenét's murder case. The conduct of the prosecuting attorney, which included permitting the legal counsel of the Ramsey family to examine police files, overlooking requests from law enforcement for crucial documents, and neglecting expert opinions that implicated the family, led to significant complications.

The police department's hesitancy to quickly form a grand jury panel greatly hindered their ability to gather crucial evidence and testimonies. Kolar believed that the case remained unsolved in part due to the prosecution's reluctance to aggressively challenge the Ramseys and an excessive deference to the legal counsel for the defense, resulting in crucial evidence being neglected.

Context

• Ignoring expert opinions can lead to missed opportunities in understanding the evidence or identifying suspects, potentially allowing critical leads to go unexplored.
• The willingness of witnesses to testify can impact the timing of a grand jury. If key witnesses are uncooperative or unavailable, it may delay proceedings.
• Prosecutors often face the challenge of balancing aggressive legal strategies with ensuring a fair trial. In this case, the perceived lack of aggression might have stemmed from concerns about maintaining impartiality or avoiding legal missteps.
• Excessive deference can affect public trust in the legal system. If the prosecution appears biased or overly accommodating to the defense, it may lead to perceptions of unfairness or corruption.
• A grand jury is a legal body that conducts official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and determine whether charges should be brought. It can compel testimony and the production of evidence.

An opportunity to commence a thorough grand jury investigation was missed.

The prosecution implemented specific legal modifications to limit the scope of the grand jury's inquiry.

Kolar argued that a major error early in the investigation was the delay in convening a jury to assess the case. Nearly 16 months after JonBenét's death, the process of convening a grand jury commenced in April 1998, an action that had been advocated by law enforcement since 1997. The delay, which is suspected by some to have been a strategic move by the District Attorney to benefit from a recently implemented law limiting grand jury revelations, led to the forfeiture of a vital opportunity to collect significant evidence while memories were fresh and before the defense attorneys had solidified their clients' positions.

The grand jury's conclusions did not lead to charges against anyone, and the confidentiality of their decisions also hindered potential future legal proceedings. Kolar proposed that the approach taken, coupled with particular information deliberately omitted by the prosecutors, resulted in the investigation's failure to arrive at a definitive conclusion.

Context

• Understanding the specific legal modifications requires knowledge of the laws in place at the time and how they were altered to affect the grand jury's function.
• The District Attorney has significant discretion in deciding when to convene a grand jury, balancing legal, strategic, and sometimes political considerations.
• Delaying legal proceedings can be a tactic used by attorneys to align with new laws or regulations that might favor their case, potentially affecting the outcome by limiting evidence disclosure.
• Prosecutors may choose not to pursue charges for various reasons, including insufficient evidence, concerns about the strength of the case, or strategic legal considerations.
• Defense attorneys may benefit from this secrecy, as it can prevent the prosecution from publicly revealing weaknesses in the defense's case or from using the grand jury's findings to negotiate plea deals.
• Decisions on what information to present can be influenced by resource constraints, prioritizing evidence that is most likely to lead to an indictment.
• The case remains officially unsolved, with ongoing interest and occasional re-examinations by law enforcement and independent investigators.

The author urges the current District Attorney to reevaluate the case and contemplate assembling a grand jury.

Throughout his inquiry, Kolar held the conviction that if a jury conducted a thorough examination focusing on the involvement of the family and confidential health records, it could reveal crucial evidence and potentially solve the enduring enigma of the homicide.

Despite facing resistance, he unwaveringly advocated for the formation of a powerful legal body with the extensive power to subpoena documents and require witness statements, believing it to be the best chance to uncover the truth. He further argued that this approach would show a commitment to impartiality, not solely for JonBenét's sake but also to clear the names of numerous individuals wrongly accused by the Ramseys in their persistent efforts to divert suspicion from themselves.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer with a legal aid organization to help those who may be wrongfully convicted. While you don't need legal expertise, your time and effort can support the work of professionals in the field, contributing to the reevaluation of cases by assisting with research, administrative tasks, or community outreach.
• Create a feedback box at home for family members to anonymously drop in suggestions or concerns. This can be a simple shoebox with a slot cut in the top. Encourage your family to write down thoughts about household decisions, mirroring the confidential nature of a jury's deliberation process, and review these notes during family meetings to address issues collaboratively.
• Start a discussion group focused on understanding human behavior through the lens of family and health history. Gather friends or colleagues and select a public figure or a character from a movie or book. Discuss how their actions might be influenced by their family dynamics and health, encouraging participants to draw connections and consider underlying factors.
• Write a letter to your local representative expressing your thoughts on the need for a grand jury with more extensive powers, using your newfound understanding and discussions as a basis. This action allows you to participate in the democratic process and potentially influence policy-making. Be sure to outline the benefits you see in such a reform, such as increased accountability or more thorough investigations.
• Start a discussion group focused on high-profile cases, where each member presents a case as if they were making a case to a grand jury. This will help you practice gathering and presenting evidence, and you'll learn to discern the truth by examining the facts from multiple perspectives.
• Practice writing anonymous opinion pieces on various topics to exercise impartiality in your thought process. By removing your identity from your writing, you can focus on presenting balanced arguments and considering all sides of an issue, akin to how a grand jury must objectively evaluate evidence without bias. Share these pieces with a trusted group for feedback on the neutrality of your arguments.
• Start a blog or social media campaign highlighting stories of wrongful accusations to raise awareness. Use these platforms to share information, updates on cases, and stories of individuals who have been exonerated, thereby educating others and fostering a community that values judicial accuracy and fairness.