Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (57 page)

It was mysterious, however, and open to different interpretations. It was possible, for example, that John hated Patsy for showing weakness since he had mastered his own. When his daughter Beth had died, he had gone to pieces, but after reading many books about how to deal with a death in the family, he had found a way to control his grief. Perhaps he felt superior to his wife. When one writer was told about this incident, he said that Ramsey was surely a
WASP of the stiff-upper-lip variety. Not only were they not given to histrionics; they were likely to ignore any unpleasantness, as if it had never happened. John Ramsey might have felt that his guests would be more comfortable if he didn’t acknowledge his wife’s little breakdown. His passing over it might also indicate that it wasn’t worrisome. Then what had happened would be open to fewer interpretations.

On Sunday morning, December 7, Tracey, Mills, Bryan Morgan, and the Ramseys met again. Tracey emphasized that the proposed film would not exploit the murder of their daughter; its focus would be on journalism. If the filmmakers found no clear evidence of media distortion, they would say so in the documentary. Tracey told the Ramseys that the interviews would take several days. They would be given the opportunity to address allegations of sexual abuse and infidelity, which John Ramsey was very concerned about. Mills made it clear that he would have editorial control over the film, subject only to the broadcasters’ rights. The Ramseys would not be allowed to screen the documentary before it aired on British TV. Bryan Morgan wanted a provision in the agreement that the film would not air in the United States as long as a grand jury was under active consideration. A handshake sealed the arrangement.

On the flight back to Hungary that afternoon, David Mills kept thinking that John Ramsey was too perfect. He couldn’t find one flaw in the man. Eventually, he stumbled on one possibility: Ramsey didn’t like confrontation. In both business and his personal life, he designed everything to avoid conflict. He tended to leave the dirty work to others.

Back in Boulder, there was a difference of opinion among the Ramseys’ attorneys about whether the documentary would serve their clients’ best interests. Hal Haddon advised the Ramseys not to proceed with it. Their
interviews might become evidence, he said. They might say something open to interpretation that could eventually be used against them. Other attorneys felt that the couple had been burned in their previous attempts to communicate through the media, and that this film was sure to backfire. Bryan Morgan, on the other hand, saw the project as meeting the emotional needs of his clients. As their attorney and friend, he was concerned with their future, and he knew they needed to
do
something. Patsy decided they would proceed with the project. Mills and Tracey were told that they could begin filming after the first of the year.

The worst thing that can ever happen to you is to lose a child. It becomes a hole that can never be filled.

After Beth died, John didn’t have a lot of pictures of Melinda and John Andrew around—just photos of Beth, even in his bathroom. He’d written a poem to her called “Daddy’s Little Girl” that he kept on his dresser where he put his watch and loose change every night. Right where he could see it every day. Twice a day, really.

I remember some of that poem. It was a “Your First Steps” kind of thing. He wrote, “And the best thing of the day is to look after daddy’s little girl…” and “You are growing older with woman looks that are now clear.”

So John Ramsey had already lost one child. I cannot imagine anyone who has gone through that pain to intentionally inflict it on himself a second time. I cannot imagine it. Just cannot. His subconscious knew that pain. It is the worst pain ever. His subconscious would have stopped him. Whoever struck that blow, it wasn’t John Ramsey.

—Linda Wilcox

The police were now working in earnest to complete the to-do list by December 1, as Tom Koby had promised. One open question was whether the penetration of JonBenét’s vagina took place before or after her death. Also at issue was whether there had been any prior sexual abuse that her pediatrician might not have noticed.

On November 5, Detective Weinheimer arrived in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, to meet Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the world’s foremost forensic pathologists. Weinheimer took with him a stack of black-and-white photographs of the cellulose that coroner John Meyer had found in JonBenét’s vagina. Weinheimer wanted to discuss not only the cellulose but also the probable chronology of events leading up to JonBenét’s murder. The detective told Spitz about the pineapple found in her small intestine, which might be an indicator of the time of death. Spitz said he would have to examine the slides of the cellulose before he could state anything definitively. He was willing to go to Boulder, he said. Ten days later, Weinheimer and Spitz met with Tom Faure, the coroner’s chief medical investigator, at Boulder Community Hospital. By then Weinheimer had already consulted with another specialist, Dr. David Jones, a professor of preventive medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

Spitz examined the four slides of tissue taken from JonBenét’s vaginal area and discussed with Weinheimer and Faure what the coroner had observed about the head injury, strangulation, and vaginal cavity. After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenét’s vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death—not earlier.

The police had to piece together the findings of the various pathologists, who had explained to them that when
food is swallowed, it goes first to the stomach, then passes to the duodenum, and from there to the lower small intestine. Eventually, the digested food passes into the large bowel, from which it exits. Food found in the stomach and intestines can sometimes be used to estimate the time of ingestion and to narrow the time of death.

In the Ramseys’ dining room, just steps away from the kitchen, the police had found a bowl with fresh pineapple in it. Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenét’s small intestine was in near-perfect condition—it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

Based on the condition of the pineapple in her intestine, the experts estimated that JonBenét had eaten it an hour and a half or two hours before she died, most likely after the family returned home that night. However, one Boulder medical examiner stated it could have been eaten as early as 4:30
P
.
M
.—before the Ramseys left their home for a dinner at the Whites. If JonBenét had eaten the pineapple after 10:30
P
.
M
., that made the approximate time of death not earlier than midnight.

Next, the investigators reviewed JonBenét’s various injuries. A blow to the head can result in bleeding inside the skull, which can cause death immediately or sometime later. Microscopic examination of the area near the brain where the bleeding occurred can help determine how long before death the injury took place. But was it the garroting or the head injury that had caused JonBenét’s death? The experts agreed that either would have been fatal.

According to the specialists, her head injury had likely come first. Since a six-year-old’s skull is more resilient than an adult’s, the blow must have been of tremendous force. The injury to her head was fully developed, which meant that her heart had beaten for some time after the blow. Also, the bruise to her brain did not immediately shut down
all activity in JonBenét’s body. However, the strangulation by the noose had created a deep furrow in her neck, which acted like a tourniquet and caused complete interruption of the blood flow to and from her brain. The specialists estimated that ten to forty-five minutes might have elapsed between the blow to her head and the cessation of JonBenét’s vital functions, which was probably caused by the noose being pulled tight with the help of the stick attached to the cord.

It was possible, however, that the strangulation occurred first, then while in progress the blow to the head took place, and the continual strangulation caused JonBenét’s death.

The conjecture that the blow to JonBenét’s head took place first fit the scenario that the police considered most likely: that JonBenét had been struck on the head with the heavy flashlight in or near the kitchen. The police had found it on a kitchen counter.

Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenét’s vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards. Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrator’s finger before he or she penetrated JonBenét vaginally. It could also have broken off the end of the paintbrush if the stick, rather than a finger, was used to penetrate her.

If the cellulose did, in fact, come from the paintbrush, then most probably the “garrote” had been assembled before JonBenét was violated. Since there was some evidence of vaginal bleeding, it was also logical to assume that the child had already been strangled but was not yet dead when she was penetrated. Consistent with penetration of a female child of JonBenét’s age, her hymen was torn. In such a case, the edges are pulled away and recede quickly, creating a visible difference between a torn and an intact hymen. Photographs of her injured hymen taken at the autopsy
indicated to some experts a recent tear, fresh bleeding, and no healing. Logic suggested that JonBenét had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death.

There remained the question whether JonBenét had also been penetrated—that is, sexually abused—previously. Here the experts disagreed. Dr. David Jones said the child’s vagina showed a history of abuse, since the cellulose dated from an old injury. Dr. Spitz, however, said there was no clear indication of prior penetration and that the cellulose dated from the injury that had taken place around her time of death.

I’d be driving someplace and I would ruminate over it. It’s not like you can say, “I’ve done the autopsy. I’ve submitted my report. We’ve done our thing. It’s not my problem anymore.” It’s an unsolved case I can’t dismiss, because there is a possibility that I’m going to be involved in it again. I know I’m going to testify.

I try to theorize how things occurred. What are the triggers?

I’d come to the point that I was real clear on it and then, the next day or a week later, I’d think about it again and wouldn’t be very clear on what happened. I probably have come up with a variety of different scenarios at different times. I don’t think at this point, right now, I am that clear about what happened.

—John Meyer

Another item on the detectives’ list was locating the missing keys to the Ramseys’ house. Jay Pettipiece, a painter, told the police he couldn’t find his key. Suzanne Savage, one of JonBenét’s baby-sitters, found her key; she told Detective Harmer that she had never copied it or allowed anyone to have it, but remembered giving an extra one to Linda Wilcox.

During the second week in November, the police began recanvassing the Ramseys’ neighborhood for unfamiliar cars that had been seen around the time of JonBenét’s murder. Parking tickets had become known as a source of information after New York City serial killer David Berkowitz was placed at the scene of one of the Son of Sam murders by a ticket he had received.

In the Ramsey case, one of the previously unidentified cars was found to belong to Eric Keck, who often visited his girlfriend, Nicole Spurlock, on 15th Street. Even after the couple broke up, Keck continued to park his car in the area. Another unfamiliar automobile turned out to belong to Donna Norris, whose daughter, a student at CU, used her car and lived across the street from the Ramseys. In the end, though, none of the parking tickets or suspicious cars led to a connection to JonBenét.

Meanwhile, on November 10, Kathy Dressel, the CBI’s DNA expert, and Melissa Weber, a DNA expert from Cellmark, met with the key members of the police department and the DA’s staff to explain the function and the limits of DNA tests. Back in July, Dressel had reported to the police that John’s and Patsy’s DNA didn’t match what was found under JonBenét’s fingernails. Now she emphasized particularly the role of statistics and the margins for error.

The foreign DNA that had been found under JonBenét’s fingernails was extremely weak and possibly contaminated. The contamination could have taken place at any time after the material was first lodged under the child’s nails and until her body was placed on the floor near the Christmas tree. Although it was highly unlikely, the contamination could even have taken place during the autopsy. The clippers used to cut JonBenét’s fingernails may not have been properly sterilized. It was also possible that the substance found was not correctly preserved before the DNA was extracted for
testing. In any case, weak DNA would not provide a reliable sample to match another person’s DNA.

Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenét’s panties, which was a mixture of DNA from two or more people. Here further testing was needed. The detectives were advised to take saliva swabs from possible suspects. The list of people to be tested in connection with the mixed DNA was long and included many of JonBenét’s playmates. If a match could be found, it might provide a simple explanation—for example, two children sharing the same underwear. In that case, an important door would be closed in the case: No defense attorney would be able to claim that the unidentified DNA found on the panties belonged to a unknown person—an intruder or stranger who might have killed JonBenét.

Meanwhile, both the CBI and the FBI were still examining and analyzing the four red and black fibers found on the duct tape, and the fibers on and near the folds of JonBenét’s labia, on her skin, and in the area around her vagina. The fibers on the duct tape were of a different origin than those found on the child’s body.

Earlier in the case, the police had thought the fibers from the body came from John Ramsey’s bathrobe or Patsy’s black pants or from the blanket found near JonBenét or from the blanket that had been found inside the suitcase under the broken basement window. The fibers might also have come from JonBenét’s own clothes or from one of her stuffed animals. By now, however, all of those possibilities had been excluded, and the only logical explanation was that the fibers came from whatever had been used to wipe JonBenét or possibly from someone who might have rubbed up against her when she was unclothed, which allowed the fibers to find their way along her skin and eventually into the folds of her labia. In any event, the clothes worn by Patsy and John on Christmas would have to be compared with the fibers.

The investigators also had to revisit the issue of the pubic hair found on the blanket that JonBenét’s body was wrapped in. Early analysis had shown that it might be consistent with Melinda Ramsey, who had been cleared as a suspect in March. But that didn’t mean the hair could not also be consistent with some other person. Alternately, the hair might have been transferred from the floor or some other object that the blanket had touched since it was last washed. The police wanted to use a newer method of comparison that was about to become available to make sure that the hair did not belong to John and Patsy Ramsey, who had previously been excluded.

Several detectives believed that JonBenét had suffered sexual abuse before the crime. Dr. David Jones, Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California at Davis, thought that the damage to JonBenét’s hymen dated from an old injury. Another expert, Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the CU Health Sciences Center, suggested that the injury to the hymen might have been part of the staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenét’s vaginal injury dated to the time of her death. It was likely that the truth would never be known.

By now the detectives had a long list of open questions, and it was growing daily. It was clear that they had to interview the Ramseys again about new developments. For example, the police had learned from a confidential informant at the hospital in Charlevoix that JonBenét had once been hit by a golf club and had required stitches and that a plastic surgeon in Denver had been consulted. There was also secondhand information coming out of Charlevoix that JonBenét might have been the victim of child abuse.
The police wanted access to these additional medical records in Denver and Michigan. Also, to further investigate the vaginal penetration, they wanted to know whether JonBenét had been prone to masturbate and whether she played doctor with her friends or brother.